Steam Moderation of the Discussion Forums - Does it need to change? I think so.

[Macdallan]

I was directed here by Steam Support after having a conversation with them about how they moderate the discussion forums. I pointed out numerous issues and problems and they said they forwarded my comments in a report, and at the end of the conversation I was directed here.

Part of the problem I have with the way they moderate the discussion forums is that some of the rules are either too vague, are extremely subjective, or they contradict the nature of a discussion forum in the first place.

For example you aren't allowed to "bait an argument." Well, what qualifies as baiting an argument? The Rules and Guidelines page doesn't explain what that is, or where that line is drawn. Having an argument isn't baiting an argument. Disagreeing with someone isn't baiting an argument either. So, what does that actually mean? What it means changes depending on the moderator looking at it. Some can recognise that a slightly heated debate, or argument, is fine and no "baiting" is going on, others can't and will warn, or ban, people who have an ongoing disagreement about something. This shouldn't even be a rule because arguments are a healthy part of a discussion and if someone chooses to respond to "bait" then that's on them. More on this below.

In my opinion there seems to be a list of unwritten rules somewhere, but none of Steam's customers (that's us, folks - never forget that we're Steam's customers) has access to it and yet we get our fingers slapped whenever we break one of these rules that we can't see written down anywhere. I'm talking about the rules that the moderators will quote if the issue a warning or a ban. Here is one example: "This post contains content that is combative, argumentative, or is likely to derail the discussion. This type of content is not allowed on the Steam Community." I'm going to pick this one apart in the next few paragraphs.

That isn't an actual rule that you can find anywhere on the Steam Rules and Guidelines page, or on the Steam Online Conduct page, but people can be warned, or even banned, for breaking that non-existent rule. You cannot find the words "combat" or "combative" on either of those Steam pages. This means that a rule that you cannot post something "combative" does not exist.

Arguments are actually permitted so we are allowed to post things that are "argumentative." The Steam Rules and Guidelines website has a section near the bottom with a line that states,"Respectful arguments are a constructive and beneficial aspect of the Steam Community." This means we are allowed to argue with each other, but there is even an issue with this line because what constitutes "constructive and beneficial" is very subjective and what one moderator might stomp all over and ban customers for saying another moderator will not.

Another problem with that rule is the last part. "...is likely to derail the discussion." Just because something might derail the discussion doesn't mean it has been derailed yet, but you have an unwritten rule that allows moderators to punish Steam customers for something that hasn't happened yet based on their opinion that it might derail the discussion in the future. Um... this isn't "Minority Report" and the moderators aren't pre-crime investigators.

Yet another issue is how the rules are applied very subjectively and very inconsistently and it seems you're rolling the dice every time you post something that might approach a line. This stymies discussions because we're often "walking on eggshells" because we are worried about what non-rule breaking content that we post might result in an unfair, inappropriate ban. Sometimes the outcome depends on which moderator look at a report. Some of the Steam moderators seem to think every little thing that gets reported is a major issue and will issue warnings, remove comments, or even ban people (sometimes for very inappropriate amounts of time given the infraction) over what is, in reality, minor or nothing at all. Others are very reasonable and logical and will actually have a conversation with you after issuing a warning - but those are very few and very far between. I love those folks, and I wish there were more of them working at Steam in their customer service and forum moderation positions.

There is also a problem with the lack of transparency in how they deal with things. They often won't tell you what they did, if anything, when you make a report and sometimes they don't even acknowledge reports in the first place. You'll report something that's an egregious breach of numerous rules and you hear absolutely nothing back from them. Then you'll report something relatively minor and they're all over it, and you get a response within hours at most. It's mind boggling how inconsistent it is.

The worst is when someone gets banned for something very minor or for no good reason at all (like breaking an unwritten rule) and other people on the same thread have posted things that clearly break multiple rules and nothing happens to them. Their posts remain, they don't get banned. It's mind boggling how some people seem to get away with rule breaking almost constantly, and others can't even step within 20 feet of the "line" without getting slapped with an unfair ban.

And, finally, if you end up on the receiving end of an unfair ban you will very rarely be able to appeal successfully because the Steam support folks usually respond with cut/paste statements often ending with something about the ban being "applied correctly" even when it wasn't. Unfortunately I have been unfairly banned a few times, and for much longer than would have been necessary even if a ban was appropriate in those cases, and there were only two instances where someone at Steam realised that a mistake was made, admitted it, and overturned the unfair and inappropriate bans. The support staff are generally not what I would call unreasonable, and they tend to be quite polite, so I think they're held to certain rules and procedures that don't give most of them a lot of leeway in overturning unfairly applied bans but if that is the case it needs to change.

For reference:

Steam Online Conduct page: https://store.steampowered.com/online_conduct?snr=100601___

Steam Rules and Guidelines page: https://help.steampowered.com/en/faqs/view/6862-8119-C23E-EA7B

[xBCxRangers]

Moderation and ownership, two of the biggest issues right now.

In short, yes, of course it needs to change. But be aware of King Gabens Protectors of the Grail, coming here to insist you're wrong, some of them even moderators themselves posting on alt tags.

[Brian9824]

The rules are pretty self explanatory, it basically boils down to don't be an ass. Baiting is the act of making bad faith claims like accusing people of being secret moderators in an attempt to start an argument or fight.

If bans are wrong steam will promptly remove them, i've had them remove many over the years. The issue is basically if people are trolls don't break the rules in responding to them. Lots of usrs sadly make ridiculous claims because they want you to call them a liar, or insult them so they can then report you for making public accusations against them.

