Crat: I guess that means we've reached Legendary status then? :P

As for what the community should do. I'm not sure. We've scrapped by for this long, I'm sure we could continue to scrape by. But is that what any of us want? To continue scrambling for ground against all the MMOs? Or do we want to make a difference and build our little community up? I'm for building it up. I just honestly don't know how.

It's not a lack of code, I mean the repository here is evidence of that. There's an abundance of code. It's certainly not a lack of developers. Lack of players could play into things. But how do we get more players? I'm not sure.

As for using the same kind of moderation that the Oblivion forums use, I don't know that that's something we need to start out doing. It may be a good system for later on, but we need to start out easy, and progress to a strict set of rules like that. I think most of the community hasn't ever really dealt with real moderation, from outside our own little community. To really deal with the moderation issue, We're going to need to establish exactly what is acceptable and what is unacceptable. An appendix for the rules maybe, that goes over in detail what topics could lead down a path we don't want to go down, and possibly goes over a system for Moderation. Also, I think maybe bringing in a Moderator or two that are outside the Administration might help some. But there would need to be a specific set of guidelines regarding how things are handled. Something that could be discussed if there was enough support for it. Whether or not there is to be a couple of Moderators outside the Admins, guidelines on how things should be handled in regards to moderation.

I agree that the problem might be not lack of code quantity, but I think it might be a lack of focused code.


I still think the easiest way to do this is for an example to be set, which will gradually effect a culture change along with a very occasional helping hand from moderation. I'm not sure people really read the rules anyhow. And even if they do, by their very nature, rules or guidelines cannot capture every situation. I think it's unlikely that we'll ever need some kind of apocalyptic cleanup; and, well, my opinion as to what style might be helpful was put forth in post #1. :wink: One helpful thing would be to make clear the process of moderation, and then have that process be (more or less) stuck to.


Bringing in a new moderator has been brought up many times in this thread. I might as well throw in my two cents just in case the idea is actually being considered. To start with the obvious, the moderator should be a regular contributor: somebody who is around frequently enough to keep a handle on things. The person should have a feel for the pulse of the community and know – and be known by – most regulars. Although I think community suggestions would be valuable, I don't believe that the moderator should be elected by the whole community, because that will turn things into a popularity contest, with campaigning and whatnot and all the problems that go with that.

Kayle wrote:


Getting there!

Kayle wrote:


I agree with this sentiment, but perhaps it's not necessary
to try to make a topic list. I think it *is* important
that there be very clear guidelines as to what's ok, and that
when someone is warned or sanctioned, that they know exactly
what it is that caused the admin action.

I mean, otherwise, how are people supposed to avoid that?

But I find lists of ok/not-ok topics to be a bit extreme. If
what we're trying to avoid is incivility, then let's find
ways of dealing with that, rather than pretending we just
can't handle some topics. We're grownups. We can handle them.

And those few who cannot should get warnings, etc, rather
than holding everyone hostage to some people's difficulty
with some topics.

Kayle wrote:


I'm not at all familiar with their policies except as
Samson has described them. I agree that such an approach
is not necessary absent some kind of catastrophe or
earth-shattering demographic revolution. I would suggest
that something that works for a commercial enterprise may
not be entirely applicable to a non-commercial
community resource.

I'm of the opinion that fragmentation and isolation
are more of a threat to the community than "trollers"
and "flamers". Pace DH, I've been asking about making
action steps toward an affirmative goal rather than
obsessive defense against what is essentially an Internet
constant. This is because, like weeds, trolls always
pop up, and they are simply not a big deal. Obsessing
over them doesn't improve your project…dealing with
them is just part of what you should be doing anyway.

Consider that this forum has been aggressively focused
on this troll business for a while…and yet there is
still this pervasive pessimism about the community's
future. Why? Are there really Legions of Trolls at the
gates, ruining everything, smashing down all we love?

Of course not. There's just as many as before…really
I think there are probably fewer. Whatever is "killing
mudding" has a lot more to do with our attitudes
toward each other than some slavering alien threat
at the gates.

