- Messages
- 1,074
The Disclaimer: I was recently moderated on Gamefaqs, and may still be salty about it.
The catalyst:
Here's everything I have on the moderation and resulting dispute, plus the "Ask the mods" topic I made about it, and the PM I sent to the mod after the topic was closed, within spoiler tags. This information is optional, and only provided for full context, so you can make your own minds up. I'll summarize after the spoiler:
The summary is that I made a serious inquiry into someone's mental health, based on the user's unnecessary repetitive actions that made me think that he had some mental illness. I was dinged by a moderator for it. A moderator claimed that I was "Using disabilities as a means of insult". I appealed this moderation using the provided tools, saying that no insult existed, or was intended, but that didn't work.
So then I opened up a topic on the "Ask the mods board", where I asked if there was any way to inquire about a person's mental health without breaking the rules, just out of curiosity.
I was told, by two different mods, respectively: "Maybe, but I can't say for sure", and "I cannot fathom any reason why... This is about your moderation in question, I will have to close this [topic]... Short answer. No."
I then PM'ed the mod that posted this, asking if they could reopen my topic, since they were wrong about the topic in question being "about my moderation in question", and that I thought I made some good points that deserve to be discussed. He said that "There's nothing to discuss".
How this typifies the problem
I see three issues here:
1. Lack of open communication with moderators
2. Moderators thinking that they know best
3. Moderators enforcing vague, subjective rules.
#1 Lack of open communication with moderators
When interacting with mods on Gamefaqs, and even other communities like The Escapist and Reddit (varies according to subreddit), communication with the authorities, mods, admins, etc, is restricted. According to the rules of The Escapist, mods and staff cannot be criticized, and they will lock topics, and hand out demerits when enforcing this rule. Open communication between users and moderators does not exist.
On Gamefaqs, your options are:
A) an appeal form, which allows you to appeal only twice for any one moderation, and can be taken away from you under certain circumstances.
B) The Ask the Mods board, where you cannot post on any other topic than your own, and where moderators will lock your topic as soon as they feel that your question is answered, or for any other reason, which means they always get the last word.
C) PMs, which is dangerous, as you can get dinged for not following proper procedure for your grievance.
There is also no place where you can just talk about the mods or criticize their actions. That is considered "off-topic" everywhere. There is no explicit rule about this, but I remember that there used to be a "secret" board where the purpose was to criticize the mods called "Snack Attack". It got shut down, and moved to "Hellhole", where legitimate concerns were heavily diluted by nonsense.
Reddit mods can delete topics, and mute people from interacting with modmail.
The big problem with all of this is that users cannot make their voices heard. They cannot openly discuss a problem, and come together to form a solution. Users are divided and conquered. Moderators will kick down your doors in the dead of night, and execute you in the street for having an "illegal meeting", so to speak.
#2 Moderators thinking that they know best
In "The catalyst", the moderator claimed that I was using disabilities as a means of an insult. For the moderator to know that to be a fact, they would have to read my mind and know my intent. The other moderator in the thread I made "could not fathom" why such a question would be asked. They both thought they knew my intent and knew how to police my words for the good of all. Because of #1, moderators cannot be talked to like peers, but must be addressed through specific channels, so speaking frankly with them is impossible. This causes moderators to exist in their own bubbles apart from users where their ego grows unchecked.
This bubble is caused by a lack of open communication channels, and should exist everywhere this first problem exists, and is exacerbated by the third problem:
#3 Moderators enforcing vague, subjective rules.
Or alternately, "Moderators given carte blanche"
The Gamefaqs rule is "Do not insult anyone based on race, religion, gender, etc..."
But what isn't clear is what an insult actually is.
I remember years ago, I got moderated for suggesting that the reason why only black people make up the majority of the community for a certain older game, was because, statistically, poorer households are more likely to be black households, and poorer households are stuck with cheaper, older games. The statistics support what I said, but I was still moderated for racism, despite being black myself.
The moderator took it upon his or herself to decide that what I was saying was insulting, and that it was racism, despite objective facts not being capable of racism. They thought that they knew what's best for everyone.
I can understand punishing blatant violations of explicit rules, such as "no porn" or "no cursing", but when things start getting subjective, and when moderators start deciding for themselves what "offensive content" is, what "racism" is, then you've constructed your rules, and your moderators, to fail.
What if I had seen a user post certain idioms specific to a certain geographic region. What if I had asked this user, "Hey, I noticed that your speech patterns were familiar. Are you Sudanese, by chance?" Would this be offensive? What if that user was a racist, and took offense to this? Should I be moderated, because he took offense? What if the moderator was racist?
What if the word "Sudanese" was replaced by "autistic"? Would that be offensive? Gamefaqs mods seem to think so, because being autistic is "a bad thing" that people don't like being called. On the other hand, only racists would balk when mistaken for being Sudanese, so making inquiries about a person's race is generally okay, right?
What's "bad" about being autistic? Sure, there are legitimate drawbacks and disadvantages to being mentally ill, but there are disadvantages to having a broken toe or pneumonia. It's not "bad" to have a physical illness or disability, so why should mental illness be treated any differently? Why is it offensive to inquire about a person's mental health, but inoffensive to ask about a person's physical health?
