Current Events > the new moderation system seems to address things nobody cared about anyway

(+) Yeah! (+)

like, having hyped up change and development for a while, to most notably clamp down on name calling just seems like such a non-event.

most of the shitposting on CE can be tied back to repeated gimmick/trollbait accounts (of which there are many) and generally abhorrent stuff that seems to go largely unpunished. just seems counterproductive to tie the hands of the mods in terms of using their own judgement/familiarity with boards to mod things accordingly while expanding their ability to uhhhh counter rampant name calling.

the knock-on effect of that, of course, is that you can have people p much openly advocate for eugenics or racial superiority or something and have them go unpunished but somebody could then rack up 'non deletion' warnings for rightly calling them out.

is weird is all
---

NinjaBreakfast posted...

the knock-on effect of that, of course, is that you can have people p much openly advocate for eugenics or racial superiority or something and have them go unpunished

Not sure how many times you guys are going to make this completely nonsense claim.
---

You realize admiral that you undermine your own point trying to make defenses like those
---

P4wn4g3 posted...

You realize admiral that you undermine your own point trying to make defenses like those

I'm defending anything, I'm clearing up this fiction that people are posting pro-racial superiority comments and not being modded here. That's delusional.
---

If that were the case you'd be banned.
---

When they made that topic about potential changes, the mindset put forth was their belief the rules need to be relaxed further, which was utter nonsense.

Cracking down more on one type of abusive posting is a step in the right direction.

The site still needs to seriously work on how it handles trolling and harassment but, well, this is a start.
---

P4wn4g3 posted...

If that were the case you'd be banned.

Must be really uncomfortable for you when reality is this detached from your desired narrative.
---

Tmk posted...

When they made that topic about potential changes, the mindset put forth was their belief the rules need to be relaxed further, which was utter nonsense.

Cracking down more on one type of abusive posting is a step in the right direction.

The site still needs to seriously work on how it handles trolling and harassment but, well, this is a start.

I'm disappointed that Allen decided to try your way. We've been down that road. Of course it's a little different when the moderation in question is no more than a notification. A little.
---

The Admiral posted...

P4wn4g3 posted...

If that were the case you'd be banned.

Must be really uncomfortable for you when reality is this detached from your desired narrative.

You constantly bring up race tangentially and act as if it is eberyone's private motive. Even in this topic it was what you seized on. If you want to fit into my "narrative" then don't act like a racist.
---

Link to the posts that advocate racial superiority, eugenics, or whatever other nonsense you claim is happening.
---

Nomadic View posted...

Link to the posts that advocate racial superiority, eugenics, or whatever other nonsense you claim is happening.

https://www.gamefaqs.com/community/Nomadic+View
---

Oh my! Better get to marking those posts!
---

The Admiral posted...

P4wn4g3 posted...

If that were the case you'd be banned.

Must be really uncomfortable for you when reality is this detached from your desired narrative.

Id imagine it is, why dont you fill us in?
---

@NinjaBreakfast posted...

the knock-on effect of that, of course, is that you can have people p much openly advocate for eugenics or racial superiority or something and have them go unpunished but somebody could then rack up 'non deletion' warnings for rightly calling them out.

I'm trying to follow your logic here. Because you can't verbally attack someone posting something racist it means they are going to be unpunished for it?

I'd warn, or potentially flat out suspend someone on a clean history for trying to argue for genocide. Just because you can't go reply "you're a racist" doesn't mean that we suddenly allow everything under the sun.
---

Error1355 posted...

@NinjaBreakfast posted...

the knock-on effect of that, of course, is that you can have people p much openly advocate for eugenics or racial superiority or something and have them go unpunished but somebody could then rack up 'non deletion' warnings for rightly calling them out.

I'm trying to follow your logic here. Because you can't verbally attack someone posting something racist it means they are going to be unpunished for it?

I'd warn, or potentially flat out suspend someone on a clean history for trying to argue for genocide. Just because you can't go reply "you're a racist" doesn't mean that we suddenly allow everything under the sun.

I have seen plenty of users (trolls and otherwise) delicately skirt around the more...difficult elements of their own ideology or recommended course of action in order to try and remain onside with the TOS and despite it being plainly obvious what they are suggesting, they avoid punishment. By comparison, it is a lot harder to let's say call out somebody for that in an indirect manner. It's the weasel words element.