I argue that it's this impulse to exclude and eject
and silence others, this need to isolate ourselves
from other mud communities and ban people for offending
our friends rather than for breaking a rule…the
interpretation of adverse opinion as hostile intent…
these things are what threaten us.

What I'm hoping is that this thread isn't just a
Kumbaya moment and things will go back to
fear-and-isolation as usual. I'm hoping that we're on
to the start of a sense of *real* community. Because
if so, then I do think there are things we can do
to fight this isolation and exclusion.

If you let the trolls force you into seclusion and
trick you into punishing the innocent, then the trolls win.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net/legendary_thread.jpg

…………………………………………………………….. wha.. huh?

Welcome to the discussion Asylumius!

They were a ready example of how similar policy to another site in our own community got the same positive results from what was initially seen as draconian and oppressive. It took time but eventually in both the OB forums and the TMS forums the atmosphere improved greatly and it became much easier to see what was acceptable and what wasn't. I don't think it honestly matters that Bethesda is a commercial enterprise and TMS is a hobbyist site. They're both internet forums with members interested in moddable games. The one constant of all forums is they require people to bring them to life. That doesn't change because you're suddenly a commercial gaming company.



You already know my counter-argument to that and I've been witness to it in several other places, again including OB and TMS in those places, but certainly elsewhere as well. Often the initial reaction to introducing stricter moderation is an erroneous assumption that it's being done to silence opinion or punish people who offend the moderators' friends. It has always been and will likely continue to be that moderation is being done ( at least here, can't speak to everywhere obviously ) to enforce rules. People may not agree with the rules or the need to enforce them, but registration with the site requires that everyone affirmatively acknowledge them at least once.

It's just like traffic tickets. Most of us tend not to agree with speed limits or the enforcement of them, but when we get caught, telling the judge the cop ticketed you for offending his friends won't get you very far. It might even result in having to pay a heftier fine and result in revocation of your driving privileges if you take things to far and challenge the judge's ruling in a hostile and public manner. Not to mention being found in contempt. That's why I do not favor openly challenging administrative action in public. Not only is it often rude and abusive, it presents the illusion that such authority is weak and has no justification. If you don't like how a moderation is handed down, the appeals process is you take it up with the admins in private and try to work it out. Much like you don't rant and rave in open court. You file an appeal against the judgment through the established process. In both cases you'll often be expected to honor the ruling at least temporarily. Threads can get reopened. "Toadings" reversed. Bans lifted. The state may reverse the lower court's ruling and refund your fine, expunging the ticket from your record. They may reduce the fine or the sentence applied if they feel it was too harsh. But in both scenarios this is highly unlikely to happen if the person punished is ranting and raving about injustice and unfairness without presenting a valid case as to why that should be.



I'd like to think the same thing. The only way to know for sure is to let some time pass and see where things go. Personally I'd offer up alternate rules that are less vague if that's the problem. See here: http://www.smaugmuds.org/index.php?a=for... I've mentioned them before, and they've worked just fine over on smaugmuds.org for as long as they've been in place. If vaguery in the rules is a problem, then un-vagueing them should be a priority.

I've not felt the problem was in the rules per se but rather in how they were applied. I mean, I think basically everybody agrees on what the general rules should be. Nobody wants spamming, outright flaming, etc.

Samson wrote:


Both are commercial enterprises protecting their
financial interests. I think this is not of trivial
relevance. I do not feel that their policies, whether
or not they are useful to their interests, are necessarily
applicable to this non-commercial community resource.

Samson wrote:


A policy disagreement can be quite civil, as mine
was during the TMS event. Disagreement on policy is
not per se rude nor abusive.

Further, admin authority is not weakened by dissent.
I cannot change anything about Davion's site privileges.
I don't know if you have kids. I do. Challenges
to my authority are daily. They do not actually weaken
my authority in any way. They can even *declare* that
they are the boss, applesauce, and what that will get
from me is a chortle as I pick them up and put them
in bed.

