Rules Determination

[rdsrds2120]

I would love a CC Rule Renaissance, to be honest. Maybe we can make it an event.

To shed more of a moderator perspective, here are some things that we try to do, but I feel we have problems with

1) Precedents
-- Whenever we try to reach a big decision, one of the resounding questions we ask is whether or not there's a precedent set for similar cases, and this is to try and remain consistent. I think that the problem occurs when, after a year or two of moderating, they're hard to just remember on the spot, and things start to get treated case by case. After a while with a (small, but still there) revolving door of moderators, it seems to be that the way that we interpret and apply the rules evolves over time with new team combinations, etc.

2) New Things That Come Up, Updating the Guidelines, and You
-- Every now and then, some small thing will be edited/tweaked in the Guidelines, and it's occurred to me now that from a public perspective, no one goes back and reviews that huge masterpost often, and you certainly shouldn't be expected to do that. Secondly, and this relates to the precedent point above, I sometimes feel it isn't fair that someone gets banned for something that might only be stated implicitly in the rules based on a precedent simply due to the fact that we don't have those precedents listed anywhere. However, there is a certain degree of freedom that moderators have with those implicit statements that's covered by the "Common Sense Prevails" statement.

With that said, I will now address points brought up specifically in this thread and supply my input:

(1) Someone being "intentionally annoying" is subjective. Some posters may find a user to be intentionally annoying, while others may not.

Certainly true, and I believe that this particular "guideline" would only apply to the most egregious of circumstances for exactly that reason. For instance, pimpdave's incessant "Tea Party Death Squad" threads...is there really ANY question he wasn't just trying to be intentionally annoying?

I agree with you that it should be applied only in egregious circumstances, but if it doesn't fall under trolling, baiting, flaming, I don't think it should then fall under intentionally annoying. Those three cover the intentionally annoying class.

I agree, in most, with this. Another thing I would like to note is that when we make a decision on whether or not to Discipline a certain user, we also weigh in the factor of how big that user's next ban is. For example, if a user blew up at someone just once, and their next ban would be a 6-monther (or, more recently, a 3-monther), we sometimes try to be lenient and just send a PM if it's mild or borderline. This has its own pros and cons:

Pro: It's not that hobgoblinish consistency you speak of, I think!
Con: It's not technically consistent, as it's then become a case-by-case scenario.

Spoiler

(2) Bigotry should not be subjective and there should be concrete rules on what is not acceptable. However, bigotry is subjective. Someone said this in another thread: an American may not find the word "Paki" to be objectionable. But it is to a whole lot of people. I also don't want to chill any speech on race, religion, etc. So, bigotry is going to be subjective.

What you say is true. And yet, intent and context do explain most instances where real bigotry is being displayed. If there is a question about it, then it shouldn't be handled as a punishment...but far too often, there really isn't a question about it but the term used "just wasn't on the list"...that kind of crap really has to stop.

I'm not certain I agree that determinations are made because the word wasn't on the list. As I stated, bigotry is subjective and words may be bigoted to some and not bigoted to others. I think having a list of words would make things simpler, but the intent of the post has to be shown. Calling someone a retard isn't bigoted (in my opinion, many others disagree). Posting something about how all mentally disabled people should be killed is bigoted.

(3) Flaming is also very subjective. I believe that flaming happens when someone is truly bothered by what someone else posts about them. For example, you might tell me to f*ck off. That doesn't bother me. If it truly bothers someone else, I think that's flaming. Total subjectivity.

I tend to think that flaming ISN'T particularly subjective, to be honest. Being insulting isn't flaming. What I engaged in toward pimpdave in the thread about my cadets...that was flaming. The real problem on this subject is the massive lack of consistency involved...when someone has a target on their backs, simple insults are marked as flaming whereas far worse statements being made about someone by a moderator-friendly individual are completely overlooked.

I think this is more a personal issue than a generally applicable issue. Maybe instead of saying flaming is subjective, I should have said flaming is in the eye of the beholder. If we take a very harsh definition of flaming, any insult becomes a punishable flame. How many insults are flung about in the off topics forum? When I was not a moderator and after flame wars was extinguished, I purposefully would bandy insults that didn't look like flames (no "bad" words, no violence, no anger) to avoid a potential ban. That's something that is arguably a flame. Anyway, I digress - if a user follows another one around constantly belittling the person without using any substance, that constitutes flaming.

I think that people complain about moderation because it's easy to complain about.

