Moderation in review: Consistency in forum rules, please.

[I have a tissue]

To preface:
I don't care about the mod action and I am not saying that it was "unfair" or anything of that nature. I care about the glaring issues within the rules in my specific experience that I had today.



I am terribly troubled by rule stickies like this:
http://www.gaiaonline.com/forum/t.73908043/
There is nothing in this that says specific threads that do not deal with Alchemy stuff is not allowed there. You have to look closely to see the subforums that exist, and that is not the first place that people look in forums outside of your comfort zone.

It's been established that the rules of the forum tell all for over a decade, so why is it that the stickies are counter-productive to the preachings of the mods?

I will admit, there may be better places for my thread. However, nothing stopped me from making it in the Alchemy forum when I read the rules. If I didn't get this at first go then I would like to know how you expect 13-year-olds to get it.



This is the background story, if it's necessary:

I made a thread on the Alchemy main forum just giving Caches away. Nothing in the Alchemy rules states that my thread is not allowed. It doesn't redirect me anywhere else, either- it doesn't say, "Trading caches and components belong in the Alchemy Exchange." That seems pretty off considering this is the message I received and where my thread was moved:

Mod

Your topic named: Want my Caches? has been moved from the Gaia Item Alchemy to the Chatterbox forum. You can find it under the following URL: http://www.gaiaonline.com/forum/detail/93729497/


Additional notes:
Hello,

Gaia Item Alchemy Forum is intended for discussions and guides about the Item Alchemy system.

Your thread has been moved to the Chatterbox forum, as that forum is the best place for threads containing low content. You should find that you get better responses to your thread when posted in the correct forum.

Rules & Guidelines for the Gaia Item Alchemy Forum

Discussion threads are allowed in the Item Alchemy forum but they must contain discussable content and encourage discussion (with your opinions or questions) within the original post.

Sincerely,

xxxxxxxxx
Site Moderator

When I requested the mod to point out to me in the rules where it was stated that my thread did not belong, it moved to my sentbox but I did not get a reply. Let it be that the mod didn't know how to address it, they were pulled away from their computer or what have you, that's a secondary concern that has me on edge. They have been online and changed their avatar, so I am at a loss as to why they didn't reply.

Regardless, I was giving stuff away- the thread was not moved to Charities and Quests which would be optimal for a reusable give-away thread if it really didn't belong in Alchemy, nor was it moved to the Alchemy Exchange (which, again, I did not realize that existed until I looked around more for the second time after the notice).

It begs the question as to why a thread that is, for all intents and purposes, exchanging alchemy items wasn't moved there since the rules do not bar them there, either, and there were a few threads also giving them away in that subforum.

Anyway, onto the main point:
I was sent a move message on a "discussion standard" that is not a clearly stated discussion standard within that forum. I could understand if I posted a random picture or if it was "ASDGFFUBBQHARGWARBL", but that's not the case.

The rules of that forum, and a few others that I am seeing as I look at various different ones, have nothing specific to them to state what is allowed. A few only have scant explanations of "common" violations. That doesn't say jack-all that any thread is spam if it's not specifically for Alchemy services/trading.



This encounter with this "forum rule" doesn't make sense, especially when the message I got in turn is stating stuff that is not in the forum rules. For years the forum rules have been tailored specifically for their specific forums, and it's only right that all forums get the same sort of consistency if there is going to be an application of discussion standard to any given forum.

I also noticed this in the R&G of the site:

Quote:

2. No Spamming Outside the Chatterbox Forum: Spam, or posts that are nonsensical or irrelevant to the forum in which they're posted, should only be posted in the Chatterbox forum. Users are encouraged to stay on topic and be relevant to the theme of where discussions are held. Being informative or entertaining are also good ways to get a good conversation going.

Not even the Terms of Service says that the individual forums have their own individual rules. I suppose one could argue that it's implied in 13a, but it's oddly unspecific, really. The [NPC] The Welcoming Fairy sends a PM to say that, but it's 30 days of PM nonsense, and it's Day 9: Site Etiquette!. I stopped reading them after the 4th because the grants didn't work.


So, Gaia, I have these questions for you:
You're a forum site, so why aren't the stickies clear and in-depth?
And why isn't it stated that the stickies trump the site rules and allow low/uber-specific content in some places and not in others?



Please, please do not cut corners...

