Rules Discussion

It's been a year now and we've tried out the original forum rules for quite a while. The rules were put together very quickly by our intrepid Karilyn after an explosive incident and, like all elements of the game's actual rules, is completely open to alteration and feedback based on testing. Normally we've handled things through PMs, but I'd like to hear some feedback here too. Do you think we're missing anything? What about the public reputation bar? Is it weird to have a 24-hour equivalent to a time out if you break your first friendly warning? Is anything unclear or needs greater specificity? Feel free to share.

Eh, I'm fine with the rules as they are now. In some ways, I think you guys need to be a touch harsher. It's really hard to see the rules boundaries, and it's why I think some people allow themselves to essentially shout out whatever because they have no fear of you lot actually doing anything about it other then a stern talking to.

*shrugs*
Note I'm not saying become Hitler.. just a little bit more force on the "Will you please stop being a giant dullard" would be nice. Also Boundaries breed creativity! Which means more creative and interesting trolling when it does happen.

Same. Make use of your authority when it really calls for it.

Thirded here. Sometimes it feels like there's no boundaries, that the word of the staff doesn't hold any real weight.

The moderation team comprises the members of the community trusted to make and enforce the rules of the forum, but a lot of the time it feels like they don't actually have the authority to keep order because anyone can just say 'No I don't agree with your ruling' and carry on as if the staff member was just some random poster.

Ping's logic is pretty flawed as nobody chose to put the admins in charge, they chose themselves. I'll have a larger post in a bit but, I just wanted to address that first.

I believe the rules are fine. They just need to be enforced a little better sometimes. As mods and admins go, I've never seen a site that allows you to vote who does and doesn't become one and the idea seems pretty silly to me as it isn't a popularity contest. It's about who will do their best to impartially oversee the site and ensure that the rules are adhered to. I'm fine with this. I wouldn't want to be an admin as my life makes me really busy at times and I, at times, can be something of a hothead. I don't envy anyone in that position. The decisions they have to make aren't necessarily popular and at times, I'm sure, stressful.

In my view we need an entirely different approach to rules and enforcement. The current policies don't work and have caused more drama than they claim to be made to prevent. Whether it be a flaw in the rules themselves or the people enforcing them, clearly this isn't working.

Instead of focusing how we can punish people until they submit to the narrow viewpoint of a group of friends, we should be trying to understand and solve what problems people are having that are making them act in ways disruptive to enjoyment. It also wouldn't hurt if the people enforcing the rules actually knew them. (Dan mentions an initial 24 hour cooling off warning but, the warning I just recently got was a 2-month warning that spent three paragraphs talking about what the admin would like to have punished me for and two lines actually saying what the rules violations were.)

Firstly, we need to have a say in who our rules enforcers are. The designers and their friends are a very poor choice. These are the people o most likely to have disagreements and get into arguments with people.

The rules that we currently have would be acceptable as suggested behavior guidelines and not punishable offenses.
Edit: After reviewing the rules, some of them would have to be changed. Obstinance for example is a really dumb punishable offense that's counter productive and can basically be declared in any post where anyone disagrees with you.

If a rules enforcer is shown to have personal issues with someone they should recuse themselves from administrative actions involving said person and any punishments they dole out should be immediately rescinded and reviewed by unbiased persons.

Rules enforcers should discuss any situation deemed worthy of punishment as a group before doling them out.

Instead of throwing around threats, warnings, and bans for non-serious (and when serious I mean serious) rules/guideline infractions the mods/admins should first attempt to deal with issues by finding out what the cause of the problem is and trying to resolve it in a compassionate, understanding, and tolerant manner. They should also leave situations alone where neither party thinks there is a problem unless others complain it's disruptive. Only if after serious effort the staff cannot resolve the problem should a 24 hour warning be given. If the same issue continues to be a problem (I would say we should give anyone currently pissed off an hour or so of leeway without more serious actions but, perhaps additional reminders as, let's face it, they don't stop being pissed just because you ask them to but, will tend to feel sorry later) then a warning lasting a week and further increments should be doled out. If a different issue occurs, it's a different issue and should still involve the staff trying to resolve it without punishments. If multiple different issues occur frequently (meaning within a two week period) then, again the staff should try to find a way get that person to change their behavior without punishments. If they cannot and warnings have gotten up to wearing off in two months (I'm seeing the iterations being 24 warning, 1 week, 2 week, 1 month, 2 months) and the person still is causing problems that cannot be resolved without punishment, then a ban should be considered and thoroughly discussed with attention paid to if that action would just make the problem worse. Suggested ban lengths would start with 1 day, then 2 days, then four days, then a week, then two weeks, etc. Bans lasting months really shouldn't occur under this system outside of encountering the kind of trolls who don't contribute at all and just troll to troll.

