Have you been censored on MacRumors?

[MacNut]

Correct. However the user that got the harsher punishment may have gotten the lenient punishment a few days prior. Clearly they didn't learn from the reminder, so we escalate. You won't be aware of that and there's really nothing we can do about that unless we make all users moderation history public. Which arn doesn't want.

I think treating everyone the same will improve the trolling. When people see others get away with it they think they can do it too. Don't have a first offender scale. Either you broke a rule and get punished for it or not.

Maybe create a warning tag that is lower than a time out.

 

[grapes911]

I think treating everyone the same will improve the trolling. When people see others get away with it they think they can do it too. Don't have a first offender scale. Either you broke a rule and get punished for it or not.

It's not all that different than a criminal system. Someone breaks a law and gets community service. Someone else breaks the same law, but they has a criminal history and gets 6 months in jail.

 

[balamw]

We don't see that. All we see is one person with a TO while the instigator goes free.

They either broke a rule or they didn't.

Just because you don't see it, it doesn't mean that it didn't happen. We moderate fairly and openly (to the rest of the staff), with a well defined escalation pattern.

For every user you see get a TO there are probably 10 or more that have received a reminder or warning and since many of those posts are removed, you can't see what actually happened. TOs are rare, and usually earned.

IMO, it would not be good to increase transparency be either leaving insulting/trolling posts in place or making the reminders and warnings visible. Both would lead to more of the same from other users as they either respond to the post in kind or try to get the warned user to earn a TO.

B

 

[MacNut]

It's not all that different than a criminal system. Someone breaks a law and gets community service. Someone else breaks the same law, but they have a criminal history and get 6 months in jail.

There is a public record with community service. Everyone knows.

I propose a warning tag for first offenders that stays with them for a day and they can still post.

 

[SilentPanda]

I think treating everyone the same will improve the trolling. When people see others get away with it they think they can do it too. Don't have a first offender scale. Either you broke a rule and get punished for it or not.

They do get punished. Users typically get a reminder or warning. While not a public punishment like a time-out or ban, it exists.

If we just went based on time-outs, it still doesn't work 100%. Let's say a user repeatedly breaks the insult rule every time they come back from time-out. So we give them a day, then 2, then 3, then 5, then 7. They come back from their 7 days an insults somebody who insults them back. We give 2 weeks to the repeat offender and 1 day to the first time offender. Nobody really sees it since it's only a day and they are back in 24 hours. The other person still has 13 days left which is very noticeable. You still have the same problem. We just tend to give reminders and warnings first before escalating to removal of forum privileges.

If we always did a time-out/ban for the first offense, many of our long term members likely wouldn't be around.

 

[balamw]

I propose a warning tag for first offenders that stays with them for a day and they can still post.

See my post above why I personally do not think this is a good idea. Users would tend to goad the warned user to earn a TO. We already see this kind of thing happening from time to time even without the scarlet letter.

Our goal is for everyone to continue to participate in the forums obeying the rules.

B

 

[MacNut]

They do get punished. Users typically get a reminder or warning. While not a public punishment like a time-out or ban, it exists.

If we just went based on time-outs, it still doesn't work 100%. Let's say a user repeatedly breaks the insult rule every time they come back from time-out. So we give them a day, then 2, then 3, then 5, then 7. They come back from their 7 days an insults somebody who insults them back. We give 2 weeks to the repeat offender and 1 day to the first time offender. Nobody really sees it since it's only a day and they are back in 24 hours. The other person still has 13 days left which is very noticeable. You still have the same problem. We just tend to give reminders and warnings first before escalating to removal of forum privileges.

If we always did a time-out/ban for the first offense, many of our long term members likely wouldn't be around.

Im not saying a timeout/ban for first offense, but the public needs to know there was an infraction or everyone will say the moderation is one sided the way it appears now.

We can't see behind the curtain to know if a person was disciplined or not. What does happen is people bitch about why that person wasn't disciplined, how do you fix that divide?

 

[725032]

Ive noticed that users who pay the annual fee get treated with a lot more arm room than non paying members

 

[SilentPanda]

We can't see behind the curtain to know if a person was disciplined or not. What does happen is people bitch about why that person wasn't disciplined, how do you fix that divide?

Don't know. But I haven't seen a proposal that would without having a permanent public record. To the best of my knowledge, not having that is arn's decision. I don't think temporary records work because unless people are monitoring everything, they'll miss stuff.

 

[grapes911]

Ive noticed that users who pay the annual fee get treated with a lot more arm room than non paying members

Absolutely not. That couldn't be further from the truth.