Perhaps in many cases what you say is true, but it is not with me. I used to be a hardened supporter of the moderators on this site. I am now amongst the most critical. I'm far from the only one, as I could point to a number of high-ranked and high-visibility users who feel the same way I do about the moderation on this site. If many of the vocal and ardent supporters have been turned against the moderation team, then I would suggest to you that there is more fire than smoke involved.

From what I understand, moderation has become better in the last few years (after someone named Twill or something, I don't know all the details). I would urge you to get the high ranked (which is irrelevant to me frankly) and highly visible (much more relevant) users to post in this thread so I could get a sense of what their criticisms are. From my perspective, only a handful have complained about moderating. With maybe a couple of exceptions, most of the complaining has to do with consistency between 2012 moderating and 2008/2009 moderating or taking too long to come down with disciplinary action.

For example (and as I've argued before), if I were to make a very strict interpretation of trolling as being intentionally annoying and applied it with consistency to all users, we would have little participation in the forum because everyone would be on three months bans.

I disagree completely. I am absolutely of the opinion that such a thing wouldn't happen at all and I believe you are completely off-base. I have BECOME a sarcastic, biting annoying bitch of a poster BECAUSE I am so frustrated at the lack of action taken against those who troll so blatantly. Look at the first two years of my posts...see the difference. I was CREATED by the lack of action. (Note that I am not meaning to blame the site and not myself for my inflammatory statements, trolling, or otherwise over-the-borderline statements, merely making a point of some culpability by the site.)

Frankly, I am and have been on other fora who do take that strong stance and they manage quite well.

I've collected more than a few examples during my short tenure as a moderator of how enforcing the rules in a certain way would end up killing a lot of stuff in the forum. I will refrain from posting them because they are specific examples. Put let me provide a fake example:

On Day One, User #1 creates a thread talking about some political issue. The premise involves a ridiculous assertion with tenuous evidence (User #1 does not agree with that observation, however). A discussion ensues.
On Day Two, User #2 creates a thread talking about a different political issue. The premise also involves a ridiculous assertion with tenuous evidence (User #2 does not agree with that observation, however). A discussion ensues.
On Day Three, User #1 reports User #2's thread as trolling or baiting because the premise involves a ridiculous assertion with tenuous evidence.

Is User #2 guilty of trolling? If so, and we ban him or her, does User #2 rightfully accuse us of inconsistency because we did not also ban User #1 for posting a thread with a ridiculous assertion based on tenuos evidence? And if we do ban both users, are people going to be less likely to post political threads (ignoring that a lot of users don't like political threads)?

This is one completely fake example. My concerns, as you may know, are that (1) we will be inconsistent and (2) we will stop participation on the forums. These issues are more concerning to me than whether User #1 doesn't happen to like User #2's thread which he is not forced to read or respond to.

What tgd and Woodruff have discussed above, I also agree with tgd with what appears to be everything at first glance.

However, I feel like I'm between a rock and a hard place for the following:
Two basic arguments in this thread have been
1) Apply rules extremely consistently
2) But, when being consistent, use common sense.

Those two points require a huge balancing act to coexist with each other, since they're pretty opposite in the nature that they're presented. On a team with 60+ members, the amount of variance from moderator to moderator deciding what exactly common sense entails leads to a huge pool of self-contradicting practice throughout the team. Is this anyone's specific fault? Of course not, it's the product of team inflation and the two points I've made at the beginning of my post.

Thanks for introducing the (at least on my end) elephant in the room, Woodruff. It's been something I know we should have been fleshing out and getting down to more of an exact science previously.

-rd

[BigBallinStalin]

And can you be more specific about what is anarchist with this suggestion

My actual suggestion is to get rid of the rules.

This is what anarchy is, no rules. No law. No governance.

Anarchy is the absence of a government. Anarchy does not mean "no rules, no law" because that would be chaos. Chaos and anarchy have two different meanings.

Rules aren't rules simply because a government establishes them. There's also informal rules, or law created and modified through informal institutions.

[BigBallinStalin]

Why not establish different guidelines for each forum/subgroup?

Perhaps, some of the problems could be alleviated when the rules aren't applied "universally." The cultures within each forum differ, so having a "one-size-fits-all" approach most likely causes many of the problems since the match isn't correct with the culture.



How would each community establish its own guideliens ? (e.g. egad, anarchy!)

