Hard Light Productions Forums

Site Management => Site Support / Feedback => Topic started by: MP-Ryan on February 06, 2021, 11:39:24 am

Title: Community and Moderation Standards Discussions (Consolidated)
Post by: MP-Ryan on February 06, 2021, 11:39:24 am
READ THIS CAREFULLY!

Recent events (https://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=97330.0) - and by that, we mean the last six months - have made it abundantly clear that certain aspects of community participation and moderation are not working, and the fact that people are re-litigating 15-20 year old grievances is a primary indicator of that.  There are two core problems that we have identified:  (1) we have taken a narrow view of rules enforcement which has also been subject to rules-lawyering, and that prevents us from dealing with these issues, and (2) we have not made community members responsible for their own behaviour.  For the future, we want to shift away from hard, defined rules to a set of Community Standards that places the responsibility for standards of behaviour on community members, not enforcement of rule violations.  This is a very old community by usual Internet standards, and self-regulation needs to play a more prominent role.

The first post in this thread sets out the principles by which the Standards have been drafted.  The second post sets out the draft standards themselves.  There are rules for this process that participants will abide by:

1. Constructive commentary only.  If your post does not either agree with the content as written, OR disagree and suggest alternative text, you need to re-think your additions.  Disagreement for the sake of disagreement will be split-locked out.

2. Absolutely, positively, no personal sniping or attacks.  First offence will be an immediate warning, subsequent offences and the person(s) responsible will find themselves no longer able to contribute.  This is not up for debate.

3. We are not re-litigating the past.  If you feel the need to bring up past specific problems as examples, don't.

4.  Public comment will remain open for a month.  As the process unfolds and consensus emerges, changes will be merged into the Guidelines.  At the end of this process, a completed draft will be available for viewing for one week for final commentary before becoming the new standards.

5.  If there are any seriously divisive issues where consensus does not emerge, we will vote on those specifically.

The following are the principles by which the Standards were drafted.  They will not be included with the final rules, but are important so readers understand where these are coming from.

A.  Community Standards replace "Rules"

Hard rules are impossible to craft to deal with all behaviour, and hard-and-fast rules don't really apply to a community this old.  We are never going to satisfy everyone - goes without saying - but the best approach is to set general standards of behaviour for community participation that leave enough room for moderator discretion to both head off trouble but also enough room to let people work it out to the greatest extent possible.  Setting general standards of expected behaviour will be superior to trying to craft a list of "don'ts."

B.  Moderation Standards go with community standards, and should be public

General practices we want moderation to follow should be public and included with the community standards.  Transparency breeds accountability, and frankly more of that is a good thing for all of us.

C.  Moderation should strive to take the path of least seriousness first

As a general rule we've gotten much better than this in recent years, but again a principle worth reflecting in the moderation standards. 

D.  Moderation decisions should be public.

People file reports with regularity, yet we don't always get back to them (in fact, we rarely get back to them).  I don't think we need to start PMs flying for reported post responses, but I do think in cases where formal action is taken, it should be clear to everyone what resulted and to whom.  In one recent example, two users got warnings, yet neither was actually aware of that and it creates more of a potential for hard feelings.

E.  We want to foster a community welcome to everyone.

There's a lot to this one, but the general principle is that community behaviour and moderation should be designed to encourage participation and diversity and not drive users away.  This means addressing all kinds of things early - not to stifle discussion, but to prevent the "vocal minority" effect where a small group of prolific users set a tone that is distasteful or flatly drives away other people.  While that includes the obvious things like keeping out racism, sexism, and all kinds of other nasty 'isms,' it also means stopping pile-ons early, reminding people there is another person on the other end of that keyboard, and encouraging people to agree to disagree.  A fun argument is fine, and mockery for especially stupid takes is too, but there is also a time to realize that maybe it's time to just go for a walk and let it go.  It also means moderators and administrators need to exemplify that behaviour and curb our own worst impulses, so if anything we should make it clear we are going to hold each other on the moderation team to a higher standard than everyone else in general.

SEE NEXT POST.
Title: Re: DRAFT/FEEDBACK - HLP Community and Moderation Standards - Open to 2021/03/06
Post by: MP-Ryan on February 06, 2021, 11:39:55 am


HLP Community Standards

Hard Light Productions is a forum (and associated Discord) dedicated to a love of gaming.  First and foremost, it is a community about FreeSpace, mods, modding, and the shared interests of the people who have joined it.  This is an old online community, full of people who have discovered and re-discovered FreeSpace through the years.  It is a community for everyone.  We have several community standards designed to guide community participation and moderation practices.

1.  This is an inclusive community to which everyone is welcome.  We are open and accommodating to new faces, we ensure that minority groups are respected, and discourage and eliminate user behaviour that runs contrary to these principles.

2.  The usual list of unwelcome behaviour applies:  discrimination/attacks on the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, etc is prohibited.  This list is far from exhaustive.  We do not list every type of toxic and sanctionable behaviour here as we are firmly against rules-lawyering and we expect users to use reasonable judgement.  If speaking it loudly in a restaurant would get you thrown out there, use caution writing it here.

3.  Use of the "Report Post" feature is encouraged - and not simply for direct rule violations.  This is the equivalent of a moderator ping and simply flags a post or thread to the moderators' attention, which allows them to review for potential problems or just keep an eye on things.  If you're not comfortable reporting another person's post but feel a thread needs attention, report your own.  A report does not mean moderators will immediately take formal action.

4.  The community is encouraged to self-regulate and hold its own users to account.  This does not mean backseat moderation.  This does mean that social interactions such as mockery, swearing, and sarcasm are permitted to a reasonable extent.  Moderators exist to keep discussions on track and prevent serious problems before they occur.

5.  Personal attacks are discouraged.  This includes both direct attacks on an individual, and abusive behaviours like direct/indirect threats, gaslighting, stalking, persistent focus/bullying, dogpiling, and other types of interpersonal attacks.  Users who engage in this behaviour will be warned and, if they persist, removed from the community.

HLP Moderation Standards

The moderation and administration teams are made up of volunteers whose job is to keep the community functioning and available to all its participants.  They will exercise the following principles:

6.  Moderators will attempt to use the least serious moderation tool available to correct behaviour.  This may take the form of locked threads, unofficial warnings posted in public within threads, official warnings, mutes, and bans (temporary or permanent).

7.  Moderators will make decisions in conjunction with at least one other member of the moderation team prior to taking actions other than temporary thread-locks.  Due to the rapid conversational nature of Discord, moderators there will act quickly but will consult with other staff on long-lasting measures.  Moderators will not take part in moderation decisions for issues they are involved in, aside from temporary thread locks.

8.  Moderators will be expected to exemplify the community standards in their behaviour; however, just as no user will be removed or sanctioned for minor correctable issues, the same principle will be applied to moderators.

9.  As of this revision date, moderators will be selected from the community, by the community, with the input of the moderation team.  The community may nominate members or volunteer for addition to the moderation team at any time.

10.  Formal moderation decisions resulting in action against individuals will be transparent and made public (informal warnings will remain private).  This balances the need for community transparency with the interests of individuals warned for minor issues.  An edit will be added to posts for which a user received formal moderation action in order for consequences to be readily visible to the community.

11.  Moderators will not edit user posts subject to the following exceptions: for maintenance/housekeeping (resource posts), to remove content in accordance with point 2, or to add a sanction decision in accordance with point 10.  These edit decisions (excluding resources) will require the input of at least two moderators.  Moderators will not delete posts except for announcement threads, the info threads in gaming discussion, or other housekeeping reasons as determined by multiple members of the moderation team.

Title: Re: DRAFT/FEEDBACK - HLP Community and Moderation Standards - Open to 2021/03/06
Post by: General Battuta on February 06, 2021, 12:22:59 pm
Two questions —

Anything about 'don't moderate conversations you're involved in'?

Are we sticking to the old, uh, unwritten rule of 'posts should not be modified or deleted'?

Otherwise it looks good. I might specifically suggest a 'wiggle clause' which makes it clear that the moderation team reserves the right to take action for any reason they agree upon, even if it doesn't seem specifically covered here. But that might be implied by 'guidelines'.

You might also want something speaking to emotional burden on moderators. It might be worth formalising a process whereby a complaint about a moderation action gets sent through a specific channel rather than tossed into open court for everyone to comment on.
Title: Re: DRAFT/FEEDBACK - HLP Community and Moderation Standards - Open to 2021/03/06
Post by: MP-Ryan on February 06, 2021, 12:26:56 pm
Two questions —

Anything about 'don't moderate conversations you're involved in'?

