24 Aug, 2008, David Haley wrote in the 1st comment:
Votes: 0
It would perhaps be nice if there were some more velvet glove in the way moderation is handled, and less iron fist. For whatever it's worth, and with as many grains of salt as you please, the past few days have been a little concerning to me.
I think moderation is generally lacking on most of the mud related sites. Kudos to the Mudbytes Admin for having the backbone to moderate the site. The anarchistic nature of many mud forums does nothing but alienate potentially new members of the community. Sites like Gamedev, MMOsite and simular all have active moderation and on The Game Creators site (realm crafter, FPS crafter) the first 20 or so posts by all newbies are screened by moderators before being displayed. The one notable thing about these sites is the lack of trollers and flaimbaiters.
So i say bring on the moderation, it might hurt the anarchist in some of us for a while, but i can say, from experience, it does get easier to post in a positive and thoughtful manner.
The velvet glove approach has failed, in case you hadn't noticed. You won't have anything to worry about as long as you're not contributing to the problem.
24 Aug, 2008, David Haley wrote in the 4th comment:
Votes: 0
I don't think it was ever actually tried. :shrug: Don't mistake the velvet glove approach for doing nothing or wringing one's hands.
I think that it's worth mentioning that Hades Kane is one of the most active anti-trollers I'm aware of… to the point of actually having tried to get together some kind of community coalition to that effect.
I personally have had my own crossing of swords with him, and have no personal interest in defending him.
I think I can say with a fair level of impartiality that HK is most decidedly not a flamer, nor a troll, here or elsewhere, and if he's seen as being part of the problem, then the frame of reference probably needs to be recalibrated.
I have to admit that my new personal policy of only visiting this site daily rather than several times throughout the day has recently cost me the ability to respond to several threads, and I, personally, found a great deal of humor in Kiasyn's remark that those who can't bite their tongues cause threads to be locked - the mental image that left of what the rest of us must look like with all those tooth marks in our tongues was hilarious… Overall, I'm leaning towards siding with The_Fury on this one. Despite the fact that I think some of the recent thread locking may have been overkill, it's ultimately better in the final analysis to err on the side of caution than to wait until situations are out of control.
as the unintintional spur to some of thje recent events i simply say this
Potato
that is all /bow
25 Aug, 2008, Hades_Kane wrote in the 8th comment:
Votes: 0
Conner said:
Despite the fact that I think some of the recent thread locking may have been overkill, it's ultimately better in the final analysis to err on the side of caution than to wait until situations are out of control.
I would have to disagree with this opinion. I think one of the strongest assets a community, and particularly a forum can have is the feeling that within clearly outlined boundaries, people are actually able to converse without fear of reprisal. If the current trend continues, I worry that this site will become a place where people are afraid to actually discuss anything or voice their opinions without seeing a thread locked. How many times on this site and others have we seen someone get out of control or step out of line, the situation get resolved, and the thread continue to be useful? I, myself, have been involved with numerous threads both here and other places where that has been the case.
One of my problems is there is nothing outlined to suggest that many of the recently locked threads were done so as a result of some sort of clearly outlined set of guidelines. If politically sensitive conversation isn't allowed, or if warnings against such a conversation aren't allowed, or if any number of other things aren't allowed, I think I and many others would feel more comfortable in an environment where what is and isn't allowed is outlined somewhere, like the rules page. There have been other problems I've had lately that I have taken to private messages to try to get resolved, as I've clearly made an effort to try to "play by the rules", regardless of how apparently fuzzy they may be.
If every other thread is going to get locked, then I have to wonder what is the point of having a forum at all?
But ultimately in response to Conner's opinion, I think I'd rather see a conversation teeter on the brink of being out of control rather than feeling like the moderation is what is spinning out of control. Even in a "total anarchist" environment like TMC, myself and others have actually managed to rally against a lot of the trolling and flaming to help make that place a little less volatile of a place, and I think if we can go as long as we have in a place like that without a conversation spinning out of control, I don't see where the risk is in having a bit less of the iron fist being waved around here.
