A Petition to get rid of "Offensive Posting" moderation

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?

the_foreign_guy

[QUOTE="the_foreign_guy"]Also, it helps if GS bans the :| and :roll: emotes.GabuEx

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...

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="the_foreign_guy"]Also, it helps if GS bans the :| and :roll: emotes.MetalGear_Ninty

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...

That's just my objection to trolling moderation as it stands. My moderation history is full of trolling moderations that weren't trolling, and I'm guessing I'm not alone in this. Hell, I could be trolling you by disagreeing with you in order to get a rise out of you or something. For that reason I think it may be better not to try to guess whether a message is trolling except when there is strong evidence that it is, and simply moderate it for flaming if it's insulting, and ignore it if isn't.

Funky_Llama

I will admit that the difference between trolling and flaming tends to be a little less clear-cut than I'd sometimes like. Trolling moderations can often be based more on the effect of a post (which makes it closer to a flaming moderation) than on the intent. But, either way, the point of such moderations is the same: to make sure that people aren't posting things that would annoy or inflame others.

I do honestly think that with a few borderline exceptions, flaming is a clear-cut issue. I wouldn't moderate the examples you give for flaming because it's damn-near to argue against someone without implying that they're ignorant of something.

Funky_Llama

And if someone would moderate it for flaming, how would you prove them wrong?

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...

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

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...

Funky_Llama

The best emoticon is :| -- it can be used in so many great ways, especially to show to somebody that they're speaking complete and utter bull**** -- without actually telling them that and getting moderated. :P

There's three.. :roll:JustPlainLucas

Moderated for trolling. :x

I will admit that the difference between trolling and flaming tends to be a little less clear-cut than I'd sometimes like. Trolling moderations can often be based more on the effect of a post (which makes it closer to a flaming moderation) than on the intent. But, either way, the point of such moderations is the same: to make sure that people aren't posting things that would annoy or inflame others.GabuEx

And if someone would moderate it for flaming, how would you prove them wrong?

GabuEx

[QUOTE="JustPlainLucas"]There's three.. :roll:GabuEx

Moderated for trolling. :x

Within reason, I don't think you should have to watch what you say in a forum. Forums are all about sharing ideas, and invariably some of the more sensitive people will get offended by just about anything, and frankly they can just get over themselves. I agree with the OP that the moderators here need to lighten up. The excessive moderation defeats the purpose of having a forum in the first place.

If the Gamespot moderators don't want to hear what people are really thinking, they should just close the forums. The type of moderation you see here doesn't really surprise me though. We are talking about a game review site that takes bribes from advertisers like Eidos for better reviews.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"] Burn the heretic! :x WTF, that's my second best emoticon, I couldn't live without it. :PMetalGear_Ninty

The best emoticon is :| -- it can be used in so many great ways, especially to show to somebody that they're speaking complete and utter bull**** -- without actually telling them that and getting moderated. :P

:roll: :PJustPlainLucas

[QUOTE="JustPlainLucas"]:roll: :PFunky_Llama

[QUOTE="SkylinePigeon"][QUOTE="enygma500"]

Why would I reply to a PM saying I got modded? I just take it and figure, meh, some tool reported me for nothing again. So if I reply to this PM, regardless of whether or not I send the message I will be able to see the post in question?

enygma500

Yeah, you posted that while I was typing the other message. I see no link in my profile for moderation history

* Profile Home
* My Blog
* About Me
* My Updates
* Contributions
o Reviews
o Answers
o Ratings
o Forum Posts ›
* Games Lists
* Unions
* Friends
* Videos
* Images
* Tags
* Control Panel

That's what the left side of my posting history page looks like. Need to be more specific as to where I can see these posts. Although from the light reading I did in ask the mods it seems as though we'll always be wrong about moderations anyways...I did see a few that were obviously meant for bans, of course those people will always be in there.

You can use the link that appears in the Forums page at the top left side under you avatar.

