It is getting out of hand when moderators are participating in a thread about a passionate topic, and then decide to moderate that same topic due to their opinion/viewpoint and what not, weather it is just or not.
The most recent example is Kilkrazy posting an inflammatory statement in the US Politics thread, getting called on it, and then choosing to lock the thread. Dakkas mods should be accountable to the same standard as other posters when it comes to their posting habits, but more and more recently this does not appear to be the case. This is a prime example.
I and many other posters hold Dakka's mods to a pretty high standard, so I do not think it should be out of the realm of possibility for Mods that are participating in discussions to sit back and allow other moderators to handle the actual moderating of these threads. This helps what I, and many others, can consider to be a conflict of interest, and it has the potential to stifle good discussion.
I don't even participate in these threads much, but at minimum the perception of this is getting out of hand, and I think it would be in Dakkas best interests if something was done about it.
The exact situation you have described happens all the time.
It makes posting on here a real chore, there's a number of times I've posted what I thought was a decent post with a pretty good points only to have it entirely removed by a mod who didn't agree with the argument in it. Not the content or the way it was presented. The actual point itself. It's pretty irritating.
There are also certain mods who seem to show favouritism and the opposite in their moderation. One has shown a particular interest in me, for whatever reason. This should also be forbidden/moderated (pun intentional).
Nobody should be allowed to post in the US Politics thread. It should just be prohibidobido. Do that elsewhere. I check in, see the same blind, crap-slinging monkeys on both side howling from their holes and bombarding the other side with the same poop they did yesterday.
It goes to the same place every time.
PS: There's an ignore button for a reason folks. If someone gets to you, ignore them. You don't have to read their crap. You can always choose to, but at least you know you're setting yourself up for cranking your aggravation.
Mods don't owe you gak. They could come on, see you're disagreeing with them, and send you a dog-turd emoticon and then ban you. If you can't deal with that, you should start your own forum. No matter how nice and cozy and protected the rules of the site may make a person feel, you're in someone else's sandbox. You aren't owed admission. You aren't owed gak. If Mods are nice, be grateful. If Mods bother you and you can't hack it anymore, go elsewhere.
I can say this, because I used to frequent another board. And I used to think that because I posted there, I deserved to be treated well. But it wasn't the case. I made myself upset, angry, and downright raging at times, because it was so unfair... except... it wasn't. I wasn't due anything. That site didn't owe me a thing. I wanted things my way. I wanted things to be progressive and change with the times, and be "better."
And I banged my head on a wall for years. Until one day I realized, "Tree, these people don't owe you gak. These people have rules that they post, but that's just a front. It's a dictatorship, run by people you have fundamental disagreements with in terms of acceptable communication and behavior. It's time to go."
And that's what I did. I'm genuinely happier now. So if you can't deal with living in a Dictatorship in which your opinion means absolutely nothing, you need to start your own forum and become that dictator. Or try a different forum with different dictators. Or stop being an donkey-cave and get along with your dictators. Or be an donkey-cave and don't get along with your dictators.
But this whole I'm trying to get the Mods to be better Mods thing is gak. The problem isn't the Mods. The problem is your perception of the Mods. That they are anything other than power-mad villains that can crush your existence on this forum with but the click of a button. Because they can.
I mean, they don't. At least, not that I've noticed. But they could. "But the rules say..." Doesn't matter. They can boot you out and not lose any sleep over it if they damned well feel like it. So quit thinking a page of rules entitles the users here to anything other than a summary judgement and a pleasant "There's the door" because it doesn't. Put on your big-boy / big-girl underpants and deal with it.
If the mods acted as you suggest they can, and aggravate enough people to leave, they will be the dictators of nothing. They don't want this. Regardless of how sincere you think the mods are make absolutely no mistake that the only reason anyone becomes a mod is because they want a sense of power over other people.
DakkaDakka already has an extremely bad perception in the community at large. Extremely bad. If the mods want to grow the community and the forum (thus increasing their power) they should take the advice of some of their more frequent posters.
They can ignore the advice if they want and when the forum falls apart or people migrate to another they will know who to blame.
Oh, blech. I don't see this forum falling apart. If other forums can have front pages that have the same posts on them for at least a month, and Dakka turns over it's "Recent Posts" every hour or so on the weekend, they aren't running out of contributors.
The point I'm making, is that the Mods already have this power. They may not use it, but it's there. The nuclear threat that makes peace possible.
They probably don't want to be bothered, most of the time. Do you have kids? Ever have to separate them because they keep pesting the gak out of each other? And they know it? But they keep doing it?
Now do that for what you presume are grown adults. Not the kids you invest in for a brighter future, but for grown adults that just can't help but poke each other in the eyes for disagreeing.
Seriously. If you don't like it here, you'll be happier to move on. I like this place. I like being able to let things hang out if I feel like it. I like that I don't get shot down the moment I'm not prim-and-proper-English (no racism intended, just a shortcut, dude was a Professor in England) and if you don't like that people act that way here, find somewhere else.
Mods are people. Mods can get heated. Mods are not accountable to anyone, other than themselves, and hypothetically the site owner if that person is inclined to be involved in the day-to-day.
You might not like hearing it, but taste the reality of what's being said. Does it taste false? Does it taste true? I'm here in this thread to help people that are unhappy find their happy, because it doesn't seem like it's here. Honestly, if someone could have gotten through to me years ago on that old forum I would have been a much happier person in that time.
If the mods acted as you suggest they can, and aggravate enough people to leave, they will be the dictators of nothing. They don't want this. Regardless of how sincere you think the mods are make absolutely no mistake that the only reason anyone becomes a mod is because they want a sense of power over other people.
DakkaDakka already has an extremely bad perception in the community at large. Extremely bad. If the mods want to grow the community and the forum (thus increasing their power) they should take the advice of some of their more frequent posters.
They can ignore the advice if they want and when the forum falls apart or people migrate to another they will know who to blame.
Well said. I don't see how anyone cannot see the problem with mods moderating threads they are a part of. It's classic conflict of interest.
I don't really disagree with your viewpoint on the politics thread, but this was about the conduct presented in it, rather than the topic itself.
While you are in a sense correct, The mods still fall under Yakface, and this is almost certainly the exact opposite of his vision for how the community of Dakka should operate. He has said in the past that he generally favors a looser style of moderation, and that it fits the community much better than fear oriented style. Dakka is still a very welcoming and, for the most part, well moderated community that is generally open to suggestions. I feel comfortable enough here to post an issue I found with moderation, regardless if anything will be done about it. I am sorry that your past experience has caused to you to be so bitter about moderation teams, but I would like to think that the Dakka team hold itself to a higher standard.
A possible lack of credible alternatives may keep Dakka Dakka functioning at the current rate.
At any rate, I agree with your sentiment but I think you should think about mine. The place would be better with less biased mods. If the mods continue to act in a way that upsets their community there will be an exodus. Whether you believe it will happen quickly or not, or at all based on current topic turnover is irrelevant.
You don't need to worry about me, if I didn't like it here enough I will leave. I don't need to be told and it feels pretty patronizing when you do to be honest. The point is the place could be better. If the mods don't want to improve the place that's on them, but they will only have themselves to blame when the exodus happens because a better alternative has arrived.
Lulz. Conflict of interest. A conflict of interest arises when a person has a personal interest in a situation that conflicts with a public good.
A mayor that grants a company he owns a contract for municipal work is involved in a conflict of interests. He's supposed to work for the public good as an elected official, but he's helping himself to greater profits.
This standard does not apply to a Dictator. Mods are Dictators of online domains. A dictator has only their own interests to consider. They are not "elected". The public good is only a concern if the dictator wants it to be. Because in a dictatorship, the only good that is considered is whether or not the dictator gets what they want.
Are people here incapable of imagining a scenario in which they genuinely have no power within the situation? In which we are insignificant to the structure in which we exist?
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'm not bitter with the Moderation team here, to be clear.
I like the loose approach. I'm glad people feel comfortable expressing concerns. But the notion that consideration is required by the moderation team is gak.
The way it's presented is as a demand. It's bass-akwards. Demands don't go up the chain in a Dictatorship.
Requests. Sure. Requests go up the chain. Requests tend to start with, "I would like it if..."
They don't start with, "Some Mods are asshats that should butt-out and not play in their own sandbox..."
Because Mods don't get paid... I don't think? If so, please sign me up for some sweet payola. I can thump heads, yes-sai! But assuming they don't, you're telling someone to get out of their own sandbox, so that you can more freely enjoy their sandbox. So don't do that. Make requests.
greatbigtree wrote: Lulz. Conflict of interest. A conflict of interest arises when a person has a personal interest in a situation that conflicts with a public good.
A mayor that grants a company he owns a contract for municipal work is involved in a conflict of interests. He's supposed to work for the public good as an elected official, but he's helping himself to greater profits.
This standard does not apply to a Dictator. Mods are Dictators of online domains. A dictator has only their own interests to consider. They are not "elected". The public good is only a concern if the dictator wants it to be. Because in a dictatorship, the only good that is considered is whether or not the dictator gets what they want.
Are people here incapable of imagining a scenario in which they genuinely have no power within the situation? In which we are insignificant to the structure in which we exist?
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'm not bitter with the Moderation team here, to be clear.
I like the loose approach. I'm glad people feel comfortable expressing concerns. But the notion that consideration is required by the moderation team is gak.
The way it's presented is as a demand. It's bass-akwards. Demands don't go up the chain in a Dictatorship.
Requests. Sure. Requests go up the chain. Requests tend to start with, "I would like it if..."
They don't start with, "Some Mods are asshats that should butt-out and not play in their own sandbox..."
Because Mods don't get paid... I don't think? If so, please sign me up for some sweet payola. I can thump heads, yes-sai! But assuming they don't, you're telling someone to get out of their own sandbox, so that you can more freely enjoy their sandbox. So don't do that. Make requests.
Perhaps I was a bit too aggressive in my opening post, I can own up to that. It was not meant to be, but it appears during my initial edits it turned out to be more demanding and aggressive than I intended.
I feel if you want to talk about "mods are dictators and they deserve to be that way", a separate thread on that is probably a better idea. This isn't about whether or not mods can or should be "dictators", but that moderating a topic you're heavily involved in is not the best idea, especially right after you make a serious error that the thread was previously locked for (albeit, temporarily).
as for conflict of interest:
"A situation that has the potential to undermine the impartiality of a person because of the possibility of a clash between the person's self-interest and professional interest or public interest."
It doesn't need to be about money, it can be literally anything they have a personal interest in that might skew their view.
That was the oddest lock I've ever seen. It really did seem like Kilkrazy locked it out of spite, which is inconsistent with my perception of Kilkrazy's posting habits.
If mods can't post in areas they're moderating, you won't have moderators for very long. I assume mods moderate the forums they want to moderate because it's the forums they're most interested in.
I mean, who would volunteer to moderate forums they have no interest in?
make absolutely no mistake that the only reason anyone becomes a mod is because they want a sense of power over other people.
Not really accurate. Whilst everyone has their own origin stories, me and two others got the swapmod hats many years ago because we kept hassling the site owner about making that section of the site more reliable, orderly, and community orientated.
Several years and thousands of mod hours down the line, we kind of succeeded. A bit. It's not completely the wild west anymore, overt scammers tend to get taken down quite quickly (often before the populace at large even knows that they're there), and there's a sort of system in place to facilitate user trades. It's still not quite how I envisioned it turning out at the start, but life takes over, and trying to enforce even the most minor of changes or rules on an online community this large is like herding cats.
If I'd wanted a sense of power over people, playing internet sleuth with the likes of Daniel Mandelbaum would be a poor way to get it. If anything, most mods run out of steam and get tired of continually being placed in an adversarial position; with users continually taking the michael, trolling and insulting other users, and then screaming facism and freedom of speech when they get nailed down for it. Kind of wears you down?
It's not like this is a paid gig. The reward isn't the 'sense of power', but the idea that you're helping to keep a vaguely productive friendly community going. It's kind of a flimsy thing to hold on to at times, but you take what you can get.
John Prins wrote: I mean, who would volunteer to moderate forums they have no interest in?
We do it nonetheless.
@Sasori - Generally speaking, I don't think there is an inherent conflict of interest between participating in a conversation and moderating it. US Politics is so polarized, however, that maybe we mods should decide to either moderate or participate. I personally have decided not to participate.
John Prins wrote: If mods can't post in areas they're moderating, you won't have moderators for very long. I assume mods moderate the forums they want to moderate because it's the forums they're most interested in.
I mean, who would volunteer to moderate forums they have no interest in?
More like they shouldn't moderate threads they have a personal interest in and post often in when it comes to something as polarizing as US Politics.
make absolutely no mistake that the only reason anyone becomes a mod is because they want a sense of power over other people.
Not really accurate. Whilst everyone has their own origin stories, me and two others got the swapmod hats many years ago because we kept hassling the site owner about making that section of the site more reliable, orderly, and community orientated.
Several years and thousands of mod hours down the line, we kind of succeeded. A bit. It's not completely the wild west anymore, overt scammers tend to get taken down quite quickly (often before the populace at large even knows that they're there), and there's a sort of system in place to facilitate user trades. It's still not quite how I envisioned it turning out at the start, but life takes over, and trying to enforce even the most minor of changes or rules on an online community this large is like herding cats.
If I'd wanted a sense of power over people, playing internet sleuth with the likes of Daniel Mandelbaum would be a poor way to get it. If anything, most mods run out of steam and get tired of continually being placed in an adversarial position; with users continually taking the michael, trolling and insulting other users, and then screaming facism and freedom of speech when they get nailed down for it. Kind of wears you down?
It's not like this is a paid gig. The reward isn't the 'sense of power', but the idea that you're helping to keep a vaguely productive friendly community going. It's kind of a flimsy thing to hold on to at times, but you take what you can get.
You can dress it up how you like but ultimately the only benefit you get for volunteering to be a mod is the ability to change others' posts, to temporarily and permanently ban them. In other words you get power over other people. You might have convinced yourself that you're doing it for a selfless reason. That you're doing it to "help communication, reliability" or "make things more orderly". I'm sure if you actually wanted to help with the things that you claim, you could have done so without the moderation hat. You could flag those posts that shouldn't be up to a mod to remove, like everyone else has to.
It is exactly because the position isn't paid, that the reward is the position itself and the power it gives you. This is why (in my opinion) the moderation is so bogus at times.
If you're tired of moderating, stop? You don't have to?
He likes to snipe and needle in a weird way. Not surprised he would irritate someone enough to colour their view on tangentially related subjects.
The mods are fine. Mods moderating each other privately is fine. Kilkrazy will get private moderating for whatever he did to get backlash against the mods.
To be honest, as an "outsider/foreigner" to Dakkadakka, I don't see this forum in such a bad shape. In fact, I really appreciate that way of moderating in comparison to "stricter" forums. I have nearly come to the thought moderators aren't really needed in most cases. And I think that's a good thing, IMHO.
We always see what goes wrong, but never notice when everything went right.
I have not been "white" in the past threads, so I would not judge here. I now spend most of my times reading the posts of others. It's interesting to read what people from other countries/other sides are thinking. Sometimes depressing as well for me, but it keeps reminding me how many points of view there are in the world.
To me, I felt the thread that was locked was indeed a bit one-sided at the end. When people can't agree on facts themselves and keep supporting their own "truth" over and over, it's hard for the debate to make some progress forward.Not even talking about jumping on the small details to deflect from the main point (on purpose or not). So I understand why Killkrazy did this.
Yet, I'm sad I won't be reading some interventions anymore on the subject. I know it's not the place for that, but it was still good to see how some DakkaDakka posters felt about things happening on the other side of the sea. Even if I don't agree with all the views.
You can dress it up how you like but ultimately the only benefit you get for volunteering to be a mod is the ability to change others' posts, to temporarily and permanently ban them. In other words you get power over other people.
I think this is quite the astonishing opinion. It says far more about you and how you personally perceive holding any kind of power, than it does anyone else. Moderation is a dreary, mostly thankless job, which involves dealing with argumentative scammers, trolls, and facetious people convinced of their own righteousness. You do it because you enjoy the community that you're part of and because you want to preserve it from the above users.
You might have convinced yourself that you're doing it for a selfless reason. That you're doing it to "help communication, reliability" or "make things more orderly". I'm sure if you actually wanted to help with the things that you claim, you could have done so without the moderation hat. You could flag those posts that shouldn't be up to a mod to remove, like everyone else has to.
