Discussion: change GA modding? (split from Q&A)

[The Dark Star Republic]

So the one practical consequence of this discussion thread so far (if we don't count the apparent increase in Kryo's forum activity, though still not in this thread) is a coding experiment that would lead to less transparency if implemented? :mad:

I did raise exactly this objection, and I also said that I felt Sedgistan had rushed into it before waiting for other players to comment. You raise some very valid objections and I think it's increasingly obvious that my idea has, at the very least, some very significant downsides (although I feel the existing category system also has significant downsides).

And, significantly, whereas a Wrong Category violation is (ideally) clearly communicated to the author, the author of a post-category proposal is never told how right or wrong they were in their predictions of the resolution's effects. I assume they will have no way of appealing the effects of their own resolution, and that there will be no way of having any fruitful public discussion over the [insert function here]'s choice of stat effects for a certain resolution.

In fairness, though, that's how issues work too. When you get an issue and have to choose whether to follow option #1, #2, or #3, you don't know what the effects will be, and there is no mechanism for altering it if the outcome has results you don't agree with (for example, some people don't like that the death penalty issue means that politically free nations end up reintroducing capital punishment, and that abolitionist states have to restrict political freedoms to keep their ban in place).

Nonetheless much of your critique is perfectly valid.

[Alqania]

And, significantly, whereas a Wrong Category violation is (ideally) clearly communicated to the author, the author of a post-category proposal is never told how right or wrong they were in their predictions of the resolution's effects. I assume they will have no way of appealing the effects of their own resolution, and that there will be no way of having any fruitful public discussion over the [insert function here]'s choice of stat effects for a certain resolution.

In fairness, though, that's how issues work too. When you get an issue and have to choose whether to follow option #1, #2, or #3, you don't know what the effects will be, and there is no mechanism for altering it if the outcome has results you don't agree with (for example, some people don't like that the death penalty issue means that politically free nations end up reintroducing capital punishment, and that abolitionist states have to restrict political freedoms to keep their ban in place).

Nonetheless much of your critique is perfectly valid.

You've got a point there, but I think it relates more to a player's vote on a resolution (which is arguably comparable to the choice on an issue) than to the author.

I haven't written issues, so I don't know what that is like, and obviously I can't speak for all GA writers either. But, for example, I once had an argument with good old Koopman whether a proposal of mine belonged in Human Rights or Moral Decency. For me, if a mod had ruled Moral Decency, I would have abandoned the idea, because that's not a category name I want to see next to my nation name. Perhaps that's silly, vain or irrational, but looking at various authors' history, there does seem to be personal preferences on category.

[Railana]

You've got a point there, but I think it relates more to a player's vote on a resolution (which is arguably comparable to the choice on an issue) than to the author.

Issue authors also don't get to dictate stat effects, though. They can suggest them, but it's ultimately up to the editors.

[Sciongrad]

This whole experiment is really sort of frustrating. I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea, but I resent the fact that after pages of demands for transparency, Sedge, who is by all accounts completely uninvolved in the GA, began to experiment with a policy (and without waiting for anything more than a couple hours of responses) that would actually decrease transparency. The biggest demand most of us have is a desire for transparency and improved moderator-player relations, and unilaterally making policy initiatives that undermine transparency is not helpful.

And by the way, I couldn't help but notice that Kryo has been posting quite a bit in other threads, yet hasn't said anything here. I don't know how we're supposed to move forward when one of the supposedly more active members of the hivemind refuses to speak up. Her input would obviously be quite valuable here, and I'm sure we'd all appreciate hearing what she has to say.

[Unibot III]

I do wonder though if transparency would be much of an issue at all if the category was only decided after a resolution was passed (perhaps the effects of each issue were decided individually, I dunno).

What author really cares what category their proposal is... after it's passed.

Presumably players could ask why that category was chosen.

[Sedgistan]

This whole experiment is really sort of frustrating. I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea, but I resent the fact that after pages of demands for transparency, Sedge, who is by all accounts completely uninvolved in the GA, began to experiment with a policy (and without waiting for anything more than a couple hours of responses) that would actually decrease transparency. The biggest demand most of us have is a desire for transparency and improved moderator-player relations, and unilaterally making policy initiatives that undermine transparency is not helpful.

We don't need pages of umming and ahhing to decide whether something can be tested. The experiment doesn't impact on any current GA activity, doesn't commit to any future changes, and only helps to inform future debate.

