Forum Moderation - give me suggestions and feedback

[ScarySai]

The irony is crazy.

[golstat2003]

I think the points everyone has raised about moderation are great, so not going to rehash them.

 

My only points

 

1. Disagreeing with a suggestion should not result in moderation as long as you are not insulting the person. People need to learn that this is an open forum not a place to monologue. If you don’t want any feedback (negative it positive) then simply PM what you want to suggest to a dev or mod. Some folks go from 0 to 100 just cause someone says “I don’t like your idea”. Hell I’ve seen some folks get angry even when you say “I like your idea, but how about adjusting it this way” while missing the point that the poster actually LIKED your idea. LOL

 

2. You can say an idea is not great with out calling it stupid. There is a way to do this easily. Were all adults.

 

3. Outright insulting anyone (poster dev or mod) should not surprise anyone if it results in mod action against them. Folks posting here are intelligent enough to know that.

 

4. If a person has been warned repeatedly about their actions, stop giving them a warning and just go straight to the ban hammer. Even a 1 day ban may allow them to cool off and rethink their actions. (Many folks may not like this last one but I think it’s needed for Mod and forum sanity at this point.)

 

5. If a thread is started for sole purpose of antagonizing folks or “othering” folks, then I see no reason why any mod should allow that to go for any extended period of time. Just lock it and move on.

 

my 2 cents.

[JasperStone]

I have no issues. You stepped into one thread when things escalated and I appreciated it.

 

1. Some form of a newbie to forum monitoring, as others have mentioned. I am not sure how that would work, but I do some new forum members posting about long-debated topics, and they get slaughtered by veterans here. Maybe lock it right away and post several links to previous threads on the idea. 
2. I have done my own self-monitoring. I read through a thread and see if I have any more to contribute. If not, I lean into the emoticons and show support for what other people have written, OR I share my opinion and move on. 
3. I do grow weary of the "this AT sucks, fix it!" threads, and I shared that thought ... was lambasted.
4. I do find your memes funny. The giant eyeball to let us know you are watching the thread is hilarious, but I see how they could bother other people.
5.  A reminder that when you post, you may receive feedback that does not support your idea. We are not minions.
6. A googly-moogly plushy. Would be adorable. 
   1. I would hug it *hugs*
   2. Squeeze it *gentle squeeze*
   3. Call it George
   4. *hugs again* ... *head pops off* .... dang it

[ShardWarrior]

21 hours ago, battlewraith said:

If I can offer a suggestion, it would be to manage expectations maybe slightly differently. At least with respect to this subforum. 

 

In my experience, there are a group of players that view themselves as helpers. And quite frequently the "help" is about explaining why an idea is bad in their opinion. 

This is wholly unnecessary. Ideas sink off the page fairly quickly. If you don't like something, don't engage. All these individuals are doing is making the thread tedious and contentious for people who may actually be interested in the topic. Furthermore they tend to bring the same litany of objections to every discussion and then complain about repetition. 

 

I'm not against people objecting to an idea. I'm against people treating these threads as a "cleanup in aisle 5." If you have no interest in an idea and think it's horrible, by all means say so. But then move on. If you look at the "phantasm sucks" thread, it went on for a while with people making the same repetitive assertion that changing phantasm would be a buff to the set and therefore they were against it. At one point someone said "this thread is done, gms put a fork in it." That's the mentality I'm referencing. "I made my good arguments against this, now stop the discussion."

 

The thing is, the thread did not get locked and people kept discussing it. And I noticed in the recent beta patch notes: Known issue: Phantasm is stupid.

That's the point. The hope is to get a message across to the developers, not convince a subset of forum regulars. Someone taking the initiative to articulate a suggestion shouldn't be condemned to playing whack-a-mole with people who are simply not interested in the idea. 

