Members, I want your input on modding policy

[Kivam]

Hey, guys.  Most of you know me just as the guy who's always right on the Debates and Discussions board.  (That's right, Maj, always.  Eventually, you'll recognize that  :P).  I'm also the community admin, responsible for modding policy on the Comm. boards (General, D&D, Fiddles and Organized Games).  Just wanted to get your input on two things.

 

First of all, the policy for dealing with site issues you think need mod attention.  As a general rule, I've found that people tend to be a lot easier to deal with when they don't feel like they need to defend themselves against a public attack.  When things are public, it often turns into a fight, with two sides; when things are dealt with privately, the same people often approach it completely differently, and it becomes an exercise in problem solving, with people working together instead of against each other.  For that reason, I want all complaints requiring mod attention handled privately, just the mod and the member raising the issue - whether its a complaint about something a non-staff member is doing or complaints about how staff is handling things.  For General, that means PM Karana; for D&D, PM me, Luckers and SinisterDeath; for Fiddles and Organized Games, PM Mr. Soy Boyo, Alys and Barmacral.  If you feel like things need a new perspective after talking with the relevant mod, include me no matter what board we're dealing with.  How do you all feel about that as a policy?

 

Second, as a general rule our mods operate as teams of equal independent moderators.  What that means is that for boards with more than one mod (i.e. everyone but General, where Karana is omnipotent), each member of a mod team can act as though they are the only mod on the board if they see something that needs correcting.  For instance, on D&D, any one of us can edit a post or lock a thread if we think it crosses a line into the start of a flamewar (which we don't want), and any one of us can unlock a thread if we think people have had enough time to cool down.  If there are broader issues, or things that look tricky, we'll discuss them, but for most things we really don't need to.  All of this is general background for this question:

 

How do you all feel about mods having discretion over their own posts?  For example, lets say I started a thread on the reasons why American football is better than soccer (so many and so obvious that it doesn't really need a discussion, of course, but lets stay hypothetical), and it devolves into a flame war because the Europeans and Aussies on the board just can't handle that reality.  So I lock it.  Now generally, if I lock a topic started by a member, and they want to restart it because they think that people have calmed down, they need mod permission.  If I want to restart my own locked thread, should I need to ask one of the other mods?  Or can I make that call myself?

 

From my perspective, and the way things are run right now, I can make that call myself (and so can any of the other mods for themselves).  Basically, the way I look at it is the same way I trust the mods to properly evaluate when a member asks them to do something and answer yes or no, I trust them to evaluate when they themselves want to do something.  And I can tell you that I haven't yet seen a situation where a mod made a decision that was different than what they would have done for any member, so I think that as a practical matter, it works.

 

The problem becomes that I've heard some people complain that it's a double standard, - "if members have to ask, why shouldn't a mod" - and that mods should need to clear it with other members of the mod team.  Like I said, I don't see it as necessary from a practical standpoint.  But its also a minor inconvenience, and if its something important to you as members then we'll change how we do things. 

 

So that's my second question - how do you feel about that?  Is it a double standard that needs to be changed, or should we keep the current system?

 

Let me know.   

[Thorum]

leaders are needed and, as long as their powers aren't used to suppress opposing thoughts on D&D, or normal spam on Fiddlesticks, or a line of thoughts you don't like on roleplay, or ... ; no problem with me.

 

Remember Churchill: "Democracy is a terribly bad system. But it's the best yet tried."

[MsDanya]

If I want to restart my own locked thread, should I need to ask one of the other mods?  Or can I make that call myself?

 

On DM there are members from all over the world. For mods to have to wait for the other mods to get on and approve of the other mods actions would take alot of time. F.ex when I was a mod. I'm in Europe, would I have to wait half a day for Alys or Boyd who's on the other side of the world to come on and reply to my pm request about opening a thread? I dont agree with that.

 

Let's face it, Mods are generally being made mods because they have proven themselfs to be trustworthy and able to make good decision. It would be nice if regular members would realise that the Mods arent here only to abuse their power, but that they usually have a thought behind their actions.

 

Thats my two cents for now.

[Graendals favourite]

On the first one I definitely agree. Nothing is worse than a public shouting match where after a while the actual question in hand is forgotten, and then a following riot that just ends up doing something irrational. It is good in principle that all people who might be concerned have equal voice, but in reality a cacophony is simply useless for making any reasonable solution to problems.

