Bungie.net Community
This topic has moved here: Subject: New Rules and Moderator Judgement
  • Subject: New Rules and Moderator Judgement
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • of 3
Subject: New Rules and Moderator Judgement

Now, in the quantum moment before the closure, when all become one. One moment left. One point of space and time.

I know who you are.

You are Destiny.

Ever since the removal of the original Forum Rules, the Flood Forum has degraded massively in quality. I'll bet if any of you enter that board right now, you would find at least three threads that obviously don't belong there. When the old rules were intact, many who created threads/posts were in a constant state of fear of being banned (not necessarily fearful, but certainly aware). This lead to more thought-out, intellegent posts and not ones that took maybe five to ten seconds such as, "I bet the Flood can't count to five". It's all just unnecessary spam and a waste of space. Threads like that (and there are many like it) contribute nothing yet they are the most common to be used.

The solution? A mix of everything you've laid out, BBB: more active moderators, a better use of the Reporting system, stricter rules, etc. If the Flood receives stricter rules on threads that have no purpose, perhaps it can be brought back to its former glory.

[Edited on 07.05.2011 9:39 AM PDT]

  • 07.05.2011 9:37 AM PDT

Posted by: Old Papa Rich
I don't believe that the rules revision was ever intended to "fix" the Flood. Maybe some of you hoped that it would, but that was not likely to be the case.

The older rule set was a jumble of add-ons and ammendments that tried to cover everything. Of course that's impossible. So you get this game of whack-a-mole. Got a particular behavior or post that is annoying? Add a rule. A new meme? Add a rule. Along the way, many trivial things received punishemnts that were overkill. The goal was to get back to the basics.

The basics of course are the Code of Conduct and the Terms of Use. The rules are simply a common sense, combined simplification of the two. With that came a conversation with the web team and the moderators of what our course of action on rule-breaking would be. The goal was to get people to have a clearer understanding of where the broader white lines were. I'm not sure how that clarity was going to prevent people from acting like jackasses in the Flood, or more importantly stop people from responding to the jackasses.
I guess I didn't make myself very clear. I didn't think the new set of rules was ever designed to fix the situation in The Flood... But I think one should expect that it addresses it at least as well as the old set of rules.

The new rules definitely are definitely more clear and easy to understand (in my opinion) and they do a good job of preventing people from being banned for every little thing (in my opinion). However, as I pointed out, they rely heavily on judgement from the moderating team since there's no other real gauge for what's truly acceptable and what's not. For that reason, I had hoped for an increase in moderator presence and, as a result, less "noise".

  • 07.05.2011 9:52 AM PDT


Posted by: Bulldawg61
I believe that no matter the set of rules that is imposed, people are going to be idiots. I don't know about the mods being more active. I see several throughout the day, and I would like to think that just because they are not vocalizing, dosen't mean that they are not watching.

I think that people need to just try to enjoy what they can, and if some crazy is missbehaving, then posting in his thread is not the proper way of handeling it. Sending a PM is best. All though, sometimes gitting in a wisecrack is extreamly hard to resist.


  • 07.05.2011 10:08 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

KOTOR where this happens:
""I AM MAVIT DO NOT ERRUPT " and then..he vanished as did the fury, as did the violence, but in it's place, an everlasting love.

You may not believe me, but go outside on an autumn night, and you can hear...the whisper of the mavkit"

I feel like with the rules relying heavily on judgement of just the moderating team, it leads to inconsistencies. Why is it okay for some people to do other things but not others? I feel like the moderation team gets away with a lot of stuff that they ban for even. I'd like to see a set of ground rules that focus on being consistent. Without a consistent set of rules there is no way that anything will ever be fixed. For example: I know a lot of times members will troll harder just because of an unneeded ban or thought to be unneeded ban. If we knew exactly what was tolerable and what wasn't, then a lot of troubles would be cut down.

  • 07.05.2011 10:12 AM PDT

There are many powers in the world, for good or for evil. Some are greater than I am. Against some I have not yet been measured. But my time is coming.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Forum Rules
List of Forum Ninjas

Posted by: Big Black Bear
The new rules definitely are definitely more clear and easy to understand (in my opinion) and they do a good job of preventing people from being banned for every little thing (in my opinion). However, as I pointed out, they rely heavily on judgement from the moderating team since there's no other real gauge for what's truly acceptable and what's not. For that reason, I had hoped for an increase in moderator presence and, as a result, less "noise".
Fair point. I think the bulk of my acivity has been in private groups for the last couple of years. Time spent in the main forums ends up being behind the scenes moderating. Before I know it, time's up.

