We want Forum Feedback!

[cfmtfm]

Perhaps what we need is simply more mods across the board?

 

If managing incredibly active and charged sections of the forum like the suggestions section is falling on the shoulders of two or three people and it's stressful enough for them that they're more willing to just slap warns on everyone instead of actually interacting with users, maybe we need more people to help share that burden. More mods, more people for the userbase to turn to, the more time each individual discussion or dissension can be given.

 

It wouldn't hurt to get some varying viewpoints in there as well! Take on some people who have shown to consistently argue FOR change instead of AGAINST it. Take on some who are always there with alternative suggestions to help soothe an inflamed situation or help make something more appealing for both sides. In short, get some people who are consistently INVOLVED in discussions and who would know perhaps a little better how the people in such discussions yearn to be treated by the authority figures around here.

 

No offense meant to any mods, but, honestly...I have a hard time telling you apart sometimes, simply because, in most discussions I see, you all seem to be of the same opinion when it comes to certain subjects. That makes it very difficult, I imagine, for the people to argue against your views, to contact you, because they know where you stand and that their opinion isn't going to be taken seriously.

As Walker said, we just had moderator applications. Also, TJ (and, I'm assuming, the other mods) will decide how many mods will be accepted depending on how many mods are needed. I'm sure more than one mod will be chosen for each section. I don't think it's the quantity - it's the quality, mainly. We have 3 wonderful Help mods and they seem to be doing fine - yes, there's need for maybe a few more, but they are doing fine considering the size and quantity of the things they need to do. Don't forget we also have the great global mods to help out in all sections.

 

With the same opinion thing, I haven't seen a discussion about it, but I guess if/when it does happen, it is overwhelming for the users.

 

I do think that moderators should be more friendly and less "Go do x, because y says so". I'm not saying that all of them always do that, but sometimes being bland, blunt and to-the-point is not the best effect for us lowly users.

Edited February 5, 2013 by cfmtfm

[schmupti]

That being said... I notice a tendency on the forums for people to ONLY point out the bad in artwork. Or, well, at least that's what the... important reviewers do? You'll get your random people dropping in saying how much they love it, but when it comes to other artists or spriters I've noticed a decided tendency to post a long string of what's wrong with it without ever mentioning what they like about it. It's rather frustrating, because it makes you feel like your art is irredeemably lame and doesn't appeal to any of them in the slightest. Now I'm certainly not saying you have to have a section devoted to gushing over the art in every post you make, but at the very LEAST try to find something nice to say in your first post, if nowhere else?

I'm on the opposite side of the table on this one. Trying to find something nice to say before giving the criticism you actually want to give? That's dictionary sugarcoating: wrapping a bitter pill in a sweet shell in hopes it will go down easier. That 'something nice' means nothing to me, because it's not what you really wanted to point out, the real feedback. And it's not constructive criticism at all, because it serves no purpose in the process apart from salving my ego. (Again, just my POV.)

 

That's not to say there's no place for positive criticism. If something really slaps me happy, I'll point out why it's awesome, to let the person know the chance they took is working out beautifully. But that's feedback I'd be giving regardless, not an attempt to cushion a blow. I see a difference there.

 

I'm also reluctant to offer a sugarcoating because I think it muddies the waters on where the artist/writer needs to focus attention. I've seen people 'fix' things that were just fine because that was where they were complimented, and ignore things that really needed fixing because they were grumpy at having it pointed out.

 

For what it's worth, I find that most folks refrain entirely from commenting on 'irredeemably lame' art, or offer only empty "Keep up the good work!" remarks, because there's nothing else to be said. If you're getting real criticism, then people see the good and are trying to help you fine-tune it, not to drag you down.

 

And this ties back into the forums (I can do it, just you watch) because tone is hard to convey in text--many people get snippy about meanness, rudeness, etc., because their reading of something differs from the writer's intention. (I made this mistake recently myself.) This is especially true of folks who speak English as a second language, and who may come across as blunt or rude simply because their native tongue doesn't require linguistic gymnastics in the name of tact.

