Political Mudpit - change to moderating (another Curial Decision)

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

Another big bugbear of mine over the years (both as a moderator and as a non-moderator) has been how the political mudpit is moderated.

The problem is fairly simple, the whole point of the mudpit is to allow more agressive debate than on other parts of the site, and strong debate can get fairly personal and fairly agressive.

Yet if you look at the mudpit, and then compare it to the debate you get in most countries' parliaments, it is totally anemic, washed out and pathetically polite (go watch the UK's Prime Ministers Question Time if you don;t believe me). It isn't the fault of the moderators, they have to enforce the rules, even if leniantly.

What I propose is this:

• Basic forum standards (PG13, racisim/sexism) are still enforced
• Any other moderating only occurs if a post is reported
• Maybe take it even further - any other moderating only occurs if a post is reported by someone not directly involved in the post (although that might be more difficult to work out)

It would free up the mudpit and allow some really cracking debates full of agressive attacks on each others' arguments - but immediately somebodyu blatantly flamed or spammed it'd get reported.

I think it would both increase the fun of the mudpit, and actually increase the quality of the posts (or decrease the poor ones) as members of the mudpit wouldn't want to get reported

[Garbarsardar]

Tac, I would propose a two month experimental run; analysis of moderating and user stats afterwards maybe a qualitative look on posting and then we could implement it on a permanent basis...

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

that makes sense - also means people may not go too daft about it all.

[Shaun]

Well, people can attack their opponents argument as aggressively as they wish, they are just not allowed to attack the poster. Makes sense really, personal attacks are the bane of debate.

[the Black Prince]

i would support this... but where do you draw the line for forum standards??

is flaming a basic forum standard or not? you draw the analogy of PMQs, but the parties there frequently insult the others, if in a respectful manner.

added to which, what would the standard be, a post is only moderated if reported, but that would mean i could make the same comment to three different people, but i'd only get moderated if one of them was sensitive or easily offended...

[imb39]

As an aside, I find it odd that the Curia is moderated strictly in complete deviance from the way rules are operated in other real world parliaments. This has been going on for as long as the Curia has been about. A curious difference...

[makanyane]

As an aside, I find it odd that the Curia is moderated strictly in complete deviance from the way rules are operated in other real world parliaments. This has been going on for as long as the Curia has been about. A curious difference...

As an aside to the aside, please don't anyone decide to reduce moderation in here it gets nasty enough as it is - and I don't think we need government by only the thick skinned.

As for the mudpit, I don't really mind, so long as rules are clearly stated - then you get what you sign up for. but..

It would free up the mudpit and allow some really cracking debates full of agressive attacks on each others' arguments - but immediately somebodyu blatantly flamed or spammed it'd get reported.

aggressive attacks on each others' arguments I didn't think should be moderated anyway - if the attack is to the argument it shouldn't be a problem - attacking the person should still be outlawed, on principle and because it doesn't actually help debate anyway. Mud slinging in real world politics involves knowing things about peoples real world actions, ie. "you sent you kid to private school but said..... " "played away from the wife etc..." which doesn't exactly translate here!

just realised Shaun said most of that above anyway, but bah already wrote it...

[Scorch]

I believe that in theory, this will work. However, this may be a logistical and practical nightmare for moderators for the first week or so after it is implemented.

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

for flaming, I was thinking along the lines of:

• Flaming is only moderated (or rather, moderators only look at a flame) if the person it is directed at reports it

For example, Bel and I had a great, fun argument in the Curia a wee while ago, neither of us was worried by the tone of the argument but we were both warned for personal attacks (later overturned).

Under this rule, we would have been able to carry on with no issues.

If it got seriously out of hand then a senior moderator could step in and tell all participants to cool it, or even temporarily close the thread to allow everyone to calm down.

[happyho]

for flaming, I was thinking along the lines of:

• Flaming is only moderated (or rather, moderators only look at a flame) if the person it is directed at reports it

I don't know about this part, there are already people out there complaining about 'snitches' reporting posts. If the only person that is able to report a flame is the person that is flamed directly there could be accusations that some people are 'rats' for simply reporting offensive posts aimed at them. That could in turn lead to members being a litle wary of reporting posts, I've seen a couple of instances where a member made an offensive post then dared anyone to snitch the post. That is something I wouldn't be able to agree with, the rest so far sounds like a good idea on a temporary basis.

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

I don't know about this part, there are already people out there complaining about 'snitches' reporting posts. If the only person that is able to report a flame is the person that is flamed directly there could be accusations that some people are 'rats' for simply reporting offensive posts aimed at them. That could in turn lead to members being a litle wary of reporting posts, I've seen a couple of instances where a member made an offensive post then dared anyone to snitch the post. That is something I wouldn't be able to agree with, the rest so far sounds like a good idea on a temporary basis.

no, you're right - I hadn't thought that through.

Ok, scratch that and go back to the original - moderators only moderate when a post is reported (or it is PG13/racism/sexism/spam breaking)

[Garbarsardar]

For that to really work we need a couple of hand-picked moderators to work exclusively in the 'Pit. It always comes down to persons where the rules are fuzzy.

[Tom Paine]

I strongly, strongly disagree. Flames going unreported can lead to flame wars. The 'Pit is still a place where the ToS applies. People have said, in the Pit, that tho' they were offended by flames, they don't report; certain members have made it a practice never to report. I don't think that one can be effected safely.

