But the difficult point here is that this this is a resource that people pay for, that means banning someone outright needs to be done carefully and for very good reason as that person may well have paid for access/resources that DnD beyond are obliged to allow them to continue being able to use.
I think that bans for breaking forum rules, whether temporary or permanent, should not stop you from using the rest of the site. Any ban from the rest of the site would need a solid legal reason if that person had paid for content, and would probably need review by lawyers, but I think the right to post on the forum could be removed at any time. Doing so should still be considered seriously, especially permanently, but I'm fairly sure that should be able to be done separately.
When posts are deleted by moderators, it can be really confusing. There is often no indication that anything has been done except for the posts no longer being there. The conversation can be left making no sense.
I would suggest that it may be better to leave the post in place but redact all the content within it, or at the very least that a moderator should post to the thread telling people that posts have been deleted. This would be much more transparent and less confusing. It would also reduce many people's irritation by showing that there are actual consequences for breaking the rules, instead of attempting to present a clean image by acting in secrecy.
I would like to see mods a little more active on threads, but to be honest, they have bigger fish to fry, though I appreciate it when they go out of their way ( Sillva did the infinitely useful Guides and tables thread, plus Sedge occasionally makes a post, plus Davyd and StormKnight answer questions. ), it would be good for them to take off their Mod hat and engage in a ongoing discussion once in a while, but they have jobs to do so I'm on the fence.
When posts are deleted by moderators, it can be really confusing. There is often no indication that anything has been done except for the posts no longer being there. The conversation can be left making no sense.
I would suggest that it may be better to leave the post in place but redact all the content within it, or at the very least that a moderator should post to the thread telling people that posts have been deleted. This would be much more transparent and less confusing. It would also reduce many people's irritation by showing that there are actual consequences for breaking the rules, instead of attempting to present a clean image by acting in secrecy.
I want to expand on this, specifically.
1) Only fully delete posts if they are legit spam or mistakes. For example, if a bot manages to get an account and posts links to malware, delete the post. If someone's cat sits on a keyboard and posts a random string of letters, delete the post.
2) In extreme cases, "[Redact]" the whole post, and put a citation note in the same post, all in moderator-goldenrod (or whatever color that is). Having the citation/explanation be in the same post is important.
3) In lesser cases (the usual, I think), just "[Redact]" part of the post, and still put in a citation.
3a) Perhaps, if it's nothing too serious, and the first not-too-serious redaction in a thread, instead of redacting, use strikethrough. Bonus points if the strikethrough line is goldenrod but the text below remains normal. When combined with a good citation, future readers of the thread could now see what was wrong and why it was wrong. Further problems like that in the same thread can get redacted generously and cited minimally, as to not weigh the thread down with too much repetition...
I don't think things like actual infraction points should be put in the citations; those can stay private. However, in the most extreme cases ("This post has been deleted and this user permanently banned. Do not post snuff videos or revenge ****.") an explicit note about the punishment could be useful, to reassure users that appropriate action has been taken.
The overall idea, I think, is to make it easier to learn from other people's mistakes. You get to see how they made them, and why they were removed.
The ignore feature here isn't an ignore feature, it's an abuser empowerment system.
This thread isn't really the place to discuss this topic, maybe make another thread for it, but I do partially agree with this, and in less blunt terms. I typically avoid using Ignore features, and almost never do so permanently, but I understand why they need to exist. There can be situations where someone else is cyberstalking or harassing someone on online forums, which is why this kind of feature needs to exist. This is also exactly why I criticized the loophole that the Ignore feature D&D Beyond currently has in the OP, as if someone quotes the Ignored person, the person that is Ignoring them can see the posts that they're trying to avoid, going against the whole point of having the feature, which can be harmful in a case where someone was being harassed or stalked online.
My issue with the Ignore feature in general, besides that specific loophole, is when people are encouraged to use the Ignore feature. IMO, the Ignore feature exists to keep people safe and for worst case scenarios, not to be a replacement for moderation. It makes participating on the forums a lot more difficult when you can't see a lot of the posts in a thread, especially when they're arguing against you and you both can't see their arguments and can't respond directly to them. The Ignore feature is a tool to keep people safe and allow people to see who and what they want to see on this site, not an excuse to not deal with a problem poster because you can "just Ignore them".
Has any further thought been given to this comment? Would it be a good idea to raise it as a separate thread? I don't feel it got enough airtime in here.
I honestly don't think anyone should be encouraged to ignore another user. With my mod hat on, I would have considered it an absolute failure to get to that stage. It closes the door to debate and, as AKADDK mentioned above, does empower potential abusers.