[Amur_Rama]

I've been quietly following the discussion so far. But I do have to say I also agree with Hailwidis' post.

 

I recently told another member over PM (I think it was over that ridiculous Change Christmas thread or whatnot), that I've developed the habit of jumping in, getting one post to: sum up my opinion on the topic, whether I think it worthwhile or not and why, try to also answer any arguments about my points before they happen and then I get the hell out of the thread. Because warns be a'coming the longer you stay in any high-volume thread here.

 

I've already gotten one warn for sarcasm. Because it would seem that was "sniping" at another user, even though I was being general and only using a quote, not engaging that user directly.

 

I'm pretty sour on "discussing" things on this forum, because you really can't discuss anything. Discussions by nature draw in information from other sources, especially when one has to talk about hypotheticals or even bringing in anecdotal information. That gets shut down fast as "off-topic" and "spam", so you're stuck having to rephrase the same thing over and over, that's not a discussion, it's an echo chamber.

 

I find the same overly-tight rule in place in the IRC, and part of the reason I refuse to use it as well. I used to be pretty frequent in the dragonlotto channel, because I like gifting stuff, and the AP is unpredictable. However, the last time I was there, I lurked a dead room around for about five minutes and y'know, having a job to go to and all, I posted a quick (I thought) witty line to see if anyone was awake on the channel. That woke everyone up and I got a "cute" little main-screen calling out for "chatter" by the half-op in residence.

 

Not less than two minutes later, someone else came in, and started a similar line of "chatter" to see if everyone was awake, and of course, nothing happened to them. I do recall actually getting irritable at that point and asking what the difference was between their chatter and mine. Their chatter explicitly mentioned the word "lotto" in their "is anyone around" message whereas I'd just asked if anyone was awake in the room. Heavens forbid you're polite and want to make two messages to see if 1. anyone is awake for a lotto, and 2. would like the particular thing you want to lotto.

 

So yeah, double-standard for the win. I said screw it, logged off the IRC and haven't been back.

 

 

Now, having gotten that particular bug off my chest. Lemme get out of here before I get warned because I mentioned a half-op in the IRC.

[Anna Selka]

I agree with you on the atmosphere being improved in general. I'm not implying that you (in particular) are forgetting about mods being people - I specifically said that I wasn't aiming this at anyone. I also wasn't talking about how they handle things - I was talking about how some users act towards the mods.

I'm sorry that what I said kind of sounded against you. You provided an opportunity for me to talk about something that grates on me, and I'm sorry that it kind of got directed against you, because I didn't mean it that way and you don't deserve it

 

My point still stands, but I just want you to know that I'm not attacking you

 

~Hailwidis : I agree with 100% of what you said. You are so much braver than I am, a big thank you for being so awesome.

 

Also, I think Derranged has a very good point. I agree that different types of mods need to be recruited, not just people that fit a certain profile (there are one or two that do not fit that profile and I love that they have different opinions !).

 

Walker, we are aware that there are mod applications going on. We just think that using these mod applications as an opportunity, there need to be : a lot more mods than there have been previously. There is a large userbase and if mods are feeling overwhelmed, which is legitimate, then there need to be more mods than ever before.

Also, the choice of mods needs to be open-minded and carefully thought out, not just "who thinks like us and will be easy to deal with". I don't know how applications are made so I wouldn't venture to say that's how they are decided, but I hope a lot of thought is put into having a diverse mod team that can ensure a more democratic way of running things, not just same old same old.

 

Edit :

For what it's worth, I find that most folks refrain entirely from commenting on 'irredeemably lame' art, or offer only empty "Keep up the good work!" remarks, because there's nothing else to be said. If you're getting real criticism, then people see the good and are trying to help you fine-tune it, not to drag you down.

