Niki

Current state of discord moderation.

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, Wonka said:

but various staff presumably think you have, since they've applied sanctions.

Read the post I quoted again.

 

Staff applied sanctions, then after much pressure from us, decided they should have looked at the evidence better and THEN realized they 'effed up and unbanned me. 

 

This is a very specific issue. Staff often takes rash actions and decisions and then it is incumbent upon you to prove your case and your innocence. That is wrong on so many levels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Ostentatio said:

 

We would still know, and be able to look up, what was deleted. Even if someone came to us with "Yeah, you deleted something of mine I said about a month ago", we'd be able to look it up and very likely find out what it was.

 

What we cannot do is read people's minds and reassess situations nobody is even telling us about.

 

The Joey "rocket emoji" story is virtually the only specific example raised in this thread, and from what I can understand from speaking to others, the account of it given in this thread does not give an accurate picture. This is what happens when you rely on one person's account of events from two years ago.

Of course is not representative. I am not going to stand here airing out people's personal stuff, mainly because I respect the person offended on this instance and don't want to give details. But I remember this incident vividly and can give you a full accounting of it in private.

 

Its moot point though, the message is not getting across.

 

Well we are going on circles now. There is nothing new being discussed so I will drop the issue. If you feel your discord server is representative of what you want from it, then by all means continue. No harm done there, and we will continue using non official versions as we've had so far. Its working well for all of us involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Angelklaine said:

Of course is not representative. I am not going to stand here airing out people's personal stuff, mainly because I respect the person offended on this instance and don't want to give details. But I remember this incident vividly and can give you a full accounting of it in private.

 

I've been given an accounting of it by someone who was involved, but if you'd like to give me or Capi your version of events, feel free. That goes for anyone here who is concerned about Discord moderation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Ostentatio said:

 

I've been given an accounting of it by someone who was involved, but if you'd like to give me or Capi your version of events, feel free. That goes for anyone here who is concerned about Discord moderation.

Your responses are almost entirely anemic as always. Why do you have any status in the discord if you cannot answer simple questions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, FranktheTank said:

Your responses are almost entirely anemic as always. Why do you have any status in the discord if you cannot answer simple questions?

 

What question are you referring to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Angelklaine said:

This post will get.hidden in 5... 4... 3... 

 

16 hours and still there.

 

I'm always available to explain or review forum moderation actions.  It sometimes takes a day or 3 for me to respond (other commitments mean that I can't be on the forums 24/7), but I will always explain why an action was taken, and where appropriate, I can reviewed and revoke warnings etc.  Where threads have degenerated into bickering and more heat and fury than actual discussion, they will be locked, as they always have been.  Content not appropriate (e.g. straight up trolling, outside of Theatre) may be hidden, and you can always PM someone and ask why if you're not clear.

 

As has already been said, multiple times, if you have specific instances of staff behaving inappropriately, bring it to me - we can still find and view hidden content.  Note that I will generally not discuss warnings etc against an account with anyone other than that person.  Vague accusations of wrongdoing, however, are hard to do much about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Ostentatio said:

 

I've been given an accounting of it by someone who was involved, but if you'd like to give me or Capi your version of events, feel free. That goes for anyone here who is concerned about Discord moderation.

To what end? Would that unban Joey? You probably got the version off the "victim" I presume because I doubt you spoke to Joey. Case sealed because there is no way that person could have been biased. 

 

Regardless, moot point. It would change nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Angelklaine said:

To what end? Would that unban Joey? You probably got the version off the "victim" I presume because I doubt you spoke to Joey. Case sealed because there is no way that person could have been biased. 

 

Regardless, moot point. It would change nothing.

 

I have no idea why you offered to give an account of the event in private if you're not willing to do so.

 

Cases aren't "sealed". They can be reviewed and appealed at any time. In this case, it wouldn't matter, but that's because Joey's ban has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Pandalet said:

As has already been said, multiple times, if you have specific instances of staff behaving inappropriately, bring it to me - we can still find and view hidden content.  Note that I will generally not discuss warnings etc against an account with anyone other than that person.  Vague accusations of wrongdoing, however, are hard to do much about

Yet again you fail to realize is not about staff per se. I am not saying Ostentatio or  Capi or anyone is being vindictive or abusive. Myself and others like Frankthetank above are pointing out that your handling of posts amount to censoring. Perhaps you disagree, sure, and you are allowed to. But we can simply vote with our feet and go elsewhere because we get sick of having our voices silenced. 

