Feedback on moderation thread (seasons information)

[Riev]

You have gotten feedback from about 6 different posters and the majority is the same 3 or so.
On the forum of a game that will not open for at least 2 more months.
The people who are here are going to argue. Adamantly. Even if we agree with you.

Correct me if I am reading it wrong, but the feedback you want is on how to "set the bar higher" and how to respond to "criticism", which you put in quotes that in text suggests what you mean is not actually criticism.

Also I believe you may want to manage your expectations. You wrote a manifesto about how you think things should change, and are asking only for SPECIFIC criticism. Not going to happen. You're in the wrong place for that.


On topic? Discord can screw. I miss the socialization, I miss talking to people. I do not miss the attitudes of both players and staff after beyond shown the door for participating in a discussion. Frankly? You're all on the same canvas, being painted by my big-ass-brush. Few of the people who constantly posted were good people and fewer made anyone feel welcome. You can separate out channels all you want, but I think players can make their own social spaces. Armageddon should be a place to talk about Armageddon as much as is allowed, and thats it. I think Apoc kind of had it right in not leaving it up to staff members to try and police an entire community space.

[flurry]

I think the effort to streamline community rules is a good idea. Reducing the number of forums is something I don't feel strongly about, but I can see how that would make things easier on the moderators.

Speaking of taking it easy on the moderators, I hope that we as a community can get beyond the recent focus on finding the perfect level of moderation. There is no ideal that's going to be palatable to everyone. I understand the complaints about oversensitivity, which can come in many forms. Oversensitivity could take the form of running to the moderators too readily. Or it could take the form of disproportionate complaints about low-stakes moderation actions. Let's find some common ground with the knowledge that no system will please everyone all the time.

[kahuna]

Just nuke the gdb from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.

[NinjaFruitSalad]

I mentioned I wanted some feedback at the end of this post:
https://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,60275.0.html
Put it here.

In case it wasn't clear, I'm specifically looking at feedback on the points I mentioned.

::edit by mansa::
Feedback requested
Some specific things I'd like reactions on:
* How is it best to manage the various shades of "criticism" - is there any good examples that could be used?
* What do you think about the GDB and Discord restructure?  What Discord channels are worth retaining?
* People change but we also want to be stricter. How and when people rejoin the community following a ban is something I'd like feedback on. I think there should be dialog but I don't want it to turn into 'arguing about my ban'. How should this be handled?  My feeling on this is that people change, but not quickly. That requests should go to staff, but it will probably be a year until somebody is re-invited.

I'm honestly a bit lost in all this discussion. And I'm not even involved with discord, and likely never will be. But generally speaking:

Criticism: staff are often times going to hear nasty things they don't want to hear. You may take it personally, but please try not to. Some ideas and comments may seem silly or flat out wrong. You should not even lift a finger if the criticism doesn't seem constructive and is only negative whining. However, I would draw the line at where criticism contains insults, be it direct or indirect. Even if we all don't agree with one another, there should at least be a tiny modicum of respect.

GDB/discord restructure: I don't know and I don't care.

Banned people: definitely a subject to be cautious about. I don't think anyone would be in a good mood after receiving punishment, and they are likely prone to keep offending or start trouble. Regardless, people should not keep arguing over bans, be it arguing their friends innocence, slandering staff, or dredging up drama from weeks or years ago. You do say "people change" but honestly what are our demographics here? Is a thirty-year-old very likely to change over a month?

From prior experience with other game communities, discord can turn into quite a cesspool of toxicity. The main issue is that it just collects people. Some of these people simply lose interest or get too busy with real life things. And some of these people have no vested interest in the game or community and just like to stir up trouble whenever they can. I would honestly propose doing regular housekeeping with the discord server and only keep people around who are at least semi-actively playing the game or at least show they care about it. If someone is making troll comments or posting weird things and you don't even know who they are, it's a big problem.

[Armaddict]

My view is that approach has been attempted extensively, I don't think it's working. So we have to change it.

I understand, but I believe the only difference here is what we define as 'working'.  If the goal of moderation is to reach a homeostasis where further moderation is not required, then heavy-handed approaches to eliminate 'problem people' is indeed the approach, but it comes with the costs I mentioned.  In particular, realize that a bad interaction with a fellow player leaves a much smaller dent than being moderated in a situation where you felt you shouldn't have been.

I can recall one instance in discord recently where me and someone else were in an argumentative state; this particular person and I clashed pretty steadily, but I wouldn't say we had actual animosity for each other.  We just had a very very different viewpoint on many things.  I said something at one point that made them feel personally attacked, even though that wasn't my intention, and they reacted in kind; they were moderated.  I know, for a fact, this left a very bad taste in their mouth, and that is without me having communicated with them over it since.  I just know that I, as a participant of the debate and an observer to the moderation, shook my head.

