Moderation, Rules, and the RB (i.e. I'm in a bad mood)

Post by Hyperspacerebel

From the RB:

If you need a refresher on the forum rules, please read this.

So at what point does changing the previous person's post as a joke become making a quote pyramid? 2 quotes? 3? 10?

Random acts of authority don't fix problems, they're just a temporary whitewash. The rule clearly isn't clear enough if a bunch of regulars are breaking it according to how you interpret it.

/continues non-conforming

Apparently a good page of the RB was just deleted. I'm not totally sure the exact content of the posts deleted, but I do know it was because of a quote pyramid.

My problem is where does fun post-editing end and evil quote-pyramiding start? Because everything was deleted, with no regard to what the post actually said.

Are we allowed to play the post changing "minigame" for only a certain number of posts? 3? 4? Or are we not allowed to play it at all? Since I haven't gotten an answer there, I would like one here.

Post by Koper

I'm not aware of this particular incident and most likely the moderator who handled it will see this thread and post here, but I just wanted to say that we're aware our forum rules could use a little help and we have already begun rewriting them.

I agree that the quote pyramid rule isn't clear enough and I'll make sure it will be improved in this rewrite.(##RESPBREAK##)2##DELIM##Koper##DELIM##

Post by Bruunpala

Say, when the quotes fill the entire width of the forum page?

Post by Neutronimity

I understand that your main concern is the classification of quotes as "quote pyramid spam". I will respond to this later. To avoid any misunderstanding, I want to first point out the reasons for which I moderated several posts in the Recycle Bin.

The now deleted post after here contained a single "wat...", which was subsequently quoted without anything new being added. The third post after this added a sentence which also was subsequently quoted and its content altered in every quote thereof. Basically, you were exercising this kind of forum game, and added quotes on top of that. At some point, an ASCII and a quote thereof was also posted.

Now, let me break down what rules have been broken.

Spamming and trolling will not be tolerated. This includes abuse of CAPS, excessive/repetitive/cross posting, quote pyramids, completely useless posts, ASCII, circumventing locked topics, bumping, demanding class "nerfs", first *nd *rd *th, IBTL, cool story bro/umad/(similar memes), etc. (from the forum rules)

Spamming, height of quote pyramids, and the uselessness of posts are obviously subjective to one's views, and moderators may moderate as they see fit. This does not mean that you cannot protest against a moderator's action; if you do so, the admins will listen and deal with the issue. Pure ASCII posts, however, are definitely not allowed.
Posts that don't make any sense will be locked or deleted. You're allowed to be random—just don't be incomprehensible. :P (from the Off-Topic rules)

Of course, this again is very dependent on subjectivity. But you will surely agree that "wat..." without anything else added does not make any sense (which the following quote pyramid neither did).
Posts that are intended for some purpose OTHER than conversation will be locked or deleted. Don't post threads if you don't want to have a conversation on the topic. (from the Off-Topic rules)

I certainly noticed no discussion going on.

I also deleted a few posts after that, because they were in one or another way relating to the posts breaking the rules. I cleaned them up because quoting deleted posts will confuse people, and leaving them visible will also make moderating look half-done, which is, pardon me, ass.

To return to your question whether there is a definite limit after which quoting posts becomes a quote pyramid, there is none. It is entirely up to the individual moderator to decide whether or not it is too long. I think that 1-3 are totally fine, and I usually start reacting after 5+ levels of quotes.

It also strongly depends on whether the quote pyramid is a part of a serious discussion. If I get the feeling that people are not really caring, and just playing the game along to see how far they can get, I will react.

Edit: To further elaborate, you should not be playing with quotes to build pyramids.

That being said, if you think my moderation actions were unjust, please do feel free to contact , or say so here, and an admin will deal with the issue, if possible.(##RESPBREAK##)652##DELIM##Neutronimity##DELIM##

Post by Hyperspacerebel

I understand that your main concern is the classification of quotes as "quote pyramid spam".
Actually, no. My main concern is that you deleted an entire page of posts made mostly by regulars and which were nothing out of the ordinary for the Recycle Bin, and then gave no other explanation other than linking the forum rules. I don't think you're solving anything. The Bin will continue doing what it's always done, and you'll probably end up deleting 5% the exact repeats of today, no more.

