Discussions about moderation (other than appeals/reports)

Can I ask why? This thread is meant to be the place where we raise concerns about moderator behavior in general and has served as a check against potential overreach in suspensions by letting regular users weigh in on them, not to potentially speak on the user's behalf but to raise concern about public moderator behavior or even just make small notes (like if they link to the wrong appeal or something). Is there a reason why this is changing?

That sounds undemocratic. And there genuinely was an incident within the past year where a moderator took a hiatus due to backlash about how they interacted with users, including suspended ones, which only occurred after repeated reports both via hollers and, eventually, in this thread.

I'm not saying there's a "constant" abuse of authority, but regular users being able to weigh in on this is the entire reason we added the moderator code of conduct to the OP up top and allows a layer of openness outside of the mod and admin chats so that users can be informed if they have a concern. It's not a constant issue, but every now and then it does come up and it's nice to have a place where regular users can voice concerns over this. It's part of the reason of the first three bullet points:

• Moderator behavior.
• Actions taken by moderators.
• Making general comments or complaints about behavior and actions from moderators

It's not like there are concerns of a constant abuse of power but every now and then concerns are genuinely raised, including ones that large amounts of the community share; it's why Fighteer and Crazy are on hiatus. having a place where we can discuss it is why they were able to be resolved in the first place.

Edited by STARCRUSHER99 on Sep 7th 2023 at 9:51:01 AM

What about minor things like what I pointed out a few days ago, where a user had been given contradictory information due to a minor error when it came to finding previous posts? It's possible someone else may have eventually noticed, however because I'd pointed out it was caught and resolved in a matter of minutes — before any harm could be done. Users pointing out minor mistakes made by mods doesn't even have much to do with preventing abuse; it's just something that occasionally happens because the mods are fallible and things can and do slip through the cracks. However there have been incidents in the past where minor mistakes added up to major mishandling of user's appeals and the like, and while nothing like that has happened in a long time it's the other thing this thread exists to combat.

Edited by WarJay77 on Sep 7th 2023 at 9:58:49 AM

But what if we want to talk to the mod first to clear things up? Or other mods so they can weigh in as well in their own chat? Or like Jay says, what if it's not even an issue about "abusing authoriry," and it's just a minor factual correction, i.e. "this actress actually uses these pronouns" as was just the case here? Doesn't seem like any mod had an issue with that criticism and they took it pretty fairly, so it feels like you're getting offended for them, and positing yourself as the sole arbiter of any issue with a mod.

Edited by mightymewtron on Sep 7th 2023 at 10:04:34 AM

I don't see why this would be an issue worth worrying about in the first place. This is the discussion about moderation thread, yes? I don't think there is much else to discuss. So if for some reason the new policy is this (frankly kind of weird) "there will be no further public questioning of moderator action from the userbase", why does this thread exist in the first place?

Also I don't see what's come up that this policy needs to change anyway. Perhaps it was something only mods or higher can actually see, but at least from the user-side, this seems like an abrupt, unexplained, and actively bad change for no apparent reason.

That's my question. Was there an internal administration discussion that led to this? Was there any consultation of mods?

Furthermore, if we discuss this further, are we at risk of suspension or even banning?

Edited by themayorofsimpleton on Sep 7th 2023 at 10:14:27 AM

Yeah gonna be real, don't participate on this exact thread much, but I as a user am not a fan of being told "we don't need non-mod opinions", "this isn't a democracy", "no further discussion will be had, keep your opinions to yourselves". This site is driven heavily by its userbase doing what is basically volunteer work, and if we're not allowed to openly discuss or question moderator input for fear of admins cracking down on us, that makes me uncomfortable. This is the exact kind of "no one talk about the higher-ups' behavior" attitude that let someone like Fighteer actively abuse their mod status for so long, so it'll have to be forgiven if some users aren't inclined to take "those in power will sort it out amongst ourselves, we don't need or want the common users' input" at face value.

This situation was caused by a factual issue - Dylan Mulvaney's pronouns. The post that started it made it clear the issue was nothing to do with the suspension itself but with a factual inaccuracy in the mod response. That's what this was about when the issue then became not being allowed to comment on suspensions at all.

Seconding— there was no dispute with the suspension, merely a factual correction over the pronouns used. Absolutely none of this was in any attempt to sway the moderators' decision on the matter at hand, merely to keep misinformation from being accidentally spread upon the wiki, and the aggression being displayed just for that is honestly rather surprising to me.

Yes and that user also shared their personal opinions within that. Which were not needed. And I wasn’t aware of this thread until today that’s why I made the comment.

Kory — what if there is valid concern over a specific suspension being done in legitimate error? Like, information that was used to suspend someone was inaccurate, or someone was accused of an agenda but there was evidence to support that they did not have one? (I'm not referring to this case either—I had a different case in mind I'm not elaborating on).

