Hello There, Guest! Register

A New System for Banning
Floh Offline
Floh
Registered

Posts: 116
Threads: 3
Joined: Aug 2016
All Accounts Posts: 163
#11
 
RE: A New System for Banning
I must clarify that, even if we did try to "defend" Karl, we mainly aimed at criticizing the general idea of this "change". Because of the obvious possible abuses and injustice it could lead to.

No animosity intended ever 

Cora now has her own account ! Big Grin

English isn't our native language, please be indulgent Smile
10-11-2016, 12:25 PM
Find Reply
War Offline
Tulpa's host
Registered

Posts: 58
Threads: 3
Joined: Oct 2016
All Accounts Posts: 2,076
#12
 
RE: A New System for Banning
A forum is not a government, and it's regulations do not protect against criminal acts alone. Because a forum has no obligation to provide a service fairly, unless they act in a commercial fashion, it is a good idea to word the rules vaguely so that troublemakers can always be removed under the rules and those that are friendly can be ignored.

Just remember to update the rules document to clearly reflect this change. If the document does not clearly indicate that you can take such actions, it constitutes a breach of contract.
10-11-2016, 02:15 PM
Find Reply
Floh Offline
Floh
Registered

Posts: 116
Threads: 3
Joined: Aug 2016
All Accounts Posts: 163
#13
 
RE: A New System for Banning
I agree this is not a government, but as it is a community, I think it is important that its members discuss rules changes.. Well at least share their opinions Big Grin

The issue is that the idea of "troublemakers" can be very arbitrary. It would depend on the general mood of the person looking at the incriminated behaviour, and the history they may share.

I think it's a pity because it could lead to hard abuses. I'm not saying it will, but it could.

Anyway, the decision is already made, who cares about our opinion right ? Smile

No animosity intended ever 

Cora now has her own account ! Big Grin

English isn't our native language, please be indulgent Smile
(This post was last modified: 10-11-2016, 02:31 PM by Floh.)
10-11-2016, 02:31 PM
Find Reply
War Offline
Tulpa's host
Registered

Posts: 58
Threads: 3
Joined: Oct 2016
All Accounts Posts: 2,076
#14
 
RE: A New System for Banning
In these kinds of things, a ruling against someone is always a ruling in favour of someone else. Strict, arbitrary rules tie the hands of moderators, forcing them to make specific rulings, even if it harms the community. To say that vague rules are a bad thing is to say that you don't trust the moderators. That a forced ruling that harms the community is better than a free moderator.

Remember the alternative. An increasingly complicated rules document, in order to ensure that a person who needs to be ruled against does get ruled against. Then new users need to read through more complicated rules, and be much more careful in order to not break them.
10-11-2016, 04:12 PM
Find Reply
KarlYoshimura Offline
Man in the High Castle
Registered

Posts: 184
Threads: 15
Joined: Jun 2012
#15
 
RE: A New System for Banning
It is not against the rules to distrust moderators. If anything, one could argue that placing trust in those who allowed the likes of Mistgod/Melian to roam freely is as equitably jeopardising as those who seek to flatly disregard and undermine their authority - both attitudes enable much more strict decisions to arise from the top.

As for alternatives, keep in mind that Kiahdaj or the staff are not holding any of us at knife-point to continue posting. If these measures snow-ball into something alienating enough to deter further use, other tulpa-related web-sites exist to serve a user's needs.
10-11-2016, 10:19 PM
Find Reply
Kiahdaj Offline
Sans giraffe
Forum Administrators

Posts: 1,368
Threads: 31
Joined: Aug 2012
#16
 
RE: A New System for Banning
I can understand the backlash that we are receiving from a few users, and I can surely say that there was a time that I would have agreed with what is being said. I will try to address some of the specifics, and clear up a bit of a misunderstanding that I think there is.

(10-11-2016, 10:34 AM)KarlYoshimura Wrote: If this is such an issue, why not revise the rules to have no room for such needless interpretation, or at least an agreement upon several key points to ensure fair and concrete operation?

Unfortunately, this is not possible. Even if we did somehow manage to make the rules so concrete that every staff member completely agreed on their interpretation, the actions themselves which we moderate are often not so concrete, and are always left up to our discretion regarding how they fall into the rules. This is the source of our disagreements. And there is certainly no way to have a set of rules that cover all possible behaviors by any user.

(10-11-2016, 10:34 AM)KarlYoshimura Wrote: a "consensus" may very well be decided between two or three persons rather than the entirety of their group(s).

The current system requires that 3/4ths of polled mods (with a minimum of 4 polled) and at least one admin agree to the ban.