 

That's entirely true. I don't know how to deal with really lame sprites. I don't want to break the spriter's enthusiasm, they have to practice to learn, so it's uncomfortable. I'm not too sure what's the solution there.

 

But it does mean that spriters, if you're getting crit, you need to realize that it means people care enough about the sprite to want it improved That's a good thing !

Edited February 5, 2013 by Anna Selka

[Rally Vincent]

More reports are great. It let's us know what users are thinking - it's feedback on how you want the forum to run. GD, especially, tends to not get any reports. If all users reported more, perhaps us mods could mod more to what you want on the forum. :3

I so much wanted to stay out of thisdiscussion, but I just cannot let this pass. Sock, boards can't be run on public opinion. It is not for other users to report posts they do not like and then board officials sailing with that wind. Public opinion is no factor for what users are allowed to post.

[Banuk]

Also, the choice of mods needs to be open-minded and carefully thought out, not just "who thinks like us and will be easy to deal with". I don't know how applications are made so I wouldn't venture to say that's how they are decided, but I hope a lot of thought is put into having a diverse mod team that can ensure a more democratic way of running things, not just same old same old.

Yes, you put this much better than I ever could!

 

 

I would have applied for a mod position, but then I saw that being on good terms with the mods of the section you're applying for actually factors into where your application ends up.

 

Which, I'm sorry, I think that's ridiculous. Other mods' opinions about you really shouldn't have an impact on whether you're a candidate for a position or not.

 

I don't think I am on good terms with the mods around here. I'm willing to butt heads with them if I need to, and that shouldn't have any bearing on anything. No, I probably wouldn't get along well with other mods if I were one--but having a difference in views is important to things running fairly for ALL users, not just the ones the mods agree with.

[TJ09]

Yes, you put this much better than I ever could!

 

 

I would have applied for a mod position, but then I saw that being on good terms with the mods of the section you're applying for actually factors into where your application ends up.

 

Which, I'm sorry, I think that's ridiculous. Other mods' opinions about you really shouldn't have an impact on whether you're a candidate for a position or not.

 

I don't think I am on good terms with the mods around here. I'm willing to butt heads with them if I need to, and that shouldn't have any bearing on anything. No, I probably wouldn't get along well with other mods if I were one--but having a difference in views is important to things running fairly for ALL users, not just the ones the mods agree with.

So what you're saying is I should instead pick a mod team comprised of people who find it impossible to work with each other, and expect the mods to act as one cohesive unit?

 

Because if not, I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

[Walker]

How mods get along does play a large part into it, actually. There's a difference between diversity and confrontation. If we get the wrong people in a section together, and they don't get along, not only will we suffer for it but you guys also. For example, if there's five different mods in one section and they all have different modding styles, you'll never be able to guess what shouldn't be done and there will be no seeming link between disciplinary action.

 

Do I need to be best friends with my other sectional mods? No. Do we need to have at least some common ground? Yes, very much so.

[cfmtfm]

I'm sorry that what I said kind of sounded against you. You provided an opportunity for me to talk about something that grates on me, and I'm sorry that it kind of got directed against you, because I didn't mean it that way and you don't deserve it

 

My point still stands, but I just want you to know that I'm not attacking you

Meep, after reading my message I think it came off harsher than I wanted it to... ._. I didn't mean to start a discussion/debate. No offence taken, I think I'm the one at fault here for coming off a bit cold. ;;

 

Okay, back on track... I completely agree with the mod application comments, but I am sure that a lot of thought goes into it. Sometimes it does seem that a handful of mods have the same reaction/personality and it's like they have/want to stick together. Not necessarily for suggestions/opinions, but it does overwhelm us (sometimes).

 

I so much wanted to stay out of thisdiscussion, but I just cannot let this pass. Sock, boards can't be run on public opinion. It is not for other users to report posts they do not like and then board officials sailing with that wind. Public opinion is no factor for what users are allowed to post.

