1

Suggested Feature: Moderator Moderation

53MP3RF1's Avatar 53MP3RF18/2/15 10:59 am
1 emeralds 1.2k 23
8/4/2015 9:31 pm
Dr_Steve's Avatar Dr_Steve
As we all know, the rules are the rules.

However, if one looks closer at the rules, they can see that a lot of them are ambiguous and are designed to be a catch-all for every situation. This isn't necessarily bad, but it can be in different circumstances.

PMC currently has 58 moderators, not counting developers (that would make it 60). All of these people are different. Each has good days, bad days, and different personalities. While I realize it's a strong emphasis to remain consistent within the rules, slip-ups can happen. With the ambiguity of the rules and a bad day, what would normally be nothing at all can become a warning or worse. The system I'd like to propose would be a simple way for both moderators to help keep consistency with their work, and would help those who are getting disciplined understand what they did was wrong.

In a nutshell, the feature would have respected members of the PMC community (e.g. Contest Judges or high-level users that create content consistently) "review" warning or ban reports. From here, the members could either validate the action or discard it. This would provide a great check-balance system between moderators and users, as it would provide a second, neutral pair of eyes to review the possible offending content and the users receiving the disciplinary action would know the system is more fair because it wasn't a single-user decision.

The proposed system would look like this (excuse the MS Paint):



Essentially, each user review has a point-score of 1, so a ban or warning report can go up or down 1 point for each user that reviews it. Besides simply submitting a reason for the ban or warning, the moderator would also need to specify a section of the rules (e.g. Section 1, or Section 1.2 if you're feeling specific).

In no way am I attempting to criticize the staff members of PMC. All I'm doing is making a suggestion as to help improve the way warnings or bans are handled. I think it would lead to a lot happier relationship between moderators and users, as users would know there were unbiased third-parties looking at their report, and moderators wouldn't have to deal with "omg you benned me and took my skeenz i worked so hrd on them!!! im going to dos planet miner krafting!!!" threads.
Posted by 53MP3RF1's Avatar
53MP3RF1
Level 11 : Journeyman Explorer
12

Create an account or sign in to comment.

23

1
08/02/2015 7:12 pm
Level 72 : Legendary Button Pusher
the_soup
the_soup's Avatar
I'm going to put this to you very bluntly: it's not going to happen. We already have a hard enough time getting active moderators as it is, we don't need to add onto that by having people moderate the moderators. As moderators we were chosen because of our demonstrated ability to act maturely, and a lot of time and attention is put into picking people who will act accordingly. What you guys don't see is that we already do self-police ourselves pretty thoroughly and we already do 'moderate ourselves' according to mod rank and site experience. Any time a moderator has a question as to how to proceed with moderation, they will ask the rest of us and as a group we will make a decision. If you think you have been moderated against unfairly, you can PM another moderator and their decision will be reviewed by the group. I think what you are perceiving as a 'lack of consistency' is in fact just moderation being tailored to the offense/offender (for lack of better terms)--something that, like I said in my previous post, we are expected to do. There can never be an effective one-size-fits-all offense/punishment ratio.
1
08/02/2015 6:22 pm
Level 11 : Journeyman Explorer
53MP3RF1
53MP3RF1's Avatar
Camo7
I see this as the critical flaw of your suggestion. As Azie already pointed out, being a judge or high level isn't a valid measure of maturity/qualification for such a role. On top of that, members seen as mature, competent, and reliable enough for such a role who also have the time, energy, and conviction to do so much work are the same people new mods are selected from (at least last time i checked).


As I've addressed multiple times now, I realize levels and positions mean nothing about maturity. However, after weeding out the bad candidates it still seems to me like there are a lot of people who are mature, are respected, and are committed to the site - at least enough to compose the group of user reviewers.

As to your other point, that's really interesting. It would be nice to see some of these user reviewers be elevated to moderator status. It would also let them have a bit of responsibility and become very familiar with the rules/guidelines of the site due to the work they do.

karrthus1can people just be happy that we have an active and decent moderator community, they work hard to make this website safe and friends, and all everyone does is complain about this and this and "oh its not fair that moderator X banned me for this but didn't ban that person for this other thing omg favoritism he/she is picking on me" moderation takes a long time even if they all work their butts off, moderators are not robots they are humans they have feelings and emotions (even if we don't want to believe it)


That's what this feature is designed to help! People have feelings, and sometimes their feelings may be a little too strong and it influences their otherwise objective opinion. This is where the user reviewers come in, as they can see from a more objective point of view and can decide whether or not to validate the disciplinary action or discard it.

