Community Vote: Public Ban Appeals Subforum

[Clove Darkwave]

As requested and discussed in the latest SotU thread, here's the community poll for whether or not you folks want a Public Ban Appeals Subforum that is optional to use instead of the staff email (Which will remain an option regardless of this outcome for those who value privacy and discretion.)

Cast your votes and submit/discuss your ideas. After one week from today I will lock this thread/poll and we'll discuss the whole thing internally for the next SotU update.

[jcstinks]

I'm voting "no." It will only create unneeded theatrics, and will solve nothing.

No one who gets banned for cause will be rightfully unbanned due to public appeal. The public literally cannot add new information that is material and relevant to the case.

I trust the moderation staff to only ban people who deserve it. That's why they are the moderation staff, and not someone else.

[#00Buck]

Sounds good. 

Maybe attach a two option poll to the threads?

Agree with infraction. Disagree with infraction. 

Then mods can gauge the reaction of the forum at large.

Is it possible to make a poll thread that allows voting only and not posting? 

That would keep things simple. 

Mods would have the final call on the decision but the poll would let them know if something is really right on or going to cause a riot. 

I have a feeling that some issues will be very controversial and infractions will have far more to do with how people personally feel about these issues than anything else. 

 

[Ieono]

I just feel that this could be abused by habitual "offenders." I feel that the mod team is competent and reasonable enough not to ban someone unless it was necessary. I just don't understand why this would be necessary...

[Clove Darkwave]

I want to add that this poll does not promise anything in any particular outcome.

It is for the staff to get a better feel for what the majority of the community would like.

[#00Buck]

10 minutes ago, Ieono said:

I just feel that this could be abused by habitual "offenders." I feel that the mod team is competent and reasonable enough not to ban someone unless it was necessary. I just don't understand why this would be necessary...

I think most people won't challenge their infractions. 

If you want a format it could be:

Poster = Defendant

Mod who gave infraction = Prosecution

Neutral Mod = Judge

Forum Users = Jury or Court gallery audience. 

I think it would be interesting to let the poster choose trial by judge or trial by jury. 

[jcstinks]

4 minutes ago, #00Buck said:

I think most people won't challenge their infractions. 

If you want a format it could be:

Poster = Defendant

Mod who gave infraction = Prosecution

Neutral Mod = Judge

Forum Users = Jury or Court gallery audience. 

I think it would be interesting to let the poster choose trial by judge or trial by jury. 

That sounds dreadfully complex for infractions on a furry forum.

[#00Buck]

14 minutes ago, jcstinks said:

I'm voting "no." It will only create unneeded theatrics, and will solve nothing.

No one who gets banned for cause will be rightfully unbanned due to public appeal. The public literally cannot add new information that is material and relevant to the case.

I trust the moderation staff to only ban people who deserve it. That's why they are the moderation staff, and not someone else.

Were you even a member of the old forum? If you were you'd probably be more wary of blindly trusting people to moderate the forum.

Blindly trusting people to moderate in a responsible fashion just because they have the title is foolish. 

Poop moderation is what leads to the collapse of a forum. 

[Ieono]

Just now, #00Buck said:

I think most people won't challenge their infractions. 

If you want a format it could be:

Poster = Defendant

Mod who gave infraction = Prosecution

Neutral Mod = Judge

Forum Users = Jury or Court gallery audience. 

I think it would be interesting to let the poster choose trial by judge or trial by jury. 

From what I have observed over the years, the people being given infractions are usually habitual offenders, especially on forums with good mods. Why add a feature just because it would be "interesting?"

I've never received an infraction on both this and the other forum. I never understood why it is so hard for some people to act like they have some sense and err...behave. I mean...why would someone just get on a forum to act a fool and blatantly insult people on a regular basis? Oh yeah, because that's fun for some people. Well you know what else is fun? Seeing those people get banned. I can understand having a bad day, or joining in on an isolated incident to mix things up a bit. But, making your whole online "persona" revolve around being an annoying, hateful person is just not what most people want to be around.

And so many people seem to confuse harassment with satire. The two definitely aren't the same thing. If you want to continuously deride someone for things that they did in the past, that's harassment. If you want to deride a ridiculous situation while it is still fresh, that's satire. Although, if a person makes a habit of being a reactionary idiot, then there isn't much anyone can do to save them from their own stupidity. The term "village idiot" comes to mind, in that case. 

[#00Buck]

1 minute ago, jcstinks said:

That sounds dreadfully complex for infractions on a furry forum.

That's your opinion but you're only one person and you only get one vote. 

