Airschocker has been banned.

@Jacanuk: Sorry, to elaborate, if you have any specific examples for me to look at, I'd be more than happy to put in the time to see where this might be happening. Saying that it happens in GD and Off-topic makes it difficult to determine where the issues are coming from.

Yeah I got a post remove that was obviously tongue-in-cheek just a few days ago that previously wouldn't have been an issue. I only wish when these efforts are stepped up that we're made aware of such, but I can't really complain because no action was taken against my account. Noted and understood, however.

As for Airshocker, I've known him to get puffed up from time to time but can't recall him ever becoming abusive, but I suppose the mods know what they are doing.

In all seriousness, I can understand why people are upset that there isn't really any transparency going on, no message logs etc. But to claim that the mods/staff banned him because of a personal vendetta against him is a bit silly imo. I don't think any of the mods are pathetic enough to get their jollies off of abusing their power in an online forum. But yes, I do agree that airshocker at least deserves some context as to why he got banned.

I recall a thread asking "why was so-and-so banned" which is something we cannot answer, so in those cases the thread would get locked.

-Byshop

A specific example is the Gamespot poll about how many steam games you have.

There one post that was clearly just there to cause trolling was removed while a few moments later another one, slightly worded differently but with the same general idea was left to stay.

Not to mention that i myself apparently got a warning for replying to the deleted post, which i do not have a problem with as such. i should have known better than to bite on troll bait. :)

Sad to see him go. :(

Regarding "screenshot or gtfo":
1) If the concern is non-technological reasons, please see the next two "ideas" ("Regarding PMs" and "Regarding forum posts") for a discussion
2) If the concern is technological reasons, I would ask what these technological reasons are. If it does not exist, surely it could not be difficult to implement a system whereby the contents of a flagged post are automatically recorded and saved, giving an easily-accessible means of providing users with the contents that led to a user's ban

Regarding PMs:
1) If the concern is anonymity of the non-banned user, then surely that user's name can be redacted.
2) If the concern is that PMs are fundamentally meant to be private and not publicly shared, then a true violation of TOU resulting in a ban should negate that user's right to privacy of those PMs. Rather at that point, since the user is no longer a member of the community, the rights of other users to see the reason of the ban should supersede that user's (who is no longer part of the community) right to privacy.
3) If the contents of the PM are deemed unsuitable for public display, then surely they can be shared privately (via PM) upon request at the requester's own risk.

Regarding forum posts:
1) The same point applies regarding anonymity of the targeted user.
2) The concern about privacy no longer applies
3) The same point applies regarding contents of the post.

Regarding my issue with the lack of transparency:
1) With the full understanding that the consequences of the two situations are on completely different scales, let me offer an analogy, with the purpose of demonstrating a philosophical point. Suppose that in place of the US legal system, with public jury trials and due process, we instead had a system in which public officials (or, if you prefer, a panel of citizens) would review in secret the details of an individual's case. Other members of society would not necessarily be told that person was under review. One morning, we would wake up and suddenly find that individual had been taken away in the middle of the night. Public officials would respond that they were unable to elaborate on what sentence that individual had been given, nor the details concerning that arrest. However, they would give full assurance that the proper process had been followed and justice had been served.
Now, my question to you is, would you accept that justice system? Surely you would not. However, in principle, this is precisely the system being applied here. If you consider this system to be unfair and undesirable in a justice system, then how is it redeemed merely because the consequences are less severe in a forum setting?

A final note:
Of course, there are more than likely issues I am overlooking. However, to the extent that there are, I would appreciate them being shared with me.

I knew Airshocker a bit, he might be a nice guy deep within. A nice, but terribly arrogant guy.

So I can see how he got banned after 9 years. "You can't learn an old dog to sit."

If you're not willing to show what he said to us at least tell us what the infraction was. At least "He sent a hateful pm to another member" or "He threatened a user on the forums," would be much better reasons than "He broke the ToU." I think a lot of people here, including myself, are having trouble with that answer because we've never seen him do anything that is particularly ban worthy yet he ended up being banned. And the response to his moderator inquiry is even more ridiculous. He posted too many targeted hateful and inflammatory messages? Really? You can't even give him the actual reason he was banned? It just makes the whole moderating process seem arbitrary and you lose credibility when you can't even supply the banned user with what actually got them banned. And like I said, what hateful messages? Apparently nobody here considered him a hateful user which leaves me to question why he was banned in the first place since you can't claim it was to help out the community when obviously nobody here thought he deserved a ban.