You're clearly new here. The 'Swapmod' user category literally didn't exist at that time I got asked to take the position; it got created when I accepted. The reason I got offered it because I was already trying to make things better as a regular user in a productive fashion (I started the Reputable Trader List concept, for example). You can blather on inventing things about how I must be self-deceiving, but I was doing what I do now before the position existed and thus had no expectation/intent of getting it. Occasionally, having to deal with accusations like the above makes me wonder why I bother. Then I go and have an enjoyable conversation or two, see some great pics, learn a thing or two, and remember why.
In my experience most mods will either avoid discussions or allow other mods not involved to step into a debate if the mod is involved themselves.
On the first count its because its hard to remain impartial when you're not just interested but also invested and debating within a topic. Anyone can get irate or get caught up in a debate without realising it.
The second reason is for presentation to the site. By having other mods step in to moderate (if required) it means that the mod team appears united whilst at the same time fair since they are not moderating what they are discussing at the same time.
Of course that is the idealistic situation, there will always be times when a spambot appears or there is some very blatant abuse that a mod, even vested in a discussion, can moderate without issue.
I find it also helps to reinforce that mods are a team not loan gunners manning their own sections like a sheriff shooting from the hip. By calling on other members of the team to moderate a thread thus letting the "mod" be just a regular user for the purposes of that thread.
If this isn't standard policy within Dakka then its something I'd encourage to be taken up by the mod team. I've always found it an effective and simple measure
It's hard to apply that as a "site-wide" policy, because sometimes the only mod who really knows what's going on in a section is one who might be participating (particularly, the wargaming sections of the site - i.e. most of it!).
But for the politics thread, this is something we'd already talked about doing, and will probably try if we open it up again...
For now though, probably best to let things cool off a bit. I find it so hard to have a good discussion about politics online - I participated myself a bit pages earlier (after responding to a mod alert and and trying to reboot the thread), but without body language cues / personal relationships / etc it's hard to do more than rehash political arguments.
If this isn't standard policy within Dakka then its something I'd encourage to be taken up by the mod team. I've always found it an effective and simple measure
All moderator disciplinary actions are logged and recorded for the entire mod team and both owners to see and discuss. There are times when a mod will think another is being too harsh and say so. Sometimes a general consensus will be sought on a topic. There's no hive mind. Not that this stops many users believing individually that certain mods are gunning for them (when in reality, we can all see everything that is being done, and know quite emphatically that it isn't the case).
From my experience, the mod team here just want people to be measured, mature, polite, and not take stuff too seriously. And whilst everyone has their off days (mod team included), you'd be surprised how consistently some people have trouble with that.
Nobody here wants to goosestep around or wield power with a maniacal laughter (fun as that sounds). We're all adults with lives and business of our own to take care of. When User #27 is fighting a point to death again on borderline rudeness and gets his umpteenth warning to stop being a bit of a bell-end, the reaction isn't one of eager anticipation to crack the whip. It's more of a headdesk, a groan of 'Not him again...' and a dram of whiskey sort of affair. Y'know, because none of us get off on having the inevitable five private messages of denials, finger jabs at the other party, passive-aggressive insults, and accusations of extreme left/right political orientation/bias (often in the same day).
Fortunately, I get less of that in the Swapshop, but I still get the pleasure(?) of seeing the regular mods having to put up with it all the time.
RiTides - true on a larger site you can well end up with members haunting only specific areas or types of discussion that happen to occur within a specific area; so if the mod system is broken down into sections you can end up with a mod knowing "their patch" better than others.
Though I must admit even on the larger site I moderate its always been pretty much any mod deals with any thing; the only section limits used were for those who had mod status to organise specific things (mostly so they could pin/lock competition threads).
Even if a mod has a section to them using the report feature to flag a thread to the whole team (either because there is a problem or to flag a thread for everyone to watch because it is likely to become a problem).
One interesting means to managing politics was to put it behind a wall. Even a free subsection that is closed and only accessible on request to regular members can be enough of a barrier that users respect it just a little more (for its so easy to get kicked right out of just that section). It lets it operate in its own mini-environment. It might be a thought in order to allow political threads to continue without having them be a huge issue for the mods. IT means you can layer punishments to a section ban rather than have to go through the more nasty suspension of account for a user (which is painful when you've members who otherwise contribute positively who get caught up in political or religious debates)
The locking of the thread in question....I can understand the reasons, but the way it was done looked very unprofessional. It's even more questionable when the comment KK was being called on was the same sort of hostile over-generalisation that had already earned the thread a temporary lock from a different mod: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/3210/753985.page#10001383
When a mod engages in the sort of behaviour that a different mod had warned posters about....the impression is not positive.
Ketara wrote: I think this is quite the astonishing opinion. It says far more about you and how you personally perceive holding any kind of power, than it does anyone else. Moderation is a dreary, mostly thankless job, which involves dealing with argumentative scammers, trolls, and facetious people convinced of their own righteousness. You do it because you enjoy the community that you're part of and because you want to preserve it from the above users.
So there you go, attacking me personally when I have not done the same to you. Classic move of someone who believes/knows they are in a position of power over someone else. What are my options to this? Speak up and risk punishment? Say nothing and simply agree that you are right?
You might want to take a read of this; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment, it's pretty well known that people will, unfortunately, often default to a negative stance (with regards to their treatment of other people) when given power. You have provided the perfect example in your response above, rather than respond to the critique with your own stance, you instead opt to attack me. Great moderation?
Ketara wrote: The 'Swapmod' user category literally didn't exist at that time I got asked to take the position; it got created when I accepted. The reason I got offered it because I was already trying to make things better as a regular user in a productive fashion (I started the Reputable Trader List concept, for example). You can blather on inventing things about how I must be self-deceiving, but I was doing what I do now before the position existed and thus had no expectation/intent of getting it. Occasionally, having to deal with accusations like the above makes me wonder why I bother. Then I go and have an enjoyable conversation or two, see some great pics, learn a thing or two, and remember why.
It's funny though, because you wouldn't have to bother. You could literally have a position where you can only edit posts in a certain mod sub forum, y'know, like the one that you actually became this so called "Swapmod" for? I'm not 'blathering', I'm stating facts. Facts that you are actively proving by your ignorant responses. If your intentions were pure, for example, why moderate anything that you perceive as outside your very specific remit? Why even be able to? Could it be that you enjoy the power?!?!?!oneoneone
It's nothing to be ashamed of. It's "normal" in that it is expected behaviour.
Elemental wrote: The locking of the thread in question....I can understand the reasons, but the way it was done looked very unprofessional. It's even more questionable when the comment KK was being called on was the same sort of hostile over-generalisation that had already earned the thread a temporary lock from a different mod: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/3210/753985.page#10001383
When a mod engages in the sort of behaviour that a different mod had warned posters about....the impression is not positive.
The US Politics thread seems to be (aside from maybe Star Wars movie threads) the only thread on the site that consistently has trouble following Rule #1. Even the threads in Nuts and Bolts debating whether or not the thread should be allowed get locked. Posters consistently ask for special dispensation to violate Rule #1 in the US Politics thread because posters want to be able to call a spade a spade as they see it and not be hampered by the need to be polite when they point out erroneous reasoning or falsehoods. If it really is too hard to discuss US Politics without making derogatory comments about other people then the site is better off without it.
Wolfblade wrote: Haven't you literally been attacking every mod by saying "They're all just here to power trip"? Bit of a double standard there.
Have you read my posts? Take another look.
E - there is also a significant difference between attacking a system and attacking a person, personally. You get that right? I haven't named any specific mod with my comments.
d-usa wrote: I’m surprised that we can’t find a single MOD who doesn’t want to participate in the Politics thread to serve as the designated MOD for that thread.
Really? I wouldn’t want to invest my time into that job even if it was paid.
So, I'm not saying Mods become mods for the "power". They have power invested in them when they become Mods. Just as a prince has power invested in them when they become king. It comes with the position. I very much believe in the potential for Plato's philosopher kings. Enlightened dictators that rule from their own Pursuit of the greater good. I do not use the term Dictator in a derogatory way. I use it only to describe the power dynamic at play.
Site owners are seemingly beneficent overlords of this domain. They invest power in those they believe capable of fulfilling their desires for their domain. This is the power dynamic of a Dictatorship. The members of this site may appeal to those in power, but there is no means to "overturn" a decision. The people in control are not elected. They are appointed by whim.
This does not mean they are selfish. Moderating is not a joyous task. Anyone moderating a site is almost certainly doing so from an altruistic position. This does not change the power dynamic. If they think what's best for the site is to can a given user, they have the authority to do so.
Hypothetically, this "implicit threat" is the root of their authority, and the means to enforce a certain kind of posting. All authority is ultimately derived from being able to enact force. This applies here, as well.
Did someone get in over their head? Probably. If bothered, would it have been best to invite a dialogue, rather than issue demands? I think so. Not specific to the OP. This seems to be a trend of sorts. A sentiment shared by many.
There is a best way to approach this. Attacking the powers that be results in wagon circling and the point gets lost in the process. People vent, but nothing gets done. "The people" express disapproval, and "The power" gets defensive and points out, fairly, that they're unpaid volunteers.
The approach sets up for failure, by creating an adversarial exchange. Rather, the issue could be approached as,
"Hey, powers that be, could we talk about Mods that are taking mod action in threads they're involved in?"
This is an invitation to converse. Not a demand to be met, "or else." This invitation can be met or ignored, but the invitation shows a desire to discuss, not rattle sabres.
Anyhow, like I said earlier, the US politics thread and really anything related to it ought to be a take it somewhere else topic. Any topic that generates the same rehashed, partisan crap should be a take it somewhere else topic. It doesn't seem to add to this site's value. Nothing new gets generated. Even just reporting the dope-of-the-day news is inflammatory. It is immediately bias-filtered into whichever camp the person belongs to, and then the crap-apult gets loaded and the poop starts flying. Both ways.
So there you go, attacking me personally when I have not done the same to you.
Sorry, but is there a language barrier here? I said that your own words are quite revealing as to your own thought processes and attitudes towards the topic under discussion. Which they are. It's self-evident. That was the point of you writing them down. It's the purpose of communication. If you're taking that as an insult, you're literally insulting yourself there.
Classic move of someone who believes/knows they are in a position of power over someone else. What are my options to this? Speak up and risk punishment? Say nothing and simply agree that you are right?
Neighbour, that martyr complex around your neck looks awfully heavy. You might want to put that cross you're carrying down. I've seen other people hauling them laboriously through conversations before, and they just end up looking a bit silly when they make themselves fall over from the weight.
You might want to take a read of this; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment, it's pretty well known that people will, unfortunately, often default to a negative stance (with regards to their treatment of other people) when given power. You have provided the perfect example in your response above, rather than respond to the critique with your own stance, you instead opt to attack me. Great moderation?
You might want to look closer. The Stanford Experiment was disproven as being fatally flawed and heavily biased years ago. All participants from one cultural makeup, all male, only 24 of them (statistically insignificant), results not able to be duplicated in later testing. Terrible piece of research. You might want to read your own links in future, because you can find that information in there.
It's funny though, because you wouldn't have to bother. You could literally have a position where you can only edit posts in a certain mod sub forum, y'know, like the one that you actually became this so called "Swapmod" for?
Errrr...I do? That's what Swapmods are about? Sorry, I'm not really following here.
I'm not 'blathering', I'm stating facts. Facts that you are actively proving by your ignorant responses. If your intentions were pure, for example, why moderate anything that you perceive as outside your very specific remit? Why even be able to? Could it be that you enjoy the power?!?!?!oneoneone.
Speaking of facts (because you really don't seem to have many of the relevant ones), you're aware that I don't moderate anything outside the Swapshop, right? I comment on the behind the scenes stuff from time to time as seems appropriate, but that's the extent of my involvement in the general forum management.
Trust me, I get enough hassle from scammers, format rule breakers, and people trying to palm off recasts as originals, to want to deal with this sort of crap as well. I swear some of the regular mods are saints for the tolerance they show some people. I simply wouldn't have the patience.
John Prins wrote: I mean, who would volunteer to moderate forums they have no interest in?
We do it nonetheless.
@Sasori - Generally speaking, I don't think there is an inherent conflict of interest between participating in a conversation and moderating it. US Politics is so polarized, however, that maybe we mods should decide to either moderate or participate. I personally have decided not to participate.
People who claim we moderate for "the power" really have the very worst opinion of us.
Manchu,
I do agree that the US Politics (Really, politics in general in the current environment) is the biggest offender, but this isn't the first time it's happened. It just felt so blatant this time, that I felt I needed to speak up.
I understand that this may be a difficult thing to implement, just due to the short amount of mod staff but I do think it would overall help the general impression people have of the staff and benefit the community as a whole.
Please keep in mind that think the mod staff really does an excellent job here, but I do think this would be a pretty major improvement that could benefit the whole Dakka community.
@the Mods, I do apologize for my first post, it came off much more aggressive than I intended.
So there you go, attacking me personally when I have not done the same to you.
Sorry, but is there a language barrier here? I said that your own words are quite revealing as to your own thought processes and attitudes towards the topic under discussion. Which they are. It's self-evident. That was the point of you writing them down. It's the purpose of communication. If you're taking that as an insult, you're literally insulting yourself there.
You know we can see your posts right?
You said this; "It says far more about you and how you personally perceive holding any kind of power, than it does anyone else." which to me is a pretty clear insult, veiled or not. I don't see you referencing the topic under discussion and if that is the entire point of your comment it's completely redundant. 'User posts feelings on topic' crazy he'd do that on a forum huh?
Ketara wrote: Neighbour, that martyr complex around your neck looks awfully heavy. You might want to put that cross you're carrying down. I've seen other people hauling them laboriously through conversations before, and they just end up looking a bit silly when they make themselves fall over from the weight.
No need to patronise.
Ketara wrote: You might want to look closer. The Stanford Experiment was disproven as being fatally flawed and heavily biased years ago. All participants from one cultural makeup, all male, only 24 of them (statistically insignificant), results not able to be duplicated in later testing. Terrible piece of research. You might want to read your own links in future, because you can find that information in there.
Some sources believe it to be flawed yes. Shock. Like any piece of scientific research. Further/other studies have been done since with similar results.
Ketara wrote: Errrr...I do? That's what Swapmods are about? Sorry, I'm not really following here.
So you can literally onlyedit posts in the single subforum relevant to you? In that case I am corrected and mistaken. Wasn't my impression.
Ketara wrote: Speaking of facts (because you really don't seem to have many of the relevant ones), you're aware that I don't moderate anything outside the Swapshop, right? I comment on the behind the scenes stuff from time to time as seems appropriate, but that's the extent of my involvement in the general forum management.
Trust me, I get enough hassle from scammers, format rule breakers, and people trying to palm off recasts as originals, to want to deal with this sort of crap as well. I swear some of the regular mods are saints for the tolerance they show some people. I simply wouldn't have the patience.
Again, if you can only moderate your specific subforum then I am very wrong in your involvement and apologise. Just so we're clear, if you have any ability to moderate posts from other subforums I'd not consider this to be adequate in your defence that you do this for the feelgoods only.
Let's not pretend the mods are saints though, if they were this topic would not have started?
The topic being, that we have gone off by the way, mods should not moderate topics in which they have a vested interest or may be otherwise biased. Impossible of course, because it would mean this very topic is hence immune to any moderation.
What I would like to see is some sort of fall out for a mod who acts inappropriately. It happens often and there is no reprimand.
Wolfblade wrote: Haven't you literally been attacking every mod by saying "They're all just here to power trip"? Bit of a double standard there.
Have you read my posts? Take another look.
E - there is also a significant difference between attacking a system and attacking a person, personally. You get that right? I haven't named any specific mod with my comments.
It is exactly because the position isn't paid, that the reward is the position itself and the power it gives you. This is why (in my opinion) the moderation is so bogus at times.
Personally, I think Dakka would be better if starting a politics thread resulted in an automatic suspension, and those threads were automatically locked.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Personally, I think Dakka would be better if starting a politics thread resulted in an automatic suspension, and those threads were automatically locked.
(Not entirely facetious, BTW)
I'm not sure why they even lock it when feelings get hurt. As long as it doesn't contain sexual imagery, violence, threats of violence, or something actually illegal why lock an OT thread? If two people want to shout troll at each other ad infinitum you'd be better off banning them.
