We want Forum Feedback!

[KageSora]

I don't think it's a case of mods getting a free pass from other mods/TJ--I think it's the users being willing to give the mods a free pass.

 

I HAVE seen it happen on other places where reporting mods did nothing at best, brought about the wrath of the modding team at worst. Where the mods abused their power and played jokes on the users and were jerks in general and they were all above the rules because they were the ones that enforced them. Sort of a "Who will enforce the rules on the rule enforcers if they're not willing to enforce them on themselves/each other" kind of problem.

 

I actually never even thought about reporting a mod until now (when the idea was brought up). I've never had a need to--but, now that I think about it, beyond that, there's always been this unconscious assumption that mods were... Somehow untouchable when it came to reports from mere users. Probably from times in the past where I've seen authority figures abuse their authority then the other authority figures back them up when they get called on it--thankfully, never on DC.

 

Other users might think the same thing.

 

Or, they're not so much respecting the mods as fearing their wrath. The "I don't want to piss off my superior by reporting xir rule-breaking for fear of them making my life miserable" problem.

 

I can ESPECIALLY see this fear being the issue if the user thought the mod in question WAS abusing their power--if they already thought the mod was abusing their power, why should they do what they think is basically sticking a beacon on themselves to draw their wrath?

 

Mods ARE people--and people make mistakes. When they make mistakes, they need to own up to it. And mods should do their best to emotionally detach themselves before they start doing their modding job, or stay out of it if they can't.

 

 

As for the "hiding behind 'mods are people too'" issue...

 

Yes, mods are human. And they should be free to post what they want when they're not acting in a mod capacity (obviously as long as it's within the site rules). But when a mod DOES mess up, "mods are humans" isn't a good excuse. It's not a free pass to screw up then not own up to it.

 

Basically, you can't just use "I'm human, I have bad days" as an excuse to let your personal problems cause you to a bad job at your job. You shouldn't be able to use "I was having a bad day" as an excuse to do a bad job as a mod.

 

Basically, if a mod can't objectively handle a situation, it's probably best that they leave the situation for another mod--or ask another mod to help them.

[Kila]

Yeah the whole "Reminder to stay on topic you guys!" thing seems odd because a lot of the times I've seen that happen, I haven't seen anything I'd personally consider off-topic. Then again I don't frequent SD very often. But from reading people in here talk about what's going on, it looks (from my admittedly remote vantage point) a lot like "This forum is about discussing a GAME how dare you have fun?!?" which doesn't make much sense to me.

 

But yeah a lot of the problem stems from ambiguity in the rules. Rules 3, 4, and 6 are pretty cut and dry, but the big ones (1, 2, 5) generating the most warnings are so vague. There are no specific criteria posted where they're most needed. Unless the modding guidelines are so restrictive that it mods are basically being told to make everyone into robots, it often feels like some of them are trying to err on the side of safety. Rule 7 is unenforceable so I don't even know why it's even a rule. I've never heard of anyone getting warned for not reading a sticky, on any forum ever. The way the mods are currently modding does fit the rules, but at the same time it is an extremely narrow subset within what many people would interpret as being allowed, and that's why it feels so excessive and rattly.

 

And I still want to see the mod hierarchy posted somewhere public. We keep being told to go up the ladder but from where I'm standing as a user, I don't see one. When I see people going "if you don't like mod x go up the chain of command" my automatic response is "what chain of command?". From where I'm standing I see TJ sitting on top of a flat platform made of mods. That's a very short chain of command; it amounts to "talk to the boss if you don't like it" and I can't for the life of me see why people would say "go up the chain" if it's faster to type "talk to TJ".

As far as a chain of command, I've never seen the Globals as higher than any other mod. They have access to the moderation tools of all forums to mod in the event that something happens in case there are no section mods around.

 

This may have changed since I stopped modding, though. I don't know if these days the Globals are considered "higher ranking" than section mods or not. I may also be completely wrong all together, but I won't lose any sleep over it if I am. -shrug-

 

I do know that mods should be demodded if they can't/aren't doing their job OR if they're out of control on a power trip. Nothing ruins a forum more than mods who terrify the members. Even when I was a mod I felt victimized by a few of my peers (thankfully TJ acted fast in that situation). There's no system in order to reprimand/demod a mod other than "take it to TJ and hope for the best".

