Arguments for moderation policy reform

[Vonners]

regarding email addys -

GMC Military Arms
Lunatic Goofballs
Jenrak
The Archregimancy

all don't have email addys listed on that page listing all the mods emails...

That would be because I don't have one.

Say..... you don't think the other mods are trying to tell me something, do you?

well all the other mods have a [username]@nationstates.net addy...

But I guess you don't have a email client or if you do you might not know how to configure it?

If you don't have a client Moz thunderbird is pretty usable...and not that hard to set up...

that is of course if you want to have the email functionality...I mean I do know is there is a clear rule that you as a mod need to have an email addy...

[The Norwegian Blue]

I think positions have gotten tangled up due to multiple people posting overlapping propositions, so I want to clarify mine once more. I do not think mods should post IRC logs, or reveal which mod thought what in the case of an appeal. I agree that these things could cause "mod-shopping" and be problematic. My position is a simple and consistent one, which is that mods should not be involved in privately discussing or making rulings on cases in which they are involved. I am perfectly willing to have the "honor system" as the only assurance that this is the case; I think it would be utterly silly to demand some sort of "proof." But over the course of this whole thread, I haven't seen a single good reason presented why any mod should not voluntarily stay out of private discussions and avoid making rulings in any of the following cases:

- an appeal of their ruling
- a case where they were the player being flamed/baited/etc.
- a case in which they have strong personal feelings (whether positive or negative) about one of the involved players
- a case in which they were the player accused of a rules violation
- a case in which, for any other reason, they feel that they are not able to be free of bias

I hate that this thread has gotten adversarial. I do not honestly understand why it has. I am really frustrated, though, that I feel like I've repeatedly made the basic point that refusing to recuse oneself in those circumstances fuels a perception of bias, whether or not it actually exists, and leads to the very "players vs. mods" attitude that I thought we'd all like to get rid of, and asked what exactly the harm would be in the mods all agreeing to recuse themselves from private discussion or rulings on such cases, and by and large this point and question have seemingly been ignored. Nothing about "don't rule on these cases" involves extra work for the mods, complicated changes in procedure, or anything like that. All it does, that I can see, is make things look a great deal more fair, which is likely to make mods' lives easier. Please, if this is legitimately a bad idea, can someone tell me why?

[NERVUN]

I think positions have gotten tangled up due to multiple people posting overlapping propositions, so I want to clarify mine once more. I do not think mods should post IRC logs, or reveal which mod thought what in the case of an appeal. I agree that these things could cause "mod-shopping" and be problematic. My position is a simple and consistent one, which is that mods should not be involved in privately discussing or making rulings on cases in which they are involved. I am perfectly willing to have the "honor system" as the only assurance that this is the case; I think it would be utterly silly to demand some sort of "proof." But over the course of this whole thread, I haven't seen a single good reason presented why any mod should not voluntarily stay out of private discussions and avoid making rulings in any of the following cases:

- an appeal of their ruling
- a case where they were the player being flamed/baited/etc.
- a case in which they have strong personal feelings (whether positive or negative) about one of the involved players
- a case in which they were the player accused of a rules violation
- a case in which, for any other reason, they feel that they are not able to be free of bias

I hate that this thread has gotten adversarial. I do not honestly understand why it has. I am really frustrated, though, that I feel like I've repeatedly made the basic point that refusing to recuse oneself in those circumstances fuels a perception of bias, whether or not it actually exists, and leads to the very "players vs. mods" attitude that I thought we'd all like to get rid of, and asked what exactly the harm would be in the mods all agreeing to recuse themselves from private discussion or rulings on such cases, and by and large this point and question have seemingly been ignored. Nothing about "don't rule on these cases" involves extra work for the mods, complicated changes in procedure, or anything like that. All it does, that I can see, is make things look a great deal more fair, which is likely to make mods' lives easier. Please, if this is legitimately a bad idea, can someone tell me why?

I am honestly confused, and I think that this might be us nor communicating it clearly, but... we already do those things. We're not allowed to rule in regards to an appeal on one of our rulings.* If we cannot be neutral with someone, we are supposed to step back. If we are accused of a rule violation we shouldn't be the one to self-Moderate, and if we feel that we cannot be neutral due to a particular topic hitting too close to home as it were, we're not supposed to rule in it. And yes, right now it IS an honor system and we're talking about everyone's suggestions about how to prove it.

