38 replies to this topic

[Simonbarsinistr]

With all of the Chaos that has been going on, there has been a lot of BS happening. And I imagine tempers and egos have gotten the better of a bunch of people that led to rash decisions.

But one thing concerned me, and that is how the report log was made public. I'm aware in this context a lot of it had to do with the very funny reasons for reporting. I got a kick out of some of them. But, unfortunately, it does now set a precedent for this once anonymous way for someone not looking to start a fight to stand up to bullying. Not only might people wonder if their report will be made public, thus putting a target on them, but it makes me wonder how much those reports get pm'd outside of council to friends of council. It also was a clear violation of mods use of power, to which I wonder how people will be held accountable. As much as it's brushed off, you don't have to study the trends on this site hard to see that the mods are all friends, and have been so for a while. If a mod was bullying, baiting or flaming, do any of us believe they would fear being banned like any other average user? The only way I could see to avoid the suspicion of such a thing would be to have the council made up of an xo from each chapter/faction, as well as Cru.

As much as I have been angry about recent events, I'm not one to want to see Gothic Wars fall apart. This is still the best place to set up matches for a dying game that I still love. I fear that if GW did fracture, a lot of the Chapters I love playing would just cease to be, and move on to other games entirely. But I am worried that under current operating conditions, it will just slowly unravel. How many Chapters have already found homes elsewhere and lowered the activity of this site? How many more might as well? Each one that leaves may only be a small percent, but it adds up.

And now I've gotten myself so wrapped up in typing this, that I completely forgot my second point, damn! 
Ah, I remembered the second part, which is; Is there a way the average user can see the threads and posts that are removed and stored for mod consideration? So that any user might be able to see and understand the reasons for another users disipline. And I would guess that seeing them in context would help, since seeing things out of context can put them in an entirely different light then they were originally posted.

[CruciasNZ]

But one thing concerned me, and that is how the report log was made public.

The pages of spam were made public. None of the genuine reports made during that timeframe were posted however.

The only way I could see to avoid the suspicion of such a thing would be to have the council made up of an xo from each chapter/faction, as well as Cru.

Read this.

And now I've gotten myself so wrapped up in typing this, that I completely forgot my second point, damn!

You'll remember the moment you distance yourself from any method of posting it.

Ah, I remembered the second part, which is; Is there a way the average user can see the threads and posts that are removed and stored for mod consideration? So that any user might be able to see and understand the reasons for another users disipline. And I would guess that seeing them in context would help, since seeing things out of context can put them in an entirely different light then they were originally posted.

Damn you posted it the second I finished.

Right, the archive is right now Mod only and there's discussion about changing that. One problem we have is that the posts that go there range from genuine bile to flaming. If you have a suggestion for a more efficient system then by all means make it.

[Simonbarsinistr]

I normally think that keeping things in place and public is the best way to avoid suspicion. That said, a clear, regimented warning system like you have already, followed by a clear banning system.

What I mean by that is something like this; A user gets three warnings, after the third, it's a temp ban, further transgression is a perm ban. Certain other things like posting pornography or overt threats against the life of another would skip straight to temp ban. Those actions would be listed, and it would be users responsibility to know them. Warnings could shed after a certain time period.

Now the nice thing is, you have this system already! But instead of removing posts, and sweeping the problem out of the public eye, leave it. The mod would then make a post in the thread stating that the user was issued a warning, and then state the number of warnings the user has. If they persist, then a ban would be given, and a post stating the user has been banned. Other users have a problem with it? There's the story, check it out for yourself, all the evidence to show the reasoning is intact. It would also help to curb any rogue moderation, since disiplinary action taken with little reasoning would also have to take place in plain sight. The decision to issue warnings would be up to the discretion of the mod, like a ref issuing a yellow card.

In the end, if the rule set for warnings and reporting are resulting in too many bans, or community outcry to relax certain rules, it would also be clear for everyone to track the trend and decide what action or suggestions might be needed.

