Chat Moderation Changes and Additions!

[(PSN)guzmantt1977]

3 hours ago, (NSW)Jeahanne said:

While I appreciate the thought put into your post @Fallen_Echo, that seems way too much. Only one warning before a 240 hour ban? That's... a lot. Like a whole lot, and one warning in general isn't much.

Currently the system gives up to 336 hours, doesn't it? His suggestion is marginally shorter for a starter, and gets harsher with time. 

That matches the forum system. 

3 hours ago, (NSW)Jeahanne said:

Also, the idea that all this of info being forwarded to Moderators is good, but just unworkable. The Mod team as I currently understand it isn't big enough to handle that much of an info dump all of the time.

Sure, and I do understand what you mean, but the fact that they're willing to pull in additional moderators, gives a way to deal with the objection. Also it's not meant to be a replacement for the bot, just an addition to. Remember we can currently report content in chat, so where does that go? 

Personally I'd pull in people who have managed to keep their noses clean and have a certain minimum weekly time in game. 

A system could be set up so that they get the notifications, and filter them for further attention, the same way that mods are supposed to. Mods will give feedback on the quality of the highlighted content, and people who are getting too much negative feedback get dropped from the program. 

 

 

[Fallen_Echo]

50 minutes ago, cxll said:

It always has been.

I dont want to sound sarcastic but dont you think if this was always the case it wouldnt been that important to tell that they are going to log and overwatch the moderation?

[Letter13]

Just as a reminder folks, witch-hunting/naming &shaming will not be tolerated.

If you feel that a chat moderator is violating the code of conduct, the Terms of Use Agreement or the EULA, report the issue to support along with evidence/screenshots and timestamps of when it happened (so DE staff can check logs to verify any evidence).

Going torch & pitchforks on the forums is not the way to conduct yourselves, and violates the code of conduct.

[-AoN-CanoLathra-]

14 hours ago, A-p-o-l-l-y-o-n said:

There is another common word that means 1) a device for taking game or other animals, 2) something by which one is caught or stopped unawares, 4 slang: mouth, 5) any various devices for preventing passage of something often while allowing other matter to proceed, 6) a group of percussion instruments used especially in a dance or jazz band

Where's definition 3?

[XaoGarrent]

11 minutes ago, Letter13 said:

Just as a reminder folks, witch-hunting/naming &shaming will not be tolerated.

If you feel that a chat moderator is violating the code of conduct, the Terms of Use Agreement or the EULA, report the issue to support along with evidence/screenshots and timestamps of when it happened (so DE staff can check logs to verify any evidence).

Going torch & pitchforks on the forums is not the way to conduct yourselves, and violates the code of conduct.

The code of conduct is part of the problem. The rules are part of the problem. If you are part of the problem, and you also make the rules, it only logically follows that those rules wont solve that problem.

The code of conduct would never include anything that would keep a moderator from behaving in ways that are improper for a moderator, but useful to the structure or internal stability of the business (including ideologically). Such as, for instance, deleting or locking posts critical of said moderator, even when such criticism is topical, a practice that is very common due to the lack of checks and balances within the community management of video game companies. This is a practice that is so widespread that it's become completely unquestioned even by users, and it's always been extremely unethical from the very start.

A system that is full of corruption cannot be expected to root out its own corruption, and can be expected to generate more corruption in the form of rules that protect the corrupt. Especially when that system is in fact top down, as any business is run. When you either make the rules or are connected to the people who make the rules, you can make ones that allow you to do what you want, and change the rules when they no longer suit you, as well as selectively enforce them, since after all, someone would need to hold you accountable for doing so (I'm seriously curious if "incel" is on the banned words list, it's a recent "slur" but one none the less).

A code of conduct, EULA or Terms of Use Agreement will always be designed as well as possible to not work against the company that creates it, and as such just functions as a flail with which people in said company can hit consumers that are doing things that they don't like. It is entirely arbitrary, and not a source of anything remotely just in the greater sense.