Are we sticking to the old, uh, unwritten rule of 'posts should not be modified or deleted'?

Otherwise it looks good. I might specifically suggest a 'wiggle clause' which makes it clear that the moderation team reserves the right to take action for any reason they agree upon, even if it doesn't seem specifically covered here. But that

You might also want something speaking to emotional burden on moderators. It might be worth formalising a process whereby a complaint about a moderation action gets sent through a specific channel rather than tossed into open court for everyone to comment on.

Thank you yes, we missed both of those first two.  Point 7 modified, point 11 added to account for that.  The second points I'll wait for further comment; I think point 2 is a satisfactory discretionary clause myself, but others may have more to say on that.
Title: Re: DRAFT/FEEDBACK - HLP Community and Moderation Standards - Open to 2021/03/06
Post by: Rhymes on February 06, 2021, 01:23:32 pm
I'm not entirely sure how I feel about having moderators being "selected by the community." What does that mean? How will it be accomplished? What limitations are going to be in place? What happens if the community wants someone and the moderation staff doesn't? What's stopping it from being, basically, a popularity contest?
Title: Re: DRAFT/FEEDBACK - HLP Community and Moderation Standards - Open to 2021/03/06
Post by: ngld on February 06, 2021, 01:25:25 pm
I don't know if you want to cover this explicitly in the guidelines but we've edited posts before to fix broken download links. As far as I understand point 11, that would no longer be allowed. I'm not sure if fixing links counts as editing since it doesn't actually change what the poster said, it just restores the original message.
Title: Re: DRAFT/FEEDBACK - HLP Community and Moderation Standards - Open to 2021/03/06
Post by: The E on February 06, 2021, 01:39:32 pm
A remark that posts may be edited for maintenance purposes would be good, yes.

However, I don't think it's really that necessary -- After all, I would assume that everyone is okay with "resource" type posts being kept up to date and maintained even if the original poster isn't around or available to do so. The rules against editing or deletion should serve as an assurance that moderators and admins will not misuse their editing powers in order to win silly internet fights; they shouldn't be read as a hindrance for moderators as they perform forum maintenance.
Title: Re: DRAFT/FEEDBACK - HLP Community and Moderation Standards - Open to 2021/03/06
Post by: MP-Ryan on February 06, 2021, 01:44:06 pm
A clarification on that is fine, so I made it.

Rhymes, with respect to your comment, the idea is we can use more moderators and would like to have volunteers and nominees.  Actual addition will still be subject to the existing moderation team to provide some balance.  The point isn't to do this by popularity, but to make these additions more generally transparent so it's less dictatorship, more meritocracy/democracy.  One constant complaint is a lack of trust/transparency, so we're trying to enhance that.
Title: Re: DRAFT/FEEDBACK - HLP Community and Moderation Standards - Open to 2021/03/06
Post by: Mobius on February 06, 2021, 01:46:31 pm
These rules are based on strong principles and I'm pretty sure they'll help settling things down. My concern however is one I've already showed in the past, and MP-Ryan kind of agreed with me back then.

A while ago, I argued over the "democracy" behind the formal actions of Admins and Global Moderators. In one particular case, I extrapolated that several admins did not even participate to a vote of critical importance for this community. I will not mention the circumstance as per Ryan's suggestion right at the beginning of this thread.

I believe (and most associations are based on this principle) that the most critical decisions should be taken by the absolute majority of Admins, not the "temporary" majority that happens to be online during a rather medium-to-short time window.

In poor words, if the website happens to have 10 Administrators, the absolute majority would be 6, all the time. No major decision should be taken by 5 or less Admins. All Admins should vote and should also be active users of these boards.
Title: Re: DRAFT/FEEDBACK - HLP Community and Moderation Standards - Open to 2021/03/06
Post by: Rhymes on February 06, 2021, 02:07:45 pm
I think that touches on a related issue which is that if admins/moderators are not around, their continuation in the role should be re-evaluated--perhaps by placing them on an inactive list after a set period of inactivity.

If they're not actively participating in the community, and the moderation staff is supposed to be tethered to the community rather than removed from it, then maybe they shouldn't be moderating and shouldn't get a vote?
Title: Re: DRAFT/FEEDBACK - HLP Community and Moderation Standards - Open to 2021/03/06
Post by: Aardwolf on February 06, 2021, 02:17:03 pm
Possible addendum to "Personal attacks are discouraged" (unless we think this is big enough to be its own item):

Assume good faith: don't put words in someone's mouth / don't pretend to be psychic / if someone says they meant X, don't insist what they really meant is Y.
Title: Re: DRAFT/FEEDBACK - HLP Community and Moderation Standards - Open to 2021/03/06
Post by: Mongoose on February 06, 2021, 03:00:14 pm
I think that touches on a related issue which is that if admins/moderators are not around, their continuation in the role should be re-evaluated--perhaps by placing them on an inactive list after a set period of inactivity.

If they're not actively participating in the community, and the moderation staff is supposed to be tethered to the community rather than removed from it, then maybe they shouldn't be moderating and shouldn't get a vote?

That's a fair point, and we have started to go through and prune some people who hold staff roles but haven't been active for a very long time and will continue to do so. We have the ability to put people in a sort of "staff emeritus" role. Regarding Mobius's point, there are certain decisions that are more time-critical, and we may not always have the luxury of waiting to get in touch with staff who haven't so much as logged in for a year or two (if it's even possible to get in touch with them at all). If we do ensure that the staff list is kept updated, then hopefully this won't be an issue going forward.
Title: Re: DRAFT/FEEDBACK - HLP Community and Moderation Standards - Open to 2021/03/06
Post by: Grizzly on February 06, 2021, 03:51:21 pm
I would specifically mention transphobia as a thing that should be banned if only becuase Ze Internet lately has made them the latest punching bag, and they are considered "acceptable targets" in ways that ye olde LGB folks aren't. Best to nip that thing in the bud. In the fallout Discords I frequented it has been the most frequent reason for banning people too.

As a point I would argue that wrt user guidelines, I would suggest something amongst the following lines:

Please think before you post. At HLP we strive towards creating a positive, friendly and constructive community. When posting, especially when posting critique, read your post through, and ask yourself "Do I come across as a dick when I post this?". Ultimately a post doesn't carry what you intended. It carries what you wrote, and ultimately that is your responsibility.


I would remove point 4. Vigilantism is something that the community should avoid. Use the report button and let the moderators decide what acceptable conduct should be, it's a far better option then letting people currently involved in the discussion self-regulate. Esp. since you accidentally end up creating an environment where people don't call the mods becuase they think they can solve the issue themselves, and then fail horribly at it despite best intentions. These kind of discussions should only be had by people who have the power to end them.
Title: Re: DRAFT/FEEDBACK - HLP Community and Moderation Standards - Open to 2021/03/06
Post by: MP-Ryan on February 06, 2021, 05:10:19 pm
I'm going to leave some of the other new comments alone for general user feedback and agreement/disagreement/alternatives.  To Joshua's point about transphobia, I really didn't want a list of every bad behaviour, but this is a legitimate point so I'm going to re-phrase; see the text update.
Title: Re: DRAFT/FEEDBACK - HLP Community and Moderation Standards - Open to 2021/03/06
Post by: karajorma on February 06, 2021, 09:35:14 pm
I would remove point 4. Vigilantism is something that the community should avoid. Use the report button and let the moderators decide what acceptable conduct should be, it's a far better option then letting people currently involved in the discussion self-regulate. Esp. since you accidentally end up creating an environment where people don't call the mods becuase they think they can solve the issue themselves, and then fail horribly at it despite best intentions. These kind of discussions should only be had by people who have the power to end them.

I don't think the point needs to be removed. Simply reworded. We're asking users to self-regulate their own posts, not other people's. Basically what you wrote here.