[Pokemonfan13]

Globals have abilities that section mods don't, like being able to delete and make polls. Because of that I see them as "higher". They also tend to be more experienced mods that started off as section mods and got "promoted". I guess different people see things differently. x3

[Starscream]

Basically, if a mod can't objectively handle a situation, it's probably best that they leave the situation for another mod--or ask another mod to help them.

precisely. I usually do this if a problem involves a user I cannot moderate fairly due to personal bias.

 

edit: I see globals as higher in the chain of command. I generally take my issues to Z or socky here if I can't nab TJ in irc.

Edited March 24, 2013 by Starscream

[rubyshoes]

Globals have abilities that section mods don't, like being able to delete and make polls. Because of that I see them as "higher". They also tend to be more experienced mods that started off as section mods and got "promoted". I guess different people see things differently. x3

I also see them as "higher".

 

 

[Kila]

Globals have abilities that section mods don't, like being able to delete and make polls.  Because of that I see them as "higher".  They also tend to be more experienced mods that started off as section mods and got "promoted".  I guess different people see things differently. x3

I've always been of the opinion that section mods have those same abilities so that they can better run their sections. It's like having a specific job to do, but having to run to a "supervisor" every time you need X done and cutting into your "supervisor's" own schedule. ESPECIALLY for the Requests/suggestions forum, because polls are ALWAYS being created, deleted, etc. It's plain stupidity.

 

I can't ever view the globals as "superiors" just because they have the ability to make/delete polls along with a few other tools. They don't hold any more sway. IMO, we lost all the more experienced mods before the current Globals were "promoted". Experience in modding on DC is completely subjective, because one of the current Globals vanished for a year, leaving me to run a section alone. Not trying to drag Sock through the mud or anything, I'm just stating this as a fact. At the time of her promotion, had I not left, I would have had more experience as a mod. not to mention that there are some mods who admittedly don't do as much "work" as others in their section for varying reasons, like busy work lives, school, etc. Two people could be mods for the same amount of time, but one could have done LOADS more than the other in terms of modding.

 

But I firmly agree with everything Lyth has said. Behaviors of the mods, and what such a toxic environment were doing to my ability to mod effectively, are the largest reasons I stepped down as a mod. They either need to learn to be more objective, accept the consequences that come with their actions, and have a more firm punishment system in place. Users should not be defending mods who are doing a poor job, nor should they be given a by for their misdeeds. Bad day or not, mods dish out warns to members for the same things they themselves should be warned for, and it shouldn't be excused. Otherwise the mods should start excusing every user who's having a "bad day".

 

Edit: Misplaced capital letter, whoops.

Edited March 24, 2013 by Kila

[Spelunker]

I can imagine that would get annoying. It would be great if all mods could remove polls in their sections.

[earthgirl]

...

 

I gotta say I respect the current mods. Modding can be a tough job to do, especially when you have to stand your ground and put up with so much crap from users and detach yourself and be impartial. If user breaks a rule, then they broke a rule and should be notified.

I know not everyone can be a good mod. I know I wouldn't make a good one, hence why I didn't apply for the job.

 

Some mods don't just slap warns on users for silly things. I crossed the line the other day by rambling something about an user in a section where said user couldn't see it and I was pretty certain I'd get warned for it once i realized it, but instead I got a friendly PM from a mod telling me that they removed that bit and I understood that I shouldn't do it again or next time, I'd get warned.

To me, this kind of approach is more effective.

[Fuzzbucket]

Don't I recall a mod NOW in place who was disciplined a couple of years ago, and what that mod was doing at the time stopped - or was my impression wrong (I was newish here at the time...)

 

I think those in place now are doing OK. But if there is any evidence that they are doing something really awful - homophobia I missed ! - yes, they need firing. Collect posts of that nature and turn them in.

 

But the occasional bad day - as I said once before way up here - I know a GLOBAL elsewhere who banned someone in a fit of rage when they'd had a bad day - yes there was an offence committed but not a bannable one. They came back the next day, reinstated the member and apologised. I am not aware of a mod here who wouldn't do the same.

 

But also - there are people here who have copped warns and said "oh I was just having a bad day, no fair, I didn't mean it..." and whine in threads about that. If we try to pull that, why shouldn't a mod ?

 

Sure, mods have to be "better" than the rest of us at times - but they ARE human too, and they do have strict rules they HAVE to follow. TJ made those.

