[Discussion] Moderation team criticism.

[CoraSpia]

That would mean that Mods cannot be players... that's not really fair to us as a group, especially for the group of us who came from General as opposed to, say, the GA. Now, personally, I refuse to rule on anything that is not bookkeeping in any thread I am in, other Mods have slightly less stringent lines, but none of us would rule on someone we're debating with.

Not at all, just a case of if you participate, rule yourself out of ruling and leave it to another mod. If it's extreme and you *need* to get involved right that instant, then the thread is probably going to be locked anyway.

An accusation thrown earlier, was that one such mod *had* in fact ruled on someone they were debating with. Furthermore, mods don't have to use their modly accounts in order to participate. The system that I've found in communities that I've run or been a moderator of that works is having a "mod account" and a "player account". Sure it can be a bit deceptive but it allows mods to make it clear to themselves and others when things need to be separated, much like putting on a uniform really. Again, I find the current system that you as a mod abide by works, others are *allegedly* not so ethical.

Actually, we DO tend to sweep threads, sometimes whole threads, when responding. That said, we still do miss things even then. The second opinion bit, I'm not sure public announcements all the time would be all that useful, at least in the thread in question. Moderation would probably be a better place for noting it, and we tend to do so there.

If you've swept entire threads, note that you have done as much and whatever you found (even if you found nothing). Due diligence keeps your ass off the line. Everyone recognizes the human element that humans make errors and obviously will miss things. You could even flag a heads up to other members that if they see any wrong doing to report it in the appropriate place. Granted public announcements all the time are a bit much, one or two where there have been known instances of problems might not be too much to ask though.

About noting things in Moderation. I find it frequent, that the players themselves are not tg'd a copy of any ban/warn rulings. That's just a small thing that might benefit users if the process hasn't changed since the last time I was warned.

No, we have Mods who disagree with particular rules, not the rules as a whole. There's a difference there. Again, volunteer group separated geographically, politically, socially, etc. Our little area is FILLED with us screaming at each other over if this rule should be applied, or not, or how, or even if we should have it. But, as with interests, we're expected to step back if it's a rule we personally disagree with and let another Mod take a look.

My problem here is that if the mods cannot abide by the rules and specifically object to certain rules, they are not fit to be Moderators. You can't pick and choose which rules you enforce because of which ones you individually like or dislike. If you find a rule you disagree with, the first thing you need to ask yourself is, "why", "can I do anything about it", "would I enforce it?" If the answer to that last one is no, you need to step down not just step back. How do you expect the players to accept all of the rules, if you as players and as moderators, do not?

Possibly, but it would also be troublesome from a practical standpoint. I.e. If I look at you gameside (Er, I mean your nation, not YOU. Max won't spring for ninja and hidden webcams, yet. ) I can see more information and have access to more tools than I do here in the forum. The forum and the game don't... exactly... talk to each other. Links from the forum take me to the game as a player, not a Mod.

Still, it's worth chewing on, though I'm trying to figure out what cases would best be handled here.

Most of them except the Obscenity rules I guess, although things could be censored out for obvious reasons. The practical limitations are certainly, annoying.

I think we're trying to get to a system where we're TGing people, that said, usually it's along the lines of... Hrmm... Ok, I think this won't violate security so let me kinda walk you though what I see when I look at the list.

When you submit a GHR, it gets added to the list. It's assigned a number and it comes in based on time submitted. I see who it is from, and just LOOKING at the list (not clicking anything) I can read the whole of the GHR. I can then decide if I want to take the task or leave it based on, well, do I have time/ability to do this. I have a few buttons I can click, saying the task is open, in progress, resolved, or dismissed (In case you're wondering, the dismissed is for tasks that we perform no actions on, people saying thank you or those stupid web bots who assume any kind of form would be perfect to tell us that we too can have weather proof windows installed in the UK!). From there I can wander into actually looking at your nation, or go to other tools to help me with whatever the problem may be. That's kinda the issue with sending you a TG is that right now EVERYONE (well, Game Mods) reads the task just by loading the page, there's not really a 'separate' page to call up for individual tasks or a way to append a note saying we got this and it has been read and still left open for another Moderator to take a look. The system just isn't designed that way. Also, 95% of the tasks that come in are resolved in 5 minutes or less. It's me reading something akin to

Nation: Whateverstan Number #NCC1701D Task: Nation Billybobbeck flamed me on the RMB here (link)!

