OpenUru.org

I'm using a large definition of "mistake". Could be 5 post in a row because I don't know there's an edit button or a direct link to download Myst V with an included no-cd patch. (On many forums, the second situation results in an immediate permanent ban.)

A moderator post mostly stands out as "moderator intervention" when it involves the modification of another post with an included mod note by that moderator.

OK. The second situation you describe could be seen as a serious breach of the forum rules because it could land the site owner in trouble. However, at the same time, I'd say that an immediate permanent ban is an overzealous reaction - it could easily be a genuine oversight and it'd take a mod just about the same length of time to remove the link from the post and replace it with a note saying so, as it would to set up the ban. If the person posting that link to copyright material then replaces the link or reposts it elsewhere, or has previously posted similar links and been notified of the situation then a ban may be seen as necessary.

I think a "three strikes" rule is probably acceptable in these cases:
Strike 1 - Friendly note that the post was inappropriate, help user fix mistake.
Strike 2 - Point out that it's a repeat occurence, and that a further incidence may result in sanctions.
Strike 3 - Ban (although unless there's some history I'd probably suggest that a short term ban would be preferable to a permanent one)

I guess people could also come up with a points based system like they do with with driving offences here, with points based on the severity of the mistake. Exceed some threshold and you get banned. Points more than 6 months or a year old get deleted.

I think the "points based system" would be better because not all breaches have the same serverity. It can also be mixed with the mod behavior of the "three strikes" rule.

Mac_Fife's 3-Strikes and points ideas have merit. I like them.

I think most mistakes and rule violations are initially mistakes. I never thought of backing up ABM as a hack. But, at the time the UO moderators did. UO took my post down and explained backing up was hacking the game... which points out how differently people can see things. One can see an action/posting as within the rules and another not. Being aware of of those differences and understanding the possibility of misunderstanding has to temper a moderator or a forum members response to what seems an obvious and deliberate violation of forum rules.

I've seen some forums that have points systems run by member votes. With point systems controlled by the membership there is good feedback and less work for the mod's. I think the information provided gives moderators good information to work from. Also, members with personality issues often only wake up when they have a large number of people providing feed back.

However, the systems are open to manipulation that is difficult to moderate. I think people quickly learn to game the system as they have with YouTube.com, Digg and other sites that carry political issues. Political teams work to control the information available. As factions begin to manipulate a feedback system a small group can be very effective in silencing individuals they disagree with or just don't like. This is gaming the system and can mislead moderators, which is often the intention.

My hope is to come up with insights that allow us to understand these problems and find better ways to handle them. While I like point systems members can use for providing feed back, there has to be some built-in system to avoid or reduce abuse. Otherwise I see them as just adding to the problems with which moderators have to deal.

I don't know if phpBB has a point system built in. Adding plug-ins adds more Admin work, which I think we all want to avoid.

Personally, when I moderate I only start to keep track of problem interactions and people when I recognize a problem. That can mean it takes some time for me to react intelligently and in a larger context. Training moderators how to use forum tools and to be aware of these problems is what I hope comes from these discussions.

Nalates wrote:As factions begin to manipulate a feedback system a small group can be very effective in silencing individuals they disagree with or just don't like. This is gaming the system and can mislead moderators, which is often the intention.

It can also be a gaming done by moderators.

Very true. But on the other hand, if I don't trust the moderation or administration teams on a forum then I simply don't go there. I guess it can be hard to know how trustworthy they are, especially if you're a new user of the forum, but I think that's where being transparent in the actions taken is important. If both the users and the moderators have a reasonably clear set of guidelines to work within then it becomes harder (though not impossible) for bias or inequity to go unnoticed.

All systems are flawed as they are run or designed by people.

If the admin and mod's are gaming the system, it is very difficult for members to organize and do anything about it. So, in general, it's not an issue for me. One votes by walking. In a free society they can start their own forum and run it as they like.

The ideas in SD&D are for those that are interested in fairness, helping others, and working together. Unfortunately that group of people has to deal with confrontational types, those with agendas, those with personality problems, pre-adolescents that are still conceptually restrained, seniors set in their thinking, the closed minded, and all manner of other argumentative types. While they all have value they do complicate life and push buttons.

SD&D is about becoming aware of problems, learning how to recognize them, deal with them, and moderate for others. SD&D can't eliminate the problems. Hopefully people can use the information to improve the quality of their participation.

Forum members, moderators, admins, and anyone anywhere can and will game rules and abuse a system. It's a matter of what we do with it and avoiding as many problems as we can anticipate.