A behavioural view of toxicity & moderation on MS

[Ircher]

I agree that game moderators should be more proactive in stopping toxicity. Most of the time, I see toxicity get out of hand, and it is only well after the fact that the moderator steps; that is, the moderator steps in only after the damage has occurred. And as Isis points out, the game moderator tends to be in the best position to determine what counts as toxic and what does not count as toxicity. Not only do they set the rules (and therefore the standard), they are also impartial arbiters and the closest such arbiter to the game itself. Finally, as long as you apply a consistent standard, most people will be receptive to the game moderator stepping in and adjust their behavior appropriately.

I also think that like Isis points out, having examples and nonexamples at the universal site level would go a long way towards making the process more objective. As it stands, the toxicity line seems rather subjective, and while I think the majority of people who have gotten banned for toxicity deserved it, a bit more transparency would never hurt. It would also help make it much clearer for each individual player what is allowed and not allowed. Having it as it is currently (a sort of gray area) is confusing and doesn't help prevent toxicity in games because players do not know what counts as excessive toxicity. Examples and nonexamples help both players and the site moderators to get on the same page and make the entire process more objective and transparent.

[Ircher]

Why was Firebringer banned and The Fonz not banned? Why are there such inconsistencies in the punishment?

Can someone on the moderating team respond?

Context matters. Posts like these dont mean anything. Its only inconsistent when you take a glance at the posts in solitude, the situations preceding both of them were quite different.

I don't fully agree with this.

Yes, context matters, very much so. But at the same time, I don't think context gives people a license to be rude to each other. That is, everyone should strive to follow the golden rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

[Ircher]

why not just let the appeal process be more public. If I appeal a ban the site can publish all the discussions of whatever was said in reference to my ban and then site itself can decide whether it was a good or bad decision.

Again the problem is the black box approach to bans.

I don't think crowdsourcing appeals is a good idea. If you look at the old ban "announcement" thread, you will notice that many of those decisions ended up being super controversial, but ultimately, I think listmods are in the position because they can make an objective an fair decision. Unlike the users, they have a lot of information and context as well as knowledge of the past warning and ban history. Even with more of that being revealed, they often take their time to evaluate each situation thoroughly. That's just something I don't think the community in general will do.

[Ircher]

I'm not arguing against releasing more information, I am arguing against having the ultimate decision of to ban or not to ban rest with the community. I do believe that more transparency is a good thing, in part because it encourages consistency and uniformity.

To be clear: I am suspicious of the ability for the community in general to honestly evaluate each ban decision and decide whether it was appropriate or not. I question it not because I don't believe in people's good will, but rather it is a complicated thing to do, and it is hard to overcome and isolate oneself from one's preconceived notions, biases, and relationships.

(Also, I don't think and don't expect the mods to get it right every time either. Because again, it is really hard to make those ban decisions objectively. At the same time, they have processes in place to help make the issue manageable, so I do expect they would make a better decision as a result.)