Ok. There's been much talk about the handling of moderation and administrative actions (right now the two are not technically distinct) and how best to handle doing the things we must inevitably do when situations arise.

I don't know how many folks know it, but I'm also a fairly active contributor to a few sites dedicated to the Elder Scrolls series of games. Mostly on the official Bethesda game forums, but also sporadically elsewhere. One such site that should be known to anyone who uses mods for Morrowind or Oblivion is TESNexus. That site deals with thousands of file uploads and downloads each day and has a membership numbering well over 1.1 million so far.

On their forum, they have a dedicated section where the administrators and moderators will post notices regarding users who have been given strikes/warnings and those they've had to ban. A hugely wide variety of reasons can be found there. The system works very well for the most part, although some of the membership views the tactic as somewhat draconian in nature.

I floated the idea of using a similar system here past a couple of people. The reaction was surprisingly favorable. I half expected to have it thrown out immediately as far too fascist or dictatorial or whatever. But it seems not and that at least a few people would appreciate a more public display of things when users here get warned or suspended, or God forbid banned. I can't say I fully understand why, but it does seem to work for Nexus.

The way I see it working best here is to have our own dedicated forum with the same sort of rules posts moved into it. Each time we need to take action, a post is made there. We would be able to leave those open for possible future followups, the regular membership would only be able to read them.

There's a second part to this as well. I think the Nexus system works as well as it does because they have a layer of moderators sitting between the site owner and his administrative assistant. For the most part the mods there are the ones posting strike and ban notices. They're the ones digging up the "reference posts" that get linked back to - assuming doing so is appropriate. It removes a significant burden from their actual staff who should be spending time with actual productive work on the site itself.

So as the second half of this I want to know if folks would like to see a new group of moderators formed here as that layer for us. So that we as admins don't need to constantly step into these things directly. We don't yet know who we'd like to see in those positions but we do have a couple of possible candidates.

I'd also like to ask that we keep this discussion focused on what I've proposed here and not on events that have taken place over the last few days. While that may be the trigger for why I'm posting this now, it is an idea I've toyed with proposing before and just never felt it would fly.

+10 exp for "good idea", on both parts. Public notice and visible public record is not only a tool of deterrence, but a tool of reference for people to look at if they need clarification on past precedent. Rules will always be ambiguous and subjective, but keeping the written record of how they've been enforced public will help solidify them more.

A distinct group of moderators is also a good idea as they should be more "removed" from the site, if that makes sense in a way. A distinct mod group that are not admins may not view some things…With such hostility? I'm really not sure how to word it. Disagreeing with a person who's sole job is to keep discussions on track is ok, they should be able to handle that. Disagreeing with someone who is doing that job, but also has a personal interest vested in keeping their <baby/hobby/website/etc> might be a bit more apt to spark things as an attack on said <baby/hobby/website/etc>. Hopefully that's understandable? I really don't know how to write it, but, I tried, haha.

Yeah, I think that is an excellent idea. Not only will it give the Administration more time to focus on pressing matters, it will also appease those individuals that want public explanation for punishment.

I agree. On both counts.

A moderation layer is exactly what this place needs. And since it's been stated several times by several Admins that the forums are not the main focus of the site, I think they shouldn't have to moderate them, and instead should bring in level-headed people to handle that aspect. And then they in turn only have to keep an eye on a handful of moderators instead of a gaggle of people.

The Admins should be free to poke at the site and make it better, without having to worry if there's some sort of flamewar going on. THere also needs to be a Clear-cut set of Moderation Guidelines posted, that should be agreed upon by whatever Moderators are chosen, and posted in the same section as the "Public Executions" for people breaking the rules.

On that note, I really like the idea of public executions. It provides precedence, and allows people to see why/how a given situation was handled. It also allows for Admins to give just a passing glance to know how something was handled and why. Instead of having to wade through several threads, or posts to see the reason.

