Board Moderators

[Tzurahro]

It is not my intention to leave that particular thread permanently locked.  I required that users stop using that thread to throw poop at each other until staff has a chance to evaluate the proper response(s).  In this case, moderating specific posts was ineffective.  Individual and then public warnings also proved ineffective.    

Staff is receiving complaints and moderation alerts with a high frequency from the GDB's users.  Most are well justified.  The posts and posters so sited are in violation of our stated rules.  Either we should change our rules or seek a better way to make them work.

As a head's up, asking any staff member to take on a lead role in GDB oversight is probably not going to generate a long line of volunteers, nor is turning over moderation to other agents who wouldn't have access to things like player's account notes and logged internet access records likely.

We are interested in positive solutions or adjustments.

[Gimfalisette]

We are interested in positive solutions or adjustments.

I think that it would be very helpful to have a specific list of non-permitted behaviors, and details of what the punishments/consequences for those behaviors are. To make an analogy from parenting:

-- Hitting your sibling: 30 minute timeout
-- Horseplay in the house: Get sent outside to horseplay
-- Failing to do homework: No video games after school the rest of the week
-- Really terrible grades: No video games the rest of the semester, except on Saturdays

If kids aren't given clear, firmly-held rules like the above, then punishment is ineffective. Sometimes kids will get away with stuff when they shouldn't, and sometimes they will get the hammer dropped on them too harshly. Also, they won't learn anything from the consequences they are given. And they will never learn how to avoid consequences.

The GDB needs clear and firm rules, and it needs specific consequences for breaking those rules. These rules and consequences should be communicated to players, and they should be communicated each time a rule is broken and punishment meted out.

[Ampere]

We are interested in positive solutions or adjustments.

I think that it would be very helpful to have a specific list of non-permitted behaviors, and details of what the punishments/consequences for those behaviors are. To make an analogy from parenting:

-- Hitting your sibling: 30 minute timeout
-- Horseplay in the house: Get sent outside to horseplay
-- Failing to do homework: No video games after school the rest of the week
-- Really terrible grades: No video games the rest of the semester, except on Saturdays

If kids aren't given clear, firmly-held rules like the above, then punishment is ineffective. Sometimes kids will get away with stuff when they shouldn't, and sometimes they will get the hammer dropped on them too harshly. Also, they won't learn anything from the consequences they are given. And they will never learn how to avoid consequences.

The GDB needs clear and firm rules, and it needs specific consequences for breaking those rules. These rules and consequences should be communicated to players, and they should be communicated each time a rule is broken and punishment meted out.

Love it.

[FantasyWriter]

We are interested in positive solutions or adjustments.

I think that it would be very helpful to have a specific list of non-permitted behaviors, and details of what the punishments/consequences for those behaviors are. To make an analogy from parenting:

-- Hitting your sibling: 30 minute timeout
-- Horseplay in the house: Get sent outside to horseplay
-- Failing to do homework: No video games after school the rest of the week
-- Really terrible grades: No video games the rest of the semester, except on Saturdays

If kids aren't given clear, firmly-held rules like the above, then punishment is ineffective. Sometimes kids will get away with stuff when they shouldn't, and sometimes they will get the hammer dropped on them too harshly. Also, they won't learn anything from the consequences they are given. And they will never learn how to avoid consequences.

The GDB needs clear and firm rules, and it needs specific consequences for breaking those rules. These rules and consequences should be communicated to players, and they should be communicated each time a rule is broken and punishment meted out.

*sagenod*

[Synthesis]

The fundamental problem is that one man's snarky aside is another man's OMGWTF freak-out.

You never know what the fuck people are going to cry about until they start crying, and by then everyone's already pointing fingers and working themselves into a self-righteous fury.

[Gimfalisette]

The fundamental problem is that one man's snarky aside is another man's OMGWTF freak-out.

You never know what the fuck people are going to cry about until they start crying, and by then everyone's already pointing fingers and working themselves into a self-righteous fury.

Yeah, but it wouldn't be up to the players to decide. It's already not up to the players to decide. It's like when my daughter hits my son, and my son tells me; I investigate and decide who needs punishment, and for what. They don't decide.

And a snarky aside may be part of a consistent behavior pattern, much like a teenager's ongoing attitude problem. May need correction, should be investigated by the authorities.

