[Droid803]

i'm just going to say that having rule #1 of how-to-not-be-a-dick-spelled-out be based on a reference to a 60s tv show starring a guy that died when i was 12 and hence never heard of before today is a bad idea if you want people to understand what you mean just saying

because even after wiki'ing it have no idea how the guy was like and **** me if i'm going to look up vods on a black and white tv show about current events yeaaars gone past as a reference on how to be nice yeah **** that

might want to pick a more revelenat, that's all (might not be possible- everyone's a dick nowadasy)

[Phantom Hoover]

yes; imo the rule's wording should be changed to "be like bob ross"

[NGTM-1R]

using the (barely advertised) irc channel as the venue administrative complaints is a horrible idea on more levels than i care to think of

Ironically when I wasn't unmonkeyed (I think it was monkeyed, could have been banned) on time once it was suggested "get on IRC and complain about it" which strikes me as one of the stupidest things anyone who has been banned/monkeyed could possibly do and a good way to get my ban/monkey extended and not generate sympathy or get unbanned/unmonkeyed.

If HLP really wants to handle things more anonymously (although it strikes me that the use of a faceless administration and moderation is drifting closer to the monolithic evil empire image and it would be easier to dissent with that than with any particular person you might respect for their non-moderation contributions) then they're going to have to shift away from using IRC and its public nature for handling complaints at all.

(Hint if a moderator is not being respected for their non-moderation contributions to the community, or even their moderation contributions which is certainly what I respect Zacam for these days, something is probably a bit wrong.)

[Mongoose]

i'm just going to say that having rule #1 of how-to-not-be-a-dick-spelled-out be based on a reference to a 60s tv show starring a guy that died when i was 12 and hence never heard of before today is a bad idea if you want people to understand what you mean just saying

because even after wiki'ing it have no idea how the guy was like and **** me if i'm going to look up vods on a black and white tv show about current events yeaaars gone past as a reference on how to be nice yeah **** that

might want to pick a more revelenat, that's all (might not be possible- everyone's a dick nowadasy)

I'm just going to cherry-pick this point in lieu of a whole backlog of discussion, but dude, Mister Rogers' Neighborhood was on for decades.  Like, from 1968 to 2001, give or take.  Granted, that doesn't necessarily mean that everyone will get the reference, but a few generations of kids got to grow up with him.  Plus, it kind of fits the PBS theme we have going around here, what with Snuffy and all.

[Spoon]

I'm just going to cherry-pick this point in lieu of a whole backlog of discussion, but dude, Mister Rogers' Neighborhood was on for decades.  Like, from 1968 to 2001, give or take.  Granted, that doesn't necessarily mean that everyone will get the reference, but a few generations of kids got to grow up with him.  Plus, it kind of fits the PBS theme we have going around here, what with Snuffy and all.

It was never on dutch television. (I have no idea who mister roger's is outside of one 'epic rap battle of history')

[Zacam]

I think a point (or points) that we need to take away from this situation and evolved conversation is this:

This obviously isn't working out as intended.

Bear in mind that this is just from my own perspective and may not address everything brought up here. If I miss touching on something, it's nothing personal, I'm still into my first cup of coffee

For the longest time (to my perception starting out as a regular member) Administration and Moderation just seemed to be a casual sort of deal. There have been issues, to be sure. There always will be when you have more than 2 human beings in any one place and we're far more diversified than that. But there never seemed to be the kinds of issues that we've been having lately.

Now, some of the issues seem to stem from A: entrenchment and B: entitlement. (I won't go about into which applies to whom, that wouldn't be constructive)

When the initial proposition of trying to create a "Common Page" came up, it all seemed like a really good idea. Maybe I didn't pay as much attention to the details specifically as I could have and as a result, abstracted it to a notion of what I -thought- it would turn out to being, which lead to a sense of being "okay" with the concept that was then presented. I can also see how it naturally could lead to then becoming highly defensive about reacting to the responses that have been given in regards to it. And then like a snowball, momentum makes it bigger and we have a mess on our hands.

And as tired as I am of there being messes, it doesn't do anything or any one any good if I choose to then react to it as "Great, another ****ing mess, isn't THIS just lovely" even if that IS a human reaction to give.

I'm already on record as saying that I don't think the right approach should involve more of an Authoritative stance when it comes to a Community. I'm more than willing and I have the choice however to see how well it can work before trying other options, regardless of my own personal stance. This isn't a compromise of who I am or of my nature, it just means that I can rationally see a need for allowing things to progress naturally and organically to their own conclusions and work on it from there.

I'm more invested (personally) in learning what works and what doesn't and in making mistakes (and apologizing for them in the right way) as a fundamental part of my own personal evolution. But it is a LOT easier to want to try and hold on to what is already established, to want to be right and to just say "This is the way of it, take it or **** off". It is a lot easier to deal with hostility by replying in kind.

