Another alternative would be to ask moderators to send short PMs to people whose posts they delete but who obviously posted in good faith, e.g. OP. It probably wouldn't be too hard to give mods a button that copies the deleted message and auto-generates a PM with a template such as the following:
Hi [username],
I deleted the following post for [x reason], although I did not think it deserved an official warning or infraction. In the future, please post in a way that contributes to fruitful discussion.
Thanks,
[mod]
[attached message in quotes?]
EDIT: This solution achieves notice to the user whose post was deleted (the important thing) without too much publicizing the wide discretion enjoyed by MTGS mods.
Me neither, but I know some people that can Devil's Advocate the hell out of the littlest thing. So, I want to make sure that it's looked at. The main issue I can see is "But, you just deleted this post and infracted me for that one." But, I'd rather have a little perceived inconsistency than our moderators feeling like they can't use discretion in their subs. (and by that I mean the ability to handle big problems with a hammer and little ones with a light touch)
Well, I agree with the latter point, although I don't see anything wrong with the proposed solution.
The issue as I see it is the following:
Spam, unlike trolling and flaming, is inherently pretty subjective and not very clear on where the dividing line is. And yes, I can give examples where most people would agree that X is spam. For example, if I wrote in this thread:
Quote from Clear Spam Post »
Totally agree.
That's spam, and there's no real argument that it's not.
But then you have something like the following, that someone else might post in this thread.
Quote from Borderline Spam »
This sounds like a good solution to this issue. I say we ask if the techs can do such a thing.
It's still not really contributing to the discussion, but it's far less clear on is it truly spam, or merely someone giving an opinion without much of a thought process to justify it. This is something where the moderators have to use discretion: if it's spam, we deal with it, and if not, we don't.
The way I see it, if we allow discretion (as indeed we must) in determining where the line is drawn for spam, then I think it's only reasonable that discretion should also be used for determining what the penalty, if any, is. It's rather like the infamous "three-strikes" laws on the books in California and elsewhere - justice isn't really served when you lock someone up for 25 years for stealing a candy bar - the punishment doesn't fit the crime. And so, on a similar note, less egregious offenses of spam (due to the inherently subjective nature of the rule) should be treated with due consideration, and simply deleting the post without a permanent infraction on the person's record gives the moderators another tool without having to resort to the infraction hammer. Same principle how police officers sometimes issue warnings instead of writing traffic tickets when you are only going a few miles over.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Former Level 2 Judge (Retired / Renounced)
Went to a new shop from a friend's recommendation, DQ'ed for willful violation of CR 100.6b.
What if you could see that your post was deleted like this:
Would that be adequate? I don't even know if we can do that, but non-moderated deleted posts that would at least let you know who did it and why.
This would make rumor mill threads miserable.
The policy is fine as stands, has been around since the site originally existed.
If you post something worthless enough to get it deleted, you are lucky that you didn't get an infraction or something for it.
Though I guess that is fine if it is an option members can turn on if they want to.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
News and spoiler contributor for GatheringMagic.com
You would only see your own deleted posts, not everyone else's... at least that's the idea. And, while it's been around since the site started it's been a regular complaint since then too. So, if we can rig it to work, why not?
You would only see your own deleted posts, not everyone else's... at least that's the idea. And, while it's been around since the site started it's been a regular complaint since then too. So, if we can rig it to work, why not?
Yeah, I agree with this. Ability to see deletion notices of own posts. Seems like a good implementation all around But since this'd be a technical hack, we can't really make a good estimation for when it'll happen.
Yeah, I agree with this. Ability to see deletion notices of own posts. Seems like a good implementation all around But since this'd be a technical hack, we can't really make a good estimation for when it'll happen.
If the plan is to make it actually work, and the risks of close-but-different functionality are high, why would you 'hack' it together?
What's wrong with a little inconsistency? Don't tell me browbeating the mods has an effect.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Epic banner by Erasmus of æтђєг.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
If the plan is to make it actually work, and the risks of close-but-different functionality are high, why would you 'hack' it together?
What's wrong with a little inconsistency? Don't tell me browbeating the mods has an effect.
Two reasons. Neither deals with mods.
1) Seeing all of the deleted posts as a regular user defeats the purpose. There's little difference between seeing
Spam
Spam
Spam
My spam
and
Deleted post
Deleted post
Deleted post
My deleted post
2) Do you mind other users seeing all the post I've deleted of yours? People want us to remove modtext because it looks bad. Seeing all of their deleted posts is near the same thing.
The hack would be taking the mod's ability to view deleted posts and cut it down to just that user. I also like the change, and hope our tech team can do this. I have no issues with people seeing why I deleted spam, and hopefully if a user sees something I missed that looks exactly the same as something they had deleted, they'll have a better understanding of what to report!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
She wants a ride on the pony, dude.