[Synthesis]

I'm really not comfortable with catering to the whims of those with delicate sensibilities.  Do some people need to tone it down? Maybe.  But equally, some people need to learn to get over it.

I also really don't like the "silent reporting" business, where you never know who the hell is upset by your remarks.  I mean, some of the shit I've had moderated is just...ridiculous, especially recently.

[janeshephard]

If there was a "hide" button where users could vote to hide posts or entire threads the community could moderate itself.  Enough "hide" votes over a predetermined threshold junks the thread or the post. The community would police itself.

Usually, when this is first put in place a small group of like minded people end up moderating the forums anyway. It is hoped that they do it responsibly.

[X-D]

I'm really not comfortable with catering to the whims of those with delicate sensibilities.  Do some people need to tone it down? Maybe.  But equally, some people need to learn to get over it.

Agreed.

And you know, I've yet to report anybody on the GDB. And even if I was going to, it would have to be either an epic bald faced flame or a large posting of super sekrit IC or code info......Just like is stated in the rules.

I really hate when threads have been moderated for use of words that are not attacks or flames. Like the word Silly or Stupid.  And where is that line drawn anyway? The suggestion of a very clear list of rules andactions is a good one. But only if one of the rules was also that staff would follow them exactly.

For instance, Tzurahro mentioned on this thread that he locked another thread for certain reasons but did not intend to keep it locked.

Why did we need to find that out on this thread? Should that have not been in the locking post?

[musashi]

I think that is staff adopted an approach that punishes the individual rather than the group it would be more effective than thread locking. Something to the effect of 3 strikes and you're out.

1: A private warning.
2: A public warning.
3: Twitted with a public announcement.

Or something to that effect.

[Ghost]

Personal punishment would be in the benefit of evreyone

Locking thread entirely does not teach anyone anything

it only makes the rest of the posters, who have contributed frustrated

[Synthesis]

Personal punishment can be just as arbitrary and stupid as thread locking, though.

I mean, I got twitted for posting this, not long ago:



I've had posts moderated for "flaming" when someone else clearly fired the first shot.

I've had posts moderated for quoting members of the U.S. House of Representatives.

I mean, seriously....I am not out to win the GDB or annoy anyone.  Sometimes I post off-the-cuff shit that I think is funny and irreverent, and yeah, if someone flings poo at me, I'm not above flinging poo back at them.  Does that deserve the banhammer?  I don't think so.

Somehow I've got this reputation for being a troll or something, but anyone can feel free to look at my post history.  The vast majority of it is either constructive or pretty much banal remarks, but now I feel like I practically have to tippie-toe around the GDB because I'm getting "omg last warning synthesis ffs" messages from moderators for what amounts to a bunch of trumped-up bullshit.

[Akaramu]

I don't know if this is already being done, if so apologies. But usually the most effective way to reduce the amount of forum trolling is by treating board abuse the same as ingame abuse - in this case with temp bans / karma being docked. It might stop players from even reaching the point where they need to be twitted.

On the subject of board moderators: Not everyone is part of some clique. There ARE some people who don't engage in out of game discussions in any way except with forum posts and the occasional PM for playtime coordination.

[Conspiracy Theory]

Yes. What Akaramu describes is the best thing for Armageddon and for one's enjoyment of it.

I seriously hate posting these "I agree" posts because they're an utter waste of space most of the time, but this just cannot go without being repeated.

[Spoon]

I think the problem is in people's perception of their own posts. To the people who think there's too much 'crybabying', you are probably unaware of how aggressive your posts are percieved by others. To you they might seem passionate, but to others they might just seem plain rude. I suggest sticking smiley faces on the end of your posts. You are all n00bz and I'm always right. Stop ruining my game with your awful ideas.

[spawnloser]

We already have moderators and they're called staff.

[Cutthroat]

To me, the problem doesn't seem to be super-sensitivity to comments, it's the disruption of polite discussion that the rules call for. Discussion is supposed to be about ideas, not the proponents of ideas.

I would much, much rather see that the rules are adhered to 100% of the time by posters and that staff follows through with any reactions dictated by the rules. Creating a firm set of rules like what Gimfalisette said several posts above is fine.

[UnderSeven]

Here is my view.

So the big complaint seems to be thread locking.  Because if a staffer just moderates out your post for being rude than you can repost something more constructive.  The thing is your post maybe in response to another, maybe it gets moderated, maybe it doesn't.  So there maybe a good reason for it.  Who knows, the problem is though that the other players have a lot of power over this too.

