Why can't we discuss moderation decisions?

So, for one reason or another you (all) cannot make a post or a thread which publically references - directly or indirectly - either a moderator, another user, or a moderation decision (even if the identity of the moderator who carried out that decision is referenced pronominally or not at all). Before I begin the main idea of this thread - the “Why?” that I’m sure you’re all looking forward to - I’d like to say that this thread is not meant to call in to question any particular moderation decision, moderator, and/or user, was not made because of any moderation decision, moderator, and/or user, and that any discussion of a moderator decision, moderator, and/or user in this thread should be considered off-topic and should, from a moderation standpoint, be dealt with separately from this thread, the original poster (yours truly), and all other postures herein.

Now, my simple question I have is “why” can we not discuss moderation decisions in general? Why is it so illegal to reference a specific moderation decision and discuss, with the community, whether or not the rules, subjective as they are, should be enforced in such a fashion?

Please do not get me wrong, I am not in favor of taking moderators out to the “town hall” as it were, putting them before a group of 20 or so disgruntled users, and allow them to be pelted with angry complaints at a rate which makes it impossible to reply to all of them, resulting in more complaints about the lack of response to the initial complaints and the general apparent incompetence of the moderator in question because “they won’t answer me”, or anything of that nature. And, due to the fact that almost all moderation decision are done anonymously and behind closed doors on here, the reference of a particular situation avoids that conflict altogether unless the “victim” of the moderation outs the moderator in question.

No, what I’m talking about is the reference of specific decisions when discussing the overall legitimacy of a rule or the application thereof (widespread or isolated as it may be). If I made a very polite thread about how 343’s moderators should stop banning people who like the color green and that 50% of all bans on here take place because someone stated that their favorite color was green, that argument wouldn’t get past a few posts because I’d have no way of proving this without photoshopping or altering a screen cap of a post or message in my or someone else’s inbox. However, lets say this inquisition of the lovers of the color green was going on, and I was able to cite several instances, with direct post links, of where 343’s moderators WERE banning people who liked the color green, the thread now carries exponentially more weight and, as long as no personal attacks are made on the pronominal moderator, no other rules but the “don’t discuss moderation decisions” one are broken.

So who is harmed in that situation? Nobody. As long as everyone in the discussion is referred to pronominally and without ad hominem, I don’t see the problem with the situation. Is it that 343 doesn’t want their rules and applications thereof to be called into question? Is it because they’re unwilling to change them based on community input, however compelling?

That is the question I pose in this thread, both for speculative and (unofficial, of course) definitive answering and discussing.

P.S. And please, moderators, don’t just come in here and go “it’s in the rules and it’s not changing so this is getting locked”. Yes, it’s happened before.

I can see it being understandable, as long as there was a thread or forum specifically for that kind of question/inquiry/grievance to be posted, but it does seem odd that it wouldn’t be allowed anywhere (especially if it’s not about any individual).

> I can see it being understandable, as long as there was a thread or forum specifically for that kind of question/inquiry/grievance to be posted, but it does seem odd that it wouldn’t be allowed anywhere (especially if it’s not about any individual).

Why not the Halo Waypoint forum? It makes sense. You can discuss other stuff about the forums and site on here, why not the way in which rules are written and/or applied?

©

Please pm me or one of the moderators and we’ll be happy to discuss it with you.

> Please pm me or one of the moderators and we’ll be happy to discuss it with you.

Discuss what? The rules? To my knowledge you have no ability directly to change them. If I’m wrong, then by all means just have the discussion about the rules right here. As long as I’m not talking about a specific decision, I don’t see why we can’t do it here.

©

Let me see if I can sum up this thread:

OP: Why cant we discuss moderator decisions
Moderator: PM me and we can discuss
OP: Discuss what?

> Let me see if I can sum up this thread:
>
> OP: Why cant we discuss moderator decisions
> Moderator: PM me and we can discuss
> OP: Discuss what?

Why does the discussion about why we can’t discuss that kind of stuff have to be private? Wouldn’t it be better to let everyone know at once if there is some sort of official answer?

©

You can’t discussion Moderator Decisions because what they moderated was against the rules, therefore discussing what they moderated would be discussing something against the rules.

Then the rules should be changed. BS angel didnt come down from the mountain with them etched in stone. Better yet add a adults only section where you can swear. My husbands been banned so many times for swearing, he is an adult, adults swear… This is a game made for adults and the forums should be for adults as well. Censorship is an infringement on your civil rights.

> Then the rules should be changed. BS angel didnt come down from the mountain with them etched in stone. Better yet add a adults only section where you can swear. My husbands been banned so many times for swearing, he is an adult, adults swear… This is a game made for adults and the forums should be for adults as well. Censorship is an infringement on your civil rights.

That’s not censorship. Their site, their rules. You don’t need to swear to make your point known.

> You can’t discussion Moderator Decisions because what they moderated was against the rules, therefore discussing what they moderated would be discussing something against the rules.

Obviously the purpose of discussing moderation decisions would be for discussing the legitimacy of said rules and they’re enforced.

