Consistency in moderation
I have noticed a great deal of inconsistency in moderation lately.
For example, consider these two threads:
http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=81539
http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=81849
In once case, a mod apparently changed the flag from a Nazi flag to a default flag while in the other case the person who complained was directed to a help page.
In one case the original complaintant was chided for "naming names" and the name of the offending nation was removed from the first post. In the other case the name of the offending nation was left unaltered.
In the above example we know the same moderator, Tatical Grace, who removed the name in one case, let it stand in another thread. So this isn't simply a case of different moderators having different policies. It is the same person applying policies inconsistently and I find that troubling.
In other another example I have seen a moderator chide one person for saying something as mild as "A fox thought the grapes were sour" while saying nothing at all to another person who used inflammatory language such as "Shut up, pipe wad". This was the same moderator in the same thread on the same day. The moderator took part in the discussion after both comments, so it doesn't seem likely that the "pipe wad" comment was missed, although I grant that it may be possible. And I would like to call attention to the fact that one of the flag threads had a post in which one person referred to another as "you italian psycho". Perhaps I may be biased, but I think a discussion including statements such as "a fox thought the grapes were sour" is a great deal more moderate than one containg phrases such as "you italian psycho".
The end result of this is that moderator decisions tend to look random rather than based on the facts of the individual cases.
Tactical Grace made a mistake in the first thread you mentioned. We don't chide people for naming names unless there isn't any proof and it's all conjecture (I think so-and-so is a UN multi for instance)
Could you provide a hyperlink for this thing about foxes? I can imagine it may have been flamebait in a certain context.
[reploidproductions]
16-10-2003, 19:58
It's up to the mods whether or not to answer complaints (such as flags) that are posted to the forum. Some of us do, some of us don't, and some of us will if we're not already busy. A player's best bet to have action taken on a complaint is to file a report to the Getting Help page.
As for the recent inconsistancies, please be patient- we've got two new forum mods who are still learning the ropes, two forum mods that aren't quite as new who are also still learning, and 3 new GMs who have a lot of new stuff to get the hang of. There's always a little inconsistancy when the squad is breaking in a group of n00b mods :wink:
~Evil Empress [Rep Prod] the Forum God
Tactical Grace
16-10-2003, 20:02
Yes, you don't become a skilled Mod overnight, there are many subtleties in procedure. You are allowed to learn from your mistakes. Plus, we all have different styles, and we do sometimes miss stuff that is only a page away from what we are looking at. So there might be some inconsistency, but nothing which would not be expected.
Tactical Grace
Forum Moderator
You are allowed to learn from your mistakes.
Yeah, I am not suggesting that you should be burned at the stake or anything. I am just concerned about moderation policy generally and not you in particular.
You are allowed to learn from your mistakes.
Yeah, I am not suggesting that you should be burned at the stake or anything. I am just concerned about moderation policy generally and not you in particular.
One time involved a mod telling someone to use the getting help, the other time they simply changed it. Even if it were slightly inconsistent, not a biggie. Just a word or two, I think it is likely a minor reason to claim preferential ttreatment.
One time involved a mod telling someone to use the getting help, the other time they simply changed it. Even if it were slightly inconsistent, not a biggie. Just a word or two, I think it is likely a minor reason to claim preferential ttreatment.
Actually, I never used the word "preferential". Even though you ultimately reject the notion of preferential treatment, it is telling that the idea even popped up in your mind.
For another example of moderator inconsistency consider the follow pair of threads:
http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=84088&start=0
http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=83929&start=20
In one thread the moderators removed a crime scene photo of a corpse, while in another thread they allowed the posting of photos of murdered people.
Neutered Sputniks
22-10-2003, 23:35
Yes, but had you read the reason I left the picture of the corpses, you'd understand.
The pictures contributed nothing to the first thread other than offensive material. In the second, where they were left, they were being used to debate a real-world issue, and thus relevant.
See, it's all about context.
You complain that in one instance the name of the accused was left and in another removed. What you fail to see is that in the once instance, there was proof observable by anyone - merely visit the national page of the accused and view his offensive flag. The other, a multi accusation, cannot be determined with any certainty except by a Moderator, thus the name is removed. Difference between known, provable to the general public, guilty, and speculative accusations. Once again, Context.
The World of Moderation. A confusing place.
I take my hat off to all you mods.
*Takes hat off* :D
Yes, but had you read the reason I left the picture of the corpses, you'd understand.
Oh? Where may I find this?
The only reason I saw for the removal was that this site is open to children.
The pictures contributed nothing to the first thread other than offensive material. In the second, where they were left, they were being used to debate a real-world issue, and thus relevant.
See, it's all about context.
So I could start a thread about murdered farmers and the other photo would be appropriate?
You complain that in one instance the name of the accused was left and in another removed. What you fail to see is that in the once instance, there was proof observable by anyone - merely visit the national page of the accused and view his offensive flag. The other, a multi accusation, cannot be determined with any certainty except by a Moderator, thus the name is removed.
