Introducing the new disrespect rule...(self.zoophilia)
submitted 2017-01-23 08:40:13 by AmoreBestiaPro-zoophile, non-zoophile.
[removed]
[deleted] 1 point on 2017-01-23 08:47:32
[removed]
[deleted] 1 point on 2017-01-23 08:48:00
[removed]
duskwuff 1 point on 2017-01-23 18:25:04
You're kidding, right?
This Byzantine system you've cooked up essentially treats "aggressive posts" as a privilege. Which is ridiculous. No. Try again.
ursusem 3 points on 2017-01-23 20:13:28
How is it a privilege? You can't just outright ban people over one disrespectful comment. This community has a real big problem with its members being disrespectful towards other members. Unfortunately this IS a problem for us. I even have some theories as to why this might be.
duskwuff 2 points on 2017-01-23 20:52:01
You can't just outright ban people over one disrespectful comment.
Well, you can. It might be overkill, though, and I wouldn't recommend it.
Anyways, though: Establishing rules saying how many "aggressive posts" users are allowed a month says, in effect, that a limited amount of those posts is allowed and acceptable. It may not be how the rules are intended, but it's how it will inevitably play out.
User conduct, especially in a small community like this one, inherently has to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. That means dealing with problem users individually, either by getting them to tone down or by making them leave. You can't offload that responsibility onto a bunch of rules.
AmoreBestiaPro-zoophile, non-zoophile. 1 point on 2017-01-24 00:42:25
We also can't use a system where the moderator is the judge, jury, and executioner. This system is much more complicated for us as moderators, and the users only need to worry about avoiding and reporting rampant disrespect. The rule is in place to keep us in check just as much as the community.
Just to be clear, all posts that are reported enough and seen as aggressive/disrespectful by the moderators will receive a warning. It's the guidance based part of the system. I'll be looking at some of my other concepts of this rule to see if we can't find a happy medium.
Anyway, thanks for the feedback!
duskwuff 1 point on 2017-01-24 03:24:36
We also can't use a system where the moderator is the judge, jury, and executioner.
What? Of course you can. That's what you were elected to do.
AmoreBestiaPro-zoophile, non-zoophile. 2 points on 2017-01-24 03:45:23
I've seen where that goes, and where its taken other communities, and if there's one thing that I'll say with absolute authority, it's that I won't give anyone, myself included, the power to impose the law based on how they want the law to be imposed. A rule like this needs to be at the whim of more than just 'moderator discretion'. It's here for the health of the community, and sometimes... moderators don't know what that means or don't want to pursue it. Nobody in the moderation team is a robot. All of us have opinions, and perceptions of people, and have formed relationships and that inevitably hurts our judgement whether we like to admit it or not. At our core, we're not impartial. There are people that, without a system like this, I probably would avoid acting against, and others that I'd act against much more often. That's not fair to anybody, and while having the community decide isn't entirely fair either, it's much better than the alternative. Irrespective of whether I was elected or not, the people in the moderation team aren't what is important. It's the community, and I'm inclined to say that the community knows better than we do a fair amount of the time.
[deleted] 2 points on 2017-01-24 00:03:28
This is an escalating system, which means every demerit has permanent and lasting effects on future enforcement. By default, a user can create 3 aggressive posts a month without it being removed; however, every infraction will reduce that number a slight amount until they can only make two such posts a month, then one, then zero.
That makes it less a privilege and more a "if you keep doing this you can't do it at all" / warning type system. It is a bit complex, but I don't see it as treating it as a privilege at all.
I'd have been fine with a simple "3 strikes you're out" but I think some members might have issue with that.
EDIT: Just read the part about replenishment. Ok, frankly, I'm onboard with duskwuff now. Wut.
AmoreBestiaPro-zoophile, non-zoophile. 1 point on 2017-01-24 00:49:29
The issue with not replenishing, far as I saw, was that the occasional slip up would build up over the years and a normal user could dig themself into a hole. We could implement a forgiveness system instead where no infractions for a year or 6 months or something would replenish the margin slightly. Then again, it would take 30 warnings to deplete the aggressive posts that we won't warn you on. I intentionally made the system very lenient, but it's worth noting that the replenishment has diminishing returns as well. See, the replenishment is divided by your ban modifier. Effectively, you'll never actually get two points back, and the more you need those points, the less you'll get. Fortunately, it's only complex on the backend. The frontend is pretty simple.
