Forum Moderation - give me suggestions and feedback

[GM_GooglyMoogly]

So I have been on the GM team for a little over a year and it seems that I've settled into the role of forum moderator.

 

I know that many of you aren't happy with my moderation style and decisions so here's your chance to tell me  why.

 

How would you suggest that I do it differently?

 

What feedback do you have?

 

Go ahead, take a whack.

[Glacier Peak]

Don't change anything. The lights are still on, we haven't been shutdown, and the community is still here. You're not going to please everyone with the decisions you have to make - forum moderation is probably the most thankless job in a gaming community. That being said, it's healthy for the community to see a thread like this and I look forward to reading constructive input. 

[PeregrineFalcon]

Ok, so first of all, for what it's worth, I'm not unhappy with your moderation.

 

Since this forum started the moderation has vacillated between "draconian snowflake protection program" and fairly reasonable. There were instances where people making perfectly reasonable requests that a certain troll be stopped were ignored while people who pushed back and called the troll a troll were suspended. Members of the DDL would routinely and blatantly insult some forum posters, while those of us who "returned fire" as it were saw our posts deleted, and watched during our temp bans while the DDL continued to post, clearly and obviously immune from any repercussions. This situation was the source of the accusations of toxic positivity.

 

Worse was what happened in feedback threads started by the devs asking for feedback. Negative feedback received wave after wave of attacks by the DDL and, once we were finally baited into responding, we would again be temp banned, and our posts deleted, while the DDL would continue to assault other posters unabated. Since the mods were continuing to break in favor of those screaming ". . .leave the poor devs alone. . ." it appeared to many of us that this was what the devs/Homecoming administration wanted.

 

I won't even go into how a developer lied to me, claiming that no one had disagreed with a change that had been added to the game and, as proof, offered a link to a thread that had already been heavily edited to remove all of the push back against said change. And I also see no to reason to go into my temp ban that was a result of my recommending to another poster that he seek professional medical help except to say that that one in particular still burns me up whenever I think about it.

 

I think the worst part of it all is the blatant gaslighting that's happened over the last year or two since moderation has calmed down and become fairly reasonable. The claims from the usual suspects, themselves mostly former members of the DDL, that none of this ever happened and that I'm completely exaggerating how bad it was is just aggravating. But that's forum posters themselves, not moderators.

 

But, as I said, that all happened before you became a moderator. Since you've been a mod I can't really remember having any major issues with the moderation here. And I'm not saying that because you've never sanctioned me, because in fact you have. My last warning point in September was from you, and I don't remember exactly why, but I do recall thinking at the time "yeah ok, I probably shouldn't have posted that."

 

I will say though, that in that recently locked thread I was able to screenshot a post that was deleted that clearly didn't break any rules. I'm not going to ask what happened. I'll just point out that when things like that happen it makes us wonder if the snowflake protection program is about to be reactivated.

[lemming]

As someone who used to do this elsewhere, it's ab impossible thing to get everyone happy.   Especially when we just see part of the picture.

 

I haven't had any issue with your moderation.   There was some in the past I did wonder about since it looked a little uneven, but haven't been aware of any.  (I checked out of the thread PF mentions, so no idea from me)

[biostem]

2 hours ago, GM_GooglyMoogly said:

What feedback do you have?

First and foremost, moderation should be even-handed;  If 1 person is given an infraction for doing X, then *everyone* who also does X must also be acted upon, otherwise assumptions about singling out or favoritism will arise.  Secondly, maybe we need to address threads that are started, seemingly with bad intentions or little to no interest from the OP in responding to said thread or in an attempt to stoke up hostilities.  To that end, perhaps threads should be shut down if the OP fails to respond to feedback or is unable/unwilling to accept legitimate feedback.  Third, ad-homs should be quashed;  Either argue the points or don't post.  If you have a problem with a forum member, either be an adult or don't respond.  Fourth, I would really like some clearer guideline - to what extent are homages/"inspired-by" characters permitted to be discussed or outright requested?  Should posts be treated in a charitable sense, assuming that the poster has good, genuine intentions when posting in these forums, are are they guilty of any assumption of infringement;/cheating/stoking FUD until proven otherwise?

