Forum News! New "warning" feature now live - No Personal Attacks, Partisan Politics etc

[Julian]

As the forum gets bigger and bigger, the job of having a consistent approach from all the Administrators and Moderators becomes harder and harder to coordinate. Fortunately our forum software has a feature that can help us all. It is called "Warnings". The purpose of the feature is to give a member a "nudge" from a moderator that they've crossed a line, and gives the member an opportunity to change course.

WHY ARE IMPLEMENTING THIS?

1. The main reason is to give the moderating team a simple, non-confrontational, consistent method for nudging people's behavior in the right direction.
2. This makes it easy to manage each user across the whole forum. An individual moderator usually doesn't read all the posts in all the sub-forums so this helps us more quickly identify if a member that is consistently misbehaving across the various sub-forums. The "Report" feature also helps us with this.
3. Members expectations about the results of Code of Conduct violations are uniform, and moderator responses/reactions are also uniform.

HOW DOES IT WORK?

1. The system is configured to give "Canned" messages to members when they receive a warning from a moderator. Here is an example of a canned message about "Personal Attack":
   1. Your message ({title}) contains inappropriate personal comments or an outright personal attack. This does not follow our rules. Your message may have been removed or altered.
      
      Your account's access may be limited based on these actions (depending on how many warnings you have). Please keep this in mind when posting or using our site. <URL will be inserted to this explanation thread on "Warnings">
2. If a member posts something like "you are an f'ing ahole" to another member. A few things may happen:
   1. A member may "Report" the post (using the report button at the bottom...that is not new).
   2. The post will be removed
   3. A moderator will give the member a "Warning". This warning will give the member 1 warning point, and they'll receive the above message.
3. Warning points accumulate and also expire. We've set the default expiration date to 1 week (we may adjust this). Once a member reaches the following points, their access to the forum will change:
   1. 3 Warning Points=1 Day Ban (we will need to confirm how this works in conjunction with the 1 week expiration)
   2. 5 Warning Points=1 Week Ban
   3. 7 Warning Points=1 Month Ban
   4. Greater than 7 warning points and the Admin/Moderator committee will meet to determine the course of action.

The following are the current default Warnings available to the team:

Content=posting Porn outside of the NSW forum.
Language= Excessive swearing (probably won't be used....it is a default)
SPAM=posting SPAM on the forum (this typically results in a ban anyway....so this likely won't get much use)
Personal Attack= Replying to a post with a personal Attack - calling someone a name etc. Also, just replying with pointless memes, or other off topic rants may result in a warning....especially if done multiple times. Be respectful.

Partisan Political Reference= See this thread for more details, but in short, don't make partisan political comments on the forum. You can find a million other places to talk politics. Use of any euphemisms like "Let's.. Go ..Brandon" or just referring to President Brandon will result in a warning.

We expect the last two to be where most warnings will occur, and hope that a simple warning (no one will know you got one) will suffice to calm things down. We won't be publishing warning information. You won't get Trophy points for warnings LOL! We don't want this to be considered confrontational.

CAN I APPEAL A WARNING?

• We welcome you to appeal a warning if you feel it was given in error. Send a message (conversation) to multiple admins/moderators with your appeal.
• Please understand that these aren't a big deal.
• Please understand that if you attack another member, you will get a warning, and posting it, then deleting it later (well after it is expected that the target would have read it) won't get it removed.
• The partisan political reference ones will be the hardest for moderators to balance. Trust me, the moderators just want to be forum members. We don't want to be "policing" behavior. That is no fun at all. This process will allow them to "nudge" people when they cross the line. If you delete these posts, warnings will be removed (we don't like to delete these posts because we get called for censorship....its a no win situation).

Before we take this live we would like the members feedback. We think this will provide a way to gently keep things on track, and really hope no one ever gets more than one "live/unexpired" warning.

We welcome your comments.

 

[Julian]

I want to emphasize that the purpose of this is to give members consistent feedback, and to give moderators a way to consistently respond. It is our hope/expectation that no one will ever reach the ban level with this - that a single warning will set the tone in a better direction.