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

well, hopefully senior moderators would be good enough......

but yes, it'd have to be moderators in the mold of me, Seleukos, imb etc ie. the ones that tend to be a bit more lenient and guiding (which isn't alsways a good thing

[Tom Paine]

imb39 as lenient. Oh, that's a new one on me, Tac... hehehe.
Anyway. More to the point. I'm not sure leniency would be relevant, so much as a hands-off, almost wholly report-based attitude to moderation...

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

lenient is probably the wrong word - common sense is probably the right ones

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

anyone want to do anything with this? or is everyone just on holiday (like me!)

[Tom Paine]

Given all the debate in the Q&S on the matter, I want to see what happens there...

[pannonian]

I raised a thread on this in Q&S to debate the issue between Prof420 and myself, and he's answered that my current position has little he can susbatntially disagree with. So I now raise the ideas here for people with experience in administration to discuss. The basic charge remains that described in the OP.

1. Create a usergroup whose members are banned from the CC for 12-36 hours, the number at the discretion of the moderator. The ban is to allow the individual poster and the CC a chance to cool off from each other, away from the heated arenas the debating forums can sometimes be. CC-banned posters can still access other forum functions, just not the CC for the duration of the ban. The ban is supposed to be a temporary exile to allow the poster to regather himself from the madness that took him, so it does not count as formal punishment. It appears on his record so that a history of such things can be maintained, but it does not affect any probationary issues. Such bans are not appealable to the Tribunal on an individual basis, though posters can still appeal to senior staff over a perceived history of persecution.

2. CC Moderators, especially those in the Mudpit, to be encouraged to allow a more liberal regime in the debating forums. Allow debates to go back and forth, with marginal hominems if the debate seems to override these things. The object of the moderator is not to enforce the ToS, but to allow the forums to run smoothly - the ToS is one of the tools one can use for this purpose, but it shouldn't be the focus. If there are edges in tone that might break out into a flamewar, PM the offenders with advice on their actions. If the thread is in distinct danger of going into a full-blown flamewar, lock the thread of an hour or two to allow participants to cool down, and PM them telling them to calm down before you hand individual punishments out. If the thread is in the midst of a live flamewar, lock the thread and CC-ban the offenders. The CC-ban should allow moderators a great deal of freedom to act as they see fit, so they shouldn't be afraid to let things go, nor to step in when they feel it is right.

3. Include illustrative casefiles for the ToS explaining and discussing each point, and how certain factors need to be taken into account when making moderation decisions. This is to allow both staff and posters an idea of what to expect from this forum. Include a preamble or postamble explaining that persistent offenders may strain the patience of the staff, who may stop exercising their discretion and instead let them face the full extent of the ToS.

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

I raised a thread on this in Q&S to debate the issue between Prof420 and myself, and he's answered that my current position has little he can susbatntially disagree with. So I now raise the ideas here for people with experience in administration to discuss. The basic charge remains that described in the OP.

1. Create a usergroup whose members are banned from the CC for 12-36 hours, the number at the discretion of the moderator. The ban is to allow the individual poster and the CC a chance to cool off from each other, away from the heated arenas the debating forums can sometimes be. CC-banned posters can still access other forum functions, just not the CC for the duration of the ban. The ban is supposed to be a temporary exile to allow the poster to regather himself from the madness that took him, so it does not count as formal punishment. It appears on his record so that a history of such things can be maintained, but it does not affect any probationary issues. Such bans are not appealable to the Tribunal on an individual basis, though posters can still appeal to senior staff over a perceived history of persecution.

2. CC Moderators, especially those in the Mudpit, to be encouraged to allow a more liberal regime in the debating forums. Allow debates to go back and forth, with marginal hominems if the debate seems to override these things. The object of the moderator is not to enforce the ToS, but to allow the forums to run smoothly - the ToS is one of the tools one can use for this purpose, but it shouldn't be the focus. If there are edges in tone that might break out into a flamewar, PM the offenders with advice on their actions. If the thread is in distinct danger of going into a full-blown flamewar, lock the thread of an hour or two to allow participants to cool down, and PM them telling them to calm down before you hand individual punishments out. If the thread is in the midst of a live flamewar, lock the thread and CC-ban the offenders. The CC-ban should allow moderators a great deal of freedom to act as they see fit, so they shouldn't be afraid to let things go, nor to step in when they feel it is right.

3. Include illustrative casefiles for the ToS explaining and discussing each point, and how certain factors need to be taken into account when making moderation decisions. This is to allow both staff and posters an idea of what to expect from this forum. Include a preamble or postamble explaining that persistent offenders may strain the patience of the staff, who may stop exercising their discretion and instead let them face the full extent of the ToS.

nice idea, two problems - too complicated/hard work and still too open to requiring moderators to apply their viewpoint to what is and isn't a problem.

We've gone down this route many, many times (particularly with the Pit), but each time it fails because moderators are applying rules their too strictly.

That's why I'd rather go with self-reporting, it is simple, easy to apply and allows some really good debates to develop (ie. ones where calling someone a hypocrite isn't viewed as a flame).

Also, we haven't tried it before so who knows, it may just work.....