Regarding administration on MSB
-
^_______^
(@_____@)
---|---
/\ -
I think it's safe to say that this foray into moderation is going to go through some growing pains and both posters and mods should be patient with each other.
That being said, I'd rather it go away entirely that continue the way it is at this moment.
-
@sunny said in Regarding administration on MSB:
@faraday How was calling us all pathetic and saying that we were lying about something that was demonstrably true even remotely constructive?
Because it didn't start out like that. By the time it went there the thread was already Hog Pit material.
-
@sunny said in Regarding administration on MSB:
How was calling us all pathetic and saying that we were lying about something that was demonstrably true even remotely constructive?
It wasn't. That's not why I moved it. I moved it because it clearly was heading into SUGAR WE'RE GOING DOWN SWINGING territory. Admittedly, the topic could have been split because the initial posts were constructive, even if there was little hope they would be responded to be UH's staff.
Enarei's posts crossed the line from the start, actually. In his response to Phase-Face, he called her a "child." That said, it was the entire follow-up from there that led me to believe that the topic should probably be moved as a whole.
So, to be clear, what Enarei said and did was not cool, I never thought it was cool, and that's part of the reason why the topic was moved.
-
@wizz said in Regarding administration on MSB:
I think @faraday's agreeing with you, just saying that it's not our call to make.
Whups. If this is the case, @faraday, sorry, I misunderstood the point you were trying to make.
I know it's not our call to make, but that doesn't mean I can't protest it and point out why I think there's a problem. If we're at a point where I should not be pointing out that I think there's a problem...well. Thankfully, I don't think we're at that point.
@Ganymede No, you didn't say what Enarei said was cool. @Arkandel did.
ETA: Which is my goddamned point. Figure. This. Shit. Out. All three of you are smart people with reasonable moral and ethical compasses. That you're having this much of a difficulty is really confusing to me.
-
@sunny said in Regarding administration on MSB:
If we're at a point where I should not be pointing out that I think there's a problem...well. Thankfully, I don't think we're at that point.
This thread doesn't exist because we're not able to point problems out and discuss them like adults, but because we are.
We (meaning admins) do need to figure out a better way to be consistent, even if it means delegating certain responsibilities internally.
-
@sunny Yeah I was trying to agree with you. UH-dude crossed the line when h/she started calling everyone idiots, and selectively enforcing moderating personal attacks based on whether the victim replies is kind of silly. And I wasn't meaning to imply you didn't know the difference between unconstructive/constructive, I was just outlining my personal line in the sand. It wasn't directed at you.
-
@faraday OK, sorry. I completely misunderstood.
-
I mean, 'constructive' is a really fuzzy line. I'm not sure there was any way to respond to the UH admins and whatever the f their white knight was in a constructive manner. I DO think you need to be able to talk about actual THINGS that are not good (spying on players, how sexual harassers are dealt with, and even questionable policies like the No Sex RP thing those Star Trek admins eventually decided to overturn) outside the Hog Pit, because those are important topics. And I think dealing with those things in a way that is...umm...not great is fair game to comment on. The line I was trying to walk is to talk about the bad thing without talking about the bad person but it does feel really nebulous right now.
-
I just want to float this out there but @Arkandel I think you're more afraid of backlash against active moderation than you need to be, and it's this hesitation that is frustrating people. I'll actually echo @TNP here, either moderate or don't.
In addition to deciding who does what on the Mod Super Awesome Team, please present us with a clear and extensive community guideline, hell open it up to feedback first if you really want, but set expectations in stone.
-
@three-eyed-crow said in Regarding administration on MSB:
I DO think you need to be able to talk about actual THINGS that are not good (spying on players, how sexual harassers are dealt with, and even questionable policies like the No Sex RP thing those Star Trek admins eventually decided to overturn) outside the Hog Pit, because those are important topics.
Constructive topics unlikely to devolve into a hog pit dumpster fire:
- How to deal with harassing players
- When is it OK to spy on players
- All about TS Policies
"Why this game is the worst ever" is unlikely to ever lead anywhere good. It just isn't. I think everyone knew that thread was heading towards the hog pit the instant it was posted.
-
@sunny said in Regarding administration on MSB:
Figure. This. Shit. Out. All three of you are smart people with reasonable moral and ethical compasses. That you're having this much of a difficulty is really confusing to me.
I don't think it's confusing as to why there seems to be such disparate opinions. We have drastically different personalities.
A few thoughts.
The best way to ensure consistency is letting one person make the decision to take action. That sort of eliminates the need for alternate moderators, as such; they become lackeys or workers. And that's not really what Arkandel was aiming for by adding Auspice and I. The purpose of adding more moderators is to ensure a more timely response to events as they occur.
The risk, however, is that there will be some inconsistency. If you can't tell, Auspice is very much a doer, Arkandel is a thinker, and I'm a cat-Nazi-lawyerbot. Unsurprisingly, our internal discussions tend to be broad.
