Moderation Team Rework

[Guest Saizy]

EDIT: Thread closed at the request of @Saizy, and he wanted me to add that he wanted it closed because he believes Ben has addressed and taken all of his suggestions into consideration, and is satisfied with the discussion that has been had.

Love, Salad

 

First, I would like to begin by saying this is by no stretch of the imagination a diss towards anyone in the Moderation Team. I have no problems with any of them and none of them have ever "wronged" me to push me to make this post. If you are here to comment insulting things while to to dish out your rebuttal, I won't read it or acknowledge it. I want civil discussion because my opinion, along with others, is not god-tier.

There is a lot of suggestions I would like to make towards the current moderation team. I do not know if there are changes that are going to be implemented now that Ben is the Team Leader, but why not? To summarize, as this will be a long post; more moderation transparency, make each moderator accountable for their activity outside of their "main Discord server", moderators shouldn't enforce anything that is not written in the rules, "follow the spirit of the rules" should never apply to anything, unprofessionalism, and Discord Partnership.
 

We'll begin with making each moderator accountable for their activity. I'll post some statistics of what I mean;

              Main Discord Activity

• Cambr: 718 (last message 9/05, but only 2, before that 5/28/20)
• Foe: 16 (10/26)
• Janie: 139 (10/27)
• Xivi: 62 (10/26)
• Duck: 396 (10/26/20)
• Yogi: 65 (10/15/20)
• Lurn: 1,524 (10/12/20)
• Qas: 4,045 (07/14/20)
• Canman: 469 (08/25/20)
  
  Rust Discord Activity
• Royce: 6 (05/10/20)
• Duck: 43 (10/26/20)
• Xivi: 1 (09/03/20) "i joined."
• Qas: 15 (01/24/20)
• Canman: 31 (08/21/20)
• Other moderators aren't even in here.
   

I doubt I need to keep going, as I don't even have the time to delve into this topic that much. However, I have seen Moderation Applications be denied due to "activity" and "you don't have the time", but there are moderators who can't even spend a second of their day to pop in to say hello and make sure everything is going ok? I left out the ones who are active, as I do not want to call the good ones out from the bad ones--of course, I do not know each ones story or why they are Moderator in the first place, some could be Division-centric. If Discord Main wants to actively go for Discord Partnership, the activity needs to be there. I believe each Moderator should report their activity and how they are doing. Now, I don't have access to internal and can see how much work they really put in, but there is definitely room for improvement here. If Moderators truly feel like they can't do this (why did you even ask to become one?), Division Leaders should be able to pick their own players and recommend them as Moderators to the Team leader, so they can reviewed by the Team Leader (skipping the application process [arguable], since applying for a division-specific spot is really taboo, for some reason?). These Moderators would be division-specific but still comply to the Moderator Guidelines & Punishments and adhere to the Team Leader. Some servers need these, such as Rust & Breach. It could also help with the activity of the team as a whole. Division Leaders can be capped on how many people they can recommend in their servers.

Secondly, "follow the spirit of the rules" is such a, well not a smart statement. That statement alone will get you barred from many moderation positions in other communities. I have seen multiple Discord & Forum moderators mention this. Discord Partnership rules are not followed "in spirit". They are followed right down to the exact detail. If the rules allow for so much room like that, they're trash rules and should be revised. I admit I could've very well been punished more times over than I care to admit if we did follow the rules down to the detail, but there are some things that need to be sacrificed if Discord Partnership is viable. Rules should be fully followed & enforced, as well as the guidelines. It's up to the community to suggest & complain if they are "treated unfairly" and to change the guidelines / rules. Telling Moderators to act based on their emotions instead of what is written down and expected is a terrible precedent for their future livelihood in real life too. Some kids take actual lessons from their experience in GFL and apply it to their life. "Following the spirit of the rules" shouldn't be encouraged within the current moderation team and they should instead either revise or enforce the guidelines.

Next up, more moderation transparency. There are many ways to do this, and I understand that too much transparency is problematic.

              Moderation Transparency Suggestions

• In detail, explain why the person was muted in the command. (ex: "!warn Saizy Violation of rule 1: stop being disrespectful to others")
• Follow up with a direct message, if necessary, about why they were muted so there is no need for drama to be escalated. It happens.
• Perhaps the most controversial & I can be shitted on for this; make moderation chats public but only moderators can talk in there.
• Discuss “problematic” people being unbanned. Additionally reviewing all member bans case by case in ban logs.