I request that the rules of the forums are addressed and updated so they are specific for the forum they belong to. The Alchemy forums have been around since at least 2011 and there is nothing to say what these forums, and others, specifically call "low content" and "not allowed".

That's not fair or right to your members when anyone can make the same mistake that I did.



Thank you,
I have a tissue

Community Member
Gaia Customer



Note: See this for more of an in-depth look into my perspective of Gaia's rules.

[Scobre]

Oh you got a low content reason. Ok I had to ask a mod to explain this to me. Basically any post no matter what forum it is in, if not enough people post in it, it is considered low content and moved to chatter box. I'm not sure if your thread would have had more replies if it had been posted in the charity/quests forum. I guess next time you post if there are not enough replies, maybe have a few friends help you out posting in the thread.

[Liringlas]

A lot of people make similar mistakes. But they get away with it because no one reports it.

Frankly no one gives a hoot about order in the Alchemy forum. Taking a look at the forum now, there are a lot of threads that actually don't belong there (I see mostly Q&A material, even some threads that say "nevermind" or "answered" that are still in there). Someone probably post stalked you to find something to report, and when you slipped, you got reported.

I'd say your thread should've been moved to Charity instead of CB, though. Unless it was no longer active.

[I have a tissue]

Scobre

Oh you got a low content reason. Ok I had to ask a mod to explain this to me. Basically any post no matter what forum it is in, if not enough people post in it, it is considered low content and moved to chatter box. I'm not sure if your thread would have had more replies if it had been posted in the charity/quests forum. I guess next time you post if there are not enough replies, maybe have a few friends help you out posting in the thread.

That is probably the most fluffy and cover-my-butt statement I would ever hear from a mod. My thread was giving away caches and I give them all away in a matter of minutes to multiple people- all people had to do is send me a trade for them. I had plenty of response to my thread even though it wasn't visible, so that explanation wouldn't fly.



Either it's allowed in a forum or it is not and the move message does not coincide with the rules, so either the mod was incorrect or the forum rules are, and that's not being consistent. The rules do not state that the thread was best for other places, or that it would be considered "low content".

I don't understand how they could say that one forum is meant for something when the rules do not state what they are enforcing.



I maintain that even a 13-year-old would not understand how this method of deciding where threads belong works unless they are told clearly what forums are better for what threads.

[DeusXX]

That definitely should have gone to the Charity forums. And you should have gotten a reply when you inquired about the incident. Moderation on this site is really inconsistent and leaves a lot to be desired. I know part of the problem is that they're spread too thin and don't have enough people, but at the same time their priorities seem to be way off. I've had issues with similar issues with inconsistency, and it comes down to your above point: there's no clear-cut outline telling people what they can and can't do.

[Hasuki Aatisuto]

I don't think they really do care about rules too much, to be honest.

When I was a FA for a short time, I was in charge of In The News (along with Gaia Aquariums). We had an influx of topics that was obviously NOT news such as "hey check out this kitty I brought!" "Justin Bieber is HOOOOOOOOT", etc. There were also topics about news, but people weren't actually linking to the news articles themselves.

So I went to the FA forum to suggest adding a rule in the sticky stating that you must link to an article and non-article material would be moved to the Chatterbox or Recycle Bin, because I believed that should help reduce those kind of topics.

The other FA's and mods in there didn't think it was necessary, and I felt embarrassed for even bringing it up, and it tells me that they don't really think too much about rules around here. I mean, it was just ONE LINE for christ's sakes. They couldn't even bother to discuss it at all? Really?

So, yeah, that's going to be pretty much the last time I'm going to suggest a slight rule change around here.

[2sarahgate]

don't you mean "aren't" clear and up to depth instead of "are"? domokun stargate

[Liringlas]

Hasuki Aatisuto

I don't think they really do care about rules too much, to be honest.

When I was a FA for a short time, I was in charge of In The News (along with Gaia Aquariums). We had an influx of topics that was obviously NOT news such as "hey check out this kitty I brought!" "Justin Bieber is HOOOOOOOOT", etc. There were also topics about news, but people weren't actually linking to the news articles themselves.

So I went to the FA forum to suggest adding a rule in the sticky stating that you must link to an article and non-article material would be moved to the Chatterbox or Recycle Bin, because I believed that should help reduce those kind of topics.