Additionally, rules enforcers should be willing to enforce rule violations by other rules enforcers. In fact, they should be more willing to do so than they would for regular members as abuse of power is a greater problem than mild flaming in four posts of one thread or such.

Edit: Just to show I'm not anti-everyone on the staff, I would actually vote for Nehiel to retain his position if we actually had an election or some such.

Edit 2: Can't believe I forgot this. Apologies and acceptance of them is really important. Obviously you shouldn't try to force people to phrase an apology exactly as the other person wants it (you'll just get a sneering lie instead and that's moving backwards) but, you should try to make sure they are apologizing for the main issues that upset the other person. Also, in most cases, both parties are going to need to apologize and you shouldn't let one person slide just because you like them more or happen to agree with them about certain aspects. If something got heated, it's pretty unusual there isn't fault on both sides.

Does it, in fact, matter that they weren't chosen to lead these forums? Are we all obligated to be on these forums? Nobody chose to put the admins in charge, but we've all chosen to be on their forums. This is their house, and if we want to stay in their house, we need to abide by their house rules.

And I feel with the current level of leniency this is being forgotten. Moderation needs to be more active, and when an admin or mod speaks with the authority of their position, it shouldn't be so easy to ignore. Again, I reiterate, that these are the leaders of our community, for better or for worse, and this isn't something that should be allowed to fall by the wayside.

While I've had a lot of assurances to the contrary, and there's always the risk of tyranny, I feel that at this juncture rule of law is falling by the wayside in favour of rule by volume, because of this growing idea that it's okay to just ignore the staff, or flaunt the rules.

Pingcode wrote:While I've had a lot of assurances to the contrary, and there's always the risk of tyranny, I feel that at this juncture rule of law is falling by the wayside in favour of rule by volume, because of this growing idea that it's okay to just ignore the staff, or flaunt the rules.

*sighs* I'm getting this feedback from a lot of people. The instinct for leniency and second-chances, especially on a forum about the love and tolerance of ponies, is heavy in me. But you're right, this perception that it's okay to ignore the rules isn't good for the community.

Ramsus wrote: It also wouldn't hurt if the people enforcing the rules actually knew them. (Dan mentions an initial 24 hour cooling off warning but, the warning I just recently got was a 2-month warning that spent three paragraphs talking about what the admin would like to have punished me for and two lines actually saying what the rules violations were.)

Ramsus, if you're going to recommend changing the rules or claim that the moderators don't know them - it would help to make sure you understand them yourself first. The 24-hour cooling off period is the standard step that comes after the initial warning - the 24 hour temporary ban. All steps still take 2 months to come off your record (the two months is probably going to be reduced in response to feedback though).

Oops. Sorry, the ways you have things laid out is a bit confusing in regards to warnings and how those things work. Also weird. Why does a 24 hour warning come after a ban? Do you think people who were just banned don't know you're willing to ban them? Either way, I apologize for my mistake.

The ban lasts 24 hours, not the warning. It seems quite clear in the rules thread.

Karilyn wrote:If you violate that rule (or any rule) again, want to back-talk, or are being particularly obstinate, you will receive your first warning and be TEMPORARILY BANNED for 24 hours.

One thing that *is* unclear about this is there's a difference in the official warnings (that result in the ban) and friendly reminders - but they're both called warnings. You *do* get a warning before a ban, but it's called a reminder of the rules... I'll fix the language on this.

I'm ok with the admins as is and the rules that are in place

I like the fact that the rules are lazy/lax and everyone is fairly relaxed but I agree that when Admins talk from an Admining point of view(Meaning you need to stop this) it's being treated as though they were saying "This or this game element doesn't really fit.."

Admining and Normal posting are two different things folks. Remember that, it could save your lives.

But in all seriousness, current rules are grand the Admins just need to Change there post color or give some way to let us other forumers know that they are in Admin mode. (I vote they make all Admin posts Pink that gets steadily more red the more you talk back.)

Also, Stairc has my vote for most diplomatic(though hardest to read) admin. (Now where is my cash guys?)

I've been asked to post this in the thread proper, so here goes.

There is one thing I think needs attention drawn to, part of the rules that the staff isn't adhering to for themselves:

Note: It's worth noting that we are human and our decisions are always going to be subjective. We want this to be a friendly and welcoming community for great new ideas and campaigns for the Pony Tales system. Thus, we have just about zero tolerance for any mean-spiritedness, insulting other users, racist or sexist language, any hate-speech of any kind... You get the idea. It's fine to goof off, but not if it ruins someone else's day. We care a lot about people's experience on here, so let's make a community we can all enjoy. If someone needs to have a fight, there's a whole rest of the internet out there. Here is our happy place in the magical land of Equestria.

So if I may ask, please, don't have your days ruined for our sake.

