A Petition to get rid of "Offensive Posting" moderation

Out of curiosity, does anyone who's saying "it should be re-written so it's not up to moderator discretion one bit" have a version of the ToU they would like to propose that would accomplish that but which would still account for all of the things that the bigwigs at CBS would like to keep off of their forums?

American laws don't leave anything up to interpretation - and that's why bills are thousands upon thousands of pages long and are not read by anyone, ever. If we were to define "trolling" such that there was nothing left up to interpretation, then the Terms of Use would basically be like your standard end-user license agreement (more pages than people who've actually read it), and rather than claiming "moderator discretion" as the reason why they felt their moderation was invalid, they'd instead invoke the defense that the Terms of Use is so long that nobody can realistically be expected to read it.

GabuEx

Yeah, you do get some hypersensitive mods who will find offence in the most innocuous statements -- but I don't see how the ToU could be altered to altogether remove moderator discretion without compromising the quality of the forums.

Out of curiosity, does anyone who's saying "it should be re-written so it's not up to moderator discretion one bit" have a version of the ToU they would like to propose that would accomplish that but which would still account for all of the things that the bigwigs at CBS would like to keep off of their forums?

American laws don't leave anything up to interpretation - and that's why bills are thousands upon thousands of pages long and are not read by anyone, ever. If we were to define "trolling" such that there was nothing left up to interpretation, then the Terms of Use would basically be like your standard end-user license agreement (more pages than people who've actually read it), and rather than claiming "moderator discretion" as the reason why they felt their moderation was invalid, they'd instead invoke the defense that the Terms of Use is so long that nobody can realistically be expected to read it.

GabuEx

That's what I meant by hate speech.LJS9502_basic

Eh...I just think if it comes down solely to interpretation the benefit of the doubt should be given the user that posted not reported. For instance, the term ignorant. In some cases it's clearly used as an insult. IE...you're ignorant. But in cases where it's used correctly...IE. I'm sorry but you seem to be ignorant of (insert topic here) because....and then proof if offered. Ignorant really means someone doesn't have the facts. But both examples are treated the same and moderated.LJS9502_basic

Yeah, you do get some hypersensitive mods who will find offence in the most innocuous statements -- but I don't see how the ToU could be altered to altogether remove moderator discretion without compromising the quality of the forums.MetalGear_Ninty

I don't think it would need that big a rewrite... just a more specific definition on what is officially found to be offensive, and altering the trolling section so that mods no longer get to mod you on the basis of a gut feeling about your intentions.

Funky_Llama

Well, present to me your version of the relevant sections in your ideal world, then. There's nothing productive that can come out of people just saying "it sucks" while not offering any alternative.

I wonder what it would be like if the webmaster cared about our petitions.

I wonder what it would be like if the webmaster cared about our petitions.

Mercenary848

I wonder what it would be like if the webmaster cared about our petitions.

Mercenary848

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

I don't think it would need that big a rewrite... just a more specific definition on what is officially found to be offensive, and altering the trolling section so that mods no longer get to mod you on the basis of a gut feeling about your intentions.

GabuEx

Well, present to me your version of the relevant sections in your ideal world, then. There's nothing productive that can come out of people just saying "it sucks" while not offering any alternative.

[QUOTE="Mercenary848"]

I wonder what it would be like if the webmaster cared about our petitions.

ChiliDragon

I'd be glad to. If I had one >_> But to be honest I think the problem is more the way it's interpreted than the ToU itself. The section on trolling is taken by mods to mean that they can mod someone if they feel that you're trolling, for example. I'd be tempted to remove the trolling section entirely because of this. Also the prohibition on swearing would go. And I'd elucidate on what constitutes 'pornographic' - ie state what needs to be shown for something to qualify as pornographic - and do the same for 'profane' and 'graphic'.Funky_Llama

We can petition all we like, it won't change anything.

my_mortal_coil

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]I'd be glad to. If I had one >_> But to be honest I think the problem is more the way it's interpreted than the ToU itself. The section on trolling is taken by mods to mean that they can mod someone if they feel that you're trolling, for example. I'd be tempted to remove the trolling section entirely because of this. Also the prohibition on swearing would go. And I'd elucidate on what constitutes 'pornographic' - ie state what needs to be shown for something to qualify as pornographic - and do the same for 'profane' and 'graphic'.JustPlainLucas

And I'd elucidate on what constitutes 'pornographic' - ie state what needs to be shown for something to qualify as pornographic - and do the same for 'profane' and 'graphic'.Funky_Llama