Also I saw a user get warned for advocating nuking an entire country before and saying it was the humane course of action lol
---

P4wn4g3 posted...

I'm disappointed that Allen decided to try your way. We've been down that road.

The site has indeed been down that road before, and the boards were better back then.

People complained about being moderated back then, and they still do that today anyway, no matter how relaxed the rules become. People just don't want to be moderated, period, but they're more than happy to see people they don't like moderated. That's the common person's idea of fairness.

The rule relaxation accomplished little else but degenerate the boards as a whole while still having plenty of people complaining about being modded.

Like what does it even add to the quality of the board to be able to call people "shitposter" or "dumbass" or whatever freely? What is worth preserving in that?
---

NinjaBreakfast posted...

Error1355 posted...

@NinjaBreakfast posted...

the knock-on effect of that, of course, is that you can have people p much openly advocate for eugenics or racial superiority or something and have them go unpunished but somebody could then rack up 'non deletion' warnings for rightly calling them out.

I'm trying to follow your logic here. Because you can't verbally attack someone posting something racist it means they are going to be unpunished for it?

I'd warn, or potentially flat out suspend someone on a clean history for trying to argue for genocide. Just because you can't go reply "you're a racist" doesn't mean that we suddenly allow everything under the sun.

I have seen plenty of users (trolls and otherwise) delicately skirt around the more...difficult elements of their own ideology or recommended course of action in order to try and remain onside with the TOS and despite it being plainly obvious what they are suggesting, they avoid punishment. By comparison, it is a lot harder to let's say call out somebody for that in an indirect manner. It's the weasel words element.

Also I saw a user get warned for advocating nuking an entire country before and saying it was the humane course of action lol

Maybe youre just improperly inferring something that theyre not actually saying.
---

NinjaBreakfast posted...

I have seen plenty of users (trolls and otherwise) delicately skirt around the more...difficult elements of their own ideology or recommended course of action in order to try and remain onside with the TOS

There is no ToU friendly way to advocate for the things you claimed people would get away with. (Advocating for genocide/eugenics.)

This argument is inherently incorrect.

NinjaBreakfast posted...

By comparison, it is a lot harder to let's say call out somebody for that in an indirect manner. It's the weasel words element.

If someone's posting something offensive just mark it for moderation. You 'name calling' them in the topic they posted the offensive shit in isn't going to do anything beneficial.
---

Okay let's just save the TC and Error some time:

Here's the problem: trolls on GameFAQs are trying to upset people, make them have negative reactions. Because what they're doing is with forethought and they're being disingenuous, and thus detached from the subject, it's easy for them to worm around the rules to have the maximum impact while also having the minimal infringement on the rules. Whereas those affected by their trolling will be responding on reaction, out of emotion, and will not be as likely to exhibit the same mindfulness of the rules in how they respond, making it more likely for them to be punished than the one deliberately provoking it.

That is frustrating for users of this site, and all too commonplace. And the mod response to people complaining about this has never been helpful, and often just makes users feel worse.

This very argument has essentially taken place 1000+ times over the course of this site's history. I see no point in either party continuing this 1001th time unless someone has thought of a way to break the cycle this will go through.
---

Tmk posted...

P4wn4g3 posted...

I'm disappointed that Allen decided to try your way. We've been down that road.

The site has indeed been down that road before, and the boards were better back then.

People complained about being moderated back then, and they still do that today anyway, no matter how relaxed the rules become. People just don't want to be moderated, period, but they're more than happy to see people they don't like moderated. That's the common person's idea of fairness.

The rule relaxation accomplished little else but degenerate the boards as a whole while still having plenty of people complaining about being modded.

Like what does it even add to the quality of the board to be able to call people "shitposter" or "dumbass" or whatever freely? What is worth preserving in that?

How were the boards better? I don't remember them being better.
---

P4wn4g3 posted...

How were the boards better? I don't remember them being better.

Shit-stirrers and overly disruptive and antagonistic posting were moderated much more easily, and harshly, which slowed the spread of it and the power it had over the boards.

It can't stop someone determined enough from shitting up a board, but back then it took determination. It took hassling with inconveniences.

With the rules overly relaxed, what once required making lots of new accounts regularly people now do on one account, for years, seldom even being modded. It allows any casual troll to be as effective as the most dedicated no-lifers.