If you're called a racist because you're offended when you're mistaken for being Sudanese, does that mean you're "abelist", when you're offended when you're mistaken for being autistic?
Why is it offensive to point out true statistics about blacks and poverty in America, but okay to say that women buy a majority of video games?
The pertinent question here is, Why do moderators feel that they can make these decisions for us?
In my opinion, the rules have failed them by not being explicit enough, and they are put between a rock and a hard place. No decision they make goes over well.
This ended up being longer than I thought. I'll follow up with the "how we can be better" part in about 18 hours. Thanks for reading.
The catalyst:
Here's everything I have on the moderation and resulting dispute, plus the "Ask the mods" topic I made about it, and the PM I sent to the mod after the topic was closed, within spoiler tags. This information is optional, and only provided for full context, so you can make your own minds up. I'll summarize after the spoiler:
The post:
MODERATION REASON - OFFENSIVE
Offensive Material
You should not post anything that would be considered inappropriate in a business or school environment (in other words, "Not Safe For Work"). Here are some examples:
Links to images or videos containing pornography, nudity of any kind, or sexualized minors (i.e. "jailbait").
Links to real-life blood and gore. Gore in a video game is fine, but real-life graphic material isn't.
Hate speech, such as using race, religion, sexual orientation, culture, ethnicity, disability, nationality, or gender as a means of insult.
Sexually explicit posts. If you must discuss sexual matters, keep it vague. The less detail, the less likely someone will find it offensive.
Don't use "gay" or "retarded" in place of "stupid", or "rape" in place of "destroyed".
DISPUTE MESSAGES
A Mod/Admin said on 7/22/2018 3:06:28 PM:
Using disabilities as a means of insult is not allowed and is considered offensive on these boards.
You said on 7/22/2018 5:31:11 PM:
There is no insult here. Asking: "Serious question, do you have a mental disability..." is not an insult, anymore than a doctor asking "Do you have any prior history of..." is an insult. I was legitimately wanted to know, which is why I opened with "serious question". I don't see how this can be construed as an insult.
If making actual inquiries into someone's health is not allowed, perhaps the TOU should be updated to address that.
A Mod/Admin said on 7/23/2018 4:15:32 AM:
When you're asking if they have a mental disability, you're pretty much insinuating that they do (otherwise you wouldn't be asking). It's the same as asking someone "are you an idiot?". This is what we refer to as an implied insult. The ToU does state this under the flaming rule, but you were moderated for 'Offensive' because using a disability as an insult falls under this rule instead.
I can see how you were trying not to be insulting, but there's a difference between randomly asking someone if they have a mental disability and a doctor asking questions about a person's (mental) medical history. The first one will always come off as insulting, regardless of intent.
---
The topic I made afterward:
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/10-ask-the-mods/76836937
The PMs after the topic was closed:
From me to mod:
MODERATION REASON - OFFENSIVE
Offensive Material
You should not post anything that would be considered inappropriate in a business or school environment (in other words, "Not Safe For Work"). Here are some examples:
Links to images or videos containing pornography, nudity of any kind, or sexualized minors (i.e. "jailbait").
Links to real-life blood and gore. Gore in a video game is fine, but real-life graphic material isn't.
Hate speech, such as using race, religion, sexual orientation, culture, ethnicity, disability, nationality, or gender as a means of insult.
Sexually explicit posts. If you must discuss sexual matters, keep it vague. The less detail, the less likely someone will find it offensive.
Don't use "gay" or "retarded" in place of "stupid", or "rape" in place of "destroyed".
DISPUTE MESSAGES
A Mod/Admin said on 7/22/2018 3:06:28 PM:
Using disabilities as a means of insult is not allowed and is considered offensive on these boards.
You said on 7/22/2018 5:31:11 PM:
There is no insult here. Asking: "Serious question, do you have a mental disability..." is not an insult, anymore than a doctor asking "Do you have any prior history of..." is an insult. I was legitimately wanted to know, which is why I opened with "serious question". I don't see how this can be construed as an insult.
If making actual inquiries into someone's health is not allowed, perhaps the TOU should be updated to address that.
A Mod/Admin said on 7/23/2018 4:15:32 AM:
When you're asking if they have a mental disability, you're pretty much insinuating that they do (otherwise you wouldn't be asking). It's the same as asking someone "are you an idiot?". This is what we refer to as an implied insult. The ToU does state this under the flaming rule, but you were moderated for 'Offensive' because using a disability as an insult falls under this rule instead.
I can see how you were trying not to be insulting, but there's a difference between randomly asking someone if they have a mental disability and a doctor asking questions about a person's (mental) medical history. The first one will always come off as insulting, regardless of intent.
---
The topic I made afterward:
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/10-ask-the-mods/76836937
The PMs after the topic was closed:
From me to mod:
From mod to me:
The summary is that I made a serious inquiry into someone's mental health, based on the user's unnecessary repetitive actions that made me think that he had some mental illness. I was dinged by a moderator for it. A moderator claimed that I was "Using disabilities as a means of insult". I appealed this moderation using the provided tools, saying that no insult existed, or was intended, but that didn't work.