Torches and pitchforks are the only option when dealing with those who can wield authority over you without some kind of democratic reprise, yes, even in petty situations. Given you're part of a business, you should be happy it's mostly relegated to forum finger pointing and general squabbling. After all, the alternative is mass boycotting, as people realize voting with their wallet is the only way to make anything change.

[-AoN-CanoLathra-]

This is bigger than just Warframe. This is an ideological battle spanning the globe, so only looking at it like a few misguided individuals in a single instance is a sure path to disaster.

The reason why there are no clear guidelines on what words aren't allowed is because this group doesn't want to prevent bad behavior; they want to ban 'wrong-think', and the only way to find wrong-thinkers is to let them expose themselves and then ban them. The biggest problem is that they think that anyone who even uses words that contain bad words in them, or use words with 6 neutral meanings and one bad meaning, is a wrong-thinker because that person clearly didn't see the bad stuff in what they wrote. Never mind the fact that in order to see such things you would have to focus very strongly on the very things these people claim to be so violently opposed to.

Please note that I do not support the use of any intentional racist, homophobic, xenophobic, or other hateful speech. The problem here is that this ideologically possessed group has left out the concept of intent. Accidents and mistakes should be seen as just that, and harsh action should only be taken when intent is clear.

I agree with the system of warnings and bans a user above proposed. Those who wish to do wrong will try to circumvent it and get caught. Those who made honest mistakes will be given a warning and won't do it again. Banning everyone for the first mistake just drives the average person away, leaving only those who are ideologically possessed to the point that they self-censor everything to ridiculous levels.

[OniDax]

1 hour ago, -AoN-CanoLathra- said:

Where's definition 3?

You can find it in the Merriam-Webster definition for trap, which I also linked in my other post. Basically, it's a device used for hurling clay pigeons into the air.

The point is that there are common words and proper nouns that, when used in certain phrases and in the same sentences as other terms (like the name of a warframe), will trigger the chat bot. However, this is not stated in the rules, and there have been cases where players have accidentally triggered the chat bot by having normal conversation about Warframe or introducing where they're from. Providing clarity regarding what triggers the chatbot would do a world of good for the community. It would firmly establish what is allowed or not allowed, and would help prevent accidental transgressions of the chat system. I'm not asking for an exhaustive list of terms and phrases that trigger the chatbot. I'm just asking for specific cases where common words and proper nouns trigger the chat bot. That does not include all of the workaround words and word+number combinations that people have used in the past to try to use offending terms without triggering the bot.

Such a system would actually help players and reflects a view that the majority of players are good people. The current system only punishes players and reflects a view that the majority of players are bad people. One sees the good in the community and works to help maintain that goodness, while the other sees only the bad in the community and does not care about maintaining goodness, only punishing evil. Rebecca's "losers" slip of the tongue may have been an accident, but right now, with the way the chat system is set up, it reflects a very negative view of the Warframe community. What I'm asking for won't make it easier for bad people to be offensive. But it will help good people avoid getting themselves banned through normal conversation. It is also something that does not require DE to make their system more punishing or less punishing. I'm just asking for a little more transparency in a way that will actually make this system a better system for all.

[notlamprey]

First, updates on the process are appreciated. A lot of people are watching with keen interest to see how things unfold here.

Spoiler

19 hours ago, [DE]Bear said:

This post is a brief overview of changes that have come in the Volunteer Chat Moderation program and associated in-game systems.

To recap, systematic changes to Chat Moderation in Warframe went live on December 5th: 

• Moderation messages are now sent through system messages rather than private messages so that they are not overlooked. 
• Improved logging of Chat Moderator action.
• Increased staffing for Chat Moderator management. 

Here is what we’ve been up to since that day, included in the updates released with Fortuna Part 2, and the Mesa Prime Update today.