I don't think it is that complex. 

You appeal. You state your case. Judge mod decides. 

Done. 

That's simple. 

It is perhaps the same number of steps as sending an email and having a group of mods discuss the issue anyways.

The only difference is that it happens in the open so it is more likely to be a fair decision. 

[jcstinks]

Just now, #00Buck said:

Were you even a member of the old forum? If you were you'd probably be more wary of blindly trusting people to moderate the forum.

Blindly trusting people to moderate in a responsible fashion just because they have the title is foolish. 

Poop moderation is what leads to the collapse of a forum. 

Yes, I was an active member of FAF for three years.

I might recommend against a trial system for infractions. It seems a bit too much, as this is a social forum. If the moderation staff is bad enough that we need to have a system like this, my first inclination would be to ask for new moderators. My second would be to leave for another forum, because I am in a place where the facilitators are either a.) so untrustworthy or b.) so incompetent that they cannot keep affairs in order without actual, literal trials.

[#00Buck]

1 minute ago, Ieono said:

From what I have observed over the years, the people being given infractions are usually habitual offenders, especially on forums with good mods. Why add a feature just because it would be "interesting?"

I've never received an infraction on both this and the other forum. I never understood why it is so hard for some people to act like they have some sense and err...behave. I mean...why would someone just get on a forum to act a fool and blatantly insult people on a regular basis? Oh yeah, because that's fun for some people. Well you know what else is fun? Seeing those people get banned. I can understand having a bad day, or joining in on an isolated incident to mix things up a bit. But, making your whole online "persona" revolve around being an annoying, hateful person is just not what most people want to be around.

And so many people seem to confuse harassment with satire. The two definitely aren't the same thing. If you want to continuously deride someone for things that they did in the past, that's harassment. If you want to deride a ridiculous situation while it is still fresh, that's satire. Although, if a person makes a habit of being a reactionary idiot, then there isn't much anyone can do to save them from their own stupidity. The term "village idiot" comes to mind, in that case. 

I've seen people get banned simply because moderators don't like them. So my experience is different and we really don't want this place to turn into the kind of toxic environment that existed in other places. 

1 minute ago, jcstinks said:

Yes, I was an active member of FAF for three years.

I might recommend against a trial system for infractions. It seems a bit too much, as this is a social forum. If the moderation staff is bad enough that we need to have a system like this, my first inclination would be to ask for new moderators. My second would be to leave for another forum, because I am in a place where the facilitators are either a.) so untrustworthy or b.) so incompetent that they cannot keep affairs in order without actual, literal trials.

What if you ask and they say no?

[Ieono]

Just now, #00Buck said:

I've seen people get banned simply because moderators don't like them. So my experience is different and we really don't want this place to turn into the kind of toxic environment that existed in other places. 

I have seen the same thing pal, but they were very rare occurrences, and usually made by mod teams that everyone knows is rotten. As jcstinks said, our current mod team hardly seems rotten, and I'd be more open to the idea if we did have a rotten moderation staff. But then again, how useful would it be if most of the mods were rotten? Haha

[#00Buck]

Just now, Ieono said:

I have seen the same thing pal, but they were very rare occurrences, and usually made by mod teams that everyone knows is rotten. As jcstinks said, our current mod team hardly seems rotten, and I'd be more open to the idea if we did have a rotten moderation staff. But then again, how useful would it be if most of the mods were rotten? Haha

Exactly!

We have good mods now. But that could change. If it does change the rotten mods will never leave. 

The whole idea is to put a system in place now while things are good so that if rotten people do come in they are detected quickly and removed from the moderator group so the forum stays healthy. 

If you wait until the mod staff becomes rotten there is no way to implement any change. Then the forum is screwed. 

At the very least the most simple way to have a public appeal process is to have a moderator other than the one who gave the infraction to publicly uphold it or deny it.

Sending an email to the exact person who just gave you an infraction is pointless. If they just gave it to you they would never take it back. 

The whole point of the appeal process is to keep the forum healthy on a permanent basis. 

[Kinare]

As requested by Willow, repeating my SotU post here:

I do like the idea of public appeals, however, I feel it should be very restricted in who can and cannot respond to such threads. I feel that no one other than the person appealing, the mod who issued the ban and a neutral mod (who will also make the final confirmation on if the ban is sticking or can overturn it) should be allowed to respond. That should keep it from turning into a bigger shit flinging fest than it might be by default. It may also be worth it to have one mod (maybe not even a mod, just someone that is a designated "mediator") dedicated to doing only appeals so there's less chance for conflict of interest. I can hear someone shouting that it will be one-sided towards the mods regardless, but this seems like the best solution to avoid that.

