Bungie.net Community
This topic has moved here: Subject: "Mods if this is against the rules, please lock." This se...
  • Subject: "Mods if this is against the rules, please lock." This se...
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • of 3
Subject: "Mods if this is against the rules, please lock." This se...
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Well, here we are. I guess that it was destined to come to this.

Posted by: Jujubes
Posted by: dazarobbo
Doesn't make a difference.

If a thread needs to be locked we don't need someone to tell us that. It's not a "get out of jail free card" either.
This attitude right here is the problem with moderation in general on this site if you ask me.

Please elaborate.

  • 06.23.2012 5:58 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Legendary Member

Exalted Unexplainable Member

Posted by: King Dutchy
Posted by: Izak609
If a user is worried that they might be breaking a rule, they should double check the rules or ask a moderator.
What one moderator may find rule breaking, another moderator may not.

But the moderators (should) know where those lines are, and should be able to warn "I wouldn't have a problem with it, but..."

  • 06.23.2012 6:10 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Mythic Member
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Recon Number 54
Posted by: Jujubes
Posted by: dazarobbo
Doesn't make a difference.

If a thread needs to be locked we don't need someone to tell us that. It's not a "get out of jail free card" either.
This attitude right here is the problem with moderation in general on this site if you ask me.

Please elaborate.
Perhaps he's saying that the moderators act according to their own will and not the interests of the community?

  • 06.23.2012 6:10 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

I <3 you too Bungie


Posted by: Recon Number 54
Posted by: Jujubes
Posted by: dazarobbo
Doesn't make a difference.

If a thread needs to be locked we don't need someone to tell us that. It's not a "get out of jail free card" either.
This attitude right here is the problem with moderation in general on this site if you ask me.

Please elaborate.

It annoys me that there are topics that are legitimate to discuss here, but because they are a potential gray area some mods will shoot it down immediately and warn the user.

There's not a lot going on in the community, and it's fun to have things to talk about. The reason we have mods is so that they can be discerning. My opinion, caring is what you agreed to do when you agreed to moderate. If a user thinks he needs to clarify that he knows it's a gray area, be discerning, look at his perspective, and don't ban or warn for what was obviously an attempt to add to the forum. Lock it if you feel you should. Sure ban the trolls who want to skirt the edges, but be willing to take a step back.

Mods not caring is the opposite extreme of the problem we had when the rules were super specific.Posted by: Skibur
Perhaps he's saying that the moderators act according to their own will and not the interests of the community?


I guess that's a good generalization of my specific thinking.

Edit: I don't feel nearly as unhappy as this post makes me sound. I think I'm just tired.

[Edited on 06.23.2012 6:21 PM PDT]

  • 06.23.2012 6:13 PM PDT

There is a certain point of tolerance that should never be reached.


Posted by: Recon Number 54
Posted by: Jujubes
Posted by: dazarobbo
Doesn't make a difference.

If a thread needs to be locked we don't need someone to tell us that. It's not a "get out of jail free card" either.
This attitude right here is the problem with moderation in general on this site if you ask me.

Please elaborate.
Well, the thing is, especially on the Flood, there isn't really a solid line of what is acceptable and what isn't. Sure there are rules. Rule that drone on and on and on. The bottom line is, not many things are outright prohibited, and so, the rules call on us to use judgement. Sometimes our judgement and a mods's judgement aren't always the same. When that happens, we're the ones who get the bad end of the deal.

I think mods should post reasons on bans for all be the most obvious of bans.

These are just ideas, but I know that I would personally benefit from it, and I'm sure many others would. In that aspect, it might improve the way you guys moderate these forums.

The other issue I have comes from spam enforcement. I get it, Spam is seriously a big deal, however, I shouldn't be banned because everybody else made a parody thread.

Somebody made a "Goku vs. Superman" thread. I saw it, thought it was cool, and decided to make a "Goku vs. Vegeta" thread. Two characters from the same universe. A perfectly fine and logical thread. A mod comes online, bans everybody except the first one. I PM him, explain that my thread was valid, and even contained characters from the same universe. No response. It kind of sucked.

Anyways, that's my rant. I figured as long as you guys were online and talking to us, I'd throw my ideas out there, and hope for some feedback.