The other FA's and mods in there didn't think it was necessary, and I felt embarrassed for even bringing it up, and it tells me that they don't really think too much about rules around here. I mean, it was just ONE LINE for christ's sakes. They couldn't even bother to discuss it at all? Really?

So, yeah, that's going to be pretty much the last time I'm going to suggest a slight rule change around here.

As someone who frequents In the News I disagree with your suggestion to add that people must link to a news article, and agree with the other FAs and mods that it wasn't necessary.

If you look at the In the News description it says "Welcome to the In The News forum! The In The News forum is intended for discussing all things related to events currently happening in the news!"

As long as people are discussing things in current events that are in the news, there is no need for them to link to an actual article to center their discussion around that article. People can create and generation discussion about current events in the news with their own content, in that forum. It's just that not a lot of people do, since it's easier to just link to something already pre-written by a news source.

People posting and linking to news articles is actually a trend in that forum that became popular and then later the expected norm, but it is not a requirement of that forum. If another tsunami hit Japan, for example, then people flooding to the In the News forum to talk about the tsunami, without linking to an actual news article, would be entirely appropriate for that forum.

[I have a tissue]

Hasuki Aatisuto

I don't think they really do care about rules too much, to be honest.

When I was a FA for a short time, I was in charge of In The News (along with Gaia Aquariums). We had an influx of topics that was obviously NOT news such as "hey check out this kitty I brought!" "Justin Bieber is HOOOOOOOOT", etc. There were also topics about news, but people weren't actually linking to the news articles themselves.

So I went to the FA forum to suggest adding a rule in the sticky stating that you must link to an article and non-article material would be moved to the Chatterbox or Recycle Bin, because I believed that should help reduce those kind of topics.

The other FA's and mods in there didn't think it was necessary, and I felt embarrassed for even bringing it up, and it tells me that they don't really think too much about rules around here. I mean, it was just ONE LINE for christ's sakes. They couldn't even bother to discuss it at all? Really?

So, yeah, that's going to be pretty much the last time I'm going to suggest a slight rule change around here.

Oh, wow. That blows, man. I don't understand why the rules can't be clearer.

Sure, I get not sweating the small stuff, but there should be a place for everything as according to the rules of the forum that it best belongs in or what would logically make sense for necessary redirection for the main forum's rules.

You'd think it would be part of the "forum site" package.

[I have a tissue]

Liringlas

Hasuki Aatisuto

I don't think they really do care about rules too much, to be honest.

When I was a FA for a short time, I was in charge of In The News (along with Gaia Aquariums). We had an influx of topics that was obviously NOT news such as "hey check out this kitty I brought!" "Justin Bieber is HOOOOOOOOT", etc. There were also topics about news, but people weren't actually linking to the news articles themselves.

So I went to the FA forum to suggest adding a rule in the sticky stating that you must link to an article and non-article material would be moved to the Chatterbox or Recycle Bin, because I believed that should help reduce those kind of topics.

The other FA's and mods in there didn't think it was necessary, and I felt embarrassed for even bringing it up, and it tells me that they don't really think too much about rules around here. I mean, it was just ONE LINE for christ's sakes. They couldn't even bother to discuss it at all? Really?

So, yeah, that's going to be pretty much the last time I'm going to suggest a slight rule change around here.

As someone who frequents In the News I disagree with your suggestion to add that people must link to a news article, and agree with the other FAs and mods that it wasn't necessary.

If you look at the In the News description it says "Welcome to the In The News forum! The In The News forum is intended for discussing all things related to events currently happening in the news!"

As long as people are discussing things in current events that are in the news, there is no need for them to link to an actual article to center their discussion around that article. People can create and generation discussion about current events in the news with their own content, in that forum. It's just that not a lot of people do, since it's easier to just link to something already pre-written by a news source.

People posting and linking to news articles is actually a trend in that forum that became popular and then later the expected norm, but it is not a requirement of that forum. If another tsunami hit Japan, for example, then people flooding to the In the News forum to talk about the tsunami, without linking to an actual news article, would be entirely appropriate for that forum.

I suppose the difference would be what you consider "news".

Commenting that some is hot or stating that you have a new puppy is not "in the news"- you will rarely see things in the news that pertains to that subject matter. Natural disasters are covered constantly and it doesn't take long for that kind of news to spread.

