Last edited by Apoc; January 12th, 2019 at 08:40 AM.
But that does raise the question, if it doesn't matter...so why pigeon hole interactions with labels in the first place?
Apoc stop spamming so the mods can avoid my question
I think i'm having a different conversation to light/dark tbh
Mine is more about the psychology of the interaction. And how to best try and make sure everyone comes away from moderation without a sour taste.
I dont think anything is complex necessarily.
Coach -> Warn -> Maybe Warn #2 -> Maybe Temp Ban -> Perm Ban
it's really not that hard
Last edited by Apoc; January 12th, 2019 at 08:50 AM.
I’ve been following along and my thoughts are:
- we make the line drawn with what rules are being broken in “coachings” very clear regardless of the tone.
- not particularly attached to the term coaching and I can see how it’s condescending; however given that it’s a term pretty much used exclusively in internal discussions and in here bc of the nature of the mod qa I’m really very meh about it. Like I can agree we should change it if need be given a better option (reminder’s ~ok in my sleep-addled brain rn) but we don’t use the term coaching when coaching, lol. It’s a label there for the sake of there needing to be a label for the preliminary stage of assuming one-off unintentional rule breaks.
- mods know what is and isn’t against the spirit of the rules, if you feel like something is against the spirit of the rules report it and we’ll give you feedback why or why not
- this is not the place to ask about particular cases.
I know that I am not a mod, and thus I might not be qualified to talk here, but I am a referee in my sports, both in Chess and Floorball, and thus I understand the side of the mods here.
Generally, when a problem occurs in either game, it's my job to intervene. And as such, I have two roles. First of all, I am the person who is going to handle out judgement of the situation. Second, my goal is to not see such a rulebreak happen again at any later point in the game.
Thus, my approach to rulebreaks is very different, depending on how I judge the situation. For example, a player might do something that I could penalise him for, like making a forbidden move (Chess) or playing the ball with the hand (Floorball). At this time, my first thought is whether this was a severe situation that needs punishment. Did it influence the game? Did the player do it deliberately? How old/experienced is the player? Do I have some wiggle room if I don't go for a direct punishment?
At this point I decide on how to approach the rulebreaker. If they are younger, or that rule is of newer nature, or they have generally behaved well and appropriate up until that point, I might forgo the punishment depending on the reactions of the other team/players. I might take him to me, explain the rule and why this is a rulebreak, and tell him that if he does such an action again I will have to give him that penalty. Or, even if I have to give him that penalty, I will try to calmly explain to him what happened as to make him understand what his mistake was.
If they are older, experienced, did the rulebreak deliberately and are already skirting the rules, then of course I will always go for a form of punishment, including the clear language that this behaviour is unacceptable and that they will get consecutive punishments if they don't cut it out.
In my opinion, it's VERY important for a referee to have this deep understanding of the situation, to feel how you need to handle the other person, and to act accordingly. To figure out whether you can reach the other player and how you should approach them. Maybe a player is not "evil", but just "forgetful" about that rule? In that case, giving him a light form of punishment might him remember that rule in the future and help him along the way.
My point is that I find it very important that there is a distinction between a "warning" and a "coaching". However you call those words are semantics. I have a coach at my floorball team, like anybody doing sports has. So I personally disagree with the word coaching being infantilising. On the other hand, I wouldn't call my refereeing as "coaching", since I am not, or that isn't the main reason I am doing the refereeing. You could call it "teaching the rules" maybe? But I fear, like some mods, that arguing about the words themselves is more likely a proxy argument than not.
Can we unban wolfy
Originally Posted by Panther
I am somewhat confused on the coaching word here. From my experience, we rarely write "Hello x. You're now getting coached." or "This was a coaching." when we do the coaching. I always name my messages "mod message" and tell the user what code of conduct they broke . Usually we also paste in the relevant rules/code of conduct entries. Then there's usually an explanation on how this breaks the pasted rule/CoC. It is a casual sort of thing. It is in the report thread and the log that we discuss coach or warning etc. It makes it much easier for us in this discussion to have these distinct terms and also easier to read the log.
If we send you a warning, we are 100% going to tell you "this is a warning" in some sort. This is also probably the point where you will see the word coaching, since we are likely to refer back to it. "We have previously coached you on this matter" although sometimes I guess we can say "We have talked about this before." Then again, these things are awfully context-based.