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]And I'd elucidate on what constitutes 'pornographic' - ie state what needs to be shown for something to qualify as pornographic - and do the same for 'profane' and 'graphic'.ChiliDragon

Also I resent being called a jerk >________>

Also I resent being called a jerk >________>

Funky_Llama

Also I resent being called a jerk >________>

Funky_Llama

Also I resent being called a jerk >________>

Funky_Llama

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

Also I resent being called a jerk >________>

AirGuitarist87

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

Also I resent being called a jerk >________>

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

Also I resent being called a jerk >________>

ChiliDragon

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

Also I resent being called a jerk >________>

AirGuitarist87

But I'm 100% sure that most people just send a moderation request and either the mods just do it because they're too lazy to read through every single report.

enygma500

I can totally see where you're comin' from, man. I mean, I called this guy lazy ONE TIME and I totally was punished for it. That ain't coo, man, that ain't coo. That's, like, totally not even defined in the rules.

[QUOTE="AirGuitarist87"]

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

Also I resent being called a jerk >________>

the_foreign_guy

I'd be glad to. If I had one >_> But to be honest I think the problem is more the way it's interpreted than the ToU itself. The section on trolling is taken by mods to mean that they can mod someone if they feel that you're trolling, for example. I'd be tempted to remove the trolling section entirely because of this. Also the prohibition on swearing would go. And I'd elucidate on what constitutes 'pornographic' - ie state what needs to be shown for something to qualify as pornographic - and do the same for 'profane' and 'graphic'. That way it's less down to moderator discretion and more precisely defined.

Funky_Llama

Well, yes, that is what the section means... because at the end of the day, the entirety of flaming and trolling is by its very nature subjective. It would be impossible for a moderator moderating someone for those not to "feel" that he is trolling or flaming.

There are cases where no one would argue that the person is trolling/flaming, such as "I like pie", and there are cases where no one would argue that the person isn't, such as "I HATE YOU AND WANT YOU TO DIE IN A FIRE", but given that it's a continuous gradient, where's the dividing line? I don't think anyone would agree with moderating nothing, but if that's the case, then there has to be a threshold that separates posts that are OK from posts that are not, and unless you want to make the ToU a 3,000-page document, there's really no way to write it so that we can moderate the cases that are obvious without forcing us to apply our subjective judgment on the cases that are more borderline. No two people are going to agree on what is and isn't trolling/flaming.

[QUOTE="the_foreign_guy"][QUOTE="AirGuitarist87"] You shouldn't be such an ass about it, then. ;)

AirGuitarist87

[QUOTE="the_foreign_guy"][QUOTE="AirGuitarist87"] You shouldn't be such an ass about it, then. ;)

AirGuitarist87

[QUOTE="ChiliDragon"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

Also I resent being called a jerk >________>

Funky_Llama

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

Also I resent being called a jerk >________>

Funky_Llama

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

I'd be glad to. If I had one >_> But to be honest I think the problem is more the way it's interpreted than the ToU itself. The section on trolling is taken by mods to mean that they can mod someone if they feel that you're trolling, for example. I'd be tempted to remove the trolling section entirely because of this. Also the prohibition on swearing would go. And I'd elucidate on what constitutes 'pornographic' - ie state what needs to be shown for something to qualify as pornographic - and do the same for 'profane' and 'graphic'. That way it's less down to moderator discretion and more precisely defined.

GabuEx

Well, yes, that is what the section means... because at the end of the day, the entirety of flaming and trolling is by its very nature subjective. It would be impossible for a moderator moderating someone for those not to "feel" that he is trolling or flaming.

There are cases where no one would argue that the person is trolling/flaming, such as "I like pie", and there are cases where no one would argue that the person isn't, such as "I HATE YOU AND WANT YOU TO DIE IN A FIRE", but given that it's a continuous gradient, where's the dividing line? I don't think anyone would agree with moderating nothing, but if that's the case, then there has to be a threshold, and unless you want to make the ToU a 3,000-page document, there's really no way to write it so that we can moderate the cases that are obvious without forcing us to apply our subjective judgment on the cases that are more borderline.

Here's my suggestion...Leave the ToU the way it is. Just be more lenient on moderation. Posting in all caps is justified sometimes, a lot of things are justified sometimes. Let "the users moderate themselves." the_foreign_guy

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Well technically she didn't say that.....

