Regarding administration on MSB

[Sunny]

@kanye-qwest said in Regarding administration on MSB:

@ganymede Ok, and yet no one is addressing the tone Auspice took, both in that thread after defenses as to the relevance of that story were made, AND HERE. It's not ok to call people stupid because they didn't understand you were being a regular silencing ass instead of authority silencing ass.

@Ganymede Please address this. Without insulting or calling names. This is a REALLY BIG concern for me, right here. If one of the 3 mods is going to be free to take potshots at KQ and I and a few other people, we should probably just acknowledge that we're not welcome here and go.

ETA: Let me clarify that I don't object to the potshots, I object to the 'free to', as in, she does it, any of us respond, and one of the other mods mod-voices as US for responding to her nastiness. This is not the first example of it happening recently, it is only the clearest and most recent.

[scar]

@sunny said in Regarding administration on MSB:

@kanye-qwest said in Regarding administration on MSB:

@ganymede Ok, and yet no one is addressing the tone Auspice took, both in that thread after defenses as to the relevance of that story were made, AND HERE. It's not ok to call people stupid because they didn't understand you were being a regular silencing ass instead of authority silencing ass.

@Ganymede Please address this. Without insulting or calling names. This is a REALLY BIG concern for me, right here. If one of the 3 mods is going to be free to take potshots at KQ and I and a few other people, we should probably just acknowledge that we're not welcome here and go.

ETA: Let me clarify that I don't object to the potshots, I object to the 'free to', as in, she does it, any of us respond, and one of the other mods mod-voices as US for responding to her nastiness. This is not the first example of it happening recently, it is only the clearest and most recent.

This should be addressed. Since the confusion over the response to @meg, the only consistency has been blind defensiveness. I want to give the benefit of the doubt but geez does the all-caps <NOT MOD VOICE> only read as a big middle finger right now so long as there's been no acknowledgment that some of the confusion could have come from anyone other than the reader.

[Apos]

Yeah no offense guys but if a mod's job is moving threads, and in a thread you suggest posts should be moved, maybe they think you are suggesting it because it kind of falls under the job description. It wasn't like this, unfathomable leap of logic that you should be horrified at the obtuseness of it all. I'm just saying.

[faraday]

I don't see how this is any different from being a game admin. I don't expect to have to use "Staff Voice" "Not Staff Voice" on my game's channels. When I correct somebody, they know it's The One Me correcting them because they stepped out of line. It's not like I'm gonna fool anybody if I say "Hey knock it off" from my PC. (Oh, that was Fara talking with her not-staff voice, she didn't really mean it. No, that's just not how people read it.) And yeah, there's a burden that comes with that, because it can easily make people uncomfortable like @Tat said about their bosses. It just comes with the territory.

[Ganymede]

@sunny said in Regarding administration on MSB:

Please address this. Without insulting or calling names. This is a REALLY BIG concern for me, right here. If one of the 3 mods is going to be free to take potshots at KQ and I and a few other people, we should probably just acknowledge that we're not welcome here and go.

MOD VOICE

Okay. I'm not sure how to start, as this is something that I've been pondering. If it sounds like I'm deflecting or avoiding the topic, I don't mean to be. But I want to say something because I feel it's important to say something.

Recent events have highlighted an issue that goes beyond whether a comment is marked with MOD VOICE or not, and it is a situation that we're all familiar with if you've played on a game where staff alts are allowed. There are two interests to balance: first, there's the interest in allowing staff, who are players, to play on a game that they are helping to run; and, second, there's the interest of ensuring that other players aren't concerned that any action taken against a staff alt will be met with an abuse of power (as opposed to justifiable reprisal, which is understandable).

