Site Management > Site Support / Feedback
Community and Moderation Standards Discussions (Consolidated)
MP-Ryan:
READ THIS CAREFULLY!
Recent events - 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.
MP-Ryan:
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.
General Battuta:
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.
MP-Ryan:
--- Quote from: 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
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.
--- End quote ---
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.
Rhymes:
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?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version