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="the_foreign_guy"]Here's my suggestion...Leave the ToU the way it is. Just be more lenient on moderation. Posting in all caps is justified sometimes, a lot of things are justified sometimes. Let "the users moderate themselves." LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="the_foreign_guy"]Here's my suggestion...Leave the ToU the way it is. Just be more lenient on moderation. Posting in all caps is justified sometimes, a lot of things are justified sometimes. Let "the users moderate themselves." the_foreign_guy

[QUOTE="the_foreign_guy"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Can't bee too lenient or we get Giant Bomb....

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="the_foreign_guy"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Can't bee too lenient or we get Giant Bomb....

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="the_foreign_guy"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Can't bee too lenient or we get Giant Bomb....

LJS9502_basic

Trolling certainly isn't subjective; to troll is to post with the intention of pissing someone off. Whether that's someone's intention is an objective fact, the problem being that moderators almost always have no way of knowing whether someone is trolling. And as for flaming - surely, given that a flame is simply an insult, flaming is objective and distinguished from trolling by the fact that it is clear whether a message is a flame or not. "I HATE YOU AND WANT YOU TO DIE IN A FIRE" is while not certainly trolling, straight-up flaming, and I'd certainly have no objection to moderating it as such.

Funky_Llama

What constitutes having the intention of pissing someone off, though? Sure an omniscient being would have the ability to definitively say one way or another, but we are not that. There are many things in the legal system that depend on intent, as well, but in a court of law, the best they can do is present evidence of intent; it can never be proven as an objective fact. No two people will agree on precisely every single situation regarding whether or not a person was trolling. And we can't very well ask the person in question - of course they're going to deny it. So the best we can do is judge based on the evidence available and on the person's history whether or not they're trolling. And, yes, there may be cases where we might get it wrong - but if we reversed a trolling moderation just because the person moderated said he wasn't trolling, we wouldn't exactly have many moderations that stood.

And as far as flaming goes, what constitutes an "insult" or not? Is "that was an ignorant statement" an insult? How about "you're ignorant"? There are many ways to say very similar things, and some of them are more biting and caustic than others. And there has to be dividing line if we're to moderate some posts but not others. And, again, no two people will agree on every single instance with regards to whether or not it was flaming.

No offense, but people who argue that there's no subjectivity in these sorts of moderations have never been tasked with the job of giving them out. :P

Pfft, it was a direct (although unintentional) implication :P those who have a problem with the ToU are jerks; I have a problem with the ToU; therefore I am a jerk.Funky_Llama

If people were actually offended, they should use the "report" function. Sometimes people insult others jokingly. Also, it helps if GS bans the :| and :roll: emotes. They're more likely to get moderated then posting :P at the end. That's just my opinion, chaps. the_foreign_guy

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]Pfft, it was a direct (although unintentional) implication :P those who have a problem with the ToU are jerks; I have a problem with the ToU; therefore I am a jerk.ChiliDragon

Also, it helps if GS bans the :| and :roll: emotes.the_foreign_guy

I do actually especially wonder about the existence of the :roll: emoticon. I can't think of any way to use it in practice that isn't trolling in nature...

Quoting LJS9502_complex

Especially when they have such a huge amount of posts. 50 moderations per 50,000 posts is not a lot. And the amount of time between moderations should be taken, since rules do change without people noticing so moderations are given out without them knowing. But I don't know how they ban based on the buildup of moderations.

HTML errors..sajdfokasdjf...fixed?

What constitutes having the intention of pissing someone off, though? Sure an omniscient being would have the ability to definitively say one way or another, but we are not that. There are many things in the legal system that depend on intent, as well, but in a court of law, the best they can do is present evidence of intent; it can never be proven as an objective fact. No two people will agree on precisely every single situation regarding whether or not a person was trolling. And we can't very well ask the person in question - of course they're going to deny it. So the best we can do is judge based on the evidence available and on the person's history whether or not they're trolling. And, yes, there may be cases where we might get it wrong - but if we reversed a trolling moderation just because the person moderated said he wasn't trolling, we wouldn't exactly have many moderations that stood.

GabuEx

And as far as flaming goes, what constitutes an "insult" or not? Is "that was an ignorant statement" an insult? How about "you're ignorant"? There are many ways to say very similar things, and some of them are more biting and caustic than others. And, again, no two people will agree on every single instance with regards to whether or not it was flaming.

GabuEx

No offense, but people who argue that there's no subjectivity in these sorts of moderations have never been tasked with the job of giving them out. :P

GabuEx