Timeline for We're more aggressively enforcing self-moderation in chat
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
24 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 1, 2018 at 13:52 | comment | added | user400654 | you’re taking this all way too seriously. shog isn’t going to drop in and delete a long-standing room for one offensive action going unmoderated. that certainly could happen on one-off recently created rooms, but i think that’s an entirely different situation. | |
| May 1, 2018 at 13:01 | comment | added | Discrete lizard | @Catija Well, alright, that explains your interpretation. I would like to hear this from the Team's own mouth(s) as well, but I guess for that I'll just have to wait. Thanks for answering my questions. As for the RO part, I had created of a small-time, focused room (now inactive). I think that moderation there was not very relevant, but up until now I've been completely unaware that it was my responsibility to be on the look-out for any potential problems in that room. I agree that some notification of this would have been nice. | |
| May 1, 2018 at 12:43 | comment | added | Catija | @Discretelizard I know because that's really not how the Team is. Most of the time we complain that they're too free with chances. They're not evil taskmasters who want to punish everyone. They're reasonable people who want the best for this network. There's a RO FAQ here on MSE. It might help... I'm not sure if they're linked to it but they should be. | |
| May 1, 2018 at 12:35 | comment | added | Discrete lizard | @Catija "if there's a problematic troll hanging out in a room you use regularly enough for this to be a concern" Emphasis mine. Once again, I don't see where this question specifies that action has to be taken only for regular problems. It, in my interpretation, states that exactly one incident is enough to close a room. This is the main thing that baffles me and I'm a bit annoyed (but perhaps not rightly so) by the fact that I still don't know for certain that this is the intention. | |
| May 1, 2018 at 12:35 | comment | added | Discrete lizard | @Catija Thanks for clarifying the role of an RO. I'm not sure whether all RO's are aware of this, is there a system/procedure that informs RO's of this? | |
| May 1, 2018 at 12:31 | comment | added | Catija | That's literally the job of a RO, @Discretelizard Good ROs of rooms like that one should be expected to scan the transcript to see if anything untoward happened in their absence that needs attention. Hopefully there's sufficient of them that this is light work and, if not, ask for more. I understand your concern... but if there's a problematic troll hanging out in a room you use regularly enough for this to be a concern... that's a time to ask for help putting the troll on ice. But I have seen ROs lose their status for refusing/failing repeatedly to act on r/a content. | |
| May 1, 2018 at 12:08 | comment | added | Discrete lizard | So, inaction from the regulars of a room is apparently a capital offense. Is it the job description of the regulars to moderate a room? Are they responsible for all that happens in the room, even if they aren't involved? | |
| May 1, 2018 at 12:08 | comment | added | Discrete lizard | @Catija Well, I don't mean mods as in diamonds. I mean mods as in anyone that should (community) moderate. And by 'mods are asleep scenario', I mean this: Consider a chatroom with heavy fluctuation of activity, such as the H-bar of Physics. Suppose all regulars are out, a new user comes in and a troll is hostile against the new user. Suppose the user doesn't know to flag (or is too taken aback from the hostility). As far as I understand, this post states that is reason to close the room. | |
| May 1, 2018 at 11:56 | comment | added | Catija | @Discretelizard Mods being asleep isn't a consideration here. It's not part of the equation at all. It's not up to mods to flag offensive content in chat. It's not up to mods to tell the regs in a room that they're out of line. We're chat mods by default. Monitoring chat rooms on our sites isn't really part of the job description... which is why all network mods see all chat flags (some exceptions apply). But it's still dependent on flagging. | |
| May 1, 2018 at 11:53 | comment | added | Discrete lizard | @Catija Curiously, the post claims that 'nothing is new', yet also claims that they are enforcing 'more aggressive'. Given that my comment on the question hasn't been answered, perhaps you could help me determine what the actual intention is of this post is. Right now, the 'nothing is new but we will be aggressive' starts to sound like scaremongering, which I doubt would be an effective solution to the problems listed. | |