Quote
Please think before you post. At HLP we strive towards creating a positive, friendly and constructive community. When posting, especially when posting critique, read your post through, and ask yourself "Do I come across as a dick when I post this?". Ultimately a post doesn't carry what you intended. It carries what you wrote, and ultimately that is your responsibility.
Title: Re: DRAFT/FEEDBACK - HLP Community and Moderation Standards - Open to 2021/03/06
Post by: Mongoose on February 06, 2021, 09:55:59 pm
Yeah, we're trying to encourage an environment where we ideally don't have to step in and intervene in most cases, because people are taking that extra moment before they hit post to consider what they're saying.
Title: Re: DRAFT/FEEDBACK - HLP Community and Moderation Standards - Open to 2021/03/06
Post by: Fusion on February 06, 2021, 11:46:48 pm
A brief review of the draft standards as they existed when this post was made:

1: Makes sense, though is admittedly less of a rule and more of a general description.
2: Wouldn't use "speaking it loudly in a restaurant" as the excuse for getting booted as that long-term would see anyone booted for causing a disruption, but otherwise good.
3: Good, like the idea.
4: This honestly does seem like it could be misused with veiled attacks being attempted to be excused under the pretext of "holding [a user] to account." All for holding users to task and mitigating bad behavior before the moderators have to step in, but it does feel like this has the potential to be exploited.
5: I can support that. Less interpersonal drama, the better.
6: Makes sense. Going from 0 to 100 would certainly drive contributing members of the community off.
7: Sensible to prevent conflicts of interest.
8: Makes sense.
9: This does potentially cause issues with people who aren't necessarily fit for moderator getting the position simply because a vocal part of the community wants them. I would recommend against this.
10: Sensible.
11: Makes sense.
Title: Re: DRAFT/FEEDBACK - HLP Community and Moderation Standards - Open to 2021/03/06
Post by: JSRNerdo on February 07, 2021, 05:15:03 am
Quote
The community is encouraged to self-regulate and hold its own users to account.  This does not mean backseat moderation.  This does mean that social interactions such as mockery, swearing, and sarcasm are permitted to a reasonable extent.
I would remove this part entirely and replace it with Joshua's suggestion. Allowing and actually sanctioning users mocking other users will, I predict, promote toxicity, lead the formation of cliques and leads to problems down the line very similar to the ones that caused the creation of this thread. It is, to be frank, a terrible idea.
Title: Re: DRAFT/FEEDBACK - HLP Community and Moderation Standards - Open to 2021/03/06
Post by: Grizzly on February 07, 2021, 06:59:14 am
I'm going to leave some of the other new comments alone for general user feedback and agreement/disagreement/alternatives.  To Joshua's point about transphobia, I really didn't want a list of every bad behaviour, but this is a legitimate point so I'm going to re-phrase; see the text update.

I like this re-phrase.

Assume good faith

I agree with this. As a second draft

Please think before you post. At HLP we strive towards a co-operative, constructive and friendly community. Before you post, go through your post again and ask yourself: "Do I look like a dick for saying things this way?". Remember that on the internet, nobody can read the intent or tone behind your post: They can only read what you put into the post. When reading other people's posts that come across as rude, please also be aware of the hurdles of text-only communication, language barriers and social handicaps. If in doubt: Don't escalate. Contact a moderator instead.
Title: Re: DRAFT/FEEDBACK - HLP Community and Moderation Standards - Open to 2021/03/06
Post by: MP-Ryan on February 07, 2021, 09:25:46 am
I like this discussion about changes to point 4; I'll let you all 'workshop it' some more before altering the text above since its a more substantial change.
Title: Re: DRAFT/FEEDBACK - HLP Community and Moderation Standards - Open to 2021/03/06
Post by: General Battuta on February 07, 2021, 09:34:37 am
If I have to be respectful of people who think COVID stands for Churches Open, Virus Isn't Deadly I'm going to—well, uh, not be respectful. "Don't be a dick" so often ends up meaning "don't say anything superficially inflammatory in the face of things that are actually horrible".
Title: Re: DRAFT/FEEDBACK - HLP Community and Moderation Standards - Open to 2021/03/06
Post by: General Battuta on February 07, 2021, 09:34:58 am
Pretty nice backronym huh?? Came up with that myself
Title: Re: DRAFT/FEEDBACK - HLP Community and Moderation Standards - Open to 2021/03/06
Post by: Grizzly on February 07, 2021, 09:57:33 am
If I have to be respectful of people who think COVID stands for Churches Open, Virus Isn't Deadly I'm going to—well, uh, not be respectful. "Don't be a dick" so often ends up meaning "don't say anything superficially inflammatory in the face of things that are actually horrible".

Pretty sure we have rule 1 and 2 for that kinda stuff.
Title: Re: DRAFT/FEEDBACK - HLP Community and Moderation Standards - Open to 2021/03/06
Post by: Phantom Hoover on February 07, 2021, 10:57:26 am
"Don't be a dick" so often ends up meaning "don't say anything superficially inflammatory in the face of things that are actually horrible".

Rule 4 does seem strange to me and I think it’s a recipe for trouble as written, but it makes a lot of sense in spirit as a measure against this sort of thing. If there’s one thing we’ve learnt here it’s that massive toxic dumpster fire arguments about someone’s behaviour are a terrible way of managing disagreement, but HLP has had a lot of bitter times resulting from rigid ‘don’t be a dick’ moderating that provides cover for people who are driving a lot of others crazy without using naughty words. For my part, I would suggest an approach to moderation that strongly discourages bitter dogpiling arguments, but recognises that if a bunch of people want to object to someone’s behaviour like that it means there’s a real problem that needs active resolution. Moderator discretion and an ability to read the room will be required, and it’s clear that this can only work if the community agrees to respect their judgements on the ground.
Title: Re: DRAFT/FEEDBACK - HLP Community and Moderation Standards - Open to 2021/03/06
Post by: Mobius on February 07, 2021, 11:50:47 am
Saying that any situation involving a "bunch of people" who happen to have a particular issue with a [given member] should automatically mark the beginning of some sort of "moderating evaluation" of [said member] is a rather dangerous concept. I don't expect anything good to happen should a similar policy be applied.

We'd rather stick to regular evaluation processes, IMO.
Title: Re: DRAFT/FEEDBACK - HLP Community and Moderation Standards - Open to 2021/03/06
Post by: Mongoose on February 07, 2021, 12:03:31 pm
If I have to be respectful of people who think COVID stands for Churches Open, Virus Isn't Deadly I'm going to—well, uh, not be respectful. "Don't be a dick" so often ends up meaning "don't say anything superficially inflammatory in the face of things that are actually horrible".

I think in my mind the distinction should be made between attacking the position, and attacking the person. If someone is pushing the argument that you gave as an example, then by all means, absolutely tee off on that argument. But keep it there: don't denigrate the individual as a basic person. If someone truly is espousing ridiculous opinions on a regular basis, quite frankly their reputation is going to take care of itself, without any need for you helping it along.
Title: Re: DRAFT/FEEDBACK - HLP Community and Moderation Standards - Open to 2021/03/06
Post by: General Battuta on February 07, 2021, 12:16:49 pm
Their reputations are taking care of themselves to the tune of 400,000 dead people, though. Denialism kills. It's hard not to call someone who wants to minimize that an absolute monster.

I guess there's always oblique phrasing like "anyone who believes this is an accessory to murder" but that's weaselly.
Title: Re: DRAFT/FEEDBACK - HLP Community and Moderation Standards - Open to 2021/03/06
Post by: Phantom Hoover on February 07, 2021, 12:34:48 pm
If I have to be respectful of people who think COVID stands for Churches Open, Virus Isn't Deadly I'm going to—well, uh, not be respectful. "Don't be a dick" so often ends up meaning "don't say anything superficially inflammatory in the face of things that are actually horrible".

I think in my mind the distinction should be made between attacking the position, and attacking the person. If someone is pushing the argument that you gave as an example, then by all means, absolutely tee off on that argument. But keep it there: don't denigrate the individual as a basic person. If someone truly is espousing ridiculous opinions on a regular basis, quite frankly their reputation is going to take care of itself, without any need for you helping it along.

I disagree, and sorting out this disagreement is probably the most important part of this discussion. It's not healthy that if many community members find someone's views deeply objectionable or obnoxious, the position of the moderators effectively becomes hostile to the majority: "well you'd better make sure you follow the rules of Polite Debate with Jim the antivaxxer, or the guy who complains that any symmetrical ship model is uninspired garbage". I think effective moderation needs to actually listen to people when they express objections to someone's behaviour, and you need to be ready to take someone aside and say "your behaviour is actually annoying the hell out of a lot of people; you need to adjust course", rather than only telling everyone to cool off. God knows I've benefited enough from people telling me stuff like that over the years.

