Forums discussion: The new rule on complaints

[Frances]

As some of you might've noticed, a new rule has recently been added to the complaints section of the forums.

While the addition of new rules has rarely been a highly publicized or discussed affair, I would like to bring attention to this particular instance. While it seems relatively fair to assume the rule mentioned above (which extends not only to staff complaints but also ban/unban requests) was implemented to reduce the workload of admins when dealing with complaint threads, it raises an issue which significantly concerns me; namely, that you are no longer able to argue with/against server staff unless you have a personal stake in the argument. All staff, however, are still free to drop in on any threads they please.

Let me explain in a few points why I believe this is a clear downgrade from the previous modus of "anyone may participate in complaints".

Pros and cons of the situation before the rule:

Pros:

• If a third party posts a valid argument, it can be brought up for consideration. It helps broaden the horizons of the mod team, which often functions like an echo chamber.
• If a third party posts an invalid argument, the staff has the ability to write up a rebuttal, proving further their understanding of the issue, and providing additional clarification on their stance.

Cons:

• Staff may have to read more to process a thread, mostly due to disagreements making up conversation.

---

---

Pros and cons of the situation after the rule:

Pros:

• There's less stuff for staff to read.

Cons:

• Staff can pretty much say and decide whatever. If a member of staff does something bad, the community is entirely reliant on another member of staff noticing this, and actively contesting it.
• Some valid arguments may be skipped entirely.
  
• Users are alone to defend themselves against the full contingent of staff.

 

Now this is all fairly neutral on paper - the real factors deciding whether this change is a good or terrible one are all the external circumstances surrounding the current state of the complaints boards, and the administration team in general. And that's why this thread is here for us to discuss those.

Personally, I think we're looking at a pretty big problem following the new rule. There's a really high mentality of "unity" among the staff; not only will you rarely see staff going against each other, but people have come under flak for simply disagreeing with the admins (and thus demonstrating "poor judgement".) The few staffmembers who have opposite viewpoints tend to only manifest them rarely, and instead opt for silence.

Furthermore, this can be pretty fucking discouraging for users. When making a complaint, the other involved party is obviously going to side against you (otherwise there'd be no complaint or conflict in the first place). In a perfect world, the whole staff would be made up of perfectly rational logicians and complaints would get solved in a heartbeat as the ultimate truth gets immediately found out, but this is not the case. Staff sadly do make mistakes just like the rest of us, and I can already see how it'd majorly suck to make a complaint only to get dogpiled on by a group of staff making little effort to be attentive, while nobody is even defending you because they're not allowed to.

Additionally, I'd like to point out that this rule has so far only been used to completely disregard (without any other justification) valid arguments from observers, or remove them from threads. As seen here, here, here, here, and here.

Lastly, I just don't see the complaints boards as being the most intensive part of modding the server. We get maybe one big complaint a week (accounting for all the recent drama), and if that's enough to give you an aneurysm or put you off enough you'd consider stifling most forms of valid discussion just to make your job easier, you might be in the wrong line of internet volunteer work.

[Frances]

As some of you might've noticed, a new rule has recently been added to the complaints section of the forums.

While the addition of new rules has rarely been a highly publicized or discussed affair, I would like to bring attention to this particular instance. While it seems relatively fair to assume the rule mentioned above (which extends not only to staff complaints but also ban/unban requests) was implemented to reduce the workload of admins when dealing with complaint threads, it raises an issue which significantly concerns me; namely, that you are no longer able to argue with/against server staff unless you have a personal stake in the argument. All staff, however, are still free to drop in on any threads they please.

Let me explain in a few points why I believe this is a clear downgrade from the previous modus of "anyone may participate in complaints".

Pros and cons of the situation before the rule:

Pros:

• If a third party posts a valid argument, it can be brought up for consideration. It helps broaden the horizons of the mod team, which often functions like an echo chamber.
• If a third party posts an invalid argument, the staff has the ability to write up a rebuttal, proving further their understanding of the issue, and providing additional clarification on their stance.

Cons:

• Staff may have to read more to process a thread, mostly due to disagreements making up conversation.

---

---

Pros and cons of the situation after the rule:

Pros:

• There's less stuff for staff to read.

Cons:

• Staff can pretty much say and decide whatever. If a member of staff does something bad, the community is entirely reliant on another member of staff noticing this, and actively contesting it.
• Some valid arguments may be skipped entirely.
  
• Users are alone to defend themselves against the full contingent of staff.

 

Now this is all fairly neutral on paper - the real factors deciding whether this change is a good or terrible one are all the external circumstances surrounding the current state of the complaints boards, and the administration team in general. And that's why this thread is here for us to discuss those.