(10-11-2016, 11:11 AM)Corazón Wrote: If someone isn't breaking the rules, they aren't punished. It is how this world works.

The idea is that they are breaking the rules—and frequently, at that. However, it is about the specific instances where mods disagree whether and to what extent they were breaking them, or even when a moderator fails to punish the user because one was not around or some other reason (it happens).

The vote is not about whether or not we like the user. It is about the damage they do to the chat, and the rule-breaking they have, for whatever reason, been able to get away with up until that point. In many cases, it would serve as a retroactive "none of us are sure how this user has managed not to be banned yet, but it is definitely overdue."

(10-11-2016, 11:14 AM)Floh Wrote: Justice cannot be blurry. Things are either legal, or they aren't. No consensus can be called justice. This is bullshit.

As a matter of fact, justice very much is blurry. And consensus most certainly is "justice" in many cases. This is the basis of a jury.


(10-11-2016, 11:26 AM)Luminesce Wrote: No offense guys, but the biggest complaint I hear about the tulpa.info Staff is how indecisive they are and how little action they take.

I'm glad to hear this said, actually. A large reason this came to be really was because we had received a lot of complaints about certain users not being banned. Unfortunately, for one reason or another, these users have been allowed to stay well beyond what was reasonable, and it was largely the turmoil among the staff that was responsible for this. So we felt that this was a good, fair way to address the problems that we were having enforcing our rules and maintaining a decent chat. 90% or more of inter-moderator disputes are regarding the very same, 2 or 3 users at most. Who these users happen to be changes over time, but it often results in them being allowed to stir up the chat in their own ways, until they end up leaving of their own accord, or at least taking far too long to be banned.

(10-11-2016, 02:15 PM)tulpa001 Wrote: it is a good idea to word the rules vaguely so that troublemakers can always be removed under the rules and those that are friendly can be ignored.

This is very true. We used to have much more specific rules, but it didn't help a thing. It created even more opportunity for trouble-making users to weasel out of punishment, because the specific thing they claimed they were doing wasn't documented. Of course we can't document every possible thing a user can do that would be against the rules, and there is no way we could even think of them. And of course, there is always uproar from the offending user when a rule is added specifically to deal with them. Which does truly seem fairly abusive at a glance, but in that case would be nothing more than amending something that should have been there the whole time.
Trying to be completely concrete and specific is impossible and unreasonable. The only way to ensure that we maintain the kind of environment we want to foster in our channels (and forum) is to have a set of general, non-specific rules that hope to cover the offenses that we don't want to see.

(10-11-2016, 02:15 PM)tulpa001 Wrote: To say that vague rules are a bad thing is to say that you don't trust the moderators.

This is what it comes down to, ultimately. No matter the rule set, it comes down to the discretion of the moderators. If you don't feel that a "concrete" set of rules requires discretion, then you don't have enough experience enforcing them. It simply is the way things are, no matter where you go.
And I can understand that some don't have the utmost confidence in the moderation. Many in this community in particular are pretty anti-authority in general. But all we can do is continue to try to keep the community as decent as we can.
I personally have pretty strong feelings against abuse of power. It's the primary reason I am here, today. The staff here used to be in a pretty lousy state, where some moderators were taking action based on personal feelings, preferences, etc. I Joined the staff in the first place in hopes to get rid of that kind of abuse. And since becoming an admin, for sure, I intend to do my best to keep it out for as long as I am here.

"If this can be avoided, it should. If it can't, then it would be better if it could be. If it happened and you're thinking back to it, try and think back further. Try not to avoid it with your mind. If any of this is possible, it may be helpful. If not, it won't be."
10-11-2016, 10:34 PM
Find Reply
Luminesce Offline
loves the moon
Registered

Posts: 1,329
Threads: 10
Joined: Apr 2014
All Accounts Posts: 2,474
#17
 
RE: A New System for Banning
By the way, that "No offense guys," was at those against this change, not the Staff. No offense for outright disagreeing with them. I wouldn't worry about offending the Staff with the truth, you're better than that. Since I don't use the IRC all I know is what I hear, and all I've heard is discontent with indecision. I can't think of any other complaints people have, other than.. well, this thread, right now.

Hi! I'm Lumi, host of Reisen, Tewi, Flandre and Lucilyn.
Everyone deserves to love and be loved. It's human nature.
My tulpas and I have a Q&A thread, which was the first (and largest) of its kind. Feel free to ask us stuff.
10-11-2016, 10:44 PM
Find Reply
KarlYoshimura Offline
Man in the High Castle
Registered

Posts: 184
Threads: 15
Joined: Jun 2012
#18
 
RE: A New System for Banning
I very highly doubt you would have disagreed with something that obstructed your ambitions. If the shoe were upon the other foot, you would be fielding the exact same complaints, if not worse.

