The points system

Maisy

Was just wondering about the age out of remit part...is that for new people signing up or does that apply to everyone e.g. users who have been around for a while?

I'm 26, so technically too old to receive support from The Mix but I also like volunteering and helping out when I can. I don't have any plans to leave either so was just wondering, as I get older, would that become a problem?

Dancer

Skive said:

Points mean prizes 

Not that type on here Skive!  I get what you are saying though. 

JustV

Shaunie said:

Why is back seat modding on higher points and last longer than posting details of self harm. That makes no sense to me

Fair question @Shaunie.

The thinking behind this is that someone trying to weigh into something as a moderator tends to be more disruptive than a graphic comment that can be deleted fairly quickly. Backseat modding is also something that causes problematic situations to escalate, and the collateral damage of that can be pretty high. 'Details of self-harm' is also very broad and includes things that are very minor, so it would feel unfair to have a 5 point minimum for that.

Interested to know what you think, though. Where would you put them?

Maisy said:

Was just wondering about the age out of remit part...is that for new people signing up or does that apply to everyone e.g. users who have been around for a while?

I'm 26, so technically too old to receive support from The Mix but I also like volunteering and helping out when I can. I don't have any plans to leave either so was just wondering, as I get older, would that become a problem?

Another good question @Maisy.

That one is for people just signing up, and we deliberately used the word 'extremely' because it only really applies to people who have clearly found the wrong space.

Our general rule is as long as you join when you're within remit, you can stick around once you age out so long as there are no problems with your use of the community. And it's generally okay for someone to join if they're a bit older anyway, like up to about 30; 25 is only a soft upper limit.

Kasa2103 said:

Skive said:

Points mean prizes 

Not that type on here Skive!  I get what you are saying though. 

If being put on a break counts as a prize @Skive.

Siena

Mike said:

Shaunie said:

Why is back seat modding on higher points and last longer than posting details of self harm. That makes no sense to me

Fair question @Shaunie.

The thinking behind this is that someone trying to weigh into something as a moderator tends to be more disruptive than a graphic comment that can be deleted fairly quickly. Backseat modding is also something that causes problematic situations to escalate, and the collateral damage of that can be pretty high. 'Details of self-harm' is also very broad and includes things that are very minor, so it would feel unfair to have a 5 point minimum for that.

Interested to know what you think, though. Where would you put them?

Thank you for explaining Mike
I think should be less than self harm. & it also lasts like twice as long as other bracket It only escalates cause youve made it and a rule and  people are annoyed someone is back seat modding. Yet isnt getting annoyed, back seat modding in its self -yet never seen as that? Since it escaltes because people are back seating a back seat mod. lol. Since back seat modding is enforcing rules which people do when get annoyed at a back seat mod

Mike said:
'Details of self-harm' is also very broad and includes things that are very minor, so it would feel unfair to have a 5 point minimum for that.

Its also unfair to give 5 points for asking someone if they could speak about their feelings instead of their actions. Or tell someone theyre back seat modding cause they ask if someone was safe or do they need another service. Thats just generally wanting to make sure they get the rigjt support

but thats just my opinion

i wrote something about back seat modding a few weeks ago and was wondering if you was ever going to reply ?:) 

https://community.themix.org.uk/discussion/comment/3616887#Comment_3616887

Skive

You can't ban me. I'm part of the furniture. Even says so under my name

Seriously though, if we'd have had this system 15 years ago, we'd have all been toast

JustV

Skive said:

You can't ban me. I'm part of the furniture. Even says so under my name

Seriously though, if we'd have had this system 15 years ago, we'd have all been toast

Ha, the moderation back in ye old days was very different @Skive! Whenever we dive back into posts made 10+ years ago, I'm always a bit taken aback by how differently spaces like TS were used. I guess they were social media before social media. Really, the points system is just about transparency; being clearer with you guys on how we approach guideline issues.

Shaunie said:

Mike said:

Shaunie said:

Why is back seat modding on higher points and last longer than posting details of self harm. That makes no sense to me

Fair question @Shaunie.

The thinking behind this is that someone trying to weigh into something as a moderator tends to be more disruptive than a graphic comment that can be deleted fairly quickly. Backseat modding is also something that causes problematic situations to escalate, and the collateral damage of that can be pretty high. 'Details of self-harm' is also very broad and includes things that are very minor, so it would feel unfair to have a 5 point minimum for that.

Interested to know what you think, though. Where would you put them?