  • 06.23.2012 6:14 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Well, here we are. I guess that it was destined to come to this.


Posted by: Jujubes

Posted by: Recon Number 54
Posted by: Jujubes
Posted by: dazarobbo
Doesn't make a difference.

If a thread needs to be locked we don't need someone to tell us that. It's not a "get out of jail free card" either.
This attitude right here is the problem with moderation in general on this site if you ask me.

Please elaborate.

It annoys me that there are topics that are legitimate to discuss here, but because they are a potential gray area some mods will shoot it down immediately and warn the user.

There's not a lot going on in the community, and it's fun to have things to talk about. The reason we have mods is so that they can be discerning. My opinion, caring is what you agreed to do when you agreed to moderate. If a user thinks he needs to clarify that he knows it's a gray area, be discerning, look at his perspective, and don't ban or warn for what was obviously an attempt to add to the forum. Lock it if you feel you should. Sure ban the trolls who want to skirt the edges, but be willing to take a step back.

Mods not caring is the opposite extreme of the problem we had when the rules were super specific.

Thank you for clarifying. The fact that you discerned that this is "the attitude" from daz's reply is interesting and curious.

My interpretation of his reply (and "attitude" if you will) is that any member who feels that a disclaimer "I admit that this is on the line, it's not my fault if it crosses the line" is pointless and clearly shows that the poster themselves understands that they are in risky territory, but is trying to mitigate the risk and prevent any undesired consequence... that member shouldn't be surprised if their post IS determined to be a violation.

If such disclaimers were ever treated as insulation to consequence, then we would have a policy similar to our practice of requesting OP's to put *spoiler* in their title when discussing a new media release.

When a poster says "if this is against the rules..." the possibility has clearly occurred to them. They are continuing anyway. How is being the consequence a sign of "attitude"?

  • 06.23.2012 6:21 PM PDT

Key


Posted by: Recon Number 54
How is being the consequence a sign of "attitude"?
Because that's where intent comes in to play. If someone says something like that, it means that they're clearly not purposely trying to step over that line, they're just trying to discuss what they want to discuss, hoping that it isn't later found to have crossed it.

There are plenty of posters out there who will make topics about a persons orientation, 9/11, the German national socialist party and the subsequent genocide which followed shortly after their creation, politics, and so on, with full intent to step over that line. Some of those people, like those who forewarn people or put in a disclaimer that lets your know that they're aware this could be a grey area but don't think it's against the rules, post and just hope a mod never sees them. Others don't care about getting banned because they don't care about the site, others because they can just make an alt. The point is that there are people out there who blatantly and flagrantly cross that line on a regular or semi-regular basis (relatively) without any regard for the rules or whether or not they've crossed them.

Those people, the ones who do this sort of stuff on purpose, should not be given the same punishments as those who've legitimately tried to stay on the "okay"-side of things while at the same time attempting to discuss a grey-ish area.

This is why 1st degree murder and negligent homicide are two different things.

  • 06.23.2012 6:31 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

I <3 you too Bungie


Posted by: Recon Number 54
Thank you for clarifying. The fact that you discerned that this is "the attitude" from daz's reply is interesting and curious.

My interpretation of his reply (and "attitude" if you will) is that any member who feels that a disclaimer "I admit that this is on the line, it's not my fault if it crosses the line" is pointless and clearly shows that the poster themselves understands that they are in risky territory, but is trying to mitigate the risk and prevent any undesired consequence... that member shouldn't be surprised if their post IS determined to be a violation.

If such disclaimers were ever treated as insulation to consequence, then we would have a policy similar to our practice of requesting OP's to put *spoiler* in their title when discussing a new media release.

When a poster says "if this is against the rules..." the possibility has clearly occurred to them. They are continuing anyway. How is being the consequence a sign of "attitude"?

You're right that I'm inferring attitude. The fact that he chose to speak from the perspective of all the mods saying, "we don't need someone to tell us that" is a little off-putting. It communicates a couple of things.

1. He feels that this is a universal truth and he can speak for all of you guys.

2. User intent doesn't really matter, the moderator collective opinion or deduction of user intent does; so don't bother trying to be explicit.

