NWR Interactive > NWR Feedback
Real Talk: Public Moderation System?
UncleBob:
So, I'm posting this without running it through anyone else on the moderation team (which consists of everyone above me and no one below me, as I'm low-man on the totem pole), but I wanted to throw this out there to get some idea of what folks think about it.
Personally, I'm of the opinion that a moderation should be between the moderation team and the individual receiving the wrist-slapping unless A.) It's a perma-ban, as I feel other members of the forum should know why someone was banned (generally, they always do anyway) or B.) The moderated individual makes the incident public, thus the moderation team should be able to speak up and clarify any details.
With that said, I was considering something... different. What would folks think about having a singular thread where anything that I do (and, hopefully, other moderators would consider taking part) that is an 'official' wrist slapping action would be recorded (outside of SPAM accounts, of course).
Basically, I (we?) would link back to the offending post(s), list what rule(s) were broken and what action (if any) was taken. This would include posts that have been "reported" even when no action was taken (however, I will NOT reveal the individual(s) who reported any particular post - that is non-negotiable!)
This would allow for a more open and transparent moderation system so that folks know when reported posts are dealt with and will give the general population more insight into why a particular action may have been taken at a particular time.
I still believe that a moderation should be kept private unless the individual wants to make it public, but if there is a large majority that is in favor of trying out a more public system, then I'll consider it.
Thoughts?
Urkel:
This place has moderators?
NWR_insanolord:
Nope.
Khushrenada:
--- Quote ---Personally, I'm of the opinion that a moderation should be between the moderation team and the individual receiving the wrist-slapping unless A.) It's a perma-ban, as I feel other members of the forum should know why someone was banned (generally, they always do anyway) or B.) The moderated individual makes the incident public, thus the moderation team should be able to speak up and clarify any details.
--- End quote ---
In all honesty, I really don't have any problem with this current system of moderation. I really don't need to know that User A received a 20% warning and his post was edited for mentioning piracy and User B received a 10% warning for trolling in a thread. Maybe there are some people that need to be reassured action is being taken from time to time but generally most times moderation is given, it is usually for something that's pretty minor on the forums or easily missed if you aren't paying attention to a particular thread.
I do think it might be beneficial to mention something about bannings. Maybe even have a banning thread in here which sounds sort of ridiculous but if an incident occurs, a mod could just post who was banned, why and for how long. It might help remind people of what is beyond permissible behaviour and maybe even clarify things that aren't always spelled out in the rules. As well, there have been times where I've logged on and discovered a discussion about someone banned and am then trying to catch up and figure out what happened. Having an area/thread like that, I could go and be instantly informed.
As for option B, I think the moderators speaking up is what would be expected and is probably why the person moderated is bringing it up in the first place. I know back with the S-U-P-E-R ban, there was frustration then because when people started asking for clarification, none was given. Things got testy when I tried to pursue it with Insano threatening me with a ban for bringing it up a lot in the funhouse. The only answer we got was that it kept getting extended but no reason given. If a reason can't be given to do that, then how is that fair or appropriate action from the moderation staff?
Likewise, there is now frustration on the status of the mafia forum and if we can use it again. I've had a few messages from people telling me they support me in this latest crusade of mine. One person sent me this in a message:
"I also want to say that I do support you in your quest to get reinstated with mod powers over the Mafia forum, or heck, even get a response as to what's going on. The reason why I haven't posted in the topic you made in the feedback forum, however, is that I'd rather not become a target for the shenanigans of the mods."
I find that last part the most interesting. I know you and Insanolord feel that you are pretty lenient and patient with this motley crew you have to patrol and for the most part, I agree. But that doesn't mean the rest of the forum sees you that way. Take changing Oblivion's name to Oblivious. Whatever. I know the guy probably doesn't realize how he comes across on this forum and he makes Unclebob the source of all that he sees wrong on this forum. Let him deal with that on his own. How many other people are agreeing with him on that? But when you change his name like that across the whole forum and then have a tag-team action with Unclebob stating it is an acceptable response for his name calling, (yes, basic name calling) and then Insanolord jumps in for more defense with a snarky, "oh wow, can't take your own medicine, stop hitting yourself, stop hitting yourself" response, then you actually start to give credence to his assertations. I know it sucks to have that sort of double standard but, like a policeman, it sort of comes with the job. And honestly, you probably don't have to prove that point. Pretty sure most us knew that already.
I will say this, Oblivion does have a mellower side than he often displays. Take a look at the last post in the joke thread that BnM started years ago. One of the last jokes was a mostly negatively received effort of mine to create a joke about the Boston Marathon tragedy. So, already a rock-solid premise, right? Maybe that's why the thread has been dormant so long. I killed it with that one. Anyways, Oblivion has the last post in it and even though he didn't like the joke, he was the poster with the most encouraging message and even offered a compliment of good effort though. I know a lot of people can sometimes come across one-dimensional in their posts by what they post about or how they do it, yet from time to time they can still surprise you because everyone here has different sides to them. It's something I try to remember.
As much as people may think he is a disgruntled or angry person, he's still posting here despite the smites or the arguments against his posts. Why? If he is that upset with everything here as people think, why hasn't he left? Because he has made connections here. On Miiverse, he has people from NWR listed on his friend list and he is on theirs. People cared for him when he was depressed. And there's still a common interest and common ground with him and us which is the purpose of these forums. Being video game enthusiasts. Maybe if people remembered that instead of viewing him as a user to take down, you'd hear a different voice from him. If you always put someone on the defensive, how can you expect their behaviour to change if you won't change yours? I've tried showing patience with Oblivion, sometimes it has been rewarded, sometimes it hasn't. Maybe everyone is right and maybe I'm wrong. But I don't see how it hurts to try.
Now, I've gotten a bit off track here and made this post rather lengthy (surprise, surprise) but the reason I've sort of dwelt on it is this. Getting back to this point: "The moderated individual makes the incident public, thus the moderation team should be able to speak up and clarify any details." My concern on it is this. Sometimes I wonder if the reason there is silence or that the moderator team doesn't speak up is because they know or realize that the reason or details they give on an incident might be reasonably refuted or clearly shown to be unfair or even wrong. Would the moderation team then be willing to change their judgment or would they fear that this would lead to more people questioning or arguing their decisions every time they did something thereby meaning they would still enforce their actions no matter what?
For instance, when Oblivion's name was changed to Oblivious, it was cited because he had changed Unclebob's name in his posts. Unclebob then mentioned that it was a funhouse thing and not to be taken seriously. The problem is that changing a username meant he was affected outside of the funhouse domain. Now, again, I think it was a semi-minor thing. People are given titles because of things that happen in the funhouse and that is something every user can see beyond the confines of that forum but no one complains about it being unfair and usually just ask to have the title removed if upset. The idea is pretty similar between those two actions although I do agree that changing a username is a more overreaching step than a title change.
Then there is Crimm. He changed the word filter so that the word eg(g) shows up as seed. He did it to mess with a thread in the funhouse. No big deal. Mods have had that right forever. That said, by using the word filter, it does affect the rest of the forums. That is why I currently have to type Yoshi's eg(g) with the added punctuation or it will become seed and sound dirty. Once again, something happening in the funhouse that has branched out and affected the other forums.
Back when the free super crew was given bans, a big reason was because we took the idea outside of the funhouse into the other forums. (Which was the reason why it was done that way.) Still, if we had kept our actions in the funhouse, there wouldn't have been any reason for bannings. That was part of the explanation. Yet, clearly, stuff coming out of the funhouse and affecting other forum threads is something that happens and it has clearly happened from moderator actions. My involvement in that scheme was to add the words Free Super into legitimate threads I had created and were in use at the time. Others did thread bumping and other stuff. They can feel free to defend themselves and try and argue that stuff on their own. I did not. Moreover, for such a serious crime, I believe only two of my thread titles were changed back to their original title. The rest were left with the words in them and people still posted that day in them, unaffected. I changed the rest of them back myself.
My actions may have spilled out from the funhouse but they didn't affect people's usernames, weren't insults, and didn't do anything to alter the words that someone might use in a post creating confusion for other users reading them. Nor did my actions keep people from understanding the purpose of the threads I added the words to or keep them from being able to carry on normally in posting in it as further evidenced by the fact that the mods didn't see the need to restore those titles back to their original creation. Yet, apparently, that was so horrible, it seems that to have the limited moderator powers to host a mafia game would be too dangerous while ignoring that those with full moderator powers have committed the same error and in a worse way than what I did. Will there be one day bans in those cases? Will there be discussions on matters when moderators are also at fault? Moreover, if people fear attacks from the mods for voicing an opinion because there seems to be valid evidence for such a fear, will we ever get any real talk on these forums or will we just be doomed to suffer the same problems over and over?
UncleBob:
Wowza. I wondered why no one had responded for so long... it was because you were taking so much time typing all that up. ;)
I won't hit every point, but there are a few things I want to address/clarify. Know that just because I didn't address every point you made, I did read them and take them to heart.
--- Quote from: Khushrenada on November 27, 2013, 01:28:46 AM ---I know back with the S-U-P-E-R ban, there was frustration then because when people started asking for clarification, none was given. Things got testy when I tried to pursue it with Insano threatening me with a ban for bringing it up a lot in the funhouse. The only answer we got was that it kept getting extended but no reason given. If a reason can't be given to do that, then how is that fair or appropriate action from the moderation staff?
--- End quote ---
To clarify, unless I'm remembering incorrectly, Super's ban was extended a singular time. This was after he created not one, but two different accounts to circumvent his ban. I think most folks would agree that this was a reasonable reason to extend his ban.
As for not telling random folks who asked about it - as I said here, I've always felt that a moderation was between the individual and the moderator that took the action, unless the individual choose to contest it. See, this is the perfect case as to why I don't like to comment on an action that another mod takes - I didn't know why his ban was extended, so I simply couldn't comment on it - but once I looked into it and got an answer, then I completely agree with that decision - and without having the facts beforehand, I could have ended up with a foot-in-mouth thing going on.
--- Quote ---Likewise, there is now frustration on the status of the mafia forum and if we can use it again.
--- End quote ---
Again, not my place to comment on it, since I have no power or authority to add mods, but I think we can all pretty much agree that the actions that lead to your temp ban and removal from moderation status were not kosher.
Now, because of that (again, I assume), not only are those in power reluctant to re-modify you, but they're reluctant to give mod powers out to just about anyone (and with the uptick in spam of late, it'd be handy to have another person on here, but I haven't really asked or anything). And, in my opinion, this is completely understandable.
In my honest opinion (since this is a "Real Talk" thread), it's made worse by the fact that you seem pretty unrepentant for the actions you took - and every time you make a post taking jabs about your lack of mod status, it shows. Remember, you not only participated, but pretty much organized a fairly disruptive forum event the week of E3 - a time that is historically the busiest time of the forum. I think it takes some time for those wounds to heal and every time you make another post taking jabs at it, you're ripping those scabs right off. HOWEVER - that's just how I'm viewing that, as an outsider, who has no control or say regarding if you ever get the mod status back over any aspect of the forum.
--- Quote ---Take changing Oblivion's name to Oblivious. [...]
--- End quote ---
On this - It was amusing to me that Oblivion had brought it up previously when another poster kept taking jabs at him by changing his name. Therefore, when he did it to me in three different posts, I did the same to him. Immature? Sure. Another option is that he could have been warned/banned - but I felt that would be too extreme. I knew he was just making jokes with "UncleBoob", so I thought I'd have one back at him. I did not realize that he'd be so crazy upset about it. As soon as he did, the name was changed back. Total amount of time the name was changed for? Less than a singular day. Meanwhile, has he made any attempt to go in and fix any one of the three posts he did the same thing in? Nada.
Tied into this, I'd like to point out the efforts I've gone in creating the "Title Wipe" thread, where users can get their titles cleared out - and that I haven't gone in and changed any titles (except for title wipes) without direct and express authorization from the individuals involved, and typically then, I still don't do it.
[skipping ahead in your post here a second...]
--- Quote ---For instance, when Oblivion's name was changed to Oblivious, it was cited because he had changed Unclebob's name in his posts. Unclebob then mentioned that it was a funhouse thing and not to be taken seriously.
--- End quote ---
This is wholly incorrect and is based off of an incorrect reading of the post where I "mentioned" it.
Timeline replay:
Someone made a typo-o in their post outside the Funhouse.
They made a crack that they thought a moderator did it.
It was clarified that no, in fact, it had always been that way.
Oblivion made yet another snippy remark about how horrible we moderators are, changing posts and thread titles, that it was an understandable conclusion.
I then made a Funhouse topic where I clarified that no, we really don't do this outside of the Funhouse.
I never claimed that his temporary name change was Funhouse-only and I refuted that claim the first time it came up.
--- Quote ---Would the moderation team then be willing to change their judgment or would they fear that this would lead to more people questioning or arguing their decisions every time they did something thereby meaning they would still enforce their actions no matter what?
--- End quote ---
Again, I cannot speak for any other moderators, but you bring up an interesting point. I did give one member of this forum a warning and, when that member contacted me and clarified, I quickly removed the warning and apologized. I'd be interested in seeing if that member would like to come forth and say anything about that.
In a couple of other cases, I've given warnings (and one ban) and have had members dispute them. In cases where I feel that the punishment is adequate, I reffer them to another moderator to plead their case - and will always be okay with what any other moderator decides (since I'm the total low man on the totem pole 'round these parts).
--- Quote ---My involvement in that scheme was to add the words Free Super into legitimate threads I had created and were in use at the time.
--- End quote ---
Point of clarification here, your involvement also involved using your moderator powers to change many, many unrelated threads in the Mafia forum as well.
--- Quote ---My actions may have spilled out from the funhouse but they didn't affect people's usernames, weren't insults, and didn't do anything to alter the words that someone might use in a post creating confusion for other users reading them.
--- End quote ---
....the week of E3.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version