[Sciongrad]

This whole experiment is really sort of frustrating. I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea, but I resent the fact that after pages of demands for transparency, Sedge, who is by all accounts completely uninvolved in the GA, began to experiment with a policy (and without waiting for anything more than a couple hours of responses) that would actually decrease transparency. The biggest demand most of us have is a desire for transparency and improved moderator-player relations, and unilaterally making policy initiatives that undermine transparency is not helpful.

We don't need pages of umming and ahhing to decide whether something can be tested. The experiment doesn't impact on any current GA activity, doesn't commit to any future changes, and only helps to inform future debate.

Ha! I'm glad that you consider our opinions umming and ahhing. Why would you spend months testing a potential policy without knowing if anyone wanted said policy to be implemented? Again, if you guys have a serious investment in improving moderator-player relations, you may want to wait for our input before making decisions, regardless of whether or not you think it's necessary.

I do wonder though if transparency would be much of an issue at all if the category was only decided after a resolution was passed (perhaps the effects of each issue were decided individually, I dunno).

What author really cares what category their proposal is... after it's passed.

Presumably players could ask why that category was chosen.

That assumes that category disputes are the underlying reasons for inconsistent or arbitrary rulings. Unfortunately, it's not that simple. There are a lot of problems that are causing tension in the WA, one of which is certainly that categories are sometimes useless or cause some rather intense legality debates, but I don't think the category system is a major cause of inconsistency in rulings.

[Sedgistan]

We don't need pages of umming and ahhing to decide whether something can be tested. The experiment doesn't impact on any current GA activity, doesn't commit to any future changes, and only helps to inform future debate.

Ha! I'm glad that you consider our opinions umming and ahhing. Why would you spend months testing a potential policy without knowing if anyone wanted said policy to be implemented?

For a start, there are people who want said policy implemented - it's why there have been people asking for it. As for why we'd do it, it's so that we know if it's possible, as I've said several times already. And yes, I do consider extensive discussion on whether to conduct an experiment with no effects outside the experiment to be a waste of time.

Again, if you guys have a serious investment in improving moderator-player relations, you may want to wait for our input before making decisions, regardless of whether or not you think it's necessary.

Sure, we'll wait for input before making decisions that impact you. Never said we wouldn't.

[Alqania]

Presumably players could ask why that category was chosen.

I wouldn't be so sure about that presumption. I've been getting the impression that stat effects would remain secret, even after the resolution passes. If the resolution would not be confirmed as to have had a certain effect, then it'd be hard to ask why that particular effect was chosen.
'
In any case, what happens then if the author or another player feels so strongly against that stat effect that they'd want it undone? The resolution would have to be repealed, so we'd have repeals motivated solely by the (confirmed or perceived) stat effects. Sure, we might have category-motivated repeals already, but at least in today's system we know the category when voting on the resolution. Not knowing the effect until after passage could lead to more repeals, including so-called "insta-" ones.

And asking moderators to clarify their choices is one of the most problematic dimensions of the GA game currently. If that doesn't really work at the moment, what guarantee would we have that it would in the future?

[Elke and Elba]

Question: are stats really needed any more in the GA? I would find it easier on the mods part, and on the part of stat-players, to have the stats removed and the categories wiped out. Deals with less trouble with stat-players opposing Moral Decency proposals because of the perceived negative stat effects, or the increasing ambiguity of "which category to submit to" for proposal writers.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Again bearing in mind that I threw out the idea out of frustration of how impossible the moderation system was becoming rather than as a concerted suggestion for change...

In any case, what happens then if the author or another player feels so strongly against that stat effect that they'd want it undone?

...but that's already the case. I'm not allowed to reveal the proposal category stats, but I can say that they are in some cases absolutely not what you would expect from the generic descriptions they're given. Some of them run contrary to the "we think this is how it works" collective wisdom of WA players that has built up over the years. And some of them affect stats that aren't immediately visible.

Some people don't like the fact that Environmental resolutions are automatically negative for the economy. Even if you write the proposal to promote sustainability, your economy takes a hit. But that's just the way it is. Whereas under the system of custom stats, a proposal that made a case for environmental and economic benefits could conceivably provide both.

The resolution would have to be repealed, so we'd have repeals motivated solely by the (confirmed or perceived) stat effects.

I don't think repeals based on stat effects have ever been legal.