This is precisely why this will be a stable job, with consistent use of mutes in particular as a preventative measure, and short-term bans as an extreme measure.  Long term bands are completely out of bounds for a moderation team in my viewpoint, and I've been clear on that for a good long time (saying this again just so you don't feel singled out for your idea; this has been a topic for quite some time).

So, the main difference is that you feel this isn't working, where I view it as a good job with only the potential for relatively minor slights being felt; being removed from a conversation doesn't feel -good-, but it's just removal from a brief conversation to let the topic move on to something else.  I view this as a job of maintenance, not realization of a lofty goal.  To make a lofty goal out of is setting up an expectation not only for every conversation, but for yourselves as well, to make an unrealistically ordered community in a field where views are -wildly- differing, emotions are often charged due to proximity to personal feelings (i.e. Loss of characters and time investment), and we're generally, as a group, pretty passionate about game design and direction.

So my caution, again, is please don't set yourself up for failure by taking approaches that 'success' in your volunteer role is actually failure as far as the project you're overseeing, and please understand that your focus is on individual discussions and conversations, not the people within them.

If it helps, it's not that I'm desperate to come down like a ton of bricks on somebody who has poorly phrased a genuine criticism.

I do want to come down like a ton of bricks where the intent is harm or hurt, and not supporting the vision of being here to support the game.

Telling the difference can be easier said than done though. People can help by making an effort to consider others and be respectful.

I do not believe in the moderation team having access to tons of bricks.  As a matter of fact, one of my main critiques of creation of a moderation team was that we were going to have a constant negative reaction towards actions taken, and we needed to ensure that the net positive was maintained; that does not mean net positive of feel goods, that means that conversations should be relatively free-flowing and accessible, and moderation effects should be kept minimal and as forgettable to the moderated as possible, otherwise you just end up with the same mood as it had before under a different label.

The moderation team wasn't put in place because they can 'do it better'.  There was a lot of negative backlash going on based on staff heavy-handedness, which was the case because they went down the same path you're presenting as the way forward now.

However, I do commend you on being pure in the goal, clear with expectations, and optimistic in what the community can achieve.  I think things have been going relatively well, all things considered (i.e. how difficult moderation actually is).  So you may feel like you're being ineffective, or like you need to do more, but I think you're at a pretty healthy state in comparison to what was creating the backlash that prompted your team's creation.  Again, please don't err into going down the same path that created you.  This will be a constant job, with juggling, and require time and consideration for those things above mutes.  Ironically, I believe mutes are shameless to receive and can be applied liberally, insofar as they don't stretch for overly long periods of time.  10-30 minutes is usually enough for someone to step away and simmer down.

[Patuk]

You have gotten feedback from about 6 different posters and the majority is the same 3 or so.
On the forum of a game that will not open for at least 2 more months.
The people who are here are going to argue. Adamantly. Even if we agree with you.

Correct me if I am reading it wrong, but the feedback you want is on how to "set the bar higher" and how to respond to "criticism", which you put in quotes that in text suggests what you mean is not actually criticism.

Also I believe you may want to manage your expectations. You wrote a manifesto about how you think things should change, and are asking only for SPECIFIC criticism. Not going to happen. You're in the wrong place for that.


On topic? Discord can screw. I miss the socialization, I miss talking to people. I do not miss the attitudes of both players and staff after beyond shown the door for participating in a discussion. Frankly? You're all on the same canvas, being painted by my big-ass-brush. Few of the people who constantly posted were good people and fewer made anyone feel welcome. You can separate out channels all you want, but I think players can make their own social spaces. Armageddon should be a place to talk about Armageddon as much as is allowed, and thats it. I think Apoc kind of had it right in not leaving it up to staff members to try and police an entire community space.

You are a treasure, a gem, and a blessing on this community.

[Riev]

I disagree on the following fourteen points, and also something about your mother.

[papertiger]

I haven't gone through all the posts but wanted to mention I think it would be better for game related discussions to be restricted to the forums and answering specific help related questions. I understand I came after whatever happened with the big admin abuse so staff were trying to give players a place to deliver feedback and speak without feeling silenced, but the amount of "feedback" is a little impossible to actually keep up with. It tends to get cyclical, as we can recognize with the running joke of spinning the "wheel" of topics to bitch about. Discord moves so quickly and its so easy for things to light on fire or devolve since its easy to dehumanize BroGuy78 on the interwebz. Discussion can slip away on the forums too, but forums generally encourage more thought behind things and I feel like there's a bit more accountability to what's being said. You can also just point to the Elf Sofa theft conspiracy thread and say hey man, go post there instead of strongarming the entire chat into another ragefest. (I suppose I should be clear that everytime I brought up elves and stealing sofas it was a joke. Calm down elves you're doin good)

All that said, I am pretty sure general discussion won't be removed. I'm hopeful it'll just be better. I would like to see less tolerance for trolling. (I have definitely trolled when I got frustrated or passive aggressive - and I think theres nothing wrong with a hey tiger, go take a damn nap *kick 2hours*) Kick more for stuff that spirals and make it clear what, I think. And if someone wants to riot over a 2 hour kick and act like a child by personally attacking them (namecalling or flaming) maybe they need a week break.