Click on link, Billybobbeck: You scruffy nerf-herder! Me: Yup, that's a flame. Warned. Total time, maybe 3 minutes from start to finish, so sending a TG saying "We got it" and then another when done saying "We dealt with it" would very quickly start to pile up with multiple Mod mails going out quickly.

For issues that we dang KNOW will take a while, I agree. We should be sending out "We got this" TGs, and I think we by and large do, though it is a bit problematic given the system.

The time... yeah, that really is just not going to be very workable simply because of the volunteer nature of the job.

How about telling them when the task has been "accepted" in that case? I can see the problems your end. Obviously, send two tg's for something that takes three minutes is well, silly, the one would be fine. My problem is with the longer cases where, people pester the mods after a few weeks only to be told, "Oh we're still considering that." The user hasn't been notified that their case is being looked at.

Also, these tg's could be sent automatically. So when you click accept, the system itself fires off a message rather than you individually. This would mean, better customer service while having no effect on you as a moderator.

Again with the time thing, commit to an hour a week, just doing modly stuff, set up a rota of people doing an hour at different times. Things like this would be managed much more effectively. I mean, most mods seem to spend (in your case anyway) days at a time just doing modly stuff, so I shouldn't think it would be too much to ask. Might wanna grab violet or ballo to improve the back end a little.

Do you read the ruling first though?

Yes. I mean, no point appealing if it went my way after all.

IIRC, yes. Or at least I cannot recall anytime a Mod was guilty of a rule violation that was not publicly posted about by Admin. Not guilty is a bit more wonky given that's Admin's call.

Again thanks for the clarification.

If it will talk to the game!

But, yes, it will be brought up, now that I'm caught up here.

Because of the back end design... (any chance of a major overhaul XD) I can't guarantee that, but you should be able to hijack it to id numbers wthout much fuss. Getting it to send a telegram may need to be wired into an api but I think the techies could make it work. I just don't know how much you would need it to talk to the game.

Once again. Thank you for your time and your patience and library load of information.

The fact that players aren't tged about forum bans is a serious problem which has led to players being caught out before (Frak, who practically no one would ever defend for reasons which are unclear, is a very good example. When you've got multiple accounts, it's quite easy to be caught out by a ban and post just after it.

[Lockdownn]

We're straying off the topic of the thread.

Would a moderation question thread not about individual cases but about general non-ruling questions be allowed?
---------------------------
For the telegram suggestion, would a "sub-telegram" section of a [Voice of Mod] telegram be feasible in any way? Or atleast a telegram edit feature for the mods to edit in status of the GHR? The thing with that is when a mod edits the telegram that you'd get a notification like you would receiving a telegram.

[CoraSpia]

Personally, when I get serious mod ation (which has been a lot, btw), I always appeal it all the way up to admin just because their's always the slightest chance it might be seen differently.

One of my (many, many) criticisms of the moderation process is how untransparent appeals actually are. I think it'd be very useful if when an appeal is rejected, a transcript of the conversation that went on between the mods reviewing it could be sent to the player, so they know what the exact reasoning is.
I think, though I'm not sure how it would be done, the player should be able to get directly involved in the appeal, like in a tribunal system where they can put it into context/ explain what had been going on previously/clarify things that the mods missed.

[Indo-Malaysia]

But I think the mods are fair and good. If you don't like the mods, compare them to the mods of other websites, and you might think of them better.

[Luna Amore]

We're straying off the topic of the thread.