 

[SilentPanda]

Ive noticed that users who pay the annual fee get treated with a lot more arm room than non paying members

They aren't. As a moderator I have *never* been asked to keep a paying member around or give them special treatment. I know all you have is my word against your perception, but it's true.

Moderators do this in their spare time and get no tangible benefit from it. The larger avatar size isn't worth the headache, trust me.

 

[pivo6]

Ive noticed that users who pay the annual fee get treated with a lot more arm room than non paying members

I honestly don't believe that to be the case. In fact, the users who have complained the most were at one time contributors.

 

[annk]

...

I also don't understand why you don't want outside help to make the site better.

I've been encouraging concrete suggestions in my posts. So this sentence doesn't make sense to me.

I think treating everyone the same will improve the trolling. When people see others get away with it they think they can do it too. Don't have a first offender scale. Either you broke a rule and get punished for it or not.

If I understand you, then visibility of moderation is important in regard to trolling. That means that a trolling offense would result in a standard time-out, regardless. That's certainly a way to do it. I have two concrete questions for you that I'd really like answered:

1. How long should such a standard trolling time-out be, and what is your reason for choosing that length of time?
2. Can you give us a few very clear guidelines to when a statement can be called trolling? (I don't expect you to come up with the perfect definition of trolling here, just give us two or three examples that are so concrete that there would be no doubt, no need for discussion. This is one thing I've been asking for, and no one has offered anything yet.)

In one very important sense, members are in fact treated the same. The first time you insult someone, you get a reminder. If you do it again, you'll get a warning. If you continue to ignore the rule, you'll get a temporary suspension, and so on.

Maybe create a warning tag that is lower than a time out.

We have those - reminders and warnings.

Im not saying a timeout/ban for first offense, but the public needs to know there was an infraction or everyone will say the moderation is one sided the way it appears now.

Ok, here it seems you're not talking about a time-out for a first-time trolling offense (though I'm not sure it's a bad idea, actually, if we could manage to define trolling).

I hear that you believe you and all other members have a right to know when someone was moderated (I'm assuming you're only speaking about trolling violations - you can correct me if I'm wrong here). But that's not going to happen. It's been discussed here before, and there have been thorough discussions among the mods and admins on this point. We choose not to make reminder and warning-level moderation any more public than it already is.

Members can see if a post was edited (we always leave a reason in the edit space under the post), and those who are participating in a thread will notice if a post suddenly disappears (they only disappear if they broke a rule). And of course, they can see if someone is banned! That's as visible as reminders and warnings are going to get.

We can't see behind the curtain to know if a person was disciplined or not. What does happen is people bitch about why that person wasn't disciplined, how do you fix that divide?

IMO there's too much focus other members' moderation. I've said numerous times in various discussions about moderation here that if you report something and see that nothing was done (i.e., the post remains unedited), you can ask us. Send a contact, send a PM. When we decide not to act, there's no privacy involved. We can answer you in detail. That's how I'd deal with that divide.

Ive noticed that users who pay the annual fee get treated with a lot more arm room than non paying members

Not even remotely true, I can assure you.

 

[MacNut]

I've been encouraging concrete suggestions in my posts. So this sentence doesn't make sense to me.



If I understand you, then visibility of moderation is important in regard to trolling. That means that a trolling offense would result in a standard time-out, regardless. That's certainly a way to do it. I have two concrete questions for you that I'd really like answered:

1. How long should such a standard trolling time-out be, and what is your reason for choosing that length of time?
2. Can you give us a few very clear guidelines to when a statement can be called trolling? (I don't expect you to come up with the perfect definition of trolling here, just give us two or three examples that are so concrete that there would be no doubt, no need for discussion. This is one thing I've been asking for, and no one has offered anything yet.)

In one very important sense, members are in fact treated the same. The first time you insult someone, you get a reminder. If you do it again, you'll get a warning. If you continue to ignore the rule, you'll get a temporary suspension, and so on.



We have those - reminders and warnings.



Ok, here it seems you're not talking about a time-out for a first-time trolling offense (though I'm not sure it's a bad idea, actually, if we could manage to define trolling).

I hear that you believe you and all other members have a right to know when someone was moderated (I'm assuming you're only speaking about trolling violations - you can correct me if I'm wrong here). But that's not going to happen. It's been discussed here before, and there have been thorough discussions among the mods and admins on this point. We choose not to make reminder and warning-level moderation any more public than it already is.

Members can see if a post was edited (we always leave a reason in the edit space under the post), and those who are participating in a thread will notice if a post suddenly disappears (they only disappear if they broke a rule). And of course, they can see if someone is banned! That's as visible as reminders and warnings are going to get.



IMO there's too much focus other members' moderation. I've said numerous times in various discussions about moderation here that if you report something and see that nothing was done (i.e., the post remains unedited), you can ask us. Send a contact, send a PM. When we decide not to act, there's no privacy involved. We can answer you in detail. That's how I'd deal with that divide.



Not even remotely true, I can assure you.

There are different kinds of trolling, there is the basic spamming that we all agree needs to be dealt with swiftly. Then there is the Apple sucks Android sucks comments that don't add anything. Then there is the grey area that I would call the playground antics of trying to goat somebody into an argument and then run away or push somebody hard enough until they lose it and get a TO or ban themselves. I don't know if it is trolling per-say or more getting under another members skin but just skirting the lines of improper behavior. This is what is seen a lot in PRSI. poking the dog enough until it bites, then complain about that persons posts after the fact.

First offenders I would say give them a public warning much like a TO but still allow them to post. Maybe they get a few public warnings first and if they continue then it moves to a TO. I see TO's have different lengths of time but we never know what that length is, maybe the system can be expanded to show how long each infraction is.

 

[balamw]

I don't know if it is trolling per-say or more getting under another members skin but just skirting the lines of improper behavior. This is what is seen a lot in PRSI. poking the dog enough until it bites, then complain about that persons posts after the fact.

Just want to be clear. Are you suggesting a different set rules for PRSI than other parts of the forum?

You may not see it, but we see plenty of the behavior you describe in other parts of the forums.

In fact we already have a rule to deal with it.

Repeated problems. Any ongoing actions that make more work for the moderators and administrators or regularly annoy other members and require moderator action. We have hundreds of thousands of forum members to serve and can't spend a disproportionate amount of time dealing with problems caused by any one member. If your membership is an ongoing detriment to our community then your membership may be terminated.

Many, if not most, permanent bans and TOs (at least for users that make it past 10 posts) arise from this rule and do not arise from any single post, but a pattern of posts that are just barely acceptable.

B

 

[S.B.G]

I wrote the following a while ago in a similar thread, long before I was ever a moderator and I still feel it holds true.

As for the transparency in the moderation, I don't understand what that will accomplish. Why do others need to know the business of a members moderation? If someone gets banned or a TO, what business is it of mine? None whatsoever.

While I would naturally be curious to know why, knowing the answer would serve no purpose or be of any usefulness to me. Why does the community of members need to see why a person was disciplined? What would be done by the community with said information?

If I were to be the one subject to severe moderation, was banned, and took exception to it, there are routes to be taken to have it reviewed. That's no one's business but mine and those involved. If the parties involved want to freely discuss what happened, that's their prerogative to do so.

I think the forum leaders have a social obligation to protect the privacy of a members discipline from their side of the table. That helps to promote good order in the forums, and facilitate a proper protocol that is followed by everyone. Airing everyone's business would do more harm than good and open the forum leaders up to more scrutiny and lead to more chaos, arguing and bickering. The rule of law (read: forum rules) would erode greatly if not fall apart completely.​

What happened to personal responsibility and minding ones owns business and not worrying about what happened to the other guy?

 

[MacNut]

I wrote the following a while ago in a similar thread, long before I was ever a moderator and I still feel it holds true.

As for the transparency in the moderation, I don't understand what that will accomplish. Why do others need to know the business of a members moderation? If someone gets banned or a TO, what business is it of mine? None whatsoever.

While I would naturally be curious to know why, knowing the answer would serve no purpose or be of any usefulness to me. Why does the community of members need to see why a person was disciplined? What would be done by the community with said information?

If I were to be the one subject to severe moderation, was banned, and took exception to it, there are routes to be taken to have it reviewed. That's no one's business but mine and those involved. If the parties involved want to freely discuss what happened, that's their prerogative to do so.

I think the forum leaders have a social obligation to protect the privacy of a members discipline from their side of the table. That helps to promote good order in the forums, and facilitate a proper protocol that is followed by everyone. Airing everyone's business would do more harm than good and open the forum leaders up to more scrutiny and lead to more chaos, arguing and bickering. The rule of law (read: forum rules) would erode greatly if not fall apart completely.​

What happened to personal responsibility and minding ones owns business and not worrying about what happened to the other guy?

The issue IMO is that one side might feel that they were wrongfully moderated while the other guy didn't get any punishment at all. How do you balance that line of showing fair moderation to all sides without looking biased.