The 'geek social fallacy' Battuta keeps linking to is very much on point: you can't keep a healthy community running if you start off by saying you'll never rebuke or exclude anyone no matter how disruptive they're being to the actual happiness of the group.
Title: Re: DRAFT/FEEDBACK - HLP Community and Moderation Standards - Open to 2021/03/06
Post by: Mongoose on February 07, 2021, 01:12:44 pm
I'm not trying to imply that aberrant behavior shouldn't be taken to task, and I don't think that we should be moderating by dropping a "play nice kids" without actually considering the viewpoints in question. But I do believe that there's a clear distinction between a response like, "Your opinion is abhorrent and is going to get a lot of people needlessly killed" and one like, "You're a subhuman monster." Both are ostensibly trying to accomplish the same thing, but the latter is ****-stirring just for the sake of doing so. Maybe the other moderators feel differently about this, but that's my own take on it.
Title: Re: DRAFT/FEEDBACK - HLP Community and Moderation Standards - Open to 2021/03/06
Post by: Rhymes on February 07, 2021, 01:36:16 pm
I'm not trying to imply that aberrant behavior shouldn't be taken to task, and I don't think that we should be moderating by dropping a "play nice kids" without actually considering the viewpoints in question. But I do believe that there's a clear distinction between a response like, "Your opinion is abhorrent and is going to get a lot of people needlessly killed" and one like, "You're a subhuman monster." Both are ostensibly trying to accomplish the same thing, but the latter is ****-stirring just for the sake of doing so. Maybe the other moderators feel differently about this, but that's my own take on it.

I don't agree with this. Certain opinions--specifically ones that deliberately minimize, ignore, or advocate for mass death and suffering--should be met with hostility. If someone comes along and says "vaccines are the devil" or "COVID is a hoax" or "Hitler was right" or "the Holodomor and the Cultural Revolution were good things, actually," members of the community should be free to say "**** all the way off, you piece of ****" without worrying about whether they're going to get sanctioned by the moderators.

You can't separate the person from their opinion because their opinions are informed by who they are, and are the primary basis by which we, as humans, figure out who other people are. If they uncritically support things that they know will cause death and suffering, that makes them a bad person.
Title: Re: DRAFT/FEEDBACK - HLP Community and Moderation Standards - Open to 2021/03/06
Post by: General Battuta on February 07, 2021, 01:44:20 pm
I will say this is a topic that society at large has not figured out how to handle so it's no surprise it's challenging us.

What I think we should be allowed to do is parry the other poster when they perform a long-windup attack, then press R1 to perform a visceral attack for huge damage.
Title: Re: DRAFT/FEEDBACK - HLP Community and Moderation Standards - Open to 2021/03/06
Post by: Phantom Hoover on February 07, 2021, 01:49:04 pm
I do somewhat agree with Mongoose that hostile personal abuse is something that needs to be avoided, but the standards and the moderators need to be smart about how to do that — if someone’s ideas are so gratuitously offensive that a lot of people just want to tell them to go **** themselves, then saying ‘you must debate the idea rather than the person’ is tone deaf and incredibly frustrating for the people who’d like to be able to talk without a lunatic interrupting. It’s complicated, because often the right response *is* to tell everyone to cool off, leave it, and consider their own behaviour (especially on Discord where the realtime chat allows everyone to get very annoyed and entrenched pretty quickly); but sometimes there is someone who is a persistent or gratuitous troublemaker, who is out of line with the basic values most of us hold, and those people just need to be removed if they can’t reform.
Title: Re: DRAFT/FEEDBACK - HLP Community and Moderation Standards - Open to 2021/03/06
Post by: Mongoose on February 07, 2021, 02:46:44 pm
I mean yeah, there is absolutely a sliding scale here, and that's the point where individual discretion comes in instead of hard-and-fast rules. If there is an individual who genuinely believes that Bernie Sanders controls a Jewish space laser that he used to start wildfires in California, and openly espouses that viewpoint, then they are not going to find themselves welcome here for long. But if a situation like that does come up, then please, shoot us a report. It won't exactly be a long deliberation on our end.
Title: Re: DRAFT/FEEDBACK - HLP Community and Moderation Standards - Open to 2021/03/06
Post by: Grizzly on February 07, 2021, 03:10:39 pm
I realize the catharticness of telling a nazi to **** off, but also consider that no matter what you say it's ultimately going to be handled by a moderator, and the more you post the more work they have to do.
Title: Re: DRAFT/FEEDBACK - HLP Community and Moderation Standards - Open to 2021/03/06
Post by: Rhymes on February 07, 2021, 03:40:07 pm
Yeah I'm not suggesting that there should be a long back and forth debate about why said nazi should **** off, just that if someone says "**** off you nazi scum," hits the report button, and exits the thread, I don't think it would be reasonable to sanction the one making the report. 
Title: Re: DRAFT/FEEDBACK - HLP Community and Moderation Standards - Open to 2021/03/06
Post by: MP-Ryan on February 07, 2021, 06:09:53 pm
I think that much of the discussion here is focusing on point 4 without recognizing 2 also exists.

I am okay with multiple users expressing to another that a view they hold is - to put it bluntly - garbage.  What I'm not okay with, and what we have a historical problem with, is multiple users dogpiling on to state/imply the person is crap.  Most of the extreme hypotheticals anyone can cite are going to fall afoul of point 2 and receive warns/sanctions of varying severity regardless - this captures your actual-goosestepping-Nazi-cosplayers, your "women are just too emotional and sensitive" misogynists, your "transpeople don't deserve human rights" cretins, your "homosexuals all deserve to get aids" bigots, etc.  Depending on the severity, anyone meandering down these paths is going to find themselves in an ejection seat primed to launch or in various stages of descent without parachute.

Point 4 is designed for the friend-group correction process - "Hey Bob, sit down and shut up, that's idiotic" from six people around the campfire when Bob decides to announce that people questioning his favourite choice of beer is literal hate speech.  Say your piece, Bob gets the hint that his take is genuinely bad, we move on with no hard feelings.  We don't need moderators to step in in that scenario so long as it's over and done with.  Now, if the same scenario in 30 minutes of "haha look at Bob he's an idiot" dominated by three people, that's a problem.

This is a forum.  We respect diverse views, even to an extent that some of them are garbage - and to an extent, users (yes, Battuta, even you :P ) are sometimes going to have to suck it up in the face of comments you find personally objectionable or monstrous.  The Standards exist to define a minimum behavioural standard and guide both users and moderators in their behaviour. Moderators, collectively, WILL draw some lines that not everyone in the community is happy with, and they will be case-by-case.  I made it pretty clear early on in the COVID thread that there was going to be very limited tolerance for any 'truther'-type garbage that wasn't supported by actual scientific sources because it's a big deal.  Other topics may see more, or less, flexibility.  This is why it is important we have a variety of active moderators who can set this kind of tone, and, of equal importance, users who listen when that line is drawn.  You don't have to like it or agree with it, but you do need to recognize that part of the reason we select moderators is to collectively set those lines for the whole community as these cases emerge.  If a certain person finds a certain discussion objectionable on some grounds that are not covered by point 2 and where the moderation team has made one of these judgement calls, you have an option not to click on that thread.  Letting these disputes fester and become a war of personalities instead of a war of ideas is part of what has landed us in this recent mess.  Is the moderation team going to be as lax/apathetic as Facebook and Twitter? No.  Will there be decisions that some of you may end up strongly disagreeing with?  YES.

And, as Joshua pointed out, where things appear to get heated, the correct approach is to Report the issue so these decisions can be made quickly and intervention occurs early.

EDIT:  And before anyone gets too worried, while we are not re-litigating the past, I have numerous regrets and misgivings about the way some issues were permitted to fester around here in the past, so I, personally, have no intention of pursuing a "they're just debating ideas" approach that ends up with a subgroup setting up shop that is going to run the site's reputation into the ground.  There's a reason the draft standards including a preamble about what HLP is for, and you should all note that "safe space for your favourite political soapbox take" is not among them.
Title: Re: DRAFT/FEEDBACK - HLP Community and Moderation Standards - Open to 2021/03/06
Post by: General Battuta on February 07, 2021, 07:11:38 pm
My structural perfection is matched only by my hostility.







But if you have to moderate me for it that's okay.

Edited for the sake of mobile phone users - Karajorma
Title: Re: DRAFT/FEEDBACK - HLP Community and Moderation Standards - Open to 2021/03/06
Post by: Rhymes on February 07, 2021, 07:37:24 pm
why are you the way that you are battuta
Title: Re: DRAFT/FEEDBACK - HLP Community and Moderation Standards - Open to 2021/03/06
Post by: General Battuta on February 07, 2021, 07:46:13 pm
I had to make MP-Ryan page down a lot, because I am a fan of The Elder Scrolls.
Title: Re: DRAFT/FEEDBACK - HLP Community and Moderation Standards - Open to 2021/03/06
Post by: karajorma on February 07, 2021, 07:53:22 pm
Well, time to test that editing clause.
Title: Re: DRAFT/FEEDBACK - HLP Community and Moderation Standards - Open to 2021/03/06
Post by: General Battuta on February 07, 2021, 08:13:18 pm
I thought this website was about free space.
Title: Re: DRAFT/FEEDBACK - HLP Community and Moderation Standards - Open to 2021/03/06
Post by: karajorma on February 07, 2021, 10:28:16 pm
Can we get back on topic?
Title: Re: DRAFT/FEEDBACK - HLP Community and Moderation Standards - Open to 2021/03/06
Post by: Rhymes on February 07, 2021, 11:20:28 pm
Back on the subject of the discussion, I think I'm mostly on board with what you're getting at, Ryan, but the point I made earlier about telling someone to **** off and getting infracted still doesn't seem to have been addressed, or if it was, I'm not quite getting it.