Thank you for explaining Mike
I think should be less than self harm. & it also lasts like twice as long as other bracket It only escalates cause youve made it and a rule and  people are annoyed someone is back seat modding. Yet isnt getting annoyed, back seat modding in its self -yet never seen as that? Since it escaltes because people are back seating a back seat mod. lol. Since back seat modding is enforcing rules which people do when get annoyed at a back seat mod

Mike said:
'Details of self-harm' is also very broad and includes things that are very minor, so it would feel unfair to have a 5 point minimum for that.

Its also unfair to give 5 points for asking someone if they could speak about their feelings instead of their actions. Or tell someone theyre back seat modding cause they ask if someone was safe or do they need another service. Thats just generally wanting to make sure they get the rigjt support

but thats just my opinion

i wrote something about back seat modding a few weeks ago and was wondering if you was ever going to reply ?:) 

https://community.themix.org.uk/discussion/comment/3616887#Comment_3616887

Hmmm... an interesting angle @Shaunie, and we can definitely consider whether those guideline issues need to be re-categorised.

Backseat modding has always been something that has caused issues, even before we made it part of the guidelines. In fact, the reason we wrote it into the guidelines was because it was causing issues and we wanted to make it clear that it's a problematic thing to do. It probably should have been in the guidelines long before it was.

Being annoyed at someone breaking a guideline (e.g. backseat modding) isn't really backseat modding in itself. It would become backseat modding if that person then proceeded to try and police that behaviour, but simply having a reaction to it is okay and very natural.

I did notice your other post in Rules & Guidelines and I'll try and get back to that one today. Looks like it slipped past us when you first posted it! Looking at what is and isn't backseat modding is quite an important discussion and we're more than happy to go over that in some detail, because some interventions are more or less helpful than others and we don't want to discourage the helpful ones.

Siena

Hey thanks
Its always been back seat modding when im annoyed at someone breaking a rule. Saying someone is against the rules and being annoyed at it - has always been bad thing. So im not sure of the different of "policing the rules" to being annoyed. 
- Do you mean "policing" is saying it more nicely/ like a mod would. And then being annoyed is just being annoying? Cause thats sounds weird that saying it nicely is against rules compared to being annoyed


why would people annoyed at users helping them keep the chat room safe and helping them stay in guidelines? Tbh i only would get annoyed because its a rule.& shouldnt break rules, lol. But if wasnt a rule - id think okay fair enougj you didnt prepare to read it so like thanks for telling me. Who cares on who says it whether the mods or not. I only get annoyed if other people break the rules(i know i have so not trying to be a hypocric) or they tell me ive broke rules when i clearly havent or people being annoyed at me for telling someone to maybe stay in guildelines. I mean have readwhat  could talk about and then someone says something out that obvious tempting to tell them

Skive

Mike said:

Skive said:

You can't ban me. I'm part of the furniture. Even says so under my name

Seriously though, if we'd have had this system 15 years ago, we'd have all been toast

Ha, the moderation back in ye old days was very different @Skive! Whenever we dive back into posts made 10+ years ago, I'm always a bit taken aback by how differently spaces like TS were used. I guess they were social media before social media. Really, the points system is just about transparency; being clearer with you guys on how we approach guideline issues.

People did get banned, but you had to be a proper twat first. I feel I should mention I have never been banned from here.

The thing that made this place so good in the past was the sense of community and the ability to be relatively free to say what you feel. I think this points system is a good idea but I wouldn't want it to sanitise the content here too much though - just stop people being dicks to each other.

Siena

Ah sorry i thought i sent this with my other message. But think i refreashed and only sent draft


"Backseat modding has always been something that has caused issues, even before we made it part of the guidelines. In fact, the reason we wrote it into the guidelines was because it was causing issues" 


how did you decide which side was wrong to do? Like the person just stating the rules vs people causing the issues for someone stating the rules. Basically why did you make it a rule to not back seat - instead of making it a rule to stop getting annoyed at people for just stating the rules?

JustV

Shaunie said:

Double post. Thought maybe better here. 

Whats counts as "back seat modding". I thought id ask that here so others can see your answer too.

(Sorry longer than meant)

Cause i honestly dont understand - if youre trying to help what is wrong with trying to help?  I know an example you use it trying to stop an arguement.Whats wrong with helping out?  We dont have moderators in real life - we all naturally do things we think is right and dont need to spefically use your rules to do so. WITHOUT mentioning the rules. And even if do then well thats just trying to help too and all should help when and if we can so i dont understand.  And could be saying things generally. Like another random example of saying "maybe focus on your feelings rather than physical stuff". You dont need to be back seating modding to say that. You dont even need to know the rules to say that cause saying how you feel maybe more helpful to them. 

