A Big Proposal

Summary:

In Which Troy Makes a Moose-Style Post

page 1 of 212next »

A Big Proposal

TroyL 13 Sep 2014 00:20

Due to the recent problems in chat, I've decided to make a short proposal and list out a few issues and make a short proposal and a codified guide to what people should do in specific situations.

Problems:

1. We're getting an influx of trolls, spammers, and people looking to just generally be jackasses.
2. OP reactions have been getting more and more harsh, in addition to becoming more severe for lesser problems.

This sort of 'started' when Moose removed +R from Site19, but even then, it wasn't a massive flood. We had a few more moments of idiocy, but Pixel's work with the new bot and a few more OPs and HalfOPs made everything work out well enough. The real issue started when one of the Youtube's biggest guys gave us a popularity boost we weren't expecting. Now, this is pretty cool, but keep in mind that it's been a long time since we've dealt with a giant influx (not since the first bump from the games), and this is the first one we've experienced without +R (which we originally added due to the number of raids and spammers we'd gotten).

So, a few proposed guidelines:

1. Standardized System of Punishment: An order of events that isn't really circumvented by people's opinions. Effectively, this means that our given pattern of action is set: first offense, kick; second offense, 24 hour ban; third offense, week ban, fourth offense, permanent. At any time, the only alternative suggestion to this would be "permanent", and it would need to be for a clearly negative behavior, be it trolling, spamming, or other significant issue. In these cases, a multiple operative vote would be required. We currently have in excess of fifteen people with OPs, most of whom are active, so I'm going to recommend four or five.
2. Recognition of Duty over Eliteness: The position of operator does not place you 'above' other users. You are not inherently better than someone without operator status, nor are you more special. You've been given the job because you've been trusted with the ability to remove threats and problems. You are not an elite, god-like user. You're a deputy. Acting like you're better than the people you're interacting with is just a good way to encourage them to regard you with contempt (and thereby, all other people in your position). Doing this is the fast track to removal, regardless of how effective you are as an OP.
3. Getting Alternative Opinions: Human beings have a tendency to look for validation of their actions from others. Furthermore, they have a tendency to find people who validate their actions often. If you're asking the same person over and over again "Do you think I'm being too harsh?" or "Do you think I'm right?", and they're always agreeing with you, you're not getting a second opinion. You're just getting someone who agrees with you to rubber stamp what you want to do. If you're not certain someone needs to be banned/kicked/disciplined, then ask someone who thinks differently than you do, even if they're not always an OP.
4. Annoying Little Gits: Banning someone for being annoying¹ is only acceptable if all attempts (and there must be at least one) to help them understand their issues have failed. If you're not being successful, bring in someone more patient or experienced. You know if you have a short fuse for idiots; pass them off if necessary. As an aside: You can't actually quantify stupid. When you ban someone for being annoying, go with your gut, and ask others if you've overreacted (See #3). If a reasonable attempt has been made, then a ban is your only option.

I'd also like to recommend, since people are having trouble coping with the influx, that we change the environment and add +R back for a while. We can manage easily if we're not getting promoted offsite, but when we are, not having +R active is leading to an influx so large that it's not easily handled, even with a number of OPs.

Finally, I'd like to add on a few things that probably need to be addressed:

• There is a tendency for us to promote and then ignore. Effectively, if you're not doing anything or not active, it doesn't matter so much. This is an oversight of both the site and the chat. Inactivity should be addressed by removal from Operator Status.

• Additionally, I further propose a review board to ensure that no one operator is abusing their status. Once a month, the chat owner and two OPs — randomly determined and constantly rotating — sit down and review the actions taken over that month. If +R is up, this shouldn't be quite as daunting as it is right now.

Edit: Correcting a typo that Eskobar decided to be a douche about instead of simply pointing out.

Footnotes

1. Annoying being officially defined as: "Being a significant, continued disruption to conversation for no reason other than a desire for attention

---

"WELL FOUNDATION. YOU MADE IT SO EASY. SO VERY VERY EASY." - dimensionpotato

Last edited on 15 Sep 2014 00:03 by TroyL Show more

Re: A Big Proposal

pxdnbluesoul 13 Sep 2014 02:30

My thoughts on this.

Standardized System of Punishment: An order of events that isn't really circumvented by people's opinions. Effectively, this means that our given pattern of action is set: first offense, kick; second offense, 24 hour ban; third offense, week ban, fourth offense, permanent.