I do hope we can return to the subject of WA moderation, though, because I would never have proposed this idea had I known it would distract from more pressing concerns. The Non-Interference in Electoral Bananas proposal provides a perfect case study of dysfunction.

[Mallorea and Riva]

I do hope we can return to the subject of WA moderation, though, because I would never have proposed this idea had I known it would distract from more pressing concerns. The Non-Interference in Electoral Bananas proposal provides a perfect case study of dysfunction.

Could you outline what you found to be lacking in our approach in this instance?

[The Dark Star Republic]

I do hope we can return to the subject of WA moderation, though, because I would never have proposed this idea had I known it would distract from more pressing concerns. The Non-Interference in Electoral Bananas proposal provides a perfect case study of dysfunction.

Could you outline what you found to be lacking in our approach in this instance?

1. The proposal was drafted on the forum, with the first draft - which is not substantially different from the current version - posted five months ago. The author has several times bumped the thread asking in vain for anyone at all to comment. Just the other day you tried to tell me that my assumption that the moderators don't read the forum was wrong. It really doesn't seem that way.

2. The patronising form telegram shouldn't be used when it's given to people who have gone to the effort of drafting on the forums only for moderators to completely ignore their attempts at following their own advice.

3. The explanation for deletion was incomplete, and even the follow-up didn't clear things up. When such incomprehensible justifications are given, players are left clueless as to how to proceed.

This isn't to discuss the ruling itself (with which I disagree, but clearly that's not a topic for this thread): even if the ruling turns out to be entirely correct, it's a perfect example of it being handled in an utterly unhelpful way that does nothing but discourage players from participating.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Could you outline what you found to be lacking in our approach in this instance?

1. The proposal was drafted on the forum, with the first draft - which is not substantially different from the current version - posted five months ago. The author has several times bumped the thread asking in vain for anyone at all to comment. Just the other day you tried to tell me that my assumption that the moderators don't read the forum was wrong. It really doesn't seem that way.

We do read the forum, but we may not catch every thread, and we may not notice every illegality until it is in the queue. That having been said I know we are working on increasing our forum presence since this criticism is fair.

2. The patronising form telegram shouldn't be used when it's given to people who have gone to the effort of drafting on the forums only for moderators to completely ignore their attempts at following their own advice.

The form telegram is the standard reply but point taken, it could do with some editing in certain cases.

3. The explanation for deletion was incomplete, and even the follow-up didn't clear things up. When such incomprehensible justifications are given, players are left clueless as to how to proceed.

We are working on an official statement to clear everything up, it was delayed due to some more serious discussions which came up in the moderation hivemind (at least for me this was the case). I appreciate the feedback!

[Mousebumples]

Just a quick note from me that I'm going to try to make an effort to be more active here in posting, as my work schedule/RL interference allows. A few notes about me and my posting style, to try to pre-emptively minimize any confusion:

I generally haven't been posting IC in the GA for a few years now. While I could try to go back to posting IC, that's not something that comes as easily to me as just jotting down my thoughts OOC. I figure more comments OOCly would be preferable to less comments ICly, but if I'm wrong, I could certainly adjust accordingly.

My comments are not meant to be official moderation rulings, unless I make it clear that I'm speaking on behalf of the Secretariat. Like we've said elsewhere in this thread, we don't always agree on everything. And while I would like to think that my say-so makes something true ... that's not necessarily the case. I'll try to remember to preface anything that seems ruling-ish (*but isn't) with something Fris suggested to me awhile back: "When I speak with my colleagues, I'll recommend that .... XYZ." But, knowing me, I may get forgetful at some point. Feel free to ask if something is an actual ruling (versus an off-the-cuff comment from me) if it's unclear. Assumptions and miscommunications on both sides have made things worse than I think we'd all prefer for them to be.

Last thing: my commenting on a proposal and failing to note "XYZ illegality" doesn't mean that it's automatically legal. Sometimes we miss something, and I'm getting the impression that you guys want more feedback from Mouse-the-player (*and Mall, Kryo, Ard, Euro, Nerv, etc.-the-players) - in addition to feedback from your fellow players, I'm sure.

Thanks for the feedback so far, guys. I may not have had as much time to post here as I might have preferred as of late, but I am definitely reading and taking your words and statements under consideration, as I think all the GA mods are, honestly.

[Snefaldia]

Thanks for the feedback so far, guys. I may not have had as much time to post here as I might have preferred as of late, but I am definitely reading and taking your words and statements under consideration, as I think all the GA mods are, honestly.