Not true.
Both cases were Nazi flags and the cases were handled differently.
The World of Moderation. A confusing place.
Agreed.
For the sake of clarity:
http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=81539
The Holy Republic of _____ appears to have a Nazi flag. Could a Mod please check that out. Thanks.
http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=81849
THE FLAG OG"Adolph Hitler SS" is a svastica. WE MUST BAN IT
See! Both are about Nazi flags and each case was handled differently.
For the sake of clarity:
http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=81539
The Holy Republic of _____ appears to have a Nazi flag. Could a Mod please check that out. Thanks.
http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=81849
THE FLAG OG"Adolph Hitler SS" is a svastica. WE MUST BAN IT
See! Both are about Nazi flags and each case was handled differently.
Thats a very good point. I can't see how theres a contextual issue there.
Admittedly, its not that big a deal, but consitency should always be tried for.
For the sake of clarity:
http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=81539
The Holy Republic of _____ appears to have a Nazi flag. Could a Mod please check that out. Thanks.
http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=81849
THE FLAG OG"Adolph Hitler SS" is a svastica. WE MUST BAN IT
See! Both are about Nazi flags and each case was handled differently.
Thats a very good point. I can't see how theres a contextual issue there.
Admittedly, its not that big a deal, but consitency should always be tried for.
Yeah, it may not be the biggest deal, but there is one disturbing aspect.
Anyone can look up "Adolph Hitler SS" and see whether the nation is now in compliance. Frankly, I don't remember what the other nation's name was and so there is no way to look up the flag and see if the problem was actually fixed.
For the sake of clarity:
http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=81539
The Holy Republic of _____ appears to have a Nazi flag. Could a Mod please check that out. Thanks.
http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=81849
THE FLAG OG"Adolph Hitler SS" is a svastica. WE MUST BAN IT
See! Both are about Nazi flags and each case was handled differently.
Thats a very good point. I can't see how theres a contextual issue there.
Admittedly, its not that big a deal, but consitency should always be tried for.
Yeah, it may not be the biggest deal, but there is one disturbing aspect.
Anyone can look up "Adolph Hitler SS" and see whether the nation is now in compliance. Frankly, I don't remember what the other nation's name was and so there is no way to look up the flag and see if the problem was actually fixed.
Yes, but had you read the reason I left the picture of the corpses, you'd understand.
I found it.
Your original words were:
"I'll make the call to leave them for now as they do apply to the thread in a political manner. I'll add a warning to the thread title."
Note:
(1) Your decision was expressed as something provisional. You said you'd leave them for now.
(2) In the original context, the pictures of the dead Iraqis were apparently posted for shock value. No "liberal" reader was disputing that some Iraqis were killed and demanded photographic proof. The photos were meant precisely to disgust some viewers. When the issue came up, the original poster even offered to remove them demonstrating that the photos were not integral to his argument.
Neutered Sputniks
23-10-2003, 00:56
A: The flag issue. There was a misunderstanding amongst our new mods about the censorship of names of accused nations. in one instance it was corrected, and the other not. That happens when new mods are appointed.
B: I also have a life, and was not there to read the thread until just now. As a result of the thread's author's request, the images have been removed. Let me make something clear: in the context of the thread, the pics were suited to a political discussion. In the context you posted your pics there was no point other than to post the most gruesome pics you could find. CONTEXT. I might also mention that had the pics been taken out of context in that thread, the condition I gave would mean they would be removed. But...that would make sense...OMG...NOES!!!11one1
Now, if you cannot comprehend that we have new mods, and realize context is taken into account by the Mods, perhaps you're not suited for the realm of politics and/or this site. Should you continue to push your argument having it been responded to in a more than satisfactorily manner (you just dont like the answer), actions will be taken against your nation for griefing.
I have always been polite and civilized in this thread. I have never griefed. I have merely asked questions about particular cases.
I am somewhat mystified by your hostile tone.
My apologies for upsetting you.
Neutered Sputniks
23-10-2003, 01:05
Perhaps you missed where your questions were answered the FIRST time....Ya know, when Rep and Tactical Grace explained it? I guess not. Maybe you should read the responses...keep you outta trouble.
Perhaps you missed where your questions were answered the FIRST time....Ya know, when Rep and Tactical Grace explained it? I guess not. Maybe you should read the responses...keep you outta trouble.
I saw those and accepted those explanations at the time. The discussion on those issues had died down until someone else raised them again.
Stephistan
23-10-2003, 01:13
Perhaps you missed where your questions were answered the FIRST time....Ya know, when Rep and Tactical Grace explained it? I guess not. Maybe you should read the responses...keep you outta trouble.
I saw those and accepted those explanations at the time. The discussion on those issues had died down until someone else raised them again.
Are you done yet? Asked and answered..!!!
Stephanie
Forum Mod