Do you feel moderation on OWF is too heavy handed, or is it fair and balanced?

[Spite]

After discussion with Sheepy in PM, we found we disagreed about whether or not the community found the moderation on the OWF heavy handed.

 

I feel that the forum staff are actually very inactive and miss a great deal, and when they do turn up as if to compensate they are very heavy handed.

 

I'd prefer moderation to be done by older more level headed members of the community who nevertheless have good activity, instead of a handful of barely active guys who only turn up when someone reports something.

 

Thoughts? 

 

Inb4lock - I think it's only fair to have a discussion

[Captain_Vietnam]

not option for too soft???

[aaaaddd22]

not option for too soft???

Judging by your previous suggestions and opinions, I'd say if you are supporting harsher moderation that is a cue to soften them.

[Alex]

I'm fine with you having this thread and discussion. Let me make my case briefly also, though.

 

The moderation staff have lives, and I don't expect them to read through every post in every thread. Our moderation is heavily based on what posts are reported; we review reports, and issue warnings where necessary (you'd be surprised how many reports we received that we don't issue warns for.)

 

Furthermore, the moderation team is not heavy-handed. A warning point is barely even a slap on the wrist--your first warning point results in no punishment. Second is a 1 hour posting suspension. 3rd is 24 hours, 4th is 48 hours, 5th is 5 days, 6th is 10 days, and 7th is a permanent ban. Most importantly, though, is that the warning points automatically expire after 30 days. You really have to be a serial offender to find yourself at the higher end of that spectrum, and I'm not sure we've ever banned anyone permanently through the warning system.

 

Imho, I sometimes think the moderation is too lenient for some repeat offenders who abuse the warn system to avoid being banned.

[Captain_Vietnam]

Judging by your previous suggestions and opinions, I'd say if you are supporting harsher moderation that is a cue to soften them.

people post in place not suppose to post and we need to deal with it more harshy!

[aaaaddd22]

I'm fine with you having this thread and discussion. Let me make my case briefly also, though.

 

The moderation staff have lives, and I don't expect them to read through every post in every thread. Our moderation is heavily based on what posts are reported; we review reports, and issue warnings where necessary (you'd be surprised how many reports we received that we don't issue warns for.)

 

Furthermore, the moderation team is not heavy-handed. A warning point is barely even a slap on the wrist--your first warning point results in no punishment. Second is a 1 hour posting suspension. 3rd is 24 hours, 4th is 48 hours, 5th is 5 days, 6th is 10 days, and 7th is a permanent ban. Most importantly, though, is that the warning points automatically expire after 30 days. You really have to be a serial offender to find yourself at the higher end of that spectrum, and I'm not sure we've ever banned anyone permanently through the warning system.

 

Imho, I sometimes think the moderation is too lenient for some repeat offenders who abuse the warn system to avoid being banned.

 

I don't think this is the point being made. I think that OP argues the reasons you would get a 'warning' is too heavily moderated.

[Isolatar]

The mods are experienced players, it's just that their identity is kept a secret.

[Spite]

I think there's two elements to this:

 

1.The mod staff are inactive. Don't give me the "mods have lives" line. I know they're not paid staff, but you want mods to be highly active members of the community. If each mod has one subforum to mod, that's probably five or six threads to read a day. It's not a big deal. I am probably an average member of the community and I read all of the non-rp threads as.

 

2. When mods do turn up, they're officious. To put it bluntly, they come across as tin pot tyrants, and they lay down the law in a way which is often patronising and rude.

 

What makes it really frustrating is the combination of the two points, so that you can get warns or rude comments in one thread from a mod, where in another thread something much worse goes unremarked upon.

 

We need an active, fair and light handed mod team. If someone is bullying another player or posting something that could get the forum in trouble (ie porn) then a warn or a ban is appropriate. If they're posting in the wrong place, or derailing a thread, then the thread should be moved or split, there's no need for any comment or anything. It's janitor duty.

 

I'm a shit mod because I'm too vocal with my opinion, so anything I do would be taken as biased. But I know how modding should work, and the golden rule of thumb is to be more light handed than you probably think at first. It should be encouraging the community not clamping down on it.

