Forums - Website Topics - The Moderator Thread

I just try to stop fucking with people that make stupid posts.

 

Is there any time frame from a warning to the next questionable post before you get banned?  Like after 6 months or a year the warning expires and you get to have another warning if it isn't that bad of a post which would warrant a ban. 



Around the Network
CGI-Quality said:

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).

 

sethnintendo said:

I just try to stop fucking with people that make stupid posts.

 

Is there any time frame from a warning to the next questionable post before you get banned?  Like after 6 months or a year the warning expires and you get to have another warning if it isn't that bad of a post which would warrant a ban. 

Yup, as a user I used to just bypass posts like that.

Generally around 6 months.  But if it's really awful or exactly the same behaviour, a warning likely wouldn't be sufficient.



Miguel_Zorro said:

(...)

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?

I like this. Even though I think the rule should not be changed, I like this thinking outside the box.

My personal view on point 3 is that, if a user is really being destructive to the community, I would like to see that user punished more severely.

However, the system works since it can be used for that, because a more aggressive moderation of a user would lead to more frequent bans and hence longer bans.

Thus if a user is being harmful to the community, the frequency of bans will satisfy the need for stronger correction (as it leads to a longer total ban length over a series of bans).

 

Having said all that.... sniff... I still think the best way to help a turbulent user is through encouragement and big brother type PMs and help.

It's what was done for me and I am very thankful for it, I think this kind of practice should only grow.



Miguel_Zorro said:

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.

I know that it was an example. I commented on it because you made it. Nothing more, nothing less.

Miguel_Zorro said:

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.

What I think that happened is that GNM's post got reported. GNM's post contained the entirety of Dr. Vita's contributions to the thread up to that point, so even if a mod is in a hurry and doesn't have the time to review the entire context, in this particular instance the entire context was actually present. Sure, you can't read every single post, but in this instance that cannot be an issue. The alternative is that GNM's post did not get reported, so the mod in question (CGI-Quality) was reading through the thread; in that case an excuse that some of the context was missing wouldn't hold true to begin with.

I don't think that reporting Dr. Vita would trigger any visible reaction by the mod team, because the posts are too harmless in isolation. What triggered GNM's response is a long-running pattern. I don't think that ignoring would work in this specific case, because Dr. Vita has no interest to enter an argument; it simply isn't his goal, so a lack of responses wouldn't make him stop what he is doing. Veknoid provided an argument and asked Dr. Vita to elaborate, but unsurprisingly there was no response. The community is given three respectable options (as in, perceived by the mod team, not by me) to deal with Dr. Vita, but none of them lead to a satisfying result. That's why we end up at option 4, calling out the poster. If nothing else, it motivates the mod team to take a closer look, something that wouldn't happen otherwise.

In summary, we are dealing with a case where only the mod team can bring any sort of change. The community cannot hold Dr. Vita accountable, but the mod team can. This is not a request for going back to this particular instance, but something to keep in mind for the future.

PS: In case you wonder why I consider option 4 to be respectable, it's because it opens up the possibility for progress.



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

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

Interesting polling results this time. Perhaps we can look into some changes if it better suits our jobs and the community's needs.



                                                                                                             

Around the Network

I support the progressive ban system.
I don't support certain moderators ignoring it and giving people they like free passes and not progressing the ban length, while ignoring the progressive ban system and giving longer bans than the progressive ban system advocates at their discretion.

Can a moderator please clarify if the progressive ban system is a real thing, or just a guideline and completely arbitrary?

Cheers :)

 

EDIT - Speak of the devil ^ :p



CGI-Quality said:
Interesting polling results this time. Perhaps we can look into some changes if it better suits our jobs and the community's needs.

Yeah, especially since posts in the thread are much more even than the poll would suggest

For the most part I like the progressive system, it kind of makes sense as a way to reinforce what not to do with longer ban periods each time, and it also rewards periods without moderation. It can appear unfair at times when 2 users doing a similar thing at a similar time can get very different ban lengths so in cases where it's just a minor thing between 2 users I think a short ban outside of the usual progressive system could also work. But for more isolated incidents or more blatant rule breaches the progressive system works really well in my view.



Bet Shiken that COD would outsell Battlefield in 2018. http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8749702

UnderstatedCornHole said:

I support the progressive ban system.
I don't support certain moderators ignoring it and giving people they like free passes and not progressing the ban length, while ignoring the progressive ban system and giving longer bans than the progressive ban system advocates at their discretion.

Can a moderator please clarify if the progressive ban system is a real thing, or just a guideline and completely arbitrary?

Cheers :)

 

EDIT - Speak of the devil ^ :p

It's a real thing, though sometimes, moderators will use discretion when making moves. I agree that this should happen as infrequently as possible and we need to improve on the aspect should the system remain intact.

 

Ka-pi96 said:
CGI-Quality said:
Interesting polling results this time. Perhaps we can look into some changes if it better suits our jobs and the community's needs.

Yeah, especially since posts in the thread are much more even than the poll would suggest

For the most part I like the progressive system, it kind of makes sense as a way to reinforce what not to do with longer ban periods each time, and it also rewards periods without moderation. It can appear unfair at times when 2 users doing a similar thing at a similar time can get very different ban lengths so in cases where it's just a minor thing between 2 users I think a short ban outside of the usual progressive system could also work. But for more isolated incidents or more blatant rule breaches the progressive system works really well in my view.

Good points!



                                                                                                             

I think this forum is too strictly moderated. If I had to quantify it, I'd say we need a 30% reduction in the zealousness of moderation. About half the time I see the "X was warned" or "X was moderated" tag on a comment, I can't figure out what the offense was.

I feel like this forum errs on the side of enforcement. I'd prefer that we err on the side of free dialogue.



VAMatt said:
I think this forum is too strictly moderated. If I had to quantify it, I'd say we need a 30% reduction in the zealousness of moderation. About half the time I see the "X was warned" or "X was moderated" tag on a comment, I can't figure out what the offense was.

I feel like this forum errs on the side of enforcement. I'd prefer that we err on the side of free dialogue.                                       

Warnings aren't accompanied by notes, but bans should be. 

Regardless, what's overzealous about it? What do you think can be done to improve the quality of the mod team and moderations? Regarding free dialogue, how are things currently restricted in terms of what can/can't be said? Your feedback will be useful in this.