h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

What style of transgression management do we want to see in the new h2g2? (noohootoo)

Over the last week I've created threads on:

House Rules (the consensus was that we leave them largely as they are, with the exception of allowing controlled foreign-language use) - see F21551820?thread=8249512

Banning (more difficult, but people seem to feel that outright permanent bans should be restricted to breaches involving credible threats of violence and intentionally illegal actions) - see F21551820?thread=8249873

Transgressions (people seem to favour a common-sense approach, with the ability to close down accounts quickly if necessary, but with an appropriate scale of escalating measures for lesser breaches of the house rules) - see F21551820?thread=8250267

Up to now, I've tried to limit the discussions in relation to specific house rules. We've discussed what they should be, which ones should attract permanent bans, and which measures are appropriate for the others. I've deferred comments on moderation style and process, but here's where we can discuss them. Questions might be (but are not restricted to):

If the moderators, Community Editors or TPTB take action, how exactly should they do it? Who should be the arbiters in each case? Should we care?
Do we see too much pre-moderation or too many yikesed posts? Do we not see enough?
Under what circumstances (if any) should the TPTB consult the community, and how?
What level of explanation for their actions should they give to the offender and to the rest of the community?
How remote should moderators, Community Editors and higher powers be on site? Should they mix in community conversations but be visibly banning people too?

As usual, please don't discuss any current or past moderation decisions, as it's against the House rules to do so. Look forward, not back

OK, off you go For reference, here are the current <./>HouseRules</.> and <./>HouseRules-Transgressions</.>

First reactions are:

The Community Editors, as they are here, are the top tier of the structure. I think that would be a good way to go and that if a final abritration is needed, theirs should be the final word. The names that I have seen as volunteers for those posts are pretty much all folks that I trust implicitly

Moderation at the moment is really very spotty. The reactive form of even as recently as 6 months ago seems to work well enough. A 'weighting' system as Pastey suggested elsewhere would help with determining if a post should vanish instantly, or be given a little time for thought

I think the community should be involved if a banning seems necessary for someone who has been around for a time. How long a time would be open for debate. A newbie who immediately begins with trash doesn't need to expect much lenience. But some that have established friendships and relationships over years should have the chance to let the community speak. If he or she is a real concern, that will rise to the surface reasonably quick. Oh, and community debate should be established with a very fixed time frame, say X-number of days. And then off to the arbiters

If possible, say if the House Rules are expressed much more clearly, then moderation mails or reasons should be easy to point out. "You ran a-foul of rule so-and-such"

Moderators should be anonymous in my opinion. The rest of the pyramid structure can be clearly visible, as many are going to know who is what anyway.

My two-pence

I agree with the part about moderation being a bit spotty/flakey. That loses people's faith in the system. It needs to be seen to be consistent and obvious as to why it's happening.

I've just looked over the house rules again and as discussed elsewhere there isn't a specific house rule against discussing previous bans or trangressions. Now I am NOT inviting anyone to rehash, argue about, pick fights about or get upset in any way about particular cases in the past. However, if we are to discuss transgressions, moderation and banning issues for our future, considered discussions about particular issues involved in previous cases may be very helpful. Again, I'm not recommending we re-argue them. I'm just saying that proscribing all discussion of previous cases could be detrimental to these discussions. Particular aspects of some of these past issues may be very informative and helpful in shaping the policies we use in the future. I think we can discuss them without getting emotionally heated.

I'm not sure the community can really expect to dictate to that degree of detail, to be honest. I'm really looking for the community to suggest guiding principles on which the TPTB can base the detailed policies they are currently defining.

There are other constraints they will have to work within of course: technical, legal, financial (insurance).

Having said that, maybe Community volunteers can have a more detailed sort of discussion offsite? I'm not sure - you could ask Mrs Zen.

A couple of points which Count Zero raised on the House Rules discussion. These are probably more in the 'technical wishlist' area, but do we need this process?

in the noohootoo the moderators will be or own volunteers yes?

So they will be more able to put things in to context, or make new emails for sending out to naughty people.

They can put people on the naughty step to calm down and think about what they have done.

If i was moderated, i would rather know which members of the community it was, Maybe a list of names, but not which one pulled my post.

And researchers would have to be able to refer posts still.

just m thoughts.

mini