[jcstinks]

2 minutes ago, #00Buck said:

I've seen people get banned simply because moderators don't like them. So my experience is different and we really don't want this place to turn into the kind of toxic environment that existed in other places. 

What if you ask and they say no?

Just like in real life, I'd vote with my feet.

For example, If I go to a real-life meetup group that's badly run and not enjoyable, and the facilitator won't listen to reason, I just go somewhere else. There are plenty of other places to go. I can still talk to people I like from here in the chat, or on messenger, the mainsite, wherever.

I worry that an intense focus on the rules will only bog us down in pedantry, pettiness, and other theatrics.

I also worry that it puts unneeded stress on the people who volunteer for this forum. They are treated poorly. Very, very poorly. A small number of people on this forum make constant reports to harass them and catch them in petty semantic mistakes. I, at least, want to vote that I appreciate the time they put into making this community run by letting them do the jobs they volunteered to do. Subjecting the moderators to such scrutiny communicates to them that we don't trust them well enough to do their jobs. It's micromanagement, really, and micromanagement is generally resented by everyone subject to it.

The reason I voted "no" on this is to communicate to the staff that I respect them, and to let them know I appreciate them for doing a service to make this forum possible.

[Ieono]

1 minute ago, #00Buck said:

Exactly!

We have good mods now. But that could change. If it does change the rotten mods will never leave. 

The whole idea is to put a system in place now while things are good so that if rotten people do come in they are detected quickly and removed from the moderator group so the forum stays healthy. 

If you wait until the mod staff becomes rotten there is no way to implement any change. Then the forum is screwed. 

At the very least the most simple way to have a public appeal process is to have a moderator other than the one who gave the infraction to publicly uphold it or deny it.

Sending an email to the exact person who just gave you an infraction is pointless. If they just gave it to you they would never take it back. 

The whole point of the appeal process is to keep the forum healthy on a permanent basis. 

Damn, I helped your argument!

Haha, what you are saying does have merit, Buck. I understand the pros a bit better now, thanks. 

[#00Buck]

1 minute ago, Kinare said:

As requested by Willow, repeating my SotU post here:

I do like the idea of public appeals, however, I feel it should be very restricted in who can and cannot respond to such threads. I feel that no one other than the person appealing, the mod who issued the ban and a neutral mod (who will also make the final confirmation on if the ban is sticking or can overturn it) should be allowed to respond. That should keep it from turning into a bigger shit flinging fest than it might be by default. It may also be worth it to have one mod (maybe not even a mod, just someone that is a designated "mediator") dedicated to doing only appeals so there's less chance for conflict of interest. I can hear someone shouting that it will be one-sided towards the mods regardless, but this seems like the best solution to avoid that.

If you want it super simple then just have a neutral mod either agree or disagree with the infraction. 

That's very simple and can be done quickly and publicly. It is also more fair than appealing to the person who just infracted you. 

[Clove Darkwave]

6 minutes ago, #00Buck said:

Sending an email to the exact person who just gave you an infraction is pointless. If they just gave it to you they would never take it back. 

Going to clarify this because it is not 100% accurate.

The email goes to all of the staff, not any one in particular.

[#00Buck]

2 minutes ago, jcstinks said:

Just like in real life, I'd vote with my feet.

For example, If I go to a real-life meetup group that's badly run and not enjoyable, and the facilitator won't listen to reason, I just go somewhere else. There are plenty of other places to go. I can still talk to people I like from here in the chat, or on messenger, the mainsite, wherever.

I worry that an intense focus on the rules will only bog us down in pedantry, pettiness, and other theatrics.

I also worry that it puts unneeded stress on the people who volunteer for this forum. They are treated poorly. Very, very poorly. A small number of people on this forum make constant reports to harass them and catch them in petty semantic mistakes. I, at least, want to vote that I appreciate the time they put into making this community run by letting them do the jobs they volunteered to do. Subjecting the moderators to such scrutiny communicates to them that we don't trust them well enough to do their jobs. It's micromanagement, really, and micromanagement is generally resented by everyone subject to it.

The reason I voted "no" on this is to communicate to the staff that I respect them, and to let them know I appreciate them for doing a service to make this forum possible.

This is why I'd prefer no moderation at all. 

The whole reason why this is an issue is because the amount of moderation on the forum is increasing. That is what is causing concern. 

There will soon be a great many topics and issues that you will no longer be able to talk about.

