Dealing with jerks.

[Sapo]

Disregarding the recent events (there are enough threads about that already), I would like to suggest a way of dealing with jerks and enforcing the “Don’t be a jerk” rule.

I think that the body of moderators in this board is large and varied enough to be considered representative of the membership as a whole (or at least of the ideal membership desired by TPTB). This should make the decisions taken by this body as a group in line with the desires of the membership (acknowledging that the membership is not a monolithic group and that opinions will always vary and all that. Still, groups have an idiosyncrasy).

What I suggest is that when someone is thought to be being a jerk by one of the mods, the mod in question should give the warning to the latest action, as it is done now, but hold on the ban/suspension. Give the good old “your posting privileges are under discussion” and then wait for consensus among the whole body of mods.

Every time there is a ban/suspension and the inevitable “why was he banned?” thread appears, a list of mods make their appearance saying “I was not involved in the decision to…” before explaining how they agree or disagree with the decision.

I think bans and suspensions are grave and rare enough that they justify waiting for the consensus (or majority or super majority or whatever it is that you use) of the whole body of mods.

This might mean, of course, that since mods are volunteers with no fixed schedule, that a long time might pass between the last noted infraction and the actual ban or suspension. That is perfectly fine. The offender cannot really do any damage (this is teh internets, a very low stakes affair) and in the meantime, you can gauge whether the offender is willing to step back in line or gathering rope for his hanging.

In the end what this will do is that instead of a week of public outrage at a decision that you might have to retract, the same week is spent with PMs sitting peacefully on mods inboxes while the bulk of the membership is blissfully unaware of the issue. That instead of a rash decision and a reversal, the mods act in unison and all know what is going on and why the decisions are made (even if they voted against it). That decisions of the gut and the heat of the moment are replaced by cooler and calmer decisions.

All in all, this is not a massive change that requires new rules and new forms of thinking and acting. It is just a delay inserted to give time to the mods to act as a concerted group. This shouldn’t be any extra work for the mods. As I said, bans and suspensions are not common enough for this to result in a pile of cases for mods to study. If it works the way I think, it might result in a reduction of work for the mods, at least for those who are then left to pick up the mess of a wrong decision.

Bans and suspensions for breaking clear cut rules: spamming, socks, unsuitable links, name calling, etc. would not require this. This is meant just for the cases of trolling, jerking, and more arguable cases.

If this works, it might lead to a return to the good old days of less rules. “Being a jerk” would mean doing something that the body of moderators considers being a jerk. Again, with the mods being a large and varied group, there should be little discrepancy between what the mods and the members see as being a jerk. There will always be the outliers that will object, but that is inevitable.

Anyways, I think I just went long enough for an unsolicited tip.

[Liberal]

I think it’s a great idea, Sapo. Naturally, it isn’t perfect, and you didn’t represent it as such. The only thing I would ammend is that we, the membership, be informed that a review is underway.

And here’s the reason I suggest that. Suppose PosterX insults PosterY in Great Debates, hounds him in the Pit, and even snarks at him in Cafe Society. In other words, PosterX is a candidate for jerkhood.

Now, I think we can assume that PosterA through PosterC reported the insults, while PosterB, happening to visit the Pit also reported stalking there, and then Posters D through G report the snark in Cafe Society. (Whether these are rules infractions, I don’t know. But just pretend they are for the sake of argument.)

The problem is that seven members are going to be wondering why nothing is being done about the posts they’ve reported. They’re going to wonder why PosterX is still being allowed to insult in Great Debates, stalk in the Pit, and threadshit in Cafe Society for however long it takes for the body of mods to deliberate.

Therefore, I recommend an ATMB thread announcing that a review is underway, and then closed, so that Posters A through G know that their complaints have been acknowledged. The membership should then be free, of course, to open a thread speculating about everything, but in keeping with your model, mods don’t owe any explanation until their deliberations have been completed. And it’s just something the membership will have to get used to.

But I think it’s fair. I think you’ve come up with a good idea.

[bbs2k]

@Sapo

What I suggest is that when someone is thought to be being a jerk by one of the mods, the mod in question should give the warning to the latest action, as it is done now, but hold on the ban/suspension. Give the good old “your posting privileges are under discussion” and then wait for consensus among the whole body of mods.

Every time there is a ban/suspension and the inevitable “why was he banned?” thread appears, a list of mods make their appearance saying “I was not involved in the decision to…” before explaining how they agree or disagree with the decision.

