03 Aug, 2009, Koron wrote in the 42nd comment:
To follow up, if the administration wants their enforcement policy to be completely arbitrary, they of course can (and will) do so. But if this is the way you decide to do things, don't pretend that it's any different, and don't expect anyone else to pretend either.
03 Aug, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 43rd comment:
First off, I think that having moderators is an excellent idea. There are several reasons for this; here are just two.
- More people means more coverage. It should be obvious enough why this is desirable, but in short, when administrators are not online very often, or simply when they don't feel like dealing with it as they have other things to do, it means that there are more eyes looking at posts.
- Moderators who are active posters are aware of the details of each thread, and know which posts are relevant and can quickly find them. This makes life easy for the administrators who might not have been following things.
Having a public forum where decisions are announced is good too:
- It makes it clear to everybody what happened, and hopefully why. This not only puts everything in the clear, but also it makes it easier to understand which behavior exactly is to be discouraged.
- It gives people an incentive to behave as a "wall of shame". (If they view the entries as trophies to be accumulated, then just ban them.)
I don't think it is a good idea for moderators to debate decisions amongst themselves in public. Actually, I think that's a little silly for many reasons. The most salient is that there's no need to personally antagonize individual moderators and the person they're discussing. The final decision along with the reasoning should be clear, but the process doesn't need to be. We don't hold jury deliberations in public, after all.
Now, I think that "rule 14" is kind of incompatible with the idea of a separate team of moderators, but I guess that's neither here nor there and there doesn't seem to be desire to discuss it at the moment.
For what it's worth, I wouldn't mind drafting a new set of rules if the MB team would consider reviewing them.
EDIT:
I forgot to mention that one problem with every decision needing a quorum is that some decisions need to be made quickly. I would much prefer something where some decisions can be made quickly, and later be reversed.
- More people means more coverage. It should be obvious enough why this is desirable, but in short, when administrators are not online very often, or simply when they don't feel like dealing with it as they have other things to do, it means that there are more eyes looking at posts.
- Moderators who are active posters are aware of the details of each thread, and know which posts are relevant and can quickly find them. This makes life easy for the administrators who might not have been following things.
Having a public forum where decisions are announced is good too:
- It makes it clear to everybody what happened, and hopefully why. This not only puts everything in the clear, but also it makes it easier to understand which behavior exactly is to be discouraged.
- It gives people an incentive to behave as a "wall of shame". (If they view the entries as trophies to be accumulated, then just ban them.)
I don't think it is a good idea for moderators to debate decisions amongst themselves in public. Actually, I think that's a little silly for many reasons. The most salient is that there's no need to personally antagonize individual moderators and the person they're discussing. The final decision along with the reasoning should be clear, but the process doesn't need to be. We don't hold jury deliberations in public, after all.
Now, I think that "rule 14" is kind of incompatible with the idea of a separate team of moderators, but I guess that's neither here nor there and there doesn't seem to be desire to discuss it at the moment.
For what it's worth, I wouldn't mind drafting a new set of rules if the MB team would consider reviewing them.
EDIT:
I forgot to mention that one problem with every decision needing a quorum is that some decisions need to be made quickly. I would much prefer something where some decisions can be made quickly, and later be reversed.
03 Aug, 2009, Hades_Kane wrote in the 44th comment:
flumpy said:
Even if thats not what some people want?
Not going to be able to please everyone, unfortunately. If they spend their time trying to please everyone, then nothing will get done and no one will be happy.
On the topic at hand, I think both suggestions would be welcome. However, I think it might be worth at least considering lifting the recent suspensions in order to allow everyone the chance to discuss this, and as a bit of an olive branch, and show of sincerity in the proposed policy shift.
A couple of other (possibly unwarranted) suggestions… Along with suspensions, bans, and permanent thread locks having to pass through at least 2 or 3 Admins/Moderators, I would also like to see this become policy on some other things as well, such as if code were to be removed from the repository as an example, I would like to see this only be done after agreement by multiple admins, along with the removal (and the reasons for it) being announced in the forum/thread being proposed. Lastly, I'd like to see a similar policy in place for rules changes/additions. I understand that most places "reserve the right to alter, remove, or add to the rules" as they see fit without prior notice and all that, but considering the scale of this site, I do think its bad form to do so when it would only take a moment to post something as well indicating the rules have been updated. Rule changes is also something I that I would like to see pass through more than one administration as well before being implemented. I think all of these things would easily fall under the scope of the proposed changes and be a healthy improvement on the site.