And yes I agree some moderations are a bit of a joke, and I guess that means that moderation discretion does not have fair results sometimes.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

I will admit that the difference between trolling and flaming tends to be a little less clear-cut than I'd sometimes like. Trolling moderations can often be based more on the effect of a post (which makes it closer to a flaming moderation) than on the intent. But, either way, the point of such moderations is the same: to make sure that people aren't posting things that would annoy or inflame others.Funky_Llama

In those cases, surely it makes sense to just moderate for what you know to be true - that the post is flaming - rather than moderate based on a guess of the user's intentions?

Funky_Llama

Like I said, I will freely admit that some trolling moderations would probably have been better categorized as flaming... but that doesn't change the purpose of the moderation. The difference between trolling and flaming is kinda nebulous in practice anyway; something intended to annoy or inflame can easily be insulting as well.

Well, I'd hardly consider 'you don't know something' to be much of an insult; and an implied 'you don't know something' is present in pretty much every arguing - even in, say, the argument we're having now; you think I'm ignorant of how subjective moderation issues are, and I think that you're ignorant of how objective they are.

Funky_Llama

As I've said many times, flaming tends to have less to do with what you're saying and more about how you say it. If someone said, "I think that it seems to be the case that you really don't know as much about this topic as you say," I wouldn't moderate that as flaming. If, on the other hand, someone said, "LOL you're so ****ing ignorant that it's scary to think that you exist," I think that's pretty clearly flaming. Yet, both are saying the same thing: that there are things the person in question does not know.

And, one can easily think of cases at any point in the continuum between those two wordings. So, there must be some threshold that divides "flaming" and "not flaming"... but, good luck getting anyone to agree on where exactly it is.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

I will admit that the difference between trolling and flaming tends to be a little less clear-cut than I'd sometimes like. Trolling moderations can often be based more on the effect of a post (which makes it closer to a flaming moderation) than on the intent. But, either way, the point of such moderations is the same: to make sure that people aren't posting things that would annoy or inflame others.ChiliDragon

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

I will admit that the difference between trolling and flaming tends to be a little less clear-cut than I'd sometimes like. Trolling moderations can often be based more on the effect of a post (which makes it closer to a flaming moderation) than on the intent. But, either way, the point of such moderations is the same: to make sure that people aren't posting things that would annoy or inflame others.ChiliDragon

He didnt mean to get rid of the separation between trolling and flaiming.

Like I said, I will freely admit that some trolling moderations would probably have been better categorized as flaming... but that doesn't change the purpose of the moderation.GabuEx

As I've said many times, flaming tends to have less to do with what you're saying and more about how you say it. If someone said, "I think that it seems to be the case that you really don't know as much about this topic as you say," I wouldn't moderate that as flaming. If, on the other hand, someone said, "LOL you're so ****ing ignorant that it's scary to think that you exist," I think that's pretty clearly flaming. Yet, both are saying the same thing: that there are things the person in question does not know.

And, one can easily think of cases at any point in the continuum between those two wordings. So, there must be some threshold that divides "flaming" and "not flaming"... but, good luck getting anyone to agree on where exactly it is.

GabuEx

One thing's for sure, I have never been on any other forum on the Internet where frequent topics come up complaining about moderation.

That alone tells us there's a problem here.

It it was, yes, assuming that it actually was flamning. But my main problem is with moderations for trolling that are neither trolling nor flaming.Funky_Llama

One thing's for sure, I have never been on any other forum on the Internet where frequent topics come up complaining about moderation.

That alone tells us there's a problem here.

FamiBox

One thing's for sure, I have never been on any other forum on the Internet where frequent topics come up complaining about moderation.

That alone tells us there's a problem here.

FamiBox

I'm not really sure what you mean here... what I do know is that moderations that are falsely labelled as trolling pile up, causing harsher penalties than there should be in future.

Funky_Llama

I don't know about other moderators, but I personally tend to just lump trolling and flaming into the same pile when it comes to a person's moderation history, since, like I said, the difference between them in practice is nebulous at best.