 

Well, I haven't had issues I would need to discuss, perhaps because I've largely only been active at book discussions and D&D, but in my opinion if someone has a sore tooth so to speak, whether or not it needs a dentist is good to be decided by a mod, mods having some experience in the flow of things, and if the tooth needs fixing, anyway the mod is a better person to look into fixing it. A member can suggest things, but can only sway minds with their reason; it is good if action is taken by someone else than the person with the issue, so there is not too much risk for conflict of interest, and sometimes the solution is worse than the problem as they say.

 

 

On the second, I agree with the current system. Over-working the mods does not lead to them making better decisions. Sometimes people can have different opinions on what constitutes a heated discussion and what a flame war, but essentially people should not die if they are forced to hold their arguments in abeyance. On the other hand, a discussion forum like this one is similar to any public forum, one must remember that people simply need to compromise, and that their intent is not always obvious to others even though it would be for themselves. The mod simply needs to try to be objective, consistent and transparent in actions, but remembering question one, nothing is gained by the mod not using their judgment when it comes to themselves too. People try to have fun, so sometimes they step over the line, and this does not matter; a mod might err a little sometimes too, but if the system flows smoothly it does not yet kill anyone. Rules should be clear, but if they are too stiff, they can be stifling to people enjoying themselves.

[Alys Kinch]

I agree for the most part with that, Kivy. As I said in staff, though, my only qualms stem from a member asking why a mod can do something that they consider off limits for themselves. If the member feels it's an important point, it's far easier to give a simple explanation to one and all at the same time than to deal with the issue each time. In events like this, taking something private can seem less open and honest. I'd rather have open, honest dealings than be accused of hiding something.

 

I am not suggesting an open discussion that may lead to a big fight. I am suggesting a simple statement followed by an open invite to pm discussion.

[Myndrunner]

The only thing I am going to say here is that it is important for Mods, as leaders on DM, follow the same rules as regular members do.  As leaders, hey have even more responsibility to be aware of what they say and how the members will perceive it.  I cannot think of a logical reason for a Mod to not follow the same rules of its regular members, can you?

 

What is the purpose of a Mod anyway? To make the forum more enjoyable for its members and to attract new ones, correct?  It is one thing to make a "mod decision" when it is necessary, but breaking the rules that the rest of us have to follow just because you are a mod is not only poor leadership, it taints the entire staff's credibility. It also discredits the rules themselves.

 

Please always keep in mind that the regular members here are what drive this site's success.  If they start leaving because they feel that they are being treated unfairly, or that there is a double standard...they won't bother to post their feelings....they will just leave and that is much worse.

[Jelly]

I don't think they should have to ask other mods for permission..if they're capable of making decisions about other members--and if they weren't, they wouldn't be mods?--then surely they must be capable of making responsible decisions for themselves?

:) That's all I have to say.. *wanders off*

[Kivam]

The only thing I am going to say here is that it is important for Mods, as leaders on DM, follow the same rules as regular members do.  As leaders, hey have even more responsibility to be aware of what they say and how the members will perceive it.  I cannot think of a logical reason for a Mod to not follow the same rules of its regular members, can you?

 

What is the purpose of a Mod anyway? To make the forum more enjoyable for its members and to attract new ones, correct?  It is one thing to make a "mod decision" when it is necessary, but breaking the rules that the rest of us have to follow just because you are a mod is not only poor leadership, it taints the entire staff's credibility. It also discredits the rules themselves.

 

Please always keep in mind that the regular members here are what drive this site's success.  If they start leaving because they feel that they are being treated unfairly, or that there is a double standard...they won't bother to post their feelings....they will just leave and that is much worse.

 

Mynd, thanks for stepping up and posting this, because its important.  That last paragraph is 100% accurate, and that's part of why I'm doing this.  I need to hear what you all think in order to make sure that the site runs as smoothly and enjoyably as possible for members.  And I don't want this thread to turn into people trying to convince anyone else that one approach is better than the other - this is about gathering information.  So please, for anyone who's hanging back worried about posting a difference of opinion, step up and be heard (and if you don't want to do it publicly, PM me), because its the only way we'll learn about what you think.

 

And members includes staff, btw - I may be a Comm. Admin, but over among the Orgs, I'm just a regular dude (more handsome than most, sure, but other than that . . .).  If I ever go RP side - wish I had enough time for that - it would be the same.

[Daetirion]

I have no issues with modding on the four boards mentioned. Whilst avoiding Fiddle's like the plague (i love you guys really  :P) i turn up every so often on the others. Modding is practicly invisible on Org Games (which is how it should be, left to the mods of individual games) but where they have stepped in i believe it's justified.