As for the Nexus's system being draconian. How is Mudding any different? We're still working with Text ffs. How much more draconian can you get? We're a draconian hobby that needs a draconian system of dealing with trouble makers. Besides, Public Executions are sexy.

P.S. Kline, it was understandable.

Seconded.

I think the layer of moderatiors and a forum for said bannings/warnings to take place is an excellent idea. Regular members given moderation roles takes the strain off the site administration to perform their duties while still keeping the forum clean. The 'public execution' forum, though, I think there should be some way to appeal your case in that thread, for instance if you are banned, that is the only forum you may post in, perhaps you are allowed to explain what you did/said in hopes of having your appeal oveturned? However, my major focus is on the moderators as I think that would silence most of the accusations of a dictatorship that MB is supposedly becoming.

I appreciate the intent to make mod actions transparent, but why can't mods simply lock a thread or ban a user and explain why they're doing it in that post/thread?

To have a separate 'judicial sub-forum' strikes me as heavy-handed. MB isn't in any way as large as a site like the Nexus to make it necessary IMO. What this site needs is more civil discussion and people treating each other with respect, not extra layers of administrocracy.

eta: I should clarify, I think new mods are a fine idea. Separate forum, not so much.

That could seriously derail a perfectly good discussion.

Edit: Also, I think if it is going to be public a place where it's quickly referenced is a good idea. Instead of having to dig through almost 2000 topics to find the one with the actions.

Davion is right. If you want to quietly handle a situation without disturbing the good parts of the thread you should move it elsewhere. A moderator droning on about why someone is being punished in the middle of a discussion about multiplexed servers probably wouldn't help the discussion much. =)

Well, that's precisely the point. A perfectly good discussion shouldn't be locked. A user who is causing a problem can simply be banned.

I believe Davion was saying that if a user was causing a ruckus in a particular thread and was banned, but that thread was not locked, posting the reason for said user's ban in said thread would result in derailment.

Thanks Confuto :). That's what I was saying.

Samson, if you want to reform the mudbytes policies then I have no issue with that. I am all for your actual suggestions. What I do have issues with is your attitude, and the stuff I mentioned in my private PM to you, Davion and Kiasyn.

This whole thing is making me very sad.

[edit] I reread samsons actual post and I must have misunderstood some of it. apologies.

I think everyone involved can consider these potential changes Samson mentions a step forward.

Flumpy the point of this thread is for -you- to give -us- suggestions. Not to come here and attack Samson. This doesn't help anyone, so please if you want to attack Samson, or even MudBytes, Cratylus started a TMC thread for that purpose. Head there.

Understood. I've made my points, I apologise if I nearly derailed things again.



rofl

ok guess thats why then (re pm)

On that note of "suggestions", I do feel it would be worthwhile to be able to question decisions about pending suspensions etc.

I think that with a purely moderator based mechanism you have too much room for little hitlars to wield their iron fists. If you have some ability to appeal to a temporary suspension or post deletes etc, you should be able to do this publically. If everyone feels that the ruling was poor, it should be dropped.

This must go hand in hand with the moderation system that was suggested, with the actual admins being the arbiters of such things. The community should perhaps vote as well, with collective decisions being private.

This way, it will always be seen to be fair. I don't expect this kind of mechanism would be difficult to implement either.

So do you advocate the repeal of amendment 14? Actually I think I just broke the rules saying that. ;)

In any event, I think this may not be the type of suggestions that are being asked for.

Absolutely. I think "rule 14" is a pile of horse manure.

Probably time for a small clarification in case it wasn't clear. This proposed system is not being made to introduce a method for folks to question administrative decisions. It's being proposed in order to make them more transparent and referenceable for future use. There is no discussion taking place about putting up polls to overturn rulings or anything of that nature.

And no. This is not a discussion to change "rule 14" or any other rules. That is remaining at our sole discression to decide on. While we may implement a new rule set, we will not be seeking public comment on them if/when that happens.