Forum Moderation - give me suggestions and feedback

[Rudra]

15 minutes ago, PeregrineFalcon said:

I've already suggested, multiple times, that the way to deal with this in the feedback threads is to allow each person one post in that thread. ONE.

 

Any post past the first one gets deleted. Even the first one will get deleted if there isn't something that says they did some actual testing. If people want to address other issues that get brought up then they can edit their post.

 

That would solve almost every problem that we have with the feedback threads.

Then you can't have discussions. On almost every thread I have originated, we have had discussions about the idea. Such as when @UltraAlt and I sound boarded different ways to implement or improve one of my ideas or @biostem and I did the same on another idea. This would also prevent anyone from being able to refute false claims after their post or being able to clarify meaning/intent or answer questions from others in the threads.

 

Edited March 26 by Rudra
Edited to add missed "implement or improve".

[biostem]

1 minute ago, Rudra said:

his would also prevent anyone from being able to refute false claims after their post or being able to clarify meaning/intent or answer questions from others in the threads.

The problem is compounded when, for instance, a thumbs down doesn't tell you whether the responder disagrees with an entire post, certain aspects of the post, or has a more nuanced take on what someone else posted.  If we're talking specifically about threads created to test something on the beta or other such test server, maybe they could implement some sort of feature that checks if you've actually gone to and created a character with the requisite set(s) before allowing others to post in that specific thread/subsection, but that could be more trouble than it's worth...

[GM_GooglyMoogly]

46 minutes ago, PeregrineFalcon said:

Any post past the first one gets deleted. Even the first one will get deleted if there isn't something that says they did some actual testing. If people want to address other issues that get brought up then they can edit their post.

 

6 hours ago, DrRocket said:

Perhaps my suggestion, since folks are trying to influence the game in a positive manner to their style of play which may be not quite unique but quite popular; to actually put the stops to the negative nannies, even bar for a day or two to get them to be more supportive or just have them say nothing if they can't be supportive. I am fine, if the response is to tell you there is already a way to do it, seemslessly but the player simply did not know.

 

These are both pretty restrictive towards players and would require a lot of GM work.  We don't want to shut people up, just keep them respectfully discussing the topic at hand.

[Ultimo]

The basic principles I expect from moderation are:  Fairness.  Consistency (this one is especially important).  Reasonableness.  Patience.  Respect (this one goes both ways).

 

Some of the worst experiences I've had with forum moderation (and they've been few and far between, and not ever here) have violated one or more of these core principles.  Stick to these, and you can't go wrong.

[Snarky]

ignore 99% of everyones complaints.  watch trends.  youre doing a job that is very difficult

[tidge]

11 hours ago, PeregrineFalcon said:

I've already suggested, multiple times, that the way to deal with this in the feedback threads is to allow each person one post in that thread. ONE.

 

Any post past the first one gets deleted. Even the first one will get deleted if there isn't something that says they did some actual testing. If people want to address other issues that get brought up then they can edit their post.

 

That would solve almost every problem that we have with the feedback threads.

 

While this would eliminate 100% of what I see as "petty bickering", it would also eliminate discussion (from all sides of a proposal).

 

I also feel like this would have negative affects like the presumption that the ONE post is dispensing immutable wisdom on the form of a stone tablet. Forum participants don't need larger egos IMO.

 

17 hours ago, DrRocket said:

Perhaps my suggestion, since folks are trying to influence the game in a positive manner to their style of play which may be not quite unique but quite popular; to actually put the stops to the negative nannies, even bar for a day or two to get them to be more supportive or just have them say nothing if they can't be supportive. I am fine, if the response is to tell you there is already a way to do it, seemslessly but the player simply did not know.

 

This suggestion sounds like the sycophancy @biostem referred to. It certainly would be easier to believe that an opinion or suggestion was "quite popular" if folks are forbidden from discussing what they don't like about it.

[Ghost]

All suggestions should be voted on.
If “NO” wins, the author should be banned from posting any suggestions for 90 days.

