a mod might be human. and some sort of canary for the atmosphere level in a thread, no?
@schlawg said in #37:
> Impossible. This only makes sense if lichess mods are also humans who use the site.
> No need to complicate your worldview.
What do you even mean?
The sentence is wrong.
'if Lichess mods are also humans'
~ I guess they are already.
And, I am not complicating anything rather telling the truth.
> Impossible. This only makes sense if lichess mods are also humans who use the site.
> No need to complicate your worldview.
What do you even mean?
The sentence is wrong.
'if Lichess mods are also humans'
~ I guess they are already.
And, I am not complicating anything rather telling the truth.
@Sarg0n said in #38:
> So you mean when I am moderating somewhere I have to be everyone's personal Jesus?
A true moderator is one who keeps moderating everything when they visit any server.
> So you mean when I am moderating somewhere I have to be everyone's personal Jesus?
A true moderator is one who keeps moderating everything when they visit any server.
@Akbar2thegreat said in #43:
> A true moderator is one who keeps moderating everything when they visit any server.
Have you ever been a mod on any site/platform/group? Because it seems you speak by experience, so do you have this experience?
> A true moderator is one who keeps moderating everything when they visit any server.
Have you ever been a mod on any site/platform/group? Because it seems you speak by experience, so do you have this experience?
@ a lichess moderator said in #18 that all actions exept playbans were done by moderators.
So moderators don't have any control over it.
Lichess obviously admitted trusting the automatization in this process like anti-cheating algorithms.
So in an appeal human vs algorithm is like me vs stockfish.
But if human analysed he would saw that some bans have no logic.
And whoever starts about that matter in forum, topic gets immediately closed.
Why? Is lichess afraid to admit that there may be innocent players banned, or the words are automated too.
Will this topic be closed after my thread?
Everyone in lichess is free to contact me privately if you don't want open discussions.
So moderators don't have any control over it.
Lichess obviously admitted trusting the automatization in this process like anti-cheating algorithms.
So in an appeal human vs algorithm is like me vs stockfish.
But if human analysed he would saw that some bans have no logic.
And whoever starts about that matter in forum, topic gets immediately closed.
Why? Is lichess afraid to admit that there may be innocent players banned, or the words are automated too.
Will this topic be closed after my thread?
Everyone in lichess is free to contact me privately if you don't want open discussions.
@Deadban said in #44:
> Have you ever been a mod on any site/platform/group? Because it seems you speak by experience, so do you have this experience?
I am not but I know few by names who are there on multiple servers and their nature and style is same. I can't tell who they are even directly cause it would be breach of privacy.
> Have you ever been a mod on any site/platform/group? Because it seems you speak by experience, so do you have this experience?
I am not but I know few by names who are there on multiple servers and their nature and style is same. I can't tell who they are even directly cause it would be breach of privacy.
@hard06
Exactly!
Such organisations are afraid when we find some issue on their server to which they simply don't accept cause it's matter of pride for them and they can't afford to lose popularity.
Pretty common thing with many servers/companies.
Exactly!
Such organisations are afraid when we find some issue on their server to which they simply don't accept cause it's matter of pride for them and they can't afford to lose popularity.
Pretty common thing with many servers/companies.
@hard06 said in #45:
> @ a lichess moderator said in #18 that all actions exept playbans were done by moderators.
No, I did not say that. Read again.
> But if human analysed he would saw that some bans have no logic.
When you appeal a decision that has been made by a Lichess moderator or by one of our automated moderation processes, it will be reviewed by a different moderator. There are no automated elements in the decision review process. Human moderator(s) assess all the relevant evidence that informed the original decision before deciding whether it was justified or not, and informing you of the final outcome.
> Why? Is lichess afraid to admit that there may be innocent players banned, or the words are automated too.
We aren't, infact we disclose it publicly here: lichess.org/page/appeal, which is the same page the passage above was taken from.
> Everyone in lichess is free to contact me privately if you don't want open discussions.
It doesn't work like that. Everything regarding moderation actions is handled in lichess.org/appeal, which is where I would advice you to go if I hadn't already seen that you appealed 7 months ago and already received your answer.
Anything related to the status of your account will still be handled there.
> @ a lichess moderator said in #18 that all actions exept playbans were done by moderators.
No, I did not say that. Read again.
> But if human analysed he would saw that some bans have no logic.
When you appeal a decision that has been made by a Lichess moderator or by one of our automated moderation processes, it will be reviewed by a different moderator. There are no automated elements in the decision review process. Human moderator(s) assess all the relevant evidence that informed the original decision before deciding whether it was justified or not, and informing you of the final outcome.
> Why? Is lichess afraid to admit that there may be innocent players banned, or the words are automated too.
We aren't, infact we disclose it publicly here: lichess.org/page/appeal, which is the same page the passage above was taken from.
> Everyone in lichess is free to contact me privately if you don't want open discussions.
It doesn't work like that. Everything regarding moderation actions is handled in lichess.org/appeal, which is where I would advice you to go if I hadn't already seen that you appealed 7 months ago and already received your answer.
Anything related to the status of your account will still be handled there.
A Lichess Moderator said in #48:
> No, I did not say that. Read again.
You had said in #18:
> Every moderation action (except playbans since that's automated and mods have no powers over it) can be appealed, discussed or clarified in that channel and every user (who suffered a mod action) is welcome to use it.
That mods have no powers over playbans. It means mods have powers over every other thing other than playban.
It's implied even though you didn't actually say so.
> No, I did not say that. Read again.
You had said in #18:
> Every moderation action (except playbans since that's automated and mods have no powers over it) can be appealed, discussed or clarified in that channel and every user (who suffered a mod action) is welcome to use it.
That mods have no powers over playbans. It means mods have powers over every other thing other than playban.
It's implied even though you didn't actually say so.
@Firegoat7 said in #29:
> I do not know if English is your first language, if it isn't I will cut you some slack. Otherwise you have a comprehension issue with the English language. I have been warned for sandbagging twice and then banned for life after the second time. That is a true fact. Twisting the statement with a strawman argument instead of addressing the issue with conversation is upon you. It is also exactlt what this thread is about in regards to moderation.
>
>
> At any time you could have resolved conflict but instead choose to escalate it through attacking posters. Also, lets be quiet clear, your statement is totally false. It presumes that two posters are permanently acting in bad faith. Instead of policing the persons action you are policing the persons speech. That makes your judgement unreflective and authoritarian on this issue in this context..
A lifetime ban for sandbagging is just horrible moderation. It sounds like they don't have any sort of system for temporarily banning or restricting accounts. When all you've got is a hammer...
As somebody who's been moderating for ages, including two "default" subreddits on Reddit with over 50 million combined users, I have some opinions on moderation and what it could mean for Lichess.
After a while, everything can start to seem like spam. Adding new moderators becomes a trust issue. Older moderators get tired. Volunteerism is tricky. I'd encourage people to be patient, but I've seen some weird stuff on here that defies explanation. That said, moderators are going to get worn down by all the cheaters, the liars, spammers, trolls, "faux-polite" rule-breakers, etc. It doesn't help that internet communities are incredibly abusive toward moderators. (Just look at how argumentative some people are when a moderator simply tries to clarify things in this thread. It's shocking.)
I can see things from both sides. The moderator team here appears to be quite ossified. This usually happens when the "older" mods start doing less work, and the newer moderators aren't empowered to make their own decisions, but instead are advised to look at prior moderator actions, and model their actions over those. This is well and good, to a point. With a community the size of Lichess, it's amazing they don't seem to be trying to recruit better moderators.
...and this is just speculation, but when a moderation team stops looking to recruit and expand, it's usually because the group has become insular, the people at the top aren't around to approve new moderators, or the system for adding moderators hasn't scaled properly with the size of the community. Either way, it's bad news.
Moderators who do put in the work are quickly overloaded, and moderators who are slacking take a step back. It becomes a vicious cycle.
Any moderator who unbans someone only to tell them "deleting your account for free" is, objectively, an awful moderator with horrible self control, and that should've never happened. That all said, it's a free site, and the moderators are volunteering their time, so you get what you get. I think it could be improved if they were willing to recruit enough moderators with experience in social situations and dealing with trolls AND legitimate users.
The moderators just seem overwhelmed and they aren't recruiting from a pool of talented and experienced moderators, which makes replacing anybody difficult. They need to expand the pool from which they recruit a great deal, and be vigilant in adding new moderators when others go idle.
There's probably also the issue of "legacy moderators", moderators who often don't do much, but hold back progress, write snarky replies, and are generally opposed to the addition of any moderator who might displace them in any way, shape, or form.
I've been moderating for way, way too long. I could be wrong about all of this stuff, but this is what it's like with extra-large communities. It's always been this way, at least for me. I don't think there's much that can be done by the community, it's entirely up to the moderation team.
We use loads of automation over on Reddit, it's the only way we could even come close to handling the load. But it does create an awful lot of actions that aren't reviewed... unless someone complains. That's likely where the problem lies. When people appeal, they're generating work for the moderators, who could be having a bad day, and then do something truly awful like tell someone that "deleting your account is free".
Who knows if that's what they actually said, but it sounds like something a mod would say when they're popping off after a bad day. Telling a banned user off is pretty common, but I've found that not replying at all is a far better solution in 90% of all cases, if all you're going to do is insult someone or tell them off. Just zip it. Let them simmer.
Also, stop insisting that only the founder of the website can make an authoritative statement when you finally get a moderator to chime in with one. Moderators speak on behalf of the team. That's how it works. If you're not willing to accept an answer from anyone but the founder, then write the guy a snail mail.
That's my 2 centipawns, at least. I could be wrong.
> I do not know if English is your first language, if it isn't I will cut you some slack. Otherwise you have a comprehension issue with the English language. I have been warned for sandbagging twice and then banned for life after the second time. That is a true fact. Twisting the statement with a strawman argument instead of addressing the issue with conversation is upon you. It is also exactlt what this thread is about in regards to moderation.
>
>
> At any time you could have resolved conflict but instead choose to escalate it through attacking posters. Also, lets be quiet clear, your statement is totally false. It presumes that two posters are permanently acting in bad faith. Instead of policing the persons action you are policing the persons speech. That makes your judgement unreflective and authoritarian on this issue in this context..
A lifetime ban for sandbagging is just horrible moderation. It sounds like they don't have any sort of system for temporarily banning or restricting accounts. When all you've got is a hammer...
As somebody who's been moderating for ages, including two "default" subreddits on Reddit with over 50 million combined users, I have some opinions on moderation and what it could mean for Lichess.
After a while, everything can start to seem like spam. Adding new moderators becomes a trust issue. Older moderators get tired. Volunteerism is tricky. I'd encourage people to be patient, but I've seen some weird stuff on here that defies explanation. That said, moderators are going to get worn down by all the cheaters, the liars, spammers, trolls, "faux-polite" rule-breakers, etc. It doesn't help that internet communities are incredibly abusive toward moderators. (Just look at how argumentative some people are when a moderator simply tries to clarify things in this thread. It's shocking.)
I can see things from both sides. The moderator team here appears to be quite ossified. This usually happens when the "older" mods start doing less work, and the newer moderators aren't empowered to make their own decisions, but instead are advised to look at prior moderator actions, and model their actions over those. This is well and good, to a point. With a community the size of Lichess, it's amazing they don't seem to be trying to recruit better moderators.
...and this is just speculation, but when a moderation team stops looking to recruit and expand, it's usually because the group has become insular, the people at the top aren't around to approve new moderators, or the system for adding moderators hasn't scaled properly with the size of the community. Either way, it's bad news.
Moderators who do put in the work are quickly overloaded, and moderators who are slacking take a step back. It becomes a vicious cycle.
Any moderator who unbans someone only to tell them "deleting your account for free" is, objectively, an awful moderator with horrible self control, and that should've never happened. That all said, it's a free site, and the moderators are volunteering their time, so you get what you get. I think it could be improved if they were willing to recruit enough moderators with experience in social situations and dealing with trolls AND legitimate users.
The moderators just seem overwhelmed and they aren't recruiting from a pool of talented and experienced moderators, which makes replacing anybody difficult. They need to expand the pool from which they recruit a great deal, and be vigilant in adding new moderators when others go idle.
There's probably also the issue of "legacy moderators", moderators who often don't do much, but hold back progress, write snarky replies, and are generally opposed to the addition of any moderator who might displace them in any way, shape, or form.
I've been moderating for way, way too long. I could be wrong about all of this stuff, but this is what it's like with extra-large communities. It's always been this way, at least for me. I don't think there's much that can be done by the community, it's entirely up to the moderation team.
We use loads of automation over on Reddit, it's the only way we could even come close to handling the load. But it does create an awful lot of actions that aren't reviewed... unless someone complains. That's likely where the problem lies. When people appeal, they're generating work for the moderators, who could be having a bad day, and then do something truly awful like tell someone that "deleting your account is free".
Who knows if that's what they actually said, but it sounds like something a mod would say when they're popping off after a bad day. Telling a banned user off is pretty common, but I've found that not replying at all is a far better solution in 90% of all cases, if all you're going to do is insult someone or tell them off. Just zip it. Let them simmer.
Also, stop insisting that only the founder of the website can make an authoritative statement when you finally get a moderator to chime in with one. Moderators speak on behalf of the team. That's how it works. If you're not willing to accept an answer from anyone but the founder, then write the guy a snail mail.
That's my 2 centipawns, at least. I could be wrong.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.