 

I disagree with this entirely.  It is essentially an attempt at circumventing open discussion by saying "if I post and idea or suggestion, no one should reply unless they agree with me."  That is a very bad idea.  Anyone posting a suggestion or idea to the public Suggestions and Feedback forum can and should expect others to weigh in on their post.  This is not the "Suggestions for the Developers ONLY"  sub forum or "Affirmations, Praise and Agreement ONLY" sub forum.

 

As for the topic at hand, I am in complete agreement with many of the behaviors @PeregrineFalcon mentioned as I have witnessed these same behaviors as well.  I have had a HC developer insult me and accuse me of "fearmongering" and being a "bad parent" for merely pointing out that forum polls are very easily manipulated.  I am happy to share a screenshot of that exchange if need be.  This was prior to GM Googly coming on board. 

 

As far as moderation in the here and now, it is what it is and I personally do not see it changing anytime soon.  You are all welcome to moderate these forums as you see fit as this is your server.  One thing I would add is that I believe more people should use more self agency instead of relying on GMs to settle things.  

Edited Friday at 04:12 PM by ShardWarrior

[battlewraith]

24 minutes ago, ShardWarrior said:

I disagree with this entirely.

 

It doesn't even sound like you read the post you quoted entirely. 

I'm perfectly fine with open discussion, I'm also not the one clamoring for threads to be locked, people being forced to stay on topic, etc.

My suggestion was really about disingenuous posters weighing in on everything out of self-interest or habit. I think it would be better if they didn't feel so entitled to derail discussions and then clutch their pearls and demand threads get locked when their feedback isn't appreciated. I certainly don't see how this would make anything worse.

[ShardWarrior]

17 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

It doesn't even sound like you read the post you quoted entirely. 

 

I did read it.  Thank you.

[arcane]

23 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

My suggestion was really about disingenuous posters weighing in on everything out of self-interest or habit. I think it would be better if they didn't feel so entitled to derail discussions and then clutch their pearls and demand threads get locked when their feedback isn't appreciated. I certainly don't see how this would make anything worse.

This isn’t happening in reality. What’s actually happening is posters are disagreeing with you, and you’ve invented this narrative either to insult them or to get them to be moderated.

[battlewraith]

1 hour ago, arcane said:

This isn’t happening in reality. What’s actually happening is posters are disagreeing with you, and you’ve invented this narrative either to insult them or to get them to be moderated.

Your posts always read like a confession. 

I think what actually happens is they disagree with me for x reason. I argue with x reason. 

People dig in and they get offended. I think that's the cost of not living in a silo.

Edited Friday at 06:26 PM by battlewraith

[Rudra]

My 2 inf' on GM²? Being a moderator is a tedious and thankless task. As was said by others earlier, you will never make everyone happy. For instance, on some threads I thought you (and the other GMs) were entirely too slow to intervene. On other threads I thought you (and the other GMs) were too fast. (And yes, there are even times when I agreed with when intervention happened.) Moderating isn't a science, it's a series of judgement calls. And everyone has their own biases about when and how to do anything. So just be as fair as possible. And so far, it seems to me like you are.

[GM_GooglyMoogly]

*Cough*

 

Be excellent to each other!

 

[BasiliskXVIII]

23 hours ago, GM_GooglyMoogly said:

I learned something new today.  I looked it up and found the same wiki then searched the forums for it.  Your complaint pre-dated my arrival. 

 

But to be honest, I probably would not have taken action at that time either.  If you called me a moron, I would take offense.  If you called me a neckbeard, I would not take offense.  Maybe because I actually have a beard that is partially on my neck.  I would also not be offended if you called my a poopyhead but would if you said I had shit for brains.  *shrug*

 

Edit to add: I would be more disposed to take GM action if you were insulting other players vs insulting some outside group.

 

I don’t have much to add in general, but this take is a bit concerning to me. I don’t think moderation should be based on a list of 'approved' or insults, or whether an insult is, by your metric, sufficiently insulting. Personally, I’m not offended if someone calls me an idiot either—but I wouldn’t use that as the standard for how others should behave.