Let me pose a few hypotheticals to see how much I'm on the same wavelength as you:

Scenario 1: Two random community members, A and B, have a debate about something, it gets lively, but they don't start insulting each other and nobody else joins in. Someone else, C, brings up another topic, and everyone else in the thread moves on to that. Obviously this is not a problem.


Scenario 2: A modeler (A) and another community member (B) get into a debate about, say, the use of certain details on models. They have different perspectives on the application of those details, but it seems like A and B aren't actually communicating clearly on the same terms. B goes after the subject persistently because they feel they're not being understood--not that they're expecting A to agree, but just to understand B's point at all. Three others, call them C, D, and E, jump in to help explain. This continues for a little while.

As I'm understanding it, that would not be a problem under Rule 4 at that point because it's not actually a dogpile, but rather a legitimate attempt to bridge a miscommunication. It might warrant close monitoring because it could end up becoming a problem very quickly, like if B, C, D, and E keep going after A has expressed an unwillingness to continue the conversation, but it's not one yet.


Scenario 3: Same facts as Scenario 2, except this time A says "I think I get what you're saying, but I don't agree, and I'm not interested in continuing this discussion." B, C, D and E continue to belabor the point. This, as I understand, would absolutely run afoul of Rule 4 because it's now a dogpile.


Scenario 4: Poster A gets into an argument with Poster B, with C and D occasionally chiming in. A eventually says that they think that Hitler was right. B, C, and D immediately say "**** off, Nazi," all in a row. A makes follow-up posts, and B, C and D continue to just say variations on "**** off Nazi." A, obviously, is about to get yeeted by Rule 2.

Now, as I understand it, B, C, and D are in trouble under Rule 4 for continuing to **** on A over and over again, long after the point where the mods should have been called. Is that about right?


Scenario 5: Poster A gets into an argument with Poster B, with C and D occasionally chiming in. A says that they think that the Holodomor was a good thing. B says "**** off, tankie," and hits the report button, and ceases to engage with the thread after that. C and D chime in only to voice their agreement with B, and then do not engage with the thread after that.

This is the one where I'm still hung up. A, again, is likely to get bounced under Rule 2 for posting apologia for mass murder and/or genocide. My question is: what about B, C, and D? Who runs afoul of rule 4? Do any of them?

Title: Re: DRAFT/FEEDBACK - HLP Community and Moderation Standards - Open to 2021/03/06
Post by: Dilmah G on February 07, 2021, 11:37:08 pm
Potentially I'm in the minority here, but regarding scenarios 4/5 whilst I obviously have no dramas with booting Neo-Nazis from the forum, I would be for measures that discourage dogpiling on A. Not because I think we should be nice to Neo-Nazis or any other humans we would generally all agree are reprehensible creatures, but I feel like in a forum of mature adults with faith in the moderators that we can move beyond the feel good hit of "yeah I told that bad person to get ****ED!" and say our piece, report it, and starve it of oxygen like it deserves. Generally speaking I find in my travels both on and off the internet that at least 50% of these people are just immature children that are doing it to get a rise out of people and by engaging with their **** tier content for prolonged periods of time we're just giving them what they want. Whereas I would think it would be healthier for any community to just report the behaviour, keep their cool, and just excise the tumour.

But in any case, I don't anyone to give a **** about my opinion on the matter given how short a time period I've been back for and how little I post, but FWIW I really like the direction this whole discussion is going in. At the end of the day it's not going to be my call where the line gets drawn on "**** off Nazis" being okay and "you truther piece of garbage" not being okay, but I have enough faith in the HLP moderation team that I'm willing to respect the line in the sand wherever it gets drawn on a particular topic.

In particular after the events of late I can't overstate how hopeful I am that additional moderators (particularly on the Discord) have a positive effect on the joint. A forum that should realistically be a bunch of mates talking about their shared love for a 1990s videogame and discussing life in general shouldn't be the sort of thing that's driving its stalwart members to burnout. That is an indictment on all of us as a community and something we shouldn't let happen again.
Title: Re: DRAFT/FEEDBACK - HLP Community and Moderation Standards - Open to 2021/03/06
Post by: Mongoose on February 07, 2021, 11:52:34 pm
I think all I can really say to those hypothetical scenarios is that it all depends on the context. The whole point of moving to a guidelines-based system for both general users and moderators is that we're not locking ourselves into "Well if X says Y we'll take action A, but if P said Q immediately after we'll move on to action B." What I can say without committing myself to any future course of action is if there was a single isolated comment of passion said in response to something truly egregious, I would most likely ask the person to report without engaging next time and leave it at that. Now if it was a noticeable pattern of behavior from the person who replied, or if it was 4 or 5 other people who piled on well beyond the point when the post obviously should have been reported, then maybe that's a different story. Again, it always has to be a case-by-case basis.

Bottom line? If you see nasty ****, just hit the report button, and we'll gleefully excise it.
Title: Re: DRAFT/FEEDBACK - HLP Community and Moderation Standards - Open to 2021/03/06
Post by: Rhymes on February 08, 2021, 12:13:49 am
I think all I can really say to those hypothetical scenarios is that it all depends on the context. The whole point of moving to a guidelines-based system for both general users and moderators is that we're not locking ourselves into "Well if X says Y we'll take action A, but if P said Q immediately after we'll move on to action B."

I totally get that it's a context-sensitive inquiry--the reason I laid out the hypotheticals was because I was trying to get a general sense of where the boundaries were by way of examples.

What I can say without committing myself to any future course of action is if there was a single isolated comment of passion said in response to something truly egregious, I would most likely ask the person to report without engaging next time and leave it at that.

Okay, this is what I was getting at. I think this stance is a mistake, because it sounds like what you want to do is penalize people for getting mad at something objectionable and expressing that as they are in the process of disengaging. I don't think it's reasonable or appropriate to tone-police people in that way. I get that you don't want people to continue beating the drum over and over, and that's fine. What I think is not fine is disciplining people for taking offense at something and expressing that offense. At that point, you're getting into the realm of "civility as the tool of the oppressor."

e: and to be clear, a "suggestion" like that is still moderator action and thus disciplinary action even if a penalty was not assessed.
Title: Re: DRAFT/FEEDBACK - HLP Community and Moderation Standards - Open to 2021/03/06
Post by: MP-Ryan on February 08, 2021, 12:55:41 am
Rhymes, I think you've correctly assessed where my approach would land in scenario 1-4.  In terms of scenario 5, I would probably tell the peanut gallery (because that's what they are at that point) that their agreeing that A did wrong is a lot less important than them hitting the Report Button.  If they do both, I'd probably just suggest in the future that they Report and leave it at that.  If they voiced disagreement and did not report, we'd be having a conversation about why the Report button exists and what exactly escalation is.  If that last response became a habit, I'd look at formal warnings at that point.

The idea behind point 4 is to deal with those relatively-friendly disagreements over relatively minor matters.  Where things start running afoul of point 2 is where we'd like community members to step back and Report instead.

EDIT:  I do like the changes Joshua proposed so it would be great if we don't get too side-tracked and instead focus on getting that alternative draft right.
Title: Re: DRAFT/FEEDBACK - HLP Community and Moderation Standards - Open to 2021/03/06
Post by: Mongoose on February 08, 2021, 01:21:38 am
Okay, this is what I was getting at. I think this stance is a mistake, because it sounds like what you want to do is penalize people for getting mad at something objectionable and expressing that as they are in the process of disengaging. I don't think it's reasonable or appropriate to tone-police people in that way. I get that you don't want people to continue beating the drum over and over, and that's fine. What I think is not fine is disciplining people for taking offense at something and expressing that offense. At that point, you're getting into the realm of "civility as the tool of the oppressor."

e: and to be clear, a "suggestion" like that is still moderator action and thus disciplinary action even if a penalty was not assessed.