karrthus1be thankful that we have a group of friendly moderators that make this website and community a nicer place. without the moderators this website would be full of spam, viruses, stolen projects and claims. it would be hell, nobody would be able to sort the place out


Yes, exactly. In no way have I been or did I criticize the moderators, because, as you said, they make this site a much nicer place than what it would be without them. It's thanks to them we see threads created by bots about illegal activities deleted within moments. It's thanks to them there is relatively little copying of skins, projects, or texture packs. It's thanks to them for all of this.

karrthus1the moderators volunteered to spend their free time to help running the website and all they seem to get is this tirade of abuse and complaining about how bad they are
Moderators are hand picked members and trusted members, why would they go back on their word?
"We should moderate the moderators"
yeah well who is gonna moderate them?
"oh we need people to moderate the moderators moderators"


Again, you make a valid point. However, this goes back to another reason to implement the feature - consistency. Regardless of feelings, opinions, or anything else, each person with the moderator tag by their name is different from the others. In addition to them talking about it with each other, the user reviewers would be able to provide more of a consistent response to certain infractions on the rules.

On another train of thought, think about how the U.S. government works. The executive branch of the government can veto the bills put in place by the legislative branch, but can only exercise certain powers. For example, only the executive branch can order U.S. troops to fight, but it's up to Congress and the legislative branch to fund the military - which means that the military can't go anywhere unless both the legislative and the executive branches concur. That's the sort of thing I'm going for here.
1
08/02/2015 5:40 pm
Level 47 : Master Mlem Mlem Bat
Karrfis
Karrfis's Avatar
can people just be happy that we have an active and decent moderator community, they work hard to make this website safe and friends, and all everyone does is complain about this and this and "oh its not fair that moderator X banned me for this but didn't ban that person for this other thing omg favoritism he/she is picking on me" moderation takes a long time even if they all work their butts off, moderators are not robots they are humans they have feelings and emotions (even if we don't want to believe it)

be thankful that we have a group of friendly moderators that make this website and community a nicer place. without the moderators this website would be full of spam, viruses, stolen projects and claims. it would be hell, nobody would be able to sort the place out

the moderators volunteered to spend their free time to help running the website and all they seem to get is this tirade of abuse and complaining about how bad they are
Moderators are hand picked members and trusted members, why would they go back on their word?
"We should moderate the moderators"
yeah well who is gonna moderate them?
"oh we need people to moderate the moderators moderators"

it just goes on

In the end it will be "Who Moderates Cyprezz?
what if Cyprezz is picking on members like you lot seem to claim moderators seem to be. end of the day the site moderators enforce the rules on the site

and thats my opinion on this matter
1
08/02/2015 5:40 pm
Level 70 : Legendary Demolitionist
Camo7
Camo7's Avatar
53MP3RF1In a nutshell, the feature would have respected members of the PMC community (e.g. Contest Judges or high-level users that create content consistently) "review" warning or ban reports.


I see this as the critical flaw of your suggestion. As Azie already pointed out, being a judge or high level isn't a valid measure of maturity/qualification for such a role. On top of that, members seen as mature, competent, and reliable enough for such a role who also have the time, energy, and conviction to do so much work are the same people new mods are selected from (at least last time i checked).
1
08/02/2015 4:26 pm
Level 58 : Grandmaster Grump
Azie
Azie's Avatar
CaptainMurica
Azie
I'd be interested in hearing a little more about this situation and the details of it, if you wouldn't mind. Would you mind sending me a PM about this situation, the action taken, and the moderator that issued that action that was reported?


I'd rather not, for the sake of everyone's happy, calm dispositions.


Ok. Should you change your mind, my inbox is open. If something wasn't properly investigated or someone wasn't held accountable, I'd like to have the opportunity to take a closer look.
1
08/02/2015 4:25 pm
Level 46 : Master Button Pusher
Leeberator
Leeberator's Avatar
Azie
I'd be interested in hearing a little more about this situation and the details of it, if you wouldn't mind. Would you mind sending me a PM about this situation, the action taken, and the moderator that issued that action that was reported?


I'd rather not, for the sake of everyone's happy, calm dispositions.
1
08/02/2015 4:22 pm
Level 58 : Grandmaster Grump
Azie
Azie's Avatar
CaptainMurica
Azie
How do you know nothing was done? Did someone tell you nothing was done? Did they provide a reason, such as telling you why the moderator's decision was correct?


All I was told was that a little vote or something was held, and despite the best efforts of the staff member I had contacted, the decision stood.