For instance the player who wants a thread locked can well get it locked.  Staff may warn of an impending lock if things continue out of hand and it is ignored.

I'm opposed to the idea that people need to get over it.  Negative posts make people unhappy.  I've seen how bad boards can get on other games and I much favor an overly sensitive approach to one where the jerks just own the
boards and the arguments by simply flaming to their hearts content (flamers hearts are never content.)

I do think we as players need to take responsibility, but that doesn't mean improvement can't happen.

[Pale Horse]

I think the problem is in people's perception of their own posts. To the people who think there's too much 'crybabying', you are probably unaware of how aggressive your posts are percieved by others. To you they might seem passionate, but to others they might just seem plain rude.

I was hoping someone would post something to this effect.

There have been valid points shared from all sides in this thread, but it looked to me as if something was lacking.  Are there people in the community who come off as pure jerks?  Yes.  Are there people in the community who come off as over-sensitive, enough so that any sort of criticism in any tone leads to the start of a flame war?  Yes.  The thing is..often times who we perceive ourselves and others to be is the exact opposite.  You (general you) are not the victim of an attack by an over-sensitive person to whom you just pointed out a flaw in their statement.  You are the "pure jerk."  Visa verse, the pure jerk who just typed up and posted a purely unnecessary and thinly-veiled flame to something you wrote did nothing of the sort.  You are being overly sensitive and misconstrued what was really said.  It bears repeating that tone of voice and other such means of communication are lost when communicating in text.

From a third-person perspective (as far as I'm aware, I've never been involved in, or the cause of a thread being locked), threads become locked when certain posters throw out their self-control and/or personal responsibility to adhere to the rules of the board and look to see if maybe, just maybe, despite what they fervently believe and feel, it's themselves that could be in the wrong.  Even if you are not in the wrong, then being the "bigger person" and stepping out of the situation (recognized before hand, or after a warning is delivered) will not make you a lesser person, or cause the one(s) with whom you were arguing to "win."  Chances are, they are as inflicted with the desire to "put you in your place" or "win" as you are, and by denying them of the rest of what they'd like to fire back, they are now in the same position as you.  Frustrated.

Do arguments and discussions and threads get locked for reasons we think are uncalled for and unneeded?  Yes, or this very thread wouldn't have been made.  Are these reasons, sometimes, just that?  Uncalled for?  Yes.  Mistakes get made, our Staff is only human, and we can't see the whole picture.  In the same vein, however, we really do not see the picture that Staff is able to see, they being the board moderators and the recipients of the complaints and moderation requests.  The "unjustified" lock could have been fully justified.  If a pair or group of posters want to engage in a heated debate/argument, complete with mud slinging, then take it to PMs and leave the thread for the rest of the posters to enjoy.  Having an argument out in the open does not a lesser attack on another make, nor does "having it out" in a public forum, where others may interject their own opinions, make it any less of a specific argument with a specific other or group.

We play a game to enjoy it.  It's a hobby (bordering on addiction, crackageddon being what it is).  We read the GDB for the same enjoyment, to pick the minds of our fellow players, to have a community.  Unfortunately, in an internet community, nothing is every really forgotten until it's been buried ten pages back or more, and even then, sometimes not.  It's much easier to dig up old arguments/complaints and rekindling the flames as we don't have to rely on faulty human memory to cloud what was really said, since it's still there in lovingly preserved text.  This being what it is, it might serve everyone well to exercise a little restraint the next time they feel like rehashing an old argument or starting up a new one.  Is it really worth it?  And even if you feel that it is, try avoiding it, just once, and then not going into another thread, seeking a chance to "make up" for what you held back.

We may not like being "moderated" or "parented" in a place we come to for enjoyment, entertainment and escapism, but, to be blunt, it's going to happen.  Despite how we might like it to be different, it will not be.  The game is self-policed by we the players and also watched over by Staff.  The forums should be the same way, shouldn't they?  In fact, Staff has expressed that the intent is exactly that.  If this does not sit well with you, then maybe it is time for a break, from one or the other.  Game or GDB, or both.  If this still does not sit well, then perhaps it is time to move on.  There's no actual entitlement to much of anything, despite what we may like to believe.

[jhunter]

I'm really not comfortable with catering to the whims of those with delicate sensibilities.  Do some people need to tone it down? Maybe.  But equally, some people need to learn to get over it.