  • 07.05.2011 10:17 AM PDT

Posted by: Imfrikinbad
I feel like with the rules relying heavily on judgement of just the moderating team, it leads to inconsistencies. Why is it okay for some people to do other things but not others? I feel like the moderation team gets away with a lot of stuff that they ban for even. I'd like to see a set of ground rules that focus on being consistent. Without a consistent set of rules there is no way that anything will ever be fixed. For example: I know a lot of times members will troll harder just because of an unneeded ban or thought to be unneeded ban. If we knew exactly what was tolerable and what wasn't, then a lot of troubles would be cut down.

People need to listen to this guy.

  • 07.05.2011 2:59 PM PDT

"I hope nothing, I fear nothing, I am free"
"A person needs a little madness, or else they never dare cut the rope and be free." - Nikos Kazantzakis
"The ink of the scholar is more holy than the blood of martyrs" - Hasan al-Basri
Black Chapter, for all religious and political debate that doesn't fit in the Flood.

Quite honestly, inconsistency actually provides better results than consistency. Moderation is about producing good discussion, reducing anti-social behaviour and creating a pleasant environment. As such, sometimes political discussion or mild flaming in the middle of a good discussion can be overlooked - perhaps the user will be told to lay off it, but they won't be banned. Sometimes banning someone for bumping is not the correct thing to do, given the circumstances.

Moderation should be done in the best interests of the forum, not blindly to the rules.

To real life-ify the example, in an ideal world a District Attorney or the Crown Prosecution Service only take cases to court that it is in the public interest to take to court. That could mean, say, letting a parent off with letting their kids drink underage in a well supervised environment.

Knowing exactly what is and isn't tolerable won't reduce trouble in any shape or form. Sad, but true.

  • 07.05.2011 3:06 PM PDT

And on the seven7h day......

I think the old rules were better.

  • 07.05.2011 3:22 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Veteran Legendary Member
  • gamertag: jyrine
  • user homepage:

I was the first Spartan. And I will be the last. Mythic on 9/1/2012 never forget
PAX 08, Third Team against Luke and Shishka, AR dual to
the Death, won by one point... Assembly hasn't changed.

urk: "This is a bad idea."
DeeJ: "Hold still..."

Alright, I wasn't going to post, but I think its time someone says what everyone is pointing to.

We think the moderators are starting to step out of line.

Not really sure if this is what you intended to get to Big Black Bear, or if you honestly wanted to address the issue of noise in the flood, but thats what this thread is degrading into.

Personally, I love the mods. I see an almost child-like innocence combined with a soviet russia iron fist. People constantly judge the moderators for their choices, and are always on their case about rule breaking.

But I ask you, are you so above the rest of us you can honestly say you wouldn't ever do the same? I guess my point is this, you look at these moderators to handle the forums, you intrust them to "clean up the streets" But when they have to pull their gun and shoot to kill, you judge them for it. In reality, you are putting them in a different category then us, but you expect them to addhere to the same rules as our own.

That like punishing a police officer for speeding.

Sorry I drew this any from the original point Big Black Bear, but I feared this would start developing into a mod hate thread if someone didn't get to the core of this.

[Edited on 07.05.2011 3:31 PM PDT]

  • 07.05.2011 3:29 PM PDT

Posted by: Dustin 6047
Troll confirmed. I never even insulted you

Posted by: Dustin 6047
OP - You're a dumbass with the reading comprehension skills of a second grader.


Can someone tell me what's wrong with these two, this made me LOL hard.

Less ambiguous rules.

The rules are too vague in my opinion.

  • 07.05.2011 3:30 PM PDT

"I hope nothing, I fear nothing, I am free"
"A person needs a little madness, or else they never dare cut the rope and be free." - Nikos Kazantzakis
"The ink of the scholar is more holy than the blood of martyrs" - Hasan al-Basri
Black Chapter, for all religious and political debate that doesn't fit in the Flood.

They're supposed to be vague. Interpretation is everything. If you're overly specific you need to constantly create new rules to cover new eventualities.

  • 07.05.2011 3:51 PM PDT

Posted by: Great_Pretender
Case and point: don't worry about it. Girls start getting boobies pretty soon, and then you'll have plenty of other things to think about. Being an Inheritor is not a life goal.
-TGP-

Posted by: Cockburnicus
I think it's better than it was before. The threads that people are complaining about were present before the new rules, it's just that people got banned for making them. Then they made some alts and just continued making "bad" threads.

I feel that I have a clearer idea of what I can be banned for now.