03 Aug, 2009, Skol wrote in the 45th comment:
Is this where we can make suggestions as well?
If not, ignore, if so, here goes:
On the Dubstack thing, if the guy was clearly in violation of rule #2, why was it allowed to continue once it was found? Then mentioning the name got a 'desist' by an admin. Now I'm not trying to question someone publicly, but make a suggestion that perhaps it's more the 'manner' of the administration action that was the cause of the uproar? Aka, the tone of the posts.
I literally had to google Dubstack to even figure out wtf was the issue. I PM'd Davion and got a reply which was nice, because I didn't want to break rule 14 (and it was common sense not to add to any fire etc).
My suggestion would be that if there is a admin 'Quit discussing that' type post, perhaps just post 'WHY' along with? Without that, and with the type of responses that ensued, it simply came across as draconian policy, and I was very close to simply removing the bookmarks to the site. I did mention to Davion that if I played a MUD that had an admin act like that, I'd leave it in a heartbeat. But this place is the one place I really go to discuss game design, and 99.9% of it has been great with this last exception.
I realize that there are moderators and members, but I personally don't want to frequent a place that has people not treating the members with respect.
So, (and if this again is the wrong place for this, please move/advise etc), perhaps if there is a need to moderate due to whatever, post the reason along with? It doesn't have to be a book, just maybe something akin to: Bordering on spam post, racial profiling, rule #3, original post was trolling, etc etc. Just some kind of 'this is why'.
If not, ignore, if so, here goes:
On the Dubstack thing, if the guy was clearly in violation of rule #2, why was it allowed to continue once it was found? Then mentioning the name got a 'desist' by an admin. Now I'm not trying to question someone publicly, but make a suggestion that perhaps it's more the 'manner' of the administration action that was the cause of the uproar? Aka, the tone of the posts.
I literally had to google Dubstack to even figure out wtf was the issue. I PM'd Davion and got a reply which was nice, because I didn't want to break rule 14 (and it was common sense not to add to any fire etc).
My suggestion would be that if there is a admin 'Quit discussing that' type post, perhaps just post 'WHY' along with? Without that, and with the type of responses that ensued, it simply came across as draconian policy, and I was very close to simply removing the bookmarks to the site. I did mention to Davion that if I played a MUD that had an admin act like that, I'd leave it in a heartbeat. But this place is the one place I really go to discuss game design, and 99.9% of it has been great with this last exception.
I realize that there are moderators and members, but I personally don't want to frequent a place that has people not treating the members with respect.
So, (and if this again is the wrong place for this, please move/advise etc), perhaps if there is a need to moderate due to whatever, post the reason along with? It doesn't have to be a book, just maybe something akin to: Bordering on spam post, racial profiling, rule #3, original post was trolling, etc etc. Just some kind of 'this is why'.
03 Aug, 2009, Guest wrote in the 46th comment:
Skol said:
So, (and if this again is the wrong place for this, please move/advise etc), perhaps if there is a need to moderate due to whatever, post the reason along with? It doesn't have to be a book, just maybe something akin to: Bordering on spam post, racial profiling, rule #3, original post was trolling, etc etc. Just some kind of 'this is why'.
That's pretty much what the system proposed in the initial post is seeking to do - provide a place for 'this is why' to be listed, along with the reference post to where it happened. Posting that in the actual thread loses effectiveness once the thread drops out of sight. The separate forum leaves it in a place where it can be referred back to easily.
03 Aug, 2009, Koron wrote in the 47th comment:
David Haley said:
I don't think it is a good idea for moderators to debate decisions amongst themselves in public. Actually, I think that's a little silly for many reasons. The most salient is that there's no need to personally antagonize individual moderators and the person they're discussing. The final decision along with the reasoning should be clear, but the process doesn't need to be. We don't hold jury deliberations in public, after all.
I'm a big proponent of the open system idea. That said, I agree that mods shouldn't be arguing with each other on a public thread, that would just be silly. In the real world, a panel of judges picks a single person on that panel to write the official opinion (though there can be dissenting opinions filed). It's a good strategy, thus my belief in the inherent goodness of a punishments forum.