We start threads, we discuss each rule and concept, and see if we come to a consensus or arrive at least to mutual understanding. It takes time, it's a process of trial-and-error, but it's the avenue that would provide the widest range of workable solutions.

(a points-based system per post would be a wet dream and would work effectively.)

[BigBallinStalin]

Maybe the mods and admin should get together, and decide on how much of each kind of posting is cool with each group, and then relate it to the general public? In C&A, we have far less tolerance generally speaking for baiting and flaming, insomuch as we will lock a thread if it even looks like it could get carried away, but like tdg said in OT they can carry on a bit further than most others. At least for that part of the rules it might iron things out for people.

I think that makes sense in light of how those two forums operate. Off topics and Cheating and Abuse are very different places and are moderated by different people with different visions of what each forum should look like.

While I do admit that OT should be more lenient than the C&A regarding this sort of thing due to the disparate natures of the forums, I do dearly love how C&A is handled and really wish OT was closely similar. I also recognize that's just my personal opinion. <sigh>

The thread would become lifeless. OT is a place for joking around; C&A is not. What do you think happens when a Serious set of rules is enforced equally in a more care-free and informal environment? You don't get the same outcome.


Why do you think that OT would become better with harsher enforcement of rules (C&A style)?

(remember: "better" does not equal "Woodruff thinks this is better"; somehow you have to make the case that the benefits outweigh the costs for all users... which is extremely difficult with value being subjective and all... ).

[Pedronicus]

Before I weigh in with a response, who exactly in CC hierarchy is going to agree to implement these changes (if changes occur)?

99 times out of 100 we just piss in the wind.

A post by Lack would encourage me to offer my thoughts. But seeing as how this suggestion isn't going to raise revenue I doubt we're going to hear f*ck all from him.

[eddie2]

what gets me about the trolling baiting intentionally annoying thing is

if a player has you on foe and goes around the forums reading your posts making minor baits and other things in them this is okay. this should not be classed as ok it should come under one of the trolling intentionally annoying busts.

I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say here. You seem to be saying that if a player has you on foe (but reads your posts anyway) and continuing to bait you, this is currently treated as ok...is that what you mean?

yes this is what i am saying woodruff if players are foed or have you foed they should not be commenting towards you in the forums.

[AAFitz]

Fully disagree with said suggestion as its logic is fully flawed and seems motivated by other factors than actual positive change.

[Ace Rimmer]

Before I weigh in with a response, who exactly in CC hierarchy is going to agree to implement these changes (if changes occur)?

99 times out of 100 we just piss in the wind.

A post by Lack would encourage me to offer my thoughts. But seeing as how this suggestion isn't going to raise revenue I doubt we're going to hear f*ck all from him.

AndyDufresne is the one that matters here, lack doesn't worry about this stuff, that's why he hired Andy.

[Robinette]

Fully disagree with said suggestion as its logic is fully flawed and seems motivated by other factors than actual positive change.

This is reason enough for me to put my full support behind said suggestion

[Woodruff]

However, I feel like I'm between a rock and a hard place for the following:
Two basic arguments in this thread have been
1) Apply rules extremely consistently
2) But, when being consistent, use common sense.

Those two points require a huge balancing act to coexist with each other, since they're pretty opposite in the nature that they're presented.

I don't particularly agree that they're "pretty opposite in nature", but I absolutely agree that it's a balancing act that requires a great deal more finesse than is currently applied. As I've mentioned before, I absolutely believe that it's possible to be consistent while taking into account the variables that can apply regarding common sense.

On a team with 60+ members, the amount of variance from moderator to moderator deciding what exactly common sense entails leads to a huge pool of self-contradicting practice throughout the team. Is this anyone's specific fault? Of course not, it's the product of team inflation and the two points I've made at the beginning of my post.

Right...this is a very good point. We're all different...if thegreekdog and I were moderators, you can easily see in this thread how differently we would view things and I think that both he and I are fairly judicious in our view of "common sense". So I definitely get what you're saying. Perhaps one way to defeat that would be when there is a situation which could constitute being a borderline situation that could be viewed in different ways based on "common sense applications", that the moderator who is working the case pass it to the team in general to discuss together (with maybe King A having the final determination)? I'm just throwing that out as an offhand thought, but I do see what you're saying there, and I agree it has to be considered.

Might I also take this moment to say I am VERY pleased at how the several moderators and other TeamCC members participating in this thread are taking it seriously. Thank you.