And i cant think of any of anymore examples youd use for back seat modding other than for arugments or helping people speak more within guidelines 

You want it to feel equal. Like people being able to support just as much as moderators yet you wont even let us help when we can and make it out like moderators are much higher so they should only says certain things.

They are called mods for a reason and all but you have been trying to make it more balanced so others can help so idk whats wrong when its done in a nice way and helps mods well it doesnt atm because youve made it seem like a v bad thing so causes drama cause made it sound bad but it should be good to help . And causes drama cause its against rules so then people back seat more about people back seat modding and cycle. But then you dont see someone back seating modding a back seat mod as against rules. (Soemone saying someones back seat modding - doesnt seem like a back seat mod when should be if going by these rules) If make sense lol. Just cut the drama & cycle and let people help ha

When if users know- then whats wrong with giving out info

just wondering. Thanks 

Shaunie said:

Got the answer. 

Back seat modding is using the rules in a way a mod would. Mods can only do this because its their mod role. But if you could please explain why its so awful for a member to help out. Well it would be now because against rules everyone would be annoyed but say if you never made it look bad then why would you not let members help. If a user reminded me of the rules id be happy theyre helping me keep the room safe. Just bit confused

Shaunie said:

Plus if i was a moderator, id love if people helped out like that. If users can help defuse an arguement so dont all have to feel the bad vibe, when mods arent on the boards then why not. Or if know a rule they missed out & still speaking about it, then like yeah say, so everyone can feel safe ,Put in context in real life - youd naturally do it - to keep things safe & comfortable to help. With or without moderators in the room

Hey @Shaunie, I copied your recent posts about this into this conversation to keep everything in the same thread. Happy to clarify a few points here.

When does trying to help become harmful?

There is a difference between backseat moderating and trying to de-escalate a situation in a genuinely helpful way. This guideline isn't there to prevent people from saying things that might really help, like encouraging someone to take a break if they're feeling wound up or telling them about a guideline they might not have read. I think we'd all agree that (when done kindly) those types of interjections are harmless and make the community a better, more supportive place.

When we talk about backseat modding, we're referring more to policing the community and telling people what to do, or getting over-zealous with the guidelines and trying to enforce them. Occasionally we also see people openly challenging a moderator's decision on something or calling out behavior the mod has let go, which isn't useful (moderators will usually have a reason for not addressing something).

Why can only moderators say some things?

The reason some interventions are reserved for moderators and the reason we need them to have the final say isn't because they're 'higher'. They're truly not, and we wouldn't want anyone to think they're somehow inferior to the volunteer team.

The reason is because they're trained in conflict resolution, and because if too many people are making decisions and dictating the rules, it can get confusing and make the job harder for the moderators who are responsible for that space. This is particularly problematic when there are different points of view, because then you have the issue of mixed messages.

In addition though, it's not the best experience for someone if they slip up and then lots of people read them the guidelines. By having a moderator mention it, it's a less overwhelming experience for them and avoids anyone feeling like they're being 'jumped on'. We also don't want everyone to get sidetracked by guidelines conversations, as that can lead to chat sessions or boards threads getting very off-track which isn't good for anyone.

Edit: it's interesting you say you'd prefer it if a user stepped in and you were a moderator. It's actually pretty unanimously agreed between moderators that a member weighing in on a guideline issue makes life harder most of the time - it gives us more to think about and respond to, and tends not to have the desired effect. And a moderator usually needs to verify what someone has said on a guideline anyways (i.e. say if they're right).

----

Does that make sense? You're allowed to help, it's just about making sure it's an appropriate time and that you're not crossing any lines.

We could include some clarification or examples in the main guidelines if this isn't super clear.

JustV

Skive said:

Mike said:

Skive said:

You can't ban me. I'm part of the furniture. Even says so under my name

Seriously though, if we'd have had this system 15 years ago, we'd have all been toast

Ha, the moderation back in ye old days was very different @Skive! Whenever we dive back into posts made 10+ years ago, I'm always a bit taken aback by how differently spaces like TS were used. I guess they were social media before social media. Really, the points system is just about transparency; being clearer with you guys on how we approach guideline issues.

People did get banned, but you had to be a proper twat first. I feel I should mention I have never been banned from here.

The thing that made this place so good in the past was the sense of community and the ability to be relatively free to say what you feel. I think this points system is a good idea but I wouldn't want it to sanitise the content here too much though - just stop people being dicks to each other.

Very fair point @Skive. The last thing we want is for this to restrict conversation and, if it does, it's not doing its job. It really is just about transparency; the guidelines themselves haven't changed.

If it makes people think a bit more carefully about what they're saying, that's probably a win for all of us.