Regarding administration on MSB

[Deleted]

I think the Mods are doing a fine job. If someone starts a thread talking about how something is 'worse than Hitler' in the constructive area I can't imagine why removing it would be a problem.

[Tinuviel]

@auspice said in Regarding administration on MSB:

Wait until @Tinuviel wakes up.

Don't drag me into this shit.

[Ganymede]

@sunny said in Regarding administration on MSB:

I agree that in typical operation that is the case, but we are not there yet.

I disagree.

I realize that you are speaking from a position of organizational operations, but in many cases I think that a rapid response is important. If you will recall the dogpiling accusations and incidences, had there been more timely intervention I believe the matters would have been addressed without escalating to where they ended up.

I look it from a professional practice perspective. If I am to work and depend on Arkandel and Auspice, then I will support their actions if they take them unless I have a substantial issue. Even so, I would raise that issue with them behind the scenes.

But we come from different backgrounds, and I appreciate that your approach has merit.

---

@Wizz

Consistency comes not only from taking action, but also in what action is taken. For example, I elected to move an entire thread rather than splitting. I did so because I believed the entire thing was going to devolve. I stand by the choice because, at that time, the thread was clearly devolving, should have been dealt with, and there's no need or imperative to save part of a building when the remainder is on fire. That said, it could have been split, and we facilitated a split after that fact.

Arkandel may have acted differently. Auspice may have forked the thread right from the start. We all moved based on the same rule, but we were moving in different ways. So, there's something to be said not only about taking action on a consistent basis but also taking the same action consistently in response to a situation.

For example, if someone refuses to comply with the "PLEASE REFRAIN FROM USING RACIAL SLURS" implied rule for the Mildly Constructive area, do we: (A) delete his posts; (B) move all posts and related responses to the Hog Pit; or (C) ban the offender? We haven't talked about it, but if all actions are potential remedies, then each of us might select a different one.

[Wizz]

@ganymede said in Regarding administration on MSB:

For example, if someone refuses to comply with the "PLEASE REFRAIN FROM USING RACIAL SLURS" implied rule for the Mildly Constructive area, do we: (A) delete his posts; (B) move all posts and related responses to the Hog Pit; or (C) ban the offender? We haven't talked about it, but if all actions are potential remedies, then each of us might select a different one.

Exactly what I am asking for when I say the community guideline should be clear and extensive.

Not just "This is against the rule," but also "This is against the rule, and this is what will happen. These are the options you have to appeal an action." Write it like a policy file on a MU*.

[Ganymede]

@wizz said in Regarding administration on MSB:

Not just "This is against the rule," but also "This is against the rule, and this is what will happen. These are the options you have to appeal an action." Write it like a policy file on a MU*.

See, I'm not sure if I can get behind that.

Obviously, you don't want things going off the rails, like, let's say, if one of us threatened a long time poster with banning because she evidently had her panties in a knot, or something.

But one of the hallmarks of the justice system is having a punishment fit the crime. For example, Tempest's sarcastic title was misconstrued, and the worst thing would probably be to move it to the Hog Pit. Compare that to the fellow that repeatedly uses racist slurs in a way calculated to harass a single player in a fashion that causes 100 members to flag his posts for moderation. It's the same violation as Tempest's, but the violation should be punished far differently.

[Wizz]

@ganymede

So, again, make it not the same violation by adding more things that are clear violations? Because, again, of course it is if there is only one rule that everyone then has to interpret and assume the implications of. Nobody should have to be making assumptions, spell it out for us.

[Tempest]

@admiral said in Regarding administration on MSB:

I think the Mods are doing a fine job. If someone starts a thread talking about how something is 'worse than Hitler' in the constructive area I can't imagine why removing it would be a problem.

That is not the thread anybody is talking about.

[Wizz]

Also, I'm not sure if I'm reading you correctly here so absolutely feel free to set me straight, but:

Obviously, you don't want things going off the rails, like, let's say, if one of us threatened a long time poster with banning because she evidently had her panties in a knot, or something.

I really can't disagree more with the idea that that would be "going off the rails." There should not ever be different rules for different posters, tenure here should not matter. A violation is a violation is a violation, it doesn't matter if I've been here since 2015, if I call someone a racial slur in the heat of the moment in anger it doesn't matter, I should be put on Strike 1 Of 2 Before Banning (or whatever y'all choose) just like someone who made an account yesterday.