 

Perhaps what is the most sickening to me is the unprofessionalism of the moderation team, no sly remarks to anyone. Moderators shouldn't shit on someone's application for the fun of it. I can bring up three examples of this but I'm not going to call out the applicants. Some holes are better left closed. Without condescending, insulting, or insinuating opinions on a person when voting on them, just give a detailed & professional reason why you voted that way. There is a lot of times I've seen personal drama & emotions be coughed on applicants for no reason. What the applicant's friends did when their previous application was rejected should not be considered. Only actions by the applicant in the past should be considered when reviewing their application and voting. Drama shouldn't arise from applications because a Moderator wants to feel snarky. Moderators should be punished for their choice of words when voting on applications and be held of their behaviors / rule breaking in the forums & Discord.

 

Finally, Discord Partnership. If this is truly pursued, rules have to be fully enforced. There is no room for ghosts or spirits. This could either lead to a more active, friendly community or a far less active one. Benefits may outweigh the downsides, but there is a lot of consequences of introducing Partnership rules to Discord. I have seen the worse & the best happen to a multitude of Discords I am in active in. People will act out. People may follow along. The Moderation Team needs to be ready for this and I hope the Directors can think about this longer.

This is just a rant & suggestions. If this offended you, that wasn't the intention. I respect each Moderator, even if I haven't met them (and I'm active...). Hopefully at least one of my suggestions can be implemented or at least thought about. I would love to hear Ben just shit on this and tell me why it isn't good, after all, it's just my opinion. I'd like to hear other opinions as well, if you want to add on or critique it.  If you're not sure what exactly I am suggesting and you see it as a rant cause Saizy big mad, comment that so I can make a better summary!

Edited November 2, 2020 by Saizy
fixed typos & reworded things

[Duck. 489 / 0]

What do you believe is too low an amount? Because 396 doesn't seem low to me. Also I don't even say hi in the gmod discord, where I have 30,525 messages, why would I say hi on any other?

I applied primarily to watch over the GMod Discord Server, which I mentioned to people who asked me, as there was a lot of racism and transphobia going on in there by a few people and mods weren't too active there. I'm not going to be spending 24/7/365 combing meticulously through each and every server for a slight transgression of the rules. If it gets bad, we get pinged. As it's always been.

 

12 minutes ago, Saizy said:

Telling Moderators to act based on their emotions instead of what is written down and expected is a terrible precedent for their future livelihood in real life too.

 

Where did you get this from? I'm relatively new to being a discord mod yet I've never been told this?

 

13 minutes ago, Saizy said:

Division Leaders should be able to pick their own players and recommend them as Moderators to the Team leader, so they can reviewed by the Team Leader (skipping the application process [arguable], since applying for a division-specific spot is really taboo, for some reason?). 

 

This is a bad idea purely because it'll create cliques within the modding team, which is such a cancerous thing to have. Cliques in games are already terrible, but then we could have a group of mods who may want to do things differently than the standard way i.e. certain words not being bad etc. And then they enforce their way, normal mods enforce the standard way and then it becomes a big dick fight.

 

19 minutes ago, Saizy said:

              Moderation Transparency Suggestions

• In detail, explain why the person was muted in the command. (ex: "!warn Saizy Violation of rule 1: stop being disrespectful to others")
• Follow up with a direct message, if necessary, about why they were muted so there is no need for drama to be escalated. It happens.
• Perhaps the most controversial & I can be shitted on for this; make moderation chats public but only moderators can talk in there.
• Discuss “problematic” people being unbanned. Additionally reviewing all member bans case by case in ban logs.

 

1) If somoene's spamming the n word or smth, should we wait to type the whole violation out to ban him? Therefore giving him more time to spam?
2) Most people who want to be cunts don't allow DMs.
3) Nothing really happens in moderator chats, so eh.
4) They are discussed.
 

22 minutes ago, Saizy said:

Moderators shouldn't shit on someone's application for the fun of it.

 

Agreed, only if there's legit issues that happened in their past then should it be bought up.

 

And that's all the thoughts I have on this. Some of it seems to be what you think happens behind the scenes without any facts behind it, which is weird.

