I do feel sometimes like staff takes one rule a little too far (specifically the one about not talking about staff actions, which makes sense in cases of like "why did staff ban my previous account" and similar specific moderation actions, but has also at times been applied a little too widely in some cases to shut down most critique of the site both unreasonable and reasonable), but for the most part, the rules are entirely simple and really not hard to abide by.
So, the thing about that rule, in particular, is that it's as much for the FR community's integrity as it is for the staff team's. It's a rule that, again, is applied to a lot of other websites too and it's not something that people really think much of beyond 'Oh well that website just doesn't like complaints' when it really isn't the case.
Critique is good for a website or community to a degree, but when a website specifically has a route for you to submit those critiques through tickets or to reach out to a team, it's done that way for a reason. It means that any complaint or question goes directly to who it's intended for without getting muddied on the way down or possibly causing issues with other users.
One big one is fearmongering with bans and stuff. It's so easy for a user who has been temp-banned or on a fresh account post-ban to spread misinformation about why they got banned in the first place or bring up things about staff that aren't entirely true. A user could say that they got unfairly banned because of XYZ when, in reality, they got banned for an alternate reason that was handled privately by a mod. Users only see the upset person's side and it begins to spread that FR is unfairly banning people because of X situation when the reality is that the user harassed someone or actually had a multi-ring and got caught. The user that got banned isn't likely to be honest about that though and that information is far more likely to get spread because ~drama~ rather than the reality of the situation.
It's also extremely easy for people to end up ganging up on other users or feeling like they have the rights/power to attack others over ToS stuff rather than going through the proper hoops to flag an account or notify staff, which in turn can end up with the user back-seat modding to end up with a ban too. That then turns into 'FR is unfairly banning people who are only trying to help' when the user was harassing or stalking the other to try and 'out' them. If you find a multi, kids, just report it to FR. Don't take matters into your own hand, not your job, is2g. Report and move on, don't let yourself get caught in the salt.
Reasonable discussions about rules and ToS can also get out of hand very easily, which means that the thread needs to be monitored closely to ensure that it doesn't get that far. Given the fact that most of FR's moderation team seem to be community volunteers though, it isn't realistic to expect that from them or for them to be able to monitor it 24/7 without actual pay. Websites that allow critique on their rules and whatnot in public posts/discussions tend to have paid moderation teams that are on the ball with shit like that because it's a legit career and not a hobby site for them. That isn't to say that FR's moderation team isn't good, it just has its limits for what it is.
I will agree that some mods have power-tripped and gone a bit too far, but again, that's the issue with volunteer moderators in general where it's not a career thing for them but a volunteering thing. I find that paid moderation teams are more likely to properly follow ToS stuff and monitor as needed since their livelihoods often depend on it. A good moderation team tends to need to be able to be unbiased and detach themselves from the situation at hand and look at it from a logical standpoint rather than an emotional one. It's not a bad thing to be unable to do that or to be passionate about something, it's just human!
FR's ToS in terms of critique for the site in general works with how FR is set up, but it's very easy to see it as them wanting to squash out any and all criticism from the userbase. I've personally had mixed feelings when dealing with FR's team via tickets and have some preferences when it comes to who I'm talking to for sure, but I also get where they're coming from with stuff like that.
Yeah, like I said in the previous post, it makes sense in cases of like "why did staff ban my previous account" and similar specific moderation actions, but has also at times been applied a little too widely in some cases to shut down most critique of the site both unreasonable and reasonable.
There's definitely instances (e.g. discussing moderation actions) where it makes sense bc there's nothing of value to be gained in publicly discussing those. However, some of the other times it's been applied I don't agree with.
For example, I recall it being applied pretty liberally at various points in regard to special eyes (I don't remember the specifics so it may have been on release or after some time), and while some of that was users being bitchy and toxic at each other, some of it was reasonable and productive discussion that was shut down in sweeping comment deletions that seemed from the outside to just be a dislike of negative public opinion rather than having a real and legitimate reason.
Feedback forms are great, but there is sometimes genuine value in having things (again, not moderation actions) discussed publicly because ideas can be iterated on and improved. For example, if user John's idea of fixing eyes is to make eye changes a dropdown box on all dragons with unlimited changes for free, maybe user Jane sees that (when she wouldn't have thought to send a feedback form otherwise) and goes, "Well that seems unreasonable and against the point of the feature, but perhaps X price or Y limitation might make it something the admins would be more willing to consider." Then further users can contribute as well until there's enough variety to pull a genuinely good starter from, rather than if John had just sent in "make it basically free and unlimited and easy" which would have only indicated demand for the feature and not given any reasonable ideas on how to accomplish it. This is honestly kinda a shitty example bc of how extreme John->Jane is, but it was so long ago that I don't remember better specifics, and what one user thinks is good is so subjective that I can't give idea progression everyone will agree with anyway.
