Timeline for We're more aggressively enforcing self-moderation in chat
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 5, 2018 at 8:32 | comment | added | user287266 | @user1306322 In that specific instance, chat moderation tools were practically unused. Bans were extremely rare, usually short, with longer bans often lifted by more lenient moderators, and the room frozen only once or twice ever. Not only were the chat moderation tools poor, but there was a fundamental lack of agreement on how to use them or whether to use them, with room owners, local moderators, and off-stack moderators often having very different opinions on how to handle any given situation. It wouldn't have mattered what tools were available, because at its core it's people problem. | |
| May 4, 2018 at 12:11 | comment | added | user1306322 | Maybe it is fine now, but it could have been resolved earlier if the chat moderation tools were improved sooner. Now we don't have the option of referring to that incident and giving specific examples on how that situation could have been handled with better tools. So we don't have useful information to base our new propositions off of. It's certainly a loss, but I hope we can manage to push the improvements without that. As I said, there are many sides to withholding seemingly "useless to the public" information. | |
| May 4, 2018 at 9:23 | comment | added | Discrete lizard | @user1306322 In general, being able to test the assertions of others is good. However, I think that the reasons the room was deleted and not merely closed weighs stronger than letting people that were not involved in the particular chatroom test whether the actions actually occurred, when we have the meta post explaining the important points. In other words, I don't think the exact transcript is any of our business. You may disagree with this, but this is why I think the current situation is fine. | |
| May 3, 2018 at 22:07 | comment | added | user1306322 | @Discretelizard I am not against a summary by any moderators who wish to share their point of view, quite the contrary. I like it when we have all the good data to review published and open. I don't like it when we're basically told what to think without any concrete data to draw our own conclusions from. Don't you agree with that idea? | |
| May 3, 2018 at 19:25 | comment | added | Discrete lizard | @user1306322 Well, I'd rather have a summary by a mod that explains the systemic problem than sifting through transcripts to come to the same conclusion. While I do understand that you'd like to understand this example precisely, I think the value in the actual content wrt to the lesson to learn from it is minimal. But it seems we disagree here. | |
| May 3, 2018 at 17:32 | comment | added | user1306322 | @Discretelizard a transcript would let each user read it, learn and decide on their own. We would have concrete examples of specific messages to study and talk about. I don't understand how that's not obvious to everyone. | |
| May 1, 2018 at 12:11 | comment | added | Discrete lizard | While those discussions don't have transcripts, the meta posts do describe what lead to the room removal. I suppose you would have to take Shog's word for it as for what really happened, but what would a transcript really add? Is it not clear from the descriptions given what should and what shouldn't have been done to avoid room removal? | |
| May 1, 2018 at 12:08 | comment | added | Joonas Ilmavirta | @Discretelizard Pointing at a whole room is not very specific. Excerpts from the transcripts clearly pointing out specific symptoms of the problems would be great. | |
| May 1, 2018 at 12:00 | comment | added | Discrete lizard | While I can't speak for others, there are concrete instances of room removal for reasons described more clearly here. From what I gather (not having witnessed the behaviour in the room), the main reason why the room was deleted is not multiple users engaging in disruptive behaviour, but from multiple users not listening to others asking them to stop said behaviour. | |
| May 1, 2018 at 11:44 | history | answered | Joonas Ilmavirta | CC BY-SA 3.0 |