NationStates Jolt Archive

Hey mods.... I was wondering...

There seems to me, a serious lack of Offical Warnings. Now I know that there are some offenses that merit action without warning but of late, some bans were handed out without the person getting an Offical Warning when, in the past, they would've gotten one.

Is this a change?

Orignially, Spam was delt with by first giving the poster an Offical Warning [OW]. Some mild flaming and trolling got a "knock it off" [KIO] with an OW should they continue and a forum ban should they persist.

Given some of the topics on NSG of late, I can see where alot of people would get 'caught up in the moment' and go overboard.

But lately, events that would merit an OW or at least a [KIO] in the past, now results in bans for people who may have had no prior record of OW's in their posting history.

So I was wondering... is this a change in policy? Are we now instituting a "you've been here for [#] years, you should know better" mentallity where long time posters are given harsher treatment for mistakes?

As most of you know, I am the LAST to cry unfair mods, but this recent trend is rather hard to ignore.

That makes me worried since I also tend to get caught up in the moment and the thread. And may one day, accidentally cross the line. and IF that day should come, can I ask for an OW to give me a chance to see the errors of my ways before I am banned?

This is a serious discussion, because I am seeing this trend of late. please, if anyone else posts, keep it serious and keep the spam out.

I think the difficulty is in whether there is a 'hierarchy' of warning levels. I seem to recall one of the mods once saying that it was wrong to think of a ban as worse than an official warning, as in reality it was the other way round.

It might come down to what is recorded against your nation when you do feel the Hand of Mod. An official warning is presumably one strike, but I'm not sure that a short ban would be. In other words, a ban is a stronger way of saying 'knock it off', but with no long term consequences, while an official warning is one step closer to the big DEAT.

I might be completely wrong, but that's how I've always understood it to be.

I think the difficulty is in whether there is a 'hierarchy' of warning levels. I seem to recall one of the mods once saying that it was wrong to think of a ban as worse than an official warning, as in reality it was the other way round.

It might come down to what is recorded against your nation when you do feel the Hand of Mod. An official warning is presumably one strike, but I'm not sure that a short ban would be. In other words, a ban is a stronger way of saying 'knock it off', but with no long term consequences, while an official warning is one step closer to the big DEAT.

I might be completely wrong, but that's how I've always understood it to be.

Ah, but doesn't both end up on your "record"? and while an Offical Warning may be worse, it still allows the user to participate in the boards while a Ban doesn't. (also, doesn't an OW eventually go away?)

Still, you do have a point. a 'hierarchy' of... mod actions would help clear up any confusion.

tho... thinking back... I remember one idiot complaining about a "KIO" he got. the mod actions were
"OW"
Ban
Deat (he came back with another nation.)
PermaDeat (he came back again with another nation.)

I gotta hunt for that thread...

Didn't Fris just post not too long ago about how there is no actual hierarchy for Acts of Mod?

I seem to recall him saying something close to that after (I THINK it was UnHoly Smite) complained that he got a KIO where as the person he was tangling with didn't earn anything.

Didn't Fris just post not too long ago about how there is no actual hierarchy for Acts of Mod?

I seem to recall him saying something close to that after (I THINK it was UnHoly Smite) complained that he got a KIO where as the person he was tangling with didn't earn anything.

Damit... I can't find it...

it was a thread here back in 2005... an ID10T was complaining rather harshly about a KIO that he got. and it went through the entire gambit of mod action. :headbang:

I mention it here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9592203&postcount=28). but I can't find the original thread!!!

Damn.. outta time... will continue to look.

Explanation by Fris here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12748609&postcount=21), in a thread you participated in, so ... might be a little hard to have 'missed'.


There is no specific escalation path such as unofficial warnings > Official Warnings > Short Bans > Long Bans > Permanbans > Deletions. It may look that way at times, but we can and do skip steps when we believe it warranted.

Twice today I deleted on first mention. Other times I might have scolded for similar offenses. It depends, as always, on the specific nature of the specific situation, and remains, as always, a judgment call.


It's possible your perception may be off. It's possible you don't know all the details of any given situation where punishment has been handed out. It's possible that there may be a feeling of unwarranted perception that longstanding members can 'get away' with more, and when they get spanked, they and others are somehow outraged that they can't in fact do anything they like. It may be that there's been more pushing the line for the past while and the mods have lost patience with it (see the recent image spam thread that I can't help but think may have contributed to the OP here, given the temp bans involved).

Whatever the case, it's been stated time and time, and time again by the mods that it's a judgment call based on the rules that have been laid out, the information they have at their disposal, player history, the particular situation, and a plethora of other factors. I don't think you're ever going to get a complete list of 'this is what you can and cannot do' past what's been laid out in the One-Stop Rules Shop, the FAQ, and all the various posts made concerning rules-breaking.

Just like moderation, participation is also a judgment call. Some folks occasionally slip and make poor decisions, and there's consequences for that. If you're noticing more smackings getting handed out, perhaps looking at what inspired them might assist you more in avoiding any yourself than trying to ask 'what exactly is the line I can't cross' when there doesn't seem, in many cases, to be any 'exact' about it (aside from the obvious calls - porn links, etc). The mods have also stated repeatedly that for the most part, such 'exact' statements just aren't going to be made, because people tend to use that to push the line as far as they can, or rules lawyer things to death.

Don't know if this helps or anything, but 's a thought or two that might be worth pondering. Or not. *shrugs* Good luck with it in any case - hope you find a balance you're comfortable with so you can continue to enjoy posting and all.

Explanation by Fris here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12748609&postcount=21), in a thread you participated in, so ... might be a little hard to have 'missed'.ah, but that's what I'm pointing out. perhaps a heiarchy is needed. but that's another topic. did you read my reply to that post by fris? did you notice that my concern wasn't answered? Things that once got a OW is now meted out with a banned, (which some posters may feel is worse than an OW.) and what exactly ends up on the poster's record? A long time ago, I remember one of the mods telling me that OW's eventually will 'go away' if the poster behaves themselves, but also implied that bans and other actions remains in the poster's history.

a history that the mods use to measure how much punishment should be given.

now, unless that's changed, it does indicate a heiarchy of sorts.

It's possible your perception may be off. It's possible you don't know all the details of any given situation where punishment has been handed out. It's possible that there may be a feeling of unwarranted perception that longstanding members can 'get away' with more, and when they get spanked, they and others are somehow outraged that they can't in fact do anything they like. It may be that there's been more pushing the line for the past while and the mods have lost patience with it (see the recent image spam thread that I can't help but think may have contributed to the OP here, given the temp bans involved). actually, it's the opposite. take the Image Spam. I remember when it used to be the offenders getting OW's. those that persisted in Image Spam would then get little vacations away from NSG.

Then there is the difference in this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=529269). where the offenders were given 24 hour bans while this one (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=529838) they recieved warnings. (I'm assuming an OW...Btw... I thought OW's were supposed to be in red text. ) yet if you read both threads, which is worse? or are they the same? and were the poster's histories taken into account?

Whatever the case, it's been stated time and time, and time again by the mods that it's a judgment call based on the rules that have been laid out, the information they have at their disposal, player history, the particular situation, and a plethora of other factors. I don't think you're ever going to get a complete list of 'this is what you can and cannot do' past what's been laid out in the One-Stop Rules Shop, the FAQ, and all the various posts made concerning rules-breaking. and I agree with most of those points. but here is my concern. you have three posters. all have been around for the same time, and all do a minor offense. say image spamming a thread (very minor, not to the excess of the recent spam thread because the mod caught it early). The mod takes a look into their posting history.

Poster 1 has two OW's, no bans, no other actions.
Poster 2 has been banned two times. 1 1-wk ban, 1 3-day ban, no other actions
Poster 3 had two nations Deated.

Which poster will be 'seen' as being the 'worse' offender given their histories?
Which punishment would seem worse to the poster?

now look at the punishments.

OW = poster is warned of their action but can still post. Giving the poster a chance to 'correct themselves'.

Ban = Poster is given a Time out. Posting around a ban results in "harsher" or more penalties.