I've worked Technical Support in addition to having to work through my own anger management issues as both a child and young adult. Fortunately, rather than taking the "lets medicate it out of you" route (which can still be viable, just wasn't in my case), I got to work through it by developing an understanding of what causes for it and developing the mechanics to help me step aside from it until I can look at it later. Working in technical support really helped with that, as when you pick up a phone and immediately have somebody absolutely SCREAMING at you, it is REALLY easy to default to the fact that they are screaming at YOU and therefor, YOU need to do something about it.

So, what does any of the above so far have to do with where we are right now? Well, let me refer back to:
A: entrenchment
B: entitlement

Yes, we need to have -something- that the community can be behind that lets people know who they can turn to and what we can do about things and when it becomes necessary for things to be done. Social urges of being a social creature wants control and structure in the face of chaos (and perversely the more of that you have, the more you'll generate the need for chaos).

So while I do think that the idea and the approach -as ideas- are still good and solid and necessary, I'd like to see more of a engagement with regards to what WOULD work, rather than a focus on tearing down or bring up what HASN'T worked or what people feel might be wrong about the existing idea.

We took it as a top level discussion and a top level collaboration to try and create this set up. As a result, it got created in a vacuum that allowed for both entitlement and entrenchment to take place. We took it as our responsibility to try and come up with something for the Community, which we did and we then presented to the Community. But we (I don't think) took into account that the community (in light of the whole reason behind WHY we did this in the first place) might not see it as more of an Authoritarian move of imposing a system in place, instead of as a "rough draft" seed for us to all collectively germinate and process and turn into a upheld Pearl.

Part of that may have been due the presentation of how it got put forth to the community. For something that would require Community involvement and acknowledgement and participation in, the feedback is as a reaction to it being (perceptually at the very least) as being now already "in effect" with no sense of having actually contributed anything towards it in a fashion that makes it tailor made for the very Community it is purportedly in place to support.

There have been throughout the posts a few wonderful examples of the right kind of feedback that we should take a look at. PA's and SA's guidelines have been pointed out as being a format that we can look at. So rather than trying to recreate a wheel in a void, I think there is merit in soliciting from the community the question of:

What do you see, in terms of other forums, as rule-sets or means that you feel would be potentially applicable to HLP that would allow for it to become the Community that you feel would provide the proper environment that will allow it to live up to the declared nature of its existence of "Bringing Modders Together"?


Now, I also need to acknowledge that: We cannot ignore our past. Serious things have taken place. We cannot blindly insist on "moving forward" to a resolution without taking even the slightest moments to actually acknowledge how we got to where we are. What few (public) apologies that have taken place have been grudgingly given and ALWAYS in the context of "but so are you!" or as an attempt to refute a point to prove a point.

The bottom line is NOT in being "right". The bottom line is: address the situation, even if it never gets resolved initially, it will eventually but only when it is properly acknowledged for what it is.

In Technical Support terms, this means: You say "sorry" to the angry caller for their issue, even when they are screaming at you, because god damn it, somebody had better be! You need to let go of the personal matter of not actually being at fault in this situation and still manage to deliver a sincere apology (and for ****s sake, one that you actually MEAN and can uphold) for them being angry before you can start working on the technical problem they are having. If you continue to insist on not being at fault, if you continue to assert that you don't deserve them screaming at you (and yes, we already know you don't, they'll eventually realize that too) you will NEVER get the actual fundamental technical problem resolved.

And I think by and large, that is one of the BIGGEST problems that we have going on here right now. People are screaming at each other. They all have valid points. They are all, in their own way, absolutely right in the position that they are coming from. But we're getting FAR too focused on who is actually MORE RIGHT than the other that we're not getting anywhere, and I would really like if it could stop for even just a moment please, because you are turning rather unhealthy shades of purple and I'm concerned you might have a heart attack.

Now, I don't know whether or not we should engage the conversation on the question above (in bold) within this thread or if we should have a new Topic of discussion regarding it. I'm leaning more in favor of the latter with the emphasis that the topic should start out with, and be purely contained to, the bold part directly and by itself.

In any case, my personal apologies for the mess and my lack of time to properly pay attention to it. Can we please start looking at how we can get this properly sorted now?

[MP-Ryan]

What do you see, in terms of other forums, as rule-sets or means that you feel would be potentially applicable to HLP that would allow for it to become the Community that you feel would provide the proper environment that will allow it to live up to the declared nature of its existence of "Bringing Modders Together"?

Please see the last 5 paragraphs of this post of mine for my feelings on the subject.

[karajorma]

The tightrope, above, is one that a number of the more active (and I suggest, more valuable) people walk in in the Off-Topic area almost daily.  It's tied to the disapproving look too.  Some of the most effective moderation I've seen in my couple-decades of Internet use and BB/IRC/forum use in particular uses this - and I'm not saying to be nasty, but there is a lot of benefit in allowing forum users to self-moderate based on social rules.  Official moderation really should only be used as a last resort, in my view.  It's far better for someone to receive an explanation of why their behaviour is bad, be the subject of social ridicule for that behaviour, and hopefully correct it based on the experience of being smacked by the general membership than be scolded by a single moderator.  Formal moderation should be used as an option of last resort, where a temp-ban (or, for egregious idiots, a permaban) is more appropriate.  HLP does this to an extent already, and moderators like The E, Mongoose, and karajorma have tended to warn people off with consequences implied publicly, which often corrects the behaviour (and for the worst offenders, they've been subsequently banned anyway).  I really don't like the prescriptive nature of the tightrope and the disapproving look -killing guidelines above - and not just because they could land me in hot water.