See, this is the part of what you're saying that I don't understand. Telling someone, "Hey, maybe just report the post next time instead of engaging with them" isn't intended as discipline at all, at least not any way I'd define it. It's communication. No one's getting yelled at, no one's getting formally warned, nothing like that. It's a polite request to try and handle things differently if a similar situation arises in the future, to ensure that these situations don't escalate into a total mess and make resolving them that much more difficult on the moderator side of things. You're allowed to get mad, you're allowed to be offended, and no one's saying you're not. What we're saying is that the most constructive way to channel that offense is to hit the report button and let it be dealt with.

This gets back to something The E said in his explanation post, and Battuta also touched on in another thread as well. There's been something of a history of people taking a request to redirect a conversation on Discord, or a minimal warning on the forums, as some sort of direct attack, an indictment of themselves as individuals. And that's never been the intent. It's about trying to manage questionable situations before they escalate. That's it.
Title: Re: DRAFT/FEEDBACK - HLP Community and Moderation Standards - Open to 2021/03/06
Post by: Rhymes on February 08, 2021, 01:34:38 am
*snipped for length*

Got it, thanks for the clarity. I still think that approach has tone policing problems when you're disciplining people who did hit the report button, but on further reflection the number of times we're likely to run into that is fairly small, so mountains, molehills, etc.

In fairness, the digression came because we were discussing whether we were expected to continue to be civil when someone posts something really awful. To that end, I would add a little more to the draft to cover what we've been discussing. Maybe something like:

Please think before you post. At HLP we strive towards a co-operative, constructive and friendly community. Before you post, go through your post again and ask yourself: "Do I look like a dick for saying things this way?". Remember that on the internet, nobody can read the intent or tone behind your post: They can only read what you put into the post. When reading other people's posts that come across as rude, please also be aware of the hurdles of text-only communication, language barriers and social handicaps. In the event that someone else posts something you find truly objectionable, report it instead of engaging or continuing to engage. If in doubt: Don't escalate. Contact a moderator instead.

Underlined the bit I added.

To Mongoose (because you ninja'd me as I was writing the above):

*snipped for length*

The problem difference is that when you tell someone something with your moderator hat on, it carries the weight and the feel of moderator action, even if it's not a formal warning or whatever. I'm not saying it's a personal attack, but it is a disciplinary measure, whether you mean it that way or not, just not one with a penalty attached to it. This is a problem thing that a lot of moderators in a lot of forums seem to have trouble understanding: whenever a member of staff does something like what you describe, even if it's informal and casual, it carries an implied "or else." You are speaking in your capacity as a member of staff and with the implied threat of coercive measures behind it. Whether you mean it or not, it's there.

Does that make sense?

e: maybe not a "problem" but definitely a "thing"
Title: Re: DRAFT/FEEDBACK - HLP Community and Moderation Standards - Open to 2021/03/06
Post by: Phantom Hoover on February 08, 2021, 06:48:51 am
We're talking a lot about latitude for people to tell nazis, covid denialists and people who think wi-fi makes your testicles explode to **** off, which is fine, but I think the bigger problem in the last couple of months has been more down to personal tensions coming to a head when actual modding activities are discussed, particularly when trying to critique people's work. If anything this is where "civility moderation" may actually be appropriate -- there generally isn't a clear standard of right and wrong when critiquing or defending someone's work, except that personal attacks are out of line and we're better off if everyone stays respectful about each other and their views.
Title: Re: DRAFT/FEEDBACK - HLP Community and Moderation Standards - Open to 2021/03/06
Post by: mjn.mixael on February 08, 2021, 10:44:09 am
Karajorma reached out and encouraged me to offer my input. While my decision to remain a part of this community still leans towards no, perhaps my input can prevent what happened to me happening to anyone else.

This isn't so much a suggestion of change as it is affirmation of what's written.

Cultural change starts at the top, so my focus is there. These guidelines for community involvement will be worthless if not modelled to the highest degree by the community leadership. If a moderator starts a warning off with name-calling, that's escalation and the community will follow that lead. Moderators need, more than anyone else, to be able to recognize when they are not the one who should respond for whatever reason.

Based on recent events, point 5 requires a specific call out. It's clear from my perspective that there is no concensus in the leadership what some of these interpersonal attacks are. I have been told both that I was dogpiled and not dogpiled. This is going to be more a problem on Discord than the forums due to the speed of conversation in the medium. I suspect you guys need to sort that out in your moderation chat boards. The point is, if the leadership can't even agree on what is hostile to a functional community at the base level, you're going to find it difficult to move forward towards real change.

A special shout-out to Galemp's post here (https://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=97330.msg1907701#msg1907701). Part of my anger recently was that I tried to do better but people are still holding on to a thing Fury said about me 10 years ago. If people aren't ready to allow others to try (and probably sometimes fail) to be better or they can't assume the best in what others say, then all of this is meaningless. I also fully approve of the idea to set up face-to-face gatherings. It's easy to hold a grudge for a decade against some text on a screen. It's much more difficult to do that to a person.

I also highly recommend you choose moderators that are actively playing or contributing to the game/game engine this community is focused on. I'd stop just short of calling that a mandate. However, you want people in place who are fully invested in what we do here, who are often active and engaged with the community, and know the personalities at play. De-escalating battuta is very different than de-escalating me. We're a small community where the moderators are not nameless/faceless rule enforcers. That fact can be used to the advantage of all if applied thoughtfully... and if there's any major takeaway from these guidelines, it's to be thoughtful about your involvement here.

Disclaimer: I wrote this post at 7am and have edited it throughout the morning to remove as much as I could in the way of personal attacks. Given my recent experience, I still harbor some very real anger towards certain individuals involved which makes it difficult to separate my thoughts from those events. Should those individuals desire reconcilliation, my PM inbox is open and I'm willing to work towards that.
Title: Re: DRAFT/FEEDBACK - HLP Community and Moderation Standards - Open to 2021/03/06
Post by: General Battuta on February 08, 2021, 11:41:17 am
:yes:          :yes:             :yes::yes::yes:         :yes:        :yes:   
:yes::yes:   :yes::yes:                 :yes:            :yes::yes:     :yes:   
:yes: :yes::yes: :yes:                 :yes:            :yes:  :yes:   :yes:   
:yes:   :yes:   :yes:                 :yes:            :yes:    :yes: :yes:   
:yes:         :yes:                 :yes:            :yes:      :yes::yes:   
:yes:         :yes:          :yes:    :yes:            :yes:         :yes:   
:yes:         :yes:          :yes::yes::yes:             :yes:         :yes:   
                                                               
Title: Re: DRAFT/FEEDBACK - HLP Community and Moderation Standards - Open to 2021/03/06
Post by: Rhymes on February 08, 2021, 02:15:36 pm
We're talking a lot about latitude for people to tell nazis, covid denialists and people who think wi-fi makes your testicles explode to **** off, which is fine, but I think the bigger problem in the last couple of months has been more down to personal tensions coming to a head when actual modding activities are discussed, particularly when trying to critique people's work. If anything this is where "civility moderation" may actually be appropriate -- there generally isn't a clear standard of right and wrong when critiquing or defending someone's work, except that personal attacks are out of line and we're better off if everyone stays respectful about each other and their views.

Yeah. The extremes was where my brain went for whatever reason and I wanted to feel those spaces out, but the actual local conditions here are much more about just basic interpersonal dynamics, hence my comment about mountains and molehills. For the kind of typical baseline activity we tend to see here, getting people to not be complete assholes to each other all the time (self included) is much more worthy of focus.

Idk, it might just be that there's not actually a whole lot of disagreement over the core approach to this aspect of the rules, so we're talking about the extremes because that's the only thing that might be in contention?
Title: Re: DRAFT/FEEDBACK - HLP Community and Moderation Standards - Open to 2021/03/06
Post by: DefCynodont119 on February 08, 2021, 04:31:46 pm
Going back to what mjn and ph just said, i would agree that most things here are interpersonal, and i've lurked here for years before i joined and i would say that not all the moderators and admins have the same definition for an ''attack'' and don't always agree with eachother's actions, i would reccomend an interneal discuttion on what is an attack and what behavure's count as esculation.

And perhaps u could have mods/admins debrief eachother after certin high level actions/inceadents?
 
Idk, just shooting from the hip here.

Sorry for formatting/spelling, flipphone makes this hard.

Title: Re: DRAFT/FEEDBACK - HLP Community and Moderation Standards - Open to 2021/03/06
Post by: MP-Ryan on February 08, 2021, 06:32:05 pm
The two moderator rule and some other internal changes (staff discord space, simply more staff) are a direct attempt to improve staff decision-making and seek consensus on issues rather than dropping it in the lap of just one or two people.  More suggestions are welcome, of course, but they also run up against volunteer timing.

