12 Aug, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 241st comment:
Votes: 0
I don't think it's feasible to have something with no moderators whatsoever. There will always be the occasional spammer to deal with, if nothing else. The real problem being driven at here is an implicit lack of trust that the moderators will do a good job based on some people's past experience. Samson is right in that the chain has to stop somewhere, but I think that that's a somewhat separate issue.
That's actually more like the opposite of the solution I had in mind. :P
Edit for clarification: I'm not actually proposing a switch to this kind of thing, but a deletion-by-consensus style thing (WikiJustice) would be a solution to the cycle.
flumpy: if you really really really complain about something, but we've said we're not going to take action… there is no higher level. all the administration are equal, there is no 'grand master'. so what would we do?
13 Aug, 2009, Hades_Kane wrote in the 245th comment:
Votes: 0
Koron said:
That's actually more like the opposite of the solution I had in mind. :P
Edit for clarification: I'm not actually proposing a switch to this kind of thing, but a deletion-by-consensus style thing (WikiJustice) would be a solution to the cycle.
With only 11 or so people contributing to this thread, I think that shows a general lack of interest for a lot of people on this issue, which says to me only a very small handful of people would actually be exercising a system like that. Would you want the fate of discussion and moderation of this site in the hands of only about a dozen people? A large MUD with an agenda could easily overtake a site that's on this scale with a system like that. I think that such a system would only work if we had dozens of people contributing to discussion daily. Edited to add: Also, take a look at how TMC's thread rating system went… if thats any indication of how this community treats user rated discussion, I'd probably abandon this site if something similar occurred.
I think the best solution is a small but diverse handful of moderators that have been here for quite some time and that generally shows to be level headed most of the time. I'm still trying to figure out my three suggestions…
In regards to any rumblings about moving toward a peer pressure or self policing system… I'm down for TMC remaining that way, but again, I'd like to point toward how much more active this moderated site has been in the last couple of months compared to that one.
13 Aug, 2009, Lobotomy wrote in the 246th comment:
Votes: 0
Hades_Kane said:
In regards to any rumblings about moving toward a peer pressure or self policing system… I'm down for TMC remaining that way, but again, I'd like to point toward how much more active this moderated site has been in the last couple of months compared to that one.
That has far less to do with the moderation policies in place, and much more to do with differences in site design. Mudbytes has more modern forum code in use, as well as a more diverse set of forum sections designated for the various sorts of topics relating to MUD design and programming in general. As of yet, TMC only has one, maybe two forum sections for discussing coding. It also doesn't help that TMC still has a rather slow main page update speed for the top-# recent forum posts, whereas here it's pretty much an instant update. Were TMC really brought up to par as a place more suitable for discussing MUD development, per what I've mentioned, it is very likely that it would be seeing the same amount of activity as this place, if not more, to be honest.
It also doesn't help that TMC still has a rather slow main page update speed for the top-# recent forum posts, whereas here it's pretty much an instant update.
Here it is instant ;). The recent page, and the modlet on the front page all grab directly from the DB. All dynamically generated. TMC's is not. It's a static page created, I believe, with a crontab.
Edit for clarification: I'm not actually proposing a switch to this kind of thing, but a deletion-by-consensus style thing (WikiJustice) would be a solution to the cycle.
WikiJustice? No offense, but are you serious? My observance of such procedures is that they don't work. You end up with a bunch of people arguing for the sake of arguing and ending up nowhere for it.
Ok, now that I broke my lurker silence. I have watched all this and yes, we do need a moderator or two.
I would offer some suggestions for people, but I'm pretty sure they have already been mentioned.
I just hope that all of you, I should say us, if/when the new moderators are chosen, give them a break. This is a new thing and any past issues really need to be left in the past.
flumpy: if you really really really complain about something, but we've said we're not going to take action… there is no higher level. all the administration are equal, there is no 'grand master'. so what would we do?
that was kinda my point?
I was arguing for due process, nothing more.
TBH I can't remember if Samson's original proposal included a due process for complaints. I'll have to go look.
EDIT: No it does not.
Bare in mind this due process I am arguing for would be admin-owned. I don't know how you guys organise yourselves, but it would be better to have a process in place for dealing with complaints, even if that process is quite informal (and just a page explaining how you would deal with them behind the scenes or something).
flumpy: if you really really really complain about something, but we've said we're not going to take action… there is no higher level. all the administration are equal, there is no 'grand master'. so what would we do?
that was kinda my point?
I was arguing for due process, nothing more.
TBH I can't remember if Samson's original proposal included a due process for complaints. I'll have to go look.
EDIT: No it does not.
Bare in mind this due process I am arguing for would be admin-owned. I don't know how you guys organise yourselves, but it would be better to have a process in place for dealing with complaints, even if that process is quite informal (and just a page explaining how you would deal with them behind the scenes or something).
"To bring about the rule of righteousness in the land, so that the empowered should not harm the powerless." - Hammurabi's Code; Prologue ca. 1790 BC
13 Aug, 2009, Ssolvarain wrote in the 256th comment:
Votes: 0
I don't recall Hammurabi being among the staff >.>
Edit for clarification: I'm not actually proposing a switch to this kind of thing
Samson said:
WikiJustice? No offense, but are you serious?
Read these two quotes.
Now sit and think about how the two might be connected for a second. Read them again.
I was pretty sure that by adding "I'm not actually proposing a switch to this kind of thing," I would indicate that I wasn't seriously suggesting you do it. I guess I have to figure out a way to be more explicit than that…
"Watching the watchman" isn't an issue if the watchman is agreed to be trustworthy enough to fill the role. As long as the person with this "authority" is someone the community agrees should there, there won't be any problems. That's the solution most appropriate for this situation–a mutually agreeable character. I don't have any more to add at this point.
Just so that no one else is as surprised as Crat and I were to find out…
MudBytes has apparently chosen 3 Moderators, and given them their respective powers. THose Mods appear to be Hades_Kane, Dean, and Orrin.
I'd like to extend congratulations to all of them and at the same time, ask the following questions.
1. Who the hell is Orrin? 2. When was the announcement? 3. Did I miss it? 4. If I didn't miss it, When was it going to happen, After they moderated something?