• We have posted an official Warframe Volunteers webpage that details our volunteer teams here: https://www.warframe.com/community/volunteers. Included is the “Chat Moderator Code of Conduct” that provides a synopsis of their responsibilities, the rules that govern Chat Moderator conduct, and a breakdown of what Chat Moderators are permitted to action on in chat, along with an established way for people to report / counter-claim any manually actioned chat bans/kicks. 
• With established guidelines, we are addressing the many issues we’ve had in the past with communicating with Chat Moderators and the Community on what Chat Moderation is for Warframe. Essentially, we want everyone to be on the same page so that when issues arrive, everyone understands the outcome of manually actioned bans / kicks.
• Chat Moderators messages will no longer appear in purple text. In the future, this will be reserved exclusively for Warframe Staff to continue communication efforts and ultimately assure that any relevant information is shared from established sources. 
• We have hired a team of professional Chat Moderators to assist with Chat Moderation in the PC English chat. They will begin moderating Wednesday, December 19th, and will do so adhering to the Chat Moderator Code of Conduct.
• We will perform continuing reviews and training of the Chat Moderation team to make sure that everyone moderates in a consistent way. This will involve a lot more time with DE-staff leading training and feedback sessions, as well as other internal processes to help facilitate coordination within the team.

This is by no means the end of this process, but the framework has been established. As the new year comes in, we will be looking to set up a more robust set of general community guidelines and modify other volunteer programs. 
 

 

Most of this seems encouraging, or at least likely to lead to improvements in some previous trouble spots.

To detail my personal concerns, or those of other people who might not be entirely happy with some aspects of how Chat Moderation as a whole has been handled so far:

  This line from the new Chat Moderator Code of Conduct contains a caveat that caught my attention:

Spoiler

A MODERATOR WILL NOT:

• Bully:

  • Disrespect players for their disabilities, handicaps, language barriers, varying play styles, varying skill levels, personal beliefs and/or opinions (if constructive), etc.

"personal beliefs and/or opinions" (if constructive), etc.

  I would suggest removing the "if constructive" qualifier, because I think it raises two potential issues at once. First, the possibility for moderators to let fly with less-than-professional language and justify it by saying someone's beliefs and/or opinions "weren't constructive." Yes, I'm purposefully poking at extreme cases because legally it's only prudent to consider them. Second, "if constructive" could prove a highly subjective description in practice. We don't need overzealous moderators abusing their powers because someone said they find Limbo annoying to play with. I would feel better if these sorts of unnecessary subjective elements were removed, and I think Digital Extremes would protected against some possible headaches.

  If the intent is to emphasize the expectation that all players and moderators voice their opinions in a "constructive" fashion, it might be better to make that emphasis some other way. We really need to avoid anything that threatens to undermine the desire for consistency and professionalism that sits at the core of these new guidelines.

"We will perform continuing reviews and training of the Chat Moderation team to make sure that everyone moderates in a consistent way. This will involve a lot more time with DE-staff leading training and feedback sessions, as well as other internal processes to help facilitate coordination within the team."

This may prove to be a mixed bag, when all is said and done. While we'd love to hope for the best, there is the very real possibility that any underlying issues which might have contributed to the troubles of the "old system" will begin to affect the new one. Of course we all wish for the best outcome, but I hope DE and all the various moderators can understand player concerns here.

 All things considered, I think there's reason to be hopeful - both for improvements in the overall moderation process, and for a reduction in points of apparent cultural inconsistency/frustration. I'm looking forward to seeing the early results of this effort.

 

 

[ThisAliasIsMine]

How about training an AI for the chat moderation aid?

It can take all previous chats and their moderated results as source and start training more with active human moderators. This would allow more effective cover for all different (public) chats in the game. AI would look over all the chats and sends cases to moderators for taking closer look. This would allow profiling per player, taking count of their skills in language, what area they live and bit of their generic typing behavior as well. Also possible contextual implementation of chat could be incorporated to the system, so more than just plain 'chess'-game with single sentences only.