It really hit me hard when some time back I was looking for a topic or two on an older game board, looking through some archived topics. These were before the rule relaxation, and I saw some people in a couple starting shit, being antagonistic. It was clear they were giddy with the thought of making a big scene of ugliness. And you know what else I saw? Moderated posts. And then it stopped, and the topic didn't spiral off into a 200+ post shitshow. Because when GameFAQs is strict about that it sends the message that is not supposed to be here. When GameFAQs doesn't moderate it, that sends the message "yeah go do that. It's fine and welcomed"

Fast forward to the experience on the game boards for sequels to that game and it's shitshow after shitshow, drama explosion after explosion. Trolls acting with impunity, picking and choosing to derail and ruin any topic into yet another pile of stupid bullshit and fighting. Little to no moderation, and what does get modded is more likely to be those being trolled or harassed than the ones perpetrating it, because like I said: a troll goes into it WANTING a fight, prepared for it, specifically doing things to cause and foster it. Someone targeted by that won't be prepared, will act out of emotion, and much more easily get modded as a result.

Doing a half-hearted approach to moderation, in turn, will mostly just benefit troublemakers willing to skirt the rules and catch people reacting out of line. Whereas a site that basically mods nothing that isn't legally imperative at least won't punish those targeted, but a strict site will punish those doing the targeting as well as those not just waiting for the troublemakers to get modded.

GameFAQs takes a half-hearted approach.
---

The thing that amazes me more about TC's claim of a plethora of racist shit posters is the people like TC are always the first to engage them and keep the threads/discussion going and going. Which is of course what trolls want. But people like TC love being as disingenuous as these trolls and pretend their enabling isn't part of the equation of why the new rules were put in place.

If something is really offensive; mark it, ignore it and move along. Race baiting and trolling is 99% of time transparent and being willfully self unaware that attention is your goal to is not helping.
---

Tmk posted...

Okay let's just save the TC and Error some time:

Here's the problem: trolls on GameFAQs are trying to upset people, make them have negative reactions. Because what they're doing is with forethought and they're being disingenuous, and thus detached from the subject, it's easy for them to worm around the rules to have the maximum impact while also having the minimal infringement on the rules. Whereas those affected by their trolling will be responding on reaction, out of emotion, and will not be as likely to exhibit the same mindfulness of the rules in how they respond, making it more likely for them to be punished than the one deliberately provoking it.

That is frustrating for users of this site, and all too commonplace. And the mod response to people complaining about this has never been helpful, and often just makes users feel worse.

This very argument has essentially taken place 1000+ times over the course of this site's history. I see no point in either party continuing this 1001th time unless someone has thought of a way to break the cycle this will go through.

Yeah p much
---

thanosibe posted...

The thing that amazes me more about TC's claim of a plethora of racist shit posters is the people like TC are always the first to engage them and keep the threads/discussion going and going. Which is of course what trolls want. But people like TC love being as disingenuous as these trolls and pretend their enabling isn't part of the equation of why the new rules were put in place.

TC is definitely one of the insults-first users here who will have to change his behavior under the new rules, but that's not a bad thing for anyone. Already, I've noticed an improvement in the civility of discussions here.
---

Tmk posted...

P4wn4g3 posted...

How were the boards better? I don't remember them being better.

Shit-stirrers and overly disruptive and antagonistic posting were moderated much more easily, and harshly, which slowed the spread of it and the power it had over the boards.

It can't stop someone determined enough from shitting up a board, but back then it took determination. It took hassling with inconveniences.

With the rules overly relaxed, what once required making lots of new accounts regularly people now do on one account, for years, seldom even being modded. It allows any casual troll to be as effective as the most dedicated no-lifers.

It really hit me hard when some time back I was looking for a topic or two on an older game board, looking through some archived topics. These were before the rule relaxation, and I saw some people in a couple starting shit, being antagonistic. It was clear they were giddy with the thought of making a big scene of ugliness. And you know what else I saw? Moderated posts. And then it stopped, and the topic didn't spiral off into a 200+ post shitshow. Because when GameFAQs is strict about that it sends the message that is not supposed to be here. When GameFAQs doesn't moderate it, that sends the message "yeah go do that. It's fine and welcomed"

Fast forward to the experience on the game boards for sequels to that game and it's shitshow after shitshow, drama explosion after explosion. Trolls acting with impunity, picking and choosing to derail and ruin any topic into yet another pile of stupid bullshit and fighting. Little to no moderation, and what does get modded is more likely to be those being trolled or harassed than the ones perpetrating it, because like I said: a troll goes into it WANTING a fight, prepared for it, specifically doing things to cause and foster it. Someone targeted by that won't be prepared, will act out of emotion, and much more easily get modded as a result.

