Moderation on Dumpshock, Should there be an appeals process? Options

[Cain]

Okay, after recent events, some question has come up about how the moderating staff does things and why they do it.

Speaking as someone who's taken warnings before, I received two warnings in the same day for essentially the same thing: saying one word (not a PA, not even snark) to a Shadowrun notable. I don't want to post the details in public, but I will send them to anyone who asks in a PM. At least one mod has gone on record to say that the moderation is uneven. Some people have felt targeted by the mods, and even go so far as to state that they feel like Dumpshock is kowtowing to the official CGL party line. At the very least, the thread that was temporarily locked and then reopened would not have been locked at all if the private communication were from WotC.

I think we all agree that this is a bad thing. Dumpshock should be inviting to all. And while I can respect the fact that the mod team does the best they can in that regard, something needs to change.

First of all, I suggest that they increase the size of the mod team. Bull has said publically there are only 6 active mods right now. That seems low. We need more, and we can get them the same way we got the last batch: via recruitment drive.

Second, I suggest that there be an appeals process put in place, so people can challenge mod calls. This can be done via email, if need be. If a decision was made in haste, it may seem too harsh after a good night's sleep. I also suggest that public discussion (via the News forum) be available so other people can chime in.

Will these solve the issues? Probably not completely. But I think it's a place to start.

[nezumi]

These sound like reasonable ideas. I'm not sure what would be involved in the appeals process, but I always assumed if a mod hits me with something, and I feel it unjust, I'm free to refer it to the other mods for correction or clarification. Unless you're referring to a trial by your peers (lol) I don't know what you'd recommend there.

On the flip side, I'd also like to say the mod team has done, IMO, a fantastic job handling things so far. The dumpshock group can be disagreeable, or even downright vicious, and the mods have permitted a lot of freedom in that, even though it probably gave them more work in the long run. So definitely, the mods deserve a round of applause for generally being level-headed and at least trying to be fair in the face of general dumpshock hysteria.

[fistandantilus4....]

To give you a general idea of how a ban or warning works, generally someone is online, they see a post or thread that is an issue, and they put it up for review in our private section. If it's particularly blatant or agregious, they'll act immediately, taking action they feel is appropriate, while following the above (a general; "Hey guys this is what happened, this is what I did, whacha think? Here's the link")

That's basically what happened here. Something came up that was a pretty hot topic, it got the short term reaction, then was looked over and evaluated. We generally vote on the issues that we see, which of course is also subject to some issues based on who is available. We all have Real Lives out there somewhere on other things we have to do and can't always be present. I work on the night shift and came home to this at appx 0500 my time. Fun stuff.

As to an "appeal", generally when we do ban someone, we send a notification to their e-mail, and the person is free to respond. I've personally had a number of conversations with people while they were on breaks. Some we rescinded or changed, such as one with multiple account issues, most were left as they were because the violation was pretty cut and dry. So yeah, there is an appeals system. It hasn't been formalized, but we tell each person we block, or even PM, 'this is what you did, this is what we did, if you have an issue, e-mail/PM as appropriate'.

I can't really comment on increasing the mods at the moment. Just isn't something we've worked on in a while. We added a few people a while back with some varying results. Something we will probably look at again, but it doesn't have bearing on the current issues. Besides, one thing at a time.

[Method]

I concur with those above. Nothing would kill productive conversation on these boards like some kind of draconian "if statement X then punishment Y" type of policy. We have moderators because human judgment (while fallible) is still the best system.

Also I think this point from the main thread needs to clarified:

That, and Frank coming around again and again, seemingly immune to restrictions placed on the rest of us. Oh, he's a real rebel, that Frank. Could it be that the delay was caused by a lingering admiration for his brass balls?

If you think Frank is getting preferential treatment because he is buddies with the moderator staff, than you definitely don't fully understand the situation. Frank has been boycotting these forums for months because of personal incompatibilities with specific moderators. There is no love lost between them. If you ask me, the fact that they possess the objectivity to allow him to express his opinions despite past personal conflicts speaks volumes about what a great job they are doing. While I have great respect Frank's insights and creativit, I'm not saying this to defend him or his statements. He certainly doens't need my help for that. Rather, I think that any implication that the mods are giving him some kind of special favoritism is a gross mischaracterization of their good work, and should be noted as such.

[fistandantilus4....]

His comeback post is being looked at as well. Basically, I let Frank know where the line is. Up to him if he wants to toy with it anymore. I don't expect it worries him to much since he hasn't been around much before this, and that's fine. I'm not big on censoring what someone has to say unless we've explicity stated before hand "Don't say this", and they have agreed to that.

That would be the case with his multiple religious statements.

That isn't the case with his posting of "The Letter".

IF there is a change to the ToS regarding things of that nature, you can be sure that we would announce it quite clearly to everyone before hand.

[Cain]

As to an "appeal", generally when we do ban someone, we send a notification to their e-mail, and the person is free to respond. I've personally had a number of conversations with people while they were on breaks. Some we rescinded or changed, such as one with multiple account issues, most were left as they were because the violation was pretty cut and dry. So yeah, there is an appeals system. It hasn't been formalized, but we tell each person we block, or even PM, 'this is what you did, this is what we did, if you have an issue, e-mail/PM as appropriate'.

I can safely say that when I've been warned, I have never received an email from Dumpshock. What I do get is a PM, which I cannot access because my account has been locked. So, by the time I figure out what I did wrong, the suspension is already over. And unless I miss my guess, my email hasn't changed since 1995 (and I've received other board emails before). No accusations, just sayin'.

But anyway, to get at what Fisty is saying, the problem is that sometimes moderation is uneven. Some people claim they're being targeted while others are let go with admonishments. The mods hunt for reasons to ban their targets, and let things slide from others. I think more mods would help this problem: more perspectives can't hurt, and might see a post differently. I also think that once we have enough mods, they should discuss things if there's a questionable issue *before* banning someone. For example, banning a spammer is perfectly cool; but banning a new poster should entail at least a littel discussion.

[FrankTrollman]

Everything Cain is saying is true. And then some. Even an email from the dumpshock moderators, rare as it is, comes from a no-reply account. There's really nothing whatever that we can say in private if we don't like or understand a decision. And even public discussion cannot occur within the context of Dumpshock itself until whatever punishment the moderator (singular) has inflicted is already over and done with.

You guys asked me to please not say nasty things about you on other forums. While presently impossible, that is a perfectly reasonable request for one friend to make to another. Which makes it extremely puzzling to me that you would even ask such a thing. Because as you doubtless recall: We are not friends.

I am very well acquainted with bridge burning. I've done it myself, and I can recognize when other people do it as well. And our bridges were well and thoroughly burnt. By you. With extreme prejudice.

I have been given several warnings and suspensions, not for doing anything in particular to offend the ToS (though let's be clear: I've done those too), but simply because one moderator or another was annoyed with me. I've been accused of bullying and baiting for writing out factual mathematical probabilities for generating success on dice rolls. That's not bullying. Threatening people with suspensions when they are talking about factual reality from a mathematical perspective - that is bullying. The absolute last straw was Bull banning me for talking about how the 4th edition D&D rules work in a 4th edition D&D discussion in the Open Gaming section. That was an insult which I will never forget or forgive.

That when I came on a year later to post links to the graphics files for a shadowrun boardgame that I was distributing for free, I was accosted by mods and told straightly and directly that I was held to a different and harsher standard than other posters and that I would get more warnings and an eventual permaban simply for being myself was a tremendous insult. Your definition of "flame baiting" to include "being Frank Trollman" was an intolerable insult. A calculated insult. But not, in fact, the final straw. The final straw had already occurred. We already were not friends.

