Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

This thread is based on the Mods accountability thread a few below mine, but this is a suggestion to the Dakka Rules page.

With a website as large as Dakka, we have developed our own identity and culture. It seems when a user breaks a rule, there isn't a clear "course of action" that should be followed. So I suggest that the Dakka Rules Page should be amended to include a section on what to do in case someone breaks a rule. Currently there is nothing on that page to tell a user what should be done when a rules violation has occurred. The culture of the average user seems to be to inform a rules-breaking user that a post of theirs might be breaking a rule that a quick edit could fix, and would save time for the moderator staff of the site. However, it has been pointed out that this is not the case. users cannot hold other users to the rules of Dakka unless they click the Mod Alert Button on the upper right hand corner of a post (henceforth called Triangle of Friendship). As an active and regular user of DakkaDakka, I have never seen an official statement that users cannot hold users to the rules without hitting the Triangle Friendship and getting mods involved until today with this post here. In the past, Mods have stated that if we see rules breaking, to alert the mods, but reporting rules violations doesn't actually exist on the Dakka Rules Page, and so therefore I suggest the following addition be made to the page just before the final paragraph.

Suggested Rules Page Change wrote:
Reporting Rules Violations
Moderators are humans and give their time on this site freely, and as such cannot be expected to be everywhere and see every infraction of the site's rules. If a user should notice a rule being violated, they should immediately hit the Mod Alert Button located in the top right hand corner of the post that violates the rule. The reporting user will then be prompted to give a description of which rule the post violates. After reporting the post, a Moderator will be alerted to the post in question and determine what course of action should be taken and what punishment, if any, is deserved.

The following section is spoilered for posterity, but is not relevant to the conversation at this time


And I do think that something somewhere should be posted so that users know what they can/should do if they are having issues with a Moderator (see Malf's post here [Although some removal of "gak" might be needed ]). I feel that it would be beneficial to the users at large to know that there are things they can do to smooth things out with moderators that they feel are being "unfair" or "heavy-handed" with their actions, or to discuss a possible rules violation that a moderator committed (See Amendment to Suggested Rules Page Change above).


Thank you,
Alfndrate

This is very good and I agree it would be a good idea to put it in writing, thanks Alf!

I am generally against the idea that everything needs to be put into writing. The assumption is that users need to be put on notice about certain things. But Dakka is not a local government. It's a voluntary leisure association. Yes, we could write long codes detailing precisely what is what -- but that's inappropriate. What is appropriate in this case is to have reasonable expectations of users. The first and foremost is summed up as "Be Polite." It is reasonable for us (all of us) to expect each other to know that "calling out" another user in a certain way is simply not polite.

 Manchu wrote:
I am generally against the idea that everything needs to be put into writing. The assumption is that users need to be put on notice about certain things. But Dakka is not a local government. It's a voluntary leisure association. Yes, we could write long codes detailing precisely what is what -- but that's inappropriate. What is appropriate in this case is to have reasonable expectations of users. The first and foremost is summed up as "Be Polite." It is reasonable for us (all of us) to expect each other to know that "calling out" another user in a certain way is simply not polite.

And that's why I had that as a separate section. The thing I think should be added is what to do if you see a user violating a rule, something that doesn't exist currently on the page. And you technically can still be polite by saying something like this, "Hey Alf, you probably shouldn't call DakkaUser345 x, y, and z as it's a clear violation of Dakka rules."

Or, "Hey your image tag is showing a naked lady, you may want to remove it as Dakka is pg13."

Both of those points are completely polite and not attacking the user in question at all, but with both of them the mod alert button isn't hit, and the rules violation doesn't actually get addressed by someone with authority.

If you think someone is breaking the rules, hit the yellow triangle.

If you are polite, you won't be warned by mods.

So I'm having trouble following you on where we don't already cover these bases.

Sorry I may have misunderstood a little Alf -

If you are saying -

In all cases where you feel the rules are being broken in a way that requires immediate moderator attention, then hit the yellow triangle, that's fine -

Pointing out that this applies to everyone, even Mods is ok with me too, not sure what else is needed either?

I may have disconnected here a bit with your message, but it is ok to politely inform someone that they can't have an image without text in a post (while still hitting the button in case they don't edit themselves before we get to it), doing so politely is fine. Telling someone they can't swear is fine, explaining etc in cut and dry situations.

The issue with the thing that prompted this post is that the rule was not in fact broken, but the user told the other user directly that they had broken it and punishment should have been doled out, and they were getting away with it due to favoritism... that's a completely different can of worms.