I'm glad to see Koper mention a rewriting of the rules, and that's great. I hope the mods can actually improve their modding based on that instead of randomly deciding to one day follow the letter of the law, and another day deciding to follow the spirit of the law.

Posts that don't make any sense will be locked or deleted. You're allowed to be random—just don't be incomprehensible. :P (from the Off-Topic rules)

Of course, this again is very dependent on subjectivity. But you will surely agree that "wat..." without anything else added does not make any sense (which the following quote pyramid neither did).
No, I wouldn't agree. the "wat..." was obviously part of the conversation specifically started here.

Posts that are intended for some purpose OTHER than conversation will be locked or deleted. Don't post threads if you don't want to have a conversation on the topic. (from the Off-Topic rules)

I certainly noticed no discussion going on.
Again, I heartily disagree. Does not the very act of replying to each other's posts necessarily imply a conversation, apart from the actual matter of the post? A third party might not be interested in a reply, or think it's relevant, but it's a reply nonetheless, and is meant to convey something.

I also deleted a few posts after that, because they were in one or another way relating to the posts breaking the rules. I cleaned them up because quoting deleted posts will confuse people, and leaving them visible will also make moderating look half-done, which is, pardon me, ass.
This goes back to my main point. If your purpose was to help avoid confusion, why did you proffer no explanation other than linking the forum rules, which, pardon me, is what us regular pricks do, not something that I see an effective or good moderator doing.

It also strongly depends on whether the quote pyramid is a part of a serious discussion. If I get the feeling that people are not really caring, and just playing the game along to see how far they can get, I will react.
I assume "just playing the game along" refers to the forum type game linked above. In which case, why is that type of gaming around wrong? Is it merely based on what you said above: that you don't consider it a "discussion"?

Edit: To further elaborate, you should not be playing with quotes to build pyramids.
And so you (the moderator) become the sole determiner of people's intentions? By necessity, joke-editing or joke-quoting someone's post usually involves quoting them. And if we want to go for a joke-edit within a joke-edit within a joke-edit within a joke-quote (postception), it would only fulfill its roll as such by including those multiple quotes. So to say that the intention was to form a quote pyramid would be a stretch. Now you could say that after X amount of quotes, the actual page itself begins to be disrupted (on my computer that just at or after 7), and it's something like that I'm looking for in a rule.

Essentially here are my problems:

The act of deleting an entire page warrants an explanation right away, not after someone makes a thread about it.
The RB has always had a mystique around it that including things like quoting people without changing or adding anything, chain joke-editing other people's posts, and one word reponses (e.g. "wat"). If that's not acceptable behavior for the RB, then that should have been made clear long ago, and it should be as actively moderated as any other thread, not sporadically like it is.
If Wowhead moderation is going to follow the letter of the law instead of the spirit of the law, every moderator needs to follow that all the time. There is nothing more confusing or annoying than having to wonder if your post is going to be deleted or not because the mods can't make up their minds.
Bulletted quotes might look nice, but they're hell to reformat in a reply :P

Post by Malgayne

Post by Hyperspacerebel

The problem with forum moderation, and community management in general, is that rules don't work. No one reads them, and even if they did no one follows them. The only way to moderate a forum successfully is with peer pressure.

An example. Wowhead doesn't allow advertising on the forums. The mods
Might do the actual banning, but it's the community that does the moderation that matters--no advertising post goes up here that isn't immediately swamped with replies demanding it's removal. It's peer pressure that stops people in the end.

Moderators do the best they can to make this a fun place to be, but the only sustainable way to keep things clean come from you guys.
I disagree. The reason rules don't work is because moderators either don't enforce them, don't agree on how to enforce them, or aren't consistent in how they enforce them.

If the quote-pyramid rule were actually enforced with some objectivity and consistency in the RB, then I guaruntee that very, very few regulars would ever participate in or start one, and the regulars would actually be on your side in making sure that any non-regulars don't start one either.