We used to have an independent offshoot forum frequented by Dakkanauts ("The Wasteland"), where it really was anything goes except something like you describe. But Dakka itself isn't really the place for that, I think
We do have a mod willing to shepherd an OT politics thread, if we get to the point of reopening one. That doesn't mean another mod might not need to deal with an alert from the thread or the like, but it should help keep things on the straight and narrow a bit!
Sasori wrote: @the Mods, I do apologize for my first post, it came off much more aggressive than I intended.
No problem, we appreciate feedback (good as well, just in case it comes up ) and that's partially what this section is for!
If the mods acted as you suggest they can, and aggravate enough people to leave, they will be the dictators of nothing. They don't want this. Regardless of how sincere you think the mods are make absolutely no mistake that the only reason anyone becomes a mod is because they want a sense of power over other people.
DakkaDakka already has an extremely bad perception in the community at large. Extremely bad. If the mods want to grow the community and the forum (thus increasing their power) they should take the advice of some of their more frequent posters.
They can ignore the advice if they want and when the forum falls apart or people migrate to another they will know who to blame.
d-usa wrote: I’m surprised that we can’t find a single MOD who doesn’t want to participate in the Politics thread to serve as the designated MOD for that thread.
I have already volunteered (upon opening the thread to begin with) and as you can see I have steered clear of making anything but moderation posts in that thread. I used to discuss politics quite regulalry on Dakka Dakka but I no longer have much interest in it.
John Prins wrote: If mods can't post in areas they're moderating, you won't have moderators for very long. I assume mods moderate the forums they want to moderate because it's the forums they're most interested in.
I mean, who would volunteer to moderate forums they have no interest in?
More like they shouldn't moderate threads they have a personal interest in and post often in when it comes to something as polarizing as US Politics.
Again, your definition of "personal interest" appears off.
John Prins wrote: If mods can't post in areas they're moderating, you won't have moderators for very long. I assume mods moderate the forums they want to moderate because it's the forums they're most interested in.
I mean, who would volunteer to moderate forums they have no interest in?
More like they shouldn't moderate threads they have a personal interest in and post often in when it comes to something as polarizing as US Politics.
Again, your definition of "personal interest" appears off.
d-usa wrote: I’m surprised that we can’t find a single MOD who doesn’t want to participate in the Politics thread to serve as the designated MOD for that thread.
I have already volunteered (upon opening the thread to begin with) and as you can see I have steered clear of making anything but moderation posts in that thread. I used to discuss politics quite regulalry on Dakka Dakka but I no longer have much interest in it.
John Prins wrote: If mods can't post in areas they're moderating, you won't have moderators for very long. I assume mods moderate the forums they want to moderate because it's the forums they're most interested in.
I mean, who would volunteer to moderate forums they have no interest in?
More like they shouldn't moderate threads they have a personal interest in and post often in when it comes to something as polarizing as US Politics.
Again, your definition of "personal interest" appears off.
Personal interest is not limited to just money.
I didn't say money. No poster, has a personal interest in any thread. It's. Literally just a thread.if you have a personal interest in one then you need to step back and take a breather.
d-usa wrote: I’m surprised that we can’t find a single MOD who doesn’t want to participate in the Politics thread to serve as the designated MOD for that thread.
I have already volunteered (upon opening the thread to begin with) and as you can see I have steered clear of making anything but moderation posts in that thread. I used to discuss politics quite regulalry on Dakka Dakka but I no longer have much interest in it.
John Prins wrote: If mods can't post in areas they're moderating, you won't have moderators for very long. I assume mods moderate the forums they want to moderate because it's the forums they're most interested in.
I mean, who would volunteer to moderate forums they have no interest in?
More like they shouldn't moderate threads they have a personal interest in and post often in when it comes to something as polarizing as US Politics.
Again, your definition of "personal interest" appears off.
Personal interest is not limited to just money.
I didn't say money. No poster, has a personal interest in any thread. It's. Literally just a thread.if you have a personal interest in one then you need to step back and take a breather.
...Personal interest as in "They like talking about X/Y/Z and post regularly". What possible definition are you thinking of?
d-usa wrote: I’m surprised that we can’t find a single MOD who doesn’t want to participate in the Politics thread to serve as the designated MOD for that thread.
I have already volunteered (upon opening the thread to begin with) and as you can see I have steered clear of making anything but moderation posts in that thread. I used to discuss politics quite regulalry on Dakka Dakka but I no longer have much interest in it.
And thank you for taking the time to clear up questions that came up a while ago. That was one of those “too many chefs” kind of instances that also involved a participating MOD (which wasn’t necessarily bad, but it was one of those “optics” kind of situations).
You can dress it up how you like but ultimately the only benefit you get for volunteering to be a mod is the ability to change others' posts, to temporarily and permanently ban them.
That's not a 'benefit'. Do you have any idea how aggravating it is to have to write messages to grown adults explaining to them why insulting other people over a different opinion about toy soldiers isn't appropriate behaviour?
Suspending posters isn't a pleasurable activity. It's not a reward. It's frustrating, and at times downright depressing.
What I would like to see is some sort of fall out for a mod who acts inappropriately. It happens often and there is no reprimand.
All moderator activity is logged and reviewed where necessary. Mods have been reprimanded or removed in the past where their behaviour falls out of line with what the site's owners expect.
If you're not seeing it as often as you would expect, it's possibly just because your view of appropriate moderator behaviour differs from that of the site's owners.
I don't really disagree with your viewpoint on the politics thread, but this was about the conduct presented in it, rather than the topic itself.
While you are in a sense correct, The mods still fall under Yakface, and this is almost certainly the exact opposite of his vision for how the community of Dakka should operate. He has said in the past that he generally favors a looser style of moderation, and that it fits the community much better than fear oriented style. Dakka is still a very welcoming and, for the most part, well moderated community that is generally open to suggestions. I feel comfortable enough here to post an issue I found with moderation, regardless if anything will be done about it. I am sorry that your past experience has caused to you to be so bitter about moderation teams, but I would like to think that the Dakka team hold itself to a higher standard.
Peronally, I like Yakface's policy of loose moderation. The last thing I want to see is Dakka end up like Whineseer (with power tripping pricks like Wintermute). I don't want to see our often laid-back, and fair handed, mods get their very own mention in the Encyclopedia Dramatica (like Wintermute and a few others at Whineseer. You have to make one hell of an impression for a site dedicated to "the lulz" to take notice of you). By letting the mods work as they do here, I've yet to see a major issue in the roughly two years I've been here. The mods have been mostly fair using their own judgement, which I believe they couldn't do if they had to play the part of the Rules Gestapo, and get crazy with the banhammer/lock button.
Lords knows they've cut me a few breaks here and there when I got pissy in OT. In many other over-moderated forums, I would have gotten temp bans at best, permabanned at worst.
I say change nothing as far as the general policy goes. If a mod does get out of hand, or crosses a line, then that is waht the site admin is for.
RiTides wrote: For now though, probably best to let things cool off a bit.
But why is there any cooling off required? The thread was proceeding in a fairly calm manner without any problems over the past few pages (at least) until a moderator dropped a flame bait post in it and then locked it. The problem was 100% from one specific person who should not be moderating threads they're participating in, especially when they're going to post provocative things. Nobody else was doing anything wrong, no major arguments were happening, there just wasn't anything hot that needs to cool down.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Personally, I think Dakka would be better if starting a politics thread resulted in an automatic suspension, and those threads were automatically locked.
(Not entirely facetious, BTW)
I'm not sure why they even lock it when feelings get hurt. As long as it doesn't contain sexual imagery, violence, threats of violence, or something actually illegal why lock an OT thread? If two people want to shout troll at each other ad infinitum you'd be better off banning them.
The problem is certain topics get people wound up very fast and if often doesn't just end with two people. Others get drawn in and you can end up with quite a number of normally very active members in one thread having a huge argument in the space of one evening. Suddenly you're looking at quite a core of contributing active members being potentially suspended/banned for disruptive behaviour; but it gets worse than that.
People REMEMBER those fights. They are not often, but they stick in the mind and sour the whole site. Its hard to return to chatting about models when everyone is still remembering that ugly fight over the weekend. Have a couple of those happen and it will drive members away plus new people will see those big threads appear in the new-posts regularly and it sets a bad tone for the site.
Locking a discussion stops it advancing, it puts a halt on it and often can prevent it going south, which means dishing out punishments, easing tensions and generally having a huge amount of fall out to tackle. It's why many sites outright ban religious and political discussion because those are two areas where people get very irate on very fast.
Now you could argue that instead of locking you could just delete the offending posts, In my experience that only works if you've got a very tiny handful of posts in one block removed pretty quick. Once you hit half a page its risky, one page and you might as well lock. At that point whatever disruption has dominated the thread and all the active participants are now wrapped up in the drama. So removing the drama* cuts all their interest in the thread. So the thread often just up and dies right there.
Personally I think it would be easier just to ban political discussions on Dakka or put them behind an access wall. This is the second time that political discussions have raised problems and its clear that it puts users and mods on a higher level of stress in dealing with them. At which point one has to consider if they are beneficial to the community or if its just creating topics which stoke undercurrents of hostility/dislike and general bad feeling around the site.
*Removing is not always easy as attacks or insults can be wrapped into posts that contain otherwise sane, sensible and calm points.
You can dress it up how you like but ultimately the only benefit you get for volunteering to be a mod is the ability to change others' posts, to temporarily and permanently ban them.
That's not a 'benefit'. Do you have any idea how aggravating it is to have to write messages to grown adults explaining to them why insulting other people over a different opinion about toy soldiers isn't appropriate behaviour?
Suspending posters isn't a pleasurable activity. It's not a reward. It's frustrating, and at times downright depressing.
What I would like to see is some sort of fall out for a mod who acts inappropriately. It happens often and there is no reprimand.
All moderator activity is logged and reviewed where necessary. Mods have been reprimanded or removed in the past where their behaviour falls out of line with what the site's owners expect.
If you're not seeing it as often as you would expect, it's possibly just because your view of appropriate moderator behaviour differs from that of the site's owners.
I don't think it's particularly difficult to copy paste a standard message and send it to a user, no. I think it takes second. So no, I'm not sure how it would be aggravating as you claim.
If it IS aggravating though to you, you know the solution. Stop being a mod. Do what the rest of us have to do and flag stuff up as inappropriate then hope that a mod bothers to do something about it/forget about it.
The primary difference between a mod and a normal user is the ability to edit others' posts and hand out suspensions/bans. Let's pretend you only do it to help the community for a second. Why do you, personally, need the ability to do these things? You can 'moderate' the community without having the moderators powers - like the rest of us do. Let's imagine that you have convinced yourself you do it for an altruistic reason. If you aren't using your only 'tools' as a mod, are you actually moderating at all? You are encouraged to moderate frequently to prove your own worth as a moderator. How else can you show that you're doing a good job? How else can you justify your existence and status?
I have spoken to the moderation team about the so called mod reprimanding/moderation process and it's an absolute joke. It doesn't exist, the mods actively support each other to keep their positions of power. Many of you were given the moderation title because you know someone else who's already a mod. It's like a boys club and to me is the single worst thing about this board.
I'm not saying all you mods are scum or that you all abuse your power or whatever. What I am saying is that there is absolutely no mechanism in place for reporting this abuse of power when it does happen and there is absolutely no interest in reprimanding any mod that does abuse their position. That is wrong.
An Actual Englishman why do you keep saying that the solution for mods is to not be mods? It seems odd to suggest that the best solution is to make mods regular users and to say that's how they can contribute because if that is the attitude all mods took there'd be no mods to deal with the reports being made.
Also I think the latter point in your posts about accountability of the system would have more clarity and impact if you were not to put a point before it (each time) which basically calls moderators power-trippers with only an interest in the position because they can edit posts and ban people (which I won't deny happens but is honestly darn rare in most moderated sites with a decent population size - most sites like that dwindle to almost nothing).
It's also my experience that mods often do know each other because most highly active members often know each other on a site. So mods are recruited from that same pool of active well known users. Also active and well known users have a known personality and level of behaviour which makes it easier to select them for moderation positions. Those with spotty/iffy or just not much back history are hard to approve. Basically its important to remember that you don't get a CV for moderating sites - approval is often just how you are known to behave on the site.
I'm not saying it's a solution mate? I'm saying if the mods hate their moderator role as much as they claim on here then perhaps they should step down. Sorry I thought that was clear.
Accepting that a part of you is a moderator because you enjoy the power/prestige? or whatever you think it gives you is not a heinous thing. Again - I'm not saying mods are these power tripping, moustache twirling villains, however I find it bizarre that they are so reluctant to admit that part of the draw for being a mod is the power it grants. I think the defensiveness of their position is making my reply more aggressive and probably putting my feelings across in a more extreme way than they really are.
Feedback taken.
I'm talking about mods knowing each other irl by the way. Not online only.
I don't hate being a mod here. I just don't enjoy sending out warning PMs/occasionally suspending rule-breaking posters. These are necessary functions of the position, because we have rules and they need to be enforced. But it's emotionally negative stuff, as opposed to having an entertaining conversation about toy soldiers or sci fi movies. It has on occasion outright ruined my day IRL. There have been a few times where I have seriously considered giving it up. But those days are infrequent.
Most of what I do as a moderator is move threads to their proper sub-fora. In distant second place for frequency of task: when a thread starts to get too heated or is headed off the rails, a clear but polite in-thread post in orange text is usually sufficient, although sometimes it is also necessary to delete a few off-topic posts. This largely administrative work is conducive to high quality discussion, in my experience. And that is what I enjoy about volunteering as a moderator.
Oh wow, this thread is still open after two pages? Colour me impressed.
I’ve had problems with the mods before. 3 of them in fact. Direct insults mostly. But my main issue is, those who sit on the same political side as them seem to get away with murder whist those who don’t get snapped at and censured for the littlest things. Only when a poster with their views goes completely ape gak across a thread and it becomes impossible to ignore them do they step in.
The site would be better without politics threads. They only bring out the worst in people.
An Actual Englishman wrote: I'm not saying it's a solution mate? I'm saying if the mods hate their moderator role as much as they claim on here then perhaps they should step down. Sorry I thought that was clear.
Yeah, see, your faulty premise (that mods are just in it for the 'power') has led you to an erroneous conclusion (That a mod who doesn't like suspending people hates their job).
I don't like suspending people. I don't like having to tell adults to act like adults. But those things are only a part of the job... and most of the time, a very small part. The bulk of my moderating time is spent clearing out spam, answering questions from users, moving incorrectly placed threads to their rightful homes, locking threads that need locking for whatever reason, and investigating alerts (which generally means reading through threads that may or may not remotely interest me in order to get a context for the alert).
However much you may sneer at the idea that people might have less self-serving motivations, being a mod here means being a part of maintaining one of the biggest and best sites on the internet for discussion of my hobby. That's the reward. Not the ability to slightly inconvenience someone by locking their account or deleting one of their posts.
I don't hate my job as a moderator. I dislike a part of the job, that is sadly also a necessary part of the job because some people just can't control their own behaviour without supervision.
I'm talking about mods knowing each other irl by the way. Not online only.
Very few of the moderation team knew each other IRL prior to becoming mods. Most of us live too far apart for that to be a thing. Hell, I haven't even met the other current Australian mod in real life, and he only lives a couple of hours away. I've met most of the US and UK-based mods, but for most of us that happened well after we got the job. Mods are selected based on their activity and behaviour on the forum, and somewhat on geographical location to cover different timezones, not because we know the 'right' people.
You said this; "It says far more about you and how you personally perceive holding any kind of power, than it does anyone else." which to me is a pretty clear insult, veiled or not. I don't see you referencing the topic under discussion and if that is the entire point of your comment it's completely redundant. 'User posts feelings on topic' crazy he'd do that on a forum huh?
Yes, and I stand by my comment. It's not an insult. It's an observation on how your perceptions of power dynamics completely determine your outlook in this situation. Namely, it shows that the only way you appear to be able to conceive of possessing any kind of power is for the pleasure of its exercise. Not as a responsibility, not for altruistic motives, not for separate reasons generally. But in order to take gratification from wielding it.
It's a bit like someone who thinks you only ever get a job because you enjoy it, or joins a club because they're obsessed with a topic. The reality is that many people do many things for many different reasons.
That all having been said; I am of the opinion that anyone who can only conceive of possessing power for the sole purpose of exercising it, is the least suited for having it and the most likely to abuse it.