We can provide clearer guidelines, but that doesn't guarantee consistent enforcement. Consistent enforcement either comes as a result of joint decision-making, which takes some time, or a single authority. Frankly, I'm not sure what's best.
If we divide duties up, that might help. The two areas that probably need the most moderation are the Advertisement and Mildly Constructive threads; other areas, seem to draw less controversy when action is taken. But, going back to what I said about wanting some assurance of timely intervention, enforcement will be more sporadic if and when moderators are unavailable due to RL or something.
“It is better to live doing the things that you like. It is foolish to live within this dream of a world seeing unpleasantness and doing only things that you do not like.” -- Yamamoto Tsunetomo.
-
I think this thing is less time sensitive than it often feels. I think you can afford to be more slow, for all that people get their panties in a bunch about stuff and things continue to escalate. I think it will be terrible at first, but as the rules kick in the bad explosions will get better more quickly.
I also think you guys need a discord or skype channel or something that you're talking on a lot more than you are if you already have one. You need to spend more time together in discussion. Set aside a few hours. Together. To just talk. Theories, opinions, etc. You guys are very different, but it IS possible to get on the same page if you put the effort in. If you decide that you guys are actually going to moderate -- and it does seem like this decision has been made -- then you have to decide to put the effort in to do the job you say you're going to do. Part of that effort is the effort required to get onto the same page with your team. That is done by discussion, exposure, and general communication. If what you're dealing with is not something that is going to be active damage to a person, it can wait for you guys to figure it out together until such a point that you get used to your team enough to know what the group decision probably would be.
-
Double post, because another thought.
The first question for the next while for you guys really, really should be: why can this not wait until I can deal with this with my team?
-
@sunny said in Regarding administration on MSB:
The first question for the next while for you guys really, really should be: why can this not wait until I can deal with this with my team?
In the case of forking a thread, my understanding is that forking early is a lot better than forking late.
Yes, I know there's a potential double-meaning to that.
“It is better to live doing the things that you like. It is foolish to live within this dream of a world seeing unpleasantness and doing only things that you do not like.” -- Yamamoto Tsunetomo.
-
@ganymede said in Regarding administration on MSB:
@sunny said in Regarding administration on MSB:
The first question for the next while for you guys really, really should be: why can this not wait until I can deal with this with my team?
In the case of forking a thread, my understanding is that forking early is a lot better than forking late.
Yes, I know there's a potential double-meaning to that.
I agree that in typical operation that is the case, but we are not there yet.
-
I will note that it will never, ever be perfect. Period. Hands down.
I have done forum moderation professionally. I have worked on teams where we have fleshed out guidelines, rule books, etc., on 'how to mod.' Teams where some of us have worked together for months (or in one case: years).
We would still mod differently. We would still disagree sometimes. What's severe to me may not be to Gany and vice versa. And there will always be edge cases.
Growing pains happen. It will take a while to settle. And even then, you're guaranteed to see things you don't personally like or would do. It's called being human. And rather than flipping the whole goddamn table in the middle of the game, maybe we need to sit back more and go 'Alright. There may be a reason they did it this way.'
As Gany told @Three-Eyed-Crow earlier: got a problem with a mod action? Message the other two. Or all three of us. Ask about it. (But if all you do is message a slew of insults we'll probably just ignore it.)
-
@ganymede said in Regarding administration on MSB:
We can provide clearer guidelines, but that doesn't guarantee consistent enforcement.
I mean...it does, though. Or at least it guarantees more consistency, to err is human, yadda yadda.
RIght now, all three of you can already quote The Rules of Engagement if you're moving an ad hominem attack to the Hog Pit.
"Hey, this post where Tempest calls Ganymede a useless pile of shit was moved because it's in violation of Rule 1, which states personal attacks are not kosher on this board."
It's that that's literally the one and only rule that seems confusing to me, at least.
ETA: Like, to @tempest's point, how about:
1a. "Being facetious is not an excuse to break this rule. This is a constructive discussion board, if you create a post with a contentious or controversial title that is an attack you are still violating the spirit of the rule."
-
@sunny said in Regarding administration on MSB:
Double post, because another thought.
The first question for the next while for you guys really, really should be: why can this not wait until I can deal with this with my team?
We actually discuss a lot of our actions before they happen. Or one of us goes 'Hey, can you guys take a look at this.' Which is why Arkandel keeps stepping in and going 'I back this move.'
We may not spend three days deliberating on it, but almost every action that has been taken has been discussed by 2, if not 3 of us. And sometimes it may be Ark going 'Hey I trust your judgement.'
-
For the record, I am disappointed in staff here for moving an entire thread derail to the Hog Pit when the entire thread derail did not deserve the Hog Pit, and once again negating what constructiveness was happening.