The sticking point seems to be (and my *) is during the appeals process we (as the Mod whose ruling is being appealed) can answer questions put forth by other mods as to the original reasoning behind that, but beyond that we cannot, nor should not, be involved in the appeal.

[Snafturi]

[102]Snafturi did.[/url] I suppose we can forgive Melkor given the similar sounds in both of your names =P

To be clear, I wasn't for making everything everything public. The logistics of the proposals for General was an example. I was for some parts of the mods opinions/voting being public or any cases where both parties with it to be public, but having since read the mods arguments against the latter I see their point. I did make the point that far more serious issues have been discussed in public and haven't destroyed a community, and that the vast majority of things discussed were just logistical type things (we have gotten to see the restructuring of the moderation program, for example, and it has been having nothing but positive results for all sides).

I am however, still arguing that on appeal, all requests for additional information from the mod who made the ruling should be made in public. It levels the playing field in the player's eyes.

[Bluth Corporation]

regarding email addys -

GMC Military Arms
Lunatic Goofballs
Jenrak
The Archregimancy

all don't have email addys listed on that page listing all the mods emails...

That would be because I don't have one.

If I remember correctly, you're a professional, university-affiliated archaeologist, are you not?

[The Archregimancy]

If I remember correctly, you're a professional, university-affiliated archaeologist, are you not?

But I guess you don't have a email client or if you do you might not know how to configure it?

If you don't have a client Moz thunderbird is pretty usable...and not that hard to set up...

Note to self: NEVER try and make a light-hearted comment in this thread. Humour has no place here.

[The Blaatschapen]

If I remember correctly, you're a professional, university-affiliated archaeologist, are you not?

But I guess you don't have a email client or if you do you might not know how to configure it?

If you don't have a client Moz thunderbird is pretty usable...and not that hard to set up...

Note to self: NEVER try and make a light-hearted comment in this thread. Humour has no place here.

The problem with using humour here is that it just might be considered as spamming moderation

[Czardas]

That would be because I don't have one.

Say..... you don't think the other mods are trying to tell me something, do you? :unsure:

well all the other mods have a [username]@nationstates.net addy...

But I guess you don't have a email client or if you do you might not know how to configure it?

If you don't have a client Moz thunderbird is pretty usable...and not that hard to set up...

that is of course if you want to have the email functionality...I mean I do know is there is a clear rule that you as a mod need to have an email addy...

[username]@nationstates.net addresses need to be set up by administrators. I guess no-one's gotten around to doing it for those four. (Arch, LG, etc., you guys can request them in M/A if you like.)

[Vonners]

If I remember correctly, you're a professional, university-affiliated archaeologist, are you not?

But I guess you don't have a email client or if you do you might not know how to configure it?

If you don't have a client Moz thunderbird is pretty usable...and not that hard to set up...

Note to self: NEVER try and make a light-hearted comment in this thread. Humour has no place here.

It didn't scan...my fault...

[Lunatic Goofballs]

regarding email addys -

GMC Military Arms
Lunatic Goofballs
Jenrak
The Archregimancy

all don't have email addys listed on that page listing all the mods emails...

I'm not entirely sure why mine isn't listed. It's lunatic_goofballs@nationstates.net

I've been told that lg@nationstates.net will also work. (testing it now -Confirmed!))

Edit: Added to the OSRS. I promise to check my e-mail at least biannually.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

Note to self: NEVER try and make a light-hearted comment in this thread. Humour has no place here.

The problem with using humour here is that it just might be considered as spamming moderation

Unless it's me doing it. I'm a professional.

[Melkor Unchained]

I think positions have gotten tangled up due to multiple people posting overlapping propositions, so I want to clarify mine once more. I do not think mods should post IRC logs, or reveal which mod thought what in the case of an appeal. I agree that these things could cause "mod-shopping" and be problematic. My position is a simple and consistent one, which is that mods should not be involved in privately discussing or making rulings on cases in which they are involved. I am perfectly willing to have the "honor system" as the only assurance that this is the case; I think it would be utterly silly to demand some sort of "proof." But over the course of this whole thread, I haven't seen a single good reason presented why any mod should not voluntarily stay out of private discussions and avoid making rulings in any of the following cases:

- an appeal of their ruling
- a case where they were the player being flamed/baited/etc.
- a case in which they have strong personal feelings (whether positive or negative) about one of the involved players
- a case in which they were the player accused of a rules violation
- a case in which, for any other reason, they feel that they are not able to be free of bias

I hate that this thread has gotten adversarial. I do not honestly understand why it has. I am really frustrated, though, that I feel like I've repeatedly made the basic point that refusing to recuse oneself in those circumstances fuels a perception of bias, whether or not it actually exists, and leads to the very "players vs. mods" attitude that I thought we'd all like to get rid of, and asked what exactly the harm would be in the mods all agreeing to recuse themselves from private discussion or rulings on such cases, and by and large this point and question have seemingly been ignored. Nothing about "don't rule on these cases" involves extra work for the mods, complicated changes in procedure, or anything like that. All it does, that I can see, is make things look a great deal more fair, which is likely to make mods' lives easier. Please, if this is legitimately a bad idea, can someone tell me why?

I am honestly confused, and I think that this might be us nor communicating it clearly, but... we already do those things. We're not allowed to rule in regards to an appeal on one of our rulings.* If we cannot be neutral with someone, we are supposed to step back. If we are accused of a rule violation we shouldn't be the one to self-Moderate, and if we feel that we cannot be neutral due to a particular topic hitting too close to home as it were, we're not supposed to rule in it. And yes, right now it IS an honor system and we're talking about everyone's suggestions about how to prove it.

The sticking point seems to be (and my *) is during the appeals process we (as the Mod whose ruling is being appealed) can answer questions put forth by other mods as to the original reasoning behind that, but beyond that we cannot, nor should not, be involved in the appeal.

Thank you NERV, I couldn't have said it better myself. Perhaps this thread has become adversarial because some people are refusing to believe that we already do these things. The elephant in the room (and probably a major component of the reason they're both talking about the appeals process) is that I recently ruled on NA and Mura, who might believe I should have recused myself. I didn't really "hate" either of them enough that I felt as if it clouded my judgment, but my history with both was extensive enough that I sought a second opinion before ruling.

Some people have seemingly taken to the belief that if they dislike/disrespect a mod enough that the feeling must be mutual, but that's basically a species of mod-shopping itself. Just because NA had some choice words for me the first time we met somewhere other than NS doesn't mean my "feelings are hurt" or that I couldn't handle him anymore. I've had people do that sort of thing to me before and I'll probably have it happen again. One of the things you learn to accept once you've been doing this job as long as I have is that there are always people who will disagree with you, almost no matter what you do, and in a community large enough (which NS is) there will always be some people out there who think you're ill suited for the job, incompetent, or outright corrupt.

If it would help at all to explain where I'm coming from with that, I'll go ahead and take a short trip down memory lane: I don't know if you know this or not, but I was NS' first GM. At first there was some kind of bug that kept designated moderators from being able to access the forum. It wasn't until close on six months after launch that this was fixed, and when it was [violet] canvassed the community for moderators and five were elected. Since the site had been running unmoderated since day one, we first five mods had a lot of work to do. We had to codify and enforce forum rules, but in the early days I was mostly working on gameside stuff, since of the five original mods, only two of us (myself and Menelmacar) were GMs. I took a hardline stance against region invasion but was overturned by the Boss, who decided to make it legal. As one might expect, this triggered a huge negative response against me from the raider community. Long story short, people have been howling for my blood since Day One and by now I am almost excessively used to it. Sporadic passive-aggressive collisions and the occasional insult parade just doesn't push my buttons anymore. I think some folks are assuming they do, because the only reason I could think of that they would complain about practices we already have is if they strongly believed that at least one of us (in this case, probably me) was in the regular habit of defying them.

As far as "players vs mods" goes, we just have to accept that that's what happens when an appeal is filed. Both the player and the moderator believe they are correct and justified, so it becomes the task of the remaining mods to find some middle ground or make a decision one way or the other. That's just what Moderation is. It doesn't mean we're out to get the players and it doesn't mean we get off on cracking our whips, it just means that two people think they're right about something when probably only one of them actually is, and the situation is quite naturally and unalterably an adversarial one. But ultimately, the idea that only one party (the player) should be allowed to make her case once an appeal is filed is confusing at best and ridiculous at worst.

