Moderating in News and Rumours

[Brother Tyler]

We've *almost* completed our discussion. It's a complex issue.

[WarriorFish]

No, things have been exceptionally busy. When there is something to be updated it will be presented as always, we do not offer time frames unless we are sure we can commit to them as much as is possible. Tyler did make the status clear, and it is how things normally work so there is certainly nothing to be "worried" about.

[Scribe]

Please sticky/pin that post if you are going to lock it.

[MARK0SIAN]

I’d like to make a suggestion. It kind of applies to the whole site but news and rumours is where it happens most often.

 

When mods delete posts can we please have a policy that states the mod must post in the thread saying that they have done so. Many of them do but when they don’t it’s so confusing to come back to a thread and wonder why you can’t find what you’re looking for so you think you must have the wrong thread.

 

Just a quick courtesy post, not even saying what they deleted just “I deleted some posts in this thread for being off topic.”

 

Thanks :)

[Skywrath]

I’d like to make a suggestion. It kind of applies to the whole site but news and rumours is where it happens most often.

 

When mods delete posts can we please have a policy that states the mod must post in the thread saying that they have done so. Many of them do but when they don’t it’s so confusing to come back to a thread and wonder why you can’t find what you’re looking for so you think you must have the wrong thread.

 

Just a quick courtesy post, not even saying what they deleted just “I deleted some posts in this thread for being off topic.”

 

Thanks

 

I may be overly presumptuous in saying this, but it has been my impression that they do already, usually in the form of "This thread has been cleaned up" or something in that vein. Otherwise, why would they say they have cleaned it, put a reason in the scheduled to be deleted post, and then delete it, when non-mods can't see the moderator logs? It would make no sense. Unless you are proposing they PM you, saying so?

 

Also pretty sure, it was said on the forum rules that mods don't require a reason to delete a post - (i.e. their forum, their rules). Might be wrong on that bit. 

Edited June 5, 2020 by Skywrath

[MARK0SIAN]

 

 

I’d like to make a suggestion. It kind of applies to the whole site but news and rumours is where it happens most often.

 

When mods delete posts can we please have a policy that states the mod must post in the thread saying that they have done so. Many of them do but when they don’t it’s so confusing to come back to a thread and wonder why you can’t find what you’re looking for so you think you must have the wrong thread.

 

Just a quick courtesy post, not even saying what they deleted just “I deleted some posts in this thread for being off topic.”

 

Thanks

I may be overly presumptuous in saying this, but it has been my impression that they do already, usually in the form of "This thread has been cleaned up" or something in that vein. Otherwise, why would they say they have cleaned it, put a reason in the scheduled to be deleted post, and then delete it, when non-mods can't see the moderator logs? It would make no sense. Unless you are proposing they PM you, saying so?

 

Also pretty sure, it was said on the forum rules that mods don't require a reason to delete a post - (i.e. their forum, their rules). Might be wrong on that bit.

It’s just inconsistent. I acknowledged that a lot of mods do post when they have deleted stuff from a thread but it’s not all the time. And I’m not asking them to give a reason, just to state (in the thread, certainly not asking for a PM) that some deletions have happened so I don’t spend ages looking for a post that has been deleted. I don’t think it’s an unreasonable request.

[WarriorFish]

It depends on many variables. Often sufficient in-topic warning has been given such that it is not required - when a Mod states that posts will be removed if a request is not followed this can mean without further notice or recourse. Sometimes the Mod does not have enough time to also make a post - if you'd rather the Mods had more available time for such admin work, we'd ask you to not require so much of it in the first place ;)

 

You can review your posting history easily via your profile if you wish to find posts. If a post is missing, it was removed. I'm not quite sure why you'd want to review older posts, but the software provides this functionality quickly and easily if you want it.

[Joe]

Something that the Paradox (and other forums do) is have what's known as a "Moderator / Admin Response" filter on the thread; you can search by those specific posts to see where an important announcement / comment on the thread or wider community has been made. It's an incredibly useful too.