I do agree with you, but on the other hand, this board isn't exactly running on public opinion - in fact, it's bordering 'staff opinion'. Not completely, but that is (sort of) what we're discussing here. However, reports are not always taken on board - they are sometimes dismissed and ignored (either because the thing they reported was not against any of the rules, or the report was just a silly one).

 

I would have applied for a mod position, but then I saw that being on good terms with the mods of the section you're applying for actually factors into where your application ends up.

There's a difference between friendships and their opinion on what is right and what is wrong.

'd by TJ and Walker, couldn't have said it better myself. No, you don't need to agree on every single tiny thing, but yes, you do have to at least have familiar 'thinking' on the rules and what goes against them.

 

(Sorry if I do come off as a little cold, as I said, I'm tired and have no idea which smiley fits what I'm saying at the moment, and also no idea if that sentence made sense...)

Edited February 5, 2013 by cfmtfm

[brairtrainer]

Yes, you put this much better than I ever could!

 

 

I would have applied for a mod position, but then I saw that being on good terms with the mods of the section you're applying for actually factors into where your application ends up.

 

Which, I'm sorry, I think that's ridiculous. Other mods' opinions about you really shouldn't have an impact on whether you're a candidate for a position or not.

 

I don't think I am on good terms with the mods around here. I'm willing to butt heads with them if I need to, and that shouldn't have any bearing on anything. No, I probably wouldn't get along well with other mods if I were one--but having a difference in views is important to things running fairly for ALL users, not just the ones the mods agree with.

I just want to point out, Derranged's reasons for not becomeing a mod is one of the reasons I applied to be a mod. I feel like I am on good terms with the mods and think I have enough dissenting opinion that I could possibly help change the atmosphere as well as getting some rules clarified to make sure I and other users really understand what is allowed and what is not allowed.

 

In my expirance being a mod (runescape) I learned more intricacies of the rules than the general users knew, and while I didn't tell people others' punisments (though the times I muted people when I was talking in the area were quickly seen) I was able to clarify why selling a bucket for 30 gold was not wrong but selling a super rare item called a bucket for 30 gold was (item scamming).

 

Edit because Ninjas: This being said getting along is important as well as knowing who has more expirance in any one area and while not differing to them all the time asking questions to come up with a good solid reasoning and discinplinary action. From what I've seen the mods have done a good job of this but in some cases end up saying all the same thing because thats the public face (looking at ious where it seemed only one mod tried to give us a clear picture on what was going on while others touted a similar response, I respect that mod for stepping out and attempting to clarify and I'd like to see that more here.)

Edited February 5, 2013 by brairtrainer

[Banuk]

So what you're saying is I should instead pick a mod team comprised of people who find it impossible to work with each other, and expect the mods to act as one cohesive unit?

 

Because if not, I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

I'm not saying that at all.

 

I'm saying there should be more diverse views represented in the mod team, rather than just, as Anna Selka said, "Who thinks like us and will be easy to deal with."

 

It doesn't have to be the entirety of a moderator team, but having people who will be more willing to work with the side that isn't the popular opinion, instead of tossing warns around for disagreeing with people, is important. Everyone should be able to feel like their views are being taken seriously by someone in a higher position, and, from what I've read, we just aren't seeing that here.

 

Edit: Me saying I wouldn't get along with mods because I don't really see eye-to-eye with them on many issues was just a personal example. I would be a terrible mod here and that's another reason I don't apply.

Edited February 5, 2013 by Derranged

[arlymaye]

So what you're saying is I should instead pick a mod team comprised of people who find it impossible to work with each other, and expect the mods to act as one cohesive unit?

 

Because if not, I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

I personally do no think that people with different opinions are impossible to work with each other. A homogeneous group can have its downfall too. I always believe that better decisions can be made through diversity.

 

Of course this doesn't mean that in a diverse group, everyone is going to head butt each other at every chance. We need check and balances in a government and we almost certainly need it here.

