hobos Temporary Ban Discussion Thread
-
@Pavel Then we’d probably be bumping each other off as we all tried to use it at the same time. Keystone Cops style.
-
@Pavel It would just be three posts in a row from one account.
-
I see my work here is done.
-
@Tez I know where you got that gif.
-
@Pyrephox said in Admin Actions Discussion Thread:
@Jennkryst We have no desire to stop you from reaching out to people by different means if you feel it’s necessary. We’re just not really interested in having screenshots and links to the other forum here, and definitely not interested in providing a staging ground for actions over there. Just about anyone who is here knows where the other forum is, and knows how to access information from it (or has a friend who can if they were banned), so it’s not really necessary to have those things on public display here.
You can even continue to talk about it! We just aren’t interested in hosting a thread full of MSB screenshots or links to MSB.
In that regard, I apologize for my own turn at posting a screenshot from MSB, even if it was a screenshot of something I said, which feels mildly Inception-like. I was trying point something out to another person.
-
@Testament said in Admin Actions Discussion Thread:
@Pyrephox said in Admin Actions Discussion Thread:
@Jennkryst We have no desire to stop you from reaching out to people by different means if you feel it’s necessary. We’re just not really interested in having screenshots and links to the other forum here, and definitely not interested in providing a staging ground for actions over there. Just about anyone who is here knows where the other forum is, and knows how to access information from it (or has a friend who can if they were banned), so it’s not really necessary to have those things on public display here.
You can even continue to talk about it! We just aren’t interested in hosting a thread full of MSB screenshots or links to MSB.
In that regard, I apologize for my own turn at posting a screenshot from MSB, even if it was a screenshot of something I said, which feels mildly Inception-like. I was trying point something out to another person.
Hey, what’s done is done. We can move forward from it without a problem.
-
@Pyrephox said in Admin Actions Discussion Thread:
@Pavel Then we’d probably be bumping each other off as we all tried to use it at the same time. Keystone Cops style.
That issue is probably easily avoidable. I assume that issues and any potential actions, announcements, or reprimands that are to be posted would be discussed by the admins behind closed doors first. The only added step would be to draft the post of said action, announcement, or reprimand in that admin level discussion thread, then one staff is assigned to publish the official post that staff wanted the community or individual to see on the staff bit.
-
@KDraygo Well, yes. But we were joking.
-
So the decision is fine and I don’t care to pick at MSB or get involved with any of it, but this is definitely more active moderation. The continuation of any of those conversations wouldn’t have been out of line from the posted rules and a more hands off approach.
If you want to adjust the tone of bmd, by all means. I realize the forum is still young and you’re finding your admin/mod footing, but if you’re making a departure from hands off with the exception of the four bullet points in your initial Guidelines, I think that needs to be made clear.
-
@glitch Fair point and thank you for saying so. You’re right: we’re still figuring this all out. We’ll need to think about that.
-
I do not even in the SLIGHTEST think that it’s a bad idea to have more active moderation, and I think if the team is UP for it, it can only do good things. I do agree that it needs to be made clear (and you guys need to feel comfortable with what it is you’re agreeing to do), but I do NOT think active moderation would be bad even a little bit.
-
@glitch Speaking only for myself, the current state of hurt and anguish over the recent history of MSB is a precarious situation requiring a more active hand than we expected when setting out those initial guidelines. I certainly agree that it’s more active than we had intimated, but at the same time I feel that it’s warranted in cases of heightened negative feeling and regard.
I may well be alone in this view, and that’s fine too, but that’s why I supported the decision.
-
Active moderation is a big ask with a lot of emotional labor involved and it could lead to… burnout. I think we all just lived through an epic mod burnout and I hope we can account for insulating the people keeping this structure in place, too. I def think clarity in the Guidelines like @glitch said can help with that.
-
@helvetica It definitely could lead to burnout. Thankfully we’re not just one entity making all the decisions, and we’re each responsible to each other as well as responsible for the forum. We earnestly mean it when we say we’re a team.
This is a time of flux, and starting out with the more-traditional “hands-off” approach is a sound move. Saying that, however, it probably needs to be further developed as situations and needs arise that demonstrate change is needed.
A totally static policy is a useless policy when adaptation is required.
-
I know that I’m feeling worried about us hashing and re-hashing our feelings in the banned thread. It’s been a lot. I just realized last night that this has all been going on since before 5/5. That’s nearly a month.
A month of hurt feelings, feeling defensive, feeling injustice, feeling angry on your own behalf or someone else’s.
I’d be happy at this point to see some of these posts put to rest. But I accept other people aren’t there yet. I just don’t want us to fan the flames more than we have to.
-
@Pavel I didn’t get banned from MSB, but I did have a certain investment in it as well and had my own thoughts about what happened. I don’t mind more moderation if that’s going to be the thing, or honestly even more touch-and-go moderation in instances where there’s consensus among admin as to a particular subject that storms the forums at any given time.
Guidelines are guidelines for a reason. They don’t need to become stale or adhered to religiously for all time. They don’t even need to be super long and intricate. I just think they need to be clear.
@tsar I haven’t really been participating in the threads, so I don’t say this out of a desire to keep it going. I just would like to see this forum do well and so I bring up things that matter to me in that regard.
-
I’m of mixed opinion of the rule in general, and I hope that it can come with some level of flexibility. For instance, say a creeper or otherwise abusive player reemerges on a game. Part of the value of a long-running forum is having those histories accessible and referenceable, and I think that if someone encounters a player like that and posts about it here, that it should be okay to bring in historical records to help give people context.
I do agree that it’d definitely be the best for everyone’s sanity to overall just – not link or screenshot stuff for the purpose of trolling or rubbernecking or what have you. It won’t help, it won’t actually make anyone feel better except maybe in a fleeting moment of petty satisfaction or something. But overall, it’ll just extend bad feelings.
For the Hobos situation in particular, there was no need to link anything to the player, who – as I said – was part of the conversations. And I don’t think there was any particular need to preemptively link something in a defensive sort of way for anyone else who might be reading. If someone came and asked “Hey does anyone have a fuller story on this whole situation?” I feel like it’d be fair to link someone to a conversation for context.
THAT’S MY TWO CENTS.
-
Could this be a decision that’s revisited and reconsidered in the future, when everyone has more distance from current events? I’m not sure I’m in favor of making years of history off-limits on every topic, forever. I’m also more comfortable with a temporary rules/policy/vibe alteration than deciding something now that permanently affects those things.
-
@Pavel said in Admin Actions Discussion Thread:
A totally static policy is a useless policy when adaptation is required.
I’m gonna pull out one line of Pavel’s post to emphasize. I realize that many people in this community don’t really know me, but this right here is something that is pretty foundational to how I approach things.
I don’t want the atmosphere to appear unstable, where things are constantly changing, and you never know what to expect, and rules are getting changed beneath you without warning and ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU ARE BEING PUNISHED AND AHHHHH. That said, I very much believe in iterating on things, and on trying to do better. So there may be things that change – and there should be things that don’t. (Or don’t change easily.) So we’ll think about how to communicate that.
-
@glitch said in Admin Actions Discussion Thread:
haven’t really been participating in the threads, so I don’t say this out of a desire to keep it going. I just would like to see this forum do well and so I bring up things that matter to me in that regard
I understand where you’re coming from 100% and I apologize if that read like I was attempting to say you were doing anything other than be constructive.