The ignore feature should, IMHO, only be a feature for users to employ themselves, temporarily and as an absolute last resort, while the problem is addressed properly. It should never be suggested as a permanent fix.
The ignore feature here isn't an ignore feature, it's an abuser empowerment system.
This thread isn't really the place to discuss this topic, maybe make another thread for it, but I do partially agree with this, and in less blunt terms. I typically avoid using Ignore features, and almost never do so permanently, but I understand why they need to exist. There can be situations where someone else is cyberstalking or harassing someone on online forums, which is why this kind of feature needs to exist. This is also exactly why I criticized the loophole that the Ignore feature D&D Beyond currently has in the OP, as if someone quotes the Ignored person, the person that is Ignoring them can see the posts that they're trying to avoid, going against the whole point of having the feature, which can be harmful in a case where someone was being harassed or stalked online.
My issue with the Ignore feature in general, besides that specific loophole, is when people are encouraged to use the Ignore feature. IMO, the Ignore feature exists to keep people safe and for worst case scenarios, not to be a replacement for moderation. It makes participating on the forums a lot more difficult when you can't see a lot of the posts in a thread, especially when they're arguing against you and you both can't see their arguments and can't respond directly to them. The Ignore feature is a tool to keep people safe and allow people to see who and what they want to see on this site, not an excuse to not deal with a problem poster because you can "just Ignore them".
Has any further thought been given to this comment? Would it be a good idea to raise it as a separate thread? I don't feel it got enough airtime in here.
I honestly don't think anyone should be encouraged to ignore another user. With my mod hat on, I would have considered it an absolute failure to get to that stage. It closes the door to debate and, as AKADDK mentioned above, does empower potential abusers.
The ignore feature should, IMHO, only be a feature for users to employ themselves, temporarily and as an absolute last resort, while the problem is addressed properly. It should never be suggested as a permanent fix.
Why don't you make the thread then? O.o I mean... I would, but I've learned that I don't have the Charisma to make it not sound... wrong. And you tend to have a way with words like Sundering does.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Formerly Devan Avalon.
Trying to get your physical content on Beyond is like going to Microsoft and saying "I have a physical Playstation disk, give me a digital Xbox version!"
The "Ignore" solution creates threads that make no sense as there is usually two or more conversations going on then....it is not in any way conducive to good discussion.
Also the people who you "Ignore" can still respond to your comments but you cannot see this....to me that creates issues with apparent discussion as well. Some may see the silence as silent agreement to the statements they make to your comment....worse yet if someone replies to that person you see the post anyway completely nullifying the whole process.
Its a really silly solution overall and should not be a default strategy of any kind.
I, for one, do think that moderator actions should be more transparent. Disciplinary action doesn't prevent new infractions when the infraction just disappears without a trace.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
All the comments on the Pride article regarding inclusion have disappeared and I am left with no clue as to why. I was trying to have some productive exchanges.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
I, for one, do think that moderator actions should be more transparent. Disciplinary action doesn't prevent new infractions when the infraction just disappears without a trace.
This is so big. I really don't think the mod staff does themselves any favors by keeping things hidden behind such secrecy. Being open about why something is not okay is important to creating an atmosphere of respect. And frankly, a little public shame goes a long way to deterring repeat behavior and copycats. And no I am NOT talking about gravedancing or the moderators being spicy, sarcastic shits with their redaction notes. I'm talking about the natural shame that occurs from having something you say taken down because it is inappropriate. It's like having a parent be disappointed in you. Such a powerful learning tool.
Wanted to highlight this because I recently observed that the mod staff has started adding notations to their redactions with a little reason as to why it happened. Thank you very much for making strides towards a more open, informative moderation system. It's awesome to see.
What happens when a moderator staff and/or the rules they enforce do not consider certain forms of toxic behavior (like spouting out hateful, dismissive rhetoric like "Rabid SJW") to actually be toxic?
If it is just the rules that treat this behavior as acceptable, and the moderators feel differently, at what point does that separation no longer matter?
It's a little out of scope for this thread, but the paradox of tolerance remains a potentially useful piece of discussion considering recurring issues both the moderation team and the userbase has to deal with. It's a very fine line to try and walk, since draconian censorship of any dissenting view is clearly detrimental and in no one's best interests, but by the same token allowing constant irrational discourse without merit or basis will eventually drown or poison discourse that has merit and is otherwise rational. It's made even more difficult to deal with because many of the folks most prone to irrational discourse (here and everywhere else) are also the folks most prone to cries of persecution - again, whether or not those cries are meritorious.