I think that it is undeniable that, were I not a moderator, that my taking potshots at you or anyone else in the Hog Pit would be considered acceptable. But I am a moderator, and, regardless as to whether I put a MOD VOICE indicator above my comment, whatever I say may reasonably be construed as coming from the fingers of someone who has ability to abuse her power at will, with no apparent repercussions. But that perspective, no matter how reasonable, does not obviate the veracity of the message or comment. That is, if I say that something is true, the fact that my message carries with it an implicit threat of unjustifiable reprisal in the event of dissent does not mean that what I said is not true. (However, it is equally true that my comment may be considered true, whether right or wrong, by virtue of that moderator cap, regardless of whether I wear it or not.)

That aside, if Arkandel does something I disagree with, mod-voice or not, I'll take it up with him privately. I don't mind saying that I have a different opinion than him because, if you've read this forum for a while you will probably notice that Arkandel and I disagree on a lot of things. I see no value in engaging in a mod-voice v. mod-voice debate on a topic; if anything, that would exacerbate problems further. And if an issue is brought to me regarding another mod, and I say plainly -- and, perhaps vaguely -- that I'll address the matter, then I will do that, even if I don't post something up about it here.

As I've said before, I am addressing what has been said. And we are addressing the ambiguities. And I have talked with members about some of the recent events. We are, in fact, working.

I see your point, Sunny, and all I can say at this time is that the matter is being discussed, as thoroughly and vigorously as Arkandel hoped. About @Kanye-Qwest's comment, all I can say is that I'm not going to engage in a public discussion with Arkandel and Auspice about it, and my credibility as a voice of "let's not make knee-jerk reactions" is contradicted by recent events wherein I, in fact, did the very same thing. I don't think discussing the matter here further is helpful, but the discussion is continuing elsewhere.

[Kanye Qwest]

What is there to discuss? This is a community with a lot of suspicion of "well we are discussing it amongst ourselves, as staff". For good reason - look at the UH fiasco.

I respect Gany because when they step out of line, they own it and walk it back. Auspice needs to do that. If Auspice won't do that, maaaaybe Auspice doesn't need MSB authority. This whole "we are working to address it in private and shall say nothing public about it" like you're under an NDA isn't doing you guys or this situation any favors.

[Sunny]

@ganymede

I do not feel heard, at all. I do not feel as if you are listening to me, I feel as if you are trying to silence the topic. That said, fine. However, if you are not going to call Auspice on something publicly, do not then call out someone else who does object. If Auspice says something, and you need to speak with Auspice about it, and you acknowledge that you need to speak with Auspice about it, DO NOT then turn around and ONLY mod-voice at the person in public who she was nasty to who then responded appropriately.

Me: Blah.
Mod1 as not mod: you're an idiot.
Me: uh, hey, jerk, you're an idiot.
Other-mod: STOP TALKING TO MOD1 that way.

At that point it does not MATTER if you took Mod1 aside privately or not.

[Auspice]

<MOD VOICE>

I am sorry I was not more explicit in the thread in question wherein I was recommending personal stories be taken to and expanded upon in a new thread.

The lack of mod voice was used to imply it as suggestion. Users were welcome to continue posting along the same vein if they so wished, but concern had been expressed about the time and place for such things and I thought perhaps a gentle nudge could be warranted rather than any explicit mod action.

In the future I shall strive to be as explicit and to-the-point as possible so as to avoid the risk of confusion, moving goal posts, or silencing attempts. I will not assume Users can ascertain the intent behind the words nor the 'voice' it is coming from.

[Auspice]

<NOT MOD VOICE>

If I have explicitly attacked a single person, I do apologize for that (and would like a reference to where I 'name and shame'd someone as it were). I have been doing my best to avoid such behavior.

I may attack ideas and behaviors, which is acceptable behavior on the boards (at this time), but I do understand that in some situations, a person may misconstrue 'Your behavior is wrong' as 'You are wrong and your entire existence is wrong' (or similar concepts).

[Ganymede]

@kanye-qwest

I don't think the current situation is nearly on the same level of the United Heroes fiasco. Everyone is entitled to suspicion, but let's not unnecessarily conflate matters.