I hop in and out of discord all the time (not in it now for example!). I do this with all servers, but I understand that's pretty uncommon.

I get that people want to air their grievances but I just don't think discord is a solid place for that. It turns into ranting too quickly.

I think my view may be the opposite extreme - hopefully some middle ground can be found that people can get cozy with. Heck, maybe we need to make use of threads more often in discord to keep discussion less overwhelming. Sadly I don't actually know enough to make one Find Kaathe and ask for his wheel. Thread for every wheel topic please xD

[Master Color]

Since I've left Armageddon I've been a part of multiple gaming communities that weren't nearly as toxic. I gotta say it's nice.

I'd say bring on the ban hammer. But I think player interaction in Armageddon is inherently toxic. I say this without even considering the community. To the point were I think attempts to change the community culture will be stymied by just how nasty Armageddon has always been.

[Windstorm]

I've been ruminating on how to get my thoughts out on this subject but I think Master Color and papertiger summed it up better than I could have. Bring on the ban hammer. Toxicity will not go away quietly but it won't otherwise go away at all. Other gaming and roleplaying communities that are healthy do not have these problems. I neither need people being jerks to each other, nor advocating for the freedom to be jerks to each other.

I want more of the focus on the game and less on these outside factors, so I'd suggest minimizing the GDB and the Discord alike. Make the process simple and don't give it too much headspace, paperwork, or room to stress either yourselves or the community out: just see jerks, ban jerks, move on.

[Dresan]

I don't believe the armageddon community is that toxic compared to other gaming communities.

Its actually pretty good compared to equally size places. For example, i've openly been called an asshole in another mud by staff, this after i mentioned the clan he ran was full of shitheads. We both shrugged and moved on...not a huge deal and i still like that game.

What is toxic is the relationship between staff and player. Often for very good reason. Equally as toxic is the divide between players who still support staff/game and those that don't. This toxicity is what has bled out to every part of the game and on other platforms.

Finally, for everything else i feel there are a certain number of overly sensitive people that are prone to drama and over exageration. This is not a dig or an insult to them. However, i think they have an expectation of this community which isnt in line with the reality of a group of strangers playing a game on the internet.

For example there was one person sharing their personal feelings of depression on discord. In an ideal world everyone would care but again not reality of the internet. The lack of empathy was conveyed and they eventually asked whether their feelings mattered. Again not trying to be insensitive about a persons problems but we shouldnt be in the business of creating college style safe spaces for people. Its actually dangerous to do so, and i feel we have seen the results of that.

I think the game would be served better with a stronger focus on discussions about actual game. It should avoid facilitating ooc conversation as much as possible, and only engage in ooc when its been decided by staff that it is an important topic to the arm community to discuss. And by all means, people should be free to socialize with whomever but the game should have no part of it when it isn't related to the armageddon game experience. Let people who wish to engage in ooc topics take those conversation to a place of their chosing at their own risk.

[Armaddict]

I neither need people being jerks to each other, nor advocating for the freedom to be jerks to each other.

I'm not going to keep on beating the horse, but I did want to point out that I, nor anyone else that I saw, advocated for freedom to be an asshole.  Most have even spoken against it explicitly.

What we did say was that heavier moderation was not needed, and that the current measures are adequate.  Mutes and short-term communication bans are excellent measures for a player-run committee to have, long term bans are not, precisely because of how problematic that becomes over the long term; while it may seem like you've created a docile speaking ground, you're actually just cutting out a lot of meaningful dialogue on topics just because people care enough about it to get frustrated with a conversation.

Pointless trolling, lashing out, uncalled for personal attacks?  Sure, mute 'em.  Someone who keeps on coming back and reinstigating or bringing up past arguments in a non-constructive way?  Sure, give 'em a couple days.  But no, I do not agree with long term bans because a volunteer team doesn't like that they have to keep on taking actions, or that people don't fall in line enough to their exacting specifications in dialogues.

Recoverable, temporary punishment is ideal for what end up as snapshots in time in dialogue.  Leave long-term, heavier punishments to a much, much higher standard.  That's it.  It's not 'Freedom to run amok and insult people' that anyone is calling for.  It's saying it's a bad idea to increase the weight of punishments based off of an ideal that is not that realistic over the long term.

[Tuannon]

I think it's somewhat audacious to assume Arm is as toxic as Rust or Fortnite or League of Legumes.

