Other Forums Containment Thread

[Potato]

This stat alone is evidence of that:

(Image removed from quote.)

All these colonialism experts and none of them ever think about how the US and UK navies dominated the politics of the globe for so long. And those weren't even modern aircraft carriers. The last time anyone tried to compete the Japanese Empire was vaporized and that was 80 years ago.

Actually even better is how often they post that map of U.S. military bases around the world but never think about it.

I am sick and tired of seeing all this garbage chatter about 1 million strong chinese armies.

Modern wars are not won with boots on the ground. As evidenced by Ukraine, the minute you have been drawn into invading, you are a sitting duck and your supply lines are vulnerable.

The US knows this and has intentionally developed a military strategy which is mobile and can be deployed anywhere on the globe within 24-48 hours.

Those 1 million chinese soldiers would be mince meat within a week if there was a direct confrontation.

[Boredfrom]

This stat alone is evidence of that:

(Image removed from quote.)

All these colonialism experts and none of them ever think about how the US and UK navies dominated the politics of the globe for so long. And those weren't even modern aircraft carriers. The last time anyone tried to compete the Japanese Empire was vaporized and that was 80 years ago.

Actually even better is how often they post that map of U.S. military bases around the world but never think about it.

I am sick and tired of seeing all this garbage chatter about 1 million strong chinese armies.

Modern wars are not fought with boots on the ground. As evidenced by Ukraine, the minute you have been drawn into invading, you are a sitting duck and your supply lines are vulnerable.

The US knows this and has intentionally developed a military strategy which is mobile and can be deployed anywhere on the globe within 24-48 hours.

Those 1 million chinese soldiers would be mince meat within a week if there was a direct confrontation.

You are talking like most people were not surprised in how utterly incompetent the Russian army became, including Putin

[nobody of note]

So the Constructive thread had another round of people asking for public rap sheets, with someone going so far as to screenshot Something Awful's system and use it as a model.

Mods responded with the usual nos, referring to the Kiwifarms bandit being USED TO HARASS OUR USERS, etc. Standard stuff.

So there's that, the Blamespace thing, and some recent user discussion about how long the ticket system takes and how borderline useless it is. Not very interesting but Snormy just popped up with this incredible wall of text:

"Playing the greatest hits"

Did someone say mod mental health? Did some one say TICKET SYSTEM? Are we having a share and tell day? *brings baggage*

I think it is fair that users should be able to see a link to their own past actioned posts. That is about it. The way it currently is the user digs through their own history or asks a mod for a quick link or rely on less accurate off site stuff. Pretty rough if you're trying to understand and improve. I'll bring this up in a meeting and see what the thoughts are and if all goes well maybe something can be cooked up by the tech team.

Seeing another user's is not something I would endorse. As mentioned by others I think it will lead to more dog piling and blood hunting. I do not believe it will satisfy the users because ultimately the mod's decisions and process remain hidden and requesting access to this may as well be asking to backseat moderate. Seeing their list of bans and warnings doesn't give you the same perspective as a mod and doesn't give you a pathway to land on the same conclusion as a moderator.

I've seen users react to another user's post history being brought up. Absolutely zero benefit of the doubt is given from that point onwards regardless of whether or not the user makes a good post or not. Sometimes this highlights a pattern. Other times it sort of feels like judging the user and not the post. Considering this I really have doubts about the SA system working here. How would a user feel when they see another user with a couple of warnings and a ban. What about 5 bans? What about 15+ actions? One action that is more severe? 6 actions where 3 you don't even understand? I don't see it changing too much because from my perspective the problem lies in users not arriving at the same conclusion as the moderators, often not even being able to understand or see how a moderator might arrive at the conclusion.
As a moderator I have an understanding of the weights for different things, console warring vs hostility vs bigotry etc. I also can review them case by case. That is part of the job. A user doesn't have that and doesn't need that. We ultimately do still do not have the same pathway to the same conclusion. When I see one user is permed on their 6th or 19th action I can find out why or can review other considerations on this action or the account. I can try to access past mod logs or failing that ask the mods involved directly or pester our mod captains and admins.

We give warnings and we give bans. Warnings are not always more descriptive than bans, they are ultimately part of the same system. While some users seem to be calling for more warnings I'll point out that there has been much frustrations that moderators are often too light which is how we got to this point which I feel is honestly pretty fair. There are special exceptions such as the Ukraine thread where we made it clear we're not messing around and actions will typically be more severe (which means longer in duration generally). I'll highlight this post because it rings true a lot of the time in all areas, not just anger and hostility.

Lol, posters get warning's all the time, ask any of the minority groups on this site about how long it generally takes for a problem user to be banned, it takes a history and pattern of behaviour to be long time banned, and while I'm glad Royalan has reflected and improved, I think it's disingenuous to pretend his posts if he wasn't a Mod would have got banned - there were other posters in that thread typing similar things, and Royalan was not actually aggressive or personal to other posters. Posters here are given chances to reflect on their behaviour and if it consistently is reacting in aggressive ways to other posters and putting your foot in your mouth that it has graduated to long bans then maybe they've already had their chances to improve, and the people that have had to be on the other end of said angry poster shouldn't have to deal with that just because another poster is consistently not able to keep their anger in check

We an escalated response for stuff that leans towards sensitive topics such as racism or sexism. There is a bit of a difference between say, some image that has been around and used in various ways for years but ultimately has a problematic origin or read to it than posting something outright hostile and offensive at another user. But do note that this was something that took time and adjustments. When I first started we "fast tracked" these by going to bans directly and typically we went 3 days, 5 or a week. Then a 2 week ban with final warning, then a perm. Later, because many users felt that 3 days did nothing and was weak af we upped the initial to about 2w. These days it can start at 1m. Yes, there are some that I would call a 1m on, even if this was your first time.

There are still some variance such as intent, history, follow ups etc. Speaking of follow ups I'll jump here.

A personal example: I was in a thread about a Quebecois comedian who got away with harassing a disabled youth, and in this thread I wrote "think of the pareeeents" in a way that, in my intent, was supposed to sound like a whiny, stupid voice of a whiny, stupid comedian. Another user, however, read this as me making reference to the ableist meme "Autistic Screeching," and that's an entirely sensible conclusion to come to despite the fact I'm a person with Autism Spectrum Disorder and talk about it all the time, because I'm just a name and an avatar to this user. They have no reason to give me the benefit of the doubt, because what about me has proven worthy of that immediate benefit? I wasn't banned for this, I caught it fast enough, explained myself, and edited it out because the idea of referencing a meme that demeans people like me never crossed my mind, but it's not like anyone but me knows that.

Typically we don't instantly ban anything. In this case, it is a great example because either I am one of the mods who was present in the report and signed off to take no action or I was in a similar report to the point that this seems the same 1:1. In any case, it is a great example of moderators taking into consideration of a user's follow ups. That said, these aren't always going to have the same outcome. It is still ultimately reviewed and considered by the mods. If a user gets called out they are also typically reported. When I come in and if I don't think it was done in bad faith or maliciously one thing I look to is whether the user has replied. Whether or not they have been back online since. Now keep in mind there is a queue of reports and there is only so much time I can give a user and all the while there could potentially be mounting frustrations from the comment. All of these are considered.

... I kind of don't even want to mention this but I kind of want to be honest here. Not everyone agrees with this. By that I mean, we all draw the line on what to ban in different places, mods and users both. Ultimately a decision must be made. Sometimes a user will ask us why this obvious ableist comment was not banned and when we reply with the reason that we allow for users to grow and correct their mistakes like this... Well, lets just say it isn't exactly what you might expect. And that is sort of a point. An apology or information given to staff doesn't always bear the same weight to members. An apology that staff might find sincere might not land nearly as well on members. Sometimes even, members feel staff are being strung along by trolls.

A good time to maybe jump back pages and visit this post

Generally speaking this is to give members a chance to reflect, learn and improve. We aren't educators and the forum does not owe the user a lesson on why what they said is problematic so it can be a bit difficult for the user to learn but ultimately we don't always go straight for perms. A lot of resources out there and there are a lot of sites and conversations

In the Ukraine thread we also consider that this is a serious situation and people will inevitably be emotional and upset. They may then say something in the heat of the moment or whatever. The severity increase here is to try and prevent these. Sometimes it is harsh, but that is sort of the point. Note that escalation does not necessarily mean straight perm either but generally the floor for a ban would be higher than what it typically might be and we would view be more critical than if it was in a silly weekend thread for instance.

Then there might be other less common considerations such as potential language fluency contributing to their posting style or phrase being problematic.

So I guess I'll springboard to this

This isn't a critique or suggestion, but I sometime wonder how often people who have communication issues because of lack of english fluency, mental illness and neurodivergency are perceived to be bad actors or trolls. Is this something that has been discussed? If so, I'm very interested in knowing how this may have framed they way moderation is approached. I can't imagine this is an easy issue to handle in the least bit.

For me personally, I have pretty bad dyslexia and it's made me respond to certain posts in unintelligible ways. In addition to that, I believe that I've even reported some posts because I misread them. Thankfully, it hasn't caused me any real issues yet.