 

In short:

1. Be fair in enforcing forum rules/policies, and perhaps provide some feedback and an opportunity to appeal any moderator decisions.

2. OP not responding to replies for a thread they started?  Maybe close it if said OP is no longer engaged.

3. Prohibit personal attacks and/or remove them?  Respond to the topic of the thread or not at all?

4. Limits on what can be discussed?  Maybe shut down threads that appear to solely exist to stoke up anger/unrest?

5. I'm not sure how feasible this last one is, but perhaps require any new forum members participate in existing threads to some extent or for a certain period of time, before being able to start their own threads/topics?

Edited Tuesday at 01:42 AM by biostem

[Rudra]

5 minutes ago, biostem said:

I'm not sure how feasible this last one is, but perhaps require any new forum members participate in existing threads to some extend or for a certain period of time, before being able to start their own threads/topics?

While I agree with most of your post, I disagree with this part. That would actually be gatekeeping. Let new people post. We can always refer them to the previous threads about their posts.

[biostem]

7 minutes ago, Rudra said:

While I agree with most of your post, I disagree with this part. That would actually be gatekeeping. Let new people post. We can always refer them to the previous threads about their posts.

Gatekeeping isn't always bad, and perhaps we should require new people actually participate in the existing community before starting new topics.

Edited Tuesday at 01:45 AM by biostem

[battlewraith]

I haven't had a problem with the moderation. I think it's been reasonable for as long as I've been around, though I don't spend as much time here as other people.

 

I guess my feedback is this: there is a community here in the sense that there is an aggregate of people who post on the forums. Within that group are an assortment of people with different interests, personalities, experiences with the game and so on. A lot of the people who are heavily invested in the game seem to crave social cohesion. They want a community in the sense of wanting a group of like-minded individuals. This is not a surprise for a game this old. But it's not good imo, either for the forums or the game. 

 

Be impartial. Don't gatekeep, Be tolerant, and resist the calls to police the crap out of this place. It would only make things worse. 

[keyguardactive]

I consider my "home forum" a now defunct pro-wrestling board from the early 2000s full of trolls and, frankly, doxing before there was a word for it. Based on that metric, the moderation here is incredibly even handed. 

 

I appreciate that once things have spiraled in a thread you tend to show up and say "things have run their course" and lock it. That feels like the right answer. 

 

I think deleting posts for anything short of hate speech or revealing someone's personal information should probably be a no-go, but I'm not manning the rudder on this boat and I don't want to. 

 

It's fine. I don't care. I'm old and tired. 

[UltraAlt]

5 hours ago, GM_GooglyMoogly said:

What feedback do you have?

 

 

Keep up the good work.

 

[Stormwalker]

I've been a moderator on a gaming forum before.  It was a very long time ago (it was an original Phantasy Star Online forum, that should give you some idea how long ago it was!), and the main thing I remember about it was that it was a really difficult and often thankless job, though on those occasions when someone did take the time to thank me for it, that was a very good feeling.  Having been a moderator is probably the biggest factor in why I don't often get warnings on forums.  I get riled up plenty and I am frequently tempted to say things I shouldn't, but I have that little voice in the back of my head that says, "If you were the moderator, how would you react to someone saying what you're about to say?" and that leads me to bite my tongue in those situations.  Though, I'll be honest, I've let at least a couple of things slip on this forum that I probably would have warned me for, so you're at least a bit more lenient than I would have been.

 

The first thing I'd say here is... of the gaming forums I've been on, the current moderation here seems to be better than most.  If anything, you've allowed some fairly intense disagreements to go on longer than I probably would have if it were me... and that's not necessarily a bad thing, because moderation is absolutely full of judgement calls.  I'm not egotistical enough to think that my idea of when to step in is automatically the correct one.  The most important thing is to be consistent and fair, and from what I've personally seen, you seem to do pretty well with that.  I haven't read every single topic on the forums, but I've been deeply involved in some very contentious ones, so I think I've seen a reasonable sample size.

