 What if I have an issue with a moderator?, What's the best way to deal with it? |
  |
 Jan 10 2007, 04:12 AM
Post
#26
|
|
|
Prime Runner  Group: Retired Admins Posts: 3,929 Joined: 26-February 02 From: .ca Member No.: 51  |
Well, still waiting for that PM from you, Dog. :-)
|
 |
 
|
|
Jan 11 2007, 01:25 PM
Post
#27
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 903 Joined: 7-February 03 Member No.: 4,025 |
Right, and two other moderators in this thread said that I could PM them directly. (Which I did.) And Bull said I could PM him or you. (I PMed him.) So are you starting to get what I'm saying about inconsistency? How many hoops should I jump through? What you have to understand is that I do not have to win some argument with you guys. I am a dissatisfied user, and it is currently easier to turn somewhere else for this service. It's your problem to deal with. And if telling every dissatisfied user that there really isn't a problem is how you deal with it, then so be it. No hard feelings, see you around. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 11 2007, 03:04 PM
Post
#28
|
|
|
Prime Runner Group: Retired Admins Posts: 3,929 Joined: 26-February 02 From: .ca Member No.: 51 |
That's fair enough. However, I replied to your original post within an hour, and it took Bull over two weeks to reply, because, as he says in his post, his schedule sucks right now. So I'm really not sure why you PMed him instead of me, or why you just didn't CC the PM to all the mods.
All of the admins and moderators understand that there has been some inconsistency, as for years previous there was virtually no moderation [and previous to /that/, the moderation has been relatively heavy-handed.] -- we're all working to find a nice balance to make Dumpshock a more accessible place, but it isn't going to happen overnight. |
|
|
|
|
Jan 11 2007, 05:18 PM
Post
#29
|
|
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,222 Joined: 11-October 02 From: Netherlands and Belgium Member No.: 3,437 |
Adam, if I may say, don't sweat it man. There's nothing at all bad about the moderation here. It's been nicely balanced, and it did happen pretty much over-night. Nobody is going to find a better shadowrun forum anywhere.
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 13 2007, 09:33 AM
Post
#30
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 903 Joined: 7-February 03 Member No.: 4,025 |
I PMed Eidolon first because my issue was indeed with him. I PMed Bull because at the time, I took him to be an authority figure around here. I didn't CC to every moderator partly because I'm not sure how to do that, and partly because I assumed that Bull would share information with whomever he thought necessary. (I mean, the reason I started this thread is because I didn't know what else to do.) I should point out that I did both of those PMs before starting this thread (not as a response to this thread.) And I didn't check back on the thread until quite some time later, when several replies had been made, including Adam's, Bull's and Eidolon's. I looked at them and thought "that's fine, I've already done two of the things that were suggested." I didn't see anything indicating that Adam's instructions overruled any other moderators. And to point out yet further inconsistency: Adam asks why I didn't CC a PM to all the mods, yet no moderator, not even Adam, suggested that I do that back when I asked what to do. That really burns me. But really, I don't see the point in telling me that I didn't report it properly, when: 1. The origin of the thread was me asking exactly how to do that, and 2. The group of moderators that responded did not give me correlating answers. See, if I'm told that I have to satisfy all of the different moderators' instructions and interpretations, then it only supports the notion that what one moderator finds acceptable, another will not. It tells me that even if one moderator looks at something I posted and determines that it's okay, another can come along and nix it without even having to have the backing of other administrators. I'm glad to know you're working on balance, but the current situation is to tumultuous for my comfort. Like I said, I hope that I can return here in the future and find things more settled. Of course I don't want unmoderated trolls harping on me or anyone, but I don't want moderators harping on dumpshockers because they don't know what's expected of them, either. I agree that there's something between anarchy and martial law that would be good for most everybody. But what I see right now ain't it. From this perspective, you haven't eliminated bullying, you've just made sure you pick who the bullies are. And for those of us who are not in the "in" crowd, it really doesn't provide any comfort. It would be nice to know what steps are being taken to improve things. Are you assigning more moderators? Is more better? By what criteria are you selecting moderators? With due regard for their diplomatic skills and sense of fairness? Computer skills? Availability? Voting? Buddies? What standards are they held to? What are the plans for responding to complaints? I really am hoping to find something here that will convince me that things will change. I want you to talk me into returning. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 13 2007, 10:59 AM
Post
#31
|
|||
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
It would be really sweet if you would stay. :) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 14 2007, 05:48 AM
Post
#32
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
"They mod best who mod least", IMO. The hands-off character of Dumpshock is exactly why I find it tolerable (I find it enjoyable for other reasons, mod style is a matter of tolerability), and I for one would be very saddened to see it change.