However, regardless if it is a coaching, warning or ban,9 times of 10 we sign off with a "if you have any questions, feel free to PM me or any other mod" or something. If a mod message is unclear, please ask questions. If a ban or warning is unfair, please voice that. Aside from getting a better idea how you can improve (or point out an error in our decision), it also helps us getting better at writing the messages.
Now, maybe it is because English isn't my first language, but it is difficult for me to see "coaching" as having condescending undertones. To me it is used as a way to say "hello, you need to improve on this, here's how you can do it!" Moderators are also, logically, coming from a position of authority in these interactions about game and site rules. That is also why there's a much higher standard on moderators to follow game and site rules. Therefore it isn't too farfetched that we use some authoritative words when we have the mod hats on. I guess there are different connotations of "coaching" that I am not aware of. If a large portion of users find "coaching" to be a problematic term, I think we could stop using it in moderator-user interaction. I don't see us removing it from our moderation discussions or our private log, however.
Last edited by Boquise; January 12th, 2019 at 12:28 PM.
I think MU is a social experiment that is meant to see how tilted I can be for 3 years
Mods actual job is to just say "read rules, don't break", then if you do it again they need to get rid of you, now sometimes they really $#@! that up, but at the end of the day, Apoc is right that they don't need to baby people. Warn them, if they don't put in their own effort to read and understand, ban them. Like how the $#@! am I still on this site.
Also if people won't even put in the effort to learn the rules after a warning, then I don't want them in complex WW games when they can't read OPs.
I feel like it's kind of a moot point anyways?
Speaking as a former mod, I don't think I ever once used the word "coaching" when speaking directly to a user I was moderating. It's pretty much only used to denote the action in an ~official~ capacity.
Most "coachings" DO take the form of just being "hey man here's the rule knock it off". I guess I... don't really see why it matters what we call it internally?
In theory, you're correct in that this is as far as the job of the moderator technically extends.
Most mods, however, don't WANT to be like that. If we think someone has the capacity to learn and improve, we'll work with that person. Call it babying or whatever, but most of the time we don't LIKE having to ban people (unless they're just completely unrepentant, but we aren't talking with those people).
Back when I was a mod, one of the things that gave me the most pride was telling someone to shape up and seeing them, yknow, actually do it. Sometimes it takes a while to get to that point, but generally we're willing to put in the effort to do so.
I agree that the actual word choice is pedantic - we don't actually use these words in anything but internal discussions (I think I've probably put "coaching" in the subject line for coachings a few times when I couldn't think of anything else to call it; I no longer do this though.)
The more important thing is the actual dynamic that happens between mod and user.
I definitely agree that mods are users first, mod second. That's an attitude that I very consciously try to propagate. It doesn't quite mean that there's no distinction, though. When you put the mod hat on, you're not speaking as a user. What I agree with you on is that the mod hat should default to off, and only go on when needed.
How players perceive any given mod interaction is going to depend, at the end of the day, on which two people are talking. We don't do form letters - Ara's mod messages are never going to sound like mine, and vice versa.
I think there's some subset of players who would feel put off by the dynamic of a coaching no matter what you call it. The lightness/informality of it coming across as dressed up / fake or something. They'd rather just be told "you did this wrong. Here's the rule. Don't do it again." There's another subset of people who'd get turned off if that kind of dynamic (a more authoritarian one) was their first interaction with a mod on a new site. There's probably yet another, larger subset who don't really care one way or another.
As in all things MU, there's no pleasing everyone.
coachings are generally pretty detailed/clear on what the issue is imo
your example isn’t really how that kind of coaching would be written, something a little closer to that might be found in a message to someone who did the exact same or a similar issue a while before and has been better for a while but needs a reminder? But that doesn’t look like a typical coaching would, they aren’t typically that vague about how/why something was an issue
sure? like if you say so sure, but literally I think back to any coaching some said I had before all of my bans and such, it was literally a message going 'bro I saw you make some weird posts in the discord, try to refrain from posting that in general if you can' The only time anything was explained to me was my ban, and even then the old mods should know how I felt about those explanations xd
so from personal experience, and this is coming from someone who needs reform so I tend to think it's what you'd be trying to understand, they not only meant very little but also easily forgettable. You don't even get a record of it on user side
This might not be a common opinion but I believe in the idea of asking questions. If there's something you're not sure if you should say, either don't say it or ask someone (a mod) if they think it's outside of the rules. I'm not sure if mods should be responsible for writing out everything you did wrong in the case of a light conversation about something wrong you did.
