except when it happens, we get complaints. And when it doesn’t happen we get complaints. So in order to get rid of any perception or implication of bias, having a written rule that everyone, no matter what “side” they are on, is the way to go.
1 Like
The RFC process that was setup is something that takes a lot of time (minimum 17 days) to go through from start to finish. Doing this for every single rule is rough, but I’m trying on some things. I would suggest that we setup a basic set of posting guidelines, whether through RFC or otherwise, and then leave the rest of the gray area up to moderator determination.
I posted this in another thread, but something like this:
- Be Kind
- Feel free to disagree strongly, but try to do it in as respectful of a manner as possible.
- No name calling, we’re all intelligent and mature enough to move beyond this.
- Understand that if you get out of line you might be temp banned. Understand also that it isn’t the end of the world. If you have concern about it, PM the mod who banned you and have a real conversation with them about why they felt you were out of line. Understand it’s ok to agree to disagree at the end of the day.
- Most important, understand there is an actual person behind the words on the screen.
For another point of reference, these are the only rules we ever had in SE on 22:
We have an incremental banning system. Small, brief temp bans that allow people to get back into action quickly. The crux of the whole system is basically “be civil and fair to each other.” Golden Rule stuff if you will.
If you violate, it’s gonna be Calendar time. Calendar time for Buddy
Here’s the two big ones, that comprise 95% of problems, which thankfully have been few and far between lately:
-
Don’t publicly ask for people to be banned.
-
Do not call people names. “You are a dick” “You are a ******” “You are a moron, donkey, *******, asshat” etc are not going to work. You can say someone’s post is illogical, not thought out, ignorant, etc. But no direct attacks. Bastardizing peoples names counts. Douchesmeidreu is the textbook example.
-
Do not post links to Tim Duncan hitting a three pointer to send a playoff game to overtime against the Suns.
The Tim Duncan thing was a joke because one of our mods when this was written was a Suns homer.
1 Like
The only reason you got a complaint on the gimmick ban was because the cited reason wasn’t the real reason. When the reason was clarified, there was no longer a complaint.
The one you saw.
We get PMs/flags about this all the time that you might not see.
This should be a simple test of the RFC process. This is something that both sides of this drama want clarification on, and having something concrete can hold mods accountable, not just posters. If you think there’s bias, wouldn’t it be nice to have an actual link you can use to present evidence?
1 Like
What was the complaint you guys got when you banned a gimmick?
I just wrote an RFC that could be a start towards codifying much of what mods do.
Since the issue of gimmicks is coming up again, let’s put at least this to a vote. This is a first step toward solving the “gimmicks voting” issue.
@spidercrab can you please start a poll on the proposed rule in the OP?
The proposal includes banning reading accounts? I thought no one had a problem with those.
1 Like
It depends how you interpret the rule. Does a reading account that doesn’t post count as circumventing the ban? I’d argue that a ban is just from posting (since you can still read if not logged in), so reading accounts that don’t post (or vote) would be fine.
I’m much more concerned about this language.
In practice, a reading account is almost never going to be discovered if its owner doesn’t use it to do things like post or vote in polls.
no, that part has been crossed out
wait, i misinterpreted your post.
Please, suggest language to change. I have asked for suggestions but no one actually does, they just want to argue.
for example, I can amend it to address NBZ’s concern by making it specific to posting.
Change to
Proposed rule: If a poster is banned via moderator action, either temporarily or permanently, any account made by that poster in order to circumvent the ban in order to post will immediately be removed.
I’ve edited the OP to reflect this change
3 Likes
“If a poster is banned via moderator action–either temporarily or permanently–any post, vote, like or other non-passive behavior made on another account will result in that account being permanently suspended.”
The question is whether you want to explicitly include unwelcome PMs as a non-passive behavior. Perhaps just include that it will be moderator’s discretion as to what constitutes non-passive behavior.
see, this is what I’d been begging for this entire thread. This is much more inclusive and definitive.
I would be hesitant to include hearting, since silenced accounts are still able to do that, but not post.
Likes seem to be a way that some people either try to further ongoing feuds or interpret other people as trying to further ongoing feuds. If people aren’t using likes in a thread about moderation, it will likely go unnoticed. You can take out explicit mention of likes but allow for moderator discretion to judge when likes are being weaponized.
“If a poster is banned via moderator action–either temporarily or permanently–any non-passive behavior made on another account will result in that account being permanently suspended. Non-passive behavior is defined as posting, voting in polls, and other actions determined to be hostile at the discretion of the moderators."
?
1 Like
What about accounts that are made to read when banned that then only engage in non-passive behavior like liking posts when the main account is no longer banned, and sometimes at the same time as the main account?
3 Likes
To me the wording seems clear that using alt accounts to post is only a problem when the primary account is under a ban.
2 Likes
Who could have imagined that team boot actually had no interest in reducing drama provided they were the ones controlling the narrative and the banhammer?
1 Like