There's plenty to discuss. First, should moderators be posting at all other than from a MOD VOICE perspective? Second, if moderators spot what they consider to be unacceptable behavior, should they be the one to call it in? Third, supposing action is taken but other moderators disagree; how do we address the majority disagreement to the minority act? And so on.

Again, I don't mean to try and deflect things, but there is a meaningful discussion being had right now about this that I do not think should or ought to be public. It's not about an NDA; it's not about secrecy to protect the accused. What's said has been said, as plain as day, and, as I said, I am dealing with it.

---

@sunny said in Regarding administration on MSB:

I'm sorry if I'm giving the impression that I'm not hearing you. It is not my intent to silence concerns or this topic. At this time, I do not know how to make you feel otherwise; I responded as I felt I could and should.

I said that I did not think continuing to address the comment Auspice made was going to be helpful. I still don't think it is helpful, because I can see the post and make my own conclusions based on it. And, as I said to KQ, I was addressing the matter with Auspice.

EDIT TO ADD:

Just because Auspice has responded here does not mean the discussion has ended. Neither I nor Arkandel asked her to respond here.

[Kanye Qwest]

@auspice said in Regarding administration on MSB:

<NOT MOD VOICE>

If I have explicitly attacked a single person, I do apologize for that (and would like a reference to where I 'name and shame'd someone as it were). I have been doing my best to avoid such behavior.

I may attack ideas and behaviors, which is acceptable behavior on the boards (at this time), but I do understand that in some situations, a person may misconstrue 'Your behavior is wrong' as 'You are wrong and your entire existence is wrong' (or similar concepts).

Are you serious right now? This is ridiculous.

Look at your posts before this one. The ones I quoted. You didn't have to say a name to make it very clear you were referencing the people who questioned your survivor silencing. Can you not just say "Yeah, I was wrong?" It's a thing adults have to do, sometimes. Without couching it in "if" and "please show me where" like you're defending Ditko.

[OldFrightful]

@faraday said in Regarding administration on MSB:

I don't see how this is any different from being a game admin. I don't expect to have to use "Staff Voice" "Not Staff Voice" on my game's channels. When I correct somebody, they know it's The One Me correcting them because they stepped out of line. It's not like I'm gonna fool anybody if I say "Hey knock it off" from my PC. (Oh, that was Fara talking with her not-staff voice, she didn't really mean it. No, that's just not how people read it.) And yeah, there's a burden that comes with that, because it can easily make people uncomfortable like @Tat said about their bosses. It just comes with the territory.

This.

The whole MOD VOICE thing is well intentioned but should be completely unnecessary. The NOT MOD VOICE thing honestly comes off as passive aggressive. If you want people to have confidence in their moderators, they need to be moderators, not plainclothes detectives randomly slapping a pair of sirens on their car whenever they feel they need the extra authority. Can we please stop it? It's ridiculous. Imagine a game owner tromping in and going NOT STAFF TOTALLY ORDINARY PLAYER OPINION ON THIS STAFF THING. Establishing consistency would go a long way.

[Sunny]

@ganymede said in Regarding administration on MSB:

I still don't think it is helpful, because I can see the post and make my own conclusions based on it.

Right. And by the way that you're behaving about it, you're still demonstrating that what SHE said was OK, but responding to it and/or pointing out that she is being nasty and/or passive aggressive is not. The way that you are right now behaving is giving her behavior legitimacy in the eyes of the people that cannot see whatever conversation you are having in the background. She is CONTINUING the behavior that people are objecting to, so saying repeatedly (especially when it's right after her posts) 'we are addressing this right now' comes off as being A-OK with the behaviors being displayed.

ETA: I literally feel that I cannot post in response to her 2 most recent posts to this thread without you telling me to 'knock it off, it's not helpful'.

[Ganymede]

@sunny said in Regarding administration on MSB:

I literally feel that I cannot post in response to her 2 most recent posts to this thread without you telling me to 'knock it off, it's not helpful'.

