Criticism of Moderation

[Sinfire Titan]

This thread is now to be used for criticism about the moderators in general. Please be constructive about it.

[archangel.arcanis]

As to criticizing the mods on this, my complaint would be that they should have acted sooner and more vigorously. It wasn't until after he posted about the "complaining about Sunic" that I did a search to see that it wasn't the first time that there was a major dust up between him and some other board members. I think after the first incident the mods should have issued their warning and moved it to needing to approve his posts. While not holding the infractions of his old account against him I would have expected the mods to know his personality well enough from before to know that anything less would not be effective.

I do like that the community gets to self mod here, but sometimes a heavy handed approach is sooner than we would like. I'm not thinking that there will be another incident to this extreme again so this may be complaining about nothing. Just my 2cp on the matter.

[Sinfire Titan]

The first major warning was issued Thanksgiving. We'd been giving lighter warnings prior to that.

[EjoThims]

Awww... Did I miss all the fun while I was doped up after my surgery? 

Also, how difficult is it for people to police their own interactions with others, even when the other is being a tool?

There's even an ignore feature now, you can have the forum do it for you, yet still bitch and moan and have these pissing contests (which I apparently miss)?

Hell... Even having them is fine, but at least be adult enough about it not to hold grudges.

[Tshern]

Not to mention that the moderators here are not doing this for a living. And, certainly, it is fair to give a warning or two to any member going against the rules, no matter what his background may be. If the moderators start handing out major warnings and swinging their banhammers every time someone goes a little over the edge due to a bad day at work or something, this place is going to lose a lot of its attraction.

[Sinfire Titan]

Not to mention that the moderators here are not doing this for a living. And, certainly, it is fair to give a warning or two to any member going against the rules, no matter what his background may be. If the moderators start handing out major warnings and swinging their banhammers every time someone goes a little over the edge due to a bad day at work or something, this place is going to lose a lot of its attraction.

Imma be honest: I hope we are policing each other by the same standards we are policing you guys, if not more rigidly. Keeps us disciplined.

[Tshern]

Not to mention that the moderators here are not doing this for a living. And, certainly, it is fair to give a warning or two to any member going against the rules, no matter what his background may be. If the moderators start handing out major warnings and swinging their banhammers every time someone goes a little over the edge due to a bad day at work or something, this place is going to lose a lot of its attraction.

Imma be honest: I hope we are policing each other by the same standards we are policing you guys, if not more rigidly. Keeps us disciplined.

To make sure there is no misunderstanding here: I meant that you won't be jumping around warning and banning people, who have a bad day. A single bad post should not get anyone banned. The second thing worth clarifying is that I hope there won't be a general change in the rules for moderators towards a significantly more strict direction.

In other words, I am not thinking the moderators will jump from the bushes to ambush unlucky posters just because, say, you got fired from a job. Also, I wish that the rules of the forum won't slide to the direction where you need to do aforementioned ambushes simply to enforce the rules.

[Sinfire Titan]

In other words, I am not thinking the moderators will jump from the bushes to ambush unlucky posters just because, say, you got fired from a job. Also, I wish that the rules of the forum won't slide to the direction where you need to do aforementioned ambushes simply to enforce the rules.

Exactly. Moderators are not above the rules of this forum, we are merely enforcing them.

[archangel.arcanis]

I wasn't meaning to say the mods should behave like some other not to be named forum. I was saying in this case it was a known person who had show before that lesser warnings were not effective with them. I was fine giving him a chance here, but would have given less leeway is all. As I said what is done is done, the boards weren't terribly disrupted, and unless someone makes it a point to act that way I doubt it will happen again.

[veekie]

Well, mostly we were looking to err on the side of more leeway rather than less. For the most part, while everyone stayed on topic and avoided personal attacks, it was still manageable, especially with most posters on the involved threads doing admirably to remain on topic and give useful comments and arguments.

So damage was relatively limited and most of the ruckus was contained in one thread. Useful analysis was even gotten out of the whole mess.

[Tshern]

I wasn't meaning to say the mods should behave like some other not to be named forum. I was saying in this case it was a known person who had show before that lesser warnings were not effective with them. I was fine giving him a chance here, but would have given less leeway is all. As I said what is done is done, the boards weren't terribly disrupted, and unless someone makes it a point to act that way I doubt it will happen again.

I never saw the discussion, so I can't really say anything about the specific occasion...

[Zonugal]

I think the problem that I have seen from the moderators is a consistent length to which they will allow a poster to bring a community down. It seems like as long as a poster doesn't do something horrendously mean (like Andrew Ryan) they can continue to simply be antagonistic and bring the community down.

I'm not advocating a harsher perspective for banning or anything but it would be nice if the mods could come down on those type of individuals with a warning like, "Hey, stop being an asshole."

[weenog]

I think the problem that I have seen from the moderators is a consistent length to which they will allow a poster to bring a community down. It seems like as long as a poster doesn't do something horrendously mean (like Andrew Ryan) they can continue to simply be antagonistic and bring the community down.

I'm not advocating a harsher perspective for banning or anything but it would be nice if the mods could come down on those type of individuals with a warning like, "Hey, stop being an asshole."

It isn't exactly "stop being an asshole," but the RAW does get pretty close.

Read the board rules and post "I Agree" (or some derivative) on this thread to show you read the rules and agree to behave while here.

General, overview of the Brilliant Gameologists Boards:
-- Don't be a douche.  Don't piss people off just to piss them off, don't be an immature ass
-- Don't do anything with the intent of being destructive.  Add to the community.
-- Don't like something?  Suggest an alternative.  Better yet, fix it yourself.  Empty complaints are worthless.
-- If you are too much trouble, we'll boot you. All comes down to what you add to the community versus how much work you take.  It's subjective and an inexact science, but know that you almost definitely will be warned first (if it's super serious, we'll boot without a warning. Don't be that guy.)  Learn from it. If you are mature and post thoughtful, interesting stuff you have not a thing to worry about.

How are the mods measuring trouble, anyway?  Are we talking period of time spent making any trouble at all, amount of trouble made within that time, proportion of posts that are troublesome out of all the user's posting, or what?  I got some ideas about that, but I figure it's better to just ask you guys to speak your piece than to state assumptions that could be wrong and latched onto anyway.

[Agita]

How are the mods measuring trouble, anyway?  Are we talking period of time spent making any trouble at all, amount of trouble made within that time, proportion of posts that are troublesome out of all the user's posting, or what?  I got some ideas about that, but I figure it's better to just ask you guys to speak your piece than to state assumptions that could be wrong and latched onto anyway.

It's a pretty subjective thing, when all's said and done. If you want a rule of thumb, consider that, as Tshern pointed out, we don't get paid. If a user makes us feel like we should be paid to deal with them for an extended period, they're probably "too much trouble". We wouldn't be volunteers if we didn't have some tolerance in that respect, though.

[Sinfire Titan]

The measure of trouble is how riled people get when they read it.

We've come to an agreement that using swearing as part of an insult is not going to be tolerated, but swearing in general won't be filtered. Basically, calling someone a fuckwad is going to result in moderator action, but saying fuck or using the emote won't be except when it is used excessively.

One thing is, when a post gets reported, we get two areas to talk about it. The report itself comes with a "Discussion" section for us to talk it over with each other, and then we have a thread for adjudicating problematic members and reported posts. We us the former for deciding verbal warnings or deleting posts, and the latter for actual warnings.

Well, at least I do.

[archangel.arcanis]

Well it is kinda nice to get a glimpse behind the curtain to see the how the wizards work. Guys do realize we appreciate you and your efforts even when we disagree with your handling of a situation (at least what we know of a situation). I know no one was bashing you guys, but as you said you are volunteers, so payment in thanks is what you get. 

[Mooncrow]

The measure of trouble is how riled people get when they read it.

We've come to an agreement that using swearing as part of an insult is not going to be tolerated, but swearing in general won't be filtered. Basically, calling someone a fuckwad is going to result in moderator action, but saying fuck or using the emote won't be except when it is used excessively.

One thing is, when a post gets reported, we get two areas to talk about it. The report itself comes with a "Discussion" section for us to talk it over with each other, and then we have a thread for adjudicating problematic members and reported posts. We us the former for deciding verbal warnings or deleting posts, and the latter for actual warnings.

Well, at least I do.

Ah, that's actually a useful thing to know.  (Not that I do direct insults much, but I could probably be provoked into it at some point^^)

Fwiw, I didn't see any problem with how the situation was handled; I would rather see a little extra leeway, even on obvious problems, then have to worry overmuch about what I say. 

[EjoThims]

Awww shit...

So, to clarify, for posterity... And my own self interest.

"Shit-bag" is obviously out, no?

But is "fucking idiot" also not acceptable? Even in the context of specific actions?

Hell, I guess I'll know if I cross the line, but, while nothing has ever been said, I've had the feeling on occasion that I was found to be toeing it.

[Sinfire Titan]

Awww shit...

So, to clarify, for posterity... And my own self interest.

"Shit-bag" is obviously out, no?

But is "fucking idiot" also not acceptable? Even in the context of specific actions?

Hell, I guess I'll know if I cross the line, but, while nothing has ever been said, I've had the feeling on occasion that I was found to be toeing it.

While context is everything, we'd prefer it if you could avoid just calling someone one out of the blue. Basically, avoid swear-based insults when doing so IRL would make you look immature instead of driving the point home.

Maturity is more important that insulting someone to drive a point home.

[EjoThims]

Maturity is more important that insulting someone to drive a point home.

But of course.

Just wanted to be sure we weren't bringing in zero tolerance blanket hammering.