The deep mudpit

[Garbarsardar]

Garb. thinks that the situation in the mudpit is getting a tad bit out of control. Recently I noticed Civitates engaging in flame wars, which apart from being downright childish encourages the recent influx of trolls and flamers. With the arrival of BI things are bound to get worst. The mods are trying their best, but they seem overworked, and sometimes hesitant in warning a Civis for flaming or immature behaviour. I suggest we assist them by controlling our temper, and by "moderating" when possible.
Garb.

[Søren]

I totallaly agree with the wise Garb.

While I support the action of moderators, in general. I think that a more firm stance needs to be taken towards Civitates. It is tue that this could be because moderators are over stretched though. Perhaps this issue will be resolved now that Sulla may appoint more moderators.

[Belisarius]

Bad Civitates behavior should be stopped, I suggest an Ostrakon for any civitates who continually Flames and trolls. I also ask CC mods to give the curia the warn level (amount of warnings) for every offending civitates so the Curia can decide what to do about these people who are supposed to be representing us!

[Justinian]

It is tue that this could be because moderators are over stretched though. Perhaps this issue will be resolved now that Sulla may appoint more moderators.

Speaking as a moderator, I think we have enough moderators to get the job done in the CC. The only problem is our moderating seems to have little effect whatsoever on the constant flow of flaming... there is a general pattern of:

User flaming, being warned;
User flaming again, being warned;
Being suspended;
Coming back, engaging in exactly the same things which got him suspended before - gets suspended again
Comes back
Gets banned
Lather, rinse and repeat with some other member...

And as far as I can see there's really little that can be done about it - there will always be members joining who will flame and spam and it's pretty much unavoidable. There is a fine line we have to walk between the "SS" moderating which put half of TWC in uproar over Crandar or being too lenient and allowing spam and flames to run rampant.

Bad Civitates behavior should be stopped, I suggest an Ostrakon for any civitates who continually Flames and trolls.

Agreed. There should be no civitates who have been warned repeatedly in their time as a civitate... this leads to moderators being a little bit reserved about warning Civitates, which they shouldn't be.

[imb39]

My Patron is as wise as ever!

Perhaps more needs to be done by Patrons - could they be given the option of intiating an Ostrakon. I think, though, this might be using a sledge hammer to crack a nut. Warnings need to be given.

Do any Patrons communicate with the Powers The Be to suggest warnings?

As you may see, I think the Patronage system is at fault here. When it works, it works well - but there are too many holes in the system at present if a Patron is not effective - this is not necessarily the fault of the Patron.

That said, Civitates should be circumspect.

I do hope, none of this applies to me...

[Søren]

I agree, Civitates warning levels should be public.

Ostrakon of Civitates is currently a taboo subject, which is not good for the Curia.

I was dismayed to hear, that a member of this board who shall go nameless (not ferrets, for those on "Secret site"), asked me why they should observe the rules when Civitates and Staff ! did not. Of course, that is a flawed arguement, but it does pose itself as an awful representation of the Curia and Staff.

[Tom Paine]

Ostrakon may be a little too severe for a first set; however there is little else we can do, really. Patrons are refdlected upon badly by their clients without any method of revoking their patronage, so we should give them a mechanism to do that, and hope it suffices as a threat enough; however, inactive patrons are a fall-down in that they will not revoke patronage through not being here.

[Epistolary Richard]

Patrons can choose to repudiate their client, just as clients can repudiate their patron (as my sig displays).

Under current rules, should a patron repudiate their client I would imagine it would be the same as if a client loses his patronage when the patron is ostracised: that is, he can immediately reapply to any other patron to extend patronage to him.

Only if no other patron was prepared to take him on would his civitate status be called into question. And if no other patron is willing to take him on, this his civitate status should probably well be brought into question in any case.

[imb39]

What about a three strikes rule as far as warnings go? The warnings can disappear after a year on record...

[the Black Prince]

how about a system where a staff member acts as a judge advocate, bringing a case against a civitate who has been warning a few times before the curia for judgement and ostrakon, even a temporary ostrakon, as a sign of the curias displeasure with their behavior?

[Ardeur]

Speaking as a moderator, I think we have enough moderators to get the job done in the CC. The only problem is our moderating seems to have little effect whatsoever on the constant flow of flaming... there is a general pattern of:

User flaming, being warned;
User flaming again, being warned;
Being suspended;
Coming back, engaging in exactly the same things which got him suspended before - gets suspended again
Comes back
Gets banned
Lather, rinse and repeat with some other member...

