Members: What do you feel about how things are run?
Sat Jun 02, 2007 12:21 am
Before I get into this, I'd like to make it clear that this is not the place to air grievances concerning specific members or moderators. Please do not drop names or refer to specific instances when you express your concerns. For example:
I trust that you're all mature enough to know the fundamental difference between those two posts and to act accordingly.
PPT is a community. More importantly, it is your community. The moderators who serve here are hardworking, dedicated, and volunteer here for your benefit. Over time we have developed methods of discipline such as the strike system, etc. in order to make things more organized.
What do you think of how things are run? Have you seen methods implemented on other forums that served them well? What do you think we're doing well with? What areas do we need to improve? Do you have any ideas that you think would help us deal with certain problems? Do we have any rules that you think are outdated or need to be changed?
Any suggestions or concerns you have will be considered carefully. Thank you for your time and input.
-Fidds
P.S. Again, please remember that the moderators have feelings. While we encourage you to post your opinion, please do so respectfully and, as I stated earlier, don't name drop or the like. I'd also like to take this time to direct you to a letter that I think you all should read. Thank you.
RIGHT wrote:I feel that the mods should just delete double posts and PM the member about it instead of putting an edit in the post.
WRONG wrote:One time Fiddelysquat edited my double post in front of EVERYBODY and I was really ticked off about it! That was a total crock!
I trust that you're all mature enough to know the fundamental difference between those two posts and to act accordingly.
PPT is a community. More importantly, it is your community. The moderators who serve here are hardworking, dedicated, and volunteer here for your benefit. Over time we have developed methods of discipline such as the strike system, etc. in order to make things more organized.
What do you think of how things are run? Have you seen methods implemented on other forums that served them well? What do you think we're doing well with? What areas do we need to improve? Do you have any ideas that you think would help us deal with certain problems? Do we have any rules that you think are outdated or need to be changed?
Any suggestions or concerns you have will be considered carefully. Thank you for your time and input.
-Fidds
P.S. Again, please remember that the moderators have feelings. While we encourage you to post your opinion, please do so respectfully and, as I stated earlier, don't name drop or the like. I'd also like to take this time to direct you to a letter that I think you all should read. Thank you.
Sat Jun 02, 2007 2:27 am
For the most part, I really enjoy PPT. Mods, Admins, and regular members join together to make this a welcoming environment. It's not perfect, but it's a real community, and I appreciate that.
My only complaint is that moderating on the non-Neopets boards isn't as even or as standardized as it is on the Neopets boards. This is probably because the Neopets topics are easily defined, and when someone breaks the rules of those boards it's pretty obvious. However, it sets a standard that the other boards don't always meet.
My only complaint is that moderating on the non-Neopets boards isn't as even or as standardized as it is on the Neopets boards. This is probably because the Neopets topics are easily defined, and when someone breaks the rules of those boards it's pretty obvious. However, it sets a standard that the other boards don't always meet.
Sat Jun 02, 2007 2:30 am
I admire you, Fidds, for putting this out there. Many of the staff members already know how I feel, especially Kym. He and I have had ongoing emails about this issue. And, well, I am only back here because I saw this thread.
I believe that before a staff member gives a warning to another member, especially someone who has been around for a while and proven themselves to be a good member, they should evaluate ALL of the facts and circumstances concerning the situation--including the reading of the entire thread--AND they should run all of this by someone higher up to make sure that they are doing the right thing. And if they don't have the time to do that right at the moment, then they wait to give the warning/strike/whatever until they do have the time.
I am a guild leader. And, ask anyone in my guild, I am a very good leader--I abide by the rules but I am always fair and understanding. And, so any time that I find myself in the positon of having to reprimand/suspend/delete a member, I evaluate all of the facts and circumstances and then I ask a fellow council member if I am doing the right thing. And I try very hard to not let my emotions get the better of me. And that is why I always run it by someone else, just to make sure that I am not being incendiary just because I have had a bad day.
