A liberalised debating forum

[pannonian]

This isn't a specific proposal, nor even close to one, but a discussion of how the idea could or could not work. I started this thread with the intention of coming up with an idea that was both acceptable to Prof and his supporters, and give the moderating staff some breathing space. Unfortunately, it came a bit too late for EvM, but the idea was this, modelled on the Backroom's moderation team (with TWC-specific. modifications).

1. The debating forums, specifically the Political Mudpit, to have a more liberal moderating policy than the rest of the site.
This is in recognition of the fact that debating forums by their nature tend to generate more heat than gaming forums. Things are said in the heat of debate which might not otherwise be said by the poster in other circumstances.

2. Moderators in these forums to use short forum-bans as their decisive tool of moderation, with these bans not affecting the general disciplinary record.
When posters in the debating forums lose their cool, it might be a good idea to forcibly remove them from the scene so they can cool down for a period, after which they would hopefully get over their initial rush of blood. Again, this is a recognition of the nature of debating forums, and the aim is to avoid overly penalising the poster, so this is kept off the general disciplinary record for probations, infractions, etc. If the moderator deems the offence to be calculated rather than a temporary misjudgement, he can, of course, apply the general ToS to be adjudged by the Tribunal, but the forum ban is IMHO more appropriate in most cases. 12-36 hours should be sufficient for such bans to have their desired effect - if posters are still out of control after such a period, stronger measures may be necessary to impress the point.

3. Forum-bans do not affect the poster's ability to access the rest of the site.
The bans are supposed to remove the poster from the heat of the debating forums. Therefore there is no need to bar the poster from the remainder of the community, allowing them to browse the gaming forums, read and write PMs, etc. for the duration of the cooling-off period. Infractions outside the debating forums will, of course, be treated outside these guidelines.

4. Forum bans of the above nature cannot be appealed.
These bans do not attempt to seek justice, but only to ensure a workable forum both for staff and posters. They are meant to save posters from facing harsher penalties, which their continued out-of-control postings would inevitably result in. In this spirit, the bans are temporary, short, and have no lasting effect on the poster's disciplinary record. On the other side of the argument, since the punishments are temporary and do not last for any great length of time, and moderators are appointed in confidence in their abilities, these forum-bans are assumes to be correct by default. If a poster feels they are victimised without any relation to their behaviour, they can take the case to senior moderating staff as per normal, to be resolved out of the public eye, but they do not have recourse to the Tribunal. If posters are to be allowed a more liberal moderating regime, the moderators should conversely be allowed more leeway in applying their judgement. Of course, if a moderator decides an offence is serious enough to be treated under the normal rules, beyond the scope of these guidelines, the normal lines of appeal apply.

5. Decisive action only to be taken when the debate has gone out of control.
This recognises that attacks on the poster, if made as part of an argument about a point, can be a legitimate part of debate. While this obviously does not include valueless flames, emotional language used in calling out the flaws in an argument is a normal, barely considered part of conversation. Indeed, in some cases, the most appropriate response is personal, drawing attention to the poster's history and likely agenda for the thread, stopping others from incurring unnecessary infractions. For borderline cases, or where the moderator deems the situation to be on the verge of losing control, advice should be offered, either in the thread or via PM. Only when the situation has gone beyond the stage where advice might have an effect, should bans be handed out.

6. Moderators should feel free to moderate.
Moderators are appointed because they are trusted to keep the forums running smoothly. The ToS offers guidelines on what kind of forum the TWC feels is appropriate and acceptable, while these additional points offer my view of what debating forums should find acceptable. While the urge is to allow debate to flow, and minimise intervention, the moderators should nonetheless be allowed, nay encouraged, to put their personal stamp on the forum, by advising problematic posters on how to adjust their behaviour to avoid future problems, stepping in with green ink before the situation got out of control, etc. As long as their actions are within the limited scope these rules set out for debating forums, they won't have to face the arena of the Tribunal, and their performance will only be judged at the end of their term when they stand for re-appointment.

I don't have the experience nor the expertise to craft a formal proposal, so I'm hoping more experienced members might help, assuming this hasn't been shot down in the meanwhile. Until then, please discuss as you see fit - I don't claim the above to be the definitive solution, but merely a set of ideas.