How about a good old “your posting privileges will be suspended while we’re under discussion, sit tight”. Not necessarily for first time stuff, but it can give time for everyone to come to a concensus about permanent statuses.

It might save for some immediate anger backlash while mods/admins/and even members talk.

[Liberal]

But it needs to be noted somewhere besides just the original thread (so people who don’t return to the thread, for example, will know). ATMB seems like the natural place. And the twenty or so stickies could easily be reduced to two: Rules and FAQ.

[Muffin]

Just change the name from Charter Member or Guest to Under Review.

[C_K_Dexter_Haven]

I’m sort of on the run, so I’m reading quickly. I don’t disagree with your idea, Sapo. Excpet that it’s pretty much what we do now. We just move faster; you’re suggesting we should wait until all mods have weighed in? Well, as a recent example, I’ve been out of the country for the last three weeks with limited internet access: should discussions on suspension or banning have waited for three weeks for my return? I think that someone woujld have a genuine beef if they were told, “OK, you’re suspended now for an offense that you commited two weeks ago” That would be, in the opinions of most mods (and, I suspect, most posters), unfair.

@Sapo

This might mean, of course, that since mods are volunteers with no fixed schedule, that a long time might pass between the last noted infraction and the actual ban or suspension. That is perfectly fine.

With due respect, I disagree that it’s “perfectly fine.” Now, the natural remedy would be that the “final warning” should say: “This is a serious warning, and the mods will discuss whether you should be banned. Expect an answer in a week.”

Now, I grant you, if the person is mostly “innocent” and just unable to control their temper (say), there may be no harmful side effects. But if the person is indeed trolling, has been trolling, and has no real interest in the boards other than trolling: what does that person do upon given a week’s notice? Plenty of damage, I suspect.

So, yes, it’s a great idea in principle. In principle, that’s usually how we run things, except that we try to move as quickly as possible (especially in instances of people suspected of trolling.) We have rules about quorums of mods being involved, which we can usually get in a day or two. We can act faster in emergency situations (no one wants a lengthy process for banning or removing ads for viagra, I presume?)

And here’s the bottom line: if we need to reverse a decision, we can. It’s not like we’re throwing people into jail, executing them, seizing their property. If, after we’ve heard from more mods, we decide that we should reverse a decision, it’s almost always possible.

We feel that the occasional reversal is less damaging than letting days or weeks elapse, especially when the jerkish offense is that we suspect trolling. Trolling is often hard to prove, there’s a thin border between deliberate trolling (provocation) and simply expressing controversial opinions. But it’s exactly the case of deliberate trolling that we need to move quickly.

[Sapo]

@C_K_Dexter_Haven

… I don’t disagree with your idea, Sapo. Excpet that it’s pretty much what we do now. We just move faster; you’re suggesting we should wait until all mods have weighed in?..

Maybe where “all” is a problem, 80% is sufficient and trivially done. So no, decisions should not wait for that last mod on vacations that won’t return until Christmas. A certain agreed quorum would do just fine. I am guessing that getting 80% (to say a number, nothing magical about 80) of the mods to respond to something can happen in less than 3 days. And yes, I am not suggesting any major changes, just a delay on the existing system while you get some quorum.

With due respect, I disagree that it’s “perfectly fine.” Now, the natural remedy would be that the “final warning” should say: “This is a serious warning, and the mods will discuss whether you should be banned. Expect an answer in a week.”

Now, I grant you, if the person is mostly “innocent” and just unable to control their temper (say), there may be no harmful side effects. But if the person is indeed trolling, has been trolling, and has no real interest in the boards other than trolling: what does that person do upon given a week’s notice? Plenty of damage, I suspect.

True, but as soon as this person starts his final trolling rampage then you have the “evidence” you needed and the case is made more than clear for all. Then you are spared of the length of threads of “he is such a nice guy, just misunderstood”. Or maybe he just posts a “I knew I was close to the line but didn’t know how close I was. Sorry about that” and steps back in line. In either case, giving the person a chance to respond eliminates the uncertainty, both for the mods and the membership.

And here’s the bottom line: if we need to reverse a decision, we can. It’s not like we’re throwing people into jail, executing them, seizing their property. If, after we’ve heard from more mods, we decide that we should reverse a decision, it’s almost always possible.

Yes, but by then the villagers have spent the last day or two sharpening the pitchforks and wrapping torches and are at your door screaming bloody murder. This is exactly the purpose of the change I propose, eliminating that phase of confrontation where a decision is seen as capricious, hasty, visceral, or even rogue by a single mod. This is where I think the damage to the board happens more than what a troll might post in his last days of blazing glory. What lasting damage could a troll do while unleashed for a couple days? Specially since he is already spotted as a troll.