I don't see that here. I used to see that here a year or two or three ago. I remember back when some poor sweet newcomer came here (oh, a long time ago) and some of the oldsters made fun of her and laughed at her. Poor thing. And after that, Jim and others made sure that people who came here were treated with respect and kindness. But it just doesn't seem to be that way anymore. People get away with insulting others and when someone points out that their posts shouldn't be allowed to stand as they are, that someone suffers dire consequences.
I have been trying to put my finger on what is different now than before and the only thing I can come up with is that perhaps the higher up staff members aren't around as much as the former staff members used to be. When I got a warning way back a long time ago, it was Jim and only Jim to do so. But, now that doesn't seem to be the case. Perhaps people in lower level staff positions are bringing it upon themselves to make decisions that higher level staff members should be making. And doing so with only taking a cursory glance at the posts in question and not evaluating the situation in its entirety before making an adverse decision--one so adverse that it could cause a long term, beloved member to leave for good.
People should not be allowed to insult others or a certain class of people on the PPT forums. We get enough of that in real life. And enough of that on the Neopets' chat boards. And if a staff person feels the need to stop an ensuing argument in which someone has insulted a certain class of people and others are upset about that insult, then the staff person needs to delete that offensive post AT THE SAME TIME that they tell people to stop arguing. By leaving the offensive post to stand, PPT is sending a message to its members and those who lurk on this site that it is perfectly OK to make such a remark. And imagine how those members who have been insulted by such a remark must feel seeing that PPT allowed it to stand for eternity instead of deleting it.
It is the job of the staff member to evaluate the entire situation, see why a person has said what they did, to ask the person why they said what they did, and maybe even run it by an admin, before giving a warning to a long standing member. And if they don't have the time, then they either need to wait to make the time or PPT needs hires more staff so there is sufficient staff to deal with these issue.
And, it is their job to delete posts that are derogatory and that could possibly hurt others and their job to reprimand the poster. Otherwise, why even have this site? Why not just subject ourselves to the chat boards? I came to PPT because this place seemed to be a safe haven. At the time, it was. But, now? I just don't know anymore.
And, even more so, it is their job to apologize when they, for whatever reason, give a person a warning that was unwarranted. A sincere apology. No skirting around the issue by saying stuff like a staffer is only doing their job and the person shouldn't take it personally. We members are human. We have feelings, too, you know. And it hurts when that happens. And, it is an insult for someone to tell another not to take it personally. Why not just give a sincere apology when a staff member has made a mistake?
OK, enough talking by me. Most of you staffers already know where I stand about this issue.
I believe that before a staff member gives a warning to another member, especially someone who has been around for a while and proven themselves to be a good member, they should evaluate ALL of the facts and circumstances concerning the situation--including the reading of the entire thread--AND they should run all of this by someone higher up to make sure that they are doing the right thing. And if they don't have the time to do that right at the moment, then they wait to give the warning/strike/whatever until they do have the time.
I am a guild leader. And, ask anyone in my guild, I am a very good leader--I abide by the rules but I am always fair and understanding. And, so any time that I find myself in the positon of having to reprimand/suspend/delete a member, I evaluate all of the facts and circumstances and then I ask a fellow council member if I am doing the right thing. And I try very hard to not let my emotions get the better of me. And that is why I always run it by someone else, just to make sure that I am not being incendiary just because I have had a bad day.
I don't see that here. I used to see that here a year or two or three ago. I remember back when some poor sweet newcomer came here (oh, a long time ago) and some of the oldsters made fun of her and laughed at her. Poor thing. And after that, Jim and others made sure that people who came here were treated with respect and kindness. But it just doesn't seem to be that way anymore. People get away with insulting others and when someone points out that their posts shouldn't be allowed to stand as they are, that someone suffers dire consequences.
I have been trying to put my finger on what is different now than before and the only thing I can come up with is that perhaps the higher up staff members aren't around as much as the former staff members used to be. When I got a warning way back a long time ago, it was Jim and only Jim to do so. But, now that doesn't seem to be the case. Perhaps people in lower level staff positions are bringing it upon themselves to make decisions that higher level staff members should be making. And doing so with only taking a cursory glance at the posts in question and not evaluating the situation in its entirety before making an adverse decision--one so adverse that it could cause a long term, beloved member to leave for good.