I don't think I've ever seen a single post from you which would lead to either of those two causing you problems. But when it comes to letting the community moderate itself, quite frankly, I don't think we're ready.
Sure it's something to work towards, but I don't think it's something we can institute today. Maybe if everyone was a mature as you, sure.

You've pointed out that several moderators warn people publicly about their behaviour and I do agree that it is a good thing to do that, but you have no idea about the amount of **** we go through as a result of it. Even in cases where no one sensible should be arguing against the moderators decision.
 I really don't feel having that **** sprayed all over the forums is a better solution. It's divisive. Minor arguments quickly split into factions arguing over who is right and who is wrong and then the admins have to come in and make a ruling over the issue, pissing off one faction or both.

The morph concerns me for a different reason.  A number of the most interesting and valuable GD discussions come out when a thread on one topic morphs into another.  While I understand that we don't want soapboxes, I'm concerned that this guideline impedes natural drift.  I have a personal vested interest in this one too, because I often precipitate some natural drift.

I think you're assuming that this guideline is much more harsh than it's actually meant to be. It does quite clearly state that the topic can drift organically. The issue is not threads that morph. I can think of only two recent examples where it really needed to apply.

1) On a recent topic about a pair of religious parents who allowed their child to die because they believed their faith would cure him we had one person post, not to talk about the topic itself, but to use the mere fact that it was about religion to attack all religions. The thread rapidly went downhill following that.

2) The second occasion should be one you are much more familiar with. I'm referring to what I'll call the "*****" thread. As you are well aware, a thread about a very serious piece of misandry quickly mutated into a thread about the use of the word ***** and remained there despite calls from the moderation staff and the original poster to talk about the original topic.

I can't think of any other occasions in the last few months where this guideline would apply and I'm sure you understand why in those two occasions, something should be done about it.

What I'd like to see is the tack that I've taken in other online communities and server moderation, which is essentially the following:

Rule 1:  Don't be a douchebag.
Rule 2:  See rule 1.
Rule 3:  For the particularly obtuse, the definition of douchebag includes, but is not limited to, the following:  racist language, homophobic language, attacks on a person's character (as opposed to post behaviour or content), linking or posting of illegal content, linking or posting to explicit content, spam, stream-of-consciousness/blog posting, or other consistently-obnoxious behaviour.

That's it.  Violate Rule 3, which explicitly says the not-allowed things, and the result should be a temp-ban for a week, followed by a perma-ban for a second offense.  That stuff is easy.  Violate Rule 1, the more general-catch-all, and you start with a warning, then a temp-ban, then a perma-ban, depending on the nature, frequency, and severity of the behaviour.  This allows you to ban the High Max / Liberator types on the forums quite quickly, and still reign in your more valuable posters who occasionally step out of line.  And furthermore - all warnings, temp-bans, and perma-bans and their reasons should be public.  That doesn't mean up for debate, that means public - bad behaviour should become deterrence.

That's actually not too different from the post I made earlier. But since we get a lot of newbies on here who don't post much on other forums, I think we do need to explain some of the terms from Rule 3 better. And I think Be Nice is actually a far more important rule than Don't Be A Dick.

Trying to write a massive rulebook on guidelines is an unforgiving, thankless exercise that will not only bite the moderation team in the ass, it'll bite some of the more intelligent-but-exasperated posters in the ass too.

The guidelines were never meant to be a rulebook. For the most part they were just meant to point out a few of the new behaviours we'd be cracking down on harder and pointing out that the goal was to bring the community together rather than having them divided by petty squabbling. On reflection it might have been smarter to not post new guidelines and simply say that. But then we get posts saying that "You can't just say you'll be doing this more!. This should be part of the guidelines!"

As I've pointed out before, I'm quite happy to say no to that comment but I can point you to dozens of examples of people saying that sort of thing. I even vaguely remember that some of them came from people on this thread who are now saying the exact opposite. The long guidelines were mainly to appease those people who insist on having a long set of rules they can follow. If the community opinion has changed in favour of having a much simpler set of guidelines, I'm happy with that.

We can easily replace those three guidelines with the Don't Be A Dick from Rule 1.

One final complaint:  Having been the subject of a recent temp ban, I can attest to the frustration of NOT BEING ABLE TO PM THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE.  This is a problem.  I creatively managed to use the report feature, but for Pete's sake, that's brutal (especially as it has a character limit).  You need a proper appeals function/section, especially if you persist with the new prescriptive guidelines.