03 Aug, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 48th comment:
I'm fine with somebody being the moderators' spokesperson, and I agree that there definitely should be something posted in terms of an explanation. And sure, I guess that if somebody wants to go on record as disagreeing, that's fine too. But we agree that the actual debate shouldn't be held in public, which is important IMO. :smile:
03 Aug, 2009, Lyanic wrote in the 49th comment:
Samson said:
We haven't really made a big deal of it, but that already happens behind the scenes - where it belongs. Suspensions and bans are generally discussed before they take place. Locks often end up needing to go through that afterward just because of the nature of why locks get done. I don't see any reason for that process to be out in the open, I imagine the Nexus folk probably discuss things to some extent behind the scenes too but what we're getting at most here is that the rulings are what would go in the new forum with a brief reason - no need to write novels - and a reference link to the material that brought it about if that's appropriate.
Runter said:
I'd like a super majority (3/4ths?) of moderators/admins/whatev reviewing every ban/suspension/lock in retrospect with a ruling in private. I think this ruling should then be made public after it's arbitrated with possibly a statement to explain the reasoning.
We haven't really made a big deal of it, but that already happens behind the scenes - where it belongs. Suspensions and bans are generally discussed before they take place. Locks often end up needing to go through that afterward just because of the nature of why locks get done. I don't see any reason for that process to be out in the open, I imagine the Nexus folk probably discuss things to some extent behind the scenes too but what we're getting at most here is that the rulings are what would go in the new forum with a brief reason - no need to write novels - and a reference link to the material that brought it about if that's appropriate.
Would the new 'moderators' be included in the behind the scenes vote on whether a lock/suspension/etc is justified, or would it continue to be an 'administrator' only vote?
03 Aug, 2009, Skol wrote in the 50th comment:
Samson said:
That's pretty much what the system proposed in the initial post is seeking to do - provide a place for 'this is why' to be listed, along with the reference post to where it happened. Posting that in the actual thread loses effectiveness once the thread drops out of sight. The separate forum leaves it in a place where it can be referred back to easily.
Thanks Samson, sounds good to me. And I think the separate thread will avoid thread derailing also.
03 Aug, 2009, Hanaisse wrote in the 51st comment:
Having been a dedicated daily reader of this site (yes, a lurker) and probably one of the few females in this community I just wanted to express my opinion here.
I'm not sure I understand the goal of this suggestion. Is it simply to satisfy the curiosity of the masses? I honestly don't see it as any deterrant to the numerous posts that inevitably pop up with the bitching/whining/complaining of said treatment. Isn't that the main problem? Right now I'm neither for or against this idea.
Absolutely agree. Surprised this isn't in place already. That said, good luck with finding an unbiased, respected member(s) of this community to take on this role. I emphasize respected otherwise these same soap opera dramas will just continue unresolved as the focus shifts from the admins to the moderators as the new enemy. I'm not trying to be pessimistic, it's just something to consider if this plan goes forward.
For the most part I think this forum works well as is. It is full of knowledge and intelligence and insightful ideas, which is why I stay. It is sad to see the few 'bad apples' who will never agree to anything and only want to argue but that's the nature of the beast in a large community. Ignore them and move on. There are far worse things in life than being banned (or your friend being banned) on an internet gaming site.
Samson said:
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.
I'm not sure I understand the goal of this suggestion. Is it simply to satisfy the curiosity of the masses? I honestly don't see it as any deterrant to the numerous posts that inevitably pop up with the bitching/whining/complaining of said treatment. Isn't that the main problem? Right now I'm neither for or against this idea.
Samson said:
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.
Absolutely agree. Surprised this isn't in place already. That said, good luck with finding an unbiased, respected member(s) of this community to take on this role. I emphasize respected otherwise these same soap opera dramas will just continue unresolved as the focus shifts from the admins to the moderators as the new enemy. I'm not trying to be pessimistic, it's just something to consider if this plan goes forward.
For the most part I think this forum works well as is. It is full of knowledge and intelligence and insightful ideas, which is why I stay. It is sad to see the few 'bad apples' who will never agree to anything and only want to argue but that's the nature of the beast in a large community. Ignore them and move on. There are far worse things in life than being banned (or your friend being banned) on an internet gaming site.
03 Aug, 2009, Tyche wrote in the 52nd comment:
Hanaisse said:
I'm not sure I understand the goal of this suggestion. Is it simply to satisfy the curiosity of the masses? I honestly don't see it as any deterrant to the numerous posts that inevitably pop up with the bitching/whining/complaining of said treatment. Isn't that the main problem? Right now I'm neither for or against this idea.
The main problem is what you seem to intimate, the "treatment" of their fellow community members. No rules or system can solve what is essentially a human problem, intemperance.
