|
While we discuss a formal ramping policy, it would also be a good idea to start ramping. No, seriously, I'm going through posters that I recall getting probed a lot for the same things over and over again and I don't see a single ramp. EDIT: since this is the first post of a new page: Or is the issue that the mods believe that they are ramping and we (or at least I) just don't see it because we disagree on what a ramp is or looks like? If that's the deal I think that's worth knowing too. Epinephrine fucked around with this message at 03:01 on Oct 13, 2020 |
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 02:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 7, 2024 03:02 |
|
|
Crane Fist posted:Anyway don't have a formal ramping policy because it will be abused by a) QCS posting psychos who will continually point out that someone has been sixered three times in 24 days which surely means according to this algorithm I worked out they should be ramped to at least a 3 day, and b) petty thin-skinned mods who will use it as an excuse to drop excessive punishments on posters they don't like without having to explain themselves I dont think theres any real need for s formal ramp yeah, other than taking a look and being a bit more free in actually banning people. Like seriously on any other site but this one if someone was unable to post to the point like 50% of the recent past because they were on probation, you can show that person the door. Like seriously if they're probated that much it makes everyone else loving pissed off and drives them away. This site had a tendency to just keep those posters around like some weirdass goldfish. It took how many years to get rid of fishmech and owlofcreamcheese despite literally everyone hating them? gently caress and even fishmech didnt even get banned for anything they did on the forums despite annoying like every single person they ever argued with for over a decade but because they had an ftp server with homegrown revenge porn at some point in the past. edit: apparently owlofcreamcheese despite my thoughts is not actually banned I guess I kept missing their posts because they got threadbanned from the COVID thread OJ MIST 2 THE DICK fucked around with this message at 03:14 on Oct 13, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 03:01
|
|
|
Please don’t ask within the thread if the thread’s participants wants someone to be banned from posting in it. That’s the job of our moderation team. Please make a decision yourselves rather than inviting feuds and thread drama and additional trolling opportunities to fill up everyone’s time. Also, there’s seem to be some straw man or whatever logical fallacy going on ITT talking about looking years back (or however long to previous moderation teams) on a user to determine ramping steps. No one said go back that far! I suggest looking at their recent history and see if they are regularly trolling or not. Dozens of bad conduct probes in a month (a quarter?) are easily identified. Maybe leave joke probes at six hours and bad conduct probes at eight hours or something easily filtered/identified.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 03:02
|
|
|
Epinephrine posted:While we discuss a formal ramping policy, it would also be a good idea to start ramping. No, seriously, I'm going through posters that I recall getting probed a lot for the same things over and over again and I don't see a single ramp. Stop mealy-mouthing it and name some people who you think should be given ramping probes so we can know what you're actually advocating here
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 03:03
|
|
|
I don't think it would be a good idea to make this a thread for naming the names of people you think should be banned.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 03:11
|
|
|
Probably not a GOOD idea but when people are posting poo poo like "let's just ban the five worst posters" it might be instructive to be all okay, who are they, what is your metric here, are you making an actual suggestion or just trying to lay the groundwork to get your posting enemies banned
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 03:18
|
|
|
I think that's a pretty good example of unhelpful behavior. The idea of toxic members of a community, how to identify them, and how to address them plagues every single community from local nonprofits to Sonic the Hedgehog erotic roleplaying boards. Acting as if trying to extricate toxic people is inherently toxic doesn't follow. It's like the E/N goon who was in trouble at work for constant cheese-farts, but refused to take a lactose aid or stop eating cheese, and expected everyone else to simply accommodate the fact that he constantly wanted to be laying huge, nasty farts without recourse. It might not even be your fault that your body produces huge farts, but if you fail to abide by the community standard of non-farty air, even when given potential solutions, then you cannot take it as a privilege that you will be welcome.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 03:26
|
|
|
I've got to say, some of the rhetoric going on here has been... interesting. A lot of winking and nudging about how "things would be better without those posters, you know the ones" feels a bit clique-ish and kind of eerie. That said, I'm just a lurker looking in. I don't know what value I bring to the conversation, but I thought it was worth chiming in on.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 04:06