Mafia Stats
Kill shot: BB
Issue with my shooting? Please visit my helpdesk and help me learn to aim!
Why didn't you delete this post instead of infracting and suspending Yanni?
Because it was trolling, which is beyond the scope of removing non-additive conversation.
A post that says "I totally agree" is an actual sentiment that someone may feel they need to share, but we don't always really feel it actually adds to the discussion. We recognize the intent behind the individual's post, and don't usually feel like a warning is completely justified. As such, deleting the post will unclutter the thread, while not punishing a user who might not have actually done something "wrong" - he just didn't put enough behind his post.
Now if someone keeps doing this, or it's in an area like Rulings where a user should really know that he needs to be clear and concise, a Warning is more justified, and often warranted. Actual infractions would still only come if a user has already been warned about doing this.
As far as seeing your own deleted posts, I agree this should be a thing. VB currently does not allow this, and I"m not sure there's even a hack for it. We're still planning on moving forums sometime in the future, and this would be a nice addition to those new forums that we could implement.
If you mean "delete instead of warn/infract", then almost none beyond the discussed spam. There may be some very specific cases in the past that had an exception, but the other rules are more stringent. The only thing I have ever seen is "inappropriate content" that we feel just barely crosses the line of what we feel should be allowed here.
Sometimes there are threads that we end up getting rid of because they get into areas we don't feel comfortable with in our forums, but we don't really find it to be something that should be infracted/warned. A good example is like a thread in Real Life Advice that we feel goes a little over the line of appropriateness. In example, like someone actually asking advice that isn't overly problematic, but the thread starts getting into areas that are over the line as the thread progresses. In such cases, no one has really purposefully broken the rules or anything like that, but we've just gotten too far into the gray area, and feel the thread should be removed. Generally this just becomes a lock, but if it went to far, it could get removed instead. In such cases, the thread started is generally PM'd with an explanation. But again, this isn't "delete instead of warn" because it's not really something we feel is infraction worthy - it's just not so welcome here.
That said, threads that obviously go over the line, or start off over the line are infracted, AND removed from everyone's view.
If you mean "delete instead of warn/infract", then almost none beyond the discussed spam.
Yes, I am discussing the current topic in this thread.
So its 99% spam (more or less) but not in all forums? What forums would still hand out infractions for spam? Just rulings?
How bad does the spam have to be to rectify an infraction? If someone replies with "lol" to a funny thread start, is that just a delete and no infract? What about single word answers like "Yes" or "no"?
To give you an example, I typically hand out infractions in the Colosseum for spam. Mostly because, with the amount of stickies and information we have up, it should be pretty obvious what goes on in there. It doesn't actually come up much though.
It's also something I'd probably do in Personal Writing to try to keep the signal-to-noise ratio as positive as possible.
To give you an example, I typically hand out infractions in the Colosseum for spam. Mostly because, with the amount of stickies and information we have up, it should be pretty obvious what goes on in there. It doesn't actually come up much though.
It's also something I'd probably do in Personal Writing to try to keep the signal-to-noise ratio as positive as possible.
Simply put, because codifying something like that ties the hands of mods when it gets bad.
For instance, if there's a post from a new guy in the Colo who's trying to get himself involved but would be considered spam? I'm likely to just delete that. But if it's someone who's just posting in there for the sake of posting, I'd rather infract that.
Mod discretion leaves room for leniency. Codifying doesn't.
Simply put, because codifying something like that ties the hands of mods when it gets bad.
Not if you do it properly. If you want discretion, you can codify it. List the potential penalties and the general thought process you will use to decide which one applies.
Would that be adequate? I don't even know if we can do that, but non-moderated deleted posts that would at least let you know who did it and why.
This is how another non-Magic-related forum I participate in moderates everything. No infractions, no cards, no red text. Post deleted and the reason it got deleted. Period.
@Seds: they are already miserable. At least they would take up less screen space.
Not if you do it properly. If you want discretion, you can codify it. List the potential penalties and the general thought process you will use to decide which one applies.
The problem with doing this is that it makes the rules an even more imposing document than it already is.
We condensed it to "The staff reserves the right to issue a penalty different from what is suggested in the rules, should the situation call for it." a long time ago.
The problem with doing this is that it makes the rules an even more imposing document than it already is.
We condensed it to "The staff reserves the right to issue a penalty different from what is suggested in the rules, should the situation call for it." a long time ago.
We're talking about the subforum rules documents, which generally aren't that imposing. The main rules wouldn't need to be changed.
Also...which penalty is used more frequently in the subfora where deletion is used? If deletion is the more common remedy, as the default penalty it should definitely be mentioned in the rules.