You forgot cesspool. "Self-Moderation" as TMC likes to employ, that is, relying on the common sense of the members to moderate themselves appropriately, will never work. And will almost always result in making whatever community(ies) is(are) involved in that site look bad to outside viewers. Sure, you may have the occasional spurt of flame/troll-less threads, but they're inevitable in a situation like prevails over there.
As for David's Velvet glove thing, I think he's more referring to how IMC is currently moderated. I try pushing things onto the right channels politely, and politely discouraging unwanted topics (such as advertising) from the channels. I've only used an Iron Fist tactic in one case, and everything else has been fairly calm. Albeit, there are still some heated discussions, and the games (still need fixed*cough cough wink wink nudge nudge*) tend to get heated at times, but nothing really gets terribly out of hand.
I'm all for moderation; Kiasyn's really rather good at it as well, Warns first, splits topics if the need arises, and then proceeds to lock things. But ultimately, in regards to the sensitive and/or controversial political discussions, this is where the common sense rule applies. If it seems excessively controversial, it probably doesn't need to be brought up here. The Russian Invasion of Georgia is a really good example, and I'm glad that thread was locked before it got out of hand as was inevitable given the sensitivity of the content. We are after all a group of MUD Developers, and unless you work as an intelligence analyst for the government (doubtful given the utter lack of free time most of them have) it's all speculation anyway.
In response to Crat: HK may advocate a lot of anti-troll stuff, but his posts over the last week or so have all had a less than admirable tone to them. Whether that was the intention or not, they have. And I'll admit, my attitude in a certain recent thread was less than admirable but the reasons for which have been explained to those involved privately and will remain private. (No, this is not an invitation for you to PM me asking about them either.)
25 Aug, 2008, David Haley wrote in the 10th comment:
Votes: 0
Kayle said:
"Self-Moderation" (…) will never work.
I agree with that. I think that's the other extreme of oppressive moderation. As always there is a middle ground. There's no need to go from doing nothing to locking left and right; and there's no need to scale back locking by going back to doing nothing.
I agree that, before moderator action, warning first is helpful, constructive and (in the end of the day) the most useful thing to do.
Kayle said:
As for David's Velvet glove thing, I think he's more referring to how IMC is currently moderated.
Well, I was referring to both, since in many ways the communities/rules/admins overlap. I am disappointed to see porn images linked to on IMC and go unheeded, and am somewhat disappointed to see genitalia humor be the main conversation. It's not that the subject matter bothers me per se, it's just that the guidelines are completely unclear to me – what seems like it should be discouraged is left to run rampant, and occasional very minor transgressions are punished with the righteous hammer of retribution. I feel like I don't know what the community accepts and what it doesn't.
Kayle said:
HK may advocate a lot of anti-troll stuff, but his posts over the last week or so have all had a less than admirable tone to them. Whether that was the intention or not, they have.
I respectfully disagree. When he replied to my post about China, I felt it as more of a tongue-in-cheek jibe at the community for being incapable of dealing with sensitive subjects. I didn't think it was a jibe at any person in particular. When he replied about the spelling mistakes, I thought it was actually constructive, and his suggestion of adding a note to the signature is valuable in my opinion.
What I think this duality shows is not that one of us is wrong and the other right; I think that it shows that the community has issues when it comes to being able to talk to and understand each other without immediately jumping on bygones. This shouldn't be about grudges left and right; the very notion of grudges existing on a forum where few of us have met each other or even worked together extensively online is kind of silly.
In response to Crat: HK may advocate a lot of anti-troll stuff, but his posts over the last week or so have all had a less than admirable tone to them. Whether that was the intention or not, they have.
I disagree with you. I think his tone has been one of someone more interested in facts, helpfulness, and truth than kissing ass. I think that is admirable, even when I disagree with him.
Kayle wrote:
Quote
And I'll admit, my attitude in a certain recent thread was less than admirable
I really don't care about your tone, except where it is a tool of your adminship. At that point I think your tone does become relevant. Since you are IMC2 admin, and not MudBytes admin, I don't see that it has a whole lot of bearing here, except in that it does make you look like a pot describing a kettle, weakening your argument.
Kayle wrote:
Quote
but the reasons for which have been explained to those involved privately and will remain private. (No, this is not an invitation for you to PM me asking about them either.)
Let me describe a surprising moment I had. There's this guy on the Intermud-3 network that hates my guts, named Malic (actually he's been kinda AWOL lately…I should ask Hellmonger what's up with that). He's been always on my case about anything he could find…and this one time I was trying to explain to him why it was that when I banned a couple of muds from i3, the discussion had happened privately. See, it turned out that the bannings became explosively controversial and problematic, and Malic's retort to me (paraphrased) was something like
"As a military guy, you should have known that would happen, dumbass"
This really caused me to sit back in my chair and go "Hmm!" See…at that moment, what Malic helped me realize was that my instinct as an NCO had been to "counsel" the "discipline problem" privately, but when the problem wasn't solved, then move on to public punishment. Malic had not realized it, but I had in fact followed my military training in this matter, and it was this very thing which backfired in a dramatic way. The disturbing thing was that I had not realized this was what I was doing at the time, but perhaps that is a story for another occasion.
My mistake was in trying to deal privately with a matter that was unavoidably, inherently public. It was like if the Supreme Court ruled on cases with no issued opinion, and no guideline for people to understand *why* they decided as they did. What they do and why they do it is necessarily public, and it must be transparently public in order for the people to retain confidence in the process. Imagine if they did not explain what laws they interpreted, how, and why. Imagine further that they made illegal the debate of their opinion!
What I had done was, with the best possible intention, make the process opaque to people who were stakeholders, and make them lose confidence in the process…no matter how much personal regard they held me in.
I learned that when exercising the enforcement of policy, complete transparency in every aspect is of paramount importance in retaining the legitimacy of my authority.
It was a valuable lesson, and though the folks that helped me learn it were very rude to me, that never caused me to ban them or seek reprisal against them. Indeed, the opinions of people deeply committed to agendas based on antagonism toward me have been nothing but extremely valuable to me.
I think it is a mistake to operate in secret message mode. I think it is counterproductive to punish the desire to discuss policy. I am saying these things because they are valuable lessons I learned at some cost. I care about this community, and hope that my experience will serve it.
While that's an interesting story, I think I missed how that applies to me not wanting to discuss the issues which caused me to lash out in the thread in question. I'm not one for airing out every detail of my personal life in public, and I don't usually let such things dictate my behavior in places such as this, but no ones perfect, and sometimes one slips up.
I respectfully disagree. When he replied to my post about China, I felt it as more of a tongue-in-cheek jibe at the community for being incapable of dealing with sensitive subjects. I didn't think it was a jibe at any person in particular. When he replied about the spelling mistakes, I thought it was actually constructive, and his suggestion of adding a note to the signature is valuable in my opinion.
What I think this duality shows is not that one of us is wrong and the other right; I think that it shows that the community has issues when it comes to being able to talk to and understand each other without immediately jumping on bygones. This shouldn't be about grudges left and right; the very notion of grudges existing on a forum where few of us have met each other or even worked together extensively online is kind of silly.
Well said. There comes a point when we all need to just the the past go, sure its not easy, but it is well worth the effort. My method to solving at least my part of this problem has not been to bite my tongue, that's pointless and only suppresses the hatred you feel, leaving it to boil over at some other point, but has been to look and respond to things in a positive manner even when i might be taking an unpopular position like was the case with the IMC thread, or when for example i respond to a post by Samson. We might never like each other, but we can sure as hell deal with each other in a respectful manner, which we have agreed to do and i respect him for that. After all whats important here is not our petty grievances, but having a harmonious community where all are welcome, not just the 10 or so of us who are regular posters here.
I applaud Mudbytes for taking the moderated route. Have they got the balance right? probably not, but i have no doubt that they will get it right given time.