What do you think? 
This would also eliminate the need for the council to have the responsibility for disipline. And they could focus more on community growth and future. In cases where a user has been a grievous hardship on the community, like what Gerhart has been labeled, then have a community vote. It could be a vote all users could take part in, or abstain from. Either way, as long as all the reasoning is visible, people can feel informed and not suspicious.

Of course I think that posts with pornography would have to be modded to remove the offensive material. What to leave can be complicated. I believe if someone drops the n bomb and earns themselves a perma ban, it should be left up as evidence, perhaps with asterisks partially obscuring.

[CruciasNZ]

Ah, I see the difference. You would have us enshrine the derp for all to see, whereas we take the view that it's best to remove damaging posts before someone retaliates out of provocation. I agree there could be a middle ground where bile is removed, but derps are left behind (bile here describing utterly abhorrent things, for example racial hatred); the trick is finding the balance which does the job and protects the overall community. Certainly we are open to suggestions on that.

If someone who is publicly acting out can visibly follow the vote for and against them, then they have the chance to persecute those who speak out against them. Also consider the "martyr" dimension, if someone has caused enough issues to be removed outside the normal removal system and they also have public forewarning they could make the decision to "go out with a bang". As it stands right now, to ban a person without standard warning ladder requires an overwhelming majority vote (not just majority, but 8/11 - person who nominates must abstain hence not 8/12) between the Staff and Leader Inner Council. Your suggestion would work in a perfect society but fails for the same reason communism fails, humans are imperfect creatures full of self-bias and capable of spite.

Your next logical evolution is to create "Study Group" for each time you need one, essentially calling a jury which would be subject to some code of conduct and secrecy (to prevent the person being debated finding out). That was the idea we based the Inner Council founding on; they were asked to sign a legally binding Non-Disclosure & Conduct Agreement, and in return they were entrusted with the responsibility for the community and necessary power to guide it. Now they're formed they set their own nomination requirements & procedures.

[Simonbarsinistr]

The posts that require editting due to abhorrent material would require a decision making process. My view is keep as much original as possible, so the whole story is available. But I can see how that's a tough decision. Much like the black list, I think you guys could figure it out and take cues from existing forums. If people are a problem, they would more or less remedy themselves, and if they "go out with a bang", they still go out, with no question to the legitimacy.

A community vote would only be needed if the person is not a repeat offender, but has done something so grievous that action is required. The voters identities do not need to be known, and it could be a blind poll, and only the outcome would be shared. Now I'm not a website admin, but I think blind polls are pretty common. Perhaps they are too easy to spoof, but most times it's easy to limit the vote to one per username. And maybe the right to vote would only be reached after a certain level of activity, so the user in question couldn't just make tons of dummy accounts.

Trying to leave the 'crime scene' as intact as possible makes the users and mods more accountable for their actions to everyone on the whole.

[CruciasNZ]

The posts that require editting due to abhorrent material would require a decision making process. My view is keep as much original as possible, so the whole story is available. But I can see how that's a tough decision. Much like the black list, I think you guys could figure it out and take cues from existing forums.

There's an ongoing discussion about Black List. Mods grabbed blacklists from other forums (inc Bell of Souls) and mashed them together and applied their own edits (remove things we allow such as "shit", remove duplicates). Now it's in Inner Council who get their turn to add, remove and alter things. Then it goes Council of Shadows for all Leaders and XOs and then it's final. Long ass process that one.

Perhaps they are too easy to spoof, but most times it's easy to limit the vote to one per username. And maybe the right to vote would only be reached after a certain level of activity, so the user in question couldn't just make tons of dummy accounts.

Just an interesting diversion; dummy accounts are really easy to find. The site save the IP address for every post, message and email against the account using it. There are security tools that allow you to find matches. Until Adikuss was exposed we never actually had need of them before, but recent dummy accounts were spotted almost instantly.

[Batman2213]

I normally think that keeping things in place and public is the best way to avoid suspicion. That said, a clear, regimented warning system like you have already, followed by a clear banning system.

