Forums - Website Topics - The Moderator Thread

I'll put the current results here one last time before I post a new poll:

The "Don't Call Somebody a Troll Rule" - Should it Exist?

Yes - Keep It As Is 18 62.07%
 
No - Get Rid of It 6 20.69%
 
Yes - But Alter Is (Comment in thread) 5 17.24%
 
See Results 0 0.00%
 
Total: 29


Around the Network

The next community consultation involves the Progressive Moderation System.  

Rule #1 in our Forum Rules is as follows:

Moderation on VGChartz. VGChartz uses a progressive moderation system as a basic guideline for moderating users. This means that repeats of similar offenses will often result in harsher penalties, starting with a warning and working up.

  • Any level of progression when it comes to ban length may be skipped in especially serious/heinous cases.
  • In the same way, moderators may be more lenient when issuing a moderation period, due to a myriad of reasons (usually participating in the forums for a period of time without breaking the following rules). This leniency is of course at the discretion of the moderator.
  • Generally, permanent bans are only handed out for extreme rule breaking, continued repeat offenses of the same rules, or actions that threaten the site's ability to function. However, the administrators and moderators reserve the right to permanently ban your account at any time if they feel you are a poor fit for the community, or a threat to the site. This will only be done through a consensus among the moderating staff.
  • New accounts (Either in activity [less than 200 posts] or time [less than 3 months of participation]) that only offer trolling, flaming, or spam-type posts, will suffer harsher moderation or may be permanently banned immediately, at the discretion of the individual moderator. You are subject to moderation for breaking any of the following forum rules in addition to anything in the Terms of Use.

The progression generally goes:

Warning - 1 day - 3 days - 5 days - 7 days - 10 days - 14 days - 20 days..

Somebody moderated for the first time for something will receive a warning.  Somebody moderated for the same thing over and over again will receive progressively longer bans.  This is a system that has been in place for a long time.  It avoids punishing people for one slip up within a long, good history.  It creates longer bans for people who ignore earlier warnings.  Most of our members appears to understand this, but there is occassionally some confusion when one user receives a 7 day ban and another user receives a warning for similar activity.

My questions are:
- Do you understand the progressive moderation system?
- Do you think it's a fair system?
- Would another system make more sense, such as tying ban length to the severity of the post(s), despite past behaviour?



CGI-Quality said:
Goodnightmoon said:

So we have to play the game in which we act like we don't know the intentions of otherts even when they are so obvious? This is one pof those things I find hard to understand about this place, we have users that constantly lie trying to create an atmosphere of pessimism around the thing they fear (this is not the worse case though) and we all know it, but it is accepted, i cannot refute his "opinion" because is just that, an opinion, but I can make him know how obvious the intentions behind those comments are in hope that they don't repeat them so often. I won't report him because I don't think he should be banned for that at all, but some consequence is needed I think, and I don't see other way appart form ignore it, which I trouble with.

Several things -

1. An opinion can be refuted. If what he said was factual, then I'd agree. But, unless you're saying that it is, you can present a counter argument. If he is lying, explain how? What in his wording is deceptive? You can't say it's irrefutable and then try to dismantle it with "if a user is lying". Lying how?

2. There isn't a game, here. Many, many posters on this site don't stoop to a level of attacking a user personally that they don't agree with and get by just fine. You're capable of it, which then leads to...

3. (The Bold) If you have trouble ignoring something, then that is a situation you need to deal with on your own terms. 

4. If you know his intentions, then report it. If that is not something you'd prefer to do, then other options are available to you. Attacking him personally, however, isn't one of them.

Discussion moved over from this thread: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=225519

Quick summary: The member Dr. Vita posted one of his usual throwaway comments regarding Nintendo, got called out for it by Goodnightmoon, mod shows up to address Goodnightmoon but not Dr. Vita.

1. There's a language barrier here. It's not lying, what is really meant is feigning and pretending interest. I think Dr. Vita's posting history is so blatant that we can skip the question whether or not he is a PlayStation-only gamer with no actual interest in other gaming systems.

2-4. It is sort of a game. The community gets asked to beat around the bush, although it should be obvious what is going on to everyone who is a VGC regular. The proposed solutions of the mod above do not work. Ignoring a problem doesn't make it go away. Reporting the posts doesn't amount to anything, because this level of trolling is too harmless to face consequences. Addressing the posts in a constructive manner (what Veknoid has done in the linked thread) usually ends with Dr. Vita not providing any response.

The bottom line is that Dr. Vita stops by in Nintendo threads, makes short comments and isn't held accountable in any form because he tends to ignore actual discussion. What makes this worse is that responses to Dr. Vita's posts seem to trigger reports, and if a mod shows up, only one side is getting called out, as if the mod team is oblivious to what is going on. It can be argued that attacks on Dr. Vita are the consequence of an inactive mod team which makes it all the more wrong when the community then gets asked by the mod team to rely on solutions that clearly do not work.

