Link a dit :

Unnecessary is not being used as an umbrella term to moderate simply anything. All of these posts mentioned (except one, which was a question posted in this thread and has since been un-moderated), break the forum rules. Most, if not all, sentinels use "unnecessary" as the moderation reason for an extremely rude/insulting message. This was the case in the majority of the messages that you linked.

If the community prefers, we could be a little more specific with moderation messages, but I don't think it is necessary for the entire forums to know exactly why a person is being sanctioned. We have to draw the line somewhere as to how much information is too much to share. After all, the reason a message is being moderated is because we don't want other people to see it in the first place. Players can always find out more information about how their moderated posts break the rules in their forum sanction or by messaging a sentinel.

The fact that one out of those five randomly selected posts turns out to be just fine, just proves that it is an umbrella term to moderate anything. It opens up the question which other posts have been moderated for being unnecessary, when in fact they were just fine? The community cannot tell, simply because they are all labelled the same way. Being more specific does not only inform the community, it also forces you to think about why you're moderating a message. This can never be a bad thing.

Anythin a dit :

Link a dit :VoirMasquer

Unnecessary is not being used as an umbrella term to moderate simply anything. All of these posts mentioned (except one, which was a question posted in this thread and has since been un-moderated), break the forum rules. Most, if not all, sentinels use "unnecessary" as the moderation reason for an extremely rude/insulting message. This was the case in the majority of the messages that you linked.

If the community prefers, we could be a little more specific with moderation messages, but I don't think it is necessary for the entire forums to know exactly why a person is being sanctioned. We have to draw the line somewhere as to how much information is too much to share. After all, the reason a message is being moderated is because we don't want other people to see it in the first place. Players can always find out more information about how their moderated posts break the rules in their forum sanction or by messaging a sentinel.

The fact that one out of those five randomly selected posts turns out to be just fine, just proves that it is an umbrella term to moderate anything. It opens up the question which other posts have been moderated for being unnecessary, when in fact they were just fine? The community cannot tell, simply because they are all labelled the same way. Being more specific does not only inform the community, it also forces you to think about why you're moderating a message. This can never be a bad thing.

The sentinel that moderated this post chose to use the moderation message to answer a question in this thread. I’m not sure why they did this instead of simply replying, but I have unmoderated the post and Meli is aware that this occurred. I hope that this action by one sentinel does not give the impression that we are actively looking for ways to suppress/moderate the community as I believe that you are implying.

I personally realize that I might have been quick to moderate some things in the past, but lately I have been avoiding moderating/sanctioning things unless necessary. As I have recently mentioned elsewhere on the forums, Meli has requested that we be more lenient with forum moderation, specifically in regards to duplicate content, double-posting, and necrobumping-bumping. As a sentinel team, we have been discussing almost every report (with the exception of obviously rule-breaking posts) before acting on them, and have been discussing what rules are actually worth sanctioning for when they are broken. As a result, we have actually been more lenient when it comes to moderating things here on the forums, not looking for ways to consider messages rule-breaking when they are not.

Based on feedback shared here on the forums, I realize that for some people, seeing a moderated message gives the impression that the message was super inappropriate. When we moderate a super rude/insulting/flamebaiting message with the reason “unnecessary,” to us this makes sense, since we can see the original message. But I realize that for the others this is quite unclear and gives the impression we are moderating messages we deem to be low value. This is quite subjective and should not be a criteria we use to moderate. In the future, we will be more specific in these moderation messages as you suggested (I.e. entering Insults/Flamebaiting) in order to not induce fear that you will have your messages moderated if we simply deem them “unnecessary.”

King a dit :

Most of you (Sentinels) don't realise that the forum activity is already low and by handing out mutes, warnings and removing every post
you hurt the activity even furthermore, I also read your comment regarding melibellules request but she requested that years ago before you even got into the staff.. lmao

Spoiler

I don't think it's hard to see that forum activity is much lower than in years past. Melibellule continues to recommend this so we continue to adjust the way we moderate the forums. We are much more conservative in handing out hard warnings/sanctions than we used to be and mostly just remove posts that are unneeded; unless an individual is excessively breaking a rule or doing something explicitly bad, it's rare that they will receive forum warnings/sanctions nowadays.

Also, I don't think your clown gif is necessary at all. Link is being transparent about how he is making changes to be more effective for the community. Your gif does not bring anything to the discussion except for an attempt to provoke him which is really ineffective in creating positive change.

I think it's important that when staff members reflect on their past actions that it isn't seen as some "gotcha" moment.

It's clear over the past 6 months or so that the staff have been more open to listening to feedback and that in turn includes being more transparent and reflective in their responses in the forum. It shouldn't be seen as a weakness when a staff member admits they could have handled a situation differently; it's important to be able to evaluate past actions as part of any response to bringing about change moving forward.

I personally welcome the additional transparency and honesty that we have been seeing from staff members.