Yeah, I didn't realise the muted feature blocks PMs too, as soon as I did I reduced the warning level for you so that we could resolve the issue (I'm sure I've gotten PMs from people who were punished in some way, maybe just if they have their posts moderated). We'll definitely have to do something about that.

i'm just going to say that having rule #1 of how-to-not-be-a-dick-spelled-out be based on a reference to a 60s tv show starring a guy that died when i was 12 and hence never heard of before today is a bad idea if you want people to understand what you mean just saying

Mr Rogers is actually quite famous for being a wonderfully nice guy. Even though I never saw his show, even I've heard of him. This Cracked article does a great job of explaining who he is.

But I agree we can use a better definition. I started to write one but ran out of time. I'll try again once I'm back from work.

[General Battuta]

2) The second occasion should be one you are much more familiar with. I'm referring to what I'll call the "*****" thread. As you are well aware, a thread about a very serious piece of misandry quickly mutated into a thread about the use of the word ***** and remained there despite calls from the moderation staff and the original poster to talk about the original topic.

People who've spent a long time studying, discussing, and writing about this topic have a lot to say on the complexities of gender bias and the way it's constructed and performed. This was a case where I feel like the discussions should've been left alone; nobody had anything at all to say about the original topic.

Obviously I'm miffed here, but this is kind of what I'm concerned about. If the posts are substantive, well-thought-out, and saying something meaningful, let the topic drift. Calling this soapboxing doesn't make any sense to me. If the topic's about how upset we should be that a male rape victim's being mocked, maybe language used to mock male rape victims is fair game for the topic.

This was also one of those cases where there wasn't really enough communication to understand what was happening and why.

e: for tone

[karajorma]

When MP-Ryan has flat out asked people to stay on the original topic, don't you think it's very disrespectful towards him to ignore his wishes and plow on with the topic you care about?

See, this is why I worry that don't be a dick isn't enough. Even now you don't seem to see why ignoring the wishes of the OP is behaviour that falls under the heading of being a dick.

I call your behaviour on that thread soapboxing because you didn't care what MP-Ryan wanted to discuss, you had something important to talk about and you were damn well going to talk about it.

I'm sorry if you don't feel my explanation for why this behaviour was unaccepable was detailed enough. If you want to thrash this out on PM I'm more than happy to do so.

[General Battuta]

I agree that that's a dick move*, and I wouldn't be comfortable going ahead with that as a unilateral thing. But wasn't there a lively discussion going on in the split thread? There was no intent to run that same discussion in the main thread; as I recall I was just really uncomfortable leaving the remark unflagged. I think it's important for people who are made uncomfortable by the forum's culture - whether these people are rape survivors or women accustomed to being belittled in environments like this - to know that they have advocates and allies, and I'm fundamentally bothered by the idea that this kind of advocacy, even if it's just a single post, would be marginalized while the original attack would be left to stand. Give 'em each a post and then split the rest.

On a broader level, again I think you're misconstruing what you should be doing as mods and admins here if you think there's a concern that some rule 'isn't enough'. You're a moderator (or an admin). Your job is to moderate and use your judgment, not to look wearily at a list of rules and wish you could do more. If someone's being a creep, give them a warning. If someone's ****ting up threads with dumb image macros and complaints about how terrible the threads are, warn them. Use the tools available to promote substantive discussion, and use your judgment to make these decisions. Don't get tangled up in an attempt to write exhaustive legislation, to borrow MP-Ryan's metaphor.

I would personally be pretty displeased if you took the stance that having a strong stance about rape culture in a thread about rape is 'soapboxing', and I would consider it a sign of mishandled moderation. But it wouldn't be because of the scope or nature of the powers exercised, some legalistic dispute with how you did it. I'd just think you made the wrong call.

I can see how the issue of subjectivity becomes a real problem here, and I know HLP just can't afford to attrit members and shrug it off. But I think there's been this repeated miscommunication in which 'more proaction, harsher punishments' is taken as a call for more bans. Think of the fabled broken windows theory of law enforcement, whether it works or not - attention to the small stuff, the tone of discussions and the attitude of the moderators towards their threads. When you wade through fifteen pages of a heated discussion, offering academic citations and real analysis, and it ends with some mod rolling their eyes and declaring that 'we're done here' or whatever, all that comes across is contempt for any kind of discussion at all. That's what I think needs to change.

[Black Wolf]

Mr Rogers was never on Australian TV as far as I know, bud I did find this on the cracked article. Spoon, this one's for you buddy.

http://youtu.be/yXEuEUQIP3Q?t=5m34s

Now, again, can I reiterate that we are a modding forum, with a focus on producing content for FS (as well as support and various other games based on the same engine, I know all that, it's peripheral to the point). A lot of the recommendation people are making are based on rules from discussion forums - in other words, forums where the primary focus is on interesting discussions about a variety of topics. Maybe they have a focus, maybe they don't, the point is that we are in a different category. A lot of these rules seem to work on the same principle that MP Ryan described - "Temp ban after one offence, Permanant ban after another".