Some sources believe it to be flawed yes. Shock. Like any piece of scientific research. Further/other studies have been done since with similar results.
I have an academic hat which I wear from time to time when I take my mod one off. Trust me. It's a terribly flawed piece of research at a basic methodological level and any professional academic will tell you that. You can believe it if you like (it's no skin off my back), but taking it seriously is akin to taking phlogiston seriously these days.
So you can literally onlyedit posts in the single subforum relevant to you? In that case I am corrected and mistaken. Wasn't my impression....Again, if you can only moderate your specific subforum then I am very wrong in your involvement and apologise. Just so we're clear, if you have any ability to moderate posts from other subforums I'd not consider this to be adequate in your defence that you do this for the feelgoods only.
I very literally have no moderation powers outside the swapshop, and never use my 'official' red text outside of it. On this subject, I'm effectively a regular user who has an insight into the mechanical workings that take place out of sight.
The fact that you have this strange idea that I need a 'defence' though, is the problem in your approach here. The fact that my moderation powers are circumscribed to one area of the site doesn't mean that I'm suddenly exonerated of a need to justify myself to you. Why? Because I never had that obligation in the first place. Likewise the idea of 'involvement', I'm not on trial, and neither is anyone else. People sometimes get this weird idea that dealing with a moderator is like shopping, that you can shout loudly and demand to see a manager if you don't like what the employee is saying. And it really doesn't work like that.
The moderators are here not to swing their banehammer, but to help the site run smoothly. As Insaniak noted above, do you know how many Thai massage ads or whatever get placed on this site per month? Someone needs to remove them. Someone needs to move threads to appropriate destinations. Someone needs to be there to talk to when a scammer is trying to rip people off. The mods do what they do to take care of those jobs and help those people. At least one Swapmod has gone on to do more general modding since we were appointed, but nothing changed in his approach or style or motivations for doing it. He was just doing it because he was really enthusiastic about helping the community to flourish and when offered the chance to do more of it, went along for the ride. Not because he was Emperor Palpatine in disguise.
Let's not pretend the mods are saints though, if they were this topic would not have started?
The topic being, that we have gone off by the way, mods should not moderate topics in which they have a vested interest or may be otherwise biased. Impossible of course, because it would mean this very topic is hence immune to any moderation.
What I would like to see is some sort of fall out for a mod who acts inappropriately. It happens often and there is no reprimand.
Guv, you made a bunch of assumptions about my status because you very clearly have no idea of how moderation here functions even in the practical administrative sense. In the gentlest most sincere possible way, don't you think that that might indicate you really don't know enough to have an opinion on how things work behind the scenes?
I said before that everyone has bad days, myself and other mods included. Sometimes you've received bad news, burned your dinner, there's a child screaming in the next room, and some mong who's been disciplined ten times for the same rule breaking is doing it again. So you type a slightly more curtly worded warning then you might otherwise have done. Or some other similar action. Everyone does it from time to time, because we're human. We all know that.
If there's a genuine problem , it tends to get addressed. Mods have been both appointed and removed in the past, and likely will be again in the future. I've agreed with some of those staffing choices by the owners, others not so much. But that's for the site owners to do. At the end of the day, agree or not, it's their back yard, and they try to pick people who promote the kind of site that they want. In the case of Dakka, it's a polite and mature, yet family friendly one. The desire is to help make a community that everyone can be part of. It's why troublemakers often get umpteen dozen chances before being banned, and even when they sneak back in, we usually leave them alone so long as they've changed their offensive/rule breaking behaviour.
Mods really aren't the power hungry unrestrained lot you seem to think they are. If they were, this site would be a very different place, and probably a lot less popular.
The idea of mods feeling empowered with ban/edit controls doesn't actually ring true when moderating. Indeed one of the most often feelings I've had is being powerless in situations rather than being empowered.
Ban buttons are a fantastic power against spambots. There's no thought, worry nor pain in removing them and kicking them out takes a second and everyone (barring the bot) is happy with the outcome.
But when it comes to resolving disputes on site its the total opposite. Banning most members is painful and often a last resort when everything else has utterly failed. Indeed the only formal tools mods really have is to section block, suspend (short term ban) or outright ban a member. That's pretty much it for formal "powers" at resolving disputes. Everything else is discussion, trying to understand the person better, trying to convince them to express themselves in a different way; to change their behaviour, to realise that they are causing a problem etc...
And sometimes people can't see that; or they can but their behaviour remains unchanged regardless.
Kicking people out of the site is the last resort, and its often the least wanted in most situations. It essentially means all else that has been tried has failed; and in the worst of cases might even have backfired.
The idea of mods feeling empowered with ban/edit controls doesn't actually ring true when moderating. Indeed one of the most often feelings I've had is being powerless in situations rather than being empowered.
Ban buttons are a fantastic power against spambots. There's no thought, worry nor pain in removing them and kicking them out takes a second and everyone (barring the bot) is happy with the outcome.
But when it comes to resolving disputes on site its the total opposite. Banning most members is painful and often a last resort when everything else has utterly failed. Indeed the only formal tools mods really have is to section block, suspend (short term ban) or outright ban a member. That's pretty much it for formal "powers" at resolving disputes. Everything else is discussion, trying to understand the person better, trying to convince them to express themselves in a different way; to change their behaviour, to realise that they are causing a problem etc...
And sometimes people can't see that; or they can but their behaviour remains unchanged regardless.
Kicking people out of the site is the last resort, and its often the least wanted in most situations. It essentially means all else that has been tried has failed; and in the worst of cases might even have backfired.
You can dress it up how you like but ultimately the only benefit you get for volunteering to be a mod is the ability to change others' posts, to temporarily and permanently ban them.
That's not a 'benefit'. Do you have any idea how aggravating it is to have to write messages to grown adults explaining to them why insulting other people over a different opinion about toy soldiers isn't appropriate behaviour?
Suspending posters isn't a pleasurable activity. It's not a reward. It's frustrating, and at times downright depressing.
What I would like to see is some sort of fall out for a mod who acts inappropriately. It happens often and there is no reprimand.
All moderator activity is logged and reviewed where necessary. Mods have been reprimanded or removed in the past where their behaviour falls out of line with what the site's owners expect.
If you're not seeing it as often as you would expect, it's possibly just because your view of appropriate moderator behaviour differs from that of the site's owners.
I don't think it's particularly difficult to copy paste a standard message and send it to a user, no. I think it takes second. So no, I'm not sure how it would be aggravating as you claim.
If it IS aggravating though to you, you know the solution. Stop being a mod. Do what the rest of us have to do and flag stuff up as inappropriate then hope that a mod bothers to do something about it/forget about it.
The primary difference between a mod and a normal user is the ability to edit others' posts and hand out suspensions/bans. Let's pretend you only do it to help the community for a second. Why do you, personally, need the ability to do these things? You can 'moderate' the community without having the moderators powers - like the rest of us do. Let's imagine that you have convinced yourself you do it for an altruistic reason. If you aren't using your only 'tools' as a mod, are you actually moderating at all? You are encouraged to moderate frequently to prove your own worth as a moderator. How else can you show that you're doing a good job? How else can you justify your existence and status?
I have spoken to the moderation team about the so called mod reprimanding/moderation process and it's an absolute joke. It doesn't exist, the mods actively support each other to keep their positions of power. Many of you were given the moderation title because you know someone else who's already a mod. It's like a boys club and to me is the single worst thing about this board.
I'm not saying all you mods are scum or that you all abuse your power or whatever. What I am saying is that there is absolutely no mechanism in place for reporting this abuse of power when it does happen and there is absolutely no interest in reprimanding any mod that does abuse their position. That is wrong.
I am proof that mods occasionally get kicked. How did I know that performing a banishing ceremony to banish someone to the eighth plane of Hell (New Mexico) was frowned upon in this establishment?
An Actual Englishman, allow me to say, as a non-MOD with no real need to suck up to the site or anyone else, you are coming across very badly in this thread. It appears to me that you are projecting your outlook on life onto other people, and I agree with Ketara's assertion that your posts reveal more about you than about him. I agree with his statement that it is an observation, not an attack.
Whether you agree or not, people do perform services for others for reasons other than power or tangible reward. I volunteer at a homeless shelter, for example. Almost no-one in the real world knows about it, and it is the first time I have posted about it here. It is rewarding (intagibly) to be thanked by the guys who stay there, and there is a nice sense of camaraderie with the other volunteers, but what I actually get out of it is knowing that some generally decent fellas aren't sleeping outside on subzero temperatures. That is why I've mostly done the 2am to 6am shift and don't even meet them most of them time as they are asleep.
I'm saying this because I actually feel a little but sorry for you that your outlook on life is so depressing. If you genuinely only believe people do things for the reasons you think, you must have a terribly low opinion of the world in general and see little joy in things. People can get satisfaction out of helping people, especially when it is helping other people share something they enjoy.
I truly hope you can one day start to see the good in the world, because there is not enough of it anyway, and it tends to shrivel up and die when it is not appreciated..
An Actual Englishman wrote: I'm not saying it's a solution mate? I'm saying if the mods hate their moderator role as much as they claim on here then perhaps they should step down. Sorry I thought that was clear.
Conversely, if the moderation here isn’t to your liking, and the site owner is happy with the current team’s efforts, maybe it’s you that should consider leaving.
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Sorry, I figured you were smart enough to figure that out.
An Actual Englishman wrote: I'm not saying it's a solution mate? I'm saying if the mods hate their moderator role as much as they claim on here then perhaps they should step down. Sorry I thought that was clear.
Conversely, if the moderation here isn’t to your liking, and the site owner is happy with the current team’s efforts, maybe it’s you that should consider leaving.
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Sorry, I figured you were smart enough to figure that out.
Perhaps, but this thread isn't about whether I should leave or not is it? It's about the actions of moderators isn't it? Maybe you should focus on the actual topic rather than slinging these idiotic statements around that add absolutely nothing to the discussion and are yet more veiled attacks?
I have left, I took a leave of absence when I last called into question a moderator's actions and nothing was done. Not that it's any of your business, because you are literally a no-one on the internet.
Ketara wrote: The fact that you have this strange idea that I need a 'defence' though, is the problem in your approach here. The fact that my moderation powers are circumscribed to one area of the site doesn't mean that I'm suddenly exonerated of a need to justify myself to you. Why? Because I never had that obligation in the first place.
This very topic seems to suggest otherwise. No-one is saying you (or any other mod) is on trial. But your actions are being called into question and I'd have thought that warrants some sort of 'defence'. What did you think the topic was about?
Guys, I'm not gonna slam on the mods, but in the last few months I can think of more occasions that the mod was the one violating the rules than any time since I started posting here, almost a decade ago.
While they're human and are, therefore, not perfect, might I suggest that posting in a thread might mean that one recuse oneself from moderating it. I mean, when I ran Dark Reign, I allowed this sort of thing to get out of hand, and the results were not pretty.
BaronIveagh wrote: Guys, I'm not gonna slam on the mods, but in the last few months I can think of more occasions that the mod was the one violating the rules than any time since I started posting here, almost a decade ago.
While they're human and are, therefore, not perfect, might I suggest that posting in a thread might mean that one recuse oneself from moderating it. I mean, when I ran Dark Reign, I allowed this sort of thing to get out of hand, and the results were not pretty.
I am sure the mod team will contemplate the issue (when they sober up). Absent OT I don't see it as much of an issue. The RAW forum gets persnickety but that's the nature of the beast.
I always assume that white text is a mod using this site like any other user, and red or orange text is when they are acting in OFFICIAL MOD BIDNESS. Mods are hobbyists, too.*
*I assume. Some might just be in it for the heady buzz that the sheer power they wield gives them
Is this the part where we go Robespierre on the Mods and burn the forums down around us?
I think the US politics thread can be good, if only to give us non Americans insight into how those crazy yanks think. I also see a lot of mud getting thrown now and then in the UK politics thread but it doesn’t get locked, so...
It was also how I kept up on my American news, since I can’t quite bring myself to google ‘what did the Americans do this time.
The thread didn’t seem that heated at the time. It really did seem like a spite lock from Kilkrazy, which was strange to me when I saw it since that’s not normally how the mods operate. This site has a pretty good team, even if they can be strangely strict about only one kind of politics.
Crazyterran wrote: Well, it does alright for itself when people provide sources and news articles to look at, between the two sides lobbing hyperbole at each other.
To be honest, Dakka is a more reliable source than the mega corporate media organs nowadays.
As a Canadian, it would do you well to ignore U.S. politics, as entertaining as it might seem. You'll eventually burst into flames from the stupidity assaulting your senses.
It makes me appreciate what we have more. Can you believe there are Canadians that would trade Trudeau for Trump? They would trade Mr. Dressup for... that.
Also, its like a train wreck, where its horrible and you dont want to watch, but you cant just look away or put the popcorn down.
Manchu wrote: The US Politics thread is not a good source to learn about politics in the US.
Totally disagree. It's utterly full of feigned obtuseness, faux-outrage, a nonstop cycle of people spinning flat out lies, people rebutting said lies, said lies being repeated until people get tired of rebutting them, and other sundry stupidity.
It's totally broken and is 100% an accurate reflection of how things actually are right now.
Unless you mean how the US political system works? In which case I agree, procedural stuff rarely if ever is discussed.
Politics threads are always the worst ones to try and moderate because politics is more important to most of us than other things, it is about values and right and wrong. So it cuts to the core of people and gets people riled up.
I did quite enjoy the Dakka US politics thread, but I am a political junkie and quite enjoy arguments. But I could see on several occasions that it was bringing out the worst in me. I am sorry that it was locked but I can see why Kilkrazy might have gotten frustrated and locked it. He is a decent bloke, normally pretty chilled out, but it is stressful trying to walk the line on a thread like that.
We should try to chill out about it and accept that it is no big deal if the politics thread is locked. It was only reopened on a sufferance and it always had a limited lifespan because essentially it relied on the mods ability to be patient with the inevitable spats and digs such threads bring about.
I hope they reopen it in future, but if you think the mods here are bad or unfair I would suggest you go and have a look at some other fora for comparison. Usually it is zero mod anarchy or a fascist dictatorship.
Yeah, in the interests of balance, despite the problems I’ve had with Dakkadakka staff, at least this place isn’t tv tropes. The mods there are outright bullies and don’t even bother pretending to be impartial.
See their number one “rule” is don’t be a dick. But that’s very open to interpretation. And for some of them, holding opposite opinions from them is ‘being a dick’ that leaves you liable to be suspended or banned. Even minor things like liking or disliking a movie they like/don’t like will get you warned or even suspended for ‘disrupting the thread’. They really are that petty.
The problem is their ‘stay positive’ mission that outlaws any criticism of anything whatsoever, no matter how warranted or constructive it is.
So yeah, here’s not perfect, far from it. But there’s far far worse out there.
An Actual Dude from the UK wrote: I'm not saying it's a solution mate? I'm saying if the mods hate their moderator role as much as they claim on here then perhaps they should step down. Sorry I thought that was clear.
Conversely, if the moderation here isn’t to your liking, and the site owner is happy with the current team’s efforts, maybe it’s you that should consider leaving.
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Sorry, I figured you were smart enough to figure that out.
Perhaps, but this thread isn't about whether I should leave or not is it? It's about the actions of moderators isn't it? Maybe you should focus on the actual topic rather than slinging these idiotic statements around that add absolutely nothing to the discussion and are yet more veiled attacks?
I have left, I took a leave of absence when I last called into question a moderator's actions and nothing was done. Not that it's any of your business, because you are literally a no-one on the internet.
The topic is some people aren’t happy with the moderation.
One option is to leave. That option is 100% on topic, whether you like it or not. That is the fun part of discussion forums. You get to see all kinds of crazy ideas!,,
Crazyterran wrote: Is this the part where we go Robespierre on the Mods and burn the forums down around us?
I think the US politics thread can be good, if only to give us non Americans insight into how those crazy yanks think. I also see a lot of mud getting thrown now and then in the UK politics thread but it doesn’t get locked, so...
It was also how I kept up on my American news, since I can’t quite bring myself to google ‘what did the Americans do this time.
The thread didn’t seem that heated at the time. It really did seem like a spite lock from Kilkrazy, which was strange to me when I saw it since that’s not normally how the mods operate. This site has a pretty good team, even if they can be strangely strict about only one kind of politics.
Can I be Napoleon. I will learn from his mistakes and burn Berlin.