 

Something to consider for the new forum software? It might require some extra scripting on the back-end to create a distinguishable "moderation action" tag of some description, so it doesn't pick up every post a mod / admin has made, i.e. the stuff that might not strictly be related to deletions, warnings, etc.

[WarriorFish]

There is much we're considering for the updated software when it comes, the hope is that aside from the obvious advantages we can help streamline things and make "quality of life" improvements.

[Brother Tyler]

INTERIM RESPONSE

 

Expect the NRBA forum to be given similar attention in the future.

 

Each individual product should be discussed in its own topic. Naturally, there will be some exceptions to this when multiple new products are sold together (e.g., the various "triumvirate" releases in which three new miniatures were released together, or some related products). This also means that there should be individual topics for each of the products that are revealed at events (i.e., we shouldn't see a single topic for all of the models revealed at Adepticon).

 

Discussions should focus on the actual product/change. It's natural for topics to drift around a bit, but we shouldn't see a topic drift so much that we have to play six degrees of separation to figure out how a reply relates to the discussion topic. Other things that are related might be appropriate for discussion, but if they're not about the actual topic, they should be taken up in some other forum/discussion (e.g., if a discussion about a new Salamanders captain model starts veering into the markings used by the Firedrakes, the latter topic should be taken up in the Salamanders forum).

 

Once a new product is released, expect the discussion to be either closed or moved. If there is already a discussion about the new product in another appropriate forum, we'll probably close the NRBA discussion and link to the other discussion. If there isn't a discussion in some other forum, we might move the NRBA discussion to the other forum unless it's too big (i.e., page count) and it would be better for discussion if a new topic were created.

 

Topic drift isn't an issue for discipline (i.e., warnings) under most circumstances. Disruptive behavior (e.g., trolling, flaming) is already covered under our forum rules and will be dealt with accordingly.

 

Essentially, this means that our policy is preserving the status quo. Our failing in the past has been an issue of inconsistency, so we'll endeavor to be more consistent in our execution of that policy.

 

We are preparing a more detailed final response along with a full explanation of our reasoning. For those that are interested, we are drawing on basic principles of information architecture and content management (with the understanding that we have to allow for basic human nature).

[Halandaar]

Why was the topic about Arch Warhammer removed from News & Rumours just now?

 

Not a criticism, I would just like to understand the thought process.

[Kastor Krieg]

Why was the topic about Arch Warhammer removed from News & Rumours just now?

 

Not a criticism, I would just like to understand the thought process.

Same, I was not given any reason. This is is 40k and Games Workshop relevant. This is huge news for the community that racists are not tolerated, that Games Workshop is pushing back against them, even up to the point of warning other companies not to give them a platform.

 

Why would the mods have a problem with that thread?

[Panzer]

I can see why they potentially deleted it, since it's bound to either create a toxic argument between people who don't see him as racist and others or perhaps some kind of witchhunt, however imo the better approach would've been to simply lock the thread since it indeed is the kind of information that people should be made aware of even if we don't want that kind of discussion on the forum itself.

[Joe]

We did have a thread stickied briefly relating to GWs statement earlier in June - I would have thought that'd be the best place to include the stuff relating to Arch.

[Kastor Krieg]

I can see why they potentially deleted it, since it's bound to either create a toxic argument between people who don't see him as racist and others or perhaps some kind of witchhunt, however imo the better approach would've been to simply lock the thread since it indeed is the kind of information that people should be made aware of even if we don't want that kind of discussion on the forum itself.

Please, this guy is chums with Sargon of Akkad and Richard Spencer. He's racist, he's alt-right and he's fash. Just five minutes of his rambling with thinly veiled racist innuendo is enough to know whom you're dealing with here.

 

And the company is distancing itself and its trademarks from Arch. This is news. He is no longer acceptable. Arch has been cancelled and good bloody riddance.