I'd also like to know if he was ever warned or suspended. It seems kinda unfair to just permanently ban someone out of the blue. I also think it would be useful to know why he got banned so we actually know what the limits are. Like I said, he didn't seem like a ban-able user to anybody here so now everyone has to question what exactly is allowed and disallowed.

It boggles my mind that you cannot relay even these small details to us. What is the harm in saying something like "He was warned before, but he kept on insulting a user about their [inset belief] so he was banned." Why can that not be done?

@chessmaster1989: Just to be clear, this isn't personal. I'm not sitting in some large black chair wondering what poor soul should be removed next. Heck, I've welcomed back a fair number of older rabble-rousers in my time here as a CM. So, clearly, no. I would not want a system where people are randomly snuffed out should people want to know what happened.

Regarding PMs: 1) If the concern is anonymity of the non-banned user, then surely that user's name can be redacted.

This would have to be a manual process, which we simply don't have the bandwidth to do for every GameSpot account that gets banned for this behavior.

A true violation of TOU resulting in a ban should negate that user's right to privacy of those PMs.

I can try and run that concept by CBS legal, but I'm pretty sure they wouldn't be a fan of that idea. I've seen a lot of nasty PM's in my time here.

If the contents of the PM are deemed unsuitable for public display, then surely they can be shared privately (via PM) upon request at the requester's own risk.

Again, not sure if CBS legal would approve of this, but even if they did, I couldn't guarantee that the volunteers here would have the bandwidth to facilitate those requests. I would likely need a whole new team just to help manage that department.

At the same time, this quickly turns into a "give a mouse a cookie" situation. Furthermore, I am bound by CBS in terms of what information I can / can't share, which means in some instances the only justification I could possibly give would be that the user was removed for violating our Terms of Service and would have to leave it at that.

Here are some privacy concerns:

• Would people expect to know which moderator moderated each action? Can you see how that might cause possible issues (or worse, potential risk factors) for volunteers?
• How much information is considered "enough" information regarding the ban? Would users be able to accept that at some point, CBS doesn't allow us to give any more information regarding an account?

Concerns Regarding Site Functionality:

• While I agree that it shouldn't be hard to implement this sort of thing, unfortunately, Community hardly has the resources to fix the things that are currently broken, let alone roll out new features like a public log of moderations that track every action.
• That being said, I cannot expect the moderators to do this by hand, they're volunteers. The force is actually fairly limited especially when you consider the number of them to you.
• Where would this be hosted?
• What would happen if the information was wiped (say during a site change like when we moved from the old design to this current build?)

Out of curiosity, what other forums do you know of that publicly share justification for permission removal? If you have any sources to reference I'd be more than willing to contact their CMs in an effort to see how they manage their community and see if there are any pointers I can pull.

If you're not willing to show what he said to us at least tell us what the infraction was

It feels like you're trying to make this personal. I didn't decide to ban him "for the lulz" he was banned for repeat violations the TOS and COC. While I cannot get into specifics regarding what was said, I can assure you that we have rules and guidelines that state the qualifiers regarding how one gets banned from the site.

I'd also like to know if he was ever warned or suspended.

There are rules and guidelines put in place regarding how warnings that lead up towards bans are handled. I'm CC'd on all of them.

So have the ToU changed AGAIN and no one was told? Because I don't remember seeing anything Airshocker posted that would warrant banning. And I have seen some users here that do post hateful comments that are still posting.

How does this improve the community when pretty much the entire community is upset about it?

@Storm_Marine: Sorry you feel that way. But the fact of the matter is that his account uploaded content that was flagged by members of the community, which resulted in his permissions being removed. He wasn't targeted at random.

@LJS9502_basic:Nope, no changes and no updates. And I understand that you might not have seen anything that would warrant a ban, that does not mean that it didn't happen.