Basically this. The new set of rules gave the report button a clearer meaning as to what we're supposed to report, now we just need to launch a PSA about the report button to get people to start using it.

  • 07.05.2011 3:54 PM PDT

Posted by: Dustin 6047
Troll confirmed. I never even insulted you

Posted by: Dustin 6047
OP - You're a dumbass with the reading comprehension skills of a second grader.


Can someone tell me what's wrong with these two, this made me LOL hard.


Posted by: Primum Agmen
They're supposed to be vague. Interpretation is everything. If you're overly specific you need to constantly create new rules to cover new eventualities.
Everyone has different interpretations.

If a user believes that a person's post is worthy of pressing the report button, that stays in the report history. A mod could also check the reported post and decide whether or not it is report worthy based on their interpretation.

Ultimately in the end, the mod has the final word. If the user continues this, but a mod doesn't agree with the user's interpretation, the user could get banned based on their interpretation.

However, with rules that blatantly state what is good and what is bad, the only way a person could get banned for their interpretation is if they didn't read the rules.

  • 07.05.2011 4:00 PM PDT

When I grow up I want to be bitter and spiteful.

"i liked the reality where everything was on fire better"
-legato on remedial chaos theory

Why push for more moderators when we could just have fewer users?

  • 07.05.2011 4:12 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

The moderators could be biased though.

For example:
"Oh this kid likes -blam!- marriage. LOCK!"

  • 07.05.2011 4:16 PM PDT

"I hope nothing, I fear nothing, I am free"
"A person needs a little madness, or else they never dare cut the rope and be free." - Nikos Kazantzakis
"The ink of the scholar is more holy than the blood of martyrs" - Hasan al-Basri
Black Chapter, for all religious and political debate that doesn't fit in the Flood.

Posted by: Sergeant Kyuun
Everyone has different interpretations.

However, with rules that blatantly state what is good and what is bad, the only way a person could get banned for their interpretation is if they didn't read the rules.
Getting banned for being deemed to be abusing the report feature is very, very difficult. I've heard of one instance of it happening, and even that was deemed an accident in hindsight. Simply put, treat the report button as if you can't be banned for using it and you'll do just fine. There's a threshold before it gets triggered anyway, so it takes a group of people reporting before something is put into the report queue. (ish, anyway, been a while since I checked on how the feature was being implemented)

So, ignore the report feature. It will always be a case of interpretation when it comes to things like flaming, 'not being nice' or whatever else you might be banned for. Sometimes mods are harsh, other times lenient. How well defined the rules were didn't change the consistency of the moderating. I got a warning off Yoozel for something far worse than I got a ban off Duardo for, for instance.

Basically, you want mods to have different interpretations. If you disagree with the interpretation of a ban, there's always an appeal. No worries there. However, by loosening the standard and allowing for interpretation, ninjas become moderators, not simply ban monkeys. It also vastly shortens the rules, which used to be an overly long wall of legalese.

When it's all said and done, there are only three rules:

1) Don't be a jerk.
2) Don't post anything illegal.
3) (insert short form rule I've forgotten)

They used to be in the rules, but Achronos changed them. Foman came up with the short form rules when I asked him to condense the massive wall that used to be there. Might look up what it was before.

  • 07.05.2011 4:28 PM PDT

Posted by: Dustin 6047
Troll confirmed. I never even insulted you

Posted by: Dustin 6047
OP - You're a dumbass with the reading comprehension skills of a second grader.


Can someone tell me what's wrong with these two, this made me LOL hard.


Posted by: Primum Agmen
Well, actually, my last ban was because of this. I learned from the ban that the report button keeps a history of when you pressed the report button.

I'm actually forcing myself to not press the report button when I see a thread about flaming and spam and just ignore it due to my ban now because I did treat the report button like I couldn't get banned for using it based on my interpretation.

While the rules may have been summed up in those 3, I still believe that it's all based on the higher power's judgment, and not the player's. True, the 1st rule is to not be a jerk, but that is a bit subjective. Someone can mean well, but not use the right words and end up being a jerk. That could lead to a ban not needed.

The don't post anything illegal, well, that's really there. People should know what's illegal and what isn't.

And the third one, well, I need to find that as well.

In all, I agree with you that shortening the rules have made the moderators more in power to ban based on their interpretation. While the previous rules were indeed very strict, the rules now to me are too vague.

There could be a balance of both. I don't like reading, but going in depth with the rules as sub rules could help. I'll just use the three rules you stated.

1: Don't be a jerk.
1a: Treat others how you want to be treated.

2: Don't post anything illegal.
2a: Don't post game spoilers or explicit material.

