New warning/infraction system and new appeals system

[Sitswithamouse]

Thank you Meh and Synger for your help and support on this matter.

 

[synger]

Are those the only two factors that will be taken into account?

What makes one violation more severe than another?

We do not have a specific scale for the severity of rules violations. That would not work in a site as large as this one, which includes everything from forums for light games or fellowship to forums that encourage pretty heavy discussion and debate. The moderation process we use relies upon the team moderators reviewing each report in light of their understanding of the site-wide rules and the guidelines specific to their forums. They must find agreement among themselves as to whether a reported post is a violation, and then how severe it is. Within the spectrum of actions available to them, they have some flexibility in how to respond to the member.

 

[CaDan]

We do not have a specific scale for the severity of rules violations. That would not work in a site as large as this one, which includes everything from forums for light games or fellowship to forums that encourage pretty heavy discussion and debate.

I understand this. I respectfully suggest you put some thought into the matter of how Staff should evaluate violations of the rules for severity. You have handed the moderators additional tools, but I see no guidance in how they are to use those tools.

The moderation process we use relies upon the team moderators reviewing each report in light of their understanding of the site-wide rules and the guidelines specific to their forums. They must find agreement among themselves as to whether a reported post is a violation, and then how severe it is. Within the spectrum of actions available to them, they have some flexibility in how to respond to the member.

This is nice process-talk, but has nothing to do with answering either of my questions. Most of us are well aware of the claim that moderation is by consensus.

You did not answer my first question, nor has anyone ventured even a guess at how long it would take a monkey with a wooden leg to kick the seeds out of a dill pickle.

 

[Angel4Truth]

The moderation process we use relies upon the team moderators reviewing each report in light of their understanding of the site-wide rules and the guidelines specific to their forums. They must find agreement among themselves as to whether a reported post is a violation, and then how severe it is. Within the spectrum of actions available to them, they have some flexibility in how to respond to the member.

And the bolded portion is and has been the biggest problem in moderation on this board because staff iterprets something one way in one forum and another way in another and then you have likeminded staff cliques on certain teams who also moderate in different ways and then when joe blow leaves the area they normally post in and post in another area they are suddenly hit with lots of staff actions and honestly dont know why.

The problem is the lack of consistancy. All staff should understand what the rules are and all should agree that understanding and moderate accordingly and this will elminate probable bias as well as confused members who dont know what the guidelines are since they remain at the whims of different people who dont agree.

 

[Tychicus2]

You guys really need to work on that whole PR thing. Attacking members for little to no reason doesn't really look that good.

Good Point...

 

[CaDan]

And the bolded portion is and has been the biggest problem in moderation on this board because staff iterprets something one way in one forum and another way in another and then you have likeminded staff cliques on certain teams who also moderate in different ways and then when joe blow leaves the area they normally post in and post in another area they are suddenly hit with lots of staff actions and honestly dont know why.

The problem is the lack of consistancy. All staff should understand what the rules are and all should agree that understanding and moderate accordingly and this will elminate probable bias as well as confused members who dont know what the guidelines are since they remain at the whims of different people who dont agree.

Expanding on this a bit:

Senior Staff needs to make a decision about how much variance there will be in moderation in different parts of the site. If CF is to be a single, integrated site, the special rules for special areas have to go--even the unwritten rules we know are there. Conversely, if CF is to have slightly different rules and interpretations of the rules in different parts of the site, there needs to be some sort of visual cue so members recognize they are in a different place.

I'm easy either way.

 

[CaDan]

Good Point...

You get used to it.

Plus I just made myself a big ol' batch of apple crisp, so I am in a good mood.

 

[Tychicus2]

Actually as a Christian site...

The rank and file should not have to get used to being attacked and belittled by staff for little or no reason IMHO...

Also Staff should go the extra mile to apologize when they act errantly as they are staff and ought to want to build trust with the rank and file by setting a Christlike example... again IMHO

Not expecting anything to actually change here... but for same anyway....

God Bless,

Ty

 

[Tychicus2]

Thank You Thank you Thank You !!!

My slate is cleared

Ty

 

[Hentenza]

You did not answer my first question, nor has anyone ventured even a guess at how long it would take a monkey with a wooden leg to kick the seeds out of a dill pickle.

This is an egregious off topic violation. You get the max punishment.

 

[CaDan]

This is an egregious off topic violation. You get the max punishment.

Yeah? Yeah?

Well . . . you ain't got no consensus! So there! Hah!

And Rock smashes Scissors.