This is already the intended system of punishment as eluded to on the Chat Guide, so it's a matter of operators doing this consistently.

If you're not certain someone needs to be banned/kicked/disciplined, then ask someone who thinks differently than you do, even if they're not always an OP.

SSSC is probably the best place for this.

Annoying Little Gits

I think your definition is important. If a user is getting under the skin of an op, but the rest of the channel is going with the flow, the op might end up being a bigger disruption than the user. Everyone reacts to different kinds of irritation in different ways. If you find yourself getting unreasonably angry with a user, you should probably pass that user on to someone else if possible.

I'd also like to recommend, since people are having trouble coping with the influx, that we change the environment and add +R back for a while.

I'm torn on this. I get that it'll limit spammers and outright trolls. But those are the fastest to deal with. Those aren't the users that we're having consistent problems in disciplining. Our problem seems to be with users that probably aren't bothered by the need to register. I can go either way on this but I don't think it's going to solve any notable problems.

There is a tendency for us to promote and then ignore. Effectively, if you're not doing anything or not active, it doesn't matter so much. This is an oversight of both the site and the chat. Inactivity should be addressed by removal from Operator Status.

Looking at 19 right now nobody really meets that criteria but whatever floats your boat.

Additionally, I further propose a review board to ensure that no one operator is abusing their status. Once a month, the chat owner and two OPs — randomly determined and constantly rotating — sit down and review the actions taken over that month. If +R is up, this shouldn't be quite as daunting as it is right now.

This would be metamoderation, or moderating the behavior of the moderators. It's a pretty good system to have. On paper it's fine. In theory, that probably means 40-60 disciplinary actions to go over, and you've got to balance that much peer review with people's schedules. I would recommend that the op staff instead need to indicate whether or not they felt the action was appropriate in the user's thread after it goes up. Your "four or five" from the first point is probably a good number, much like deleting an article. A simple "I agree with this action" is fine, disagreeing should probably include an alternative way to handle the situation.

Last edited on 15 Sep 2014 00:05 by TroyL Show more

Re: A Big Proposal

Adam Smascher 13 Sep 2014 06:01

There is a tendency for us to promote and then ignore. Effectively, if you're not doing anything or not active, it doesn't matter so much. This is an oversight of both the site and the chat. Inactivity should be addressed by removal from Operator Status.

It should be clear that inactivity constitutes not participating in chat, and not some frequency of exercise of op powers, so that your ops don't think they need to be Big Man In Charge and go full retard with the hammer to be doing their jobs, and also so it doesn't seem like a competition between ops to be the first to drop it.

Last edited on 13 Sep 2014 06:04 by Adam Smascher Show more

Re: A Big Proposal

weizhong 13 Sep 2014 00:28

The point that I most agree with (and which was the main focus of discussion during SSSC today) is bullet number 2. I've spoken of this at length as an important issue, but I think that really setting it down is an important step to solving the issue.

My one issue with this proposal is the re-addition of +R. A large portion of our new users in the chat as of now use the Mibbit web-app, and are also not registered. I feel that moving back to +R temporarily would only confuse issues with people trying to get into chat. In addition, things like +R also discourage people from getting onto chat at all. Registration is annoying for a lot of people, especially those who perhaps only want to jump onto chat for a quick question and then jump off.

I think that we can get by with keeping +R off. The rest of the proposal I wholeheartedly agree with, though I am questioning how the random selection for OP review will be done.

Re: A Big Proposal

(account deleted) 13 Sep 2014 00:38

Seconding this guy who wrote more words so I don't have to.

Re: A Big Proposal

TroyL 13 Sep 2014 00:47

On +R:

I'm not talking about flipping the switch all at once. Notifications and reminders would be given, an announcement on site, and a notice in the topic of Site19. There are ways to make sure people know that it's coming. It may cause confusion, but it could also take a bit of the load off of the OPs, which is the goal I was aiming at.

On the Review Board:

I use the list randomizer at random.com on my exams to randomize options. It's as easy as tossing in a list of available OPs (minus the ones from the month before), hitting randomize, and picking the top two.

---

"WELL FOUNDATION. YOU MADE IT SO EASY. SO VERY VERY EASY." - dimensionpotato

Re: A Big Proposal

Dexanote 13 Sep 2014 00:48

I'm a fan of this proposal.

I'm also a fan of the standardized four step process to ban. Clearer and can be bent if particularly unique circumstances arise. #4's caveat is a godsend, holy shit. Dealing with 'just annoying kids' has been our Kryptonite around here.