What I mean by that is something like this; A user gets three warnings, after the third, it's a temp ban, further transgression is a perm ban. Certain other things like posting pornography or overt threats against the life of another would skip straight to temp ban. Those actions would be listed, and it would be users responsibility to know them. Warnings could shed after a certain time period.

Now the nice thing is, you have this system already! But instead of removing posts, and sweeping the problem out of the public eye, leave it. The mod would then make a post in the thread stating that the user was issued a warning, and then state the number of warnings the user has. If they persist, then a ban would be given, and a post stating the user has been banned. Other users have a problem with it? There's the story, check it out for yourself, all the evidence to show the reasoning is intact. It would also help to curb any rogue moderation, since disiplinary action taken with little reasoning would also have to take place in plain sight. The decision to issue warnings would be up to the discretion of the mod, like a ref issuing a yellow card.

In the end, if the rule set for warnings and reporting are resulting in too many bans, or community outcry to relax certain rules, it would also be clear for everyone to track the trend and decide what action or suggestions might be needed.

What do you think? 
This would also eliminate the need for the council to have the responsibility for disipline. And they could focus more on community growth and future. In cases where a user has been a grievous hardship on the community, like what Gerhart has been labeled, then have a community vote. It could be a vote all users could take part in, or abstain from. Either way, as long as all the reasoning is visible, people can feel informed and not suspicious.

Of course I think that posts with pornography would have to be modded to remove the offensive material. What to leave can be complicated. I believe if someone drops the n bomb and earns themselves a perma ban, it should be left up as evidence, perhaps with asterisks partially obscuring.

Hey Simon,

First I just want to say that I really appreciate you taking the time to make a suggestion about how you believe the website could be better. I'm just another user, although recently entrusted with more responsibility than most, but I care about this community as much as you do, and I'm glad you're bringing your ideas out for discussion.

The only issue I can see with leaving a post in the public eye in order for the public to be able to see the trail of evidence is this: If a mod issues a warning for trolling/flaming whatever and then posts about it, citing the offender's post as evidence, all the offender has to do is delete their post and the evidence goes with it. I agree that there needs to be transparency about why decisions are made, but I'm not sure this particular suggestion will work for this reason.

In reference to your original post, can you direct me to where the "report post" log was made public? I'm not aware of this happening, and I agree that people being able to report annonymously is important in order to avoid retaliation and things of that nature.

Thanks man!

[Simonbarsinistr]

No problem, I'm just trying to find a way to have a system that is more abuse proof. People are people, and unfortunately people in authority positions can abuse it.

Here is one example of the report sheet, more were scattered around the thread.
https://www.gothicwa...08708#pid108708

In the case of mod warnings, and the post being deleted, the mod could quote, then screenshot or copy the thread, so even if the original poster tried to tamper with it, there is still evidence. Perhaps even lock a post, although I'm not sure that's possible.

But these are all just ideas, I'm only an end user, and will go back to setting up matches and what not. It's an issue I've thought about for a while, maybe it will be considered.

[Talon Lord Othrim]

Simon dont sell your self short by saying your just an end user. Your comments are good and it shows clearly you care about this site and for that I'm deeply thankfull.

[Simonbarsinistr]

Thanks Othrim. What I meant is that I'm not a mod, or aspire to. Being a mod for our site, I appreciate how much work it can be.

I love 40k and space marine, and have a lot in common with this community. I get frustrated, but in the end without this site I wouldn't have the foundation I have with my friends, or the fun games I've had with other chapters. And I'd like that to continue.

[Fuzzy]

Am I the only one that sees simon as one of the dew decenct CF's? He is activly trying to sort this out while the rest of his chapter attempts to troll and fight a losing battle.

[Dragon-Silver]

Am I the only one that sees simon as one of the dew decenct CF's? He is activly trying to sort this out while the rest of his chapter attempts to troll and fight a losing battle.

Nope.
Although I will say that it seems to be only 4 or so Fsists that are doing this.
We can't tar the entire chapter with the same brush.