Once AI has learned enough it could be let do moderation independently, in limited fashion, when immediate human moderation is not available. Giving tool of muting, suspending of sending public messages (to any channel), for cases that are not clear breaking of rules, but score high enough to be deemed to be reviewed by moderation. It would maximum time of one or two hours, or till the case triggered muting is reviewed by moderator and given proper needed action has been done. Players getting muted would get messaged by the AI and can give feedback to the case they triggered, and this would be added to the report what is later reviewed by some moderator.

To help moderation to deal with possible numerous cases this system could generate, old or less scored cases would be dropped out and mute involving it would be lifted. Cases containing user feedback of the action would be still always reviewed by moderator, at some point. System would limit how much work is directed to moderators and allow them to do what they do primary, look the chat and perhaps even take part of it. Not just look constant stream of AI events and resolve them. This drop out method also gives chance to have soft punishment for the minor offenders. If you don't give any feedback to case, you agree that you did something less acceptable and try to not repeat it again. The short'ish mute is the disciplinary action. If case would be dropped due moderation capacity, it would be only remain as type of case in history. If same type is triggered soon enough, it would be flagged to be processed by moderation and earlier same type cases will be available for person resolving case as evidence. These ones will not timeout.

They say that road to evil are paved in road of good intentions, so for this system, the good intentions is to give better flexibility to any disciplinary actions given out. Increase the reach and perhaps even quality of moderation. Improved feedback system from players that have been involved in any moderation case.

As long as moderation is done by volunteers in any measurement, i feel they are more connected to the people in game and have more heart, than the 'professional' chat moderators coming from outside. Sure they do their job, but its the job that gives me the creeps. But if system ain't working good enough or load is coming unbearable, its not weakness to ask for help. Good moderators are legendary drops, specially those that are not making direct increases to costs. One does not never have enough of them.

Automated moderation is the necessary evil in the formula. It will be around to cover the times when you do not have human element available.

Human moderation in chat(s) is a privilege that we should appreciate. It is sure prone to quirks and habits what comes each moderator as person, but always beats automated one.

Remember, moderators are not your enemy. They are your friends. They are - our last, best hope - for quality chat. Against shad... cold and calculative AI or the void of nothingness.

"I've been banning, Moderator...I thought you'd want to know."

 

[Fishyflakes]

Huge waste of resources if you ask me

[(PSN)guzmantt1977]

2 hours ago, -AoN-CanoLathra- said:

The reason why there are no clear guidelines on what words aren't allowed is because this group doesn't want to prevent bad behavior; they want to ban 'wrong-think', and the only way to find wrong-thinkers is to let them expose themselves and then ban them. 

Nice conspiracy theory, but no. The bot seems to work based on a simple enough IRC script, which reads and compares each line it receives to a master list of words and phrases (or other specific conditions), which trigger kicks and bans. 

If a specific combination is not on the list, it won't trigger the bot. If anyone is given the master list, then it becomes trivial to avoid kicks and bans based on that knowledge. I ran a similar bot for years in an IRC channel. I didn't share my list. I'd share a rough idea of what not to do or say but never the full version. 

[Letter13]

13 minutes ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

Nice conspiracy theory, but no. The bot seems to work based on a simple enough IRC script, which reads and compares each line it receives to a master list of words and phrases (or other specific conditions), which trigger kicks and bans. 

If a specific combination is not on the list, it won't trigger the bot. If anyone is given the master list, then it becomes trivial to avoid kicks and bans based on that knowledge. I ran a similar bot for years in an IRC channel. I didn't share my list. I'd share a rough idea of what not to do or say but never the full version. 

This is why there is no published list of blacklisted words or phrases, and why such a list won't be published.

We're not going to give users the blueprint on "how to violate the rules by posting racist/sexist/derogatory slurs and get away with it".

[Excalibur_Prime]

4 minutes ago, Letter13 said:

This is why there is no published list of blacklisted words or phrases, and why such a list won't be published.

 

Imagine a chat that didn't have to ask what not to say... :^) 

There are no such things in this world as perfect as that would be. Besides cats. 

