general nz-wi tour thread metathread

[Spark]

since people seem to have some (legitimate) queries/concerns/questions to ask/points of discussion over moderation and the nz-wi tour thread and how those things should operate in general, i'm going to actually make a thread for it.

chat away, but be warned - i am going to instainfract any post which even so much as flirts with personal attacks under ignoring mod instructions at a minimum. keep it clean kthx.

 

[Spikey]

can i attack you for not using capital letters

 

[Spark]

no. let me be lazy.

--

More seriously, though - I'm hearing from a few posters say that publicly visible infraction notices (i.e. a red card in the bottom-left corner of a post) would be useful. What do people think?

 

[Athlai]

How long till the Meta-Metathread? It's a good time to be alive.

 

[Blocky]

Look, because everyone else is kicking up a ****, I'll make a post simply saying I think you guys are doing a good job not over-policing the forum and also realising that certain people will never get along.

The annoying trend I see in this forum is that there is a little beef between two or three people, it self corrects itself and the talk gets back onto the cricket, only for another four or five people coming in and saying "Man I wish the threads didn't blah blah blah..." or perpetuating an argument that has already died a natural death. The same people seem to be the guys who lack self awareness when it comes to their dog in the fight - they're the ones who get offended and abusive that statements like "Ross Taylor is bloody lazy" turns into "WELL THE PLAYER YOU LIKE SUCKS TOO" - only to rehash that by not letting the thread move on.

I'll continue to try not to respond and simply use the report feature, as much as I hate that concept it seems to be the only thing to stop me getting infractions.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Yes, because I firmly believe at the core, the moderators all want people to behave like adults and not cry about small little nothing statements being made by people on a forum. They don't want to have to police the forum, they just feel they have to, which is why they give a lot of grace and lenience - better that in my view than other forums who ban first without question.

Which is all well and good, until the warning is made. You can't tell people to stop doing something and then let them carry on doing it. That's insane. Some people stop doing it, others continue which further infuriates those who actually did what they were asked.

It's sad that it came to a warning at all. Very sad. New Zealand match threads in the past (before this year) have been friendly and amusing. This year, they've (generally speaking) been spiteful and malicious with a significant proportion of the posts not about the cricket in any way. For those of us who aren't regular offenders on the infraction market, lack of following through on warnings encourages us to ignore them. It should only take one warning, not half a dozen.

 

[Spark]

On moderating tour threads, since I'm probably safe in saying that I'm one of the more experienced mods with tour threads I'll say that: when it gets really, really tedious and annoying with petty flamefights going left and right, it is by far the worst thing about moderation. No mod, and I mean no mod, enjoys babysitting tour threads. Particularly when there is live cricket on.

Of course, babysitting can happen for multiple reasons and yes, a thread being completely dominated by a single argument raised by a single poster is the sort of thing that requires babysitting.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

More seriously, though - I'm hearing from a few posters say that publicly visible infraction notices (i.e. a red card in the bottom-left corner of a post) would be useful. What do people think?

I would support that wholeheartedly.

 

[Spark]

I would support that wholeheartedly.

Yeah, but I already knew that. Explain why (primarily for the benefit of others)

 

[Spark]

With the not following through thing. Just off-hand there's a few reasons for this:

1. We usually try to come to a consensus between the moderators before infracting. If the offence is particularly egregious, or one of us (me) is feeling particularly grumpy, we instantly infract, but otherwise we try to agree on an infraction. Clearly, given the fact that we're spread out across different timezones and this is not a job so we're not always online every day, this can be a problem. (There's also the problem that sometimes we... forget to infract the post we agreed to infract. We're working on this.)
2. The stratified, quantised nature of an infraction sometimes makes it difficult to decide what is an "infractable" post and what is a "warnable" post, which can sometimes lead to indecision and/or inaction. Many of you know my thoughts on this, though, so I won't elaborate.
3. Sometimes we plain don't see the posts we're supposed to be infracting. Or we only get reports which, when removed from their original context, don't make sense as infractable. We do vastly prefer tour threads, which are by their nature fluid, fast-paced and difficult to get an accurate read on after the fact, to be moderated realtime or, barring that, self-moderated. Which is why flamers get on my ****ing nerves so much.

edit: i just saw that there's another thread on this topic. well, that discussion can go in here too~

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Yeah, but I already knew that. Explain why (primarily for the benefit of others)

It's easier to put an issue to rest if you know the other party has been censured. At the moment, you have no idea which posts have invited censure and thus you can't be sure if what the other party has posted is acceptable or unacceptable - or thus what you are able to post in response. I've covered all this plenty of times in the past tbf. If I had received infractions but was unaware whether the other party in an argument had or not, I'm much more liable to be peeved with the infraction I received.