 

[annk]

There are different kinds of trolling, there is the basic spamming that we all agree needs to be dealt with swiftly. Then there is the Apple sucks Android sucks comments that don't add anything. Then there is the grey area that I would call the playground antics of trying to goat somebody into an argument and then run away or push somebody hard enough until they lose it and get a TO or ban themselves. I don't know if it is trolling per-say or more getting under another members skin but just skirting the lines of improper behavior. This is what is seen a lot in PRSI. poking the dog enough until it bites, then complain about that persons posts after the fact.

I think everyone agrees on these basic principles. But when you're looking at a concrete situation and are in the position of having to decide whether or not to moderate, you find very quickly that this simply isn't specific enough. At what point is someone trying to goad someone into an argument? How do you differentiate between that and someone stating an unpopular opinion vehemently?

You have your opinion on when the lines you're describing are crossed, and we know from experience that other members have their opinions - and these opinions aren't necessarily the same. In fact they're quite often very different, depending on the member's personal experience of the thread and the issue being discussed. If you moderate someone for trolling because they goaded another member, you can guarantee that that person will contact us to say they were stating an opinion. And depending on how you look at it, they were. So where to draw that line without running the risk of censoring?

I'm not saying no one ever deliberately provokes an argument. Of course they do. The problem is that there's no specific guideline to be sure that you're not censoring the member. Just look at the reactions we got when we were a bit stricter around the US election. It's all a matter of definition, and the fact that you weren't able to give me any concrete examples when I asked is simply proof of that. I know you're not purposely avoiding being specific, because I've tried myself and know how hard it is. The mods are in the process of trying to find examples we can use as guidelines. And it's not easy at all.

First offenders I would say give them a public warning much like a TO but still allow them to post. Maybe they get a few public warnings first and if they continue then it moves to a TO. I see TO's have different lengths of time but we never know what that length is, maybe the system can be expanded to show how long each infraction is.

We've said already that we're not going to make moderation any more public than it is, so unfortuntely a public reaction of the type you're suggesting won't happen. So it seems the issue is that you feel members need to know that someone has been moderated. Let me ask you this: when someone receives a reminder or warning, that means something in the post - or the entire post - had or was a problem. This means that something gets edited, in which case there's a reason in the edit line under the post, or the whole post gets deleted. In both cases, anyone participating in the thread will notice that a change has been made. I'm curious as to why that's not public enough?

----------

The issue IMO is that one side might feel that they were wrongfully moderated while the other guy didn't get any punishment at all. How do you balance that line of showing fair moderation to all sides without looking biased.

This is what I mean by having more focus on other members' moderation than on one's own violations.

I already said above that if you feel nothing has been done and you know that the post has been reported, you can ask us why. If indeed no moderation was done, we can explain why we see no problem with the post in question.

 

[MacNut]

I think everyone agrees on these basic principles. But when you're looking at a concrete situation and are in the position of having to decide whether or not to moderate, you find very quickly that this simply isn't specific enough. At what point is someone trying to goad someone into an argument? How do you differentiate between that and someone stating an unpopular opinion vehemently?

You have your opinion on when the lines you're describing are crossed, and we know from experience that other members have their opinions - and these opinions aren't necessarily the same. In fact they're quite often very different, depending on the member's personal experience of the thread and the issue being discussed. If you moderate someone for trolling because they goaded another member, you can guarantee that that person will contact us to say they were stating an opinion. And depending on how you look at it, they were. So where to draw that line without running the risk of censoring?

I'm not saying no one ever deliberately provokes an argument. Of course they do. The problem is that there's no specific guideline to be sure that you're not censoring the member. Just look at the reactions we got when we were a bit stricter around the US election. It's all a matter of definition, and the fact that you weren't able to give me any concrete examples when I asked is simply proof of that. I know you're not purposely avoiding being specific, because I've tried myself and know how hard it is. The mods are in the process of trying to find examples we can use as guidelines. And it's not easy at all.



We've said already that we're not going to make moderation any more public than it is, so unfortuntely a public reaction of the type you're suggesting won't happen. So it seems the issue is that you feel members need to know that someone has been moderated. Let me ask you this: when someone receives a reminder or warning, that means something in the post - or the entire post - had or was a problem. This means that something gets edited, in which case there's a reason in the edit line under the post, or the whole post gets deleted. In both cases, anyone participating in the thread will notice that a change has been made. I'm curious as to why that's not public enough?

----------



This is what I mean by having more focus on other members' moderation than on one's own violations.

I already said above that if you feel nothing has been done and you know that the post has been reported, you can ask us why. If indeed no moderation was done, we can explain why we see no problem with the post in question.