 

[peanutbutter12]

I also think that a single mod should not have the power or authority to give a warning or infraction. Too many times in the past, myself and others have been warned or had a post edited/deleted because of a difference of opinion or just plain spite because the mod didn't get along for whatever reason between people involved and a them instead of it being an actual issue.

Instead, I would like to see a specialized unbiased group put together who's purpose is to review issues that mods flag with discussion where the mod themselves can not take part in the final decision made by this group regarding posts.

 

[snoochface]

If an advisor can step in at any time and ban someone on their own, what's the point in even bothering with consensus rules? What's the point if they can be unilaterally overridden?

If there are specific situations in which an advisor can take this action on their own, why not spell that out to the members so they are aware?

 

[Tychicus2]

If an advisor can step in at any time and ban someone on their own, what's the point in even bothering with consensus rules? What's the point if they can be unilaterally overridden?

If there are specific situations in which an advisor can take this action on their own, why not spell that out to the members so they are aware?

I could answer that... But it might get me banned...

 

[AV1611VET]

Hey, guys, c'mon --- let's let administration do their work --- and if we have any issues --- take it to God in prayer.

I've go four warnings myself, and you don't hear me complaining.

 

[DeaconDean]

Yeah? Yeah?

Well . . . you ain't got no consensus! So there! Hah!

And Rock smashes Scissors.

"Hand over fist
Paper around the stone
Scissors cut the paper
Cut the paper to the bone
Hand over fist
Paper around the stone
Scissors cut the paper
And the rock must stand alone."

Rush, Presto, Hand over fist, Copyright. 1989, Mercury Records.

Sorry, just couldn't resist.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Windmill]

From a moderating perspective, I think this is a blessing to everyone. It means that everyone now knows where they stand better and it is easier to take further action if members start to become very disruptive.

 

[synger]

I also think that a single mod should not have the power or authority to give a warning or infraction. Too many times in the past, myself and others have been warned or had a post edited/deleted because of a difference of opinion or just plain spite because the mod didn't get along for whatever reason between people involved and a them instead of it being an actual issue.

Instead, I would like to see a specialized unbiased group put together who's purpose is to review issues that mods flag with discussion where the mod themselves can not take part in the final decision made by this group regarding posts.

Mods do not act unilaterally to give warnings or infractions. Each mod belongs to a team based on which area of the forum the reported post was in (Theology, Ecumenical, Ministry, Outreach, etc.). When a report comes in, multiple mods review it and give their opinion, before the team as a whole comes to consensus on whether it was a violation and what action should be taken, if any.

One moderator then does the action (edit, deletion, PM, warning, infraction, etc.), but the decision itself is a team decision.

Your idea about a special unbiased group for review of mod decisions is a good one. We have something like that already. Each team has supervisors and administrators who keep an eye out for bias in the team. And if members or staff raise specific concerns about possible staff bias, the Reconciliation Team (RT) can look into the situation. The RT is not assigned to one area or another, but work site-wide. They can look at the history of particular teams, specific staff members, and/or staff interaction with specific members, to determine whether there are obvious problems with staff bias or staff not following protocol. They also are the team that handles member appeals of infractions and bans, and that responds to member suggestions and complaints.

 

[Letalis]

Maybe someone should explain further this fiasco-in-waiting:

__________________

Guess it's tied in with all the changes being talked about here

And not one Catholic or Orthodox member of the Advisory team. Surprise surprise.

I should have stayed gone.

 

[synger]

If an advisor can step in at any time and ban someone on their own, what's the point in even bothering with consensus rules? What's the point if they can be unilaterally overridden?

If there are specific situations in which an advisor can take this action on their own, why not spell that out to the members so they are aware?

Staff interactions with members work primarily at the moderator/administrator level. The vast majority of staff reviews of reports, staff actions, and staff communications to members happen through the moderator teams. This Internal Moderation Protocol outlines that day-to-day interaction between member and moderators in a way that we hope is clear to both.

However, the Internal Moderation Protocol is not designed to outline the Advisor's role in staff action or communication. We do not have a policy that gives specific situations when the Advisor team can override this protocol, nor do I anticipate us creating one. In general, the Advisors step in only in the rare situations when the moderator protocol fails to address a particular problem in a flexible or timely manner. If the Advisors believe that a specific situation is damaging the site and its members, they may take the rare step of stepping in and acting outside this protocol.

Ideally, the Advisors should not have to step in. When they do, it usually highlights a problem in our processes and protocols, and in the aftermath, we try to figure out what broke down, why, and how to avoid it in future.