Some notes on the new community rules

Well, that was a particularly chaotic time. It's easy to assume that pinning a forum thread detailing why a specific event (in that case, revealing the personal details and correspondence of an individual without her consent) wasn't allowed would prevent new posts from being created, but trust me when I say that it's generally more safe to assume that no one will read anything unless it's specifically pointed out to them. I've had engineers design huge red warning popups when someone encounters a temporarily broken aspect of the site, but that still doesn't prevent people from sending support emails asking why that thing is broken.

It's tough to deal with fast-moving events like that. Not saying our response as a moderation team was particularly fantastic, but we've hopefully learned a bit from it.

As a suggestion while we are commenting on the community rules, I have felt for a while now that being more upfront about the moderators and the standards they are held to would be helpful. When it is seen that there is real accountability even for moderators, that helps encourage greater faith in these community rules you have worked hard to make.

While information on the process of how things are moderated can be obtained through PMing mods, greater information included in the formal rules would empower people to see for themselves what to expect of moderators and what may be worth contacting you about. This allows for more specific objections that can be shared with you and the mods, instead of more general "I feel they acted out of line" or "I disagree with what they did" comments.

It is often encouraged for members to bring up concerns about moderation in a PM to the mods instead of in the forum, but when someone feels wronged by an authority figure, they are naturally discouraged from directly confronting them regarding it. Unfortunately, I have heard many express over the years that they believe their objections in the past have led to bias against them from certain mods that they dared to question, and that kind of unease is detrimental to the trust needed for effective moderation. It should be made clear alongside moderator rules that, in such cases of concern, you may be contacted privately, and in speaking to you, that moderators may be held accountable for their actions. While this may well already be the case in practice, it is at best unclear as far as the community rules are concerned.

Obviously, the vast majority of actions by the moderators are proper, as evidenced in the health of this community. I have great faith in most of the mods even if I'm unclear of who are actually active anymore. I raise this concern out of an interest in helping these community rules be further respected and observed. When those who implement rules are in question, that undermines the perception that moderation is justified. While it is natural that you may wish to foster a tight-knit group of moderators, it is also important that moderation be held to a high standard and not become only a club of buddies with each other's backs no matter what they do. While the community rules are reasonably understood by most members, our actual moderation is not nearly as understood. That lack of upfront information(members shouldn't have to ask) is detrimental to community trust.

This seems like the perfect moment to also publicly clarify matters of moderation. Members should be able to feel like moderators are held accountable to high standards and not just by the approval of buddies in their circle. From at least what some mods have told me, I believe mods likely are held to a decent standard, but that's merely a personal belief. I don't have a public statement like the community rules to point to when concerned about moderation.

Having further information on Giant Bomb moderators and our system of moderation in a public statement like the community rules will only be helpful in strengthening their authority to apply these rules people have spent so much time refining.

Good point. I try to stay away from that word myself, because I know how offensive it can be for some. It's just a simple thing to avoid, and I really don't feel limited by doing so. If Giant Bomb allows it, that's fine with me as well, but I'll still continue to avoid it.

And even though I'm not remotely interested in anime, I think the whole "anime is for jerks" thing isn't needed on the forum either. It just promotes stereotypes and fosters intolerance, in my opinion. Just as I wouldn't want to see people openly mocking wrestling fans on this forum--which is another form of entertainment that doesn't personally interest me--I think it's wrong to do the same to anime fans.

@truthtellah: If you feel a moderator has gone out of line, PM Rorie.

In addition every moderator PM has all the other moderators attached and Rorie as well. We read them all so we see how each other respond and often discuss certain PMs.

Just wanted to pop in here to thank @rorie and the mod team for doing what they do. Before GB, I hadn't been active in any online forum since a little tight-knit Coheed and Cambria fansite, which was YEARS ago.

Usually I find forums to be unapproachable beasts, but somehow this (rather expansive) place feels like a generally welcoming and inclusive community. That's a compliment to both the community itself for being awesome and the mod team for keeping it that way.

Thanks! That means a lot to me. I personally don't post very often in very many communities, but I do want to do my best to ensure that people feel comfortable posting here.

To speak to your specific example here, (and this is more in reference to the reaction from people, not what was actually said, which I don't think was so bad) I feel pretty confident saying that that kind of thing wouldn't ever happen on the Bombcast or any other Giant Bomb content today. I feel like the site and the people on it have changed a lot from then and looking back, it kind of shocks me that it ever happened in the first place. Even though at the time I found the song and all that stuff pretty hilarious, watching it now honestly just kind of skeezes me out.

