Since this topic has strayed fairly far away from the original concern, and to a much broader arguably more important topic, I changed the title to better reflect the conversation we’re all discussing here. Hope no one is offended.
3 Likes
I have to agree with the idea that ‘don’t be an ass’ is a pretty dangerous rule- as a principle which underwrites other rules and their interpretation when the’re an over-riding ‘the spirit, not the letter, of the law determines judgments’ principle can be very effective, but on its own as a construction is weak- where lots of specific rules encourage rules-lawyering, principles without support mechanisms, example precedents, and codified structures encourage bad actors to lean on people’s sense of politeness about tolerance to get away with things- like bullies, they will live at the edge of actionability.
This might seem odd, but since this is a developing social community, I’d like to link a pseudo-philosophical analysis of another site made by Dan Olsen. I think it presents a very convincing argument as to why explicitly codifying the relationship between the staff and maintainers of a site (and by extension, the rules under which both parties operate) early in a platform’s development is essential.
The idea is that in the early phases, things like ‘we’re all friends’ and ‘don’t be an ass’ work, but once the site grows, the potential objectives of the site management and user base diverge, and that gap can lead to destructive friction. If you like, it’s here: VidMe or Why Platforms Aren't Your Friends - YouTube
In particular, I draw attention to that relationship because these sorts of discussions are what eventually crystallizes into the expected social paradigm, in terms of expectations, obligations, and rights of participants. I feel that it directly gives an example of a case where failure to be explicit lead to a failure to thrive. It highlights how important effective, clear codification of all party’s expectations is.
The key point I’m outlining here is that it is very much possible to be explicit:
“Our objective is to be as inclusive as possible, which means we are intolerant of bigotry- which is why, among other things, we don’t allow…”
and principled:
“The rules are interpreted in terms of their spirit, rather than their letter, as viewed by a reasonable user- such as a case in which…”
without having to be limitingly-specific:
“Our blacklist is conceptual rather than literal, but generally includes things like…”
and still avoid allowing either of the sides bad faith interaction that comes with generalizations or formalities so long as the rules are explicit in their abstractness and come with practical examples of application.
1 Like
I think this is getting a little off topic, I don’t think anyone is championing a reduction of the rules to ‘don’t be an ass’, @Talon was simply using it as an example that less rules can actually work, and work better than more rules.
I think having a list of ‘for instances’ doesn’t actually help anything. Saying ‘no nazis, bigots, etc.’ is no different than the current rules and only goes to showcase bad actors, something that for many is what they want. Exposure is one of the prime tools of bad actors, they want to be seen, even if it’s negative press.
It’s pretty obvious what an “Inflammatory Topic” is when it happens, people start to get fired up, and a whole slew of people should be getting reported for participating and killing the mood, with the inciter receiving the brunt of the punishment. And specifying more rules, even if just as ‘clarifiers’, doesn’t change that this situation will be acted upon by the moderation team if it happens. Making more rules about it isn’t going to make it happen less. A bad actor is a bad actor, some people just feel the need to act like an ass.
What’s going to really help Wolfery stay safe is users reporting anything they find may violate any of the rules that are already laid out, or even just anything that seems bad or out of place. As much as I like the discussion this topic has brought forth, it stems from a breaking of the reporting system, I think @Aura wouldn’t have wouldn’t have made this topic if it was taken care of in-game before they heard wind of it through the grape vine.
The staff team is discussing ways to make the report system more accessible and more appealing to use, but I’ll say the gist of our desires here. Use the report system in-game. I know I’m never going to act on another character with just a verbal report. I’m sorry folks but I can’t trust people to act in good faith on their own. Already we’ve had issues (I’m not going into detail so don’t ask) where both parties were at fault. Fill out a proper report. Please attach logs. The moderation team will try to take care of it in a timely and proper manner.
We try to be fair. We try to be just. We’re not robots and can make decisions based on reasoning, logic, and common sense all at once. We know when things look bad, we can and do talk to one another if things get too personal or heated. And I personally think that the other moderators have done a great job at keeping this place safe.
Yeah. I maybe didn’t put my position right. I do prefer generalized, but like I said earlier, we have a really good team to take care of these things.
What you don’t want is the… animosity against some other moderation teams when reasonable people may feel the rules are ‘whatever the mods want today’ or a feeling they’re biased for/against a group. I think for now we’re avoiding that.
A lot of good points were raised in this thread! It even helped me become aware that there is an actual report button in the interface!
For the most part, my original post was made in a bit of a knee jerk reaction to what I heard about other players, simple gossip, really. I got worried because, well, some stuff is just naturally unacceptable, and the current state of rules didn’t cover the exact issue I was made aware of in a 100% specific and explicit way. I really like Wolfery and I don’t want to imagine what could happen if malicious people just abused it by skirting rules, for example.
On this subject, that… might be amplified with time, maybe? I mean, Wolfery is growing, lots of nice people are joining but bad people can join as well and poison the well for the rest, and I believe an appropriate (nor too short, nor too long) set of rules feels like a responsible thing to do. I feel that @FoxLancaster-Okami 's post explains why this feels correct very well, and its probably something to think about for the future at the very least.
Yes, and I know it’s not your fault for not knowing reporting was there. The survey, while a bit too small to be indicative of the site as a whole, still shows that in our small response group, we need better visibility of the feature. Sometimes I feel like us mods need shirt or something that says help report or See something? Report something. 
Sorry to semi-necro the thread, but this comment stood out to me:
Is it possible the lack of familiarity with the formal report system can be correlated with use of Wolfery on mobile? The only reason I knew about the report function was the three dot icon appearing on mouse hover - which mobile doesn’t have a hover state. The dots appear if you tap on a message, but that isn’t quite as intuitive an interaction.
I’ve wondered that myself, I was going to bring it up but I’ve been flinging myself across the country and such for a couple weeks now. It hit me while I was helping clean out a house. 
Yes, I think this is one factor, though not the only.
Yes. This is yet another reason why I should probably prioritize making the client more mobile friendly.
Thanks for the input!
1 Like