Dumpshock is yours to do with what you like. You can suspend or ban my account for any reason or no reason at all. And you do. You can say any nasty thing about me that you want, or host people saying any nasty thing about me that they want. And you do. But you don't own the rest of the internet. You've made me not like this place. And I don't like this place. I do not come here to hang out or read articles or engage in open discussions. You've made it very clear that you don't want me doing that, and you've made it unpleasant enough for me that I don't want to either. And I don't. But if for whatever reason you come up in any other context in any other part of the internet or the real world, chances are pretty good that I will discuss one or more of your faults. Because you have them. And we are not friends.

This is the kind of thing that should have been discussed in email. It should have been discussed in email 3 years ago when you started jerking me around. But it could not be, because you guys have made yourselves inaccessible. And you're still inaccessible. And we will not come to an understanding. And I will not stop talking smack about you if and when you come up in other contexts of the internet, and you will not stop talking smack about me if and when I come up in conversation on Dumpshock. This is going to be the status quo for the foreseeable future. Because we are not friends. Because you cannot offer or ask for truce as a friend, nor would I trust you to deliver such. Because you really, truly have nothing to offer me that I want to convince me to sign such in a purely mercenary context. You burnt your bridge with me, and now it is gone, and you don't have anything to offer me to build it back.

-Frank

[krainboltgreene]

As someone who has done this extensively let me leave two pieces of advice:

1. Treating a web forum or other form of entertainment/discussion like a corporation or government (Appeals, etc) is a bad way to handle things and will eventually end up the same way every time.

2. Solving a problem with more potential problems is a really bad way to solve a problem. ("Recruiting" more moderators). You don't need an army of moderators because the current stack of moderators are overmoderating/moderating horribly.

[Cardul]

2. Solving a problem with more potential problems is a really bad way to solve a problem. ("Recruiting" more moderators). You don't need an army of moderators because the current stack of moderators are overmoderating/moderating horribly.

Really? Or is it a case of six moderators, hundreds of new posts a day, so they cannot be everywhere, and
so when they DO see something, they hit it hard?

The Battletech Forums, which have a much smaller post count per day, have probably twice as many moderators.

[Stahlseele]

And it's much less fun to post there. *pouts*

[nezumi]

Are moderator e-mail addresses posted somewhere on the website?

[krainboltgreene]

Really? Or is it a case of six moderators, hundreds of new posts a day, so they cannot be everywhere, and
so when they DO see something, they hit it hard?

The Battletech Forums, which have a much smaller post count per day, have probably twice as many moderators.

I had a big post with statistic to prove my point, but really I don't think I need to.

Not with the RPG.net Forums having the same amount of moderators as Dumpshock for the most active portion of their forum and it has more posts hourly than I'm betting Dumpshock has on a mildly active day.

This post has been edited by krainboltgreene: Mar 29 2010, 01:37 PM

[fistandantilus4....]

Mine is.

First, to Cain, I personally try to make sure that any ban includes an e-mail. 'Cause yeah, hard to get a PM when you can't log in.

To Frank, and following up on said e-mail, my dumb mistake that I simply didn't notice that it was a no reply e-mail. My e-mail that I have had for years is on my account name.

As to mod enforcement: With the newer batch of mods, we have a straight forward Terms of Service that we go off of. That's what we issue warnings for, although there is often debate as to whether or not something acutally applies to those conditions.

We do issue warnings that people don't see. Generally, the only person that knows they've been warned is the person that recieved it. The rare exception is when it's something very blatant and flagrant. Case in point to this latest batch, Frank's was public, a number of others have been handed out privately.

We do sometimes quarantine a thread. We never delete them. We don't edit other people's posts, except in the rare exception of someone posting a link outside the ToS. We don't erase content.

Because we generally warn in private, I don't doubt that it does sometimes look like we are targeting specific people, because there are a number of violations that no one ever sees a public response too. They do happen. Users PM or Report posts regularly. Those Reports go to all of us automatically in our inboxes, so yeah, we do get them, and we act on them. We don't always issue warnings for every little thing because frankly, we don't actually want to jump down people's throats for every little thing. We try and allow some leeway, and understand that people are going to be cheeky and snippy and that's about what we should expect from people who are playing shadowrun and taking the time to debate it.

Could we use more mods? A couple, sure. Do we have a pressing need? No, not really. It would be nice, because differing opinions help a more well rounded consensus, and frankly we don't have the free time to be online all the time. We've had other moderators who stepped down, mostly for lack of time to do the work. Having a few more wouldn't hurt, but it isn't the problem.

As Frank has pointed out, we do have legacy issues. There have been a lot of issues in the past with heavy handed moderation. A lot of what Frank is referring to was also before our latest batch of mods, including me. People quit moderating because they were tired of doing it, tired of the fights, and tired of having to spend the time dealing with things like this, when all they really wanted to do was relax. So yeah, Frank may well have had issues with heavy handed moderation. He's a prime example of why now we're careful to be quite clear on what and why we issue warnings. And yes, for bans, they are supposed to be a consensus, except in the case of a spammer, or someone who literally asks for it. In Frank's case the other day, a mod saw something they thought was a violation, they quarantined the thread for review, and the put him on hold. Yeah, it said until 2037. It was still temporary.

The reason however that Frank is so close to a permaban isn't because of heavy mods, it's because of how he posts. I respect Frank's writing ability, I've personally asked him questions on rules. But like the man said, we don't have to be friends. We do have to be within the rules here, and that's what he's receiving warnings for.

Well damn, that ended up being a lot longer than I meant it to be...

[FrankTrollman]

And because of the frankly bullshit email from no-reply, we have to continue hashing problems out "in public."

Here's the latest no-reply email from the mod staff:

Hi Frank.

This is the second warning issued in response to religious comments, as I noted in the thread. When we tell you that something isn't appropriate for posting, and let you off of a ban so you can return to the forum, don't go and post about that very same thing again.

As I noted before, this warning now puts you at #9 out of 10. So this is the last one.

That's fucked up for several reasons. Most specifically, it's fucked up, because I did not break the ToS. The ToS says that you are not supposed to discuss religion "unless it has to do with Shadowrun." Now personally, I think Randall's religion has to do with Shadowrun. Why? Because it is one of his five points for why he decided to keep a known thief in charge of the company that makes Shadowrun. It's his longest of his five points. It's incredibly relevant.

When someone does an immoral thing, and they happen to be religious, it's no big deal. It doesn't even rate a mention. Lots of people, indeed most people, are religious. And we don't comment on it. And if someone does something immoral, and they talk about their religion and their contrition and such, that's generally not worth talking about either. It's a fairly standard response. We might have a discussion about whether they "really" thought that they had done wrong by Jesus/Buddha/Mictlan or not, but then again we might not. People who acknowledge they've done wrong and go before their church and ask forgiveness could be sincere, or they could be conning people into trusting them again. Without further information I couldn't judge and don't really care.

But here's something that's not like that at all and is in no way OK: a man does something that is wrong, and then he says that he did it because of his religion. Now we're in crazy town, because the person has not just asked for forgiveness or made a religious plea of possibly questionable veracity - they have stated that their own immoral actions were the dictates of the creator of the universe and beyond human morality and law. That's... incredibly dangerous. But more importantly, it's incredibly relevant.

We aren't talking about religious intolerance here. We aren't talking about bringing up religion that does not "have to do with" Shadowrun. We are talking about an event related to Shadowrun, to all of Shadowrun, that is religious in nature. The nature is: Randall Bills aided someone in taking other peoples' money. And he justified his actions with religion.