[Shaun]

1 - I do not believe that anywhere in the site should be exempt from the ToS or be moderated any differently than others. We have rules, which should be read by members. THe rules are not counter productive, but the opposite, they stop counter productive posting, such as flames and trolls. People saying things in the heat of the moment is counter productive, hence why they get cautioned for it. Debating is best taken place when both posters are calm.

In fact, I cannot see why certain area's would even need to be moderated more liberally. You cannot call people idiots, but you can call their argument idiotic. "Attack the argument, not the poster" is a motto used here, I see no reason why we should perhaps hold back on those who attack the poster. You are free to say what ever you want about their arguments. Its just that so many people seem to instead attack the poster.

Would you like a sub forum where attacking the poster is the norm?

2 - We do already utilise forum bans, on occasion, but never as our primary means of disciple - we use infractions. However, if someone is getting extremely aggressive, a moderator may give them a 24 hour suspension. But this is from the whole forums. I agree, though, that these suspensions should just be a forum ban until they cool down. But action needs to be taken against those that continually get heated and disrupt threads.

3 - Really just a repeat of the above. Our forum ban system does not affect a posers ability to post on other forums, nor does it even show in their record, I don't think.

4 - This goes against the nature of the Tribunal. Moderators are human (just better ones than the non moderators ) and are prone mistakes, over reacting or bias. If the poster feels he is unfairly treated, he must have the right to say something about it, somewhere. If his case is ********, then the Tribunes won't waste too much time on it.

5 - Define ' Decisive action' please. If you mean closing the thread, then when it gets out of control is the only time we close a thread, and even then, we sift through the posts removing the offensive ones, re-opening the thread soon, once the posters have cooled down. Posers are allowed to draw attention to another posters past as well, however, this must be done in a very non offensive way. "This poster has a record of being racist", rather than "Oh, jeez, not this **** again, he is a racist peice of ****". The later is unacceptable, the former is fine.

6 - I do not really see what you are getting at here, this already happens (well, at least I hope...).

[pannonian]

1 - I do not believe that anywhere in the site should be exempt from the ToS or be moderated any differently than others. We have rules, which should be read by members. THe rules are not counter productive, but the opposite, they stop counter productive posting, such as flames and trolls. People saying things in the heat of the moment is counter productive, hence why they get cautioned for it. Debating is best taken place when both posters are calm.

Quite often, a second poster may refute the first poster's point, but the first poster refuses to recognise this, lies low for a little while, before returning to the fray with the same refuted point with slightly changed wording. It's a recognised technique, which is irritating for the second poster, who has addressed the point before but now has to deal with it again. Should the second poster spend yet more of his writing up another essay in answer to that point (for the answers usually take far longer to write than the allegations)? In less moderated forums, the custom is to harass the first poster about that earlier answer and demand a response that actively deals with it. Now this is obviously not acceptable here, but the outraged response from the second poster (who spent 10-15 minutes of his life writing a post that's just been ignored) is the same, which is liable to bring about loss of control. This isn't encouraging said loss of control, but acknowledging that it exists in even the best of us. Under the current regime, calling the first poster a dodger for avoiding the answer would count as flaming, and incur infractions, though it is mild and the emotions behind it quite understandable. A looser response such as the use of green ink would IMHO be more appropriate in such a case.

In fact, I cannot see why certain area's would even need to be moderated more liberally. You cannot call people idiots, but you can call their argument idiotic. "Attack the argument, not the poster" is a motto used here, I see no reason why we should perhaps hold back on those who attack the poster. You are free to say what ever you want about their arguments. Its just that so many people seem to instead attack the poster.

Would you like a sub forum where attacking the poster is the norm?

I direct you to this thread, where I immediately recognised what the poster was doing, based on his history and his posts in the thread (and elsewhere). Should I have wasted time on answering each of his anti-Islamic and anti-Muslim posts? Or should I have left the thread alone, and allowed other posters to lose their tempers and potentially get warnings for flaming the OP? At the time of my first post, there was not yet a clear infraction (in my view) of the ToS such as would merit a report, so that option wasn't open either. Instead, I decided not to answer any of the posts directly, but to address the man, for the relevant substance related to the poster than any individual post. The poster was a known troll, notorious in another forum for his anti-Muslim flames and trolls, and this thread was just another of those designed to provoke others into a response. To seal this, I immediately reported my own post, with an explanation of what I was doing. Was this an ad hominem? I thought so, though a moderator disagreed, but I felt it was the best thing to do in the circumstances.