 

[Luc Lafreniere]

All seems very reasonable IMO. And if it makes your lives easier too... but I'm a big proponent of trying stuff. If things don't work perfectly, fine, see if we can tweak it and make it work. So hopefully people understand that any new features like this could cause some unforeseen issues and to be patient with you folks trying to adjust accordingly. You have my vote! I definitely see stuff like this once in a while and I tend to just stop following or commenting. And man oh man I agree on politics.

 

[F.M.]

I agree. Nothing unreasonable about it. I'm for it.

 

[anmut]

Can I have the first one?

 

[JDRacing]

If I'm understanding the process correctly, a live human being determines that a post is warning-worthy, and selects the canned message to be sent. I'm all for that, and hope it makes the Moderator's lives easier. This is already the best moderated forum I participate in, and anything that both keeps it that way and makes it more efficient is great.

In this age of AI and automation, if the human element is taken out of it, it can have unintended consequences. "Can I shoot you a private message" can be misconstrued by automated responses as a threat of violence and result in a questionable warning. But I don't think that's what we're talking about here, if the human element remains involved in each instance.

As an example of hypersensitivity that even human "common sense" didn't seem to head off, I'm aware of a recent case where an employee of a company asked a colleague to "shoot me an email," and wound up being called to HR for inappropriate conduct.

Keep up the good work.

Jeff

 

[swatski]

Can I have the first one?

Get in line please!
lol

—

 

[BlkGS]

Seems fair and consistent. Sad that you have to implement something like this, but I guess that's how the world is now.

 

[Dean P]

I welcome this and agree wholeheartedly. Sometimes I read posts and actually cringe. I say to myself "Damn, really?" Providing feedback whether good or bad helps protect this forum you've worked so hard to create and maintain. If I've gone over the line, I'd like to know. I'd take it a step further and actually kick members off who consistently post just to cause trouble. Nobody needs to read/hear that here. Thank you guys a lot!!!

 

[Trevor Shipman]

Is there a way to let the masses determine if something has crossed the line? Let the community (consensus) determine if a comment has gone too far.

Perhaps add a RED X in the options where you can like, agree, laugh etc?

If 2, 3, 5, 20? (Not sure what the number is) of RED X’s are marked on the comment then it would be pretty safe to say someone has crossed the line.

 

[Julian]

If I'm understanding the process correctly, a live human being determines that a post is warning-worthy, and selects the canned message to be sent. I'm all for that, and hope it makes the Moderator's lives easier. This is already the best moderated forum I participate in, and anything that both keeps it that way and makes it more efficient is great.

In this age of AI and automation, if the human element is taken out of it, it can have unintended consequences. "Can I shoot you a private message" can be misconstrued by automated responses as a threat of violence and result in a questionable warnings. But I don't think that's what we're talking about here, if the human element remains involved in each instance.

As an example of hypersensitivity that even human "common sense" didn't seem to head off, I'm aware of a recent case where an employee of a company asked a colleague to "shoot me an email," and wound up being called to HR for inappropriate conduct.

Keep up the good work.

Jeff

Yes....this is absolutely human driven, we are just striving for a way to consistently give the same message. Today, if we see a post that crosses the line, we start a "conversation" with the member, and the text and tone of that conversation are totally up to the moderator that kicks it off. Moderators are forum members first, and volunteer to help keep our home "clean" just for the love of boating interactions (clean=deleting duplicate posts, marking sale items Sold, and worst of all...mediating disputes/behavior issues....among other things).

The warning approach means we won't kick off a conversation with a member (the member will just get a canned message about the problem). This will be much less confrontational, and matter of fact. It isn't a big deal, and we won't be publishing who's got the highest warning score! And no, there won't be Trophies for Warnings!! LOL (although that is an interesting idea....we could deduct Trophy points for warnings).

Bottom line is it will enable a gentle non confrontational nudge to a member when they have a bad day and dump on someone. We have all done it - it is easy to be the keyboard cowboy....but as others have said....the members here really are GREAT, and we've had very few issues! This will help us keep it that way.

 

[Julian]

Is there a way to let the masses determine if something has crossed the line? Let the community (consensus) determine if a comment has gone too far.

Perhaps add a RED X in the options where you can like, agree, laugh etc?

If 2, 3, 5, 20? (Not sure what the number is) number of RED X’s are marked on the comment then it would be pretty safe to say someone has crossed the line.