So why has Kryozerkia not yet engaged in this discussion? I mean, really, you and every other mod used to be on the other side of the fence here at some point in the past, do you not remember how annoying it was to deal with unclear or even seemingly arbitrary moderation?

The issue is GA moderation and the GA mod team. Why not focus on that before fiddling around with experiments?

[Sciongrad]

For a start, there are people who want said policy implemented - it's why there have been people asking for it.

If this is true, then it's news to me. Only three people in this thread, including yourself, have expressed support for the idea.

As for why we'd do it, it's so that we know if it's possible, as I've said several times already.

Testing something just because you can is not really a logical explanation. You haven't waited to see if anyone involved here wants such a change before you went ahead wasting time and resources on testing it. Regardless of whether or not experimenting with it affects any of us, it has derailed this entire discussion from the more serious issues - namely, how moderators can improve their behavior and habits to make this game more accessible to new players and more enjoyable to current ones. If you have suggestion for something completely irrelevant to the topic - that is, "changes [in] GA modding" - then it may have been wise to have posted it elsewhere.

Just a quick note from me that I'm going to try to make an effort to be more active here in posting, as my work schedule/RL interference allows.

This is very much appreciated. I think I speak for others when I say that the increase in moderator activity hasn't gone unnoticed, and while there are definitely some other serious issues going on, this is certainly a step in the right direction. Although I echo what others have said, again: can you guys get Kryo to post here, please?

[Mousebumples]

Just a quick note from me that I'm going to try to make an effort to be more active here in posting, as my work schedule/RL interference allows.

This is very much appreciated. I think I speak for others when I say that the increase in moderator activity hasn't gone unnoticed, and while there are definitely some other serious issues going on, this is certainly a step in the right direction. Although I echo what others have said, again: can you guys get Kryo to post here, please?

I swore I saw a few posts by her in the past few days, but I might be confusing my forums. I'd hunt them down, but I've only got a little bit of time before heading off to dinner. Anyhow, I think she's aware that her presence is requested and appreciated here, and hopefully her schedule will allow her to poke her nose in here a bit more often.

[Sudarium]

In my opinion it is beyond time to expand the moderation team. In such a simple game where the community forum is half of the game itself, the fact that a player's request is put on the back-burner should be a sign that efficiency needs to increase, and whether that comes through finding new helpers (or replacing old ones) or some other method, it needs to happen. If efficiency could be improved on the forums itself, why not make dedicated moderators for certain sections of the forum in the process? Again, this forum is half the game so such an idea should be considered.

[Flibbleites]

If efficiency could be improved on the forums itself, why not make dedicated moderators for certain sections of the forum in the process? Again, this forum is half the game so such an idea should be considered.

Actually a lot of us mods do specialize in one area of the game or another, but even so we still can moderate anywhere on the forums if for no other reason than if a porn spammer hits every part of the forum we don't have to wait for half a dozen mods to come online to get it cleaned up.

[Sciongrad]

This is very much appreciated. I think I speak for others when I say that the increase in moderator activity hasn't gone unnoticed, and while there are definitely some other serious issues going on, this is certainly a step in the right direction. Although I echo what others have said, again: can you guys get Kryo to post here, please?

I swore I saw a few posts by her in the past few days, but I might be confusing my forums. I'd hunt them down, but I've only got a little bit of time before heading off to dinner. Anyhow, I think she's aware that her presence is requested and appreciated here, and hopefully her schedule will allow her to poke her nose in here a bit more often.

I'm sorry, I was unclear. I meant to bring attention to the fact that she hasn't posted in this thread yet. Her input would probably be valued, especially considering how she seems to be very active behind the scenes, but has only made a handful of posts in the GA forum in recent memory as a moderator.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Some thoughts from an old player who left the GA because of moderators:

1. If mods don't want to deliberate in public, I understand that. I am actually in a similar position in TSP, which is far more political than the GA mods here. TSP's Cabinet is required to publish the contents of internal discussions every X months. Yes, sometimes what's said is embarrassing to Cabinet members and could harm their electoral prospects. However, that's the entire point. You guys are worried about players seeing you fighting tit-for-tat, using uncouth language, and whatnot. But why? That would go a long way to abolish the idea that mods aren't actually debating with each other, are basing their opinions on personal politics, etc.

