Talking about FAF Code of Conduct
-
Vague rules = you need competent moderation with levelheads to actually determine what defines the gray line
Strict rules = you don't, but it's about 50 times the overhead in defining thingsCurrently we are blessed with competent moderation alongside Gieb being willing to let new moderators on the team so long as they meet his requirements as he has done this several times in the past year. I am averse to any sort of intrusion forcing him to do anything because he runs a tight ship and it doesn't take very many bad moderators, especially ones that have the French Revolution style Representative-on-Mission approval where they don't actually need to worry about Gieb or anyone else thinking they're bad moderators because the Board as a private group likes them.
This post is both showcasing the vagueness of the CoC (which I actually do think is fine, just as FAF Rules are vague and can be taking to an absurdist degree) and the danger of anything talking about having Board put their fingers into moderation. Leave subareas of FAF to the actual experts in that subarea.
Honestly if anything I think it's pretty silly to have the Board be some defining member in determining violations of the CoC and it would make way more sense to have a proposal removing that than anything else. Have the Association and the Board in turn define the CoC (and FAF Rules if you want, honestly the fact these are separate things is pretty silly), but they don't need to enforce it.
-
The problem with that thinking is that there is still far too much toxicity/etc on FAF, and that will remain the case until something changes it.
-
Go ahead and vote on that to establish some consensus about the situation on FAF. Board should not add new people to any team. They do not work with these people and they should not be babysitting these people to ensure they meet requirements that the Board has no reason to comprehend. If they dislike the way a team is operating their power should end at removing the current lead and letting the current team elect a new lead.
This stuff shouldn't even be voted on but rather discussed actively in Association forums or Discord with the moderation team taking input themselves from contributors in the various areas. Trainers can see what new players feel are issues, Devs can say what issues they face in their environment, moderation knows what workload they can actually do, and so on and so forth.
But that would require an Association that would discuss anything or a Board provoking discussion.
What you're proposing here should be a nuclear option used when moderation is stubborn and refuses to do anything about a problem that the Association has already had a solid majority agree must be handled.
-
@emperor_penguin
My understanding of your proposal and its underlying assumptions are:- FAF needs to be less toxic
- Its too toxic because the CoC isnt being enforced
- Having a rule that the CoC is enforced will solve this
I’d agree that it would be good to reduce toxicity in FAF, but it doesn’t follow that inconsistent moderation is the cause, and even if it was I dont see what having a rule that the CoC is enforced would do to stop it.
There are a bunch of other things that might impact on toxicity. To give a few possible examples:
-too many reports for the mods to keep ontop of (note your proposal could exacerbate this problem if it led to an increase in immaterial reports being made-a lot of mod reports will be ‘false’ reports such as reporting a teammate who didnt play perfectly)
-ignorance of the rules-as they dont strictly define what is acceptable but instead include a number of more subjective tests its possible people dont realise what they are doing is breaching the rules; and/or people dont even know the rules exist
-lack of effective deterrent-FAF is cheap to buy so the offender might think they can just buy another copy if banned for offensive behaviourA solution to one problem can also cause others. Eg allowing anyone who volunteers into the mod team would be great for clearing the backlog of reports, but a bad mod could cause far more damage to FAF, and you’d likely see an increase in inconsistency. Very prescriptive code of conduct rules coupled with prescriptive punishments might reduce inconsistency of mod actions, but also lead to actions seen as unjust or unwarranted. Imposing changes to the mod team without their agreement also risks demotivating existing mods (who are volunteers).
-
I understand the work to get less toxicity, and I see the "joke" with OPs post.
But in general, explaining every step in detail to the user for what he/she is going to get banned is already a lost war in the first place.
If their parents could not teach them basic kindness, or they are too ignorant to do it, then every interaction with them is a lost cause and wasted time.
There are some gray areas, but for that is the Moderation here.
-
As per @FtXCommando list I present a solution.
The immediate unranking and removal of all Astro Crater and Dual gap maps from FAF.
These are the maps people commonly start at and learn the game which upon joining other games they are pretty bad at the game and that causes toxicity.
As such if we remove the bad starting map and encourage better maps such as Mapgens and Setons where they learn more FAF skills toxicity goes down.In @maudlin27 post about number of reports, I know from talking to mods a large number of these reports are all for toxicity on astro as such removing this map will drastically reduce the number of reports produced from this map.
As for the board having control over any moderation factors im sorry but no. Although I may not always agree with Gieb on his review of games and bans. I do know he does a damn good job considering the circumstances.
Also @FtXCommando we need to have added to the list no offensive lobby names.
-
Too late. It is easier to move Russians to other server than clear their lovely maps and get bunch of angry players
-
I want to give this topic an unsatisfactory rating, and NoOneCares
-
@noonecares People enjoying dual gap and astro isn't a bad thing. The issue is the lack of any sort of co-op mission / in-game training. Maybe more effort is needed to put into "training" missions
-
Solo things is boring. Add more trainers
-
@noonecares said in Talking about FAF Code of Conduct:
The immediate unranking and removal of all Astro Crater and Dual gap maps from FAF.
Ah.. Here we go again
-
@eternal We can make co-op missions/training missions that will outlast any trainer. If some dude pings @personalTrainer, there is a chance nobody will be online or even worse, they are going to ask the same questions new people always have. We should have a resource that can answer this basic questions
-
You're all banned for not staying on topic