 

I do think spelling out better what rule has been broken when there is a warn might help some of the more aggrieved here. But - not here but elsewhere - I have reported a mod - spelling out EXACTLY what rules had been broken - that's important, not least if we expect that of them when we cop warns. After I had done it three times that mod - ceased to be a mod. I've no idea if they were fired or just got fed up - but they are no longer a mod. That is, IMHO, the right way to do it.

Edited March 24, 2013 by fuzzbucket

[TheGrox]

But what actually happens when we dispute warns we don't think we deserved? Non-answers. Question dodging. "You were wrong because I said so." Blaming us for the fight even if we didn't start it, or even if there was no fight to begin with. Condescending "you should know better"s. Total stoppage of dialog when pressed. I once got warned for posting in caps in a humorous fashion and it came paired with a belittling nettiquette "lesson" as if I wasn't older than the Internet. Those responses? Robotic or prideful, take your pick. But that's not a good practice, not at all.

This is exactly my experience. Probably caused at least partly by how vague and open to interpretation some of the rules are now.

 

 

Some mods don't just slap warns on users for silly things. I crossed the line the other day by rambling something about an user in a section where said user couldn't see it and I was pretty certain I'd get warned for it once i realized it, but instead I got a friendly PM from a mod telling me that they removed that bit and I understood that I shouldn't do it again or next time, I'd get warned.

To me, this kind of approach is more effective.

 

Really? To me, that is much much more effective than simply slapping a warn on someone - and I myself would be much more likely to listen to what mods are asking. To be honest, I am probably getting to the point of not caring about warns anymore. I used to, a lot, but now having gotten a few warns for stupid things, which I have disputed (with results as Lyth described above), I honestly just give up. I'll post what I want to post, and if it gets warned then so be it.

 

But the trouble is, what earthgirl described has never happened to me, and I have never heard of it happening to anyone else. If this is happening it should be happening across the whole forum, not one mod doing one thing and others doing completely the opposite. I think this should be the way warns work for minor things.

 

ETA: in a section where said user couldn't see it? So mods are lighter about warns in those sort of sections than on the wider public forum, then? :|

Edited March 24, 2013 by TheGrox

[earthgirl]

ETA: in a section where said user couldn't see it? So mods are lighter about warns in those sort of sections than on the wider public forum, then? :|

Depends on the mods, I guess. :/ And on how much I crossed the line with my comments.

 

Don't worry, I got a few warns from posts in those kind of sections also, so that's not the thing.

[Fuzzbucket]

But the trouble is, what earthgirl described has never happened to me, and I have never heard of it happening to anyone else. If this is happening it should be happening across the whole forum, not one mod doing one thing and others doing completely the opposite. I think this should be the way warns work for minor things.

Raises hand. It has also happened to me, and more than once and from two different mods.

[cfmtfm]

But really, how often does a mod get reported? I'd wager not often. And you can bet it's not because you guys are perfect; this conversation wouldn't be happening if you were. I guarantee you a factor is that they fear targeted backlash.

Another reason why this conversation wouldn't be happening if you didn't bring it up.

 

Just because they don't post it in public and you have no knowledge of it, doesn't mean that they are not excused. Okay, maybe they're not reported as much because users are afraid of reporting them. But that is a 'fault' (don't quote me on that word) on the user's end. It could also be because the mods don't actually have any content that is reportable. Not that they're perfect. I'm sure there are users on here that don't have any reportable content. I can't say, because I don't know.

 

We aren't punished in any way for reporting something and I think some people fail to realize that.

 

If you're not sure if something really needs to be addressed or not, go ahead and report it anyway. It's our job to then decide what to do next. Even if we don't end up taking any actions, the report may helps us realize we need to keep an eye on a certain topic or whatnot, and there are absolutely no consequences for you if you report something and we don't do anything about it.

 

...

 

... Your reports are kept anonymous and safe and no one but the mods even have to know you submitted a report.

 

But I honestly have no experience of warns, so I don't have experience of bad explanations (or, worse, no explanations) or even good ones.

I'm not saying that to prove I'm 'perfect'. I'm just saying it because my attitude towards this particular topic is probably different to yours because of experience. I'll still stick to my opinions.

