Feedback on moderation thread (seasons information)

[MarshallDFX]

I mentioned I wanted some feedback at the end of this post:
https://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,60275.0.html
Put it here.

In case it wasn't clear, I'm specifically looking at feedback on the points I mentioned.

::edit by mansa::
Feedback requested
Some specific things I'd like reactions on:
* How is it best to manage the various shades of "criticism" - is there any good examples that could be used?
* What do you think about the GDB and Discord restructure?  What Discord channels are worth retaining?
* People change but we also want to be stricter. How and when people rejoin the community following a ban is something I'd like feedback on. I think there should be dialog but I don't want it to turn into 'arguing about my ban'. How should this be handled?  My feeling on this is that people change, but not quickly. That requests should go to staff, but it will probably be a year until somebody is re-invited.

[Lizzie]

I think once it's obvious that someone is intentionally trying to stir up problems, "what about"ing, demanding a debate, berating someone for refusing to give in, continued snark - that they should be informed that their presence is no longer welcomed. Everyone has a bad day, or gets involved in an unhealthy or toxic discussion now and then. We all get sucked into it, and sometimes we cause it, or contribute to it. But there are people who do this on purpose, regularly, because they want people to insult each other. These trolls need to have ALL access removed. Not even read-only. They're the ones who post on reddit "elsewhere" with their vitriol and insults and "this person said THIS 5 years ago in one conversation one day, and I'm here to make sure you remember that, to ensure that you continue to hate this person forever."  These people are internet bullies and should not be given a platform upon which to spew their toxicity.

I also feel that moderations should always be done privately. It's none of my business that Jimbob has had his posting privileges removed, or that MarySue got a 20 minute time out for hurting someone's feelings. Not even if I'm the one who complained about it. It's still none of my business what the result was. And it's none of Jimbob's business what happened to me when he complained about something I said, either. Knowing that you've acknowledged the complaint, and that it was addressed, is sufficient. I don't have to like the result. You aren't moderating to make me happy. You're moderating to keep a peaceful group existence on an internet media source.

Re: different channels on Discord:

I think having Jukebox and Off-topic is sufficient in addition to Arm-specific channels. I think this is so, because now we can create break-off chat groups without needing admin, with the "threads" feature. There's definitely no need for a voice-chat AFK channel. No idea why that even exists. If you're AFK, you're not paying attention anyway.


My opinion is not likely to be popular. But that's my opinion, since you asked

[Dresan]

I think moderation is one area where staff have given up too much ground. It is really one of those give an inch, lose a mile situations. It really should not have been made that complicated.

The forum is the place for ideas, feedback and concerns regarding armageddon. People should be clear about what they are posting. These post should be given some leaway and given benefit of doubt whenever possible. After that comes constructive criticism, this one of those thing people here do not do well, often treating ideas as something to vote on through posting a 'no' or 'this'. These type of posts should have less leaway. Everything else shouldnt really matter whether it stays or goes and that should be made clear.


Discord is a good place to brainstorm ideas but it should probably be regulated to just a place for random arm thoughts and ooc. By limiting the forum to more important discussions about the game it becomes easier to moderate both discord and forums.

Overall,  OOC communication has been the bane of this game. Whether it be through email with staff, ingame ooc chat or through any other platform or medium it all eventually goes sour or worse leads to cronism/cliques. Its when this ooc conversation turns into anger that we see it spill over to forums or discord and eventually to other platforms outside of staff control. Strict or lenient moderation will not help with these situations so might as well keep things simple whenever possible.

One last thought, i think ego and cronyism plays big part in some of the toxicity experienced outside the game. A simple solution to mitigating some of this is to force all forum posts to be anonymous exception being staff. Only staff should see post owners and even player moderators should not see the person posting but should still be able to timeout whoever the owner of a post is or address the contents. I am not sure the forum supports this but removing ego would go a long way to reducing any toxicity. Again people would take ego and ooc chatter to discord where ban and moderation hammers can and should be swung recklessly and with full abandonment.

[Dar]

So, I'm not really a frequent user of the forums, but I'll have confess these rules are rather stifling and open to significant misuse.

r1
- Seeking to dismantle and demolish another player's opinion. Respect that other players may wish to lodge their view but not enter an intense debate. Remember you could always ask them if they're looking to be responded to.