2 - We do already utilise forum bans, on occasion, but never as our primary means of disciple - we use infractions. However, if someone is getting extremely aggressive, a moderator may give them a 24 hour suspension. But this is from the whole forums. I agree, though, that these suspensions should just be a forum ban until they cool down. But action needs to be taken against those that continually get heated and disrupt threads.

Posters who continually disrupt threads for the heck of it don't deserve the liberalised regime I suggest, but may be handed over at the moderator's discretion to the normal disciplinary system, with the usual penalties and lines of appeal. The specialised system I'm advocating is for posters who are normally in control of themselves, but who have certain issue buttons that are occasionally pressed. Hence my link to this thread.

3 - Really just a repeat of the above. Our forum ban system does not affect a posers ability to post on other forums, nor does it even show in their record, I don't think.

4 - This goes against the nature of the Tribunal. Moderators are human (just better ones than the non moderators ) and are prone mistakes, over reacting or bias. If the poster feels he is unfairly treated, he must have the right to say something about it, somewhere. If his case is ********, then the Tribunes won't waste too much time on it.

One can argue that, but it still puts the moderator, and whoever has to deal with the matter, under the kind of stress that Manstein had to face. The forum-specific penalties I've suggested don't allow for much overreacting, since they are over within 36 hours and don't have any lasting effects beyond an addition to the poster's history. About existing forum bans - I've not heard of such before I suggested it, but it was something Sim was looking into recently.

5 - Define ' Decisive action' please. If you mean closing the thread, then when it gets out of control is the only time we close a thread, and even then, we sift through the posts removing the offensive ones, re-opening the thread soon, once the posters have cooled down. Posers are allowed to draw attention to another posters past as well, however, this must be done in a very non offensive way. "This poster has a record of being racist", rather than "Oh, jeez, not this **** again, he is a racist peice of ****". The later is unacceptable, the former is fine.

Decisive action within the suggested framework would be forum bans or thread closures, or, if the moderator deems it to be merited, disciplinary action within the current system. If a moderator thinks a thread is on the brink of losing control, a short thread lockdown (an hour or so) while PMs are sent to the offenders would hopefully deal with the matter without any lasting effects. From what I gather, this is already being done to some extent, but I'm suggesting it as formal doctrine.

6 - I do not really see what you are getting at here, this already happens (well, at least I hope...).

The moderating tools and framework I've suggested are meant to encourage this while shielding the moderators from the soap dramas of the Tribunal. The posters in the debating forum(s) are allowed greater freedom to debate, and in return the moderators are able to moderate in the right spirit without having to worry about technicalities. If posters still feel that moderators are abusing their power, they can take it up with higher staff. But moderators should not, as a rule, have to go through the Tribunal again, not after the experience of Manstein, if they have the tools to deal with the matter more gently.

[Shaun]

Quite often, a second poster may refute the first poster's point, but the first poster refuses to recognise this, lies low for a little while, before returning to the fray with the same refuted point with slightly changed wording. It's a recognised technique, which is irritating for the second poster, who has addressed the point before but now has to deal with it again. Should the second poster spend yet more of his writing up another essay in answer to that point (for the answers usually take far longer to write than the allegations)? In less moderated forums, the custom is to harass the first poster about that earlier answer and demand a response that actively deals with it. Now this is obviously not acceptable here, but the outraged response from the second poster (who spent 10-15 minutes of his life writing a post that's just been ignored) is the same, which is liable to bring about loss of control. This isn't encouraging said loss of control, but acknowledging that it exists in even the best of us. Under the current regime, calling the first poster a dodger for avoiding the answer would count as flaming, and incur infractions, though it is mild and the emotions behind it quite understandable. A looser response such as the use of green ink would IMHO be more appropriate in such a case.

Actually, calling the poster a 'dodger' would not constitute as a flame. As long as you do not say nasty things about him. You could say many things, like "Oh God, not this lame argument again, I already defeated it. " or "your argument is pathetic, its already been refuted". Both would be fine, as nothing nasty or really insulting is said about the user. Its fine attacking this argument with inflammatory words like "pathetic" and so on. Just attack his argument, not the poster and you will be fine.