Well, the first example is about as tactful as it gets; there's an accusation of ignorance, but it's not unnecessarily or 'gratuitious'; in the second example, the poster's accusation goes far further than is necessarily. The only reason the first shouldn't be moderated is that it's a necessary part of debate; the second is certainly not.

Funky_Llama

...You're basically admitting that this is all very subjective, even if you aren't realizing that you are. :P

That you have one take on what should and shouldn't be moderated (and why) does not exactly mean that that's the objectively correct way to moderate things, nor do you seem to have offered any counterargument to my statement that there are any number of statements in between those two extremes and that a threshold must exist somewhere.

One thing's for sure, I have never been on any other forum on the Internet where frequent topics come up complaining about moderation.

That alone tells us there's a problem here.

FamiBox

I've been to many forums where people can say just about anything they want as long as it's not something like overt racial slurs or posting pornography. The atmosphere in threads in those forums very easily got extremely nasty and toxic, and there wasn't a damn thing the people in charge did about it. And that is why I'm here instead of at those forums.

I get the sense that the moderation at those forums is pretty much standard for the internet, which is why so many people are surprised at the extent to which the moderation team here at GameSpot actually do things. Doesn't prove to me that those other forums do things better, though.

I don't know about other moderators, but I personally tend to just lump trolling and flaming into the same pile when it comes to a person's moderation history, since, like I said, the difference between them in practice is nebulous at best.

GabuEx

...You're basically admitting that this is all very subjective, even if you aren't realizing that you are. :P

That you have one take on what should and shouldn't be moderated (and why) does not exactly mean that that's the objectively correct way to moderate things, nor do you seem to have offered any counterargument to my statement that there are any number of statements in between those two extremes and that a threshold must exist somewhere.

GabuEx

Or you could be more careful about your posts. Coming across as a jerk or angry doesn't exactly help your cause.

The atmosphere in threads in those forums very easily got extremely nasty and toxic,

people enjoy drama though, whether it be starting it or reading it on a thread.

I'd always thought there was a clear distinction, even though there is overlap. It's possible to flame a user without intenting to annoy them, and it's possible to troll far more subtly than simply by flaming. Plus, I'm sure there are mods who do, when deciding what penalty to hand down, only count previous flaming if it's a moderation for flaming, or previous trolling if it's a moderation for trolling.

Funky_Llama

They're distinct in theory, but not so much in practice. They both tend to stem from the same root problem: the tendency to speak too bluntly and without enough respect for others. There's no formula that says "if a user has X previous moderations for type Y, then increase the penalty severity to Z" - the moderation history is there mostly to just give us a broad overview of all the stuff a user has done in the past, not to dictate entirely how we should handle something.

Well, I will admit that the line is not exact, and there is a borderline within which it is subjective. But I still think that in the case of flaming, the vast majority of moderations are pretty clear, and though an exact borderline can't be established, the line could be made a lot 'thinner' by more exact definition.

Funky_Llama

And, where would that line be?

If you can't define the line such that everyone in the world agrees with it, then it doesn't really matter how thin it is, considering that everyone will be working with their own impression of where it ought to be. Unfortunate, but really ultimately unavoidable.

[QUOTE="FamiBox"]

One thing's for sure, I have never been on any other forum on the Internet where frequent topics come up complaining about moderation.

That alone tells us there's a problem here.

GabuEx

I've been to many forums where people can say just about anything they want as long as it's not something like overt racial slurs or posting pornography. The atmosphere in threads in those forums very easily got extremely nasty and toxic, and there wasn't a damn thing the people in charge did about it. And that is why I'm here instead of at those forums.

I get the sense that the moderation at those forums is pretty much standard for the internet, which is why so many people are surprised at the extent to which the moderation team here at GameSpot actually do things. Doesn't prove to me that those other forums do things better, though.

So instead of one extreme or the other, how about something comfortable in the middle?