This isn't mormonism related, and I never mentioned his mormonism. I'm pretty sure the LDS church's actual stances on theft and tax evasion are pretty squarely in the "render unto Caesar" school. This is religious insanity related. Randall Bills said that his immoral actions were rooted in his own personal religious (and therefore not subject to rational argument) convictions. That means that he was either lying, or he's totally intransigent in his position. And that's incredibly Shadowrun related.

So to have a mormon moderator give me not just one, but two warnings because the guy whose destructive, and I dare say non-biblical religious revelation is threatening to drive Shadowrun production off a cliff is something that I think needs to be talked about? That's balls deep in insanity peppers. This is exactly why I don't frequent these boards. Individual moderators are allowed to go off on vindictive tirades that end up with users getting administrative warnings that they cannot appeal appended to PMs thy canot read or emails that they cannot reply to. That's totally unacceptable. And I don't even understand why you guys think the setup is OK.

-Frank

[fistandantilus4....]

Changes that Randall Bills has said that he has received a sign from God that he will not make

1. Personal attacks, flaming, trolling, and baiting are prohibited. This includes any form of racism, sexism or religious intolerance.

So to have a mormon moderator give me not just one, but two warnings...

The first warning was for the much more expressive post previous to this which was most definitely a ToS violation. The Second warning was for coming back after I took you off the ban I and others did not think you'd earned, and you continued with what I'd just warned you for.

Individual moderators are allowed to go off on vindictive tirades

Not individual. As with other violations, it went up for review by others. Following up on a Warning we told you we would issue if you continued is no where near vindictive. Nor does three sentences constitute a tirade.

I do agree that you should have been able to respond. I did not realize that the method I was using was going to shoot you a no-response e-mail. Simply did not think about it. However, my e-mail is available and you don't have to be able to log in to see it.

[Cain]

Well, I don't know how you guys do things here; but according to Bull, you have 6 active mods for all of Dumpshock. I can't even count how many they have for RPG.net. Granted, RPG.net is a much larger site, but 6 seems a bit low-- and according to Bull's statement, at least one/sixth of your moderating staff agrees. Certainly, more mods would help the "real life/real job" issue; some can be on while the others attend to reality. You also said it'd help the perspective issue. So, I can't see why selectively adding a few mods would be bad-- hell, *you* were added as part of a public recruitment drive, IIRC. I'll agree that a good vetting process needs to be done, but that also shouldn't be hard.

I'll also add that more transparency would be good. RPG.net handles things by making a small but public announcement when someone is banned/suspended. It's off in a sub-forum where few people read, but it's there, along with the justification. Otherwise, people might think that you're cherry-picking reports to go after select people. For example, right now there's a guy I've reported who has been making personal attacks left and right; but as far as I can tell, he's gotten nothing worse than a warning. I know this isn't RPG.net, but they've got their modding down to a fine art, and there's worse places we can take lessons from.

Finally, like I said before, I've never received an email for any warnings. And it sounds like there's been a problem with the system, if someone as savvy as Fisty could make the mistake of sending a no-reply email. Not to mention the fact that I've received warnings twice in the same day for the same thing, which indicates to me that there was a breakdown in moderator communication. I won't even get deeply into the calls I think were unfair, such as the "Implacable" comment and the time I was accused of promoting piracy by saying it existed.

[FrankTrollman]

I do agree that you should have been able to respond. I did not realize that the method I was using was going to shoot you a no-response e-mail. Simply did not think about it. However, my e-mail is available and you don't have to be able to log in to see it.

This is simply not true. You actually can't see your email, and you need to log in to a account in order to send you one through the board. And it still doesn't even show what that email address is. I have very little faith in your ability if you persist in these delusions. If there is any contact information for any of the moderators anywhere on this site, it is incredibly well hidden. And the thing is - this isn't even the first time this has come up. Exactly this transparency problem was the reason I left three years ago, and that decision was a great decision on my part.

1. Personal attacks, flaming, trolling, and baiting are prohibited. This includes any form of racism, sexism or religious intolerance.

Is this some kind of joke? Religious intolerance does not look anything like the sentence fragment of mine that you wrested out of it's context. Religious intolerance looks something like this:

All muslims are terrorists.

Religious intolerance does not look like this:

Osama Bin Laden has said that his Islamic faith is an integral part of his decision making process for continuing to assist people in committing terrorist acts.

And my own comment was a lot more like the second than it was like the first. I did not say that Randall Bills was bad because he was religious. I said that Randall Bills was unlikely to budge in a deal breaking decision because he claimed that decision was religiously motivated. That's not the same thing. At all.

But really, that's all beside the point.

The point is that even after having the basic inadequacy of your moderator communication system brought to light repeatedly over a period of years, you still haven't done shit about it. And that's inexcusable. And I am going to leave again and talk smack about you on other forums. Because we aren't friends, you have faults, and you've made it incredibly difficult, hostile, and unrewarding to try to talk about them with you here.

-Frank

[Wandering One]

New here, yes, but to the subject of contacting administrators, something I'd like to note. I initially had problems getting the verification to my aol.com account. I dislike giving out any of my other accounts as that's the one I use for possible spammage (that you do or don't is beyond the point, that's my dump account). It, for whatever reason, wouldn't process to it. Not the first time in the 17 years I've had it misbehave but frustrating.

To the point, I attempted, in any way, to find or contact a moderator to discuss and correct the issue. I could not find an email on the main site to discuss the issue with. I could not PM a moderator (or anyone) due to being a 'newbie'. I could not post since I was unverified. There was noone to email or contact in the help section. If this information *is* publically available, it was not easily findable, and perhaps that should be doublechecked to be made a lot more obvious.

[Valashar]

Mine is.

First, to Cain, I personally try to make sure that any ban includes an e-mail. 'Cause yeah, hard to get a PM when you can't log in.

To Frank, and following up on said e-mail, my dumb mistake that I simply didn't notice that it was a no reply e-mail. My e-mail that I have had for years is on my account name.

Since it's a continuing back and forth in this thread that those who have been banned point out how they can't respond to a no-reply email and obviously can't log on to send a PM, and mods have either not responded or, as above, pointed towards places where the information that could be used to respond was available, I logged out and followed every visible link from the forum page.

In regards to fistandantilus4.0's assertion that his email is there and available without logging in, I could not find this. Your account name is 'Fistandantilus4.0' and nothing else. Nothing that finishes an email address. And the logged out cannot view user profiles at all. The link to 'The Moderation Team' at the bottom of the page is the same. Useless unless logged in. And I found no link that included any form of out-of-forums contact information.

[DireRadiant]

Log out
Go to main page
Click on The Moderating Team
Click On Forum Memeber Name OR click on PM button
You get to a page requesting you log in. - Oh Suck.
But wait!!!!!!!!!

On the bottom of this page is a set of useful links...

One of which is the "Contact the Forums Adminstrator "mailto:" uri!

Kind of obscure, but it is there. It does show up when you attempt to use the board to communicate at the step where you'd fail because you do not have an account. And I can understand why an email address is not on the site somewhere easily scraped.

Edit: It would be useful if the Help Topic "Contacting the moderating team & reporting posts" either included the email uri, or there was a separate topic for contacting forum administration.

[Valashar]

A javascript-enabled link buried at least two levels deep (depending on what you did before getting to the error page), which opens up a default email app (which I had to dive into my settings to reactivate since I was sick of getting a useless (to me) app opened on repeated occasions) instead of simply showing a visible email address. That is not a transparent contact method.