 

So, so far at least, I have no complaints.  If I do find myself with any complaints at any point, I'll let you know.  I've never been terribly hesitant about speaking my mind (as I think a fair number of people can attest) - I just try my best to be diplomatic about it when I do (and I don't always succeed at that!)

 

EDIT:  Oh, and thank you.  Both for doing what you do, and for actually asking for feedback on it.  That you care enough about doing it right to ask says a lot in and of itself.

Edited Tuesday at 05:15 AM by Stormwalker

[Troo]

The great and powerful GooglyMoogly provides this chance for whiteknighters to stand and praise this GM's mercifulness. I see what Googly is Mooglying. Seriously though..

 

.. why Troo would make a bad moderator. Dislikes bullies. Dislikes trolls. Likes fun and contends that 'fair' is subjective.

It would be fun to purge a certain pile-on-bullying that occurs all too often. 

• Hypothetical example: Newer account starts thread, bully one posts a not so helpful semi-offensive reply which is then amplified with thumbs up and likes. This opens the flood gates toward a predictable death spiral of the topic. Back and forths descend into mean spiritedness and heavy moderation. Inevitably the topic is locked.

 

I saw @battlewraith ask to "resist the calls to police the crap out of this place". Well, I am a bit on the other end of the spectrum. Decisive action sooner please. Also, maybe hold those with more posts to a higher standard. Seriously, if we have over say five hundred 'posts' and haven't figured out how to participate.. maybe it's not the moderation that is the problem.

 

Sorry if that offends anyone in particular, it wasn't meant to.

I'll happily take your down votes below.

Caution though, reasons.

 

I would support a coffee for moderators fund.

 

[biostem]

6 minutes ago, Troo said:

Also, maybe hold those with more posts to a higher standard

Yeah... no.  I'm not a fan of differential enforcement.  Also, one person's "bullying" is another person's "I've seen this question asked dozens of times, have you read the FAQ or tried the search function"... 

[Troo]

5 minutes ago, biostem said:

Yeah... no.  I'm not a fan of differential enforcement.  Also, one person's "bullying" is another person's "I've seen this question asked dozens of times, have you read the FAQ or tried the search function"... 

 

And why I wouldn't make a good moderator. I'd see bullying for bullying.

I get wanting an even playing field. However, I am more forgiving of new folks while it gets old seeing the same bad behavior from the same forumites dozens of times.

[biostem]

4 minutes ago, Troo said:

I'd see bullying for bullying.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and what you define as bullying actually isn't.

Edited Tuesday at 07:18 AM by biostem

[Stormwalker]

24 minutes ago, biostem said:

Yeah... no.  I'm not a fan of differential enforcement. 

 

Agreed.  The rules are the rules.  Or, as Mike Tomlin would say, "The Standard is the Standard."

 

Now, lenience in terms of corrective actions taken for first offenses (or even for those who haven't offended in a long time) is something I do agree with... but the offender should still be informed that they crossed the line, so they know what they did wrong and what they need to change going forward.

 

Of course, I am also not a fan of differential enforcement in the other direction.  People who have long post histories shouldn't get off more easily than newbies do, either.

[Parabola]

I've often thought the moderation here could do with being more heavy handed rather than less. Too much antagonism and 'othering' is being allowed; the derogatory labelling of groups of posters in an effort to undermine and dismiss their opinions should not be acceptable.

[biostem]

2 minutes ago, Stormwalker said:

Now, lenience in terms of corrective actions taken for first offenses (or even for those who haven't offended in a long time) is something I do agree with... but the offender should still be informed that they crossed the line

Indeed.  Not giving useful feedback for a moderation action doesn't help that person to learn or adjust their behavior.  Along with that is clear limits or boundaries;  Is calling an idea dumb the same as calling the person who suggested it, dumb?  If someone thinks they have a really good idea, but reasons are provided as to why said idea can't or won't be implemented enough to end that discussion?  If not, just how many times must it be restated and countermanded before the proverbial case is closed?