Ask the question. Figure out what the root of that rule-break is. Mods keep track of these interactions for the most part but they shouldn't have to write a note or post or anything explaining every aspect that needs to be worked on. Take it upon yourself to figure that out etc.
It's kind of hard to answer this question in a general sense. However, we do take response to moderation into account. If we correct a user and they are apologetic and we see changes to their posting style, of course it's going to go better than if we correct a user and that user curses us out and continues with the same behavior. There are many shades of grey in between that makes it hard to compare. Each individual case comparison isn't apples to apples.
Yes I am offcially more annoying than navi. Misson accomplished. - Fable
i have deep seated lust for villager from animal crossing - Cory
Essentially, when someone gets banned, the ban message comes with a bit about appealing and an e-mail address to send the appeal to. We're looking for mitigating factors and/or new information, not "this ban is unfair because this other user did X and they only got Y months" type stuff.
If the user thinks there's some bit of information we missed or didn't consider, they can send an e-mail to the head mods, and GH and I will review it and then send the person back a response of some kind. We don't take Discord / informal appeals, though you can notify us of your intent to appeal that way.
I've only personally handled like... 2 or 3 since I became head mod. Very few people actually appeal.
For an appeal to be successful, it has to show how we missed an important piece of information.
For example, when James2 was banned for running that bastard All Jesters game, we missed an important piece of information: the game had actually gone through review, and the actual problem was with how we were treating "invitational" games in the review process. We just assumed it hadn't gone through review, because obviously no reviewer would let it go through if they thought it was a normal MU game, and the review team assumed it was a de-facto offsite game that the host was in charge of setting the expectations for. So we fixed that hole in the process and then reversed the hosting ban.
That's an example of the level of thing we have to miss for an appeal to be successful.
Ppl are only banned when they break the rules. Though sometimes i wish that weren't the case
NOTE: IM NOT A MOD
Last edited by Apoc; January 13th, 2019 at 08:37 AM.
Last edited by Lightness; January 13th, 2019 at 01:45 PM.
Last edited by Lightness; January 13th, 2019 at 03:09 PM.
Le me give my 2 cents on this.
As a member of many many communities : People who get banned do not change. They just worsen.
Here are some good examples from real life scenarios:
Player A is a good player. He is respected, has friends and the game is getting too easy for them. They want to have more fun so little by little they try to break the rules. End up cheating, caught and banned.
But because of theym getting banned they start bypassing, cheating even more and little by little progressing to even worse by end up hacking the whole site.
Getting perma banned but still avoiding with hundreds of accounts and doing whatever they want.
What would you have done different? Maybe talking with them, trying to argue and reach a consensus would have saved them , not just stright out banning or not even giving them a chance to begin with.
When people are forced out and hated , they themselves become haters.
Althrough there are scenarios where it doesnt work.
User A and user B cheat. They are banned but later unbanned under the presence they changed. They didn't change, they just found better ways to cheat. They expand their cehating right with many other players to not get caugh.
But the problem here is that one of them becomes a moderator and thats why this ridiculous thing continues.
So i think the best solution is to be harsh but never too harsh. You need to set lines. Small acts should be frowned upon but not punished. Rules should be bent instead of enforced completely because every scenrio is different. A good moderator should know when to break the rules for the sake of one person. They should be fluid.
First Bold: Maybe they do. Though that is not the worry of mods, it's to protect MU's community from toxic/rule breaking behavior. A ban is the result of someone continuously breaking rules and showing a negative view toward reforming. Once a player has reached that point, it is no longer on the mods to think about changing the person.
Second Bold: You're just explaining how the entire MU staff works, they do reach out, they do give second chances and try to stay away from banning people. Personally I disagree with how they reach out to people, but saying they don't put in the effort would be lol.
Third Bold: I disagree with this so much, it sounds like someone who is upset that they aren't allowed to break rules, so they are acting like a victim and telling the mods to change how rules work so they fit themselves. What a beyond selfish request.