Ye..
What makes moderation good/bad? (Please do not attack members of the staff team)
Sort:
Some mods are just too good for their jobs
Oct 25, 2024
0
#4
Good post, Wills. This is a productive topic, and could spark good debate on it.
Cheers!
As time went on, baby is getting banned faster and faster
teriyaki-udon wrote:
Good post, Wills. This is a productive topic, and could spark good debate on it.
Cheers!
Appreciate it! Most of the time discussion like this gets locked because people bring up specific examples, and it's often disorganized, so I thought I'd make a dedicated place to talk about it.
Is there really something called good or bad moderation? I dont think so imo. Because chess.com has some specific rules or terms of service and moderators just enforce these rules. So how can there be good or bad moderation? Moderators cannot be subjective in case of moderation, they can only follow the rules.
DeltaCrimson wrote:
Is there really something called good or bad moderation? I dont think so imo. Because chess.com has some specific rules or terms of service and moderators just enforce these rules. So how can there be good or bad moderation? Moderators cannot be subjective in case of moderation, they can only follow the rules.
I understand the point of view this argument comes from, but there's a big problem with it: It assumes that every rule will be perfectly explained and objective. The problem is most rules aren't, especially when it comes to something like moderation. Take for example: No political or religious debate. Well, what does debate mean? Wouldn't you call that a very subjective thing? Everyone's definition of when an argument becomes a debate could be different, and as such, when this rule should be applied can be quite unclear
And if you think the moderation is unfair because some of your friends got "wrongfully banned" then they have only themselves to blame not the moderators, since obviously they went aganist the tos. It would be far better if people actually took responsibility for their own actions rather than blaming others for having to experience consequence of their own actions.
DeltaCrimson wrote:
And if you think the moderation is unfair because some of your friends got "wrongfully banned" then they have only themselves to blame not the moderators, since obviously they went aganist the tos. It would be far better if people actually took responsibility for their own actions rather than blaming others for having to experience consequence of their own actions.
Well, everyone makes mistakes, and I'm sure many people who had the power to ban someone would be biased against members they disliked. Therefore, it could very well be a moderation mistake to ban someone, or even bias. Mods and staff are humans, just like us. Just because they have their mod/staff title doesn't mean that they don't make mistakes, too.
DeltaCrimson wrote:
And if you think the moderation is unfair because some of your friends got "wrongfully banned" then they have only themselves to blame not the moderators, since obviously they went aganist the tos. It would be far better if people actually took responsibility for their own actions rather than blaming others for having to experience consequence of their own actions.
Once again I get the point, but the point has its flaws. It's always important to look at both sides of the story and make comparisons when applicable. If two users for example did similar things but received different punishments, you can't say that the moderation was just. That's the definition of inequality. It's also important not to take reports or similar things at face value. A "trusted" user cannot be the proof that a different user broke ToS. That's my stance anyways
TheRealWilliam2 wrote:
DeltaCrimson wrote:
Is there really something called good or bad moderation? I dont think so imo. Because chess.com has some specific rules or terms of service and moderators just enforce these rules. So how can there be good or bad moderation? Moderators cannot be subjective in case of moderation, they can only follow the rules.
I understand the point of view this argument comes from, but there's a big problem with it: It assumes that every rule will be perfectly explained and objective. The problem is most rules aren't, especially when it comes to something like moderation. Take for example: No political or religious debate. Well, what does debate mean? Wouldn't you call that a very subjective thing? Everyone's definition of when an argument becomes a debate could be different, and as such, when this rule should be applied can be quite unclear
About the debate part; well a debate is a formal discussion on a topic so a ban on political and religious debate is easily executable. When you are reading through the forums you can definitely see if a debate about politics or religion is happening cant you? So is it really subjective?
DeltaCrimson wrote:
TheRealWilliam2 wrote:
DeltaCrimson wrote:
Is there really something called good or bad moderation? I dont think so imo. Because chess.com has some specific rules or terms of service and moderators just enforce these rules. So how can there be good or bad moderation? Moderators cannot be subjective in case of moderation, they can only follow the rules.