[Guest Saizy]

39 minutes ago, Duck. said:

What do you believe is too low an amount? Because 396 doesn't seem low to me. Also I don't even say hi in the gmod discord, where I have 30,525 messages, why would I say hi on any other?

I applied primarily to watch over the GMod Discord Server, which I mentioned to people who asked me, as there was a lot of racism and transphobia going on in there by a few people and mods weren't too active there. I'm not going to be spending 24/7/365 combing meticulously through each and every server for a slight transgression of the rules. If it gets bad, we get pinged. As it's always been.

396 is pretty low, depending on the join date. I didn't include that, and that is entirely my fault. You are an active Moderator in GMod, and a server manager there, I'm not taking away that fact, however I want Moderators to be more active other Discords. It's in the job's name. The point with the "spending 24/7/365 combing meticulously through each and every server" proved my point further that Division Leaders should be able to recommend their own Moderators. Not every Moderator replies to @Discord Moderators, and I have only seen a select few really be active enough to even reply to it. It's sad that I get a much faster reponse by @ing JGuary or another active moderator then @ing the Moderators themselves.

 

Quote

Where did you get this from? I'm relatively new to being a discord mod yet I've never been told this?

Typo issue. "Telling" = "Insinuating". A bunch of Moderators wouldn't say "follow the spirit of the rules" if one didn't tell others to do it. To further expand on this, the quote inherently vague and establishes a grey area in moderation, which shouldn't be the case since moderation guidelines should be as explicit as possible.

 

Quote

This is a bad idea purely because it'll create cliques within the modding team, which is such a cancerous thing to have. Cliques in games are already terrible, but then we could have a group of mods who may want to do things differently than the standard way i.e. certain words not being bad etc. And then they enforce their way, normal mods enforce the standard way and then it becomes a big dick fight.

If it creates cliques, that is the Team Leaders fault more than anyone else's. Cliques are very easily prevented, and the Moderators WILL NOT ADHERE to the Division Leaders way of "moderating". All guiding is still left to the Team Leader. I think I mentioned this, but Moderators will still follow the global Moderation Rules & Guidelines.

 

Quote

1) If somoene's spamming the n word or smth, should we wait to type the whole violation out to ban him? Therefore giving him more time to spam?
2) Most people who want to be cunts don't allow DMs.
3) Nothing really happens in moderator chats, so eh.
4) They are discussed.

1. If someone is being a huge nuisance like that, generally no. However, this was applied to people who don't do that and get muted / warned for various of other things. I guess it's more of a case-by-case situation, but it applies more often.
2. That's their fault. Not the Moderator's fault.
3. Fair.
4. I hope you didn't ignore the second part of that sentence.

 

Quote

Some of it seems to be what you think happens behind the scenes without any facts behind it, which is weird.

Just going off what is noticeable. I said I don't know what happens in internal but from what I've gathered, there is room for improvement and I had 5 people read over this for inaccuracies.

Edited October 29, 2020 by Saizy

[Angie 145 / 2,647]

42 minutes ago, Saizy said:

              Main Discord Activity

• Cambr: 718 (last message 9/05, but only 2, before that 5/28/20)
• Foe: 16 (10/26)
• Janie: 139 (10/27)
• Xivi: 62 (10/26)
• Duck: 396 (10/26/20)
• Yogi: 65 (10/15/20)
• Lurn: 1,524 (10/12/20)
• Qas: 4,045 (07/14/20)
• Canman: 469 (08/25/20)
  
  Rust Discord Activity
• Royce: 6 (05/10/20)
• Duck: 43 (10/26/20)
• Xivi: 1 (09/03/20) "i joined."
• Qas: 15 (01/24/20)
• Canman: 31 (08/21/20)
• Other moderators aren't even in here.
   

This Section should be looked at CAREFULLY by everyone..... the moderators say they want them active in all the discords and that is why some people are denied because they are "not active in all discords" but the numbers here don't lie. Some of the Moderators even saying "be more active" are not active themselves 

 

21 minutes ago, Duck. said:

why would I say hi on any other?

^^^

 

 

44 minutes ago, Saizy said:

Secondly, "follow the spirit of the rules" is such a, well not a smart statement.