Doing a half-hearted approach to moderation, in turn, will mostly just benefit troublemakers willing to skirt the rules and catch people reacting out of line. Whereas a site that basically mods nothing that isn't legally imperative at least won't punish those targeted, but a strict site will punish those doing the targeting as well as those not just waiting for the troublemakers to get modded.

GameFAQs takes a half-hearted approach.

Well I disagree, I didn't see much of a difference when the change was implemented in the first place, except that more innocent violations were put into context and generally ignored.
---

I've actually seen no decrease in the amount of unfair moderations that take place since the relaxation, and the inconsistency got even worse. I've been modded for things that weren't even moddable when the rules were strict, because the relaxation really just widened greatly the gap of what is "moderator discretion"
---

He's not exactly wrong. Did anyone give a crap about name calling?

Then I suppose the difference is you get modded a bunch and I don't and you're complaining from a purely reactionary standpoint. I used to get modded a lot a long time ago, but that was a lifetime ago. I do have some NWDs but I was wanting to see what they were like. IMO it comes down on how much good the rule does opposed to the harm it does. I may change my mind if somehow these trolls that have been here since the site's inception just disappear. Mostly though this will just punish people who are otherwise doing no harm.
---

Tmk posted...

I've actually seen no decrease in the amount of unfair moderations that take place since the relaxation, and the inconsistency got even worse. I've been modded for things that weren't even moddable when the rules were strict, because the relaxation really just widened greatly the gap of what is "moderator discretion"

Stop flaming.
---

P4wn4g3 posted...

IMO it comes down on how much good the rule does opposed to the harm it does.

The inability to immediately insult people in any topic is not going to cause any harm.
---

define "generally abhorrent stuff", please.

The Admiral posted...

P4wn4g3 posted...

IMO it comes down on how much good the rule does opposed to the harm it does.

The inability to immediately insult people in any topic is not going to cause any harm.

That's certainly a simple way to look at it. Obviously it goes beyond that though. Now you can't make friendly insults for example without breaking the rules.
---

P4wn4g3 posted...

Then I suppose the difference is you get modded a bunch

No.

P4wn4g3 posted...

and you're complaining from a purely reactionary standpoint.

Also no.

My standpoint is "I saw how the boards used to be, and I saw how they changed when the rules were relaxed. The change was demonstrably for the worse and it became far more toxic and disrupted"

The rule relaxation did not solve neither the problem of inconsistent logic/moderating from the staff, nor did it solve the problem of potential light abusive behavior from mods. What it did do however is empower trolls, wholesale.

And there's two schools of thought on the issue of trolls on this site. One side is like, I think it's more reasonable for the people being upset, to just...not be upset. To go against basic human instinct, to conduct oneself with robotic control over how one feels (a level of control that does not reasonably exist), and simply don't be bothered or provoked by things literally designed to provoke or bother you, that are hammered into your face persistently.

The other school of thought is hey, we have rules, like against being disruptive and trolling, and we have mods, and we're expected, as users, to mark posts that are shitting up the place. So maybe it's on the staff to maintain some order and quality control.

One of those solutions straight up does not work with humanity. It is incompatible with humans to just expect people to not ever be bothered by things designed to bother them.

So it's a question of is GameFAQs going to be a site with rules and that tries to maintain order and a semblance of quality or is it going to let the boards continue to be overrun with trolling and become a shitshow reviled across the internet off-site.
---

The rule relaxation was about a lot more than just trolling/flaming -- the ability to swear, much geater latitude on sexual/offensive discussions, loosening the silly disruptive posting rules, getting rid of asinine trolling classifications (* below), being less extreme with illegal activities, and generally employing more common sense in only going after things that disrupt the boards. Most of those were good things, but it did go too far with allowing "light flaming," and that became excessive. CE is one of the best examples of how that rule was abused.

You're right that mods/this site needs to find a better way to deal with serial trolls, harassment, and garbage alts, but this change is still a good first step towards better discussion.