 

Intent matters. If I were to call someone a 'cup of flat diet Coke' with intent to denigrate, it’s still an insult—even if the phrase itself isn’t on a list of bannable terms or even particularly rude. Whether you personally find it offensive isn’t the point. The goal of moderation should be to set expectations for respectful interaction.

[GM_GooglyMoogly]

I understand your point, but I'm sorry, I'm not going to warn or ban someone for calling you a cup of flat diet coke even if you find it personally offensive. 

 

I am sure there is a continuum of insults from flat diet coke to neckbeards to morons to even worse. Maybe I can educate myself on newer insults and their meanings, but I still have to make a judgment call and I only have my own judgment to rely on.

 

You can certainly report anything you find offensive and if you feel I have not made a proper decision you can appeal to Leads and ultimately City Council. 

[Doc_Scorpion]

5 minutes ago, BasiliskXVIII said:

Intent matters. If I were to call someone a 'cup of flat diet Coke' with intent to denigrate, it’s still an insult—even if the phrase itself isn’t on a list of bannable terms or even particularly rude. Whether you personally find it offensive isn’t the point. The goal of moderation should be to set expectations for respectful interaction.

Speaking as someone who has moderated what seems like damm near every form of communication on 'net over the last thirty years...  Outside of the most obvious of Deadly Words, intent is [censored] hard to discern.  Short of the impossible task of moderating everything that could possibly be construed as insulting, it's always going to be a judgement call.

[biostem]

17 minutes ago, BasiliskXVIII said:

Intent matters. If I were to call someone a 'cup of flat diet Coke' with intent to denigrate, it’s still an insult—even if the phrase itself isn’t on a list of bannable terms or even particularly rude. Whether you personally find it offensive isn’t the point. The goal of moderation should be to set expectations for respectful interaction.

Intent does matter, and once there is an objective, independently verifiable way of determining what is mean spirited vs what is tongue-in-cheek or just banter, then a certain level of "thick skin" is to be expected from anyone conversing online.  You are fully within your right to block/ignore someone whom you personally do not like or just don't want to hear from - empower yourself!

[tidge]

It isn't lost on me that we have above, a common example of how threads spiral:

1. user posts a thread with an idea, or asking for feedback
2. other users provide feedback
3. one (or more) users make blanket statements about their perception of "objective truth"
4. one (or more) users take objection to the self-certified "objective truth"
5. bickering/sniping commences
6.  abstract, possibly meta analysis appears, or <popcorn-eating gif>

 

[Troo]

Accepting responsibility for what one writes or how they address another in civil discourse is a pretty low bar (just my opinion).

We agreed to adhere to several agreements when we signed up.

• "Do not abuse or harass others" -Code of Conduct
• "Enforcement of these rules is based on intent." -Code of Conduct
• "Anything an Administrator or Game Master says overrides anything else in this document" -Code of Conduct

When using tongue-n-cheek, sarcasm, or 'banter' a poster risks moderation.

 

 

[Ridiculous Girl]

😄

[PeregrineFalcon]

11 minutes ago, tidge said:

It isn't lost on me that we have above, a common example of how threads spiral:

1. user posts a thread with an idea, or asking for feedback
2. other users provide feedback
3. one (or more) users make blanket statements about their perception of "objective truth"
4. one (or more) users take objection to the self-certified "objective truth"
5. bickering/sniping commences
6.  abstract, possibly meta analysis appears, or <popcorn-eating gif>

Until the insults start, this is what is commonly known as "a discussion."

 

Just because a lot of people now days aren't used to having their statements challenged doesn't change the fact that, in a discussion, people are allowed to disagree with them. I've literally had to link to a moderator's post saying that we're allowed to disagree with suggestions in order to convince people that people disagreeing with them aren't breaking the forum rules.

 

And this is getting very close to another issue that's endemic to the internet now days that I don't really want to bring up because it will likely trigger a fire storm that will get this thread locked as well.