While I understand the point of choosing moderators actively creating in the community, and we've included a draft standard to allow for more direct community input in moderator selection, one very simple problem is most people actively involved in creating community content don't have a simultaneous desire to wrangle the wild herds of HLP chaos-goats who like to go stand on the roof and then try to eat it.
Title: Re: DRAFT/FEEDBACK - HLP Community and Moderation Standards - Open to 2021/03/06
Post by: Mongoose on February 08, 2021, 06:40:22 pm
The problem difference is that when you tell someone something with your moderator hat on, it carries the weight and the feel of moderator action, even if it's not a formal warning or whatever. I'm not saying it's a personal attack, but it is a disciplinary measure, whether you mean it that way or not, just not one with a penalty attached to it. This is a problem thing that a lot of moderators in a lot of forums seem to have trouble understanding: whenever a member of staff does something like what you describe, even if it's informal and casual, it carries an implied "or else." You are speaking in your capacity as a member of staff and with the implied threat of coercive measures behind it. Whether you mean it or not, it's there.

Does that make sense?

e: maybe not a "problem" but definitely a "thing"

Thank you for clarifying, and I do understand your point now, but I guess I've never viewed those sorts of interactions as implied threats from my end. That's certainly never been my intention when I've made comments like that in the past, and if there's any way we can work to alleviate that impression on our end, please, let us know.

Here's a somewhat-related example from another forum I'm a member of. That forum has a politics folder and what is essentially a straight-up no-holds-barred folder, and as you can imagine some of the latter started to spill into the former over the past several months. I got into the habit of using somewhat...colorful language against a user whose views I found to be odious, even in the politics folder which is ostensibly more moderated. As a result a moderator I've known for a long time bopped me with the equivalent of a 0% warning here, asking me to tone it down. I was miffed about it at first, but once I took a step back I realized I was just causing them more trouble, and there wasn't really a need for what I was doing. I don't view that interaction as me getting disciplined, or as an "or else" thing, but as a correction to help things run more smoothly. That's the sort of reaction that I hope we can work towards here.

(Disclaimer: I do not endorse the improper use of colorful language. I was very bad.)
Title: Re: DRAFT/FEEDBACK - HLP Community and Moderation Standards - Open to 2021/03/06
Post by: Rhymes on February 08, 2021, 07:30:48 pm
Thank you for clarifying, and I do understand your point now, but I guess I've never viewed those sorts of interactions as implied threats from my end. That's certainly never been my intention when I've made comments like that in the past, and if there's any way we can work to alleviate that impression on our end, please, let us know.

It's not really a thing that can be alleviated, nor, for that matter, do I think it should be as a matter of general principle. It's literally the basis on which the moderator role operates--the ability to enforce standards of behavior by coercive measures. Yeah, ideally, you don't want to have to ban people very often, but the fact that you can if you have to is what makes the whole thing work.

And, like, it's not something that colors your every interaction with the forum (unless you're way too casual about how you use mod powers, but, uh, HLP just got rid of the ones who did that). People can generally tell the difference between when a moderator is acting in their role as staff and when they're not--casual conversations or debates or whatever vs. asking/telling someone to do something with respect to their behavior on the forums. When you take someone aside and tell them (or even ask them!) not to do something or to change their behavior, that's corrective action--in other words, moderation, even if you're really nice about it! That's not bad! That's literally how moderation functions!

What I was taking issue with was not the fact that this impression exists or how those interactions come across (again, I think it's desirable or at the very least necessary), but rather its application--the 'what content gets moderated,' not 'how moderation works.'

In case I'm not being clear enough: when I say that taking someone aside like that is moderator action, that's not an indictment. It's not a failing on your part for an aside like that to have an implicit "there will be negative consequences for you if this behavior continues." It's just that I think it's important for staff to be aware that this is an unavoidable aspect of their job.
Title: Re: DRAFT/FEEDBACK - HLP Community and Moderation Standards - Open to 2021/03/06
Post by: Rhymes on February 08, 2021, 07:47:32 pm
**** it imma doublepost to try to drag this one back on topic since I did a lot to derail it

The two moderator rule and some other internal changes (staff discord space, simply more staff) are a direct attempt to improve staff decision-making and seek consensus on issues rather than dropping it in the lap of just one or two people.  More suggestions are welcome, of course, but they also run up against volunteer timing.

While I understand the point of choosing moderators actively creating in the community, and we've included a draft standard to allow for more direct community input in moderator selection, one very simple problem is most people actively involved in creating community content don't have a simultaneous desire to wrangle the wild herds of HLP chaos-goats who like to go stand on the roof and then try to eat it.

"Active in the community" obviously is absolutely essential, and I think there's a fairly strong argument for "actively playing FS" as well. However, I think requiring mods to also be contributors might be a step too far--I think that provides an extra barrier and creates, essentially, classes of citizens and I don't think that's a thing we want to have happen, leaving aside MP-Ryan's point.

One thing that I've seen mentioned that I would strenuously encourage is some sort of structured appeals system--it doesn't have to be full lawyer roleplay, but a codified measure to seek review of a moderation decision is critical, I think, to helping keep things from continuing to escalate after moderation happens. That would also help to keep all the moderation staff on the same page as to what things mean (eg what is a personal attack or a dogpile and what isn't).
Title: Re: DRAFT/FEEDBACK - HLP Community and Moderation Standards - Open to 2021/03/06
Post by: Phantom Hoover on February 09, 2021, 04:21:45 am
I definitely think we need moderators who are more proactive in keeping flame wars from erupting, especially on the Discord where posts are much faster and moderators are less familiar with the tools and less assertive in using them. The trade-off here is that if you're trying to restrain people and defuse a situation it's important not to burn bridges and to make it clear that you're acting preventively, not punitively. If a mod says "everyone shut up" and someone keeps trying to argue the appropriate response is a brief mute, not a formal trial for Resisting Online Arrest.
Title: Re: DRAFT/FEEDBACK - HLP Community and Moderation Standards - Open to 2021/03/06
Post by: Rhymes on February 09, 2021, 06:34:09 pm
Yeah, something like a mute is a thing to get people to stop and cool off, and that's. . . probably all that's needed most of the time, honestly. It's basically equivalent to temp-locking a thread to get things to calm down.
Title: Re: DRAFT/FEEDBACK - HLP Community and Moderation Standards - Open to 2021/03/06
Post by: MP-Ryan on February 09, 2021, 10:59:25 pm
Redirect; I see two issues on the table.

1. Proposed changes to point 4.  Most recent text from Rhymes, I believe.  Id' like to see more feedback on these re-writes.

Quote
Please think before you post. At HLP we strive towards a co-operative, constructive and friendly community. Before you post, go through your post again and ask yourself: "Do I look like a dick for saying things this way?". Remember that on the internet, nobody can read the intent or tone behind your post: They can only read what you put into the post. When reading other people's posts that come across as rude, please also be aware of the hurdles of text-only communication, language barriers and social handicaps. In the event that someone else posts something you find truly objectionable, report it instead of engaging or continuing to engage. If in doubt: Don't escalate. Contact a moderator instead.

2.  A moderation appeal function.  This does essentially already exists in limited fashion - users do retain the ability to PM a moderator or admin.  I don't know if it is possible to implement a system coded into the site itself, that's beyond my technical access level.  This is where some moderator feedback would be good.
Title: Re: DRAFT/FEEDBACK - HLP Community and Moderation Standards - Open to 2021/03/06
Post by: Grizzly on February 11, 2021, 09:32:59 am
I think the rewrite is good

wrt "Moderation appeal" function, honestly no? Y'all already discuss everything internally anyway, and I've seen plenty of cases already, both on this forum and on the forum I moderated myself, that people want to go "Shopping around" for the one moderator that still has enough patience left to hear their case.
Title: Re: DRAFT/FEEDBACK - HLP Community and Moderation Standards - Open to 2021/03/06
Post by: karajorma on February 11, 2021, 10:57:31 am
Well, we could make it clear that as with a court of appeals, asking for people to re-moderate your case might result in a stiffer sentence, not a lighter one. Especially if you don't actually have a good reason to ask and are just doing it in the hope you can re-roll your feign innocence check.
Title: Re: DRAFT/FEEDBACK - HLP Community and Moderation Standards - Open to 2021/03/06
Post by: Grizzly on February 11, 2021, 11:32:03 am
I suppose you could make it clear you get one (1) appeal.
Title: Re: DRAFT/FEEDBACK - HLP Community and Moderation Standards - Open to 2021/03/06
Post by: General Battuta on February 11, 2021, 11:36:21 am
I appeal on grounds of ligma
Title: Re: DRAFT/FEEDBACK - HLP Community and Moderation Standards - Open to 2021/03/06
Post by: Grizzly on February 11, 2021, 12:02:29 pm
who the hell are you?
Title: Re: DRAFT/FEEDBACK - HLP Community and Moderation Standards - Open to 2021/03/06
Post by: MP-Ryan on February 11, 2021, 05:30:29 pm
I appeal on grounds of ligma

Leave to appeal granted; new sentence imposed; you lose 1 additional Internet point.