[notlamprey]

6 minutes ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

Nice conspiracy theory, but no. The bot seems to work based on a simple enough IRC script, which reads and compares each line it receives to a master list of words and phrases (or other specific conditions), which trigger kicks and bans. 

If a specific combination is not on the list, it won't trigger the bot. If anyone is given the master list, then it becomes trivial to avoid kicks and bans based on that knowledge. I ran a similar bot for years in an IRC channel. I didn't share my list. I'd share a rough idea of what not to do or say but never the full version. 

In this case there's a fair chance that it's a little of column A, and a little of column B.

If you aren't already familiar with some of the reasons why people would jump to thinking about ideological agendas, that can be discussed in some place other than this thread. Suffice it to say that I can understand why people would think there's an ideological component to the current situation.

1 minute ago, Letter13 said:

This is why there is no published list of blacklisted words or phrases, and why such a list won't be published.

 

What's really interesting to me is that this position, if official, was never made explicit by DE staff (to my knowledge, and anyone can feel free to correct me). If it was the case, they never made it widely known that it was - or why.

That's their prerogative, of course. The problem with that approach is that it left a vacuum for speculation.

"Well we actually weren't planning to say anything because we did have ulterior motives and didn't want to confirm the tin-foilers were correct, but... thanks for bringing this water over. I'm gonna wash my hands now."

This is surely, to use one of Rebecca's phrases, "baseless fearmongering." It does, however, highlight some of the ways in which communication can go awry in both directions - both too much, and too little. It's a learning process, and certainly not an easy one. I'm opting for the maximum amount of charity and patience here, because everybody is trying to make a lot of adjustments in a very short time frame.

[Ozamchist]

Quite the conundrum: On one hand some players want a the list of blacklisted words and/or phrases for the sake of transparency and fear that moderators will and have abused such a list. On the other hand there is a valid fear of disclosing such a list since that could quite easily back fire and hand out a "Blueprint". So its pretty clear there is a trust issue on both sides here. However one side is claiming to be taking steps now so it would probably be better to take the tried and true "wait and see approach".

[Sesaline]

23 hours ago, Cleesus said:

No chat mods have been removed, the professional chat mods are in addition to the volunteer chat mods.

this is nonsense. they (you know who) need to be removed. they removed numerous players multiple times for lesser reasons and are not being held accountable for their own actions and negligence. they have enough common sense and decency to know that their actions were wrong (and even outright say that support wouldn't do anything about it).

please reconsider.

 

is it not enough that the community (thousands and thousands) agree that they do not want these people in any position of power/affluence? the community itself does not want them, yet official staff coddle and safeguard them, thus enforcing that they support their behavior and ideals as their own. This isn't a one time thing. this has been going on for as long as I have been playing warframe and further beyond the scope of my presence in this community. 

start a poll, and let the community decide on volunteers or something.

 

[notlamprey]

10 minutes ago, Sesaline said:

this is nonsense. they (you know who) need to be removed. they removed numerous players multiple times for lesser reasons and are not being held accountable for their own actions and negligence. they have enough common sense and decency to know that their actions were wrong (and even outright say that support wouldn't do anything about it).

please reconsider.

 

is it not enough that the community (thousands and thousands) agree that they do not want these people in any position of power/affluence? the community itself does not want them, yet official staff coddle and safeguard them, thus enforcing that they support their behavior and ideals as their own. This isn't a one time thing. this has been going on for as long as I have been playing warframe and further beyond the scope of my presence in this community. 

start a poll, and let the community decide on volunteers or something.

 

There's a very important point raised here.

The chat moderation policy includes the filtering and banning of words seen to have any association with perjorative usage, which is to say that those words are seen as hateful toward even a small minority of people. To the degree that this is intended to make the game environment as welcoming as possible, it's a worthy idea.