The big thing I'm saying, that I don't really want to dilute the rules discussion, is that you guys are people too. Moderation is a shitty, thankless job, and even when the community is behind the mods 100% it's trying at the best of times.

It's a great sentiment, saying that you don't mind copping all the abuse in order to protect other members of the community, but when I see you guys getting beaten down, it hurts, because you're trying your damned best and you're way too forgiving and it's not nice having to stand there and watch you get beaten up without asserting yourselves.

So please, guys, take care of yourselves too. You're the staff, but you're also members of the forums too, and if you don't enforce the rules when they're being broken against you, how can we ask you to enforce them for the rest of us?

Hayatecooper wrote:
Also, Stairc has my vote for most diplomatic(though hardest to read) admin. (Now where is my cash guys?)

There's a reason why his avatar is Celestia.
But in all seriousness, I don't mind the rules. I'm more of the Confucian, "The best society is one where its members rule themselves," so I don't mind if the rules are vague. In this sense, the administrators are basically more of mediators, coming in between conflicts between two people to judge impartially. Now, if the mediators' impartiality is being challenged, that is an issue.

Less leniency, more strictness, same old same old. Bluntly put, if someone breaks a rule that's it. It's a bit dictator-ish, admittedly, to think that way but with how little issues we've actually HAD, it might be best for us to hammer down on the ones that exist.

Also, I'm fine with the current mods, but I'd request a few more active ones be put in place. (Since most of the mods are... there, really.) to help spread out the workload jic and one mod doesn't have to personally deal with quite a lot.). The person needs to be able to be neutral though with ANYONE.

Okay, this isn't the "concerns about moderation" thread, but I get the feeling creating a thread based around that would be frowned upon at best, so I'm gonna drop this here.

I have recently come into possession of a chatlog (given to me by an unnamed/made anonymous intermediary) that is causing me some concern.

[10:32:07] Ramsus: Huh, when did you come on?
[10:32:21] jkjkjkl": About half an hour ago
[10:32:26] Ramsus: Hmm
[10:32:37] Ramsus: You had time to see the latest?
[10:33:06] jkjkjkl": I guess so, I haven't read much and just skimmed things
[10:33:18] Ramsus: Ok, well, here's what you missed
[10:33:29] Ramsus: Nehiel sent me a PM saying he wouldn't ban me.
[10:33:38] Ramsus: I'm banned now in case you missed that bit.
[10:33:59] Ramsus: Then he said since Dan broke the rules but, he couldn't ban him, he'd tell Dan not to post for 24 hours.
[10:34:12] Ramsus: Note that this was well before Dan's reply to DB.
[10:35:19] Ramsus: So basically I got banned for Dan trolling me, another admin admits he trolled me, and Dan ignored his own rules to smack talk me more while I can't even defend myself.

I would like to see the other side of this happenstance, because if events really happened the way Ramsus seems to be experiencing them, I will in all honesty be angry about it.

EDIT FOR CLARIFICATION: Like, I've seen what went down with Ramsus and all, and I get it, really. But without some kind of balancing testimony, this looks like favoritism and maybe being dishonorable, which is not something I want in my moderators.

*sighs* Yeah, I'd be angry about that too if it had all happened like that.

If Chad thinks I broke the rules, this is the first I've heard about it. Chad also has easy access to my skype, email and - of course - can easily send me a private message; so he could have certainly contacted me with any of his concerns if he'd informed Ramsus he was going to. Chad's highly adverse to conflict, so it's perfectly possible that he doesn't want to tell me he thinks I broke the rules - but he's never had a problem criticizing my posting before when he thinks I've made a mistake. Heck, he did give me some feedback last night about this very issue - but no hint that he thinks I broke a forum rule (let alone broke one and then ignored an official warning, which is what's required for a 24 hour ban). I'll talk to him when I get a chance and find out what he said.

Update - Talked to Chad. It turns out that Chad initially just gave a first warning, because he wasn't aware Ramsus had already received the first warning and that the next requisite step was the second warning and 24 hour ban. He therefore had to change the decision, because he didn't have the right information, and this made Ramsus upset. Chad explained as follows.

Skype Dialogue:

Ramsus' own posts there, claiming he got banned for me 'trolling' him, represent the *third* time since his most recent warning that he's misrepresented moderator action and conversations. In reality, he was banned for the rules-required 24 hour period because he back-talked and was highly obstinate about following moderator instructions to stop bringing up old drama and misrepresenting moderation. Here's the criteria for the rule in question.

"If you violate that rule (or any rule) again, want to back-talk, or are being particularly obstinate, you will receive your second warning and be TEMPORARILY BANNED for 24 hours."

