Forum Moderation

[Guest Capt_of_Satisfaction]

12 minutes ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

I would say that SOME politics does need to be allowed, but only remote politics in the context of history and only as it pertains to the construction of (or decisions not to construct) the ships featured in this game. 

That would impose a limit of about 1960, which I think is more than remote enough to avoid the most contentious events in the lifetimes of us forumites. Does this sound fair, @EXEC_HYMNE_Ar_tonelico?

That's pretty much what I was saying in answering another user.  In the context of history, sure, just be respectful about it, that's all.  Common decency. 

[Ensign Cthulhu]

4 hours ago, Type_93 said:

I though we were all in Church of RNGsus here?

Most of the blasphemy against RNGesus occurs at Christmas...

[Wolfswetpaws]

4 hours ago, Verblonde said:

What about 'zounds' - that's splendidly blasphemous?

Not anymore.  It's potency has sunk to the level of "gadzooks".  🙂

[Verblonde]

7 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Not anymore.  It's potency has sunk to the level of "gadzooks".  🙂

And I thought the US was a god-fearing sort of place...!

[I_cant_Swim_]

Folks, there’s some lively discussion going on here. Perhaps I can clarify my view and the vision I have.

We need rules. Everybody does. We need them in real life, we need them here. Sometimes they’re a bummer to follow, sometimes we agree with them, other times not. But usually we agree that they’re there for the good of the community. That is the basic understanding I hope to impart. Now, what needs to be regulated, and what not. Well, stuff that is downright offensive to any group, of course, and stuff that might be downright offensive. It should be clear, that we need a graded response. There are things that are offensive, insulting, or uncomfortable to a significant proportion of the population. Talk of religion, politics, sex, many social issues, yes history as well. No matter how one twists and turns to present these topics, there is a significant risk that someone feels, justifiably, insulted, offended, attacked, shamed, whatever. These effects cannot be what we are looking for in our forum, even when "we" are in a majority. We need to keep the focus on the stuff we have in common – our love of the game. Members are free to sign up additionally to a history forum elsewhere to discuss history, or a politics forum to discuss politics, but those subjects cannot belong here. Leaving these subjects out should have a negligible impact on our enjoyment of the forum – there is so much else to discuss and enjoy.

The devil, of course, is in the detail. Isn’t it always. What do you do when… Our moderators have a difficult and sometimes unenviable task. How hard are the borders, how vague the speech? When is someone likely to be insulted, when not? The rules help, but they don’t always cut it. Moderators must often make a call, based on the specific case. It most likely won’t be perfect for everyone, but it does intend to be harmful to the fewest possible.

We will not discuss and rearrange rules in the forums. That needs to be clear. For sure, we need to know what our aims are, what the mix of our audience is. For sure, we need to revise rules occasionally based on everything we learn as we progress. Do we relax certain things, tighten up others? Part and parcel of trying to present the best possible environment to the most people. People who may diverge a lot in all they believe in, in all they are sensitive about, but who are still a jolly bunch of folks to have around here. We cannot discuss moderator actions, chiefly because moderation itself, and thus the forum, would be at risk of failing. If a rule is debated in the forum, and 17 people have strong views on its use, what do we make of it? How representative are these 17? We would need to poll the entire community to ensure it is fair. We would need to repeat this when our population grows and changes. Who would even take part in such a scheme? How would you ask the questions? How many instances, variations, possibilities would you allow for? Who would evaluate the results, and compile it into useful form? No. We, the staff, need to have rules that to the best of our knowledge will serve the greatest part of the community. We need to revise these rules to the best of our ability, when we see a need. We need to follow these rules to the best of our ability, but as leniently as possible. Members need to accept that the rules will never be perfect, they cannot be so for everybody. They also need to accept that moderators are human. Mods need to interpret a large number of cases every day, and make a call the best they can. If the rules can never be perfect, the moderator’s actions cannot always be perfect either, but if we accept that they are doing their best, all things considered, we can see a way forward. Steer away from posting content that is or could likely be offensive, hurtful, insulting etc. to others. Try to see the reasoning behind a moderators edit in that light, if something you posted causes them to react. It does not mean we don’t appreciate your input in this or other cases. An edit or PM from a moderator is not a slap in the face, it is not an insult or intended to shame. It means, that the content you posted might be perceived as being harmful etc. to other members of the community, although you may not have been aware of it. It is a reminder that we need to remember that words may hurt, so where this can be avoided, it should, for the sake of the community. The survival and success of our forum is tightly linked to the quality of our moderation, and to the satisfaction of our members.