I understand the point of view this argument comes from, but there's a big problem with it: It assumes that every rule will be perfectly explained and objective. The problem is most rules aren't, especially when it comes to something like moderation. Take for example: No political or religious debate. Well, what does debate mean? Wouldn't you call that a very subjective thing? Everyone's definition of when an argument becomes a debate could be different, and as such, when this rule should be applied can be quite unclear
About the debate part; well a debate is a formal discussion on a topic so a ban on political and religious debate is easily executable. When you are reading through the forums you can definitely see if a debate about politics or religion is happening cant you? So is it really subjective?
Well according to AA, mentioning a politicians name isn't political, but after mentioning one in a post of mine, it quickly got locked by Martin. So I do believe that it's subjective at times. Obviously political threads would (at least, I hope) be locked by all mods.
13 fair, but please refrain from providing specific examples of poor moderation so this does not get locked
#12 see, that is one possible definition. There are so many definitions of debate that such a rule doesn’t narrow things down much.
TheRealWilliam2 wrote:
DeltaCrimson wrote:
And if you think the moderation is unfair because some of your friends got "wrongfully banned" then they have only themselves to blame not the moderators, since obviously they went aganist the tos. It would be far better if people actually took responsibility for their own actions rather than blaming others for having to experience consequence of their own actions.
Once again I get the point, but the point has its flaws. It's always important to look at both sides of the story and make comparisons when applicable. If two users for example did similar things but received different punishments, you can't say that the moderation was just. That's the definition of inequality. It's also important not to take reports or similar things at face value. A "trusted" user cannot be the proof that a different user broke ToS. That's my stance anyways
Can moderators in practicality analyse the stance of both sides? No right? Its far too time consuming so obviously the mods will take action based on the rules provided and taking action on the person accordingly. Also about the 'different punishments' part; has that really happened? Can yougive an example?about the report part; the reports are not taken at face value, and its the chess.com staff that reviews the report and then takes action and not the mods. So yea, reports are always analyzed before taking action. Thats y you dont have to be scared if someone says that they have reorted you. You dont have to worry about getting reported for invalid reasons.
TheRealWilliam2 wrote:
13 fair, but please refrain from providing specific examples of poor moderation so this does not get locked
Oh ok.
I don’t know. I feel like they aren’t quick enough to ban trolls and spammers, or at the very least mute them. I feel like they should take more time and spend more money to keep the forums fun and family friendly. With all of this being said, the mods can also overmute and overban people, and don’t allow for a lot of perfectly reasonable peaceful arguments. They lock threads seemingly without reason. I think there should be able to be reasonable arguments about politics and religion, so as they are not blown out of proportion by everyone.
TheRealWilliam2 wrote:
#12 see, that is one possible definition. There are so many definitions of debate that such a rule doesn’t narrow things down much.
Then how can anything be achieved by anyone if everyone has a different interpretation of a concept?
#16 they don’t have to analyze. They just have to check both sides, and take a brief look at each ones comment history to find where it started. And keep in mind, cases like that where it’s unclear which of two users should be in question are far rarer than the more clear ones, so it wouldn’t be a large time investment.
But about reports, there unfortunately is no proof that staff goes beyond simply taking action on an account that got reported a bunch. Ideally a user should never be muted or banned off of reports alone, but it’s hard to reinforce that.
But about reports, there unfortunately is no proof that staff goes beyond simply taking action on an account that got reported a bunch. Ideally a user should never be muted or banned off of reports alone, but it’s hard to reinforce that.
(In case mods see this, please leave this open. It is not calling out any of the staff and is just discussion on how moderation should ideally be done and where this site as a whole is meeting the challenge well, and also where it might not be meeting the challenge as well when it comes to moderation.)
So what is ideal moderation? I thought this would be a good topic, because although Chess.com as a whole is probably more focused on catching cheaters understandably, a big source of required moderation is this sites forum and social aspect. As much as there are many users who just hop on this site to play games and nothing else, many also use its various forums, blogs, article sections, and clubs as well. And whenever a site has a social aspect, there are going to be people who abuse that freedom to say what they want anonymously by posting inappropriate or charged things in the hopes of a reaction.
So what in your opinion is good moderation? What are guidelines that should be followed whenever taking action against a user? That's the subject of this thread. Feel free to post any ideas or opinions you have. I only ask that you do not bring up specific examples of poor moderation here, as this could be considered as personal attacks which could get this thread locked. With that out of the way, let's discuss what makes moderation good (and bad).