*

"Average Joe" is a trolling term since it's completely an opinion. "Overachieving" is also an opinion. - SBAllen

---

P4wn4g3 posted...

If that were the case you'd be banned.

Much as I dislike Admiral, I've never seen him say anything remotely close to that, and I've never seen such a statement go unmoderated.

To Tmk- I can agree with that sentiment to a certain degree, but I can also troll to extremes if I feel like under the current system. There is too much faith in these frail rules that can be changed at a whim to "protect" us. Really it does always come down to individuals to act appropriately. The issue of problem users coming back and causing problems time after time has always been complex, and the users band together to defend their community against those types as people tend to do. This is all aside from some frivolous issue of me flaming you because I called you sugar or whatever. You aren't solving anything regarding bad users with this. The one thing it does do, definitively, is that it sets in stone a place where flaming is defined. This may help some users, but I have a hard time imagining there were that many people who couldn't grasp that rule.
---

its all in your head, TC...the stuff your are talking about are made up bullshit faucets of your imagination that you want to pass off as excuses to be racist on a video game messageboard.....give it up, everybody can clear see your desperation.
---

voldothegr8 posted...

Tmk posted...

I've actually seen no decrease in the amount of unfair moderations that take place since the relaxation, and the inconsistency got even worse. I've been modded for things that weren't even moddable when the rules were strict, because the relaxation really just widened greatly the gap of what is "moderator discretion"

Stop flaming.

NO.

feel like this rule change affects maybe a handful of people
---

All in all time will tell with this. I don't feel like it's a step in the right direction due to how strict it is. The backlash will be well deserved. The telling signs here I think will be how the staff decides to keep to the spirit of the law rather than the letter.
---

The Admiral posted...

NinjaBreakfast posted...

the knock-on effect of that, of course, is that you can have people p much openly advocate for eugenics or racial superiority or something and have them go unpunished

Not sure how many times you guys are going to make this completely nonsense claim.

He's probably a left winger. They trade in nonsense claims.
---

Did anyone give a crap about name calling?

Mods did. And this is where it started to go off the rails.

We had a topic or two asking for user opinions, but then this was mostly hammered out from mods and (on a higher level) a legal team so terrified of any potentially negative message that this place once tried to ban quotations from news articles as "plagiarism."

The namecalling thing just smacks of mods wanting an easier time with whatever's in the queue, as opposed to terms that would be easier on users. If only they could get themselves a "mod all" checkbox at the top of the list, they wouldn't have to review at all.

Here's the problem: trolls on GameFAQs are trying to upset people, make them have negative reactions. Because what they're doing is with forethought and they're being disingenuous, and thus detached from the subject, it's easy for them to worm around the rules to have the maximum impact while also having the minimal infringement on the rules. Whereas those affected by their trolling will be responding on reaction, out of emotion, and will not be as likely to exhibit the same mindfulness of the rules in how they respond, making it more likely for them to be punished than the one deliberately provoking it.

I'm curious why even with this concession, you're still in favor of stricter terms which will be harder on everyone else. Under your scenario it would mean the troublemaking accounts would be able to cause problems for 5-10 people, instead of just 1-2 emotional responses that got really out of line. It inconveniences way more people, and presumably does nothing about the troublemaking accounts you're thinking of. When that issue gets brought up, you'll notice that mods respond with the usual ambivalence meaning nothing's going to change there. Meanwhile they've removed the grey area to prioritize zero tolerance for namecalling. Why is this approach not taken on the bigger problem?
---

Karma needs to mean something again, it's the only solution....and no more bullshit where buying 10 shirts can get your all these free Karma
---

I remember a topic on CE not long ago where a guy was claiming jackass wasn't flaming, and citing little rules and things and he apparently skirted the rules like this all the time. The issue in his case wasn't that he didn't understand the rule but rather that he took advantage of it. In the end the mods enforced the moderation in his case since he was problematic. What is wrong with that system?
---

Ive seen mods post very liberal slanted statements before, especially on the politics board. Until the mods become more diverse politically, a lot of this shit is near irrelevant.
---

it was revealed that the mod staff had to debate over whether 'get fucked' was closer in effect to saying 'fuck you' or 'fuck off' and that it would have been moderated differently depending on their decision should in itself reveal how misplaced the rule priorities can be
---