I don't know how often bhis stuff is hard. It is also important to note that none of these excuse breaking the TOS but if the circumstances are relevant to the context in some way it is considered. We also can only consider things that we know about. Language difficulties, mental illness and neurodivergency has all come up in my time here as a moderator. They are all considered and added to the case. I try to keep some tabs on things as I see it but it isn't possible to know everything and some members are not comfortable sharing. These cases can be complicated too, when it changes moderation it can often land us in a shit spot. "Why is this  user not given the same ban? Why am I banned for 1m racist commentary and this other user for inappropriate commentary 1w? How is this fair?" or "Typical, inconsistent and bias era mod bullshit. You love to see it."
And I come up with some vague response that no one likes to hear such as "We need to consider a lot of things with each user that regular members may not be privy to..." then shut right up while everyone is unhappy at me / mods in general. Because when you share your struggles on being neurodivergent and how it affects you on Era or when you appeal and explain to us what your current mental state is and how it has affected your postings on Era, this is between you and Era Staff. It is your story and it isn't our business to share it even when people give us shit because it looks bad. That is our deal. If you want to share with Era that is for you to do, not us.

There has been cases where another user has spoken openly in defense of someone else who is banned, giving insight on why there might be variation including mental state or disabilities and such. Even this, I give a little side eye because I'm not sure it is appropriate and honestly it can feel gossipy. I can't make any judgment because I don't know if this was done with permission but staff can't do that and if it turns out that it was not suppose to be public we are going to have to ban that and try to redact it if requested.

There is also times when we have similar issues repeating. There is only so much we can do when someone is repeatedly caught fumbling about sensitive issues due to language fluency and getting a lot of members upset. You can be damn sure there will be questions and comments too, "Oh, yeah I remember you from ___ thread." "I don't know why they weren't banned for it last time, I definitely reported it. Probably some bias mod protection." We see this stuff too and it isn't nice which is one of the reasons we try to get people to cut the meta commentary stuff out. So to coming back around to the SA method... I don't think I can OK on a tool that can be used to potentially bully a user into sharing something that is close to their hearts but are not ready to do or be painted as some villain with x number of infractions in whatever. It isn't one user either right? It is revealing the rap sheet or whatever, in a context without all information which leads to an incorrect conclusion in front of other members. Then asking the user to fill the gaps or the incorrect conclusion is an entire thing that the web and their grandma will take as the truth because they can only judge on what they see and it looks bad. So yeah, it is complicated.

Any ways. As I typed this post one particular story keeps coming to mind and so I figure I'll share it but before that... I guess I'll post once about blame space. But really this shit sort of fits for a lot of other cases.

"Thought dump"

Let me start with saying I have looked at blame space's account in the past for moderation purposes but this time around I wasn't really part of the main it other than "Oh, so it happened." I could see where it was heading regardless because when I reviewed the account I didn't expect the patterns I see to stop and felt that sooner or later an issue will come again. That isn't to say I'm hunting them, I don't have time for that. I don't want to ban people. If I can never see you again in the reports that is all for the better. With that in mind here are some thoughts.

blame space is a member of the community and has been since GAF. He has a large number of posts and majority of them are fine. He has a noted posting style which can be sarcastic or glib to point out a flaw in logic or to make light fun of someone. Such comments going sparingly is one thing but a user with a reputation of this and has a large post history of this is not something I consider favourable. I do not regard this as constructive criticism and the fact that many reports come in as trolling shows that there is a layer of irritation these posts give regardless of whether the user has a good point or not.

I give less weight to whether or not a user is popular and well liked on the forum and more weight to whether they have positive contributions. Ideally the user would have both. Plenty of former mods can verify that I have argued for and against leniency when it comes to "community members" based on this. Some I've come to regret others I still stand by to this day. An example, a member might be particularly informative and educational in a particular niche. Maybe they are a bastion of support and a voice of reason in some topics. blame is not that to my knowledge of his history. That said I'm not strictly "No fun allowed". There is a place for some funny one liners and what not but these shouldn't cause grievances and when it sometimes comes at the expense of poking at another user or when we start seeing a bunch of reports I take these into consideration. Another example. A member might contribute to discussions regarding racism threads, maybe blackface but here they are being reviewed for dismissing concerns of sinophobia. One doesn't really give immunity to the other, but I would like to hope that being able to come to an understanding of the former should allow this user to reach an understanding of the latter and grow. Especially for first offenses.

Next the interactions with staff. So passive aggressiveness and general aggression to staff or whatever you want to call it. This is a thing that I've changed stances on over time. Let me give some context. When I was a a newbie mod chewing through console wars reports I asked an admin "I know this user said some stuff at us but I think their heart is still in trying to benefit Era, isn't this harsh? Do we really need to ban them?". And this nice admin tells me "We are not to be punching bags for members." This made a lot of sense to me but certainly a part of me still felt it was worth trying to find a better way. Somewhere a part of me probably still does. Any ways, eventually some admins retired and we got new admins. I watched the burnout and I didn't really understand. Some time later some of the admin tasks were open to mods who have been active for a long time. These include emails (now the ticket system), ban reviews and sometimes communicating stuff. And shit start to sink in. One hit to the bag at a time. If you've read my entire post somewhere above I mentioned that sometimes explaining things to users get results you wouldn't expect. There are certainly times when I could have reported these responses I've received and there would be bans. Sometimes I even do that because there is only so much I can take there or sometimes it is just entirely inappropriate.

Now. Blame space is not that kind of aggression. But my point is that my view on this type of criticism and how much to weigh "they mean well and want to improve the forum" has changed. I don't blame any mod who, for example, just spent a solid hour working through the soul wrenching Ukraine thread to not want to put up with passive aggressiveness. So my thoughts are, if we don't want to put up with it we won't. If we do, that is by our own choice and a somewhat self destructive one at that. We don't trigger ban these. We report them for other mods to evaluate and then action.

I see some sentiments that it is kind of mild. While sort of true again, I don't agree with persistently letting these slide. Do we let it slide here again? And when another member follows do we let that slide? Does it matter if the other member is in a different thread or in the same thread about the same issue?
The point that it was something for mods to reflect on is entirely irrelevant to me on this. There are proper channels for this. What if the point blame wanted mods to reflect on is actually wrong and based on some misread? Do we let it slide that it he is currently misrepresenting moderation? Does it matter since most likely people saw it and will run with it because they aren't mods and can't see what is what and there is now some more garbage narrative being perpetuated, generally at staff's expense? Has he tried to give genuine constructive critique through appropriate channels? I think about these things.

So with all that in mind. I haven't looked into the user's recent history or given a full look. I would lean towards a ban. Given that there appears to have been a final warning for this behaviour it would have been a permanent ban.

And finally.
He can send a ticket and make a case just like everyone else. It is slow but it is a thing. No guarantee that a review will turn the verdict.

[close]

This took longer than I expected to write up and I also realise I'm not really supposed to share stories so I guess I'll redact and patch this a little. It will also be brief or I'll try to be.

"In this story, Snormy reviews a ticket..."

Tickets aren't all bad. I just sometimes complain about them. My aim here is sort... to give an idea of what we take into consideration behind the scenes and why we can't share sometimes. Here we go.

In this appeal the user has been permanently banned for... Lets say... Sexist commentary. History of similar severe offenses. She begins with recognising why she were banned. Acknowledges that she had been given final chance and have ultimately failed to stop repeating the pattern. She laments that she is now permanently banned and ask for another chance. She details her experiences growing up suffering sexism, how she ultimately ended up joining some bullies to try and fit in and has said and done horrible things her youth to others in a way to try and prove loyalty to her group of toxic friends. How over the years places such as Era has shown her how to be a better person in many regards and how horrible some of her past actions truly is. She details that she understands the feelings regarding sexism as she still suffers much of this due to a toxic work environment. All of this resulted in her losing her emotions and getting into arguments in related topics and perhaps due to her past she fell back to rhetoric and language that is harmful. She is filled with regret, shame and a sense of loss for having lost access to the community.

A good check point to stop. Make a cuppa. Take it in and think about it for a bit.

I need to consider the sincerity of it but I'll just skip ahead and say I took it as sincere and honest, I based my review on that assumption. I move on to checking the user's history. I see regular engagement and nothing stands out. There isn't a lot of post but that is never really a problem unless you have a really bad ratio of posts to moderated content. I see some things I consider favourably and not much that I consider unfavourable. I move onto their moderated posts. There are about 6 items, 3 mostly irrelevant to the situation such as some old console wars or a minor hostility or language warning. I check these and feel they don't have much weight in any way for me. I see a warning and 3 bans related to sexism, one ban is old and another is ancient. The times are relevant because as I mentioned earlier we have adjusted the ban durations / severity of things over time. It means that escalation can be a bit weird. I read the contents of the post that was their first severe ban. I am immediately upset. I typically go and review this action in more detail but I jumped to their next severe ban to read its contents first. I read the contents of the post and I... Fucking needed a moment. There is anger at the contents of the post. There is sadness that it comes from the user who sent the appeal, knowing the details of how these happen. The posts are bad. Blatant. Offensive and just upsetting to read. I eventually moved on with the review and looked through as much as I could before writing some thoughts for others to review. I won't go into detail because it is getting late and it doesn't matter for the story.

This is a good check point to stop again and think about this case a little. Take it in and not knee jerk any reactions.