I agree, what does one mean by saying that? "oh don't follow the rules to the letter?" well isn't that the point of rules..... 

 

46 minutes ago, Saizy said:

Division Leaders should be able to pick their own players and recommend them as Moderators to the Team leader, so they can reviewed by the Team Leader

 

Discord Moderators should be chosen from the division they are active in because they have a direct passion for that division. How can they expect everyone to have the same passion for each discord server. 

Maybe have separate applications such as Division wide Discord Moderators and Server wide Discord Moderators 

 

47 minutes ago, Saizy said:

Only actions by the applicant in the past should be considered when reviewing their application and voting.

This statement could not be more true. Personally I apologies for I have gone off on the moderation team for what I thought and still think is unfair voting but why bring that to the applicant that had nothing to do with the words that came from me. Words from a separate individual should never and unfairly be used against an applicant that's just straight forward. Sometimes it seems like they look for an excuse to deny a potentially good candidate. See like why should things like this:Even be mentioned if the person said themselves "I know you don’t have a say on what they do but you were around it " I still don't know why that applicant got heat for that.

49 minutes ago, Saizy said:

    Moderation Transparency Suggestions

• In detail, explain why the person was muted in the command. (ex: "!warn Saizy Violation of rule 1: stop being disrespectful to others")
• Follow up with a direct message, if necessary, about why they were muted so there is no need for drama to be escalated. It happens.
• Perhaps the most controversial & I can be shitted on for this; make moderation chats public but only moderators can talk in there.
• Discuss “problematic” people being unbanned. Additionally reviewing all member bans case by case in ban logs.

1) I agree with Duck when he said:

27 minutes ago, Duck. said:

1) If somoene's spamming the n word or smth, should we wait to type the whole violation out to ban him? Therefore giving him more time to spam?

Because they need to mute that person as soon as they can.

2) Again like duck said not all the time will the rule breaker have open DM's 

3) I agree with this. The moderator chats should in fact be public maybe not for the main but they sure do not need there own chat in branching divisions. As Skit has said  So that disregards Ducks statement in saying:

31 minutes ago, Duck. said:

3) Nothing really happens in moderator chats, so eh.

4) The problematic people have been banned for reasons but yes it should be discussed and hopefully it truly is discussed.

 

1 hour ago, Saizy said:

Telling Moderators to act based on their emotions instead of what is written down and expected is a terrible precedent for their future livelihood in real life too.

This statement as well, like i previously mentioned if you discord mods want each other to act based on emotion then...... what's point of rules if you are worried someone will " follow the spirit of the rules and not follow the rule to the last letter. " <- That statement still peeves me because of the inconsistency of rule following. 

 

Over all Saizy thank you for saying things that i feel that others were to afraid to say in fear of retribution. or in fear of it being used against them in the future. And finally as hey said so himself

1 hour ago, Saizy said:

This is just a rant & suggestions. If this offended you, that wasn't the intention. I respect each Moderator

 

[Guest Saizy]

There is a #mod-rants chat..? I don't think I need to explain the list of why this is wrong in so many ways, the fact that the general public do not even know this exists is even worse, and hopefully transparency in mod chats can be way better.

Edited October 29, 2020 by Saizy

[Bue. 664 / 0]

 

I would like to say as well that I really don't intend to attack anyone, rather than to just drop my opinion on this subject that really does need to be discussed about. I really hope the directors will not under take all of this into deep consideration, but hopefully read our opinions and hopefully add more onto their own.

 

I would also like to say that I have always respected the Moderation team on very exceeding standards, and I still do... but noticing some events that had just recently happened.. I think it's given all of us reasons to think differently than what we did before.

I believe that they all know when and how to attend important matters appropriately, but they've also given us reasons to believe that their team is not only scattered everywhere in their thoughts and agreements, but also made it very clear that they can't keep their acts together, let alone abide by their own policies.

Apart from so, I really do think that this team works/worked proficiently. Although, this all really depends on how the Directors wants to run things regarding moderation upon their discords.

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Saizy said:

Moderation Transparency Suggestions

• In detail, explain why the person was muted in the command. (ex: "!warn Saizy Violation of rule 1: stop being disrespectful to others")
• Follow up with a direct message, if necessary, about why they were muted so there is no need for drama to be escalated. It happens.
• Perhaps the most controversial & I can be shitted on for this; make moderation chats public but only moderators can talk in there.
• Discuss “problematic” people being unbanned. Additionally reviewing all member bans case by case in ban logs.