Taking your advertising example. Why do you think the community takes an active roll in reporting it? Because the mods are consistent, objective, and firm in their treatment of advertising posts.

The rules for the RB are different, and that makes things more difficult--on the mods as well as the users. That sucks and I'm sorry for my part in it.
And that's the million dollar question: are the rules there any different? Neutronimity doesn't seem to think so, based on his excessive legalistic attitude to the forum rules in this case. That's not necessarily bad in itself. What's bad is the inconsistent moderating. Unless all mods are on the same page, working by the same rule book, it's just going to be a mess.

I'm sorry about having to constantly add to my posts; it's probably confusing if anyone's trying to respond to them. This is an issue I've thought about, but I've never tried to put down in a systematic way before.

Edit: Oi, what do you know. It's the weekend and I'm arguing with Mal about moderation. I guess I'll never learn, will I?

Post by Ashelia

Here's an official blue post.

So, I've talked to Neutronimity. He is an extraordinarily valuable resource here. In fact, all of our green posters are and Wowhead wouldn't be half the place it is without their contributions. I can say full-heatedly that he didn't mean any harm--he's one of those people who follows rules and enforces rules.

Unfortunately, in this case, the rules told him what you guys did broke them. This was because the current forum rules are not coherent.

This means, well, it's kind of the community managers' faults if you want to look it that way. Because we know that the spam threads are full of spam. We like the spam threads being full of spam; I may or may not have spammed there on Friday with you guys and even made fun of your revolution by encouraging it a little (then let a green poster play bad cop and delete our achievements and comments later on).

We just never really completely made this attitude and appreciation in stone.

I decided to start redoing the rules independently of this and it's something I hope to have done by next week. I think the way the rules are done are hard to follow as a moderator and easy to misunderstand as a user. I think that, while rules are moderated in part by the community, they do need to be easy to understand in the first place to be pulled off right. Right now we have rules for different areas of each forum posted in different areas of each forum--this should never have been like that and I believe having it on a website page, rather than a forum thread, will make it more coherent. That's part of what I plan to do. I am also going to have the moderators give me feedback when I do them, so it's not a one woman show.

So what will the new rules be as I'm writing them be?

They will be the same, pretty much. However, they will be organized better, and include special examples for moderators to recognize. This means any off-topic spam thread (like Recycle Bin, or like the ones I've seen in the RP forums, or so on) will be self-moderated by its most active posters and be exempt from the gamut of normal rules. We will rely on users to report spam there, rather than have a moderator venture in for possible breaks of conduct. If you want to do quote pyramids in that specific thread, it will be allowed, so long as we don't see any other quote pyramids posted in topical threads. Basically, spam in the bin, get it out of your system, and be a constructive poster elsewhere.

And yes, I realize that's pretty much what it was--it was just never set in stone or expressed to moderators officially. Now it will be, so we won't have this happen again.

Hopefully this solves any problems and it offers insight into how this misunderstanding happened and what we are doing to fix it in the future. If you believe I'm incorrect here, feel free to discuss here or email at any time about my community views and moderation style. I know I'm the new CM and I'm welcome to hearing other viewpoints.

Post by Malgayne

Meant to respond to HSR there of course.

Also, hi Ashelia!

Post by Ashelia

Meant to respond to HSR there of course.

Also, hi Ashelia!

Hi, guy-I-replaced-sort-of-only-I-have-no-beard. How is Zynga treating you? <3

Post by Adamsm

Post by Hyperspacerebel

So, I've talked to Neutronimity. He is an extraordinarily valuable resource here. In fact, all of our green posters are and Wowhead wouldn't be half the place it is without their contributions. I can say full-heatedly that he didn't mean any harm--he's one of those people who follows rules and enforces rules.
I'd just like to say that the only reason Neutronimity was singled out was because he was the mod to take action the this particular case. I have nothing against him or any (current) mod. My issue was the the system, or lack thereof.

