The TWC Handbook of Moderation Discussion

[Obi Wan Asterix]

At the suggestion of Tacticalwithdrawal, and with enthusiastic agreement of the staff we have decided to post the TWC Handbook of Moderation (stickied above) to answer good inquiries into our practices from this new and energetic Curia *Mi**hrmmm**swell*. Simetrical is the great revisionist of this lexicon and he has spend much time and effort composing this and getting feedback.


EDIT:

Asterix and Tac posted this at the same time, use this as a general thread for discussing it -TBN

[Lusted]

Erm, duplicate thread.

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

yeah, sorry about that, posting anything through my current corporate firewall is hard, hard work

[Lusted]

As this is now the discussing thread i will repeat what Tac said. The handbook is guidlines, we us eit to help us make some decisions. But mstly we use our own judgement, though for tricky decisions we will likely discuss them with other staff members.

[Omnipotent-Q]

I don't like the end sentence of this example TBH:

Example: Bob posts that "Jack's argument is moronic." Jack will quite possibly see the post. Edit out the sentence and warn Bob. Moronic arguments are, implicitly, made only by morons.

Circumstances dictate, you can make a moronic post out of character, and not be a moron as it isn't normal behaviour. It's like saying "You were a moron" .

[Belisarius]

I don't like the end sentence of this example TBH:

Circumstances dictate, you can make a moronic post out of character, and not be a moron as it isn't normal behaviour. It's like saying "You were a moron" .

I agree, I also find getting suspended for your second warn too strict, and what about different types, some carry two yes? I donno I think the Warn system needs to be less strict and expanded on...

[Lusted]

Once again they are guidlines not rules people, we do use our own judgement.

[Belisarius]

I still feel iffy about it..

Oh and I can so tell it's 99% Sim, not a bad thing, his moderation is one of the best..

[Justinian]

I agree, I also find getting suspended for your second warn too strict, and what about different types, some carry two yes? I donno I think the Warn system needs to be less strict and expanded on...

Actually it's your third warn, what with the free warning.

Really it's quite reasonable, if someone strikes out three times in a row after repeated warnings, they deserve a suspension.

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

I don't like the end sentence of this example TBH:

Example: Bob posts that "Jack's argument is moronic." Jack will quite possibly see the post. Edit out the sentence and warn Bob. Moronic arguments are, implicitly, made only by morons.

Circumstances dictate, you can make a moronic post out of character, and not be a moron as it isn't normal behaviour. It's like saying "You were a moron"

um, that's what the example is saying (or at least how I read it). ie. we edit the sentence and warn Bob because he has effectively called Bob a moron.

Actually, unless Bob had loadsa user notes I would just give him a friendly caution (still a usernote) for this as he's not directly attacking Jack. If, however, he already had loads of usernotes I would warn him for this.

Do that make sense?

[Simetrical]

you can make a moronic post out of character, and not be a moron as it isn't normal behaviour. It's like saying "You were a moron" .

The word moronic means "being or pertaining to a moron", or indeed, perhaps "characteristic of a moron". So technically, you're right, you can make a moronic point without actually being a moron, but the sentence is still aggressive and insulting. Most moronic statements are, in fact, made by morons, at least by a not-so-informal interpretation of the word (e.g., not like saying "You moron" when someone uses baking soda in a recipe instead of flour).

And I assume you were missing a "not" in that last sentence.

[MasterAdnin]

I agree, I also find getting suspended for your second warn too strict, and what about different types, some carry two yes? I donno I think the Warn system needs to be less strict and expanded on...

Yea, two warns is way to strict, although, it does stop people from acting crazy. How does the suspend system work? Does the staff vote on it or just does one mod decide if the person is to be suspended?

Adnan

[Mímirswell]

You get a free warning for each offense.
Your second warning carries no penalty
Only your third warning for the same offense carries a one day suspension.

If anything, this is far too lenient -- but maybe I'm channeling the spirit of Crandar.

Edit: I forgot to thank Staff for allowing us access and Simetrical for compiling it in the first place.

[imb39]

You'll be surprised how slow people catch on Mim... Or perhaps not. So far I have found that it works well - my career is not that long, however...

[Omnipotent-Q]

The word moronic means "being or pertaining to a moron", or indeed, perhaps "characteristic of a moron". So technically, you're right, you can make a moronic point without actually being a moron, but the sentence is still aggressive and insulting.

I agree to an extent. If someone said my argument was moronic without saying why, I'd be slightly insulted (Some other people more so), but if it’s backed up with reasoning, I really don't see what's wrong with it or how it can be argued to be "aggressive"......it isn't a personal attack to question ones view on a particular subject.

I also agree with Lucius Vorenus on warnings. It's too rigid a system, with seemingly no context on the seriousness of a breach of the ToS. Some people should get banned without a warning; some people need to be helped in understanding the rules, perhaps being new, and so need more of a leash. I doubt posting what will get you banned is a good idea either. Someone could want to cause trouble in whatever way possible and so they could look at the warn-o-meter, and do varying annoying things to avoid bans.

On LV's point of harshness, sometimes these types of temporary suspensions are counter-productive, especially for something as low as two warnings. If a culprit thinks they were harshly treated, there is a chance their anger could result in revenge breaches of the ToS, and/or causing a ruckus when they return.