#2 and #3 kind of go hand in hand, and warrant a reminder. I mean its fine to joke that we're supergods that hold law and order in our hands but please guys. We're fallible and need to work as a team.

I'm split on +R. On one hand +R for a little while should help deal with the sheer amount of knobs we've been dealing with. They're not even that dedicated, making it harder to join will scare most of them off. On the other, its probably a better idea to just try and be dilligent and efficient with the process we use now, and keep +R off unless its absolutely necessary.

Re: A Big Proposal

djkaktus 13 Sep 2014 03:24

I pretty strongly agree with all of this. Consistency, and being uncertain of the next action to take, have both been the largest problem areas I think we've run into (at least, in the short time that I've been a h-op). Standardizing that, and making sure the chat users are aware of it, will absolutely help smooth things over.

On +R, I support the idea with the note that, like you said, we're thorough in our explanation of how it works, when it's being implemented, and what to do if users run into trouble. I assume that 17 would remain without +R, which means that users with problems could just head over there for an explanation.

Re: A Big Proposal

DrKens 13 Sep 2014 16:31

Coming back for a brief moment to ask…don't we already have a standardized set of rules? Right now, it seems to me that it's more of an issue for OPs behaving consistently than updating the rules. Again.

No comments on the other points, as I am of the same mind.

Re: A Big Proposal

thedeadlymoose 13 Sep 2014 23:14

Coming back for a brief moment to ask…don't we already have a standardized set of rules? Right now, it seems to me that it's more of an issue for OPs behaving consistently than updating the rules. Again.

Right, but this represents alterations that may make them easier to stick to.

---

A more general note: I strongly support parts of this and I'm more… let's say ambivalent about other parts. (Troy already knows which!)

However, I'm waiting to hear from more people before crystallizing my thoughts.

I do want to specifically comment on what Nusquam said, though, since that wasn't part of Troy's proposal. The childish language aside (:P) I think it's a very good point.

We have a few ops who I'm okay with having a low level of activity, and they all already specifically know who they are. But as a general rule, community participation is important, not just frequency of hammer-wielding. "so it doesn't seem like a competition between ops to be the first to drop it" in particular is very important.

Re: A Big Proposal

Adam Smascher 14 Sep 2014 00:35

Hey, man… Hey.

All right, man.

You get the idea.

The watching the watchmen part is a good idea. I'd like to suggest not only pulling the review board from ops, though, and perhaps not at all. Chat regulars ought to suffice. Even if not drawn from exclusively, non-op chat regulars would be good to include. Get some civilian oversight up in the bitch. Best if it wasn't regulars, specifically, but just random people. Ask them how long they've been in chat, what they think about it, about what's discussed, opinions about or suggestions for how it's run. General, non-loaded questions to get their honest opinions. It'd also let you know who you might consider for op in the future.

Re: A Big Proposal

Eskobar 14 Sep 2014 03:05

Regarding the four parts in order:

1. I would consider this a good idea if we literally did those steps in that order. Keep in mind that you left out any sort of verbal warning preceding the initial kick. If you want to make the kick the fundamental unit of "tut tut don't do that", I'm all on board.

As is, though, I think ops need to be trusted to recognize situations where the standard response isn't warranted (that is, the present setup). For example, since you mention "an order of events not affected by someone's opinion", in the event that numerous users are joining and spamming in the channel at once, and I am of the opinion that they're a botnet, under this system, I'm still obligated to follow the same process with every nick I see on the screen, because what if they're just a newbie who's role-playing a part of a botnet because they don't know better?

(And before you say "well, of course not in those situations," that's opinion being used to circumvent the order of events, and this setup looks pretty well determined to avoid that.)

I've been less active in the last couple of weeks than I was all summer (during which I was nigh-ubiquitous, and particularly during the worst part of the flood), but I'd like to see specific logs of these enormous op overreactions, and if they're happening as comparatively infrequently as I think they are, I'd like them to be viewed in context with the fact that — and those ops who were present during the worst of the flood can testify — just how goddamn well the situation as a whole was handled.

2. Good, but in the sort of obvious sense. If there are specific ops who are behaving in an op sense with this mentality, they should be specifically addressed; I would think this goes without saying.