[Woodruff]

(remember: "better" does not equal "Woodruff thinks this is better"

It does to Woodruff! <laughing>

[Woodruff]

Before I weigh in with a response, who exactly in CC hierarchy is going to agree to implement these changes (if changes occur)?

99 times out of 100 we just piss in the wind.

A post by Lack would encourage me to offer my thoughts. But seeing as how this suggestion isn't going to raise revenue I doubt we're going to hear f*ck all from him.

AndyDufresne is the one that matters here, lack doesn't worry about this stuff, that's why he hired Andy.

I agree. If Andy and KingA buy in, then it's done. This sort of thing doesn't require any webmastering support.

[Woodruff]

Fully disagree with said suggestion as its logic is fully flawed and seems motivated by other factors than actual positive change.

If you believe my motivation isn't for actual positive change, you can still contribute to the thread by pointing out the faulty logic. My motivation should be irrelevant to the merit or lack of merit of the suggestion.

You're someone I see as a pretty objective thinker, AAFitz, so I would really like your input on it, even if it's in disagreement with my view.

How is the logic "fully flawed"? Come on man...details!

[Neoteny]

It lacks inclusion of freedom for certain individuals, whose names rhyme with smagip and schmancing schmustard.

[hmsps]

Before I weigh in with a response, who exactly in CC hierarchy is going to agree to implement these changes (if changes occur)?

99 times out of 100 we just piss in the wind.

+1

[PLAYER57832]

I have to say I am of mixed feelings about this and will have to give it more thought. I am not in favor of removing porn, etc restrictions, but I don't think that was the real intent of the post. I think the intent is to get more consistantly applied rules. The problem is how to do that without being either bombastically stringent or too liberal.

Anyway, I don't care what system you have, some people will always find it unfair. I do think some specific forum accusations and pm threats should be treated more seriously, or at least as seriously as being a multis. Some of the other issues mentioned do rather take me aback, because I have not experienced or seen what is described. I found a long time ago that listing my occupation as "mom" cut back on a good deal of obnoxious commentary. I put that down becuase it was the truth, but have enjoyed some positive attitudes as a result.

That, I guess sort of sums up some of my general feelings here. No one, no site, no rules, no person or institution can truly prevent abuse. Some people just plain revel in being jerks. I ignore them and they tend to go away. When they don't, then I have found administration helpful. (note, I am talking about maybe 5-6 people I put in the 'total jerk" category in my entire CC "career").

What bothers me, what has bothered me, is when some moderators have used their mod positions to ensure that only specific viewpoints are expressed. There was a time when that was the case. It was corrected. There have also been times when the general fora seemed dominated by, well, folks who all seemed to be about 12 year old boys -- and happy to stay that way. Several of us created some sub fora in which we could discuss more serious or controversial issues in a more controlled environment. Then things began to "grow up" a bit in the regular forum and the side fora have been fairly neglected (though they still remain active for when there is need).

The one/two issue(s) that seem to consistantly be bones of contention are porn and "flaming". CC tried hosting specific areas for those types of activities, but it apparently got out of hand. The administration of CC made the decision they just did not want to host that type of activity, at least officially. However, some people still apparently engage in such during games.

This is not the only site with such a problem. The basic thing is that some people see such games as private entertainment, more or less "in their living rooms at home". But, are they really? The answer is "no". Essentially, even with pseudonyms, anything you say here is little different than something said out in the open on a street. Its not just a matter of having "public manners" ( I doubt many people would act face to face, in real life the way some do here). Administration also has to face the fact that legally, there are huge gaps, areas of untried law, areas where future laws may wind up retroactively impacting companies.... etc.

It is because of the last that CC has at times walked a tricky tightrope.. essentially keeping a pretty close hand on moderated discussions, the fora, while at the same time more or less keeping hands off the game discussions.

Anyway, just some semi random thoughts for now. I now have to go to an "incredibly urgent"/ "Earth changing" T-Ball game.

[AAFitz]

Fully disagree with said suggestion as its logic is fully flawed and seems motivated by other factors than actual positive change.

If you believe my motivation isn't for actual positive change, you can still contribute to the thread by pointing out the faulty logic. My motivation should be irrelevant to the merit or lack of merit of the suggestion.

You're someone I see as a pretty objective thinker, AAFitz, so I would really like your input on it, even if it's in disagreement with my view.

How is the logic "fully flawed"? Come on man...details!

Sorry...I gave it a quick read and it seemed like a troll, and my response was probably a little on the harsh side...but I dont really have time for it, and I genuinely dont care anymore, so, if you have a positive goal, and are looking to make positive change, I can only wish you luck with it.