Personally, I think we're looking at a pretty big problem following the new rule. There's a really high mentality of "unity" among the staff; not only will you rarely see staff going against each other, but people have come under flak for simply disagreeing with the admins (and thus demonstrating "poor judgement".) The few staffmembers who have opposite viewpoints tend to only manifest them rarely, and instead opt for silence.

Furthermore, this can be pretty fucking discouraging for users. When making a complaint, the other involved party is obviously going to side against you (otherwise there'd be no complaint or conflict in the first place). In a perfect world, the whole staff would be made up of perfectly rational logicians and complaints would get solved in a heartbeat as the ultimate truth gets immediately found out, but this is not the case. Staff sadly do make mistakes just like the rest of us, and I can already see how it'd majorly suck to make a complaint only to get dogpiled on by a group of staff making little effort to be attentive, while nobody is even defending you because they're not allowed to.

Additionally, I'd like to point out that this rule has so far only been used to completely disregard (without any other justification) valid arguments from observers, or remove them from threads. As seen here, here, here, here, and here.

Lastly, I just don't see the complaints boards as being the most intensive part of modding the server. We get maybe one big complaint a week (accounting for all the recent drama), and if that's enough to give you an aneurysm or put you off enough you'd consider stifling most forms of valid discussion just to make your job easier, you might be in the wrong line of internet volunteer work.

[Doomberg]

The only purpose of the rule: Prevent peanut gallerying. If you have no facts to provide and were not involved in the incident described, you have no place posting in the complaint. If you have something to say as a witness or involved party in the incident, or logs/screenshots/etcetera of similar behavior, you're more than free to join in.

That's kind of clear and another thing that shouldn't have to be stated explicitly: If you have no proof to provide of a player's/staffer's misconduct, or no further facts regarding the incident to contribute, you should keep out.

So far, this has made handling complaints/appeals a whole lot less of a pain in the ass. I have yet to see the usual shitposting or drama in complaints, in fact. It's a bit difficult to argue with results.

[Doomberg]

The only purpose of the rule: Prevent peanut gallerying. If you have no facts to provide and were not involved in the incident described, you have no place posting in the complaint. If you have something to say as a witness or involved party in the incident, or logs/screenshots/etcetera of similar behavior, you're more than free to join in.

That's kind of clear and another thing that shouldn't have to be stated explicitly: If you have no proof to provide of a player's/staffer's misconduct, or no further facts regarding the incident to contribute, you should keep out.

So far, this has made handling complaints/appeals a whole lot less of a pain in the ass. I have yet to see the usual shitposting or drama in complaints, in fact. It's a bit difficult to argue with results.

[Frances]

Let me counter-argue with Exhibit A.

A user writes a complaint asking for the wording of a warning to be changed. Rather than addressing his demand, three members of staff immediately begin to heavily chastise him for the actions that led to his warning - a warning he's not even contesting.

At this point, I post to try to incite the staff to be a little more considerate with their replies. Soon after, I am met with this.

(Do note this is one of the admins engaging in the dogpiling, and she's saying she'll intervene herself if she sees any staff issues arise.)

Less than 24 hours after this, the new rule was up.

[Doomberg]

Let me counter-argue with Exhibit A.

A user writes a complaint asking for the wording of a warning to be changed. Rather than addressing his demand, three members of staff immediately begin to heavily chastise him for the actions that led to his warning - a warning he's not even contesting.

At this point, I post to try to incite the staff to be a little more considerate with their replies. Soon after, I am met with this.

(Do note this is one of the admins engaging in the dogpiling, and she's saying she'll intervene herself if she sees any staff issues arise.)

Less than 24 hours after this, the new rule was up.

 

And if dogpiling continues to occur, it will be addressed with a modification to the rule in question. As it stands, I have not seen any more of it. You refer to dogpiling: Please consider the ratio of staff to players, and the amount of potential posters we'd have to deal with if this rule was not in place. It's a whole lot less likely for staff to want to jump to each other's defense when no one is being barraged with accusations, shitposting, etcetera. I'd say it's a win-win.

[Frances]

And if dogpiling continues to occur, it will be addressed with a modification to the rule in question. As it stands, I have not seen any more of it. You refer to dogpiling: Please consider the ratio of staff to players, and the amount of potential posters we'd have to deal with if this rule was not in place. It's a whole lot less likely for staff to want to jump to each other's defense when no one is being barraged with accusations, shitposting, etcetera. I'd say it's a win-win.