[Kemal Ergenekon]

Mods abuse their position to assign warning points without proper reasoning at times - I could speculate as to why, but I won't. You know of this instance, and you had decided to take the warning point back. I don't think it was an isolated case.

[Fox Fire]

lol. None of the above. The moderation here is actually very light most times. People violate forum rules left and right with no consequence.

[Kurdanak]

I'm surprised by the poll results thus far (assuming somebody from Mensa didn't link it on their forums to initiate poll spam ).

 

Moderation abuse surely used to be an issue, but I haven't really seen anything worth making a fuss over since beta. Basically every single time it has been brought up since then, it's been because someone got a warn and they can't stand having their ego bruised.

Edited December 5, 2015 by Kurdanak

[Alex]

I don't think this is the point being made. I think that OP argues the reasons you would get a 'warning' is too heavily moderated.

 

There's a clearly written list of rules that all players agreed to when they registered on our forums that outlines when you will be warned. All we ask is that you read and follow the rules, and if you don't (we know, people slip up or most of the time just don't read all the rules) we issue a warning point to let you know that you broke a rule and ask that you don't do it again. It's simple.

 

2. When mods do turn up, they're officious. To put it bluntly, they come across as tin pot tyrants, and they lay down the law in a way which is often patronising and rude.

 

What makes it really frustrating is the combination of the two points, so that you can get warns or rude comments in one thread from a mod, where in another thread something much worse goes unremarked upon.

 

We need an active, fair and light handed mod team. If someone is bullying another player or posting something that could get the forum in trouble (ie porn) then a warn or a ban is appropriate. If they're posting in the wrong place, or derailing a thread, then the thread should be moved or split, there's no need for any comment or anything. It's janitor duty.

 

I'm a shit mod because I'm too vocal with my opinion, so anything I do would be taken as biased. But I know how modding should work, and the golden rule of thumb is to be more light handed than you probably think at first. It should be encouraging the community not clamping down on it.

 

Like I said, a warning point is a slap on the wrist. If you break the rules, you get a warning point, and for 99.9% of the users on this forum, that's not a big deal. A box comes up, with a message about what rule they broke and why they were warned, and they know not to break it again. Most people then are fine, their warning point expires after 30 days, and everything is peachy, no issues. Being issued a warning point just means someone is trying to correct your behavior and help you understand the rules; not some terrible punishment.

 

Mods abuse their position to assign warning points without proper reasoning at times - I could speculate as to why, but I won't. You know of this instance, and you had decided to take the warning point back. I don't think it was an isolated case.

 

No moderator is perfect, and often times there are iffy calls which have to be made by myself. Yes, sometimes warning points are overturned; but wouldn't you argue that's a good thing? I could just tell you that the mods are perfect and everything they ever do is 100% the law and you have to deal with it or GTFO. Instead, anyone is welcome to appeal a warning to myself if they don't like a moderator decision, and I absolutely try to be 100% fair with my judgements.

[Skynet]

I can honestly say I'm online every day checking over stuff. Just because you can't "see us" doesn't mean we're not watching. Judging.

We're light handed compared to before due to the over amount of players complaining about us. I mean, if you prefer we can go back to old times.

[Kurdanak]

I can honestly say I'm online every day checking over stuff. Just because you can't "see us" doesn't mean we're not watching. Judging.

 

We're light handed compared to before due to the over amount of players complaining about us. I mean, if you prefer we can go back to old times.

^ this brings up a valid point, where I would imagine the grand majority of the work done my moderation is "behind the scenes", as they say.

 

Basically, to me, this isn't a black/white issue - which is why the poll is unnecessary, to me, regardless of the fact that people can just vote while providing literally no content to the actual discussion. It's a spectrum where certain mods may be heavy-handed, certain mods may be light-handed. Messaging Sheepy about specific instances with constructive criticism seems like a more logical and productive approach, and has led to important change in the past when there actually was moderation abuse.

 

Also, regarding Skynet's reply: relevant username is relevant.