[agentcom]

It's been really cool to see the moderators' perspectives come out here.

I want to add that to me the biggest problems I see with the rules are (1) the vague and overlapping nature of the baiting/trolling/flaming rules and (2) the application of the bigotry rule.

The first is pretty self-explanatory and has been discussed by others.

The second is more interesting to me. If you read the rules closely, there are actually two standards for the bigotry rules. In game chat, "any form of bigotry" is not allowed, in addition to anything that is banned by the forum guidelines, which can be read to be more lenient. This makes sense to me as I've pointed out in a C&A topic that addressed the issue. The game chat is more "unavoidable" than the forum discussion. The purpose of this site is the game, so you don't want to have bigotry being bandied about in the games.

Also, I will second the poster above (forgot who it was) that noted that it is often not bigotry that is punished. It is the use of certain words. If the mods are going to punish bad words, as I've said before, they should list those words. If they are going to look at context for actual bigotry, they should do that and not punish just for using these bad words.

Overall, I'm generally in favor of less restrictions on speech in general. But I do understand that other users feel differently and the admins have to please the customers.

[stahrgazer]

Before I weigh in with a response, who exactly in CC hierarchy is going to agree to implement these changes (if changes occur)?

99 times out of 100 we just piss in the wind.

A post by Lack would encourage me to offer my thoughts. But seeing as how this suggestion isn't going to raise revenue I doubt we're going to hear f*ck all from him.

AndyDufresne is the one that matters here, lack doesn't worry about this stuff, that's why he hired Andy.

I agree. If Andy and KingA buy in, then it's done. This sort of thing doesn't require any webmastering support.

It requires something, because the moderation of the site doesn't totally work on "what King A says." Maybe it should, but it doesn't.

Case in point I alluded to in my original comment. King A directed a player to send a pm to a mod who directed a part of the forum to discuss a disagreement. The mod didn't want the pm discussion and that mod took action that negatively affected the player on the entire forum. The mod took this action even though the mod knew the pm was only sent because King A told the player to send the pm; and then King A allowed the mod's decision to stand on the entire forum because, "we do not interfere with how forum mods direct their forums." And was allowed to stand despite the pm technically wasn't "in the forums."

[DoomYoshi]

Tldr

Also, don't care,I enjoy the site plenty. I respect the mighty bog rollers at the upper echelons. I like a quick and unpredictable dose of bigotry to keep my feet wet. Most importantly, I enjoy my right to be a troll.

[2dimes]

I don't know what I should add here. I guess I'll tell a tale.

Once many years ago I was banned for being a TB Stachewaker. I asked every one involved for a reason and never got a reply. Sometimes here it's just the way it is.

Have a great summer everyone.

[thegreekdog]

I don't know what I should add here. I guess I'll tell a tale.

Once many years ago I was banned for being a TB Stachewaker. I asked every one involved for a reason and never got a reply. Sometimes here it's just the way it is.

Have a great summer everyone.

I think the point is that it shouldn't be that way anymore. And I don't believe it is, but I have a one-sided perspective. At some point, the forum-goers should acknowledge that there are different moderators now than there were in 2008 or 2009. I don't mean this to be snarky, but when we don't ban someone for something that someone else was banned for four years ago, it may seem unfair, but we're trying to get away from the bullshit bannings.

[squishyg]

I think it would be nice if owenshooter, pimpdave, and phatscotty would stop getting banned for the sorts of posts Night Strike makes on a regular basis.

[The Voice]

On that note, it would be nice if mods were held accountable for their actions like every other player. I think it would add a great deal of legitimacy to the rules.

[jgordon1111]

On that note, it would be nice if mods were held accountable for their actions like every other player. I think it would add a great deal of legitimacy to the rules.

+1 Got to say thank you for bringing that point forward. As a MOD they are representing CC,Admin and The owner. For the rules not to be applied to them as they do to everyone else makes it look like the only thing important here is the premium players $25

If you are on the site and hold the position of Moderator,there should not be a time you are not representing CC and the owner. You have been given a responsibility to look after what happens here.

Your game play,what you say,and how you act is under a microscope that everyone looks at. If you bend the rules or show favoritism to a buddy,You make the site look bad,and inspire others to challenge rules that do not apply to everyone equally.

And every time a MOD does something along these lines,you are cheating every other player on this site and discriminating against them.