Respond with facts, be respectful and report anyone trolling and let moderation deal with them

Also keep in mind that game hubs are often moderated by moderators appointed by the game developers and not steam. If the ban is issued by a non steam moderator then support doesn't intervene and you'd need to contact the developer to appeal it.

[The Commendatore]

All that needs changing is that moderation becomes harsher (and more permanent) in their punishments when dealing with repeat-offenders.

The rules themselves are pretty self-explanatory.

[76561199540158642]

Harsher moderation would only create more injustice and more people would speak out against it. The real solution would be to remove the forum and thus remove the moderation, without forums no need for moderation would exist. Without Moderation or forums, customers would have to keep opinions and prejudices to themselves.

simply removing the forums would remove the trolling, the racism, and the discrimination from the steam platform. Most people meet others on games they play , not directly via the steam forums.

people could still have friends there would just no longer be a public complaint forum.

So really its up to steam to do whats best for them,

1.Deal with the complaints, address them and hope more complaints don't resurface.

2. Ignore the complaints, which they currently do, and allow more complaints to surface because of the ignored complaints

3. remove the ability for complaints to surface thus ignoring complaints and requiring zero moderation to do it.

[Nx Machina]

Publicado originalmente por Golden Unicorn:

Harsher moderation would only create more injustice and more people would speak out against it.

As in more conjecture, speculation and conspiracy threads.

[Crazy Tiger]

The paid mods should be required to:
- look at context
- escalate bans
- ban alts
- keep the trolling and reporting crew away from the forums
- get rid of all the "woke"/"anti-woke" nonsense

To me the rest is fine. It's fine if game hubs get moderated differently. People really should learn that nobody is obliged to give them a place for their soap box.

Also, on the forums you're merely a user, not a "customer". The word "customer" also isn't a magical stick of entitlement, especially since "customers" tend to severely overestimate their own worth and value. Again something people need to learn.

[76561199540158642]

clearly seeing fact is not conjecture, speculation , or conspiracy, it doesn't take much to see the fact of people speaking out against moderation, its pretty much steam creating its own injustice by attempting harsher moderation.

The solution is to lighten on moderation and or completely remove the forums, not to create a forum that is concentration camp for people who are asking for bread in the dirty water refill line.

[Brian9824]

Publicado originalmente por Golden Unicorn:

it doesn't take much to see the fact of people speaking out against moderation,

Yep, people speaking out against something however doesn't mean there is actually a problem with it.

I mean I can speak out against sentient toasters taking all our jobs, it doesn't mean there is actually a problem with sentient toasters taking jobs.

When people get caught breaking the rules and punished they speak out against being held accountable for their actions. It doesn't mean there is any issues with rule breakers being punished just because the rule breakers don't like being punished....

Kinda like how Trump and many Republicans spoke out against voting back in 2020, yet all the evidence showed despite all their claims on the matter there was no evidence to back up all times they spoke out against the election.

[76561199540158642]

Publicado originalmente por Brian9824:

Yep, people speaking out against something however doesn't mean there is actually a problem with it.

I mean yeah basically when someone speaks out against something there is a problem with it, that is why they speak out against it? Somewhere in the logically world of what speaking out means it got lost in translation.

in literal terms, Speaking out against something is to declare something is wrong with it and its a problem.

[Brian9824]

Publicado originalmente por Golden Unicorn:

I mean yeah basically when someone speaks out against something there is a problem with it, that is why they speak out against it?

BRB let me make a post about how everyone complaining about moderation is paid by EPIC to do so. Since i'm speaking out against it by your logic that means there must be a problem with EPIC paying people to lie.

Because people never blame others for them getting caught breaking the rules......

Again, you edited out the perfect example, but Trump and the Republicans proved you wrong. They had no issues speaking out and making lots of false claims about the election and it was disproven.

Hence why Rudy Giuliani know owes the people he spoke out against $100+ million, because your claim was proven false. People speak out against things all the time and are wrong and/or lying about what they speak out against.

[Crazy Tiger]

I didn't know that a person having a problem with something magically equates it to it being an actual problem. Two very different things.

I guess that means that the trolling Golden Unicorn does, is an actual problem.

[Brian9824]

Publicado originalmente por Crazy Tiger:

I didn't know that a person having a problem with something magically equates it to it being an actual problem. Two very different things.

I guess that means that the trolling Golden Unicorn does, is an actual problem.

Guess so, you spoke out against it so it HAS to be an issue.

[William Shakesman]

As is well known here, Valve allows users to lie, instigate, or provoke, but bans you if you call someone a liar, as the latter is clearly combative, argumentative, an insult, and always banworthy, while the former is approved behavior that is always morally acceptable, according to Valve.

As you might imagine, there is a lot you can then glean about the sort of person who defends this milieu, as well as the more honest and direct sort of person who gets tripped up by it (And then the sort of person who cannot recognize the pattern and gets tripped up repeatedly.)

[Brian9824]

Publicado originalmente por William Shakesman:

As is well known here, Valve allows users to lie, instigate, or provoke, but bans you if you call someone a liar,

As always context matters, for instance I can tell you that claim is not true. I won't get banned for it thus disproving your claim.

HOW you say something is often more important then WHAT you are saying. Some people can't debate or argue without insulting, that doesn't mean the act of arguing or refuting them isn't allowed, it just means those people can't control their own impulses and follow the rules.

[Crazy Tiger]

Publicado originalmente por William Shakesman:

Valve allows users to lie, instigate, or provoke

Correct. It's about time those alt farmers got booted.