 

I am a member of several huge forum and discord communities, Something Awful being one of them. I am very well aware at the differences between the rule sets but on nearly all the communities I have been in, you have a very real set of rules you can follow and expect to be held by. Here there is a set of rules, and a set of "catch alls we can apply to you when we feel like". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Ostentatio said:

I have no idea why you offered to give an account of the event in private if you're not willing to do so.

I will pm you in a bit. I am at work atm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Angelklaine said:

I am a member of several huge forum and discord communities, Something Awful being one of them. I am very well aware at the differences between the rule sets but on nearly all the communities I have been in, you have a very real set of rules you can follow and expect to be held by. Here there is a set of rules, and a set of "catch alls we can apply to you when we feel like". 

 

The one specific place you mention - Something Awful - has a lot of moderation transparency, but to say their rules are super clear and consistent is... not true. They exercise a lot of latitude in who they ban, and why. I remember "because Lowtax doesn't like you" being a bit of a meme at one point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ostentatio said:

We can try, but there's just no way to be exhaustive about enumerating every single one.

 

That would be unreasonable to ask for, and wasn't asked for. What was asked for is a definition, a principle, some sort of guideline by which "toxicity" is measured.

 

Is malicious intent a prerequisite, or are only consequences looked at?

What are eligible consequences to be considered toxic? Damage to reputation and virtual goods?

What is the level of "uneasiness" generally allowed to exist between people? How do you consolidate between different perceptions and frameworks of values to determine who is taking more offense than the incidents warrants for, for instance?

 

My example about political discussions has been suspiciously glossed over, too, although that'd be an "easy" one to answer. Either there's a rule I don't know about, or it could at least be explained for this specific instance where the line is drawn. All you say is "The rules are clearly posted". Where? Please?!

 

I want to believe you're trying to do your work in good faith but the blatant shrugging off of very pertinent questions (by either strawmanning or being obtuse about them) and disregard for actual examples given makes it look like damage control and apologetics. I don't say this to be contrarian, or antagonistic. But the most charitable interpretation I have of this is you guys running around as headless chickens in a burning ivory tower while us plebs toss turds upwards, but only end up raining it on ourselves as they come back as disregarded problem, misunderstood questions, pretense, implied accusations of a lack of self-awareness.

It's so irritating and frustrating to come to the staff with these concise, clear and genuine questions for the betterment of cooperation between players and staff and receive answers for a bizzaro world version of that same question that seems strangely more convenient for the status quo. Whatever that is at this point.

 

And I'm still dumbfounded that my joke that "the forum word filter discriminates against people named Richard" warranted a moderation action. It's so innocuous really that I can't for me life of me understand why it had to be taken. It's not even neccessarily a critique against the filter (Though that was lowkey my intention) to make that joke, so somebody must have put it in their head that this was a jab at home the forum is being run? I don't know. And that there is the problem. You're just repackaging this into:

4 hours ago, Ostentatio said:

people who have had significant moderation actions taken against them broke the rules fairly clearly

Yeah, significant ones, sure. One would hope that you at least get these right and clear. But that old Enki post was - as I said- awfully vague on the other people that were banned. Why?

What's mainly so odd are all the "little decisions" that seem to be rather arbitrary, and the problems only start there.

 

And then you proceed to say

2 hours ago, Ostentatio said:

The Joey "rocket emoji" story is virtually the only specific example raised in this thread,

like my question about the political discussions in the ingame chat wasn't specifically inquiring about the ruling guidelines about a very particular, but - as far as I know - undocumented policy?

Look, if I'm wrong, please tell me, I'll concede the point anytime you give me something substantial. It's not even about wether I'm right or wrong on this example, the fact that it's blatantly being ignored or somehow trivialized just furthers my impression that when you say "I see no minefield" it's because you're cupping your hands over your eyes and try to wish it away. If it's your genuine assessment, please fill the gaps that I have outlined, and do so that not everyone after me has to wonder the same questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ostentatio said:

 

The one specific place you mention - Something Awful - has a lot of moderation transparency, but to say their rules are super clear and consistent is... not true. They exercise a lot of latitude in who they ban, and why. I remember "because Lowtax doesn't like you" being a bit of a meme at one point.

Well yes. We goons are dumb. Lowtax once made a post saying "post here to get banned" and a bunch of people.did and got banned. Its part of our culture and how things work. 

 

But the same cannot be said here. Here staff projects a different image. If you said "we ban you because we don't like you." and then you ban me,  fine, I can live with that. But that is not the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now