3. If this is talking about a mandatory Tenth Man doctrine or a mandatory devil's advocate position with regards to op decisions, I'm tentatively fine with that; more objectivity and neutrality is always better. That being said, if it has the effect of making op decisions impossible because you just took a group of people who have trouble acting in the face of contrary minority opinions and just fiated the existence of a contrary minority opinion at all times, it might prove more problematic than it would obviously seem.

4. Nnnnnnnno, you just said that banning someone for being annoying requires at least one attempt to explain to them that they're being annoying (from #4), followed by a kick (from #1), followed by a determination of why the person should be banned and an attempt to find someone with an alternate opinion to ensure that the action is appropriate (from #3), followed by a 24-hour ban, followed by a week ban (making a 48- or 72- hour ban impossible even if ops think it's warranted, since that would be an opinion that shouldn't be circumventing the standard order of events), followed by a permaban. If that seems like a more efficient system than "keeping ops with trusted judgment around and having confidence that their actions are appropriate for maintaining chat in a healthy condition", then sure, let's go for it. I'm still pretty in favor of the second one, though.

I don't really think -R has been a problem; we would have had plenty of annoying gits of various stripes, trolls, and spammers after the Markiplier thing no matter what happened, and removing +R has allowed for some cool people to come across our door this past summer. Ops seem to have the situation controlled to the extent that +R would be redundant, and the added hassle of "let me tell you how to register a nick" every hour on the hour in 17 no longer seems worth it to me.

I'm totally for the latter two things; remove inactive ops, presumably after a lengthy inactivity, and provide constructive critique for op behavior, like a supervisory evaluation. Not so much for the other things. Again, show me the logs of these egregious op behaviors and I'll see if I develop a different opinion. But nothing I saw of the actual situations ops faced this past summer make me have anything but confidence in their general judgment and ability to do the work. If individual ops have made individual mistakes in individual circumstances since then, they should be addressed in those contexts. But I don't think some massive systemic or paradigm overhaul is really the answer.

Edit: Removing repeated douchey references to a typo Troy made.

Last edited on 15 Sep 2014 00:20 by Eskobar Show more

Re: A Big Proposal

Crayne 15 Sep 2014 09:31

Standardized System of Punishment: An order of events that isn't really circumvented by people's opinions. Effectively, this means that our given pattern of action is set: first offense, kick; second offense, 24 hour ban; third offense, week ban, fourth offense, permanent. At any time, the only alternative suggestion to this would be "permanent", and it would need to be for a clearly negative behavior, be it trolling, spamming, or other significant issue. In these cases, a multiple operative vote would be required. We currently have in excess of fifteen people with OPs, most of whom are active, so I'm going to recommend four or five.

You would need to record every step of said process somewhere, because with more than fifteen people with Op or Half-Op status, chances are they're going to repeat steps, leap over one or more etc. This requires a shitload of discipline on everyone's behalf.

Recognition of Duty over Eliteness: The position of operator does not place you 'above' other users. You are not inherently better than someone without operator status, nor are you more special. You've been given the job because you've been trusted with the ability to remove threats and problems. You are not an elite, god-like user. You're a deputy. Acting like you're better than the people you're interacting with is just a good way to encourage them to regard you with contempt (and thereby, all other people in your position). Doing this is the fast track to removal, regardless of how effective you are as an OP.

Well duh. It made my dick grow a few inches, but I'm still human.
I keed; it shrunk, actually.

Getting Alternative Opinions: Human beings have a tendency to look for validation of their actions from others. Furthermore, they have a tendency to find people who validate their actions often. If you're asking the same person over and over again "Do you think I'm being too harsh?" or "Do you think I'm right?", and they're always agreeing with you, you're not getting a second opinion. You're just getting someone who agrees with you to rubber stamp what you want to do. If you're not certain someone needs to be banned/kicked/disciplined, then ask someone who thinks differently than you do, even if they're not always an OP.

Conversely, people need to approach others proactively if they feel they're being too harsh. If I fuck up, tell me. I'm supposed to be an adult and I can handle it when I make mistakes and you call me on it.

Annoying Little Gits: Banning someone for being annoying1 is only acceptable if all attempts (and there must be at least one) to help them understand their issues have failed. If you're not being successful, bring in someone more patient or experienced. You know if you have a short fuse for idiots; pass them off if necessary. As an aside: You can't actually quantify stupid. When you ban someone for being annoying, go with your gut, and ask others if you've overreacted (See #3). If a reasonable attempt has been made, then a ban is your only option.

Agreed?

