Rule Enforcement Discussion

[CBlake]

Can we extend Scotty's Suspension?

[jonesthecurl]

Can we extend S-c-o-t-t-y-'-s S-u-s-p-e-n-s-i-o-n?

Fixed.

[nietzsche]

(For more details, especially about opaque rule enforcement, see Haggis' and notyou2's posts here.

I agree with what they have said.

This is very important.


We have kentington agreeing, it would be nice to hear MeDeFe's and rds' opinion on this.

[BigBallinStalin]

Ok, so the tug-o-war begins. Glad we can agree on the face value of the others. They are a lot less subjective and less prone to emotion.

I'd resort to tug-o-war on the Blatant Flaming, but the others seem fine. The People's Court idea is a tangent; my primary concerns are the following:

(1) Adverse rewards to the highly sensitive complainers in the form of bans against their 'worst enemies'.
---i.e. People who continually throw a fit about minor attacks and perceived sleights seem to be rewarded with their cries for a ban against whoever they dislike. It's a crap system which should be stopped, and stopping this requires removing the mods' monopoly on the decision rights for such bans. In other words, the highly sensitive would have to take their case to their general public instead of a few, very partial mods.

Starting with number 1. At first glance this seems like a great idea. The community is the customer and to some extent should have a say in the way the community feels/is run. So, to narrow this down there are two issues that readily show up. If you have an idea with how to deal with them or you agree with my solution for part of it then great.

Situation 1. Not everyone is a premium member, therefore not everyone is a customer to CC. Should they be allowed to vote as well?
My thought is no, but then this seems like a good way to piss people off.

Situation 2. CC value. We each have a value in CC and this includes quality/quantity of posts ratio.
Premium Member A- S10,000 (10k Saxi Bucks) A skinny guy with a mustache and a dinosaur outfit.
Premium Member B- S100 (100 Saxi Bucks) A very cute, sugary, sword toting guy.

Premium Member A flames PMB : "Ha, suck it you didn't even make it on the popularity contest. Step up your game loser. ::Big L:: I would kill myself if I was you." (I don't really want to make it worse.)
PMB takes his case to the people. Well, the people have valued PMA at S10k and PMB at S100, do we really want to lose that guy with a creepy smile over this?

So, now the judges have switched places, but the community has decided that certain members with a lot of credit can get away with more than those who don't have as much value. An argument for that is : You are paying customers so what is the problem? Well, we also have to protect our little guys who aren't as cool or good looking. Do mods ever step in and how would that work? We would still be somewhat subjective. (It is a subjective situation. Not bias, but certain words and phrases bother certain people differently.)

Note: these suggestions are best suited only for the Off Topics forum.

Situation 1: The Status of Non-Citizens
Non-premiums are allowed to participate in the votes; however, there should be some time limit for 'newcomers' (multis), and after some time there can be a vote--if anyone really cares enough for the multi/newcomer.

Seniority
It would seem to make sense that seniority should hold more sway--since people who've been REGULARS on this particular forum would have more local knowledge on the circumstances of time and place here. So, casuals who post as infrequently as JJM (a.k.a Jim) get 1 vote, quasi-casuals/quasi-regulars get 2 votes, and regulars (sax, me, Sym, etc.) get 3 votes. The difference in votes reflects How Awesome the Regulars Are, or more seriously reflects the relevance of their knowledge about OT and its inhabitants. Before Casuals are allowed a vote, they would probably have to be voted in.

This prevents 'outsiders' from blindly rushing in and heavily distorting our democratic process.

And the values (# in votes) may have to vary, so those are just illustrative.

Situation 2: Value-Based Post Count
Not a fan of this idea. I'd recommend using the Seniority thing, or something like it.

Think of the People's Courts as areas of deliberation--which ideally occurred in Aristotle's time with the Polis Council. There would be discussion, then a vote.

(2) Random Rule Enforcement
---i.e. User A is warned for infraction X, but later banned for infraction Y, which is irritating because the user isn't informed (warned) about committing infraction Y. A first warning is typically used to cover the current infraction (baiting) as well as later infractions of different kinds (necrobump, spam), thus failing to clarify exactly what the boundaries are for infraction Y--since no warning was given for Y.

Agreed.
At the very least. Let us say they have gotten a warning in every subject and they have become a troll, then we can :
a) Bring it to the people
b) Give a final warning and let the member know that the next infraction for x,y, or z will result in a ban

(3) Opaque Rule Enforcement
---- Obviously, the rules are clearly written yet remain ambiguous because circumstances can vary. Because of this ambiguity, the community requires feedback from the enforcers in the form of publicly announcing why user A was banned. Upon receiving this information, the users can make more discretionary posts, thus becoming more law-abiding users. Without public announcements, then the users have a less certain idea as to where the mods 'draw the line in the sand' in regard to the more ambiguous rules and their gray areas.

I agree. The offenses were public and the sentence should be as well.
What about stuff that goes on in a pm? Do you agree that it should be handled by a Mod and if a ban is warranted, then the mods make the call and just make public that the ban was for pm's and the type of infraction without details?

With PMs, the details do not have to be copy-paste quality, but at least mention (a) the infraction and (b) offer the reasoning (10-50 words).

To be clear, there is this spectrum of details. If the mod simply says, "Yeah, he was banned for PMs, which were gross" then this denies others the opportunity to understand what exactly is permissible via PM. What's the optimal disclosure of detail? I'm not sure, and I'm not opposed to actual quotes, but maybe this is something the community can decide.

(For more details, especially about opaque rule enforcement, see Haggis' and notyou2's posts here.

I agree with what they have said.

If the goal of the mods is to create a more just system as well as more law-abiding community, then they should enact the above three policies.

This is the ultimate goal for me. I didn't become a mod for premium. Look at my games. I didn't become a mod so people would love me, that obviously wouldn't work. I didn't become a mod for the power, as when I first joined powers were very limited and I had to watch a lot of stuff and ask permission before doing things. (Which makes sense, to prevent rogue mods(that white hair stripe isn't cool anymore))
I just want the community to flow and as I said in the other thread I am a background poster. I prefer to just do stuff and maybe have a few people notice, but not a lot of people. That is how I am in real life. I work with machines and fix them and I don't want to deal with all of the people just a few.

Long post I know and TMI, but I think it was all pretty much on topic and if we actually agree on things I will present it to the people who make the ultimate calls on this site.

Thanks for posting!

[kentington]

You had me at Bill Murray.

I have a really bad headache right now. I had a fever last night, so I have to say pending more review.

I can't see an issue with what was posted so far. I agree this is for Off Topics only. If anyone behaves improperly in General Discussions and even more so Suggestions, then they will be dealt with by the mods per the regular forum guidelines. This would take a lot of time to set up for multiple forums and you would have to keep track of too many things. It is less appropriate to go OT in those other forums.

Would we just start a thread for a new infraction and then have the members put Vote: guilty/not guilty?

I will post more thoughts later after my head calms down.

[BigBallinStalin]

You had me at Bill Murray.

I have a really bad headache right now. I had a fever last night, so I have to say pending more review.

I can't see an issue with what was posted so far. I agree this is for Off Topics only. If anyone behaves improperly in General Discussions and even more so Suggestions, then they will be dealt with by the mods per the regular forum guidelines. This would take a lot of time to set up for multiple forums and you would have to keep track of too many things. It is less appropriate to go OT in those other forums.

Would we just start a thread for a new infraction and then have the members put Vote: guilty/not guilty?

I will post more thoughts later after my head calms down.

I'm not sure, but we have many avenues for experimentation.

We could hold a trial by jury, we could have the lawyers chosen from earlier, or we could have a "free for all" where anyone posts their position.

There would have to be an agreement on whether or not the prosecutor is correctly following the law, if the chosen punishment is optimal, and finally if the defendant is actually guilty. (Compared to the current system of mods getting together and making partial decisions behind closed doors, this approach is more just, reasonable, less costly for mods, and etc.).

We'll just have to get our feet wet and learn from our mistakes, but we can't have success or improvement without trial and error.

[patches70]

You have a lot of ideas for how to run something that isn't even your, BBS. You seem to have ignored that fact. Maybe you should consult with the actual owners of the site?

I mean, it's all good if you want to whip the mobs into a frenzy. That can be a lot of fun in many ways. But in the end, for all your supposedly good intentions, you'll merely destroy that which you are trying to change.

Just sayin' is all.

I especially like your clever manipulations at attempting to give yourself more influence because you've determined to separate people into groups and then arbitrarily deciding which group is above other groups.
Hilarity, I must say.

Carry on with your revolution.

[BigBallinStalin]

You have a lot of ideas for how to run something that isn't even your, BBS. You seem to have ignored that fact. Maybe you should consult with the actual owners of the site?

I mean, it's all good if you want to whip the mobs into a frenzy. That can be a lot of fun in many ways. But in the end, for all your supposedly good intentions, you'll merely destroy that which you are trying to change.

Just sayin' is all.

I especially like your clever manipulations at attempting to give yourself more influence because you've determined to separate people into groups and then arbitrarily deciding which group is above other groups.
Hilarity, I must say.

Carry on with your revolution.

Oh, sorry for suggesting implementations and encouraging discussion which would lead to the increase of autonomy for all regular and causal posters in the OT forum. Your nonsensical claim about a Stalinist-2dimes-Haggis Triumvirate Fascist Dastardly Dictatorship would definitely arise through a more a democratic system which I can't dominate. Makes sense(?). But please, go ahead and do nothing constructive in order to make this forum better.

If I had a monopoly on who could post ITT, then maybe your points would stand, but I don't, so why don't you take that strawman outside?

[kentington]

I split this from the Free Scotty thread. It was enough of its own topic. I added a poll, so please vote. I will be posting the result of the poll and only running it for one week. I will probably add other polls ITT as questions arise.

[nietzsche]

Yes.

It would be of great help.

If you guys (mods) have to put your thoughts clearly in a statement, you would be less prone to ban someone for something irrelevant. Being public you will have to expect certain responses from the community, which it would mean that the community would have some level of power on the decisions, so the community could be ruling itself to some degree.

[stahrgazer]

I split this from the Free Scotty thread. It was enough of its own topic. I added a poll, so please vote. I will be posting the result of the poll and only running it for one week. I will probably add other polls ITT as questions arise.

I'm curious why it was split to here, rather than general discussion or some other area of CC that's supposed to be related to CC?

[kentington]

I split this from the Free Scotty thread. It was enough of its own topic. I added a poll, so please vote. I will be posting the result of the poll and only running it for one week. I will probably add other polls ITT as questions arise.

I'm curious why it was split to here, rather than general discussion or some other area of CC that's supposed to be related to CC?

The reason I split it here is because these enforcement suggestions are geared towards running Off Topics and not all forums. What is considered acceptable behavior in OT, will not always be tolerated in Suggestions or other forums.

These other forums require more structure to operate and going Off Topic can ruin those threads. Also, I wouldn't be willing to do every forum at once. I would rather try it with the most difficult forum and see if it provides better results for everyone.

[macbone]

Frankly, I don't like the idea of votes, or communist users deciding on whether a member needs to be censured for breaking community guidelines. What I do like is having a clear statement of why a user has been banned. Doing so would add more transparency to the process and provide justification for mods' actions.

[DoomYoshi]

So my post on the schizoid life of the rules on CC didn't make the cut.

[kentington]

So my post on the schizoid life of the rules on CC didn't make the cut.

I didn't see it. Feel free to quote it in here.

[2dimes]

Write in for, "Well whatever gets you through the day. I can't see a difference."

If some one decides to have it in for you there's little solice in them 'spaining your ban to the people you've left behind.

[BigBallinStalin]

Write in for, "Well whatever gets you through the day. I can't see a difference."

If some one decides to have it in for you there's little solice in them 'spaining your ban to the people you've left behind.

which makes more sense for us to enforce the rules here.

[BigBallinStalin]

Frankly, I don't like the idea of votes, or communist users deciding on whether a member needs to be censured for breaking community guidelines. What I do like is having a clear statement of why a user has been banned. Doing so would add more transparency to the process and provide justification for mods' actions.

Yeah, you can go away to GD or wherever you're from.

[Gillipig]

Frankly, I don't like the idea of votes, or communist users deciding on whether a member needs to be censured for breaking community guidelines. What I do like is having a clear statement of why a user has been banned. Doing so would add more transparency to the process and provide justification for mods' actions.

Yeah, you can go away to GD or wherever you're from.

Here you go Stalin, no need to thank me:

[Ray Rider]

Soooo, is there any good reason not to adopt this new system, or at the very least provide explanations for bans?

Frankly, I don't like the idea of votes, or communist users deciding on whether a member needs to be censured for breaking community guidelines. What I do like is having a clear statement of why a user has been banned. Doing so would add more transparency to the process and provide justification for mods' actions.

[thegreekdog]

For what it's worth, I agree. I don't know why bannings and the reasons behind them are secretive. They should be publicly displayed, not for the embarrassment of the person, but as a guideline for others.

[spiesr]

Situation 2. CC value. We each have a value in CC and this includes quality/quantity of posts ratio.
Premium Member A- S10,000 (10k Saxi Bucks) A skinny guy with a mustache and a dinosaur outfit.
Premium Member B- S100 (100 Saxi Bucks) A very cute, sugary, sword toting guy.

Premium Member A flames PMB : "Ha, suck it you didn't even make it on the popularity contest. Step up your game loser. ::Big L:: I would kill myself if I was you." (I don't really want to make it worse.)
PMB takes his case to the people. Well, the people have valued PMA at S10k and PMB at S100, do we really want to lose that guy with a creepy smile over this?

So, now the judges have switched places, but the community has decided that certain members with a lot of credit can get away with more than those who don't have as much value. An argument for that is : You are paying customers so what is the problem? Well, we also have to protect our little guys who aren't as cool or good looking. Do mods ever step in and how would that work? We would still be somewhat subjective. (It is a subjective situation. Not bias, but certain words and phrases bother certain people differently.)

Situation 2: Value-Based Post Count
Not a fan of this idea. I'd recommend using the Seniority thing, or something like it.

I don't think you actually provided a response to the issue raised in situation 2. Which is "how the you stop the council (or whatever you are using) from letting a user get away with more than others become they like/enjoy/value that user more than others? Or is that the entire point of the idea?

[BigBallinStalin]

Situation 2. CC value. We each have a value in CC and this includes quality/quantity of posts ratio.
Premium Member A- S10,000 (10k Saxi Bucks) A skinny guy with a mustache and a dinosaur outfit.
Premium Member B- S100 (100 Saxi Bucks) A very cute, sugary, sword toting guy.

Premium Member A flames PMB : "Ha, suck it you didn't even make it on the popularity contest. Step up your game loser. ::Big L:: I would kill myself if I was you." (I don't really want to make it worse.)
PMB takes his case to the people. Well, the people have valued PMA at S10k and PMB at S100, do we really want to lose that guy with a creepy smile over this?

So, now the judges have switched places, but the community has decided that certain members with a lot of credit can get away with more than those who don't have as much value. An argument for that is : You are paying customers so what is the problem? Well, we also have to protect our little guys who aren't as cool or good looking. Do mods ever step in and how would that work? We would still be somewhat subjective. (It is a subjective situation. Not bias, but certain words and phrases bother certain people differently.)

Situation 2: Value-Based Post Count
Not a fan of this idea. I'd recommend using the Seniority thing, or something like it.

I don't think you actually provided a response to the issue raised in situation 2. Which is "how the you stop the council (or whatever you are using) from letting a user get away with more than others become they like/enjoy/value that user more than others? Or is that the entire point of the idea?

Because we wouldn't use Situation 2's valuation method of meting out punishment. The "People's Court/Polis Council", or whatever variant which we develop, is a superior alternative that can provide more avenues of discovering how best to govern ourselves.

Which is "how the you stop the council (or whatever you are using) from letting a user get away with more than others become they like/enjoy/value that user more than others? "

1. The current rules are not perfectly implemented.
2. The formal rules (those in the Guidelines) do not represent the informal rules (our generally acceptable limits of conduct).
3. How do we best enforce both the formal rules and the informal rules?

4. Well, we can have all decisions made by the central planners, who have limited resources (time, familiarity with thread and accused users, etc.) and are partial (therefore the concerns you've raised can be equally used to criticize the mods).
5. Or we can have the Polis Council, which taps into a greater number and quality of resources, modifies and enforces rules--both formal and informal--that would lead to outcomes that are better than the current model.