Post by Garra Desalmados on Aug 30, 2015 9:02:52 GMT -5
For the record, staff took action.
There was a post that was literally the definition of toxic. It caused three members to quit and over half a dozen threads to die due to the demotivating and unconstructive nature. And while it wouldn't have had such an impact had everyone been aware of the unposted circumstances and eventual posted retraction of a great part of its more toxic elements, its caused members to resent the staff literally months later, certain people getting jollies out of using it to badmouth staff.
This happened. I asked. It was hidden. A positive change: at least new members won't be subject to old bullshit in an effort to undermine and demotivate otherwise productive members of our community.
>informing people about past behavior in order to give them a fuller picture of the present is a bad thing >hiding posts that cause trouble for the staff and place blame on them is also a good thing >there are people who actually believe this
Don't you have copies of 1984 to censor or did you run out?
Post by Jian Oreachi on Aug 30, 2015 14:21:39 GMT -5
So my review! Everything on the bottom half is fine, though the do this or quit sentiment is regrettably getting old. The top half, I like the clearly painted strikes but I feel three strikes to get to the meat of punishment is kind of rough, with four being the final solution is like super overkill. With the inclusion of caveats it's better, but then it's not well defined. In other words, it should definitely account for behavior beyond the pale that warrants immediate action to avoid being arbitrary.
Otherwise cool! Thanks, I'll be looking at then when we start moving on a formal proposal. The biggest challenge in my eyes is adequately defining the behavior worth punishing. Very much a situation that seems obvious (you know it when you see it/don't be a dick) but that doesn't really fly.
TK linked me netiquette we should just use that imo.
'- Don't send large amounts of unsolicited information to people.'
right? and also
'- If you include a signature keep it short. Rule of thumb
is no longer than 4 lines. Remember that many people pay for connectivity by the minute, and the longer your message is, the more they pay.'
How many strikes does a person need until they understand the word 'no' and 'stop doing that thing' is going to get them banned?
Is it strict? Yes.
We have allowed people who sexually harass or otherwise seriously go full on fuckboy on others who not only find the attention unwanted, but offensive, and other unwanted behaviors to the point you lose good members of the site in favor of going, "well, they'll be replaced here in a few months, so it doesn't really affect anything." as a method of sticking collective heads in the sand going, "It's not happening here, I don't see this, it's not a problem."
What is the actual point of this topic, this bringing the bullying and chasing off of members of the site and the implication of attitude and behavior crackdowns if you (collective 'you', here, mind) aren't going to take the necessary measures to enforce said crackdown and give people something to actually believe?
'cause, at this point?
It's another, what, 10-11? pages between the two or three threads related/connected to this topic that're quite literally wasted effort on other peoples' end and staff once again doing what they will do best in times of conflict:
Stick their heads in the sand after saying 'we'll talk about it', and eventually hope it dies.
Y'all were doing okay about proving you're trying to bridge the gap by showing what you've been working on/opening some of the transparency there on staff.
Don't fuck it up now, not with an important subject such as this.
Post by Jian Oreachi on Aug 30, 2015 15:29:20 GMT -5
Actually I meant that 4 was too many, and extreme cases (which should be detailed, things like sexual harassment etc) wouldn't follow the same slowly escalating response. Sorry for not being clear.
I set things up the way I do out of a combination of fairness, and to avoid as much bullshit as possible. I'm in favor of shenanigans, not of a good large amount of bullshit unless liquor is involved and we're playing Ten Fingers Down.
With three strikes (you can even drop the final strike and just leave it at a solid three), you have a gradually escalating tier of consequences for continued misbehavior. More severe circumstances will obviously alter the way the strike numbers or the way things are handled given the situation at hand.
However, escalating tiers = less room for people to cry foul and throw the shit of "I was never officially warned!" or dispute what's going on/turning it into a witch hunt. You'll know, and the person who's not cutting their shit out will know because of the way things are handled.