Informing people of the rules is one thing. Accusing and convicting them and doling out proposed punishments is another thing entirely, you see the distinction?

If we are on the same page there let me know, I may have misunderstood the problem you were trying to outline, I thought it was really just about encouraging use of the yellow triangle in any situation that a user is worried about...

No where on the Dakka Rules pages does it say what to do if you find someone violating a rule on the website. Adding in the quoted section that says "Reporting Rules Violations" is really what I think should be added, everything after is just "gravy" on top of what I think should be added. And much like a good gravy, some dishes don't need it.


Edit: Sorry if my "calling out" users section is what is causing the confusion, it seemed (based on your post Manchu) that even telling a user that they might be breaking a rule shouldn't be done. I have spoilered it to remove it from the discussion.

 Alfndrate wrote:
No where on the Dakka Rules pages does it say what to do if you find someone violating a rule on the website.

Honestly, there is no need for an instruction. It's just like being in your FLGS (as a customer, not an employee) and someone comes in without shirt/shoes. You don't need to refer to a policy to know what to do and not to do in that situation.

 Alfndrate wrote:
it seemed (based on your post Manchu) that even telling a user that they might be breaking a rule shouldn't be done

What needs avoiding is folks developing the mentality that they are "deputies" or watchdogs. Friendly advice delivered in a reasonable way can't be against the rules.

 Manchu wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
No where on the Dakka Rules pages does it say what to do if you find someone violating a rule on the website.

Honestly, there is no need for an instruction. It's just like being in your FLGS (as a customer, not an employee) and someone comes in without shirt/shoes. You don't need to refer to a policy to know what to do and not to do in that situation.

No, but a new user could read the rules, and come into a thread that is being spammed by yours truly (I've been known to do it once or twice), and could say, "Alf you're spamming up the thread." when he really needs to just hit the mod alert button, and he as a new user won't know what to do until someone else hits the mod alert button and you come deep striking in and hit me with a Banhammer of Wrath and at your unmodified strength at I10 you hit me with post deletion and red text telling me to stop spamming. And then you give the friendly, "if you see a rule being broken hit the triangle of friendship".

 Alfndrate wrote:
it seemed (based on your post Manchu) that even telling a user that they might be breaking a rule shouldn't be done

What needs avoiding is folks developing the mentality that they are "deputies" or watchdogs. Friendly advice delivered in a reasonable way can't be against the rules.

I'm not advocating for deputies or watchdogs, or creepy old neighbor ladies that want in on everyone's business but make really good lemon bars so we let her join the block parties. If I were advocating that, I'd have suggested that we tell people when we report them.


If it doesn't get added, no harm, no foul but this is nuts and bolts where users make suggestions to help the site run better. Giving users the tools on how to properly conduct themselves in certain situations can only improve Dakka and allow it to run better.

"Alf you're spamming the thread" is okay.

"Alf feth off with the spam donkey-cave" is not okay.

So that's covered.

I think the disconnect here is that we're not imposing an obligation on users to report rules violations whenever they see them. Not hitting the YT while saying "spamming is against the rules" is okay -- all other things being equal.

What is not okay is "fighting back." The most common example is when someone has broken rule 1 by making a personal attack against someone else and that someone else breaks rule 1 by fighting back. You don't get to fight back like that.

The more relevant topic is using the rules as cover for breaking the rules or line-toeing. Say OP posts something with bad grammar, etc. That doesn't justify piling on the personal attacks.

If you absolutely MUST do something in either situation, the thing that is always acceptable is to hit the YT. And all hypothetical cases aside, the real life users that we actually have know to do this.

As far as giving users the tools to properly conduct themselves, I want to be very clear that our expectation is that every user already has the tools to properly conduct themselves upon registering.

Of course they should have every tool to properly conduct themselves when they register because they must agree to the Dakka Rules (which I believe they are given a link to, it's been awhile since I've had to register for this site ).

All I'm requesting is to include something to the rules page (hell it could be anywhere really, as long as it's easy to find and see) so new users know what to do when a rule is violated and no mods appear to be in sight.

I understand your request. I'm not saying you shouldn't make suggestions. I'm explaining why I disagree with this suggestion.

To wit:

 Alfndrate wrote:
All I'm requesting is to include something to the rules page so new users know what to do when a rule is violated and no mods appear to be in sight.

 Manchu wrote:
Honestly, there is no need for an instruction. It's just like being in your FLGS (as a customer, not an employee) and someone comes in without shirt/shoes. You don't need to refer to a policy to know what to do and not to do in that situation.

 Manchu wrote:
I understand your request. I'm not saying you shouldn't make suggestions. I'm explaining why I disagree with this suggestion.