People should not be allowed to insult others or a certain class of people on the PPT forums. We get enough of that in real life. And enough of that on the Neopets' chat boards. And if a staff person feels the need to stop an ensuing argument in which someone has insulted a certain class of people and others are upset about that insult, then the staff person needs to delete that offensive post AT THE SAME TIME that they tell people to stop arguing. By leaving the offensive post to stand, PPT is sending a message to its members and those who lurk on this site that it is perfectly OK to make such a remark. And imagine how those members who have been insulted by such a remark must feel seeing that PPT allowed it to stand for eternity instead of deleting it.
It is the job of the staff member to evaluate the entire situation, see why a person has said what they did, to ask the person why they said what they did, and maybe even run it by an admin, before giving a warning to a long standing member. And if they don't have the time, then they either need to wait to make the time or PPT needs hires more staff so there is sufficient staff to deal with these issue.
And, it is their job to delete posts that are derogatory and that could possibly hurt others and their job to reprimand the poster. Otherwise, why even have this site? Why not just subject ourselves to the chat boards? I came to PPT because this place seemed to be a safe haven. At the time, it was. But, now? I just don't know anymore.
And, even more so, it is their job to apologize when they, for whatever reason, give a person a warning that was unwarranted. A sincere apology. No skirting around the issue by saying stuff like a staffer is only doing their job and the person shouldn't take it personally. We members are human. We have feelings, too, you know. And it hurts when that happens. And, it is an insult for someone to tell another not to take it personally. Why not just give a sincere apology when a staff member has made a mistake?
OK, enough talking by me. Most of you staffers already know where I stand about this issue.
Sat Jun 02, 2007 2:56 am
I would like to point out that longstanding member or no, going directly against a staff member's orders warrants a warning or strike, no matter what the situation. Disregarding something that directly goes against a staff member's orders simply because the member has been here a long time is discrimination. No matter how long you have been here or what your track record, if you are in clear violation of our rules, something will be done about it.
We do not make allowances on the basis of personal relationships or how long the member has been here. Doing so would actually have more in common with your example of a newbie being picked on by oldbies than anything else. In fact, if you're a longstanding member, it counts against you when you misbehave as opposed to a really new person breaking the rules because you're expected to be familiar enough with our rules enough to know better.
It is true that, ideally, the entire thread should be evaluated and all punishments awarded at the same time. However, let's say that a staff member doesn't have the time to take care of the entire situation in one sitting. They can't simply allow the situation to worsen and worsen because they can't dissect it immediately. In those cases, threads are locked/warnings are posted and any immediate issues are taken care of. And we don't just forget about the whole situation after that. As soon as we can we do evaluate the rest and award strikes or warnings as we see fit.
I assure you that decisions are run by various other members of staff before action is taken. For members who think that moderators or even GMs/Admins just strike or warn when they feel like it, that simply isn't true. If it's a double post or somebody using a curse word, you don't need to hold a town meeting. But if it's something more complex, we always get input if we can because we work as a team. Other staff members might have insight or might pick out something we miss, so we always depend on one another to help decide what to do.
As for moderators making decisions that should be taken on by GM's or Admins, I don't honestly believe that is true. While a mod's duties cheifly include less controversial decisions, that's not the case all of the time. If a moderator always has to call upon a higher up the minute things become more complicated than splitting a topic, how are we to see which of our staff has the potential to become a GM or Admin? And how are members supposed to respect our moderators if they have no means of asserting any sort of real authority? They always participate in discussions about bigger issues we're having and we can see their judgement play out there, but it's not our way to tell them, "All you're good for is splitting topics and cleaning up double posts". That isn't true.
When a mod does participate in a more complex situation, they always seek the opinion of their colleagues and someone higher up. I assure you that if a moderator acted out of line action would be taken. Mods, GMs, and Admins are all members of this forum and the forum's rules apply to them as well.