For the most part I think the moderation here is fine, but there are a few mods in particular that are awesome at thinly veiled insults, goading and sometimes posting stuff that flat out would classify as trolling. When those same mods step up and start moderating others it does come across as a bit of a joke, especially if they were the ones involved in the inflammatory discussion they are now moderating.
That said I didn't follow the US politics discussion posts in question, I'm speaking more generally. I've stayed away from that cesspool, I think Dakka was a better place with that discussion banned.
Anyway, on the one hand I understand mods take their mod hats off to post, but at the same time the folks with mod under their names represent dakka as an entity more than the rest of us do and they should be holding themselves to that standard that the regular trolls they seek to moderate.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: For the most part I think the moderation here is fine, but there are a few mods in particular that are awesome at thinly veiled insults, goading and sometimes posting stuff that flat out would classify as trolling. When those same mods step up and start moderating others it does come across as a bit of a joke, especially if they were the ones involved in the inflammatory discussion they are now moderating.
That said I didn't follow the US politics discussion posts in question, I'm speaking more generally. I've stayed away from that cesspool, I think Dakka was a better place with that discussion banned.
Agreed on both accounts. There’s a couple of mods on my ignore list for that very reason. And I think the site would be better off without political threads period.
And I think the site would be better off without political threads period.
I tried that once. It did not go well. To the degree people were banned for starting them, and DR reached 250 bans a day. We were literally banning more people than were joining to make a relative minority happy. At that point we changed policy to allow it again.
Further, not allowing it turns into a moderation nightmare if we allow any discussion of news or current events at all, because people start spamming the 'report' button if someone even mentions a political figure and someone else does not like that poster..
I try not to hold mods to higher standard than anyone else. I am annoyed when I am held to a higher moral standard than others in my own life because of my job, and I think mods are as entitled to snark as I am. The day I can entirely give up being a snarky git is the day I judge anyone else for it.
And I think the site would be better off without political threads period.
I tried that once. It did not go well. To the degree people were banned for starting them, and DR reached 250 bans a day. We were literally banning more people than were joining to make a relative minority happy. At that point we changed policy to allow it again.
Further, not allowing it turns into a moderation nightmare if we allow any discussion of news or current events at all, because people start spamming the 'report' button if someone even mentions a political figure and someone else does not like that poster..
I'm guessing you're talking about a place that wasn't dakka. I'd say on dakka there's handful of instigators that need to be kept in order after which it'd be fine. There'd be more involved than just those instigators, but with the regular trolls kept locked up it wouldn't be an issue as frequently.
When us politics was banned here it wasn't like it completely stopped political talk, it just gave mods a big rubber stamp they could whack on threads/posters before stuff got too ugly.
With the us politics thread back in swing I think it only acts to bring dakka down as a whole. Sure, you can not go there, but it doesn't stop it existing, like a bad suburb in an otherwise good city.
An Actual Englishman wrote: DakkaDakka already has an extremely bad perception in the community at large. Extremely bad. If the mods want to grow the community and the forum (thus increasing their power) they should take the advice of some of their more frequent posters.
To be fair, literally every single complaint I've seen about this place is about the Moderation practices.
Da Boss wrote: I try not to hold mods to higher standard than anyone else. I am annoyed when I am held to a higher moral standard than others in my own life because of my job, and I think mods are as entitled to snark as I am. The day I can entirely give up being a snarky git is the day I judge anyone else for it.
You will note I didn't say "I" hold them to a higher standard, I said they should hold "themselves" to a higher standard. If the mods want to be poo slinging gits and the admin want to allow it, so be it, but it absolutely brings down the tone of the forum to that level when someone with a mod tag next to their name is dishing out the thinly veiled insults along with the regular trolls.
At the end of the day it's a forum to talk about little toy soldiers and do we want (and by we I mean the admin decide and then the rest of us either leave or stay) it to be a pleasant place to do so or not, if not then whatever, if yes then mods should realise that having mod written under their name absolutely means they can't ever completely take their mod hats off and what they say and how they act sets the tone for the forum as a whole.
insaniak wrote: . . .
Suspending posters isn't a pleasurable activity. It's not a reward. It's frustrating, and at times downright depressing.
. . .
All moderator activity is logged and reviewed where necessary. Mods have been reprimanded or removed in the past where their behaviour falls out of line with what the site's owners expect.
If you're not seeing it as often as you would expect, it's possibly just because your view of appropriate moderator behaviour differs from that of the site's owners.
Does appropriate behavior include inventing reasons to suspend a community member like "stress"? What about having a Moderator follow a poster from thread to thread when no rules have been broken, invent rules that they apply only to one poster, and ignore identical conduct from other members? All of this was defended and those Moderators did not appear to receive sanction and no apology was offered.
I have no issue with being penalized for stepping outside of the rules of the site. I have issue when rules are pulled out of thin air, not shared with the community, and are then applied in a capricious manner,
Peregrine wrote: But why is there any cooling off required? The thread was proceeding in a fairly calm manner without any problems over the past few pages (at least) until a moderator dropped a flame bait post in it and then locked it. The problem was 100% from one specific person who should not be moderating threads they're participating in, especially when they're going to post provocative things. Nobody else was doing anything wrong, no major arguments were happening, there just wasn't anything hot that needs to cool down.
I don't recall participating in the US Politics thread since it was re-opened, but looking at that thread the Mod's conduct has me agreeing with Peregrine. At best this looks like a Moderator invented a pre-text to lock the thread, at worst it looks like he was losing an argument and locked the thread out of spite.
Many other sites strongly discourage, if not prohibit, their Moderators from acting in an official capacity in the threads in which they are participating because it causes exactly these problems.
Quick question; how many Dakka staff/Mods now have a financial interest in Maelstrom's Edge?
I'm guessing you're talking about a place that wasn't dakka. I'd say on dakka there's handful of instigators that need to be kept in order after which it'd be fine. There'd be more involved than just those instigators, but with the regular trolls kept locked up it wouldn't be an issue as frequently.
No, but many of the same players were involved. You clearly have forgotten the sites that disappeared following the Great GW Cease and Desist Off.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: When us politics was banned here it wasn't like it completely stopped political talk, it just gave mods a big rubber stamp they could whack on threads/posters before stuff got too ugly.
Skink, let me point to the recent School shooting thread as to why this did not work, and really could never work: the mods could not decide what constituted 'US Politics'. In turn, this caused confusion among both posters and mods. When I have to ask Manchu 'What are the rules now?' and his response is 'I don't know' there's a problem.
With the us politics thread back in swing I think it only acts to bring dakka down as a whole. Sure, you can not go there, but it doesn't stop it existing, like a bad suburb in an otherwise good city.
Conversely it has kept the political debate mostly out of other threads and in it's own little thing.
To clarify regarding where talk RE: gun politics goes there was a simple miscommunication about that single issue that we resolved quickly. It can be frustrating but it is bound to happen from time to time.
Does appropriate behavior include inventing reasons to suspend a community member like "stress"? What about having a Moderator follow a poster from thread to thread when no rules have been broken, invent rules that they apply only to one poster, and ignore identical conduct from other members? All of this was defended and those Moderators did not appear to receive sanction and no apology was offered.
No apology was offered because the moderation actions taken against you were a direct result of your own behaviour.
None of the mods 'follow' posters around. That would be absurd. When you're running into the same mod repeatedly, it's generally just because many of us have specific sections of the site that we tend to frequent more than others.
insaniak wrote: No apology was offered because the moderation actions taken against you were a direct result of your own behaviour.
None of the mods 'follow' posters around. That would be absurd. When you're running into the same mod repeatedly, it's generally just because many of us have specific sections of the site that we tend to frequent more than others.
Again, I have owned those times I have been wrong. I was clear on that in my earlier post.
Running into someone makes it sounds innocent. One of your colleagues followed me from thread to thread when I was breaking no rules, so rules were created to enforce only against me. Your colleague would appear in any thread I created within minutes, and was within the five first replies - always making a point of calling me out for not following some unspoken rule no one else was beholden to. If my own behavior was so outside of the rules of the site I would have had action taken against me without using "stress" as an excuse or creating rules. Where is "stress" mentioned in the rules of the site as being a cause for punitive action against a user's account? How do you detect stress online? The only absurdity here is thinking that action against me was justified when no rules were being broken on these occasions.
Your post is indicative of why people are suspicious of the Moderation here. You have members of your team who are agitating and unwilling or incapable of applying the rules of the site in a fair and consistent manner. Now you are covering for them and making excuses for their poor behavior.
So, how many of the Mods/staff have a financial interest in Maelstrom's Edge?
Running into someone makes it sounds innocent. One of your colleagues followed me from thread to thread when I was breaking no rules, so rules were created to enforce only against me. Your colleague would appear in any thread I created within minutes, and was within the five first replies - always making a point of calling me out for not following some unspoken rule no one else was beholden to. If my own behavior was so outside of the rules of the site I would have had action taken against me without using "stress" as an excuse or creating rules. Where is "stress" mentioned in the rules of the site as being a cause for punitive action against a user's account? How do you detect stress online? The only absurdity here is thinking that action against me was justified when no rules were being broken on these occasions.
The 'stress' thing that you keep referring to was a direct result of you spamming the mod alert with an ever-increasing string of inane complaints. It was decided that you were clearly not suited to particiption in the off-topic section and appropriate action was taken. Again, that was a direct result of your own behaviour, not the mod team stalking you from the shadows.
So, how many of the Mods/staff have a financial interest in Maelstrom's Edge?
Not sure how that's relevant to anything in this thread, but there is only one moderator (me) involved in Maelstrom's Edge.
I'm left wondering how many people in this thread criticising moderaters have ever been moderators themselves. I understand constructive criticism (and agree with the original point of contention) but keep in mind that moderating is not a fun job. It's not something they do for power, any more than a person runs a 40k league for power. They do it for the community. The few for which a desire for power factors in tend not to be good mods, nor do they stick around very long. But let me emphasize again; moderating a forum is a community service, it isn't something people do for kicks. Calling mods out on misbehavior is one thing, but keep things on the constructive side or risk creating a sentiment that the posters are against the mods. They aren't perfect at the best of times but are still making the best of what is ultimately a tough job that earns them no gratitude.
I don't think it's outside the realms of possibility to conceive that a particular mod might take offense with a particular user and treat them differently from other users. This could be for any reason - perhaps they find the username or avatar picture subconsciously offensive, perhaps they are offended at something that user said in another thread, perhaps they are just having a bad day/week/month/year. It doesn't really matter.
I have both seen this happen to others and experienced it myself.
It wouldn't be so bad if the entire moderation team didn't desperately scramble to defend their colleague and instead admitted that sometimes a moderator needs to be moderated.
Anyway, back to the topic;
On most forums I've frequented, the mods have always been generally silent in discussions, only commenting when they needed to moderate. I always took this to be 'normal' behaviour, because it completely stops the premise of this topic - that a moderator with a vested interest in a topic might abuse their powers to suit their interests in that topic.
I don't see how anyone can be impartial in their moderation when they have strong feelings on a topic that is discussed? I also believe that having a moderator post their opinions on a topic can skew the discussion of said topic as moderators are in a position of power/seniority over other users and often people will follow/submit to the senior opinion.
Perhaps the mods should make a separate account for posting that is disconnected from their mod account? Thinking aloud really, this idea might be garbage but it's the first thing that jumps to my mind when a topic like this pops up. Would that not help?
Sock puppet / secondary accounts are forbidden, to quote the rules:
For disciplinary and site administration purposes, all users are expected to maintain only a single user account on Dakka. Secondary, or 'sockpuppet', accounts are not permitted. Users found with a sockpuppet account (especially those created specifically to break further site rules) will typically have their access permanently suspended.
BrookM wrote: Sock puppet / secondary accounts are forbidden, to quote the rules:
For disciplinary and site administration purposes, all users are expected to maintain only a single user account on Dakka. Secondary, or 'sockpuppet', accounts are not permitted. Users found with a sockpuppet account (especially those created specifically to break further site rules) will typically have their access permanently suspended.
Surely if anyone is in a position to change the rules for the good of the community, it's the mods?
It wouldn't be so bad if the entire moderation team didn't desperately scramble to defend their colleague and instead admitted that sometimes a moderator needs to be moderated.
I'm fairly sure I already did that earlier in this thread...
On most forums I've frequented, the mods have always been generally silent in discussions, only commenting when they needed to moderate.
The moderators spend time on this forum for the same reason everyone else does. Remove a moderators' ability to participate in discussion, and he has very little reason to keep showing up.
I don't see how anyone can be impartial in their moderation...
This, I think, is the big misconception that fuels a lot of the issues people have with moderation. So I'll point out, once again, that moderators are under no obligation to be impartial. This is not a court of law, and forum moderators are not judges. It's a privately owned site, and we're volunteers whose job is to keep the forum running smoothly, within the bounds set by the site's owners.
insaniak wrote: The 'stress' thing that you keep referring to was a direct result of you spamming the mod alert with an ever-increasing string of inane complaints. It was decided that you were clearly not suited to particiption in the off-topic section and appropriate action was taken. Again, that was a direct result of your own behaviour, not the mod team stalking you from the shadows.
No that was a separate Moderator action, which as I recall you yourself took. I have no issue with that as when the ban was implemented I acknowledge that I was not acting appropriately and have accepted my penalty. But thank you for sharing details of punitive action taken against my account with the community as a whole. I trust that you will be doing this with all other members also.
Again, with that ban for "stress" no Moderator was able to tell me which rule was broken or else they would not have had to rely on creating a rule.
As I said earlier, your reply is indicative of why people are expressing concerns with the Moderators. I have raised examples my challenges with some of the Moderation (some, not all) and without even establishing the facts you have gone straight into blindly defending your colleagues, and trying to insinuate that I believe there is a conspiracy against me when I clearly stated that it was the actions of one member of your team.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
insaniak wrote: The moderators spend time on this forum for the same reason everyone else does. Remove a moderators' ability to participate in discussion, and he has very little reason to keep showing up.
I would not suggest that a volunteer Moderator be unable to comment. However, commenting in a thread known to be contentious and then locking that same thread when questioned by a community member does not look good. At the very least it should have been locked by another Moderator to give the veneer of impartiality.
insaniak wrote: The 'stress' thing that you keep referring to was a direct result of you spamming the mod alert with an ever-increasing string of inane complaints. It was decided that you were clearly not suited to particiption in the off-topic section and appropriate action was taken. Again, that was a direct result of your own behaviour, not the mod team stalking you from the shadows.
No that was a separate Moderator action, which as I recall you yourself took. I have no issue with that as when the ban was implemented I acknowledge that I was not acting appropriately and have accepted my penalty. But thank you for sharing details of punitive action taken against my account with the community as a whole. I trust that you will be doing this with all other members also.
Again, with that ban for "stress" no Moderator was able to tell me which rule was broken or else they would not have had to rely on creating a rule.
As I said earlier, your reply is indicative of why people are expressing concerns with the Moderators. I have raised examples my challenges with some of the Moderation (some, not all) and without even establishing the facts you have gone straight into blindly defending your colleagues, and trying to insinuate that I believe there is a conspiracy against me when I clearly stated that it was the actions of one member of your team.
It seems pretty extreme to suggest a conspiracy against you...
insaniak wrote: The moderators spend time on this forum for the same reason everyone else does. Remove a moderators' ability to participate in discussion, and he has very little reason to keep showing up.
As my comment it's literally how mods operate in the majority of forums I've frequented over the years. You'll also note that my suggestion - to have a sockpuppet? (was it?) account will allow them to contribute in a fair and equal manner, rather than from a position of superiority.
insaniak wrote: This, I think, is the big misconception that fuels a lot of the issues people have with moderation. So I'll point out, once again, that moderators are under no obligation to be impartial. This is not a court of law, and forum moderators are not judges. It's a privately owned site, and we're volunteers whose job is to keep the forum running smoothly, within the bounds set by the site's owners.
So the mods on here have free reign to treat different users differently and act like complete feth wits to some while others' they allow to bend the rules?
insaniak wrote: This, I think, is the big misconception that fuels a lot of the issues people have with moderation. So I'll point out, once again, that moderators are under no obligation to be impartial. This is not a court of law, and forum moderators are not judges. It's a privately owned site, and we're volunteers whose job is to keep the forum running smoothly, within the bounds set by the site's owners.
