When discussing Moderation in another thread it became abundantly clear that Polidicks is in greater need of moderation and I don't believe the current way we do this is the best way to do it. The main issue I have is that Moderators should be impartial in their duties.
I propose that we create a user council of 5 users who are elected on 2 monthly term. They will have influence to drive policy changes within Polidicks, ban users from the subforum, suggest users to be banned from the forums, suggest threads to be closed.
All elements of this are subject to change and I am open to suggestions, thoughts and feelings about this.
I feel that this will allow the Polidicks community and the moderators to work closer to help identify issues and solve them.
is this the part where I ride down an escalator and announce my candidacy?
I'll just repost my thoughts from that previous thread here for clarity.
I think this idea is worth trying, though I'm not optimistic about it's results. I'm concerned the 'council' will end up lopsided politically, or become full of some of the more 'extreme' members. Not only that, we're yet to see if we'll have users committed enough for this.
We should trial this process on Discord, opening up a new chat server for meta discussion about Polidicks, where you can easily reach mods. If we find that we have enough users participating that are fair in their evaluations, I'd feel more confident with this becoming the dominant form of moderation in Polidicks.
We should elect some of the more levelheaded posters who don't fling shit on a daily basis or put dumb callouts in their posts.
Sounds like mob justice waiting to happen and a circlejerk in the making tbh
What happens when someone expresses a controversial view on guns laws or Trump or Russia? They'll be gone p fast
As I stated in the other thread, I think this is an overengineered approach.
On paper it sounds good but in practice I feel like it would take too long for information to pass from user 1 to user 2 to user 3 to user 4 to user 5, reaching a conclusion as a group, then passing that to a moderator, then the moderator deciding whether or not to act on it. Could be hours or days before a simple shitpost cops a ban this way.
If we are going to approach PD as its own challenge (and I think we should, since it has a significantly different culture from the rest of the boards) I think it would make more sense to pick 2-4 moderators from different ends of the political spectrum to focus on PD. Encourage them to communicate and only take individual action if they are 100% sure a post is totally garbage just meant to stir shit.
While I understand your concerns about moderator impartiality I think past problems of this nature have been more a function of the specific moderators than a natural consequence of moderators having political leans.
I think that members should disclose their ideology so to ensure we have a fair council that isn't too skewed.
As for communication I'm thinking a channel on the FP server would be the best idea, considering all the moderators are there already. We could make this viewable by everyone but with only moderators and council members able to post in it. Or we could just make it private
@smurfy for godking of polidicks
I think itd be best for it to be viewable by everyone so certain nutjobs here cant cry conspriacy every time they get banned for being an ass
Full transparency on how the council discusses stuff would be beneficial if we went down this route, imo. Definitely better to keep it visible to everyone but only moderators and council members can post in it.
As for members disclosing their ideology, I think that's fair/a given, but I'm worried that's how the 'extreme' users might end up on the council. People may be more likely to 'elect' an extreme figure who argues for their side.
Then again, that might be exactly what the system needs, I'm not really sure. This is all very experimental for the facepunch community.
That's why it would be important for everybody to select the right candidates.
This isn't about the short term banning of individuals or rule breakers, this is about ensuring discussion is balanced, fair and high quality. The council would be identifying posters who are prolific shitters; negative influences who contribute very little and dealing with them in the appropriate manner.
If need be, we could get a dedicated Polidicks moderator who would lead the council through things and be head of it all, but ultimately answerable to the council.
I can take it.
Of course. My prior post touched on that as well, I forgot to include it - the way I see it, you'd have users who frequently participate in polidicks who can hand out rapid responses to short term problems while coordinating and communicating to identify and handle up on slow-burn trolls who neatly skirt the rules while still poisoning the well.
A dedicated polidicks mod would be good, but I still think having at least two from different sides of the spectrum makes sense to cut down on accusations of politically biased moderation.
Dedicated polidicks mod should be called the president and the council should be called congress.
We'll move forward with the council idea first, then after I've got some experience of being the moderator attached to it I can have a look and see if we need one or two moderators. I appreciate the sentiment although I feel it may be hard to find somebody right leaning who would be a suitable moderator (not because of the political alignment, but rather the lack of available users and therefore the statistical probability that they will not conform to my required standards)
And what about minority ideologies or views? They'll either be absurdly over represented (ie 1 person on the council when maybe it's only a handfull of users) or utterly unrepresented (ie nobody on the council).