Meanwhile, if anyone wants closer contact with the mods while they're deliberating appeals, there are many ways to affect that desire and (as I've pointed out) no one--not even the people complaining the loudest here, despite recent appeals themselves in three notable cases--seems interested in availing themselves of those avenues of communication. If we're becoming frustrated, it's because some players are essentially complaining about their own inactivity and/or projecting their own shortcomings onto us, with one going so far as to complain about the lack of a secure, private pipeline to the mods when in fact he has at least three. Aside from M/A and #modslair, players have just as much access to the mods as other mods do. Since we're not about to make either of those public any time soon, we're having a hard time understanding just what exactly the desired compromise is and how to affect it. If you're okay with an honor system that works just fine for us since as NERV said, everything above is already Standard Operating Procedure.

EDIT #54738964:

Looking back (and I admit I had missed both this post and Czar talking about IRC already), it seems that not everyone is satisfied with the honor system. The problem with attacking it (and you weren't, but he pretty much was, which is an ingredient to the increased hostility levels) is that you can't do so without attacking the honor of said moderator(s), which tends to lead to a rapid degeneration of relations between the two parties. I've remarked already that we pretty much already disclose just about the limit of we consciously want to, but there seems at varying points to have been pushes for more and various things to be published that currently aren't. We/I are still sort of taking stock of the discourse on the whole, but that's a line we have little interest in. It's a matter of distilling the (sometimes nebulous) complaints of bias/impartiality into a working compound, but the problem is we've already done that. I don't know where people get the idea that we've been around for eight years without moderation/impartiality safeguards.

[The Norwegian Blue]

I think positions have gotten tangled up due to multiple people posting overlapping propositions, so I want to clarify mine once more. I do not think mods should post IRC logs, or reveal which mod thought what in the case of an appeal. I agree that these things could cause "mod-shopping" and be problematic. My position is a simple and consistent one, which is that mods should not be involved in privately discussing or making rulings on cases in which they are involved. I am perfectly willing to have the "honor system" as the only assurance that this is the case; I think it would be utterly silly to demand some sort of "proof." But over the course of this whole thread, I haven't seen a single good reason presented why any mod should not voluntarily stay out of private discussions and avoid making rulings in any of the following cases:

- an appeal of their ruling
- a case where they were the player being flamed/baited/etc.
- a case in which they have strong personal feelings (whether positive or negative) about one of the involved players
- a case in which they were the player accused of a rules violation
- a case in which, for any other reason, they feel that they are not able to be free of bias

I hate that this thread has gotten adversarial. I do not honestly understand why it has. I am really frustrated, though, that I feel like I've repeatedly made the basic point that refusing to recuse oneself in those circumstances fuels a perception of bias, whether or not it actually exists, and leads to the very "players vs. mods" attitude that I thought we'd all like to get rid of, and asked what exactly the harm would be in the mods all agreeing to recuse themselves from private discussion or rulings on such cases, and by and large this point and question have seemingly been ignored. Nothing about "don't rule on these cases" involves extra work for the mods, complicated changes in procedure, or anything like that. All it does, that I can see, is make things look a great deal more fair, which is likely to make mods' lives easier. Please, if this is legitimately a bad idea, can someone tell me why?

I am honestly confused, and I think that this might be us nor communicating it clearly, but... we already do those things. We're not allowed to rule in regards to an appeal on one of our rulings.* If we cannot be neutral with someone, we are supposed to step back. If we are accused of a rule violation we shouldn't be the one to self-Moderate, and if we feel that we cannot be neutral due to a particular topic hitting too close to home as it were, we're not supposed to rule in it. And yes, right now it IS an honor system and we're talking about everyone's suggestions about how to prove it.

*sigh* Okay, this one is somewhat my fault - I was tired and trying to make my point fairly quickly without summing up all the things I'd already said. I'm aware that you do most of that already. I actually said so in my very first post discussing the issue. See?

To an extent, you guys already do this.

Like I said, it's mostly my fault for not restating that after I'd already acknowledged that everyone's arguments had gotten mixed up, but you're unintentionally arguing against a strawman here.

The sticking point seems to be (and my *) is during the appeals process we (as the Mod whose ruling is being appealed) can answer questions put forth by other mods as to the original reasoning behind that, but beyond that we cannot, nor should not, be involved in the appeal.