|
|
|
I would like to echo the desire for punishment reasons to be more specific and to mention what forum or thread rule was violated. I think a lot of the more tedious discussion comes in the form of "hey what the gently caress did Dunglechunk290 do?" and "man they really got it in for DC290" and poo poo for pages when just being like "mentioned Y in the thread that bans discussion of Y" would cut at least the first part of that out. I don't think ramps really help when mods and IKs are so clearly overloaded. ninja edit: Unscientific posted:I've got to say, some of the rhetoric going on here has been... interesting. A lot of winking and nudging about how "things would be better without those posters, you know the ones" feels a bit clique-ish and kind of eerie. Yeah this is also kind of a thing in my opinion. I would be remiss to not mention how this kind of feels gross to me. actual edit: editing some of this moving most of this to the general DnD discussion thread. I got confused because there's a lot of overlap in these, sorry. copy fucked around with this message at 04:20 on Oct 13, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 04:16
|
|
|
Unscientific posted:I've got to say, some of the rhetoric going on here has been... interesting. A lot of winking and nudging about how "things would be better without those posters, you know the ones" feels a bit clique-ish and kind of eerie. We have been told explicitly not to name names. Main Paineframe posted:I don't think it would be a good idea to make this a thread for naming the names of people you think should be banned.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 04:20
|
|
|
Tbh the establishment of the polling containment thread solved 99% of the problems as far as I'm concerned. I don't really care what's going on in other threads, that gave the campaign strategy/stats dorks a place to talk about the race.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 04:21
|
|
|
When I moderated another forum, I never saw ramping work a single time. Not once. Every time, it was a slow-motion ban that allowed the posters to continue making GBS threads up threads over and over again. And every step involved endless rules lawyering and PM threads, and it was a big part of why I got burned out. In my view, there are two things that work. One is a brief timeout designed to tell a poster you otherwise want to keep around that they’re being an rear end in a top hat. The other is an outright ban or subforum ban for posters who refuse to I also agree with the posters ITT who have expressed skepticism regarding rap sheet length correlating with poster badness. I’m a relatively infrequent and recent D&D poster, and I already have two rather bogus sixers on my rap sheet, one of which came from the moderator misreading my post altogether. Unless you expect mods to read through entire rap sheets every time they decide to probe someone, I think it’s a silly measure to use in making mod decisions. Unscientific posted:I've got to say, some of the rhetoric going on here has been... interesting. A lot of winking and nudging about how "things would be better without those posters, you know the ones" feels a bit clique-ish and kind of eerie. I think it becomes much more eerie when the first page of posts features virtually all of the posters I see regularly on the first page of threads about D&D moderation, nearly all of whom say some variation of “We all know who the problems are” in said posts. If we’re not allowed to talk about posters, we shouldn’t be allowed to darkly imply that we’re talking about posters.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 04:26
|
|
|
Nine of the probations on my rapsheets are from permabanned users. Length of rapsheets is not as indicative of anything as people make it out to be, lol.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 04:29
|
|
|
Unscientific posted:I've got to say, some of the rhetoric going on here has been... interesting. A lot of winking and nudging about how "things would be better without those posters, you know the ones" feels a bit clique-ish and kind of eerie. Yeah sorry, when the first thing I see in this thread is trying to get me to remove a handful of unnamed but you-should-know-who posters I'm thinking it's some posting enemy thing. I've seen some extremely suspect posts fly by in the GE thread and not get probed because posters rightly ignored them, and I've seen some really touchy probes go out from IKs that were just trying to chill out the conversation. The volume of probes has less to do with it than the reason it occurred, in my mind. A 6er should be a really casual punishment meant to just inform the poster they crossed a line or were getting close and should take a breather. For my part I don't even like the idea of some sort of set ramp. If someone keeps obviously breaking the same rule, yeah, extend the duration of the punishment. To that end, though what I'd like to see is more clarity - the reason a probation was given (as in, the rule broken) should be cited in the rap sheet text. I don't learn anything from the vague, smarmy messages. Sorry. Discendo Vox posted:We have been told explicitly not to name names. And in the spirit of that maybe the discussion shouldn't be focused on some single-digit plural of Posting Voldemorts then? Either name them or stop being weirdos.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 04:35
