Who Moderates the Moderators?

[Brisket]

Thats not to say they should be combative,

oh so Patuk is out.

I'M JOKIN I'M JOKIN

[Patuk]

You guys are gonna make me blu- REEEEEEEEEE

Nah. But I'll throw in my name. You are the best <3

[mansa]

There's a few feelings I have about the community speaking about "bans" and even "correctional actions".

• The first feeling is that it is entertaining and it is drama.  There is a conflict between two entities and it is scandalous to see it unfold.  "What did person X do to deserve this?"  It creates a storyline and we all get to observe how it happens and how it unfolds.  This also creates rumors and gossip, since the knowledge of it happening is typically released by one party, and the other party can't involve themselves in it (being banned, silenced, etc)
  
  You can summarize this by how the community observes the conflict itself.
  
  
• Another feeling is that creating a public offenders notice will prevent those players from trying to overcome their past sins.  It is similar to the feeling I have with the account note system - it sets the bar for other community members interacting with the offending person by documenting their worst moments, and not documenting their good moments.
  
  You can summarize this by how the community observes the offending person after the fact.
  
  
• Another feeling, naturally, is how can we prevent abuse by those in authority if the offending person is innocent.   If the community doesn't know about the "correctional actions", there is a good chance that a mistake happened and a wrong action needs to be corrected.
  
  You can summarize this by how the community observes the authority after the fact.
  
  

We're all trying to work together to make the community rules and guidelines something we all can work with, and that means change will happen over time.  Would someone be able to help address my feelings about making corrective actions publishable?

[Armaddict]

I'm not -for- publishing.  I'm not even for a moderation team.  But the player committee is something probably necessary, not for staff oversight (I'm sorry, but I don't believe anyone should have control over the people running a game, particularly when it's done mostly through force of outrage), but for player advocacy.  They will, naturally, have to have a decent relationship with staff in the first place, because staff will need to value their input in particular for circumstances that they will likely, at some point, pointedly disagree on.

However.  That being said, to address your concerns, you can use vagueness, and have it published by the player committee rather than staff.
"3 corrective measures for players were taken this month.  2 of them came from player complaints.  We have lifted one ban that was temporary.  We have lifted one ban that was originally permanent after meeting.  One staff complaint was addressed.  Punitive measures were delayed until the next staffing change."

That's not an exact or perfect example.  But you can use vagueness to both keep people updated that actions are being taken, and not out it to people at large.  Staff don't do this, because people will inevitably decide they're making it up.  They will do the same to the player committee as time goes on and people develop the same distrust, but it will be far less prevalent and disruptive, and can be more readily addressed without impacting the game's continued IC events.

Like I told you before:  With player committees, including the moderation team, time leads towards inevitable displeasure almost across the board because in any given action, there will almost always be a party who disagrees with it.  Over time that accumulates.  That is intrinsic to the nature of moderation and running a game with stakes that can be lost.  The hope I have for you is that you can keep that rate of disgruntlement low enough that it settles at an acceptable level by equilibrium with natural fading of those harbored feelings over time.

[Brisket]

I'm sure people would be willing to do so. 

There are 3 main points to your argument.

1. Titillation -  This is your assumption that people are sharing ban reasonings in order to mock or make fun of the banned.  This is an assumption based on very little evidence.  I've never seen this community partake in some sort of group shaming session or wide-eyed car crash watching.  Especially ex post facto.  It also presupposes that the punished has no voice, and I think that the opposite should be true.  The court of public opinion is powerful, and sunlight is the best disinfectant.  You don't have to travel very far to see punitive measures both IC and OOC doled out by Shalooonsh that would have, if talked about, pointed more clearly toward the bad actor in question.

2. Prejudgment - Nobody knows who you're playing.  Nobody's asked to make that public.  This obfuscation has a chilling effect on the suffering that a person banned or punished would undergo because of their ban or punishment.  Additionally, this hasn't really been the case that I've seen, and the only cases where I could even see it happening are something like a punishment for something like sexual harassment, which might see some players shy away from that player.  And people should have that information available to them in my opinion.