Thanks, @finaldasa, though, that is certainly something I'm aware of. heh. That isn't really what I'm talking about as far as making standards and practices of moderators more transparent, preferably in something like the formal community rules post.

I've been around for years on the ol GB; so, I am familiar with a lot of this. But that took a lot of effort over time to actually find out, you know? That shouldn't be necessary. For mods, a lot may seem obvious, because it's just how you do things and how things are. But normal members don't have that luxury. When attempting to inspire respect for the rules, it may help to inspire even further faith and understanding toward our moderators and how our rules are applied.

ahhh I had forgotten. Thanks!

Seems like a good clarification/update of the rules. And, hey, as long as I can post semi-related pony pictures every now and then, I'll be a happy camper... err, pony?

I was talking to a couple of the other mods about your post and this one, and we still aren't sure what you mean. Can you elaborate on this part?

Username changing is not an overwhelming concern of the moderators. It happens fairly rarely, and all of the moderator notes on the user's profile are retained. I've never seen it used as an attempt to bypass moderation, and any such attempts would be brought to light fairly quickly.

@dudeglove: What's the harm in letting people change usernames? Also, on GB Wiki points, blog posts etc. are also tied to your account, not only post count. Wiki points especially can be important for people to keep if they want to change their username.

@truthtellah: Well, the "if you have a problem with a mod, PM that mod or "his/her boss" (Rorie/Jeff) is a rule I've seen on virtually every forum I've ever been a part of. Public discussion about that stuff never really leads anywhere in my experience (the "why was thread X locked" threads are particulary pointless). As long as the rules are clearly stated and people are able to discuss that stuff freely with mods over PM, I think that's enough.

Unless something has recently changed, username changes are a Premium-only feature that is limited to once per account.

People changing their usernames on Giant Bomb is an extremely rare occurrence.

No problem. I am suggesting that you could explain what mods actually do and the standards of conduct they are held to, and include that information in the community rules post.

Member conduct is laid out in the community rules, but moderators have other responsibilities and obviously have different expectations. You have a system by which you actually met out moderation; it isn't just done off-the-cuff or haphazardly. The most people see of the system are joke screenshots like that one showing facetious ban reasons. The actual process is not readily apparent to average members.

How do problems actually get resolved? Most people are aware of how you contact members when they're in trouble, but that's about it as far as universally understood moderation. It is also known by some that, for certain levels of problems, issues are discussed amongst multiple moderators to decide on how to address them. Obviously, deleting a comment is something a single mod can handle, then contacting a member for infringing comments, then figuring out whether someone should be suspended, and ultimately the serious consideration of whether to ban someone. These are the different processes by which you enforce the rules laid out here.

I've heard mods talk about the specifics of carrying out moderation privately, but little is actually laid out for general members to be able to refer to. That limits their ability to recognize and report potentially improper action, and it limits perception of accountability. People assume -some- system holds mods to standards of conduct, but the community rules don't thoroughly convey that. At best, there is the suggestion to contact Rorie if you believe something is wrong, but shouldn't people be aware of active efforts to maintain standards? Most people don't want to be left with the impression that mods, let alone any authority, just police themselves.

Greater transparency on how moderators met out judgments and what standards they are held to would help strengthen faith in our moderation.

In specific:

• What is the process for determining different punishments?
• Who are active moderators on the site? How are they selected?
• What are the formal standards for how a moderator conducts themselves?
• What is the oversight of moderators' activities which makes sure there isn't abuse?

I am familiar with answers that have been given privately to questions like these, and I'm not asking for just a comment here or PM explaining how moderation works on Giant Bomb. None of this is about explaining things to me personally. I am suggesting there would be great value in having these answers in a public post that all members can refer to.

While we are discussing the community rules, it may be worth considering providing moderation information like this in the community rules so that people are further informed on how the site's rules are actually applied and inspire greater confidence in the people who apply them.

@truthtellah: Thanks, I'll leave all of that up to Rorie to answer, if he wants to. I'm not sure how transparent he wants all of that to be.

I'm off to sleep and this seems like a thing that would take some time to respond to, so ask me tomorrow and I'll respond if I have time.

Certainly. It's simply something worth considering while we are on the subject of the community rules. :)

I've been around here for years, and I don't know how many times I've had people privately express to me genuine confusion and concern about our moderation and the standards that our mods are held to. Sometimes people are just mad, but many times, their concerns are legitimate. @rorie has helped clarify some level of accountability, but even then, that isn't readily apparent to a lot folks.

