Moderator Policy

Discord Ban Policy

All Discord bans (also referred to as a Level 3 ban) should only be issued for repeat and incredibly severe offenses of a similar nature (more than a single isolated incident), with the individual demonstrating no intent or capacity to improve on their behavior. Server bans should only be escalated from a brigging and may be requested by any member of Moderation, but must pass through the Head Discord Moderator and require a majority Moderator approval. Special circumstances may change this.

Examples of special circumstances include but are not limited to:

• Individuals joining the server and immediately spamming suspicious links, rule breaking gifs, slurs, or similar.
• The Head Discord Moderator being unavailable for an extended period of time, likely a few days at minimum.
• Moderator majority being unavailable for an extended period of time, from a minimum of one week.

All usage of this clause will be heavily scrutinized, require excellent reasoning, and require adequate logging (screenshots, message links, et cetera).

Examples of correct use of L3 ban policy:

• An individual repeatedly antagonizes staff with no sign of remorse or admission of wrongdoing. They are banned by the Head Discord Moderator after this information is ascertained via communication in brig.
• An individual posts political content in general chat, is brigged, apologizes, then later recidivates. They are banned by the Head Discord Moderator due to previously being warned against such behavior in brig.

Community Ban Policy

Community bans usually serve as a precursor to Discord bans and may effectively remove an individual from the community while still allowing them to make an appeal at a later date, in #discord-ban-appeals. The severity of community bans are listed below with suggested ranges.

The Level 1 ban (1-6 weeks) requires recidivism of minor rule breaking behavior, or an instance of a moderate rule break, and should generally be set at 2 weeks. This ban is fully at Moderator discretion.

Examples of correct use of L1 ban policy:

• Individual posts an erotic gif in a channel and apologizes in their brig thread. They must wait 2 weeks until they’re allowed to post an appeal.
• Individual begins shit posting in #general, gets told off, keeps doing it anyways, receives a brig thread, doesn’t reply, and is given the full 6 weeks before being allowed to apply for any appeal.

The Level 2 ban (2-6 months) requires, at minimum, one prior level 1 community ban, lying in a brig thread, or a severe instance of a rule break, and should generally be set at 6 months. Under most circumstances, this can be interchangeable with a Level 3 ban, and is at Senior Moderator discretion.

Examples of correct use of L2 ban policy:

• An individual is brigged for starting bad faith arguments twice in public channels. On the third occasion, a Senior Moderator approves a Level 2 ban.
• An individual is brigged for insulting someone multiple times, claiming that they are friends and do this all the time. The individual is proven to have no association with the subject, and the Head Discord Moderator approves a Level 2 ban.

Brig Policy

Brigging should be conducted for matters that necessitate Moderator intervention and cannot be addressed in community-accessible channels for any reason. Brigs should be used as a tool to communicate with individuals and address problematic behavior, and as such should not inherently constitute a punishment or moderation action. Instead, they should function as a means of isolating an individual from situations where discussion may continue problematic conduct, whilst simultaneously opening a direct channel of communication with Moderation.

Examples of correct use of brig policy:

-  Individual attempts to incite a witch hunt against a member of the community or of staff. Moderation staff isolate the individual by brigging them, and explain that this is against server rules. Before the individual is unbrigged, Moderators ask for confirmation of understanding and explain that recidivism may result in a community ban.

-  Individual was flaming another community in #general chat two days ago. Moderation staff open a brig thread for the individual, without timing them out, to explain that this is behaviour is against the server rules. Having this discussion avoids raising the topic again in public-facing channels and possibly igniting an argument or inciting problematic behaviour from other community members.

Timeout Policy

Timeouts may be issued as needed, following an informal warning, for minor rulebreaks not necessarily warranting brigging. Length may be adjusted at Moderator discretion and should ideally range anywhere from an hour to a day before becoming a brigworthy issue. Timeouts must be logged in the #modmin-general channel with reasoning. Individuals subject to being timed out should also be pinged with the explanation as to why they were timed out.