3: < Well, I forgot this one.

While the one I posted isn't perfect, that could be a model for what could be decent. The last set of rules were too detailed while this set of rules aren't detailed enough. There should be a mix of both, to make the rules manageable to read, yet not too ambiguous.

  • 07.05.2011 5:02 PM PDT

hopefully with the new rules I won't get banned for typing "bungie" with my nose, lol.

[Edited on 07.05.2011 7:55 PM PDT]

  • 07.05.2011 7:54 PM PDT

The beta is super awesome. RogueAssassin27 is now the person who got my Totodile's nickname. Hoo-hah! Relevant.inb4lock

Some people in this thread and elsewhere are saying that we need more mods. But only about 8 mods or so out of about 25 are actually AFK, so I don't think more is in order.

Just saying.

  • 07.05.2011 8:00 PM PDT

Rock Chalk Real Talk
Minnesotan, currently going to school at KU.


@Geegs30

The quick answer is always more mods. But, I am not one myself, so I have no idea how often they are stepping on each other's toes, and that seems to be the main reason that people say more may not be better. I think a few of the absent mods could be purged and some new blood could get put in there to replace them.

I like the new rule set. I think having strict "do this = get banned this long" doesn't work well here. The problem is that in order for the case-by-case system to work, mods need to be on the same page, and they need to be online in the first place. If people aren't here for months at a time, they'll be out of the loop on what other mods have been banning/warning for and for how long.

[Edited on 07.05.2011 8:35 PM PDT]

  • 07.05.2011 8:29 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

KOTOR where this happens:
""I AM MAVIT DO NOT ERRUPT " and then..he vanished as did the fury, as did the violence, but in it's place, an everlasting love.

You may not believe me, but go outside on an autumn night, and you can hear...the whisper of the mavkit"


Posted by: Primum Agmen
Quite honestly, inconsistency actually provides better results than consistency. Moderation is about producing good discussion, reducing anti-social behaviour and creating a pleasant environment. As such, sometimes political discussion or mild flaming in the middle of a good discussion can be overlooked - perhaps the user will be told to lay off it, but they won't be banned. Sometimes banning someone for bumping is not the correct thing to do, given the circumstances.

Moderation should be done in the best interests of the forum, not blindly to the rules.

To real life-ify the example, in an ideal world a District Attorney or the Crown Prosecution Service only take cases to court that it is in the public interest to take to court. That could mean, say, letting a parent off with letting their kids drink underage in a well supervised environment.

Knowing exactly what is and isn't tolerable won't reduce trouble in any shape or form. Sad, but true.


If you take real world examples into consideration then there is no way that you don't have simple ground rules, and people there to enforce them... not "hey, we go with the flow and decide what is best when we feel like it." Also, how is inconsistencies with rules even remotely a good thing? To me not knowing what I should and should not be specifically be banned for is for sure not a good thing.

  • 07.05.2011 11:22 PM PDT

Does anyone even read these?

More active/better moderators.

  • 07.05.2011 11:25 PM PDT

Posted by: Chalupa King117
Some people in this thread and elsewhere are saying that we need more mods. But only about 8 mods or so out of about 25 are actually AFK, so I don't think more is in order.
If those numbers are accurate, consider this: That's almost a third of the total moderating team.

  • 07.06.2011 4:36 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Legendary Member

Posted by: r c takedown
Yax is a shining beacon in these dark times. You should all strive to be more like Yax.

Posted by: Primum Agmen
Moderation should be done in the best interests of the forum, not blindly to the rules.
Absolutely agree. There are tonnes of situations where overlooking rule-breaking is more beneficial to the community than punishing it. I know some of the mods probably do this already (to an extent) but I think everything needs to be viewed case-by-case.

Before clicking the button they should always think "Am I banning this guy because he deserves it or am I just banning him because he is technically breaking the rules?"

  • 07.06.2011 4:46 AM PDT

"I hope nothing, I fear nothing, I am free"
"A person needs a little madness, or else they never dare cut the rope and be free." - Nikos Kazantzakis
"The ink of the scholar is more holy than the blood of martyrs" - Hasan al-Basri
Black Chapter, for all religious and political debate that doesn't fit in the Flood.

Well, the numbers are something closer to 34 mods, ignoring the three of those who are perma afk (chris, donwan, GJJ), Pezza and Skiptrace are the only two who haven't logged in in the past two days.

So, while I always think that the number of moderators will always need to increase as the community increases in size, we don't currently have a problem with afk moderators.

  • 07.06.2011 4:57 AM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • of 3