For the telegram suggestion, would a "sub-telegram" section of a [Voice of Mod] telegram be feasible in any way? Or atleast a telegram edit feature for the mods to edit in status of the GHR? The thing with that is when a mod edits the telegram that you'd get a notification like you would receiving a telegram.

I couldn't speak to whether or not it's possible, but it sounds like a good idea.

[Sedgistan]

Personally, when I get serious mod ation (which has been a lot, btw), I always appeal it all the way up to admin just because their's always the slightest chance it might be seen differently.

The only administrator that's been involved in handling your appeals is Forum Admin Reploid Productions, in her role as a Senior Game Moderator. The appeals process clearly states that appeals are handled by moderators; if you try to appeal directly to the admins, they'll pass it over to moderators. If you think a Site Administrator has been involved in any of your appeals, you're very much mistaken; the most they've done is pass it over to the moderation team to address.

[CoraSpia]

Personally, when I get serious mod ation (which has been a lot, btw), I always appeal it all the way up to admin just because their's always the slightest chance it might be seen differently.

The only administrator that's been involved in handling your appeals is Forum Admin Reploid Productions, in her role as a Senior Game Moderator. The appeals process clearly states that appeals are handled by moderators; if you try to appeal directly to the admins, they'll pass it over to moderators. If you think a Site Administrator has been involved in any of your appeals, you're very much mistaken; the most they've done is pass it over to the moderation team to address.

I was under the impression that an admin was the final call for all appeals?

[Katganistan]

The only administrator that's been involved in handling your appeals is Forum Admin Reploid Productions, in her role as a Senior Game Moderator. The appeals process clearly states that appeals are handled by moderators; if you try to appeal directly to the admins, they'll pass it over to moderators. If you think a Site Administrator has been involved in any of your appeals, you're very much mistaken; the most they've done is pass it over to the moderation team to address.

I was under the impression that an admin was the final call for all appeals?

I suggest you reread the section on Final Appeals, then.

[Phydios]

The only administrator that's been involved in handling your appeals is Forum Admin Reploid Productions, in her role as a Senior Game Moderator. The appeals process clearly states that appeals are handled by moderators; if you try to appeal directly to the admins, they'll pass it over to moderators. If you think a Site Administrator has been involved in any of your appeals, you're very much mistaken; the most they've done is pass it over to the moderation team to address.

I was under the impression that an admin was the final call for all appeals?

No. Final appeals, which are submitted through GHR, are handled by a team of three moderators, none of which have any previous connection to the case. At least one of those moderators must be a senior to ensure that the team has sufficient experience, but all three have an equal say.

[CoraSpia]

I was under the impression that an admin was the final call for all appeals?

I suggest you reread the section on Final Appeals, then.

Has that always been the case?

And I'm guessing all my appeals have been final ones, correct?

[Idzequitch]

That would mean that Mods cannot be players... that's not really fair to us as a group, especially for the group of us who came from General as opposed to, say, the GA. Now, personally, I refuse to rule on anything that is not bookkeeping in any thread I am in, other Mods have slightly less stringent lines, but none of us would rule on someone we're debating with.

Not at all, just a case of if you participate, rule yourself out of ruling and leave it to another mod. If it's extreme and you *need* to get involved right that instant, then the thread is probably going to be locked anyway.

An accusation thrown earlier, was that one such mod *had* in fact ruled on someone they were debating with. Furthermore, mods don't have to use their modly accounts in order to participate. The system that I've found in communities that I've run or been a moderator of that works is having a "mod account" and a "player account". Sure it can be a bit deceptive but it allows mods to make it clear to themselves and others when things need to be separated, much like putting on a uniform really. Again, I find the current system that you as a mod abide by works, others are *allegedly* not so ethical.

That is ridiculously and unnecessarily cumbersome. The sooner everyone realizes that mods are players like us, the better. Let's stop pretending that there's some ridiculously high bar they need to jump over every time they post. Yes, there need to be standards for when they post in their official capacity, but beyond that. it's stupid to expect them to change their posting habits out of some misguided notion of professionalism.