And that's exactly what forums are for , in the end it isn't up to you or I, but to the great Burner of Lego and the Face of Yak.

I have a question, and I'm going to quote you here...

Manchu wrote:If you think someone is breaking the rules, hit the yellow triangle.

Where do we tell people this is how we alert the mods?

 Alfndrate wrote:
Where do we tell people this is how we alert the mods?

On every single post there is a yellow triangle and if you click on it, a box comes up that says "alert a mod to rule-breaking posts."

But you are actually bringing up a great example of how writing something down does not necessarily make it more clear.

I wrote, "if you think someone is breaking the rules, hit the yellow triangle."

What I meant makes sense in context. Namely, hit the yellow triangle instead of breaking the rules yourself. But put that same sentence on a rules page and someone, maybe you, might read it and think "okay, I'm supposed to report everyone I think is breaking the rules." No, that's not what I meant. You have no affirmative duty to report rule breaking. It's an option you have. You could also not respond at all to rule breaking. That's fine, too.

Seriously, if you just think about the FLGS example this is very simple.

 Manchu wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
Where do we tell people this is how we alert the mods?

On every single post there is a yellow triangle and if you click on it, a box comes up that says "alert a mod to rule-breaking posts."

I realize this, as someone that browses Dakka in print friendly mode, it's one of the few pieces of color on the page, but unless you click the button you don't know what it does. It could have a hover function that says, "Mod Alert" then a user would know, "hey if I click this I can alert a mod" but that's not the crux of my argument.

But you are actually bringing up a great example of how writing something down does not make it more clear.

I wrote, "if you think someone is breaking the rules, hit the yellow triangle."

What I meant makes sense in context. Namely, hit the yellow triangle instead of breaking the rules yourself. But put that same sentence on a rules page and someone, maybe you, might read it and think "okay, I'm supposed to report everyone I think is breaking the rules." No, that's not what I meant. You have no affirmative duty to report rule breaking. It's an option you have. You could also not respond at all to rule breaking. That's fine, too.

Then you would change what is written before we approve/disapprove this suggestion, it could read, "If you see a post that violates Dakka's rules, and believe that it requires the attention of a moderator, hit the Mod Alert Button. This button is the yellow triangle that can be found in the upper right hand corner of a post."

Seriously, if you just think about the FLGS example this is very simple.

I have been thinking about it, and for the most part it seems to deal more with the "calling people out" rather than letting people know what to do in cases of rules violation, which I thought we've moved on from, and are discussing why we should or should not include a blurb somewhere on the site on what to do if we something that requires a moderator's attention.

What I haven't seen is where we tell users to hit the yellow triangle besides the occasional post from a moderator where this is brought up. Why are we not informing users of a function of the site when we inform them of every other function?

I was giving an example of how any language can be unclear rather than an example of how this specific language can be unclear.

But I'm not opposed to your latest idea, that we need some language about what a YT is, because it's too much of an effort to come up with the right language.

I'm opposed because there doesn't need to be language in the first place.

That's what the FLGS example is about. That example is definitely not about "calling out" someone in the narrow sense. It is about knowing what to do and not do without being told because you are already a reasonable person.

I understand that the further issue with the YT is folks knowing that it's there in the first place/what it does.

But being in a position to have a very good idea of whether that is actually a problem or not, I can tell you with confidence that it is not a problem.

So now we go back to the issue of having everything written down. IMO, this encourages a legalistic attitude that is NOT good for the site. You are not a citizen of Dakka. You do not have recourse to rights. You do not get to mount a defense in the face of moderation. There is no appeal to a "higher court."

Let's go back to the initial premise here, since we have really strayed too far. This all began because someone publicly called out a moderator for "breaking the rules."

Users who are not moderators are in no position to definitively judge whether someone is breaking the rules. The most you can do, if you really want to, is complain about it via hitting the YT.

The user in question did know about the YT. You, who initially brought the matter up, also know about the YT. The real question here was, when do I use YT as opposed to posting in the thread?

That's simple. You can post in a thread as long as it doesn't violate the rules. Does calling someone out about breaking the rules itself violate the rules? Well, is it rude, spam, or off-topic? If so, there's the YT.

So that being answered, you moved on to the hypothetical that someone might not know about the YT. I don't think that's actually a problem because, as I've said, there is no affirmative obligation to use it. You seem to be making the assumption that if people don't know about the YT then all they can do is call people out in the thread.