|
|
|
Any sort of ramping policy isn't going to be based strictly on rap sheet length. It's going to be based on repeat offenses of the same type. I'd like to hear about threadbans and subforum bans and making use of them more aggressively. About what length of probe (week/two weeks/month) would you consider a threadban to be roughly equal to? How long should threadbanned/subforum banned people have to wait before asking to return?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 04:45
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:Any sort of ramping policy isn't going to be based strictly on rap sheet length. It's going to be based on repeat offenses of the same type. I don't think anyone actually proposed working strictly from rap sheet length; the ones provided as examples were particularly gross as a matter of necessity when we can't talk names or content. fool of sound posted:I'd like to hear about threadbans and subforum bans and making use of them more aggressively. About what length of probe (week/two weeks/month) would you consider a threadban to be roughly equal to? How long should threadbanned/subforum banned people have to wait before asking to return? This is going to vary by situation. Forever is a good starting place. People who fit this profile have demonstrated that they're not responsive to correction. Shere posted:And in the spirit of that maybe the discussion shouldn't be focused on some single-digit plural of Posting Voldemorts then? Either name them or stop being weirdos. I'm not violating an order from a mod because you want me to.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 04:50
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:Any sort of ramping policy isn't going to be based strictly on rap sheet length. It's going to be based on repeat offenses of the same type. Thread bans are not a short term thing, when applied in most other parts of the forum. It's a long term ban on a thread or threads on say a certain genre of games. If someone can demonstrate over time that they have improved, then go ahead and rescind it. But set time limits is not a good idea.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 04:56
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:I'd like to hear about threadbans and subforum bans and making use of them more aggressively. About what length of probe (week/two weeks/month) would you consider a threadban to be roughly equal to? Per your “repeat offenses of the same type,” I think that any user whose posts routinely derail threads for pages at a time should be asked to leave threads. I imagine that if you’re considering probating someone for longer than a week, it might be worth asking if that person contributes anything beyond divisiveness to the thread. quote:How long should threadbanned/subforum banned people have to wait before asking to return? I think threadbans and subforum bans should always be indefinite in length, with the poster required to discuss coming back with a moderator who can evaluate how they behave in other threads/subforums, etc. People don’t change their behavior after escalating probations, why would they behave differently after a weeks- or months-long thread/subforum ban?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 04:56
|
|
|
A threadban should be a threadban, it seems ridiculous to be like "don't post here, but if you post good elsewhere I'll check your report cards and maybe you can come back"
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 05:02
|
|
|
rko posted:When I moderated another forum, I never saw ramping work a single time. Not once. Every time, it was a slow-motion ban that allowed the posters to continue making GBS threads up threads over and over again. And every step involved endless rules lawyering and PM threads, and it was a big part of why I got burned out. I think people are taking the worst possible interpretation of my post and assuming an intent that is not there. It has nothing to do with "forum enemies". It has nothing to do with the GE thread or the general election. It has to do with posters who consistently awful, as seen by their probation histories, which are not the result of one angry mod or comedy 6'ers - but instead show repeated ramps escalating into either a ban or just stopping over and over again for years (in fact longer than many of the people in this thread have been posting on SA). Obviously "number of probations" shouldn't be a criteria in and of itself - but number of probations along with probation history, length of those probations, frequency of those probations, and probation reason is an important guide for if someone is a contributing member of the forum or not. Nobody is asking mods to check rap sheets for every probation, but moderators absolutely know if they keep having to probate someone over and over and repeat customers should face harsher punishment - particularly of their rapsheet reveals a history of this happening again and again. If you've already faced repeating ramping probations, whats the point of going down that road again without subforum or thread ban at the end?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 05:15