On the topic, I think moderation will always be trying not to fail while the team has no real goals or mutual internal support. I also think that it needs to be truly independent from staff in order to be what it claims to be. So no former staffers who still engage in communications with staff like they are staff, no staffers telling moderators what and who to moderate and no staffers moderating for moderators.

There is an inherent environment of dishonesty that has never really gone away.

[Master Color]

I think it's somewhat audacious to assume Arm is as toxic as Rust or Fortnite or League of Legumes.

I know those games are notoriously toxic. But so is Armageddon. There's a reason for that.

[Tuannon]

My point is, Arm has a playerbase of 38 people on a good week.

[Lizzie]

I'm not going to keep on beating the horse, but I did want to point out that [neither] I, nor anyone else that I saw, advocated for freedom to be an asshole.  Most have even spoken against it explicitly.

(I added the word "neither" since it was clear he meant that)

One of the ways people display their toxicity is by rules-lawyering. They say "well you didn't define trolling." Or if you do, they say "well you didn't define it as using THESE words, only THOSE words." or they say "yes you defined it using those words, but you clearly took it out of context and everyone knows I was just joking."

And they'll push and push and push, sucking everyone else into the "debate" and then insisting that debate is healthy, even though everyone is now upset. Not everything has to be a debate. Not everything has to be a discussion.  And when someone says "I was only" or "I was simply" or "I was merely"...on a regular basis: That's a troll. No matter what they say after those first three words - if they say it on the regular, it's a troll.

[dumbstruck]

The shadowboard or the arm related reddit posts don't exist because a player was mean to another on the forums or discord.

Disagree. I specifically left here and went and joined the shadow forums when a current staff member actively mocked me publicly for being ruffled about a change to whirans so I suddenly couldn't play them, in 2013. I will grant that I would not have done it if I had not been drunk (lowered inhibitions) but I also wouldn't have done it if I didn't have active staff members publicly mock me either. So. You decide.

Because at least some of it is explicitly someone being an asshole to them being on the forums. This part. Maybe other parts, too. I can only speak for myself on this.

(I also stopped visiting the shadow boards for the same reason, their lack of moderation led to no less than 8 pages of posts where the 'n word' had been autochanged to 'elf', 26 pages of posts describing someone as 'r*tarded', and I didn't bother to do a search on hits for the word 'autist'. So I also disagree that the lack of moderation leads to a 'chill' atmosphere. In fact, just like here, it drives people away when you are unkind and rude to them.)

[val]

Suggestions in blue.  Also to replace all "eg" with "e.g." because this is bothering my lawyer brain and is very, extremely, super important. The same with consistent periods at the ends of clauses. Things I am confused about in *

R1. Show respect and kindness above all in your discourse. Some examples of moderatable content:
  - A. Being highly sarcastic and 'snarky' in your comments
  - B. Personal attacks. We respect a healthy debate can occur, but dDebate the idea, not the person supplying it.
  - C. Effectively airing a player complaint in public (eg the guild leader last year did 'X' and should have been banned)
  - D. Bluntly crapping uponCriticizing general segments of the player base, eg 'all mages I've seen are lame powergamers'. Please use tact.
  - E. Seeking to dismantle and demolish another player's opinion. Respect that other players may wish to lodge their view but not enter an intense debate. Respect another player's request to no longer debate an issue. Remember you could always ask them if they're looking to be responded to.
  - F. Engaging in a protracted an intense debate on Discord with one other party if they express that they are no longer interested in the debate or another person asks for the parties to not dominate the conversation. (even when they are willing). Respect that many others may not wish this to dominate the conversation and consider taking this to DMs or a GDB thread.*
  - G. Bashing former members of the community

R2. There will be zero tolerance for discrimination or harassment.  This includes: offensive actions and comments directed at someone's gender, sexual orientation, appearance, race, religion, language,** etc., unwanted attention, deliberate 'outing' of identity, misgendering, threats, ableism, or publishing private conversations.

Reasons for suggestions:

Get rid of the dashes in R1. and put in classic heading subdivisions. If you want to get more granular about what rule someone is breaking, "R1" is not very specific.

"Tact" is very subjective and the rule is already clearly stated.

"Crapping upon" vs. "criticizing" change to more professional language.

The obligation should be put on the person who wants to withdraw their consent to a debate to state that clearly. This will make the reason for moderation clearer and less subject to interpretation on the part of the moderator.

Dismantling/demolishing is extremely subjective. Discussion leads to disagreement, and people who disagree about something they are passionate about may disagree passionately. 'No personal attacks' and 'I don't want to debate my ideas with you' cover this going off the rails without needing subjective interpretation.

How is 'ableism' not already in there?

* Aren't there Discord threads?

** I have no idea what "language" is intended to convey. Lack of familiarity with English? Unconventional grammar? Dialect?

I don't want to debate my suggestions. Thanks for your consideration.