To fear that dissent weakens authority is like feeling
that you have to win every argument with your child. It's
silly and pointless. Accept dissent as a natural feature
of human interaction and as a blessing that others
care enough to participate even as they disagree.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net

In my experience as a MUD Administrator, what generally weakens my position and my authority is taking dissent or questioning to my positions and punishing or no-channeling based off of that. Since I am of the mind that when my authority or policy or actions are questioned on my game that I should actually discuss it publicly, I find that people seem much less "afraid" of me and are more willing to talk when they have a problem which helps maintain an atmosphere where people don't feel they have a reason to be afraid to discuss things in an open manner. The players stay happier this way, and thus the staff stay happier.

I've found as a player on MUDs, that games where the administration handled things in the way that I do, there seemed to be a much higher respect for their authority among the players. This isn't an administrative perspective here, this is as having been among the players that might question or dissent. In games like that, people are much less likely to try to band together to "get" the Admins, they are less likely to engage in any sort of silly conspiracies, and they are actually much less likely to try to cheat and abuse the rules.

The birth of my game came about as a result of some measure of drama which basically saw me, another immortal, and a few others "split" from the game we started as and that I helped create and was part owner. A number of years later, that other game is dead and some of the former players of that game have found their way into our's. They seem I'm a far cry from the type of Administration they were used to, as the guy who basically took over the original game after we split ruled with an iron fist. It was widely known that questioning authority was not allowed, and he took it much further than that, but the end result is that sure, people feared him and they wouldn't openly or publicly question him, but no one respected him. What they made up for saying in public they more than made up for in the things they would say about him behind his back and to one another. They all saw him as a sad little boy that couldn't take someone questioning any of his decisions. That total lack of respect also meant that they had very little respect for the MUD in general or its policies. Those same people that would abuse any loophole they could find there have been invaluable in helping not only point out flaws we weren't aware of, but finding new ones as we add new systems and helping close those. These individuals aren't any different than they were when they were playing on the other game, but the difference maker is the Administration style and thus the greater respect they have for me. I've caught people abusing loopholes or cheating or talking bad about me, and many times the way I've handled it has earned their respect and they've become very useful members of the MUD.

I think that being able to Administrate based off of respect is a much stronger position, even though in that way people are more likely to open question my motives and policies.

I'm afraid I don't exactly see how TMS is a commercial enterprise anymore than TMC is simply because they accept advertising dollars to help run the site. It doesn't really matter, because both places have been run as lawless undergrounds. One simply chose to clean up their lawless underground and I think it worked out rather well. But this is a point we're unlikely to ever agree on.





It can be, but it almost never actually is. The big difference between "can" and "should" is often lost on a lot of people. Can you dissent? Sure. Should you dissent? Not necessarily. Especially if it's been made clear that doing so in public isn't acceptable. TMS made that perfectly clear that it was no longer acceptable to see such things happen. They said so numerous times. The back and forth such a policy is meant to prevent is exactly what happened when it was allowed to continue to the point of making people angry and upset. It's why most forums outside of mudding don't allow this sort of thing, regardless of their content. It simply serves no purpose to engage in an endless public argument over the grave injustice of having a few posts moderated. Just like it doesn't do any good for your kids to go on and on about how they think you're evil for grounding them because they did something wrong. In the end, all it does is wear on your patience with them the next time it happens and whether you'll admit it or not, it tends to make the next punishment more harsh than the last.



I think you know I wasn't referring to what you can or can't do to an admin's access to the site. Much like your kids can't ultimately do much about your ability to forceably tuck them into bed at night. Since this whole discussion is about how other people see actions taken, it's more of a question of what a newbie will think when they come around and see someone openly defiant against the admins and seemingly getting away with it. Either because the admin backed down ( bad idea!!!! ) or because they're simply not around at the time. From that, people will assume it's ok to openly challenge every little thing and soon you have nothing but chaos and nothing can get done. The perception generated is one of weak authority, or, a lawless underground. That's why such things should never EVER become the subject of a massive public debate. Either the admins have the legitimate authority to act or they don't. There's no room for debate in that.