Anyway, I've got some other drafts on hand that I can adapt this system with.
[deleted] 1 point on 2017-01-24 02:51:29
I appreciate you listening to feedback.
If I may offer my own constructive critisism for future systems (may be too late for this one, but it's worth mentioning all the same).
Often times, a simple system is a better system. As a programmer, I subscribe to a KISS (keep it simple stupid) philosophy. You may want to try that with your rules, as easier to understand rules lead to less cries of injustice when someone pushes them too far.
AmoreBestiaPro-zoophile, non-zoophile. 1 point on 2017-01-24 02:53:42
Already done(see the new post). c;
Now it's a tier system. Tiers 0-3 are the same as usual, but tiers 4+ give compounding bans. There's still the red tape for us moderators to contend with so we can't get overzealous, but it should be better and is still very forgiving.
[deleted] 1 point on 2017-01-23 20:09:10
[deleted]
IAmAZoophile 3 points on 2017-01-23 20:58:49
I think more active and visible moderation and an escalating warning/ban system are good ideas, but what you've described here sounds difficult both for users to understand and for moderators to implement. Why not something similar to a three-strikes-you're-out deal instead of something that takes a few paragraphs and a calculator to describe?
AmoreBestiaPro-zoophile, non-zoophile. 1 point on 2017-01-24 01:17:57
but what you've described here sounds difficult both for users to understand and for moderators to implement.
Well, most moderator teams wouldn't describe the backend like I have; they'd just do it.
The process for the frontend is more simple functionally; A post gets reported for disrespect, users can discuss violations or moderators will, the appropriate enforcement is dealt, and the rest is backend stuff. The "rule" is still the paragraph or so that's in rule 7's wiki page defining disrespect.
As for the business end, the process is well documented so it's not difficult to handle. It's just a bit of a time sink(probably 5-7 minutes per including infraction discussion, but we'd only really see1 or 2 infractions a day as it is). I think the fact that it's a timesink will keep us from getting overzealous, which is good.
Why not something similar to a three-strikes-you're-out deal instead of something that takes a few paragraphs and a calculator to describe?
If the current situation is any indication, about a quarter of our active users will get banned using it, and some of our most valuable at that(Barring "moderator discretion" and shirking the rules on our end). That's the heart of the issue. This rule is intended to discourage without removing, except in the most extreme of cases. I don't want people to be paranoid about getting banned or getting a post removed for posting heated comments.
Thanks for the feedback!
30-30amator equae 1 point on 2017-01-24 01:54:26
Smart people would just keep their calm, give the new system one or two months of test running, then decide whether it works out or not and complain when the test result hints at the latter outcome...but that´s just me sayin´ ...
I LOVE conservatives who are unaware that they´re conservative.... ;)
AmoreBestiaPro-zoophile, non-zoophile. 1 point on 2017-01-24 02:03:01
Eh, I think most of it is valid criticism, all said. For moderators it's a ten step process, 15-20 if you include every detail. It's really good if you have something to update the database and calculate things on its own, but otherwise it's a bit bulky and probably a bit too well declawed.
/r/zoophilia archive
[removed]
[removed]
You're kidding, right?
This Byzantine system you've cooked up essentially treats "aggressive posts" as a privilege. Which is ridiculous. No. Try again.
How is it a privilege? You can't just outright ban people over one disrespectful comment. This community has a real big problem with its members being disrespectful towards other members. Unfortunately this IS a problem for us. I even have some theories as to why this might be.
Well, you can. It might be overkill, though, and I wouldn't recommend it.
Anyways, though: Establishing rules saying how many "aggressive posts" users are allowed a month says, in effect, that a limited amount of those posts is allowed and acceptable. It may not be how the rules are intended, but it's how it will inevitably play out.
User conduct, especially in a small community like this one, inherently has to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. That means dealing with problem users individually, either by getting them to tone down or by making them leave. You can't offload that responsibility onto a bunch of rules.
We also can't use a system where the moderator is the judge, jury, and executioner. This system is much more complicated for us as moderators, and the users only need to worry about avoiding and reporting rampant disrespect. The rule is in place to keep us in check just as much as the community.