 

1. ^ I think this is the type of ethical work that needs to be taken seriously.  (Now the quote relating to question (1.) below is something I wanna give my opinion on...)

 

48 minutes ago, Duck. said:

should we wait to type the whole violation out to ban him? Therefore giving him more time to spam?

Are you really going against writing a few extra words to a !mute command, claiming it would give the player more time to spam? Regardless, if you really are worried about so...  you have the ability to "cleanup" their messages ? Unless I'm just amazingly slow-

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Saizy said:

Follow up with a direct message, if necessary, about why they were muted so there is no need for drama to be escalated. It happens.

 

48 minutes ago, Duck. said:

2) Most people who want to be cunts don't allow DMs.

I think sending the person a DM would display impressive morals dedicated to the moderation team's reputation. But as argued... If not a direct message, it could just be simple as a @ in that  specified channel. That way, the moderators' actions would actually be up for everyone to see, giving even more opportunities to be recognized as a well committed staff team.
 

 

 

 

 

48 minutes ago, Duck. said:

I applied primarily to watch over the GMod Discord Server

.....? Then why did you guys make it very clear to me that me having my eyes mainly on the Rust Division BUT ALSO more than willing to assist the other servers would not only be despised against, but also considered unessential?

 

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Saizy said:

Division Leaders should be able to pick their own players and recommend them as Moderators to the Team leader, so they can reviewed by the Team Leader (skipping the application process [arguable], since applying for a division-specific spot is really taboo, for some reason?).

 

48 minutes ago, Duck. said:

This is a bad idea purely because it'll create cliques within the modding team,

I have to agree with Duck on this one, even understanding the differences in opinions ... BUT lol, I would be more than open minded to having the Division Leaders hand pick a few of their staff members to be a potential applicant, but still have to go through the application process. Just my opinion. ❤️

 

 

 

 

 

4 minutes ago, Angie said:

Maybe have separate applications such as Division wide Discord Moderators and Server wide Discord Moderators 

Perhaps!!!!

 

 

 

7 minutes ago, Angie said:

has said  So that disregards Ducks statement in saying:

... ://// . Some parts of me still hope that this wasn't true.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Apart from all of that, I also would love to point out the fact that I got terrorized for not being active in the servers that at least had the moderation team in it, when I'm now seeing the activity list........  Are people just going to keep this team as a biased society filled with hypocrites about their own standards and policies? 

(I do have to admit, that last sentence is a bit overboard and definitely represents me attacking the team... but I believe that this whole opinion of mine does need to be heard. Please consider.)

 

 I do see where all the arguments lie. But I do think there still needs to be some serious rearrangements. All just my opinion. Thanks for reading!

[Guest Saizy]

I'm not gonna go into their detail, because that's personal drama I have no part in. However, if a Moderation Team coerces this much drama, whether they started it or not, that Server Managers get involved, it's probably time to become more transparent with the public & strict with moderation guidelines / how to deal with Moderators. If a Division Leader makes a century long essay in a drama-filled application because Moderators are causing it blow out of proportion, that's more of a yikes. Hopefully this gets taken seriously and goes into discussion.

If Moderators can't be mature enough to de-escalate possible arguments & be held responsible for how they deal with people, why expect members to do so?

[Guest Saizy]

2 minutes ago, JGuary55 said:

no been deleted 

Been discussed a while ago lol, everything is good now

> no been deleted
Fair, but the fact it existed in the first place is really saddening.

> been discussed a while ago
The fact it happened in the first place shouldn't be excused by "everything is good now". Just showing that it shouldn't happen in the first place.

[Ben 2,378 / 31,856]

I appreciate the suggestion. I will try to go through everything and share my thoughts on this suggestions. Though, I might skip a few areas as they were already addressed above by Duck. 

 

Discord Partnership is not yet being pursued because we do not meet the requirement yet and there are a few areas we'd need to go through in order to aim with it, though there are other options we are looking into, for instance, Discord Verification. There are a lot of slurs said in the past on the Main Discord. I've wanted to go with partnership, but I don't think it is necessary as of now because Discord Verification is a thing. I believe that Discord Partnership is entirely up to @Shuruia.