Thank you,

I_cant_Swim_

Administrator and First Steward of devstrike.net

[Wolfswetpaws]

🐺

[I_cant_Swim_]

49 minutes ago, I_cant_Swim_ said:

The survival and success of our forum is tightly linked to the quality of our moderation, and to the satisfaction of our members

One point I should have added.

As mentioned, we will not discuss rules and moderation in the forums. However, if you feel that a moderator's or administrator's actions were still unjust in the light of everything above, you do have some room for redress. Currently, you can take this up with the moderators responsible for your forum. Please do this only once for a specific case, unless invited to dialog. Additionally, we will soon be opening our Support Center, through which, by opening a ticket, you will be able to reach an independent moderator for issues of significance. I hope for your understanding that decisions then reached are final.

 

[Wolfswetpaws]

🐺

[Mordt]

5 hours ago, Verblonde said:

This! In spades (or f**king shovels, if you prefer). Peering over the border (I live near Toronto), I'd suggest that either of these general subject areas should be absolutely verboten on here, assuming you want to maintain an element of semi-civil discourse.

I would say the same too. Current politics should basically be off limits. 

But what counts as politics is the question? Like on the old forums I once posted a link to an article about EVs and climate change. And a mod took it down because of ‘politics’. 

Like, I get how it’s political, but is it political enough to warrant taking it down? 
So that’s my question, where’s the line?

And on swearing, I’m kinda torn. 
Like I’m okay with swearing. I don’t use it a lot irl, but I’m fine if other people use it to a certain extent, and I think a well placed curse for emphasis is chefs kiss.  
But I bet there’s people on here that don’t like it, and rampant swearing to me is not enjoyable to see, hear, or just be around, and it doesn’t really add anything either after it’s used too much. 

[BCGrog]

I think we should just avoid any topics that can set people off. 

Doesn't matter how righteous or which way it leans.

If it has nothing to do with the game, keep divisive topics off the forums.

The key word here is: Divisive. No matter what the subject matter - you KNOW that 50% of the country doesn't agree with you. 

We pretty much all agree that we are able to debate things warship related and keep the lid down. 

Think before we post. 

 

 

[_KlRlTO_]

You mean I can't just randomly go into George Carlin's seven words? So I can't say f***, p***, c***, s*** c*********, m***********, or t***? T*** doesn't even really belong! It's like a nickname you would give your buddy!

Also, what about words that are only bad in context? Will the system be able to filter them based on context? Is it okay for us to prick our fingers, but not to f***** our p*****?

Okay, if I annoyed anyone with this, I apologize. I just wanted to be funny in a way WG was always too stuffy to allow. They would have been on me like a fly on s*** just for suggesting a post like this, even though I obviously highly censored it.

[Slimeball91]

53 minutes ago, Mordt said:

But what counts as politics is the question? Like on the old forums I once posted a link to an article about EVs and climate change. And a mod took it down because of ‘politics’. 

Like, I get how it’s political, but is it political enough to warrant taking it down? 
So that’s my question, where’s the line?

EVs and climate change have nothing to do with the game, so I can see why it has no place on the old forum, or this one.  A possible exception would be the off topic section.  I would hope some more leeway would be allowed there.