Not only is it pretty inarguable that Ramsus was being obstinate and refusing to comply with his warnings, he also agreed that he *was* back-talking the moderator decisions and being obstinate via private chat. He just made it clear that he didn't think such should be against the rules. However, while the rules might change in future if people think you should be allowed to ignore moderator decisions - that's not the case right now.

While he admitted he'd broken those rules, Ramsus also said I must have broken them too. However, I'm not sure how he can take my contradicting his dredging up of old drama and misrepresentation of moderation... And consider it back-talking or being obstinate in response to being given your second official warning about breaking a rule. That's what isn't okay, it's fine to disagree with and contradict people - but not to argue and ignore warnings when you've broken a rule.

No one likes to be moderated and few people agree with specific instances levied against them. Ramsus' response to just about every instance of forum moderation that I'm aware of here has included some variation of, "Well are you going to warn/ban yourself too? Because this is all actually your fault." This usually comes after informing us that if we ban him, we'll regret it, and/or a threat to leave the forum forever if the moderation goes through. It's a cycle we're used to by now.

Now, in the future, let's keep this to PMs. This isn't a thread for discussing Ramsus and every time one of his misrepresentations comes up, I have to clarify what actually happened - which just keeps leading to drama. Consider this a friendly, yet official warning.

Dan already covered the Ramsus thing so I wont say anything other than to apologize, I made a mistake and thats my fault. I understand why Ramsus would be upset with me, and can't blame him for that. I am going to step down from being a moderator.

Regarding the rules; I don't quite have the most firm grasp on how they are handled but I do think that most warning and the like should be handled privately through PMs or over skype. If that is how the case is now, then I approve of that.

Sorry to lose you Chad. I know it made you miserable dealing with this conflict, and you shouldn't have to be, but still sorry to lose you. I want to make it clear that Chad isn't being asked to step down in any fashion due to his moderation mistake, he just discovered that he really doesn't like dealing with this kind of conflict.

Rest assured, it's absolutely standard practice to issue official warnings and such via PMs. I don't think it's productive to issue administrative action in public. I'm not sure the warning bar being public is a good idea either. Any thoughts on that?

I have to agree with something Ramsus said, its seems more like a public humiliation bar to me. I don't have strong feelings about it, so if it stays then I wont be upset or anything but if given the choice I'd get rid of it.

Nehiel Mori wrote:I have to agree with something Ramsus said, its seems more like a public humiliation bar to me. I don't have strong feelings about it, so if it stays then I wont be upset or anything but if given the choice I'd get rid of it.

I can understand that viewpoint. Before we get rid of it, though, I might consider: Why did we put it up in the first place?

Frankly, I don't know. Karilyn put it up originally. I think it's just something standard on a lot of sites, maybe to make it clear that moderation does take place (and that it doesn't look like, as people have said in this thread, people can ignore the rules). However, I think the indignity of the whole thing is pretty harsh. Am I being too lenient again?

Well in keeping with the "stricter" theme most of us were going with before, there isn't really anything that needs to mechanically change. Procedurally, it should probably work like this:

Person breaks rule.
Mod tells him, in public, in the thread where its happening, to stop it.
If he doesn't stop Mod gives him a warning- public or private, doesn't really matter, because a warning is just a warning.
If he still doesn't stop, PM him, maybe give him one last chance, stating conditions of the rules and that he will be banned.
Then 24 hour ban.

I'm pretty sure that's how it has been working so far, and it works for 99% of the people on this forum. The warning bar is just a reaffirmation, its doesn't hurt anyone, but its also fairly unnecessary, assuming the mod staff can keep track of it in other ways.

Going back to something I said before, with Chad (can I call you Chad? Ima call you Chad) being the third person to inherit that mess and have to act on it, it was already allowed to get out of hand. If you allow people to backchat and intimidate you into simply pawning them off onto someone else instead of taking direct action, then you're being unfair- to all of us who follow the rules, to your own system, and especially to Chad, who had to try to curb the wildfire.

I agree, it's not fair to keep passing a mess around. Still, I then Logan then Chad (it was originally Karilyn) all volunteered to take over dealing with it on our own. The reason it got passed around had more to do with an attempt to avoid any chance at bias than anything else... But looking back, it went *way* too far. I'll try to do better in the future.

If you look back, YOU didn't start that situation with any bias. I'm betting Logan didn't have any when he started on it months ago. If that perceived "bias" develops as a result of dealing with it, then that's not bias. That's them trying the system. Just don't let it happen. If its just that big a problem use your mod powers to say "I'm not discussing it any more, or dealing with your crap. Last chance to stop it, drop it, and move on, or else." Then no bias develops.

Some might see that as a bit harsh, but that's only for problem cases where the simple "stop" won't suffice. If someone is going to go out of their way to be intolerable, then you can't be blamed for failing to tolerate them.