 

1 hour ago, Saizy said:

Main Discord Activity

You should keep in mind that Discord Moderators moderates in a different Discord, taking for example such as Duck. They tend to Main Discord when they are needed or pinged. However, I did notice that there are a few inactivity around Discord Moderators. I plan to address the inactivity around the team on Discord Moderators.

 

1 hour ago, Saizy said:

Division Leaders should be able to pick their own players and recommend them as Moderators to the Team leader, so they can reviewed by the Team Leader (skipping the application process [arguable], since applying for a division-specific spot is really taboo, for some reason?).

I can see this potentially going in a wrong way, though this is completely understandable to pick someone for a divisional discord. I would want to pick someone else who is active on something other than Main Discord. 

 

1 hour ago, Saizy said:

Secondly, "follow the spirit of the rules" is such a, well not a smart statement. That statement alone will get you barred from many moderation positions in other communities. I have seen multiple Discord & Forum moderators mention this. Discord Partnership rules are not followed "in spirit". They are followed right down to the exact detail. If the rules allow for so much room like that, they're trash rules and should be revised. I admit I could've very well been punished more times over than I care to admit if we did follow the rules down to the detail, but there are some things that need to be sacrificed if Discord Partnership is viable. Rules should be fully followed & enforced, as well as the guidelines. It's up to the community to suggest & complain if they are "treated unfairly" and to change the guidelines / rules. Telling Moderators to act based on their emotions instead of what is written down and expected is a terrible precedent for their future livelihood in real life too. Some kids take actual lessons from their experience in GFL and apply it to their life. "Following the spirit of the rules" shouldn't be encouraged within the current moderation team and they should instead either revise or enforce the guidelines.

As mentioned in earlier in this post, Discord partnership is not yet pursued and is entirely up to Shuruia in this matter, though I may have to coordinate with him about the rules. I believe that it has been told internally before that the rules may need a update, however, that will be coming in near future. 

 

1 hour ago, Saizy said:

Next up, more moderation transparency. There are many ways to do this, and I understand that too much transparency is problematic.

              Moderation Transparency Suggestions

• In detail, explain why the person was muted in the command. (ex: "!warn Saizy Violation of rule 1: stop being disrespectful to others")
• Follow up with a direct message, if necessary, about why they were muted so there is no need for drama to be escalated. It happens.
• Perhaps the most controversial & I can be shitted on for this; make moderation chats public but only moderators can talk in there.
• Discuss “problematic” people being unbanned. Additionally reviewing all member bans case by case in ban logs.

1. We're transparent enough, but this is a good suggestion. I will take a note on this.

2. Addressed by Duck

3. I believe that this is not necessary. We discuss things on the problematic people, especially in the past. Before then, Discord Moderators were doing punishments in the areas, but now they're instructed to punish people on the channel where it happened and log the incident. 

4. I don't think this is something we would do. If they want to be unbanned, they can appeal their ban. We discuss about them when the person have already filed a ban appeal.

 

1 hour ago, Saizy said:

Perhaps what is the most sickening to me is the unprofessionalism of the moderation team, no sly remarks to anyone. Moderators shouldn't shit on someone's application for the fun of it. I can bring up three examples of this but I'm not going to call out the applicants

If you have a examples of this, DM me it and I will take care of it. 

 

29 minutes ago, Saizy said:

There is a #mod-rants chat..? I don't think I need to explain the list of why this is wrong in so many ways, the fact that the general public do not even know this exists is even worse, and hopefully transparency in mod chats can be way better.

It has been removed already due to it being unnecessary and hovering around negativity. 

 

All in all, as I've already said in the post, I appreciate the suggestion. I will consider some of them.

[Bue. 664 / 0]

12 minutes ago, Saizy said:

> no been deleted

> been discussed a while ago

 

I agree. JGuary, you saying "no been deleted" really seems like you are trying to do your best to make it seem like it didn't happen. Does not change the fact that it was still there and still happened. 

 

"been discussed a while ago lol, everything is good now" ... anything and everything you guys have done that was completely unethical but was discussed upon especially the private ranting section, doesn't just automatically become "good" or over with. Nothing about what you guys have done will ever be considered, "good" or looked passed lol.