That's kind of how debate happens. One person poses an argument and others argue it by dismantling it with their own arguments. Granted, the hope is that some constructive idea would come out of it, but even then there would be some dismantling. With this rule, you're basically begging to have complaints lodged against people who dare voice disagreement. Don't you run the risk of moderating a discussion forum into a forum that is very orderly, but shallow. Don't you think you'll be merely driving actual debate to other media?

r2
Could you define private conversation please? How did we go from harassment and misgendering to private conversation. Would posting portions of non IC sensitive request exchange be considered private conversation? Why?   Could you perhaps offer some examples of a private conversation revealing that would be considered against the rules and explain your reasoning?

[Patuk]

The Shadowboard has none of these rules, frequently has people call each other dumb to their face, and somehow discussion there ends up a lot more calm than it does here.

Why talking without the presence of ever-present hall monitors is pretty chill is an exercise left to the reader.

[Lotion]

That's way too long to be rules.

[Lotion]

Comparing your new rules to 1984 is a bad look.

[Lizzie]

The Shadowboard has none of these rules, frequently has people call each other dumb to their face, and somehow discussion there ends up a lot more calm than it does here.

Why talking without the presence of ever-present hall monitors is pretty chill is an exercise left to the reader.

That's because in the end, the majority have one thing in common - they enjoy trashing other people, other peoples' games, other peoples' jobs, other games, plotlines, personal information, and generally embracing the "misery loves company" mentality.  Good on them, but that's not what this forum is for, or about, or does or should encourage.

It's why I don't have an account there. I know that I'm one of the main spokes on the hate cycle wheel. If I participated, I'd become just another victim of their bullying.  Because THEIR forum owner doesn't mind it at all, and has even participated in it himself. They're a mob, they're not a community. They can have it their way. We don't need it that way.

[Dar]

The Shadowboard has none of these rules, frequently has people call each other dumb to their face, and somehow discussion there ends up a lot more calm than it does here.

Just did a good hour of reading that forum.  Yeaaaah, its not the greatest of examples. There is no dissent in a choir. Especially when the song is as satisfying as Hatred is.

Its not an uncommon concept. Try to go through any forum/reddit based on hate and you'll notice a similar unity. Thats not because participants are well meaning cultured people, its because people with different opinions choose not to get involved in the swamp.

On GDB, you can't have 10 posts without at least 1 conflicting opinion, 1 troll, 1 instigator, 1 admin being heavy handed and 1 staff member digging himself a hole with badly phrased statement that they don't really mean.  But at least its a discussion.

Which is why these rules puzzle me.  Have a discussion,  but not a debate.  Wtf?  Whats more important for you people. A discussion, or that everyone follow your rules.

[Patuk]

Some time ago now, a person tried smearing a bunch of people with some extremely ugly allegations. Staff (fairly) banned him here, and he burnt out on his stupid tirade only because the Shadowboard existed as a venue for him to showcase that he was, in fact, an unhinged lunatic.

Likewise, a former staff member only got the boot because a former player had no place to go but there to post about the way she'd been treated. Without it, I don't know that he'd be gone now. Staff's track record for kicking out their own is pretty bad. I'm really glad that forum was around for her to make that post.

Later, we had a player accuse a staff member of pressuring someone into suicide. This, again, would look really bad if not for said player going to the Shadowboard and again outing herself as someone looking for the very least charitable interpretation of things.

None of these things happen here. None of these things can happen here. I'm really glad the place exists and insisting it's full of haters is a hollow accusation when it has done so much good for the game's health.

[Dar]

Now that I have a problem with.

Because it should happen here.

[Removed an unverifiable anecdote that served to bash a former staff member. - CirclelessBard]

So yeah. We need to be able to discuss uncomfortable topics on these forums if we want to get past them.

[The Lonely Hunter]

I think one of the major problems is that people can't handle criticism without getting their feelings hurt. Anytime you disagree with someone, they take it as a personal attack.

I typically avoid the boards these days because of that. People will propose absolutely ridiculous ideas and no one will speak out against them because they're afraid of moderation or being labeled as something negative. This leaves very little room for actual debate.

I liked our old forums, where people actually expressed their opinions and could speak their mind without someone getting hurt, much more than the modern day iteration.

I've watched as handful of people slowly took over these boards. Their opinions represent only a small percentage of our demographic but since they are the loudest they present themselves as if they speak for the majority and people are afraid to speak out against it because as soon as they do they get moderated.