If you feel this way, then you feel this way. I don't know what to tell you that can change how you feel, and it would be utterly too vain for me to suggest that I have the power to make you feel one way or the other.

I will say this: I wouldn't have said the same, and you know (or should know) that I wouldn't have said the same. But Auspice would be equally in the right to kick the soapbox from under me if I attempted to pull the whole "don't react on passion or under duress or when you've just woken up." Just because I've admitted to fault does not eliminate that fault.

If you are uncomfortable posting publicly about it, my PM box is open.

[bored]

So... it took one argument about moderation and we already have the mods being abusive, using 'mod voice' to defend each other from criticism, and me upvoting @Kanye-Qwest.

[Caryatid]

@auspice Knock it off, this is not helping. You are displaying behaviours which make you appear unfit to hold a moderator position on a board like this one.

[Sparks]

Please don't take this as criticism of anyone, but it might help to imagine this whole exchange on a MUSH instead of this forum.

Imagine the game has one of those 'unmoderated' free-for-all channels (the closest equivalent I can think of to the Hog Pit). Someone on that channel shares a story during a discussion, and a staffer—on their staff-bit, the same one they do administration from—remarks, "Maybe this isn't the time and place for that story."

Their intent notwithstanding, I think a lot of players would assume the staffer was speaking as staff.

Now, that's just a misunderstanding, and can be cleared up. But imagine instead their response was, "I thought you were all intelligent enough adults to know when I was using staff voice and when I wasn't. But apparently you're all idiots."

If someone then replied with "Wait, what? No, you're the idiot for thinking that was clear!" and another staffer came in and said "Hey, no personal attacks; leave Staffer 1 alone!" I think we'd very shortly see a thread about the entire exchange in the Hog Pit.

And if they raised a fuss and staff closed ranks, saying, "We'll discuss this internally, everybody please drop the topic", that thread in the Hog Pit would be howling about how staff on this hypothetical game are just defending each other and calls for more transparency or logs of the discussions.

I'm not going to judge whether that's right or wrong—I often feel uncomfortable with the 'attack dog' mentality people seem to adopt in the Hog Pit—but that's irrelevant to the fact that it kind of is what MSB is.

The community likes to talk—a lot—about how staffers need to hold themselves to a higher standard than players, because they have more power and more is expected of them. Like it or not, our mods are now in that position. Even when you're posting as 'just Auspice' or 'just Ganymede', it's going to be seen as a moderator speaking.

Realistically, I think if the mods act like 'just other posters' most of the time, it's just going to lead to pain—the same way that a staffer can't act like 'just one of the players' on a game. By accepting the responsibility of active moderation of the board, you've to some extent given up the ability to act as just another poster; anything you say has the implicit weight of the moderator flag behind it, especially when said as your moderator login.

[Ghost]

This is a no-win situation. Part of the reason we never faced issues like these with the previous mods is because they were all but invisible.

Now we have moderators who have been involved in everything from logical discussion to Hog Pit dogpile sessions (negative involvement or not). The typical behavior on this forum is to very quickly apply intent/motive based on assumptions drawn from statements made by people, and use those unverified assumptions as a defensive wall against the person's ideas, assumed RL personality, or allegiances.

I hate to say it, but given the leaning towards toxic antagonism and conspiracy on these boards, @Arkandel @Auspice and @Ganymede will likely only serve the slow path to villainhood if they don't separate their personal selves from their MOD selves.

My advice: @Arkandel you should fire @Auspice and @Ganymede from staff forever and hire mysterious figures with logins such as Staff1 and Staff2 who will clearly not be Auspice or Ganymede.

[Snackness]

I don't like the implication that I'm an idiot. Even if it wasn't directed at me. And it shouldn't have been directed at anyone.

[TNP]

Solution: mods create 2nd accounts to use ONLY for moderation and they continue to post as normal folks under their regular names.

edited to add: which is what Ghost just said.