I've been part of this server's mod team for an entire year. During that whole time, not once did I see someone mention managing complaints and bans/unbans as being a pain.

I don't think the flow of complaints/appeals nor their nature have changed since then. So what has?

[Doomberg]

And if dogpiling continues to occur, it will be addressed with a modification to the rule in question. As it stands, I have not seen any more of it. You refer to dogpiling: Please consider the ratio of staff to players, and the amount of potential posters we'd have to deal with if this rule was not in place. It's a whole lot less likely for staff to want to jump to each other's defense when no one is being barraged with accusations, shitposting, etcetera. I'd say it's a win-win.

I've been part of this server's mod team for an entire year. During that whole time, not once did I see someone mention managing complaints and bans/unbans as being a pain.

I don't think the flow of complaints/appeals nor their nature have changed since then. So what has?

 

The climate. Circumstances change over time. People are a whole lot more belligerent when it comes to policy/complaints/whatever else. Shitposting has become more prevalent.

And if it was indeed as prevalent then as it is now, then the reason we are still dealing with it is complacency.

[Frances]

The climate. Circumstances change over time. People are a whole lot more belligerent when it comes to policy/complaints/whatever else. Shitposting has become more prevalent.

And if it was indeed as prevalent then as it is now, then the reason we are still dealing with it is complacency.

I linked five examples of arguably constructive input being met with the "don't post" rule.

Can you link me to five shitposts?

[Doomberg]

The climate. Circumstances change over time. People are a whole lot more belligerent when it comes to policy/complaints/whatever else. Shitposting has become more prevalent.

And if it was indeed as prevalent then as it is now, then the reason we are still dealing with it is complacency.

I linked five examples of arguably constructive input being met with the "don't post" rule.

Can you link me to five shitposts?

 

You understand that it's a bit difficult to do this when most of them are deleted, yes?

No, they're binned. Stand by.

As a matter of fact. I'd rather not disclose who or what posts we took action against for the sake of argument.

Edited September 17, 2015 by Guest

[Guest]

I agree that something like this rule needs to remain in place. Some people criticize as a form of assault on a player, regardless if they themselves are aware if they are doing it. They are not focused on giving information and finding a solution. They are useless for the complaint itself, imo. That's one of the cases when intervention is needed. I've seen enough complaints turn to shitstorms for no appearent reason other than the player in question doing something to another person in another round.

However, if a wrong type of posts are being censored and removed by the staff who are attempting to upkeep order, then the rule might need changing. As Francis says, "Everyone may participate.", but with addendum that defines what participation is. Not all of it can be stuffed under derailing.

[witchbells]

Can I just interject, as someone who isn't important and doesn't want to start shit?

If I have a complaint with admins or other players, I don't want a entire peanut gallery present with the ability to comment their stance however and as often as they please. I'm talking about people who have absolute no say or witnessed nothing, they just want people to know how they feel because their thoughts are important, even though the person in question had absolutely nothing to do with the situation in question.

Complaints threads have been filled to the brim with shit like this lately, with people who weren't even involved in the damn incident arguing in circles around the people who actually have an issue they want solved.

[Xelnagahunter]

Here's a simple fact, and one Skull questioned me about during my moderator application interviews. I think we are too lenient and transparent about certain things. Do we, as a server, cater to the community? In every way that we can. Do we do our best to keep a person's personal issues and things they get in trouble for private? I think most of us do. Do other players need to be involved in someone's trouble, say via a ban appeal? Nope. Not one little bit.

My moderation background comes from several minecraft servers. One of the best things a server ever did, in my opinion, was to make all threads on a ban appeal section invisible. This way only staff and the thread author could see the posts. This prevented someone's ban from being publicly announced for no good reason. They could appeal and get accepted and pass it off as a long break from the server or something. WE also didn't allow people to post things in reports,player or staff, unless they had VERY relevant input or evidence. I voted for a system where only the author, the person complained against, staff, and maybe dedicated witnesses the author or the accused party selected could view it. I think stuff like that should be the normal everywhere. We are not a governing body. We are server staff. A private establishment made for people to enjoy themselves. If the owner/admin or his chosen staff have issues, they can/will take action in an applicable sense. Forced removal and verbal/written warning included. We don't need other patrons knocking on our doors demanding to know why someone else got bounced or was cut off from the bar.

So even with this new rule, we are still far more transparent than I'd like. I doubt my singular opinion will change that either, which I've accepted. Long story short though, I feel that there are many situations where staff can and will change things for the "betterment" of the server in their eyes. In most cases, the people who have issues with it are the kinds of people that are trouble and not wanted around anyways. Really the staff has no obligation to make anyone happy, and that we try as hard as we do in most cases is simply because we enjoy our playerbase and want you to come back, just like any good establishment.