We're very aware that members have feelings. We also know that just because a person, in their opinion, doesn't think they were in the wrong, that doesn't necessarily mean they didn't do anything to warrant a strike or a warning. Feelings are always taken in to account, but when you are a moderator, you are a very poor one indeed if you allow personal relations to cloud your judgement. I have had to ban close personal friends of mine from this forum. Did it hurt? Yes. Would I be a good moderator if I tried to fob the situation on somebody else or go easy on them due to our personal relationship? No.
Mistakes have been made by staff in the past. If when the situation is reviewed the staff feels that a mistake was made, it is immediately rectified and taken care of. I may be a lot of things and I may not be a lot of things, but I consider myself a fair person. I also consider our staff to be fair. If the staff has deeply reviewed a situation and has decided that it was handled correctly, I trust their judgement.
We do not make allowances on the basis of personal relationships or how long the member has been here. Doing so would actually have more in common with your example of a newbie being picked on by oldbies than anything else. In fact, if you're a longstanding member, it counts against you when you misbehave as opposed to a really new person breaking the rules because you're expected to be familiar enough with our rules enough to know better.
It is true that, ideally, the entire thread should be evaluated and all punishments awarded at the same time. However, let's say that a staff member doesn't have the time to take care of the entire situation in one sitting. They can't simply allow the situation to worsen and worsen because they can't dissect it immediately. In those cases, threads are locked/warnings are posted and any immediate issues are taken care of. And we don't just forget about the whole situation after that. As soon as we can we do evaluate the rest and award strikes or warnings as we see fit.
I assure you that decisions are run by various other members of staff before action is taken. For members who think that moderators or even GMs/Admins just strike or warn when they feel like it, that simply isn't true. If it's a double post or somebody using a curse word, you don't need to hold a town meeting. But if it's something more complex, we always get input if we can because we work as a team. Other staff members might have insight or might pick out something we miss, so we always depend on one another to help decide what to do.
As for moderators making decisions that should be taken on by GM's or Admins, I don't honestly believe that is true. While a mod's duties cheifly include less controversial decisions, that's not the case all of the time. If a moderator always has to call upon a higher up the minute things become more complicated than splitting a topic, how are we to see which of our staff has the potential to become a GM or Admin? And how are members supposed to respect our moderators if they have no means of asserting any sort of real authority? They always participate in discussions about bigger issues we're having and we can see their judgement play out there, but it's not our way to tell them, "All you're good for is splitting topics and cleaning up double posts". That isn't true.
When a mod does participate in a more complex situation, they always seek the opinion of their colleagues and someone higher up. I assure you that if a moderator acted out of line action would be taken. Mods, GMs, and Admins are all members of this forum and the forum's rules apply to them as well.
We're very aware that members have feelings. We also know that just because a person, in their opinion, doesn't think they were in the wrong, that doesn't necessarily mean they didn't do anything to warrant a strike or a warning. Feelings are always taken in to account, but when you are a moderator, you are a very poor one indeed if you allow personal relations to cloud your judgement. I have had to ban close personal friends of mine from this forum. Did it hurt? Yes. Would I be a good moderator if I tried to fob the situation on somebody else or go easy on them due to our personal relationship? No.
Mistakes have been made by staff in the past. If when the situation is reviewed the staff feels that a mistake was made, it is immediately rectified and taken care of. I may be a lot of things and I may not be a lot of things, but I consider myself a fair person. I also consider our staff to be fair. If the staff has deeply reviewed a situation and has decided that it was handled correctly, I trust their judgement.
Sat Jun 02, 2007 2:57 am
Morningstar wrote:And, so any time that I find myself in the positon of having to reprimand/suspend/delete a member, I evaluate all of the facts and circumstances and then I ask a fellow council member if I am doing the right thing. And I try very hard to not let my emotions get the better of me. And that is why I always run it by someone else, just to make sure that I am not being incendiary just because I have had a bad day.
I don't see that here.
I would just like to make a point for future refernce on this thread, for members who are about to post responses.
