Community Feedback Poll [read clarifications in OP before voting!]
 

This poll will be used simply as a representative gauge of the community's feelings about particular things, including moderation issues, and community issues. This is not a part of a mod team decision, and I am in no way representing the mod team with this thread. It's a personal inquiry into opinion of this forum's state of affairs.
I hope that the results of this poll will put into perspective the basis of expectation by the community and its moderators, if each group wishes to participate.

This thread is NOT, however, a repository for complaints and arguments. Any such posts will be deleted.
Legitimate concerns and clarifications are welcome.




(This thread does not mean the results will be acted on. As I said, this is purely a personal inquiry at the moment of this writing)



CLARIFICATIONS
Due to the character limit for options, I had to condense a lot of them and, as a result, some may be ambiguous in regard to the point of the option.
Please read these clarifications before voting.

1. Moderators SHOULD use personal judgment in moderating decisions.
- You agree that moderators, either in deliberation with one another, or acting alone in obvious cases, should use their personal judgment as moderators when deciding whether something should be moderated. Moderation meaning: deciding whether a post should be deleted, infracted, or a user banned. In most cases, these are deliberated amongst the mods, each using their own personal judgment, and a consensus is formed. In cases after the fact, these decisions are also usually commented or deliberated on, and reversals or standings are often a result of that.

2. Opposite 1, with the assumption that regardless of any factors that may be involved, any person will be moderated the same without the use of personal judgement appropriate for the situation.

3. Members SHOULD be allowed to break rules, provided they are not habitually doing so.
- This ties into 1. It allows for a member to make a mistake without being punished, provided that member is not known to be a habitual offender. This does not preclude such a post from being deleted to prevent retaliation, nor does it preclude the member being spoken to by a moderator in private.

4. Opposite 3, with the assumption that regardless of human error and emotional outburst, this occurrence will be treated in the same manner a habitual offender would be treated.

5. Moderators SHOULD take history and frequency into account, when infracting.
- This ties into 3. It allows, again, for moderators to take into account the nature of the offender when considering punishment.

6. This is basically the same thing as option 4.

10. Members SHOULD NOT PM a moderator for that information, but ask publicly.
- This assumes the voter expects a moderator to publicly post details about a person's ban. While asking publicly would be fine, the option asks whether the moderator(s) are obliged to publish the information for not only the requester, but everyone.

12. Moderators SHOULD be allowed to decide what constitutes disruption.
- This agrees that moderators have the right to deem content they feel is disruptive to the forums, which encompass ALL stipulations set forth in the forum rules. Including insulting content.

16. Actions going against rules SHOULD be allowed in specific threads designed for these activities.
- For example, The Rawest Rap Battles thread, The Spam Thread, Fake Argument Thread, etc.

21. Black & white moderation will lead to an unhappy community afraid of expressing themselves.
- "Black & white" moderation means: Moderating strictly to the set rules, regardless of any considerations whatsoever, and forsaking independent judgment of situations and gray areas. This ties into several of the options.

Vote!

you forgot these options in your poll

Moderators SHOULD be allowed to break rules, provided they are not habitually doing so.
Moderators SHOULD NOT be allowed to break any rules, at any time.

Well that's a bit of an obvious one. Of course we can break the rules. ;)
I think, instead, I could have added:

Moderators SHOULD have to post when they are reprimanded by other mods in the mod forum
Moderators SHOULD NOT have to post when they are reprimanded by other mods in the mod forum.

But I think that would go along with personal privacy, and I'm pretty sure none of the mods want other mods posting quotes of us tearing each other new asses on bad decisions. But I guess you'll have to trust when I say that none of the mods on this squad have been so bad off that we've needed to ask them to step down. Not since boo boo has that happened.

I have cast in this poll, mostly so users can see where I, personally, stand in regards to my moderation of this website.

Likewise.

Same here. I'm looking forward to the general community votes too.

Best group of mods this site's had since I've come here. And lord knows I've never been one to ride the jock of the mods. Thanks for having this thread.

irony

Care to explain that comment?
Just wondering, because I don't see any irony. He basically admits this is the first time he's had such praise. He's not denying it.

Nope, not explaining it. I like to use words incorrectly because I'm dumb.

Also, I want to clarify the following option:
Members SHOULD NOT be allowed to break any rules, at any time.

What I meant by this, is a matter of tolerating occasions where a member may break a rule but as a one time thing... should that member be punished rather than given a nudge of disapproval. I'll make a list of clarifications in the original post before too many others vote, so that no one is inadvertently mislead. I apologize for any ambiguity that may have caused votes that may not have been intended for the clarification of those rules.

okay got ya, I should have just asked but I got it now.

We aren't allowed to insult ourselves.

For the record, I'd have cast slightly differently, given that information.

I'm in the process of adding clarifications now. Due to the character limitations for options, I guess it was inevitable there would be some ambiguity. For those that wish to change their votes after the clarifications are posted, just post those votes you made that you wish to change, and which you'd like to change them to. It will just be an issue to get others who've voted on them to re-vote those options, if desired.