I often see that a concern mods have is regarding the push back they receive from moderation. It's a reason why mods appear to have historically chosen to surround themselves with friends and people who will likely back them up when there may be negative responses to moderation. It's natural, especially with the more informal nature of Giant Bomb and the difficulties you face at times. With that in mind, I believe some of the pushback mods receive, particularly from regular members who have been around for a while, is because of a perceived lack of transparency and accountability. When there is a lack of understanding, you're bound to have greater resistance.

I want people to respect the rules here and have faith in how they are actually applied, and making public more basic information on moderation could go a long way in helping that be a reality for more members.

@rowr: You can still call me whatever you like <3

@rorie You're a some notes on the new community rules.

Thanks for the updates to This Whole Thing. I know things have been extra rough and tough on you and the mod team these past few months.

@milkman: I sometimes wonder about the idea of George Carlin coming into prominence today, if some people around here would be wagging a finger at him.

It helps if they don't repeatedly keep asking for it like they're entitled to the position.

I have heard many express over the years that they believe their objections in the past have led to bias against them...

I don't know how many times I've had people privately express to me...

It's weird that so many people have sought out your advice in these matters. Have you been conducting a survey that we didn't know about?!

All sounds like good clarifications and additions to the rules, all of which seem to be perfectly fine to me. As someone that once had moderation duties on a pretty big forum in the early 00s (we also had a variation on the "not a free-speech zone" concept, which I think is a good starting point to actually get across to people that they're not entitled to behave as they please), I can definitely appreciate everything the moderators and Rorie do to keep this place clean. Doing what is often a fairly under-appreciated task within a community. Because as others have said, this place is pretty damn awesome, and that takes some work. I haven't felt this at home in a place since that previously mentioned forum.

Keep up the great work you all.

What this forum needs is some sort of "MOTD" or something temporary that isn't "pinning" a thread to the top of the forum as a short term mechanism for the mods to communicate temporary "mods are acting" things. If there is a moderation issue where too many people are making threads talking about "Soandso likes cake!" the moderation team can put up a message or a banner or something at the top broadcasting "We are locking posts and banning posters who create 'cake' threads." After the mania dies down the MOTD can disappear and moderation goes back to business as usual.

@extomar: That's actually a really good idea.

Looking forward to a Polygon comments type of fake moderated positivity.

That would be nice, but we have a long list of features and fixes and that would end up somewhere near the bottom. Right now we have to deal with what we've already got.

I would also very much like to hear the answers to these questions.

Well that was fast........ >_>

It's like sirens at your front door, yet you're never home much...

This is all kinda funny. Sry I guess.

@gregorygold: @truthtellah I'll answer some of the questions the best I can but I won't be sharing everything we do and how we decide things.

First, Rorie outlined earlier in this thread our typical practices when it comes to moderating. We have a template we go off of for your typical violation of the rules. It isn't black and white, as nothing we do ever is, and won't apply to every user and every situation but it's how we typically handle things.

If you find the PM All Mods on the site and look at who is receiving that PM, those are your moderators. There used to be a tab to see all mods but I'm not sure where that went. You can see most of us around the site and most likely know all the user names by now. New moderators are always announced on the forums so you know who has joined the ranks. Mods are chosen privately and there isn't a specific criteria. It's usually kind of obvious someone who deserves a mod-ship and asking for one is a great way not to get one. I won't speak more about choosing mods because I don't want to over share the process.

Mods all know what is expected of them and how to go about moderating the forums, wiki, ect. Like I said, every mod PM has all the other mods and Rorie attached for backup and oversight. If you feel a mod has stepped out of line you can PM Rorie separately and share your concerns.

I get that you want to trust mods more and understand the general process we go through but for the most part the rules represent what we expect. If you follow them, as most everyone does, you'll have no troubles. And even if you do our process allows for second chances. It is not an insta-ban for breaking the forum rules the first time.

If you, or anyone else, really has a concern over a moderator then by all means PM Rorie. He is the staff oversight, essentially, and will be glad to hear your concerns. Hopefully this gives some insight to your questions.

Cool beans.

It seems like things have already begun to cool down since the end of summer - at least as far as this site is concerned - but I'm glad we'll have some clear, firm rules in place the next time something controversial flares up. You mods do good, necessary, and mostly thankless work-- hopefully this makes it easier!

On a different note, I think an important thing to always remember when communicating on message boards/comment sections/etc. is that you can't assume the person on the other end will read the things being posted in the "correct tone." If it's at all possible for your joke comment to be read literally, it almost definitely will!