Our moderating staff does always seek the council of their peers before making a decision on anything that isn't strictly clear cut (such as, a double post), and even on some stuff that would seem simple (such as moving topics). Just because you do not see it does not mean that it doesn't happen. Our staff has excellent communication on forum matters but it is done behind the scenes.
Sat Jun 02, 2007 4:07 am
Just a quick note to say that in the thread Morningstar is referring to, there were two previous warnings posted by two different moderators. I posted an initial warning for people to stay on the topic of the thread. A second moderator then posted another warning. Debating and off-topic-ness continued, at which point a third moderator stepped in to provide a warning. Anyone at that point who was continuing to be off topic was dealt the consequences for not complying with three different moderators requests. Yes, there were other issues in the thread that were then noticed and dealt with accordingly. The primary issue was people not respecting the moderators and their warnings.
We as staff members respect everyone on the forum and everyone is entitled to their opinions. But as human beings, with lives outside of the forums, we sometimes need your help in pointing out what you don't like, or what you see that we may not. We all come from different backgrounds, with different experiences in real life and this influences how we all read things on the forum. What is offensive to one person may not be offensive to another. In cases such as that, if a member is offended by something, they need to send a PM to a staff member.
It is my hope that everyone can learn from their experiences on the forum to better themselves and others around them.
We as staff members respect everyone on the forum and everyone is entitled to their opinions. But as human beings, with lives outside of the forums, we sometimes need your help in pointing out what you don't like, or what you see that we may not. We all come from different backgrounds, with different experiences in real life and this influences how we all read things on the forum. What is offensive to one person may not be offensive to another. In cases such as that, if a member is offended by something, they need to send a PM to a staff member.
It is my hope that everyone can learn from their experiences on the forum to better themselves and others around them.
Sat Jun 02, 2007 4:51 am
I'm certain I'm missing the situation that is currently being discussed in this thread but no matter, I will attempt to articulate myself in what will hopefully be a somewhat helpful post. Besides, it seems to me that a whole argument is being justified on one event (correct me if I am wrong). That to me seems a bit ridiculous. You can't really judge the moderators on one event, as others have previously said mistakes are made, and mistakes have been made, and I commend Fiddelysquat for her transparency on that issue.
The way I see it the forums are in an interesting stage. We have a relatively new Administrator who has worked hard in an attempt to ressurect some life to the forums, and we have a whole host of relatively new moderators that are, in spite of their relative inexperience to the rest of the staff doing a fantastic job.
As far as moderation goes I'm more than happy with the standard of moderation. As we all know the selection of moderators was a lengthy process that no doubt underwent much scrutiny, time was taken to select the best candidates out of a whole host of applications. There's nothing as far as selection goes that can be improved in my opinion, though perhaps others have suggestions.
Fiddelysquat also mentioned that moderators often confer on a correct course of action, which has no doubt proven itself valuable in previous situations.
What more can be done? I'm not aware fully of how the moderators work and perhaps the only suggestion I have is some form of internal scrutiny, although perhaps this already occurs. There is of course a form of external scrutiny already present - in that members of the forum are able to PM if they believe an incorrect decision has been made.
I'm not sure if any other members agree with me on this point but I'm not entirely aware of the exact process of moderation. As .Neko. pointed out a lot of stuff goes on behind the scenes. We're unaware of what goes on, what guidelines and measures exist with regards to moderation issues and so forth, perhaps rightly so. However in this instance I'm finding it quite difficult to offer suggestions without understanding what the process currently is.
As far as I am concerned the Moderators, Global moderators and Administrators are doing a very good job, no doubt there is room for improvement, as they themselves have admitted, but perhaps we should remember in this topic of 'criticism' that they are all offering a service, when many of them have other priorities in life. Consider the time and effort put into such events as the recent 'April fools'. Futhermore perhaps one of the most promising signs of this possible improvement is this new transparency and new communication between the Staff and the forum members.
Sorry if this post is absolute rubbish, it's close to 6am.
The way I see it the forums are in an interesting stage. We have a relatively new Administrator who has worked hard in an attempt to ressurect some life to the forums, and we have a whole host of relatively new moderators that are, in spite of their relative inexperience to the rest of the staff doing a fantastic job.