Plus, what is the counter here? What is the downside to knowing if a post has been infracted or not? You're likely to receive less reports about the same post which has already been infracted if that little red symbol is there - so chances are it reduces your work too, yes?

 

[Howsie]

Seeing WW gloating about this is making me physically sick.

Indeed. He's the kid at school who would throw rocks at the other kids and quickly run to the teacher to tell them he's been picked on, whilst smiling behind the teachers back when he's growling those said kids.

Please explain how Phelgm is gone but our best mate is still rocking? I can't wait for the next WI tour thread because as far as I'm concerned the bar has been set but what your've allowed to happen.

 

[Spark]

Indeed. He's the kid at school who would throw rocks at the other kids and quickly run to the teacher to tell them he's been picked on, whilst smiling behind the teachers back when he's growling those said kids.

Please explain how Phelgm is gone but our best mate is still rocking? I can't wait for the next WI tour thread because as far as I'm concerned the bar has been set but what your've allowed to happen.

didn't read the OP, exhibit a.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Every man and his dog knows who is ruining that thread. Yet for some reason we're getting taught a lesson about not feeding trolls instead of just banning the ****ing troll.

 

[Spark]

It's easier to put an issue to rest if you know the other party has been censured. At the moment, you have no idea which posts have invited censure and thus you can't be sure if what the other party has posted is acceptable or unacceptable - or thus what you are able to post in response. I've covered all this plenty of times in the past tbf. If I had received infractions but was unaware whether the other party in an argument had or not, I'm much more liable to be peeved with the infraction I received.

Plus, what is the counter here? What is the downside to knowing if a post has been infracted or not? You're likely to receive less reports about the same post which has already been infracted if that little red symbol is there - so chances are it reduces your work too, yes?

This is true.

 

[Prince EWS]

We do sometimes let people know if we've given infractions to others. I still definitely don't think it's a good idea to make all infractions public for a few reasons.

Firstly, people baiting others into infractions deliberately is a real thing. Experienced members know where the line is and how to push the envelop just enough for someone they don't like to take the bait and get an infraction. Completely public infractions would give people intimate knowledge of other people's infraction points and how close they were to a ban, which could encourage that sort of baiting, particularly as baiters would also then have a list of which of their baits were successful in the past.

Secondly, I firmly believe we'd be inundated with consistency complaints. We don't have the time or the inclination to sort through hundreds of questions month about why X got an infraction but Y didn't, and completely public infractions would result in that sort of situation IMO. It's the sort of transparency that would be desirable if we were elected or paid, but as volunteers it would make the position too demanding and tedious.

We do go to the effort when we think it'll help calm a member down, and maybe we could do more of that, but creating a public list would create more problems than it solved.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Firstly, people baiting others into infractions deliberately is a real thing. Experienced members know where the line is and how to push the envelop just enough for someone they don't like to take the bait and get an infraction. Completely public infractions would give people intimate knowledge of other people's infraction points and how close they were to a ban, which could encourage that sort of baiting, particularly as baiters would also then have a list of which of their baits were successful in the past.

I hate to point this out to you when you know it already, but this is happening anyway. Repeatedly and consistently. You are also able to act against baiting posts instead of the outcome.

 

[Prince EWS]

I hate to point this out to you when you know it already, but this is happening anyway. Repeatedly and consistently.

Exactly. Public infractions would make it much worse IMO.

 

[Teja.]

Secondly, I firmly believe we'd be inundated with consistency complains. We don't have the time or the inclination to sort through hundreds of questions month about why X got an infraction but Y didn't, and completely public infractions would result in that sort of situation IMO. It's the sort of transparency that would be desirable if we were elected or paid, but as volunteers it would make the position too demanding and tedious.

I must add this is a very real thing and has happened in the past.without this system.

With this, we'd get over 9000 petitions per tour thread with or without context or validity for consistency regarding why a specific post was not infracted while that specific post was - without inner knowledge of the dynamics of warnings which is only accessible to moderators.

 

[Spark]

You are also able to act against baiting posts instead of the outcome.

This is all well and good until the thread degenerates into a flamewar, though.