We can't work like that. I've already given a very quick list of people who probably wouldn't be here under such a system who've made undeniable contributions to the modding work of the community. And believe me, that list would be significantly longer if we enforced a few peoples ideas about what constitutes an "offence" (based on some of the reported posts we see). And we definitely wont be going down the road where we have two sets of rules for people who actively mod and people who don't - even if that wasn't a horrendous double standard, that eliminates the possibility of anyone calming down and learning to mod.

My read of this thread is that "the community" (amorphous as that term really is) seems to want the impossible. On the one hand, we have people saying "No rules, just tell people don't be a dick! And then moderate and ban the people who are dicks. It's so simple!" And yet, on the other, we have people screaming at us about decisions we've made and I know - not suspect, not think, not expect - I know that that would be made 10 times worse if we were making decisions outside of the framework of a series of rules.

In short, you're angry at us for making decisions based on our best judgement, and encouraging us to change the system so that we rely solely on our best judgement.

What it seems to me that everyone really wants is to have a system wherein we make decisions based on your view of how the forum ought to be run - and we can't do that for each and every one of the couple of hundred plus active members that we have. Like I said, as a group, you seem to want the impossible.

[NGTM-1R]

A lot of the recommendation people are making are based on rules from discussion forums - in other words, forums where the primary focus is on interesting discussions about a variety of topics. Maybe they have a focus, maybe they don't, the point is that we are in a different category.

This doesn't really follow. Any thread is going to be a discussion, regardless of whatever modding content exists in it. People post their thoughts on it, they discuss, because that's what forums do. Modding doesn't get done directly done through the forums unless people are sharing something back and forth via attachments, and even then they're probably discussing it as well. Encouraging them to be substantive remains in HLP's interests.

The whole ban tangent you launched into is...well see Battuta's post above your own for why it's not necessarily related at all.

[Black Wolf]

You're right, essentially - everything we do is discussion. But the problems people are worried about are primarily emerging as a result of discussions unrelated to modding, but the kind of heavy handed approach being advocated would see people banned from the entire forum, and like it or not, not being able to be part of HLP will inevitably decrease people's desire and ability to mod for FS. Which is exactly what we don't want to do.

[Fury]

Alright, for whatever it might be worth I'd like to say something too.

Rules
As has been already said many times, the way how rules are laid out in PA and SA forums are from my point of view much better. They are laid out in a way that leaves administration and moderators sufficient flexibility to deal with different situations in different ways. Perhaps this leads to situations where more than one person commits same offence, but receives different punishment. It's still better than facing a situation where you are forced to adhere to an explicit list of infractions to dish out specific punishments.

What MP-Ryan posted earlier is good example how base rules could be handled. The less rules there are and the shorter said rules are, the better.

The Hammer of HLP Justice
I'm gonna say it bluntly, an admin or moderation when it comes to his or her job on these forums should not give a **** about what people say about your actions as long as you have acted impartially after taking good look at the situation at hand. If you cannot handle your job without being behind the Hammer, then perhaps this job is not for you. The whole idea of using singular moderation entity to represent all of administration and moderation is moronic. Moderation should be transparent. If you are afraid of your own actions and what consequences they may have after your moderation, then there's something seriously wrong. I don't think anyone expects admins and mods to be infallible in their decisions. You will mess up at times, nobody is going to hold a grudge over it, if you admit you were in the wrong and apologize. It shouldn't be that hard. If it is, then you're being a dick yourself.

As a matter of fact, I dislike how moderation is being discussed only among those "entitled". This again works against transparent moderation. Of course, you don't want everyone to butt in to the discussion, but allowing them to read would be better than nothing at all. Through transparency like this, even public gains better knowledge of how and why these decisions are made and what was involved in the situation. I believe transparent moderation has a lot more to offer than this behind the curtains act that is entrenched into HLP culture. As it is, these things in the past have been subject to discussion in IRC where they are also subject to serious misinformation and assumptions. And just as often than not, they may not be in the favor of moderation. Use of the Hammer would just make it all worse and I dread what it might turn into.

Board moderators
I believe I suggested several times in the past that non-hosted boards have their board moderators removed and instead those moderators worthy are promoted to global moderators. So in this part I like changes to moderation. I however do not like one bit about how this turned into hierarchical system where hosted project moderators are now beneath global moderators. This is especially worrisome if global moderators have a tendency to do "hit and run" moderation, where they make quick glimpse at the situation, make bad assumptions and step on hosted project moderators toes. This is not how this should work at all. This calls for transparency in moderation. Cooperate, converse, decide, transparently.

There's nothing wrong to subject hosted project moderators to same ground rules as all other moderators. The problem lies in this whole concept of "hierarchical authority" that global moderators have now been embraced with. This is clearly a slap in the face towards hosted project moderators as it messages that they aren't fit for the job of moderating their own boards.

Again, where's cooperation, conversation and transparency? Nowhere to be seen really.