As far as moderation goes I'm more than happy with the standard of moderation. As we all know the selection of moderators was a lengthy process that no doubt underwent much scrutiny, time was taken to select the best candidates out of a whole host of applications. There's nothing as far as selection goes that can be improved in my opinion, though perhaps others have suggestions.
Fiddelysquat also mentioned that moderators often confer on a correct course of action, which has no doubt proven itself valuable in previous situations.
What more can be done? I'm not aware fully of how the moderators work and perhaps the only suggestion I have is some form of internal scrutiny, although perhaps this already occurs. There is of course a form of external scrutiny already present - in that members of the forum are able to PM if they believe an incorrect decision has been made.
I'm not sure if any other members agree with me on this point but I'm not entirely aware of the exact process of moderation. As .Neko. pointed out a lot of stuff goes on behind the scenes. We're unaware of what goes on, what guidelines and measures exist with regards to moderation issues and so forth, perhaps rightly so. However in this instance I'm finding it quite difficult to offer suggestions without understanding what the process currently is.
As far as I am concerned the Moderators, Global moderators and Administrators are doing a very good job, no doubt there is room for improvement, as they themselves have admitted, but perhaps we should remember in this topic of 'criticism' that they are all offering a service, when many of them have other priorities in life. Consider the time and effort put into such events as the recent 'April fools'. Futhermore perhaps one of the most promising signs of this possible improvement is this new transparency and new communication between the Staff and the forum members.
Sorry if this post is absolute rubbish, it's close to 6am.
Sat Jun 02, 2007 5:35 am
While Morningstar makes a reasonable point, I feel like PPT tends toward the opposite problem. Nobody wants to have to issue warnings or strikes, and will avoid it if possible--which is good. I like it when moderators aren't flooded with glee at the idea of exercising their modly powers.
However, I feel like sometimes the general warnings are not acted upon, or acted upon only with reluctance. And lately, I haven't been a model of restraint, but no one's called me out on it.
Part of the issue may be that many of our mods are new to the job here, and still unsure how far their power extends. That's perfectly understandable. But I'd like to see some of you PM me and tell me to stop it when I go too far, instead of an ominous post in the thread.
I know a big part of it is also that we don't see what goes on behind the scenes, and I appreciate opening the door on a potentially messy topic. Thank you for trusting us to act like adults.
However, I feel like sometimes the general warnings are not acted upon, or acted upon only with reluctance. And lately, I haven't been a model of restraint, but no one's called me out on it.
Part of the issue may be that many of our mods are new to the job here, and still unsure how far their power extends. That's perfectly understandable. But I'd like to see some of you PM me and tell me to stop it when I go too far, instead of an ominous post in the thread.
I know a big part of it is also that we don't see what goes on behind the scenes, and I appreciate opening the door on a potentially messy topic. Thank you for trusting us to act like adults.
Sat Jun 02, 2007 5:55 am
Attention: Certain posts have been removed from this thread for mentioning specific incidents and nothing more. If you have an issue with the way a specific incident was handled, please remember that you can always PM an Admin and they will look into the situation.
From this point on please keep all posts ambiguous thank you.
From this point on please keep all posts ambiguous thank you.
Sat Jun 02, 2007 6:38 am
I've only skimmed, but I thought I'd throw in my two cents anyway.
I think it's totally impractical to make sixty thousand checks and balances for every action. Forums only grow, and there is just no way there will be a large enough body of staff members to make any sort of "check with your higher-ups before making an action" policy even remotely practical. In addition, most of the time cases are so clear-cut that this kind of practice is totally unnecessary.