I'd be interested in hearing a little more about this situation and the details of it, if you wouldn't mind. Would you mind sending me a PM about this situation, the action taken, and the moderator that issued that action that was reported?
1
08/02/2015 4:18 pm
Level 46 : Master Button Pusher
Leeberator
Leeberator's Avatar
Azie
How do you know nothing was done? Did someone tell you nothing was done? Did they provide a reason, such as telling you why the moderator's decision was correct?


All I was told was that a little vote or something was held, and despite the best efforts of the staff member I had contacted, the decision stood.
1
08/02/2015 4:10 pm
Level 58 : Grandmaster Grump
Azie
Azie's Avatar
CaptainMurica
Azie
Have you reported these instances to a higher-ranking member of staff? If not, doing so is exactly how you can keep those staff members accountable for their actions.


I've done that in the past, and no action was taken.


How do you know nothing was done? Did someone tell you nothing was done? Did they provide a reason, such as telling you why the moderator's decision was correct?
1
08/02/2015 4:00 pm
Level 43 : Master Creeper
Dr_Steve
Dr_Steve's Avatar
I also want this, because I wanted the site bans to be changed,, to use the same sustem that chat uses (infraction points, and the expiry date on points)
1
08/02/2015 5:16 pm
Level 72 : Legendary Button Pusher
the_soup
the_soup's Avatar
Breaking submission rules usually has more shades of grey between 'right' and 'wrong' than breaking chat rules does. Site moderators look at the current and past conduct of the member in question when making a decision on how to punish someone who has broken the rules, and in many cases a more rigid structure of 'infractions' wouldn't be conducive to this. Additionally, expiry dates on site submission infraction points would be problematic.
1
08/02/2015 4:05 pm
Level 53 : Grandmaster Sweetheart
Zeranny
Zeranny's Avatar
What is essentially a PMC court and changing the rules are two entirely separate things.
1
08/04/2015 9:31 pm
Level 43 : Master Creeper
Dr_Steve
Dr_Steve's Avatar
Edit to that; I wasn't too specific on that point, sorry for that: I meant that, for example, if let's say, an ambiguity occurs, a point is given to the moderator (or offender) , and if there are a lot of points from many people for breaking a specific rule, then, that rule may be changed so it can be a bit easier understood
1
08/02/2015 3:49 pm
Level 46 : Master Button Pusher
Leeberator
Leeberator's Avatar
Azie
Have you reported these instances to a higher-ranking member of staff? If not, doing so is exactly how you can keep those staff members accountable for their actions.


I've done that in the past, and no action was taken.
1
08/02/2015 3:47 pm
Level 58 : Grandmaster Grump
Azie
Azie's Avatar
CaptainMuricaI've seen far too many staff members overstep their bounds and get away with it. They need to be held accountable by the site members in some way because intra-staff accountability obviously isn't enough.

Yes the staff should enforce the r̶u̶l̶e̶s̶ guidelines, but they should do it with wisdom and discernment so the site is not a police state like it currently appears to be.


Have you reported these instances to a higher-ranking member of staff? If not, doing so is exactly how you can keep those staff members accountable for their actions.
1
08/02/2015 3:41 pm
Level 46 : Master Button Pusher
Leeberator
Leeberator's Avatar
I've seen far too many staff members overstep their bounds and get away with it. They need to be held accountable by the site members in some way because intra-staff accountability obviously isn't enough.

Yes the staff should enforce the r̶u̶l̶e̶s̶ guidelines, but they should do it with wisdom and discernment so the site is not a police state like it currently appears to be. Currently, there are no set-in-stone rules; according to Paril the rules page is more of a set of rough guidelines. This leaves each staff member open to interpret them however they see fit. Usually they do an alright job, but too often I've seen staff members overstep their bounds and enforce a guideline in a way it was not meant to be enforced. Paril has told me that the site will not move away from this state of limbo between actual rules and total anarchy until he changes the rules alongside the next big site update.
1
08/02/2015 11:50 am
Level 11 : Journeyman Explorer
53MP3RF1
53MP3RF1's Avatar
FredThere are plenty of moderators that could talk and discuss amongst themselves if another moderator messed up or is unsure about something.

Level does not equal maturity.


While level doesn't equal maturity, it does give some indication of commitment or enjoyment of the site. From this, we can assume anyone with a high level would want to make good decisions concerning others. In addition, from what I've seen of the majority of high-level members, they seem to be quite mature.

However, to your other point about moderators -
While this is true, the system I suggested wouldn't seek to help moderators not mess up or be more sure about warnings or bans, it would seek to help make disciplinary actions more consistent and objective, and also provide a check-balance system for the power on the site. As of right now, moderators can create, issue, delete, etc. ban or warning reports. Under the system, the more objective nature means that while only moderators can create reports, only the users approved to vote on them would be able to validate the reports.