[CoraSpia]

Not at all, just a case of if you participate, rule yourself out of ruling and leave it to another mod. If it's extreme and you *need* to get involved right that instant, then the thread is probably going to be locked anyway.

An accusation thrown earlier, was that one such mod *had* in fact ruled on someone they were debating with. Furthermore, mods don't have to use their modly accounts in order to participate. The system that I've found in communities that I've run or been a moderator of that works is having a "mod account" and a "player account". Sure it can be a bit deceptive but it allows mods to make it clear to themselves and others when things need to be separated, much like putting on a uniform really. Again, I find the current system that you as a mod abide by works, others are *allegedly* not so ethical.

That is ridiculously and unnecessarily cumbersome. The sooner everyone realizes that mods are players like us, the better. Let's stop pretending that there's some ridiculously high bar they need to jump over every time they post. Yes, there need to be standards for when they post in their official capacity, but beyond that. it's stupid to expect them to change their posting habits out of some misguided notion of professionalism.

And their are some things that involved mods are bast placed to rule on, Arch with the UK politics thread, for example.

[The Blaatschapen]

We're straying off the topic of the thread.

Would a moderation question thread not about individual cases but about general non-ruling questions be allowed?

Not sure, but something like a generic "ask moderation questions" has been done recently offsite: http://s15.zetaboards.com/NSWF4/topic/8244109/1/#new

I'm also not going to be chained to a computer, for those who expressed the wish.

And their are some things that involved mods are bast placed to rule on, Arch with the UK politics thread, for example.

It's always a judgment case, depending on severity/urgency of the infraction, and who's available. Though ideally you would have every mod being knowledgeable about everything {in order to judge things}, in practice not even Arch is.

Also, it's one thing to lock a thread, or post a generic 'knock it off', and it's another to take punitive actions.

[Enfaru]

That is ridiculously and unnecessarily cumbersome. The sooner everyone realizes that mods are players like us, the better. Let's stop pretending that there's some ridiculously high bar they need to jump over every time they post. Yes, there need to be standards for when they post in their official capacity, but beyond that. it's stupid to expect them to change their posting habits out of some misguided notion of professionalism.

It's about as cumbersome as saying "No". There are plenty of mods around, one mod not participating in a thread is perfectly reasonable and not cumbersome. Most mods do not participate in the same thread. It's rare to see two mods post in the same thread. (Except in Moderation). If NERVUN posted in the thread, then he can excuse himself and fire up the flare for say The Blaatschapen to take a look at it. If both of them are involved then Mall, if they're all involved then Crazy Girl. This isn't a high bar, it's a low bar and some of the mods already abide by it because of their own ethical conscience.

If you consider, "I posted in this thread, so I should get another mod to rule on it instead" a high bar, then you need to be introduced to the concept of bias as I don't think you understand it. I'm not asking anyone to change their posting habits at all. If they want to post, they can post... after all they have the option to fire the flare for another mod. If they need to rule, then they should step out of the thread. It's simple, it's effective and it reduces complaints.

Edit:

Also. Mods are not players just like us. They are players yes, but unlike normal players, they are also mods. They have been conscripted volunteered to join the team to give back to the community and to make the community a better place. Mods should then, be the shining example of professionalism...like Reppy *points*. Obviously, I don't expect them to be perfect but this is a site of 23,000 unique* members the majority (90%?) of whom get to post on and or view the forums, to the tune of hundreds of posts a day. That means that whether they like it or not, they represent the site and their actions reflect on how the site is perceived by potential new customers.

I suspect, most a number of mods and admins have player accounts in order to enjoy the game as well, so I don't think there's much of a problem with expecting a mod account to be held to a higher standard. (It's not as if I'm proposing an impossible bar... minor changes here and there, a couple of management tricks for the admins to employ, is basically all).

And their are some things that involved mods are bast placed to rule on, Arch with the UK politics thread, for example.

Bad example, but I do take your point. I haven't said that those mods cannot be asked for their opinion, but the ruling, the judgement call, should be left to another mod entirely. It's up to the mod making the ruling to gather the evidence, to form a decision and to solve the problem.


