29 Aug, 2008, Lobotomy wrote in the 181st comment:
Votes: 0
kiasyn said:
So guys, I don't think anyone ever answered me, why do we need more moderators?

I would like to hear the answer to that as well, so that it might be expediently refuted. As far as I can tell, there is no need whatsoever for more moderators.
29 Aug, 2008, Guest wrote in the 182nd comment:
Votes: 0
Maybe not more per-se, but perhaps people who only do that instead of admins who have to do both. A couple of dedicated moderators would ease the burden on the admins so they can do other stuff.
29 Aug, 2008, Kayle wrote in the 183rd comment:
Votes: 0
kiasyn said:
So guys, I don't think anyone ever answered me, why do we need more moderators?


Why do we need more moderators? We don't per-se. Like Samson said, it'd be more of a way to free up the Admins to focus more on other things, like enhancing the articles section, or making the Code Repository easier to manage, or what have you. Things that happen in the background that we don't always see in the foreground. I spoke with Davion briefly about this the other morning on IMC, but I'll reiterate here a plan that came to me while I was in that state just before waking up, not quite awake, but not asleep either.

Pick one, maybe two people from the general populace, that are known throughout the community, You'll also probably want to pick someone who doesn't constantly pick fights, and is generally well liked. You don't want to have a moderator that everyone hated before they were a moderator, that leaves room for vendettas (and that's not something you're going to want to see with a new mod).

Then make a Moderation only sections on the forums for them. I can think of two boards that could go there, one for them to discuss rules, rulings, posts/threads that have/need to be moderated, (Perhaps have a sticky thread on the board where they're required to explain why they locked a thread?) and then have another board where they can discuss members of the populace who cause problems. Once the Moderator sections tossed together, take a week or maybe two given schedules, and discuss a thorough set of guidelines for how they should handle moderation. Once you've got that figured out, Turn them loose, and let them worry about the day to day postings. Watch them for a week or so, make sure they're not abusing their abilities, and then let the forums run themselves while you guys continue working on the rest of the site that isn't the forums.

Just my two cents though.
29 Aug, 2008, David Haley wrote in the 184th comment:
Votes: 0
Kayle's suggestion sounds reasonable enough to me. I think it's important to have several people who spend time moderating. Whether that means adding more people is sort of secondary, and would be a means to achieve a goal; I don't think more people is a goal in and of itself.
29 Aug, 2008, Cratylus wrote in the 185th comment:
Votes: 0
Kayle wrote:
Quote
Why do we need more moderators? We don't per-se. Like Samson said, it'd be more of a way to free up the Admins to focus more on other things, like enhancing the articles section, or making the Code Repository easier to manage, or what have you. Things that happen in the background that we don't always see in the foreground.


Are things really falling behind because the
admins can't keep up with reading the posts?

This thread got big fast, and might give some
newcomers the impression that this forum is
superbusy…but really, sometimes days go by
between posts. Reading all the posts here is
simply not normally a heavy workload.

If the STAFF here thinks things are falling
behind and they need help, fine. That's on them,
let them decide that. As non-staff, I'd ask
for more mods if things are starting to fail.
Are you seeing that anywhere?

If not, I'm not understanding what the point
is of asking for more mods, if the admins
don't feel they need them. What's the goal,
if they don't see the need? What's the change
you want to see?

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net
30 Aug, 2008, Conner wrote in the 186th comment:
Votes: 0
On the issue of additional moderators: I can see where Samson's recommendation and Kayle's idea for implementation are quite ideal here indeed, but I have to agree with Cratylus overall. Aside from the rare thread like this one, these forums rarely see more than 10-20 new posts on a given day and often enough it's more like 2-3 posts over a span of several days, neither of which really seem like they'd qualify as an unmanageable workload for the three remaining admins. :insert ponderous smiley:

My own experience with [other] forums would indicate that when the posting rate begins to get challenging for the admin (I don't normally encounter forums that often with multiple admins…) to have trouble keeping up then they're usually the ones who start approaching folks they feel might be appropriate entirely on their own without members coming forward suggesting that they need to do so.