Maybe it's just me having read the MIPG too many times, but:
The way the rules are set up now, we have things like "Be nice and respectful, don't flame or troll other users. Read more"
Which is great! Clicking the read more link brings you to a more specific definition of trolling. Why can't it also, for, say, Spam, bring me to a sentence that says:
"Moderators may, at their discretion, delete spammy posts instead of issuing warnings or infractions. This decision depends on the context of both the thread and the subforum in question. If you have questions about why a post was deleted instead of carded or vice versa in a particular subforum, contact the appropriate subforum mod." I don't see how expanding this section while retaining the "tl;dr" part of the rules, to put it coarsely, has any drawback.
Of course, if we had a 10-point infraction system like Gals suggested a while ago, these sections could also detail how many points these infractions were worth and under what circumstances up/downgrades could be considered. But I digress.
I also think it's silly to not notify posters that their posts were deleted (i can concede the rumor mill, though.) If they are not informed, they may not check back with the thread, and how, then, will they learn what is/is not spam experientially, as so many have done?
Hi [username],
I deleted the following post for [x reason], although I did not think it deserved an official warning or infraction. In the future, please post in a way that contributes to fruitful discussion.
Thanks,
[mod]
[attached message in quotes?]
EDIT: This solution achieves notice to the user whose post was deleted (the important thing) without too much publicizing the wide discretion enjoyed by MTGS mods.
Well, I agree with the latter point, although I don't see anything wrong with the proposed solution.
The issue as I see it is the following:
Spam, unlike trolling and flaming, is inherently pretty subjective and not very clear on where the dividing line is. And yes, I can give examples where most people would agree that X is spam. For example, if I wrote in this thread:
That's spam, and there's no real argument that it's not.
But then you have something like the following, that someone else might post in this thread.
It's still not really contributing to the discussion, but it's far less clear on is it truly spam, or merely someone giving an opinion without much of a thought process to justify it. This is something where the moderators have to use discretion: if it's spam, we deal with it, and if not, we don't.
The way I see it, if we allow discretion (as indeed we must) in determining where the line is drawn for spam, then I think it's only reasonable that discretion should also be used for determining what the penalty, if any, is. It's rather like the infamous "three-strikes" laws on the books in California and elsewhere - justice isn't really served when you lock someone up for 25 years for stealing a candy bar - the punishment doesn't fit the crime. And so, on a similar note, less egregious offenses of spam (due to the inherently subjective nature of the rule) should be treated with due consideration, and simply deleting the post without a permanent infraction on the person's record gives the moderators another tool without having to resort to the infraction hammer. Same principle how police officers sometimes issue warnings instead of writing traffic tickets when you are only going a few miles over.
Went to a new shop from a friend's recommendation, DQ'ed for willful violation of CR 100.6b.
Have played duals? I have PucaPoints for them!
(Credit to DarkNightCavalier)
$tandard: Too poor.
Modern:
- GW Birthing Pod(?)
Legacy:
- UWR Delver
This would make rumor mill threads miserable.
The policy is fine as stands, has been around since the site originally existed.
If you post something worthless enough to get it deleted, you are lucky that you didn't get an infraction or something for it.
Though I guess that is fine if it is an option members can turn on if they want to.
Twitter
WUBRGPauper Battle BoxWUBRG ... and why I am not a fan of Wayne Reynolds' Illustrations.
Yeah, I agree with this. Ability to see deletion notices of own posts. Seems like a good implementation all around But since this'd be a technical hack, we can't really make a good estimation for when it'll happen.
Can also be a non-warning/infraction way of educating people as to what is considered spam.
If the plan is to make it actually work, and the risks of close-but-different functionality are high, why would you 'hack' it together?
What's wrong with a little inconsistency? Don't tell me browbeating the mods has an effect.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
Two reasons. Neither deals with mods.
1) Seeing all of the deleted posts as a regular user defeats the purpose. There's little difference between seeing
Spam
Spam
Spam
My spam
and
Deleted post
Deleted post
Deleted post
My deleted post
2) Do you mind other users seeing all the post I've deleted of yours? People want us to remove modtext because it looks bad. Seeing all of their deleted posts is near the same thing.
The hack would be taking the mod's ability to view deleted posts and cut it down to just that user. I also like the change, and hope our tech team can do this. I have no issues with people seeing why I deleted spam, and hopefully if a user sees something I missed that looks exactly the same as something they had deleted, they'll have a better understanding of what to report!
Mafia Stats
Kill shot: BB
Issue with my shooting? Please visit my helpdesk and help me learn to aim!
Why didn't you delete this post instead of infracting and suspending Yanni?
LOL
Because it was trolling, which is beyond the scope of removing non-additive conversation.