But yeah, generally I do agree with you (as stated at the end of what I wrote) that specific moderation actions just aren't worth discussing publicly and should be shut down. The problem is when the rule is taken and applied too generally even outside of discussion of specific actions and is used to silence general discontent over site features or additions. (I think it's been done over new genes as well once or twice, though I don't remember specific examples.)
My personal opinion for what shouldn't get removed/shut down but has in past: - Non-heated, non-toxic discussion about new site features, genes, or similar site discussion/critique. (A rarity, but it does exist and has gotten removed in the past, throwing the baby out with the bathwater.)
My personal opinion for what should be removed/shut down: - Toxic bitching ("Wow, this gene is so lazy, [Artist] really phoned it in on this didn't they?") - Moderation discussion ("I got banned bc Undel personally came to my house and didn't like my cat!" reality: multi, or "Why did my forum thread get locked? I did nothing wrong!" reality: broke ToS)
Oh, also forgot that sometimes rule changes even do have legitimate reasons to be discussed. For example, iirc when the global, forum-wide "you can only bump a thread once every 24h" rule was implemented, it originally applied also to forums like ibaz which users pointed out moves too quickly for that, leading to users "totally not bumping" or creating dozens of threads bc no one goes past the first page. If my memory is correct, user discussion of and feedback on that rule resulted in it being removed for ibaz (and maybe dragons sales? I don't remember but I feel like there was one other subforum unaffected) and the general experience improved.
Stuff like that is pretty important, especially given the general community consensus that the admins don't really play their site all that much themselves. (Which makes sense; if a site was my job I wouldn't necessarily want to play it on my personal time, I'd probably want a break. But it can result in some out of touch stuff going on...)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
no subject
(Anonymous) 2023-04-11 10:24 pm (UTC)(link)I do feel sometimes like staff takes one rule a little too far (specifically the one about not talking about staff actions, which makes sense in cases of like "why did staff ban my previous account" and similar specific moderation actions, but has also at times been applied a little too widely in some cases to shut down most critique of the site both unreasonable and reasonable), but for the most part, the rules are entirely simple and really not hard to abide by.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2023-04-11 10:42 pm (UTC)(link)So, the thing about that rule, in particular, is that it's as much for the FR community's integrity as it is for the staff team's. It's a rule that, again, is applied to a lot of other websites too and it's not something that people really think much of beyond 'Oh well that website just doesn't like complaints' when it really isn't the case.
Critique is good for a website or community to a degree, but when a website specifically has a route for you to submit those critiques through tickets or to reach out to a team, it's done that way for a reason. It means that any complaint or question goes directly to who it's intended for without getting muddied on the way down or possibly causing issues with other users.
One big one is fearmongering with bans and stuff. It's so easy for a user who has been temp-banned or on a fresh account post-ban to spread misinformation about why they got banned in the first place or bring up things about staff that aren't entirely true. A user could say that they got unfairly banned because of XYZ when, in reality, they got banned for an alternate reason that was handled privately by a mod. Users only see the upset person's side and it begins to spread that FR is unfairly banning people because of X situation when the reality is that the user harassed someone or actually had a multi-ring and got caught. The user that got banned isn't likely to be honest about that though and that information is far more likely to get spread because ~drama~ rather than the reality of the situation.
It's also extremely easy for people to end up ganging up on other users or feeling like they have the rights/power to attack others over ToS stuff rather than going through the proper hoops to flag an account or notify staff, which in turn can end up with the user back-seat modding to end up with a ban too. That then turns into 'FR is unfairly banning people who are only trying to help' when the user was harassing or stalking the other to try and 'out' them. If you find a multi, kids, just report it to FR. Don't take matters into your own hand, not your job, is2g. Report and move on, don't let yourself get caught in the salt.
Reasonable discussions about rules and ToS can also get out of hand very easily, which means that the thread needs to be monitored closely to ensure that it doesn't get that far. Given the fact that most of FR's moderation team seem to be community volunteers though, it isn't realistic to expect that from them or for them to be able to monitor it 24/7 without actual pay. Websites that allow critique on their rules and whatnot in public posts/discussions tend to have paid moderation teams that are on the ball with shit like that because it's a legit career and not a hobby site for them. That isn't to say that FR's moderation team isn't good, it just has its limits for what it is.