I suppose this is the value of smileys and emoji and whatever-- I just hope at some point we'll find a system for communicating tone online that actually has some dignity.

-_-

These all seem like perfectly reasonable changes. I was a little worried after the unpleasantness that sprung up after Dan and Jason got hired that there would be a knee jerk reaction that would kill the forums. However it seems like the extra time has resulted in some subtle changes that if we are honest mostly fall under common sense anyway.

Props to @rorie and the mod team.

1. Role-playing/character accounts: Be yourself; don’t pretend to be Master Chief or anything like that.

I'm glad this is a thing.

Yeah. This is an issue that pops up pretty frequently.

We never accept "it was a joke/sarcasm" as an excuse for breaking the rules. You should always assume that your tone will not be properly communicated.

@chaser324 said:

I think that should be judged on a person-by-person basis; some may be able to understand the other is joking and I'd like to hope this doesn't suddenly disallow any and all banter. If so, I guess it's a good thing nobody reported this post (#50) by @mooseymcman -- whereby he calls me a ''limey wanker bell-end''. I was admittedly taken back by it a little, but also took it in stride because I knew there was no malicious intent behind it.

If it helps, I would not say that on the site now that I'm a moderator. It was a joke, but I shouldn't have said that.

We do our best to discern someone's intent when they post stuff, for sure. We don't want to be joyless buzzkills, obviously. But there are certainly times when that stuff is less welcome than others; if someone wants to be a comedian in an otherwise serious thread, we'll probably ask them to knock it off.

@alexw00d said:

That one sucks! We have some great role-playing accounts on here, like @video_game_king who pretends to live on the moon and @sweep who pretends to be cool.

@yummylee: Like Rorie said, we do still try to take into account a person's intent. If something seems to not have malicious intent behind it, we're going to try to take that into account. The issue is more when people seem to be (whether it's intentional or not) using claims of sarcasm or tongue-in-cheek tone as a means to harass people whilst deflecting accountability for what they said - especially if a person establishes a pattern where they are pushing things a bit too far on a regular basis and seem to be disregarding any and all warnings about that behavior.

@angrighandi: That's a good point. Sarcasm never really translates well for anyone involved.

@rorie: Yeah, I understand context is certainly key, and it naturally would be far from appropriate if posted in one of the many sexism-related threads. I just don't want to feel fearful of occasionally calling someone a SOB or what have you for example. Though I would also of course only use any such language against someone I'm already familiar with and who would more likely understand I'm only messin'.

@mooseymcman: Well for what it's worth I really don't mind, and I only linked the post to use as an example and wasn't subliminally referring to have it removed or anything.

@yummylee: To be honest, I didn't even remember that I had posted that.

@alexw00d: there goes my xX_SMOKEHOLE_BAYONETTA_Xx account idea :'(

These seem pretty solid and fair, as rules go.

I maybe prefer something a bit more free, but it's your website. I have other sites, maybe reddit, for that.

Just please remember all these rules when someone does something truly heinous, and everyone on the internet turns against them. The ocean marketing thing comes to mind, but that happened a while ago.

@ripelivejam: I think we would probably allow that as a username (though I'm not committing to that so don't actually do it) so long as you weren't roleplaying it. I'm not sure how you would do that though.

I'm not even sure what you mean, or what the whole Ocean Marketing thing has to do with anything...

To add to this, the moderation process itself does not have a strict rulebook, nor do I think it should. The mods use their judgment based on the severity of an incident and their experience with the user in question. It's flexible by design and it'll likely stay that way. We already deal with enough rules-lawyering as it is; adding more processes to the mix would only encourage the kinds of "Well, your moderator forgot to dot the i on this form, and thus I demand to be unbanned!" nonsense that's already distressingly frequent. As has been stated before, we give people who enter the funnel plenty of chances to get out of it.

As far as moderating the moderators, I do listen to feedback when I get PMs about it and do my best to respond to it all. That doesn't mean I'll share the results of the ensuing discussion publicly. But any moderator can tell you that when I'm unhappy with them, I let them know. It doesn't happen often, but it does happen.

Someone's probably already on google image search looking for some "who watches the watchmen?" graffiti to post here, I'm sure. Moderation will probably always be a bit of a black box to non-moderators, and I'm sure that can be frustrating, but all the same, we also have a desire to keep the forum drama to a minimum around here. Part of that entails keeping discussion of moderation actions behind the veil. As this topic hopefully shows, I'm not opposed to periodic discussion of moderation, but those discussions will take place at my discretion. I know that sounds a bit "Welcome to North Korea, comrade!" but so be it.