I really think mods should be left to their own devices, and if there is a conflict of opinions, then, and only then, should an admin or higher-up be involved. Obviously if a user would like an admin review of an action that should always be open. Also, if a moderator feels he/she cannot make a responsible decision without another opinion, then that should definitely be open and encouraged. However in most situations, the fact that all mods are not exactly the same actually makes for a more productive situation. If one mod disagrees with another mod, it opens up discussion about more specific issues which could bring about clarification of rules (or the spirit of the rule is clarified) and it can also make sure that everything objectionable is cleaned up; if one mod doesn't think a certain post is "quite bad enough" but another does, then in the end that post will be sufficiently cleaned up by that mod, and thus the forum benefits. (and of course I mean this only about very very close borderline cases)
I'm too new to make a conclusive decision about how well things are run, but in general it seems no different from most forums I've taken part in. Because I'm most used to the moderation on Gaia, certain things are very weird for me (like the concept of locking threads and mod edited posts) but the majority of the policies are quite familiar.
That being said, I don't particularly care for the public nature of disciplinary actions. For example, editing posts and posting to note that a thread has been moved or a post deleted seems excessive. I think those kinds of things need only be discussed between the moderator who made the action and the user that the action is made to. The rest of the forum really doesn't need to know that this use posted in the wrong forum or made a double post. It really wouldn't hurt anyone to keep those things private, I guess.
I don't know. Again, I'm really too new to make conclusive judgment, and my experiences on other forums may cloud my judgment as well. But I think over all, there are certain things that will never work and certain things that will probably be the same.
In response to that letter, I think it's pretty much inevitable that users react poorly to moderator actions; there are just too many people on the internet who, frankly, cannot be bothered to be responsible and considerate to other people, and that's something that will always be true.
I think it's totally impractical to make sixty thousand checks and balances for every action. Forums only grow, and there is just no way there will be a large enough body of staff members to make any sort of "check with your higher-ups before making an action" policy even remotely practical. In addition, most of the time cases are so clear-cut that this kind of practice is totally unnecessary.
I really think mods should be left to their own devices, and if there is a conflict of opinions, then, and only then, should an admin or higher-up be involved. Obviously if a user would like an admin review of an action that should always be open. Also, if a moderator feels he/she cannot make a responsible decision without another opinion, then that should definitely be open and encouraged. However in most situations, the fact that all mods are not exactly the same actually makes for a more productive situation. If one mod disagrees with another mod, it opens up discussion about more specific issues which could bring about clarification of rules (or the spirit of the rule is clarified) and it can also make sure that everything objectionable is cleaned up; if one mod doesn't think a certain post is "quite bad enough" but another does, then in the end that post will be sufficiently cleaned up by that mod, and thus the forum benefits. (and of course I mean this only about very very close borderline cases)
I'm too new to make a conclusive decision about how well things are run, but in general it seems no different from most forums I've taken part in. Because I'm most used to the moderation on Gaia, certain things are very weird for me (like the concept of locking threads and mod edited posts) but the majority of the policies are quite familiar.
That being said, I don't particularly care for the public nature of disciplinary actions. For example, editing posts and posting to note that a thread has been moved or a post deleted seems excessive. I think those kinds of things need only be discussed between the moderator who made the action and the user that the action is made to. The rest of the forum really doesn't need to know that this use posted in the wrong forum or made a double post. It really wouldn't hurt anyone to keep those things private, I guess.
I don't know. Again, I'm really too new to make conclusive judgment, and my experiences on other forums may cloud my judgment as well. But I think over all, there are certain things that will never work and certain things that will probably be the same.
In response to that letter, I think it's pretty much inevitable that users react poorly to moderator actions; there are just too many people on the internet who, frankly, cannot be bothered to be responsible and considerate to other people, and that's something that will always be true.
Sat Jun 02, 2007 7:03 am
Kea, you've got it pretty much dead on as far as I'm concerned. To address one of your concerns, when we post that something was deleted or moved, it's often to prevent endless questions of "Hey, where'd my post go?!" Not everyone checks private messages, and newer members might not even know they exist. Other times it's necessary because a lot of people saw those posts before we had a chance to get to them and keep trying to respond to them. I think it's pretty rare that we need to do this in either case, though.
I'll leave the rest of your post for someone who is more awake than I am. (= (Failing that, I'll get back to you in the morning.)
I'll leave the rest of your post for someone who is more awake than I am. (= (Failing that, I'll get back to you in the morning.)