I'd also like to recommend, since people are having trouble coping with the influx, that we change the environment and add +R back for a while. We can manage easily if we're not getting promoted offsite, but when we are, not having +R active is leading to an influx so large that it's not easily handled, even with a number of OPs.

I personally don't think this is necessary, especially not if the points above are addressed/enacted.

There is a tendency for us to promote and then ignore. Effectively, if you're not doing anything or not active, it doesn't matter so much. This is an oversight of both the site and the chat. Inactivity should be addressed by removal from Operator Status.

Yes it should. And that goes for the wiki too, but I suppose that's another story. I guess we're back to the "we should run this like a company" discussion that's popped up intermittently, but the fact that this is not a paying job does not make it any more important that you pull your weight. And if you don't, those above you should simply call you on it and discuss how to solve any problems that might exist, be they practical, emotional or other wise¹.

Additionally, I further propose a review board to ensure that no one operator is abusing their status. Once a month, the chat owner and two OPs — randomly determined and constantly rotating — sit down and review the actions taken over that month. If +R is up, this shouldn't be quite as daunting as it is right now.

Sounds like a good thing, but make sure you don't get bogged down in procedures for everything. There's a reason red tape is responsible for the majority of suicides worldwide².

Footnotes

1. I have no specific people in mind, just saying. Also, no using the SCP private jet for quick trips to Barbados.

2. This is not true. I am a liar.

That thread summary though

Riemann 15 Sep 2014 13:54

I'm ok with most of this proposal. The Standardized System of Punishment section I'm not sure I agree with. As it's been pointed out before, it's a good idea in theory. It would work beautifully without people. As Crayne said, it requires a shitload of discipline to log every quantum of disciplinary action, which would probably end up in people tripping over themselves. It's also directly contradicted by part 4, which says we can eschew the standardised system if we find someone sufficiently annoying. Yes, I'm grossly oversimplifying. But it's kind of an ugly rule set if they start to contradict each other¹.

I'm all for rules 2 and 3. We definitely need to get more consensus from other ops and users, and it's always good to keep a level and un-inflated head about the op position.

Now, as to +R, op activity, and op review -

I'm rather opposed to +R. I think it ends up punishing new users who haven't registered their nicks yet. I don't think it's that hard of a process, mind you, but as site17 used to be 50% "how do I register", there's apparently some issue here. I'm also not sure how well +R would prevent the flood of people, but that's a lack of data issue.

No opinion on demoting inactive ops.

MetaOPing. I'm not sure we need the rigour of a full review of every op, every month. OPs were (hopefully) promoted because we can trust them not to abuse power, right? It might just be easier to just get an op review for a controversial ban - mark it down, flag it, etc. There's a huge volume of just mundane bans that we go through monthly.

Footnotes

1. Let's not be the Standard Model of ops here. Love it to death, but it's ugly

Re: That thread summary though

FlameShirt 15 Sep 2014 23:24

MetaOPing. I'm not sure we need the rigour of a full review of every op, every month. OPs were (hopefully) promoted because we can trust them not to abuse power, right? It might just be easier to just get an op review for a controversial ban - mark it down, flag it, etc. There's a huge volume of just mundane bans that we go through monthly.

Kinda worried about this because 95% of my opping is just shitposting people into obedience. Do I have to produce paperwork for this or what? :P

---

butts

Re: That thread summary though

Riemann 16 Sep 2014 01:38

In triplicate.

Re: That thread summary though

FlameShirt 16 Sep 2014 02:01

pls no

---

butts

Re: A Big Proposal

thedeadlymoose 15 Sep 2014 22:27

Just as a side note, if we standardize the punishment system further, we should also think about standardizing ban extensions.

EDIT: Ops & half-ops are ALREADY required to log anything above the level of a kick (IE any ban). This is mandatory. It's the kick logging you guys are referring to, presumably.

Last edited on 15 Sep 2014 22:29 by thedeadlymoose Show more

Re: A Big Proposal

Crayne 16 Sep 2014 07:09

What I was talking about is recording disciplinary steps taken in a manner that makes it easy to see which steps have already been taken. While we all presumably log everything we do, wading through an entire thread to see how many kicks, warnings etc. a user has gotten before deciding on the next step is going to be hell. I'd recommend putting a simple table in the opening post of all new chat user threads, containing all the steps we'd take, and cross them off once they've been taken.

Step	Taken
Step 1	X
Step 2	X
Step 3	X
Step 4	X
Step 5	X

Something like that.