Additionally, because you know these threads will be made public at some point, it's a form of self-moderation. You want to look professional, because you don't want to be embarrassed when the threads are released? Well, the result is that mod deliberations are more, well, moderated and professional. That's good, too. Worried that you'll get punished if you say something bad about a player, making it look like there's bias? Again, the result there is that you'll stop saying that stuff, and hopefully that'll lead to less bias if it is there. Wins all around!

When you guys refuse to make deliberations public at all, going so far as Rep trying to cut off all discussions of it, then it looks like y'all have a lot to hide. And, given that many of you have a history of incredibly questionable behavior off-site, I'm sure plenty of players believe that you're hiding plenty when you declare you have a vested interest in those discussions never being made public. Just some food for thought.

2. This more directed towards Mall. Stop telling players to submit a GHR about the AO leaks. You know very well that the entire mod team is protected and that will go nowhere. Maybe consider apologizing or disavowing it and the players who participated? What happened off-site on the AO forums and the UNOG forums was actually a serious problem. There were 50+ page threads where mods were participating in trash-talking players, including me. I had my personal life discussed in those threads, with people linking to blogs, talking about my sexuality, etc. I was attacked as both a player and a person. Those threads blurred the lines between political rivalry and downright bullying. Had it happened here, everybody would have been banned. This happened to several prominent players. Nobody has ever done so much as apologize for it. It's pulling teeth just trying to get any acknowledgement that the behavior was wrong and unacceptable.

A good chunk of the GA mod team knew about and participated in these forums. The GA mod team knew of these forums when making decisions on who to pick as mods, which played a very big part in why your and Mouse's appointments were so controversial. Y'all should have been punished when the leak was made public. You still should be. Your seniors know about these threads-- Ard knew at the time and knows now, and has never even commented on it. So when you tell us to submit a GHR... Well, they ignored it in first place. Why should we believe anything will be done years in the future?

As much as everybody here seems to want to bury this under the rug, this is the real root of the degrading relationship between mods and players. This community was very vibrant. We used to have long debates about policy, an debates about rules. There were political camps, and people would develop coherent ideological doctrines. It was really great. I disagreed a great deal with some mods, but at least everything was professional. Then I learned about the AO and UNOG shit-talking forums and how many mods participated, and how cushy-cushy mods were with players, and how it "just so happened" that the mods' viewpoints tended to match the viewpoints of those who had access to the secret forums. The community was small back then, and a decent chunk of players stopped trusting the mods when we found out about that stuff. From my perspective, the discord has only increased since then, and it all comes back to a realization that the GA Mod Team is more like a GA Mod Club, just another social clique that happens to have a lot of power over how people get to play the game.

That issue was never dealt with, and I doubt it ever will be. Had action been taken when the leaks were made public (which happened maybe a year or two after the leaks actually happened; idk my timeline could be off), I don't think there'd be so much distrust. A big part of me thinks the ship has sailed there, which is why I've been calling for a complete replacement of the mod team. But who knows? A little validation might go a long way.

3. I agree that new mods are needed. Somebody said that GA Regulars are so political, that it's not a good idea. Why? Mousebumples belongs to a very clear political bloc. GA Regulars knew that when she was nominated and appointed. Yeah, some of the mods have been here so long, so detached from the contemporary environment, it seems like they're objective, but they too had clear political views and clear ideas on rules interpretation when they were made mods way back when. Appointing prominent GA Regulars from a different politic bloc would help diversify the mod team. Just as in the real world it's beneficial to have Justices on the Supreme Court with differing views on constitutional and statutory interpretation. Just because, in this game, different canons of rules interpretation have somehow become political ideologies, doesn't mean we should avoid appointing mods based on that characteristic.

4. Yes, Sedge, please let's get rid of all these things. I'm dead serious. Why can't we have more mods that interested in cutting rules, rather than finding ways to make more? Lying in a repeal might be too libertarian for the GA, but honestly, the GA mods idolize Game Mechanics too much and develop rules around it that don't make sense for how the game is actually played!

5. I've said it before, but I think this whole community would benefit from a blank slate. Get rid of everything and start from ground zero. New mods. New rules. New proposals. Hold a freaking Rules Convention, where players vote on the rules. (Since, after all, the rules are there to make a better community, and the players are the community.) Put mods up for election. Make it so that the community has a real sense of ownership over itself. It's not that difficult. The world won't end if the GA gets rid of its top-down structure and strict adherence to traditionalism. This is a game and it's completely what we make of it.