 

(And I failed in staying out of this topic)

[RainDear]

On reporting:

 

I was the only woman on a maintenance crew. As the only woman, most Ladies' room calls were saved for me. When I got to work, I was given a handful of calls to do, and more came in as the day wore on. If I got a chance before the end of the day, I would take a walk through the Ladies' rooms to see that everything was ok before I went home. I often found problems that had never been reported. I told the housekeeping staff many times to report these things so that I could handle them early and was often told-"Well we knew you weren't here when we saw them so left them for another shift to report. We didn't want you to get too many reports of the same thing." To which my response was always-"I would rather come to work to find 3 or more reports of the same problem so I can get it fixed, than find the problem late in my day and sometimes have to leave it to another day or someone else to fix."

 

Now, that seems to me to relate to this, because if a moderator arrives and checks reports, then clears them up, then gets to some of their other duties and clears them up, then goes to check their pms for problems members need help with, then goes to read the various threads to see if there are problems there, they can come into a problem that they weren't warned of a while (sometimes a long while) after they perhaps should have and find a lot more work there than they could have anticipated. Yes, fixing problems is a mod's job, but we can help them with the report system. I think they would prefer to have several reports of a problem area, or even one or two for an area that upon looking into, isn't so much of a problem, than to think they have managed all the problems and are just checking things out only to discover that they have a major (or even minor) problem happening that needed their attention earlier, but they were kept busy with other duties not knowing of the problem.

 

I can't claim to know much of what our moderators are up against, I only know that there have been a number of things that have happened on these forums that I wasn't even aware of until afterwards, because they are usually on top of things and keep things going well from their position behind the scenes.

 

If I ever had a problem with a moderator understanding or responding to my concerns, I would go to another moderator, explain the situation as clearly as I could and ask them if they could help me to understand the situation or ask the first moderator for a clearer explanation. I have never approached a moderator here that wasn't understanding and helpful, and if I ever did, I would just approach a different moderator.

[Cinnamin Draconna]

The last few comments remind me of something I saw happen on another forum. Members were getting upset with the Mod team and things were getting very tense. A decision was made to hire some new mods, but the new mods would have to go thru a 'training period'.

 

What happened was worse than the original problem. We wound up with Sr. mods and Jr. mods.. the members supported the Jr. mods and the Sr. mods got totally ticked off. Sr. mods ignored the Jr. mods.. most of the Jr. mods wound up quitting.. and about half the members quit too. The forum basically died because the Sr. mods refused to give up their power, refused to compromise on anything, and the only members left were those that thought the Sr. mods were the next best thing to a diety.

 

I've seen hints of the same thing happening here from time to time, but focused more on TJ than the mod team. TJ IS the site owner.. TJ IS the game designer and coder.. but TJ is NOT a diety. He's an excellent game designer tho and this is one of the best collecting games on the net. But it's not the ONLY game on the net.

 

I for one do not want to see this forum go the way of my old Pern forum. I like this game too much for that. So keep the discussion going, keep working on the issues, and keep the comments civil and polite. But don't give up the fight. Change doesn't happen without making some waves.

[Anna Selka]

So what you're saying is I should instead pick a mod team comprised of people who find it impossible to work with each other, and expect the mods to act as one cohesive unit?

 

Because if not, I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

I think there is some wiggle room between finding it impossible to work with someone and always being of the same opinion. There is already a bit of this in the existing mod team, but why not widen it a bit ? People can have different opinions, but if they are able to respect other people's opinions and find common ground then it is absolutely possible to work together

 

Of course, if a mod loathes someone then it might be difficult to work together, but if they just don't like someone very much, then maybe they can make an effort and learn to know this other person. This is what people do all the time on forums, we have to accommodate other people even if we don't like them very much, and maybe on another topic we'll find that sometimes we agree with this person.