It sounds more like the forum is ruled by semantics of "whatever is discussable" more than what it is by constructive guidelines.

[darth acheron]

I have a tissue

Scobre

Oh you got a low content reason. Ok I had to ask a mod to explain this to me. Basically any post no matter what forum it is in, if not enough people post in it, it is considered low content and moved to chatter box. I'm not sure if your thread would have had more replies if it had been posted in the charity/quests forum. I guess next time you post if there are not enough replies, maybe have a few friends help you out posting in the thread.

That is probably the most fluffy and cover-my-butt statement I would ever hear from a mod. My thread was giving away caches and I give them all away in a matter of minutes to multiple people- all people had to do is send me a trade for them. I had plenty of response to my thread even though it wasn't visible, so that explanation wouldn't fly.



Either it's allowed in a forum or it is not and the move message does not coincide with the rules, so either the mod was incorrect or the forum rules are, and that's not being consistent. The rules do not state that the thread was best for other places, or that it would be considered "low content".

I don't understand how they could say that one forum is meant for something when the rules do not state what they are enforcing.



I maintain that even a 13-year-old would not understand how this method of deciding where threads belong works unless they are told clearly what forums are better for what threads.

Giving away caches belongs in the Item Alchemy Exchange not the main Alchemy forum, which is for discussing the Alchemy feature. At the very top in the first post of the rules, it explains what the forum is for. You'd have to talk to an admin probably since they write the rules and hopefully you get that chance.

Scobre

Oh you got a low content reason. Ok I had to ask a mod to explain this to me. Basically any post no matter what forum it is in, if not enough people post in it, it is considered low content and moved to chatter box. I'm not sure if your thread would have had more replies if it had been posted in the charity/quests forum. I guess next time you post if there are not enough replies, maybe have a few friends help you out posting in the thread.

That's not correct. Low content means your original post doesn't have enough content to meet the requirements of that forum (i.e. a single sentence OP in Extended Discussion, a forum that requires well thought out in depth posts.)

[I have a tissue]

Darth Acheron

I have a tissue

Scobre

Oh you got a low content reason. Ok I had to ask a mod to explain this to me. Basically any post no matter what forum it is in, if not enough people post in it, it is considered low content and moved to chatter box. I'm not sure if your thread would have had more replies if it had been posted in the charity/quests forum. I guess next time you post if there are not enough replies, maybe have a few friends help you out posting in the thread.

That is probably the most fluffy and cover-my-butt statement I would ever hear from a mod. My thread was giving away caches and I give them all away in a matter of minutes to multiple people- all people had to do is send me a trade for them. I had plenty of response to my thread even though it wasn't visible, so that explanation wouldn't fly.



Either it's allowed in a forum or it is not and the move message does not coincide with the rules, so either the mod was incorrect or the forum rules are, and that's not being consistent. The rules do not state that the thread was best for other places, or that it would be considered "low content".

I don't understand how they could say that one forum is meant for something when the rules do not state what they are enforcing.



I maintain that even a 13-year-old would not understand how this method of deciding where threads belong works unless they are told clearly what forums are better for what threads.

Giving away caches belongs in the Item Alchemy Exchange not the main Alchemy forum, which is for discussing the Alchemy feature. At the very top in the first post of the rules, it explains what the forum is for. You'd have to talk to an admin probably since they write the rules and hopefully you get that chance.

Scobre

Oh you got a low content reason. Ok I had to ask a mod to explain this to me. Basically any post no matter what forum it is in, if not enough people post in it, it is considered low content and moved to chatter box. I'm not sure if your thread would have had more replies if it had been posted in the charity/quests forum. I guess next time you post if there are not enough replies, maybe have a few friends help you out posting in the thread.

That's not correct. Low content means your original post doesn't have enough content to meet the requirements of that forum (i.e. a single sentence OP in Extended Discussion, a forum that requires well thought out in depth posts.)

The rules do not state so, sir, and it was not moved to the proper forum, nor was I replied to when I inquired.

Feel free to explain this to me, but as of now you are not really not helping.

[Liringlas]

I have a tissue

Liringlas

Hasuki Aatisuto

I don't think they really do care about rules too much, to be honest.