Moderations for Dr. Vita are too extreme (heck, you can see above that Goodnightmoon doesn't even ask for moderations), but the request that Dr. Vita should be held accountable for his posts in Nintendo threads... that is absolutely fair. That's something that the mod team should be doing. If someone cares enough to post in a thread, they should care enough to explain their stance. What's that rule?

"Do not just post 'Item A sucks', explain why you think so."

Dr. Vita constantly posts one-liners with the message "bad Nintendo is bad", even if it's in a mild form. You aren't going to moderate him for such posts, but that doesn't mean that this habitual behavior should be condoned by the mod team.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club

Miguel_Zorro said:

The next community consultation involves the Progressive Moderation System.  

(...)

The progression generally goes:

Warning - 1 day - 3 days - 5 days - 7 days - 10 days - 14 days - 20 days..

Somebody moderated for the first time for something will receive a warning.  Somebody moderated for the same thing over and over again will receive progressively longer bans.  This is a system that has been in place for a long time.  It avoids punishing people for one slip up within a long, good history.  It creates longer bans for people who ignore earlier warnings.  Most of our members appears to understand this, but there is occassionally some confusion when one user receives a 7 day ban and another user receives a warning for similar activity.

My questions are:
- Do you understand the progressive moderation system?
- Do you think it's a fair system?
- Would another system make more sense, such as tying ban length to the severity of the post(s), despite past behaviour?

It's a fair system and it has proven to be successful to correct the behavior of hotheaded people. Of course it doesn't work on people who aren't interested in integration within our community, but no system could achieve the impossible.

Your suggestion is a bad idea, because it doesn't help the people that can be saved, but at the same time it helps the people who want to make trouble.

In any case, if the currently used system wasn't good, it would have been changed a long time ago. Its only real flaw is that it depends on human judgment calls which at times might be too lenient or too harsh, but that's mitigated by the ability to make appeals.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club

RolStoppable said:
Miguel_Zorro said:

The next community consultation involves the Progressive Moderation System.  

(...)

The progression generally goes:

Warning - 1 day - 3 days - 5 days - 7 days - 10 days - 14 days - 20 days..

Somebody moderated for the first time for something will receive a warning.  Somebody moderated for the same thing over and over again will receive progressively longer bans.  This is a system that has been in place for a long time.  It avoids punishing people for one slip up within a long, good history.  It creates longer bans for people who ignore earlier warnings.  Most of our members appears to understand this, but there is occassionally some confusion when one user receives a 7 day ban and another user receives a warning for similar activity.

My questions are:
- Do you understand the progressive moderation system?
- Do you think it's a fair system?
- Would another system make more sense, such as tying ban length to the severity of the post(s), despite past behaviour?

It's a fair system and it has proven to be successful to correct the behavior of hotheaded people. Of course it doesn't work on people who aren't interested in integration within our community, but no system could achieve the impossible.

Your suggestion is a bad idea, because it doesn't help the people that can be saved, but at the same time it helps the people who want to make trouble.

In any case, if the currently used system wasn't good, it would have been changed a long time ago. Its only real flaw is that it depends on human judgment calls which at times might be too lenient or too harsh, but that's mitigated by the ability to make appeals.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting a change.  I'm just pointing out one of the alternatives.  I'll be doing the same for most of the Forum Rules.

Personally, I support the Progressive System.



Around the Network
Miguel_Zorro said:

Personally, I support the Progressive System.

Yep! Has been quite useful and I see no reason to change it.



                                                                                                             

RolStoppable said:
CGI-Quality said:

Several things -

1. An opinion can be refuted. If what he said was factual, then I'd agree. But, unless you're saying that it is, you can present a counter argument. If he is lying, explain how? What in his wording is deceptive? You can't say it's irrefutable and then try to dismantle it with "if a user is lying". Lying how?

2. There isn't a game, here. Many, many posters on this site don't stoop to a level of attacking a user personally that they don't agree with and get by just fine. You're capable of it, which then leads to...

3. (The Bold) If you have trouble ignoring something, then that is a situation you need to deal with on your own terms. 

4. If you know his intentions, then report it. If that is not something you'd prefer to do, then other options are available to you. Attacking him personally, however, isn't one of them.

Discussion moved over from this thread: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=225519

Quick summary: The member Dr. Vita posted one of his usual throwaway comments regarding Nintendo, got called out for it by Goodnightmoon, mod shows up to address Goodnightmoon but not Dr. Vita.

1. There's a language barrier here. It's not lying, what is really meant is feigning and pretending interest. I think Dr. Vita's posting history is so blatant that we can skip the question whether or not he is a PlayStation-only gamer with no actual interest in other gaming systems.

