Citizens On Patrol Poll...are we too hard or too soft?

[HRoi]

I think it's inconsistent for those who want rules and consequences to be completely black and white and cover every circumstance and every nuance. Don't think the mod team is going to spend as much time writing board rules as Congress does, and speaking for myself, I'm not particularly interested in hiring counsel to interpret the law for me either.

For those of us who've been around and have developed a feel for what you guys consider asshole behavior, it's not that hard to predict your reaction to various things (and what lines we shouldn't cross). You also do a pretty good job announcing crackdowns and issuing warnings before coming down on people so my 2c is that you should just continue doing that

 

[Matt]

Originally Posted by acidboy

sf mods are the most level headed and fair mods around, seriously. and I still plan to go to saigon soon so I say you're fair.
cool, when?

 

[Ambulance Chaser]

Originally Posted by Matt

I'm interested in the perception of 'inconsistent'.

Five people have clicked on it - and in some ways I can see an argument for it...it's an anon poll, and I would understand why you would not want to speak up...but I'm interested, and feel free to PM me if you'd rather not post.

Do you think we play favorites with certain members who may or may not be deserving?
Do you think that we have priorities out of whack for punitive measures?
Other areas of inconsistency?

FWIW if I wasnt In The Know, it's probably what I would vote as an outsider looking in. I could particularly see a case for the second there - instant ban-hammer for an SF bump, vs reasonable tolerance for smut...you say '****' in a thread title, you get a week, you talk about punching some ***** in the mouth in a thread, you get 'lol'...so I can see areas of inconsistency over working out which is the greater sin.
To the extent that inconsistency in moderation exists, it is understandable. Bumping a FS thread or cursing in a thread title is a black-and-white issue -- did the poster do it or not? Misogyny is much more of a gray area -- is the post offensive enough that the poster deserves a time out? I think the moderators generally do a good job at policing offensive material.

As for treating senior members differently than junior members, I think that is understandable as well. Someone who has been on SF for awhile and made positive contributions and acted civilly toward others should receive a benefit of the doubt for a blow-up that members who have been on SF for a short time do not get.

 

[Archivist]

Originally Posted by Matt

back to work for a second...so my takeaway from this is that we are perceived as a little left of center. Far from being a fully representative sample as yet, but about half of you saying 'basically right' and about half saying 'too lenient'...work out some kind of median, and we are sitting a little left of center. I think I can live with that, and thanks for the feedback. I'm interested in the perception of 'inconsistent'.
I'm one of the 'inconsistent' votes. I'm on my way out for the holidays, and don't have time to give this reply the consideration it deserves. I'll try to get back to it when I can. With that caveat:

Five people have clicked on it - and in some ways I can see an argument for it...it's an anon poll, and I would understand why you would not want to speak up...but I'm interested, and feel free to PM me if you'd rather not post. Do you think we play favorites with certain members who may or may not be deserving? Do you think that we have priorities out of whack for punitive measures? Other areas of inconsistency?

Some of one, some of two: I think that you (the mods in general, not you personally) are probably too lenient with those members you are familiar with, and who are perceived as valuable members/posters. This is pretty natural and understandable, but it helps foster an atmosphere that will deteriorate. People observe what are thought to be social norms, and then are upset when those norms are not evenly applied. I can't figure out what the rules are. Misogyny and viciousness are unacceptable, unless you are part of the in crowd, in which case wink wink nod. Soft core Appreciation is not tolerated in threads people may be reading at work or some other "public" space, because after all they are about particular issues of clothing and style. Except of course, if the poster is part of the in crowd, in which case well, boys will be boys eh? I'd also say, sometimes it's not doing the members that get the pass any real favor. Manton comes to mind. He's a nice man, he's very knowledgeable, and generous. He's also thin skinned and reactionary, and I think finds trouble on a regular basis, and then goes looking for his big brothers to bail him out of it. He needs a break from all this. I offer him as an example because it's fresh, and obvious, not out of any malice. I'd be sad if he never posted here again. But you guys should have timed him out as well, for his own good. I think that you can be too punitive with some posters who are not part of the groupthink here. Fair enough, it's your house. But there are no clear lines on a lot of issues. I say this having been in your shoes. in the 90's and into the start of this decade I was one of the people who ran a very active online community. All of this is all too familiar. There are not any consistently right answers, and there are many approaches to operating and maintaining an online community. I think you guys get it quite a lot more right than otherwise, but there are nowhere near enough of you or enough time to make everything perfect. And Christ how boring would that be. I know one approach to that is deputizing trusted community members to fill some of the mod role. I did that, with variable results. In some cases it was disastrous and caused me 10x the headache of the run of the mill jerks, spammers and whatnot. I sincerely hope you don't have that experience.