This leaves me having to wonder if our three admins here feel like this is a helpful suggestion because they were reluctant to admit they needed the help or if they feel this is a bit insulting as an implied statement towards their abilities here. :sad:

I truly hope that the case is not the latter as I don't feel they've been doing nearly a bad enough job at this to merit that and I firmly believe that the intent behind the suggestion in the first place, particularly given the source, was undoubtedly meant to be the former entirely. …I just wanted to emphasis this because I can easily see the possibility of ruffled feathers over such a simple misunderstanding of intent and I would rather point out, with clarity if possible, that I don't believe anyone was meaning it that way.

So, in conclusion, at the risk of a bit of redundancy, I feel that the idea of adding a new staffer or two who have the sole responsibility of moderation thus relieving the admins of that burden so they can pursue other avenues more to their personal strengths and enjoyments is well worth consideration, but the real answer to Kiasyn's direct question is simply: we don't need more moderators at all it was only a constructive suggestion of a means to make your lives a bit easier.
30 Aug, 2008, Guest wrote in the 187th comment:
Votes: 0
Kayle said:
Pick one, maybe two people from the general populace, that are known throughout the community, You'll also probably want to pick someone who doesn't constantly pick fights, and is generally well liked. You don't want to have a moderator that everyone hated before they were a moderator, that leaves room for vendettas (and that's not something you're going to want to see with a new mod).

Then make a Moderation only sections on the forums for them. I can think of two boards that could go there, one for them to discuss rules, rulings, posts/threads that have/need to be moderated, (Perhaps have a sticky thread on the board where they're required to explain why they locked a thread?) and then have another board where they can discuss members of the populace who cause problems. Once the Moderator sections tossed together, take a week or maybe two given schedules, and discuss a thorough set of guidelines for how they should handle moderation. Once you've got that figured out, Turn them loose, and let them worry about the day to day postings. Watch them for a week or so, make sure they're not abusing their abilities, and then let the forums run themselves while you guys continue working on the rest of the site that isn't the forums.


Kayle, that's a really good plan and is in fact fairly standard practice on every forum I know of outside of mudding, and at least as far as they've said, at TMS as well. It's a successful model really since even if the site is low activity the admins don't necessarily want to be moderating the forums, or like in my case, it may not even fit in with their abilities. Especially if the populace thinks you're a nazi admin or something :P

It's a separation of duties thing really. Moderators handle the forum side. Admins handle the backend and provide a buffer for when the mods might have gone too far. When your admins are mods there's nowhere to go with a problem except other admins who are less than likely to openly agree that another admin did a bad thing.
30 Aug, 2008, kiasyn wrote in the 188th comment:
Votes: 0
Conner said:
This leaves me having to wonder if our three admins here feel like this is a helpful suggestion because they were reluctant to admit they needed the help or if they feel this is a bit insulting as an implied statement towards their abilities here. :sad:


We don't feel neither. We were trying to figure out what everyone in this thread actually wanted back from us to conclude the thread…

As for exploring other avenues… I read MUDBytes daily anyway, moderating as needed… which is very seldom.
30 Aug, 2008, David Haley wrote in the 189th comment:
Votes: 0
Well, I think that one of the big problems was that we had personal involvement and grudges mixed with moderation, which caused trouble from time to time. That seems to have gone away, so perhaps the best thing to do now is just sit back and do nothing, but hopefully having learned something for all of us.
30 Aug, 2008, Conner wrote in the 190th comment:
Votes: 0
kiasyn said:
We were trying to figure out what everyone in this thread actually wanted back from us to conclude the thread…

Doughnuts? ..oh, I know! Brownies! :wink:
31 Aug, 2008, Fizban wrote in the 191st comment:
Votes: 0
A bit late but:

Quote
Don't lock them. The same people will complain.