If “YES” wins, it should be sent to devs for future considerations.

 

😈😈😈

[GM_GooglyMoogly]

1 minute ago, Ghost said:

All suggestions should be voted on.
If “NO” wins, the author should be banned from posting any suggestions for 90 days.

If “YES” wins, it should be sent to devs for future considerations.

 

😈😈😈

 

No.

 

[Ghost]

5 minutes ago, GM_GooglyMoogly said:

 

No.

 

It’s very obvious you misunderstood my suggestion, so I’ll just mark you down as “YES”

[Skyhawke]

Bans shmans. Dunce caps on any character a repeat offender has or makes for a certain amount of ingame time. 😁

[Troo]

15 hours ago, PeregrineFalcon said:

On 3/22/2025 at 2:37 PM, GM_GooglyMoogly said:

I'm not talking about multiple people.  I'm talking about individuals going on and on saying the same thing usually as they argue with others.

I've already suggested, multiple times, that the way to deal with this in the feedback threads is to allow each person one post in that thread. ONE.

 

Any post past the first one gets deleted. Even the first one will get deleted if there isn't something that says they did some actual testing. If people want to address other issues that get brought up then they can edit their post.

 

"Forum Moderation - give me suggestions and feedback"   <-- 👀

 

Feels like @PeregrineFalcon is 9 or 10 replies into this thread...

 

I am vacillating between the following cheeky comments "you first!", "practice what you preach brah", "be the change you wish to see" and this gif:

 

 

❤️🧡💛💚💙💜🤨

[Troo]

Moderation I imagine is tricky stuff.

 

There is plenty of irony in my reply above. It is in response to another reply and potentially heading off the original topic while offering no real substance to the topic.. these might be grounds for moderation.

 

tricky stuff

 

In general, I am often taken aback when we see folks demand posters participate in a certain way while often being the same person who won't hesitate to drop a "don't tell me how to play!". Would a friendly suggestion on how to participate be better?

 

tricky stuff

[Nerio72]

I believe @PeregrineFalcon is actually referring to Beta feedback threads specifically. I could be wrong tho...

[Troo]

10 minutes ago, Nerio72 said:

I believe @PeregrineFalcon is actually referring to Beta feedback threads specifically. I could be wrong tho...

 

definitely.

 

Also, "feedback" has been a terrible term to use regarding those efforts. "testing" or "bugs" might better serve the purpose.

Titling something as requesting "feedback", receiving feedback, and then allowing other players to badger and berate folks providing feedback.. what could go wrong?

 

 

I like @PeregrineFalcon and they have thick enough skin to take a light ribbing for example sake.

 

 

Edited Wednesday at 04:46 PM by Troo

[ZacKing]

My 2 inf - less moderation.  It's very easy as a user to filter out noise using the existing tools on the forum, and I really don't need anyone to be the police for or speak for me.  I understand why there's Moderators here and I don't think we should get rid of them.  Just keep doing what you're doing and run things how you see fit. 

 

Lastly, I echo the sentiments @PeregrineFalcon brought up about "feedback" threads getting modded and closed.  If you all don't want feedback, then don't ask for it.  Just ask people to test something to see if it works the way you want.  Don't ask for opinions about a change.

 

14 minutes ago, Troo said:

Also, "feedback" has been a terrible term to use regarding those efforts. "testing" or "bugs" might better serve the purpose.

 

Agreed.  Maybe changed "Focused Feedback" to "Focused Testing".

[Doc_Scorpion]

There's a lot of people, mods included, who would love to see discussion stomped in Beta feedback threads...  But, without disagreeing that discussion sometimes gets way the 'ell out of hand, I'd like to push back a bit on that.  (And that's without considering Patch Note Reactors, a pox be on them and their generations for all times.)