FredThere are not 400 judges, judges could judge multiple times and each contest does not consist of new judges each time.


Fair enough, I did not realize this. However, it's still a pretty high number, and even though some of the more respected members of the community may be immature, there are still many members who are well-respected both for being a high level and for having a lot of maturity.

FredAs successful as Overwatch is, that is for a big amount of players. PMC is small, in comparison to CS:GO, and all of the moderators can easily talk and discuss about something unlike with CS:GO you can only manage a handful of players. That's why CS:GO has the overwatch system because developers or whoever cannot monitor every single person, but with PMC the moderators can easily do a good job of watching people. Plus the reporting system is essentially already an "overwatch"


While PMC is small in comparison to Counter Strike: Global Offensive, it is still quite a big site. With 58 moderators (only 32 of whom can actually monitor the whole site), greenlight systems for various sections on the main site, and the obligations of life outside of PMC, it can get a little stressful. Compared to the rest of the active users, the group who would be doing the reviewing is relatively small.

The reporting system merely sends a report to say "hey, you should look at this". This does nothing to affect the actual outcome of the report. As an analogy, consider a barking watch dog. The watch dog barks to signal to the guard that there is something going on, but the alert could be a scurrying mouse or a group of robbers trying to break in. This has no bearing on whether disciplinary action is handed out.

AzieWhat worries me every time someone proposes these systems, is that they're fine in theory, but in practise we'd likely have tons of issues with people getting their friends to vote on an issue so they won't get in trouble, people making alternate accounts to vote multiple times, users not knowing our rules and voting positively for something that actually breaks our rules, users voting positively even when something breaks our rules because they think the person should be given a break even though the person is in clear violation of our rules, people voting positively on an issue to try and get the mod in trouble because they were previously banned by that mod... After setting up a system to try to catch abuse, which gets caught without this system, and effectively doubling our report load you end up with something that's mostly people being wrong about a moderator's action and still have to go through them all.


That is why the criteria about respected members was put up. Essentially, it means that only certain users (a very small group as compared to the rest of the forum) will be the ones to vote on things, and the fact that multiple users have to review a report before is it discarded or validated cuts out people breaking rules, feeling bad for people, or trying to make sure their friend stays out of trouble. Having a net score of -2 means that there has to be 2 people who straight off the bat vote to discard, which is very unlikely unless the report was a screw-up or something of that sort. Otherwise, there's a very good chance that someone will vote the report to be validated so despite the person trying to make sure their friend is out of trouble, the report will more than likely go through.

AzieBeing a Judge means nothing too, other than that you're active and proficient at when the subject of the contest is.


However, being a contest judge is a mark of respect, and from those I've seen on the forums, a well-deserved one. Plus, the way the forums are divided into sections, I think it might be interesting to see contest judges from the skins contests directly handling reports from moderators who moderate the skins section in the forums. While I agree some sort of delving through users must happen before the potential reviewers can begin work, I think we'll find the majority of them are mature.

AzieLastly, I think I can safely say that people that want to complain will still do so regardless of if they know there's a second set of people reviewing every action we take. I could see people yelling about how I bribed the people that reviewed my action and whatnot... We're already unbiased when we moderate and correct our own mistakes when we make them, but that doesn't seem to comfort people that break our rules.


Point taken.
1
08/02/2015 11:28 am
Level 58 : Grandmaster Grump
Azie
Azie's Avatar
I think the current system works well without something like this. We talk about our decisions a lot and when someone does something other mods don't agree with, which happens occasionally, it's discussed and sometimes that mod decides their decision wasn't appropriate for the situation or they explain their thinking and those that initially disagreed change their minds.

What worries me every time someone proposes these systems, is that they're fine in theory, but in practise we'd likely have tons of issues with people getting their friends to vote on an issue so they won't get in trouble, people making alternate accounts to vote multiple times, users not knowing our rules and voting positively for something that actually breaks our rules, users voting positively even when something breaks our rules because they think the person should be given a break even though the person is in clear violation of our rules, people voting positively on an issue to try and get the mod in trouble because they were previously banned by that mod... After setting up a system to try to catch abuse, which gets caught without this system, and effectively doubling our report load you end up with something that's mostly people being wrong about a moderator's action and still have to go through them all.

On the topic of level to make someone eligible to vote, level means nothing. Being a Judge means nothing too, other than that you're active and proficient at when the subject of the contest is. On more than a few occasions I've spoken with users whose level is pretty high, a few of those over 50, and I'd hardly say they were mature about the situation we were discussing. Similarly, I've come across a few juges that have a lacking understanding of our rules and were moderating a contest incorrectly by disqualifying content that didn't need to be disqualified.