In my assessment for other mods to consider I very openly admit that it is upsetting to read. I consider the appeal to be sincere, the appeal itself makes me want to give one more chance. I have no doubts that a portion of Era will relate to this user's struggles, I have no doubt that this appeal will be well received by perhaps even majority of Era. The disparity of what I read in this appeal and the posts that our users can see is what has me hesitating. This is not a singular incident and they have been warned and banned repeatedly. They were given final warning for this specifically. In my mind I recall reading all the relevant community's comments. "Mods look the other way all the time." "Mods give the lightest tap of the wrist to bigots and wonder why have no faith in them." "Nothing has changed since the old place." "Mods are useless.". I'm trying to imagine what I say when someone asks me why this user went from a permanent ban to being not banned, especially for what they posted and have posted in their history.

That is it. I'll let you you all think the frustrations our minority members face and the struggles of decisions. If you want to know where I cast my vote on this maybe I'll come back and tell it tomorrow.

[close]

*runs away but leaves baggage behind*

Wait, hold up. I spot this so one more.

Maybe a group of mods can be assigned to only handle appeals for bans less than X days in length, but I don't know if the ticketing system could handle that kind of filtering.

Would not wish this on my worst enemy. There was period of time where an admin solo'd this for over a month. It breaks my heart just thinking about it. I can't see this being an assigned task any more. Not for unpaid voluntary work from untrained people. I wouldn't do this if it was paid. There must be a limit to the madness.
Look. It isn't all bad. But users typically want us to try and relate to their situation and fine. I'm ok with opening up, trying to be considerate and putting myself in anothers shoes... Just, some tickets are just... Like, I go in thinking "Lets see how I can help this member" and then I eat a wakeup shoryuken. That doesn't make sense but thats all I got.

[close]

I have yet to successfully read the whole thing but there's a toooon of mod greatest hits in here.

[BisMarckie]

I played Hearts of Iron 4, I successfully invaded the United States and annihilated their fleet in the process. benjipwns debunked

[railGUN]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/dudes-have-you-ever-used-a-flashlight-to-project-a-monster-sized-shadow-puppet-of-your-hose-on-the-wall.565681/

ho boy...

[benjipwns]

Post says literally nothing except that it's so hard being a mod and doing anything to improve how they operate is impossible. Also that blame space was banned because he mocked the mods and that's not allowed. Also that at least one of the staff and possibly more consider posting sarcastic comments to be "passive aggressive" trolling if you aren't posting thoughts of support for another members.

[Vertigo]

If that tweet is in any way indicative of some of the movie's themes, we're in for a hell of a lot of asshat rage... and I'm here for it.

The "Yes all MEN" tagline is brilliant, and it is going to set some people OFF.

Hoping that there'll be a sizeable amount of fragile male tears over "YES ALL MEN" that'll keep me going until this is out

Are the neck beard chuds on youtube ok?

https://www.resetera.com/threads/men-official-trailer-written-and-directed-by-alex-garland.565378/

Why can't these weirdos just enjoy media without worrying what some imaginary 'alt right' guy or ‘incel'  may or may not be doing? Every film,TV show or game thread with the lightest amount of social commentary and they come out the woodwork.

[benjipwns]

Media is only good if the right people enjoy it and the wrong people hate it.

[DJ Bedroom]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/dudes-have-you-ever-used-a-flashlight-to-project-a-monster-sized-shadow-puppet-of-your-hose-on-the-wall.565681/
ho boy...

God, that's actually a great idea. Not surprised they locked it. Chris Redfield assfucking fanfic is totally ok though

[benjipwns]

Why was that Bossattack person allowed to post for so long? He should have been banned from his first post itself for justifying the deaths of half a million children. This thread is 5 pages of people arguing with him like 'no killing half a million babies is not right'. Ugh.

[Taco Bell Tower]

So the Constructive thread had another round of people asking for public rap sheets, with someone going so far as to screenshot Something Awful's system and use it as a model.

Mods responded with the usual nos, referring to the Kiwifarms bandit being USED TO HARASS OUR USERS, etc. Standard stuff.

So there's that, the Blamespace thing, and some recent user discussion about how long the ticket system takes and how borderline useless it is. Not very interesting but Snormy just popped up with this incredible wall of text:

"Playing the greatest hits"

Did someone say mod mental health? Did some one say TICKET SYSTEM? Are we having a share and tell day? *brings baggage*

I think it is fair that users should be able to see a link to their own past actioned posts. That is about it. The way it currently is the user digs through their own history or asks a mod for a quick link or rely on less accurate off site stuff. Pretty rough if you're trying to understand and improve. I'll bring this up in a meeting and see what the thoughts are and if all goes well maybe something can be cooked up by the tech team.

Seeing another user's is not something I would endorse. As mentioned by others I think it will lead to more dog piling and blood hunting. I do not believe it will satisfy the users because ultimately the mod's decisions and process remain hidden and requesting access to this may as well be asking to backseat moderate. Seeing their list of bans and warnings doesn't give you the same perspective as a mod and doesn't give you a pathway to land on the same conclusion as a moderator.

I've seen users react to another user's post history being brought up. Absolutely zero benefit of the doubt is given from that point onwards regardless of whether or not the user makes a good post or not. Sometimes this highlights a pattern. Other times it sort of feels like judging the user and not the post. Considering this I really have doubts about the SA system working here. How would a user feel when they see another user with a couple of warnings and a ban. What about 5 bans? What about 15+ actions? One action that is more severe? 6 actions where 3 you don't even understand? I don't see it changing too much because from my perspective the problem lies in users not arriving at the same conclusion as the moderators, often not even being able to understand or see how a moderator might arrive at the conclusion.
As a moderator I have an understanding of the weights for different things, console warring vs hostility vs bigotry etc. I also can review them case by case. That is part of the job. A user doesn't have that and doesn't need that. We ultimately do still do not have the same pathway to the same conclusion. When I see one user is permed on their 6th or 19th action I can find out why or can review other considerations on this action or the account. I can try to access past mod logs or failing that ask the mods involved directly or pester our mod captains and admins.

We give warnings and we give bans. Warnings are not always more descriptive than bans, they are ultimately part of the same system. While some users seem to be calling for more warnings I'll point out that there has been much frustrations that moderators are often too light which is how we got to this point which I feel is honestly pretty fair. There are special exceptions such as the Ukraine thread where we made it clear we're not messing around and actions will typically be more severe (which means longer in duration generally). I'll highlight this post because it rings true a lot of the time in all areas, not just anger and hostility.

Lol, posters get warning's all the time, ask any of the minority groups on this site about how long it generally takes for a problem user to be banned, it takes a history and pattern of behaviour to be long time banned, and while I'm glad Royalan has reflected and improved, I think it's disingenuous to pretend his posts if he wasn't a Mod would have got banned - there were other posters in that thread typing similar things, and Royalan was not actually aggressive or personal to other posters. Posters here are given chances to reflect on their behaviour and if it consistently is reacting in aggressive ways to other posters and putting your foot in your mouth that it has graduated to long bans then maybe they've already had their chances to improve, and the people that have had to be on the other end of said angry poster shouldn't have to deal with that just because another poster is consistently not able to keep their anger in check

We an escalated response for stuff that leans towards sensitive topics such as racism or sexism. There is a bit of a difference between say, some image that has been around and used in various ways for years but ultimately has a problematic origin or read to it than posting something outright hostile and offensive at another user. But do note that this was something that took time and adjustments. When I first started we "fast tracked" these by going to bans directly and typically we went 3 days, 5 or a week. Then a 2 week ban with final warning, then a perm. Later, because many users felt that 3 days did nothing and was weak af we upped the initial to about 2w. These days it can start at 1m. Yes, there are some that I would call a 1m on, even if this was your first time.

There are still some variance such as intent, history, follow ups etc. Speaking of follow ups I'll jump here.

A personal example: I was in a thread about a Quebecois comedian who got away with harassing a disabled youth, and in this thread I wrote "think of the pareeeents" in a way that, in my intent, was supposed to sound like a whiny, stupid voice of a whiny, stupid comedian. Another user, however, read this as me making reference to the ableist meme "Autistic Screeching," and that's an entirely sensible conclusion to come to despite the fact I'm a person with Autism Spectrum Disorder and talk about it all the time, because I'm just a name and an avatar to this user. They have no reason to give me the benefit of the doubt, because what about me has proven worthy of that immediate benefit? I wasn't banned for this, I caught it fast enough, explained myself, and edited it out because the idea of referencing a meme that demeans people like me never crossed my mind, but it's not like anyone but me knows that.

Typically we don't instantly ban anything. In this case, it is a great example because either I am one of the mods who was present in the report and signed off to take no action or I was in a similar report to the point that this seems the same 1:1. In any case, it is a great example of moderators taking into consideration of a user's follow ups. That said, these aren't always going to have the same outcome. It is still ultimately reviewed and considered by the mods. If a user gets called out they are also typically reported. When I come in and if I don't think it was done in bad faith or maliciously one thing I look to is whether the user has replied. Whether or not they have been back online since. Now keep in mind there is a queue of reports and there is only so much time I can give a user and all the while there could potentially be mounting frustrations from the comment. All of these are considered.