[Keiya]

Let's leave personal opinions about chapters as a whole out, please, and stick to what our brother is trying to stick to.

Nothing goes unnoticed, however.

[Smasher225]

I'm with Simon on this, I have nothing to hide here and as soon as you start censoring someones posts, you run the risk of changing the whole topic of the thread. A thread is like a river sometimes it flows straight other times it curves. If you mod the thread so it stays straight you are restricting people to speak their mind. Now yes if its harmful moding the post might be required but if say for example, Simon makes a thread talking about halo and I comment on the thread saying halo sucks I like CoD better and we get into a fight about it, why would any of that needed to be moded. (just a light example but from what I've heard things like this have happened) You can't just hide things under the rug and expect them to go away. Sure people might come back and see the post a week down the line but they will see the true post.

I know everything I say I say with respect when I'm being respected back, which I assume is happening until I see that I'm not, and I don't say anything I wouldn't change. If someone made a post and I called him out on it and his post gets deleted then my post is irreverent and why did I waste my time posting in the first place because now my post is taken out of context. This then possibly leading to other people attacking my post not knowing who or what I was commenting on and possibly leading to a warning on myself.

You can't have a public warning system set in place when the public has the possibility not to see both sides of the story and not see the true context. You can't watch say DBZ abriged and say DBZ is a good show because you don't know the true content.

If you want a mod team that has the power to change and delete posts then why have the public report anything. They could easily report it via PM to a mod who could say its been handled with or even have a mod post saying that the thread has been modded for whatever reason.

Having both could lead to say Zero modding a post or removing it, Simon reporting a follow up post which now has no context in the thread and could be considered trolling and myself who posted getting a warning for trolling. If say this situation continued for a couple months with various mods and people reporting my posts it would be conceived that I could be forced into the position Gerhart was in? Now I don't know the story with Gerhart nor do I really care, I trust him and what he as to say and you have done what you have done, but could this could happen with the current system. It might have for all I know but that's the problem I see.

As for ways to fix it, I don't know because I am not someone in that situation and I do not really approve of how the moderation is done on this site. Not to say I don't follow the rules but if I had a site like this I wouldn't be running it like this. That's all I'm saying.

[Keiya]

Thank you, Smasher.

The entire time reading that very well put together post, I was saying to myself "don't post anything, just let Cru handle it as he has been." but the last bit struck me as a standing note that I can chime in on.

I've been patrolling the internet for a long time and have been in a position of leadership in 80% of the communities that I come in contact with. It seems that trying to stay a neutral party that tries to get along with as many people as possible is a positive quality. Now, from those positions I have seen all sorts of different moderation attempts. I have seen the "stand back and let them sort it out" attempts which lead to absolute failure. I have seen the "burn the first time rule breaker" which also leads to failure but at a much faster rate. To this date, with as many years behind me as I have in both arguing with administration about rules I don't agree with and enforcing ones that I do but are unpopular I can assure you of this : there is no 'right' way besides keeping the general majority as happy as possible.

It is impossible to cater to everyone and while every administration team that actually cares about it's community would love to find a way to do this, the best it can truly do is perform trial and error runs and try to seek the best for their community. I personally think the response from the administration team with the council it has formed is a pretty good step in the right direction. Is it 100% accurate? No. Will it be perfect? No. Could you provide a perfect system? No. I don't say that in a disrespectful manner but it's the truth.

Any form of authority is based upon best judgement. That judgement just may not settle with you even if it's providing the best results in the situation possible. So while you may go off to run your own community you'll, at best, have a 70/30 split between people that agree with your methods and people who do not. Losing people is inevitable and people becoming upset over the matter is simply impossible to move beyond.

As I've said many times before : This is a community. We are what makes this community up. It is beyond the administration to see to every little issue and is our civic duty to the community to handle our own problems as often as possible. If the Angels Sanguine have an issue, we handle it internally and do not allow it into the eye of the public. It would be unwise to think that administration should clean up our issues.