 

 

We did have a thread stickied briefly relating to GWs statement earlier in June - I would have thought that'd be the best place to include the stuff relating to Arch.

Yeah, but that's long been buried and we were told to make new threads for each small fragment of news about releases, so I don't see why not for this.

Edited July 3, 2020 by Reclusiarch Krieg

[tychobi]

Smells like censorship to me. Deleted for possible future bad behavior could apply to any and or all threads.

[WarriorFish]

The topic is under review - what this does mean is not circumventing Mod action by repeating it in any form. This shouldn't need explaining and the rules are clear on procedure.

 

What I can say is that just because something has something to do with 40k does not automatically make it appropriate for the B&C, and the same is true for Games Workshop. Again, this should be clear from the rules and some common sense.

 

What we don't want is an ongoing topic where anything and everything about the N&R is posted to, as this is cumbersome and wastes time. Please review the rules - the ones everyone read and agreed to follow when signing up - and follow the proper processes outlined. This is a simple request and saves the team lots of time, otherwise delays are inevitable and the blame can not be placed at the staff door.

[Brother Tyler]

To expand on what WarriorFish said, the Arch Warhammer topic was removed for the simple fact that it doesn't meet the basic criteria for discussion here at the B&C.

 

MISSION STATEMENT

The Bolter & Chainsword exists to help people better enjoy and understand the Warhammer 40,000 hobby and games set in the Warhammer 40,000 universe through constructive discussion.

That's quoted from the forum rules that you can re-read by following the "Obey" link in my signature.

 

During the limited time that the topic was running, pretty much all of the replies were negative criticism (that's sugar coating it) of Arch Warhammer. None of the posts in any way helped anyone to better enjoy and understand the hobby.

 

Ultimately, there's practically zero potential for such a topic to contribute to the mission statement. There's significant potential for divisiveness and discord far beyond simple disagreement. Any efforts by members to remain reasonable would be drowned out by the inevitable negativity. The only really positive takeaway of such a discussion is that Games Workshop has demonstrated its commitment to promoting inclusiveness and distancing itself from anyone that is perceived as promoting some form of exclusion. As we lean into the server migration/software upgrade, we are reviewing our forum rules to make sure that they are very clear on this site's stance on the issue (which is in line with Games Workshop's stance). Once we get beyond recognizing that stance and enforcing it, there's no need to discuss particular instances of the policy being enforced. Games Workshop has just enforced the policy with regard to Arch Warhammer and will doubtless do so again. In the past, we have removed members who promoted similar ~isms, and we will do so again if we feel it is necessary. The only potentially valuable discussion after the fact is if it is perceived that the action was taken by the mods/admins inappropriately, a form of appeal with the possible outcome of reversing an unfair action. This instance was about action taken by Games Workshop, however, so it's not an issue in which we have any authority or leverage. 

 

If toxic behavior takes place here at the Bolter & Chainsword, discussion before such action is taken might be reasonable. We don't need to discuss how hobbyist X has YouTube videos or Twitter posts or Reddit posts or etc. that we don't like, however. Those issues should be taken up with whoever controls those other sites. The exception, of course, is if someone brings that other site's content here to the B&C - posting a link to a video or similar. Rather than launch into an offensive against someone whose content you don't like, however, be reasonable. If something might be open to interpretation, you might give the benefit of the doubt. Alternately, you might ask for clarification from the member in order to build a better picture of what the member is saying. The REPORT function is recommended in those instances where you think that official action needs to be taken. What we don't need as a community is for members to be at each others' throats. At best, we can agree to disagree. At worst, let the mods/admins deal with malefactors (but please bring things to our attention).

 

Something else we don't need to do, and which is what was happening in this instance, is sit around and talk smack about someone, whether warranted or not. That's just another kind of toxicity (less hurtful than racism, misogyny, etc., to be sure, but toxic nonetheless). This site doesn't exist to promote toxicity.