[CirclelessBard]

Personally, I think we can have fruitful discussions on this forum without slandering former staff members or players. We are trying to welcome criticism but turn away baseless attacks, and we are hoping the members of the community will be able to apply their own social experience to figuring out the difference.

I was primarily the person who pushed the "don't bash former community members" addition to the rules against bashing current members because it is not good to post unverifiable information about other people in a medium where they cannot defend themselves. It turns the community into a place where unverified gossip occurs and sets and extremely poor first impression for those entering or re-entering the community. To that end, I have to remove several comments in this thread, and will temporarily lock the thread while that happens.

Edit: Unlocking the thread.

[Armaddict]

I've said the same thing, vocally, for about a decade now as the shift towards stricter policy on moderation became more and more of a hot topic:  Be very very wary of overmoderating, and far less wary about undermoderating.

There are specific reasons for this:
1) Conceptually, the path to peaceful co-existence does not come through mutual niceness.  Mutual niceness is a good goal, a good standard, for personal behavior, and a terrible standard for group expectation, because groups have very diverse people with diverse viewpoints, diverse personalities, and different cultures as far as communication, whether that be national culture or 'the way they talk with friends'.  The path to peaceful co-existence comes through thick skin and self discipline, not through enforcement of lofty ideals that vary from person to person.  This is why the moderator job was never going to be easy, isn't easy, and will never be easy.  It is a hard job.  But if you come to internet-based discussions that are on heated topics that people feel varying perspectives to varying passion levels and demand protection from the course of those discussions, then you only assist in muddying the waters as far as how discussion can occur.

You want people as close to their natural state of discourse as possible, otherwise you can and will inhibit topics and discussions.

2) Practically, with the above in mind, the idea is not to keep all things civil and level at all times, otherwise you are attempting to create the same thing as most things that look great on people do; order.  Order naturally decays and strengthens, wanes and waxes, based on the current experiences and viewpoints on a topic.  For all of the shit that Armageddon gets for its toxicity, it is mild considering how invested people are in the game and how conversations on other non-game topics with people of similar investment on the internet go.

That being said, the goal of moderation is something different; it is not made to silence people, despite the name.  The goal of moderation is to create atmosphere where all are allowed to speak.  Bans are reserved for relentless, consistent inability to address a conversation and instead attack people, directly or indirectly, in an attempt to make their viewpoint -silent-.  It does not have to feel good to be subjected to criticism, but it does have to be criticism.  Mutes are for temporary measures that are meant to prevent a conversation from spiraling outside of the scope of the argument (i.e. I've been muted once or twice, along with the other in a discussion, because of increased passion rising and the argument becoming more and more convoluted.  Those are good mutes, where personal attachment to the debate is becoming problematic.)

3) Also practically, there is a problem with moderation in that it is attributed to a group; it is remarkably easy to be able to step back from a spat and say 'Well that person is stupid' and go on about your day.  The equivalent of a state-action to prevent spats is oppressive, not exactly in function (this is a game chat, after all), but in the feeling it creates.  It never creates feel goods; there is always someone on the bad end, with a distinct impression left that can last far longer than someone being mean.  You will, to this day, hear of experiences that came from a staff member with -far- more regularity than you will the player you don't see eye-to-eye on who said that one thing that made you really irritated.  Acts of moderation create bad blood, they do not fix bad blood.

So based off my reading, I'm not sure your assessments are in-line with actual healthy moderation as much as they are the standard problem of creating committees, teams, etc;  'How do I make this better?' becomes a driving point of over-action and over-engineering, leading to more red tape, leading to more exceptions, leading to more problematic differences in viewpoints.

Overmoderation, overcontrol, is bad.

That generally sums up what I read, aside from the bit about different channels.  If you are looking to foster community, then limiting different connections between members is probably bad.  But if you're looking to keep discussions as trim and concise as possible, then yes, you'll want to limit discussion to narrow fields.

[Lizzie]

Now that I have a problem with.

Because it should happen here.

[Removed an unverifiable anecdote that served to bash a former staff member. - CirclelessBard]

So yeah. We need to be able to discuss uncomfortable topics on these forums if we want to get past them.

I think something got lost in the translation here. I didn't see the post before it was moderated. But perhaps - instead of removing the entire anecdote, a moderator might've touched base with the poster and asked them to edit, or use some other anecdote, or be more hypothetical. That way his opinion wouldn't appear lost without context.  Just a suggestion for future incidents.