 

I don't think the choice of new mods should be according to which people the existing mods like. That's not very productive, and not very fair. Maybe mods should be able to veto one person they really can't stand, but that's all they can say ? I don't know. I don't have much experience with this, I'm just pointing out how the current system could be perceived as a kind of monarchy, with the mods in place forming an aristocracy that is a closed club and choosing who can come in. (I know, extreme example, I'm just trying to draw an analogy here, bear with me).

 

Edit : Really this is just another way of saying what arlymaye said in much less words

Edited February 5, 2013 by Anna Selka

[Thuban]

 

No offense meant to any mods, but, honestly...I have a hard time telling you apart sometimes, simply because, in most discussions I see, you all seem to be of the same opinion when it comes to certain subjects. That makes it very difficult, I imagine, for the people to argue against your views, to contact you, because they know where you stand and that their opinion isn't going to be taken seriously.

I find myself frequently on the user side of the fence when theres a mod vs users or whatever staff vs users/staff thing happening. Because of that, I find myself at odds with EVERYONE.

 

Heres the problem with this: Mods /should/ stand together on things, but when theres someone who disagrees, we end up with "sibling rivalry". Now, I can choose to take the side I agree with, and stand against the mods, but doing that creates a tense atmosphere all around because users tend to take anything any mod says as "gold".

 

Or, I can take the side of mods, and try to offer solutions that make the problem easier for the users, and try to find other solutions.

 

When i can pull it off, i prefer to play /both/ sides. Neutral territory makes it much much easier to find a solution to a problem. It does put me in a position where both sides might hate me, but i enjoy the challenges of finding common middle ground and compromises. It only works when both sides are willing to find a solution, instead of being defensive.

 

In this partucular instance: I think theres plenty of middle ground you guys can cover. Yes, i think warns should be handed out less. Why? Because simple verbal warns, done publically allow mods to make sure the users are seeing what considered ok, whats not and whats "grey area". I think stepping back and treating rules like guidelines instead of golden rules works better. However, this is because I know it worked on my old site, and its working well in chat in the past year or so of loosening up. Chat and forum are two different beasts, but i tend to lean towards giving leeway rather than enforcing strict rules. Save full warns for special occasions that NEED warned for, verbal warns for smaller infractions. Verbal warns do help people see that some things are not ok, and may make them stop and rethink what they are saying. Its faster than warning, and having to write a pm to explain said warn.

 

I saw a few people get caught up in "well if we do verbal warns, its more things to track". No, it isnt. I know full well which names and ips i have problems with in chat. If you can tell me a name and that i banned them, i generally know why. I know which users are prone to upsetting others with careless word choices and which ones are flat out trolling. I know how often i warn people when i see their names. its not a hard set thing.. but if a mod sees a name they have had run ins with before, then they will approach the situation differently than if its a new name. New names scare me, ones i know dont. I know what to expect from them. If i know i have warned them multiple times recently, then i would have NO issues with issuing a full warn here. If i havent had a problem with the user recently, and they havent been brought up in the background, im more likely to let things slip.

 

Hot topics, like the raffle thread, i tend to prefer to allow to allow a little more leeway on. Tempers will always get hot, and people will always get defensive, but as long as people can step back and not take things personally, as long as there are no direct insults or stabs at a person, and as long as they are on topic, I have no personal reason to stop a heated topic. Of course, in chat, i have the option to direct people to take their hot topics to another channel. The forums, unfortunately dont have that option Hot topics tend to blur the lines between rude, attacking, and making a valid point, which makes it much much more difficult to mod by the rules. But if you handle it based on the rules as guidelines, and give a little leeway, it becomes much easier to keep a thread inline.

Edited February 5, 2013 by Thuban

[TheGrox]

Back-tracking a bit here, but I just wanted to add my bit to the debate.

 

I have been considering the current warn system a lot. And I think it definitely needs a few changes. I would much prefer it if there were different levels of warn, in some way. For small offences, such as posting "Support!" in a BSA suggestion, which are not really warn-worthy, there should be a sort of 'verbal warn'. As in a mod edits a little note into your post, to tell you what you've done wrong. This would only be for minor things. For more serious things, such as major spam/flaming, there would still be the current warn system.