I think I missed how that applies to me not wanting to discuss the issues which caused me to lash out in the thread in question.
As I understand this thread, it's been prompted by and is discussing the lashing out by administration in response to issues discussed privately in whole or large part.
Since you are admin of a service related to MudBytes, and have lashed out recently, I think that my observation on an instinct to "discuss privately, punish publicly" is relevant, even if you feel there is adequate justification for the secrecy in your particular lashing out.
I'm not interested in trying to wheedle from you whatever secrets you're keeping. I'm pointing out that the habit of public punishment for secret crimes is something I think is unhealthy. This position, I think, is germane to the post you addressed in part toward me, though I understand you don't feel it is on point with what you wanted to explain.
PS I would like to note, with some satisfaction, that nobody's face has melted (AFAIK) from reading this thread, despite there being opinion adverse to certain orthodoxies. I strongly believe it is not necessary to infantilize a forum's participants in order to maintain decorum.
The reasons for my lashing out are entirely personal, and not at all related to anything regarding the site, or the service of the site that I maintain. The only reason I told those that I told was so that they understood what was going on. But I do see your point. And I'm sure at some point or another it will come out eventually, so I see no reason not clearing the air.
Quote
Why was I so aggressive throughout that entire thread? Why does this matter so much to me? Because I too, like |spider| suffer from Dyslexic Dysgraphia. I've also been clinically diagnosed with Asperger's. I've worked hard since I was diagnosed with both at age 7 (I'm 23 now) to hide it whenever I'm interacting with other people. Especially on forums. Some people don't have the patience to hide it, so they just go with what they know. I work especially hard to code, Why? Because I enjoy it, no matter how hard it is for me at times to actually do it.
I'll never be rid of these disorders. They'll always be lingering around in the shadows waiting to rear their ugly heads at any moment. Though if my doctors and psychologist are to be believed I should be able to maintain my level of control over them for a while.
Air cleared. That might not make a lot of sense because I had to pull it out of context but the rest of the PM has no bearing on the current thread, and thus doesn't belong here.
Well I see that we're all having more fun bashing administrative decisions in public again. It might interest you all to know that my tongue is in fact gone. No place left to bite, it's been severed off.
Argue all you like. It's not going to change anything. Anarchy has proven not to work. Self moderation has proven itself not to work. The "velvet glove" as David put it clearly doesn't work. So that only leaves one other option left - the Iron Fist - before the Banhammer is deployed. Consider it a warning, a threat, the iron curtain revisited, or Hitler resurrected for all I care.
I find it ironic that one of the people I've had the worst and loudest argument exchanges with seems to agree with me that things haven't worked out, despite the fact that we still don't have any reason to get along. It might do the rest of you some good to stop and realize why that is.
25 Aug, 2008, David Haley wrote in the 17th comment:
Votes: 0
Samson said:
Well I see that we're all having more fun bashing administrative decisions in public again.
With you, there is no questioning, no constructive criticism, no thoughtfulness, no middle ground. You feel that somebody either completely agrees with you, or is out to bash all of your decisions and cause hell to rain upon this community. You see only two extremes: do absolutely nothing, or come down hard and heavy, shooting first and asking questions later (or not). Nothing has been learned from the disasters this community has been through.
Well, at least I tried. Again. This unwillingness or inability (whichever it may be) to move forward is tiring.
The last thing I'll say on this subject is to ask people to look at healthy communities, even ones that share many members with this one, in which there is basically no moderation, and to wonder why that is. And then wonder what made this one the way it is.
I see you think you can do better. Ask Davion if he needs another admin. I'm inclined to get out and let you all ruin this place the way TMC has been ruined if that's what you all want.
25 Aug, 2008, David Haley wrote in the 19th comment:
That may well be. But no matter which way I try and go, everyone eventually makes this about me.
Have fun. I'm out. Consider this an official resignation. I'm sick to death of being the only one who gives a rat's ass about trying to clean up something nobody else wants cleaned up.