| May 1, 2018 at 11:48 | comment | added | Discrete lizard | @Catija "There is no indication in the question that a variety of steps wouldn't be taken first ". Nor is there any indication in the question that such steps would be taken first. It appears you are interpreting that action will only be taken on structural occurrence of X, Y or Z. That is not how I read this question. I read: "SE staff (or whoever "we" is) gazes upon the chat, sees one X, Y or Z, then closes it." No matter who, why or how it occurs, no matter the lack of problems in the past. This sounds like a 'mods are asleep' scenario allows anyone to shutdown a room. | |
| Apr 30, 2018 at 23:46 | comment | added | nitsua60 | @Catija I'd put forth that I think a lot of (self) moderation should be coming well before the flying of flags: in all the unhappy/unhealthy rooms I've stumbled into in my time here the problem seemed to me that people's words either weren't being used or they weren't having an appropriate effect. Flags are a last resort, not a primary tool, IMO. | |
| Apr 30, 2018 at 21:09 | comment | added | John Duffield | @Catija : no, if X Y and Z are all happening the room needs a new owner, and the moderators either need talking to or replacing. Closing down the whole room instead of admitting there's a moderation issue is wrong. As for chatflags, see flags in chat are defective by design. Search on chat flags. They don't work. | |
| Apr 30, 2018 at 20:58 | comment | added | Catija | If X, Y, and Z are all happening, that particular iteration of the room is already beyond rescue. Again, if users are acting in good faith with the Be Nice Policy by flagging problematic behavior, this will not be a problem... which is what I said in both of my prior comments. | |
| Apr 30, 2018 at 20:55 | comment | added | John Duffield | @Catija : I read the bullet points, They said if we see rooms where x y and z is happening we're going to shut the room down permanently. Not fix the moderation. | |
| Apr 30, 2018 at 20:26 | comment | added | Catija | You've missed reading the bullet points for when that would be the solution. None of those bullet points are "If single or multiple users are a problem but the ROs and other users of the room are flagging or otherwise responding to them to put an end to the behavior"... they specifically outline a room that is systematically failing to enforce the Be Nice policy by not flagging, by not telling people to cut it out, and by harassing visitors who attempt to correct the behavior in the room. | |
| Apr 30, 2018 at 20:16 | comment | added | John Duffield | @Catija : that's not how I read the OP or the associated history. Do note that Tim Post didn't say the room would be suspended. He said we're going to shut the room down permanently. | |
| Apr 30, 2018 at 20:14 | comment | added | John Duffield | @Makoto : chat flagging is broken. I've been suspended without warning for flagging offensive comments in chat. | |
| Apr 30, 2018 at 20:07 | comment | added | Catija | There is no indication in the question that a variety of steps wouldn't be taken first - such as removing problematic users from chat entirely. If one user is the problem, they're not going to punish the entire room. I don't see that changing. But, if the room is putting up with that one problematic user by not kicking or flagging them, then the "culture" of that room is problematic and needs to be addressed. | |
| Apr 30, 2018 at 20:05 | comment | added | Makoto | The people in that room do a large part of the moderation by flagging messages which do run afoul of the site's rules. If that's not happening, then the people in the room don't care about the site's moderation, so closing it down dramatically slows down the tide of tone-deaf Meta rants about their chat room suddenly being moderated. | |
| Apr 30, 2018 at 20:05 | comment | added | Benjamin Gruenbaum | I didn't vote either way but I found this answer pretty hard to understand. | |
| Apr 30, 2018 at 20:03 | comment | added | John Duffield | Would the downvoters care to explain why they think it's better to close down a chat room forever instead of addressing the moderation of that room? | |
| Apr 30, 2018 at 19:51 | history | edited | John Duffield | CC BY-SA 3.0 | typo |
| Apr 30, 2018 at 19:45 | history | answered | John Duffield | CC BY-SA 3.0 |