 

I also think that the moderating team as a whole should listen a bit more to the community. I mean, we are having a good discussion in this thread, but likely nothing will come of it. I have objected to my warn, and the rule against this in general, for posting "I would support this" in a suggestion thread - and many others have expressed their amazement that such a thing is even warn-worthy, and objected to it being a rule. I have been told why it is a rule, but I still disagree with the weak reasoning given to support it. I would have carried on the discussion with the mod who gave me the warn, but I honestly knew it wouldn't get anywhere, and I didn't want to waste any more of the mod's precious time. I still believe nothing will ever be done about this rule - and it has probably not even been considered.

 

I also seemed detect a bit of a snipped, almost rude attitude in the PM's I received after asking the mod to explain my warn further. I was even pretty much told that I am in the wrong too for not helping the mod team by reporting posts. Even though I do. I never knew it was a requirement that you helped mods by reporting posts, either way.

 

I think that it is high time we got more mods - I see a lot of really warn-worthy posts, and report many to try to help the mods out. And mods usually act upon the report, if I happen to stumble across the post again. If it is something like posting a spam thread or post in the trades section, I usually see it quickly closed/removed if I report it. The report tool I think is probably an under-used feature that people should be more aware of.

 

Either way, I think we need more mods, and I'm glad mod applications have opened recently. More mods will ease the pressure on current mods. ^^

 

 

Edit: I also agree with what Thuban has said, especially the part about wanrs being handed out less. This is the point I've been trying to get across all along .

Edited February 5, 2013 by TheGrox

[Khallayne]

I'm not saying that at all.

 

I'm saying there should be more diverse views represented in the mod team, rather than just, as Anna Selka said, "Who thinks like us and will be easy to deal with."

 

It doesn't have to be the entirety of a moderator team, but having people who will be more willing to work with the side that isn't the popular opinion, instead of tossing warns around for disagreeing with people, is important. Everyone should be able to feel like their views are being taken seriously by someone in a higher position, and, from what I've read, we just aren't seeing that here.

 

Edit: Me saying I wouldn't get along with mods because I don't really see eye-to-eye with them on many issues was just a personal example. I would be a terrible mod here and that's another reason I don't apply.

Just because it doesn't always show in public doesn't mean that we all share the same viewpoint. I'm on a phone, so I can't really talk much or quickly. But it's just something to keep in mind, since I'll probably elaborate on it more later.

 

We'requite a diverse team.often more than people know. But when it comes to a situation of members vs moderators, or asking for a moderator's opinion... stone people have their hands tired since what you say is going to be taken to represent a lot of the moderators opinions. It's like anyone trying to be on a staff team.

 

What I'm actually wondering is if it isn't our current diversity that is giving mixed signals. I hate to think that people would have been a afraid to pm me as a moderator. Though on and off in activity due to real life, I saw myself as approachable. Could be wrong though. I have a biased view as that was my intention and my intention may not have been clear.

[Fuzzbucket]

*cough* I have SEEN a mod post in a thread that she disagreed with another mod. It all got quite exciting.....

[LadyLyzar]

Mods disagree all the time, guys - from hot button topics to moderator actions. We're people too and we are not perfect. That being said, we do often discuss courses of action with each other.

 

However, once a decision is made by any moderator, we do try to respect one another's decisions and not step on each other's toes. That just creates bad blood no matter what you do or where you work.

 

Am I going to remove a warn that another mod gave? 99% no - I don't know the entire story and I trust the rest of the team to be fair with how they use their tools and deal with problems. If I have a discussion with another mod over a contested warn, I will let them remove it themselves if they choose to (which has happened. Again, we are only human.)