There's a longer persuasive essay here that I don't have time to write, but in short: Premise 0: This forum exists for productive discussion. This one's key, and I really hope the mods don't disagree with me. Other possible premises "this forum exists to appeal to the widest range of people possible", "this forum exists to promote Shadowrun", and "this forum exists to be a friendly, welcoming place to newcomers". While none of these things are undesirable as an incidental effect, I consider them bad primary goals for reasons that I hope are self-evident but probably aren't. I don't have time to explain tonight, if necessary I can try later. Premise 1: the purpose of moderation is to ensure the continuation of productive discussion There are subtleties here about what "productive discussion" is that are not easily solved. Premise 2: Moderator action suppresses discussion. Premise 3: A desired condition can only be reliably created by enforcing that condition, not by enforcing the conditions one imagines to be conducive to that condition. This means that it's actively harmful to do things like give warnings, lock threads, whatever based on things like "people are being rude" or "someone on another forum said they weren't welcomed" or "this isn't Shadowrun-related" (and, on that last one, especially "this isn't Shadowrun-related enough). IMO, there is one question a moderator should ask before any and all moderator action: "does taking no action harm productive discussion more than taking action harms productive discussion" (or, more completely, "what course of action (including no action) causes the least harm to productive discussion"). "Are people playing nice" is not a factor. Threads in the past have demonstrated that at least some segments of the community is capable of carrying on logical debate while showing utter contempt for one another. Rudeness is not to be avoided—flamewars are. I'm finding it difficult to formulate a proper equivalent for off-topic/semi-off-topic discussion, but I feel certain there is one. Anyway, I hope that was coherent. I'm going to get back to that whole "sleep" thing I was about to do. People who disagree with my premises or conclusion, please try to be specific about the source and object of your disagreement. ~J |
|
|
|
|
Jan 14 2007, 07:24 AM
Post
#33
|
|||||||||||||||
|
Prime Runner Group: Retired Admins Posts: 3,929 Joined: 26-February 02 From: .ca Member No.: 51 |
We just did, recently, adding Graht, Caine Hazen, eidolon, and fistandantilus3.0 in late October. Before that, the only moderators really active on the board were myself and Bull [there are, technically, others, and some of them still have active moderator accounts, but they haven't been around regularly for a long time], and neither of us had a lot of time, which made even enforcement of any rules tough, so enforcement was either nonexistant or generally only occured when stuff had already gotten really ugly [and in some cases, after it had gotten really ugly and had blown over.] Since we added the new moderators, old moderator Aristotle has gotten slightly more active, too, which is cool.
For a forum this size, I think 7 is better than 2. I don't know if we necessarily need more than 7, and now isn't the right time to add even more, as the new ones are still getting used to the role.
All of these. Several months back, we threw out a whole bunch of names of people who were a) around regularly, b) generally helpful c) had demonstrated that they knowledge of how forums worked / had run other forums, and that sort of stuff.
Not public, no. We wittled down the list of people to a handful and asked them.
We did know a couple of them -- Graht has been an excellent helper over on the ShadowRN mailing list for years, and Caine Hazen attends Origins/GenCon so we know him socially [and he has previously offered to help with the forums], but eidolon and fistandantilus3.0 were absolutely not "buddies," although we're liking them just fine now. If you take a look at the Does DS still need 2 Shadowrun forums? thread at http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=14727, you can see eidolon and I disagreeing on plenty of stuff, just weeks before we offered him a spot as a moderator. :-)
They're expected to enforce the Terms of Service [which we are working ... slowly ... to update to be a bit more relevant -- they were written years ago by the original group of moderators] and, beyond that, spend time participating in the forums.
If a moderator takes an action that a user complains about, or if one of the other moderators brings up something that they don't think is kosher, we talk about it, try to find out why it happened, and try to make sure they don't do it in the future. If one of the moderators was abusing their power on a regular basis, they would be removed. |
||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
Jan 14 2007, 09:42 AM
Post
#34
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 745 Joined: 12-August 06 Member No.: 9,097 |
This is true, but I don't think the main purpose of a forum is to create the desirable condition of productive discussion in a singular instance. It's to maintain that condition over time, and not only that, but to maximize the growth potential of that condition over time. While moderator action may be a detriment to productive discussion in a single thread, it may be that it's the exact opposite in the grand scheme of things. Por ejemplo, locking down a thread that's starting to make a turn for the nasty may stifle the possibly productive discussion going on in that thread, but continued enforcement of such a policy, if it's generally a favored one, will lead to a larger membership base, which means more minds will be contributing their ideas to the pool, which leads to, yay, productive discussion! Oh yeah, I'm making an argument for moderation in general here. I don't have a stance on that issue as applied specifically to the 'shock because I honestly don't spend enough time in the main forums to have much of a stake in it. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 14 2007, 04:54 PM
Post
#35
|
|||||||
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
FWIW, I don't agree. Moderator action has a chilling effect that reaches beyond the current thread. Could you explain your reasoning here (since I'm rejecting your example a bit further down)?
Wrong. Larger membership base means larger membership base—you're falling into the trap of enforcing something that you imagine will lead to more productive discussion. Having seen a number of actively moderated boards with very large membership base, I can safely reject that causation.