And what I am saying is that you should not be allowed - should not allow YOURSELF - access to private moderator-business discussions when you are not acting in your capacity as a moderator, i.e. someone who can hand down rulings on the issue. That means that a mod accused of a rule violation should not only not rule on him- or herself, but should not be present in a private discussion on whether or not (s)he violated a rule. That means that a mod who needs to recuse him- or herself from an initial judgment or appeal because the poster being ruled on is his or her best friend in the whole world should not be present to influence the other mods in any way. That means mods should actually have to explain their rulings well enough in public that they do not require additional justification in private. And none of these things require extra work for the mods - they simply require being willing to acknowledge that your presence in a discussion about which you are biased inherently fuels the perception that the final judgment will be biased, whether or not it actually is.

If the mods all pledge that they will stay out of those discussions and poke each other to get out if someone doesn't, I am perfectly content with that as "proof." I can't promise everyone else would be, because I don't speak for anyone but me, but I trust that even the mods I don't especially love are trying to do a good job, and that if they say they will not be present for such discussions, I believe them. But if I am understanding correctly, the current moderator position is "the only reason to exclude any mod from a discussion is if we're thinking of firing them, and we don't want to change that." You're entitled not to want to change that, but it doesn't seem unreasonable of me to ask for the reasons why, particularly when I and others have pointed out the benefits to YOU of such a change.

[Melkor Unchained]

TNB, issuing a ruling doesn't mean we're biased against a player, it just means we felt they broke a rule. A mod only sits out for bias/neutrality reasons when they just can't handle the player in general, and that decision is on us already before the ruling is even made. To use my most recent ruling as an example (again), I felt as if my history/opinion of the users was sufficiently poor enough to ask for a second opinion, but not so severe as to recuse myself from ever ruling on the player(s) in question Ever Ever. We've been over this and over this; we're not going to sit people out for every appeal. They don't get a vote and that's good enough for us. It's worked just fine for years and changing it now would just be exchanging one set of gripes for, well... the same set of gripes. If you're really fine with the honor system, you should be happy since it's already in practice alongside all of your bulleted points.

[Maurepas]

TNB, issuing a ruling doesn't mean we're biased against a player, it just means we felt they broke a rule. A mod only sits out for bias/neutrality reasons when they just can't handle the player in general, and that decision is on us already before the ruling is even made. To use my most recent ruling as an example (again), I felt as if my history/opinion of the users was sufficiently poor enough to ask for a second opinion, but not so severe as to recuse myself from ever ruling on the player(s) in question Ever Ever. We've been over this and over this; we're not going to sit people out for every appeal. They don't get a vote and that's good enough for us. It's worked just fine for years and changing it now would just be exchanging one set of gripes for, well... the same set of gripes. If you're really fine with the honor system, you should be happy since it's already in practice alongside all of your bulleted points.

What other set of gripes would you be exchanging it for? Personally, I don't think the mod who made the ruling should be involved in any appeal, as you said, we already know their vote, and their defense should've been already made when they issued the ruling, any other input from them should be disregarded at that point, as the question is whether the initial ruling was correct, not whether they can justify it afterwards.

[The Norwegian Blue]

TNB, issuing a ruling doesn't mean we're biased against a player, it just means we felt they broke a rule.

...which would be a great point, if I'd ever suggested in any way, shape, or form that issuing a ruling meant you were biased against a player. What I have said is that multiple mods here, including you, have explicitly stated that you have a vested interest in defending your ruling. That is a bias. It is an understandable bias, but it's a bias.

A mod only sits out for bias/neutrality reasons when they just can't handle the player in general, and that decision is on us already before the ruling is even made.

Indeed. Which is why I am saying that I think it would be good if you sat out for bias/neutrality reasons in some other cases, too.

To use my most recent ruling as an example (again), I felt as if my history/opinion of the users was sufficiently poor enough to ask for a second opinion, but not so severe as to recuse myself from ever ruling on the player(s) in question Ever Ever.

Which I agree with. I do not see any reason that you should not rule on NA or Murv ever ever. I don't actually think they think that, either, based on what they've said here, but you'd have to ask them about that. I honestly am not sure why you think that ruling is "the elephant in the room," as I didn't see any major problems with it except for the one that I've stated is a problem with every appeal as things currently stand, which is that if someone is present in the discussion who feels the need to "defend" the first decision, that discussion is inherently biased. It may very well still arrive at the correct conclusion; in fact, I suspect it usually does. That does not change the fact that mods being present for discussions in which they explicitly have an agenda will very, very obviously fuel a perception of bias.