To spring board off the above.  I have a question about where the line is drawn.  I get that it's no okay to ramble on about Russia in regards to current geopolitical events.  However, would there be room to have a discussion on those current geopolitical events if it's related to possible impact on the game, or on WG in general?  Also, on the old forums WG allowed discussion about certain hot topics because they were on everyone's mind so they allowed the discussion to go on largely unmoderated, covid and the events leading up to the war in Ukraine as examples.  Will exceptions for big events be made?  I know this is the kind of question can be addressed as we cross that bridge.  I'm just throwing it out there now for some consideration.

One last request.  I suggest there be no stealth edits to posts.  It should be clear for public to see that a mod made an edit on a post (and no just visible to the person that made the post, visable to everyone).  I'd also strongly recommend that mod's name show that makes an edit/removes a post.  This helps give some public accountability for the mods.  I'm not sure how the request for public accountability will go over form the tone in @I_cant_Swim_ earlier posts.   

[SureBridge]

2 minutes ago, Slimeball91 said:

I suggest there be no stealth edits to posts.  It should be clear for public to see that a mod made an edit on a post (and no just visible to the person that made the post, visable to everyone).

The current plan is for edits by moderators to be in a different colour: blue is out because that's a hyperlink indicator, red suggests that the original poster was naughty. I'm personally leaning towards purple (or maybe hot pink), but that seems to be the sort of thing that should be discussed here.

I'm of two minds on the "let us know who moderated" because at the end of the day, we either trust the mod team or we don't. I guess it's on us to demonstrate we CAN be trusted, at which point a bunch of this stops being an issue. I know that a post was edited earlier for being "out of bounds" but I (as a moderator) don't know who did it, but I do trust that it was appropriately done since it left the core of the comment, and then added something along the lines of (edited - please stay constructive / on topic)

[Mordt]

1 minute ago, Slimeball91 said:

EVs and climate change have nothing to do with the game, so I can see why it has no place on the old forum, or this one.  A possible exception would be the off topic section.  I would hope some more leeway would be allowed there.

It was in off topic, I would never have posted something like that in a game related sub forum. 
 

Also, I agree with your point on stealth edits/deletions. I’ve never liked the idea of removing/changing information undetected and without any history of the info existing. 

[Asym]

3 hours ago, I_cant_Swim_ said:

Folks, there’s some lively discussion going on here. Perhaps I can clarify my view and the vision I have.

 

We need rules. Everybody does. We need them in real life, we need them here. Sometimes they’re a bummer to follow, sometimes we agree with them, other times not. But usually we agree that they’re there for the good of the community. That is the basic understanding I hope to impart. Now, what needs to be regulated, and what not. Well, stuff that is downright offensive to any group, of course, and stuff that might be downright offensive. It should be clear, that we need a graded response. There are things that are offensive, insulting, or uncomfortable to a significant proportion of the population. Talk of religion, politics, sex, many social issues, yes history as well. No matter how one twists and turns to present these topics, there is a significant risk that someone feels, justifiably, insulted, offended, attacked, shamed, whatever. These effects cannot be what we are looking for in our forum, even when "we" are in a majority. We need to keep the focus on the stuff we have in common – our love of the game. Members are free to sign up additionally to a history forum elsewhere to discuss history, or a politics forum to discuss politics, but those subjects cannot belong here. Leaving these subjects out should have a negligible impact on our enjoyment of the forum – there is so much else to discuss and enjoy.

 

The devil, of course, is in the detail. Isn’t it always. What do you do when… Our moderators have a difficult and sometimes unenviable task. How hard are the borders, how vague the speech? When is someone likely to be insulted, when not? The rules help, but they don’t always cut it. Moderators must often make a call, based on the specific case. It most likely won’t be perfect for everyone, but it does intend to be harmful to the fewest possible.