 

edit for Zovesta's comment below

Edited March 24, 2013 by cfmtfm

[Zovesta]

No reason to shrink your text, cfmtfm, we're not gonna slap you for having a differing opinion lol

 

It seems like the general consensus is getting the rules tightened up a bit, though? Teej, come on, shuffle on in here or do something about this. It really seems to be the root of the problem. Mods being too strict or too lax about enforcing rules pretty much comes from having vague rules that are really open to interpretations laaaaawwwwwllll

[Lythiaren]

Another reason why this conversation wouldn't be happening if you didn't bring it up.

You seem to have misread. This entire thread exists as a way for people to bring up their grievances with how things are run, and mods are a major part of how things are run. There was a long discussion in this thread last month about unfair warns, and I'll tell you right now that I didn't start that conversation either, just like I did not start the current conversation. I merely responded to an apologist. I've already laid out why the "they're people too" argument should never be used to excuse mod errors. And the fact that you're going up and saying that they're not getting reported because they "don't actually have any content that is reportable" is actually a perfect illustration of that very thing.

 

You can't say that mods make human errors in one breath and say that they are effectively incapable of error in the very next. That's contradictory. I'm afraid I'm having trouble reading your statement as anything other than "I'm not saying they're perfect but they're perfect". I'm sure that's not your intent, but when you say they have no reportable content you're contradicting things the mods themselves have said, that they get reported. I'm questioning the frequency.

 

If you want to know why, well, I've had users who don't like me chase me around trying to bait me into breaking rules (which were kind of really hilarious because it rapidly degenerated into childish namecalling when I caught them and didn't take the bait, and for the record it was because I'd caught them red-handed stealing art). I've also seen some mods basically act as guard dogs for their friends, in many, many places including DC. The thing is, there's actually literally nothing stopping a mod in a bad mood from glaring at a user they don't like and flinging them several steps up the warn ladder for things that are barely on the fringe of the vague rules that have no clear guidelines. Under the current modding practice, a person can look up a person they hate, look into their post history, report a pretty big chunk of conversation as "spam" and most opinions as "disrespect", and have a good chance of throwing a warn or three onto their target. Replace the disgruntled user with a disgruntled mod, and you have a pretty big temptation to stretch the rules to the extent of getting a person you don't like into the post approval phase. Make that target "that guy who tattled on me and got me in trouble". I know I handed out a lot more mutes than usual when I was in a bad mood as a RuneScape pmod.

 

See what I'm getting at here? You can't excuse the mistakes of mods just because they are people. I'm holding them to their personhood because while they're 99% likely to ignore that temptation (I'm making a pretty extreme example here after all), they're quite capable of slipping once in a while and committing smaller infractions like yelling at someone in the heat of the moment or warning someone for arguing a point that hits home for them personally. Those are errors that they need to be held accountable for, but people fear the remote possibility of the extreme case.

Edited March 24, 2013 by Lythiaren

[cfmtfm]

I said that because I disagreed with your point; I haven't misread anything. I understand what you're saying and your reasons behind them, but I still don't agree.

 

I'm not going to go into a long-winded post because I'm lazy I honestly don't want to debate on this when I'm just going to be repeating various points of my argument over and over again.

 

I believe the mods know how to act and that they cannot act on their own personal things/experiences with other users (maybe if they had earlier warns, then yes; they'd keep a close eye on them). If the user thinks that they were warned unfairly, they have the choice to PM the mod or someone higher.

 

And I completely disagree with you disagreeing with the fact that "mods aren't people". Yes, they're meant to be of a higher position and act more 'responsibly', however that doesn't mean they are completely transformed into a "non-person".

[Starscream]

they're quite capable of slipping once in a while and committing smaller infractions like yelling at someone in the heat of the moment or warning someone for arguing a point that hits home for them personally. Those are errors that they need to be held accountable for, but people fear the remote possibility of the extreme case.

 

We do. You are acting like we don't but we actually do get held responsible, warned and reprimanded. We don't usually make an issue of it. We take the warns with good grace and continue on.

[Lythiaren]

And I completely disagree with you disagreeing with the fact that "mods aren't people". Yes, they're meant to be of a higher position and act more 'responsibly', however that doesn't mean they are completely transformed into a "non-person".

You're most definitely misreading me now. I've never once disputed the claim that they are people. I'll reiterate:

 

Person != should be absolved unquestioningly of all error

Person == should be offered understanding but still ultimately held responsible for their mistakes

 

That people are telling me that I shouldn't be holding mods responsible for their own errors (yes, I've been personally subjected to the very errors I mentioned in that post, and no, they were not reprimanded if the fact that anyone else I talked to about it just yelled at me in my face like how dare I question their friend was any indication) because they are people and people make mistakes, while at the same time telling me that they can do no wrong, is contradictory and indicative of a saddening double standard.

