Rule review 16/11 (videosModTalk)

submitted ago by InnocentBystander

I feel now would be a good time to go over our preferred method conflict resolution. We feel civil discussion is a *necessary* ability in order to get community consensus. [Our preferred appeal methods.](https://voat.co/v/videosModTalk/1405328)

If we put up a sticky every time one user was upset, there would always be a sticky, and nobody would read it or care. @Violentlight said [it more eloquently](https://voat.co/v/videosModTalk/1393397/6776933) than I can.

Also, some have asked about the history of rules here, so I have begun making [a collection of old mod related posts](https://voat.co/v/videosModTalk/1404441). It is still missing some, as they can be hard to find, but much of it is there.

Now, to the point. This sticky is to determine whether spamming smail is considered spamming.

For the past year+ we have never differentiated spam by type. Posts, comments, spam reports, were all treated the same. If it is a user they get warnings followed by temp ban, followed by perma-ban. Bots/adspam gets instant perma-ban. Smail may be new, but spam reports are not. Nothing about this is new. We have warned many users over it. Many delicate types like to hit the report button when their feeling get hurt. We ask them to stop, then threaten them with a temp-ban. It almost always stops with the warning.

We've never received a complaint over this practice, until yesterday. The banned user is not appealing the ban. He doesn't care.

The community has been misled at times, and issues are conflated, for now we just want to answer the question of whether we continue with the ruleset as it has been, or if we need to change the ban policy.

A couple things to consider: -No user ever gets caught with a surprise ban. They are always warned, and made to understand before it gets to that point. -We have banned 'real' users before. I even made a [PV post where I asked them for help](https://voat.co/v/ProtectVoat/1070322) -Reasons and conversation that leads to a ban can always be found or watched at /v/videosModTalk. Transparency for everything. -Agenda driven trolls (eg. Spamalak), are persistent and malicious. If we allow them, things will decline. Sure, we can probably ignore one guy. But then we have to allow the hurt feelings, and the next trolls that show up. This removes one of our tools and will affect everyones experience.

A follow-up question, does the length of the temp-bans need to change?

**NOTE: Due to potential abuse, voats do not count for anything. Make a comment to share your opinion. Even if someone else has already said the same thing.** We will read every comment.

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

Cuckbot ago

Remove the ban and get some more janitors if you are overwhelmed. It will also be very difficult for mederoaters to prove if someone has been spamming because other users have to take their word for it.

@faustian wrote this post which I'm sharing here.

I made a mistake yesterday in suggesting a new rule, and I'd like to update my position now. There is no doubt that the mods of v/videos are well liked within your community, and from the comments I've read by frequent users to this sub, you all do a great job. In the past many of you have actively advocated for less restrictions and less rules, and as such, I see your aversion to a new rule now. If you allowed such a rule, the prospect of abuse is far greater, as there is no way for the rest of us to see the report spam issues or the warnings the mods give etc... It's a bad idea.

In the old days, report spam would show in your mailbox, but now it's in moderator mail.... there's little to no potential harassment issue because 'your mailbox is getting hammered etc.' & the inconvenience is far less to mods... I can also see that users may take advantage of this issue, and it may become a nuisance. However, there's no rule against being an asshole on this forum-nor should there ever be. I think you agree that nuisance does not warrant censorship.

My opinion, you should unban AOU, for the same reasons you have advocated for less restrictions and rules, for our freedom of speech. Deal with the report spam issues as they come. If you feel truly overwhelmed, bring on a couple of active users in this sub to your team. Admins once said there would be a way for the community to pick the sys mods.. so, maybe you can make a thread and ask your active users if any of them are interested in helping go through the report spam, then bring them on to the team? Absent that, you'll just have to go through all the report spam... but, you are right, no new rule.

Edit since the thread is fairly unclear repoting spamming as per the site rules should not be bannable.

InnocentBystander ago

prove if someone has been spamming because other users have to take their word for it.

It was never denied. And taking 'our word' for it is sometimes a part of the job.
We don't provide details around doxxing incidents or child porn. You have to take our word for it.

I think it is fair to say we have a good record, so far. I get that we should never be blindly trusted, which is why mod conversations are public, we have regular feedback posts, and can be engaged with in multiple formats at any time.
Full community oversight.

I saw, and noted, @faustians comment, and I hope he shows up here as well.

If we removed the ban, where would you set the threshold for bannable offences?

Cuckbot ago

This isn't only about you though because you have other mods of defaults who I wouldn't trust as much as you to believe about the amount of spam or to say "he just spammed us again he's banned again we tried" The solution needs to be one of either more mods to handle the spam, the admins actually giving some better guidance to their default mods on what they consider spam and how they expect default mods and janitors to handle it and later maybe some coding to help. But right now someone is banned for what they believe was doing the right thing to help report spammers. I'm not saying they are completely innocent or an angel either but lets have a ban as the absolute last resort if the user is a genuine user.