I have not and will not, ever, complain about the lack of moderation on a site. There is a reason I have more posts on TMC than any other forum. There is a reason, lots of people have more posts on TMC than any other forum. In fact I've never seen anyone here complain when you didn't lock a thread. The only time non-moderation has never been an issue here was the taser thread. That thread was not an issue simply because of a lack of moderation. That thread was an issue because in many people's eyes you seemed to agree with several controversial comments posted by Scandum.
31 Aug, 2008, David Haley wrote in the 192nd comment:
Votes: 0
I have to admit to having some trouble parsing the English of that last sentence… :stare:
31 Aug, 2008, Fizban wrote in the 193rd comment:
Votes: 0
DavidHaley said:
I have to admit to having some trouble parsing the English of that last sentence… :stare:


Re-read it myself, yeah it was an awkwardly worded mess, fixed, at least somewhat.
31 Aug, 2008, Kayle wrote in the 194th comment:
Votes: 0
How about we not discuss the contents of the Taser thread, thanks? I don't feel like revisiting that mess.
31 Aug, 2008, Cratylus wrote in the 195th comment:
Votes: 0
Kayle said:
How about we not discuss the contents of the Taser thread, thanks? I don't feel like revisiting that mess.


Heh agreed, that thread is so toxic I can see green fumes wafting from it.

I think Fizban/Drizzt's comments don't necessarily invite discussion of
it though. Not for me, anyway. I think I get his point about moderation
without feeling like the details of that thread need to be rehashed.

I do hope nobody feels the urge for that rehashing.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net
31 Aug, 2008, Fizban wrote in the 196th comment:
Votes: 0
Samson said:
A subforum for sensitive topics isn't going to work. Just ask Andy why he no longer has a "flames" forum on TMC or why Kyndig no longer has similar on MM or why such a thing no longer exists on TMS. The mere existence of such a thing invites disaster.


It actually worked for a good while on MudMagic. I am the reason it was removed there. He was fine with flames, he was not fine when a few years ago one of the flames on that forum, posted by me, was directed at him. The next day the forum was removed and I was banned (and later unbanned ). The post in particular by me that got it removed was more or less a critique of his moderation methodologies a few years back when he banned a large number of people.
31 Aug, 2008, Cratylus wrote in the 197th comment:
Votes: 0
Fizban said:
It actually worked for a good while on MudMagic.


I'm a firm believer in a pressure-valve being available for folks who
need to "speak freely". I believe it's what keeps the "safe" channels
on i3 the way they are, and I think that even if unused, the fact
that there's a "toilet" on the forum I run lets people know they can
unload both barrels, even if they never do it, and I think that helps.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net
31 Aug, 2008, Asylumius wrote in the 198th comment:
Votes: 0
This post is a hodgepodge of my opinion and our policy.

One thing that some folks don't understand is that sometimes a thread is locked not because we want to censor the content, shut someone up, etc. MudBytes is not a place to publicly argue with another individual in a person context. I encourage our visitors to correct each other, question each other, and well, argue. What I don't encourage our visitors to do is use a thread as a conduit to fight with your nemesis or conduct personal pissing contests.

When the argument serves a purpose above hassling one individual and is not fueled by a political or otherwise selfish motive, I see no reason to censor or lock it. Just remember, we aren't here to help people hash out their problems, solve differences, or bury hatchets. Although I understand that we have people assembling here to discuss topics who don't see eye to eye (or worse) and we certainly aren't trying to force people to get along, we're simply asking that any off-topic “stuff” be kept private. When a post is written with no other purpose than to expose to the world why you think another member's beliefs, politics, or character is flawed, it is of very little use to the community. Nine times out of ten a post like this usually shows that the posters only desire is to personally attack someone in front of as many ears as possible.

In my both personal and humble opinion, many of the threads that have been locked on MudBytes absolutely called for it. It's up the users to call into question when, why, or by who such moderation was executed by, or not to, but that doesn't change the fact that it was justified.

If a debate about something that is likely to genuinely improve the quality of MUDs and the MUD community, it's going to have to get pretty damn ugly before I would step in. If two or three people are using a thread to attack each other outside the context of the thread (or the thread itself does not closely relate to MUDs) I am far more likely to get involved or support another admin getting involved.