Similarly on D&D, half the time i forget there are mods. The main reason i've been driven back to lurking on that board is individual members and the corruption of original topics, and is nothing to do with Mod power.

 

Ok this is going slightly off topic, but what i mean is i think you've got the balance pretty much right on these boards and keep up the good work.

As to specific questions asked, i agree with individual mods being able to make decisions. That is a given considering the global nature of DM. However i'm with Alys on open discussion. Maybe thats my political views being broadcast but its in my view a way of keeping the membership on your side. If you can see how and why a decision has been reached, you are far moe likely to agree or at least sympathise with the reasons for it.

[Lanthirrhos]

How do you all feel about mods having discretion over their own posts?  For example, lets say I started a thread on the reasons why American football is better than soccer (so many and so obvious that it doesn't really need a discussion, of course, but lets stay hypothetical), and it devolves into a flame war because the Europeans and Aussies on the board just can't handle that reality.  So I lock it.  Now generally, if I lock a topic started by a member, and they want to restart it because they think that people have calmed down, they need mod permission.  If I want to restart my own locked thread, should I need to ask one of the other mods?  Or can I make that call myself?

 

If Mods need to do anything to someone elses posts, on their own, no consultation, fine. that IS their job as a mod. :) However, once we get into the realm of their own posts, you now have emotions, personal feelings, ideas, and thoughts. Be they good or bad. More mistakes are made in reference to once's OWN posts than to other's posts. Alys mistyped something in he "apology/explanation" thread... I can fault her for that, I'm just like her, I can't type what I mean if my life depended on it. :P But when it comes to others posts, I'm always careful in how I read them... the point being, we are less careful, and thoughtful(in general) about our own posts and threads, than we are of others. Therefore, a second opinion is handy. It may not be seemingly necessary, all the time. But if a mod wants to reopen a heated topic that they started, then WHAT is the harm, in a half a day wait, to know that the other mod(or 2) agree, and will keep their eyes on it? There isn't harm... it can only turn out the same or better than if you'd just done it on your own.

 

If we mean Mafia accounts... Maybe we should just keep EVERYONE, posting in their own games. Or have mods check with each other before they post(in mafia accounts) in another game thread. Because the collaberation doesn't hurt there either. And frankly, if you have to wait... well your post wasn't terribly important now was it? If something needs handling, switch to your actual mod account and do it. Its not hard.(not saying anybody claimed it was. :) ) Mods in general, need to follow the same rules as members, until their actual facility as MOD is needed. until then, they are a member. :) Its as simple as that to me... :) Mods and members are people all the same. As a member, just because i can make good decicions doesn't make me able to choose whether on not my hot topic thread should be reopened... :)

[Elgee]

How do you all feel about mods having discretion over their own posts?  ....  So I lock it.  .... If I want to restart my own locked thread, should I need to ask one of the other mods?  Or can I make that call myself?

 

In my mind, LOCKING your own thread is more ... serious? (not quite the correct word) than UNlocking it once tempers have cooled. I am not against the first, so the second doesn't bother me in the least.

 

 

 

 

[Kivam]

thanks for the input all, and keep it coming, please

[Singin Hobo]

I'm not a frequent poster here, I just came across this thread and thought I'd provide input as a moderator on a somewhat popular video gaming forum...

 

Equal individuals is how a mod team should work... you probably don't have to deal with TOO many d-bags that they're difficult to spot and it seems that in a forum like this civility is more the rule than at some others.  If you've got the authority I say use it and don't spend a lot of time in committee over obvious decisions, like moderating threads and members.

 

As for issues of moderating your own threads, as long as you're not using your mighty powers of moderation to rule over every discussion I say have a little fun with it.  You're doing a job that requires some time and you're not getting paid for it... taking advantage of what little perks are at hand doesn't always have to mean that you're 'abusing your power' or whatever an argument against it could be.

[triadruid]

I'm new to DM, but not to forum moderation in general.

 

Co-equal moderators is an excellent way to distribute the weight of the task. Unless somemod is becoming a problem/biased/whatever, that seems to work fine in all but the most high-stress moderation jobs. DM surely isn't that.

 

But I have to disagree with letting mods 'moderate' their own posts. I'm not sure what all moderators can do here, but locking your own post because it's getting heated is one thing. Can normal users do that to their own posts here? UNlocking your post is borderline, and as someone else said, there's little harm and great good in asking someone else to sanity-check your decision to open the thread back up. Unlocking your post when some other mod locked it? Unacceptable.

