Mirror Thread for "Plan of action for emergent moderation?"

MomTFH · **Posted:** Sat Dec 18, 2010 1:38 am

Hey, just wanted to say I have been really busy and have had DSL issues recently.

I thought there was a dearth of mod activity lately. Yes, I suppose it is down to the three of us, and we may not always be readily available. I welcome board input on offenses, mod or individual.

I think it may be necessary, at least with the mod make up as it is, to have a one mod suspension. I think it may be better to have more than one mod weigh in on an insta-ban, however. How about two? For really egregious violations, there can be a suspension pending insta-ban. If there is some unreasonably long hold up in getting the quorum, and the violation was that egregious, maybe we will have to resort to one mod only, but I hope that doesn't happen. I am loathe to take unilateral action, but I suppose I would if it came down to it.

Llencelyn · **Joined:** Sun Apr 25, 2010 6:04 am **Posts:** 258

MomTFH wrote:

I think it may be necessary, at least with the mod make up as it is, to have a one mod suspension. I think it may be better to have more than one mod weigh in on an insta-ban, however. How about two? For really egregious violations, there can be a suspension pending insta-ban. If there is some unreasonably long hold up in getting the quorum, and the violation was that egregious, maybe we will have to resort to one mod only, but I hope that doesn't happen. I am loathe to take unilateral action, but I suppose I would if it came down to it.

Seconded.

Tevarre · **Posted:** Sun Dec 19, 2010 2:04 am

And thirded. Which gives us total mod agreement as things stand, I guess.

Just as a side note - apologies for the blow-out in the length of that absence. It was like the universe didn't want me to ever get connected again.

MomTFH · **Posted:** Sun Dec 19, 2010 4:49 pm

Yup, Tevarre, you jinxed us!

Smoovie · **Posted:** Mon Jan 03, 2011 5:07 am

The code of conduct does not seem to have been updated since this plan of action was decided on - should it be?

Tevarre · **Posted:** Mon Jan 03, 2011 11:54 am

We haven't had time to hammer out the additions to the CoC - including a Mod CoC - yet. Sorry about the lack of update on that front. I'm editing the CoC now, and will place it here ASAP (before I leave tonight) for approval before the 'forum rules' version is changed.

Tevarre · **Posted:** Mon Jan 03, 2011 12:35 pm

Alrighty, I think I've pulled together all of the suggestions; apologies if I've missed or mis-stated something. The following text would be inserted into the CoC:

Quote:

If a violation of these guidelines occurs:

It is the responsibility of the relevant forum’s dedicated moderator to provide a mod-voice warning (in the relevant thread and via PM to the offender) which specifies the violation. If the warning is ignored, it is to be followed by a 24-hour suspension of posting privilege for the person who is violating the CoC (PVCC for short). If the PVCC is the dedicated moderator of a forum, it is incumbent on any moderator to take these steps. Three suspensions will result in the outright banning of the PVCC.

If the PVCC is a moderator, mod privileges will be removed at the time of suspension. They will not be reinstated until the individual involved has unequivocally and publically shown that they understand why their behaviour violated the CoC. Moderating privileges will not be reinstated until the community has had an opportunity to provide feedback to the Moderator quorum (either through a discussion thread and/or vote) with regard to returning privileges.

If the PVCC returns from suspension and refuses to either engage with open discussion of the violation or indicate that they require time out from the issue (i.e. to let defensiveness fade, etc), then the moderators (excluding the PVCC mod, if that is the case) will confer to determine whether a longer suspension or outright ban is required to manage the situation.

24 hour suspensions may be implemented by a single moderator. Longer suspensions must be approved by at least two moderators; bannings (excepting those which fall under the 3-strike policy) require the agreement of three moderators. If an egregious violation requiring an immediate banning occurs, and three moderators are not available to deal with it in a reasonable timeframe, one moderator may implement an indefinite suspension, pending the availability of other moderators.

One thing I think we should be covering specifically here is what exactly constitutes 'ignoring' a warning. Obviously continuing with behaviour that's been specified as a violation is ignoring it, but should we require the PVCC to post acknowledging & accepting the warning? I don't think it's congruent with maintaining safety in the forum space if the PVCC can, for example, simply opt out of the discussion after a violation.

MomTFH · **Posted:** Mon Jan 03, 2011 8:09 pm

Thanks for putting the time into this. I will try to put some thought into a reply soon, but I wanted to say thanks first.

*EDIT* OK, I read it. Sounds really appropriate.

First of all, I realize I need to step up and feel comfortable using the mod voice, which I promise to work on.

Secondly, although I do have a little trepidation about how mushy it is trying to define whether someone is defensive or not, or is ready to rejoin the board, it is my experience in the past that it is usually pretty clear whether the person is or isn't handling the situation appropriately. It may be difficult if there is some dissent in reaction to the person's attempts at reconciliation, but we can cross that bridge when we come to it.

Tevarre · **Posted:** Thu Jan 06, 2011 12:57 am

One other thing I would like to add (I've just had to delete a spam post with suspicious link):

Quote:

While we are not attempting to force standardised English on members, posts which contain only gibberish will be deleted, especially if they contain links.

Or something to that effect. I'm in no way saying that posts have to be up to a certain 'standard' to be acceptable.

MomTFH · **Posted:** Thu Jan 06, 2011 1:40 am

I think that's fine. Or, you can say "posts that are strongly suspicious of being spam."

Fugitivus Discussion Forum

Mirror Thread for "Plan of action for emergent moderation?"

Who is online