When we do moderate, we do our best to do so only when it serves the purpose of the website. Although we encourage free speech, open discussion, and the right of users to challenge each other, our desire to keep the content of our website relevant to it's purpose supersedes our respect for openness. As I understand it, there are a handful of members who feel that in some cases, that best effort has not necessarily been satisfactory to them, and we acknowledge that sentiment. At this point, we aren't interested in discussing our policy. If people have concerns about judgments made or the quality of our work, I urge them to, out of respect, address the issue privately, if for no other reason than that I still haven't read through (at the time of writing this) all 14 pages of this thread. Bringing concerns to my/our attention more directly may (or may not) result in a more direct response.
31 Aug, 2008, Fizban wrote in the 199th comment:
Votes: 0
Samson said:
Long ass post. Basic jist I get from it is the same that's been pounded into me time and time again. People want moderation right up until they're the ones being moderated.


Wrong. I agree with user-led moderation. I don't care whose being moderated, if it is unjust in my eyes it bothers me, regardless of who is being moderated. The best idea I've seen in a long time was an idea by Oncehour for a slashdot-esque mud-site where there would be no official "moderators". It'd use a reputation/mod points etc. counter similar to how MucMagic does. The main difference is each person's rep/mod would dictate what they could do. If someone who had a high rep down-modded a poster's post it would be heavier weighted than a new user doing the same thing or someone with a low reputation doing it. What this in essence does is allow people with opinions that are generally agreed with to steer what is and isn't acceptable, as such in essence the majority decides, except that the more productive and active users have more say in it which uis a good thing as it means you can't make several coounts just to down-mod a post repeatably with several usernames if you so choose.

Samson said:
I don't know how many times I need to repeat such a basic observation of behavior but I've yet to see anything that suggests I'm wrong. Especially when HK insists that the reason the thread was locked was for posting a dissenting political opinion or other people post crap about how questioning the administration will get you banned. It's exactly the same reason self-moderation can never work because everyone will claim the others are only out to suppress their views rather than to put down a troll.


If you really consider Hades to be a troll then I unfortunately have to agree with your decision to step down as a moderator as i just don't think you see things clearly. I consider him to be one of the most extreme anti-trolls I have ever met.

Samson said:
And though I'm sure it'll be dismissed as crazy talk, at this point I seriously think the only reason most of you in the category I'd call "troublemakers" want to see me stay is so you'll have someone to use as a punching bag for getting moderated when the action is appropriate. Like, oh, I don't know, deliberately finding a way to backdoor your dissenting political views in the context of "this is what he suppressed" and knowing that doing so is just as likely to inflame the issue as it was when you first posted it. No good can come of being sneaky about shit like that. It's entirely irrelevant to the issue which seems time and time again to be "we want moderation, but just don't moderate me, ok?". It just doesn't work that way no matter how much you want it to. And labeling it a personal insult doesn't make it true either. It simply pisses off the person you claim not to be trying to piss off by making such ludicrous comments.


I don't truly think you should step down, I just think sometimes you need to step back and look at things from different angles before reacting. I'm sure I am a "troublemaker" in your eyes, because you seem to have a very black and white perspective in that because I don't always agree with you that means I am against you, and on the other "side". I'm not out to get you. I'm not out to use you as a punching bag. I just don't think all people necessarily make the best moderators or are best in authoritative positions of any sort and in my eyes you likely are one of those people. That doesn't mean you couldn't ever be in my eyes a good moderator, I just think you'd need to be a lot less hot-tempered than you currently are to do so.

Samson said:
If anyone should be feeling insulted, it's me…. Good God, why the fuck am I even wasting the time getting drawn into the same stupid ass debate over and over again. This has become as bad as the Diku license and Mercthevia crap.


No it's not you. It's everyone you target with your blanket generalizations.
31 Aug, 2008, David Haley wrote in the 200th comment:
Votes: 0
I think it would be much more productive at this point to leave things as is. There is no need to continue arguing these points anymore. Samson has decided that he would prefer not to moderate because he doesn't enjoy it; there's really no need to further hammer on that point or any others.

EDIT: in case it wasn't clear, that was in reply to Fizban, not Asylumius.
180.0/215