When the authority of a site's admins is called into question, and nothing is done, others will assume for themselves that it's ok. Much like the earlier argument made about one admin doing nothing about the Georgia thread before I locked it. If it's sending mixed signals for one admin to ignore a potential problem when another does not, what sort of signals is it sending when enforcement action is openly questioned and nothing ends up happening? What would your kids think if they defied your parental authority and as a result you simply did nothing in response to it?

Samson wrote:


Heh. Sorry, Samson. You really don't know me. Really.

Samson wrote:


I think this is probably where we're just speaking
different languages, living in different worlds,
whatever. You think there's something they're
"getting away with," which implies wrongdoing. I
don't see it that way.

Samson wrote:


I understand that this is what worries you. What HK
and I are telling you is that when you actually
respect your stakeholders, it doesn't end up this way.
We know this, because we run services where dissent
is regarded as healthy, and what ensues is respect
and decorum.

Samson wrote:


I think you have failed to grasp the point of that example.

Forgive me if it seems like a rude thing to say,
but I just don't think it's healthy to have a
community site with such an exaggerated
intolerance for policy disagreement.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net/unquestioned_authority...

Therein lies a great deal of the problems with your point of view. You make authority out as being an absolute, unquestionable, unreproachable entity that must not, under any circumstances, be challenged as doing so would result in the inevitable collapse of the society. That is so very wrong. The entire purpose of an authoritative body is to serve the will of the body it governs. The reverse mindset is one of the primary reasons that various governments and official bodies have become bloated and corrupt. They think only upon power and control, and not on what it is meant for or why they received it in the first place. Granted, that is a bit of a slant from the reality of the existence of forums, in that a forum is a sandbox owned wholly by its creators. Members can come and go, posting, or trying to post, but ultimately the absolute power still rests in the hands of the moderators, if any, due to having control over the forum's programming.

The slippery slope there, though, is not to let that power get to you (hence the saying 'Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely'). Yes, it's your sandbox, but if you kick people out and bully around the rest, how long do you think people are going to continue being there, before you're the only one left? Being continually oppressed for a period of time by an unrelenting, unforgiving, apathetic ruling body is one of the primary causes of revolution among societies of our world. To that end, if so many people leave Mudmagic due to oppressive moderation, why would it suddenly make sense to do the same thing here?

Be reasonable. It's as simple as that. If people dissent, you don't just ignore them, silence them, insult them, ban them, or what-have-you. Listen to their concerns. Discuss it with them. Give it fair consideration. Be human. That's what moderation should be about.

Never backing down is rather like a scorched earth policy: either you win, sometimes at considerable cost, or you take everything down with you. Everybody is wrong from time to time: being able to admit that makes one a better human being and much more worthy of respect than always fighting to the dire end no matter the cost. There is no inherent value in being stubborn simply for the sake of being stubborn.


Well, this is empirically false. Our government, and many others in this world (the exceptions being extremely notable for the nature of the government in question) is very routinely questioned. The US has yet to become a lawless underground or chaotic cesspool.

As usual, there are middle grounds. Baseless questioning is not good. Total lack of questioning is not good. It is not wrong to take questions.


Couldn't agree more…

EDIT: fixed attribution

:sad:

My apologies Lobotomy; fixed. Fingers on autopilot…

Well, from what I've seen, and it's been quite a lot, what you describe is the exception, not the rule. Plenty of site operators who respect their members still end up with chaos if someone posts something inflammatory, gets punished for it, and then goes on a tirade about how the punishment was unjust or simply evil. We're all familiar with the cries of censorship and Nazism, aren't we?