Lastly, I think I can safely say that people that want to complain will still do so regardless of if they know there's a second set of people reviewing every action we take. I could see people yelling about how I bribed the peopke that reviewed my action and whatnot... We're already unbiased when we moderate and correct our own mistakes when we make them, but that doesn't seem to comfort people that break our rules.
1
08/02/2015 11:22 am
Level 59 : Grandmaster Lad
Fred
Fred's Avatar
There are plenty of moderators that could talk and discuss amongst themselves if another moderator messed up or is unsure about something.

FantasymasterPractical questions: How do we determine who is 'respected' as well as mature enough to handle the responsibility, and how do we convince those people to put time into this? I mean, a number of the most top-level PMC users is definitely mature enough to do this, but they VERY LIKELY don't have the time for it.


Level does not equal maturity.

53MP3RF1To explain this further, as far as I know there have been 40 contests on PMC. For the most part, there are 10-15 judges for each contest. Doing the math with the least possible number lands us about 400 judges, and even accounting for, say, 20% decrease in judges as they leave the site or move on, that's still about 320 different people to review. That's just judges.

There are not 400 judges, judges could judge multiple times and each contest does not consist of new judges each time.

53MP3RF1 For example, in Counter Strike: Global Offensive, a moderation system called Overwatch

As successful as Overwatch is, that is for a big amount of players. PMC is small, in comparison to CS:GO, and all of the moderators can easily talk and discuss about something unlike with CS:GO you can only manage a handful of players. That's why CS:GO has the overwatch system because developers or whoever cannot monitor every single person, but with PMC the moderators can easily do a good job of watching people. Plus the reporting system is essentially already an "overwatch"
1
08/02/2015 11:20 am
Level 11 : Journeyman Explorer
53MP3RF1
53MP3RF1's Avatar
FantasymasterPractical questions: How do we determine who is 'respected' as well as mature enough to handle the responsibility, and how do we convince those people to put time into this?


53MP3RF1(e.g. Contest Judges or high-level users that create content consistently)


To explain this further, as far as I know there have been 40 contests on PMC. For the most part, there are 10-15 judges for each contest. Doing the math with the least possible number lands us about 400 judges, and even accounting for, say, 20% decrease in judges as they leave the site or move on, that's still about 320 different people to review. That's just judges. There are at least several other hundred credible PMC users that are, say, over level 50, which means that even if half of those get chosen after filtering out inactive members, there's still a good 500 or so members who could review ban or warning reports.

FantasymasterThis is the problem with a lot of system improvements thought up by users, citizens and the likes. It works fine in theory, but in practice it is often a lot more trouble than its worth.


Actually, similar systems have been imposed all throughout the Internet, albeit in varying ways, but to great success. For example, in Counter Strike: Global Offensive, a moderation system called Overwatch allows users to view gameplay of players suspected of cheating and then voting on whether to ban them or not. In the popular chatroom-esque game Habbo, certain community members must complete tasks but then are able to effectively handle moderation of users reporting others for things like sexual language, harassment, etc., taking some of the work away from the mods to sift through the fake or bad reports and get to the real issues. There are other systems out there as well, but these are just a few examples.
1
08/02/2015 11:10 am
Level 61 : High Grandmaster Terraformer
Ivain
Ivain's Avatar
Practical questions: How do we determine who is 'respected' as well as mature enough to handle the responsibility, and how do we convince those people to put time into this? I mean, a number of the most top-level PMC users is definitely mature enough to do this, but they VERY LIKELY don't have the time for it.

This is the problem with a lot of system improvements thought up by users, citizens and the likes. It works fine in theory, but in practice it is often a lot more trouble than its worth.

Anyway, just pointing this out, as I dont think you've addressed it yet. If you do manage to solve these issues, it might become more plausible. In the meantime, I think I'm just going to keep playing devil's advocate, as the saying goes, and deliberately look for problems. Once its as foolproof and problem-free as it can be, it may be worth alerting the devs for.
1
08/02/2015 11:17 am
Level 33 : Artisan Engineer
RoboShadow
RoboShadow's Avatar
There are plenty of mods and such and contest judges to do this.
1
08/02/2015 11:08 am
Level 33 : Artisan Engineer
RoboShadow
RoboShadow's Avatar
+1 for democratic review and and specificness
-1 due to MS paint.
Planet Minecraft

Website

© 2010 - 2024
www.planetminecraft.com

Welcome