There's no firm, universally accepted stance on where that line should be, especially since anyone on the wrong side of it is likely to protest pretty ferociously that the line is too far towards censorship. One must always beware of turning their community into an echo chamber, lest one ends up becoming mainstream news media and thus losing all excuse for their existence. But the fact that the line exists should be beyond doubt. There will always be a point where further tolerance of irrational, poisonous intolerance will accomplish nothing useful and that tolerance should be withdrawn. All we can really do as users, though, is offer advice on where that line should be and make our views felt.
For me, the line exists where someone is willing to acknowledge another's experiences/pain as valid, even if they disagree with those experiences. Someone who is unwilling to acknowledge another person's direct, lived-through experience is incapable of arguing in good faith, as they have rejected the most fundamental evidence one person can offer another. It is perfectly valid and reasonable to disagree with the product of another's experiences, the assumptions and positions derived from one's life experiences. "I lived through Experience A, therefore I hold Opinion X", can reasonably be answered with "I'm not sure if Opinion X necessarily has to follow Experience A. I think Opinion Y has more merit." It can, with care and caution, be reasonably answered with "I don't know if Experience A or Opinion X has relevance to Position G, which is what we were discussing."
"I lived through Experience A, therefore I hold Opinion X" cannot reasonably be answered with "I don't believe Experience A is real/valid" or "I don't think Experience A matters." That way lies dismissal, marginalization, and ostracization, none of which a community can long withstand endorsing.
Any news on this front? The site is suffering more than ever with the issues discussed here, there were some mods open to several of the good suggestions posted here. The site is in desperate need of many of the improvements discussed.
Any news on this front? The site is suffering more than ever with the issues discussed here, there were some mods open to several of the good suggestions posted here. The site is in desperate need of many of the improvements discussed.
Actually, since this conversation the mods implemented new rules and I, for one, was happy about the progress I saw in the moderation of this site. Take a look:
I think that bans for breaking forum rules, whether temporary or permanent, should not stop you from using the rest of the site. Any ban from the rest of the site would need a solid legal reason if that person had paid for content, and would probably need review by lawyers, but I think the right to post on the forum could be removed at any time. Doing so should still be considered seriously, especially permanently, but I'm fairly sure that should be able to be done separately.
I have another point to raise:
When posts are deleted by moderators, it can be really confusing. There is often no indication that anything has been done except for the posts no longer being there. The conversation can be left making no sense.
I would suggest that it may be better to leave the post in place but redact all the content within it, or at the very least that a moderator should post to the thread telling people that posts have been deleted. This would be much more transparent and less confusing. It would also reduce many people's irritation by showing that there are actual consequences for breaking the rules, instead of attempting to present a clean image by acting in secrecy.
I would like to see mods a little more active on threads, but to be honest, they have bigger fish to fry, though I appreciate it when they go out of their way ( Sillva did the infinitely useful Guides and tables thread, plus Sedge occasionally makes a post, plus Davyd and StormKnight answer questions. ), it would be good for them to take off their Mod hat and engage in a ongoing discussion once in a while, but they have jobs to do so I'm on the fence.
Mystic v3 should be official, nuff said.
I want to expand on this, specifically.
1) Only fully delete posts if they are legit spam or mistakes. For example, if a bot manages to get an account and posts links to malware, delete the post. If someone's cat sits on a keyboard and posts a random string of letters, delete the post.
2) In extreme cases, "[Redact]" the whole post, and put a citation note in the same post, all in moderator-goldenrod (or whatever color that is). Having the citation/explanation be in the same post is important.
3) In lesser cases (the usual, I think), just "[Redact]" part of the post, and still put in a citation.
3a) Perhaps, if it's nothing too serious, and the first not-too-serious redaction in a thread, instead of redacting, use
strikethrough. Bonus points if the strikethrough line is goldenrod but the text below remains normal. When combined with a good citation, future readers of the thread could now see what was wrong and why it was wrong. Further problems like that in the same thread can get redacted generously and cited minimally, as to not weigh the thread down with too much repetition...I don't think things like actual infraction points should be put in the citations; those can stay private. However, in the most extreme cases ("This post has been deleted and this user permanently banned. Do not post snuff videos or revenge ****.") an explicit note about the punishment could be useful, to reassure users that appropriate action has been taken.
The overall idea, I think, is to make it easier to learn from other people's mistakes. You get to see how they made them, and why they were removed.
Has any further thought been given to this comment? Would it be a good idea to raise it as a separate thread? I don't feel it got enough airtime in here.
I honestly don't think anyone should be encouraged to ignore another user. With my mod hat on, I would have considered it an absolute failure to get to that stage. It closes the door to debate and, as AKADDK mentioned above, does empower potential abusers.
The ignore feature should, IMHO, only be a feature for users to employ themselves, temporarily and as an absolute last resort, while the problem is addressed properly. It should never be suggested as a permanent fix.
