Putting aside melbye's post for a moment, I think it might in fact be a good idea for the mod team to reconsider their stance on how they go about the process of actually moderating. Having all mods need to weigh in on pretty much every single decision, is a rather cripplingly ineffective way of doing business. Sure, it has the benefit of making sure everyone's always got their asses covered, because if there's a mistake, misjudgment, etc. it's on everyone....but at what cost?
As Hiku just admitted, and as I know from personal experience, this process is simply too slow to be satisfactory for anyone. Users feel frustrated that things aren't getting done, and - unless I was completely alone in that boat - I'm pretty sure mods are often frustrated just the same. Most decisions are really fairly straight forward, and don't require this huge brainstorm. I mean really, if you're on the mod team, after a certain amount of time there's simply gotta be a trust between you all that you know what you're doing. If there isn't, if there are people there that you feel shouldn't be moderating without supervision...well then you gotta drop them.
Now, nobody's perfect, so of course there's gonna be some decisions made now and again that need a second look. A correction here and there. Each individual mod is less shielded by the whole. But that's ok. Or at least it should be.
Even in cases such as with CaptainExplosion, who perhaps requires a more in depth discussion on how to handle him long term, they could easily be placed on a shorter leave of absence by a single moderator taking action, to allow for that discussion between mods to take place without giving that user the opportunity to continue being disruptive, or giving the impression to the community that you're letting certain behavior stand.
Just my two cents.
Yeah, CGI (Or Ryuu) actually brought up this subject recently. We haven't gotten far in discussing it though, because as you probably know, we're often busy with more urgent subjects.
One issue we have is that once a ban period has been set, we can't alter it after the fact. There was one time we banned a user for a few days, but then right after that, we noticed that they had made several other posts that we missed, which would warrant a much longer ban period. But we couldn't change it. So our only option would be to wait until the original ban period expires, and then retroactively apply the rest of the days. But that can be pretty confusing for the member, and some mods didn't like that idea for various reasons, and it became a whole thing.
When/if Talon comes back, we may be able to change the moderation tools to allow us to adjust ban periods, for reasons such as the one you mentioned.
And yeah, like yourself, me and I'm sure other members of the staff can also get frustrated with how long it can take to handle one moderation.
Unlike what Melbye may believe, I wished this was over and done with quickly.
But I also understand why we do it this way, and the benefits of getting a lot of different inputs before reaching a conclusion.
It has resulted in 'better accuracy', at the cost of taking longer. The question is if it's worth it in the long run.
Also Melbye and everyone else who read that CaptainExplosion comment, you may be interested to know that we were actually discussing potentially banning him from political threads altogether. But ultimately, because of his mod history (which is another factor we review before making decision) we decided that he'll get a chance to show improvement. But next time he makes a similar comment, it will be best for everyone if he's just kept out of that section.
If it was a permaban or even an extended ban i would understand that it might take some discussion, but you really need to discuss for 3 days if you are going to ban someone for 2-3 days?
Yes. Even if someone barely did anything wrong, and we're just going to give them a reminder through PM, that too can take 3 days, if not more.
Last edited by Hiku - on 07 February 2020
The reason for that is, I can't decide on my own that that's the only thing we need to do. Even if it seems obvious.
The time it takes isn't necessarily a testament to how much is discussed either. As it is how long it can take for enough people to 1.) review posts in the thread, 2.) review members prior mod notes/past transgressions, 3.) voice their opinions in chat and wait for others to do the same, before making follow up comments, etc. It's mainly the last part that can take time.