[Stormwalker]

3 minutes ago, Troo said:

Accepting responsibility for what one writes or how they address another in civil discourse is a pretty low bar (just my opinion).

We agreed to adhere to several agreements when we signed up.

• "Do not abuse or harass others" -Code of Conduct
• "Enforcement of these rules is based on intent." -Code of Conduct
• "Anything an Administrator or Game Master says overrides anything else in this document" -Code of Conduct

When using tongue-n-cheek, sarcasm, or 'banter' a poster risks moderation.

 

 

 

To put this in other terms... the more difficult you make it for the moderator to determine your intent, the more likely you are to be moderated.

 

If the moderator has to think, "Was this an insult or not?" there is always the possibility the moderator will come to a different conclusion than the person making the post.

 

If nothing else, it's safer to avoid posting something which requires the moderator to make that determination to begin with.  And speaking as someone who has worn the moderator hat before (albeit not here), my job was much, much easier when I didn't have to make so many of those judgements because people were clearly being respectful.

 

TL;DR: "Be excellent to each other", or in its much older form, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

[Troo]

29 minutes ago, PeregrineFalcon said:

we're allowed to disagree with suggestions

 

absolutely, though one doesn't have to be a duck about it.

 

The term above is used for emphasis and is in no way labeling anyone or their behavior. 

 

edited to correct obvious misspelling . . . 

Edited Friday at 07:43 PM by GM_GooglyMoogly
disclaimer

[tidge]

14 minutes ago, PeregrineFalcon said:

Until the insults start, this is what is commonly known as "a discussion."

 

According to my observations, it is expressing a blunt statement of opinion as objective truth that triggers (some) folks to disagree(*1) and obviously gets under the skin of (some) folks who can't accept challenges to their "objective truths".(*2) Or put another way: it often looks (to me) like a lot of people's idea of discussion is "You are WRONG (in BIG ways or small ways) and I'm the guy to SET YOU RIGHT!".

 

(*1) See the bajillion responses including quotes from dictionary websites, youtube videos, whatever else is deemed appropriate to refute the "objective truth"

 

(*2) Maybe because it is easy to categorize thoughts as "right" or "wrong"?

[biostem]

It's funny how none of the discussion wants to place the onus on those starting new threads/topics to do any due diligence on their part;  It's always about not liking someone else's response to said threads.  How about this:  If you don't want to face or just can't handle possible push-back or criticism of your ideas, don't post them online, and that goes double if you aren't prepared to defend your ideas besides "I want X"...

[GM_GooglyMoogly]

It's not a "us vs. them" thing.  Everyone is responsible for their own posts.

 

But this should be a fun place.  A lot of people could relax and not take everything personally.

[PeregrineFalcon]

41 minutes ago, Troo said:

absolutely, though one doesn't have to be a duck about it.

I agree completely.

 

However, as I've had to point out to many people on this forum, I am not responsible for the "tone of voice" that you hear in your head when you read my posts. If my posts sounds, to you, as if R. Lee Ermey is barking at you like a drill instructor, that is not my fault. I can't count the number of times in which peoples' response to my posts essentially boiled down to "I don't believe what you're saying only because I don't like the 'tone of voice' of your post."

 

You know, Wikipedia, for all of its faults, does have a great rule which covers this situation. "Assume Good Faith." Most of the situations on this forum which end up requiring moderation wouldn't occur if people didn't just automatically assume that the person disagreeing with them was being malicious.

[biostem]

28 minutes ago, GM_GooglyMoogly said:

It's not a "us vs. them" thing.  Everyone is responsible for their own posts.

 

But this should be a fun place.  A lot of people could relax and not take everything personally.

In general, I agree, but the issue, IMHO, arises due to one person's tolerance for "shenanigans" vs that of others, and whether we should be lowering the age-appropriateness of discussion to their desired level, or whether a more mature one should be fostered...