03 Aug, 2009, Runter wrote in the 53rd comment:
Lyanic said:
Would the new 'moderators' be included in the behind the scenes vote on whether a lock/suspension/etc is justified, or would it continue to be an 'administrator' only vote?
Samson said:
We haven't really made a big deal of it, but that already happens behind the scenes - where it belongs. Suspensions and bans are generally discussed before they take place. Locks often end up needing to go through that afterward just because of the nature of why locks get done. I don't see any reason for that process to be out in the open, I imagine the Nexus folk probably discuss things to some extent behind the scenes too but what we're getting at most here is that the rulings are what would go in the new forum with a brief reason - no need to write novels - and a reference link to the material that brought it about if that's appropriate.
Runter said:
I'd like a super majority (3/4ths?) of moderators/admins/whatev reviewing every ban/suspension/lock in retrospect with a ruling in private. I think this ruling should then be made public after it's arbitrated with possibly a statement to explain the reasoning.
We haven't really made a big deal of it, but that already happens behind the scenes - where it belongs. Suspensions and bans are generally discussed before they take place. Locks often end up needing to go through that afterward just because of the nature of why locks get done. I don't see any reason for that process to be out in the open, I imagine the Nexus folk probably discuss things to some extent behind the scenes too but what we're getting at most here is that the rulings are what would go in the new forum with a brief reason - no need to write novels - and a reference link to the material that brought it about if that's appropriate.
Would the new 'moderators' be included in the behind the scenes vote on whether a lock/suspension/etc is justified, or would it continue to be an 'administrator' only vote?
My first instinct is no, but it wouldn't matter to me either way in the outlined system.
Opps. I think I answered something that wasn't a question for me. :redface:
03 Aug, 2009, Guest wrote in the 54th comment:
Tyche said:
No rules or system can solve what is essentially a human problem, intemperance.
Indeed, and your statement works both directions too. But we are at least trying to figure something out here and any suggestions you have on that would be welcome.
04 Aug, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 55th comment:
Hanaisse said:
That said, good luck with finding an unbiased, respected member(s) of this community to take on this role. I emphasize respected otherwise these same soap opera dramas will just continue unresolved as the focus shifts from the admins to the moderators as the new enemy.
You imply one of the following:
(a) nobody is respected and unbiased at the same time
(b) everybody who is unbiased is disrespected
© everybody who is respected is biased
I think that all of these claims are a little far-fetched…? Maybe you have examples of people who are respected yet so biased that they can't be moderators, or people who are unbiased yet disrespected? And if you believe point (a), well, $DEITY have mercy on our community's soul.
Now maybe you're just saying that everybody is naturally biased as a human being, in which case, well, sure, but that's kind of a non-statement. The interesting question is whether people will be able to act reasonably and put aside their bias to the largest extent possible when moderating.
Of course, though, you are correct that moderators will take flak in addition to or in place of the admins, but in a way that's part of the idea. I think that everybody is well aware of that, though.
04 Aug, 2009, Chris Bailey wrote in the 56th comment:
Well don't worry guys, as long as they appoint me as a Moderator everything will be fine. We all know that I am respectable and not at all biased. :P
EDIT: And cute too!
EDIT: And cute too!
04 Aug, 2009, Dean wrote in the 57th comment:
Chris Bailey said:
Well don't worry guys, as long as they appoint me as a Moderator everything will be fine. We all know that I am respectable and not at all biased. :P
EDIT: And cute too!
EDIT: And cute too!
It could only work if it were a combination of ChrisHaley or DavidBailey.
EDIT: You're not as cute as me though CB!
04 Aug, 2009, Chris Bailey wrote in the 58th comment:
@lol at Dean. I AM ChrisHaley. Don't be fooled by that DavidBailey imposted.
04 Aug, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 59th comment:
Everybody knows that if you combine DavidBailey and ChrisHaley, you get DavidHaley. :blues:
04 Aug, 2009, Runter wrote in the 60th comment:
ChrisMuhaily. You've been trolled.
Well, sadly, this is going to draw public comment no matter what you do. That's basically what you'll get every time you try to tell people what they can and cannot do.
I agree with flumpy, but I don't feel like finding actual words to quote.
Transparency is a must, really. A non-PM review system for these things would add legitimacy to the system. How do we have any way of knowing what standard admins judge people's behavior by when they refuse to tell us these things? For all we know it could be completely arbitrary. (For all we know, it may already be.)