 

----

Starscream, I'm not disputing the idea that reprimands are happening, either. What I'm asking is whether all infractions are being reprimanded, because mods are meant to represent the organization and as such are held to a higher standard of behaviour. I'm pondering the possibility that some infractions are going unreported, especially when a popular complaint in this thread throughout the course of the thread has been "mods are trigger-happy". Is it really such a leap to say that people may fear targeted backlash from people that they perceive as overzealous?

Edited March 24, 2013 by Lythiaren

[Walker]

You're most definitely misreading me now. I've never once disputed the claim that they are people. I'll reiterate:

 

Person != should be absolved unquestioningly of all error

Person == should be offered understanding but still ultimately held responsible for their mistakes

 

That people are telling me that I shouldn't be holding mods responsible for their own errors (yes, I've been personally subjected to the very errors I mentioned in that post, and no, they were not reprimanded if the fact that anyone else I talked to about it just yelled at me in my face like how dare I question their friend was any indication) because they are people and people make mistakes, while at the same time telling me that they can do no wrong, is contradictory and indicative of a saddening double standard.

Can you give us a few ideas of how you want to see mods held responsible, then?

[Fuzzbucket]

You're most definitely misreading me now. I've never once disputed the claim that they are people. I'll reiterate:

 

Person != should be absolved unquestioningly of all error

Person == should be offered understanding but still ultimately held responsible for their mistakes

*cough*

 

It may be my GREAT AGE, Lyth, but I literally don't understand what you mean by:

 

 

Person != should be absolved unquestioningly of all error

and

Person == should be offered understanding but still ultimately held responsible for their mistakes

 

I suspect this is perhaps netspeak of which I have remained unaware. Answer by PM if you like; I am not arguing with your point as I can't - but I would like to know what it means !

 

Double standards are not OK - there I would agree.

[Starscream]

I second the confusion with what

 

!=

and

== means

[Lythiaren]

! means "not".

 

!= means "is not equal to" and is the proper way to express "=/=".

== means "is equal to".

 

It's a programmer thing. = is used to assign things to variables, so using it in comparisons makes strange things happen in some languages, and makes the world implode in others.

 

So basically I was trying to succinctly express that you can't just say "they're people" and expect everyone to go "oh okay then" and forget everything they've ever done wrong; when you think "they're people" you should remember to offer understanding, especially when they've had a bad day, but still ask those people to make amends when they mess up. Because assuming mods are mature reasonable people, they don't need white knights to come to their rescue when they're under fire. Which is constantly. Because they're mods and have to tell people they're in trouble and people get mad when they get in trouble.

 

inb4 I get warned for being offtopic :V

no I'm kidding

Edited March 24, 2013 by Lythiaren

[cfmtfm]

I thought ! meant a mod (or higher authority) and = was just like the normal equal sign.

 

So ! supposedly should be forgiven for any mistake.

= is a person 'equal' to the users, I guess; an average user.

 

edit: or I could just be ninja'd.

edited with a reply:

You're most definitely misreading me now. I've never once disputed the claim that they are people.

I apologise for that mistake, I was in a hurry to go and eat lunch. :x

 

I meant that I disagreed with you thinking that "mods are people" is not a valid argument or reason.

Edited March 24, 2013 by cfmtfm

[Walker]

I don't know; maybe it would be possible to find someplace to say, "Don't be afraid to report a member (including a mod, staff member, etc.) if you feel as if they are being unfair," in a sticky or something somewhere, if that would help with us being as held accountable as anyone else.

[cfmtfm]

I don't know; maybe it would be possible to find someplace to say, "Don't be afraid to report a member (including a mod, staff member, etc.) if you feel as if they are being unfair," in a sticky or something somewhere, if that would help with us being as held accountable as anyone else. 

Did you mean 'report a member' as in the actual user or the post?

 

With posts, again:

If you're not sure if something really needs to be addressed or not, go ahead and report it anyway. It's our job to then decide what to do next. Even if we don't end up taking any actions, the report may helps us realize we need to keep an eye on a certain topic or whatnot, and there are absolutely no consequences for you if you report something and we don't do anything about it.

This is somewhere in a sticky already.