I know it's a hard job and I understand the issues with trying to appease everyone. Nobody will ever be happy with the moderation no matter what is done and that is the never ending battle. Would it be a bad idea to have other eyes looking in on the process, if you want them to be held to the same secrecy fine but is a fresh pair of eyes looking at the situation a bad idea? Not as mods but as an oversight. Adding another set of checks and balances.

 

[SilentPanda]

I know it's a hard job and I understand the issues with trying to appease everyone. Nobody will ever be happy with the moderation no matter what is done and that is the never ending battle. Would it be a bad idea to have other eyes looking in on the process, if you want them to be held to the same secrecy fine but is a fresh pair of eyes looking at the situation a bad idea? Not as mods but as an oversight. Adding another set of checks and balances.

We already check and balance each other. Things that aren't an obvious rules violation we always discuss. If (for instance) you were given a look into the mod box but had no actual mod privileges, people would just add you to the list of conspirators.

 

[Shrink]

Ive noticed that users who pay the annual fee get treated with a lot more arm room than non paying members

I just recently received a letter for a minor rule violation. It was completely appropriate that I received the letter. I am a dues paying member, and the offense was minor, so if your incorrect and ill informed assertion were correct, I would never have received the letter.

The larger avatar size isn't worth the headache, trust me.

I never noticed that!!

Now there's something to get really upset about!

Why, that's completely unfair!

It's discriminatory!

It's...it's...it's...it's Un-American.


Boy, the privileges those Mods get...I'm flabbergasted!!

 

[MacNut]

We already check and balance each other. Things that aren't an obvious rules violation we always discuss. If (for instance) you were given a look into the mod box but had no actual mod privileges, people would just add you to the list of conspirators.

What is the appeals process. If somebody feels they were wronged do the admins overrule or do the mods go back and look at the case? Would a court system of 10 appointed members who look at a case in private and then recommend to the staff the appropriate punishment. Would it be a bad thing to have outside eyes doing that?

 

[grapes911]

What is the appeals process. If somebody feels they were wronged do the admins overrule or do the mods go back and look at the case?

Mods and admins talk about the case together to make sure the moderation was fair and consistent.

Would a court system of 10 appointed members who look at a case in private and then recommend to the staff the appropriate punishment. Would it be a bad thing to have outside eyes doing that?

As soon as you let "outside eyes" in on the process, members will then declare them "inside eyes" and we'd be right back here having this same discussion. Remember that most of us are just regular members who have been part of the site for a while.

 

[SilentPanda]

What is the appeals process. If somebody feels they were wronged do the admins overrule or do the mods go back and look at the case? Would a court system of 10 appointed members who look at a case in private and then recommend to the staff the appropriate punishment. Would it be a bad thing to have outside eyes doing that?

In general, if a user sends a Contact we'll spend some more time looking at the issue if the issue was borderline or the punishment was lengthy. If you get a 2 day time-out for saying "Hey SilentPanda you're an idiot.", we probably won't revisit it. The rules violation is pretty clear and the punishment isn't that big a deal in the grand scheme of things. If you were given a 2 month time-out for it and it's your first offense (wouldn't happen), we'd revisit the length most likely.

Likewise we might misinterpret what you said. I know I've done that a few times and I only know that because somebody sent a contact and said "Hey I think you misread what I said......". Their assessment was reasonable and it was reversed. No big deal. We make mistakes. Now if they came back and threw a tantrum in the forums instead or sent a Contact throwing around names and insults towards us... well that's just not a good way to start a dialogue.

This very old post by jsw sums it up nicely and still holds true.

 

[annk]

I know it's a hard job and I understand the issues with trying to appease everyone. Nobody will ever be happy with the moderation no matter what is done and that is the never ending battle.

Agree.

Would it be a bad idea to have other eyes looking in on the process, if you want them to be held to the same secrecy fine but is a fresh pair of eyes looking at the situation a bad idea? Not as mods but as an oversight. Adding another set of checks and balances.

The admins oversee moderation, so there is a checks-and-balances system for moderation.

As for allowing regular members to be involved in moderation (which seems to be what you're asking), there are two reasons I don't think it's a good idea.

• Considering how much member opinions diverge, I don't think it's possible to put together a group of members who represent the membership any more than the trained group of moderators do.
• Since we promise our members that moderation done to their posts is a private matter between them and us, and since we've stated many times in many discussions here that that's not going to change, it wouldn't be appropriate to let regular members in on what moderation was done to member X and why it was done. Member X can contact us, and we can discuss the matter with him/her directly. IMO that's much better.