But that's not a good assumption. Going back to the the actual incident, that's not what happened. We have a user who's very Dakka-saavy calling someone out despite knowing about the YT. So we've gone from something that actually happens to something that might happen: namely, that someone who hasn't read a blurb about YTs in the rule section will ... I don't know, somehow break the rules?

I'm not convinced that is a likely scenario. Regardless, the underlying logic is faulty. Someone who breaks the rules that are posted will not refrain because there is, in addition to those rules, a further blurb about using the YT.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Alfndrate wrote:
Why are we not informing users of a function of the site when we inform them of every other function?

Huh? That's not true.

The part you quoted and bolded is incorrect, I added it hastily.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So we as users are not required to use the YT, but whenever someone questions the moderation staff about being inconsistent on their enforcement of the rules, it always gets brought up, "if you see a rule being broken, press the yellow triangle" (not a direct quote, more of a paraphrase).

But I seen posts where moderators have said, "hitting the yellow triangle will alert a mod" and users have had a wtf moment because they had no idea such a thing existed.

I can also find posts where mods have said that they're only human and that they can't be everywhere at once, and so hitting the yellow triangle will alert them.

Why is not beneficial to state this upfront? You see it as making Dakka "legalistic", I see it as letting users know things that get said on the site and are not stated anywhere official, but are just as official as words on a single page. Which goes back to this "culture of dakka" I was talking about in my OP. Users come in and are polite and follow the rules most of the time, but when they see a rules violation, they don't know what to do. They could ignore such things like you said, or they could report them.

But I'm not even sure why I'm still arguing this, you seem to think it's a bad idea (maybe even going so far as a horrible and/or terrible idea), and to the admin(s) of the site, your word holds more weight than mine does. While it seems that I had some initial mod support, that seems to have changed/dropped off...

 Alfndrate wrote:
While it seems that I had some initial mod support, that seems to have changed/dropped off...

Trying to summon Tom?

Look, it's just a discussion. I understand your point that having an explanation of YTs somewhere could hypothetically help someone. My counterpoint is that doing so does not seem to address any real problem (e.g., people aren't using YTs enough) AND ties into/supports/promotes a legalistic mindset that actually already is a problem.

 Manchu wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
While it seems that I had some initial mod support, that seems to have changed/dropped off...

Trying to summon Tom?

I could always click the YTs to summon him right?

Manchu wrote:Look, it's just a discussion. I understand your point that having an explanation of YTs somewhere could hypothetically help someone. My counterpoint is that doing so does not seem to address any real problem (e.g., people aren't using YTs enough) AND ties into/supports/promotes a legalistic mindset that actually already is a problem.

We have a legalistic mindset? I honestly never really see it, unless it also includes things like a RAW mindset. As to the idea of YTs, as a regular user, I don't have any statistics on how often the YTs get used, so I can't comment on such things, I used to alert whenever I saw a duplicate thread, spammers in the N&R, and the occasional post in the big threads that could easily go OT and get locked like the original Resin Forge thread.

 Alfndrate wrote:
We have a legalistic mindset?

Check out Crablezworth's thread again. Or Cyp's posts about Tom.

 Alfndrate wrote:
I could always click the YTs to summon him right?

How would you know???

 Manchu wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
We have a legalistic mindset?

Check out Crablezworth's thread again. Or Cyp's posts about Tom.

Based on Cyp's posts (in the Resin Forge thread), all I can see is this:

 Cyporiean wrote:
Tom, The thing is though, if this was any other thread and any other poster, your posts would have been considered spam already.

On page 61 of this thread you have repeated the same set of questions 5 times...

Which was edited a minute or so after, and Idk who edited the post, so I couldn't tell you if something worse was posted there. Which is why I found Tom's post below that post harsh in it's content, because from what I could tell Cyp wasn't telling a moderator how to do his job. If something else existed there then it's a different argument. but that issue has been talked to death already in the other thread.

 Alfndrate wrote:
I could always click the YTs to summon him right?

How would you know???

Tom's point stands. Moderating is the job of the moderators. This isn't a society, it's a conversation. Moderators are the people who the site's owners have chosen to decide how the conversation should go. Tom explained his reasons for having that conversation go a certain way.

It seems to me that Cyp is not thinking of Dakka like that but rather as a society with laws and, more importantly, rule of law. So her point, even mitigated by whatever editing, is "you shouldn't get to break the laws just because you're a moderator." That's an example of the way legalistic thinking makes trouble.

Bloody hell you two
This looks more like a domestic!

To be honest though, if someone breaks a rule, someone is usually quick enough to give them a quick reminder of the rules or hit the triangle.