I will agree that some mods have power-tripped and gone a bit too far, but again, that's the issue with volunteer moderators in general where it's not a career thing for them but a volunteering thing. I find that paid moderation teams are more likely to properly follow ToS stuff and monitor as needed since their livelihoods often depend on it. A good moderation team tends to need to be able to be unbiased and detach themselves from the situation at hand and look at it from a logical standpoint rather than an emotional one. It's not a bad thing to be unable to do that or to be passionate about something, it's just human!
FR's ToS in terms of critique for the site in general works with how FR is set up, but it's very easy to see it as them wanting to squash out any and all criticism from the userbase. I've personally had mixed feelings when dealing with FR's team via tickets and have some preferences when it comes to who I'm talking to for sure, but I also get where they're coming from with stuff like that.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2023-04-11 10:57 pm (UTC)(link)Massive panic and outrage ensued to the point where staff had to respond that the situation was being misrepresented.
Reality was, said user was a multi.
+1
(Anonymous) 2023-04-12 02:49 am (UTC)(link)no subject
(Anonymous) 2023-04-12 06:02 pm (UTC)(link)Yeah, like I said in the previous post, it makes sense in cases of like "why did staff ban my previous account" and similar specific moderation actions, but has also at times been applied a little too widely in some cases to shut down most critique of the site both unreasonable and reasonable.
There's definitely instances (e.g. discussing moderation actions) where it makes sense bc there's nothing of value to be gained in publicly discussing those. However, some of the other times it's been applied I don't agree with.
For example, I recall it being applied pretty liberally at various points in regard to special eyes (I don't remember the specifics so it may have been on release or after some time), and while some of that was users being bitchy and toxic at each other, some of it was reasonable and productive discussion that was shut down in sweeping comment deletions that seemed from the outside to just be a dislike of negative public opinion rather than having a real and legitimate reason.
Feedback forms are great, but there is sometimes genuine value in having things (again, not moderation actions) discussed publicly because ideas can be iterated on and improved. For example, if user John's idea of fixing eyes is to make eye changes a dropdown box on all dragons with unlimited changes for free, maybe user Jane sees that (when she wouldn't have thought to send a feedback form otherwise) and goes, "Well that seems unreasonable and against the point of the feature, but perhaps X price or Y limitation might make it something the admins would be more willing to consider." Then further users can contribute as well until there's enough variety to pull a genuinely good starter from, rather than if John had just sent in "make it basically free and unlimited and easy" which would have only indicated demand for the feature and not given any reasonable ideas on how to accomplish it. This is honestly kinda a shitty example bc of how extreme John->Jane is, but it was so long ago that I don't remember better specifics, and what one user thinks is good is so subjective that I can't give idea progression everyone will agree with anyway.
But yeah, generally I do agree with you (as stated at the end of what I wrote) that specific moderation actions just aren't worth discussing publicly and should be shut down. The problem is when the rule is taken and applied too generally even outside of discussion of specific actions and is used to silence general discontent over site features or additions. (I think it's been done over new genes as well once or twice, though I don't remember specific examples.)
My personal opinion for what shouldn't get removed/shut down but has in past:
- Non-heated, non-toxic discussion about new site features, genes, or similar site discussion/critique. (A rarity, but it does exist and has gotten removed in the past, throwing the baby out with the bathwater.)
My personal opinion for what should be removed/shut down:
- Toxic bitching ("Wow, this gene is so lazy, [Artist] really phoned it in on this didn't they?")
- Moderation discussion ("I got banned bc Undel personally came to my house and didn't like my cat!" reality: multi, or "Why did my forum thread get locked? I did nothing wrong!" reality: broke ToS)
no subject
(Anonymous) 2023-04-12 06:12 pm (UTC)(link)Oh, also forgot that sometimes rule changes even do have legitimate reasons to be discussed. For example, iirc when the global, forum-wide "you can only bump a thread once every 24h" rule was implemented, it originally applied also to forums like ibaz which users pointed out moves too quickly for that, leading to users "totally not bumping" or creating dozens of threads bc no one goes past the first page. If my memory is correct, user discussion of and feedback on that rule resulted in it being removed for ibaz (and maybe dragons sales? I don't remember but I feel like there was one other subforum unaffected) and the general experience improved.
Stuff like that is pretty important, especially given the general community consensus that the admins don't really play their site all that much themselves. (Which makes sense; if a site was my job I wouldn't necessarily want to play it on my personal time, I'd probably want a break. But it can result in some out of touch stuff going on...)