* assuming all the WA accounts are unique...

[Esternial]

Would a moderation question thread not about individual cases but about general non-ruling questions be allowed?

Not sure, but something like a generic "ask moderation questions" has been done recently offsite: http://s15.zetaboards.com/NSWF4/topic/8244109/1/#new

My only issue with that is that helpful responses made by admins or mods sink away into obscurity. I think posts made that contain helpful info or include a more detailed explanation of a rule should be saved somewhere more permanent, or at the very least linked to from the OSRS or something.

Recently I sent a TG to Reppy - I think - about a post that I felt should be placed somewhere were it can be more easily seen by other poster. Honestly I forgot where and what it was about, which happens to highlight the problem: people forget stuff.

Also boo to the no chaining.

[Luna Amore]

It's about as cumbersome as saying "No". There are plenty of mods around, one mod not participating in a thread is perfectly reasonable and not cumbersome. Most mods do not participate in the same thread. It's rare to see two mods post in the same thread. (Except in Moderation). If NERVUN posted in the thread, then he can excuse himself and fire up the flare for say The Blaatschapen to take a look at it. If both of them are involved then Mall, if they're all involved then Crazy Girl. This isn't a high bar, it's a low bar and some of the mods already abide by it because of their own ethical conscience.

This is already the case for exactly the reasons you mentioned. It's standard procedure not to rule on a thread you are currently taking part in.

[The Realm of Lordaeron]

It's about as cumbersome as saying "No". There are plenty of mods around, one mod not participating in a thread is perfectly reasonable and not cumbersome. Most mods do not participate in the same thread. It's rare to see two mods post in the same thread. (Except in Moderation). If NERVUN posted in the thread, then he can excuse himself and fire up the flare for say The Blaatschapen to take a look at it. If both of them are involved then Mall, if they're all involved then Crazy Girl. This isn't a high bar, it's a low bar and some of the mods already abide by it because of their own ethical conscience.

This is already the case for exactly the reasons you mentioned. It's standard procedure not to rule on a thread you are currently taking part in.

What happens if all the mods participate in the same thread?

[Esternial]

This is already the case for exactly the reasons you mentioned. It's standard procedure not to rule on a thread you are currently taking part in.

What happens if all the mods participate in the same thread?

That never happens. Jenrak, to name just one, never posts in General. Some Mods have their own ecosystem.

[Luna Amore]

This is already the case for exactly the reasons you mentioned. It's standard procedure not to rule on a thread you are currently taking part in.

What happens if all the mods participate in the same thread?

Then we will have accidentally created a lawless black hole of a thread that will slowly consume the forum.

But that's never happened. And likely will never happen. We all cover slightly different parts of the site so the odds of us all finding one thread and participating in it are unbelievably unlikely. And besides, all that red and blue would naturally scare off any other player.

[Leppikania]

What happens if all the mods participate in the same thread?

Then we will have accidentally created a lawless black hole of a thread that will slowly consume the forum.

But that's never happened. And likely will never happen. We all cover slightly different parts of the site so the odds of us all finding one thread and participating in it are unbelievably unlikely. And besides, all that red and blue would naturally scare off any other player.

What about the purple?

[Giovenith]

What happens if all the mods participate in the same thread?

That never happens. Jenrak, to name just one, never posts in General. Some Mods have their own ecosystem.

I'm imagining David Attenborough now.

"And here we have a pod of mods grazing at the watering hole, the rest of Generalites and F7ers giving room to the larger animals, need not fearing retribution so long as they stay in line as the food chain permits. They pod moves in slowly but with grace as the forum mods begin their bathing ritual, gently splashing their young and one another to clean away the grimey soot that collects from a day of extinguishing the flame wars. Frolicking in the brutal summer heat is no hamper for them, as they have evolved to naturally combat extreme temperatures by constant exposure from the aforementioned flames, a gorgeous display of Darwin's survival of the fittest..."