I think we all know that members can post very insulting or inappropriate things that, when divorced of context, are perfectly in-bounds. If a user is saying something like "If this is against the rules..." in an OP, he's probably trying to explain his thinking since there is no context. That's been the reason when I've said similar things.

I agree it shouldn't be a blanket pardon, but it should register for you guys when considering possible moderation, and I think it's unwise to point users away from being personally invested in their ideas, to the point of feeling that they need to explain them when they may be in a gray area.

  • 06.23.2012 6:35 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Well, here we are. I guess that it was destined to come to this.

Posted by: CrazzySnipe55
Posted by: Recon Number 54
How is being the consequence a sign of "attitude"?
Because that's where intent comes in to play. If someone says something like that, it means that they're clearly not purposely trying to step over that line, they're just trying to discuss what they want to discuss, hoping that it isn't later found to have crossed it.

But if a disclaimer is an accepted method of saying "I don't intend to break rules" and we were to practice a "they put in a disclaimer, no bans", then where would we be?

We would still have to judge the intent and sincerity of the disclaimer. Which we do already. But if we were to make it a known practice that "make a disclaimer, get the benefit of the doubt", then every spam post would have a copy-paste disclaimer, just to try. And then disclaimers would be worthless.

  • 06.23.2012 6:35 PM PDT

Owning Noobs Since 05

"I want to die peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather. Not screaming in terror like his passengers."

Jim Harkins

If I make a thread that makes me question if I'm crossing the line, I PM a mod about it. If the mod gives me an ok to go ahead and make the thread, then at the end of the thread I put something like

MOD A
Approved this thread


That way if mod B sees my thread and doesnt agree with it, he can see that mod A approved my thread. That way I wont get a warning or get banned for making my thread. If they really have a problem with my thread Mod B could talk to Mod A about it. Most mods will pm you fairly quick. So I don't see why people don't PM mods if they question the thread that they are about to make.


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^
FALSE DOCTRINE!



Skip Cortland_Brewer's post and you'll get TRUE Doctrine.
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV

[Edited on 06.23.2012 7:15 PM PDT]

  • 06.23.2012 6:44 PM PDT

There is a certain point of tolerance that should never be reached.

What about appeals then? If you are going to ban us, at least let us make a case. I've never been approved for an appeal, and most of my stuff is nice. The worst thing I've ever posted was a video of "SFW Pr0nz", and I got a warning. On the other end of the spectrum, I've been banned for 2 weeks for making a thread loosely based around the events of Halo: The Fall of Reach on the Flood.

Can I at least get a reply in this thread? Come on, this used to be an awesome community.

  • 06.23.2012 6:47 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Well, here we are. I guess that it was destined to come to this.


Posted by: Verachi
If I make a thread that makes me question if I'm crossing the line, I PM a mod about it. If the mod gives me an ok to go ahead and make the thread, then at the end of the thread I put something like

MOD A
Approved this thread


That way if mod B sees my thread and doesnt agree with it, he can see that mod A approved my thread. That way I wont get a warning or get banned for making my thread. If they really have a problem with my thread Mod B could talk to Mod A about it. Most mods will pm you fairly quick. So I don't see why people don't PM mods if they question the thread that they are about to make.

No moderator that I know of will EVER pre-approve a topic. And we each know that our participation in a thread is not a sanction or certification of that thread. It certainly does not and should not prohibit another moderator from acting on their own judgement should they determine that it breaks rules.

  • 06.23.2012 6:48 PM PDT

Owning Noobs Since 05

"I want to die peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather. Not screaming in terror like his passengers."

Jim Harkins


Posted by: Recon Number 54
No moderator that I know of will EVER pre-approve a topic. And we each know that our participation in a thread is not a sanction or certification of that thread. It certainly does not and should not prohibit another moderator from acting on their own judgement should they determine that it breaks rules.


I swear I have PM'd mods before I made a thread that I questioned. I could be wrong though. I might look through my PM's to see if I find anything.

  • 06.23.2012 6:53 PM PDT

Key


Posted by: Recon Number 54
Posted by: CrazzySnipe55
Posted by: Recon Number 54
How is being the consequence a sign of "attitude"?
Because that's where intent comes in to play. If someone says something like that, it means that they're clearly not purposely trying to step over that line, they're just trying to discuss what they want to discuss, hoping that it isn't later found to have crossed it.