Testing is neither a solo pursuit nor a one-and-done proposition.  I've simply seen too many cases where discussions between testers have yielded valuable fruit.  Where a dodgy suggestion was refined and polished.  Where someone identified a hole in someone else's tests or test methodology.  Where someone's test or test methodology inspires someone else to try a different test or test methodology.  Where repeated play had clarified or changed an individual's stance.

Silencing discussion does not improve the testing process.  It hampers it.

And on top of that, there's the times where the Feedback thread was used to arrange for group testing when it was needed.  In particular, this was useful in debugging Defibrillate and for arranging "typical PI PUGs" when testing the Nu Council.

Now I'd be the first to agree that testers and feedback threads should be held to a higher standard.  But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[PeregrineFalcon]

On 3/25/2025 at 4:53 PM, Rudra said:

Then you can't have discussions.

Haven't the developers shown that they don't want discussions in the feedback threads?

 

How many times did we ask them to not add a combo mechanism to Energy Melee? They went ahead and did it anyway. How many posts were written asking them to add an AoE Immob to Arsenal Control? How many asked them to NOT nerf Rune of Protection? How many of our posts have been deleted specifically because we were discussing the patch notes?

 

They even came up with a special term to insult those of us who were pushing back on the changes. Remember that? What was it? "Patch Note Reactor." Was that it? And the mods allowed them to use this insult at will. While deleting posts that responded to those allegations. Am I the only one who remembers that?

[Rudra]

39 minutes ago, PeregrineFalcon said:

Haven't the developers shown that they don't want discussions in the feedback threads?

If you are talking about the beta threads, then I have no clue. I'm not on those threads because I don't do anything on the test servers.

 

39 minutes ago, PeregrineFalcon said:

How many of our posts have been deleted specifically because we were discussing the patch notes?

 

They even came up with a special term to insult those of us who were pushing back on the changes. Remember that? What was it? "Patch Note Reactor." Was that it? And the mods allowed them to use this insult at will. While deleting posts that responded to those allegations. Am I the only one who remembers that?

I don't read the patch note responses either. Just the patch notes themselves. Never saw a point to patch note responses.

 

Edit: Setting those aside, limiting people to a single post that they edit as the conversation goes on is not something I can ever agree with. For one thing, it makes for a confusing read when you read responses in a post to things that haven't been posted yet on the thread until later. For another, it makes tracking changes/new comments on the thread so very much more difficult, or at least tedious, as you would then have to go back and re-read every post looking for edits. And the posts will get extremely long, especially if it includes quotes from other posts as reference. And how will the forum treat a post that because of all the back and forth in that one post, exceeds the page's cap? (Edit again: I can't speak for others, but I need to see the progression of dialogue to make sense of it. I can't just read all of Sally's dialogue for chapter 3 at the start and then read all of Sam's dialogue for chapter 3. That is just a confusing muddle of mixed comments. And then you add in the other people with dialogue in the chapter and it is just a nightmare. Seeing how the comments interact is how I make sense of things.)

 

Edited Thursday at 05:15 PM by Rudra

[ZacKing]

51 minutes ago, PeregrineFalcon said:

Haven't the developers shown that they don't want discussions in the feedback threads?

 

Yes.

 

51 minutes ago, PeregrineFalcon said:

They even came up with a special term to insult those of us who were pushing back on the changes. Remember that? What was it? "Patch Note Reactor." Was that it? And the mods allowed them to use this insult at will. While deleting posts that responded to those allegations. Am I the only one who remembers that?

 

No, you're not the only one who remembers this.  It's the sole reason I don't bother testing anything anymore.  Like I said earlier, change the "Focused Feedback" thread titles to "Focused Testing" and make it crystal clear that they just want a yes or no that something is working and isn't bugged. 