[biostem]

2 minutes ago, Parabola said:

Too much antagonism and 'othering' is being allowed

Isn't this antagonizing and othering those that disagree with you, though?  Just how thickly or thinly veiled are we going to get, here?

[Parabola]

1 minute ago, biostem said:

Isn't this antagonizing and othering those that disagree with you, though?  Just how thickly or thinly veiled are we going to get, here?

Othering as I understand the term is the assignment of labels to people, I don't see how calling out such behaviour in the abstract can be considered the use of this? But I appreciate that all this is very much a matter of perspective which is what makes this such a tricky topic.

[Stormwalker]

1 minute ago, biostem said:

Indeed.  Not giving useful feedback for a moderation action doesn't help that person to learn or adjust their behavior.  Along with that is clear limits or boundaries;  Is calling an idea dumb the same as calling the person who suggested it, dumb?  If someone thinks they have a really good idea, but reasons are provided as to why said idea can't or won't be implemented enough to end that discussion?  If not, just how many times must it be restated and countermanded before the proverbial case is closed?

 

Here's my thoughts on those questions (which do not necessarily reflect the actual rules, but do reflect my view of polite discussion):

 

1. My opinion is that actively insulting someone's comments (calling them "dumb",  "BS", "drivel", "garbage", etc.) is pretty much the same thing as insulting the person who posted it.  The moment someone stoops to name-calling - and using such dismissive terminology for someone else's stated opinions is effectively indirect name-calling - they've stepped outside the lines, IMO.  If someone can't express why they disagree with someone else without resorting to name-calling, either they need to re-evaluate their viewpoint (because they're  having trouble logically supporting it) or else they need to rein in their emotions (because they're interfering with their ability to make logical and polite arguments).  And pretty much everyone crosses this line sometimes... but we should try our best not to cross it, and moderation should remind us not to cross it when we do.
2. I have observed in this forum - and pretty much every other forum for every other online game ever, really - that there is a point in nearly any argument where both sides have said everything that they have to say and are just rehashing the same points over and over again.  Ideally, we should all learn to recognize when we've reached that point and say, "Ok, we're not going to agree on this.  We're at an impasse, and there's not much more to say that we haven't already said."  Practically, this very rarely happens because
   1. new parties join the argument around the time that previous parties get sick of it and bail out, thus sustaining the argument as the same points get made again and again by different people.
   2. People on both sides of the argument dig in their heels and become increasingly confrontational, largely out of frustration and emotional investment.
   3. Ultimately, the moderator decides that everything that there is to say has been said, and all that is happening is that people are getting angry and civil discourse is failing, and ends up locking the thread.\
3. As for how much of the above is too much?  That's... one of the eternal questions, really.  If you cut off the discussion too soon, then people feel resentful because they feel like they didn't get to present their opinion.  But if you let it carry on too long, then people feel resentful because things became very heated and they feel like the other side had it in for them.  This is one of those cases where it's very difficult to make everyone happy.  The ideal answer would be for those of us on the forums to try to recognize when we have reached an impasse and simply agree to disagree, but when we are passionate about the game it can be very difficult for us to do that.  For my own part, I've started trying to bail out on threads when I realize they've reached this point so that at least I am no longer contributing to the problem, and I would encourage others to do the same.  How do you tell when it's reached this point?
   1. Are you just rehashing the same things you've already said earlier in the thread (even if responding to different people)?
   2. Are the people responding to you just rehashing things that have already been said earlier in the thread?
   3. If the answer to either 1 or 2 is yes, you're probably at that point.  If the answer to BOTH is yes, you're definitely at that point and it's time to stop.

 

This is, of course, all just my opinion.  YMMV.