When I was a FA for a short time, I was in charge of In The News (along with Gaia Aquariums). We had an influx of topics that was obviously NOT news such as "hey check out this kitty I brought!" "Justin Bieber is HOOOOOOOOT", etc. There were also topics about news, but people weren't actually linking to the news articles themselves.

So I went to the FA forum to suggest adding a rule in the sticky stating that you must link to an article and non-article material would be moved to the Chatterbox or Recycle Bin, because I believed that should help reduce those kind of topics.

The other FA's and mods in there didn't think it was necessary, and I felt embarrassed for even bringing it up, and it tells me that they don't really think too much about rules around here. I mean, it was just ONE LINE for christ's sakes. They couldn't even bother to discuss it at all? Really?

So, yeah, that's going to be pretty much the last time I'm going to suggest a slight rule change around here.

As someone who frequents In the News I disagree with your suggestion to add that people must link to a news article, and agree with the other FAs and mods that it wasn't necessary.

If you look at the In the News description it says "Welcome to the In The News forum! The In The News forum is intended for discussing all things related to events currently happening in the news!"

As long as people are discussing things in current events that are in the news, there is no need for them to link to an actual article to center their discussion around that article. People can create and generation discussion about current events in the news with their own content, in that forum. It's just that not a lot of people do, since it's easier to just link to something already pre-written by a news source.

People posting and linking to news articles is actually a trend in that forum that became popular and then later the expected norm, but it is not a requirement of that forum. If another tsunami hit Japan, for example, then people flooding to the In the News forum to talk about the tsunami, without linking to an actual news article, would be entirely appropriate for that forum.

I suppose the difference would be what you consider "news".

Commenting that some is hot or stating that you have a new puppy is not "in the news"- you will rarely see things in the news that pertains to that subject matter. Natural disasters are covered constantly and it doesn't take long for that kind of news to spread.

It sounds more like the forum is ruled by semantics of "whatever is discussable" more than what it is by constructive guidelines.

Not really semantics. Something is in the news, or it isn't. If talking about Justine Bieber is news then obviously they have to discuss something related to him and the news, like his almost getting punched by Orlando. But if they just talk about him in general then it belongs somewhere else.

Just look at r/news on reddit. You can submit a news article, submit something else, or submit an analysis/your own opinion about something in the news. But people understand the gist of r/news and post appropriately.

Again the In the News description says "Welcome to the In The News forum! The In The News forum is intended for discussing all things related to events currently happening in the news!" It doesn't take a genius to figure the gist of the forum out.

[Liringlas]

I have a tissue

Darth Acheron

I have a tissue

Scobre

Oh you got a low content reason. Ok I had to ask a mod to explain this to me. Basically any post no matter what forum it is in, if not enough people post in it, it is considered low content and moved to chatter box. I'm not sure if your thread would have had more replies if it had been posted in the charity/quests forum. I guess next time you post if there are not enough replies, maybe have a few friends help you out posting in the thread.

That is probably the most fluffy and cover-my-butt statement I would ever hear from a mod. My thread was giving away caches and I give them all away in a matter of minutes to multiple people- all people had to do is send me a trade for them. I had plenty of response to my thread even though it wasn't visible, so that explanation wouldn't fly.



Either it's allowed in a forum or it is not and the move message does not coincide with the rules, so either the mod was incorrect or the forum rules are, and that's not being consistent. The rules do not state that the thread was best for other places, or that it would be considered "low content".

I don't understand how they could say that one forum is meant for something when the rules do not state what they are enforcing.



I maintain that even a 13-year-old would not understand how this method of deciding where threads belong works unless they are told clearly what forums are better for what threads.

Giving away caches belongs in the Item Alchemy Exchange not the main Alchemy forum, which is for discussing the Alchemy feature. At the very top in the first post of the rules, it explains what the forum is for. You'd have to talk to an admin probably since they write the rules and hopefully you get that chance.

Scobre

Oh you got a low content reason. Ok I had to ask a mod to explain this to me. Basically any post no matter what forum it is in, if not enough people post in it, it is considered low content and moved to chatter box. I'm not sure if your thread would have had more replies if it had been posted in the charity/quests forum. I guess next time you post if there are not enough replies, maybe have a few friends help you out posting in the thread.

That's not correct. Low content means your original post doesn't have enough content to meet the requirements of that forum (i.e. a single sentence OP in Extended Discussion, a forum that requires well thought out in depth posts.)