At some point if this is to become a child and parent friendly forum certain words will be banned. 

I think we all need to have a say in how far censorship goes. 

Yes people will vote with their feet. If everyone leaves because moderation is out of hand the forum will suck again. 

The whole point is to make this place better not worse. 

[Kinare]

5 minutes ago, #00Buck said:

If you want it super simple then just have a neutral mod either agree or disagree with the infraction. 

That's very simple and can be done quickly and publicly. It is also more fair than appealing to the person who just infracted you. 

Essentially, that's what I'm proposing. However, each side should have the opportunity to state their case to the "judge" beforehand, not just the judge coming in with whatever info they already know based on what someone told them privately or what the OP says and preemptively stating their verdict. When it's pretty straightforward a simple "ok, you broke these rules and that's why you were banned, pretty ez" will do, but there will probably be cases where it's not that simple because rules may not have blatantly been broken or other things were left up to someone's judgement.

Edited March 11, 2016 by Kinare

[#00Buck]

11 minutes ago, Clove Darkwave said:

Going to clarify this because it is not 100% accurate.

The email goes to all of the staff, not any one in particular.

Yes, but is there any guarantee that everyone reads it?

That everyone discusses it?

I mean it might not even get opened. There is no way for anyone to check this. 

Again this is why doing it in public is important. 

People need to know things are getting done and they are getting done fairly. 

 

9 minutes ago, Kinare said:

Essentially, that's what I'm proposing. However, each side should have the opportunity to state their case to the "judge" beforehand, not just the judge coming in with whatever info they know or after only hearing one side and stating their verdict. When it's pretty straightforward a simple "ok, you broke this rules and that's why you were banned, pretty ez" will do, but there will probably be cases where it's not that simple because rules may not have blatantly been broken or other things were left up to someone's judgement.

Yes, I was suggesting a more simple system for people who think letting people state their case would be too time consuming.

I do agree with you. 

I really think appeals would be important where someone who is a moderator is particularly sensitive about an issue and takes something personally. 

For example if a mod was a baby fur and someone made a diaper comment which the mod found offensive they might ban someone simply because they got emotional. 

Having a difference of opinion on your favourite topic should not be a reason to ban someone. That's why some balance is needed. 

Otherwise as the forum becomes more moderated, and more of a hug box which will happen as the forum become less tolerant of wild stuff, it will not turn into an echo chamber for people who share the views of a handful of moderators. 

@6tails and @Zaraphayx I know you feel strongly about moderation so you should get in here and vote etc.

Edited March 11, 2016 by #00Buck

[Clove Darkwave]

8 minutes ago, #00Buck said:

There will soon be a great many topics and issues that you will no longer be able to talk about.

At some point if this is to become a child and parent friendly forum certain words will be banned.

I'm not sure where this idea comes from. There's no such thing being discussed, stated, or considered as far as I'm aware of. I would quit if this became even remotely true.

[Kinare]

Damn, you caught all my typos/odd wordings before I edited them out. Slow down. D:

6 minutes ago, #00Buck said:

Yes, I was suggesting a more simple system for people who think letting people state their case would be too time consuming.

I gotcha, but if you're gonna go to the trouble of doing this sort of thing, ya may as well do it the less easy but right way instead of the easy way filled with flaws.

[jcstinks]

4 minutes ago, #00Buck said:

This is why I'd prefer no moderation at all.

There are certainly some forums that get by with no moderation.

I worry that this one may not be well-suited to that; without moderation, people can act heinously without repercussions. The "good" people tend to leave, and the troublemakers stay to make it their own personal haven. Like draws like; if there are enough obnoxious people, and they are left to their own devices, they will be the only ones left.

Some degree of quality-control and peacekeeping can vastly improve the forum experience by getting rid of the worst of the worst.

4 minutes ago, #00Buck said:

There will soon be a great many topics and issues that you will no longer be able to talk about.

At some point if this is to become a child and parent friendly forum certain words will be banned.

So far, there have been no movements to restrict anything other than actual, explicit pornography. And even that is only to be restricted to an 18+ subforum. Maybe. If it happens. We may need more cause to worry that a "slippery slope" is occurring quite yet.

Remember, we're only discussing whether hardcore pornography can be posted in public areas. To do so does not necessarily indicate that we will be more restrictive of other in the future.

Heck, even FAF never banned the use of any words other than racial slurs, and they could be incredibly strict.

As it is, people are free to post about pretty much anything and everything as long as it isn't completely ridiculous or insulting.

4 minutes ago, #00Buck said:

The whole point is to make this place better not worse. 