[Phydios]

If mods don't want to deliberate in public, I understand that. I am actually in a similar position in TSP, which is far more political than the GA mods here. TSP's Cabinet is required to publish the contents of internal discussions every X months. Yes, sometimes what's said is embarrassing to Cabinet members and could harm their electoral prospects. However, that's the entire point. You guys are worried about players seeing you fighting tit-for-tat, using uncouth language, and whatnot. But why? That would go a long way to abolish the idea that mods aren't actually debating with each other, are basing their opinions on personal politics, etc.

Additionally, because you know these threads will be made public at some point, it's a form of self-moderation. You want to look professional, because you don't want to be embarrassed when the threads are released? Well, the result is that mod deliberations are more, well, moderated and professional. That's good, too. Worried that you'll get punished if you say something bad about a player, making it look like there's bias? Again, the result there is that you'll stop saying that stuff, and hopefully that'll lead to less bias if it is there. Wins all around!

When you guys refuse to make deliberations public at all, going so far as Rep trying to cut off all discussions of it, then it looks like y'all have a lot to hide. And, given that many of you have a history of incredibly questionable behavior off-site, I'm sure plenty of players believe that you're hiding plenty when you declare you have a vested interest in those discussions never being made public. Just some food for thought.

I don't remember any mod saying anywhere that they didn't want deliberations published because they might make moderators look unprofessional. What they don't want is mods being pressured because of their opinion on a ruling. This is explicitly stated at least twice on the first page alone.
Let me give an example. There's currently a conflict in the GA; perhaps over the legality of a resolution. Many well-known players believe one thing (A), and the entire moderation team has gathered to decide a final ruling on the issue. In the public deliberations, some moderators believe A, and some believe B. The players who believe A read these deliberations and notice that some moderators disagree with them, and get angry. The B moderators are now receiving all sorts of accusations because their individual opinions differ from what many players believe.
Now, here's some quotes from mods that say the same thing (emphasis mine):

The reason we always ask players to debate legality issues before coming to us is that we want to get player input before we make rulings, but when we make rulings we want them to be final and not turn into a spectator sport of screaming matches. We make them in private so that individual mods don't need to fear ridicule or harassment for their opinions before we wrangle out a final ruling.

I'm stating that there is a reason we keep things private: it's so that we don't have to be afraid that if we individually make a mistake that we'll get jumped all over. If we made every ruling public then suddenly we'd have that issue; it'd stifle our discussions.

Not gonna happen. [Making ruling discussions publicly observable] would just lead to people trying to shop around and play disagreeing mods off one another.

I've seen replies to these comments that claim that such a fear is unrealistic. I have a hard time agreeing with that when I see how players are acting here. When I read this thread, I don't see much of players cooperating with mods. There's some, yes. There's some cases of the players with major grievances accepting that they could be wrong about some point, or that they appreciate some effort a moderator has made to improve relations. But mostly, I see hostile attitudes, veiled accusations, implicit demands for things to be done a certain way, and refusal to consider anything the mods say about why that way might not work in practice.
And let me say this again, since it didn't seem to be understood the first time. You can be blunt and still cooperate. You can be straightforward and still cooperate. You can be harsh and still cooperate. You can have serious issues with the GA mods- and yet still cooperate when they ask how they could improve. Cooperation just means giving and taking advice. When concerns about your proposals are brought up, you consider them, rather than saying "you must have something to hide if you aren't in favor of this". When mods ask "would this work?" you consider it, rather than just saying "that's not good enough" (which is perfectly valid feedback sometimes). And you refrain completely from saying things that do not contribute to the conversation. Maybe I'm just naive, but I can't imagine how this kind of hostility - not bluntness or harshness, but hostility - towards the mods improves relations.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I have to agree with Glen-Rhodes on this topic. The concept of releasing the deliberations well after the fact, as I recall the American Federal Reserve has done since the Greenspan era, is a suitable compromise, in my opinion. There is precedent in IRL organisations for the release of these sorts of deliberations when their relevance in political discussions is no longer an issue.

[Glen-Rhodes]

If a mod individually makes a mistake, makes a really dumb argument, or whatever, why shouldn't they be "jumped all over"? Being a mod should be conditional on continued review of their merits.

I don't understand this desire to "protect" the mods. That's one of the reasons why things are dysfunctional. Mods think they need to protect themselves from players. That's not good.