You also can't arrive at a community where some dissent is healthy without first weeding out those who think all forms of dissent are always healthy. The difference between healthy dissent and anarchy is a fine line we're all apparently still having trouble defining. I don't mean to sound rude with this, but my opinion of how you handle dissent is more in line with the normal definition of anarchy. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q... - My impression of you suggests you favor #1 and #3, but clearly #1 is not viable and it's been demonstrated time and time again that #3 is not viable in a community where common decency is desired. #3 fits most closely with the self-moderation crowd. That simply DOES NOT WORK.



I don't think it's healthy to have a membership who thinks common decency, courtesy, and civil discourse define an intolerance for disagreement. The main thrust all along for me has been to keep some level of civility here and I just don't see why it's considered an intolerance of any sort to desire that. Calling a moderation action punishment for being disagreeable does not make the statement true by any means. Yet that's exactly how you seem to perceive any such action with regard to yourself. And if that's how you feel, it should be handled appropriately through proper channels. Not by making a big scene about it in public.



Well apparently I'm either not explaining myself properly or there's just a huge misconception in general about what it means to moderate. So I'll try one more approach.

What has been discussed over the last couple of days? Anything substantial? Or has everyone been here in this thread instead? Has it truly served a purpose other than to clear some air between certain parties or is it just a means to vent frustration over perceived injustice for some threads being locked? Is it doing anything other than risking another blowout when someone says something another person finds offensive to keep this going for as long as it has? In the end, will the authority of the site administration come out any different? I understand fully that venting anger makes you feel better. It however does not serve a lasting purpose.

Much like when I vented anger at having received a pair of speeding tickets. The state honestly didn't care and still expected me to pay up. My attempts to keep discussing why I shouldn't have received them did nothing to change the fact that the argument was already lost, the punishment stood, and I was still out $300. And I am fully aware than I got slapped with a $300 fine for pissing off the judge instead of the $150 it started off as.

There is a limit even in the Constitution on how far you can push dissent before something happens to you. You can't for example incite people to riot. You can't just assemble on some park lawn somewhere without a permit. Standing up and denouncing US policy in the halls of Congress will get you ejected - not for the dissenting opinion, but because the outburst itself is not acceptable behavior there. Similar outbursts are usually not accepted in state government offices either. Go overboard with it and you may wind up in jail.

A much more familiar situation would be at work. If the boss walks up to you and tells you to do something, you don't stand up and denounce his orders as crap and expect nothing to happen. Most places will have you written up for it. The harsher ones will simply terminate you from employment. Similarly spreading dissenting viewpoints among your co-workers will often lead to the same fate. Arguing that your boss is suppressing your right to free speech and that dissent is protected will get you absolutely nowhere. The company is a privately run entity and is not governed by the 1st Amendment. Censorship does not apply there. Go online and spread damaging rumors about the company and its policies and you could find yourself on the receiving end of a libel lawsuit. Or you could simply find it far more difficult to find another job [on this point I speak from personal experience - having posted such a dissenting viewpoint about my previous employer - finding a new job was likely made more difficult].

I fail to see why it is any different for a discussion forum that's being moderated to keep the tone civil and the conversation friendly. A discussion forum is a private entity. As much as I support the idea, Free Speech does not apply. Angrily protesting a moderation action has consequences in the form of more severe punishment. Spreading angry rumors about a site after being moderated is very likely to cause the administrators there to become cold to your existence and be extremely reluctant to reinstate you should you decide you want to return later. That feeling usually extends to most of the regular membership as well. They'll be less inclined to ever want you back. We need only look at Locke as an example of what I'm getting at.



That's all I expected in return. If a moderation action is directed at you, discuss it in private with the admins. Just as you see it as inappropriate to ignore dissent, I see it as inappropriate to publicly challenge administrative actions. Much like your boss would consider it inappropriate to publicly challenge his authority in front of other employees.

It's a two-way street. You want respect from the admins. The admins would like the same in return. It has to start somewhere.