However, we have a conflict now. We have a chat moderation policy designed to significantly shape language with the goal of addressing even the concerns of a tiny few people, and the announcement of broad new policies that many would say don't do enough to address the concerns of a significant subset of the player base who have meritorious complaints against certain volunteer moderators.

How can we reconcile this apparent conflict in policy?

[(PSN)guzmantt1977]

2 hours ago, notlamprey said:

In this case there's a fair chance that it's a little of column A, and a little of column B.

If you aren't already familiar with some of the reasons why people would jump to thinking about ideological agendas, that can be discussed in some place other than this thread. Suffice it to say that I can understand why people would think there's an ideological component to the current situation.

No, because by and large the vast majority of the knee jerk moderation is never going to be able to happen if the bot has already acted in less time than it takes to read the line.

Yes I am aware that the mods may have a level of influence on what may be added to the list, but unless they were able to randomly add and remove random words shortly after, just to troll everyone, then the conspiracy theory doesn't hold true. 

 

Personally I think that all of the nonsense about letting people show off if they're mods, and informing others that they are, should (in an ideal world) never have happened. Moderation is, by and large a thankless task, most people who act like it's a prestigious, and privileged position, should not be given that sort of power in the first place. 

2 hours ago, notlamprey said:

What's really interesting to me is that this position, if official, was never made explicit by DE staff (to my knowledge, and anyone can feel free to correct me). If it was the case, they never made it widely known that it was - or why.

That's their prerogative, of course. The problem with that approach is that it left a vacuum for speculation.

Their reason for not doing it was pretty obvious to me from the very beginning of my use of region chat. People were saying certain words and getting instantly kicked/banned, others were using corrupted versions and getting no reaction. There was obviously a bot taking actions based on a list of unacceptable words. I tried to find out what was on the list, because several of the terms were unfamiliar to me (as I am not located in North America) and all I could find indicated that there was a list of topics not permitted, that some people may have been adding to the list for their own biased reasons, and that a lot of people were being caught unawares. 

 

I went ahead and applied common sense. Granted, I have much more intimate experience with bots that behaved similarly to the kickbot. 

There's nothing wrong with speculation, if you do it in a reasonable manner. Not doing so leads down the path to madness. 

[Sesaline]

34 minutes ago, notlamprey said:

There's a very important point raised here.

The chat moderation policy includes the filtering and banning of words seen to have any association with perjorative usage, which is to say that those words are seen as hateful toward even a small minority of people. To the degree that this is intended to make the game environment as welcoming as possible, it's a worthy idea.

However, we have a conflict now. We have a chat moderation policy designed to significantly shape language with the goal of addressing even the concerns of a tiny few people, and the announcement of broad new policies that many would say don't do enough to address the concerns of a significant subset of the player base who have meritorious complaints against certain volunteer moderators.

How can we reconcile this apparent conflict in policy?

two of these mods that are not being removed from the scene have publicly bashed the userbase while simultaneously bragging about their direct correlation to autobot's censorship via close conversations with "certain" DE staff. these are people who pride themselves on anger from the community (even gloating about not being removed and causing resentment on their profile which has since been changed). There are records of all of this stuff and many offenses of power tripping out there and yet for some reason they don't count now because of new rules? I don't get it. Players had to face invisible/made-up rules that caused their bans, and outright harrassment from these moderators. There was no appeal for them at all. These mods see no wrong in their doings because they are extremely opinionated and biased towards their own agendas and have DE backing their actions without question.

Now think for a moment how these initial moderators were put into their positions, and how future moderators came into the scene: by recommendation from current moderators. If the main few that act out and treat the playerbase like idiots (actually calling them idiots and telling them to do things that got many players banned, and then mock them publicly ontop of that after they were banned based on moderator suggestion and false information)... what is there to say about who they brought on board? What is there to say about their new overseer (Bear) who is close knit with them and even paid for some of their travel expenses to conventions? The whole volunteer thing needs to be severely minimalized. Paid and closely moderated staff should be the only people with power to avoid issues like this from spiraling out of control, which it has. 

