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:
thegreekdog wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:(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.
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.
jgordon1111 wrote:And can you be more specific about what is anarchist with this suggestion
Woodruff wrote: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.
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.)
deathcomesrippin wrote: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... ).
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 wrote: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.
Pedronicus wrote: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.
rdsrds2120 wrote: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.
rdsrds2120 wrote: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.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
BigBallinStalin wrote:(remember: "better" does not equal "Woodruff thinks this is better"
It does to Woodruff! <laughing>
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
Pedronicus wrote: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.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
AAFitz wrote: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!
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