Of course, this is what we all want.

[#00Buck]

1 minute ago, Clove Darkwave said:

I'm not sure where this idea comes from. There's no such thing being discussed, stated, or considered as far as I'm aware of. I would quit if this became even remotely true.

My understanding is that the forum is to be a place where young people are allowed. 

It was voted on if the forum would be adults only or not and the vote went against adults only. 

Does it not make sense that swear words and mentions of particular sex acts will eventually have to be removed if this is to be a parent and child friendly environment? 

2 minutes ago, Kinare said:

Damn, you caught all my typos/odd wordings before I edited them out. Slow down. D:

I gotcha, but if you're gonna go to the trouble of doing this sort of thing, ya may as well do it the less easy but right way instead of the easy way filled with flaws.

I agree. I'm just adding in a few half way measures that are really sensible and easy just in case the "no" vote ends up being higher than I expect. 

After all some transparency is better than none. But you and I are totally on the same page. 

[#00Buck]

5 minutes ago, jcstinks said:

So far, there have been no movements to restrict anything other than actual, explicit pornography. And even that is only to be restricted to an 18+ subforum. Maybe. If it happens. We may need more cause to worry that a "slippery slope" is occurring quite yet.

No this is not true. Red that following cut and paste from the State Of The Union. 

The slippery slope has already started and it isn't just about images. It is also about what you are allowed to talk about including your own personal experiences. 

Quote

 

For clarification on the current rules on PAF, most of what the NSFW rule’s for is embedding images or video content that contains explicit images or media (i.e. Pornographic videos). We already know that there’s a few threads posted here with what constitutes NSFW content and we will try to alter it a bit without being too prudish or too liberal.

We understand that users will make jests about sexual content in the fandom, outside of the fandom, etc. We’re (most of us) are all adults.  All that we ask is use your better judgement and do not go above Rated R for the most part and tag your threads containing content not suitable for work NSFW so people have some warning beforehand. That includes threads with videos, images (Hotlinked), etc.

Additionally, we know that many users are open about their own personal sexual experiences and while we do not want to discourage discussion, we simply ask that all discussion of this nature not become too explicit.

 

Who decides where to draw the line on what is "explicit?" 

This is one area where I can see an appeal process being warranted. 

[willow]

7 minutes ago, #00Buck said:

My understanding is that the forum is to be a place where young people are allowed. 

It was voted on if the forum would be adults only or not and the vote went against adults only. 

Does it not make sense that swear words and mentions of particular sex acts will eventually have to be removed if this is to be a parent and child friendly environment? 

That was mostly spearheaded by Lemon because of potential legal issues. Nothing ever came of it other than label your NSFW stuff or make it so only people who are 18 and older can see it and to not be really explicit when talking about sexual topics 

other than that I don't think making this a family friendly environment was the intent

 

[#00Buck]

3 minutes ago, willow said:

That was mostly spearheaded by Lemon because of potential legal issues. Nothing ever came of it other than label your NSFW stuff or make it so only people who are 18 and older can see it and to not be really explicit when talking about sexual topics 

other than that I don't think making this a family friendly environment was the intent

 

If you are going to allow people under 18 in the forum how can you avoid changing it to a family friendly environment?

Please explain to me how a parent would find it acceptable to find their 9 year old reading a thread about anal sex? 

You either have to clean this place up or make it 18+.

There is no mushy middle. Lemon was right. If you do it half way the forum will eventually end up in legal trouble. 

This is why I believe more and more moderation has to be on the way. There is no other choice. 

Edited March 11, 2016 by #00Buck

[Zeke]

49 minutes ago, #00Buck said:

 

Who decides where to draw the line on what is "explicit?" 

This is one area where I can see an appeal process being warranted. 

Stuff like this (NSFW)and Other stuff I found on Sofurry, but can't link it. >.>

(It's just a tl;DR of pounding some fox lady's snatch)

We are not saying or ordering "Don't", we are asking for a bit of common sense when discussing explicit things. If that's what you want, then i suppose we can go ahead and ignore such posts in the future.

[Endless/Nameless]

Lordy lordy, this is gonna be quite the the thread innit?