 

These people should not be given any power and should be removed from "community" representation as the community itself DOES NOT WANT THEM.

[notlamprey]

7 minutes ago, Sesaline said:

two of these mods that are not being removed from the scene have publicly bashed the userbase while simultaneously bragging about their direct correlation to autobot's censorship via close conversations with "certain" DE staff. these are people who pride themselves on anger from the community (even bloating about not being removed and causing resentment on their profile which has since been changed). There are records of all of this stuff and many offenses of power tripping out there and yet for some reason they don't count now because of new rules? I don't get it. Players had to face invisible rules causes their bans, and outright harrassment from these moderators. There was no appeal for them at all. These mods see no wrong in their doings because they are extremely opinionated and biased towards their own agendas and have DE backing their actions without question.

Now think for a moment how these initial moderators were put into their positions, and how future moderators came into the scene: by recommendation from current moderators. If the main few that act out and treat the playerbase like idiots (actually calling them idiots and telling them to do things that got many players banned, and then mock them publicly ontop of that after they were banned based on moderator suggestion and false information)... what is there to say about who they brought on board? What is there to say about their new overseer (Bear) who is close knit with them and even paid for some of their travel expenses to conventions? The whole volunteer thing needs to be severely minimalized. Paid and closely moderated staff should be the only people with power to avoid issues like this from spiraling out of control, which it has. 

 

These people should not be given any power and should be removed from "community" representation as the community itself DOES NOT WANT THEM.

When reading over the new Code of Conduct, I did find some wording that looks very similar to items in evidence for past bad behavior. At times, it's almost like a beat-for-beat reconstruction of everything bad that has been witnessed from certain select individuals.

It's not even like they're bad guidelines - if anything, I think they're pretty comprehensive and it's nice that they included a social media policy. My only punch-up note would be to suggest the removal of that one weird "if constructive" phrase from the Bullying section.

One unfortunate downside is that it really does amplify some of the negative feelings a lot of people already have about the state and direction of things. When your shiny new Code of Conduct reads like a playbook of things people have proven some of your volunteers actually did, it's very hard to make a compelling case for their retention.

[Sesaline]

16 hours ago, notlamprey said:

When reading over the new Code of Conduct, I did find some wording that looks very similar to items in evidence for past bad behavior. At times, it's almost like a beat-for-beat reconstruction of everything bad that has been witnessed from certain select individuals.

It's not even like they're bad guidelines - if anything, I think they're pretty comprehensive and it's nice that they included a social media policy. My only punch-up note would be to suggest the removal of that one weird "if constructive" phrase from the Bullying section.

One unfortunate downside is that it really does amplify some of the negative feelings a lot of people already have about the state and direction of things. When your shiny new Code of Conduct reads like a playbook of things people have proven some of your volunteers actually did, it's very hard to make a compelling case for their retention.

Exactly; especially as they are just volunteers (albeit volunteers with ban power and, thus-far, immunity to the same rules everyone else has to follow). I literally can't think of a single other reason aside from personal bias as to why these people remain in their positions of influence. This is not acceptable. Rules were in place before but not enough attention was brought to these matters for DE to officially do something about it. What about all those times 6 months, a year, and further along ago? Did DE not instruct them on proper moderation then?

This is all just damage control at this point. It's helped them solidify a new set of rules that amount to nothing if these moderators are allowed to stay as is.

 

edit: i have a feeling this thread will be locked soon and I will find myself banned for some superfluous reason. the fact that I am speaking here about these matters despite fear of losing my privileges and access to the game should be telling of how much of a problem this has become.

[notlamprey]

6 minutes ago, Sesaline said:

Exactly; especially as they are just volunteers (albeit volunteers with ban power and, thus-far, immunity to the same rules everyone else has to follow). I literally can't think of a single other reason aside from personal bias as to why these people remain in their positions of influence. This is not acceptable. Rules were in place before but not enough attention was brought to these matters for DE to officially do something about it. What about all those times 6 months, a year, and further along ago? Did DE not instruct them on proper moderation then?