As for the application of rules, it's an I.R.C. channel, not a grueling legal procedure. If someone visits and tells someone else to drink bleach out of genuine malice, you administer with an appropriate response, not turn a blind eye and institute absurd and sudden changes while arguing about the semantics and personality of the writer. If your staff are so pre-occupied with these disagreements that you cannot moderate properly, it is time for new staff, new rules or both. The new policy will be like a band-aid at best - the genuine lack of action (despite having at least several moderators online at one time) and inability to make accurate decisions in a timely manner will only mount until the problem isn't manageable. Likewise, discriminating against certain users, even those who show efforts at reforming, will not win you any better circumstances. Just because it feels good to remove someone you do not like and disagree with does not mean it is the appropriate course of action.
10-11-2016, 11:09 PM
Find Reply
Luminesce Offline
loves the moon
Registered

Posts: 1,329
Threads: 10
Joined: Apr 2014
All Accounts Posts: 2,474
#19
 
RE: A New System for Banning
(10-11-2016, 11:09 PM)KarlYoshimura Wrote: I very highly doubt you would have disagreed with something that obstructed your ambitions.

Did you mean, would have disagreed with disagreeing with something that obstructs my ambitions? Also was that at me?

I guess I stated my opinions pretty matter-of-factly, but I'll note now at least that you shouldn't take my opinion here very seriously (@everyone). I'm only talking about the forum, really, in which I feel that this policy is a good thing. But it seems more heavily focused on the IRC environment, and I have no idea what goes on there. So in that aspect, feel free to ignore me.

Hi! I'm Lumi, host of Reisen, Tewi, Flandre and Lucilyn.
Everyone deserves to love and be loved. It's human nature.
My tulpas and I have a Q&A thread, which was the first (and largest) of its kind. Feel free to ask us stuff.
10-12-2016, 12:42 AM
Find Reply
Floh Offline
Floh
Registered

Posts: 116
Threads: 3
Joined: Aug 2016
All Accounts Posts: 163
#20
 
RE: A New System for Banning
Thanks for this post Kiah, I can now see better where you want to go, and I seem to be OK with it.


Yeah I don't trust the staff. I actually don't trust anyone except myself and my Cora. People with "power" are even more dangerous because they could abuse it and stab me in the eye, without me being able to do anything against it. On one hand, that's how it is, this lack of trust is my own issue. On the other hand, I still think it's "dangerous" to "free" the decision makers. It makes the "people" powerless. Laws/rules can be discussed and voted by the "people". Decisions coming out of the blue can't. But well, the system described by Kiah seems pretty fair to me.

There is only one thing I'll have to disagree with. Justice is not blurry. Justice is blind and treats everyone equally. There is no room for affects in justice.
A jury isn't applying justice. A consensus needs discussion, arguments and negociations. Justice simply is. That's why a consensus cannot be justice.
Action A matches with rule A and is calling punishment A. End of the story.
BUT I can see the benefits of a little lack of justice, and a little bit of blur here Smile



IRC-wise, I think one's behaviour can be seen as toxic when it's simply some kind of "self-defense", and this could lead to pretty sad injustice.

For example, Cora is always very kind and cannot be agressive, except if she is pretending to, for fun. Let's say someone is mean to her, and starts saying her bad things, like "you should drink bleach and just die" (Karl inspired me there :o ). She would feel offended, but wouldn't be able to respond "properly", she'd just say "you're so mean" and go "/me flies away".
I'd then take control and tell the person to clearly piss off, probably not very politely.

1) From the outside, people could think I'm just being agressive and toxic, whereas it was some kind of self defense..

To this, add that : the person I just insulted decides to ruin our "reputation" as a revenge, or just because they enjoy hurting others. As soon as we aren't online, they start turning people against us.
On our next connection, people will start to be agressive towards us, thus making me respond once again, probably harder this time.

2) Now mods see me as an agressive person, and ban me because they all agreed I am toxic. But I wasn't the "bad guy" !

This is the "weak spot" of this consensus idea IMHO.

No animosity intended ever 

Cora now has her own account ! Big Grin

English isn't our native language, please be indulgent Smile
10-12-2016, 09:05 AM
Find Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Contact Us | Tulpa.Info | Return to Top | Return to Content | Mobile Version | RSS Syndication