In theory it's nice but everyone has biases and sticking points. The mods have the follow rules, bda might have had biases but he didn't act on them, infact he over compensated the other way, letting people he disagreed with shitpost (for fear of outrage brigading) and banning people who he agreed with who got riled up from the prior mentioned shitposting. Mods were doing ok at moderating, removing the rules and putting in a clunky council system seems like it'll be a disaster.
I'm worried coz I've expressed some controversial opinions, some which I stand by, some which I look back on and think "tf was I thinking". I don't think I've ever been banned for those opinions by mods but I've had the mob against me, mass dumb rating spamming and mass replying - you give power to that mob I'da got banned for stating an opinion which people simply disagreed with. Which is bs.
As an example of mob mentality look at the recent shooting in UK thread where the OP was banned for a silly shitpost. His shitpost (a pro gun control shitpost) got him 90 negative ratings (to 1 agree) while a shitpost a little later (a pro gun shitpost) by Feeble Oaf got 47 agrees, a diamond and just 4 dumb ratings. Peeps are only outraged at inappropriate shitposts when it's an inappropriate shitpost they disagree with.
You give that same mob power and you're not stopping shitposts, you're just stopping shitpost by users expressing opinions the council (read majority) disagrees with. At least with mods they were held accountable - if a mod acted with bias they'd risk demodding which is unfavourable to them, since it's hard to earn.
I mean you have unclejemmina for that already. Unless current mods are out of the pool.
This exactly. I know a few people who probably would have banned me because I went against the wave.
Just make sure you have some overbearing centrist in there. Someone intolerably in the middle. You know, one of those guys that comes into a thread and bemoans both sides. Get someone like that and tell them to play the devils advocate in 99% of ban cases.
I'd do it.
A post being "garbage" or to "stir shit" is completely subjective though. I'm certain a minority opinion would be classed as people stirring shit.
that catbarf guy plays devils avacado to whatever is posted so maybe he can be your "grey knight of polidicks" he works with police too so he know's how to cuff a foo tryna get away from justice
I like the idea but it seems a bit farcical currently. Probably discuss and lock down exactly how it's gonna work before talking about who's gonna do it.
I think that this is a plan that could work, but I feel like in practice it'll require more effort than screening out some long time/upstanding community members to make mods of in just polidicks, and monitor them for corruption periodically/if enough people complain.
Tbh, normal bans shouldn't need to go through a council. The council should be there to guide a moderation team and change polidicks policy to create a better environment. If the council is going to just be there to run bans and things like that, then just get more moderators.
I don't have an answer for your first point. That's why I'll be leading on it to begin with, so I can adjust processes as we go along. I don't really want to forcibly appoint somebody as a token member of a political party. Maybe it would be worth when I put the thread up to stress that people should pick who they feel will do the job best, rather than political alignment?
You say he didn't act on them, but then you say he over compensated the other way. His impartiality was affected negatively as a result which is why I believe a system such as this will be a better solution than appointing a moderator.
Rules weren't removed; the sticky has always been there and therefore in effect. Admittedly there has been some confusion from moderators and nobody (other than UncleJim) have shown an interest in moderating this section.
Can you link me to that thread so I can have a look, it sounds like a good example of how PD can be biased.
I want to be clear in that all bans would be carried out by a moderator, so they can disagree but will have to provide a full rationale.
They can suggest people be banned (short term modding, e.g flamers) and independently come to a decision to ban somebody from the subforum (not physically ban really, but rather bar them from it for a period of time, would be a better explanation). These things all have to be subject to balances and checks and we'll need to establish those as we move forward.
All this seems really excessive and tbh I think that all that PD really needs is some clearly defined rules to keep things in order and a mod to enforce it. Turning it into some psuedo-government really just seems to be asking for trouble.
They wouldn't be given moderator powers, they'd all discuss things, come to a decision and refer it to a moderator.
Exactly what I'm aiming for. It's all about the long term and not the short term.
that's a fun idea, thematically relevant too lmao. i think we should start off very simple though, definitely no permaban powers for example, and maybe 3 people instead of 5 but that could be too few
The rules have been clearly defined for this section from its very inception. It's just that sometimes they're not enforced as stringently as I envisioned they would be.
It's not a psuedo-government, it's a way for the moderator team and the polidicks community to better work together. The reason having a mod on their own doesn't work has been outlined above, it's all about impartiality.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.