On more serious matters, including a formal statement about appeals may not be a bad idea; as karajorma said, I agree - you can absolutely ask to have the matter reconsidered, but be aware that reconsideration can go either way.
Title: Re: DRAFT/FEEDBACK - HLP Community and Moderation Standards - Open to 2021/03/06
Post by: Rhymes on February 11, 2021, 05:44:36 pm
That's typically how I've seen it done. Seems fair to me.
Title: Re: DRAFT/FEEDBACK - HLP Community and Moderation Standards - Open to 2021/03/06
Post by: MP-Ryan on March 12, 2021, 06:45:18 pm
Locked and replaced: https://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=97431.0
Title: Re: FINAL DRAFT COMMENT PERIOD - Community and Moderation Standards
Post by: General Battuta on March 12, 2021, 10:07:46 pm
PLease get rid of the horrifying double spaces at the start of each sentence

e: Otherwise I like it but there's a big hole around "espousing political views which are not directly attacks on any other user but which implicitly condone discrimination." The ol 'I'm just asking questions' or 'I believe in human biodiversity, let's debate it' or 'have you guys heard about the Dark Enlightenment, I think it's pretty interesting' kind of stuff.
Title: Re: Re: FINAL DRAFT COMMENT PERIOD - Community and Moderation Standards
Post by: karajorma on March 12, 2021, 11:35:28 pm
Quote
discrimination/attacks on the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, etc is prohibited.  This list is far from exhaustive.  We do not list every type of toxic and sanctionable behaviour here

I think that covers it. Anyone who posts "Did the holocaust really happen? Just asking?" is going away.
Title: Re: Re: FINAL DRAFT COMMENT PERIOD - Community and Moderation Standards
Post by: Bryan See on March 13, 2021, 01:25:57 am
Quote
discrimination/attacks on the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, etc is prohibited.  This list is far from exhaustive.  We do not list every type of toxic and sanctionable behaviour here

I think that covers it. Anyone who posts "Did the holocaust really happen? Just asking?" is going away.
Thank goodness. :)

What about attacks on disabled people such as myself? Are they prohibited?

What about claims that are evidence-free/fact-free and not grounded in reality?
Title: Re: Re: FINAL DRAFT COMMENT PERIOD - Community and Moderation Standards
Post by: MP-Ryan on March 13, 2021, 10:08:58 am
Double space after period.  This is a hill I will die on.  It's adjacent to Fort Oxford Comma.

Bryan, we were not about to list every conceivable form of discrimination, the point is general. If people want to be awful toward those who are different just because they are different, they will be finding a new community to post in.

Fact-free claims are something different and we'll leave mostly to the normal rules of debate. Someone wants to post something demonstrably false, have at it - but don't expect anyone to let it slide.  There will be exceptions from time to time (e.g. spreading coronavirus misinfo as a recent example)

Title: Re: Re: FINAL DRAFT COMMENT PERIOD - Community and Moderation Standards
Post by: General Battuta on March 13, 2021, 10:29:03 am
Bro are you from 1979? Double spaces only existed as a convention for typewriters. Since typewriters used monospace fonts (same space between every character) you had to indicate the beginning of a new sentence with a double. Computers don't and neither does handwritten writing.
Title: Re: Re: FINAL DRAFT COMMENT PERIOD - Community and Moderation Standards
Post by: DefCynodont119 on March 13, 2021, 12:15:42 pm
I think it would be good to make a point that references the main idea in this thread:
https://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=75164.0

Something roughly like this: (I'm terrible with words so this is super draft wip)

Quote
Here at HLP we encourage constructive modding discussion. People have opinions and no matter what you do some one is not going to like what you have made or done with a mod, artwork, or asset. Take criticism for what it is and try not to make it personnel. Keep in mind it is impossible to make every one happy but it is possible to get a balanced reaction of the community if you view criticism with an open mind. People often have good ideas that you can use, and on the other side; just saying "your mod bad" does not help the creator improve their content, in short: don't escalate a release thread to a flamewar just because you or someone else doesn't like the color of a spaceship's hull.
Title: Re: Re: FINAL DRAFT COMMENT PERIOD - Community and Moderation Standards
Post by: Bryan See on March 13, 2021, 12:49:40 pm
Bro are you from 1979? Double spaces only existed as a convention for typewriters. Since typewriters used monospace fonts (same space between every character) you had to indicate the beginning of a new sentence with a double. Computers don't and neither does handwritten writing.
I am not.
Title: Re: Re: FINAL DRAFT COMMENT PERIOD - Community and Moderation Standards
Post by: MP-Ryan on March 14, 2021, 08:32:59 pm
I think it would be good to make a point that references the main idea in this thread:
https://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=75164.0

Something roughly like this: (I'm terrible with words so this is super draft wip)

Quote
Here at HLP we encourage constructive modding discussion. People have opinions and no matter what you do some one is not going to like what you have made or done with a mod, artwork, or asset. Take criticism for what it is and try not to make it personnel. Keep in mind it is impossible to make every one happy but it is possible to get a balanced reaction of the community if you view criticism with an open mind. People often have good ideas that you can use, and on the other side; just saying "your mod bad" does not help the creator improve their content, in short: don't escalate a release thread to a flamewar just because you or someone else doesn't like the color of a spaceship's hull.

I think we can wrap something to this effect into 4:

Quote
4.  Please think before you post. We strive towards a co-operative, constructive and friendly community. Nobody can read the intent or tone behind your post; they can only read what you put into the post. When reading other people's posts that come across as rude, please also be aware of the hurdles of text-only communication, language barriers and social handicaps.  Take criticism with an open mind, and use it to improve your work. In the event that someone else posts something you find truly objectionable, report it instead of engaging or continuing to engage. If in doubt: Don't escalate. Contact a moderator instead.

On the lighter side...  I was born well after 1979, still learned to type on a computer and prefer to double-space between sentences, and have every intention to continue doing it now that I know how much it annoys Battuta  :lol:  Maybe I'll triple-space future posts...  :p
Title: Re: Re: FINAL DRAFT COMMENT PERIOD - Community and Moderation Standards
Post by: Cobra on March 15, 2021, 07:53:45 am
On the lighter side...  I was born well after 1979, still learned to type on a computer and prefer to double-space between sentences, and have every intention to continue doing it now that I know how much it annoys Battuta  :lol:  Maybe I'll triple-space future posts...  :p

Double-spaces are only for FreeSpace missions. I move for a ban on affronts to sensibilities. :P
Title: Re: Re: FINAL DRAFT COMMENT PERIOD - Community and Moderation Standards
Post by: Colonol Dekker on March 15, 2021, 01:49:35 pm
I was taught double spaces after full stops in primary school.  I was also told every medium should adhere to the rule.


But I'm also lazy and leave most grammar nowadays to my android phone 😭
Title: Re: Community and Moderation Standards Discussions (Consolidated)
Post by: MP-Ryan on April 13, 2021, 09:18:20 pm
Okay, after a delay due to my work life being nuts, and a bunch of finagling the forum moderation system to shuffle posts around, the new standards are now posted and in effect.  This topic has been unlocked to allow for any other feedback and commentary going forward.
Title: Re: Community and Moderation Standards Discussions (Consolidated)
Post by: Grizzly on April 21, 2021, 02:29:16 pm
I can't wait for the inevetable rules lawyering.
Title: Re: Community and Moderation Standards Discussions (Consolidated)
Post by: General Battuta on April 21, 2021, 04:02:06 pm
Rules lawyers is an anagram for "users yell raw"
Title: Re: Community and Moderation Standards Discussions (Consolidated)
Post by: 0rph3u5 on April 22, 2021, 09:21:28 am
I can't wait for the inevetable rules lawyering.

What's the saying about a mind that is preoccupied with failure so that it will create it just to quiet the anxiety from anticipating it? ;)

Sarcasm aside: To work as community you need, if just as a necessity, maintain the ability to operate in good faith. Even if it leads to disappointment. Disappoint may sting, but let it sting instead avoiding it. :)