... I kind of don't even want to mention this but I kind of want to be honest here. Not everyone agrees with this. By that I mean, we all draw the line on what to ban in different places, mods and users both. Ultimately a decision must be made. Sometimes a user will ask us why this obvious ableist comment was not banned and when we reply with the reason that we allow for users to grow and correct their mistakes like this... Well, lets just say it isn't exactly what you might expect. And that is sort of a point. An apology or information given to staff doesn't always bear the same weight to members. An apology that staff might find sincere might not land nearly as well on members. Sometimes even, members feel staff are being strung along by trolls.

A good time to maybe jump back pages and visit this post

Generally speaking this is to give members a chance to reflect, learn and improve. We aren't educators and the forum does not owe the user a lesson on why what they said is problematic so it can be a bit difficult for the user to learn but ultimately we don't always go straight for perms. A lot of resources out there and there are a lot of sites and conversations

In the Ukraine thread we also consider that this is a serious situation and people will inevitably be emotional and upset. They may then say something in the heat of the moment or whatever. The severity increase here is to try and prevent these. Sometimes it is harsh, but that is sort of the point. Note that escalation does not necessarily mean straight perm either but generally the floor for a ban would be higher than what it typically might be and we would view be more critical than if it was in a silly weekend thread for instance.

Then there might be other less common considerations such as potential language fluency contributing to their posting style or phrase being problematic.

So I guess I'll springboard to this

This isn't a critique or suggestion, but I sometime wonder how often people who have communication issues because of lack of english fluency, mental illness and neurodivergency are perceived to be bad actors or trolls. Is this something that has been discussed? If so, I'm very interested in knowing how this may have framed they way moderation is approached. I can't imagine this is an easy issue to handle in the least bit.

For me personally, I have pretty bad dyslexia and it's made me respond to certain posts in unintelligible ways. In addition to that, I believe that I've even reported some posts because I misread them. Thankfully, it hasn't caused me any real issues yet.

I don't know how often bhis stuff is hard. It is also important to note that none of these excuse breaking the TOS but if the circumstances are relevant to the context in some way it is considered. We also can only consider things that we know about. Language difficulties, mental illness and neurodivergency has all come up in my time here as a moderator. They are all considered and added to the case. I try to keep some tabs on things as I see it but it isn't possible to know everything and some members are not comfortable sharing. These cases can be complicated too, when it changes moderation it can often land us in a shit spot. "Why is this  user not given the same ban? Why am I banned for 1m racist commentary and this other user for inappropriate commentary 1w? How is this fair?" or "Typical, inconsistent and bias era mod bullshit. You love to see it."
And I come up with some vague response that no one likes to hear such as "We need to consider a lot of things with each user that regular members may not be privy to..." then shut right up while everyone is unhappy at me / mods in general. Because when you share your struggles on being neurodivergent and how it affects you on Era or when you appeal and explain to us what your current mental state is and how it has affected your postings on Era, this is between you and Era Staff. It is your story and it isn't our business to share it even when people give us shit because it looks bad. That is our deal. If you want to share with Era that is for you to do, not us.

There has been cases where another user has spoken openly in defense of someone else who is banned, giving insight on why there might be variation including mental state or disabilities and such. Even this, I give a little side eye because I'm not sure it is appropriate and honestly it can feel gossipy. I can't make any judgment because I don't know if this was done with permission but staff can't do that and if it turns out that it was not suppose to be public we are going to have to ban that and try to redact it if requested.

There is also times when we have similar issues repeating. There is only so much we can do when someone is repeatedly caught fumbling about sensitive issues due to language fluency and getting a lot of members upset. You can be damn sure there will be questions and comments too, "Oh, yeah I remember you from ___ thread." "I don't know why they weren't banned for it last time, I definitely reported it. Probably some bias mod protection." We see this stuff too and it isn't nice which is one of the reasons we try to get people to cut the meta commentary stuff out. So to coming back around to the SA method... I don't think I can OK on a tool that can be used to potentially bully a user into sharing something that is close to their hearts but are not ready to do or be painted as some villain with x number of infractions in whatever. It isn't one user either right? It is revealing the rap sheet or whatever, in a context without all information which leads to an incorrect conclusion in front of other members. Then asking the user to fill the gaps or the incorrect conclusion is an entire thing that the web and their grandma will take as the truth because they can only judge on what they see and it looks bad. So yeah, it is complicated.

Any ways. As I typed this post one particular story keeps coming to mind and so I figure I'll share it but before that... I guess I'll post once about blame space. But really this shit sort of fits for a lot of other cases.

"Thought dump"

Let me start with saying I have looked at blame space's account in the past for moderation purposes but this time around I wasn't really part of the main it other than "Oh, so it happened." I could see where it was heading regardless because when I reviewed the account I didn't expect the patterns I see to stop and felt that sooner or later an issue will come again. That isn't to say I'm hunting them, I don't have time for that. I don't want to ban people. If I can never see you again in the reports that is all for the better. With that in mind here are some thoughts.

blame space is a member of the community and has been since GAF. He has a large number of posts and majority of them are fine. He has a noted posting style which can be sarcastic or glib to point out a flaw in logic or to make light fun of someone. Such comments going sparingly is one thing but a user with a reputation of this and has a large post history of this is not something I consider favourable. I do not regard this as constructive criticism and the fact that many reports come in as trolling shows that there is a layer of irritation these posts give regardless of whether the user has a good point or not.

I give less weight to whether or not a user is popular and well liked on the forum and more weight to whether they have positive contributions. Ideally the user would have both. Plenty of former mods can verify that I have argued for and against leniency when it comes to "community members" based on this. Some I've come to regret others I still stand by to this day. An example, a member might be particularly informative and educational in a particular niche. Maybe they are a bastion of support and a voice of reason in some topics. blame is not that to my knowledge of his history. That said I'm not strictly "No fun allowed". There is a place for some funny one liners and what not but these shouldn't cause grievances and when it sometimes comes at the expense of poking at another user or when we start seeing a bunch of reports I take these into consideration. Another example. A member might contribute to discussions regarding racism threads, maybe blackface but here they are being reviewed for dismissing concerns of sinophobia. One doesn't really give immunity to the other, but I would like to hope that being able to come to an understanding of the former should allow this user to reach an understanding of the latter and grow. Especially for first offenses.

Next the interactions with staff. So passive aggressiveness and general aggression to staff or whatever you want to call it. This is a thing that I've changed stances on over time. Let me give some context. When I was a a newbie mod chewing through console wars reports I asked an admin "I know this user said some stuff at us but I think their heart is still in trying to benefit Era, isn't this harsh? Do we really need to ban them?". And this nice admin tells me "We are not to be punching bags for members." This made a lot of sense to me but certainly a part of me still felt it was worth trying to find a better way. Somewhere a part of me probably still does. Any ways, eventually some admins retired and we got new admins. I watched the burnout and I didn't really understand. Some time later some of the admin tasks were open to mods who have been active for a long time. These include emails (now the ticket system), ban reviews and sometimes communicating stuff. And shit start to sink in. One hit to the bag at a time. If you've read my entire post somewhere above I mentioned that sometimes explaining things to users get results you wouldn't expect. There are certainly times when I could have reported these responses I've received and there would be bans. Sometimes I even do that because there is only so much I can take there or sometimes it is just entirely inappropriate.

Now. Blame space is not that kind of aggression. But my point is that my view on this type of criticism and how much to weigh "they mean well and want to improve the forum" has changed. I don't blame any mod who, for example, just spent a solid hour working through the soul wrenching Ukraine thread to not want to put up with passive aggressiveness. So my thoughts are, if we don't want to put up with it we won't. If we do, that is by our own choice and a somewhat self destructive one at that. We don't trigger ban these. We report them for other mods to evaluate and then action.

I see some sentiments that it is kind of mild. While sort of true again, I don't agree with persistently letting these slide. Do we let it slide here again? And when another member follows do we let that slide? Does it matter if the other member is in a different thread or in the same thread about the same issue?
The point that it was something for mods to reflect on is entirely irrelevant to me on this. There are proper channels for this. What if the point blame wanted mods to reflect on is actually wrong and based on some misread? Do we let it slide that it he is currently misrepresenting moderation? Does it matter since most likely people saw it and will run with it because they aren't mods and can't see what is what and there is now some more garbage narrative being perpetuated, generally at staff's expense? Has he tried to give genuine constructive critique through appropriate channels? I think about these things.

So with all that in mind. I haven't looked into the user's recent history or given a full look. I would lean towards a ban. Given that there appears to have been a final warning for this behaviour it would have been a permanent ban.

And finally.
He can send a ticket and make a case just like everyone else. It is slow but it is a thing. No guarantee that a review will turn the verdict.

[close]

This took longer than I expected to write up and I also realise I'm not really supposed to share stories so I guess I'll redact and patch this a little. It will also be brief or I'll try to be.

"In this story, Snormy reviews a ticket..."

Tickets aren't all bad. I just sometimes complain about them. My aim here is sort... to give an idea of what we take into consideration behind the scenes and why we can't share sometimes. Here we go.