[CirclelessBard]

As stated in MarshallDFX's original post, we tried reachouts prior to editing to get posters to essentially self-moderate. The end result was that conversations between moderator and poster dragged out and created situations where posters took issue with even being approached in the first place. Though my experience is more limited as the newest mod on the team, I have already been in a couple of situations where I tried to reach out to a poster exactly as you suggested and received no response at all.

The rule about bashing current and former community members does not ask for much. We do not have to like, or pretend to like, every single person that has ever been a part of the community. But we do have to stop using them as scapegoats when it's collectively our job to make the game better, and we do have to stop exposing any victims they may have had to unwanted scrutiny and harassment.

If a fresh wound is inflicted on the community from within, we will let people talk about it because it's a critical conversation that needs to be had. I realize that some posters will not believe that until they see it, which is fair enough. Personally, I hope it never happens because it will mean someone was terribly hurt in the process.

[Armaddict]

As stated in MarshallDFX's original post, we tried reachouts prior to editing to get posters to essentially self-moderate. The end result was that conversations between moderator and poster dragged out and created situations where posters took issue with even being approached in the first place. Though my experience is more limited as the newest mod on the team, I have already been in a couple of situations where I tried to reach out to a poster exactly as you suggested and received no response at all.

The rule about bashing current and former community members does not ask for much. We do not have to like, or pretend to like, every single person that has ever been a part of the community. But we do have to stop using them as scapegoats when it's collectively our job to make the game better, and we do have to stop exposing any victims they may have had to unwanted scrutiny and harassment.

If a fresh wound is inflicted on the community from within, we will let people talk about it because it's a critical conversation that needs to be had. I realize that some posters will not believe that until they see it, which is fair enough. Personally, I hope it never happens because it will mean someone was terribly hurt in the process.

This is describing exactly what I said: Going really far out of the scope of what you're actually needed for.

'We have to keep people from talking about x for the GREATER GOOD'.

No.  You don't have to keep people from talking about x.  You don't have to prevent scapegoating.  That's an atrocious mission statement from a moderation team.  Why?

ETA, to detail:
This is an expansion of scope.  If I had to rewrite what the long post that prompted feedback was, it would go like:
We have been having to moderate.
When we try premoderation, we often get pushback about why we're moderating.
Our response is we'd like to moderate more, harder.
We're doing what we think is best for the game.

Now, what I'm telling you is that you're probably already overmoderating in their mind, which is why you get clear pushback/people who choose to ignore warnings; the response to this is not 'RESPECT MY AUTHORITY MORE', nor to expand your powers; it's to take a look at why they would rather say what they want to say and get muted than drop it.

Permanent bans of any sort are highly overvalued, particularly in the sense of being able to participate in discussions in a place where we literally added or already had ignore functions.

Asking to be able to do more punitive damages is less about the goal of fostering good communication and more about putting a hammer down on what your perspective of a good discussion is.  They are unnecessary, since escalation allows muting and breach allows longer-timeouts, but if you think part of your job is 'editing' the community memberlist, then you are becoming very problematic.

Edited again to try and make clear that the mentions of overmoderation are not attacks, but a state of the moderated mindset; i.e. I generally think you guys are doing a good job, but I'm rigorously pushing for you guys to consider how hard this role of moderation needs to go, and how that impacts the moderated, in a place where discussion is already opt-in/opt-out.

[CirclelessBard]

That being said, the goal of moderation is something different; it is not made to silence people, despite the name.  The goal of moderation is to create atmosphere where all are allowed to speak.  Bans are reserved for relentless, consistent inability to address a conversation and instead attack people, directly or indirectly, in an attempt to make their viewpoint -silent-.  It does not have to feel good to be subjected to criticism, but it does have to be criticism.  Mutes are for temporary measures that are meant to prevent a conversation from spiraling outside of the scope of the argument

It's odd to me that what I wrote is being described as out-of-scope, considering that I fully agree with the quote above that you wrote. It's clear that the disagreement lies mainly in implementation methods.

When we were discussing the community rules, an example I brought up was third spaces (cafes, libraries, bars, other hangout spots that aren't home or work). These places allow people to talk freely. They also have policies when it comes to dealing with disruptions or unsafe situations.