I direct you to this thread, where I immediately recognised what the poster was doing, based on his history and his posts in the thread (and elsewhere). Should I have wasted time on answering each of his anti-Islamic and anti-Muslim posts? Or should I have left the thread alone, and allowed other posters to lose their tempers and potentially get warnings for flaming the OP? At the time of my first post, there was not yet a clear infraction (in my view) of the ToS such as would merit a report, so that option wasn't open either. Instead, I decided not to answer any of the posts directly, but to address the man, for the relevant substance related to the poster than any individual post. The poster was a known troll, notorious in another forum for his anti-Muslim flames and trolls, and this thread was just another of those designed to provoke others into a response. To seal this, I immediately reported my own post, with an explanation of what I was doing. Was this an ad hominem? I thought so, though a moderator disagreed, but I felt it was the best thing to do in the circumstances.

When a poster who is clearly a troll posts something that is quite inflammatory, then you have two options: you either debate with him and risk 'losing your cool' or ignore it. Claiming that the other person is a troll and an idiot is no excuse when you get an infraction for flaming him... if you cannot debate him without flaming him, then don't.

We have ignore lists.

Posters who continually disrupt threads for the heck of it don't deserve the liberalised regime I suggest, but may be handed over at the moderator's discretion to the normal disciplinary system, with the usual penalties and lines of appeal. The specialised system I'm advocating is for posters who are normally in control of themselves, but who have certain issue buttons that are occasionally pressed. Hence my link to this thread.

One ToS, it should be applied to all members equally; we do not have two legal systems in a nation, all its citizens live under one legal system. All TWC members are under the ToS, no exceptions.

One can argue that, but it still puts the moderator, and whoever has to deal with the matter, under the kind of stress that Manstein had to face. The forum-specific penalties I've suggested don't allow for much overreacting, since they are over within 36 hours and don't have any lasting effects beyond an addition to the poster's history. About existing forum bans - I've not heard of such before I suggested it, but it was something Sim was looking into recently.

I can tell you, us moderators are under very little, if any stress at the moment. Sim changed the CAPTCHA ( ) which means that we have not have a spam bot for days; the duplicate account controversies seem to have passed; and there seems to be very little flaming and trolling going on.

As for forum bans, we have them already. In fact, one member was even put on it recently.

Decisive action within the suggested framework would be forum bans or thread closures, or, if the moderator deems it to be merited, disciplinary action within the current system. If a moderator thinks a thread is on the brink of losing control, a short thread lockdown (an hour or so) while PMs are sent to the offenders would hopefully deal with the matter without any lasting effects. From what I gather, this is already being done to some extent, but I'm suggesting it as formal doctrine.

Well, the first part I have already discussed: one system of rules for everyone to follow.

About thread lockdowns, we do currently do this, although it is not formal doctrine. However, its basically informal doctrine, its one of the first thing that a mod does in a really inflammatory thread that is getting out of hand. I recently did it with the 'Islam' thread.

The moderating tools and framework I've suggested are meant to encourage this while shielding the moderators from the soap dramas of the Tribunal. The posters in the debating forum(s) are allowed greater freedom to debate, and in return the moderators are able to moderate in the right spirit without having to worry about technicalities. If posters still feel that moderators are abusing their power, they can take it up with higher staff. But moderators should not, as a rule, have to go through the Tribunal again, not after the experience of Manstein, if they have the tools to deal with the matter more gently.

There will always be great drama at TWC, whether it be in the Tribunal, the CVRIA or the Q&S. And I see that as no bad thing, we all like a bit of drama, thats probably what keeps TWC so exciting. I really like long, drawn-out Tribunal cases. Without drama, I doubt TWC would be exciting, and manage to keep hold of its old guard members. They all say that stay because of the CVRIA, and the CVRIA is basically drama.

[sapi]

You may note my support for the idea, in theory if not in practice.

I'll let one of the more experienced curial negotiators point out whatever flaws they feel necessary to divulge, and help design an official curial decision, should they choose to take this idea as their own.


As for adding to the debate here, we would need to have a provision, whether through general understanding or otherwise, that would make it clear that there will be differences in moderation style among the assigned moderators (in essence, and extension of 4 above).

If this bill is to be practically applied, it needs to be understood that the goal of this liberalisation is not to lead to fair and equal treatment of all; nor to remove the ToS - it is to allow the relevant moderators to intervene only when necessary to maintain the integrity of the debate, and of these forums.

That's the only comment a mainly TW-centric mod such as myself has on the issue; I shall watch this proposal with interest.

[Scorch]

This idea sounds good in theory. In theory.

