Yeah, "report post" is more in line with "call the cops" rather than "bust out the guns"

Look, I don't really care enough about the term to argue over this any longer. Continuing to talk about it is only a distraction from the purpose of my posting about this to begin with. Semantics can often be important, but this is not one of those times. Call it what you will, my meaning holds even if you feel I've chosen the wrong label for it.

See, the thing about analogies is that they get pretty ridiculous if you try to respond to them as if the other person means them literally. Of course no cop mugged someone while on duty here–that's pretty impossible.

Except I wasn't responding to it as though it were literal, I was responding in the meaning you meant. We haven't had anyone here performing the administrative equivalent of the cops mugging you at the ATM. Frankly the assertion that we have is just plain absurd, but this is getting off target so I don't think it needs be discussed any further.

Okay, I agree that we're getting off track. Seems like your disagreement is mostly in the terms I've chosen. :)

Have any other opinions?

Publicly condemning people who will have no method of publicly defending themselves is "far too fascist or dictatorial or whatever".

It is of course up to each site to come up with its rule-sets, and then a choice can be made by members whether they wish to abide by the rules or go elsewhere.

I would prefer the admins continue to moderate.

There are a few people that post here that would not moderate in a fair fashion. Placing any of these people in any "position of power" (no matter how small) could have a negative impact on several individuals in the short term, and the community as a whole in the long term.

We are pretty much set on choosing the moderators ourselves. I don't think the idea of electing or community-appointed moderators should continue further, as it is extremely unlikely we will implement that.

Since most of the people here seem to be involved in running muds in one fashion or another, I find this a very ironic thing to say. Are things really that bad in the mud community that most people involved in it cannot be trusted not to be assholes?

in short… yeah. Have you not read the threads that are a cause for some of the recent admin activity? Some people are just going to be assholes when they see something that pushes their buttons (spelling/grammar errors, stupidity, whatever).


Yeah well I'm bringing it up anyway cause I have things to say that haven't been brought up.

As for my opinion, I am all for having the reason for each admin action posted publicly. I'm all for having a group of moderators, but I'm not sure they should be appointed per-say. I think the admins should put together a list of good choices and then put that list up for a vote. If the goal is to have 5 moderators, the list should have 15 or more names on it. These people should meet certain requirements that the admin can come up with on their own. Once the list is compiled, let the regular members make their choices. This way the members have a say in it, but there won't be any people elected who aren't going to be suitable mods.

I've been wondering for the past year or so why there isn't a "report this post" button. The button is a great idea and like whoever said it earlier said, it's also a good way to gain names for the list of possible moderators.

I had a few other thoughts a few pages back, but those were already covered as far as I remember.

So people will elect those that'll not bust their chops? :smirk:

They will elect those that are chosen by the admin as good moderators, so theoretically there won't be anybody on that list that would be a problem to begin with.

I forgot to mention in the previous post that there should be an eligibility requirement to actually vote. The requirement should be that you have an account here for at least 6 months (maybe 3 months) to place a vote. That way we don't have a problem of people creating dummy accounts just to vote.

It's hard enough coming up with 3 names let alone 15 :)

It seems to me that if the standard administrators-pick-moderators-who-get-removed-if-they-misbehave approach is good enough for, like, every other internet forum, then it should be good enough for MUDBytes. Get over the voting thing. Sheesh.

Exactly.

From reading this thread and the ones that caused it, it seems like most of the complaints stem from the fact that people feel the admins aren't acting in an unbiased manner. If we accept admin bias as true for the purposes of this argument, and then state that admins appoint the moderators, it would follow that the admins would only appoint moderators who will behave in a manner that will agree with the admins' bias. That, then, doesn't address the complaint. The mechanism of having the admins put up a list of choices they feel appropriate then allowing the community to vote should quell most of the complaints that moderation is biased, as the community will either vote for the candidates they feel aren't biased, or start yet another complaint thread saying that they have no unbiased moderators to choose from.

Honestly, though, reading all the background threads I can find, it sounds like this whole thing started because one person was having a bad day and overreacted to a pet peeve, at which point other people wouldn't stop picking at the sore spot. Wars have started over less. :P

Or, again the case with most internet forums, if people felt the moderators were behaving poorly or in a biased manner, they could PM the administrators or kick up a fuss on the public boards (not endorsing this, but it's likely to happen). If enough of a stink arose because of a particular person's actions as or appointment to moderator, I'm sure the admins would see that there was an issue and at least attempt to address it - as they're doing here.

Bear in mind that bias is a necessity of human nature. An effective moderation team includes people with different biases who keep not only regular forum members in check but also each other.

The admin-appointment moderation system is a widespread and (I would hazard a guess) near-univeral approach to forum moderation. I see no reason to replace a proven method with some complex pseudo-democratic system simply because a few individuals rub a few other individuals the wrong way. No moderation team is going to please everyone, so at the end of the day they may as well be selected rather than elected as - in the end - the same number of people will end up approving or disapproving of the results.

Heh, I know I'm going to regret this, but I'm a little curious. Now before I ask this, I'd rather you answer me in a PM. Who would actually -want- this kind of responsibility? Keep in mind, the initial constant scrutiny you'll be under. As well as the current precedent for enforcing the rules.

That, in a nutshell, is why many people have a problem with the moderation style on this site.

Moderators are, indeed, human, and will inevitably screw up sometimes. However, a good moderator a) makes an ongoing, conscious effort to stay calm, even in the face of provocation, and b) when he does lose it, eventually backs down, admits that he was wrong to do so, and does his best to make reparation. Those two things are well within the grasp of many human beings; those for whom it is not have no business being moderators. It does not require inhuman powers of self-control to say "okay, I lost my temper, I shouldn't have, and I'm sorry".

On another point: I agree with the need for a "bring this post to the attention of a moderator" button.

Finally, I'd like to suggest that the forum permits, and even actively encourages, discussion of moderation decisions by ordinary users, on the condition that this dicussion happens only within the confines of a dedicated sub-forum. One of the things that makes people upset is if they feel they have a legitimate point of view and are not permitted to express it. Clamping down on this tends to make the problem worse, because the more you clamp down, the more people feel that their "right" to self-expression is being denied; this is what leads to explosions of "inb4lock" threads.

Having ongoing, heated discussions about moderation decisions within the thread where the original offending post occurred is definitely NOT desirable, as it drags threads off-topic and generates far too much noise rather than signal. But instead of banning this sort of discussion altogether it would be better (IMO) to allow it, but only in an area where it cannot derail any of the actual MUD-related discussion. The proposed new location where moderation decisions are posted would be the ideal place for this. But I don't think it should be a simple notice board, it should be a place for discussion.

I laughed out loud at this, sorry :smile:

Maybe two days and 10 pages of discussion is enough of a general consensus for the Admins to make their decision, before this thread becomes in need of said new moderator? :)

Just wanted to make sure that no one missed the above. Now! I have another question you guys can answer sending me a PM! I want you to send me 3 names of people you'd like to see as a moderator. For those who already voted for themselves, you only have to send two :). Anyone and everyone please answer!

.. so basically we are voting? Wasn't that dismissed earlier in this discussion?