Deat = Poster has to start again with a new nation.

no need to touch upon the "captial punishments" of DoS and IP banning.

Doesn't one seem more 'severe' than the others and isn't one lighter than the others? That would suggest a heirachy of sorts in the nature of the punishment even if it's insisted upon that there isn't a heirachy.

Just like moderation, participation is also a judgment call. Some folks occasionally slip and make poor decisions, and there's consequences for that. If you're noticing more smackings getting handed out, perhaps looking at what inspired them might assist you more in avoiding any yourself than trying to ask 'what exactly is the line I can't cross' when there doesn't seem, in many cases, to be any 'exact' about it (aside from the obvious calls - porn links, etc). The mods have also stated repeatedly that for the most part, such 'exact' statements just aren't going to be made, because people tend to use that to push the line as far as they can, or rules lawyer things to death. oh and thanks for reminding me...

THIS ISN'T ABOUT ANY ONE PARTICULAR CASE. SO IT'S NOT POINTING FINGERS AT ANYONE IN PARTICULAR. THIS IS MORE OF A GENERAL CONCERN/TREND OF LATE THAT REALLY JUST CONSERNS ME.

Don't know if this helps or anything, but 's a thought or two that might be worth pondering. Or not. *shrugs* Good luck with it in any case - hope you find a balance you're comfortable with so you can continue to enjoy posting and all. thanks. I want this to be a civil discussion and not a critique of anyone.

...

Thinking about this...
what stays in a poster's history?

Do Offical Warnings "Go Away" or are they forever in the history?
Do the Ban's say for what offense and a link to the offending post(s)?
If a Nation is deated, does that player start once more with a 'clean' slate? even if it's revealed who the previous nation was?

(Say DK comes back as KD... does KD have DK's posting history attached when it's revealed that KD and DK are one and the same?)

You know, I can't help but think a lot of this is going to boil down to 'unless it's you who's being moderated, it really isn't any of your business'.

This remains a privately owned site that we all get to enjoy for free. Those who control the boards have every right to hand down rulings as they see fit. The fact that some don't agree with them, or feel there needs to be a more public accounting is neither here nor there.

It's been stated, and restated that not only are the moderators a varied array of interests, preferences, opinions, and the rest - they are not one multi-bodied mind. Their actions are reviewed and monitored by the others, and yes, I have seen things adjusted, even rescinded when the occasion called for it.

I'd even go so far as to suggest that the vast majority of players never have moderation problems. The fact that quite a lot of it gets seen in General isn't a moderation problem, it's the nature of the forum, and the direction many users drive it - which is not to say they're a lot of troublemakers, mind. More that there tends to be more controversy, more opportunity for folks to get caught up in things and forget better judgment. Even the best of folks can slip up. Some seem to do it repeatedly, or work their hardest to push the boundaries.

Given no two situations are -exactly- the same, how exactly do you propose there be some 'set in stone' sort of 'hierarchy' that's actually reasonable, and doesn't tie the hands of those trying to keep the site relatively enjoyable for the majority of players? No matter what's done, it will never please everyone, there will always be complaints, and those feeling their participation gives them some sort of ownership in the place that grants them some writ of exception or other.

Even I don't always agree with decisions made. Luckily for us, I've not seen an aversion to allowing folks to voice their opinions that way - the moderators have just asked that we take care in the manner in which we voice them, which is reasonable enough. So sure - voice away. While in individual situations something good may come of it, after years of observation, I just doubt that there is going to be a broad-sweeping change in the manner these forums are moderated in. And I'm not sure that's such a horrible thing, all in all.

As for some of your observations, yes, I think perception has colored some of them. Official warnings, that I recall, were not always tagged out in red - mods started doing that to make it patently clear. I don't think there's anywhere it's set in stone that they have to follow a certain form when warning folks that way - I'm sure I'll be corrected if wrong.

Remembering can be a tricky thing - you may remember points, but do you clearly remember everything involved? Have you seen other things that may have lead up to a different result than previous issues with other players? Have you perhaps taken note that some may have recently already been in trouble for other things, hence repeated infractions of another variety are given less tolerance than perhaps they may have been otherwise? Just some things to think on.

I'd suggest that Official Warnings and Time Outs are pretty much the same - with the only difference being that perhaps there's been seen to be a need to ask the player, for whatever reason, to step away from the computer, and actually take some time to think about things before barreling on. Don't both stay on your record? Besides - it's not as though taking a break is going to kill anyone. If the addiction is so bad that folks can't walk away for a bit, perhaps they've got more serious problems than a simple temp ban, neh?

Again, take it for what it's worth - different observations, perhaps different opinions, and nothing official, obviously. Sometimes discussion, and taking a look from a different point of view brings up answers or questions one might not have thought of previously. (And no, I wasn't trying to accuse you of pointing fingers at any one incident or person in particular, and was attempting as well to offer some general thoughts, so no worries there.)

You know, I can't help but think a lot of this is going to boil down to 'unless it's you who's being moderated, it really isn't any of your business'.

This remains a privately owned site that we all get to enjoy for free. Those who control the boards have every right to hand down rulings as they see fit. The fact that some don't agree with them, or feel there needs to be a more public accounting is neither here nor there.

It's been stated, and restated that not only are the moderators a varied array of interests, preferences, opinions, and the rest - they are not one multi-bodied mind. Their actions are reviewed and monitored by the others, and yes, I have seen things adjusted, even rescinded when the occasion called for it.

I'd even go so far as to suggest that the vast majority of players never have moderation problems. The fact that quite a lot of it gets seen in General isn't a moderation problem, it's the nature of the forum, and the direction many users drive it - which is not to say they're a lot of troublemakers, mind. More that there tends to be more controversy, more opportunity for folks to get caught up in things and forget better judgment. Even the best of folks can slip up. Some seem to do it repeatedly, or work their hardest to push the boundaries.

Given no two situations are -exactly- the same, how exactly do you propose there be some 'set in stone' sort of 'hierarchy' that's actually reasonable, and doesn't tie the hands of those trying to keep the site relatively enjoyable for the majority of players? No matter what's done, it will never please everyone, there will always be complaints, and those feeling their participation gives them some sort of ownership in the place that grants them some writ of exception or other.

Even I don't always agree with decisions made. Luckily for us, I've not seen an aversion to allowing folks to voice their opinions that way - the moderators have just asked that we take care in the manner in which we voice them, which is reasonable enough. So sure - voice away. While in individual situations something good may come of it, after years of observation, I just doubt that there is going to be a broad-sweeping change in the manner these forums are moderated in. And I'm not sure that's such a horrible thing, all in all.

As for some of your observations, yes, I think perception has colored some of them. Official warnings, that I recall, were not always tagged out in red - mods started doing that to make it patently clear. I don't think there's anywhere it's set in stone that they have to follow a certain form when warning folks that way - I'm sure I'll be corrected if wrong.

Remembering can be a tricky thing - you may remember points, but do you clearly remember everything involved? Have you seen other things that may have lead up to a different result than previous issues with other players? Have you perhaps taken note that some may have recently already been in trouble for other things, hence repeated infractions of another variety are given less tolerance than perhaps they may have been otherwise? Just some things to think on.

I'd suggest that Official Warnings and Time Outs are pretty much the same - with the only difference being that perhaps there's been seen to be a need to ask the player, for whatever reason, to step away from the computer, and actually take some time to think about things before barreling on. Don't both stay on your record? Besides - it's not as though taking a break is going to kill anyone. If the addiction is so bad that folks can't walk away for a bit, perhaps they've got more serious problems than a simple temp ban, neh?

Again, take it for what it's worth - different observations, perhaps different opinions, and nothing official, obviously. Sometimes discussion, and taking a look from a different point of view brings up answers or questions one might not have thought of previously. (And no, I wasn't trying to accuse you of pointing fingers at any one incident or person in particular, and was attempting as well to offer some general thoughts, so no worries there.)thanks for your perspective. and the thing about the non-finger pointing was for everyone to make sure that I am not 'blameing' anyone.