Most people dont read the rules anyway to be fair, so by adding info on how to work with an issue, your more than likely going to just crowd lego with more work, and gain nothing from it.

 Jackal wrote:
Bloody hell you two

When it comes to discussing site policy, I support transparent discussion.

Theres discussion and theres circles, both are currently related in this topic now

 Jackal wrote:
Theres discussion and theres circles, both are currently related in this topic now

I don't disagree.

I edited the post after posting it to correct a spelling error, nothing sinister.

 Manchu wrote:
Tom's point stands. Moderating is the job of the moderators.

Who Watches The Watchmen?

 Manchu wrote:

It seems to me that Cyp is not thinking of Dakka like that but rather as a society with laws and, more importantly, rule of law. So her point, even mitigated by whatever editing, is "you shouldn't get to break the laws just because you're a moderator." That's an example of the way legalistic thinking makes trouble.

I discussed the situation with Tom via PM after the event:

Cyporiean wrote:Aye, I can see that I went a little far, but i still feel you went too far in badgering AJ. You've given it a break since then, and I appreciate that. I have no problem with the questioning coming up, its just that the machine gun rate was too much.

From my point of view we have a highly publicized thread getting traffic from lots of folks who are completely new or at least relatively new to Dakka and may not realize how great of a website this is, and in it we see a Moderator spending 1/4 of a page (20 posts to a page, right?) hounding a new poster for information they don't have access to. This is where the 'Dakka Mods are Facists and Dakka is a language please' style threads come from on other sites, they don't look at the big picture to see that overall its a great place.. just the small one time occurrences.

With OTLG both advertising and hosting our forums here it any poor reflection of Dakka also reflects poorly on us because we are in a way endorsing this behavior.

Tom & I have settled things and put the incident behind us.

 Manchu wrote:
Tom's point stands. Moderating is the job of the moderators. This isn't a society, it's a conversation. Moderators are the people who the site's owners have chosen to decide how the conversation should go. Tom explained his reasons for having that conversation go a certain way.

It seems to me that Cyp is not thinking of Dakka like that but rather as a society with laws and, more importantly, rule of law. So her point, even mitigated by whatever editing, is "you shouldn't get to break the laws just because you're a moderator." That's an example of the way legalistic thinking makes trouble.

Theoretical: If moderating is the job of the moderators, then why have the YT at all? Isn't alerting a mod a form of moderation? A set of standards (based on that own person's interpretation of the 3 rules) applied to a post on the website.

Practical: The YT alerts moderators of potential rules infractions, which is why moderators often say, "if you see a rule being broken, hit the yellow triangle".

But regardless of editing, are moderators not held to the same rules as users? (Which is how this entire thing started >_< )

Also just a side thought: At the same point, while the website might be a conversation, what happens when people don't like the direction the conversation is going and jump ship? I realize that none of us are forced to be here, but most people remain here because of some reason, many quote the fairness of mods, others quote the awesome P&M blogs, etc..., others quote the activity and flurry of posts. If people no longer have their reason to come to Dakka, what does Dakka do to keep people coming back? If 2,000 of the active users (out of the 9500 on currently) were to suddenly leave because they don't like the direction the moderation staff is steering the conversation of the site, does Dakka remain stoic with their decision or do they make changes?

Like it or not, we are a community and as such we are a community that is controlled by a set (albeit vague and open ended) of rules that "ask[s] that all who use our site follow the rules and guidelines outlined below. These rules apply in all areas of our site including the forums, gallery, articles, private messages, etc." Does this not apply to moderators as well?

I've already told Tom I thought the posts that triggered Cyp's post were spam, and he and I have talked that out, but the point still stands, are moderators not beholden to the same rules we are?

Edit: A lot has passed since I started writing this . With that in mind, and circles being discussed I'm going to bow out for a bit. I would still like Lego to consider the section I wrote up in the OP though

 Cyporiean wrote:
Who Watches The Watchmen?

The other watchmen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Alfndrate wrote:
Isn't alerting a mod a form of moderation?

Wow, no not at all, get that idea out of your head. A YT is just a way a user can (emphasis: does not have to) bring something to the attention of the staff.

A lot of users get a very wrong idea about YTs. For example, I have had to suspend users who hit YT because they are bringing me to a thread where they're actually the ones breaking the rules. I suspect they're so upset because they do indeed think they are the moderators and we're just the police come to do their bidding or something.

Theoretical: If moderating is the job of the moderators, then why have the YT at all? Isn't alerting a mod a form of moderation?

Thats like saying reporting a crime is doing the work of the police.
Limited number of mods, tons of threads, they wont allways see stuff.