 

Just my two silver...

[Auld Manriva]

As one who tends to the sarcastic and acerbic, I'm maybe not the best to be commenting here. But when has that ever stopped me?  ;)

 

In general, I support the Mods must follow the same rules members do. As to your proposals above, I buy into everything you said my legal eagle friend. Until it came to the part about mods modding their own posts. Here's why.

 

In an interview done at the end of most of the WoT book Audible.com Editions. RJ himself shed a bit of light on this topic. He only listened to his own stories on Audio, not any others. Even with Harriet editing him, hearing how a reader interpreted his writing helped him to see how others perceived what he was trying to say. HE knew, but was not sure it came across.

 

After several altercations, here and at The Band, I now have Taymist read many of my replies to posts that I for some reason have become impassioned over. We cannot always tell how we are coming across to others. For example, Luckers at General WoT Discussion occasionally comes across as sarcastic, insolent or condescending. Maybe his intention, maybe not and it's not a big deal to me and it does not effect his mod performance that I can tell. But a 2nd opinion for any Mod on occasion, or maybe re-viewing each others actions, periodically, would seem to make sense. And if members understood this to be standard operating procedure, it would maybe alleviate some misunderstandings.

 

For this and for this reason only would I suggest having a 2nd opinion before re-opening a locked thread of your own. Un-locking a thread is not that time sensitive and awaiting a reply to a PM should not be that great a burden. Perception of fairness, is as important as the reality of fairness, therefore having Mods follow methods to prevent conflict of interest accusations makes sense to me. Not to a ridiculous degree but common sense, easily followed procedures. 

 

I hope something here makes any sense at all. I sort of wandered a bit.

[MsDanya]

 

But I have to disagree with letting mods 'moderate' their own posts. I'm not sure what all moderators can do here, but locking your own post because it's getting heated is one thing. Can normal users do that to their own posts here? UNlocking your post is borderline, and as someone else said, there's little harm and great good in asking someone else to sanity-check your decision to open the thread back up. Unlocking your post when some other mod locked it? Unacceptable.

 

Just my two silver...

 

Actually, I *think* regular members can lock their own threads. I'm not 100% sure tho..

[Dragon21]

I think Cap'n Riva speaks wisely....but what else is new  ;)

 

 

 

and hey, Danya..how you doin'  8)

[The Goblin Queen]

Mods who delete entire threads because they regret making nasty posts should lose their mod privileges.  If they regret a post, they should just delete that.  Even if the nasty post was admitting to allowing someone to break forum rules.

[SinisterDeath]

Mods who delete entire threads because they regret making nasty posts should lose their mod privileges.  If they regret a post, they should just delete that.  Even if the nasty post was admitting to allowing someone to break forum rules.

 

Members who make uncalled for accusations, patronizing posts, and personal attacks, because they are paranoid and believe everyone who disagrees with them is out to get them, should be dealt with in the same manner in which they believe anyone who disagrees with them should be.

Grown adults are supposed to take issues with other posters, mods, ect to pm, or email to those that it concerns, and not act like a child and make posts or threads about forum issues that are not meant to create that thing they call 'drama'.

[The Goblin Queen]

Mods who delete entire threads because they regret making nasty posts should lose their mod privileges.  If they regret a post, they should just delete that.  Even if the nasty post was admitting to allowing someone to break forum rules.

 

Oh, and if a moderator knows someone is breaking forum rules, such as posting from multiple sign-ins, it really is the moderator's duty to act.

[SinisterDeath]

Mods who delete entire threads because they regret making nasty posts should lose their mod privileges.  If they regret a post, they should just delete that.  Even if the nasty post was admitting to allowing someone to break forum rules.

 

Oh, and if a moderator knows someone is breaking forum rules, such as posting from multiple sign-ins, it really is the moderator's duty to act.

 

And people who flame in the slightest sense, Flame Bait, and Consistantly troll should be banned.

[Dragon21]

Members who make uncalled for accusations, patronizing posts, and personal attacks, because they are paranoid and believe everyone who disagrees with them is out to get them, should be dealt with in the same manner in which they believe anyone who disagrees with them should be.

Grown adults are supposed to take issues with other posters, mods, ect to pm, or email to those that it concerns, and not act like a child and make posts or threads about forum issues that are not meant to create that thing they call 'drama'.

 

Couldn't agree with you more on this, SD.