Unfair moderations

[Giordano Bruno 1974]

You have a short memory if you don't remember any sob stories. I don't want to go into individual cases but they usually go along the lines of "All I said was X and now I've been moderated" or "I did say X but look how provoked I was".

I see one in which they blamed their 'brother'. Have there been any others this year?

And how many complaints of other kinds have you seen?

Best if I don't quote threads that got locked or posts that got deleted but there have been a fair few recently if you look through the forum.

Though some may have had a point (though I can't be sure because I don't have all the info).

[qwertasdfg]

• Player X reports against Player A. This is the last involvement Player X ever has, not even receiving notification of the outcome.

I should also add that the report author can comment on the report until the report is closed with a verdict. Though this sees little utilization due to the lack of notifications to the report author when calls for additional information is made and the difficulties in locating said report. Calls for additional information is also rarely necessary due to the game histories being freely available and the requirement of the report author to specify the offense.

yeah, it would be good if the author would get notified (i guess it would already be possible via chat) when more information is needed.

If not, then maybe let the author comment on the report for some additional time, after the report has been marked as 'closed'. So to say, an extra state of the report, that might show the verdict and lets the author comment for an extra day or two

[Ryusan]

Suggestions: (And yes, I realize this will require an overhaul and more work for the moderators.)

• When a report is submitted, the chat log is stripped of player names. Instead of the log being
  <Alice>:I have something to say
  <Bob>: I have something to say about Alice
  <Charlie>:I want to talk too.
  the moderator will only recieve
  <P1>:I have something to say
  <P2>: I have something to say about P1.
  <P3>:I want to talk too.
  While the replacement of the author of a chat statement is trivial, extending that to messages (and accounting for misspellings/finger slips) is not.
• Reports should not include the report history of the participant. Guilt should not be determined by past behavior, although punishment should be increased for repeat offenders.
• Since reports are tied to activity that happened at a table, multiple reports at a single table should be bundled together. It is quite possible that multiple parties are in the wrong.
• Reports are sent to at least two separate moderators, who can respond "innocent | borderline | guilty | severe" or something similar. (Borderline being "I don't trust myself to make a clear decision on this matter, but can support an innocent or guilty decision from someone else.") If both moderators give the same or similar responses, punishment is either automatic or with tightly-defined guides.
• First time offenders get a detailed explanation of the decision. "While Player1 is in an unwinnable position, calling them a loser is not acceptable" vs "You engaged in insulting behavior." Repeats of the same type of offense do not need this extra step, but players who get moderated for two different types of offenses should have clarification.
• All players involved will recive notification of the outcome of the report, even if there was no punishment. This will let Player A know they engaged in behavior that was objectionable to someone, and Player X know if perhaps they are more sensitive than the moderators.
• Appeals are routed to a moderator not involved in the original decision. Only they can email the original moderator(s) if they need clarification. The first appeal always gets a response, even if it is a form letter of "the beginning of your appeal is aggressive in nature, it has been ignored without being fully read." Requiring responses on further communication would result in trolls, so there is no need for that.

As someone who recently received a 10 day ban for my criticisms on the forum (you can read exactly what post it was in one of the locked threads), I think these are great suggestions!

I would also add that sentencing/punishment should be added in the moderation policy. I see that Mach3Racer and ZeMonstah, users who were also very critical in the forums, received 30 days bans. I think it is important that punishment is given out in a consistent manner and as transparently as possible. There should be specific sentencing guidelines with ban and karma ranges that mods can use to guide their decisions.

While I do have qualms that I also returned with 0 karma after my ban which meant that I was not allowed to use the chat to explain why my karma was so low in games (resulting in people getting mad at me and possibly giving me more red thumbs for not communicating in the co-op games I play), that is now in the past.

I think moving forward, it will be important that criticism is focused on how to change things for the better, rather than complain about things from the past (unless it is to provide an example of something, such as heavy handedness).

Those are my thoughts, as a lawyer IRL, I look forward to this thread because I think it could potentially result in bettering not only the moderation system, but the site as a whole.

Thank you.

[N_Faker]

I would also add that sentencing/punishment should be added in the moderation policy. I see that Mach3Racer and ZeMonstah, users who were also very critical in the forums, received 30 days bans. I think it is important that punishment is given out in a consistent manner and as transparently as possible. There should be specific sentencing guidelines with ban and karma ranges that mods can use to guide their decisions.

Moderation policy.

I think I have seen you talk about the moderation policy before, so I assume you know that there are comparably vague guidelines and ranges, and that you are calling for greater specificity in that regard.

[Ryusan]

Glad to see there have actually been some updates to the moderation policy since I originally brought it up a few months ago. There should still be more definitions in my opinion (or at least more details like the "Details on Avatar policy" section). It's a good start so far, but lots more work to do.

For example, the penalty for insults says, "Forbid to chat or publish for 30 days for small insults and insanity, forever for real insults. In any case: the player should be warn that this is the last warning before ban."

There should be further clarification of what is a "small insult", what is "insanity", and what is a "real insult". The terms sound very vague and I have no clue what "insanity" is...

[N_Faker]

Glad to see there have actually been some updates to the moderation policy since I originally brought it up a few months ago.

You seem to be mistaken in this, the last edit to the moderation policy was done on 2019-11-27. And it hasn't had any major changes to the penalty grid since its creation.

[Ryusan]

I received a moderation that I contested about 3 months ago. I can guarantee that between then a now, there have been changes made to the moderation policy. I read it very thoroughly in making my argument.