Uh, err, well, because moderators of a forum aren't the community's bosses or legal judges? :wink: <edit>Actually, come to think of it, if a moderator thinks of him/herself as analogous to a corporate manager or legal judge, I'd be concerned about that person's ability to effectively moderate a volunteer, hobbyist community… or for that matter, if that person thinks that corporate managers should behave in the way you've described, I'd be concerned about those managers' competence!</edit>

Anyhow, lots has come out of this thread. I'm a little surprised you think that absolutely nothing has happened.

Here's the situation now. Everybody agrees that we want things like decency and respect. But you clearly have a very different idea from others as to how that is achieved. You think it's by coming down hard and heavy; other people don't. My suggestion in all of this is that the current approach hasn't really been working, so perhaps it is time to try something new.


I think you mistake lack of agreement with lack of respect. You often think that people are utterly disrespecting or trying to slam you when really they're not. Frankly, I don't think that all of your moderation actions have shown much respect toward the people in question, so two-way street and all. As you say, it has to start somewhere. My hope is that this thread will give things at the least a little push. I think they already have, to some extent. Whether or not we, as individuals, come away having learned something is, by this point, up to us.

I have a suggestion then. If it is the exception, rather than the rule, can we at least give it a go to see how that ultimately ends up here? This thread could have been nothing but flaming and insults and whatnot, but it hasn't and I think that we perhaps may have proven ourselves to be the exception, rather than the rule.

Policies can always change, and I think that we can afford to try to let the leash a bit loose for now and see what happens, particularly on the heels of this immense discussion in which I think we all probably view one another with a bit more clarity now.

Also, I think in regards to us discussing the policies and what type of moderation we'd all like to see here, and whether or not it is appropriate to discuss administration policy or question administration decisions in public… I think we should take a step back and ask who among this site will actually be making the decisions on whether or not that type of thing is appropriate.

I understand Samson's exact role in the site right now is a bit in question, and so for the time being I think nothing positive can really be accomplished by the continued debate as to his opinions on moderation vs. the opinions of others. I suggest that we perhaps let his status here be resolved along with finding out among what Moderators or Administrators will be making the final say on that type of thing. Don't get me wrong, I think the conversation is healthy overall, but I also can see it as being rather pointless until we're sure who we need to be debating this with, I suppose. I think once that is defined, we can discuss with them why we feel that the ability to discuss administrative policies or actions over the forum itself is healthy, and if they disagree, they can state, and we can try to come to some sort of resolution. Based off of whatever decision is made, then we clearly know what is and isn't acceptable in regards to that particular topic, and we can move on and hopefully make headway on some of the other issues.

That's how I feel about it at least, what about everyone else?

Samson wrote:


This is a straw man argument. I am not in favor
of anarchy and have said so. If you're going to
disagree with my statements, please disagree
with what I've actually said.

Samson wrote:


Once again, forgive me if this is unpleasant to hear,
but I think that your lack of decency, courtesy,
and civil discourse as an admin is exactly what
kicked this off, and it was indeed manifest in your
intolerance of disagreement. I don't think you should
describe your behavior in terms exactly opposite of
what it actually was.


Samson wrote:


It isn't. This is another straw man. Nobody has
said that the desire for civility equals intolerance.


Samson wrote:


I feel that matters of policy are necessarily public
and should someone wish to discuss them publicly
I believe that is appropriate.


Samson wrote:


I think this thread has been of great significance
and value. I didn't bestow on it the honor of Legendary
status just because it went over 100. Perhaps you opinion
is not prevailing in this debate, but that does not mean
that nothing of value is in progress here.

Samson wrote:


Again, straw man. Nobody is espousing this
sort of thing, and note that nobody is engaging
in it, even though we are in the middle of
exactly the kind of discussion you fear.

Samson wrote:


If I am publicly punished, I think it's ok to
want to discuss it publicly.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net

I'm inclined to agree. There's not much point in back-and-forth at this point, and it might even be counter-productive. It could be worthwhile to let things settle for a bit, and let the posting slow to the point where three people aren't writing posts at the same time. :wink: