TOS Violations and Moderator Responses

[Jacque67 7,328]

And you must be too if you didn't agree with the reason.

Touché !

[spookyturtle 9,465]

Touché !

[luckytxn 2,264]

It's not. We been here a long time and they have tried to squelch the off topic first by splitting it off from Politics and Religion. Then the clamp down on what we can discuss in that forum. Now they are claiming that family friendly is the reason for any new arbitrary decisions. I am a Mod on other forums and it is a scam to enforce thought control to people here and force us out. They don't want us here unless we play in the game thread and conform to their brain washings. I will miss many of the new bannings. I know I have started deleting my profile info and images and such as I figure I am being pushed out too. They don't want my frends here then I don't want to be here.

But it's still ok to judge, insult, belittle, be sarcastic and condescending in the upper forums, so I don't think it's a family friendly push.

[Captain Ewok 1,871]

Hey Luckytxn, I want to ensure you we are not trying to force folks away -- especially long standing members. One issue is as the internet evolves there has been a greater awareness by the public and companies on best practices for websites. Companies such as Google and Facebook have been identifying best practices that provide enjoyable online experiences for the the very broad multinational population online. It is very challenging to consider all cultures and their nuances, but given that our audience is quite diverse we try our best.

[Captain Ewok 1,871]

But it's still ok to judge, insult, belittle, be sarcastic and condescending in the upper forums, so I don't think it's a family friendly push.

We are trying to keep content such as the following off the site: attacks on culture, race, pornography or sexual/suggestive posts or photos, etc.. the actual list may be hard to define specifically but the terms of service on the site tries to cover it.

If you think the moderators have been a bit to broad I'm here to ask that we have an open discussion. I'll invite the mods to read what we've covered and perhaps if there has been any 'over' moderation then I will help the mods by providing better guidance in this topic. They work very hard but it is always to our benefit that we self review with your help and feedback.

[Captain Ewok 1,871]

It's the reason I have stopped posting so often- I got sick of being banned. Everything is so PC it's boring!

I'm considering an option for moderation reviews. What if in the suspension notice or the locked thread or other mod post there is a link for the decision to be reviewed by me or the lead mod? Right now there may not be an obvious next step for situations that members disagree.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I'm considering an option for moderation reviews. What if in the suspension notice or the locked thread or other mod post there is a link for the decision to be reviewed by me or the lead mod? Right now there may not be an obvious next step for situations that members disagree.

Why should an entire thread get locked unless the thread itself is in violation of the TOS? That's where I see a change in the way the moderators are responding - they seem all-too-eager to lock a thread versus making the offending posts invisible and possibly instituting a thread ban to offending poster(s). When they lock a thread they seem to blanketly declare that carrying on the conversation into another thread will also be locked up, leaving it wide open to enterpretation and enforcement, thereby subject matter or certain words forbidden. It is all very heavy handed and has stifled the enjoyment of the discussions.

My suggestion would be to reserve thread locks to only threads that directly violate TOS and instead, make invisible allegedly offending posts with a notice that they've been removed for review and then give offending poster a verbal warning before banning them from the thread. This way, there'd be less handing out suspensions except for the habitual offenders (those who habitually disregard warnings and continually get thread banned).

[Captain Ewok 1,871]

That sounds reasonable and actually the way it should work. I'll sync up with our team to discuss.

[B_J 2,752]

Why should an entire thread get locked unless the thread itself is in violation of the TOS? That's where I see a change in the way the moderators are responding - they seem all-too-eager to lock a thread versus making the offending posts invisible and possibly instituting a thread ban to offending poster(s). When they lock a thread they seem to blanketly declare that carrying on the conversation into another thread will also be locked up, leaving it wide open to enterpretation and enforcement, thereby subject matter or certain words forbidden. It is all very heavy handed and has stifled the enjoyment of the discussions.

My suggestion would be to reserve thread locks to only threads that directly violate TOS and instead, make invisible allegedly offending posts with a notice that they've been removed for review and then give offending poster a verbal warning before banning them from the thread. This way, there'd be less handing out suspensions except for the habitual offenders (those who habitually disregard warnings and continually get thread banned).

+1000

There have been numerous times where a thread deals with an issue that is controversial. The majority are having a good, heated discussion, sometimes even learning from each other. But because a couple can't seem to say anything without being insulting, the whole thread gets locked. While this prevents the TOS violations, it also stops the positive discussion as well.

[luckytxn 2,264]

I am seeing different. Of course you are going to back your Moderators. What I have seen recently is that longtime members who I consider at the least a VJ friend being banned for something that should barely get a suspension. I understand that the upper forums should be moderated tight but in the OT and P&R? There is a very uneven moderation. I posted a youtube that got deleted and later in the day two members posted a youtube with the same exact content and that was fine. Is this considered good moderation to you? I said n a thread that I thought there was some stupid moderation and I was told that I should have been suspended for that. I said that I didn't use a name but that I was complaining. I should be allowed to complain.

Hey Luckytxn, I want to ensure you we are not trying to force folks away -- especially long standing members. One issue is as the internet evolves there has been a greater awareness by the public and companies on best practices for websites. Companies such as Google and Facebook have been identifying best practices that provide enjoyable online experiences for the the very broad multinational population online. It is very challenging to consider all cultures and their nuances, but given that our audience is quite diverse we try our best.

Edited May 18, 2014 by luckytxn

[UncleBeer 244]

I'm back after a two day suspension for what any reasonable person would call questionable reasons. I agree that there should be the ability to have moderators' decisions reviewed by admins. The current boundaries of what's acceptable to post are completely unclear, both to posters and apparently also to moderators.

[Sousuke 1,214]

Hey Luckytxn, I want to ensure you we are not trying to force folks away -- especially long standing members. One issue is as the internet evolves there has been a greater awareness by the public and companies on best practices for websites. Companies such as Google and Facebook have been identifying best practices that provide enjoyable online experiences for the the very broad multinational population online. It is very challenging to consider all cultures and their nuances, but given that our audience is quite diverse we try our best.

nm. not sure why even care.............

Edited May 18, 2014 by Brown Dwarf

[Sousuke 1,214]

I'm back after a two day suspension for what any reasonable person would call questionable reasons. I agree that there should be the ability to have moderators' decisions reviewed by admins. The current boundaries of what's acceptable to post are completely unclear, both to posters and apparently also to moderators.

It seems to me the goal posts are getting moved, lots of new arbitrary rules that are unwritten. At least write the bloody things down....

[Captain Ewok 1,871]

I am seeing different. Of course you are going to back your Moderators. What I have seen recently is that longtime members who I consider at the least a VJ friend being banned for something that should barely get a suspension. I understand that the upper forums should be moderated tight but in the OT and P&R? There is a very uneven moderation. I posted a youtube that got deleted and later in the day two members posted a youtube with the same exact content and that was fine. Is this considered good moderation to you? I said n a thread that I thought there was some stupid moderation and I was told that I should have been suspended for that. I said that I didn't use a name but that I was complaining. I should be allowed to complain.

It's en to rely ok if you complain in this forum. I try to read all the replies here every day if not every other.

[Captain Ewok 1,871]

I'm back after a two day suspension for what any reasonable person would call questionable reasons. I agree that there should be the ability to have moderators' decisions reviewed by admins. The current boundaries of what's acceptable to post are completely unclear, both to posters and apparently also to moderators.

One idea, there is a moderation example guide on this forum that the mods use as a reference. Perhaps we can discuss amending it in this thread. If you see sections or even examples that we could add then that would be very useful. It would help the mods be given them more details so they can be as consistent as possible.