At least a forum that doesn't bring people to get highly frustrated with moderation, spawning topics like these.

They're distinct in theory, but not so much in practice. They both tend to stem from the same root problem: the tendency to speak too bluntly and without enough respect for others. There's no formula that says "if a user has X previous moderations for type Y, then increase the penalty severity to Z" - the moderation history is there mostly to just give us a broad overview of all the stuff a user has done in the past, not to dictate entirely how we should handle something.

GabuEx

And, where would that line be?

If you can't define the line such that everyone in the world agrees with it, then it doesn't really matter how thin it is, considering that everyone will be working with their own impression of where it ought to be. Unfortunate, but really ultimately unavoidable.

GabuEx

So instead of one extreme or the other, how about something comfortable in the middle?

At least a forum that doesn't bring people to get highly frustrated with moderation, spawning topics like these.

FamiBox

For every person complaining about the moderation at GameSpot, there's another person who's happy with it the way it is. In forums of comparable size with less moderation, there's just as many people complaining about the stuff the moderators aren't handling. When you have as many users and as diverse a userbase at GameSpot, there's really nothing for it. No moderation policy can ever make everyone happy; the only choice that can be made is which subset of the internet population we want our rules to make happy. The people at CBS and GameSpot have clearly made their decision on that matter, and if someone isn't in the group of people that they want to cater to, then the only real options are to either live with it, to change the way one posts to be more in accordance with expectations, or to leave.

Or you could try not to post anything offensive.

Right, but in one case the user might just be being tactless; in another, he's deliberately trying to piss them off. The distinction is between whether causing anger is deliberate or accidental.

Funky_Llama

But the effect is more or less the same, and at the end of the day, it's the effect that really matters, and which we want to prevent.

And I know that the relationship between penalty given and previous moderations, is not exactly defined, but I have little doubt that were a moderator to moderate me for trolling, if my mod history had, say, 20 trolling moderations, I'd be more likely to get a more severe penalty than if it had, say, 10 trolling moderations and 10 flaming moderations.

Funky_Llama

I can't really answer that question.

Surely we can agree that - for example - 'hi, everyone' posted in a roll call is objectively not flaming, and 'you are a pathetic waste of space' objectively is? Extreme examples, I know, but whether they're flaming is an objective truth nonetheless.

Funky_Llama

That there are a few extreme examples on either end on which everyone is in agreement does not change anything. The complaints are, as they always have been, with the situations where not everyone can agree on whether a post is an offense. And those are utterly unavoidable.

[QUOTE="FamiBox"]

So instead of one extreme or the other, how about something comfortable in the middle?

At least a forum that doesn't bring people to get highly frustrated with moderation, spawning topics like these.

GabuEx

For every person complaining about the moderation at GameSpot, there's another person who's happy with it the way it is. In forums of comparable size with less moderation, there's just as many people complaining about the stuff the moderators aren't handling. When you have as many users and as diverse a userbase at GameSpot, there's really nothing for it. No moderation policy can ever make everyone happy; the only choice that can be made is which subset of the internet population we want our rules to make happy. The people at CBS and GameSpot have clearly made their decision on that matter, and if someone isn't in the group of people that they want to cater to, then the only real options are to either live with it, to change the way one posts to be more in accordance with expectations, or to leave.

That's a shame.

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

my_mortal_coil

But the effect is more or less the same, and at the end of the day, it's the effect that really matters, and which we want to prevent.

