Sounds like you've already made up your mind about how it will work. Guess that's why no one's talking any more, and I think I will stop now too.

Could be it wasn't made clear that we weren't looking for alternative systems, only looking to see if implementing the proposal was something people could live with. I gather from the lack of definite opposition to it that nobody really has an issue with at least trying it to see if it works better. Chances are it won't be any worse than doing nothing.

It's ironic in a way that we expect our moderators to adhere to a standard of conduct that, were we all to abide by it ourselves, would make their role almost unnecessary.

I support the idea of having a publicly viewable forum where moderator decisions are posted. Any aggrieved parties could then appeal the decision by PM to a named moderator who would then post this in a moderator only section of the forum for discussion by the moderating team. Once a consensus or majority decision was reached among the moderating team a follow up would be posted in the original notification thread to uphold, overturn or amend the decision.

This would solve two problems with the current system:

1. We would know what decisions were made and why. No more wondering wtf happened to a particular thread.
2. If someone felt they were unfairly treated or disagreed with a moderator's actions they have a clear route to appeal the decision.

OH I seeee… it wasn't really up for discussion then. This is becoming a bit of a Samson theme..

As it stands, my suggestions were an opposition of sorts, I don't think what you are proposing will work as is, and I suggested alternatives. Lots of people have pointed out flaws/potential issues in it.

I'm not sure exactly what your deal is at this point. It very clearly is up for discussion but you seem to have some other issue you need to address. That other issue, whatever it is, was specifically asked NOT to be commented on here. You need to take that up via the proper channels. Which means via PM.

If what we're proposing as-is won't work, suggesting ways to tweak it would be more productive. Swapping the entire thing out wholesale for a system that's simply not suited for a site like this isn't going to go much of anywhere.

So you're opposed to the system, and you've already said more than once you don't want to discuss it anymore. If I may suggest, it might be time to follow your own advice and move on to more productive things.



It is always interesting, isn't it? It's one of the reasons I've stated before that self-moderation does not work.



Hits the nail on the head, that's pretty much the issue we're trying to resolve somehow.

OH I see… You're trolling. I've tried to be as polite about it as I could. But I get the feeling that were this system in place, You'd already have one or two strikes against you.

That being said, I don't recall reading a whole lot of issues with it, other than.. yours. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and go back through and read the thread again.

K, So I reread the whole thread. And, Sorry Flumpy, you're the only one who took issue with the system and didn't provide constructive criticism on how to improve the suggested one. Instead you decided to come up with an entirely new system that was incompatible with the goals set forth by the proposed one.

[Edit:] Fucking NyQuil screwing with my ability to spell.

Kayle, don't make me troll you. =oP

Kayle, I don't know what beef you have with me but this is beginning to smell personal, which would make you the troll here. I'm trying to have a discussion, how bout you?



OK.. SO. Part of the Original post from Samson:



Emphasis added for emphasis.

I proposed a system of moderation which is entirely compatible with those two statements. My disagreement came with the mods making the strike and ban notice, and having a defined (by an admin) list of mods. What part of the rest of the statement is incompatible with my suggestion? Did anyone form a concrete idea about which form moderators would take?

NO.

And FYI responding to a heavy handed response or some unfair criticism is NOT trolling, it's defending my self.

[edit note- I will not be responding to further posts on this subject. It is clear what the official position is, and I need no longer beat my head against a wall. That is all.]

TMC uses self-moderation, and has been pretty successful for the last 15 years or so. In what way do you think it doesn't work?

Both TMS and MudMagic lost valuable contributors due to their moderation policy, and now MudBytes seems to having similar problems. TMC seems to have avoided this issue, despite being the oldest of the main mud sites.

I'm not suggesting that self-moderation is ideal, or even appropriate for all situations, but based on the evidence I've seen I certainly wouldn't say it "does not work".

I don't even know you, how would something be personal? I'm just going off the general attitude you've exuded throughout this entire thread, including your opening attack on Samson.


Hmm.. I've read your posts, and come back with points of my own.. How is this not a discussion?



The point of the new system was so that Mods would handle strike and suspension notices. And I think it was made clear the russian roulette moderator choice was out of the question.


I haven't seen anyone else call the responses you got heavy handed but you. As I said, I've tried to be as polite as I can be with you. But your defensive tone makes it very hard to continue like that, when you act like every time someone's spoken to you, they've been attacking you directly. There was one attack at you directly, and that was when I called you a troll. The rest was debate. A debate that I happened to have enjoyed. Until you went back on the defensive. And I'd planned on apologizing for calling you a troll since it was uncalled for, but since you threw that stone back at me, I don't think it needs said now.

Your only real suggestion was a wholesale replacement of the system with one that is not suited for the site. You object to the admins choosing the moderators, that's fine, but if you thought we were planning to have nominations for that or something you're mistaken. Which means your Slashdot proposal is completely incompatible with what we're after because NOBODY chooses the moderators with that system. The computer spins the revolver and pulls the trigger.



The manner in which you go about doing that though can be trolling. But not everything has to be about trolling. Your response for example bordered on violating rule #3: No personal attacks.



Without going down this road too far, the place hasn't picked up a reputation as being a troll haven and cesspool because the self-moderation policy has worked so well over the last 15 years. Quite the opposite, flamewars and sniping are (or were) quite common. If that's changed in the last 8-12 months I don't know. The only links I've seen recently are ones posted here for whatever reason and easily most of them ended up with some sort of ridiculous trolling by the time they were past the first page.

I really feel sorry for the Mudbytes members unable to even speak on the matter; they get to be told that they don't oppose the system, with no recourse for refuting such claims here.

As for myself, I'm not going to waste any time voicing my opposition to it. I'd just be pissing in the wind.

It wouldn't be pissing in the wind. From what had been said in the thread so far, flumpy was the only one opposed to the entire idea. Others that had been opposed to bits of it, had either asked for clarification and got it, or posted suggestions on repairing the sections they didn't like.

Nice selective quoting, btw.

Nononono.. agggh I already pointed out that I did not oppose everything… What part of "defining the moderation" was "opposing the entire suggestion"?

This is why I thought no one was listening to me, and went defensive.

We have gained many and lost few. (and traffic continues to rise.) So I don't think this statement is at all true. And comparing the way TMS and MudMagic administrated punishments to the way we handle them is not right! When Kyndig banned people, TMC would be flooded with people attacking him. Our most recent one hasn't even got to a page :P.

Sorry, you came across to me as opposed to the whole thing.

That's cause Samson stepped in and, well, quelled the masses with this debate. I don't think Crat would have gone that far if Samson had been a little sooner.

My assessment of the situation is deeper than I let on in this post, but I will exclude it as irrelevant for now, and let bygones be bygones.

It's not bad to throw out ideas though. I asked earlier about anonymity. Honestly, the people we choose as moderators will no longer be 'part of the krew'. You also can't effectively moderate if people don't know you're a moderator. Because not every situation requires a big bad warning or a suspension. Of course, the newly chosen moderators could simply make a puppet account and use that?

I think discussing moderator actions in private but making the final decisions public is a reasonable compromise. I personally don't like forums where dummy accounts are used for moderation as you never really know who you're dealing with and it would seem to be counter to the goal of making moderator actions more transparent.

If you have a larger pool of moderators who are each able to act independently, but where their actions are subject to review by the majority, it should help to counteract any real or perceived individual bias.