We've been over this and over this; we're not going to sit people out for every appeal.

Yes, I've seen you say this already. I am aware that you have apparently decided you have no interest in this suggestion. That is not actually an answer to the question I keep posing, which is WHY you can't sit out such discussions. "Because I said so" and "because I don't wanna" weren't particularly compelling arguments when I was five, and they aren't compelling now. If you were completely uninterested in addressing user suggestions, why does this thread even exist?

They don't get a vote and that's good enough for us. It's worked just fine for years and changing it now would just be exchanging one set of gripes for, well... the same set of gripes.

I don't see how this is true in the slightest. It is also patently obvious that it hasn't "worked fine" unless your definition of "worked fine" is "helped perpetuate a system in which players and mods view each other as adversaries."

If you're really fine with the honor system, you should be happy since it's already in practice alongside all of your bulleted points.

I am happy with the honor system. I'm not happy with your unwillingness to use it in more settings than you currently are. This is really pretty straightforward.

[Geniasis]

TNB, issuing a ruling doesn't mean we're biased against a player, it just means we felt they broke a rule. A mod only sits out for bias/neutrality reasons when they just can't handle the player in general, and that decision is on us already before the ruling is even made. To use my most recent ruling as an example (again), I felt as if my history/opinion of the users was sufficiently poor enough to ask for a second opinion, but not so severe as to recuse myself from ever ruling on the player(s) in question Ever Ever. We've been over this and over this; we're not going to sit people out for every appeal. They don't get a vote and that's good enough for us. It's worked just fine for years and changing it now would just be exchanging one set of gripes for, well... the same set of gripes. If you're really fine with the honor system, you should be happy since it's already in practice alongside all of your bulleted points.

The fact that we are even having this conversation makes it very unlikely that the system has "worked just fine for years."

[Muravyets]

TNB, issuing a ruling doesn't mean we're biased against a player, it just means we felt they broke a rule.

...which would be a great point, if I'd ever suggested in any way, shape, or form that issuing a ruling meant you were biased against a player. What I have said is that multiple mods here, including you, have explicitly stated that you have a vested interest in defending your ruling. That is a bias. It is an understandable bias, but it's a bias.

A mod only sits out for bias/neutrality reasons when they just can't handle the player in general, and that decision is on us already before the ruling is even made.

Indeed. Which is why I am saying that I think it would be good if you sat out for bias/neutrality reasons in some other cases, too.

To use my most recent ruling as an example (again), I felt as if my history/opinion of the users was sufficiently poor enough to ask for a second opinion, but not so severe as to recuse myself from ever ruling on the player(s) in question Ever Ever.

Which I agree with. I do not see any reason that you should not rule on NA or Murv ever ever. I don't actually think they think that, either, based on what they've said here, but you'd have to ask them about that. I honestly am not sure why you think that ruling is "the elephant in the room," as I didn't see any major problems with it except for the one that I've stated is a problem with every appeal as things currently stand, which is that if someone is present in the discussion who feels the need to "defend" the first decision, that discussion is inherently biased. It may very well still arrive at the correct conclusion; in fact, I suspect it usually does. That does not change the fact that mods being present for discussions in which they explicitly have an agenda will very, very obviously fuel a perception of bias.

FYI, for the record, on the bolded sentence, I specifically and explicitly said the exact opposite of that in this post on the subject of mod-shopping:
viewtopic.php?p=4134571#p4134571

Allow me to quote the relevant bits:

...
The lack of getting along between me and Melkor has been mentioned. Referring to that, when it became clear that we were unlikely to be able to have conversations without getting into fights, I asked him for an agreement that would have us basically ignoring each other for all purposes OTHER THAN moderation. This was because I knew perfectly well that I couldn't "mod-shop." A mod is a mod and if a I, as a player, legitimately got drawn into a moderation matter that he had "caught," then I could not object to him moderating just because I didn't get along with him personally. I would have to have a good reason to dispute any ruling he might give on me, on the merits of the ruling itself.

...