|
|
|
Crane Fist posted:A threadban should be a threadban, it seems ridiculous to be like "don't post here, but if you post good elsewhere I'll check your report cards and maybe you can come back" Some of these threads go on for years. People change. There doesn't need to be anything formal though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 05:16
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:
Something Awful IK's / mods give people a lot of chances to post better so frankly a poster who gets themselves forum/thread banned can just stay gone as a result. It's a permanent "You wont improve, gently caress off" Or at least that is the way I view it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 05:25
|
|
|
i think it's slightly unfortunate that 'ramping', which has always existed, has even been given a name. posters tend to fixate on this kind of stuff in an unhelpful way – "why did poster x only get probated for a day when they're up to a week on the ramp", "why did poster x get probated for longer than poster y, when poster y has a longer rap sheet", etc. the lack of prescriptive rules in d&d today is a huge improvement over 2012-13. posting history/rap sheet can only ever be one of multiple factors in a moderator's decision-making – the badness of the post in relation to other posts in the thread; the type of thread; the motivation behind the bad post; are all equally as important. you can't moderate by algorithm! i don't see the need for anything more than stating the obvious: if you post bad you'll be punished, if you keep posting bad you might be punished worse. threadbans are good.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 07:57
|
|
|
IRL, escalating habitual-offender statues exist because there is a crisis of confidence in the quality of judicial decisionmaking, triggered by high-profile miscarriages of justice performed by an opaque clique of decisionmakers whose perceived standards and norms are completely at variance to what the community feels to be just (I'll leave readers to decide much resemblance that may have to events) For that reason, to achieve its goal in meaningfully defusing the crisis of confidence, the sentencing code needs to be precise and elaborate - enough to substantively limit the discretion of deicisionmakers. Codifying more sentencing options without obliging a precise adherence to its code amplifies real or perceived opacity and hence piles more fuel on the tinder of distrust in decisionmaking, and within months one circles back to yet another crisis. The fixation exmarx predicts is inevitable, because the sentencing was never really the point. The distrust was. This being said, I think all this is barking up the wrong tree. Moderators and IKs are part-time volunteers to begin with - demanding that they become executors of a precise system of justice as well is simply too much of an ask. The forum needs to be able to subsist on unprofessional moderation, because that is in fact all that is on the cards. Changes need to happen on the demand side - the forum structure should ask less of moderators, by encouraging warring cliques to stay in their lanes and interact less. More discourse (between groups of people who already broadly agree on key points, between whom good faith does not need rigid enforcement), less debate (because it's tricky to moderate and there's no way to make it better. This forum isn't going to resolve any deeply-seated ideological conflicts that three centuries since the French Revolution have not, let's be real here). More quarantines and more subforums, not fewer. If the forum tech allows, reactions/likes would make it easier for mods to gauge context. To engage in further fancy, being able to pop up a diagram of where the reporter/reportee sits in the network graph of posters who endorse each other's posts a lot, and whether that clique dominates the relevant thread (intended in discourse threads/megathreads, maybe less ideal in a debate thread), would allow mods to contextualize reports without requiring deep and regular participation in fast-moving threads. Algorithmic IKing, if you will. But maybe we don't have the technology.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 15:28
|
|
|
ronya posted:IRL, escalating habitual-offender statues exist because there is a crisis of confidence in the quality of judicial decisionmaking, triggered by high-profile miscarriages of justice performed by an opaque clique of decisionmakers whose perceived standards and norms are completely at variance to what the community feels to be just I disagree. Many behaviors that need to be moderated in a subforum such as this one are inherently subjective, and an overly strict set of rules can always be rules-lawyered around. It's often painfully obvious when someone Kramers into a thread to poo poo all over it through blatant sea-lioning, but it only really becomes evident after a few rounds of doubling down. Because of this, at least from my perspective, the mods have no choice but to apply moderation through the lens of the amount of disruption a poster is causing. For