Transparent would be what Dire has in his last line. Either a visibly shown contact address on the front page and the help topics, or a separate thread that can be posted in without logging in. And wanting to avoid spam posters isn't a legitimate reason to not have one of those, as most forum code bases have moderator controls that can work against that.

In any case, that's my two posts worth. So I'll fade back from here.

[Sponge]

Now personally, I think Randall's religion has to do with Shadowrun. Why? Because it is one of his five points for why he decided to keep a known thief in charge of the company that makes Shadowrun. It's his longest of his five points. It's incredibly relevant.

You keep claiming this - but the letter pretty clearly states that Randall's religious beliefs allowed him to put aside his anger and personally forgive Coleman, and that his business decision to keep Coleman on was based on all the other reasons he cited. Two entirely separate things - and yet you keep trying to paint Randall as some religious nutcase by claiming he's acting on "signs from God". THAT is a personal attack, and could be confused with religious intolerance as well - but that's merely unsubstantiated conjecture of cause & effect.

[fistandantilus4....]

Thank you, you're right, there are definitely some valid issues here. We're looking at those now, including:
1)Admin contant, both Warning and function related
2)mods - #s. We've had mods come and go for a while now. We started a general "who's still up for this" a few days ago, so we'll see where that puts us first.
3) Reporting - More to show on the public side.

[Caine Hazen]

You keep claiming this - but the letter pretty clearly states that Randall's religious beliefs allowed him to put aside his anger and personally forgive Coleman, and that his business decision to keep Coleman on was based on all the other reasons he cited. Two entirely separate things - and yet you keep trying to paint Randall as some religious nutcase by claiming he's acting on "signs from God". THAT is a personal attack, and could be confused with religious intolerance as well - but that's merely unsubstantiated conjecture of cause & effect.

Keep it on topic here...

We have engaged discussion of theses things behind the scene... hell, Cain's unusually reserved tone has set things off back there (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) But we'll let you know when we make any desicions. I think the first thing we'll really hardcore adress is getting a hold of mods and admins; because it is true that it is a bitch to get us...

[Bull]

Also, to address Cain's comment about our Mod Staff.

We currently have 16 listed Moderators. That number is a bit of a lie, however. Often, Moderators get busy with real life and step back from their duties. In the past, we've left them active, to allow them to pick up when things get better for them. Often, that doesn't happen though.

Of those 16, there are only 6 or so that are even semi-active on the boards, and only about half of those 6 are on regularly to handle regular moderation duties.

Bull

[Bull]

I should also note that as of this weekend, I stepped down from active moderation, at least for a while. I have too many other things to deal with right now, so I'm taking a break.

Bull

[ker'ion]

Perhaps a "Contact an Administrator" link at the bottom of the main forums page.
And the mode of contact for bans and warnings could be altered to "contact the offender by e-mail only".

Just trying to see if things can be simplified. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/twirl.gif)

[Ol' Scratch]

The point is that even after having the basic inadequacy of your moderator communication system brought to light repeatedly over a period of years, you still haven't done shit about it. And that's inexcusable. And I am going to leave again and talk smack about you on other forums. Because we aren't friends, you have faults, and you've made it incredibly difficult, hostile, and unrewarding to try to talk about them with you here.

What the Hell?

Yes, the forum software makes it very difficult to get in touch with people outside of the forum itself, especially if you're suspended or banned. But do you honestly think that's because the moderators have gone out of their way in some grandiose conspiracy theory to thwart your magnanimous attempts to fly off the fucking handle in a nerdrage? No. The creators of the forum software made it a pain in the ass in order to keep spam bots, junk mail, and -- yes -- nerdraging twats from harassing the moderators as well as the users in general. If everyone's email address was plastered all over the place, your junk mail filters would likely catch on fire from all the work they'd be doing.

Would it be nice if the board's general contact information were more up to date? Sure. Is it vital to the operation of a forum that's been operating in one form or another for over a decade now? Hell no. Especially since the vast, vast, vast majority of people who have issues that really need to be addressed aren't sitting on a self-inflicted ban for being a douche nozzle. And yes, sometimes it does feel like you're getting picked on when you're a poster who tends to be brutally aggressive in your posts, but what the holy fuck do you expect when you act like an asshole on a regular basis? To be showered with hugs and rainbows of happy happy joy joy feelings?

As someone who's had more suspensions than most (and likely to have another one after this post) for those very reasons, I think I know what I'm talking about, too.

But you know what? All that aside, attacking Fistandantilus and trying to accuse him -- him of all people -- of being anything other than one of the nicest people this forum has the pleasure of having on the moderation staff? The fuck is wrong with you? Sure, one or two of the current mods are petty jackasses in my experience, but individuals such as Fistandantilus and Adam Jury are probably the nicest, most level-headed, and non-reactionary people I've ever seen here. And having petty moderators around is par of the course on any large forum. But sticking with Fistandantilus, yes, he tends to be one of the people who performs a lot of the moderator actions, but that's only because he's more active than most of the others since he runs and plays in a number of the PbP games here. But to use that simple fact as an excuse to start insulting and trying to publicly embarrass someone who in no way, shape, or form is deserving of such abuse simply because you're nerdraging like the irrational little cunt you are? Seriously: What the fucking Hell is wrong with you?



(See you guys next week or something.)

[KCKitsune]

Rather than having an email address that can be spammed to High Heaven (like the Good Doctor said above), how about having a link on the main dumpshock forum page that can open up a web mail function. This way the banned person can contact a moderator and ask questions about the banning.

[Cain]

Thank you, you're right, there are definitely some valid issues here. We're looking at those now, including:
1)Admin contant, both Warning and function related
2)mods - #s. We've had mods come and go for a while now. We started a general "who's still up for this" a few days ago, so we'll see where that puts us first.
3) Reporting - More to show on the public side.

Don't forget notification changes. Both making sure those warned get an email, and that the mods can be reached for appeal.

Also, to address Cain's comment about our Mod Staff.

We currently have 16 listed Moderators. That number is a bit of a lie, however. Often, Moderators get busy with real life and step back from their duties. In the past, we've left them active, to allow them to pick up when things get better for them. Often, that doesn't happen though.

Of those 16, there are only 6 or so that are even semi-active on the boards, and only about half of those 6 are on regularly to handle regular moderation duties.

Bull

That makes sense. We don't expect you mods to be on 24/7. However, we do expect 24/7 moderation, which can only be achieved by having lots of mods active.

I should also note that as of this weekend, I stepped down from active moderation, at least for a while. I have too many other things to deal with right now, so I'm taking a break.

Bull

Which leaves you with five. Not enough to keep up with a board this size.

BTW Bull, good luck dealing with Real Life.

[nezumi]

Rather than having an email address that can be spammed to High Heaven (like the Good Doctor said above), how about having a link on the main dumpshock forum page that can open up a web mail function. This way the banned person can contact a moderator and ask questions about the banning.

And/or specifying with the e-mail address to include the word "dumpshock" in the subject, and creating a filter exception to any e-mail containing that word.

[fistandantilus4....]

It should go without saying that Doc's getting his Warning for his post as well. Keep personal attacks off the boards.

[Freejack]

Just a quick scan of the rpg.net forums, at the bottom of each there is a list of the mods for that specific forum. There appear to be 16 for each forum and 18 or 19 total mods and admins (ShannonA doesn't show up as a mod for instance).

Carl

[KCKitsune]

It should go without saying that Doc's getting his Warning for his post as well. Keep personal attacks off the boards.

I'm sorry Fist, but I don't think that is fair to Doc. I mean some people are being asinine and he was calling them out on it. The people that Doc is referring to had WAY too high a standard for a fan run board.