It is clear to me that it would be mod-shopping to demand that a particular mod recuse themselves from ever ruling on a player due to claimed bias, or to persistently file appeals over and over in the hope of getting a different answer from a different mod eventually.
...

We've been over this and over this; we're not going to sit people out for every appeal.

Yes, I've seen you say this already. I am aware that you have apparently decided you have no interest in this suggestion. That is not actually an answer to the question I keep posing, which is WHY you can't sit out such discussions. "Because I said so" and "because I don't wanna" weren't particularly compelling arguments when I was five, and they aren't compelling now. If you were completely uninterested in addressing user suggestions, why does this thread even exist?

They don't get a vote and that's good enough for us. It's worked just fine for years and changing it now would just be exchanging one set of gripes for, well... the same set of gripes.

I don't see how this is true in the slightest. It is also patently obvious that it hasn't "worked fine" unless your definition of "worked fine" is "helped perpetuate a system in which players and mods view each other as adversaries."

If you're really fine with the honor system, you should be happy since it's already in practice alongside all of your bulleted points.

I am happy with the honor system. I'm not happy with your unwillingness to use it in more settings than you currently are. This is really pretty straightforward.[/quote]

For all our conflicts, Melkor and I do have one important thing in common. Neither one of us is the topic of this thread, nor are the answers various posters have given herein in response to specific questions by other mods entirely geared towards giving Melkor a hard time in life. Most of us know that, but it seems to need to be stated for the record, too.

[Katganistan]

Actually, that we are having this discussion only means that some folks don't care for the way things are done, and some folks do, and that the former are not barred by the latter from having their opinions aired.

[Geniasis]

Actually, that we are having this discussion only means that some folks don't care for the way things are done, and some folks do, and that the former are not barred by the latter from having their opinions aired.

Which of course is a much weaker argument than "it works because I said it does".

[Katganistan]

Actually, that we are having this discussion only means that some folks don't care for the way things are done, and some folks do, and that the former are not barred by the latter from having their opinions aired.

Which of course is a much weaker argument than "it works because I said it does".

No, it's simply a statement of fact. Some don't like it. Some do. Those who don't like it are not being prevented from stating that they don't like it.

[Hydesland]

The fact that we are even having this conversation makes it very unlikely that the system has "worked just fine for years."

Actually, it's an indication of a well functioning moderation system. In almost every other forum I have been to, they could never even dream to have an open discussion like this. Furthermore, I don't believe that this thread actually represents any kind of popular sentiment, this seems to be more of a niche movement.

[Muravyets]

Who said anything about a movement? I could understand all this defensiveness if this thread had been initiated by players. The fact is that, in the other thread, some comments were made as a sidebar, which could easily have simply been ignored. But instead, two moderators invited the creation of a new thread specifically to discuss this topic. SCI accepted the invite and created the thread, but it was made for the purpose of exploring the topic further at mod suggestion.

And all the thread is, is a suggestion thread. There is no "movement" to force change. A question was asked, answers are given with explanations attached. What is done with those answers is up to moderation and admin.

I'm really not understanding why it seems like people are starting to look at the very idea of this thread with some kind of suspicion or hostility.

[Hydesland]

Who said anything about a movement? I could understand all this defensiveness if this thread had been initiated by players.

Right but there has definitely been a trend lately, regardless of this specific thread. But I think it's really only localised to a few players.

[Muravyets]

Who said anything about a movement? I could understand all this defensiveness if this thread had been initiated by players.

Right but there has definitely been a trend lately, regardless of this specific thread. But I think it's really only localised to a few players.

Sure, I won't disagree. So what? People express their opinions, and those opinions are theirs, by definition. Does it really matter if other people think differently? There's nothing stopping other views from being expressed, after all, right? And even if some of the suggestions are thought of only by a few people, what really matters is not what everyone else thinks of them, but what moderation and admin think of them. If you've looked at the earlier parts of the thread, you might have noticed that reminders were mentioned that the substantive suggestions are really only small tweaks to systems and rules that moderation already follows anyway. Only two actual basic changes to how things are done have been suggested, and both of those affect appeals only -- the establishment of a set of appeals-only mods, and either eliminating the practice of consulting the original mod who made a ruling that is under review or keeping those consultations but making them public.

And again, those are only suggestions. There's nothing at all that forces anyone to accept such proposals.