[Guest Saizy]

4 minutes ago, Ben said:

I appreciate the suggestion. I will try to go through everything and share my thoughts on this suggestions. Though, I might skip a few areas as they were already addressed above by Duck. 

 

Discord Partnership is not yet being pursued because we do not meet the requirement yet and there are a few areas we'd need to go through in order to aim with it, though there are other options we are looking into, for instance, Discord Verification. There are a lot of slurs said in the past on the Main Discord. I've wanted to go with partnership, but I don't think it is necessary as of now because Discord Verification is a thing. I believe that Discord Partnership is entirely up to @Shuruia.

 

You should keep in mind that Discord Moderators moderates in a different Discord, taking for example such as Duck. They tend to Main Discord when they are needed or pinged. However, I did notice that there are a few inactivity around Discord Moderators. I plan to address the inactivity around the team on Discord Moderators.

 

I can see this potentially going in a wrong way, though this is completely understandable to pick someone for a divisional discord. I would want to pick someone else who is active on something other than Main Discord. 

 

As mentioned in earlier in this post, Discord partnership is not yet pursued and is entirely up to Shuruia in this matter, though I may have to coordinate with him about the rules. I believe that it has been told internally before that the rules may need a update, however, that will be coming in near future. 

 

1. We're transparent enough, but this is a good suggestion. I will take a note on this.

2. Addressed by Duck

3. I believe that this is not necessary. We discuss things on the problematic people, especially in the past. Before then, Discord Moderators were doing punishments in the areas, but now they're instructed to punish people on the channel where it happened and log the incident. 

4. I don't think this is something we would do. If they want to be unbanned, they can appeal their ban. We discuss about them when the person have already filed a ban appeal.

 

If you have a examples of this, DM me it and I will take care of it. 

 

It has been removed already due to it being unnecessary and hovering around negativity. 

 

All in all, as I've already said in the post, I appreciate the suggestion. I will consider some of them.

Thanks for taking the time to read it and take some into consideration, but I want to brush up on some of my suggestions, especially with the transparency bit.

I don't see how DLs picking their own members would lead the wrong way. As long as they follow the global moderation guidelines and follow what you say instead of the Division Leader, that should be good enough. If Directors don't trust that a DL won't coerce their own members into forming a clique, why are they a DL if they are not that trusted? I thought that Discord Partnership was actively being pursued and I was wrong, but at least the outcome I wanted may happen either way. Partnership Rules messes up a lot of Discords in unforeseen ways. 

As previously mentioned, following up with a DM of why they were punished, even if their DMs are off, is a good precedent to set. If their DMs are off, it's their fault and nothing on the Moderator. I don't see anything wrong with this besides a little extra work, and it can clear up issues than making the member go through an entire appeal process.

I believe bans should be reviewed when they happen, unless the evidence is thickening enough that it's just not needed. Causing resentment among players just to force them to do ban appeals doesn't work, as seen in previously in the whole problem months ago when the Breach Managers banned 3 people and they went "crazy".

Thanks again for taking the time to talk about this though.

[JGuary55 707 / 14,712]

2 minutes ago, Bue. said:

 

I agree. JGuary, you saying "no been deleted" really seems like you are trying to do your best to make it seem like it didn't happen. Does not change the fact that it was still there and still happened. 

 

"been discussed a while ago lol, everything is good now" ... anything and everything you guys have done that was completely unethical but was discussed upon especially the private ranting section, doesn't just automatically become "good" or over with. Nothing about what you guys have done will ever be considered, "good" or looked passed lol.

Reason why I deleted it lmao didnt wanna start pointless drama again, but thank you!

[Joshy 4,364 / 44,927]

There is a lot of bad history behind reviewing bans.

[Guest Saizy]

Just now, Joshy said:

There is a lot of bad history behind reviewing bans.

If the Team Leader decides the ban is acceptable, it doesn't mean the member can't appeal ever again. I just want it where it makes sure that the ban isn't unreasonable in the first place instead of making the accused do the work.

[Joshy 4,364 / 44,927]

What do you propose for the process/flow when a Team Leader decides that the ban is unacceptable, and should it only be the Team Leader's decision or who else should be involved?  How?

 

edit:

 

I think it might be a good idea for me to say that I am only making a statement and asking a question, which do not infer or are not relevant to my opinion.