3. Abuse - The best way to prevent abuse of authority is for the authority's actions to be done in full view of the public.  Actions that are hidden are actions that can be questionable.  And even actions the community approves of may come across as negative due to the hidden nature of the action.  Especially in light of the current climate, there are a group of players who want to come back but do not feel the changes will do enough.  Making the right decisions to make those players feel more comfortable means we have more people in the game, which is everyone's goal.

And to address the elephant in the room - a staff-chosen council of obsequiously staff-friendly players acting as moderators was perhaps not the best look.  For said council to start making up arbitrary rules that the rest of us suddenly have to follow only feeds the idea that there is staff favoritism at work. 

Repeatedly, this moderation team has failed us.  Repeatedly, people with criticisms are silenced while those attacking people for having criticisms are left unpunished.  To continue the previous culture of the game and its community with things like Top Secret Knowledge is not a step forward, and does not allow us to move forward.

[tiny rainbow]

1. Titillation -  This is your assumption that people are sharing ban reasonings in order to mock or make fun of the banned.  This is an assumption based on very little evidence.

Other games have done this, it adds an atmosphere of cruelty to someone that's already been punished:
https://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,58629.msg1083541.html#msg1083541
(the video is good too!)
It's a similar reason why most civilised countries got rid of the stocks and gibbets - if it was effective we'd still be doing it, but having cruelty in the treatment encourages people who use rules and regulations as a method of abuse to hide behind, and makes it hard to support people that support doing these kind of things

And to address the elephant in the room - a staff-chosen council of obsequiously staff-friendly players acting as moderators was perhaps not the best look.

Agree with that

To continue the previous culture of the game and its community with things like Top Secret Knowledge is not a step forward

It absolutely is, the other means destroying the most unique thing that the game has left, this element of fun mystery, intrigue, and plots - if everything is the same, why would anyone choose Armageddon? I think a lot of people get bored of bar RP and pre-planned plots, if you think about it one of the biggest things people have said is having that sense of agency to let player characters affect what happens, with equal treatment, is really important

[Brisket]

I'm really not sure what you're talking about with the stocks and gibbets either - no one is asking for them to be made public spectacle of.

In fact, court records, including convictions and punishments being available has been a cornerstone of western legal standard for hundreds of years.  And it was done for the exact same reason - to prevent bad actors invested with authority from abusing the levers of power available to them.  So thank you for helping illustrate my point more clearly, I appreciate it.

Top Secret Knowledge did not refer to game secrets, especially with all the other words around it, and in the context of this thread.  No one is asking for IC secrets to be shared or spread.

[mansa]

Please stop using the "report to moderator" button to end discussions on the board.

To reiterate the rules:

1. Show respect and kindness above all. This includes offensive actions and comments directed at someone's gender, sexual orientation, appearance, race, religion, language, etc. We respect healthy debate, but will not tolerate argumentative discourse. Discuss the idea, not each other.

2. Please keep the conversation on topic and in the proper channels.

3. Please keep your personal information private, and do not request the personal information of others in public channels or DMs. Please do not harass, abuse, or send other unwelcome communications to other members (e.g., romantic advances, explicit content).

4. No NSFW content allowed.

5. Do not bash other MUDs, communities or other users.

6. No advertising.




It is not against the rules to have a bad discussion point.  The discussion board is for everyone.   If someone doesn't understand the point, don't force the issue and try to win the thread.    If someone disagrees, that is okay.  It is not your job to convince them they are wrong.

[Ath]

I am closing this topic at the moment as currently this is not being constructive and folks can pretty much not follow the rules on it.  If you have a complaint about the moderation team, please do via a request, and it will be reviewed by mansa, the Head Moderator, and myself.  If you are going to just antagonize and be spiteful, it doesn't help and breaks our first rule.  It takes everyone to make a good community, and the soft hand approach it trying to be utilized first.  Thank you.

[Ath]

I am reopening this thread after being requested to do so and reviewing with other mods.  Please try to keep on topic and polite with each other.  Conversation, arguments, debate can be good, but when it gets to the point where attacks, even underhanded, come into play, that is a no go.

Thank you.