This is all just damage control at this point. It's helped them solidify a new set of rules that amount to nothing if these moderators are allowed to stay as is.

I think that's what quite a few people will take away from the new announcement and this thread, unfortunately.

I'm willing to sit back and observe for a bit before passing judgment, but I can't really blame other people for being frustrated right now.

[OniDax]

21 hours ago, Letter13 said:

This is why there is no published list of blacklisted words or phrases, and why such a list won't be published.

We're not going to give users the blueprint on "how to violate the rules by posting racist/sexist/derogatory slurs and get away with it".

Letting people know which common words and proper names can trigger the bot is not giving players a blueprint to know how to violate the rules. For example, we know there are workarounds to the N-word that people have used in the past to get around a bot, and we know DE has already accounted for those. You don't have to publish 99% of those words. But one of those words is also the name of a country: Niger. Does the mere stating of that word trigger the bot or is it in context? How does a player know that using this word will get them banned? The word jap is an Albanian word meaning give. How do Albanian players know that someone simply typing that word in a sentence, using its common meaning, won't trigger the bot?

If you didn't already have a trust issue with the community, that wouldn't be a problem. But you do. You don't have to publish an exhaustive master list of every single word+number combination that triggers the bot. But you can say something like "using the word trap in the same sentence as the name of a warframe will result in a ban" or "the word Niger in certain contexts will result in an automatic ban". Those are common words and proper names that, within common contexts are not slurs but are used as slurs in other contexts. Saying that does not give players a blueprint to violate the rules and get away with it. It just provides a heads up in cases where certain words might result in bans in certain contexts, and it also prepares players for cases where using an otherwise harmless word might bring about a ban.

Now, if no words trigger bans on their own, then you don't have to worry about giving players a heads-up regarding proper names or common words. If that's the case, then also spell that out so that players' expectations are clear. However, what about cases where it's been said using trap+Warframe name in any context will result in a ban? If that's the case, then players ought to know.

Perhaps, instead of a list, you all could include a section where you dispel common misconceptions about how the chat bot works. That would at least reassure players that using common words and proper names in non-offending contexts won't result in them being banned. The point of what I'm asking is that, given the lack of trust between the moderation team and the community, you should make concerted efforts to give players some sense of certainty that normal, innocent conversation won't result in auto-bans. You all need to do this because you have a major trust issue, and right now what you all have done is not enough to resolve that issue.

EDIT: Many people here believe that despite your reassurances, you do not actually care about mending the broken relationship between moderators and the community. That is because your words suggest an unwillingness to face the reality that the moderation team is to blame for the situation we all are in. All you are doing is dismissing actual moderation issues, while maintaining the lack of clarity surrounding your rules. Your vague rules, which basically ensure that innocent players will continue to be banned unfairly, are not meant to provide clarity for players or to keep moderators accountable; they only provide a shield behind which you can excuse improper moderator behavior while strengthening power to ban players for the mere use of common words and proper names. You have merely enabled bad moderators to continue abusing their power. And it doesnt matter if it is only a few bad moderators. That level of mistrust extends ti you. I dont say that to say you are untrustworthy. But because certain mods have proven themselves untrustworthy, many players dont trust any moderators. So when you try to reassure players that you have good intentions, they dont trust what you say because others in similar positions as you all here have eroded that trust between moderators and the community.

[LascarCapable]

Il y a 7 heures, Sesaline a dit :

edit: i have a feeling this thread will be locked soon and I will find myself banned for some superfluous reason.

Oh please, we're not some kind of totalitarian hivemind from outer space. No seriously, what do you guys think we are ? We don't ban people out of the blue like that. That's not how we work.

[FoxyKabam]

1 hour ago, D20 said:

what do you guys think we are ? We don't ban people out of the blue like that. That's not how we work

This is an excellent way to get a post deleted or if you try hard enough a warning point for the collection.