©

We don’t allow the public discussion of moderation actions because there are a lot of things that need to stay between us, and the person who has been moderated. In particular, the severity of a moderation action (bans, warnings, et cetera) depends both on the severity of the offense and on a user’s past moderation history. (The more you’ve been banned in the past, the longer you’ll be banned for a future offense.) If a person starts a thread discussing only their most recent moderation action, and if we give answers regarding that specific action only, then those answers will inevitably seem ridiculous or heavy-handed because they lack the necessary context. The only way to provide that context would be to whip out the user’s full moderation history, but that could very easily be misinterpreted as an attempt at shaming or publicly trashing the user, leading to further animosity.

By contrast, if we’re responding only to that user, in private, then we can, if needed, give them an overview of their full moderation history as part of an explanation for a recent ban, without them feeling like we’re trying to shame or one-up them.

When did I say that we should make threads about moderation decisions? I don’t believe I did. In fact, I believe that I specifically said several times that that was not what I was doing.

e: Nevertheless, thank you for that explanation. I am, however, looking to use the citations in a different context and manner than the one you discussed. Sorry for any misunderstanding.

©

> When did I say that we should make threads about moderation decisions? I don’t believe I did. In fact, I believe that I specifically said several times that that was not what I was doing.
>
> e: Nevertheless, thank you for that explanation. I am, however, looking to use the citations in a different context and manner than the one you discussed. Sorry for any misunderstanding.
>
> ©

Sorry for the irrelevant answer. Lemme take another shot at it…

So if I’m understanding it right, now, the scenario you’re asking about is this:

A. We moderate some offense under some rule.

B. Some user (not the user moderated in A) wants to openly and publicly discuss the legitimacy of that rule.

C. That user wants to cite the moderation action undertaken in (A) as an example of that rule and/or the rule’s flaws. They may also want to cite other, similar, moderation actions.

Is that the sort of scenario you want information on?

> > When did I say that we should make threads about moderation decisions? I don’t believe I did. In fact, I believe that I specifically said several times that that was not what I was doing.
> >
> > e: Nevertheless, thank you for that explanation. I am, however, looking to use the citations in a different context and manner than the one you discussed. Sorry for any misunderstanding.
> >
> > ©
>
> Sorry for the irrelevant answer. Lemme take another shot at it…
>
> So if I’m understanding it right, now, the scenario you’re asking about is this:
>
> A. We moderate some offense under some rule.
>
> B. Some user (not the user moderated in A) wants to openly and publicly discuss the legitimacy of that rule.
>
> C. That user wants to cite the moderation action undertaken in (A) as an example of that rule and/or the rule’s flaws. They may also want to cite other, similar, moderation actions.
>
> Is that the sort of scenario you want information on?

Yes please. And I didn’t mean to make it sound like an irrelevant answer, it was still a nice insight into that particular situation which made sense.

©

Off the bat, I see two issues with that scenario, then. First, we’re back to square one with respect to the answer I gave previously: discussing specific moderation actions with people other than those who were moderated. Second, it could also be interpreted as calling out the members that committed the cited offenses. :\

> Off the bat, I see two issues with that scenario, then. First, we’re back to square one with respect to the answer I gave previously: discussing specific moderation actions with people other than those who were moderated. Second, it could also be interpreted as calling out the members that committed the cited offenses. :\

But it’s not about the severity of the ban. And someone probably doesn’t have a higher likelihood of actually receiving a ban because of their ban history. A bannable offense is a bannable offense. The thing that would change would probably and should probably be the severity of the action taken. In fact, as an objective 3rd-party viewer of the post, I don’t know if they were warned, banned, or just censored. All I know is that a mod found something wrong with the post and, despite the fact that the mod does so anonymously (which I disagree with), to the credit of mods, they usually highlight/censor the specific inappropriate sections of a post.

All I need to know to discuss the application, wording, and/or existence of a rule is that it was censored for some reason. Any other behind-closed-door workings of the severity of a ban based on former ban history is irrelevant. And yet I can’t do it?

Also, about your second point, I’ve never seen that happen except with well-known people from BNet who post on here who get name-dropped simply because they’re well-known. But, the majority of the time, I don’t see name-dropping or personal insults being an issue when I’ve seen posts cited. And if an issue is only replicated a minority of the time that a scenario is played out, then reservations about the continued allowance of that scenario to occur should be minimal when they use this issue as a reason.

©

> > Off the bat, I see two issues with that scenario, then. First, we’re back to square one with respect to the answer I gave previously: discussing specific moderation actions with people other than those who were moderated. Second, it could also be interpreted as calling out the members that committed the cited offenses. :
>
> But it’s not about the severity of the ban. And someone probably doesn’t have a higher likelihood of actually receiving a ban because of their ban history. A bannable offense is a bannable offense. The thing that would change would probably and should probably be the severity of the action taken. In fact, as an objective 3rd-party viewer of the post, I don’t know if they were warned, banned, or just censored. All I know is that a mod found something wrong with the post and, despite <mark>the fact that the mod does so anonymously</mark> (which I disagree with), to the credit of mods, they usually highlight/censor the specific inappropriate sections of a post.

Click on “Edited by Moderator” and it tells you who did it.

Oh, thanks for that. I would’ve never guessed that in all honesty, haha.

©