If a cafe were to allow someone to go around table by table, yelling about how their cup was made wrong while spitting in everyone's drinks, they would lose people quickly. People like that are banned. If a group at a table is talking too loudly but aren't directly harming anyone, just being generally annoying by saying things that are maybe a bit crass or rude, they're asked to tone it down (a mute) before people decide to go elsewhere.

Obviously, like all analogies this isn't 1:1. But similar principles apply to this community. How often have you read something to the effect of "the game is great to play, as long as you avoid interacting with the community"? What do you suppose they are talking about avoiding?

In summary, our job is not to curate the community member list, it is to create an environment that is mutually supportive of the game and its members. I think MarshallDFX put it best:

We should have the same standards as if you were attending D&D at your local pub. This doesn't mean become a mindless cheerleader, but you do choose your battles, be polite, come to have fun, and you're not trying to spoil the night for everybody else.

Everybody needs to feel welcome.

Do we at least agree that is a good goal to shoot for, even if we might disagree on methods?

[Dresan]

I want to caution with having too much regulation that is sometimes subject to interpretation.

I never liked the idea of staff outsourcing moderation to players, early days moderation felt pretty biased. Since many people knew each other ingame and out which clearly played some roles on who was out of line and who was not. I do also believe some of those moderators are now banned from the game for other reasons.


That said, beyond just freeing staff time, i always felt that the benefit of player moderators was more dedication to descalation and empathy. When in doubt lean on the side of moderation but some steps should be taken to ensure people feel heard and that the same concern or post doesnt appear on additonal platform adding fuel to raging fires.

Otherwise, the job is better left to more anonymous staff avatars, that should have less direct ties to the playerbase.

[Armaddict]

A wise man's tools are analogies and puzzles...

Pointless quote just because I recognize the shortcomings of analogies and will not fixate on yours, but I love that song lyric.

I believe I was pretty clear before; the role is not to curate anything, but to create the environment where, hopefully, everyone can be made more comfortable speaking their opinion, even in dissent.  That is regardless of that dissent is against the POWAH, or another brash poster, or something that is otherwise popular.

It is not necessarily to keep discussions nice, because criticisms that are valid can often be quite mean.

If I had to phrase it, I'd say that the 'niceness' of posts is a personal goal, something that we, the player, should be aware of.  The moderator goal is not to grade that effort, whether its there or not, but rather to keep the discussion free of meaningless tit-for-tat, subtle or unsubtle attacks.  But that's not what I saw described.  What I saw described was a desire to rely less on temporary measures and be able to move more quickly and more confidently to heavy measures, which I inherently disagree with and find destructive not just for the game via all the odd situations that arise in discussion, but also towards good discussion as a whole, which will not always be a pleasant coffee shop interaction.

[MarshallDFX]

@Armaddict I get what you are saying, and I've been trying more or less that for a while.

My view is that approach has been attempted extensively, I don't think it's working. So we have to change it.

The bar should be set higher.

If it helps, it's not that I'm desperate to come down like a ton of bricks on somebody who has poorly phrased a genuine criticism.

I do want to come down like a ton of bricks where the intent is harm or hurt, and not supporting the vision of being here to support the game.

Telling the difference can be easier said than done though. People can help by making an effort to consider others and be respectful.

[Patuk]

There is no path to improving this place if you're going to ban half the people who post the opinions you asked for and tell the other half they're wrong hmmkay. I'm not sure why the mods asked for discussion, just to argue against anyone who took them at their word for this.

[MarshallDFX]

@Patuk wdym there has hardly been any response to my actual questions

this is why we can't have nice things

[Patuk]

They're (we're?) responding to your post. The one that's thrice the size of your questions. The part we actually find interesting, rather than some fairly immaterial questions. Whatever channels or subfora we have genuinely does not the difference make and isn't interesting to anyone here, as is evidentially the case by nobody caring to form an opinion about it.

[Dresan]

@Patuk wdym there has hardly been any response to my actual questions

this is why we can't have nice things

You are getting high level feedback.  It may not be what you want but its likely what you need.

There are a bunch of rules that are subject to interpretation all while you are leaning towards a more stricter approach. Peace, its an admirable effort. However, you are likely creating a bunch of work for yourselves and based on how things have have so far so the result either burnout or negative backlash. The game is familiar with both those results.

I agree with armaddict. That said, the problems this game has faced would have not been prevented by simply having more or less forum/discord moderation. The shadowboard or the arm related reddit posts don't exist because a player was mean to another on the forums or discord.