In this appeal the user has been permanently banned for... Lets say... Sexist commentary. History of similar severe offenses. She begins with recognising why she were banned. Acknowledges that she had been given final chance and have ultimately failed to stop repeating the pattern. She laments that she is now permanently banned and ask for another chance. She details her experiences growing up suffering sexism, how she ultimately ended up joining some bullies to try and fit in and has said and done horrible things her youth to others in a way to try and prove loyalty to her group of toxic friends. How over the years places such as Era has shown her how to be a better person in many regards and how horrible some of her past actions truly is. She details that she understands the feelings regarding sexism as she still suffers much of this due to a toxic work environment. All of this resulted in her losing her emotions and getting into arguments in related topics and perhaps due to her past she fell back to rhetoric and language that is harmful. She is filled with regret, shame and a sense of loss for having lost access to the community.

A good check point to stop. Make a cuppa. Take it in and think about it for a bit.

I need to consider the sincerity of it but I'll just skip ahead and say I took it as sincere and honest, I based my review on that assumption. I move on to checking the user's history. I see regular engagement and nothing stands out. There isn't a lot of post but that is never really a problem unless you have a really bad ratio of posts to moderated content. I see some things I consider favourably and not much that I consider unfavourable. I move onto their moderated posts. There are about 6 items, 3 mostly irrelevant to the situation such as some old console wars or a minor hostility or language warning. I check these and feel they don't have much weight in any way for me. I see a warning and 3 bans related to sexism, one ban is old and another is ancient. The times are relevant because as I mentioned earlier we have adjusted the ban durations / severity of things over time. It means that escalation can be a bit weird. I read the contents of the post that was their first severe ban. I am immediately upset. I typically go and review this action in more detail but I jumped to their next severe ban to read its contents first. I read the contents of the post and I... Fucking needed a moment. There is anger at the contents of the post. There is sadness that it comes from the user who sent the appeal, knowing the details of how these happen. The posts are bad. Blatant. Offensive and just upsetting to read. I eventually moved on with the review and looked through as much as I could before writing some thoughts for others to review. I won't go into detail because it is getting late and it doesn't matter for the story.

This is a good check point to stop again and think about this case a little. Take it in and not knee jerk any reactions.

In my assessment for other mods to consider I very openly admit that it is upsetting to read. I consider the appeal to be sincere, the appeal itself makes me want to give one more chance. I have no doubts that a portion of Era will relate to this user's struggles, I have no doubt that this appeal will be well received by perhaps even majority of Era. The disparity of what I read in this appeal and the posts that our users can see is what has me hesitating. This is not a singular incident and they have been warned and banned repeatedly. They were given final warning for this specifically. In my mind I recall reading all the relevant community's comments. "Mods look the other way all the time." "Mods give the lightest tap of the wrist to bigots and wonder why have no faith in them." "Nothing has changed since the old place." "Mods are useless.". I'm trying to imagine what I say when someone asks me why this user went from a permanent ban to being not banned, especially for what they posted and have posted in their history.

That is it. I'll let you you all think the frustrations our minority members face and the struggles of decisions. If you want to know where I cast my vote on this maybe I'll come back and tell it tomorrow.

[close]

*runs away but leaves baggage behind*

Wait, hold up. I spot this so one more.

Maybe a group of mods can be assigned to only handle appeals for bans less than X days in length, but I don't know if the ticketing system could handle that kind of filtering.

Would not wish this on my worst enemy. There was period of time where an admin solo'd this for over a month. It breaks my heart just thinking about it. I can't see this being an assigned task any more. Not for unpaid voluntary work from untrained people. I wouldn't do this if it was paid. There must be a limit to the madness.
Look. It isn't all bad. But users typically want us to try and relate to their situation and fine. I'm ok with opening up, trying to be considerate and putting myself in anothers shoes... Just, some tickets are just... Like, I go in thinking "Lets see how I can help this member" and then I eat a wakeup shoryuken. That doesn't make sense but thats all I got.

[close]

I have yet to successfully read the whole thing but there's a toooon of mod greatest hits in here.

FFS it's a video game forum

[FUME5]

No it is the front line of the culture war and every post is important in the fight against minority oppression.

[Potato]

If that tweet is in any way indicative of some of the movie's themes, we're in for a hell of a lot of asshat rage... and I'm here for it.

The "Yes all MEN" tagline is brilliant, and it is going to set some people OFF.

Hoping that there'll be a sizeable amount of fragile male tears over "YES ALL MEN" that'll keep me going until this is out

Are the neck beard chuds on youtube ok?

https://www.resetera.com/threads/men-official-trailer-written-and-directed-by-alex-garland.565378/

Why can't these weirdos just enjoy media without worrying what some imaginary 'alt right' guy or ‘incel'  may or may not be doing? Every film,TV show or game thread with the lightest amount of social commentary and they come out the woodwork.

Watch this be slightly more nuanced than the tag line implies and the same people currently predicting neck beard chud breakdowns have their own moment of protest...

[Potato]

No it is the front line of the culture war and every post is important in the fight against minority oppression.

Just like every doughnut is important to the ever expanding waistline of our favourite acephobic mod.

[Lonewulfeus]

I could go for a donut right now not gonna lie.

[team filler]

.

[Potato]

The CDPR shit is the same as Joanne and so much else. Someone tries to meet your standards but falls short or has some reservations but otherwise is completely on board. They're the ones who get targeted for the actual worst treatment. All those who literally do hate trans people, the type of person who might actually be up for a genocide, etc. who cares, they won't listen but if we tar these people who fall short in meeting our literally impossible standards they might grovel and apologize and even if they don't others will fall in line.

It's not just trans stuff, this is like the entire basis for the "social justice" movement. In Joanne's case it's fine because she's rich, in CDPR or any other developers case it's fine because they already got paid and the chuds will support them, for anyone weak it's either fine because they're not famous anyway until the mob chased them down or it's fine because they learned to do better. And if we need to completely lie about it like spreading the lie that Joanne funds every anti-trans group? That's justified because we're fighting the ideas and the people are just the collateral damage.

Joe Rogan is the same shit, crossover audience, broad support among lefties like Bernie, a few non-PC opinions and FUCK HIM AND ANYONE WHO MIGHT LISTEN TO HIM YOU'RE EITHER WITH US OR YOU'RE AGAINST US. There's how many popular actually alt-right podcasters out there? How many popular frauds who spread scientific misinformation? These aren't fun targets! But Joe Rogan has enough crossover cache and enough people in his audience who might be swayed by you screaming at them to FUCK JOE ROGAN that you might be able to pick off a few people by shaming them into dropping a podcast they like. Or you might feel really good about having your video game forum completely ban any mention of him that's not negative even if you don't put this anywhere in your rules and just expect people to know.

AND ANOTHER THING, that last part, I don't think ResetERA.com does this deliberately I think they're incompetent, but that's a huge part of this shit. When you can filter people out by their language with the standards changing constantly, by what they admit to enjoying or listening to or whatever, by them not knowing what's a "banned source" or not, it empowers everyone in the in-group (or at least those who know better than to ever step without looking for the in-group's opinion first) to maintain the borders of the in-group. You like Joe Rogan huh? Not part of the in-group. Won't burn your Harry Potter books? Not part of the in-group. Didn't know this completely random YouTuber was cancelled held accountable? Not part of the in-group. And if you're not part of the in-group? FFUUUUCCCCKKKK OOFOFOOOOFFFFFFFFF

And the rules bend constantly for those within the in-group. Just ask B-Chuds


EDIT: Top of page political statement

spoiler (click to show/hide)

[close]

I know you like them big tiddy redheads filler. I got you bro!
 

[team filler]

.

[Snoopycat_]

I hope one day that MIMIC guy makes a really lurid disappointment thread about scoring some hawt dude then finding out he has a small dick. Imagine the tantrums and storm of outraged body shaming posts it would cause.

[HardcoreRetro]

Eh, just use a flashlight to make it look huge on the wall.

[Potato]

I just like sluts tbh 

Don't we all brother, don't we all...

[Hap Shaughnessy]

 

[HaughtyFrank]

So the Constructive thread had another round of people asking for public rap sheets, with someone going so far as to screenshot Something Awful's system and use it as a model.

Mods responded with the usual nos, referring to the Kiwifarms bandit being USED TO HARASS OUR USERS, etc. Standard stuff.

So there's that, the Blamespace thing, and some recent user discussion about how long the ticket system takes and how borderline useless it is. Not very interesting but Snormy just popped up with this incredible wall of text:

"Playing the greatest hits"

Did someone say mod mental health? Did some one say TICKET SYSTEM? Are we having a share and tell day? *brings baggage*

I think it is fair that users should be able to see a link to their own past actioned posts. That is about it. The way it currently is the user digs through their own history or asks a mod for a quick link or rely on less accurate off site stuff. Pretty rough if you're trying to understand and improve. I'll bring this up in a meeting and see what the thoughts are and if all goes well maybe something can be cooked up by the tech team.

Seeing another user's is not something I would endorse. As mentioned by others I think it will lead to more dog piling and blood hunting. I do not believe it will satisfy the users because ultimately the mod's decisions and process remain hidden and requesting access to this may as well be asking to backseat moderate. Seeing their list of bans and warnings doesn't give you the same perspective as a mod and doesn't give you a pathway to land on the same conclusion as a moderator.