sure, you can codify all this, but you are not going to eliminate the opacity of the process this way. A better solution to this opacity problem would be proper post-ex-facto explanation of what subjective rule is being broken on the part of the mods. Obviously, none of this applies to cut-and-dry cases of blatant racism/bigotry/etc... ronya posted:If the forum tech allows, reactions/likes would make it easier for mods to gauge context. To engage in further fancy, being able to pop up a diagram of where the reporter/reportee sits in the network graph of posters who endorse each other's posts a lot, and whether that clique dominates the relevant thread (intended in discourse threads/megathreads, maybe less ideal in a debate thread), would allow mods to contextualize reports without requiring deep and regular participation in fast-moving threads. Algorithmic IKing, if you will. But maybe we don't have the technology. For all of his many, many faults, lowtax has been absolutely correct on one crucial point: The lack of a scoring system is a critical feature of what makes these forums function. I could perhaps get behind a system who's results are seen exclusively by the mods, but publicly-available e-points have ruined almost all communities where they have been introduced. Aramis fucked around with this message at 17:37 on Oct 13, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 16:45
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:Any sort of ramping policy isn't going to be based strictly on rap sheet length. It's going to be based on repeat offenses of the same type. I think in a working ramp system a thread ban would follow a 30 that didn't correct the behavior and a forum/sub ban should take the place of a second threadban in the same forum. People keep talking about joke sixers from years ago but I think most people aren't going anywhere near that. Sixers should be the equivalent of getting a verbal warning, they should really only be relevant in ramping if someone is getting them back to back. Even then it should be more along the lines of iks/mods should be putting people in for "real" probes (1+ days) if they have to give someone a warning twice in like, the same week or something, rather than it being a formalized "ramp". The issue with sixers is when it seems like people poo poo up a thread for half the day, get a sixer overnight, and are back making GBS threads up the thread the next day in the same way. Sixers should be treated as warnings and non-punitive IK tools to control discussion (a mute button if you will). Actual punitive probes of day+ should ramp. How formal that ramp is has pros and cons either way. You can have a more proscribed system where say, day probes ramp within the same month, 1-2 week probes ramp within the same 6 months, and anything over two weeks ramps within the same year. Or you can just have it at mod discretion. edit: I'll also add things would improve if actual probation reasons were required for anything over a 6er, many of the bullshit probations from ideologically-motivated mods can be clear as day when you see probation reasons that are bullshit snipes and parting shots. Jarmak fucked around with this message at 17:00 on Oct 13, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 16:55
|
|
|
Ramping: the problem is the poster, and eventually we will remove the poster. Moderation based on content: the problem is posting, and better posts can be made. Don't do ramping.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 18:28
|
|
|
motoh posted:Ramping: the problem is the poster, and eventually we will remove the poster. I think ramping has its place for exactly the reason you described: people generally deserve a few chances, but if they can't take the hint they should be dealt with. Case in point, thanks to the other thread I was thinking about doomposters/doomposting and one user came immediately to mind, and checking their rap sheet and post history they very nearly exclusively post this absolutely insufferable "woe is me, the world is doomed, I am so awful, humanity is irredeemable" etc. poo poo constantly. It's totally contentless and pointless and they've been probed for it over and over but seem unwilling to cool it. Ramping seems like a good compromise between banning them outright and giving them an increasingly unignorable warning. A series of increasingly long probes culminating in a ban seems to me like the best way to give them a few chances to clean up their act while making it clear that the sort of thing they're doing isn't wanted, even though it might not be terrible enough to warrant an outright ban. But also yeah, I think posting can be improved by moderation on content, and I think it can by generally ditching sixers as a "stop being rude" punishment, which seem to me to be short enough to be generally ignored. You fight with someone, get your slap on the wrist, then spend the next six hours thinking about the brutal own you're going to drop when you come back, and the process repeats. If I shitpost or just generally be a huge rear end in a top hat while the mods/IKs aren't actively reading the thread and I don't get a sixer until someone has the time to check the thread/reports hours or days later, I don't know if that really helps anything except bring