[Ganymede]

@wizz

It was a bit of self-deprecating humor.

[Wizz]

@ganymede
I can appreciate that, but it's also kind of the attitude I feel like a lot of us are trying to highlight, it's the hemming and hawing that frustrates us.

"Well, this post is against the rule we posted, but the OP hasn't told us they want it moved. Well, this poster just went off for six pages about the other poster's ancestry and upbringing and general moral fiber, but I know they had a bad week so..."

Why does it matter? You told us it's against the rule, so it's against the rule. Tell us what the rules are, and then enforce them. If we knowingly violate them, how are any of you then to blame?

[ThatGuyThere]

I agree with @wizz the most important parts of any rules system are clear guideline and consistent enforcement.
I know @Arkandel said elsewhere we shouldn't need rules not the be asses (paraphrasing) but the simple fact that moderation was desired kind of shows that to not really be the case.
Clear guidelines also help by lessening the need for moderation as those who find the guidelines too restrictive can leave, for example me and the advertising board.

[bored]

@thatguythere said in Regarding administration on MSB:

I know @Arkandel said elsewhere we shouldn't need rules not the be asses (paraphrasing) but the simple fact that moderation was desired kind of shows that to not really be the case.

It's not about needing rules to not do it. Rules won't stop people from being and 'ass', because what constitutes 'an ass' is wildly subjective. Probably the large majority of arguments in this forum have one or both parties thinking the other is a total unmitigated jackass, and many of the people reading agreeing one way or another. If you start modding that, you are 100% now picking winners and censoring opinions.

We need rules for over the top behavior so that behavior is actionable based on a standard. Because they're new, they should be specific, clear, and limited in scope to particular areas of the forum. Pure ad hominem being sent to Hog and derails being branched to their own threads is more than sufficient (especially as we can already see that bad actors can and are taking advantage of the modding to hide their behavior).

[Alzie]

So you need rules to tell you how to act like well adjusted human beings? We have a word for that.

@Ganymede they want some laws.

[Arkandel]

Just to give some perspective on the admins having different personalities. This is by design.

See, when a general consensus from people whose opinions I respected was that we needed at least some moderation on MSB - whereas earlier I wanted to keep the posting rules more loose, and place the responsibility on the community at large for staying on the straight and narrow - I realized I needed some help; there was no way I would (let alone could) tackle that kind of work on my own.

To do that I went and spoke to a few people who had been here for some time and who wouldn't just agree with me. I didn't want lackeys to create a me-specific echo chamber but conspirators who would keep me on the straight and narrow and challenge my ideas. Gany and Auspice fit that bill - we have different perspectives, but that was very much the point.

The inconsistency thing is something that does trouble me. Again, my original intention was to avoid setting down hard rules about what is and isn't permitted in a forum category, partially because that invites rules lawyering which I'm not at all a fan of, but also because... well, we're all adults here, so if things get out of hand we'll discuss why and figure it out. However that's clearly something that a lot of people want, so maybe we'll make some changes.

But I do want to ask for your guys' help anyway. This is your forum too, so if speak up if a thread is going the wrong way; please and by all means don't just wait until one of the three of us is around to wag a finger when people are shitting all over a non-Hog Pit thread. Don't hesitate to call someone on it if they are unnecessarily vicious even in the Hog Pit - it's not some magical no-man's land, we are still all people behind the computers. We shouldn't be just ripping into each other just because 'the rules' allow it. Is the threat of a ban the only reason we can be marginally civil to one another?

I should hope not.

[TNP]

Suggestion: if you want to keep the worst of things out of the Ads section, just delete a post that crosses the line. Trolls and attention whores love to be in the spotlight and get people arguing with them. Just deleting the post is just making them disappear in that instance. No drama, just gone.

Note: do this everywhere and half the posters will up and leave so it should be ONLY for Ads if you really want to keep that pristine.

[surreality]

@Arkandel I get what you're saying here, and I don't think it's an unreasonable ideal to ask people to aim their attacks at an idea, a behavior, or an action, and not the person.

If that's what the intent is board wide, it's probably a good time to say so, and I don't think that's an unreasonable expectation to have of adults. It's really just not so hard to type 'you're acting like a real shit right now' vs. 'you're a piece of shit' and there's a non-trivial distinction between the two.