So at the end of the day, what do you really want?

[Bloodbone]

I think that if your in a position of authority you have to understand where your morals lie. If your working in a company its good to be friendly to people you work with but lay down the law at the same time. This in turn can become a problem if one of those people you work with has become a really good friend. If someone has wronged you in the same way you would most likely act differently towards them than your friend. This is us being human after all. So maybe it would be good if the mods did not interact in certain posts. It can be seen as taking sides, and in turn tarnish your judgement in the eyes of the community like it may have done in the previos day.

[Keiya]

I think that if your in a position of authority you have to understand where your morals lie. If your working in a company its good to be friendly to people you work with but lay down the law at the same time. This in turn can become a problem if one of those people you work with has become a really good friend. If someone has wronged you in the same way you would most likely act differently towards them than your friend. This is us being human after all. So maybe it would be good if the mods did not interact in certain posts. It can be seen as taking sides, and in turn tarnish your judgement in the eyes of the community like it may have done in the previos day.

I whole heartily appreciate and see where you're coming from with this - save for the last bit. When, at least us new members, were chosen to run through the Acolyte stages one of our reviews was based upon being bias towards members we like/dislike regardless of status. It was made clear after our review that Biasness would not be tolerated and as such we adhere to that. I am very, very stern about this as biasness in any administrative group ends up alienating the community in times of need. I have been the victim of that and as such pulled my funding and support of a community and that community is now dead due to the actions of the administrative team. I can personally assure you that behind the doors of the staff, if we mess up we are called on it and are made to answer for that action - regardless of rank. The 'friendship' pattern will not be a problem. Best friend here or not, if you start attacking someone for, say...their sexual orientation I will call you on that.

[Bloodbone]

As you stated Keiya in Batman's post you are best friends with Rom. This can be seen as an issue if something was to come up against him. Your judgement may be questioned by others. So if reports are set against him and he was to be brought up in the council I would expect the council to not let you take part in actions against friends. THey would in turn defend their friend, at least that is what most may see.  
It is not hard to fake your way into a postion of power and appear bias. Just stating something people may see since it is not in public view. As stated "behind closed doors". I personally don't believe the things people say to me. I always distrust them, because it is so easy to lie to someone especially on the internet.  
Just showing another perspective.

[Keiya]

As you stated Keiya in Batman's post you are best friends with Rom. This can be seen as an issue if something was to come up against him. Your judgement may be questioned by others. So if reports are set against him and he was to be brought up in the council I would expect the council to not let you take part in actions against friends. THey would in turn defend their friend, at least that is what most may see.  
It is not hard to fake your way into a postion of power and appear bias. Just stating something people may see since it is not in public view. As stated "behind closed doors". I personally don't believe the things people say to me. I always distrust them, because it is so easy to lie to someone especially on the internet.  
Just showing another perspective.

Oh, completely understood - Everything is to be questioned and nothing is to be trusted by basic hearsay. It is up to the administration to find ways to resolve things by a matter of opinionated input based on a foundation set by several sources - Welcome to the Council, a system comprised of various sources. I think a "more fair" council would be one that involved the Chapter Leaders of each respective Chapter. That's just me.

In your outlook between Rom and myself - while that may be accurate in most any case, you don't understand just how far we carve one another out from matters that involve diplomatic action. If he were to step out of line I would moderate him just the same as I would you and he fully expects that. In communities/guilds/clans that we've organized together he has -always- ran it and I worked under him. If I did something he did not agree with, my hand was slapped just the same as he would anyone else. That's simply because we are both simply neutral to 'friendships' when it comes to matters of authority thus why we get along so well. We have the same outlooks.

The same can be said about any actions that you have to worry about from me. As this is a requirement, I expect the same from my fellow acolytes, moderators, and administration staff. No more. No less. I can assure you we hold each other in the same regard that if we do something wrong, one of us is going to say something about it.

[Bloodbone]

Thank you for your honesty.