Just to be clear, all posts that are reported enough and seen as aggressive/disrespectful by the moderators will receive a warning. It's the guidance based part of the system. I'll be looking at some of my other concepts of this rule to see if we can't find a happy medium.
Anyway, thanks for the feedback!
What? Of course you can. That's what you were elected to do.
I've seen where that goes, and where its taken other communities, and if there's one thing that I'll say with absolute authority, it's that I won't give anyone, myself included, the power to impose the law based on how they want the law to be imposed. A rule like this needs to be at the whim of more than just 'moderator discretion'. It's here for the health of the community, and sometimes... moderators don't know what that means or don't want to pursue it. Nobody in the moderation team is a robot. All of us have opinions, and perceptions of people, and have formed relationships and that inevitably hurts our judgement whether we like to admit it or not. At our core, we're not impartial. There are people that, without a system like this, I probably would avoid acting against, and others that I'd act against much more often. That's not fair to anybody, and while having the community decide isn't entirely fair either, it's much better than the alternative. Irrespective of whether I was elected or not, the people in the moderation team aren't what is important. It's the community, and I'm inclined to say that the community knows better than we do a fair amount of the time.
That makes it less a privilege and more a "if you keep doing this you can't do it at all" / warning type system. It is a bit complex, but I don't see it as treating it as a privilege at all.
I'd have been fine with a simple "3 strikes you're out" but I think some members might have issue with that.
EDIT: Just read the part about replenishment. Ok, frankly, I'm onboard with duskwuff now. Wut.
The issue with not replenishing, far as I saw, was that the occasional slip up would build up over the years and a normal user could dig themself into a hole. We could implement a forgiveness system instead where no infractions for a year or 6 months or something would replenish the margin slightly. Then again, it would take 30 warnings to deplete the aggressive posts that we won't warn you on. I intentionally made the system very lenient, but it's worth noting that the replenishment has diminishing returns as well. See, the replenishment is divided by your ban modifier. Effectively, you'll never actually get two points back, and the more you need those points, the less you'll get. Fortunately, it's only complex on the backend. The frontend is pretty simple.
Anyway, I've got some other drafts on hand that I can adapt this system with.
I appreciate you listening to feedback.
If I may offer my own constructive critisism for future systems (may be too late for this one, but it's worth mentioning all the same).
Often times, a simple system is a better system. As a programmer, I subscribe to a KISS (keep it simple stupid) philosophy. You may want to try that with your rules, as easier to understand rules lead to less cries of injustice when someone pushes them too far.
Already done(see the new post). c;
Now it's a tier system. Tiers 0-3 are the same as usual, but tiers 4+ give compounding bans. There's still the red tape for us moderators to contend with so we can't get overzealous, but it should be better and is still very forgiving.
[deleted]
I think more active and visible moderation and an escalating warning/ban system are good ideas, but what you've described here sounds difficult both for users to understand and for moderators to implement. Why not something similar to a three-strikes-you're-out deal instead of something that takes a few paragraphs and a calculator to describe?
Well, most moderator teams wouldn't describe the backend like I have; they'd just do it.
The process for the frontend is more simple functionally; A post gets reported for disrespect, users can discuss violations or moderators will, the appropriate enforcement is dealt, and the rest is backend stuff. The "rule" is still the paragraph or so that's in rule 7's wiki page defining disrespect.
As for the business end, the process is well documented so it's not difficult to handle. It's just a bit of a time sink(probably 5-7 minutes per including infraction discussion, but we'd only really see1 or 2 infractions a day as it is). I think the fact that it's a timesink will keep us from getting overzealous, which is good.
If the current situation is any indication, about a quarter of our active users will get banned using it, and some of our most valuable at that(Barring "moderator discretion" and shirking the rules on our end). That's the heart of the issue. This rule is intended to discourage without removing, except in the most extreme of cases. I don't want people to be paranoid about getting banned or getting a post removed for posting heated comments.
Thanks for the feedback!
Smart people would just keep their calm, give the new system one or two months of test running, then decide whether it works out or not and complain when the test result hints at the latter outcome...but that´s just me sayin´ ...
I LOVE conservatives who are unaware that they´re conservative.... ;)
Eh, I think most of it is valid criticism, all said. For moderators it's a ten step process, 15-20 if you include every detail. It's really good if you have something to update the database and calculate things on its own, but otherwise it's a bit bulky and probably a bit too well declawed.