Interesting idea.

The only problem I see with that is when we have Personal Attacks. We really try and remove those as soon as we see them. They are pretty easy to "diagnose". I call you a name....that is uncalled for. Also, these turn into back and forths really quickly. We wouldn't want to wait until the first post hits 20 X's before we removed it...and then wait for the retaliation post to hit 20 before we remove that. Best to cut it off quickly.

The more I think about it, the more I think your idea is really what the "Report" button is for. We do want people to use the report button as it flags to moderators that something isn't right, and puts a Red note at the top of the screen for us to see.

 

[Joshua Miller]

I like it and appreciate getting out in front of the problem@Julian

 

[BigAbe75]

Interesting idea.

The only problem I see with that is when we have Personal Attacks. We really try and remove those as soon as we see them. They are pretty easy to "diagnose". I call you a name....that is uncalled for. Also, these turn into back and forths really quickly. We wouldn't want to wait until the first post hits 20 X's before we removed it...and then wait for the retaliation post to hit 20 before we remove that. Best to cut it off quickly.

The more I think about it, the more I think your idea is really what the "Report" button is for. We do want people to use the report button as it flags to moderators that something isn't right, and puts a Red note at the top of the screen for us to see.

I never realized how the "Report" worked.

Sounds fine to me.

 

[gwrace1]

Agreed, seems fair and consistent.

 

[captras]

I think it is good, but too lenient. We all know the rules and we can all get over zealous and say something in anger. BUT, one warning should wake us up.... no reason to accept more. I think the numbers should be 2,3, and 4! If a member exceeds these numbers, he/ she needs to find another group. I have had disagreements on here, though very few, but it never justified that kind of behavior, nor did it ever happen either way. There is no excuse for rudeness, obscenities, or personal attacks, especially in public!

 

[tdonoughue]

Two thoughts: a) This is your house, @Administrative , and anything to make your lives easier, I am all in favor (in a very greatful way); 2) What @captras said. Look, if I'm at someone's house and they tell me I stepped out of line, I better be apologizing and changing my behavior. Or leaving. Like now.

You have my full support.

 

[BigAbe75]

Two thoughts: a) This is your house, @Administrative , and anything to make your lives easier, I am all in favor (in a very greatful way); 2) What @captras said. Look, if I'm at someone's house and they tell me I stepped out of line, I better be apologizing and changing my behavior. Or leaving. Like now.

You have my full support.

Well, true... but the admins are humans and as such are fallible. It’s important at the same time to provide a true public forum with all the right freedoms as long as some guidelines are followed.

It wouldn’t be right for an admin to get a wild hair and advance the process at a rate faster than appropriate. I think allowing more than 1 warning is probably the right way to go. But, I agree that not many are warnings are needed.

 

[Julian]

@captras @tdonoughue @BigAbe75

All good throughts. We (admins/moderators) did go back and forth a bit on the numbers of warnings we should start with, and the duration of the penalty. We really don't want this to become a big stick that we are carrying around. We are really hoping that 1 warning is all it will take and people will get back on track. So in reality, the ban part of the system will hopefully never come into play!

We envisioned things like: A couple of members go at each other over night and moderators don't see it. Then a moderator starts looking at the attacks and starts clicking on posts giving warnings....we wanted a buffer so that if a member went off on someone, he's have to have done it repeatedly to earn a ban. So we put the penalty point at 3, and moderators will know that if they see a bunch all at once, to consider if they really want to give 3 warnings all at once - because it will result in a ban where the member won't have any opportunity to correct their behavior. So we will be VERY careful on that front.

Again, the goal isn't for this to result in people getting banned. The goal is for us to have a gentle, consistent, non-confrontational way to message a member when they cross a line.

Seems like we don't have any members in opposition. We will keep monitoring replies and will take this live starting on Monday.

I wonder if we should put up a notice about this?

 

[captras]

I totally support what you are doing.....I tend to be a hardass sometimes when it comes to personal responsibility, hence my post. Whatever you decide, I think it is a good thing. I do think a notice would be a good thing so that all members can expect something. Also good to advise any new/perspective members. Thanks to all the moderators for what they do.....I think the time you spend to make this the great forum that it is, is sometimes taken for granted.