 

[biostem]

3 minutes ago, Parabola said:

Othering as I understand the term is the assignment of labels to people, I don't see how calling out such behaviour in the abstract can be considered the use of this? But I appreciate that all this is very much a matter of perspective which is what makes this such a tricky topic.

Whenever you designate an "us vs them" dichotomy, you, by necessity, "other" that other group.  My point isn't so much that it is always a bad thing, more where the line is, and when do we say, for instance, "OP, your point has been refuted.  Let's close this thread".  My reasoning is that some topics that get posted are also just met with indifference while others repeatedly spark heated debate, so perhaps it isn't a matter of "othering", but rather that certain topics have been beaten to death, so instead of triggering another forum battle, just say "It's already been discussed ad nauseum, so check out those other threads instead of riling folks up"...

[biostem]

6 minutes ago, Stormwalker said:

My opinion is that actively insulting someone's comments (calling them "dumb",  "BS", "drivel", "garbage", etc.) is pretty much the same thing as insulting the person who posted it.

So you don't think an idea could be dumb, even if the person isn't?  Can't it be said that even the smartest of people do stupid things at least once in their life?

 

6 minutes ago, Stormwalker said:

If someone can't express why they disagree with someone else without resorting to name-calling, either they need to re-evaluate their viewpoint (because they're  having trouble logically supporting it) or else they need to rein in their emotions (because they're interfering with their ability to make logical and polite arguments).

You are literally critiquing someone's character while complaining about others critiquing someone's character.  Just responding with "this is dumb" or "you are dumb", without anything additional is, I agree, rather fruitless.  Saying "This idea is dumb and here's why", is perfectly valid.

Edited Tuesday at 07:58 AM by biostem

[Stormwalker]

7 minutes ago, biostem said:

So you don't think an idea could be dumb, even if the person isn't?  Can't it be said that even the smartest of people do stupid things at least once in their life?

 

You are literally critiquing someone's character while complaining about others critiquing someone's character.  Just responding with "this is dumb" or "you are dumb", without anything additional is, I agree, rather fruitless.  Saying "This idea is dumb and here's why", is perfectly valid.

 

I think if you can logically refute someone's point, you don't need to say "this idea is dumb".  You can just say, "Here are the problems I see with this idea," instead.

 

Telling someone "Your idea is stupid" will nearly always be read by that person as "You are stupid", whether that was the intent or not.  It establishes a hostile tone for a discussion, and contributes to the digging in of heels I mentioned in my previous comment.

 

When making an argument, it's always important to consider how the things you say will be perceived by the person you are trying to persuade.  Otherwise you are sabotaging your own ability to be persuasive, and thus sabotaging your own argument.

 

Edited Tuesday at 08:05 AM by Stormwalker

[biostem]

1 minute ago, Stormwalker said:

think if you can logically refute someone's point, you don't need to say "this idea is dumb".  You can just say, "Here are the problems I see with this idea," instead.

 

Telling someone "Your idea is stupid" will nearly always be read by that person as "You are stupid", whether that was the intent or not.  It establishes a hostile tone for a discussion, and contributes to the digging in of heels I mentioned in my previous comment.

And in a formal setting, with real-time moderation, I'd agree that absolutely no name calling should be permitted.  That being said, this is an internet forum for a video game, where trash-talking and playful banter are to be expected.  We are, supposedly, all adults here, so if someone cannot handle the potential for some less-than-neighborly recourse, then maybe their ideas can't stand the scrutiny.  It criticism of one's idea(s) can so easily be refuted, then do that when presented with "Your idea is dumb because of reason X".  If you present a bad idea, how that is called out shouldn't be as important as why it's dumb, and if that "why" is presented in a coherent manner, then that's where the discussion should stop.  It's like a driver of a car being upset because they didn't like how you pointed out to them that they were going the wrong way or something... if they hadn't gone the wrong way, there wouldn't have been a reason for you to yell at them in the first place.