Agreed.

And you know, I've yet to report anybody on the GDB. And even if I was going to, it would have to be either an epic bald faced flame or a large posting of super sekrit IC or code info......Just like is stated in the rules.

I really hate when threads have been moderated for use of words that are not attacks or flames. Like the word Silly or Stupid.  And where is that line drawn anyway? The suggestion of a very clear list of rules andactions is a good one. But only if one of the rules was also that staff would follow them exactly.

For instance, Tzurahro mentioned on this thread that he locked another thread for certain reasons but did not intend to keep it locked.

Why did we need to find that out on this thread? Should that have not been in the locking post?

I agree with this too. There is a difference between someone agressively attacking another person on the board and posting something that someone else just happens to find offensive.  The first should merit action by the moderators, the second should be up to the reader to quit whining and filter it out for themselves. If you find something offensive, you should do the mature thing and ignore it not try to go through the staff to have your own opinions and beliefs enforced upon others just because you happen not to agree with something.
Consistantly and proactively attacking others personally on the board should have the hammer dropped on the offender. Anything else, I think should be left alone.

[nessalin]

I'm really not comfortable with catering to the whims of those with delicate sensibilities.  Do some people need to tone it down? Maybe.  But equally, some people need to learn to get over it.

Agreed.

And you know, I've yet to report anybody on the GDB. And even if I was going to, it would have to be either an epic bald faced flame or a large posting of super sekrit IC or code info......Just like is stated in the rules.

I really hate when threads have been moderated for use of words that are not attacks or flames. Like the word Silly or Stupid.  And where is that line drawn anyway? The suggestion of a very clear list of rules andactions is a good one. But only if one of the rules was also that staff would follow them exactly.

For instance, Tzurahro mentioned on this thread that he locked another thread for certain reasons but did not intend to keep it locked.

Why did we need to find that out on this thread? Should that have not been in the locking post?

I agree with this too. There is a difference between someone agressively attacking another person on the board and posting something that someone else just happens to find offensive.  The first should merit action by the moderators, the second should be up to the reader to quit whining and filter it out for themselves. If you find something offensive, you should do the mature thing and ignore it not try to go through the staff to have your own opinions and beliefs enforced upon others just because you happen not to agree with something.
Consistantly and proactively attacking others personally on the board should have the hammer dropped on the offender. Anything else, I think should be left alone.

Offensive posts will be moderated, not just flames and outright attacks.

It is up to the moderators / staff to make that decision, however, based on reported posts.

[mansa]

The only thing I want, is for the reason why the posted was edited to be explained, be that:
"Don't insult other players"
"Don't post in-character information on the boards"
And perhaps a link to those specific rules on the GDB.

It could be cookie-cutter copy/paste "edited/moderated" post rules, but as long as everybody is reminded again and again why it was edited, it (hopefully) won't show up again.

Nessalin has a perfect example of what i mean, in one of the posts today in the Ask The Players.  He edited a post, and then explained why it was edited.  Its a great example.

[Jdr]

I got twitted recently because I posted something on a thread that was determined as 'too much IC info', despite there being no real clear-cut rules as to what that exactly specifies, and the thread was locked down immediately (which made me feel really guilty because everyone was having fun on the thread). So I yelled at Nyr and he banned me. I'd much have rathered he just edited my post and let the thread continue.

That being said, what exactly is the rules on 'too much IC info'? I saw people post things of a similar nature to mine plenty on the GDB and they let it pass. According to what rules I understand (don't post anything which isn't in the help files explicitly - yes, I broke that rule, but it was in good taste) people shouldn't be even posting that warriors have the bash skill, or d-elfs can run everywhere instead of ride. There seems to be this unofficial 'gentleman's agreement' that relative forum newbies like me don't know, and are punished if we pass over the line, the line being whatever degree a moody moderator feels it is on a particular day.

[Xeran Van Houten]

Hah.. I'm still the only one that's voted "other".

No, I won't explain.

[janeshephard]

Any ex-BatMUD players here?

On BatMUD, back in the good ole days when they had 300+ players online at once and login queues, you did not mess around. You weren't allowed to. If you got on someone's case and their bf or gf was on the staff, INSTAWIPE. You hassled another player and some cabal would form out of nowhere and just PK you OVER AND OVER AND OVER. The place was brutal to anyone rocking the boat.

Great community though. Seriously Everyone got along or else.