Community Moderation Guideline: "Escalation"

Preface: these guidelines have been developed collaboratively by the Community Moderator volunteers.

They're open for discussion and update, via the OGS forums.

Although you can, please don't edit these unless your edits have been endorsed in a suitable way.

The Guidelines

1. Meaning of escalation. "Escalation" is used where a report needs "unusual action" that is not one of the normal voting options.

2. When to escalate. Escalation is for reports of repeat offenders who have exceeded certain limits (see below). It is also for games that need annulment with no warning being issued (i.e., with no blame attached). This would be for cases such as an honest seki dispute, a system error, etc.

3. When not to escalate. It should not be done to open a discussion with the escalation note, to correct a mistake (even if the mistake is objective), or because the report is confusing. In the latter case, trust the system by ignoring the report and allowing other CMs to consider it.

4. Forwarding to full moderators. This is not "escalation". If a report needs the attention of the full moderators, then the category should be changed to Other.

   Caution: Because of a bug, the change to “Other” will appear to revert to the previous category on the CM side. However, the report in the “Other” category does go to the full mods. This has been tested.

5. Escalator’s note. Every escalated report should have an Escalator’s Note. Even in obvious cases (e.g., “Time for final warning”), the note quickly orients the reader about what is under consideration. In ambiguous cases (e.g., an escaper with two old warnings), the note can be used to make the case for a particular outcome (e.g., “this player is a habitual escaper, so should not be given special consideration, I think”).

6. Final Warning. Score cheating and stalling, being serious offenses that often lead to annulled games, should receive a final warning on the second offense (as defined by the player’s warning history in the report). Stopped Playing (escaping), which is less serious, should receive a final warning on the third offense. In cases of escaping, the recency of their warnings might be taken into account. Escapers often reform and then backslide, whereas score cheaters and stallers more often exhibit chronic behavior.

7. Suspension. This is the usual action when another violation has occurred after a final warning in the same category. This prevents a user from participating on OGS in the suspended account for an indefinite period. Suspended users have the opportunity to appeal. If they show that they understand why they were suspended and agree not to do that anymore, their account is restored (unless the suspension was for something heinous).

8. Manic violators. Some score cheaters and stallers cheat faster than the CMs can keep up. This disrupts the normal warning/final warning/suspension sequence, especially if some of the games are older ones discovered by CMs investigating the player’s history. Such older games should be identified in the Reporter’s Note. Voting should follow the sequence of reports, lest we end up with a final warning as a first warning. If a report on a later cheated game comes in, one can escalate it for final warning while adding a note to hold off voting until the earlier report has been resolved with a warning. This procedure has been successfully used.

9. Dissenter’s note. When a CM clicks a choice that differs from an existing vote, a box appears where an explanation can be given. This can be used to point out a mistake in the earlier vote or a mitigating factor. Its use is optional and should be anonymous.

10. Explanations to players. This is permitted in limited cases, but not required. See the Guidelines for Judging Score Cheating, Guideline #15.