I'll edit in my own addendum, of which there are two.

Clarifications posted in OP.

I'm not sure how to go about that without erasing the option and creating a new duplicate that no one has voted, as your name wouldn't be erased from the vote by simply subtracting one from the vote box. If that's the only way, then those who have voted on the option will have to re-vote on the new version of it if they wish to keep their vote. Same would go for the options that are being switched to.

I could be wrong though. I've never tried it.

It moves the vote, but not the name. Oh well.

Yea, it's not an issue. Just seeing the name in both opposing votes is enough.

Essentially it shows that my opinion is a bit of a split, which is true enough.

All's well then.
I hope the clarifications help for others, though, because based on what I had in mind when writing the options, some people's votes were pretty self-contradictory.

geez this is the most professional group of mods i think we have had. This is just some little internet community half these rules i didn't even know existed.

Crap I think I voted wrong on one or two things. Probably because I couldn't read them. I'm getting new glasses tomorrow, thankfully.

First of all, this is a great idea. I would like to see at least one option added.

MODERATORS should deliberate action, and refer to precedent in past actions when making judgement.


I don't agree with mods flying off the cuff on a case by case basis, that would only breed favoritism and bring personal feelings into the mix. I also don't agree with a member getting an infraction everytime they use the word "stupid" in a post. (see oojay's recent post's for reference)

Needless to say I don't subcribe to the "black & white" theory, or the idea of moderators going around banning people because they've had a bad day and don't feel like dealing with things the proper way (not directing this at anyone or saying this has ever happened before, calm down).

The way I think it should go down is something like this:

1. Actions of offending party are brought to attention to the mod team by prosecuting moderator, after at least 2, but no more than 5 warnings have been administered to member for the same or similar instances of offending behavior. A notice will be given to the member on their final warning that states it is as such, via PM.

2. Mod team will deliberate, based on past and agreeable precedent, establishing some sort of continuity in enforcement over time, and determine the length of ban to be applied. A majority (i.e. 5/8) moderators votes should be required to take recommended action. This will decrease disagreements between mods as well as ignorance amongst mods who would then be question as to reason. A more informed mod team is a better mod team.

3. The prosecuting moderator (the mod that brings the case before the team) will be responsible for justifying and adequetely explaining action to the public in a forum setting, as well as the offending party via PM. Explanations should include details to include: the prosecuting moderator (who should be the originator of the explanation post) ,time and date of offenses, a summary of offending actions, and time and dates of previous warnings leading to disciplinary action. Details that it should not include should be: quotations or re-posting of posts or parts of posts that contain direct, detailed, and concise verbage that could still remain extremely offensive to other members or take away from the professional atmosphere of the forum. (i.e. "crash_override, your mother is a fat whore, you are a waste of space not suited for life in a dumpster. also, you are cross-eyed, semi-retarded ****bag, you cock sucking, dick cock ****bird looking mother****er.")

Instead, summize: "crash_override was attacked on 13 Jun 2011 at approximately 08:40am EST by Banned_Guy71. Offenses include: attacks to crash_override's mother's sexual activity and moral fortitude, his intelligence, and lifestyle. Numerous curse words and personal attacks were included in the offending post, Banned_Guy71 has had three previous warnings for previous offenses (state dates of offenses), and has now been banned from MB (state length of ban)."

Stipulation #1: Actions deemed as extremely severe in disregard to the rules, or threatening impending doom of the community can be dealt with on a no warning basis, but should be justified publically and require a greater majority of mod support. A precedent for these types of actions should be set.

Stipulation #2: These rules should apply to established members only, trolls and spammers should be dealt with under a seperate set of guidelines.

That's a rough overview of how things would and should go in a perfect world, by my account anyway. Take that however you will. But I will refrain from voting in the poll as I feel it limits my options and promotes taking sides, rather than searching for a fair middle ground.

Feedback is welcome and encouraged.

I'm done with mine. and i would like to give you some sort of brief explanation as to why i voted on the following:

personal judgment is sometimes mixed by favouritism and current temperament of a mod. i believe it's much easier, both to the members and mods to rely strictly on the rules.

given that it is explicitely implied on the rules

i believe Conan explained before that this has been practiced and i pretty much agree on this point. it's a very fair thing to do.

to avoid the mods to explain one by one to all thousands of members here thru pm the whats and whys which may differ from a day to day basis depending on the mods memory capability

something tells me that if the members will pm a mod for any information, the volume alone will be a task for them to reply to each and everyone.

for transparency of course

given that they're not breaking any rules along the process

because moderators, out of anyone here, know the rules better

i don't see any good reason why this should be close other than trying to avoid giving explanations about why someone was banned.

i think that is kind of a cumpolsory word to use, "CAN" may be more appropriate.

i'm not sure what black & white here really means but if it meant transparency of moderation to all members, i'm up for it.

more than 1,000 heads are better than less than 1,000 heads.

again, this is just my opinion.