Well what are the options? Increase the severity of punishments? This is unpopular with many, makes the mods look like bullies, and doesn't really do anything because the rules of punishment concerning members bypassing their suspensions by creating secondary accounts are too lenient. (When I was a UL/CP, the secondary account would be permanently banned, and the original account would just get slapped a little harder.) If a member tries to bypass his suspension by creating an alternate account, BOTH should be permanently banned, in my humble opinion.

Perhaps we should lower our standards? This is unpopular with just as many, because it will invite a flood of low-quality posters.

A balance must be found.

[the Black Prince]

i'm in full agreement with ardeur. we have rules that are tough enough to deal with the situation, they just need to be enforced fully.

the rules are pretty fair, lets face it.
flame once = friendly warn by PM
do it again, you get a warning, do it a 3rd time, you get a stronger warning, do it again after that and you start getting suspended.

and you only get one friendly warning per offence... after that, all offences count as warnings for the ban, so its not simply a case of 3 flames or 3 cases of troll either.

in practice, if someone makes 4 flaming posts in one thread, a mod can knock em on suspention...
thats the rules at their harshest.
in practice, i would usually call those 4 posts one spot of flaming and count it as one offence unless they were serious breaches or the member had a history of it.

[Fabolous]

Is there a rule against having mutliple accounts? I don't see one a rule against it. If not we should create one. I fail to see a good purpose for having a second account.

[Tom Paine]

Playing devil's advocate against youself? But no I see your point. Second accounts are god for what non-malevolent purpose exactly?

[Garbarsardar]

how about a system where a staff member acts as a judge advocate, bringing a case against a civitate who has been warning a few times before the curia for judgement and ostrakon, even a temporary ostrakon, as a sign of the curias displeasure with their behavior?

Word.

As for the patron-Cives relationship, we will reprise the earlier argument on Clientelle restrictions. Although it is not the new Cives that create the problem.

[Justinian]

how about a system where a staff member acts as a judge advocate, bringing a case against a civitate who has been warning a few times before the curia for judgement and ostrakon, even a temporary ostrakon, as a sign of the curias displeasure with their behavior?

The heat of the problem is a lot of mods are hesitant to call Civ's into question.

[Epistolary Richard]

If it's not an indelicate question, may I ask why?
______________________

Under the Patronage of Crandar
Patron of Prof

[Garbarsardar]

I just proposed an amendment to the Ostrakon rules that will deal with this: here

[Justinian]

If it's not an indelicate question, may I ask why?

It's taboo. Warning normal members is one thing, warning a Civitate is another because it's a badge of respect. Technically, we shouldn't have the prejudice, but I think we do. The only moderator I can name who called a Civi's acts into question would be Crandar, vs. Ferrets.

Maybe we expect we'll be compared to Crandar if we warn Civi's. I'll note I'm speaking for myself, not the whole staff.

[Epistolary Richard]

It's a badge of respect, to be sure, but when you sign up for it you do so with the knowledge that you'll be held to a higher standard of behaviour.

Now that does not mean that you always have to act like you've got a great big stick up your ol' butt - people have fun and someime even the best of us can act in a manner which we would later would regret - but even in such situations it's clear to me that a civitate should be the last to the fight and the first to bury the hatchet.

Now, in terms of a taboo, that cannot be the right way to think about it. A reluctance to moderate a civitate solely because he is a civitate, to my mind, can only emerge from a feeling that either they will disregard you - forcing you either to back down or go nucleur - or that your position will not be supported by other members of staff.

The first is, unfortunately, one of the malign side effects of the civitate system. You give people a say and they start to treat the place like their own personal domain. Still, that's all the more reason that they have to be made to understand that the position they hold is always on the sufference of the site owners and their representatives.

As to second, I know that the TWC staff must support each other publicly in the performance of their duties and that private disagreements shouldn't undermine any staffers position. I'm aware that most of the current staffers have links with the 'Exile' community - though we do seem to be seeing more of them around recently - and I sometimes wonder how healthy that is for the staff who must sometimes inevitably be held to account by members there for actions they had to undertake here.

______________________

Under the Patronage of Crandar
Patron of Prof