There are two competing interests when people are moderated.
Firstly, when we moderate people, it is intended to rehabilitate and inform. Not to punish. We're not in charge of issuing revenge on people. The worst thing we can possibly do to someone on here is to excuse them from their guest status. That's all. There are no actual punishments. Warnings and infractions are two words for the same thing. They are intended to give people ample heads-up to change their behavior before a ban happens.
I absolutely hate it when someone who has zero points is suddenly given a temp ban. The circumstances have to be pretty extreme. It means either the person in question has no regard for the rules at all and has made it abundantly clear that a warning isn't going to help matters, or it means a lot of bad behavior happened before we could intervene and stop it. Both circumstances are a failure state. I hate personally failing and I hate the community failing. Nothing motivates me more on this website but to ensure this either NEVER happens, or it happens so rarely that when it does, the person in question knows full well why they got a time out, and probably has admitted they deserved one, to boot.
However, the only time we talk about what has been done to a player's account, is when they are given a time out. This is done for transparency, to show the community that we do not have vendettas and that X amount of talkiing and warnings and moderation happened before we were forced to give a time out. In other words, that we followed a procedure, and the account in question knew they would get banned for the behavior, and did it anyway.
This is not meant to publicly shame. It's to hold staffers accountable to the community.
But there is a competing interest: People who have been wronged in games demand to know that things have been righted.
And this is understandable.
This is why we have a policy of not publicly naming what exactly was done. You, as a community, can give us feedback as to whether or not it is correct. However, as the senior moderator of this site, and with what I know about moderation, I am going to ask you guys to trust me that this is the best way forward, because I know exactly what happens when we go public with everything. I'm going to describe what happens with the alternative, so you can make an informed decision as to how you want to be moderated.
What happens when we say who has reported what, what level of infraction happens, etc:
1) People who wish to report things without offending their friends or teammates suddenly have no such guarantee of privacy.
2) People will inevitably read into alignment and erroneously conclude a mafia buddy wouldn't report his mafia pal, for example.
3) It will cause additional stress and strain on relationships between friends in games, at a time when they're already aggravated by the situation itself, and the fact that they're being moderated.
4) People will begin reporting things in purely retaliatory fashion, going after even the most boderline posts, or completely legal posts, not to improve the quality of the game, but as revenge.
5) When people are infracted and warned, they will feel publicly shamed, and this does not help them calm down and let things go, at all. It inflames the situation further.
6) When people demand to know how many points were given, or want to know why someone was only warned, not given a point, or they start comparing points between one another, they will use their (extremely) incomplete information and no knowledge of this person's history, and their lack of understanding of any mitigating circumstances such as being provoked, and so forth, to judge whether or not we are doing our jobs properly. They will insist on what they believe is fairness, but which is not actually fairness.
Some people simply are not cut out to be moderators. They lack introspection, they cannot call a spade a spade and must twist the perception of things in their favor all the time, they are hostile, vindictive, and petty. They are impatient, and demand everything becomes a ban right away. They demand unequal evenness. For example, if someone has a long history of bad behavior, ignores a mod instruction, and gets a severe penalty for a post that, on the surface, looks exactly the same as someone else only getting a formal warning, they will demand what I call "unequal equality".
7) Finally, instead of issues getting quietly and discreetly resolved, and then put in the past where they belong, things become subject to public debate. And then it also becomes somewhat democratic.
There's a reason why trials are decided by a judge or a small jury of one's peers, not a popular vote. Justice is not always popular. Justice is not always simply harsh penalty or forced-equal treatment. Justice is not the absolute letter of the law with no leeway ever given. Justice is not treating unpopular people more harshly. Justice is not public shaming. Justice is not a mob of wronged people deciding your fate. Justice needs to be even-handed, considered, impartial, and fair. Justice needs to consider all context, frequency, history, and severity.
Justice is not the same as counting up every post that goes over the line and giving 1 point for each one.
Justice is not the same as equal crime is equal punishment always. There are circumstances where the exact same post is much more of a problem, like when you have a history, and have already been warned.
That is why our system exists as it does.
That is why most of what happens is not done in the public eye.
What we can do, is quote one of the posts we have moderated, and make a public note that the behavior was unacceptable.
That lets the community know something was done. Not specifically what was done, unless there was a ban.
But public shaming, or having people who have no idea what is being done, or what the circumstances are, or what would be the most just outcome, telling moderators how to do their job, this is an intolerable way of doing moderation.
I'm sorry to say it, but if you frequently have bad encounters during games, and you've been warned or infracted recently, you probably don't have the correct temperament to be a successful moderator. Because you lack the experience, temperament, and even-handedness, not to mention all the private information and histories of everyone involved, you should accept the fact that you're in a very poor position to second-guess a moderator.
You may do so, after games are done. If you wish to drag things out into the public eye, my team has always been instructed to conduct themselves in private as if everything they've ever said or done is about to be screenshotted or quoted and pasted publicly.
I do not even begin to fear such an outcome, because I know the professionalism of my team. At any time, if you wish to make private matters public, you may do so. As long as it is not in the middle of a game. That's against the rules of the site.
Bring grievances with the moderation public and we'll discuss them. Bring them to us privately and we can get several impartial moderators not involved with your grievance into things. You can even talk to the site owner himself and he can give his opinion to you. There's a way of addressing moderation you don't like.
But, as a friend, and as someone who wants you to both have a good experience, and also, to avoid embarrassing yourself, I'd recommend you do not make private matters too public. You will harm your relationships with fellow forumgoers and probably only further establish that we did our jobs correctly.
But it is your decision.
Note that if this default condition of private talking and private giving of infraction points is reversed as a policy, I will most likely resign and I probably wouldn't be alone. What MU would turn into after that point would be a circus of unfairness and drama.
This is by far, the superior choice. Trust my experience on this. Your feedback and disagreement is welcome.
Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy
