Last week, a user was suspended for one week - this was later corrected to a one-week silencing (meaning the user cannot post). There were several communication failures and missteps in the way this was handled that - these escalated the situation more than was needed, and created a lot of confusion and lack of clarity for this user as well as others on the forum who were unsure how concerns were being addressed. The moderation team would like to address what happened, where we felt things went wrong, and what steps we’ll take to improve this in the future. Some of this information (e.g. exactly how many posts were flagged and their status) can be slightly hard to ascertain due to e.g. deleted or moved posts or the way the forum software presents information, or private messages between users - we’ve done our best to only include information we feel sure about.
Before a more detailed discussion, we would like to apologize to the user involved for the way this process has played out - our own guidelines were not followed and mistakes were made along the way, and the result was disruptive and harmful for him.
We would also like to apologize to everyone in this situation who had concerns they felt were not addressed transparently/swiftly/adequately, and anyone who may have had concerns but didn’t register them due to unclear mechanisms to do so, or general distrust in the moderation process. We’re sorry, we’d like this to be an environment where problems are clearly heard and dealt with efficiently, and where everyone feels comfortable bringing up concerns.
Finally, we want to clarify that this thread represents full transparency over the important details of what has happened, as far as we are aware. There are no other accusations or unresolved / pending actions on the table. If there are issues that you feel are not adequately addressed by things in this post, please reach out to the moderation team privately, or in a public comment on this thread (only if it feels appropriate) and we will address it. We recognize that some process issues and mistakes have corrupted this, and so we would like to keep the door open on any further actions if they are needed, whether they come up now or in the farther future.
What happened?
The user in question had 9 posts formally flagged for being “off-topic” over several months. All of these flags were approved by the moderation team, who felt these were indeed off-topic enough to be disruptive to the conversation. These flags are not disciplinary actions in themselves, they are mainly a way to make sure topics stay on track and don’t get too disrupted by unrelated conversation. Privately, the moderation team has informally discussed when to enforce off-topic posting - there was consensus that off-topic posts should be split to their own topic when it made sense, and that enforcing off-topic posts felt most important for development-related topics, where keeping the thread on track and avoiding unrelated noise felt like a priority.
There was a feeling of at least one moderator that the pattern of off-topic posts, as well as the tone and content of several newer posts, required immediate action - this action, a suspension for one week, circumvented our normal moderation guidelines either by mistake or intentionally - it did not happen with consensus from the whole moderation team, and did not follow major points of guidance from our moderation guide. This was later downgraded to a one-week silencing (e.g. only that the user cannot post), which would have been closer to the “formal” policy here, with the intention of giving moderators time to assess a situation and decide what further actions (if any) are necessary, while avoiding further escalation.
What went wrong?
-
We acknowledge that there is no public or formal policy around “off-topic posts”, and we have no clear or transparent decision criteria for whether a post is off-topic enough to take action, other than vague internal agreements. We also have no obvious criteria for when off-topic posting would be disruptive enough to be considered e.g. disrespectful. This is obviously ambiguous territory, and there is not consensus in the community or clear guidance here.
- Follow-up: in the coming days, we will start a conversation in a new topic about what the community thinks are appropriate guidelines and processes for handling off-topic posts. If you have opinions on this, we’d love if you could express them in this topic when we post it.
-
It appears that not all off-topic flag actions were clearly transmitted to the user in question, so his visibility into the flagging was very different than the mod team. This may simply be a software usability issue, or a UI ambiguity. This did not give the user a fair chance to adjust their behavior, reach out to moderators to ask additional questions about what was / was not appropriate, or register disagreement about the flagging.
- Follow-up: We will look carefully at how flagging actions are communicated to users on Discourse, and make sure a user is aware of every confirmed flag against a post of theirs, so that they have clear idea of WHY and have space to ask questions or disagree. If repeated off-topic posting becomes a serious issue and not just an “topic organization” issue, we will use official warnings to users to communicate this, rather than relying only on flags.
-
Off-topic posts are generally not a disciplinary problem or e.g. against the code of conduct - however, some moderators and users had an opinion that the repeated pattern of off-topic posts was an issue that needed to be addressed. Additionally, there were posts that were not flagged but still deemed to be inappropriate enough to warrant action. Nonetheless, the user in question was never given a formal or clear warning about the flagged posts or the pattern of communication, and there was never an explicit consensus discussion on the mod team about whether there was a problem here at all. Issuing a warning first is part of our moderation guide, and ensures a user clearly knows where they have violated norms and have a chance to respond if they disagree or have questions - a warning was never proposed or issued. Openness and consensus-based decision-making are the basis of how we chose to act, and this did not occur.
- Follow-up: We will stick to our moderation policy of issuing formal warnings where we feel lines have been crossed. These warnings are always up for clarification, discussion, and dispute. Behavior that might require a warning will be explicitly discussed by moderators, rather than leaving a situation where e.g. moderators have unspoken differing opinions that lead to lack of action or ambiguity. We allow that process can be circumvented in more extreme circumstances e.g. to prevent abuse or escalation.
- Follow-up: The moderation team missed opportunities for reaching out pro-actively to discuss the off-topic issue with the user in question, which would have made for more chances to improve this situation before it escalated. We believe this is due to both ambiguous policies re off-topic posting, as well the current moderation team simply being too small / unavailable to deal with issues in a timely manner. This will be addressed via the discussion of off-topic posts, and expanding the moderation team (below).
-
The user was suspended, and was not given a reason. This is not our agreed-upon process for moderation, and came across as overly severe and without any information that would have helped clarify reasons or allow for follow-up discussions. Issuing a warning first is the policy of our moderation guide, and ensures a user clearly knows where they have violated norms and have a chance to respond if they disagree or have questions. A short term silencing / downgrade of users status occurs in a case where one or more official warnings are ignored, or in more exceptional cases of more severe code of conduct violations - neither of these things were the case.
- Follow-up: Our moderation guide has a clear process of: (1) warning, (2) short-term silencing, (3) suspension in severe cases. Each step should include a clear explanation of why it’s happening, as well as mechanisms for follow-up communication. Suspension is a last resort, and removes access to the forum completely - in this case, one or more email addresses should be included for follow-up communication if it’s safe to do so. The moderation team will stick to this process in the future, and any steps taken will be logged so other moderators have visibility and can ensure the process is fair.
- Follow-up: The moderation team has communicated to the user in question that there were cases where flagging was warranted, and cases where no explicit flags or reports were made but where we thought the forum was being used inappropriately and communication could be more germane and conflict-free in the future.
-
Actions were taken based on private communication and complaints that were not registered or logged in any formal way. This makes it difficult or impossible for the moderation team to have a clear view of whether action needs to be taken, what action(s) to take, whether the original concerns were addressed and that everyone is treated fairly. We recognize that a major reason why complaints end up in private communications or silent is because of a lack of transparency about who is on the moderation team, what moderation mechanisms are available, as well as opacity or distrust in whether / what follow up actions will be taken.
- Follow-up: We will post and pin documentation of moderation guidelines and policies, including what to do in cases where you feel a post may be inappropriate or disrespectful, violate community guidelines, etc. This will include a list of moderators, and ways to make contact with the moderation team or specific moderators in cases where it’s needed.
- Follow-up: A communication where a moderator reaches out to a user in a non-conversational official capacity will be reported to other moderators for review and transparency. Messages that constitute official warnings will be marked as such - if you are receiving an official warning from a mod, it will be clear and unambiguous.
- Follow-up: we want to make sure we have a diverse and attentive moderation team - this is important to make sure everyone in the community feels like they are represented and have a clear communication channel and ally if they have a concern. With that mind, we’ll start a process in the next weeks to nominate and vote for new people to add to the mod team. New moderators will also give us a chance to jump-start discussions around how we do moderation on the forum and improvements that can be made.
-
Similarly, we recognize that some users feel that they have faced complaints or allegations that have not been formally logged or detailed, including possible Code of Conduct issues. We take the Code of Conduct very seriously, and recognize both how crucial it is that any possible issues are addressed, and that everyone facing allegations has the right to respond in discussion with moderators. Decisions on such issues cannot be made opaquely.
- Follow-up: We encourage all issues to be raised via our formal moderation process, either via flagging or a private message to a moderator. If issues are raised outside this (e.g. an in person conversation, discussion topic, or in an email) we ask that these be formally submitted so we can be sure they are handled transparently and fairly. Public accusations that remain unexplained even when reasonable information is requested may be hidden, as they are unfair to users being accused and we are unable to act on them in an appropriate way. It’s important to note that moderators themselves can also be flagged, and we will never silence or hide discussion or criticism of moderation decisions or failures of the moderation team.
If you feel that there are things that are not addressed in this list, please mention in a reply or contact us privately.
Thanks for patience, we know this has been frustrating and we hope this can be a productive and forward-moving discussion that results in a more pleasant, respectful, and productive forum.
With respect,
scsynth.org moderation team