[North Arkana]

What happens if all the mods participate in the same thread?

Then we will have accidentally created a lawless black hole of a thread that will slowly consume the forum.

But that's never happened. And likely will never happen. We all cover slightly different parts of the site so the odds of us all finding one thread and participating in it are unbelievably unlikely. And besides, all that red and blue would naturally scare off any other player.

I think the thread which got me wondering about that whole, "no ruling if participating", thing the most was the Bundy Standoff thread. I was going to ask about it, then I realized there were still unicorn mods out there I never see because I tend to stick to certain parts of the forum.

[Luna Amore]

My problem here is that if the mods cannot abide by the rules and specifically object to certain rules, they are not fit to be Moderators. You can't pick and choose which rules you enforce because of which ones you individually like or dislike. If you find a rule you disagree with, the first thing you need to ask yourself is, "why", "can I do anything about it", "would I enforce it?" If the answer to that last one is no, you need to step down not just step back. How do you expect the players to accept all of the rules, if you as players and as moderators, do not?

This has been a bit misconstrued. There are no rules that mods do not abide by without punishment. Mods do however have the option of recusing themselves - for any reason - from any report. That's as it should be with a volunteer staff. You certainly don't want me making Secretariat rulings in the WA. The fact that I will never enforce those rules does not negate them. It just means that subset of the forum is out of my ecosystem (as another player put it).

By definition, no mod is going to rule on every type of report. Let's say you aren't an NSG mod. You probably are never going to rule on a political nicknaming or misgendering report. That's perfectly fine. No mod one should have to respond to a report barring extremely disruptive ones like porn spammers and the like. It doesn't negate the rule and it certainly doesn't make someone unfit to be a mod. Otherwise, we'd have exactly zero mods.

[The Realm of Lordaeron]

My problem here is that if the mods cannot abide by the rules and specifically object to certain rules, they are not fit to be Moderators. You can't pick and choose which rules you enforce because of which ones you individually like or dislike. If you find a rule you disagree with, the first thing you need to ask yourself is, "why", "can I do anything about it", "would I enforce it?" If the answer to that last one is no, you need to step down not just step back. How do you expect the players to accept all of the rules, if you as players and as moderators, do not?

This has been a bit misconstrued. There are no rules that mods do not abide by without punishment. Mods do however have the option of recusing themselves - for any reason - from any report. That's as it should be with a volunteer staff. You certainly don't want me making Secretariat rulings in the WA. The fact that I will never enforce those rules does not negate them. It just means that subset of the forum is out of my ecosystem (as another player put it).

By definition, no mod is going to rule on every type of report. Let's say you aren't an NSG mod. You probably are never going to rule on a political nicknaming or misgendering report. That's perfectly fine. No mod one should have to respond to a report barring extremely disruptive ones like porn spammers and the like. It doesn't negate the rule and it certainly doesn't make someone unfit to be a mod. Otherwise, we'd have exactly zero mods.

Are there any mods above the law? So If max went into general and broke the rules, could he be subject to moderator action? Are any admins above the rules?

[Shazbotdom]

This has been a bit misconstrued. There are no rules that mods do not abide by without punishment. Mods do however have the option of recusing themselves - for any reason - from any report. That's as it should be with a volunteer staff. You certainly don't want me making Secretariat rulings in the WA. The fact that I will never enforce those rules does not negate them. It just means that subset of the forum is out of my ecosystem (as another player put it).

By definition, no mod is going to rule on every type of report. Let's say you aren't an NSG mod. You probably are never going to rule on a political nicknaming or misgendering report. That's perfectly fine. No mod one should have to respond to a report barring extremely disruptive ones like porn spammers and the like. It doesn't negate the rule and it certainly doesn't make someone unfit to be a mod. Otherwise, we'd have exactly zero mods.

Are there any mods above the law? So If max went into general and broke the rules, could he be subject to moderator action? Are any admins above the rules?

I would think that Max wouldn't go around breaking the rules he created.

And I've seen Mods and Admins smacked for breaking the rules.