Edited December 5, 2015 by Kurdanak

[Moreau]

Nah they're cool

[Placentica]

I've never felt unfairly warned and generally think we get away with a lot in non-discussion topics.  So I'm cool with where things are at.

[Spite]

I can honestly say I'm online every day checking over stuff. Just because you can't "see us" doesn't mean we're not watching. Judging.

 

We're light handed compared to before due to the over amount of players complaining about us. I mean, if you prefer we can go back to old times.

 

It's this sort of comment, though slightly tongue in cheek, that pisses people off about mod staff. As if by virtue of a stupid title on a forum and a few buttons you were suddenly...

 

[Fox Fire]

It's this sort of comment, though slightly tongue in cheek, that pisses people off about mod staff. As if by virtue of a stupid title on a forum and a few buttons you were suddenly...

 

You should have been here for Unkajo. You'd have been banned just for posting this.

At least Skynet hasn't warned me for anything since I've been back. Yet.

[Kurdanak]

It's this sort of comment, though slightly tongue in cheek, that pisses people off about mod staff. As if by virtue of a stupid title on a forum and a few buttons you were suddenly...

I take your use of "people", as a blanket term for the majority, very lightly. If that reply pisses you off, I honestly think you're just being overly defensive. Edited December 5, 2015 by Kurdanak

[Kemal Ergenekon]

No moderator is perfect, and often times there are iffy calls which have to be made by myself. Yes, sometimes warning points are overturned; but wouldn't you argue that's a good thing? I could just tell you that the mods are perfect and everything they ever do is 100% the law and you have to deal with it or GTFO. Instead, anyone is welcome to appeal a warning to myself if they don't like a moderator decision, and I absolutely try to be 100% fair with my judgements.

 

It is good that unfair warning points are overturned. However, if the moderators were better at their jobs, you wouldn't have to deal with situations where the warning points had to be overturned. I trust your judgement when you have all the information, but I believe the moderators are usually trying to get away with abuses that would be considered in the gray area, especially against some groups.

[Wayne]

tbf Spite, we come from forums where pretty much anything goes.  Rather than having a warning point issued for my Cock Rocket, I would have been congratulated.

 

As with many things in this game, it's a different culture to those we are used to.  All mods are !@#$s, some are more !@#$ish then others.

[Sweeeeet Ronny D]

People get away with bloody murder in the forums in this game.  if anything they should pick it up a notch.  If you cant follow the rules, and have been getting crap from the moderators maybe you should spend less time complaining about them, and take some accountability for yourself, and stop acting like a dick.

 

I am referring to any of you whinny crybabies that constantly complain about the moderators.

[Mike Haggar]

Warns will always sting, and it is nearly impossible to correct someone without appearing paternal. Punishments always feel unfair because that is basic identity psychology. Your joke is innocent; someone else's insult is slander. You didn't know or intend to harm; they're a chucklehead who should shut up.

 

The current warn system as implemented allows for mods to keep a modicum of order without stifling creativity. It might feel unfair because recieved warns are memorable, while warns to others are not. I'm not even sure we can even SEE the exact warns other people receive.

 

This could be alleviated by mods liking good behaviors. This will increase their profile (letting people know they read posts), while making warns feel a little softer. If someone liked a couple of my posts, and then warned me for another, I'm more likely to see it as a friendly request than a punishment.

 

A downside could be perceived favoritism, but mods could probably focus on liking the good behavior of repeat offenders to prevent this. People often underestimate the power of rewarding good behaviors. After all, the primary reason we play games is because it feels good to accomplish something. That makes us want to play more. People hate their jobs when it feels like they aren't accomplishing anything, but are constantly punished instead.

[Spooner]

My posts are fairly regularly moderated/removed for what I view as frivolous infractions.

 

That said, I have little interest participating in this discussion. It's all subjective, really.

[LordRahl2]

It has, if nothing else, improved.

 

Why do you, sheepy, disguise their identity though?  You lean toward annonimity in several decisions.  I know you think this insulates people or something.  It actually breeds angst and paranoia.