So then I opened up a topic on the "Ask the mods board", where I asked if there was any way to inquire about a person's mental health without breaking the rules, just out of curiosity.
I was told, by two different mods, respectively: "Maybe, but I can't say for sure", and "I cannot fathom any reason why... This is about your moderation in question, I will have to close this [topic]... Short answer. No."
I then PM'ed the mod that posted this, asking if they could reopen my topic, since they were wrong about the topic in question being "about my moderation in question", and that I thought I made some good points that deserve to be discussed. He said that "There's nothing to discuss".
How this typifies the problem
I see three issues here:
1. Lack of open communication with moderators
2. Moderators thinking that they know best
3. Moderators enforcing vague, subjective rules.
#1 Lack of open communication with moderators
When interacting with mods on Gamefaqs, and even other communities like The Escapist and Reddit (varies according to subreddit), communication with the authorities, mods, admins, etc, is restricted. According to the rules of The Escapist, mods and staff cannot be criticized, and they will lock topics, and hand out demerits when enforcing this rule. Open communication between users and moderators does not exist.
On Gamefaqs, your options are:
A) an appeal form, which allows you to appeal only twice for any one moderation, and can be taken away from you under certain circumstances.
B) The Ask the Mods board, where you cannot post on any other topic than your own, and where moderators will lock your topic as soon as they feel that your question is answered, or for any other reason, which means they always get the last word.
C) PMs, which is dangerous, as you can get dinged for not following proper procedure for your grievance.
There is also no place where you can just talk about the mods or criticize their actions. That is considered "off-topic" everywhere. There is no explicit rule about this, but I remember that there used to be a "secret" board where the purpose was to criticize the mods called "Snack Attack". It got shut down, and moved to "Hellhole", where legitimate concerns were heavily diluted by nonsense.
Reddit mods can delete topics, and mute people from interacting with modmail.
The big problem with all of this is that users cannot make their voices heard. They cannot openly discuss a problem, and come together to form a solution. Users are divided and conquered. Moderators will kick down your doors in the dead of night, and execute you in the street for having an "illegal meeting", so to speak.
#2 Moderators thinking that they know best
In "The catalyst", the moderator claimed that I was using disabilities as a means of an insult. For the moderator to know that to be a fact, they would have to read my mind and know my intent. The other moderator in the thread I made "could not fathom" why such a question would be asked. They both thought they knew my intent and knew how to police my words for the good of all. Because of #1, moderators cannot be talked to like peers, but must be addressed through specific channels, so speaking frankly with them is impossible. This causes moderators to exist in their own bubbles apart from users where their ego grows unchecked.
This bubble is caused by a lack of open communication channels, and should exist everywhere this first problem exists, and is exacerbated by the third problem:
#3 Moderators enforcing vague, subjective rules.
Or alternately, "Moderators given carte blanche"
The Gamefaqs rule is "Do not insult anyone based on race, religion, gender, etc..."
But what isn't clear is what an insult actually is.
I remember years ago, I got moderated for suggesting that the reason why only black people make up the majority of the community for a certain older game, was because, statistically, poorer households are more likely to be black households, and poorer households are stuck with cheaper, older games. The statistics support what I said, but I was still moderated for racism, despite being black myself.
The moderator took it upon his or herself to decide that what I was saying was insulting, and that it was racism, despite objective facts not being capable of racism. They thought that they knew what's best for everyone.
I can understand punishing blatant violations of explicit rules, such as "no porn" or "no cursing", but when things start getting subjective, and when moderators start deciding for themselves what "offensive content" is, what "racism" is, then you've constructed your rules, and your moderators, to fail.
What if I had seen a user post certain idioms specific to a certain geographic region. What if I had asked this user, "Hey, I noticed that your speech patterns were familiar. Are you Sudanese, by chance?" Would this be offensive? What if that user was a racist, and took offense to this? Should I be moderated, because he took offense? What if the moderator was racist?
What if the word "Sudanese" was replaced by "autistic"? Would that be offensive? Gamefaqs mods seem to think so, because being autistic is "a bad thing" that people don't like being called. On the other hand, only racists would balk when mistaken for being Sudanese, so making inquiries about a person's race is generally okay, right?
What's "bad" about being autistic? Sure, there are legitimate drawbacks and disadvantages to being mentally ill, but there are disadvantages to having a broken toe or pneumonia. It's not "bad" to have a physical illness or disability, so why should mental illness be treated any differently? Why is it offensive to inquire about a person's mental health, but inoffensive to ask about a person's physical health?
If you're called a racist because you're offended when you're mistaken for being Sudanese, does that mean you're "abelist", when you're offended when you're mistaken for being autistic?
Why is it offensive to point out true statistics about blacks and poverty in America, but okay to say that women buy a majority of video games?
The pertinent question here is, Why do moderators feel that they can make these decisions for us?
In my opinion, the rules have failed them by not being explicit enough, and they are put between a rock and a hard place. No decision they make goes over well.
This ended up being longer than I thought. I'll follow up with the "how we can be better" part in about 18 hours. Thanks for reading.