Sat Jun 02, 2007 7:42 am
Yes, I had a little more discussion about that practice over PMs, and I think I better understand why it's done, now. Because I was used to a policy that more strongly encouraged the practice of deleting posts and doing things through PMs (which also had a much more obvious notification) it seemed weird that mods would use the public forums for those things, but it makes much more sense now.
The only problem I can see is that sometimes people might miss warnings in threads, especially if the thread moves quickly and the user isn't active a lot. That could be a particular problem if the user is new and doesn't know to backread but just makes a comment based on the last page of discussion.
Thank you for the clarification, though. The more I read, the more I feel I understand the way things work here, which makes it much easier to acclimate.
The only problem I can see is that sometimes people might miss warnings in threads, especially if the thread moves quickly and the user isn't active a lot. That could be a particular problem if the user is new and doesn't know to backread but just makes a comment based on the last page of discussion.
Thank you for the clarification, though. The more I read, the more I feel I understand the way things work here, which makes it much easier to acclimate.
Sat Jun 02, 2007 5:20 pm
For the most part we're pretty forgiving of new people, and if it's clear someone hasn't posted in a long time, we give them a period to remember. If it looks as if someone missed the warning, we'll usually give another, especially in longer threads (though if it's still on the same page we expect that it's been seen). And we often send PMs in addition to putting a warning in a thread if it's helpful.
With new users especially, we do our best to be educational rather than punitive. We'll send them a message letting them know where they can find information on whatever they did, let them know we're available for questions, and at least try to let them know that we're not mad, but rather want them to learn so that they can adjust to how things work here and be happy forum members.
I'm very glad that this thread is proving helpful. And of course, we're all pretty happy to answer any questions asked via PM anytime.
With new users especially, we do our best to be educational rather than punitive. We'll send them a message letting them know where they can find information on whatever they did, let them know we're available for questions, and at least try to let them know that we're not mad, but rather want them to learn so that they can adjust to how things work here and be happy forum members.
I'm very glad that this thread is proving helpful. And of course, we're all pretty happy to answer any questions asked via PM anytime.
Sat Jun 02, 2007 7:57 pm
mayanspypilot wrote:Just a quick note to say that in the thread Morningstar is referring to, there were two previous warnings posted by two different moderators. I posted an initial warning for people to stay on the topic of the thread. A second moderator then posted another warning. Debating and off-topic-ness continued, at which point a third moderator stepped in to provide a warning. Anyone at that point who was continuing to be off topic was dealt the consequences for not complying with three different moderators requests. Yes, there were other issues in the thread that were then noticed and dealt with accordingly. The primary issue was people not respecting the moderators and their warnings.
There is a difference between continuing an argument and asking why offensive posts are allowed to stand and not be deleted. A member should be allowed to ask why a post is left standing. Particularly if the post contains a derogatory remark about a certain group of people. And, the mod should realize that asking a question like that is not the same as continuing an argument. Nor is it being disrespectful of a mod or disrespecting the mod's warnings. And once that was explained to the third mod and that third mod read the thread in its entirety, the issue was resolved between the two parties in question.
Sat Jun 02, 2007 8:30 pm
Morningstar wrote:There is a difference between continuing an argument and asking why offensive posts are allowed to stand and not be deleted. A member should be allowed to ask why a post is left standing. Particularly if the post contains a derogatory remark about a certain group of people. And, the mod should realize that asking a question like that is not the same as continuing an argument. Nor is it being disrespectful of a mod or disrespecting the mod's warnings. And once that was explained to the third mod and that third mod read the thread in its entirety, the issue was resolved between the two parties in question.
Members are always allowed to ask questions of the moderating staff. The correct way to do that is via PM. Unfortunately, regardless of intent, that sort of question in public is an invitation to some people to keep things going, and can often appear to be an attempt to undermine that moderator. Even if both the mod and the person asking know it wasn't, if it looks that way to everyone else it's an invitation to disaster. We do have to consider the impact in terms of how other people are likely to interpret something in addition to the intent of the person posting.