Me neither. Fortunately for both of us that hasn't happened.

i did get an infraction for a pretty colorful insult, though

No personal judgement in moderating, strict adherence to rules please

Post count and history mean nothing

Moderators must be able to justify all of their moderating decisions

and most importantly, community majority opinion means nothing. Mods are here to protect the minority and objectively enforce rules, no matter who is breaking them.

You should be considered as one of the next potential moderators RVCA. Ive always thought that was the case not long after you became a member here at MB.

If history means nothing and strict adherence to the rules is everything, then doesn't that mean someone could insult someone, recieve a temp ban, return off that temp ban, insult the same person again, and continue the pattern indefinitely providing none of the insults were severe enough to warrant a permaban in and of themselves?

And, on the same token, doesn't that mean that if a respected member had a bad day, got drunk and said a few things they would later regret, that member could be permabanned regardless of the positive contribution they otherwise make to the community at all other times?

Moderators being able to justify their actions - No problems here. I don't think we currently even HAVE a problem with this.

Community Majority Opinion means nothing - Sorry, not with you on this one. The amount of time devoted to trying to please the community should be limited to avoid moderators getting distracted by the more...insistent...complainers, and often I think there are people who bitch about modding decisions for the sake of bitching about mod decisions, but the potential exists for genuine errors to be brought up by the community and resolved and that should be given weight.

You're just "bucking" for a Mod position yourself GB. :laughing: (I'm just teasing, no offense meant):)

I keep getting told its just a matter of time, as long as I keep doing them those 'favours'

When I started moderating, my approach at first was black and white and I thought the same rules should apply for everyone. I wanted punishment for any rule breaking to be automatic, impersonal and without discrimination in regards to how long the offender had been here or how well liked he or she was. Basically, I thought if moderators were robots and people didn't get butthurt over infractions, then gaining infractions would be a natural forum consequence, one that you could plan for as getting an infraction really isn't that dangerous so it would still "allow" some rule breaking before members started getting banned.

Then I realized there's no way on MB people are not gonna take recieving infractions personal as it is now. They're used as warnings preceding a ban so people are scared and offended when they recieve them. My approach really wasn't working at all so I had to change the way I did things.

Instead of a moderator punishing people like a robot, I realized it would be better if moderators try to nurture the community instead. If you've been here a long time, that means you are part of the community and if you add positively to it, then I think that makes you a part that should be nurtured. As such, some members have earned some leniency on the moderators part while some, newcomers and those who affect our community in a generally negative way, do not deserve the same privilege. The goal is to make MusicBanter a pleasant and fun community to be a part of and to me, it's a bit like growing a bonzai tree. You have to remove some twigs here and there to make it beautiful (not that I often banned regular members).

The difference between my initial approach and the way I ended up moderating was the latter felt like it worked. For all mods to have the perspective that they're doing a service to a community they are doing their best to improve is an attitude that I think would benefit MB in all areas.


Something lately is causing a split between the mods and some of the members here. Some of the problem I'm sure is a lot of the moderators have a knee-jerk reaction which is very defensive when met with criticism or a wish that they change the way they do things. Why a defensive attitude? These people are the community you serve, so you should treat them with respect and listen. I also feel like moderators breaking the rules they are supposed to uphold can also widen the gap between mods and members as does using mod powers for gloating and terrorizing, like changing the content of a members posts. Because of their power and position as both rule enforces and role models, moderators have to tread more carefully than others, particularly when wielding that power. For example, if you give someone an infraction, in their message, you simply state why that happened and perhaps what could prevented it. You don't gloat or call the offender an idiot.

That's how I feel about it at least. I'm not sure I always lived up to those ideals when I modded, but I tried and I think all mods should.

Bonsai*

I did it my way.

and i bet i'm the soon-to-be blossoming flower on that bonzai tree.
hoping to overshadow the unecessary twigs.

anyways, i pretty much agree with everything you said and RVCA.

this site, apart from music, should maintain a 'nurturing' atmosphere, free from insults and attacks.

and blatant provocation to incur insults and attacks

Thank you Tore for coming out and speaking about this same thing that we've talked about on IRC.

Of course, he said it way better than I did when I attempted to say the same thing weeks ago but this is my only issue with the mods. I didn't care about Dirty's ban. He broke the rules and was punished for it. That's fine.

On both sides the members and mods have decided to spread the gap between the two even further. The mods come out acting all high and mighty like they are the parents and we are just children that are throwing tantrums and misbehaving when we state our opinions, concerns and legitimate complaints.

On the members side, some of us haven't exactly expressed our complaints/opinions in a proper fashion which I know I'm guilty of.

Then there are the members that will come in and bash the few that want to speak up about things that are concerning them and say "oh the mods are doing a swell job and everything should just be business as usual. Also, you need to stfu for stating your opinion because you are just "whining". Come on now.

and to clear things up, I was only joking when I complained about pedo in the "Banned" thread

seems like everybody was doing it, so why shouldn't I?