While the perspective of the fact that each type of punishment maybe the same for you, for me, it's not.
To me...
OW = Ticket. (Speeding, parking, etc.)
Ban = prision (min sec.)
Deat = deat...

and others may feel the same way, not knowing the true value of the punishment being dealt.

currently, I am looking though the past threads and looking at the mod's past decisions. of course, things like poster history and the other factors are hidden from a common user like me, which is why this is a discussion and not a typical, paranoid, ZOMG!!! MOD CONSPIRACY!!! type thread. :p

and I am kinda reluctant to bring up the past decisions because there are alot of factors that we (common users) don't see. which is why I'm trying to keep it general and not too case specific.

Also, I'm trying to clear up my misunderstanding and (hopefully) any misunderstanding that any user might have... unless the mods like dropping the hammer on us. :D

There is not, and will not be, a definitive list of punishments or hierarchy of mod escalations. Nor will we publish any details about ... how warnings are recorded, when they go away, how multiple nations owned by the same player can affect each other how game actions can affect forum warnings when 'spam' becomes 'way too much spam' what the exact criteria are for when flaming crosses the line how much trolling is too much how many UN multis you have to have before we delete rather than eject how long you can run your multis before we decide to act how old posts must be before they're not actionable how many regions you can spam before we decide to delete you what sequence of actions leads to a Delete on Sight order how we make the determination to IP ban how we track puppets how many bans we allow before we perma-ban or delete... or any of the hundreds of other things we consider on each individual ruling we make. Administering this game is not cut-and-dried. That's why EVERY call is a judgment call. Max knew this when he set this up, and [violet] continues to support the viewpoint that we need neither to publicly define nor explain our methodology.

We don't work for you, we work for Max. We're volunteers, not a paid support organization. We don't have a Service Level Agreement with the players. We do have metrics, and monitoring, and validation, and oversight, and the admins are happy with how we work based on what those logs and metrics show. The fact that we also try very hard to be nice to the players (most of the time) should be viewed as a bonus.

That's about all you're gonna get from me on the subject.

There is not, and will not be, a definitive list of punishments or hierarchy of mod escalations. Nor will we publish any details about ... how warnings are recorded, when they go away, how multiple nations owned by the same player can affect each other how game actions can affect forum warnings when 'spam' becomes 'way too much spam' what the exact criteria are for when flaming crosses the line how much trolling is too much how many UN multis you have to have before we delete rather than eject how long you can run your multis before we decide to act how old posts must be before they're not actionable how many regions you can spam before we decide to delete you what sequence of actions leads to a Delete on Sight order how we make the determination to IP ban how we track puppets how many bans we allow before we perma-ban or delete... or any of the hundreds of other things we consider on each individual ruling we make. Administering this game is not cut-and-dried. That's why EVERY call is a judgment call. Max knew this when he set this up, and [violet] continues to support the viewpoint that we need neither to publicly define nor explain our methodology.

We don't work for you, we work for Max. We're volunteers, not a paid support organization. We don't have a Service Level Agreement with the players. We do have metrics, and monitoring, and validation, and oversight, and the admins are happy with how we work based on what those logs and metrics show. The fact that we also try very hard to be nice to the players (most of the time) should be viewed as a bonus.

That's about all you're gonna get from me on the subject.
and that is fine Fris.
1) I'm not dictating that anyone SHOULD or HAVE to do anything.
2) I'm not saying The Mods need to justify anything.
3) I'm only pointing out my views and my perceptions.
4) my ideas are just that. Ideas. not requests, not orders and definately not commands. I apologize if any mod took them as such.
5) and my desire was to only clarify what I saw/am seeing. if clearing such misunderstanding means revealing too much information... fine.

I'm only pointing out (or trying to point out) how it could be percieved by the players who were here for a long time.

DLN gave me another perspective to fall back upon, but if the mods don't want a discussion, then please, by all means, close the thread.

how we make the determination to IP ban

You guys can IP ban? I didn't know that. I think I remember back when October3 kept returning over and over again that several mods said they couldn't IP ban someone.

No, what we said is that IP bans don't work against everyone, which is not the same thing at all.

Ah. My bad.

several mods said they couldn't IP ban someone.

No, what we said is that IP bans don't work against everyone, which is not the same thing at all.