I've seen users react to another user's post history being brought up. Absolutely zero benefit of the doubt is given from that point onwards regardless of whether or not the user makes a good post or not. Sometimes this highlights a pattern. Other times it sort of feels like judging the user and not the post. Considering this I really have doubts about the SA system working here. How would a user feel when they see another user with a couple of warnings and a ban. What about 5 bans? What about 15+ actions? One action that is more severe? 6 actions where 3 you don't even understand? I don't see it changing too much because from my perspective the problem lies in users not arriving at the same conclusion as the moderators, often not even being able to understand or see how a moderator might arrive at the conclusion.
As a moderator I have an understanding of the weights for different things, console warring vs hostility vs bigotry etc. I also can review them case by case. That is part of the job. A user doesn't have that and doesn't need that. We ultimately do still do not have the same pathway to the same conclusion. When I see one user is permed on their 6th or 19th action I can find out why or can review other considerations on this action or the account. I can try to access past mod logs or failing that ask the mods involved directly or pester our mod captains and admins.

We give warnings and we give bans. Warnings are not always more descriptive than bans, they are ultimately part of the same system. While some users seem to be calling for more warnings I'll point out that there has been much frustrations that moderators are often too light which is how we got to this point which I feel is honestly pretty fair. There are special exceptions such as the Ukraine thread where we made it clear we're not messing around and actions will typically be more severe (which means longer in duration generally). I'll highlight this post because it rings true a lot of the time in all areas, not just anger and hostility.

Lol, posters get warning's all the time, ask any of the minority groups on this site about how long it generally takes for a problem user to be banned, it takes a history and pattern of behaviour to be long time banned, and while I'm glad Royalan has reflected and improved, I think it's disingenuous to pretend his posts if he wasn't a Mod would have got banned - there were other posters in that thread typing similar things, and Royalan was not actually aggressive or personal to other posters. Posters here are given chances to reflect on their behaviour and if it consistently is reacting in aggressive ways to other posters and putting your foot in your mouth that it has graduated to long bans then maybe they've already had their chances to improve, and the people that have had to be on the other end of said angry poster shouldn't have to deal with that just because another poster is consistently not able to keep their anger in check

We an escalated response for stuff that leans towards sensitive topics such as racism or sexism. There is a bit of a difference between say, some image that has been around and used in various ways for years but ultimately has a problematic origin or read to it than posting something outright hostile and offensive at another user. But do note that this was something that took time and adjustments. When I first started we "fast tracked" these by going to bans directly and typically we went 3 days, 5 or a week. Then a 2 week ban with final warning, then a perm. Later, because many users felt that 3 days did nothing and was weak af we upped the initial to about 2w. These days it can start at 1m. Yes, there are some that I would call a 1m on, even if this was your first time.

There are still some variance such as intent, history, follow ups etc. Speaking of follow ups I'll jump here.

A personal example: I was in a thread about a Quebecois comedian who got away with harassing a disabled youth, and in this thread I wrote "think of the pareeeents" in a way that, in my intent, was supposed to sound like a whiny, stupid voice of a whiny, stupid comedian. Another user, however, read this as me making reference to the ableist meme "Autistic Screeching," and that's an entirely sensible conclusion to come to despite the fact I'm a person with Autism Spectrum Disorder and talk about it all the time, because I'm just a name and an avatar to this user. They have no reason to give me the benefit of the doubt, because what about me has proven worthy of that immediate benefit? I wasn't banned for this, I caught it fast enough, explained myself, and edited it out because the idea of referencing a meme that demeans people like me never crossed my mind, but it's not like anyone but me knows that.

Typically we don't instantly ban anything. In this case, it is a great example because either I am one of the mods who was present in the report and signed off to take no action or I was in a similar report to the point that this seems the same 1:1. In any case, it is a great example of moderators taking into consideration of a user's follow ups. That said, these aren't always going to have the same outcome. It is still ultimately reviewed and considered by the mods. If a user gets called out they are also typically reported. When I come in and if I don't think it was done in bad faith or maliciously one thing I look to is whether the user has replied. Whether or not they have been back online since. Now keep in mind there is a queue of reports and there is only so much time I can give a user and all the while there could potentially be mounting frustrations from the comment. All of these are considered.

... I kind of don't even want to mention this but I kind of want to be honest here. Not everyone agrees with this. By that I mean, we all draw the line on what to ban in different places, mods and users both. Ultimately a decision must be made. Sometimes a user will ask us why this obvious ableist comment was not banned and when we reply with the reason that we allow for users to grow and correct their mistakes like this... Well, lets just say it isn't exactly what you might expect. And that is sort of a point. An apology or information given to staff doesn't always bear the same weight to members. An apology that staff might find sincere might not land nearly as well on members. Sometimes even, members feel staff are being strung along by trolls.

A good time to maybe jump back pages and visit this post

Generally speaking this is to give members a chance to reflect, learn and improve. We aren't educators and the forum does not owe the user a lesson on why what they said is problematic so it can be a bit difficult for the user to learn but ultimately we don't always go straight for perms. A lot of resources out there and there are a lot of sites and conversations

In the Ukraine thread we also consider that this is a serious situation and people will inevitably be emotional and upset. They may then say something in the heat of the moment or whatever. The severity increase here is to try and prevent these. Sometimes it is harsh, but that is sort of the point. Note that escalation does not necessarily mean straight perm either but generally the floor for a ban would be higher than what it typically might be and we would view be more critical than if it was in a silly weekend thread for instance.

Then there might be other less common considerations such as potential language fluency contributing to their posting style or phrase being problematic.

So I guess I'll springboard to this

This isn't a critique or suggestion, but I sometime wonder how often people who have communication issues because of lack of english fluency, mental illness and neurodivergency are perceived to be bad actors or trolls. Is this something that has been discussed? If so, I'm very interested in knowing how this may have framed they way moderation is approached. I can't imagine this is an easy issue to handle in the least bit.

For me personally, I have pretty bad dyslexia and it's made me respond to certain posts in unintelligible ways. In addition to that, I believe that I've even reported some posts because I misread them. Thankfully, it hasn't caused me any real issues yet.

I don't know how often bhis stuff is hard. It is also important to note that none of these excuse breaking the TOS but if the circumstances are relevant to the context in some way it is considered. We also can only consider things that we know about. Language difficulties, mental illness and neurodivergency has all come up in my time here as a moderator. They are all considered and added to the case. I try to keep some tabs on things as I see it but it isn't possible to know everything and some members are not comfortable sharing. These cases can be complicated too, when it changes moderation it can often land us in a shit spot. "Why is this  user not given the same ban? Why am I banned for 1m racist commentary and this other user for inappropriate commentary 1w? How is this fair?" or "Typical, inconsistent and bias era mod bullshit. You love to see it."
And I come up with some vague response that no one likes to hear such as "We need to consider a lot of things with each user that regular members may not be privy to..." then shut right up while everyone is unhappy at me / mods in general. Because when you share your struggles on being neurodivergent and how it affects you on Era or when you appeal and explain to us what your current mental state is and how it has affected your postings on Era, this is between you and Era Staff. It is your story and it isn't our business to share it even when people give us shit because it looks bad. That is our deal. If you want to share with Era that is for you to do, not us.

There has been cases where another user has spoken openly in defense of someone else who is banned, giving insight on why there might be variation including mental state or disabilities and such. Even this, I give a little side eye because I'm not sure it is appropriate and honestly it can feel gossipy. I can't make any judgment because I don't know if this was done with permission but staff can't do that and if it turns out that it was not suppose to be public we are going to have to ban that and try to redact it if requested.

There is also times when we have similar issues repeating. There is only so much we can do when someone is repeatedly caught fumbling about sensitive issues due to language fluency and getting a lot of members upset. You can be damn sure there will be questions and comments too, "Oh, yeah I remember you from ___ thread." "I don't know why they weren't banned for it last time, I definitely reported it. Probably some bias mod protection." We see this stuff too and it isn't nice which is one of the reasons we try to get people to cut the meta commentary stuff out. So to coming back around to the SA method... I don't think I can OK on a tool that can be used to potentially bully a user into sharing something that is close to their hearts but are not ready to do or be painted as some villain with x number of infractions in whatever. It isn't one user either right? It is revealing the rap sheet or whatever, in a context without all information which leads to an incorrect conclusion in front of other members. Then asking the user to fill the gaps or the incorrect conclusion is an entire thing that the web and their grandma will take as the truth because they can only judge on what they see and it looks bad. So yeah, it is complicated.

Any ways. As I typed this post one particular story keeps coming to mind and so I figure I'll share it but before that... I guess I'll post once about blame space. But really this shit sort of fits for a lot of other cases.

"Thought dump"

Let me start with saying I have looked at blame space's account in the past for moderation purposes but this time around I wasn't really part of the main it other than "Oh, so it happened." I could see where it was heading regardless because when I reviewed the account I didn't expect the patterns I see to stop and felt that sooner or later an issue will come again. That isn't to say I'm hunting them, I don't have time for that. I don't want to ban people. If I can never see you again in the reports that is all for the better. With that in mind here are some thoughts.

blame space is a member of the community and has been since GAF. He has a large number of posts and majority of them are fine. He has a noted posting style which can be sarcastic or glib to point out a flaw in logic or to make light fun of someone. Such comments going sparingly is one thing but a user with a reputation of this and has a large post history of this is not something I consider favourable. I do not regard this as constructive criticism and the fact that many reports come in as trolling shows that there is a layer of irritation these posts give regardless of whether the user has a good point or not.