[Lusted]

Once again they are just guidlines, mostly staff use their judgement on how serious a breach of the ToS something is, and whether someone should be suspended.And remeber what mim said, the first warning for a articular offense such as flaming is free, the second one carries no penatly, the third for the same oofffense brings a 1 day suspension. By this time we would have pointed out to the individual the borad rules and the ToS, so if they keep on violating rules it is their fault.

And some people do get suspended sooner than others based on what they post.

[Ardeur]

I guess I'm struggling to grasp the need to make the handbook public. The theory is sound. Many Civitates complain about moderators acting outside their authority, so let's show them the book the moderators supposedly go by.

But multiple times in this thread, its been made clear that the handbook is nothing more than some soft guidelines that moderators can bind themselves to, but more often than not they just use their own discretion.

Nothing wrong with moderator's discretion, but if that's the policy, then there's no need to make public a bunch of guidelines that the moderators aren't bound to follow. It seems that now if a Civ calls a moderator's actions into question, citing the handbook of moderation they now have access to, the moderator can excuse themselves saying "I opted in this case to go with my better judgement." In fact, that is exactly the case, because if you look at the posts in this thread, when Civs have called into question some of the items in the handbook, what explanation is given?

Once again they are just guidlines, mostly staff use their judgement on how serious a breach of the ToS something is, and whether someone should be suspended.

Actually, unless Bob had loadsa user notes I would just give him a friendly caution (still a usernote) for this as he's not directly attacking Jack. If, however, he already had loads of usernotes I would warn him for this.

Once again they are guidlines not rules people, we do use our own judgement.

The handbook is guidlines, we us eit to help us make some decisions. But mstly we use our own judgement, though for tricky decisions we will likely discuss them with other staff members.

Seems like we're creating an illusion of there being a checks and balances system, when in fact there is not. Or if there is, it is different than the one being shown. All making this handbook public is going to do is create more pointless debate. Nothing wrong with debate, but it needs to have a point.

Now that the handbook is a public document, will it be editable by the Civitates? I can see by how this thread is already going that there are areas the Civs would like to see changed, although I'd say any changes are pointless because the document isn't binding to begin with. Again I ask, what is the point? Just keep the handbook within the staff, and when a Civ calls a moderator's actions into question, don't make such a public drama out of it, handle it within staff. If the Civ is unhappy with the decision, he can appeal to Archer.

[Søren]

Nice to see you back, Ardeur !

Seems like we're creating an illusion of there being a checks and balances system, when in fact there is not. Or if there is, it is different than the one being shown. All making this handbook public is going to do is create more pointless debate. Nothing wrong with debate, but it needs to have a point.

I personally don't envisage it being used as anything other than a further guide to show civitates that a) our actions are not arbitary and are based around a code of moderation procedure (the TOS is merely a moderation guide, rather than procedure) although of course, discretion is a key part of the system, and it is not meant to be completly adhered to in every possible case. and b) to further show what standards of behaviour we expect people to keep to, perhaps expaining it a bit better than the TOS (which is ambiguous at best).

As for the checks and balances, you're right. The most effective system we have in place is that of the senior, experienced moderators (Praetors, Consuls & Impy) being able to reverse the decisions of the junior ones. On top of that, decisions by Praetors to overule lower moderators are sometimes resolved by a vote of the Alhambra (all site mods) an example of that (without naming any names) would be a recent case in which a praetors decision to reverse a junior moderator's was overuled by a such vote. (you are probably aware of the case I refer to)

Now that the handbook is a public document, will it be editable by the Civitates? I can see by how this thread is already going that there are areas the Civs would like to see changed, although I'd say any changes are pointless because the document isn't binding to begin with. Again I ask, what is the point? Just keep the handbook within the staff, and when a Civ calls a moderator's actions into question, don't make such a public drama out of it, handle it within staff. If the Civ is unhappy with the decision, he can appeal to Archer.

No, this is one area which will be kept to the moderators.

[Ardeur]

an example of that (without naming any names) would be a recent case in which a praetors decision to reverse a junior moderator's was overuled by a such vote. (you are probably aware of the case I refer to)

Touché, my friend. As diplomatic a response as I could ever expect from the likes of you. :original:

[Simetrical]

How does the suspend system work? Does the staff vote on it or just does one mod decide if the person is to be suspended?

Suspensions are carried out by individual mods and noted in the Alhambra. If anyone disagrees, they can say so (and if they're a Praetor or higher, they can reverse the suspension until the issue is discussed further, as in my reversal and later reinstitution of a suspension by a lower moderator in the case TBN mentioned).

On top of that, decisions by Praetors to overule lower moderators are sometimes resolved by a vote of the Alhambra (all site mods) an example of that (without naming any names) would be a recent case in which a praetors decision to reverse a junior moderator's was overuled by a such vote. (you are probably aware of the case I refer to)

I wouldn't say sometimes, but more like always. Unilateral reversals of lower actions are rare, and when they do happen, it's invariably going to be discussed at some level if it's an issue at all.

(And it was only overturned narrowly!)