A post that says "I totally agree" is an actual sentiment that someone may feel they need to share, but we don't always really feel it actually adds to the discussion. We recognize the intent behind the individual's post, and don't usually feel like a warning is completely justified. As such, deleting the post will unclutter the thread, while not punishing a user who might not have actually done something "wrong" - he just didn't put enough behind his post.
Now if someone keeps doing this, or it's in an area like Rulings where a user should really know that he needs to be clear and concise, a Warning is more justified, and often warranted. Actual infractions would still only come if a user has already been warned about doing this.
As far as seeing your own deleted posts, I agree this should be a thing. VB currently does not allow this, and I"m not sure there's even a hack for it. We're still planning on moving forums sometime in the future, and this would be a nice addition to those new forums that we could implement.
No longer staff here.
LOL
If you mean "delete instead of warn/infract", then almost none beyond the discussed spam. There may be some very specific cases in the past that had an exception, but the other rules are more stringent. The only thing I have ever seen is "inappropriate content" that we feel just barely crosses the line of what we feel should be allowed here.
Sometimes there are threads that we end up getting rid of because they get into areas we don't feel comfortable with in our forums, but we don't really find it to be something that should be infracted/warned. A good example is like a thread in Real Life Advice that we feel goes a little over the line of appropriateness. In example, like someone actually asking advice that isn't overly problematic, but the thread starts getting into areas that are over the line as the thread progresses. In such cases, no one has really purposefully broken the rules or anything like that, but we've just gotten too far into the gray area, and feel the thread should be removed. Generally this just becomes a lock, but if it went to far, it could get removed instead. In such cases, the thread started is generally PM'd with an explanation. But again, this isn't "delete instead of warn" because it's not really something we feel is infraction worthy - it's just not so welcome here.
That said, threads that obviously go over the line, or start off over the line are infracted, AND removed from everyone's view.
No longer staff here.
Yes, I am discussing the current topic in this thread.
So its 99% spam (more or less) but not in all forums? What forums would still hand out infractions for spam? Just rulings?
How bad does the spam have to be to rectify an infraction? If someone replies with "lol" to a funny thread start, is that just a delete and no infract? What about single word answers like "Yes" or "no"?
LOL
It's also something I'd probably do in Personal Writing to try to keep the signal-to-noise ratio as positive as possible.
My helpdesk should you need me.
Why not codify that in the subforum rules?
Practice for Khans of Tarkir Limited:
Draft: (#1) (#2) (#3) (#4) (#5)
For instance, if there's a post from a new guy in the Colo who's trying to get himself involved but would be considered spam? I'm likely to just delete that. But if it's someone who's just posting in there for the sake of posting, I'd rather infract that.
Mod discretion leaves room for leniency. Codifying doesn't.
My helpdesk should you need me.
Not if you do it properly. If you want discretion, you can codify it. List the potential penalties and the general thought process you will use to decide which one applies.
Practice for Khans of Tarkir Limited:
Draft: (#1) (#2) (#3) (#4) (#5)
This is how another non-Magic-related forum I participate in moderates everything. No infractions, no cards, no red text. Post deleted and the reason it got deleted. Period.
@Seds: they are already miserable. At least they would take up less screen space.
*goes back to see sponsor about CI 12-steps...
My YouTube Channel
The problem with doing this is that it makes the rules an even more imposing document than it already is.
We condensed it to "The staff reserves the right to issue a penalty different from what is suggested in the rules, should the situation call for it." a long time ago.
My helpdesk should you need me.
We're talking about the subforum rules documents, which generally aren't that imposing. The main rules wouldn't need to be changed.
Also...which penalty is used more frequently in the subfora where deletion is used? If deletion is the more common remedy, as the default penalty it should definitely be mentioned in the rules.
Practice for Khans of Tarkir Limited:
Draft: (#1) (#2) (#3) (#4) (#5)
The way the rules are set up now, we have things like "Be nice and respectful, don't flame or troll other users. Read more"
Which is great! Clicking the read more link brings you to a more specific definition of trolling. Why can't it also, for, say, Spam, bring me to a sentence that says:
"Moderators may, at their discretion, delete spammy posts instead of issuing warnings or infractions. This decision depends on the context of both the thread and the subforum in question. If you have questions about why a post was deleted instead of carded or vice versa in a particular subforum, contact the appropriate subforum mod." I don't see how expanding this section while retaining the "tl;dr" part of the rules, to put it coarsely, has any drawback.
Of course, if we had a 10-point infraction system like Gals suggested a while ago, these sections could also detail how many points these infractions were worth and under what circumstances up/downgrades could be considered. But I digress.
I also think it's silly to not notify posters that their posts were deleted (i can concede the rumor mill, though.) If they are not informed, they may not check back with the thread, and how, then, will they learn what is/is not spam experientially, as so many have done?