 

Focused feedback threads aren't the only place threads got removed and then people were challenged by HC members to "provide evidence" on a topic.  Two that specifically come to mind were threads about a SG named "The Marvels" and why that was allowed, and a "HC Friendly" SG hosting a "Classic 80s" costume contest.  That costume contest had people making exact likenesses of existing trademarked properties, down to the exact character name and bio.  I specifically remember someone making a character named Marty McFly that was a 100% spot on likeness down to the rocket board and had the character bio directly from the film.  There was also a Man-at-Arms from He-Man with the exact name and bio.  When some of us questioned why that was allowed, we were given all kinds of excuses of how it's "just characters cosplaying" or the characters were "temporary" and such.  When people linked to the CoC and noted there's no mention of "temporary" or "cosplaying" threads started getting removed and when it was called out, GMs were asking people to "show proof" the threads in question existed. 

 

The thread asking about "The Marvels" sg (which still exists btw and has never been renamed) had the same treatment.  We were told that they "pre-dated the MCU film, so it was ok".   Posts that questioned that and asked how HC would have the money to fight for this specific SG in court if they got a C&D from Disney, but not anyone trying to name a SG after a Marvel or DC property gets reported and renamed. 

 

Anyway, that's all water under the bridge now so it doesn't matter.  GMs will moderate here how they want to moderate and there's nothing any of us can do other than accept it and move on. 

Edited Thursday at 05:25 PM by ZacKing

[arcane]

1 hour ago, PeregrineFalcon said:

Haven't the developers shown that they don't want discussions in the feedback threads?

 

How many times did we ask them to not add a combo mechanism to Energy Melee? They went ahead and did it anyway. How many posts were written asking them to add an AoE Immob to Arsenal Control? How many asked them to NOT nerf Rune of Protection? How many of our posts have been deleted specifically because we were discussing the patch notes?

You are a logical guy and thus I believe you know damn well that one faction’s requests not being implemented doesn’t mean no discussion was had.

[BZRKR]

Having read the thread up till now, I am kind of surprised by how much has apparently gone on that I have been oblivious to.

 

That said, from my limited view, I think you do a good enough job. Like, you are 100% better as a mod than I would have been.

 

A suggestion, based on another forum I frequent, is that perhaps when you are interjecting into a thread that is getting close to violating the rules, be a bit more formal and maybe even use a different color/ font to show that you are  Using your MOD VOICE when you do so. Being a little bit fun and a little bit playful might send the wrong impression. Case in point: the *Cough* and funny Simpsons meme here doesn't feel like a "things are getting a little out of hand" kind of post. I think you are trying to have a spectrum of "gentle nudges" before you get into more serious action, but maybe it's too soft of a touch sometimes? I don't know. Again, it's not like I have stood up to try and be a mod myself.

 

Oh! Another suggestion that may not be possible for technical reasons. Instead of making posts just disappear, what if when a post is hidden there was an option to put a generic "this post was hidden by Moderation"  post to take its place so that there is no question that something got modded.

[Ruin Mage]

patch note reactors was not the devs initially, but players started doing it. i would lean on the fact someone like myself started using it and it picked up. i'd know because i've used it plenty against people who mistake the word feedback for "garbage bile i type up while angry that my specific change did not make it into the page." being acceptable. there's a difference between reacting to the patch notes and actual testing & giving hard visible data - which has been a constant issue. every time a new page pops up it was the same crowd just leaping to conclusions, offering nothing for the devs to work with, and holding their ground atop the hill that "this change is shit" is good feedback.

that being said, those threads have had wildly inconsistent moderation because sometimes the bat swings in a wide arc to clean up the threads. threads where people get into ad hominem and endless cyclical debates on feedbacking the feedback. it's not that the devs don't want feedback, its that the actual With Tested Data feedback gets shoved down pretty quick the the regulars muck up the thread and we start all over again. consistency often gets thrown out the window to get threads cleaned up as best as possible. if this hadn't happened for every page since HC's conception and the start of Open Beta Feedback, then i'd be more inclined to be less harsh about it.

which is what i'd offer is needed the most in moderation: consistency. if i'm being an ass and someone is being an ass right back? both parties need to get the thwack of forum moderators. repeat as needed and as required.