Last edited on 16 Sep 2014 10:00 by Crayne Show more

Re: A Big Proposal

djkaktus 16 Sep 2014 09:44

I second this, if it's the route we end up going down. This is a good idea.

Like This

AdminBright 16 Sep 2014 21:31

Or, maybe, something as simple as declaring what step they are on when you report them, say, in the topic?

---

Admin, SCP Wiki

Re: A Big Proposal

Adam Smascher 16 Sep 2014 05:40

I'm gonna go ahead and echo what seems to be the general sentiment of a few people that while process and review is great, and recording decisions and trends, such as bans or repeat instances of a user requiring attention, is essential, there's a balance to be struck between that and affording ops room to exercise their own best judgement in a scenario. As has been said, they're ops because their judgement is to no small extent trusted.

So, provided decisions, general trends, and suchlike, are noted here on the forum, as is and has been general practice, there's a venue for everyone to review each action taken and be made aware of possible future problems on a case-by-case basis, and provide their thoughts thereon. Which was what was meant to happen, and happened, in my experience. And case-by-case is the way to go, I think. May not be perfect, but nothing and no one is, and I worry that in trying too hard to make it so, we're liable to sail right on by what we're aiming for, and make it a hassle, unnecessarily, for everyone.

The goal is a conversational chat room for SCP enthusiasts, where ideas might be swapped and inspiration shared, as often results from thoughtful conversation. We don't need to try to make that happen, we just have to let it. So, favoring a light touch and deescalation: rather than warning as first recourse, speaking without pretense, pretext, or with reference to rules, and taking things on a case-by-case basis from there, is the way to go, I think. Be reasonable and afford benefit of the doubt. Each instance where intervention beyond reasoned discourse is necessary - warnings, kicks, tempbans, and bans - should be recorded, judgements subject to discussion, scrutiny, and reversal where applicable. We have to be patient enough to let that happen.

So, I would say that some general progression of escalation should be outlined, but should not be touted as The One True and Only Acceptable Procedure, and we don't need any kind of three-strikes policy, or mandatory punishments for infractions. Those kinds of things usually just lead to the people in charge coming down harder than is actually necessary, when they aren't second-guessing themselves.

The randomized or semi-randomized review/peer evaluations thing is a really, really good idea, though. Just so long as those doing it understand they're not necessarily failing if they're not finding themselves passing out indictments, and they're willing to say when they feel it's necessary, and explain their reasoning when they feel it is. Which is what they were trusted to be able to do when/if they were made ops, coincidentally. And that "if" is why I think it's best if the review pool was pulled from the general chat population, rather than simply old regulars or current ops. Nobody (no, not even ops) would be obligated to participate, and could refuse to for any reason or without reason given, but either way, it will be demonstrated by our conduct that we care enough about fairness to ask ourselves if we are, rather than just insist we are, and people tend to respect that.

To that end, I suggest that it not be obvious to those on the review board who else is on it with them, aside from the chat owner. Have them use one-time, randomly assigned throwaway nicks while doing it. Chat owner or whoever is conducting it knows who they are, but they won't recognize each other; have your reviewers anonymous and honest.

I think a review board size of five should be considered. Chat owner or chat admin trusted to run it in their stead, and a randomly-selected review panel guaranteed to consist of at least 1 op, and at least 1 randomly selected volunteer from chat with no chat or site authority. The other two would be luck of the draw, with equal chance of being an op, hop, or random chat user. Doing it in this way, including non-ops, should ideally allow us to objectively recognize general trends in our collective behavior, if such are emerging, and take steps to correct them if those trends are undesirable, as well as bringing attention to questionable judgement or conduct of certain specific ops, if such exists.

I have no idea what this post contains by this point, so godspeed and make of it as you will.

Last edited on 16 Sep 2014 05:49 by Adam Smascher Show more

Re: A Big Proposal

(account deleted) 16 Sep 2014 10:48

Each instance where intervention beyond reasoned discourse is necessary - warnings, kicks, tempbans, and bans - should be recorded, judgements subject to discussion, scrutiny, and reversal where applicable. We have to be patient enough to let that happen.

So, I would say that some general progression of escalation should be outlined, but should not be touted as The One True and Only Acceptable Procedure

Gotta agree with this

Re: A Big Proposal

Pixeltasim 16 Sep 2014 10:53

I agree with this post as well.

page 1 of 212next »