the fight to mind again and possibly make me mad at the mod team. This is asking a little more of the mod team - but maybe not that much more - but I think it might help to give direct warnings in threads and maybe even in PMs, then mete out harsher punishments if there's still a problem. cda was doing this in QCS where when a discussion would degrade into slapfighting he'd post like a "only good posts below this line" message and moderate the discussion more severely for a while afterwards, and I think it was very effective and made those threads a lot better and more focused. The delay between bad posts and mod action is there anyway, so if a thread's getting heated I think a mod coming in and telling people to knock it off then handing out 1/3/7 days or whatever if people don't would make for better discussion.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 19:09
|
|
|
Ramping is necessary if sixers are sometimes a joke and sometimes a cooling off 'maybe give this particular back and forth a rest for a while' and sometimes 'dont make posts like this' where further posts like that might need ramps to be clear where things stand.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 19:15
|
|
|
What are you trying to achieve? Less reports? Easier-to-moderate megathreads? Less backlash from people unhappy with moderator decisions? More engagement? Better quality 'debate' and discussion? A return to a never-existing good old days? You can't generate good content through moderation, the problem doesn't scale. You can certainly kill it with moderation, though. The internet marketplace is too large and too flat these days for people to change their behaviour very much in the face of somethingawful time-outs (they'll just go and reply to the same tweets they were posting on SA, on twitter), and while the disposable income of this place has skyrocketed over the past ten years, I don't have a handle on how many people leave rather than re-register after a ban. I'd suggest removing sixers, removing any idea of ramping, and go back to one-day, one-week and one-month probations, and bans, as standard tools, and do less of all of them, because that's my nostalgic memory of the structure of D&D back in, oh, 2008 or so. The more you moderate, the more people are going to want you to moderate, and the harder it's going to become. A large increase in subforum bans would be stupid; a good part of the value of this place used to be cross-community discussion, which wasn't always nice, or agreeable, but was very, very educational, and more siloing of people into interest groups seems counterproductive.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 20:46
|
|
|
Cefte posted:
My memory of D&D circa 2008 was that it was a total shithole, way worse than it is now, and filled with brigading, zero-effort shitposting, and explicit cheerleading, so I think that's a matter of perspective. That said I don't think ramping is effective. If you want to warn people off of a behavior, just warn them off of that in-thread or in a PM (and be willing to have a discussion about it) and then subsequently give them a time-out appropriate to the type of bad behavior they're doing if they don't do better. Ramping just creates a perception of criminality on specific people and fosters a persecution complex.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 21:16
|
|
|
Aramis posted:For all of his many, many faults, lowtax has been absolutely correct on one crucial point: The lack of a scoring system is a critical feature of what makes these forums function. I could perhaps get behind a system who's results are seen exclusively by the mods, but publicly-available e-points have ruined almost all communities where they have been introduced. I remember this happening once on a Baldur's Gate forum. People will absolutely use the e-points to eschew critical thought as to whether the post/argument has merit and will just point at The Number and let The Number decide what's good, regardless of its potential or likelyhood of abuse or shenanigans. A common possibility is lone dissenters getting the full brunt of negative e-points and what have you just because they said something unpopular but probably correct. Epoint systems like that seem like very disproportionately prone to reinforce echo chambers. I like some of the things suggested, like a sort of smart algorithm to generate a context report visible only to Mods to inform their decision about the post/report, but I'm a nerd in love with numbers and statistics.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 00:11
|
|
|
Ramping should be done away with altogether as the main purpose it has served historically, and the purpose it continues to serve, is for moderators to serve up harsh punishments to posters they don't like, and weak-rear end bullshit for serial shitposters they happen to like anyway. That's all it's ever been there for, and all it ever will be there for, and so you should just judge each post on its own merits. Not because that's the ideal way to do it, but because it's the only one that any of you can be trusted with.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 00:15
|
|
|