I think they should be cursed at just so they don't get too big for their britches.

[Dread Moores]

And it's much less fun to post there. *pouts*

There's a number of us who would disagree on that point. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Edit: That's too short for its own good. No, I don't think it's less fun to post there. It's simply different. Though I'm not quite as uhh...aggressively motivated as some of the posters here seem to be, so I'm guessing opinons vary.

From my prior experiences with moderating for Bulldrek and whatever else over the years, I'd kind of agree that 5 seems like a low number for how prolific this bunch can be.

[ker'ion]

Just butting in here for another post...

Describing nerdrage, fandom, anger and general annoyance of the motivations, intentions and actions of others does not necessitate the use of constant foul language.

Can we not raise ourselves above the politics of our respective lands and show what the human race is capable of in terms of rational intelligent thought?

(If I need to translate this into a more easily understood wording, I can)

[nezumi]

As an aside, anyone notice that, with the title of "Moderation on Dumpshock", we're talking about moderators, not actually... you know, posters showing moderation?

Maybe off-tangent, but I think it's funny we're putting a lot of weight on the mods, and not so much on ourselves.

[KCKitsune]

As an aside, anyone notice that, with the title of "Moderation on Dumpshock", we're talking about moderators, not actually... you know, posters showing moderation?

Maybe off-tangent, but I think it's funny we're putting a lot of weight on the mods, and not so much on ourselves.

Hence the reason that I responded to Fist's warning to Doc Funk. I think the Dr. Funk was well within his rights to bitch at jerks who want everything and they want it now.

[Stahlseele]

No he was not.
Even if someone else is generally a not so nice poster, that does NOT warrant personal attacks.
Even if you call ma a nazi asshole, i am not allowed to call you whatever derogatory term i can make up for americans or whatever.

[Dread Moores]

No he was not.
Even if someone else is generally a not so nice poster, that does NOT warrant personal attacks.
Even if you call ma a nazi asshole, i am not allowed to call you whatever derogatory term i can make up for americans or whatever.

So, the verdict is, Dr. Funk bad, but Frank good? I'm really confused now. Can we get a running list of rules or something, or maybe a list of members that says who is "okay" by the community's seemingly wishy-washy criteria on that given day?

And yeah, I'm going to side with the previous poster. I think a whole lot of this could be self-moderated, if the users chose to do so.

[Ol' Scratch]

No he was not.
Even if someone else is generally a not so nice poster, that does NOT warrant personal attacks.
Even if you call ma a nazi asshole, i am not allowed to call you whatever derogatory term i can make up for americans or whatever.

You'd almost think I did get a warning. Oh wait, I did. From the moderator I was defending no less. But nevermind that, let's continue to rally to get me a warning. That, you know, I already got. Rabble rabble rabble!

And yeah, I'm going to side with the previous poster. I think a whole lot of this could be self-moderated, if the users chose to do so.

It is, for the most part. Has been for the longest time. And when the moderators do step in, the issue has usually already been dead for a while. Recent events being a specific exception to the norm.

[Stahlseele]

No, i saw that you got a warning. Everybody should get a warning for personal attacks. Yes, me too. Especially me.
And no, neither Funk nor Frank are, in itself, bad. Of course, they can both be pretty mean if they want to.

[Shrike30]

Welcome back; your last visit was: Mar 29 2010, 07:50 PM
Dumpshock Forums latest news: Moderation on Dumpshock

I've always been amused by the fact that whatever is getting talked about in the news/bug reports/feature requests/board discussions subforum gets kicked to the top as "news," but I'm beginning to wonder if it does our image any good (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

[pbangarth]

As an aside, anyone notice that, with the title of "Moderation on Dumpshock", we're talking about moderators, not actually... you know, posters showing moderation?

Maybe off-tangent, but I think it's funny we're putting a lot of weight on the mods, and not so much on ourselves.

Hear, hear!

[Draconis]

Hence the reason that I responded to Fist's warning to Doc Funk. I think the Dr. Funk was well within his rights to bitch at jerks who want everything and they want it now.

Really? Then by your logic I could go off on you.

[fistandantilus4....]

I'd like to point out that most Warnings take a day or two to go out because we generally wait for a consensus. Just so happens that we've all been on quite a bit lately.

Doc: Not that I don't appreciate the defense, but it would pretty much defeat everything you said if everyone wasn't treated equally, without personal bias. You know as well as I that different mods have different feelings about different posters. I don't mind Frank going off on me, as long as he does it within the ToS. Basically, no name calling or personal attacks. Sure there were things that were a bit borderline, but I've got a thick skin. When it's directed at me, I'd rather let it roll off. Frankly (pun intended), aggressive posters do themselves in.

Everybody should get a warning for personal attacks. Yes, me too. Especially me.

That's pretty much it right there (especially the part about stahls getting it especially;) ). If we let personal bias or let blatant personal attacks slide, it sets a very bad precedent. Do I appreciate Doc putting up a defense for me? Helll yes. Could he have done it without personal attacks .... probably. Should he have. Yeah. But which would you rather post on; a board that enforces the rules evenly across the board (puns again), or one where mods pick and choose who has to follow the rules and who doesn't?

[Ol' Scratch]

Eh? I wasn't complaining about getting a warning. I knew I was going to get one from the start, obviously. I was just commenting on the follow-up posts about people rallying for me to apparently get even bigger warnings or something even though it had already been taken care of. Publicly at that.

[fistandantilus4....]

Well I was thinking of making picket signs, but that seemed a bit much.

Besides, "Down with Funk" is just too broad. Some innocent funkster might get offended.

[Stahlseele]

Should he have. Yeah. But which would you rather post on; a board that enforces the rules evenly across the board (puns again), or one where mods pick and choose who has to follow the rules and who doesn't?

Well, the accusation stands that there's too much of the latter going on.
But that's more or less normal. Mods are people too (i guess), so of course they may like certain people better than others.
Would we want dumpshock to be more strict like the CBT boards or maybe even the rpg.net boards? Hell no.
Would we like dumpshock to be more laxxx like the 4chan boards? Heck no! We want it to be fair. Not hardass, but fair.
And most of the time, the mods do a good job at that. I think. Even if Furrball up there is being mean to me on purpose (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif) ^^
But they are people too. People make mistakes. Especially 5 people trying to moderate 5000 other people on this board.
When not all adhere to their usual being awake time. Is there a single mod from europe? I don't think i know one of those.
So if i were to step out of line while all the mods are sleeping . . or whatever it is they do, then chances are good that they are going to react later.
If someone from the same time zone as the mods does this, probability alone that a moderator is online to see him misbehaving is simply bigger.
Also, i guess the mods are gonna be a bit more lax with people that have been members for several years who not often if ever crossed the lines,
than with someone who only registered his first posting yesterday. Simply because, like it or not, the mods had way more time to get used to the
old fart and his style of posting and maybe snarkiness too. So they might see him being his usual abrasive self and that new guy just stumbled in
and started picking fights with people!

[fistandantilus4....]

Personally I tend to cut a little more slack to a brand new poster than someone who's been around for a while. They should know better.

As to time zones, I'm at watch on nights currently, so I'm back in the morning for a little while, then the afternoon when I wake back up. Redjack is down at night, but Bull and Caine are around many nights.

As to mods from europe, no, not at the moment, sorry. But we do have night owls. Besides, as I've mentioned, usually warnings go out a day or two later, so the actual time matters little.