Yeah, I'm making arguments for universal "moderation theory", as it were. ~J |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Jan 14 2007, 06:11 PM
Post
#36
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 745 Joined: 12-August 06 Member No.: 9,097 |
Not untrue, but it can also have positive benefits that also reach beyond the current thread. Whether one outweighs the other is the question, and one that can't be answered when speaking abstractly and in general terms. Whether or not one actually outweighs the other in a specific instance would be an illustration of good moderator action versus bad moderator action, but neither is the same as no moderator action. You can always say that moderator action can never have any long term benefits, but I'm going to find that difficult to swallow.
The only way you can sustain a trend is to enforce what you called conditions you imagine to be conducive towards that trend. You can't just wave your magic wand and ban everybody who, over the long term, brings a net loss to the goal of productive discussion, because that's impossible to tell. And it just so happens that the course of action that brings about the optimal outcome in a single instance isn't always the course of action that brings the optimal outcome over the long haul. The scenario I illustrated was only an example, and while I disagree with your assessment, that's not really relevant to the matter at hand, which is the principle of the issue. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jan 14 2007, 06:50 PM
Post
#37
|
|||
|
Slacker Extraordinaire Group: Retired Admins Posts: 337 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Ashburn, VA Member No.: 997 |
*smile* I'm happy to be back. CCing all of the moderators is just an option that you might think of, not a requirement by any means. The fact is even if you only send your complaint to the moderator in question, they will still most likely bring it to the attention of the administration and generally ask for clarification to determine if the right actions were taken or if more/less administration is required for the situation. Since adding new, more present, moderators we've seen more moderation. That was the intent of adding new moderators. These guys will, over time, find an equilibrium to the way they apply their powers of moderation. That isn't to say they are in the wrong now. Aside from a few details (i.e. closing a thread without leaving a reason as to why) I think they have been doing pretty much what they were brought on to do. If the actions of the moderator have been found to be correct by the administration, then there isn't much else that can be done. You can question why a certain forum rule is in place, but most of them are pretty much common sense or have been put into place after a great deal of consideration. These forums exist for a specialized purpose. To discuss Shadowrun, participate in forum based Shadowrun gaming, and to a much lesser extent to discuss gaming in general. If you're posting topics to forums that they logically belong to, they won't be moved (or removed if no logical forum exists, such as is the case for "off topic" or many "real world" topics). If you don't post inflamatory content, you won't be censored or otherwise punished. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 18 2007, 08:52 PM
Post
#38
|
|||||||
|
Uncle Fisty Group: Admin Posts: 13,891 Joined: 3-January 05 From: Next To Her Member No.: 6,928 |
just two throw in my two :nuyen: .... Generally, if a thread starts going off, it's not the thread it's self, it's usually a key contributer or two that are the issue. In which case we prefer to post a request to get it back in line, or for folks to cool down a bit. If that doesn't work, goes to PM. It's pretty rare to lock down a thread just someone was being an ass. Usually a thread lock is because it's just a dead horse, such as the ressurection and continued bumping of the Master Shake thread a while back.
Ha! I got a message from Bull and was thinking "WTF? Why did Bull send me a PM? Did I do somethign wong?"
I'd like to point out the first point here, because genearlly if we're sending someone a PM about something, we've discussed it with another mod already, unless someone's just being way over the top. So if we're taking action on something being posted, it's probably already been discussed by a couple of mods. So forget the idea of some vigilante mod out there. Usually anything more than just moving a thread around or deleting spam is done by two or more of us. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Jan 19 2007, 10:46 PM
Post
#39
|
|||
|
Chrome to the Core Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,152 Joined: 14-October 03 From: ::1 Member No.: 5,715 |
You did what now? :P |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 14 2007, 03:18 PM
Post
#40
|
|||
|
Free Spirit Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,950 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Bloomington, IN UCAS Member No.: 1,920 |
Perhaps we should try building one. I know there have been migrations in the past, but iirc, they were over things not about SR. A few more things have occure post Origins that are leaving a shitty taste in my mouth. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 14 2007, 03:20 PM
Post
#41
|
|||||
|
Free Spirit Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,950 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Bloomington, IN UCAS Member No.: 1,920 |
I saw a post from Bull actually adding to a thread the other day. It is the end of days. :eek: |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jul 14 2007, 09:23 PM
Post
#42
|
|||||||
|
Grumpy Old Ork Decker Group: Admin Posts: 3,794 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Orwell, Ohio Member No.: 50 |
<laugh> Man, if only I had the time and energy to just post for fun these days. Back in the ShadowRN Mailing List days, if I started replying to a thread, you were guaranteed to A) triple the list traffic for the day, and B) go off topic pretty quick :) Sadly, life's caught up with me. Niggling things like "responsibility" and "a real job" pretty much mean I have a limited amount of free time. Plus, outside of a bit of demo-duty at the cons and an aborted campaign a buddy tried running earlier this year for a few weeks, I haven't GMed Shadowrun in over two years, and haven't played in close to 5. I'm around, I do read, but... I just don;t usually feel the compulsion to jump in and add my 2 Nuyen's worth most of the time. :] Bull |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 12th September 2025 - 01:06 PM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.