Looking at the modlog and seeing bans for things that are not explicitly rule-breaking content is part of it.
Reasons like "posting cringe" and "pineapple on pizza" (even as clearly a bit) are not good ban reasons. Bans should not be used for bits, especially with the amount of controversy surrounding ban decisions by mods. Mods have been combative at times when criticized. These actions lead to a lack of trust in the moderation. More formal addressing of moderation actions has been something I've suggested repeatedly as a way of making moderation actions less controversial (cooling it down).
A specific suggestion I've made is to avoid bans for "wrecking". There needs to be a clearer explanation as to what actions the "wrecker" user is undertaking that involves rule breaking content. Similarly, "ban evasion" is a tough one to swallow because of the way some seem to believe "just make another account" is a solution to heavy-handed moderation. If "just make another account and change your behavior" is an option, then "ban evasion" should not be a ban explanation, the subsequent bans should also be tied to rule breaking content.
These mixed messages create unease around the idea of bans and criticisms of moderators. If a person disagrees, how far will they be able to go before being labeled a wrecker and getting banned?
Good faith moderation means level-headed responses to criticisms, and not assuming criticism is coming as a personal attack. It also means being a little more hesitant before smashing that ban button. Clearer explanations of what constitutes a ban, and adhering more closely to the explicitly stated rules before banning. Utilizing bans from a community instead of sitewide bans more frequently would also help. A lot of good faith can be made evident through consistency and communication with the community.
These are suggestions from one user, and there may be reasons they don't work. Perhaps they are being utilized, but it isn't clear to the user base. That would point to needing more transparency in sitewide moderation practices. But I see where other users are coming from when they complain about over-moderation and a lack of transparency.
This will probably get lost in the comments of this thread maybe make a stand-alone post in user union.
Wreckers refers to 1944 OSS Sabotage specifically section (11) General Interference with Organizations and Production.
If someone states in a post they were banned I'm going to ban them for ban evasion if you don't say "This is my new account my old one got banned" won't be a problem. Personally I think keeping the mod log simple keeps it from becoming overwhelming. I'm happy to provide more reasoning for a comment removal or ban that I did if you give me a specific example. Some have done so in !userunion@hexbear.net
Mods are people too and experience emotions, but I can assure you we all want this community to grow and prosper in a healthy, sustainable, and respectful way.
In closing the Code of Conduct section on moderation specifies a Moderator can remove a comment or ban for inappropriate, so again I refer you to !userunion@hexbear.net with specific examples you wish to be clarified.
Thanks!
This is my personal stance, I would never speak for anyone else, or the mod team.
Looking at the modlog and seeing bans for things that are not explicitly rule-breaking content is part of it.
Reasons like "posting cringe" and "pineapple on pizza" (even as clearly a bit) are not good ban reasons. Bans should not be used for bits, especially with the amount of controversy surrounding ban decisions by mods. Mods have been combative at times when criticized. These actions lead to a lack of trust in the moderation. More formal addressing of moderation actions has been something I've suggested repeatedly as a way of making moderation actions less controversial (cooling it down).
A specific suggestion I've made is to avoid bans for "wrecking". There needs to be a clearer explanation as to what actions the "wrecker" user is undertaking that involves rule breaking content. Similarly, "ban evasion" is a tough one to swallow because of the way some seem to believe "just make another account" is a solution to heavy-handed moderation. If "just make another account and change your behavior" is an option, then "ban evasion" should not be a ban explanation, the subsequent bans should also be tied to rule breaking content.
These mixed messages create unease around the idea of bans and criticisms of moderators. If a person disagrees, how far will they be able to go before being labeled a wrecker and getting banned?
Good faith moderation means level-headed responses to criticisms, and not assuming criticism is coming as a personal attack. It also means being a little more hesitant before smashing that ban button. Clearer explanations of what constitutes a ban, and adhering more closely to the explicitly stated rules before banning. Utilizing bans from a community instead of sitewide bans more frequently would also help. A lot of good faith can be made evident through consistency and communication with the community.
These are suggestions from one user, and there may be reasons they don't work. Perhaps they are being utilized, but it isn't clear to the user base. That would point to needing more transparency in sitewide moderation practices. But I see where other users are coming from when they complain about over-moderation and a lack of transparency.
This will probably get lost in the comments of this thread maybe make a stand-alone post in user union.
Wreckers refers to 1944 OSS Sabotage specifically section (11) General Interference with Organizations and Production.
If someone states in a post they were banned I'm going to ban them for ban evasion if you don't say "This is my new account my old one got banned" won't be a problem. Personally I think keeping the mod log simple keeps it from becoming overwhelming. I'm happy to provide more reasoning for a comment removal or ban that I did if you give me a specific example. Some have done so in !userunion@hexbear.net
Mods are people too and experience emotions, but I can assure you we all want this community to grow and prosper in a healthy, sustainable, and respectful way.
In closing the Code of Conduct section on moderation specifies a Moderator can remove a comment or ban for inappropriate, so again I refer you to !userunion@hexbear.net with specific examples you wish to be clarified.
Thanks!
This is my personal stance, I would never speak for anyone else, or the mod team.