Why don't you make the thread then? O.o I mean... I would, but I've learned that I don't have the Charisma to make it not sound... wrong. And you tend to have a way with words like Sundering does.
Formerly Devan Avalon.
Trying to get your physical content on Beyond is like going to Microsoft and saying "I have a physical Playstation disk, give me a digital Xbox version!"
The "Ignore" solution creates threads that make no sense as there is usually two or more conversations going on then....it is not in any way conducive to good discussion.
Also the people who you "Ignore" can still respond to your comments but you cannot see this....to me that creates issues with apparent discussion as well. Some may see the silence as silent agreement to the statements they make to your comment....worse yet if someone replies to that person you see the post anyway completely nullifying the whole process.
Its a really silly solution overall and should not be a default strategy of any kind.
I, for one, do think that moderator actions should be more transparent. Disciplinary action doesn't prevent new infractions when the infraction just disappears without a trace.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
All the comments on the Pride article regarding inclusion have disappeared and I am left with no clue as to why. I was trying to have some productive exchanges.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
So it seems that cutting toxicity in one form reduces all forms of toxicity.
https://twitter.com/AmazonChique/status/1269823539953065985?s=20
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
This is so big. I really don't think the mod staff does themselves any favors by keeping things hidden behind such secrecy. Being open about why something is not okay is important to creating an atmosphere of respect. And frankly, a little public shame goes a long way to deterring repeat behavior and copycats. And no I am NOT talking about gravedancing or the moderators being spicy, sarcastic shits with their redaction notes. I'm talking about the natural shame that occurs from having something you say taken down because it is inappropriate. It's like having a parent be disappointed in you. Such a powerful learning tool.
Wanted to highlight this because I recently observed that the mod staff has started adding notations to their redactions with a little reason as to why it happened. Thank you very much for making strides towards a more open, informative moderation system. It's awesome to see.
What happens when a moderator staff and/or the rules they enforce do not consider certain forms of toxic behavior (like spouting out hateful, dismissive rhetoric like "Rabid SJW") to actually be toxic?
If it is just the rules that treat this behavior as acceptable, and the moderators feel differently, at what point does that separation no longer matter?
It's a little out of scope for this thread, but the paradox of tolerance remains a potentially useful piece of discussion considering recurring issues both the moderation team and the userbase has to deal with. It's a very fine line to try and walk, since draconian censorship of any dissenting view is clearly detrimental and in no one's best interests, but by the same token allowing constant irrational discourse without merit or basis will eventually drown or poison discourse that has merit and is otherwise rational. It's made even more difficult to deal with because many of the folks most prone to irrational discourse (here and everywhere else) are also the folks most prone to cries of persecution - again, whether or not those cries are meritorious.
There's no firm, universally accepted stance on where that line should be, especially since anyone on the wrong side of it is likely to protest pretty ferociously that the line is too far towards censorship. One must always beware of turning their community into an echo chamber, lest one ends up becoming mainstream news media and thus losing all excuse for their existence. But the fact that the line exists should be beyond doubt. There will always be a point where further tolerance of irrational, poisonous intolerance will accomplish nothing useful and that tolerance should be withdrawn. All we can really do as users, though, is offer advice on where that line should be and make our views felt.
For me, the line exists where someone is willing to acknowledge another's experiences/pain as valid, even if they disagree with those experiences. Someone who is unwilling to acknowledge another person's direct, lived-through experience is incapable of arguing in good faith, as they have rejected the most fundamental evidence one person can offer another. It is perfectly valid and reasonable to disagree with the product of another's experiences, the assumptions and positions derived from one's life experiences. "I lived through Experience A, therefore I hold Opinion X", can reasonably be answered with "I'm not sure if Opinion X necessarily has to follow Experience A. I think Opinion Y has more merit." It can, with care and caution, be reasonably answered with "I don't know if Experience A or Opinion X has relevance to Position G, which is what we were discussing."
"I lived through Experience A, therefore I hold Opinion X" cannot reasonably be answered with "I don't believe Experience A is real/valid" or "I don't think Experience A matters." That way lies dismissal, marginalization, and ostracization, none of which a community can long withstand endorsing.
Please do not contact or message me.
Any news on this front? The site is suffering more than ever with the issues discussed here, there were some mods open to several of the good suggestions posted here. The site is in desperate need of many of the improvements discussed.
Actually, since this conversation the mods implemented new rules and I, for one, was happy about the progress I saw in the moderation of this site. Take a look:
https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/d-d-beyond-general/news-announcements/208663-site-rules-guidelines#1-1-hate-speech
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!