Oh yeah can we write up a Code of Conduct for mods so there's less controversy in the future?

what exactly would this entail?

Nothing fancy, just preemptive stuff so there's never any question about why someone was banned

The main idea I think would be a concrete method for determining ban length. Maybe even have a formula for it which factors in the specific rule which was broken, as well as the number of times that member has been banned in the past year

Apart from that I'm not sure, it just seems like a good idea to have specific instructions/protocol for moderation

Yeah I think that having a set of instructions to follow would be useful. That's a policy thing so the decisions surrounding creating it would be open to discussion with members.

This post was last modified: Sep 14, 2016 at 11:44 PM by Draku.

The main idea I think would be a concrete method for determining ban length. Maybe even have a formula for it which factors in the specific rule which was broken, as well as the number of times that member has been banned in the past year

i believe getting too specific would be confusing for everyone involved. people want shorter bans in general as well, from my understanding.

here's my pitch:
if the administration feels the need to ban a user, the first time will be 3 days. if, within six months of this previous ban, the user gets banned again, it will be for 1 week. then, following that, each following time, if within six months of the most recent ban, will add an additional week. if it is apparent that someone is specifically trying to skirt the six months period and abuse it to shorten bans, specific action will be taken.

we previously used a doubling process for ban length that resulted in some incredibly lengthy bans for certain members. adding only an additional week each time should remedy this.

one point of contention however is the "three strikes" sort of system we previously employed, where a ban only happened upon there being two prior warnings in an unbanned period. nowadays, people seem to be agitated heavily by warnings, so this may not be the best idea to keep utilizing. the issue is, it was incredibly useful for being fair on when we would ban and when we would not. if we are more loose, it may cause people to think a decision was biased or unfair.

however, with all around much shorter ban durations for repeat offenses, i think that too may be solved. what does everyone else think?

@Draku I like all of these words

That's an ideal system right there

This post was last modified: Sep 15, 2016 at 1:20 AM by Spritanium.

@Draku I like this for the most part. I've never been crazy about three-strike systems (works in theory but there are a lot of fringe cases) but I'm struggling to think of a system that would be any more predictable.

I'd still like to integrate the "voluntary ban" idea if possible. It doesn't have to be anything fancy - if you get banned, after you've served a minimum of 10% of the sentence, you can make an appeal to come back. If the appeal is accepted you're then put in "trial mode" (maybe with a different name since that gives me horrible mfgg flashbacks) for the duration of your original ban. If you get warned during this time, the ban starts over and you can no longer appeal it.

Just helps to humanize rule-breakers a little more while still holding them responsible for their actions.

The ability to appeal bans is required imo

technically you've always been able to appeal bans but the email address never worked LOL. speaking of which I should set up some @minus.world addresses for the staff

so am i a mod yet

id do it but im the most incompetent

All the stuff suggested so far sounds good and IDK if this is worth noting but at the moment we're such a big happy family I can't imagine anyone's going to get banned anytime soon. Hopefully when we attract new users they'll assimilate.

assimilate? i hope not. diversity keeps things interesting and the creativity flowing, and conflict is more or less growing pains

Moderator applications are now closed.