 

Edited October 29, 2020 by Joshy

[Guest Saizy]

1 minute ago, Joshy said:

What do you propose for the process/flow when a Team Leader decides that the ban is unacceptable, and should it only be the Team Leader's decision or who else should be involved?  How?

 

If the ban is unacceptable, a DM'd apology & retractment to the recipient of the ban from the TL should happen ( I assume this is already standard as I've experienced this before ). The Team Leader should be trusted to make ethical unbiased decisions, and it'll be too much of a hassle for Moderators to vote on it either way. If the Team Leader seems to be doing a poor job in general, that's why the Teams Director is there but since they're the same person, I imagine that falls upon the Executive Director making sure there is no biased decision for now.

[Auralanity 1,097 / 19,948]

41 minutes ago, Saizy said:

If the ban is unacceptable, a DM'd apology & retractment to the recipient of the ban from the TL should happen ( I assume this is already standard as I've experienced this before ). The Team Leader should be trusted to make ethical unbiased decisions, and it'll be too much of a hassle for Moderators to vote on it either way. If the Team Leader seems to be doing a poor job in general, that's why the Teams Director is there but since they're the same person, I imagine that falls upon the Executive Director making sure there is no biased decision for now.

     As a previous moderator myself for the Discord in 2018 GFL, I can certainly tell you it would be more than practical to have a vote from moderators regarding a ban and a discussion that can take place efficiently and without hassle in less than 4 days. Of course, it would be up to the leaders in place for the final decision; but, having insight from people who are actually active in the Discord and can give a solid opinion about whether the ban was just or unjust would certainly help with the bias that everyone so inherently despises. I mean, wouldn't you like to know how those people behave in the Discord in the past before you make a decision? 

    May I politely remind you that the executive director wouldn't be the person to go to in this situation? It would be, in fact, either @Ben or @Shuruia to take on the matter together or separately. This course of action would be due to the fact that both of them respectively are Director of Teams, which is @Ben, and @Shuruia who is Director of Communications. 

As well, I know some of you might not believe me, so I'll put the proof of my previous moderator status here.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 29, 2020 by Auralanity
wow grammar is hard guys!!!

[Guest Saizy]

1 hour ago, Auralanity said:

     As a previous moderator myself for the Discord in 2018 GFL, I can certainly tell you it would be more than practical to have a vote from moderators regarding a ban and a discussion that can take place efficiently and without hassle in less than 4 days. Of course, it would be up to the leaders in place for the final decision; but, having insight from people who are actually active in the Discord and can give a solid opinion about whether the ban was just or unjust would certainly help with the bias that everyone so inherently despises. I mean, wouldn't you like to know how those people behave in the Discord in the past before you make a decision? 

    May I politely remind you that the executive director wouldn't be the person to go to in this situation? It would be, in fact, either @Ben or @Shuruia to take on the matter together or separately. This course of action would be due to the fact that both of them respectively are Director of Teams, which is @Ben, and @Shuruia who is Director of Communications. 

As well, I know some of you might not believe me, so I'll put the proof of my previous moderator status here.

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

 

 

I’ll take you at your word, and of course but what I mean is, since Ben is both currently TL and Teams Director, who will check him? It’s the executive’s job to make sure everything is going smoothly with Directors. Of course, if Ben chooses to have a new Mod TL in place, it then falls on Ben to keep that TL in check.

 

Moderators being active in votes on each ban review, when there is, I assume, a lot of them at any given day is too much, however they can always offer their input if asked. Its not meant to be that strict. I just want the guidelines to be followed strictly.

[TheJitFace 699 / 18,162]

Expose em bro

[Joshy 4,364 / 44,927]

Several people have tried your idea before.  They were usually not very happy with the results (here).  I do not think what you are saying bad, but these complex topics are deceivingly covered by a very basic wrapper; unfortunately: the approach is going to have to be a lot more elaborate and creative to get there, and it's going to take a lot of time and effort beyond a few policy changes.  It's not to suggest that you are intentionally trying to overly simplify them, but it's very hard to see or understand until you're in the middle of it.  For example:  Lifting an "unjust" ban is hard because everyone thinks they're right.

 

One suggestion is to think of these problems more of symptoms rather than the cause.