What would a user do if there is suspicion or agreement someone was suspended over false information? PM you? I'm just asking so I know what the procedure is going forward, since this straddles the line between fact and opinion a bit.

Edited by themayorofsimpleton on Sep 7th 2023 at 10:47:34 AM

In honesty, I find this response excessively hostile. jjj2 only stated that he had no protest against the case at hand, which is a perfectly reasonable statement when what he was saying could easily have been misconstrued as criticism of the decision. They were clarifying the purpose of their statement.

This is exceptionally aggressive behavior and strikes me as an attempt to pre-emptively strike down any criticism of the moderation team. There was no personal criticism of the moderation team or ad hominem attacks, and this thread exists specifically to comment on and discuss the actions of the moderation team.

In addition, I feel that the idea that tropers simply shouldn't publicly report or discuss moderators abusing their authority and should instead contact an admin who has already displayed undue hostility over perceived criticism is flawed. None of what has been said or done here has engendered trust and amicability toward the administration's judgment.

I am going to assume good faith in this instance and believe that, due to emotions running high and the complicated nature of the situation, this is a misunderstanding and it is best that cooler heads prevail. However, this was an extremely excessive response. Suspensions have had errors pointed out by site users in the past, and one of the site's very selling points is that it is a wiki maintained and contributed to by a great many users, who deserve to have a say in proceedings. I will not make any personalized assumptions, but I will state my utter disappointment and distaste for this line of response and I hope the administration will do better in the future.

Edited by Riley1sCool on Sep 7th 2023 at 7:49:06 AM

I am genuinely not sure why I would want to report potential moderator infractions in private to someone who has said things like "this is not a democracy" and "user input isn't needed on moderator decisions"

Maybe it's because it's late here but I genuinely don't understand how we can make that distinction to someone else's satisfaction

I am going to leave with this: This was an excessive degree of hostility and disincentivizes people from trusting the administration any further. If this is to be the policy— which I will state on record that I disagree with wholly— then it ought to be handled with considerably more tact. Statements like "This is not a democracy, "The moderators do their own checking with each other," and "I'm your only hope of something being done about it" (Something that has demonstrably led to issues in the past, as it took the action of users— not moderators or administrators— to call out very visible and blatant abuse and immature behavior) will only further project the image that the administration is untrustworthy, immature, and unreceptive to discussion.

This is an extremely disconcerting and disappointing response, and I sincerely hope this is not how the administration intends to continue to act.

Edited by Riley1sCool on Sep 7th 2023 at 7:59:33 AM

I think it's at the very least fair to say that it's distressing and confusing to users when the rules are changed without warning. People are simply doing what they've always done and have always been encouraged to do — so it's reasonable for people to get concerned when they're suddenly told they're doing things wrong.

I can't make a statement on the new rule itself, in part because I have no idea how it will actually work out in practice (if it ever needs to be used at all) and in part because I agree that it's a little vague as to where the line is drawn. People here already understand we shouldn't just be weighing in on Edit Banned unless we have an error or concern to point out — nobody here actually comes just to give their opinion unless they're genuinely worried that things aren't being assessed fairly. People come here to point out problems, ask the mods questions, and dispute things like hasty thumps or thread locks (which have led to more than one debate in which it ultimately turned out the mods were in the wrong). In the process of those things, opinions may get brought up but they're never the purpose of the posts. I would also like more clarity on what would and wouldn't constitute a rule break in the future, as the answer could drastically change how this thread is used going forward... or if people even feel comfortable using it at all.

For instance, if a user comes here in the future to dispute the fact that they were thumped — is that still acceptable, or would that now fall under the umbrella of allegations of moderation abuse? Things like these have a lot of nuance depending on the exact situation, so a black and white rule doesn't seem appropriate.

Edited by WarJay77 on Sep 7th 2023 at 11:07:15 AM

I'm likewise not trying to be hostile here, but we've achieved a lot of parity and good will specifically because of this thread after issues in the past. I get and appreciate wanting to police the moderation staff more, but I'm not sure where anyone stpeped out of line on this thread? From my reading, JJJ 2 didn't question a decision, he just wanted to make a pertinent fact known while making it clear the decision was correct.

I'm just curious as to the purpose of this thread now?

Since there's talk of the admins specifically having discussed this, and there are a lot of concerns, I'll ping the admins I know over in the event they're available.

~itcdr ~drewski Just checking with you guys, since as far as I know you're the actual admins—are we correct to assume this is the policy going forward? And since there were concerns among the userbase over the tone and specific responses given by Kory here, do you have any comments? (If I am coming off as undiplomatic myself, let me know).

EDIT: I got d so some of my comment may no longer be applicable. Specifically disregard the portion I have used strikethrough markup on on tone.

Edited by themayorofsimpleton on Sep 7th 2023 at 11:13:45 AM