Punishments
I believe it was MP-Ryan and NGTM-1R who mentioned they were banned without means for appeal. I do not know whether this happened when the "monkey" system was in place or not. But normally when someone is not capable of civil behavior in public boards, they are monkeyd either temporarily or permanently. This allows them to read the forums, use PM and still converse in private boards where they have access to, hence allowing nearly normal activity in any hosted project they might be member of. This is good and "monkeying" should be first and foremost means of punishment regardless of person if question, as this leaves PM's an open channel for appeals. Unfortunately, without transparent moderation even in the case of monkeying, you would have no channel for appeals. Not unless someone is keeping track of any PM's sent to the Hammer.

Bans, now there's the ultimate punishment that should be reserved for cases where appeals are flat out rejected. At least personally I feel like the monkey system worked well enough for HLP because of HLP's unique nature of preserving hosted project activity.

Administration
Admins are not infallible either and they make wrong decisions from time to time. In HLP's case though, that decision making is slower than snails and wrong decisions happens far too often. Not only that, but there's no transparency to actions of admins. Admins have kept their total authoritative ruling system where they are far and beyond common folk of this community, a stance that does not serve well being of the community in the least. Of course, admins should have the last word on matters when the situation calls it. But how often has a situation really called for it? There's no transparency to actions of admins, no accountability for being inefficient, in the wrong, a dick, or just plain unfit for the job.

How do we ensure that any single admin of HLP is actually fit for the job they signed up? It should be remembered that each admin was chosen for their unique skill set and specific job in mind. But never were they selected for betterment of the community. Admins were and probably still are terrible at managing such situations. Probably fearing that soon they might find themselves at the receiving end of such scrutiny. Right this second I could name two admins who should be outed for their lackluster performance. But it will never happen seeing as there's no accountability even within administration itself.

The community could see this if administration was transparent. But as it stands, the community at large is mostly clueless about internal workings (or lack thereof) of the HLP adminship.

As has been previously pointed out, it is the administration's responsibility to develop and make HLP a better place. Instead, they have instead opted for status quo year after year. We really haven't seen any real changes around here aside of occasional re-organization of the forum layout. The few admins that are actually active members of the community, have their eyes only towards their own projects. Not the community at large.

All issues pointed out in this topic are extremely valid. But at end of the day, let's ask ourselves the big question. Did we really had to have all these issues in the first place? All through these years, HLP administration have dealt with issues long after they appeared. It seems that not even once they have made any real strides towards eliminating the very source of the problem, inefficient administration, one that is not accountable to the very community they are supposed to serve. The word here being serve, not rule. This also seems to be a point of confusion among some of the admins.

[karajorma]

My read of this thread is that "the community" (amorphous as that term really is) seems to want the impossible. On the one hand, we have people saying "No rules, just tell people don't be a dick! And then moderate and ban the people who are dicks. It's so simple!" And yet, on the other, we have people screaming at us about decisions we've made and I know - not suspect, not think, not expect - I know that that would be made 10 times worse if we were making decisions outside of the framework of a series of rules.

In short, you're angry at us for making decisions based on our best judgement, and encouraging us to change the system so that we rely solely on our best judgement.

What it seems to me that everyone really wants is to have a system wherein we make decisions based on your view of how the forum ought to be run - and we can't do that for each and every one of the couple of hundred plus active members that we have. Like I said, as a group, you seem to want the impossible.

One thousand times this.

[Mongoose]

As has been already said many times, the way how rules are laid out in PA and SA forums are from my point of view much better. They are laid out in a way that leaves administration and moderators sufficient flexibility to deal with different situations in different ways. Perhaps this leads to situations where more than one person commits same offence, but receives different punishment. It's still better than facing a situation where you are forced to adhere to an explicit list of infractions to dish out specific punishments.

What MP-Ryan posted earlier is good example how base rules could be handled. The less rules there are and the shorter said rules are, the better.

I don't think anyone here is implying that specific punishments will be tied to specific offenses, to the point where admins/mods have their hands tied by the rules.  In fact pretty much the opposite has been stated: a poster's history and the exact circumstances involved are always going to be part of the equation, and they'll affect what sort of action is (or isn't) taken.

I'm gonna say it bluntly, an admin or moderation when it comes to his or her job on these forums should not give a **** about what people say about your actions as long as you have acted impartially after taking good look at the situation at hand. If you cannot handle your job without being behind the Hammer, then perhaps this job is not for you. The whole idea of using singular moderation entity to represent all of administration and moderation is moronic. Moderation should be transparent. If you are afraid of your own actions and what consequences they may have after your moderation, then there's something seriously wrong. I don't think anyone expects admins and mods to be infallible in their decisions. You will mess up at times, nobody is going to hold a grudge over it, if you admit you were in the wrong and apologize. It shouldn't be that hard. If it is, then you're being a dick yourself.