The rules do not state so, sir, and it was not moved to the proper forum, nor was I replied to when I inquired.

Feel free to explain this to me, but as of now you are not really not helping.

Actually the rules do? You even linked to them in your OP?

Welcome to the Item Alchemy forum! This forum is intended for discussions and guides about the Item Alchemy system.

Anything that does cannot fit under these 2 simple rules belong elsewhere. It's just that people don't report misplaced threads in the Alchemy forum anymore, so the Alchemy forum tends to get flooded with low content threads, and then newcomers looking into the forum think it's okay to contribute their low content threads to the forum as well since they see a lot of other low content threads swilling around. When in reality those threads should've been moved. But again, no one reports anything in the Alchemy forum anymore. When the Alchemy forum was new, I used to report a lot of buying/selling threads as misplaced, to get them over to the Alchemy Item Exchange Forum where they belonged. These reports were handled. People generally followed the rules back then. Two years ago. Alchemy got abandoned and people gave up caring about the cleanup in that forum.

SO it's understandable that you misread or misinterpreted the rules, but yeah your giveaway thread did not actually belong in the Alchemy forum, according to the forum description: "This forum is intended for discussions and guides about the Item Alchemy system"

[I have a tissue]

Liringlas

I have a tissue

Liringlas

Hasuki Aatisuto

I don't think they really do care about rules too much, to be honest.

When I was a FA for a short time, I was in charge of In The News (along with Gaia Aquariums). We had an influx of topics that was obviously NOT news such as "hey check out this kitty I brought!" "Justin Bieber is HOOOOOOOOT", etc. There were also topics about news, but people weren't actually linking to the news articles themselves.

So I went to the FA forum to suggest adding a rule in the sticky stating that you must link to an article and non-article material would be moved to the Chatterbox or Recycle Bin, because I believed that should help reduce those kind of topics.

The other FA's and mods in there didn't think it was necessary, and I felt embarrassed for even bringing it up, and it tells me that they don't really think too much about rules around here. I mean, it was just ONE LINE for christ's sakes. They couldn't even bother to discuss it at all? Really?

So, yeah, that's going to be pretty much the last time I'm going to suggest a slight rule change around here.

As someone who frequents In the News I disagree with your suggestion to add that people must link to a news article, and agree with the other FAs and mods that it wasn't necessary.

If you look at the In the News description it says "Welcome to the In The News forum! The In The News forum is intended for discussing all things related to events currently happening in the news!"

As long as people are discussing things in current events that are in the news, there is no need for them to link to an actual article to center their discussion around that article. People can create and generation discussion about current events in the news with their own content, in that forum. It's just that not a lot of people do, since it's easier to just link to something already pre-written by a news source.

People posting and linking to news articles is actually a trend in that forum that became popular and then later the expected norm, but it is not a requirement of that forum. If another tsunami hit Japan, for example, then people flooding to the In the News forum to talk about the tsunami, without linking to an actual news article, would be entirely appropriate for that forum.

I suppose the difference would be what you consider "news".

Commenting that some is hot or stating that you have a new puppy is not "in the news"- you will rarely see things in the news that pertains to that subject matter. Natural disasters are covered constantly and it doesn't take long for that kind of news to spread.

It sounds more like the forum is ruled by semantics of "whatever is discussable" more than what it is by constructive guidelines.

Not really semantics. Something is in the news, or it isn't. If talking about Justine Bieber is news then obviously they have to discuss something related to him and the news, like his almost getting punched by Orlando. But if they just talk about him in general then it belongs somewhere else.

Just look at r/news on reddit. You can submit a news article, submit something else, or submit an analysis/your own opinion about something in the news. But people understand the gist of r/news and post appropriately.

Again the In the News description says "Welcome to the In The News forum! The In The News forum is intended for discussing all things related to events currently happening in the news!" It doesn't take a genius to figure the gist of the forum out.

I will never touch Reddit so I have no idea what you're talking about.

But, again, it's semantics. A random statement of Justin Bieber being hot is not "news". Just talking about random subjects which may not even be in the news would seem a bit off to me. In looking at what the forum implies that it should be for and your interpretation of it are two completely different ideals.

I agree with Hasuki Aatisuto on this one. A small bit of structure makes things more fun and enjoyable, much less chaotic and a lot easier to play along with.