GabuEx

I can't really answer that question.
GabuEx

That there are a few extreme examples on either end on which everyone is in agreement does not change anything. The complaints are, as they always have been, with the situations where not everyone can agree on whether a post is an offense. And those are utterly unavoidable.
GabuEx

Anyway, I'm afraid I have to go to bed now because it's 1:20 in the morning :P

I have also been on many forums throughout the years and it still boils down to the same things. There are

1. Know it alls 2. Flamers 3.Lurkers 4.Grammar Nazis 5. Mod wannabes 6. Politically correct people 7.Politically incorrect people 8.Report jockeys

I could go on but I don't like to type as much as some people:lol: So why not just put an ignore button in the forums or maybe some mods could use better judgement I know it's not a mods fault how people post but sometimes from what I have read they come of like big jerks. I know Idon't know all the rules and I really don't want to but I read the ask mods stuff and and these threads and some mods just come across like they are gods gift to modding. This is a gaming site and I see threads all the time locked for discussing games and somehow that just seems wrong;)

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

But the effect is more or less the same, and at the end of the day, it's the effect that really matters, and which we want to prevent.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

And I know that the relationship between penalty given and previous moderations, is not exactly defined, but I have little doubt that were a moderator to moderate me for trolling, if my mod history had, say, 20 trolling moderations, I'd be more likely to get a more severe penalty than if it had, say, 10 trolling moderations and 10 flaming moderations.

GabuEx

I can't really answer that question.

Surely we can agree that - for example - 'hi, everyone' posted in a roll call is objectively not flaming, and 'you are a pathetic waste of space' objectively is? Extreme examples, I know, but whether they're flaming is an objective truth nonetheless.

Funky_Llama

That there are a few extreme examples on either end on which everyone is in agreement does not change anything. The complaints are, as they always have been, with the situations where not everyone can agree on whether a post is an offense. And those are utterly unavoidable.

Question 2 you said you could not really answer well.

From what i have read in the Ask the Mod forums moderators do indeed check your previous offenses and Mod you Harsher or lighter depending on your general attitude while posting. Anyhow i am personally happy with the system, been here a while now and i have been modded and apart from maybe one or two, i think i have deserved them all. Honestly i was an Ass sometimes usually drunk or something like that!

None the less i have changed how i post and i do not think i have had a moderation for about 2 lvls now. Thats quite a long time.

Be warned tho i think the other websites moderators are less likely to see your post but are harsher with the punishments! Gamefaqs is it? Yeah they have nailed me in the past quite badly!

I agree that some degree of unclearness is inevitable. But there could be many fewer of those situations, and many fewer complaints, by more exact definition of what constitutes an infraction (not necessarily turning the ToU into War and Peace, but perhaps including a few examples of borderline flaming, etc), and less reliance on gut feeling to determine what constitutes trolling.

Anyway, I'm afraid I have to go to bed now because it's 1:20 in the morning :P

Funky_Llama

I thought you said you didn't have any suggestions for your version of the Terms of Use. :P

Question 2 you said you could not really answer well.

From what i have read in the Ask the Mod forums moderators do indeed check your previous offenses and Mod you Harsher or lighter depending on your general attitude while posting. Anyhow i am personally happy with the system, been here a while now and i have been modded and apart from maybe one or two, i think i have deserved them all. Honestly i was an Ass sometimes usually drunk or something like that!

jwsoul

I was referring to the question of whether other moderators treated trolling and flaming as roughly the same thing when considering a users' moderation history, not whether they check prior offenses in general. I would at least hope I can answer that question, considering that I'm a moderator. :P

Its their site, so its their rules.

Of course there is a big learning curve on this site, especially if you post on a lot of different forums.

This is the only site where Ive ever gotten posts moded.

Just think of it as a very popular PG movie :) You aint gonna see lots of gore and swearing in those movies. So just remember what you are watching, writing... But even still there can be some small things that you cant always avoid, since we cant think PG the entire time. So dont sweat it. Pretty much everyone here got a moderation history.

And yes I agree some moderations are a bit of a joke, and I guess that means that moderation discretion does not have fair results sometimes.

Teenaged

I've been modded twice (only one overturned for some obscure reason) for mentioning torrents; not advocating or admitting usage, simply talking about them.AirGuitarist87

Discussion of mod chips, copying games, playing copied games, cracking games, No-CD patches, piracy releases, homebrew, copyrighted ROMs, copyrighted ISOs, and basically anything related to game, movie, TV, or music piracy is not permitted.Gamespot TOU