The problem is that it works on one flawed assumption, and that is that a majority of ToS breaches in the debating forums are due to a rush of blood to the head. From my experience, a lot of ToS breaches in those forums are just isolated incidents. That is, not a thread exploding, not a user exploding, just a user stepping over the line. Usually, a caution is enough to let a user know that it's unacceptable. If not, a warning will get the message across. If a user still re-offends, then forum bans/probation/bans are in place for that.

In other words, the moderating process is fine. You just want more relaxed rules, in which case you should try to change the ToS.

[Shaun]

This is the CVRIA, an independant body from the Staff, I do not see why the CVRIA should have the right to dictate staff policy.

[imb39]

This is the CVRIA, an independant body from the Staff, I do not see why the CVRIA should have the right to dictate staff policy.

It doesn't have the right. There again, there is no harm in asking for something - so long as every one accepts that this might be rejected. The goal of the Curia should be to improve the site, bit hard if suggestions are not forthcoming. No one is infallible - not even me (is that a lady fainting in the front row? No, it's Ozy).

Moderating policy, though, is the preserve of Hex ultimately.

Whilst the ToS shouldn't be abrogated there is always different levels of application. To deny otherwise is a fallacy. The 'Pit is moderated more lightly than the VV, for example.

[Tom Paine]

This is the CVRIA, an independant body from the Staff, I do not see why the CVRIA should have the right to dictate staff policy.

See, the inherent flaw in saying this is the word "dictate". No, it doesn't have the right to dictate it. That should never, ever be taken to mean it has no right to suggest changes to staff policy. Which it has every right to do; its one of the purposes of Decisions.

[pannonian]

To clarify matters, I don't know where the boundaries are drawn between different areas of site administration, hence my plea for input, discussion, and advice. My view is that the Curia, especially the policy discussion forum, is full of people who do know the difference, unlike me. So I brought the ideas here to be discussed, criticised (in the constructive sense that I expect here), and generally examined before anything practical is formulated. That's my excuse anyway, and I'll be adding some more to this thread later on to revitalise the discussion. Although if no-one but me posts, then it'll be pretty clear no-one but me sees an issue to be discussed.

[Serious Spamurai]

If it's "less harshly moderated", then people will be able to get away with stuff they couldn't do elsewhere, correct? It is my personal opinion that this will cause 2 main problems:

1.) People will campaign for the same levels of moderation across the board, although it is very unlikely that it would ever be accepted, the constant campaigning would be annoying and a burden on staff.

2.) People would get used to it, especially forum "regulars" which would result in them posting as they would in the discussion forums on other sections of the site.

[Wicked]

I'll support #1...but only because I want to curse...I would still penalize directed insults though, as in "you are a *%^#*!$ idiot!!!", lowers the entire discussion. General insults should be allowed though IMO, I've been on plenty of forums lacking the cursing prohibition without problems, *ideas* can be total crap, *people* should not be addressed as such or worse without being in the same room with your dukes up.

#2, No, if you cannot observe community rules then it should be noted, I have been subject to this myself, and I do not support a degeneration of this policy, sorry, but if you are hot enough to insult somebody while still retaining typing ability then you have not "lost your cool", you have deliberately chosen to jump the fence, anger is anger, insult is insult.

#3 Again no, if you have screwed up, there are penalties, violating the rules in one section shouldn't merely bar you from that area, regional laws are a sign of weak government, you play, you pay, maybe you learn (we hope), maybe you don't.

#4 See above thoughts.

#5 Negative, directly attacking a person during a debate means you are either too lazy/unknowledgeable to generate a counter-argument, or that you have a personal grudge against the person.

As noted above I both support and have been warned about severe attacks on ideas, nonetheless it is the law, and I agree with it so long as it is law, but personal attacks would quickly turn "debate" into moronic flaming, it works on small forums where everyone knows each other and it's acknowledged as partially in jest, hell, it's even fun, but on a large forum it kills legitimate discussion.

However, *questioning* the motives of a poster is legitimate IMO if he is defending a point which has been generally agreed upon as conceded, norms of courtesy should be observed however, especially when it concerns topics which can be very personal, which I have overlooked myself unfortunately on occasion.

#6 Moderators...moderate, IMO even if the situation isn't specifically exceeding their allowed limit to edit or remove posts they should step in if it seems to be going that way, a mod shouldn't be an entrapment cop, waiting until someone has definitively hanged themself out to dry, if he/she sees things going south they have a right to remind everyone of the allowed limits and suggest a toning down.

-Wicked