 

Part of "being on good terms with the mods" - we have to feel we can work with you. If you have a bad history with someone, you aren't likely to get along in the workplace. We are not playing favorites here - there are plenty of people on the forum that I like, but that I still don't feel would make a good fit for the moderating team. Does that make sense? (I am not always the best with words.)

[pinkieseb]

I don't really think that the mods are constantly been unfair, sure we might get an occasional warn for a bad reason. But I've found that any time I get a bad warn and feel its unfair, after a conversation with the mod its gone.

 

 

[Anna Selka]

If the problem is not a lack of diversity in opinion but rather that all mods have to conform to a kind of "team spirit" so as not to undermine others, then what would have to be done to help bring around healthy questioning and open minds to change ? The current system's problem, in my opinion, being that it is too static and does not really allow for listening to users and respecting their rights.

 

How can the mod team be able to have constructive conversations on how to deal with things in a manner that is respectful of users, and yet still be a cohesive team ?

 

I am sincerely asking the question, since I think we are onto something and I would love to see DC grow up and mature into a more welcoming place

 

Thuban I really appreciate your point of view as I have always thought you are one of the mods that is really good at dealing with us people.

 

There are rules everywhere, and complex ones at that, which are enforced very rigidly, it is very rare to be given a second chance, users are straight away warned. I have to add, there seems to be a misunderstanding about the severity of warns. The people who give them out understandably become accustomed to them and urge us to consider them as being of little consequence. But for a user who is trying their best to follow the rules, slips up sometimes without even knowing, and is saddled with a warn, it is a pretty serious thing. It brings about all sorts of feelings of shame, unhappiness, anger, and when one has several warns, bitterness, and ultimately yes, we begin to see them as unimportant, only because we become rebellious. I don't think this is an atmosphere we want in this community.

 

You can't just say : "But warns are nothing really !" and then say "It's good that you complain, it means you understand they are meant to punish you". That's contradictory. Either they matter or they don't. It's also neglecting what it feels like as a member of DC. Which is really quite important, how you feel when you play a game, and if the current system helps prevent inappropriate behaviours efficiently. I still think editing the post as a first warn for a light offense is a better way to bring about user awareness without causing a negative association. For more severe offenses of course a direct warn is still necessary.

 

Khallayne, for what it's worth, you are one of the mods I would find it easier approaching.

 

I am really glad we are having this conversation. I never thought we would, and I am proud of each and every one of you, members and mods and everyone, for participating and debating and not biting each other's heads off. I love you guys

[cfmtfm]

I do appreciate how you guys (the mods) do try to help in this thread, by the way. Thank you for posting in here and responding and being reasonable in your responses.

 

I do still want the board rules and warns to be elaborated and thought through more. Things like sarcasm may be hurtful, but is a warn really the best punishment? Perhaps editing the pot (with a public verbal warn) and pointing it out is better. A for the "I support!" posts, again I think a public verbal warn saying "please add more words" is sufficient. Although I think voting in a poll is better.

 

Edit: A personal seal of approval goes to Anna's post above. :3

Edited February 5, 2013 by cfmtfm

[pinkieseb]

I do appreciate how you guys (the mods) do try to help in this thread, by the way. Thank you for posting in here and responding and being reasonable in your responses.

 

I do still want the board rules and warns to be elaborated and thought through more. Things like sarcasm may be hurtful, but is a warn really the best punishment? Perhaps editing the pot (with a public verbal warn) and pointing it out is better. A for the "I support!" posts, again I think a public verbal warn saying "please add more words" is sufficient. Although I think voting in a poll is better.

I agree entirely with this! Mods edit out things AND give a warn most of the time, why not just edit it with a little note, or if thats too hard send a PM with the post linked so we don't miss it.

 

[Fuzzbucket]

The trouble with warnings in posts is - well, to be blunt, I know I don't go back and read mine again - who does? So in the end I'd do it again and again and sooner or later I'd cop a warn anyway for not having heard in the first place, if you see what I mean.