2-4. It is sort of a game. The community gets asked to beat around the bush, although it should be obvious what is going on to everyone who is a VGC regular. The proposed solutions of the mod above do not work. Ignoring a problem doesn't make it go away. Reporting the posts doesn't amount to anything, because this level of trolling is too harmless to face consequences. Addressing the posts in a constructive manner (what Veknoid has done in the linked thread) usually ends with Dr. Vita not providing any response.

The bottom line is that Dr. Vita stops by in Nintendo threads, makes short comments and isn't held accountable in any form because he tends to ignore actual discussion. What makes this worse is that responses to Dr. Vita's posts seem to trigger reports, and if a mod shows up, only one side is getting called out, as if the mod team is oblivious to what is going on. It can be argued that attacks on Dr. Vita are the consequence of an inactive mod team which makes it all the more wrong when the community then gets asked by the mod team to rely on solutions that clearly do not work.

Moderations for Dr. Vita are too extreme (heck, you can see above that Goodnightmoon doesn't even ask for moderations), but the request that Dr. Vita should be held accountable for his posts in Nintendo threads... that is absolutely fair. That's something that the mod team should be doing. If someone cares enough to post in a thread, they should care enough to explain their stance. What's that rule?

"Do not just post 'Item A sucks', explain why you think so."

Dr. Vita constantly posts one-liners with the message "bad Nintendo is bad", even if it's in a mild form. You aren't going to moderate him for such posts, but that doesn't mean that this habitual behavior should be condoned by the mod team.

I'll go ahead and agree with this - partly.  A member of the moderation team should be in there calling on Dr. Vita to explain his stance and to provide more justification for comments like that.  Perhaps when we get additional mods hired, that will be more feasible.  But even then, we won't read every single post in real time.  I like to think that if somebody had reported Dr. Vita's post instead of responding the way GNM did, that would have happened.

I do think that ignoring is at least partly effective.  If somebody is trolling, they become bored without an audience to respond to.

Another option, if somebody really felt the need to respond, would be to explain why it's NOT a weak statement from Nintendo.  It could be pointed out how common it is to stagger releases in the industry, how spreading them out over time allows Nintendo to release different bundles throughout the year.  It both the game industry and in other industries such as movies, releases are actively shifted to avoid colliding with major releases.  It's widely accepted to be the right strategy vs. releasing everything simultaneously.



Im really glad that I find this thread. I will start with clarification - I am not a fan of "report button", I have report like 3 people ( one moderator included if I remember correctly ), so I want to talk with u here to get a better view of whats goin on.

Problem #1 - off topic post.
It happens very often, some users act like there is no such a thing as off topic post. Moreover, the habit with these post, that I can see is " platform X is better "

For example, lets say that there is a discussion about flash sales on PSN, discounts. It happens very often that users that are known as non-Playstation gamers bring other topics into the discussion, like " sure its good but there are better deals somewhere else ".

Another example - last thread about PSN revenues vs Nintendo. A lot of users came to thread only to point out that revenues=/=profits. The discuss simply was bring it to the point " why Nintendo something "etc.

Also, a lot of these post are simply offensive.
Alkibiádēs
Alkibiádēs
online Currently Online
3,643
1118 posts since 13/06/15
Recent Badges:
Alkibiádēs 8 hours ago
Too bad their profits are lower than Nintendo's.

"The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must" - Thoukydides



Miguel_Zorro said:
RolStoppable said:

- snip

I'll go ahead and agree with this - partly.  A member of the moderation team should be in there calling on Dr. Vita to explain his stance and to provide more justification for comments like that.  Perhaps when we get additional mods hired, that will be more feasible.  But even then, we won't read every single post in real time.  I like to think that if somebody had reported Dr. Vita's post instead of responding the way GNM did, that would have happened.

I do think that ignoring is at least partly effective.  If somebody is trolling, they become bored without an audience to respond to.

Another option, if somebody really felt the need to respond, would be to explain why it's NOT a weak statement from Nintendo.  It could be pointed out how common it is to stagger releases in the industry, how spreading them out over time allows Nintendo to release different bundles throughout the year.  It both the game industry and in other industries such as movies, releases are actively shifted to avoid colliding with major releases.  It's widely accepted to be the right strategy vs. releasing everything simultaneously.

This can be adjusted, surely. However, the issue wasn't specifically Goodnight's reply. There just needed to be a reminder of what was stated earlier - that the forums aren't a free-for-all on a poster, personally. 

On the flip side, Vita could have elaborated and anyone could have asked for such a response, myself included. So there is some food for thought.

Heck, people could have even let Vita's response be enough to bypass him entirely (or report it) to keep the thread moving along and not be derailed with an off-topic discussion (which goes well with your two middle sentences :p).



                                                                                                             

Tagged