But if a disclaimer is an accepted method of saying "I don't intend to break rules" and we were to practice a "they put in a disclaimer, no bans", then where would we be?

We would still have to judge the intent and sincerity of the disclaimer. Which we do already. But if we were to make it a known practice that "make a disclaimer, get the benefit of the doubt", then every spam post would have a copy-paste disclaimer, just to try. And then disclaimers would be worthless.
Well obviously expressed intent along with moderator judgement should be taken into consideration, but intent should still be a factor. Expressed intent (or denial/lack thereof) is one of many (or a few, depending on the situation) factors that should be taken into consideration when looking at any given post.

Obviously if someone says...
I'm not sure if this is against the rules or not, so report me if it is......and then proceeds to go on a rant about how much they f-ing hate f-ing democrats (ironically enough, using liberal evasion of the profanity filter as they go), they should clearly not have any sort of reduction put on their ban or moderation decision based on their expressed denial of intent.

However, if someone does the same thing and makes a thread about whether or not banks are a good system and how they could be ruining the global economy, not sure of whether or not it's political, and then a moderator sees their post and thinks some of the point could foster or are directly referring to political talk, that person should not get the same punishment as someone who makes a thread about what a terrible politician Mit Romney is and how he's going to destroy America with his Mormon witchcraft.

  • 06.23.2012 6:56 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Well, here we are. I guess that it was destined to come to this.

Posted by: Verachi
Posted by: Recon Number 54
No moderator that I know of will EVER pre-approve a topic. And we each know that our participation in a thread is not a sanction or certification of that thread. It certainly does not and should not prohibit another moderator from acting on their own judgement should they determine that it breaks rules.

I swear I have PM'd mods before I made a thread that I questioned. I could be wrong though. I might look through my PM's to see if I find anything.

I would imagine (or at least hope) that any reply to a pre-screen request for a questionable topic would be "if you are really unsure, don't" or at least "if you are that unsure, don't be surprised by the outcome/consequence".

Though I do get (and try to assist with) "where should I post this?" questions. My response to that inquiry is not the same as a sanction though. Especially since ANY thread can "go south".

  • 06.23.2012 6:58 PM PDT

“Oh, it’s a little bit of everything, it’s the mountains, it’s the fog, it’s the news at six o’clock, it’s the death of my first dog, it’s the angels up above me, it’s the song that they don’t sing, It’s a little bit of everything.”
- Dawes, A little bit of everything

If this doesn't belong here, please give me Recon armor in Halo 3.

  • 06.23.2012 7:10 PM PDT

Owning Noobs Since 05

"I want to die peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather. Not screaming in terror like his passengers."

Jim Harkins


Posted by: Recon Number 54
Posted by: Verachi
Posted by: Recon Number 54
No moderator that I know of will EVER pre-approve a topic. And we each know that our participation in a thread is not a sanction or certification of that thread. It certainly does not and should not prohibit another moderator from acting on their own judgement should they determine that it breaks rules.

I swear I have PM'd mods before I made a thread that I questioned. I could be wrong though. I might look through my PM's to see if I find anything.

I would imagine (or at least hope) that any reply to a pre-screen request for a questionable topic would be "if you are really unsure, don't" or at least "if you are that unsure, don't be surprised by the outcome/consequence".

Though I do get (and try to assist with) "where should I post this?" questions. My response to that inquiry is not the same as a sanction though. Especially since ANY thread can "go south".


Yep I was wrong, you were right. I PM'd Yoozel back in 08 asking him where I should post a thread, I guess I posted a thread in the wrong forum and got blacklisted. I completly remembered that incident wrong. Sorry ya'll

  • 06.23.2012 7:14 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Do you like Yax? I do.

*if this post breaks the rules please don't ban me*

It's like a get out of jail free card.

  • 06.23.2012 7:15 PM PDT

Posted by: Recon Number 54

Posted by: Verachi
If I make a thread that makes me question if I'm crossing the line, I PM a mod about it. If the mod gives me an ok to go ahead and make the thread, then at the end of the thread I put something like

MOD A
Approved this thread


That way if mod B sees my thread and doesnt agree with it, he can see that mod A approved my thread. That way I wont get a warning or get banned for making my thread. If they really have a problem with my thread Mod B could talk to Mod A about it. Most mods will pm you fairly quick. So I don't see why people don't PM mods if they question the thread that they are about to make.

