Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

Does seem to be a problem with how that post was closed after he was called out on his own inflammatory comment.

This is a loaded topic but I agree completely.

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).

As was foreseen...

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.

 greatbigtree wrote:
Snip

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.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 greatbigtree wrote:
Snip

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.

 greatbigtree wrote:

Stuff

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.

I don't genuinely know what to say to all that. That is genuinely the most pessimistic view of moderators I've ever seen in my life.

 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 you mean the TLJ thread? I kind of agree with the locking both times. We were just running in circles throwing insults at each other.

as to the original topic: I think it's definetely bad form, but if you are a mod and you think action is needed you should take action.

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?

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

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.

 Ketara wrote:
The reward isn't the 'sense of power'

People who claim we moderate for "the power" really have the very worst opinion of us.

 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.

 Ketara wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

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?

Could be a case of someone who only has a hammer seeing every problem as a nail.

Kilkrazy is the only poster I have on ignore.

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.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

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.

Anyway, ugh, now everyone go watch the World Cup!

 Overread wrote:

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.