[Frances]

I think we are too lenient and transparent about certain things.

My most recent mod application (a few months ago) was thrown out because "unnamed administrators" had "unnamed/controversial issues" with me. Other people have had their mod applications skipped or thrown out because of similar issues, without being as much as informed or given a chance to explain themselves, in some cases over clear misunderstandings or because a single member of staff passed a cursory judgement over the application. These are all situations which could be solved with more transparency and dialogue between staff and the community.

The only reason why someone will even know they're not being considered for mod (or why) is if they're fortunate enough to get in contact with someone high enough in charge, and that person likes them enough to disclose the information (and even then you're not going to get names or detailed descriptions of what the issues are). I have publicly offered/requested for the people who raised objections against my mod application to discuss with me what the issues they had with my application were, only to be met by complete and total silence. (And this is before members of staff started to dislike me because I played funny characters and disagreed with them in their threads - lmao.) These are instances where these issues could have easily been solved if anything as simple as basic communication between involved parties had been established

If anything, this goes to show we're not transparent enough.

Hiding complaints and ban appeals isn't a service done to the people involved in them. It would be if staff were nicer, but at the time being staff are highly critical of anyone breaking any rules for any reason, and I honestly wouldn't feel comfortable seeing them handle any of my issues in complete secrecy.

Edit: I just realized you're suggesting we hide bans completely from users, so that people don't know when other people have been banned. Err, I don't really want to spend five paragraphs explaining why I think this is bad, but the comparisons to 1984 come to mind.

[Skull132]

Edit: I just realized you're suggesting we hide bans completely from users, so that people don't know when other people have been banned. Err, I don't really want to spend five paragraphs explaining why I think this is bad, but the comparisons to 1984 come to mind.

 

Except, Xelnaga is right. Everything has a time and place. Closed groups, with an application required for entry -- yeah, you don't need to know, as an outsider, who has been banned, who reprimanded, etcetera. Heck, even as a member, you might not need to know. And he did pitch it from an angle similar to that of a closed group. However, this is another matter entirely, so, we'll move on.

In response to the series of SNAFUs with your and Thundy's mod applications, do identify with the fact that the present level of transparency has little to nothing to do with the issue you cite. Even in a closed system, as I hinted at in my previous few sentences, the lines through which this information would flow need to exist and work flawlessly. And if they don't, then that's another matter on its own, and probably something that should be dealt with. However, in the current manner that you raise it, it is literally comparing apples to oranges, as they are rather pried apart from one-another.

Fuck it, an example. Closed group setting, I only know what goes on in my purview. As a standard member, my purview consists of the responsibilities given to me. If my teammate gets reprimanded, I don't hear shit about it if it does not concern me. If he tells me -- sure, yeah. But officially, I don't know squat, and I carry on with whatever I am doing. Why? Because it does not concern me. Were it an open/transparent system, I'd hear about it and see the process, the reasoning. These are the apples -- the two possibilities for information that doesn't concern me directly to reach me. The day moves on regardless of which one is used, generally speaking, as both work and have existed from time immemorial.

Once again, closed group setting, this time I fuck up. I get reprimanded, I hear about it. Why? Because, guess what, it concerns me specifically. Who do I hear about it from? Administration directly, in a generalized term. These are the oranges (or rather, the singular orange) -- this is the direct line that you are talking about in your last reply and that needs to exist, regardless of which of the two (apples) approaches is used. Without it, fuckall gets done.

But, from your original post, we're here to argue about the apples. Onto the present rule then, on which I'm 50/50 split. We have developed a neat little peanut gallery, and some posts most certainly could use that rule being enforced. I've seen a system like this be used to great effect, most notably on GOON, and to very detrimental effect, like on Unbound Travels -- so it is feasible, just a matter of, "Is it right for us?" Here is a question, though -- and perhaps where this discussion should actually start from -- what is the purpose of a complaint? The way I see it, player complaints should have it. They exist as a problem solving tool, primarily. An issue is raised, and the party presenting it wants a solution. Instead of going into massive roundabouts and hijacking discussions (which I have seen happen), why not just get rapid-fire dialogue between the involved parties and a staff member? Done. Staff complaints, however, exist as a tool for review. Greater opinion usually benefits them, as we are no longer simply looking for a passable solution, but are instead looking to review a solution, so that it may affect future solutions.

