[General Battuta]

I thought this website was about free space.

[karajorma]

Can we get back on topic?

[Rhymes]

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?

[Dilmah G]

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.

[Mongoose]

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.

[Rhymes]

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.

[MP-Ryan]

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.

[Mongoose]

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.

[Rhymes]

*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"

[Phantom Hoover]

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.

[mjn.mixael]

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. 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.

[General Battuta]

                                           
                                        
                                     
                                          
                                               
                                               
                                            
                                                               

[Rhymes]

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?

[DefCynodont119]

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.

[MP-Ryan]

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.

[Mongoose]

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.)

[Rhymes]

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.

[Rhymes]

**** 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).

[Phantom Hoover]

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.

[Rhymes]

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.