[Cain]

That's pretty much it right there (especially the part about stahls getting it especially;) ). If we let personal bias or let blatant personal attacks slide, it sets a very bad precedent. Do I appreciate Doc putting up a defense for me? Helll yes. Could he have done it without personal attacks .... probably. Should he have. Yeah. But which would you rather post on; a board that enforces the rules evenly across the board (puns again), or one where mods pick and choose who has to follow the rules and who doesn't?

That's exactly what Frank and I are saying, though. Some people (Shadowrun notables) get away with murder, while those who stand against the grain get their heads chewed off.

[fistandantilus4....]

And Doc was issued a warning for breaking the ToS, and Frank wasn't when he didn't.

[Ol' Scratch]

That's exactly what Frank and I are saying, though. Some people (Shadowrun notables) get away with murder, while those who stand against the grain get their heads chewed off.

Nothing personal but, uh, I've seen you get into quite a bit of 'arguments' in the past yourself without any repercussions. Same goes for most people who let their tempers get the better of them occasionally. I'm not sure why this particular issue has you so riled, but if you honestly think FrankTrollman didn't deserve a break for the myriad things he's done as of late, you're only fooling yourself. Especially with the very personal and direct threats he's been making against people, Fistdantalus (dammit, you need an easier name) being a notable example in this thread. Which is what personally set me off.

[Cain]

Nothing personal but, uh, I've seen you get into quite a bit of 'arguments' in the past yourself without any repercussions. Same goes for most people who let their tempers get the better of them occasionally. I'm not sure why this particular issue has you so riled, but if you honestly think FrankTrollman didn't deserve a break for the myriad things he's done as of late, you're only fooling yourself. Especially with the very personal and direct threats he's been making against people, Fistdantalus (dammit, you need an easier name) being a notable example in this thread. Which is what personally set me off.

Because Dumpshock doesn't have transparency regarding warnings/suspensions, you might be surprised at exactly where my warning level is at. And since you can peruse the boards even while banned (by deleting all the cookies) I can say that when I've been suspended, if the person I was arguing with was a Shadowrun notable figure, they didn't get a suspension. I'm not defending Frank on this score, but I can say that the rules aren't evenly applied. Even Bull has flat-out said as much.

[Ol' Scratch]

Eh, favortism is par of the course on and off Internet forums. There's really not much you can do about it. It's not like a forum is some kind of stalwart democracy with champions of good facing off against the tyranny of evil men. It's just a collection of like-minded individuals coming together to share in a common passion. The moderators included.

Unlike a lot of forums, most of the moderation actions here seem to be at least discussed either beforehand or while determining a final verdict for a major infraction. The moderators are also regular, every day people and each action is a personal decision to one degree or another. Some see things more critically than others, or react more harshly on topics that are very personal to them (such as racism or religious persecution). And in some cases if someone is acting particularly riled up in an argument, they often get the brunt of the heavy-handedness despite numerous other people being a part of the argument. God knows I've had that happen to me enough times. And yeah, it does just piss you off all the more. But so what? Did it quell the argument and settle things down? More often than not, yes. Is your life somehow ruined by a short ban? Were you honestly not deserving of a ban? Are you unable to make a living, support your family, or feed your children because you can't post on an Internet forum for a week? Of course not, because neither your world nor anyone else's revolves around a God damned forum. So just shake your fist at the few assholes who pissed you off, be petty and refuse to play in any games with them in the future (<coughs>), and go find something else to do for a bit.

Would it be nice if the moderating team was a group of impersonal robots who waved their mighty ban-sticks with equality for everyone? Yeah. But, honestly, I don't think I'd want to participate in a forum like that. I like the somewhat personal, small, family feeling I get here. It's why I don't post on larger ones like RPG.net or Wizards of the Coast's sites. While I can't stand a good number of people here, I still think its one of the best online communities around and I'll defend that sentiment to the end.

[Caine Hazen]

I don't come off like an impersonal robot? Damn I gotta work on that...

[Cain]

Did it quell the argument and settle things down?

If by this you mean, silencing and ignoring dissenting voices ends arguments, then you are right. If you mean that it makes for a better discussion forum, then no.

Were you honestly not deserving of a ban?

Unless you consider the word "Implacable" to be a serious personal attack, then the answer is yes. Quite frankly, while I've deserved some action, I think there were a few times when some mods were looking for reasons to ban me. Frank feels the same, and is a lot more vocal about it than I am. I have PMs showing that I was taken action upon for criticizing SR4. I don't think I'm allowed to post them, however. Bull even put a gag order on me, so I can't even say the *word* of why I was given a particular warning. And I like Bull.

Are you unable to make a living, support your family, or feed your children because you can't post on an Internet forum for a week?

I'm a disabled single father. I practically live on the internet when I'm not being a parent or gaming. It's about all I can do.

Would it be nice if the moderating team was a group of impersonal robots who waved their mighty ban-sticks with equality for everyone?

I don't want to keep mentioning RPG.net, because it is a different place. But if they can moderate a much larger forum with more evenness than Dumpshock can, there is a problem. And even the mods are admitting there's a serious problem with applying the rules evenly. I think there's a lot of room for improvement here, and I don't think many of the Dumpshock mods would disagree. That's the original point of this thread: how can we improve Dumpshock? I think adding more mods, and adding more transparency, would be a good thing. What do you think would help?

[KCKitsune]

Really? Then by your logic I could go off on you.

If I was being a true dick, then yes.

Sometimes people get way too big of a head and they need to have someone call them out on it.

[pbangarth]

Sometimes people get way too big of a head ...

In certain beers, this can be a good thing.

[Draconis]

If I was being a true dick, then yes.

Sometimes people get way too big of a head and they need to have someone call them out on it.

And who defines that?
You realize you're talking about something entirely subjective?

For instance I personally think you're currently meeting your criteria. Look at that, I just called you out on it. Happy?

[KCKitsune]

And who defines that?
You realize you're talking about something entirely subjective?

For instance I personally think you're currently meeting your criteria. Look at that, I just called you out on it. Happy?

OK and why do you think I met that criteria? What did I do to merit it? If you can't explain why then you're wrong.

Dr Funk DID explain why and that is why I think he didn't deserve a warning.

[Ol' Scratch]

I'm pretty sure I deserved one.

[nezumi]

I think it's important to remember that the ToS does not generally limit *what* we can talk about. I think relatively few people have been limited because of their choice in discussion topics (problems with SR4 when it first came out nonwithstanding). The ToS limits *how* we talk about it.

Case in point, the "racist hawai'i background" thread which was recently closed discusses the question of Native Americans successfully overthrowing the UCAS. We have had that discussion dozens of times before, and never in my memory has one been shut down before. Had the OP avoided tossing the racist card quite so aggressively, the thread probably would have stood without any problem. We've seen the same discussing religion. And in this thread, while Dr. Funk's message may have been appropriate, even he agrees the way he wrote it warranted a warning.

So... I don't completely understand complaints like that of KCKitsune. There is nothing stopping anyone from saying "hey, back down, you're getting a big head". People do that without getting warnings all the time. It's the wrapping it up specifically with insults which make it problematic. If people are just nice, I don't think we'd be seeing any more threads closed or warnings, without any loss of topics of discussion.

[KCKitsune]

So... I don't completely understand complaints like that of KCKitsune.

My objection was Dr. Funk getting a warning when he was, IMO, not out of line.

Now Dr. Funk says that he thinks he deserved a warning, and with that, finishes the discussion for me.

[Cain]

I think it's important to remember that the ToS does not generally limit *what* we can talk about. I think relatively few people have been limited because of their choice in discussion topics (problems with SR4 when it first came out nonwithstanding). The ToS limits *how* we talk about it.

I'm in the situation where I can't even say the name of what I was warned over, or catch a permaban. The same thing applies for several other topics. I don't know of anyone else who's warning conditions have included so many gag orders. They can at least discuss what got them banned.

Does anyone think that more transparency would help Dumpshock a lot?

[DireRadiant]

Does anyone think that more transparency would help Dumpshock a lot?

You probably do, I don't.

I believe the kind of transparency you envision will lead to more moderation work with no general reward for the community. That is, I am sure that greater transparency would not change the level or number of warnings issued, nor the change the group to whom the warnings have been issued, and would likely have increased the total number of warnings and people banned. This would be as a result of the moderation process being in and of itself a controversial process by it's very nature and introducing additional controversy and the means to conduct an adversarial and confrontational public exchange would lead to more Moderation required.

Note that this doesn't mean that introducing more consistency and education of the community couldn't improve some matters, especially as far as encouraging the community to engage in more self policing and self moderation.

[Ol' Scratch]

Yep. I'm happy with the things are for the most part. Improvements could be had, but there's no need for a complete overhaul, let alone an anal retentive one just to satisfy a few people who can't control themselves. And yes, I'm well aware of the hypocrisy there. But I'm also not the one who goes rampaging about how things need to change whenever my temper gets the better of me. I actually do that whole "take responsibility" thing, God forbid.

If you are repeatedly asked to cool down for doing something, you have no one but yourself to blame if you continue to do it. Again: Forums aren't a democracy and you are guaranteed no special rights or privileges as a member. If you do have an issue with something that the moderators are adamant about, approach them privately and try to work out a solution. Constantly fueling public drama isn't going to help your cause one iota. The only thing it will[/] do is worsen your situation. As well it should.

If there's one thing that would be particularly nice, however, it's a hand-written "ToS" that doesn't read like a pregenerated form letter created by the forum's software. I know I hardly ever read those things when they pop up, and I seriously doubt very many other people do either. Mostly because they just come across as an impersonal legal disclaimer. But if someone goes out of their way to write one and publishes it somewhere other than as a user agreement, I bet a lot more people would read and try to abide by it. Or at least acknowledge it more openly when things go awry. Even if all of it is pretty obvious. I mean, do people [i]really need to be told not to be racist, religious-persecuting, privacy-breaking, insult-throwing asshats (again, yes, I recognize the hypocrisy)?

[fistandantilus4....]

If there's one thing that would be particularly nice, however, it's a hand-written "ToS" that doesn't read like a pregenerated form letter created by the forum's software. I know I hardly ever read those things when they pop up, and I seriously doubt very many other people do either.

http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...mp;#entry629616

Or just go to the top left of the page where it says "Terms of Service." Hand written and everything.

A number of our warnings go out from Redjack, who is very good at writing "legal-ese". I'm not so good at it, so I'll usually include the cited ToS section (unless it's blatantly obvious or the cited User has done it enough times to know by now) and a quick little "you did this, don't do that" blurb.

[Caine Hazen]

I'll break the curtain down to address 2 issues here...

1.) The TOS was actually written by all of the mods and admins here. It was not finalized until each of us had a few days to go over, correct, rules lawyer, reject, rewrite,and then finalize all of our rules. It reflected how we would like to see the forums be. We also set down guidelines in what happens when the rules are broke, which require a majority of mods to impliment. There was a hell of a lot of effort to get this place shaped up... so please remember that when you're readin' our form letter (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)

2.) Cain's topics that he can't discuss generated 10 different moderation threads, and generated warnings for quite a few people (generally 3 a thread). After review these threads all followed the same format and arguments. The mods decided that because of this same reaction, that theses posts were pretty much in the same league as trollin or flaming... they were going to just keep generating warnings for everyone involved. To be honest, not posting any of those arguments are probably the only reason you are here to discuss these things with us now Cain

So there's today's peak behind the curtain. Tomorrow we'll play the numbers game...

[Cain]

Yep. I'm happy with the things are for the most part. Improvements could be had, but there's no need for a complete overhaul, let alone an anal retentive one just to satisfy a few people who can't control themselves. And yes, I'm well aware of the hypocrisy there. But I'm also not the one who goes rampaging about how things need to change whenever my temper gets the better of me. I actually do that whole "take responsibility" thing, God forbid.

If you are repeatedly asked to cool down for doing something, you have no one but yourself to blame if you continue to do it. Again: Forums aren't a democracy and you are guaranteed no special rights or privileges as a member. If you do have an issue with something that the moderators are adamant about, approach them privately and try to work out a solution. Constantly fueling public drama isn't going to help your cause one iota. The only thing it will[/] do is worsen your situation. As well it should.

Okay, first, insinuating that I don't "take responsibility" for myself *is* a personal attack. Same applies to everyone else who's ever gotten a warning. Gods, this whole mess started because Frank felt he had to take responsibility in bringing dire news to light. So, please, don't give me, or anyone else here, a lecture on responsibility.

I call it like I see it. And yes, I am abrasive at times, flat-out rude at others. I'm not saying I'm completely innocent here. I toe the line, and sometimes I cross it.

But when I stay well clear of the line, I've caught warnings and bans even then. Sometimes it looks as if the mods are actively waiting for me to slip up, even a little, just so they can make an example out of a SR4.5 naysayer. Other times, it looks as if they're perfectly fair and aboveboard. It kinda depends on what side of the argument you're on. And since this is a private board, the *only* thing that can help my cause one iota is public pressure. Public pressure is what got Bull's RPG.net ban dropped from a month to a week, and public discourse was not just allowed, it was encouraged.

While I don't think we need an overhaul, I think we do need to look at other forums and see how they handle these sort of situations. If they do a better job-- and again, I've seen posts by Dumpshock mods that say there is a problem-- then we should try and learn from those boards.

2.) Cain's topics that he can't discuss generated 10 different moderation threads, and generated warnings for quite a few people (generally 3 a thread). After review these threads all followed the same format and arguments. The mods decided that because of this same reaction, that theses posts were pretty much in the same league as trollin or flaming... they were going to just keep generating warnings for everyone involved. To be honest, not posting any of those arguments are probably the only reason you are here to discuss these things with us now Cain

Those aren't actually the ones I'm talking about. I'll shoot you a PM. There's only one gag order I think is completely unreasonable.

[Dumori]

I think some transparency would help as as it stands now moderratinf seams haphazard and arbitrary to the uninformed. I'm not saying it is but the way I've seen it is that the general users only here about any warning if a thread kicks up a lot of issues and a mod posts in it and or locks it. Or if a user posts that the got a warning for X publicly. As to how transparent the system should be I don't know but at the moment is pretty opaque.

[nezumi]

Does anyone think that more transparency would help Dumpshock a lot?

Yes. Specifically, banned people are limited to viewing one thread, where we can all throw tomatoes at them.

(Only half-joking (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif) )

But yes, knowing that a person has disappeared, why he has disappeared, and for how long, would be awfully helpful to me as a poster, if only because I know to stop shouting at him (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif) but also because it better illustrates where the 'line' is. The ToS are sort of academic when I see what appear to be violations, but I don't know if they actually are or not.

[ker'ion]

2.) ... The mods decided that because of this same reaction, that theses posts were pretty much in the same league as trollin or flaming... they were going to just keep generating warnings for everyone involved. ...

Completely off topic: Now I've got an offshoot of Weird Al's "White and Nerdy"/Chamillionaire and Krayzie Bone's "Ridin' Dirty" stuck in my head.

They see me trollin', they flamin'...
Try to catch me posting nerdy.