Examples of correct use of timeout policy:

• An individual keeps on posting off topic media in a public-facing channel despite being told to knock it off by staff and moderators. An Administrator times them out for two hours with the reason "spamming off-topic content, memes in genchat". This action is logged in the appropriate channel along with the context of the timeout.
• An individual pings players after a NukeOps round to gloat and elicit reactions, despite being told to stop by the players in question and staff. A Moderator times them out for two hours with the reason "R5: toxicity to players". This action is logged appropriately along with the context of the timeout.

Watchlist Policy

Any individual that repeatedly performs rulebreaks or is responsible for misconduct that border violations of server rules or policies may be eligible for a watchlist. Any staff may request a community watchlist to be placed on an individual, but all such watchlists must be placed by Moderation.

Examples of correct use of watchlist policy:

-  An individual has a habit of speaking ill about other communities but usually backs down when confronted by Moderation. A watchlist is applied with instructions to brig on the next offense.

-  An individual has been brigged twice before for sharing borderline NSFW content and Moderation suspects that they may recidivate. A watchlist is applied with instructions to issue a Level 2 ban on the next offense, per brig discussion.

- An individual is banned and has a history of ban evasion, watchlist should be placed on any of their known accounts and they should be reported to discord for breaking TOS on all alt accounts.

Warning Policy

In the course of regular duties, Moderation should expect to have to issue both informal and formal warnings; thus, an explanation of each is necessary.

• An informal warning consists of a verbal challenge to minor breaches of rules or unruly conduct. It can be as simple as telling someone to calm down or informing them that their behaviour may violate rules and that they should cease.
• A formal warning is a rigorous, recorded course of moderator action that should be used to document behaviour unable to be addressed by informal warnings. A formal warning should clearly address the person being warned, the behaviour they are being warned for, and the moderator actions they may face for repeat offences. Every formal warning should be in a channel or medium accessible to the person being warned.

Out of Server Action

Issues originating from without the server, such as direct messages or other communities, may be acted on by Moderation in a professional capacity if such issues directly pertain to Delta-V as a community, or to its staff. These will be case by case; Moderators are generally advised but not required to consult senior staff before taking action.

Examples:

• An individual harasses another community member in DMs to circumvent a timeout, leading to a brigging from Moderation.
• An individual defames members of staff in a separate community and Moderation is informed, leading to the individual being brigged.

Conflict of Interest Policy & Guide

In the instance that moderation action is required despite conflict of interest, utilize the following steps. No action will be taken against Moderators should these steps be followed accurately, their conduct remain professional, and bias be avoided to the greatest applicable degree.

1. Check if other Moderation staff are online by pinging staff in #moderator-general with an explanation of the issue, and await a response from anyone available to handle the situation. If anyone is available, defer the matter to them.
2. Should you receive no response in five minutes or longer, you may take action yourself. The maximum extent of action may not exceed a timeout, which may be adjusted at a later point.
3. Log the incident and the timeout in full, then await further action from other Moderation staff at their convenience.
4. Be aware that any issues handled personally may be dropped, and actions taken may be critiqued. Failure to follow these steps when handling conflict of interest may result in a warning, suspension, or dismissal and other action.

Administration & Staff Expectations

Administrators are encouraged to timeout "peanut-posters" in all channels that pertain to Administration (ban appeals, admin applications, whitelist applications, et cetera). For anything beyond peanut posting, please attempt to reach out to Moderation. If no response is forthcoming before 5 minutes, Administrators are permitted to take action themselves, but must be willing to be held to the same standards as a moderator. All staff are required to follow these guidelines when performing any Moderation action.

Examples of appropriate use of Moderation powers from general staff:

• An AHelp ticket is opened, and the poster begins shitposting in it instead of using the channel for its intended purpose. The Administrator handling the ticket times them out for 1 day, and makes a report in the appropriate channel along with the context of the timeout.
• An individual begins insulting a fellow community member, and refuses to cease even after a staff member tells them to stop. The staff member notifies the Moderation team, doesn't receive a response, and then applies a timeout the individual. A report is made in the appropriate channel along with the context of the timeout.