Is applying rules capriciously or unfairly is in the best interests of the community, or might it be harmful to the community? If we are all users here who agree to be bound by the same rules then why should those rules be applied differently? Might that be part of the reason for threads such as this?
NinthMusketeer wrote: It seems pretty extreme to suggest a conspiracy against you...
What conspiracy? I suggested no such thing. Just because a member of the Moderation team would like to concoct a strawman does not make it the truth.
Sorry, it seems pretty extreme that the mods would suggest a conspiracy against you. Like it's strange to suggest anyone is suggesting such an extreme idea.
insaniak wrote: The moderators spend time on this forum for the same reason everyone else does. Remove a moderators' ability to participate in discussion, and he has very little reason to keep showing up.
As my comment it's literally how mods operate in the majority of forums I've frequented over the years.
You've clearly frequented different forums to me, because on every forum I've spent time on over the last 15 years or so, the moderators have been active community members.
You'll also note that my suggestion - to have a sockpuppet? (was it?) account will allow them to contribute in a fair and equal manner, rather than from a position of superiority.
Except it wouldn't. The only thing that would change is that mods would have to log out and in again in between posting as a user and posting as a moderator. They would still be the same moderators, with the same power to lock threads or suspend posters.
So the mods on here have free reign to treat different users differently and act like complete feth wits to some while others' they allow to bend the rules?.
While the hyperbole doesn't particularly encourage a sensible response, I'll point out that yes, the mods absolutely treat different users differently. Users with a history of running afoul of the site rules tend to get less slack, whereas a new user or someone with a better track record might be given the benefit of the doubt, depending on the situation. That's a part of the process that is supposed to encourage repeat offenders to stop and reconsider how they behave on the site, and for the most part it does exactly what it is intended to do.
That doesn't mean that mods have free reign to do what they want, however. As I said, moderators can be and have been removed when their behaviour fell out of line with what the sites' owners expected.
BrookM wrote: Sock puppet / secondary accounts are forbidden, to quote the rules:
For disciplinary and site administration purposes, all users are expected to maintain only a single user account on Dakka. Secondary, or 'sockpuppet', accounts are not permitted. Users found with a sockpuppet account (especially those created specifically to break further site rules) will typically have their access permanently suspended.
Surely if anyone is in a position to change the rules for the good of the community, it's the mods?
In actuality this is an idea. Keep your normal account but have a new account ("Mr. Blue" or "moderator #3" tee hee) for mod purposes. It keeps the two separate.
I know when I am a safety officer, I SO everyone but me, and another competitor runs me (including scoring with any close calls on scoring default ing against me by my own personal policy). As that involves serious bragging rights it's about the same level of personal interest (which is low).
Again, with that ban for "stress" no Moderator was able to tell me which rule was broken or else they would not have had to rely on creating a rule.
Forum rules are often, in my experience, like the Pirates Code. It's more guidelines in practice than actual rules.
Which is a jovial way to say that forums are NOT a legal system. They often have only a handful of actual rules (most of which are universal to most site); the remainder is judgement calls by the staff. This is practical because forums are not jobs and moderators are not going to craft and memorize a hundred thousand rules to try and ensure they cover all bases specifically.
Very Rarely (in my experience) this means that mods end up having to tackle a user who is operating outside of the rules, and yet is causing disruption. Often this doesn't require a ne rule and is covered by interpretation of others.
The problems tend to happen more if there's a mod who can't operate with this system. I've seen hard working mods demoted because they were too strict or literal in rule interpretation and who lacked judgement to adapt to situations.
Of course every so often its good to amend/add to the rules to ensure that they reflect actual policy that is adopted (as policy can vary over time, often as a result of lots of small subtle changes in the community).
BrookM wrote: Sock puppet / secondary accounts are forbidden, to quote the rules:
For disciplinary and site administration purposes, all users are expected to maintain only a single user account on Dakka. Secondary, or 'sockpuppet', accounts are not permitted. Users found with a sockpuppet account (especially those created specifically to break further site rules) will typically have their access permanently suspended.
Surely if anyone is in a position to change the rules for the good of the community, it's the mods?
In actuality this is an idea. Keep your normal account but have a new account ("Mr. Blue" or "moderator #3" tee hee) for mod purposes. It keeps the two separate.
It's a thought.
Problem is that faceless mods don't work on moderate to small communities all that well. Because everyone ends up knowing who the alternate account holder is anyway. Faceless/separate mods accounts tend to work best on huge sites where the community is often a collection of communities - so things like social media sites. You don't befriend a Facebook mod; but at the same time those communities are vastly different.
Dakka is far smaller; it needs active staffers - mods - to help contribute as much as regular members. Indeed a mod contributing with articles, or chatting or just engaging with the membership is a very valuable thing. It helps reinforce that hte mods ARE people and are into the hobby as well. They are not "THE MAN".
Plus, as I said, in a small site a faceless mod would be known as an alt very quickly. It wouldn't actually solve anything and I'd wager most users would end up chatting to the mod on their regular account and the mod would end up using it most of the time anyway (since, as outlined earlier, most mod duties have nothing to do with issuing warnings). Plus its a lot easier to tackle a problem between users when you are a person not a faceless account name.
Much easier to just enforce "no moderating threads you post in" policies.
Overread wrote: Forum rules are often, in my experience, like the Pirates Code. It's more guidelines in practice than actual rules.
Which is a jovial way to say that forums are NOT a legal system. They often have only a handful of actual rules (most of which are universal to most site); the remainder is judgement calls by the staff. This is practical because forums are not jobs and moderators are not going to craft and memorize a hundred thousand rules to try and ensure they cover all bases specifically.
Very Rarely (in my experience) this means that mods end up having to tackle a user who is operating outside of the rules, and yet is causing disruption. Often this doesn't require a ne rule and is covered by interpretation of others.
The problems tend to happen more if there's a mod who can't operate with this system. I've seen hard working mods demoted because they were too strict or literal in rule interpretation and who lacked judgement to adapt to situations.
Of course every so often its good to amend/add to the rules to ensure that they reflect actual policy that is adopted (as policy can vary over time, often as a result of lots of small subtle changes in the community).
Judgement calls are to be expected based on the facts and circumstances. But these judgement calls should be heavily informed by the rules of the site. If you have to have such a creative interpretation of the rules that you create new ones then that is cause for concern.
Furthermore there are better ways to deal with a community member you believe is acting outside of the rules. The first and most obvious one is starting a dialogue with that person. Perhaps their intentions are being mis-read, perhaps they are not communicating clearly enough, perhaps you are mis-reading the situation. That way you can establish whether this person is setting out to be deliberately causing strife or whether there is just a gap in communication. That way you can better manage the situation and don't have to create conflict where none exists.
Future War Cultist wrote: If moderators are under no obligation to be impartial, then it means that they can abuse their position.
Only if you subscribe to the belief that everyone is doing it for the mind-altering position that is the wielding of power on a toy soldiers forum. Otherwise, any such potential for abuse is generally curtailed by the actual motivation of the Moderator team; namely, to help the community flourish in a positive way. Abusing the position would generally be anathema to that goal.
I repeat, everyone makes a mistake every once in a blue moon, because moderators are human. As Insaniak said above though, the goal is not be impartial or follow an iron clad set of rules, but to create a site which inculcates the values and community spirit that the site owners desire. That is the guiding rule that we all try to work by. We're here doing what we do because we want all of you to have a mature, polite, and friendly place to discuss toy soldiers!
My role is more circumscribed than most, but I see the grindings of the gears. I have seen one user accuse the mod team of an intrinsic left wing bias whilst being suspended, even as another rants about their right wing facist tendencies as he gets an OT ban on the same day. I have seen the endless trouble with people who actively want to contribute to the community and do so in a number of ways; but struggle to contain their tempers and sense of perspective on subjects important to them. I've seen supposed adults, who when receiving a mild warning for insulting someone, be incapable of perceiving their own faults, go on a mission to try and prove how the mods must be a) persecuting them, b)breaking the rules themselves, c) inconsistently applying the rules or d)morons.
I see it all. I have nothing to do with it, but I see it. And in half a decade of that, whilst I haven't necessarily agreed with everything done, I have extremely rarely seen anything I thought was disproportionate or abusive. There's usually a reason for anything done, even if the users aren't able to perceive it. The system works, more or less.
An Actual Englishman wrote: You'll also note that my suggestion - to have a sockpuppet? (was it?) account will allow them to contribute in a fair and equal manner, rather than from a position of superiority.
Except it wouldn't. The only thing that would change is that mods would have to log out and in again in between posting as a user and posting as a moderator. They would still be the same moderators, with the same power to lock threads or suspend posters.
You've tried it before then? You know for definite it won't work?
You might not have noticed, but a lot of the negativity seems to be around perception. My suggestion is a quick and simple (in my mind) fix to this. If mods only do, y'know, their moderator actions and comment as normal hill billies the impartiality of their treatment cannot be called into question. You don't need to get so defensive over a suggestion and I have no idea why you are? It's only an idea.
An Actual Englishman wrote: So the mods on here have free reign to treat different users differently and act like complete feth wits to some while others' they allow to bend the rules?.
While the hyperbole doesn't particularly encourage a sensible response, I'll point out that yes, the mods absolutely treat different users differently. Users with a history of running afoul of the site rules tend to get less slack, whereas a new user or someone with a better track record might be given the benefit of the doubt, depending on the situation. That's a part of the process that is supposed to encourage repeat offenders to stop and reconsider how they behave on the site, and for the most part it does exactly what it is intended to do.
That doesn't mean that mods have free reign to do what they want, however. As I said, moderators can be and have been removed when their behaviour fell out of line with what the sites' owners expected.
I don't think your initial response of "So I'll point out, once again, that moderators are under no obligation to be impartial." is particularly conductive to a sensible discourse either. It's pretty telling of the mentality of the moderation team, to be honest.
Your anecdote regarding mods treatment of different individuals is cute and all but let's be honest it isn't reality. We're discussing topics via the magic of the internet here with only text to convey often complex thoughts, feelings and emotions. Text can easily be misread. It happens all the time, in fact, where a joke will be misinterpreted as an insult, or sarcasm as reality. I'm sure you can at least admit that you mods are all humans who are, like anyone else, prone to favouritism and bias. The problem isn't that this bias and favouritism happens, of course it's going to, it's that there's a complete denial of it happening when it clearly has and subsequently there seems to be no correction process for this.
NinthMusketeer wrote: If by "complete denial" you mean "explicitly stating it exists" then yes.
I'm on about at the point when the bias/favouritism presents itself. Not a vague "we're only human but your particular accusation is false and wrong", as we're getting in this topic. Also, what happens if a mod is perceived as acting in an unfair way to another user, is there a correction process? What is it? In other words, exactly what I said here;
it's that there's a complete denial of it happening when it clearly has and subsequently there seems to be no correction process for this.
Has any mod actually admitted that the mod in question in this instance acted out of what would be considered "good moderation"? Genuine apologies if so, because I haven't seen it. Nor do I have a vested interest, because I've not been involved in the topic in question nor seen the mod in question do anything out of the ordinary/unfair. But there seem to be a fair few people who aren't happy about the mods' actions in this particular case.
Your anecdote regarding mods treatment of different individuals is cute and all but let's be honest it isn't reality....subsequently there seems to be no correction process for this.
You might get further guv if you (as someone who has no access to or knowledge of what actually happens backdoors) stopped trying to insist to the moderators that they're wrong about how things work behind the scenes.
Y'know, given we've already seen that you don't know how moderation here functions even on a basic administrative level....
NinthMusketeer wrote: If by "complete denial" you mean "explicitly stating it exists" then yes.
I'm on about at the point when the bias/favouritism presents itself. Not a vague "we're only human but your particular accusation is false and wrong", as we're getting in this topic. Also, what happens if a mod is perceived as acting in an unfair way to another user, is there a correction process? What is it? In other words, exactly what I said here;
it's that there's a complete denial of it happening when it clearly has and subsequently there seems to be no correction process for this.
Has any mod actually admitted that the mod in question in this instance acted out of what would be considered "good moderation"? Genuine apologies if so, because I haven't seen it. Nor do I have a vested interest, because I've not been involved in the topic in question nor seen the mod in question do anything out of the ordinary/unfair. But there seem to be a fair few people who aren't happy about the mods' actions in this particular case.
So you are specifically aware that no mods have ever been punished or corrected for their behavior? Because that is what you are saying. If the mods were as bad as you suggest, one of them would have banned you by now.
Try being a mod on a forum sometime, you'll find it eye opening.
Your anecdote regarding mods treatment of different individuals is cute and all but let's be honest it isn't reality....subsequently there seems to be no correction process for this.
You might get further guv if you (as someone who has no access to or knowledge of what actually happens backdoors) stopped trying to insist to the moderators that they're wrong about how things work behind the scenes.
Y'know, given we've already seen that you don't know how moderation here functions even on a basic administrative level....
Your anecdote regarding mods treatment of different individuals is cute and all but let's be honest it isn't reality....subsequently there seems to be no correction process for this.
You might get further guv ...... on a basic administrative level....
Can you stop calling me "guv"? It's pretty annoying and doesn't sit well with your patronising tone.
I know how the moderation functions, my knowledge of YOUR EXACT MODERATION ROLE might be limited, that's probably because it's the first time I've ever had any discourse with you. That doesn't make me entirely ignorant of the ENTIRE MODERATION PROCESS THOUGH DOES IT BROOOOOOO?
No? Great, glad we cleared that up.
You'll also note that I'm not stating a fact. I'm saying there doesn't SEEM to be a correction process (bolded above since you missed it first time). If there is I'd be glad to hear it and perhaps suggest improvements (since it obviously doesn't seem to be working broooooo).
NinthMusketeer wrote: So you are specifically aware that no mods have ever been punished or corrected for their behavior? Because that is what you are saying. If the mods were as bad as you suggest, one of them would have banned you by now.
You also struggle with the meaning of the word "seems"?
Here you go pal;
seem
siːm/Submit
verb
3rd person present: seems
1.
give the impression of being something or having a particular quality.
"Dawn seemed annoyed"
synonyms: appear, appear to be, have the appearance/air of being, give the impression of being, look, look like, look as though one is, look to be, have the look of, show signs of; More
Also for what reason should I have been banned? You know my entire post history and can recall every time I've broken the rules? All the warnings I've received? All the suspensions? I guess that's why you aren't a mod huh?
Can you stop calling me "guv"? It's pretty annoying and doesn't sit well with your patronising tone.
You might get further also if you stopped being touchier than a hair trigger mine pistol. So far you've displayed the martyr complex, repeatedly insisted you've been insulted (when nobody has bothered to do so), and now you're getting offended over someone calling you 'guv' (a common colloquialism). I mean, sense of perspective here? You're talking in the Nuts Bolts forum of a site on toy soldiers. This isn't 'serious business' as it were.
That doesn't make me entirely ignorant of the ENTIRE MODERATION PROCESS THOUGH DOES IT BROOOOOOO?
Errr....yes, apparently? I mean, you say here:-
I'm saying there doesn't SEEM to be a correction process (bolded above since you missed it first time). If there is I'd be glad to hear it and perhaps suggest improvements (since it obviously doesn't seem to be working broooooo).
But there is a correction process. It's called talking to the site owner. It's their sandpit, if they have a problem with something, they mention it to the mods. And they do, when things they consider worthy of note come up. If there's an adjustment in procedure, or a way they want something handled, they say so. But you don't see that because it's back of house.
So, has there been an official mod decision over what was posted (regardless of intentions) then the thread being locked (by the poster no less) despite the thread being fairly calm minus the one real problem post in almost 30 pages?
Your anecdote regarding mods treatment of different individuals is cute and all but let's be honest it isn't reality....subsequently there seems to be no correction process for this.
You might get further guv ...... on a basic administrative level....
Can you stop calling me "guv"? It's pretty annoying and doesn't sit well with your patronising tone.
I know how the moderation functions, my knowledge of YOUR EXACT MODERATION ROLE might be limited, that's probably because it's the first time I've ever had any discourse with you. That doesn't make me entirely ignorant of the ENTIRE MODERATION PROCESS THOUGH DOES IT BROOOOOOO?
No? Great, glad we cleared that up.
You'll also note that I'm not stating a fact. I'm saying there doesn't SEEM to be a correction process (bolded above since you missed it first time). If there is I'd be glad to hear it and perhaps suggest improvements (since it obviously doesn't seem to be working broooooo).