/off topic rant

[augmentin]

I'd like to second, or third, or whatever we're up to the thought that there needs to be some method of contacting a moderator. Currently, the contact a moderator leads to a dead email. I guess I'm regurgitating previously known information.
Also, after beginning my adult life as a grunt I've always believed in the mindset that leaders should be held to a higher standard the the rank and file. In Dumpshock's case, that's the moderators. I'm sorry and I know you're just as human and angry at the current situation as the rest of us. Still, I would like to see moderators held to at a minimum the same standard as members.
Finally, regarding the thought that moderators are biased. As long as some of the moderators are publicly employees of IMR/CGL or remain active contractors of IMR/CGL there's no way to avoid that perception. Whether it's correct or not, it's going to be there. Few would believe that I'm unbiased in a debate about spotted owls if they new I was a registered lobbyist for the Oregon Forestry Products Trade Association. Just sayin'...

[Bull]

Finally, regarding the thought that moderators are biased. As long as some of the moderators are publicly employees of IMR/CGL or remain active contractors of IMR/CGL there's no way to avoid that perception. Whether it's correct or not, it's going to be there. Few would believe that I'm unbiased in a debate about spotted owls if they new I was a registered lobbyist for the Oregon Forestry Products Trade Association. Just sayin'...

Hence why I stepped down, and one reason Adam Jury stepped back from moderating ages ago.

However, do keep one thing in mind... We're a privately owned and run fansite. We're not beholden to anyone, and we're free to do whatever we want with the site. Dumpshock was founded by a handful of individuals over a decade ago, and to my mind, no matter what they're doing, those individuals will always have at least some input in the site and are willing to come play whenever they want to. That includes past, present, and future folks working on Shadowrun. It also includes me, and includes Adam.

It's the internet, never assume anyone is unbiased. Most of the folks that are arguing in the CGL thread or the Loren Coleman thread are biased to some degree. Some because they're freelancers that were hurt by the situation. Some because they have a grudge against CGL and/or some folks working there on a personal level. SOme because they're friends with folks still working there. SOme because they want Shadowrun to survive and are willing to support the company regardless of the situation. Or for one of a dozen other reasons I could list.

Everyone has a bias, somewhere. Just not everyone's upfront about it.

Bull

[fistandantilus4....]

We're also generally a little more lax on things like use of "foul language". Perhaps more than we should be I suppose. We look at this as more of an adult community, which is reflected in the average age of the users. We keep things from getting overboard or regulalrly vulgar, but usually if its one post and not explicit, we let it slide.

As for contacting mods, the main issue is for a user that has had a ban, temporary or not, placed on their account, so that they cannot log in. For others, there is a Moderating Team button on the main forum page, in the Board Statistics section, that lists all the mods and has a PM button. Yeah it could be a little bigger/more glaring, but it's there to contact any and every mod via PM.

Bias is something we're aware of as well. Not just with things like Catalyst, but also with things such as Warning a User one mod or another has a particularly good or bad relationship with. In those cases, we're generally pretty clear where we stand, so the mod in question leaves the handling of whatever situation there might be to the others.
In the example of the infamous Coleman letter, Caine Hazen and Bull left it to Redjack and I after temporarily isolating it in a quarantine section. RJ and I have no vested interest in Catalyst one way or the other, so we handled it.

Oh, and btw, I know my handle is hard to spell. Sorry. Just want to make sure you're all paying attention. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Cain]

As for contacting mods, the main issue is for a user that has had a ban, temporary or not, placed on their account, so that they cannot log in. For others, there is a Moderating Team button on the main forum page, in the Board Statistics section, that lists all the mods and has a PM button. Yeah it could be a little bigger/more glaring, but it's there to contact any and every mod via PM.

This is exactly the problem. You said on the first page of this thread that there's an appeals process, but what good is it if you can't reach a mod while you're banned?

[nezumi]

And that is the first test of your worthiness...

[Lady Door]

You've just met the Dweller of the Threshold. Congratulations.

[krainboltgreene]

I remind you of the Terms of Service, item 1

http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...p;#entry629616)

I am giving you a warning.

You may respond to me or any other Mod via PM, once you reach ten posts, regarding this. A copy of this message is available to the Mods.

[Stahlseele]

That's because you are only a probationary member.
We've had some problems with spam-bots and this was installed to help with that problem.

[Paul]

Just a quick note. I was banned for about...2-3 years. I never received an email asking me anything about said ban.

[Caine Hazen]

Just a quick note. I was banned for about...2-3 years. I never received an email asking me anything about said ban.

That has something to do with the fact that you requested said ban... that said, how much trouble did you have contacting us about reinstatement of your account?

[fistandantilus4....]

I remind you of the Terms of Service, item 1

http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...p;#entry629616)

I am giving you a warning.

You may respond to me or any other Mod via PM, once you reach ten posts, regarding this. A copy of this message is available to the Mods.

You currently have 6 posts total, counting this one. One of those you earned a warning for. So one in six posts was a personal attack.

And you're upset with us about how we do things?

[Cthulhudreams]

You'd almost think I did get a warning. Oh wait, I did. From the moderator I was defending no less. But nevermind that, let's continue to rally to get me a warning. That, you know, I already got. Rabble rabble rabble!

Then again, you where calling Frank a shifty little man in the other thread after you got the warning, so I'm not sure the warning was taken to heart?

In a related tangent, the forum unquestionably has modding double standards. It means that some useful contributors are dismissed and useless ones are kept and overall quality is decreased from potential. As doc funk said, fact of life, take it or leave it.

[Paul]

... that said, how much trouble did you have contacting us about reinstatement of your account?

I was completely unable to contact anyone. According to what I see I sent three emails. As for this part of your statement:

That has something to do with the fact that you requested said ban...

This speaks miles about the type of moderation one can expect. I hope you understand my disappointment. (Not that it matters in any significant way-I am neither a prolific poster, nor a regular here, nor do i expect some sort of guilt on any ones part. I'm not totally unreasonable!)

[CeaDawg]

Hmmm, it's been forever since I posted on DSF, but I remember collecting 9 hits off one of my first 3 posts. Bull handed me that warning for the argument I was having with him and Adam at the time. After nearly a year of not even lurking on here, & stewing over the argument, I realized I did in fact need a smacktard label on my forehead. It took some bonehead in Europe, with Bionic arms, getting himself killed to bring me back here.

[Method]

CeaDawg: that was before we standardized our policies for dealing with issues and giving warnings. For what its worth, your warn level is at zero now-a-days. Welcome back.

[pbangarth]

For what its worth, your warn level is at zero now-a-days. Welcome back.

Is there a way to get that below zero, so you have credit for one or more assinine comments to be made at a later date?

[Doc Chase]

Is there a way to get that below zero, so you have credit for one or more assinine comments to be made at a later date?

That's generally known as a 'verbal warning', based off previous personal experience as a mod on another board.

[KarmaInferno]

That's generally known as a 'verbal warning', based off previous personal experience as a mod on another board.

Methinks pbangarth would like to purchase indulgences for future sins.




-k

[pbangarth]

Methinks pbangarth would like to purchase indulgences for future sins.

Yes, that was the idea.

[Method]

Hmmm... what are you offering as payment? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/devil.gif)

[pbangarth]

Hmmm... what are you offering as payment? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/devil.gif)

PM me with your price. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)

[Ryu]

Is there a way to get that below zero, so you have credit for one or more assinine comments to be made at a later date?

One might say that the very idea behind that question is warn-worthy... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

[Zhan Shi]

I no longer have ready access to a computer, so my visits are few and my posts even more so. But I was suspended for two weeks and warned....twice, I think. I thought all three incidents were handled well.