A call for clearer moderation.

[saoirse]

@Frank

Noodles is Arnold Winkelried.

“We found you, Noodles. Even though you’ve been hiding in the asshole of the world…”

chill the fuck out ya spazz.

I’m curious. Which mod sent this e-mail to you?

[Garfield226]

@TubaDiva

**Upon review . . . **

SkipMagic DID formally Warn Winston Smith. Error is mine, I misread. Apologies to all.

Thank you for clarifying. The disconnect between “You have been warned,” and it not “counting” was my question, and I appreciate the answer as well as the civility of everyone involved.

@mhendo

I’ve never been personally affected by any abitrary or capricious moderation, and i think that the mods do a good job. I also think that most people who get suspended or banned deserve it. For me, it’s more a concern over exactly how they balance issues of transparency and consistency, on the one hand, with the need to make decisions on a case-by-case basis, on the other.

I read the exchange with tomndebb and it was very informative, but didn’t quite satisfy me as to the issue raised above. I’ve also never been personally affected by arbitrary moderation, that I recall (and if I don’t recall it obviously wasn’t that big of a deal). For the most part, I agree that the mods do a good job as well, though it seems to me the job may attract the sort of person who may keep working through stress or other difficulties at a significant expense to him or herself (myself included in that group).

@TheLoadedDog

I post on another board which has a formalised warning level system. Everybody has a little warning bar under their name (only visible to the individual concerned, and to the mods). It’s expressed as a percentage, and you’ll “cop a 5%” for a typical transgression of a minor nature, with larger ones getting more. Bannage at 100%, and warnings do expire after a while. The rationale is that it provides a consistent record of precedent when a mod is deciding how to deal with a particular matter. But I don’t like it. It’s too rigid, and doesn’t take into account individual circumstances. I’m used to the SDMB’s clunky, vagues system. It pisses me off sometimes, but I kinda like it.

I can see the benefits to both systems. Knowing precisely how close you are to the line would be good under some circumstances, but sometimes, as silenus said, zero tolerance just doesn’t work. It would be interesting to see if it changed the dynamics of the board. I’d bet more people would be apt to come right up close to the line, and use warnings like a bank account (“I’ve got another 10% to waste. . .I can call this guy a troll!”). That’s one instance where I think I like the current system better.

@Polycarp

People do lose their tempers. That’s a part of being human. And the management here know that. In part, it’s how you conduct yourself in response to the problem that matters. In part, it’s how you conduct yourself on the board as a whole. I have a junior staffer there who recently made a misjudgment and included a verboten link in one of his posts. And if I hadn’t had to use it as an example here (just now), I’d probably never have thought of it again. Because it was not a part of any pattern of intentional malice or rule-breaking, it was a slight error of judgment on the part of somebody sincerely trying to help.

Having been in their shoes in a different jurisdiction, I know how good a job the management here does. Some of those judgment calls actually put me in a cold sweat – and there have been very few here in nearly seven years that I’d even think of arguing the other way about (and I guarantee they argued some of them out behind closed doors before reaching a decision).

I can certainly appreciate the usefulness of judging the situation based on context rather than absolutes, though I’m sure it would definitely make your jobs much easier if there was a black-and-white rulebook for everything that could happen.

Anyhow, I got my answer and thanks again for the civility.

[askeptic]

@saoirse

I’m curious. Which mod sent this e-mail to you?

I think it was lynn, although back then for some reason I kept calling her Ms. Bondini. I just couldn’t seem to type Bodoni to save my life. I also remember a few from the guy in Belgium, but I don’t think he is a mod anymore.

I am greatful for the tolerance displayed by both the mods and members for some of my early posts. I was banned from several boards before I settled into the internet thing. Of course quitting drinking may have had something to do with it.

I can tell you from experience that the number of warnings is less important than how you respond to them.

[tomndebb]

@Garfield226

Knowing precisely how close you are to the line would be good under some circumstances, but sometimes, as silenus said, zero tolerance just doesn’t work. It would be interesting to see if it changed the dynamics of the board. I’d bet more people would be apt to come right up close to the line, and use warnings like a bank account (“I’ve got another 10% to waste. . .I can call this guy a troll!”). That’s one instance where I think I like the current system better.

I do have one reservation regarding a “death meter” or whatever one wants to call it. Such a device can only track nice, clear, objective “points.” It would be difficult to operate in the cases where we currently apply judgement. For example, a poster who provides significant quality in terms of supportable facts and grounded logic may also not suffer fools gladly. Another poster may simply be full of hot air and delight in taunting other posters in the hopes that they will violate the rules in their responses to him (viz. peace of a few years back). One is clearly of more benefit to the SDMB and worthy of some slack, but an objective list of “violations” may favor the taunter over the legitimate poster. (As noted, Zero Tolerance is generally foolish.)

The other problem would be in the area of the Fuzzy Logic required to address posters whose steps over the line of propriety are (or are not) accelerating. Someone who picks up a couple of Warnings and several “suggestions” to cool it in just a few weeks may deserve to be hurled from the site in order to keep order–their rate of jerk behavior may require more direct staff intervention. Conversely, a poster who falls off the etiquette wagon about once a year should not be subjected to banishment after some arbitrary number of Warnings.

This does not mean the suggestion is bad, but I think we would need to ensure that everyone was aware that the gauge would not be the sole criterion for bannings.

[Skywatcher]

@askeptic

I also remember a few from the guy in Belgium, but I don’t think he is a mod anymore.

Are you thinking of Coldfire from Holland?

[Anaamika]

@askeptic

I can tell you from experience that the number of warnings is less important than how you respond to them.

This is a good neough point, IMO, that it needs to be repeated.

[askeptic]

@Lute Skywatcher

Are you thinking of Coldfire from Holland?

Yep, thats him. Sure was a nice guy. Let me whine by e-mail when lynn spanked me. The fact that I am still here can probably be blamed on him…

@Anaamika

This is a good neough point, IMO, that it needs to be repeated.

ok

I can tell you from experience that the number of warnings is less important than how you respond to them.

[rayh]

@TubaDiva

There is no Annual Moderators and Administrators Gala Buffet With After-Dininer Dancing Fund. More’s the pity.

TubaDiva

Oh no? I got the film.