Ok. I'm planning on voting yes. I don't feel like getting deep cuz I don't fucking know what I'm sleepy I have to go to work in the morning yawn but anyway here's a few pros for ye all:

• Transparancy. Transparency is good. FAF wasn't/isn't transparent. No one likes FAF. Don't be like FAF. Embrace the crystalline. 
• Drama. What is it good for? Well for one, the risk of public outcry will keep present/future mods from from getting too cozy and making rash decisions. Plus they can better learn what the community wants from itself. And anyway, Public Ban Appeals Subforum or no Public Ban Appeals Subforum, people will still raise hell; don't make me describe pustules again.
• Accountability. Easier to be accountable out in the open. We see you picking your nose, stop it. 
• Morale. Keep the forumers involved. Better to feel like members of a greater whole rather than guests in Dracula's mansion. 

Am I delusional? 

But I won't cast my vote for a bit; you all get a chance to change my mind. 

[Vae]

On the topic of the forums being "family friendly": There is such a thing as PG-13.
A 15-year-old or whatever isn't held to the same moral restrictions as... say... an 8-year-old.
They're not allowed to look at porn and stuff, granted, but there are looser legal and societal restrictions on them.

On the forum topic, itself: I'm voting "yes" to the poll, but only to more serious cases, like extended bans.
I don't think we need to nitpick at every little insignificant thing that happens here. That would clutter up shit, waste way too much of the moderation's time, and encourage people to stamp their feet and start yelling when they don't get their way even moreso than they already do.
But long bans or permabans / closing major threads / etc I do believe warrant some community discussion.

[Ieono]

18 minutes ago, Vae said:

On the topic of the forums being "family friendly": There is such a thing as PG-13.
A 15-year-old or whatever isn't held to the same moral restrictions as... say... an 8-year-old.
They're not allowed to look at porn and stuff, granted, but there are looser legal and societal restrictions on them.

On the forum topic, itself: I'm voting "yes" to the poll, but only to more serious cases, like extended bans.
I don't think we need to nitpick at every little insignificant thing that happens here. That would clutter up shit, waste way too much of the moderation's time, and encourage people to stamp their feet and start yelling when they don't get their way even moreso than they already do.
But long bans or permabans / closing major threads / etc I do believe warrant some community discussion.

When put this way, it definitely sounds reasonable. 

I still wish that there was no reason for it, though. But, perhaps I am being idealistic. If we are going to act like a community, I suppose we shouldn't just let members of our community be expelled at the behest of a single individual, although I am not sure how that process works here. It does seem a bit more pleasant to come to a consensus on such things.

 

[PastryOfApathy]

Yeah, but I think it should be optional.

Not everyone wants their dirty laundry or grievances aired all over the goddamn place so we should be able to respect that. However if for whatever reason someone wants to make things public for the sake of transparency, to expose the mods as kitten-eating Nazis, or whatever it may be they should be allowed to do so.

EDIT: I just noticed it's already being proposed as optional. In that case yeah, pretty darn neato.

Edited March 11, 2016 by PastryOfApathy

[#00Buck]

11 hours ago, Rhíulchabán said:

Ehh, I don't think it's quite that black and white, there is a lot of "middle ground grey area" on the internet. NSFW is the biggest thing, and if that is under control (which an anal sex thread would be NSFW), then I don't see the problem. If a parent has a problem with their kid seeing swear words online then I'm pretty sure they won't let the kid on the internet to begin with in most cases.

It is a big problem in a legal sense for anyone who owns or hosts or admins etc. the forum.

Having under age children on a website that features pornographic content is a ticking time bomb.

Sorry you can't have both. It does not work that way on any website. 

Tagging something NSFW etc. will not help. If kids are allowed on here this place needs to be cleaned up going forwards. 

There has to be further restriction of posts. This is why I want some accountability and transparency. 

Anyone who thinks that porn and children mix on the internet without problems is sticking their head in the sand and ignoring a massive problem. 

 

 

[Zaraphayx]

13 hours ago, #00Buck said:

 

@6tails and @Zaraphayx I know you feel strongly about moderation so you should get in here and vote etc.

 

Hello I am here to post :^)

 

13 hours ago, jcstinks said:

I'm voting "no." It will only create unneeded theatrics, and will solve nothing.

No one who gets banned for cause will be rightfully unbanned due to public appeal. The public literally cannot add new information that is material and relevant to the case.

I trust the moderation staff to only ban people who deserve it. That's why they are the moderation staff, and not someone else.

 

I was banned wrongfully and didn't deserve it; two of the offending staff are still staff. I do not trust them implicitly for good reason.
 

13 hours ago, Ieono said:

I just feel that this could be abused by habitual "offenders." I feel that the mod team is competent and reasonable enough not to ban someone unless it was necessary. I just don't understand why this would be necessary...

Because this forum has a history of staff who leverage the rules against people that they don't like, or who post controversial content which generates a lot of extra work for them in the form of reports and/or consequential drama.