The point of the Hammer account isn't nearly so much for the peace of mind of the moderators as it is representative of the fact that moderation isn't meant to be the actions of one individual acting on his or her own whims.  Anything beyond the level of a clear-cut spambot ban is going to have more than one person taking a look at it, and it's only if there's no substantial disagreement that action will be taken.  It's not one moderator deciding to warn someone, but a few of us together, and that's where the Hammer idea comes into play.

As a matter of fact, I dislike how moderation is being discussed only among those "entitled". This again works against transparent moderation. Of course, you don't want everyone to butt in to the discussion, but allowing them to read would be better than nothing at all. Through transparency like this, even public gains better knowledge of how and why these decisions are made and what was involved in the situation. I believe transparent moderation has a lot more to offer than this behind the curtains act that is entrenched into HLP culture. As it is, these things in the past have been subject to discussion in IRC where they are also subject to serious misinformation and assumptions. And just as often than not, they may not be in the favor of moderation. Use of the Hammer would just make it all worse and I dread what it might turn into.

Isn't that exactly what we're doing right now?  I mean if you want to say that this thread should have been presented as something like, "Here are some ideas for a revised moderation approach, what do you think?", then that's certainly valid.  But there has already been feedback presented here that has affected how we're moving forward, and I expect that to continue.  As far as moderation transparency in general goes, we're going to set up something of a "Thread of Shame" to list warnings/bans, so that people can see exactly what actions are being taken and why.

I believe I suggested several times in the past that non-hosted boards have their board moderators removed and instead those moderators worthy are promoted to global moderators. So in this part I like changes to moderation. I however do not like one bit about how this turned into hierarchical system where hosted project moderators are now beneath global moderators. This is especially worrisome if global moderators have a tendency to do "hit and run" moderation, where they make quick glimpse at the situation, make bad assumptions and step on hosted project moderators toes. This is not how this should work at all. This calls for transparency in moderation. Cooperate, converse, decide, transparently.

There's nothing wrong to subject hosted project moderators to same ground rules as all other moderators. The problem lies in this whole concept of "hierarchical authority" that global moderators have now been embraced with. This is clearly a slap in the face towards hosted project moderators as it messages that they aren't fit for the job of moderating their own boards.

Again, where's cooperation, conversation and transparency? Nowhere to be seen really.

As has already been stated, moderation decisions are going to be a joint effort from here on out, so there aren't going to be any of these kinds of "hit and run" decisions where one individual takes action in a hosted project thread.  I will freely admit that this has happened in the past, and that it was wrong...and that's a big reason why these revisions are happening in the first place.

About the whole "hierarchy" thing, I guess I'm having a lot of trouble seeing why that's such a big issue for some people, not least of which because I've seen a similar system used on pretty much every forum I've been involved with.  But looking past that, as a project leader, wouldn't dealing with people being dicks in your project board be pretty much the last thing you'd want to have to deal with on a daily basis?  I mean, maybe it's just me, but I'd sure as hell want to be focused on the actual point of what I'm doing, showing off the content I've created and interacting with the people consuming it, not dealing with some idiot spouting flames all over the place.  I'd want to report it, let the moderation staff deal with it, and have it taken out of my hair.  At least from my understanding of it, the concept of projects being hosted on HLP was never meant to imply that the forum side of those project would represent individual fiefdoms: you get your own folder and the abilities to manage how content is presented there, but it's still a part of HLP as a whole, and so under the auspices of the people in charge of maintaining the site.  The bottom line for me is that, if I as a project lead wanted full administrative control over my forum, I'd go ahead and make my own...otherwise, I'd stick to the fun part of my job, and leave the crap to those people who for some reason are willing to deal with said crap on a daily basis.

I believe it was MP-Ryan and NGTM-1R who mentioned they were banned without means for appeal. I do not know whether this happened when the "monkey" system was in place or not. But normally when someone is not capable of civil behavior in public boards, they are monkeyd either temporarily or permanently. This allows them to read the forums, use PM and still converse in private boards where they have access to, hence allowing nearly normal activity in any hosted project they might be member of. This is good and "monkeying" should be first and foremost means of punishment regardless of person if question, as this leaves PM's an open channel for appeals. Unfortunately, without transparent moderation even in the case of monkeying, you would have no channel for appeals. Not unless someone is keeping track of any PM's sent to the Hammer.

Bans, now there's the ultimate punishment that should be reserved for cases where appeals are flat out rejected. At least personally I feel like the monkey system worked well enough for HLP because of HLP's unique nature of preserving hosted project activity.

I think karajorma may have stated it before, but the "muting" option not allowing for PMs wasn't something we were aware of before that happened, and it certainly isn't the intended behavior.  You're right that not having PMs as a recourse in that situation is a very bad thing, and it's something that will be fixed.  If that means simply not using the "mute" option at all, then that'll be off the table.

[Fury]

I don't think anyone here is implying that specific punishments will be tied to specific offenses, to the point where admins/mods have their hands tied by the rules.  In fact pretty much the opposite has been stated: a poster's history and the exact circumstances involved are always going to be part of the equation, and they'll affect what sort of action is (or isn't) taken.