Then, it's just a case of extremely hostile and vitriolic verbiage doing so in one place and one place only. What to do in cases where there's a lot of harsh shade being thrown implicitly rather than explicitly outside the Pit, I couldn't tell you what to do. I see more than a little of it that I would personally put under the umbrella of personal attacks, and it'd be nice if ostensibly constructive discussions weren't replete with that nonsense.

[Arkandel]

@tnp said in Regarding administration on MSB:

Note: do this everywhere and half the posters will up and leave so it should be ONLY for Ads if you really want to keep that pristine.

Deleting posts everywhere isn't on the table and never will be.

But I still think I prefer locking Ad threads after they're made than carefully pruning them, if for no other reason than that... well, admins aren't around 24/7, and a full shitstorm spanning a couple of pages can form within an hour or so. At that point removing the original post wouldn't help, we'd have to get rid of the bunch of them, and it's simpler to not allow them to begin with.

Note though this still deprives game runners the ability to interact with players asking casual, legitimate questions.

[Arkandel]

@surreality said in Regarding administration on MSB:

@Arkandel I get what you're saying here, and I don't think it's an unreasonable ideal to ask people to aim their attacks at an idea, a behavior, or an action, and not the person.

Double post, but I also see the point ( @Apos was one ) that it's hard to not get personal about a thread that's essentially talking about how someone abused other players, or covered for the abusers. I mean we can place it in the constructive section all we want, but it's not going to be very easy to scrutinize someone like Rex without attacking him. What are you going to say? "Uh, he should perhaps avoid perving on every female around all the time ever" ?

It probably has to do with tone, delivery and language but we haven't found the right touch yet and yeah, it's a judgment call so not everyone will agree. I feel it will come down to trust, the same way players need to have faith in staff's intentions on a MU*.

[faraday]

@arkandel said in Regarding administration on MSB:

This is your forum too, so if speak up if a thread is going the wrong way; please and by all means don't just wait until one of the three of us is around to wag a finger when people are shitting all over a non-Hog Pit thread. Don't hesitate to call someone on it if they are unnecessarily vicious even in the Hog Pit - it's not some magical no-man's land, we are still all people behind the computers. We shouldn't be just ripping into each other just because 'the rules' allow it.

I appreciate what you and @Ganymede and @Auspice are trying to do here because I want a forum where people can civilly discuss MU* stuff.

But here's the thing... us individually calling people out is pointless. We saw that for ages before you took over. There's a large number - possibly even a majority - of posters who think that the entire site should be a hog pit. Even just calling for moderation invites people to pounce on you.

You can try to shove that stuff down below a wall, but it'll always be there - simmering beneath the surface and spilling over into the rest of the site.

Imagine a workplace where employees could be as horrible as they wanted to each other (barring outright threats or racial slurs), but only in the break room. Seriously, what are the odds that the negativity would stay only in the break room? Zero. You've created a mindset that negativity is welcomed in that workplace. You've got habits being formed... Joe and Mary become so used to trading barbs with each other that they forget it's only allowed in the break room. You've got negative impressions being formed ... Joe said something horrible about Harvey in the break room so even when they're working they're constantly sniping/snarking at each other. And you're going to have a not-insignificant number of people who go: "We're already all flaming each other - why does it matter if we keep it just in the break room? This is dumb."

Trying to contain it is fighting an uphill battle - possibly even a losing battle. And it will require a degree of moderation that I don't think either the mods or most of the posters here are comfortable with.

[Arkandel]

@faraday said in Regarding administration on MSB:

But here's the thing... us individually calling people out is pointless. We saw that for ages before you took over. There's a large number - possibly even a majority - of posters who think that the entire site should be a hog pit. Even just calling for moderation invites people to pounce on you.

I honestly don't agree with that. I've seen it in the past way before I ever was an admin here, when I'd call someone on stuff they said even in the Hog Pit just because it seemed... well, out of line. And folks might have argued back a couple of times but they stopped. They cut it out.

I think culturally speaking it's all worse when certain behavior goes unchecked for too long because it becomes the norm and spreads, but also that even aggressive posters end up thinking twice if there's regular negative feedback. They might still kick back but there won't be that satisfaction of snapping at someone they don't like and suffer no consequences whatsoever for it, and that takes a toll on them.

It'd probably be harder at first then down the line but I think the adults in the room should step up more often. We need them to.