 

13 hours ago, Ieono said:

I have seen the same thing pal, but they were very rare occurrences, and usually made by mod teams that everyone knows is rotten. As jcstinks said, our current mod team hardly seems rotten, and I'd be more open to the idea if we did have a rotten moderation staff. But then again, how useful would it be if most of the mods were rotten? Haha

Or mod team still contains two staff and an administrator who presided over a period of inconsistent and capricious moderation as well as poorly defined rules. I am very wary of their actions going forward especially now that Lemon has stepped down when she was the member of the staff who was by far the most active in engaging members and taking their concerns to heart.
 

13 hours ago, jcstinks said:

Just like in real life, I'd vote with my feet.

For example, If I go to a real-life meetup group that's badly run and not enjoyable, and the facilitator won't listen to reason, I just go somewhere else. There are plenty of other places to go. I can still talk to people I like from here in the chat, or on messenger, the mainsite, wherever.

There are frankly not a whole lot of furry forums left worth visiting since many of us have already "voted with our feet" away from the rest of the shit shows and there's nothing left.

I'm standing my ground here when previously I would have left or committed suicide-by-mod because I feel we're in a unique position to cultivate a community that isn't plagued with the problems so pervasive in furry communities.


Anyway I voted yes on the basis of transparency and staff accountability, I am also not opposed to user commentary or voting because I ultimately believe that the combination of users+staff opinions is more relevant than simply staff when it comes to determining if a member is deemed disruptive enough to be considered persona non grata.

[Guest]

Lol I don't even know what ''Public Ban Appeals'' are

[Endless/Nameless]

I think what everyone is most concerned about is not that the mods are doing a bad job, cuz they've been doing fine (imo) lately, but rather that we want to take measures to ensure that we won't have problems in the future. 

17 minutes ago, Zaraphayx said:

There are frankly not a whole lot of furry forums left worth visiting since many of us have already "voted with our feet" away from the rest of the shit shows and there's nothing left.

I'm standing my ground here when previously I would have left or committed suicide-by-mod because I feel we're in a unique position to cultivate acommunity that isn't plagued with the problems so pervasive in furry communities.

This. So much this. This is why some of us are so vocal on these issues, and I think a lot of people forget it. We've got something valuable to protect here!!

[Zaraphayx]

1 minute ago, Endless/Nameless said:

I think what everyone is most concerned about is not that the mods are doing a bad job, cuz they've been doing fine (imo) lately, but rather that we want to take measures to ensure that we won't have problems in the future. 

I want to emphasize this actually, I have few issues with staff at the current time. I am just wary of the past and would rather not repeat history in the future.

[willow]

Something I want everyone to know is that, unless it's a blatant violation (i.e. embedding porn, constantly harassing members, etc.), we need a 2/3 vote to actually hand out warnings 

[Endless/Nameless]

1 hour ago, #00Buck said:

It is a big problem in a legal sense for anyone who owns or hosts or admins etc. the forum.

Having under age children on a website that features pornographic content is a ticking time bomb.

Sorry you can't have both. It does not work that way on any website. 

Tagging something NSFW etc. will not help. If kids are allowed on here this place needs to be cleaned up going forwards. 

There has to be further restriction of posts. This is why I want some accountability and transparency. 

Anyone who thinks that porn and children mix on the internet without problems is sticking their head in the sand and ignoring a massive problem. 

 

 

I dunno, #00Buck, I think this forum is a lot less NSFW than people make it out to be. With the current rules in place, there's no actual porn here or explicit sexual convos. Yes, there's dirty words and mentions of naughty stuff, but that's all over the Internet nowadays, even Facebook which (when I last checked) accepts children as young as 13. And discussions of fetishes/buttholes/etc are usually humorous and sarcastic, not exactly erotica. 

Yes, it's be nice to have age-locked sections in the future for those who feel the need, but that's beside the point. 

And this is all rather off-topic, and if people keep bringing this up you'll get folks running scared and then we really will become a nursery. 

[Zeke]

1 hour ago, Amiir said:

Lol I don't even know what ''Public Ban Appeals'' are

It's sounds more like a misnomer, because once you are banned from the forums you cannot post or PM anyone. The reason why the email's here is for those that cannot access it. Yes, it does get checked daily. I usually check it when I am at work and keep it up, as well as sharing documents through the drive for the staff to weigh on. 

9 minutes ago, 6tails said:

Most of us have the courtesy to label such things in the first place, so there's one bonus point for the forums.