NinthMusketeer wrote: So you are specifically aware that no mods have ever been punished or corrected for their behavior? Because that is what you are saying. If the mods were as bad as you suggest, one of them would have banned you by now.
You also struggle with the meaning of the word "seems"?
Here you go pal;
seem
siːm/Submit
verb
3rd person present: seems
1.
give the impression of being something or having a particular quality.
"Dawn seemed annoyed"
synonyms: appear, appear to be, have the appearance/air of being, give the impression of being, look, look like, look as though one is, look to be, have the look of, show signs of; More
Also for what reason should I have been banned? You know my entire post history and can recall every time I've broken the rules? All the warnings I've received? All the suspensions? I guess that's why you aren't a mod huh?
NinthMusketeer wrote: I'm left wondering how many people in this thread criticising moderaters have ever been moderators themselves. I understand constructive criticism (and agree with the original point of contention) but keep in mind that moderating is not a fun job.
More than once. On a couple of forums and in several Facebook groups.
No, it isn't fun. But it's not a job. It's not paying bills. If you can't do it, then you have to be the adult and step down or bring in help.
I'll be one of the ones to say it:
I know for a fact that at times, two individuals can do the exact same thing in the exact same thread- and depending on what the mod feels, one of the offenders can get a ban and the other will be posting afterward. And in at least one case, it wasn't the one who started the poop-throwing that got caged harder.
Because, come on- you can still SEE the forums when you're not logged in.
I won't suggest a conspiracy, but I know for a fact that certain posters do get a pass on flaming and 'being impolite'. As soon as others respond in kind, there are mods that come in to slap the peepee.
Dakkadakka is discussed elsewhere as a site with awful moderation. I'm just being honest. I won't even repeat some of the stories I've heard (I can't substantiate them, anyway)- but let's just say there's a couple of interesting tales.
Dakkadakka is discussed elsewhere as a site with awful moderation. I'm just being honest. I won't even repeat some of the stories I've heard (I can't substantiate them, anyway)- but let's just say there's a couple of interesting tales.
Having seen some of the tales told elsewhere, and having a view of the other side of the story, a lot of those tales are far less interesting than they might at first seem, other than as exercises in creative writing.
I know for a fact that at times, two individuals can do the exact same thing in the exact same thread- and depending on what the mod feels, one of the offenders can get a ban and the other will be posting afterward. And in at least one case, it wasn't the one who started the poop-throwing that got caged harder.
This is exactly what I was getting at earlier. This depends less on 'what the mod feels' and more on the history of the specific posters involved. That's not bias, it's a deliberate effect of the moderation process - the reaction to rules infractions will increase over time if a poster chooses to not moderate their own behaviour.
NinthMusketeer wrote: If by "complete denial" you mean "explicitly stating it exists" then yes.
I'm on about at the point when the bias/favouritism presents itself. Not a vague "we're only human but your particular accusation is false and wrong", as we're getting in this topic. Also, what happens if a mod is perceived as acting in an unfair way to another user, is there a correction process? What is it? In other words, exactly what I said here;
it's that there's a complete denial of it happening when it clearly has and subsequently there seems to be no correction process for this.
Has any mod actually admitted that the mod in question in this instance acted out of what would be considered "good moderation"? Genuine apologies if so, because I haven't seen it. Nor do I have a vested interest, because I've not been involved in the topic in question nor seen the mod in question do anything out of the ordinary/unfair. But there seem to be a fair few people who aren't happy about the mods' actions in this particular case.
Why would they hell I'd just ban you and enjoy a nice bourbon*
NinthMusketeer wrote: I'm left wondering how many people in this thread criticising moderaters have ever been moderators themselves.
I have. As I pointed out in my post. In a forum dedicated to 40k of all things, so, yes, I've seen raging fem marines threads, RAW, and all the other fun that has rolled along. Including GW cease and desists.
But on the flip side, I'd also had out of control mods who abused their authority, some to astonishing degrees (looking at YOU Messiahcide, wherever you vanished to).
I'm not pointing fingers but from the outside this lock looked a lot like that last one
People have been told this isn't a democracy. That the Mods aren't held to a standard of public office, but are held to the standards of the site owner, that seems thus far to be content with things as they are. At this point, pissing into the wind can't be helping anyone arguing for the "lynching" of moderators. And I exaggerate 'cause I'm an donkey-cave, ok? I know nobody wants to lynch anyone. But it does seem like some people want to figuratively hang some Mods on a cross. It seems like some people are expecting to get some sense of "justice" out of this thread. It ain't happening. There's no justice to be had, no vindication to be won, because the whole expectation for that is based on some kind of non-authoritarian system of governance.
Which doesn't exist here. No, I'm not telling people that if they don't like it they should leave. That's up to them. What I'm saying is that there is a fundamental expectation being expressed that does not jive with the reality of this situation. Posters can't hold the powers that be (here) to any kind of account. This isn't the democratic government that most Western nations are accustomed to. You can't protest, and change the government at the next election. You can rail against the iron wall... but you aren't getting through. You can appeal to the dictators. Again, I don't say dictator with a sense of anger or resentment. I describe only the power dynamic at work. But there's no force of will effect. You can't engage in a hunger strike. There's no international committee to appeal to.
Seriously. It's time to take the advice of a certain Disney Ice Princess. Life lesson time. Sometimes there's no win. Sometimes it's best of the situation. It's not someone's fault. And it doesn't matter if it is. If you have a problem, it's your problem. You have no leverage here. Adapt or move on. A sense of correctness has no force in this situation. You shout yourself hoarse and
Nothing.
It sucks. It's life. To loosely quote the old sage, Captain Jean-Luc Picard, "You can make all the right choices and still lose. That is not a failing, it is life!" Seriously, it looks like the lock came out of left field. It is also a thread that should have been locked and thrown in the dungeon before that point. It's a thread that just doesn't fit here. It's a misery machine that just outputs anger and resentment. Sometimes, you've got to let it go. Let it go. The thread never bothered me anyway.
insaniak wrote: This is exactly what I was getting at earlier. This depends less on 'what the mod feels' and more on the history of the specific posters involved. That's not bias, it's a deliberate effect of the moderation process - the reaction to rules infractions will increase over time if a poster chooses to not moderate their own behaviour.
Well let's put it this way, I can tell you.
Imagine being in a room where some putz is lighting entire notebooks on fire for two or three hours. Then someone strikes a match in a corner and the alarms suddenly decide to go off.
Dreadwinter wrote: Man, it is almost like I made a couple threads in N&B recently complaining about the same mod and the same reasons for locking a thread.
The same arguments are being thrown out by both sides.
"The thread was getting heated!"
No, it was a calm and collected discussion until the mod got miffed.
"It had potential to go bad!"
So does every High School chemistry teacher but they aren't all getting investigated by the FBI.
"If you dont like it leave!"
Rinse. Repeat. Carbon Copy. But nothing is wrong! Working as intended.
Dreadwinter wrote: Man, it is almost like I made a couple threads in N&B recently complaining about the same mod and the same reasons for locking a thread.
The same arguments are being thrown out by both sides.
"The thread was getting heated!"
No, it was a calm and collected discussion until the mod got miffed.
"It had potential to go bad!"
So does every High School chemistry teacher but they aren't all getting investigated by the FBI.
"If you dont like it leave!"
Rinse. Repeat. Carbon Copy. But nothing is wrong! Working as intended.
FWIW while I am defending the mods overall here I do feel Killkrazy was out of line in this instance.
Dreadwinter wrote: Man, it is almost like I made a couple threads in N&B recently complaining about the same mod and the same reasons for locking a thread.
The same arguments are being thrown out by both sides.
"The thread was getting heated!"
No, it was a calm and collected discussion until the mod got miffed.
"It had potential to go bad!"
So does every High School chemistry teacher but they aren't all getting investigated by the FBI.
"If you dont like it leave!"
Rinse. Repeat. Carbon Copy. But nothing is wrong! Working as intended.
Well this has been impressively dragged into a weird direction.
As for the thread under discussion, it was very odd, not at all what I expected from said mod, passionate sure, but this feels really out of character and a weird lock given the context.
Believe me, guys, we've seen the feedback here and get the point. None of us are perfect, but we Do read these N&B threads, and discuss the concerns brought up as a team, etc.
I posted previously here that we liked the idea of a non-participating mod shepherding a US politics thread if we Do re-open one. Manchu actually was already doing this - unfortunately, I kind of came in and gave the thread both barrels (I really, really hate "ists/isms" applied to large people groups!) and maybe this started things spiraling a bit towards where it ended up.
So, we'll see when/if he's ready to start (and guide) a new one. I suggest chocolate and flowers, as that's got to be the most thankless job on the site
Finally, as noted before, other mods may need to respond to time-sensitive alerts in the thread, so there's no "immunity" from posting in that thread - if anything, it's the opposite, there's a short leash as it's not what this site is primarily for. But we are planning to make it "Manchu's problem " for the most part, for better or worse
I feel you stepped in when it was needed and the thread got back in line after that. Even towards the end people wer generally good about being specific to saying certain things about certain viewpoints/people who have it, a subtle but important distinction.
People seemed to be behaving better. Of course the off topic has shed quite a few people that posted in previous politics threads and caused it to get heated. Mods do pretty well considering the emotions playing up from time to time and the previous lock was expected. It was just the last time that the context and the speed it got locked at was surprising.
I for one, look forward to the US Politics thread re-opening for a simple reason. Unlike most political discussion areas on the internet it is NOT an echo chamber since so many posters have so many different views. If I go to a dedicated politics board, you generally only hear the same side in a purity contest with each other.
Regards KillKrazy and the Mod lock. I have no problem with it..... but I hope it is only temporary OR if someone started another politics related thread it would not get locked until it had run its course.
Every so often, any thread just needs to be locked. If it is worthy it will rise again in a few days or weeks time. I mean, think about the Robotech RPG Tactics threads that went some 300+ pages.... twice!
Future War Cultist wrote: If moderators are under no obligation to be impartial, then it means that they can abuse their position.
Only if you subscribe to the belief that everyone is doing it for the mind-altering position that is the wielding of power on a toy soldiers forum. Otherwise, any such potential for abuse is generally curtailed by the actual motivation of the Moderator team; namely, to help the community flourish in a positive way. Abusing the position would generally be anathema to that goal.
I repeat, everyone makes a mistake every once in a blue moon, because moderators are human. As Insaniak said above though, the goal is not be impartial or follow an iron clad set of rules, but to create a site which inculcates the values and community spirit that the site owners desire. That is the guiding rule that we all try to work by. We're here doing what we do because we want all of you to have a mature, polite, and friendly place to discuss toy soldiers!
My role is more circumscribed than most, but I see the grindings of the gears. I have seen one user accuse the mod team of an intrinsic left wing bias whilst being suspended, even as another rants about their right wing facist tendencies as he gets an OT ban on the same day. I have seen the endless trouble with people who actively want to contribute to the community and do so in a number of ways; but struggle to contain their tempers and sense of perspective on subjects important to them. I've seen supposed adults, who when receiving a mild warning for insulting someone, be incapable of perceiving their own faults, go on a mission to try and prove how the mods must be a) persecuting them, b)breaking the rules themselves, c) inconsistently applying the rules or d)morons.
I see it all. I have nothing to do with it, but I see it. And in half a decade of that, whilst I haven't necessarily agreed with everything done, I have extremely rarely seen anything I thought was disproportionate or abusive. There's usually a reason for anything done, even if the users aren't able to perceive it. The system works, more or less.
That’s all true, to a point, and that point is when politics gets involved. Politics is way more charged than toy soldiers. You can’t tell me that there are no mods in here who after a bad day won’t use their position to stick it to someone on the other side. I’ve seen it repeatedly. They’ll ignore like minded people abusing the other side or even join in with it. Hell, sometimes they start it, and the staff in general get more pissy with the ones pointing this out than they do with the ones actually doing it. They’re happy to tolerate and ignore abuse when it’s directed against people they don’t like, but can’t respond fast enough to deal with it when the tables are turned.
Case in point, I’ve been called pathetic, an idiot and a cultist, and another poster has been accused of being a member of the EDL, and all these posts went unchallenged. Normally I wouldn’t give a feth, but in another example a poster who’s not of the same opinion as the mods had his head bitten off for making a simple joke. One ‘right on!’ poster was only dealt with the other day because they went completely ape gak, and even then I don’t think they would have been challenged had their posts not been reported.
And now I know why. Because as said right here in this very thread, mods are under no obligation to be impartial. So they do have a licence to dick with people who’s politics they don’t like. Let them be mocked and insulted whilst hammering them over every little thing. At least now it’s being openly admitted, and I won’t feel so bad when February rolls around and I don’t renew my DCM.
This is why Politics thread are just a bad idea. They just bring out the worst in everyone involved. This site would be doing itself a massive favour if it got rid of them.
Future War Cultist wrote: And now I know why. Because as said right here in this very thread, mods are under no obligation to be impartial. So they do have a licence to dick with people who’s politics they don’t like. Let them be mocked and insulted whilst hammering them over every little thing. At least now it’s being openly admitted, and I won’t feel so bad when February rolls around and I don’t renew my DCM.
That's the boat that I'm in. At this point you have a few mods that are good, most that are indifferent at best, and a few that are aggressively bad. At one point a poster repeatedly referred to this community as "patheticincels" and that was apparently OK. It's OK to refer to feminist posters as being as bad as ISIS, and a cancer, as long as you don't also generalize about Trump voters. Unbelievable.
i have no idea wtf happened in the last year with the moderation on this site but at the end of the day all you can do is vote with your wallet; after 10 years of being a DCM mine is up in August and I will not renew.
Future War Cultist wrote: You can’t tell me that there are no mods in here who after a bad day won’t use their position to stick it to someone on the other side.
I think I would actually. No, seriously. I can honestly say, that having spent half a decade flicking through the various odd mod actions here and there, that I don't believe that a single one of the general mods would 'use their position to stick it to someone on the other side'. They're actually not that petty. We all get a bit heated from time to time, or trip up here and there, but that tends to be reflected in arguments or tone of post; not in official moderator/disciplinary action.
You must of course, believe what you like, but let me put it like this. In this thread alone I've seen at least two cases referenced where apparently the mod team did nothing, when in actual fact, I know as a fact that they did. But because moderation on here is private, nobody but the general mods see it for the most part.
As Insaniak said above, you read stories outside of Dakka about the terrible unfairness/bias/actions taken against a (often banned) user. Then you review the case file and see exactly what happened without the internet tough guy/persecution complex/only telling it like is public persona. And (perhaps unsurprisingly), the two rarely match.
No, official disciplinary actions here are usually well warranted, and when it's a borderline case? The soft touch is preferred. Generally speaking, the mods interact with those who interact well back. People who honestly put their hands up, genuinely recognise that they were being rude/inflammatory/whatever and try not to do it again get a lot of leeway.
But then you have the people who send back sarky messages, do it another five times, insist repeatedly that it's either a) the other guy's fault, or b) everyone does it so why are they getting picked up on it (not knowing of course about messages going elsewhere), and then start the chain of ever-increasing ban lengths because they refuse to adjust their behaviour. Because they believe all the problems are on everyone else's end.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, I've noticed from several threads of this nature over the years a certain degree of correlation between those people and the most vocal critics of the mod team.
This feels like a backhanded implication that the only people who are upset with the moderation of the site are doing so out of spite for having been the target of said moderation.
Anecdotally, I've been on this site for a decade, only gotten a single warning in that time (which I 110% earned and it was well deserved) and I am definitely saying in my opinion at least the moderation has taken a turn recently. I'm not including the most recent flap that started this thread which honestly was more funny than irritating. I don't really have a dog in this fight and until recently was a huge cheerleader for the site.
Ouze wrote: This feels like a backhanded implication that the only people who are upset with the moderation of the site are doing so out of spite for having been the target of said moderation.
I'm not saying it is /only those people. Very explicitly not. As you say, your own record is spotless. No quarrel on that score, and the mod team does generally try and pay attention to positive constructive input from long standing members of good repute. It's where the modteam is drawn from, after all. One retires, another steps up, yadda yadda.
Ouze - Actually none of that is OK or at least, none is something we really want on this site... but trying to stop all of it while letting a political discussion continue is really difficult!
Your reaction kind of illustrates the problem with politics threads on a wargaming forum. You think more criticism of Trump's supporters should be allowed, and less against the examples you pointed out, while others feel the opposite way, and as mods we don't want any of it . It's so hard to keep emotions in check when talking about the "Big 2"' (politics and religion) especially without physical body language cues.