I give less weight to whether or not a user is popular and well liked on the forum and more weight to whether they have positive contributions. Ideally the user would have both. Plenty of former mods can verify that I have argued for and against leniency when it comes to "community members" based on this. Some I've come to regret others I still stand by to this day. An example, a member might be particularly informative and educational in a particular niche. Maybe they are a bastion of support and a voice of reason in some topics. blame is not that to my knowledge of his history. That said I'm not strictly "No fun allowed". There is a place for some funny one liners and what not but these shouldn't cause grievances and when it sometimes comes at the expense of poking at another user or when we start seeing a bunch of reports I take these into consideration. Another example. A member might contribute to discussions regarding racism threads, maybe blackface but here they are being reviewed for dismissing concerns of sinophobia. One doesn't really give immunity to the other, but I would like to hope that being able to come to an understanding of the former should allow this user to reach an understanding of the latter and grow. Especially for first offenses.

Next the interactions with staff. So passive aggressiveness and general aggression to staff or whatever you want to call it. This is a thing that I've changed stances on over time. Let me give some context. When I was a a newbie mod chewing through console wars reports I asked an admin "I know this user said some stuff at us but I think their heart is still in trying to benefit Era, isn't this harsh? Do we really need to ban them?". And this nice admin tells me "We are not to be punching bags for members." This made a lot of sense to me but certainly a part of me still felt it was worth trying to find a better way. Somewhere a part of me probably still does. Any ways, eventually some admins retired and we got new admins. I watched the burnout and I didn't really understand. Some time later some of the admin tasks were open to mods who have been active for a long time. These include emails (now the ticket system), ban reviews and sometimes communicating stuff. And shit start to sink in. One hit to the bag at a time. If you've read my entire post somewhere above I mentioned that sometimes explaining things to users get results you wouldn't expect. There are certainly times when I could have reported these responses I've received and there would be bans. Sometimes I even do that because there is only so much I can take there or sometimes it is just entirely inappropriate.

Now. Blame space is not that kind of aggression. But my point is that my view on this type of criticism and how much to weigh "they mean well and want to improve the forum" has changed. I don't blame any mod who, for example, just spent a solid hour working through the soul wrenching Ukraine thread to not want to put up with passive aggressiveness. So my thoughts are, if we don't want to put up with it we won't. If we do, that is by our own choice and a somewhat self destructive one at that. We don't trigger ban these. We report them for other mods to evaluate and then action.

I see some sentiments that it is kind of mild. While sort of true again, I don't agree with persistently letting these slide. Do we let it slide here again? And when another member follows do we let that slide? Does it matter if the other member is in a different thread or in the same thread about the same issue?
The point that it was something for mods to reflect on is entirely irrelevant to me on this. There are proper channels for this. What if the point blame wanted mods to reflect on is actually wrong and based on some misread? Do we let it slide that it he is currently misrepresenting moderation? Does it matter since most likely people saw it and will run with it because they aren't mods and can't see what is what and there is now some more garbage narrative being perpetuated, generally at staff's expense? Has he tried to give genuine constructive critique through appropriate channels? I think about these things.

So with all that in mind. I haven't looked into the user's recent history or given a full look. I would lean towards a ban. Given that there appears to have been a final warning for this behaviour it would have been a permanent ban.

And finally.
He can send a ticket and make a case just like everyone else. It is slow but it is a thing. No guarantee that a review will turn the verdict.

[close]

This took longer than I expected to write up and I also realise I'm not really supposed to share stories so I guess I'll redact and patch this a little. It will also be brief or I'll try to be.

"In this story, Snormy reviews a ticket..."

Tickets aren't all bad. I just sometimes complain about them. My aim here is sort... to give an idea of what we take into consideration behind the scenes and why we can't share sometimes. Here we go.

In this appeal the user has been permanently banned for... Lets say... Sexist commentary. History of similar severe offenses. She begins with recognising why she were banned. Acknowledges that she had been given final chance and have ultimately failed to stop repeating the pattern. She laments that she is now permanently banned and ask for another chance. She details her experiences growing up suffering sexism, how she ultimately ended up joining some bullies to try and fit in and has said and done horrible things her youth to others in a way to try and prove loyalty to her group of toxic friends. How over the years places such as Era has shown her how to be a better person in many regards and how horrible some of her past actions truly is. She details that she understands the feelings regarding sexism as she still suffers much of this due to a toxic work environment. All of this resulted in her losing her emotions and getting into arguments in related topics and perhaps due to her past she fell back to rhetoric and language that is harmful. She is filled with regret, shame and a sense of loss for having lost access to the community.

A good check point to stop. Make a cuppa. Take it in and think about it for a bit.

I need to consider the sincerity of it but I'll just skip ahead and say I took it as sincere and honest, I based my review on that assumption. I move on to checking the user's history. I see regular engagement and nothing stands out. There isn't a lot of post but that is never really a problem unless you have a really bad ratio of posts to moderated content. I see some things I consider favourably and not much that I consider unfavourable. I move onto their moderated posts. There are about 6 items, 3 mostly irrelevant to the situation such as some old console wars or a minor hostility or language warning. I check these and feel they don't have much weight in any way for me. I see a warning and 3 bans related to sexism, one ban is old and another is ancient. The times are relevant because as I mentioned earlier we have adjusted the ban durations / severity of things over time. It means that escalation can be a bit weird. I read the contents of the post that was their first severe ban. I am immediately upset. I typically go and review this action in more detail but I jumped to their next severe ban to read its contents first. I read the contents of the post and I... Fucking needed a moment. There is anger at the contents of the post. There is sadness that it comes from the user who sent the appeal, knowing the details of how these happen. The posts are bad. Blatant. Offensive and just upsetting to read. I eventually moved on with the review and looked through as much as I could before writing some thoughts for others to review. I won't go into detail because it is getting late and it doesn't matter for the story.

This is a good check point to stop again and think about this case a little. Take it in and not knee jerk any reactions.

In my assessment for other mods to consider I very openly admit that it is upsetting to read. I consider the appeal to be sincere, the appeal itself makes me want to give one more chance. I have no doubts that a portion of Era will relate to this user's struggles, I have no doubt that this appeal will be well received by perhaps even majority of Era. The disparity of what I read in this appeal and the posts that our users can see is what has me hesitating. This is not a singular incident and they have been warned and banned repeatedly. They were given final warning for this specifically. In my mind I recall reading all the relevant community's comments. "Mods look the other way all the time." "Mods give the lightest tap of the wrist to bigots and wonder why have no faith in them." "Nothing has changed since the old place." "Mods are useless.". I'm trying to imagine what I say when someone asks me why this user went from a permanent ban to being not banned, especially for what they posted and have posted in their history.

That is it. I'll let you you all think the frustrations our minority members face and the struggles of decisions. If you want to know where I cast my vote on this maybe I'll come back and tell it tomorrow.

[close]

*runs away but leaves baggage behind*

Wait, hold up. I spot this so one more.

Maybe a group of mods can be assigned to only handle appeals for bans less than X days in length, but I don't know if the ticketing system could handle that kind of filtering.

Would not wish this on my worst enemy. There was period of time where an admin solo'd this for over a month. It breaks my heart just thinking about it. I can't see this being an assigned task any more. Not for unpaid voluntary work from untrained people. I wouldn't do this if it was paid. There must be a limit to the madness.
Look. It isn't all bad. But users typically want us to try and relate to their situation and fine. I'm ok with opening up, trying to be considerate and putting myself in anothers shoes... Just, some tickets are just... Like, I go in thinking "Lets see how I can help this member" and then I eat a wakeup shoryuken. That doesn't make sense but thats all I got.

[close]

I have yet to successfully read the whole thing but there's a toooon of mod greatest hits in here.

Now. Blame space is not that kind of aggression. But my point is that my view on this type of criticism and how much to weigh "they mean well and want to improve the forum" has changed. I don't blame any mod who, for example, just spent a solid hour working through the soul wrenching Ukraine thread to not want to put up with passive aggressiveness. So my thoughts are, if we don't want to put up with it we won't. If we do, that is by our own choice and a somewhat self destructive one at that. We don't trigger ban these. We report them for other mods to evaluate and then action.

I see some sentiments that it is kind of mild. While sort of true again, I don't agree with persistently letting these slide. Do we let it slide here again? And when another member follows do we let that slide? Does it matter if the other member is in a different thread or in the same thread about the same issue?
The point that it was something for mods to reflect on is entirely irrelevant to me on this. There are proper channels for this. What if the point blame wanted mods to reflect on is actually wrong and based on some misread? Do we let it slide that it he is currently misrepresenting moderation? Does it matter since most likely people saw it and will run with it because they aren't mods and can't see what is what and there is now some more garbage narrative being perpetuated, generally at staff's expense? Has he tried to give genuine constructive critique through appropriate channels? I think about these things.

So basically



But I understand. Autocrats need to squash the fires of revolution wherever they can. That's why they despise satire so much

[benjipwns]

What if the point blame wanted mods to reflect on is actually wrong and based on some misread? Do we let it slide that it he is currently misrepresenting moderation? Does it matter since most likely people saw it and will run with it because they aren't mods and can't see what is what and there is now some more garbage narrative being perpetuated, generally at staff's expense?