Welllllllllll..... on the point of actual porn - yes, explicit sexual convos... not so much. And I'm just as guilty as others I can name. Sure it's rare but it's there.

Sometimes things bear repeating. I think this is a case of that.

Personally, I don't care that anyone has an explicit convo unless it goes overboard. However, y'all are adults. 

 

[Endless/Nameless]

15 minutes ago, 6tails said:

Welllllllllll..... on the point of actual porn - yes, explicit sexual convos... not so much. And I'm just as guilty as others I can name. Sure it's rare but it's there.

True, but it could be a lot worse. 

15 minutes ago, 6tails said:

Sometimes things bear repeating. I think this is a case of that  

Also true, but this issue always gets too full of scare tactics and potential misinformormation. I bored quickly of the last discussion. 

I think our current NSFW policy works pretty well. The current discussion of the matter got started by people concerned that the censorship will get worse and worse, but I don't see that happening if we'd just shut up and make what we've got work. 

[Endless/Nameless]

8 minutes ago, 6tails said:

NSFW !=SFLegally-underaged people. There's where proper controls need to come into play. Sure it seems moralistic but there are true ethical concerns to be addressed in the same stroke, so one can't easily dismiss this as some religious nonsense.

If there really is cause for concern (I personally think not), did your research into getting age-locked sections/posts for this place turn up anything?

[Zeke]

17 minutes ago, Endless/Nameless said:

If there really is cause for concern (I personally think not), did your research into getting age-locked sections/posts for this place turn up anything?

I believe 6tails did find something before in a previous thread, but it's up to Care to either choose a tech to help with updates or update it himself. 

[Endless/Nameless]

Just now, Zeke said:

I believe 6tails did find something before in a previous thread, but it's up to Care to either choose a tech to help with updates or update it himself. 

I don't want to sound grumpy, cuz I'm not, but that's the kind of thing we really should be being kept up-to-date on. 

[Vae]

2 hours ago, willow said:

Something I want everyone to know is that, unless it's a blatant violation (i.e. embedding porn, constantly harassing members, etc.), we need a 2/3 vote to actually hand out warnings 

While this is fair, we've also had issues with the actions taken by "majority vote" from the mod pool before on serious actions (like Zara's permaban).

While I do not feel like the mods are incapable of coming to conclusions on their own, people are also limited by the scope of their perspective.
Which is why it pays in some regard to have a lot more opinions to take information from (like the community at large) for serious issues.

It also creates an environment to shelter off these staff vs user conflicts, instead of them popping up in like... any thread the mods make after a controversial decision takes place.
Besides just fostering fairness, this is also good for the people that want to continue the discussion of the thread itself, but don't want to get caught up in the ban drama, or scroll through it for pages on end.
It provides a place where staff and users alike can go "Take it here, bruh. We're talking about the porn rules right now," while simultaneously not coming across as shitty censorship practices where users cannot talk about these things publicly at all.

And this wasn't solely a response to Willow's post. I'm just throwing more of my general opinion out there.
 

[Zeke]

6 minutes ago, Endless/Nameless said:

I don't want to sound grumpy, cuz I'm not, but that's the kind of thing we really should be being kept up-to-date on. 

It's more or less poking and trying to get it before letting people know "hey, this thing is coming and we want to update you on it to let you guys know".

While I agree that we should, but letting people know a status on something that may not be coming anytime soon sounds like an empty promise. 

Also:
https://invisionpower.com/files/file/4560-hq-extra-forum-permissions/

[Endless/Nameless]

4 minutes ago, Zeke said:

It's more or less poking and trying to get it before letting people know "hey, this thing is coming and we want to update you on it to let you guys know".

While I agree that we should, but letting people know a status on something that may not be coming anytime soon sounds like an empty promise. 

Also:
https://invisionpower.com/files/file/4560-hq-extra-forum-permissions/

Agreed, but if we hear next to nothing about it, to outside observers it looks like nobody's active on the matter at all. 

 

7 minutes ago, 6tails said:

My only problem with this is having to pay for it. This is something that by COPPA rules (despite being deprecated by newer court rulings) should be included as a mandatory thing. While I said I'm down to put my money where my mouth is, this is probably one of those things we should not be paying for.

No shit. 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Zeke said:

It's sounds more like a misnomer, because once you are banned from the forums you cannot post or PM anyone. The reason why the email's here is for those that cannot access it. Yes, it does get checked daily. I usually check it when I am at work and keep it up, as well as sharing documents through the drive for the staff to weigh on. 

I see, thank you for the clarification