[Frances]

But, from your original post, we're here to argue about the apples. Onto the present rule then, on which I'm 50/50 split. We have developed a neat little peanut gallery, and some posts most certainly could use that rule being enforced. I've seen a system like this be used to great effect, most notably on GOON, and to very detrimental effect, like on Unbound Travels -- so it is feasible, just a matter of, "Is it right for us?" Here is a question, though -- and perhaps where this discussion should actually start from -- what is the purpose of a complaint? The way I see it, player complaints should have it. They exist as a problem solving tool, primarily. An issue is raised, and the party presenting it wants a solution. Instead of going into massive roundabouts and hijacking discussions (which I have seen happen), why not just get rapid-fire dialogue between the involved parties and a staff member? Done. Staff complaints, however, exist as a tool for review. Greater opinion usually benefits them, as we are no longer simply looking for a passable solution, but are instead looking to review a solution, so that it may affect future solutions.

The problem is that player complaints can serve different purposes. Some are issue-based, and some are review-based. Assuming all parties are reasonable, there should be no need for outside intervention in "issue" complaints, but that prevents us from having "review" complaints, no?

Anyway, I think a far better problem is that I don't trust the staff to handle complaints appropriately (and most other people who don't trust the staff have left, so I guess you can dismiss my point if you really wish). Doom claims the rule was added to get rid of "peanut gallerying", yet I've ironically seen more staff engage in low-content, "obvious" posts (basically telling the users they're bad without much basis other than their authority alone) than regular users have.

[Skull132]

The problem is that player complaints can serve different purposes. Some are issue-based, and some are review-based. Assuming all parties are reasonable, there should be no need for outside intervention in "issue" complaints, but that prevents us from having "review" complaints, no?

Which is why I wish the rule could be fluidly applied, but that would create a lot more headaches than it would solve, hence my generalization and idealization. Although, technically, a solution offered and executed by staff on a complaint could be reviewed in a staff complaint. *shrugs*

[Jboy2000000]

I don't know if the rule is a good thing/bad thing, but to me it looks like a much nicer way of saying "we don't care what you say anyway, so you may as well not post anyway." I think all the examples of Frances showed are good examples of that.

[Garnascus]

I actually strongly disagree with the rule. A free flow of information is something that's very important to me. In this case I think posting to a staff complaint should be allowed by all. I don't believe in limiting criticism and I accept the negatives and shitposting that might come from it. I think we as staff do actually have an Us vs them mentality at times and even i can be guilty of it.

Character complaints I actually think are in a great place. Let whoever wants to bring in points of contention and we as a community can sort through it.

[Frances]

Food for thought, but don't we have forum mods to remove shitposting? If people really do bring completely inane points, they should be relatively easy to refute, and people trying to rile others up for the sake of flaming already seem to have their posts removed.

[Garnascus]

Food for thought, but don't we have forum mods to remove shitposting? If people really do bring completely inane points, they should be relatively easy to refute, and people trying to rile others up for the sake of flaming already seem to have their posts removed.

 

That's what I'm thinking too, although even as a mod i know little about our forum moderators so I don't know if they would have issues. Frankly if there is an issue with that I don't see it. Id love to be able to both server and forum mod XD.

[Zidanyia]

To kinda address a concern about how bans and such aren't transparent, meow, meow, meow...

I mean, you guys could always go the yog route and make your ban listing public. Then again, it was a headache for the yog coders to set up a public access database like this in the beginning. Pretty sure they had more bugs with it than a bait shop, yo.

Foreseeably, I figure y'all could argue;

-- Wait why would you want to do this, wouldn't this just cause people to be made fun of for getting banned??

-- Coding Effort vs. Reward. html and sql are like hangovers from a bunch of cherry bombs.

-- This isn't a democracy and nobody would care about a public ban listing at all.

But, meh. I think it would solve more problems with staff transparency than it would create, given that ANYBODY can go onto Yog's banlisting for instance without having to be an admin with a secret SQL passcode or something just to dig out a ban reason. Plus, attempting to lie in a ban appeal would be no bueno, especially when everyone can see the ban reason and the relevant dates...

Don't look at me, though, I'm awful at SQL coding.

[Frances]

Casual bump, but do we wanna do anything about this? Or are people mostly content/unconcerned with the current state of the complaint section?

[SierraKomodo]

i think the rule's fine; You shouldn't be cluttering a player complaint thread with irrelevant things/opinions if you don't have anything to add to the thread.

[Frances]

i think the rule's fine; You shouldn't be cluttering a player complaint thread with irrelevant things/opinions if you don't have anything to add to the thread.

Should we be removing any possibility for third party contributions (and thus risk making complaints very one-sided), when posts could also be dealt with on a case-by-case basis?