[Rules] Remove backseat modding rule | Rewriting Backseat modding Rule

[Bricket]

That is just a way a person acts: some people are more authoritarian in behaviour than others

[Michen_S]

Try to see it like this.

You're discussing something with a friend and then you say that you might want to take our discussion to PMs. This is because you have more freedom in PMs and because the discussion was getting somewhat personal. Is this backseat moderating? Probably not.

You're in the counting thread and you and a few others are all talking about the same game. You suggest you could create a thread for that game due to the interest. Here you are trying to prevent the thread from going off-topic, but it isn't directly backseat moderating.

What is backseat moderating is saying that someone violated a rule. Though I do understand this can be with the best intentions, you can't always predict how the other is going to react. Reporting to the moderator is generally the safest course of action.

[Bricket]

This is a question for the staff: can someone point me where exactly I can find the rule on backseat modding?

[Vosur Aekira]

First rule under "Concerning Moderators"

Please contact a moderator if you see someone breaking the rules or have a question.

And adding the 'description' that can be found attached to it when you click it in the Rules page https://www.thefurryforum.com/forums/index.php?page=rules if you wish to see for yourself.

There is a “Report to Moderator” button on every forum post that will email all the moderators should you find anything inappropriate on the forums before we do. You can also PM any of the staff at any time.

[Bricket]

That's the issue, there is no rule on backseat modding.
In fact: if there is no rule no warnings nor punishments can be given out for this.

Can someone here point the exact rule out on "backseat modding" where is that described?

_________________________________________________________________________

But to be honest: if I can help here writing a rule clearly defining backseat modding etc. I will gladly help 

[Vosur Aekira]

I don't know about you, but I would say that is pretty plain-and-clear to me: "If something seems wrong, just report it."

[Michen_S]

It's not an explicit rule against backseat moderating, but it only makes common sense. I'd say adding that you shouldn't tell anyone they violated a rule should be enough.

[Angder]

As a moderator, my primary hope when it comes to broken rules is to jump in and remove the content as quickly and cleanly as possible.

Now imagine we had a rule against the word Smurf.
Someone posts "HEY! EVERYONE! SMURFING SMURF SMURF".
The next person quotes them, and says "This post is against the rules".
The person after that says "Yea, don't say smurf, mods don't like that."
Suddenly, I have 3 posts that need removing rather than 1, as all 3 posts include the rules breaking text in some form.(If you think this sounds unlikely, I have literally seen threads have this happen some forums, though not with the word smurf.)

alternatively, 2 people can report the Smurfing post, post while ignoring it, and then we remove and warn one post and the jobs done.


Then we have edge cases, imagine if someone is typing that they are going Surfing, and their finger slips, resulting in them going Smurfing.
Usually we as a mod team would laugh at such an incident, if its urgently bad we might edit it and make it what it was meant to say. But more likely we would simply point it out to the person either in the thread or via PM.
...Or we can have a page of posts go up to say how terrible it is that a post said smurf in it, intimidating the person who made the honest mistake, and driving the thread off topic. Alternatively there is a disagreement over if this counts as a break of the rules, and we end up with a heated debate/Flame-war.


Finally, we have a troll who decides to turn up and post some stuff purely to get a reaction. If that's reported, we remove it as quickly as possible, and prevent the troll getting any real reaction.
Alternatively, we have a set of posters turn up and giving the troll a reaction. Making them more likely to stick around. Its the old thing of "don't feed the trolls".


While its true there is no exact rule against backseat moderation, we do have rules saying to report problematic posts, and to avoid "Drama". Calling someone out and saying "Your breaking the rules" is definitely going to cause drama. If you want to help. report things. please. Its easier on everyone. Yes, it means there might not be an instant response, but I would rather delay the response by 2 hours and have it dealt with cleanly, than to risk having a multi-page flame-war to come deal with every time a rule is broken

[Timmy Fox]

I should point out, there actually used to be a rule explicitly banning backseat moderation. This rule was however changed into "Please contact a moderator if you see someone breaking the rules" back when the list of rules was re-written some time ago.

I believe the point of this change was less to do the ban on backseat moderation and more to do with clarifying what you should do instead.

It's true there is now no rule directly addressing the act of backseat moderating but it's rather supposed to be implied by the fact that if you see someone breaking a rule you should contact a moderator as opposed to trying to resolve the issue yourself.

[Bricket]

It's true there is now no rule directly addressing the act of backseat moderating but it's rather supposed to be implied by the fact that if you see someone breaking a rule you should contact a moderator as opposed to trying to resolve the issue yourself.

And that's the issue: you should never assume.
A rule is either A or B, never assume C.

So if mods want to punish people for backseat modding there should be a rule about it OR people shouldn't be punished at all for it 
Real life example: if you get pulled over you would like to know why and you would also like to know what law you broke. If you were pulled over for breaking a law that "could" exist if you "assumed it did" you wouldn't like to be pulled over, would you?

Same with the rule about backseat modding: either A: there is a clear rule written on it and where I want to help or B: you don't punish people for it.
So what's my suggestion here? Rewrite the rule

[Timmy Fox]

And that's the issue: you should never assume.
A rule is either A or B, never assume C.

So if mods want to punish people for backseat modding there should be a rule about it OR people shouldn't be punished at all for it 
Real life example: if you get pulled over you would like to know why and you would also like to know what law you broke. If you were pulled over for breaking a law that "could" exist if you "assumed it did" you wouldn't like to be pulled over, would you?

Same with the rule about backseat modding: either A: there is a clear rule written on it and where I want to help or B: you don't punish people for it.
So what's my suggestion here? Rewrite the rule

Well, it's not that it's not there. It's still implied and does derive from the fact that it's an action that goes against the rule we've already mentioned. Just because the rule does not specifically refer to it as "backseat moderation" it does not mean it's not covered by it.

In a real life example this is when you go to court and have a judge decide whether or not a law was broken. And in these forums the rule against backseat moderation has always been there, it's just the wording on it that has changed. And the judges here would be the admins (and Anoni, being one of them, already confirmed this is a rule they do enforce if necessary).

Again, the rule state that the appropriate action when one sees another user breaking a rule is to report the issue to a moderator either by direct contact or through the built-in reporting feature.

Thus, as per the wording of the rule; By backseat moderating you're basically acknowledging the fact that a potential rule breaking did take place and effectively also end up breaking that rule by choosing an action (backseat moderating) as opposed to the appropriate action of calling in an actual moderator instead.

Nevertheless, this could potentially be clarified better indeed, but there is a point in keeping the rules slightly vague in regard to specific scenarios in that it allows the mods to better go by a case-by-case basis as well as having fewer potential loopholes as opposed to having a list of things you strictly cannot do.

[Alistair]

Bricket, look. The moderation team has taken your thoughts into consideration, but at this time we are not removing the rule.

[Bricket]

I'm proposing a rewrital now to make the rules better and more clear 

@Timmy, implying is not good enough. It has to be written down black on white (or if someone uses a different them in their colours then)
Even tho I prefer a more humane way of "moderating" I do tend to see that a better wording which is clear can only contribute to a better working of said forum

Post Merge: April 03, 2017, 01:45:39 PMI propose to shutdown this thread since the essence has been said, and to be frankly: who even cares?

[anoni]

The moderator team and several community members have specified its reasons as to why removing or heavily modifying the rule isn't a good idea. You have specified reasons as to why it is a good idea, but it has failed to convince both the moderator team and, by the nature of this thread, the community as a whole. Thus, I think all that is said has been said.

Currently the rule will not be modified and this thread will be locked to ensure an infinitely long discussion doesn't occur.