@DigitalDame: So what type of post does warrant a ban?

Nobody in this thread other than the mods seem to have noticed anything from him that would justify a ban. Yet there are users that have posted about how they support murdering groups of people who are not banned. Sure maybe he did deserve it, but from our perspective it all seems really inconsistent.

@toast_burner: Typically, a ban happens once an account has received 3 "strikes" for behavior that violates our rules. There are many, many examples of things that we moderate for, so I'll just link you to our CoC.

Nobody in this thread other than the mods seem to have noticed anything from him that would justify a ban.

This is probably because the moderators have what is called the "Law Dogs" forum, which is a massive queue filled with every flag that happens on GameSpot (that's for forums posts, comments, private messages, wall posts, etc.), which is limited to moderators and admins only. This is why we sometimes see content that users don't always notice. When a comment is deleted, it is removed from the view of a user entirely, which is another indicator that comments can be made, but then hidden from user view after they're made.

________________________________________________

Update: I also wanted to take a moment to say that I do really appreciate the respectful conversation regarding this deeper look into moderation. Thanks for keeping it classy.

@DigitalDame: Three strikes? That's harsher than the old ToU.

@LJS9502_basic: That policy has been in place for quite a while. Which "old" version of the TOU are you referring to (I've seen a few).

@DigitalDame: The really strict one before it was loosened up a bit.

@LJS9502_basic: The 8 page one? Yeah, that's true. There was no specific "X times and you're out," rule. It was based off of a number of obscure variables and bans occurred once the moderators felt that a user had overstayed their welcome.

All references to "you" in my posts can be replaced by "one", that is their intended meaning - or rather, it is a general point, not directed at any individual, and to the extent that I mention "one" it is to argue against a hypothetical counterpoint. None of my points are meant to be directed to individual moderators, and to the extent they read that way is a result of my poor wording.

With general regards to the points that there is not enough manpower, I don't think that's a legitimate release from criticism of the system. I should clarify that with all my points, my critique is directed at the system in place, and not at any individual moderator. If Gamespot does not feel it has the resources to handle a more elaborate system, then it either has to hire more, or has to accept that it will face those criticisms.

With regards to legal issues, I'm curious that anything on here short of personally identifiable information would cause much legal issue. Can you give a hypothetical example of something that does not include personal identifiers (eg real name), that would not be able to be legally shared?

In response to privacy concerns:
1) I don't expect nor am interested to know which moderator moderated each action. Rather the reason for moderation is what's of interest. I have no interest in individual public accountability for the reasons you suggest. Rather if an individual moderator is problematic, that will be reflected in the public reaction to the moderations of that individual, and GS can respond internally to that.
2) Of course, we cannot expect to be given information that the legal department won't allow. I think at the minimum we should get a specific reason the ban was implemented, and indication of whether it was for privately or publicly available posts. If publicly available, at the least a reference to the relevant thread. Of course, I would prefer making as much information as is legally possible available.

Site Functionality:
I don't have much to contribute here because my knowledge of computer science is extremely limited. I merely meant to express an idea for consideration. Perhaps a user more qualified than I am can pick up here.

I only participate in one other forum (via ZetaBoards), and to my knowledge not much if any moderation occurs there because it's a fairly small community.

Can you give a hypothetical example of something that does not include personal identifiers (eg real name), that would not be able to be legally shared?

Sure. Let's say we have someone who we later find out is a ban-dodger. We then explain the account was a ban-dodging account, how much proof would we be expected to provide regarding how we figured that out?

None of my points are meant to be directed to individual moderators, and to the extent they read that way is a result of my poor wording.

Cool, no harm done. Just wanted to clarify.

Again, I don't wish to present myself as someone who is against transparency. I'm all for knowing how parts move, and what makes things tick. Part of my concern however would be community lash back regardless of how much information was provided. Or in other words. What would be considered enough.

A question, if there's already a forum devoted to every flag that happens on Gamespot, why couldn't this been adapted into the log I was suggesting earlier? It sounds like the infrastructure is already there. Or even just use that forum as the log.