In practice that stance is good, trying to make it into a long list of explicit infraction rules probably won't work all that well in the long term. Which is the gist of what I gathered was supposed to happen.

The point of the Hammer account isn't nearly so much for the peace of mind of the moderators as it is representative of the fact that moderation isn't meant to be the actions of one individual acting on his or her own whims.  Anything beyond the level of a clear-cut spambot ban is going to have more than one person taking a look at it, and it's only if there's no substantial disagreement that action will be taken.  It's not one moderator deciding to warn someone, but a few of us together, and that's where the Hammer idea comes into play.

The only reason I am seeing a need for the Hammer is that we have moderators or administrators who are not enjoying trust of the community to do their job in fair manner. The only thing the Hammer does, is mask the problem, not solve it. This is further reinforced by the fact that these discussions concerning moderation are carried behind closed doors so to say. The general public, whom the moderators and administrators are supposed to serve, cannot make accurate opinions of the matters themselves. You can draw a comparison to most countries justice system where court proceedings are almost always public. Only in rare cases they are closed to media and all non-essential people.

Not only that, but from my point of view it seems like hosted project board moderators were forgotten in all of this. From where I stand, it looks like the Hammer is reserved for admins and global moderators. Hosted project moderators still had to just be themselves to moderate. Or did you expect that hosted project moderators are now prohibited to carry out any moderation action, but instead must always go through global moderator or admin and thusly the Hammer? That's real fair play guys, well done.

Isn't that exactly what we're doing right now?  I mean if you want to say that this thread should have been presented as something like, "Here are some ideas for a revised moderation approach, what do you think?", then that's certainly valid.  But there has already been feedback presented here that has affected how we're moving forward, and I expect that to continue.  As far as moderation transparency in general goes, we're going to set up something of a "Thread of Shame" to list warnings/bans, so that people can see exactly what actions are being taken and why.

This topic was posted by mjn.mixael who read about these new changes in an announcement and who didn't like what he was reading. All feedback, all discussion is only now being carried out after the fact. I'd say this is a major blunder from global moderators and admins alike. And this is exactly why I wrote my last post's "Administration" part. There's no transparency to decision making nor accountability.

I think karajorma may have stated it before, but the "muting" option not allowing for PMs wasn't something we were aware of before that happened, and it certainly isn't the intended behavior.  You're right that not having PMs as a recourse in that situation is a very bad thing, and it's something that will be fixed.  If that means simply not using the "mute" option at all, then that'll be off the table.

And don't forget that the SMF warning system doesn't warn anything in by itself, leaving the warned person clueless unless he is specifically informed personally about it. Again pulling rugs from underneath the Hammer unless great care is taken to handle any PM's from and to the Hammer.

[Black Wolf]

And don't forget that the SMF warning system doesn't warn anything in by itself, leaving the warned person clueless unless he is specifically informed personally about it. Again pulling rugs from underneath the Hammer unless great care is taken to handle any PM's from and to the Hammer.

Not true, actually. Whoever warned you forgot to check the box, but it's standard practice to tell the board software to send a standard "You have been warned for this post" PM.

[Fury]

My read of this thread is that "the community" (amorphous as that term really is) seems to want the impossible. On the one hand, we have people saying "No rules, just tell people don't be a dick! And then moderate and ban the people who are dicks. It's so simple!" And yet, on the other, we have people screaming at us about decisions we've made and I know - not suspect, not think, not expect - I know that that would be made 10 times worse if we were making decisions outside of the framework of a series of rules.

In short, you're angry at us for making decisions based on our best judgement, and encouraging us to change the system so that we rely solely on our best judgement.

What it seems to me that everyone really wants is to have a system wherein we make decisions based on your view of how the forum ought to be run - and we can't do that for each and every one of the couple of hundred plus active members that we have. Like I said, as a group, you seem to want the impossible.

One thousand times this.

While I do not know most of the moderation actions that may have played role in this, I'd still like to say a few words on the subject.

People are angry at moderators or administrators for carrying out unfair moderation. From previous posts it is also clear that "hit and run" moderation has also played a large role in this. Both are clear problems. You have devised a solution to properly communicate in these matters before carrying out any action and carrying them out in united front that poses as the Hammer.

There's just a few problems with this. Moderation by its very definition is acting on best judgment. There's no way around this and no matter how many of you discuss the matter, it is still being carried out on best judgment. There's just more people behind the judgment now, making moderation actions all that much slower. Meanwhile the people on both ends are left to their own devices until a decision is reached, which will take what, a day or two at best, a week at worst?

Does the community trust your decision making to be fair, just, impartial and swift? Will there be transparency in all of this? This doesn't change at all no matter how many people are behind the justification of moderation action. People are still going to be angry if they feel you didn't make the right decision. But since you do everything behind the Hammer, they lose every last sense of there being accountability for one's actions, even moderator's or admin's. But of course, where are my manners. We again forgot hosted project moderators, who are not entitled to work with the Hammer.

All the good intentions, but everything wrong with the way problem is being approached.