FWIW if I wasnt In The Know, it's probably what I would vote as an outsider looking in. I could particularly see a case for the second there - instant ban-hammer for an SF bump, vs reasonable tolerance for smut...you say '****' in a thread title, you get a week, you talk about punching some ***** in the mouth in a thread, you get 'lol'...so I can see areas of inconsistency over working out which is the greater sin. I tend to think we go on rampages on various areas of the board at various times (although we do typically give fair warning in trans mod, and i consider trans mod the only thread that every single member should read)...but I could see a case being made there. Open to other thoughts on it.

You do go on rampages, and generally in a good way. The problem is, it does not last, and the exact cycle rolls through again. I'm not advocating heavier moderation here. I'm of the opinion that ultimately destroys things. I'd rather see a bit of self control among participants. Later, as I am bored and waiting on my flight. Is there anything more boring than waiting to leave for the airport?

Originally Posted by Matt

OK so I got a PM this morning from a timed-out member telling us that we are over-modding the place and taking too hard a line. The other C.O.P thread contains some people basically saying it's been under-modded and erred a little too much on the side of the inmates running the asylum, and that we need more mods. Transmod and that thread also have other people who are basically saying that we strike a reasonable chord between the two extremes.
It's always important to listen to the community, seriously weight their concerns, and then ignore them. Esp. if they want you to produce a sanitized E-Disney, or if they advocate letting the worst of the lunatics run rampant. You guys generally strike a good balance. Serious question? What do you guys (the ones that run the place, not necessarily the members) want this place to be? What do you want it to become? That should inform your moderation policies. You seem like smart Joes, I think you can trust your own judgment in how heavy handed to be. I just think it would be nice if the lines were slightly clearer and more evenly applied. More timeouts, not too much banning. But don't hesitate to ban when it is clearly necessary. You guys generally seem to have a good sense of when to ban. You don't seem to have as good a sense of when to briefly time out members, esp. senior ones.

 

[unjung]

+1 on watching the OVER 9000!!!! poasters more closely.

Attacks on family should be perma-ban. Attacks on Foo's wife, Manton's kids (does he have them?), whatever. Anyone turning this relatively anonymous medium into something that could impact real life. Too 4chan-ish.

The $300 fine for illegitimate bumps in B&S is extreme. It's terrifying, frankly. I would have to stop posting if I was hit with one. For the big time sellers, okay. For occasional sellers, $20 should be adequate. I think a previous poster's point about over-moderation in B&S with under-moderation everywhere else is pretty fair.

Otherwise I would say you are pretty fair. The recent bannings/time-outs have probably been effective.

 

[Valor]

I haven't figured out what gets you time out. Clearly there are obvious rules about spam and Appreciation, but I honestly don't see the problem with some good ole fashioned vitriol. The line I think can be arbitrary at times with some members getting away with more and others with less. As long as rules are stated clearly above each subforum (and I think they should all differ) I've no problem with rules.

 

[Blackfyre]

Racism, talking about others family, trolling, sockpuppetry, fucked up images/gifs, ******* with the mods=Timeout/Ban

There might be a few more