MSDOS KAPITAL posted:Ramping should be done away with altogether as the main purpose it has served historically, and the purpose it continues to serve, is for moderators to serve up harsh punishments to posters they don't like, and weak-rear end bullshit for serial shitposters they happen to like anyway. That's all it's ever been there for, and all it ever will be there for, and so you should just judge each post on its own merits. Not because that's the ideal way to do it, but because it's the only one that any of you can be trusted with. I don't think you understand how rapidly you would find yourself in a tiny community of superfriends with no one to yell at if they did things in a way you consider fair.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 00:23
|
|
|
Flying-PCP posted:I don't think you understand how rapidly you would find yourself in a tiny community of superfriends with no one to yell at if they did things in a way you consider fair. Ramping is basically the three strikes law for internet shitposting and works about as well as that did.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 00:31
|
|
|
A mechanical behind the scenes improvement would be that instead of typing in a reason, you select a reason from a bullet point list that corresponds to site wide or subforum sets of rules; with an "other" for anything that doesn't fit. When you probe someone it ticks up in the database that they've been probed n times for that reason. When a mod goes to probe someone for a particular reason, the mod tools should give a pop up that says, "This poster has been probed n-times already for this reason (subforum breakdown goes here), are you sure you wouldn't want to ramp?" This would fix the issue of people getting away with dozens of probes because different mods/iks are giving out the probe at different times in different subforums but didn't have the full picture of their record. It would also filter away joke probes (which would be its own reason on the list and not count towards the overall probe count). I think it'd be a lot easier to give meaningful (and most importantly, fair) ramps if the mods didn't need to do bookkeeping or remember every particular poster and their litany of high posting crimes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 00:41
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:Ramping is basically the three strikes law for internet shitposting and works about as well as that did. Oh yeah I have no particular love for the ramping system itself, I think cefte made some good points, I'm just tired of the persecution complex.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 00:41
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:Any sort of ramping policy isn't going to be based strictly on rap sheet length. It's going to be based on repeat offenses of the same type. What is your definition of "the same type"? Because that sounds like you'll only ramp people who do the exact same offense. It's not realistic, the ones who cause problems have several kinds of infractions they run into, not just one kind. A threadban should be much more like a real ban, even though they can't just buy their way back (this should be how we handle it if coding permits). I'd say keep a thread ban up for about six months and then consider clemency. A subforum ban should be treated like a real ban as well, but since they can't buy their way back from that, keep a subforum ban for at least one year before considering clemency.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 00:47
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:A mechanical behind the scenes improvement would be that instead of typing in a reason, you select a reason from a bullet point list that corresponds to site wide or subforum sets of rules; with an "other" for anything that doesn't fit. When you probe someone it ticks up in the database that they've been probed n times for that reason. Maybe a little grenade icon could pop up and be like "I see that you're probating [poster]! Would you like to ramp it?" Like if we're going to add more layers of arcane, arbitrary nonsense to moderation here why not have some fun with it
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 02:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 7, 2024 03:02 |
|
|
Crane Fist posted:Maybe a little grenade icon could pop up and be like "I see that you're probating [poster]! Would you like to ramp it?" Like if we're going to add more layers of arcane, arbitrary nonsense to moderation here why not have some fun with it Having a prompt only makes sense if there's some quick analytics to go with it to make it an informed decision. The popup is not about influencing them towards a ramp out of the blue, but to point out relevant details to guide what is essentially a decision tree based on a fuller context. You could set thresholds based on subforum as well to give it a more granular and nuanced responsiveness. This is to specifically solve the issue that I've seen some mods suggest, that part of the issue was, "I would've ramped this person if I knew they were a repeat offender, but I didn't check the context or their history because I had a lot on my plate." This is to basically automate boring bookkeeping, a mod can still decide to not give a ramp, its just to give them a complete picture.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 02:50
|
|