[C_K_Dexter_Haven]

Speaking as a poster: As a total aside, since I was AFK and not involved in any way in the recent events: I think that the folks with pitchforks and torches would come anyway. I don’t want to raise old wounds, but we had a case several years ago that proved it, to my way of thinking. And, of course, sometimes we are not permitted to explain full details to the membership, because the bannee is entitled to confidentiality (and sometimes the law prohibits us from telling you the full story.) That doesn’t stop the folks with the torches and handgrenades, who know that the mods are always wrong.

Now, speaking as a moderator in reaction to your main point: such procedures as you envision are already in place. Perhaps we need to raise the percentage that determines a quorum, we will discuss that amongst the mods. But significant decisions (suspensions and bannings) are never “capricious, …, visceral, or even rogue by a single mod” Regardless of outsider perceptions, the process protects against those sins. “Hasty,” yes, that can be a problem: we’ve wanted reasonably short time between the offense and the correction. The process has tried to find the right balance between two potentially conflicting goals: (a) speed and (b) accuracy.

And I do disagree with you about “what lasting damage” a troll could do if the pretense were dropped. Heck, what harm if a spam message with a link to dastardly virusremains up for a few days? It’s not always easy: we want to allow diversity of opinion, and just because someone takes an unpopular stand, orphan frequently, doesn’t mean they’re trolling. So, the spotting of a troll is not always easy. Then, giving them notice that we THINK we’ve spotted them and are trying to discuss it? Phew. No, thanks.

[TBG]

@C_K_Dexter_Haven

(and sometimes the law prohibits us from telling you the full story.)

:dubious:

Can we get a hypothetical example of such a time?

[Sapo]

@C_K_Dexter_Haven

Speaking as a poster: As a total aside, since I was AFK and not involved in any way in the recent events: I think that the folks with pitchforks and torches would come anyway. I don’t want to raise old wounds, but we had a case several years ago that proved it, to my way of thinking. And, of course, sometimes we are not permitted to explain full details to the membership, because the bannee is entitled to confidentiality (and sometimes the law prohibits us from telling you the full story.) That doesn’t stop the folks with the torches and handgrenades, who know that the mods are always wrong.

Sure, but those are background noise and they will be there no matter what. Those only damage their own reputations. I mean the cases where people of all flavors show up at the moat. Those are the cases that hurt the feel of the board.

Now, speaking as a moderator in reaction to your main point: such procedures as you envision are already in place. Perhaps we need to raise the percentage that determines a quorum, we will discuss that amongst the mods. But significant decisions (suspensions and bannings) are never “capricious, …, visceral, or even rogue by a single mod” Regardless of outsider perceptions, the process protects against those sins. “Hasty,” yes, that can be a problem: we’ve wanted reasonably short time between the offense and the correction. The process has tried to find the right balance between two potentially conflicting goals: (a) speed and (b) accuracy.

Very well. I know there is a system to your madness, I just think maybe you could lean a bit more towards accuracy and worry less about speed. What triggers my original idea is the fact that every time there is a gathering of villagers at the moat, the discussion is always peppered with mods saying “I wasn’t involved in the decision but…”.

And I do disagree with you about “what lasting damage” a troll could do if the pretense were dropped. Heck, what harm if a spam message with a link to dastardly virusremains up for a few days?

True, but that’s not what we are talking about, is it? The cases where there is trouble are usually about people that are overly aggressive towards the administration or a selected few of the members or on a specific topic. An extra day or two of “You are teh suxxorz” won’t kill anyone. Plus, it gives you the response you need to “but he was such a great guy”. Someone who is told that he is on the proverbial thin ice and insists on his bad behavior is harder to defend as “such a great guy”.

[DSYoungEsq]

Every time a situation like that which occurred with respect to Seven occurs, the credibility of the staff takes a licking. I consider it fair to say that the decision to ban Seven was made either with too little input, or with too little time for deliberation. I find it quite incredulous that the decision to ban him was so clear to a large amount of staff as the correct response, yet so clearly the wrong decision to such a large percentage of posters here, many of whom were not the usual pitchforks at the moat type. So it seems to me that either more staff needed to weigh in, or staff needed to take longer to truly think through their response to the last couple of actions of Seven, before hitting him with the ban-stick.

No lasting damage to Seven for the fact that the decision to ban was made first? Maybe not. But damage to the collective reputation of the Board and its staff? Definitely so.