@chessmaster1989: Sure, I should have elaborated. It's not a traditional "forum" but rather a forum, with tools that allow us to moderate items that need to be moderated (or ignored). So the infrastructure isn't technically there, because it also logs who flagged the content, and who took what action on the item.

Our sites code is more like mixing a cake than making a pizza.

With pizza, if you don't like a topping, you can take it off (for the most part) with not much difficulty. But when you're making a cake, things get baked in, and it becomes much harder to remove some things.

Wow! This is pretty much my response. I mean, I've seen worse from other users out there (Won't name them)....

@tocool340:(Won't name them)....

See, how are we supposed to "remove the real trouble makers" when no one wants to tell us that it's happening?

Seems we still have a problem with moderation consistency and transparency/feedback. The lack of feedback has definitely been an issue since the new flagging system

Abide by the rules, & you wont get terminated. Simple stuff, really.

Anyway, barely interacted with air, but it's a shame to see people get banned.

@lostrib: Again, there's unfortunately not a lot we can do in terms of consistency, variables are bound to happen. But if you have examples of inconsistent actions/moderations in the community, show me. I'm more than happy to look into them.

I think having some sort of feedback added to the flag system would help because it would tell people if what they flagged was a violation or not, or if something has been looked at yet

@DigitalDame: I find this whole conversation to be something new to me like the new flagging system that I'm not aware of. What I'm saying is, shouldn't stuff like how banning, flagging works on bugs reporting/feedback like a question/answer thread. Sure there's ask the mod forum but I also like to hear it from the staff, not the mods is my opinion.

That's a shame. He was one of those guys who liked to post in some of the more substantive threads, and it was fun when we disagreed.

@davillain-: Just to make sure I understand. You're saying that there should be a "How to Flag a User" thread? (you'll have to excuse me, it's been a long week).

Translation: Help me out by ratting out some other users so I can use some vague, less than transparent process & rules to ban some other users. This will be accomplished in a manner that may appear arbitrary from your point of view, but which I assure you from Gamespot's pov is a well thought out and consistent logical train, despite our self confessed confused process and lack of resources, human and otherwise.

Gamespot: Destroying itself one user at a time and a shell of the users and traffic that once existed. But what the hell, I imagine your lawyers are happy.

How and should flagging works is what I mean by that.

@davillain-: How? The top of every post has the button to flag the post.....

He is the reason I view Boba Fett as a grumpy old conservative...

Quite the honor

Best of luck to him where ever he goes I guess. But in the end, it really does not matter. And for Gamespot, it really doesn't. I figure most of us just check back because we've been here for so long, whether we post as much as we used to or not. Each old member, whose been active, removed just means more are closer to moving on as well.

About sure as shit those whose entire existence here is to make flame bait, still are.

A shame, but not surprising.

That's funny because I was really surprised

well it's an internet forum, no one wants to be seen as the one who had to "cry to the mods"

And since Mods are users as well, perhaps people think that they see the same stuff we do and are aware of it

I don't think it's a mystery as to who was flagging his posts, at least not to anyone who regularly browses OT.

It's whatever, maybe with such an impersonal system subject to abuse by ambitious groups (flagging) we'll one day have a board where we can all circle-jerk over comfortable opinions!

To Airshocker: I enjoyed reading your posts. You were at times obstinate but resolute and no one here would deny your patriotism. *salutes

@commonfate: but flag abuse wont get you perma-banned. It just brings your posts to the attention of the mods.

Though i wonder what he posted that qualified this:

"Your account has posted too messages which contain targeted messages that are hateful, inflammatory, and otherwise inappropriate towards members of GameSpot's members, volunteers, and staff"

or perhaps he sent PMs

This is very sad.

He was a long-time member whom I always respected, even though he and I were seldom on the same side of an argument.

At least it wasn't a response to something that I posted that got him banned. There's a bit of cold comfort in that.

:-(

Certainly, at times, a very disrespectful young man, hopefully the silver lining is a newly found sense of humility..

Goodbye Airshocker, may you live the rest of your life in peace.

I don't post here much anymore, mostly just read through threads but he was one of the more entertaining posters. Slowly, this place is losing all the users that make it worthwhile to visit.

That sucks. One of the best posters.

I agree with everything you've said in this thread.