No moderator that I know of will EVER pre-approve a topic. And we each know that our participation in a thread is not a sanction or certification of that thread. It certainly does not and should not prohibit another moderator from acting on their own judgement should they determine that it breaks rules.
What was the story with this? Extenuating circumstances?

[Edited on 06.23.2012 7:19 PM PDT]

  • 06.23.2012 7:19 PM PDT

There is a certain point of tolerance that should never be reached.

I'm not trying to sound like a whinny brat over here, but these don't sound like actual rules to me. From what I've gathered, If 99/100 mods approve my thread, but mod 100 doesn't, I still get banned/warned. What's the point of enforcing vague rules? If we're not 100% on why we were blacklisted in the first place, we're probably going to eventually make the same mistake again, and learn nothing from it.

Recon, you've admitted that you and the rest of your mods make judgement calls based on how you feel. That leads me to believe there isn't much of a guide line, or you guys just don't follow it very well (I've always assumed the former, but some people think the latter is true).

Sometimes, you can make a Brony thread, and mods will contribute to the thread, and everything is cool. Other times, you can get banned for weeks for the same thread.

Anything with the word "Porch" in it, instantly gets locked/banned, yet it is nowhere in the rules. I know the rule, as well as the reason behind it, but somebody else may not.

What I'm getting at is the rules are not always comprehensive. Sometimes, we make honest mistakes, and honestly, even with the rules in mind, we don't realize we are breaking rules, because most of them aren't specific.

If I need to make an independent thread on this topic, I will, I just need to know where it should go.

  • 06.23.2012 8:02 PM PDT

Perpetual Ninja in training.

"If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe."

DMH

Los Paranoias

It only peeves me when it't not appropriate.

  • 06.23.2012 9:03 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

It was once said that a million monkeys at a million keyboards could reproduce the works of shakespeare... Now thanks to the internet we know that this is not true
==============================================
No programmer can pick up a TV remote without thinking what it would take to add a stun gun. [...] Their motto is 'if it ain't broke, it doesn't have enough features yet

Here is what they are really saying.

"I know that this thread is pretty much a violation. However I will gladly take a lock instead of a ban. Please don't ban me"

  • 06.23.2012 9:34 PM PDT

[In Trance we Trust]
[Member Since: 03.25.2008]
[I am the Forum Psychologist]
[This is what I look like.]
Electronic Based Group. Join if you love Electronic Music and all of its subgenres.
[I listen to Trance, Hardstyle, Dubstep, Techno, and everything else Electronic]

I'm not afraid of bans. I'm afraid of my title bar. D;


Posted by: Skibur
Posted by: Recon Number 54
I am convinced that it is consequences (or unfavorable outcomes) that people don't like, don't want, and sometimes fear. Not me.
Well duh.

No one is afraid of you, they're afraid of you banning them.

  • 06.23.2012 9:39 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Well, here we are. I guess that it was destined to come to this.

Posted by: RC 1207 Sev
What was the story with this? Extenuating circumstances?

Good question. I can't say for certain as I suspect that I would be putting words into the mouth of someone else.

I can observe that it was made 4 years ago. But as to the reasoning behind a "mod approval"? I don't know enough to say for certain.

  • 06.23.2012 9:39 PM PDT

[In Trance we Trust]
[Member Since: 03.25.2008]
[I am the Forum Psychologist]
[This is what I look like.]
Electronic Based Group. Join if you love Electronic Music and all of its subgenres.
[I listen to Trance, Hardstyle, Dubstep, Techno, and everything else Electronic]

A better answer would be: It's the Halo 3 Forum.


Posted by: Recon Number 54
Posted by: RC 1207 Sev
What was the story with this? Extenuating circumstances?

Good question. I can't say for certain as I suspect that I would be putting words into the mouth of someone else.

I can observe that it was made 4 years ago. But as to the reasoning behind a "mod approval"? I don't know enough to say for certain.

  • 06.23.2012 9:41 PM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • of 3