Paedantic Basterd

The problem with voting is that often, some moderators won't show their faces for a month. The last time we permabanned a user, it was put to the rest of the staff whether or not it should be, and everyone who was present within 24 hours fully supported the ban.

I haven't given out an infraction in some time, but I've generally come to the opinion that infractions are impersonal and cause a greater divide between staff and the rest of the community, (a divide which I think we've all worked hard to lessen since the first half of '11 when there was a lot of concern about how we do our jobs) and for a first offense, I'd much rather tell someone "Hey, you can't really do that" than fire them off a mark on their permanent record.

I'm also of the habit of copying the quotes from these conversations into the Cave for people to be generally aware of the exchange. I understand that this method can be subject to doctoring, but I do trust the other moderators, and I don't believe we've got anyone here who would feel a need to do that, nor have anything to gain from it.

Wanna come back to the team and see?

EDIT: Hey, Tore, reading your subsequent posts in the thread, I haven't seen the behaviour you've mentioned regarding permabans in the 10 months I've been moderating.

Guybrush

A poll wouldn't necessarily require all moderators to join in, perhaps only enough for a majority vote if that's the chosen way to do it. Say there are 11 mods, any permban decision could require 6 votes. I realize presence could still be an issue.

When it comes to infractions, at least for tempbans/permbans they are good as it does, as you say, go down in a member's record so that other moderators can see that in the future as well as for the transparency reasons that I like. To those who don't know, 10 infractions or more to your account means you are banned until the number of infractions go below 10.

I can think of episodes where "baiting" it has happened, but I'd rather not name them because that's water under the bridge and it don't think mentioning examples would be worth it to further an argument in this thread. The banning of the members involved was generally in the site's best interests so I don't have a problem with the fact people got banned. I just feel the way it was done could be improved. Anyways, those who can't remember seeing it happen on the site could think instead of the possibility of it happening in the future.

edit :

By "baiting", I mean any situation where a mod has written/responded sarcastically/rude/etc. to an offending member, causing a conflict between member and moderator to escalate to the point where it results in harsher disciplinary action from the moderator than what the member originally got/deserved before the conflict escalated.

__________________
Something Completely Different

Paedantic Basterd

Hmm. Well, you make valid points about there being a clear cut history for each user (though it's not that hard to search for their name and usually everyone is well aware of their history), but at the same time... I obviously can't say what your experience has been, nor do I even know who you worked with, but I trust these people implicitly to be honest with the rest of us. People have made decisions I don't agree with, but I can't say they've ever been dishonest or secretive about it. If that comes up, it might facilitate changes in the manner which we go about things, but right now I don't see a problem. We consult one another, and it's been a long time since a decision has been made that has been poorly received by the community.

Guybrush

Yes, I don't know much of what goes on in terms of drama on the site, but the moderator / regular user relations seem very good at the moment People seem happier with the mod team now than they did last spring.

As I mentioned, I'm not addressing an issue which I feel needs fixing. It's only a suggestion for improving on something which already works well.

__________________
Something Completely Different

Paedantic Basterd

In that case, the only point I would make against your suggestion (and this is my observation over the last year) is that on the whole, the community takes infractions and official warnings very personally, and people seem to feel like we loom over them with an iron fist when we pass them out (as we did with much more frequency early last year). Communication is the key to mediation, not black marks and time outs.

On the other hand, you have members who sit somewhere on the skirts of the community, and these are typically the troublemakers, and because we know their patterns of behaviour, we do tend to come down more firmly with them. We do indeed use infractions for these people as warnings.

Urban already summed it up; no one strategy will work across the board, and I think we're doing pretty good at knowing when and where to use our tools.

Guybrush

It's true that members here are deathly afraid of infractions even though they are relatively harmless in small numbers. There are many possible reasons why so I'm not sure which one it is. I've sometimes thought perhaps peoples feelings about receiving infractions could change if modding culture changed and they were used more frequently, but perhaps it is the very idea that you have a record where your wrongdoings are recorded that worries people.

I see the problem with using them as a disciplinary measure against "petty crimes" today, but I would still recommend them for bans. In those cases, the offender has probably done something bad enough to earn a mark on their record anyways!

__________________
Something Completely Different

Freebase Dali

This thread... I don't get it.

__________________

NSW

x 2

__________________
Hi.

Guybrush

What is it you don't get? The idea that there's a point in having a formal procedure on how to do things, that this could at all improve cooperation/communication between moderators or prevent mods banning members without properly consulting other mods first?

__________________
Something Completely Different

Urban Hat€monger ?

Why does it need to be prevented?
I was made a mod to use my own judgement.

For permabans or lengthy bans you have a point and it's already being done. Nobody gets a lengthy ban on a whim.

For 1 day bans to 1 week bans I don't see why don't see why I need every other mods opinion. If someone is trolling the boards and I decide to give them some time to cool down do you really expect me to delay. for example am I supposed to delay a one day ban for a week while I wait for every other mod to sign on and have an opinion on it?
Meanwhile that person is still on the boards trolling away with members getting more & more annoyed that nothing has been done about this person.
It's unworkable.

We're here to make judgement calls, sometimes we get them wrong. I get what you are saying but I think your solution is far too much work and over complex for something that isn't a huge problem to begin with.

__________________