The point of a forum is discussion, not blindly affirming the feelings of the staff.

[clothedmacuser]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/woman-21-charged-in-crash-that-killed-two-state-troopers-and-a-civilian-on-i-95-after-tweeting-why-the-cop-pull-me-he-say-im-doing-110-ina-50.565429/post-84118264

I get it but my logic is one can't butcher 3 people and be like "Long prison won't bring them back...let me go!". At some point people need to be held to account and to show society that "You do this dumb shit and this is the price paid".

We not talking about non violent drug offenders. She slaughtered three people that did nothing to her.

Royalaan!

She going to jail jail

great job dude.

[GreatSageEqualOfHeaven]

What if the point blame wanted mods to reflect on is actually wrong and based on some misread? Do we let it slide that it he is currently misrepresenting moderation? Does it matter since most likely people saw it and will run with it because they aren't mods and can't see what is what and there is now some more garbage narrative being perpetuated, generally at staff's expense?

The point of a forum is discussion, not blindly affirming the feelings of the staff.

[Straight Edge]

Do they even understand how terrible prison conditions are for black women?

[Uncle]

What if the point blame wanted mods to reflect on is actually wrong and based on some misread? Do we let it slide that it he is currently misrepresenting moderation? Does it matter since most likely people saw it and will run with it because they aren't mods and can't see what is what and there is now some more garbage narrative being perpetuated, generally at staff's expense?

The point of a forum is discussion, not blindly affirming the feelings of the staff.

putting more thought into blame's posts than he ever did 

"perhaps by adopting the avatar of a pensive Donatello, he intended to frame the posts he replied to as offensive to a more intellectual mind" 

[Potato]

What if the point blame wanted mods to reflect on is actually wrong and based on some misread? Do we let it slide that it he is currently misrepresenting moderation? Does it matter since most likely people saw it and will run with it because they aren't mods and can't see what is what and there is now some more garbage narrative being perpetuated, generally at staff's expense?

The point of a forum is discussion, not blindly affirming the feelings of the staff.

Wasn't there some guff in the early days about resisting the urge to elevate mods into forum celebrities...a forum of equals kind of bullshit?

[benjipwns]

Wasn't there some guff in the early days about resisting the urge to elevate mods into forum celebrities...a forum of equals kind of bullshit?

Yes, and Juniors weren't going to be a thing either.

[Joe Molotov]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/woman-21-charged-in-crash-that-killed-two-state-troopers-and-a-civilian-on-i-95-after-tweeting-why-the-cop-pull-me-he-say-im-doing-110-ina-50.565429/post-84118264

Sadly she’s only looking at 9-30 years. Should be a life sentence, especially after those tweets.

This is the kind of logic that needs to be applied more often, IMHO.

[GreatSageEqualOfHeaven]

era: DEFUND THE POLICE! ACAB!

Also era: Can't we put a policeman outside every bar in the country?

[Mr. Nobody]

Haven't you people gotten over this shit yet? 

[Uncle]

what do you mean, "you people?"

[SmokyDave]

Haven't you people gotten over this shit yet? 

Don't shout at an armchair for being too comfortable, man. That's what they're for.

(Seriously though, I'd wager there is less actual emotional investment in this thread than I put into watching Tractor Pulling)

Edit: wait, that's a terrible example, I fucking love Tractor Pulling. Eh, you win.

[Pissy F Benny]

What if the point blame wanted mods to reflect on is actually wrong and based on some misread? Do we let it slide that it he is currently misrepresenting moderation? Does it matter since most likely people saw it and will run with it because they aren't mods and can't see what is what and there is now some more garbage narrative being perpetuated, generally at staff's expense?

The point of a forum is discussion, not blindly affirming the feelings of the staff.

Wasn't there some guff in the early days about resisting the urge to elevate mods into forum celebrities...a forum of equals kind of bullshit?

GAF/REE are the only forums I've known that put their jannies on a pedestal. Everywhere else I've known treats them like the snitch bitch hall monitors they are

[Hap Shaughnessy]

Haven't you people gotten over this shit yet? 

Don't shout at an armchair for being too comfortable, man. That's what they're for.

(Seriously though, I'd wager there is less actual emotional investment in this thread than I put into watching Tractor Pulling)

Edit: wait, that's a terrible example, I fucking love Tractor Pulling. Eh, you win.

This is the only soap opera I watch.

[GreatSageEqualOfHeaven]

Haven't you people gotten over this shit yet? 

[Propagandhim]

Haven't you people gotten over this shit yet? 

I'll cancel my subscription to Nepentheflix when these limbs go blue and these bones crumble, you son of a bitch.

[Chim Richalds]

All this concern over blamespace when he sucked ass and was never funny. 

[Transhuman]

"All this concern over blamespace when he sucked ass and was never funny."

-resetera moderator

[Lonewulfeus]

All this concern over blamespace when he sucked ass and was never funny.

He was doing better recently.

[GreatSageEqualOfHeaven]

Blamespace faux-naively clowning on moderator hypocrisy in the constructive community containment thread was pretty great tbf

[Straight Edge]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/russia-has-begun-a-full-scale-invasion-in-ukraine-read-staff-posts.556366/page-954

My anxiety is so bad that I’ve genuinely been looking at local buildings where I work to see which ones have basements in case something bad happened.

It’s about meeeeeeeeeeee

[Joe Molotov]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/russia-has-begun-a-full-scale-invasion-in-ukraine-read-staff-posts.556366/page-954

My anxiety is so bad that I’ve genuinely been looking at local buildings where I work to see which ones have basements in case something bad happened.

It’s about meeeeeeeeeeee

My brother in Christ, you live in England.

[Taco Bell Tower]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/russia-has-begun-a-full-scale-invasion-in-ukraine-read-staff-posts.556366/page-954

My anxiety is so bad that I’ve genuinely been looking at local buildings where I work to see which ones have basements in case something bad happened.

It’s about meeeeeeeeeeee

You should probably take a break from the internet for a day or two, man.

I know what you’re saying but if the worst happened I’d like to be prepared rather than not. It scares the shit out of me all this because it’s all so similar to how past major wars started. The rise of fascism, the annexation of another country etc.

[SmokyDave]

I live in England. I live in a tiny little terraced house. Underneath that house is a large, brick built cellar. In that cellar are survival supplies and equipment to dig out rubble if someone was trapped down there during a bombing or similar.

We don’t need it, we’ll never use it. Not gonna lie though, I took the time to set it up, and the fact that it’s there does sooth me a little. I try not to think about it because if you put all my hobbies and interests together, I look like a fucking lunatic.

[GreatSageEqualOfHeaven]

I live in England, and if shit really goes down, I'll be burning in nuclear fire like the opening of Terminator 2 before I even knew the nukes had launched

[team filler]

.

[Propagandhim]

How to dismantle colonialism:

1)Capitalize the more important races.
2)Her name is Joanne, call her Joanne.
 

[SmokyDave]

I live in England, and if shit really goes down, I'll be burning in nuclear fire like the opening of Terminator 2 before I even knew the nukes had launched

Fuck nukes, my only goal there is to make it look like I had a huge cock when they find my scorchmarks.

I'm predominantly worried about people (or peoples / governmental organisations / militias) coming for my Street Hawk VHS collection and merchandise (I even have the fucking GI Joe crossover). S'the reason I got my firearms licence and sleep with my eyes open.

[Crumb]

Jeebus ERA is pain to browse now with a live streaming ad that can't be paused, nice one moba.

[Kurt Russell]

I live in England. I live in a tiny little terraced house. Underneath that house is a large, brick built cellar. In that cellar are survival supplies and equipment to dig out rubble if someone was trapped down there during a bombing or similar.

Ahha, the Fred West defence. Very nice!

[who is ted danson?]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/xfire-battlefield-series-begins-up-hill-battle-feature-reversions-coming-to-next-title-as-valuable-lessons-learned-from-battlefield-2042.565834/

Had to double take when I saw the title
Xfire??
In 2022??

spoiler (click to show/hide)

Someone bought the domain and turned it into yet another gaming news website 

[close]

[clothedmacuser]

(Image removed from quote.)

How to dismantle colonialism:

1)Capitalize the more important races.
2)Her name is Joanne, call her Joanne.

https://www.resetera.com/threads/madeleine-albright-former-secretary-of-state-dies-at-84.565525/post-84119185


 

It's crazy that they allow her there. 

[clothedmacuser]

fucking ass. 

top page ukraine

spoiler (click to show/hide)

[close]

This is what we're paying 4.50 a gallon for boy-o's

[Lonewulfeus]

Those shitty raybans

On topic though,

Looks like cream pies are back on the menu, boys!

spoiler (click to show/hide)

28 minutes I thought about whether or not I should post this joke. Should have waited the full half an hour. But I never last that long

[close]

Surprised this one hasn’t been banned yet.

[team filler]

.

[Potato]

fucking ass. 

top page ukraine

spoiler (click to show/hide)

[close]

This is what we're paying 4.50 a gallon for boy-o's

Why is there top of page content not on the top of the page?

[remy]

She's on the middle of the page cuz she's mid