I'm very sorry you feel like we've got the balance wrong on that front, but in the end, like I said we don't want any of what you posted to happen - but however we come down, someone is going to feel like they got the short end of the stick! Either they person posting the borderline comparison (if we moderate it) or they person offended by it (if we don't). That's why we still seriously consider not having a politics thread at all...
Ketara wrote: You must of course, believe what you like, but let me put it like this. In this thread alone I've seen at least two cases referenced where apparently the mod team did nothing, when in actual fact, I know as a fact that they did. But because moderation on here is private, nobody but the general mods see it for the most part.
You know, I was re-reading what you said and I was thinking about it.
That time I did get a warning, it was for rudeness. And I was rude - super rude.
I was surprised to see that the rude comment that I left wasn't removed. And now I am seeing what you're saying about how people are perceiving that the mods do nothing but moderator actions are private and you know for sure that action was taken.
If something is said that breaks the rules and it's moderated upon, is it normal policy to leave said rule-breaking post visible? I know you won't if it's something really above and beyond like racism or what have you, but just "hey, you're a jerk blah blah blah"?
Because if you're leaving that stuff up even as the person is warned for it, and not removing it and redtexting "post removed" or some such genericness, it goes a long way towards the perception the mods are willing to let rulebreaking sometimes stand.
RiTides wrote: Your reaction kind of illustrates the problem with politics threads on a wargaming forum. You think more criticism of Trump's supporters should be allowed, and less against the examples you pointed out, while others feel the opposite way, and as mods we don't want any of it .
Well, not really. I know that's what I said in that thread but I know you're right, starting off on a bad foot with like 40% of the posters is not a productive way to have a discussion. It was just infuriating that there was such a (apparent) loose leash in some other threads nearly simultaneously for some really vile stuff, but it was OK when it was feminists and not republicans. At least, that was how it felt.
Future War Cultist wrote: And now I know why. Because as said right here in this very thread, mods are under no obligation to be impartial. So they do have a licence to dick with people who’s politics they don’t like. Let them be mocked and insulted whilst hammering them over every little thing. At least now it’s being openly admitted, and I won’t feel so bad when February rolls around and I don’t renew my DCM.
That's the boat that I'm in. At this point you have a few mods that are good, most that are indifferent at best, and a few that are aggressively bad. At one point a poster repeatedly referred to this community as "patheticincels" and that was apparently OK. It's OK to refer to feminist posters as being as bad as ISIS, and a cancer, as long as you don't also generalize about Trump voters. Unbelievable.
Yeah, the things that are sometimes allowed to stand are surprising, considering the US politics thread would get an immediate lock. Its really noticable in Geek Media atm. Feel like one specific thread in the off topic is warming up to be a real doozy too.
You know, I was re-reading what you said and I was thinking about it.
That time I did get a warning, it was for rudeness. And I was rude - super rude.
I was surprised to see that the rude comment that I left wasn't removed. And now I am seeing what you're saying about how people are perceiving that the mods do nothing but moderator actions are private and you know for sure that action was taken.
If something is said that breaks the rules and it's moderated upon, is it normal policy to leave said rule-breaking post visible? I know you won't if it's something really above and beyond like racism or what have you, but just "hey, you're a jerk blah blah blah"?
Because if you're leaving that stuff up even as the person is warned for it, and not removing it and redtexting "post removed" or some such genericness, it goes a long way towards the perception the mods are willing to let rulebreaking sometimes stand.
I think you'd need to ask the people who do it to get a precise answer; but my impression has always been that it varies. It varies on the offensiveness of the comment, the time the moderator has available to deal with the matter, the extent to which the comment has proliferated throughout the thread (has it been quoted ten times, etcetc). So swear filter circumvention, homophobic or anti-semitic slurs, copyright infringement and the like get nailed and purged extensively. But a backhander comment about SJW's that's been quoted ten times over eight hours before a mod got a look in? No, it probably wouldn't be. Action might be taken against one user, and if there's a lot of heat underneath it, a general message left warning people not to do it again and calm down, but the post wouldn't be deleted.
I certainly think that you are right in that it probably affects perceptions of these things.
Looks like we had a bunch of simul-posts but I was also going to say that, you can't always see when a post generates a warning, unless it requires a full in-thread warning. Something terrible being posted doesn't mean we support it, and sometimes it's too much to edit out, particularly in a big rapidly moving (and quoting) political discussion.
Anyway, not sure we'll win you over, but we certainly don't support those things you posted at the bottom of the last page. The fact that you got the impression we do just because the posts weren't all edited out makes me think maybe we really should just not have a politics thread on Dakka, as cleaning it out (including quotes) when things go awry really would be an epic undertaking
Ouze wrote: This feels like a backhanded implication that the only people who are upset with the moderation of the site are doing so out of spite for having been the target of said moderation.
Anecdotally, I've been on this site for a decade, only gotten a single warning in that time (which I 110% earned and it was well deserved) and I am definitely saying in my opinion at least the moderation has taken a turn recently. I'm not including the most recent flap that started this thread which honestly was more funny than irritating. I don't really have a dog in this fight and until recently was a huge cheerleader for the site.
Have you had any issue outside of the politics thread?
I don't think it needs cleaning out. Just a more visible "this kind of language is frowned upon" statement would help. More general thread warnings always feel directed against everyone instead of the people using said language. I can't imagine the one line of red text was the only time a mod looked inside that specific thread before the lock came.
Incels and feminists have gotten wide ranging rule 1 violations without any visible warning, topics around religion as well, it’s not isolated to politics and sometimes MODs are as guilty of the violations as other users when other topics are involved.
When it comes to certain topics it seems like MODs have their own biases and sides, which is something to be expected, but it seems like sometimes these biases are reflected in their moderation. And that is not okay.
Ouze wrote: This feels like a backhanded implication that the only people who are upset with the moderation of the site are doing so out of spite for having been the target of said moderation.
Anecdotally, I've been on this site for a decade, only gotten a single warning in that time (which I 110% earned and it was well deserved) and I am definitely saying in my opinion at least the moderation has taken a turn recently. I'm not including the most recent flap that started this thread which honestly was more funny than irritating. I don't really have a dog in this fight and until recently was a huge cheerleader for the site.
Have you had any issue outside of the politics thread?
Ouze's last example was from a Dakka Discussions thread at least, not the US politics one.
RiTides wrote: Anyway, not sure we'll win you over, but we certainly don't support those things you posted at the bottom of the last page. The fact that you got the impression we do just because the posts weren't all edited out makes me think maybe we really should just not have a politics thread on Dakka, as cleaning it out (including quotes) when things go awry really would be an epic undertaking
Yeah, I get that. I keep swinging between "being really frustrated by a few outliers I should just learn to ignore", and "remembering that when I got that Squiggoth with all the miscast chains, Insaniak is who taught me how to resculpt those chains in greenstuff".
Frazzled wrote: Have you had any issue outside of the politics thread?
Yes, in Geek Media and Dakka Discussions.
I kind of expect the OT to be really bad because no one wants to moderate it, and I totally understand that; imagine having a full time job doing whatever and then coming home to talk about army men and space fungus soccer hooligans and instead you have to click though a bunch of alerts from people saying Trump supporters are literally Hitler. I'd find another section of the boards to hang out in too, believe me.
The way the US currently is perma-closing the US politics thread is probably a really good idea. Either the people that hang out there will start posting h-h-hobby stuff or they will leave and either outcome is probably a net positive.
When it comes to certain topics it seems like MODs have their own biases and sides, which is something to be expected, but it seems like sometimes these biases are reflected in their moderation. And that is not okay.
God, yes, this. And if you have the audacity to bring this up you get labeled a problem poster, well unless you are on the special list mentioned below.
Ouze wrote: This feels like a backhanded implication that the only people who are upset with the moderation of the site are doing so out of spite for having been the target of said moderation.
I'm not saying it is /only those people. Very explicitly not. As you say, your own record is spotless. No quarrel on that score, and the mod team does generally try and pay attention to positive constructive input from long standing members of good repute. It's where the modteam is drawn from, after all. One retires, another steps up, yadda yadda.
Lots of conditions there for the mod team to *maybe* pay attention to input. Legitimate question: if the "positive constructive input" came from a newer member, or a member with a track record of suspensions, would it be given any consideration? From your wording it sounds like you guys will only consider feedback from specific posters, and this thread is playing out that way too.
Just my opinion, but if there is a ban on US politics threads, how about making it a flat ban on ALL politics threads?
Because apparently US politics is too "toxic", aka people the moderators disagree with post in it, despite the fact UK politics is just as toxic.
Sorry for being so blunt, but the mod team does themselves no favours in the PR department. How the team is perceived is important and right now the mod team is not perceived well by non-mods.
I am going to agree with the previous sentiment by An Actual Englishman regarding the lack of any real alternatives as what is keeping DakkaDakka alive right now, it's the last of the old style Wargaming forums that actually means anything.
I don't really disagree with your viewpoint on the politics thread, but this was about the conduct presented in it, rather than the topic itself.
While you are in a sense correct, The mods still fall under Yakface, and this is almost certainly the exact opposite of his vision for how the community of Dakka should operate. He has said in the past that he generally favors a looser style of moderation, and that it fits the community much better than fear oriented style. Dakka is still a very welcoming and, for the most part, well moderated community that is generally open to suggestions. I feel comfortable enough here to post an issue I found with moderation, regardless if anything will be done about it. I am sorry that your past experience has caused to you to be so bitter about moderation teams, but I would like to think that the Dakka team hold itself to a higher standard.
See, I could swear that I once read Yakface (or another moderator) claiming that DakkaDakka was actually more heavily moderated and that is what people liked about it. I may have imagined it, so feel free to ignore me if I don't manage to find the snippet somewhere.
Lots of conditions there for the mod team to *maybe* pay attention to input. Legitimate question: if the "positive constructive input" came from a newer member, or a member with a track record of suspensions, would it be given any consideration? From your wording it sounds like you guys will only consider feedback from specific posters, and this thread is playing out that way too.
I hate to admit it, but generally speaking, those who've issued death threats against the mods, have three posts to their name, issued faux-legal threats, are sock puppets, and so on are sadly less well received.
There's nothing wrong with being a newer user, or making positive suggestions generally. I'm literal living proof of that, I'd only been here a year or so when I started trying to help clean up the Swapshop, and I was very well received and treated. Nobody is counting those things against you. But naturally, if someone knows the place better, or has been here longer, or has contributed more in terms of content and community spirit, or caused fewer problems needing cleaning up, has a recognisable tag, is known for being levelheaded, is polite, and so on? All of these things can add a slight touch of additional gravitas to a suggestion.
It's how things work in any community or organisation after all.
I feel I should also probably start adding the caveat here that I'm not speaking for the mod team in any official capacity, I'm not even a general moderator. Just as someone with a little more insight than the average user.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BaconCatBug wrote: t DakkaDakka was actually more heavily moderated and that is what people liked about it.
It depends on what you're used to. Compared to Heresy Online, this is a veritable Judge Dredd dystopia. To Warseer? Not so much.
Future War Cultist wrote: Because as said right here in this very thread, mods are under no obligation to be impartial. So they do have a licence to dick with people who’s politics they don’t like.
Lots of conditions there for the *maybe* pay attention to input. Legitimate question: if the "positive constructive input" came from a newer member, or a member with a track record of suspensions, would it be given any consideration? From your wording it sounds like you guys will only consider feedback from specific posters, and this thread is playing out that way too.
Only? No, we'll consider feedback from any source if it is felt to have merit. But here's the thing : a visitor to your house tells you that your house would look better painted a different colour. Are you obligated to consider that feedback if you like the house just fine the colour it is?
Now consider that two visitors have told you that your house would look better repainted.. But one of them is a long time friend who has spent time helping you build the house into what it is now, and the other has wandered in off the street, got into a fight with the first friend, and then declared that your house is the worst house in the street, that you're horrible painter, and twists your words into the worst possible interpretation and dismisses any explanation as being 'defensive'...
Whose feedback are you going to be more receptive to?
BaconCatBug - We definitely aim for as light-handed of moderation as possible here. Whether we succeed is another matter but that's the goal!
Also, we're just frankly discussing things in here - no one would ever face any consequences for expressing disagreement with how we moderate, especially in a thread made for discussing such things like this one!
In response to feedback in this thread, I have volunteered to not participate in the discussion and posters should feel free to PM me in addition to the usual options, such as using the yellow triangle buttons.
Ouze wrote: That's the boat that I'm in. At this point you have a few mods that are good, most that are indifferent at best, and a few that are aggressively bad. At one point a poster repeatedly referred to this community as "patheticincels" and that was apparently OK. It's OK to refer to feminist posters as being as bad as ISIS, and a cancer, as long as you don't also generalize about Trump voters. Unbelievable.
This community, or tabletop gaming in general? Which feminist poster was called 'cancer'? As I recall, the discussion was about an idea- are we not allowed to dislike, criticize, or even ridicule ideas? The last I checked, even religion isn't a protected thing.
Let me clue you in, and help you out though: "Feminists are subhuman" is an insult, flaming, etc. Just like "Trump voters are racists". However, "Feminism's ideology is dumb" and "Republican policies are useless garbage" are not insulting people, but intangible ideas. Ideas are NOT protected.
Isn't this also the thread where you were hurling insults as well? I could be mistaken. Then again, you misrepresenting an argument is hardly a new thing, but I like to take a leap of faith and just assume you misunderstand or rush through reading things. Despite you openly making it known that you're trying to get me banned. By all means, keep at it.
Or maybe it was just an honest oversight. We'll never know, shall we?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: Because if you're leaving that stuff up even as the person is warned for it, and not removing it and redtexting "post removed" or some such genericness, it goes a long way towards the perception the mods are willing to let rulebreaking sometimes stand.
But kudos for pointing something like this out.
If 'Bob' is going to get red-texted for an insult, 'Jim' should as well. Or neither, and establish a criteria- red-text/remove things like slurs, outright inappropriate language and words, etc. Because an ENTIRE post was removed, only part of which could be considered insulting (and was directed at someone long overdue for my ignore list).
If I call you a poopsmith, but then go on to explain how to remove mold lines with an old spoon... probably makes sense to remove only the offending part of the text.
P.S: I feel like I’ve been a bit of a dick, having a go at the staff. I think I’ve let a minor misunderstanding snowball into an unnecessary grudge. And not for the first time either.
P.S: I feel like I’ve been a bit of a dick, having a go at the staff. I think I’ve let a minor misunderstanding snowball into an unnecessary grudge. And not for the first time either.
All of the staff here I've had a discrete 'go' with knows where I stand. I'm never one to drag them out or name specifics, or even try to discuss actions openly (thought I've done it here, figured it was the place).
Not sure if the solution is to add more moderators or review some of the moderation policies. If it were my site to run, I'd go with a little of both. But that's not my call.
I cant say that I personally have ever really had a major problem with the mods here and Ive been in all sorts of arguments and locked threads and whatnot. No, theyre not perfect, but theyre pretty damn good here. OT appears to generate and drive a majority of the mod action and backlash. Thinga could be a whole lot worse, witness how the Reddit warhammer subreddit allowed itself to be strangled to death by its abusive mods for years until user activity basically collapsed and they had to reboot the whole thing. I think Manchu's route here was well thought out, and I think overall the mods on Dakka do their job well.
Vaktathi wrote: Things could be a whole lot worse, witness how the Reddit warhammer subreddit allowed itself to be strangled to death by its abusive mods for years until user activity basically collapsed and they had to reboot the whole thing.
You mean the Subreddit where you could get your peepee slapped for doing something as simple as saying you didn't like a model, or had anything other than praise for other members' ideas? I remember people got banned for absurd things. It was during 7th Edition, I think- and people would go on about how great other editions were and you'd get kicked for even asking if they played that edition.
I think a lot of this would be better discussed privately. But then again, it seems like it's where some folks are electing to air dirty laundry. Sometimes people have to make a little noise to make a few changes. Sometimes private talks stay private and resolutions aren't met, or maybe folks may think that way.
TBH, "if you don't like it, leave" would be a great idea for some folks. Though forums do that, there's an exodus at a certain point and it just makes a rift.
Given the specific issue in this case has been resolved, at least for the time being, I am going to lock the thread. If anyone has other specific issues about the moderation, please feel free to start another N&B thread. Thanks!