 

We will not discuss and rearrange rules in the forums. That needs to be clear. For sure, we need to know what our aims are, what the mix of our audience is. For sure, we need to revise rules occasionally based on everything we learn as we progress. Do we relax certain things, tighten up others? Part and parcel of trying to present the best possible environment to the most people. People who may diverge a lot in all they believe in, in all they are sensitive about, but who are still a jolly bunch of folks to have around here. We cannot discuss moderator actions, chiefly because moderation itself, and thus the forum, would be at risk of failing. If a rule is debated in the forum, and 17 people have strong views on its use, what do we make of it? How representative are these 17? We would need to poll the entire community to ensure it is fair. We would need to repeat this when our population grows and changes. Who would even take part in such a scheme? How would you ask the questions? How many instances, variations, possibilities would you allow for? Who would evaluate the results, and compile it into useful form? No. We, the staff, need to have rules that to the best of our knowledge will serve the greatest part of the community. We need to revise these rules to the best of our ability, when we see a need. We need to follow these rules to the best of our ability, but as leniently as possible. Members need to accept that the rules will never be perfect, they cannot be so for everybody. They also need to accept that moderators are human. Mods need to interpret a large number of cases every day, and make a call the best they can. If the rules can never be perfect, the moderator’s actions cannot always be perfect either, but if we accept that they are doing their best, all things considered, we can see a way forward. Steer away from posting content that is or could likely be offensive, hurtful, insulting etc. to others. Try to see the reasoning behind a moderators edit in that light, if something you posted causes them to react. It does not mean we don’t appreciate your input in this or other cases. An edit or PM from a moderator is not a slap in the face, it is not an insult or intended to shame. It means, that the content you posted might be perceived as being harmful etc. to other members of the community, although you may not have been aware of it. It is a reminder that we need to remember that words may hurt, so where this can be avoided, it should, for the sake of the community. The survival and success of our forum is tightly linked to the quality of our moderation, and to the satisfaction of our members.

 

Thank you,

 

I_cant_Swim_

 

Administrator and First Steward of devstrike.net

 

The "aim" of any forum is the exchange of ideas....  We talk about "rules" and what is "offensive" and then, say we want to exchange ideas that almost always will escape all the rules and offend a great many doing so... 

That is the paradox forums face.   Team Dissonance is a great topic if you want to see what societal "rules" do to creative teams....  There are some great papers on that topic...

Ever create a "disruptive" innovation?  My Masters thesis was such a creation.  We had to search the US for academics that could not be offended (in that field of study - Asymmetrical Systems Theory);  because,  what I created was seriously disruptive and yet, so institutionally and culturally logical and efficient, denying those facts challenged "what is...."  

And, yet here we are agreeing culturally, we are not ready.....for "rules" 

Toffler was right.....adaptive friction creates waves and culture trumps process 100% of the time.

“There is a certain amount of change men can handle and this is called adaptive range.  If the amount of change is below this level, the results are boredom and people seeking more excitement in life.  If the level of change is above the adaptive range, man’s coping mechanism breaks down and the result is

destruction and irrational ability.” (Toffler, 1970)

So, if this forum is to thrive, we have to have a keen eye as to what our "adaptive range" (threshold) is - otherwise, the exchange of ideas simply won't happen because everyone is limited....

Edited August 23, 2023 by Asym

[Wolfswetpaws]

1 minute ago, SureBridge said:

The current plan is for edits by moderators to be in a different colour: blue is out because that's a hyperlink indicator, red suggests that the original poster was naughty. I'm personally leaning towards purple (or maybe hot pink), but that seems to be the sort of thing that should be discussed here.

I'm of two minds on the "let us know who moderated" because at the end of the day, we either trust the mod team or we don't. I guess it's on us to demonstrate we CAN be trusted, at which point a bunch of this stops being an issue. I know that a post was edited earlier for being "out of bounds" but I (as a moderator) don't know who did it, but I do trust that it was appropriately done since it left the core of the comment, and then added something along the lines of (edited - please stay constructive / on topic)

If the moderators cannot access who among them modified or removed a post, then isn't that a "transparency" problem?

So, as for the notion of moderators signing their work, so to speak.  I'm for it.
Example:
"Post moderated by <insert name here> for <reason, possibly from a menu list of categories>, date & time."

[Verblonde]

1 hour ago, Mordt said:

But what counts as politics is the question? Like on the old forums I once posted a link to an article about EVs and climate change. And a mod took it down because of ‘politics’.

It may be a regional thing in this case; as far as I know, in most parts of the world climate change is settled science, not politics...? The politics comes in when arguing about what to do about it!

[Slimeball91]

11 minutes ago, SureBridge said:

I'm of two minds on the "let us know who moderated" because at the end of the day, we either trust the mod team or we don't.

People change their behavior (usually for worse) when they are completely anonymous.  Transparency to the public really is a low bar to set.  

[SureBridge]

1 hour ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

If the moderators cannot access who among them modified or removed a post, then isn't that a "transparency" problem?

It's probably a "where is the damn button so I can see this information" thing - we're still ironing out the system, and using tools that "other people" used to manage. Only now WE have to be all of the "other people". Sorry if my comment caused undue alarm. 

I hear the desire to have public accountability for moderation, and I'll raise it at our next meeting (this week). I personally think that more accountability and transparency is a good thing and will advocate for this - but we also have a bunch of viewpoints on the volunteer team (look at the discussion between "editors" "Moderators" and other people with weird tags in this thread). I think that we will try to continue having "important" discussions in the open instead of behind (volunteer locked) doors, since it provides a lot of context for WHY decisions were made the way they were. For you fans of history, I think that this thread is a bit like the Federalist papers, helping to flesh out and provide context for whatever the final forum rules will end up being. 

Thanks to everyone who has contributed - I value your input @BCGrog @Mordt @Wolfswetpaws @Asym @Verblonde @Slimeball91 and everyone else who has taken the time to provide input (and the reasoning behind the input)

[SureBridge]

2 hours ago, _KlRlTO_ said:

They would have been on me like a fly on s*** just for suggesting a post like this, even though I obviously highly censored it.

Bad _Kirito_ no biscuit! Strongly worded letter to follow (once I stop laughing 🙂

The "stuffy" part is what happens once you make the rules. It's up to the moderators (or automatic word replacers) to enforce the rules as impartially and consistently as possible. This is one of the reasons that I always sent a PM explaining the policy, and what the actual issue was. 

But I still think that "fiddlesticks" would be funny as a word replacement

2 hours ago, _KlRlTO_ said:

They would have been on me like a fly on fiddlesticks...

(Edited for bad words by Surebridge 2023-08-22)

OK part of my laughing was mentally adding "fiddlesticks" a lot of times

[Admiral_Karasu]

10 hours ago, Capt_of_Satisfaction said:

 

Common sense and common decency is the prime descriptor.

Let's all remember that maxim to guide us, shall we? Should make our sailing a lot fairer.🚢

[Andrewbassg]

Very nice discussion!

 

13 hours ago, Slimeball91 said:

I generally don't like hard and fast rules.  One of the great things about how the old WG forum was run back in the day was the selective enforcement of many rules.  This place is a very small forum, and most likely will remain that way for the foreseeable future, if not it's entire life span.  As a small community it's possible to be more loose with the rules.  A community being able to sort of police itself can be a good thing.  Mods should (gently) steer, not dictate, the direction of the forums.  If the community as a whole shows they can't moderate themselves, them more aggressive work from the mods is in order.  Unfortunately, the norm is for mods to take the easy way out and crack down on the whole community because there is some individual, or small group of people that can't behave.  Seems like there should be a way to allow people to show their "rough edges" while still maintaining some general order here.

 

I like very much this idea. The old NA forums (pre Boggzy) was indeed a very good place in this regard. As we go along, we will know each other more thoroughly and we( and the mods) could act accordingly. I don't think that rigid rules could or would be the answer. Indeed, that poses extra challenges for the mod team but... it could go a long way to form a/the community.

Now that being said, every forum needs rules and moderation. One thing I didn't liked about EU was ......it wasn't really newcomer friendly. If somebody posted a silly question... very easily could become subject of ridicule.  That... wasn't ok.

Politics and history: I'm very much for the inclusion of them, in a limited manner. We are not living in a vacuum. Obviously, direct provocations and attacks should not be allowed, but autocratic and totalitarian regimes have very different "values" compared to liberal democracies and that should not be forgotten.  A reference here and there should be ok, if persistent a request to move the discussion to PM's. Obviously starting a debate on the shortcomings of marxism or the dangers of fascism is a no go. but again a reference here and there would go a loong way to diversify the discussion and to confer depth to it. Discussing only game issues, without context, it could become rapidly dry. For example discussing mines and leaving out the fact that it was the primary weapon of the.... glorious Soviet Navy.....well....yeah.

One thing that should be harshly dealt with is trying to use the forum rules as hiding places, getting back at someone by using the rules, "gaming the system"  and alike "forum games". I strongly believe that we really don't need such occurrences. Lets keep the banter friendly and honest.

Generally, I'm arguing for sanity and reason both in moderation and discussions but... lets not exclude the fun  🙂 

[CriMiNaL]

At my height of doing a troll fest on some poor sap on the old forums, I would type out exactly what I would say to this pseron, swearing and all, but before posting< i spent the time to re reread what was written and ammend these words.

I have found over the years, if you are swearing at someone, or the argument is at a point where you need to call someone a this or that, then your argument is already lost, and no matter the subject that was being discussed, it is well and truly gone by that stage.

What I do like to see if someone is annoyed (pissed off) and they need to put their anger into words on the forum is make the title as a "Vent/Rant" thread, then I can read it and at times sympathise with the OP and not go after them because they sound like a whiney bitch.

Instead I can share my experiences as best I can without trying to write a novel, and this way the Op gets an understanding from these kinds of replys, that they are not alone with dealing with the rubbish wg throws at us sometimes.

I am sure the people who are mods here, do not want to have to troll through many thread having to worry about people doing stupid stuff on here as they do have a life and better things to do, unlike wg employees who were getting paid to deal with my relentless emails to them, suckers.

So as far as swearing in these forums, ask yourself, is it in the right context, is it at someone who you disagree with, is it really waranted at all.

As an Australian its quite common for the C word to be used quite a lot, It is like a "term of endearment", but even still, there is a time and place for it.

[EXEC_HYMNE_Ar_tonelico]

I want to add that a good behavioral guideline  besides the rules is to simply behave in a way that would be accepted by most major cultures around the world. Be nice to each other.

[Wolfswetpaws]

6 hours ago, SureBridge said:

It's probably a "where is the damn button so I can see this information" thing - we're still ironing out the system, and using tools that "other people" used to manage. Only now WE have to be all of the "other people". Sorry if my comment caused undue alarm. 

I hear the desire to have public accountability for moderation, and I'll raise it at our next meeting (this week). I personally think that more accountability and transparency is a good thing and will advocate for this - but we also have a bunch of viewpoints on the volunteer team (look at the discussion between "editors" "Moderators" and other people with weird tags in this thread). I think that we will try to continue having "important" discussions in the open instead of behind (volunteer locked) doors, since it provides a lot of context for WHY decisions were made the way they were. For you fans of history, I think that this thread is a bit like the Federalist papers, helping to flesh out and provide context for whatever the final forum rules will end up being. 

Thanks to everyone who has contributed - I value your input @BCGrog @Mordt @Wolfswetpaws @Asym @Verblonde @Slimeball91 and everyone else who has taken the time to provide input (and the reasoning behind the input)

Hmm.  Looks like I'll do things manually, again.


I imagine there will be a meme about the limited quantity of our emoticon reactions, at some point.  :-)