Post by Ashelia

This means any off-topic spam thread (like Recycle Bin, or like the ones I've seen in the RP forums, or so on) will be self-moderated by its most active posters and be exempt from the gamut of normal rules.Wish I could disagree with that generalization of the Q&A's...but can't lol. But good to know that we can get the random idiots who show up trying to ruin the RP's by posting crap out of them quicker by mass reporting those types of posts.

If you don't think that they should be included, I'm up for having them be treated as normal posts rather than be exempt. =)

But I do see that places where people talk--watercoolers of sort--being problematic for mods to moderate at times as sometimes posts can be fluff and questionable on the ruleset. I don't want to rewrite the rules only to have this happen to another thread in a month then realize it was another case of moderators not being told that it was OK for that thread to be a little bit more relaxed.

Post by Toldu

So much color on one page!

Post by Ashelia

I'd just like to say that the only reason Neutronimity was singled out was because he was the mod to take action the this particular case. I have nothing against him or any (current) mod. My issue was the the system, or lack thereof.

I'm sure he knows that. He <3s this community, I just wanted to let him and all of our mods know how much we appreciate their efforts.

Post by Adamsm

If you don't think that they should be included, I'm up for having them be treated as normal posts rather than be exempt. =)

But I do see that places where people talk--watercoolers of sort--being problematic for mods to moderate at times as sometimes posts can be fluff and questionable on the ruleset. I don't want to rewrite the rules only to have this happen to another thread in a month then realize it was another case of moderators not being told that it was OK for that thread to be a little bit more relaxed.

No, it's fine; certain users complaints about the Q&A's aside, that's more or less what we originally created them for; a way for the L&RP users to have discussions about the current RP, without cluttering it up with endless OOC posts. We had an issue with that during one of the early RP's where several pages were 'fights' between two users, interspaced with actual RP posts. I'm also glad to know that the Q&A's won't just suddenly be locked heh.

Post by Hyperspacerebel

So I've look through your entire overhaul, and it seem like a good compromise.

I still have my problem with the actual moderation itself. I remember many moons ago mods would just lock threads without saying anything, but a while back they all started making an effort to point out what was wrong and why it was locked. That is good, but it's still not happening in all cases. I'm a proponent of a corrective legal system, not a punitive legal system, and I think the same can be applied here. Deleting a spam post might clean up the forum, but it doesn't help solve the problem that caused that spam thread. Now I'm not saying mods can convert all trolls; I'm just saying that a little explanation and/or discussion can go a long way. And it shouldn't be the job of the poster to extract that explanation out of the mod.

There also seems to be some confusion on what is meant by "PG-13," if you would consider clarifying that in the revised rules as well.

Post by Gnub

So I've look through your entire overhaul, and it seem like a good compromise.

I still have my problem with the actual moderation itself. I remember many moons ago mods would just lock threads without saying anything, but a while back they all started making an effort to point out what was wrong and why it was locked. That is good, but it's still not happening in all cases.
I'm quite sure that I, at least, provide a reason for moderating - unless it's painfully obvious.

Still, moderating is hard. If it always was as simple as following a rule-set, said rule-set would be 50+ pages of examples, conditionals and so on. Because of that, we tend to vary our moderation a small bit - but we still usually try to communicate between us, when there's a tricky case.

Regardless, mistakes happen from time to time, and I've done my fair share as well - but I'd like to think that the outcome of those problems turned out good. They could be blamed on the never-ending learning process, or the inconsistent rules. Looking forward to working on the revised version of said, in any case. It's for the best of everyone, after all :)

Post by Treskol

Of course, this again is very dependent on subjectivity. But you will surely agree that "wat..." without anything else added does not make any sense (which the following quote pyramid neither did).

Perhaps not, but what else can you say when you go to bed and school, and come home to find the RB is broken, a new RB with 20 new pages in little under 10 hours, in which they have attempted to make a Randomness government (again) and a poll which is asking what you call your penis and how long it is?

As for saying it makes no sense, I'd have though that would have been obvious (stated above if it isn't still). But whatever, I only came here because you state it as if there was no reason to question what had happened, subsequently making it a post that made no sense, when there was.

Moderation, Rules, and the RB (i.e. I'm in a bad mood)

Post Reply