An Open Discussion With the Moderator Team

[Magneto]

There's two things I want to address.

 

One of them is that often when a mod moves a thread to another (often less active) subforum a lot of similar threads goes untouched and remain in the previous subforum. 

 

Here's an example:

Both of these two threads were posted in the orbis subforum, one started by me and one started by Kastor. They're almost identical but for some reason (which is never explained) my was moved while Kastor's wasn't.

 

It's not the only time it's happened but it's the only one I recall. If you're going to move threads, be more consistent with it, at least on the first page of the subforum.

 

Another thing, that maybe you mods don't have any power over, but might be worth addressing anyway is the way we report today.

 

Usually one reports by posting in the mod subforum, where everyone can see who's reporting and what for. I think there should be a more anonymous way of reporting. This is the only game or forum I know of where reports are done completely open and I think it's bad for several reasons. First of all it's intimidating. Reporting a popular player or a member of a strong alliance could risk a backlash, which is what the mod/admin crew should be working against. If you want to foster a community where people actively report users who break rules there shouldn't be a risk of punishment.

 

Second of all, since anyone can jump in to a thread and argue against/for a player who's broken a rule it's easy to sway the mods opinions if you just have enough people rallying for a certain outcome. It's very easy to influence someone by just having enough people say x or y. Even if you try to be unbiased in your decisions it's hard to do so when it's open for anyone (who doesn't have the background info to make a sound decision) jumps in to state their two cents.

 

Which leads me in to my third point. Since people jump in to threads to state their opinions in a No Discussion forum it creates more job for mods to dish out warning points. I think if reports were handled anonymously it would remove a bias towards the reporter while also there being less work around having to keep discussions away and dishing out warning points.

 

Thank you for giving your input

 

We will definitely work on consistency. Of course we may miss some here and there, and it's bound to happen cause we are human too, but we will do our best.

 

On anonymous reporting: There are several options for you. First off, in game in a message you can report message continent using the little bell thingy in the top of the message. On forums, if a post violates things, use the report option on the bottom left hand of that post and it will be attended to by the mods. I actually love it when people use the report function on the forums as it is very streamlined. 

 

Other than that, are you referring to other reports?

[Thor (Former Moderator)]

I got ninja'd by Magneto. 

[Crust]

Thank you for giving your input

 

We will definitely work on consistency. Of course we may miss some here and there, and it's bound to happen cause we are human too, but we will do our best.

 

On anonymous reporting: There are several options for you. First off, in game in a message you can report message continent using the little bell thingy in the top of the message. On forums, if a post violates things, use the report option on the bottom left hand of that post and it will be attended to by the mods. I actually love it when people use the report function on the forums as it is very streamlined. 

 

Other than that, are you referring to other reports?

 

Thanks for the quick reply!

 

Oh okay, I saw that there was a report function on the forum but I never really got if mods actually look at those reports or if it's all suppose to go in the report forums. Same goes with ingame. Unless the rule violation is happening in a message I always assume the report is suppose to go in the forum. Is there a way of making it clearer how and where you can report stuff?

 

Like if I were to report someone who I suspect might be breaking a rule I don't think it's necessary for anyone to have someone jump in and say "oh no I know this person and they would never do this". Or there being a community outlash over someone reporting something. Because that's usually something that happens, might makes some people report rule violations less.

[Fox Fire]

I disagree with a few things suggested by players. For one, I do not think mods should have their identities be public. I think their anonymity is a good thing. It prevents players from making absurd statements about mod bias every time they get warned, as we have seen happen before, namely with Mensa HQ, when they whined about getting warns for spam. I think if Moderator identities weren't private, we would be a lot less stable. Also, some mods might be intimidated by the idea of a player attacking him in response to a warn. I think it would just overall not be very good for the community. 

 

One thing that I'd like to see change is that we should see reasons as to why threads are being locked. Sometimes moderators lock threads without even leaving a post for the community to see. It's minor, but I still think it'd have an impact. 

^Everything this man said. Give him a cookie. 

[Magneto]

Thanks for the quick reply!

 

Oh okay, I saw that there was a report function on the forum but I never really got if mods actually look at those reports or if it's all suppose to go in the report forums. Same goes with ingame. Unless the rule violation is happening in a message I always assume the report is suppose to go in the forum. Is there a way of making it clearer how and where you can report stuff?

 

Like if I were to report someone who I suspect might be breaking a rule I don't think it's necessary for anyone to have someone jump in and say "oh no I know this person and they would never do this". Or there being a community outlash over someone reporting something. Because that's usually something that happens, might makes some people report rule violations less.

 

Well actually that forum report function on the bottom left hand corner of every post is only seen by mods and only inputted on by mods (2 confirmations minimum on decisions). So there will be no players inputting on the report if you use that option.

[Robert Ap Ioan]

I would say that the best Moderation I have seen is at the Ship of Fools forums. The mods there post both as mods and members - when they are posting as Mods they make a point of saying so. They also have a low tolerance for trolling in the discussion forum(purgatory) but let people get away with a lot more in the Rant area(Hell).

[Abu Haddad]

We orbis need democracy not to be ruled by the great oligarchy headed by the two headed snake Sheepy.

But really we the players should have a say in the way orbis is run

[Thor (Former Moderator)]

We orbis need democracy not to be ruled by the great oligarchy headed by the two headed snake Sheepy.

But really we the players should have a say in the way orbis is run

 

We are here to discuss how the Moderation Team can be improved upon and to try and find a common ground with the players. We are not discussing Sheepy or how Sheepy operates the game. He is the game owner. This is not and will not ever be a democracy. Any further posts that are in the trolling/spamming manner and not productive to this conversation will be warned. 

[Lu Xun]

The problem with closed moderation is that it destroys trust in the moderation team, which can create a sense of illegitimacy and contribute to cheating, since if mods are !@#$s and the mods are believed to be in so and so's pockets, why report your friends to the moderation team? Beyond that, while closed moderation is good for developing esprit de corps, it can also lead to elitism within the moderation team and further resentment against the mods. Both of these problems, however, are long-term problems, and because of PnW's game model, cheating seems (and I'm not privy to people's deep opsec, so I don't really know) not to be a pronounced problem, since in other games, the main use of multis is for logistical purposes, and in this game, elite alliances don't need logistics, mass alliances can rely on recruits for logistical support.

 

Open moderation has its problems as well, for instance, open moderators, unlike anonymous moderation, are more prone to bias accusations as if a particular faction does not have a moderation on their side, and a moderator ruling acts against them, they will complain of bias, and contribute to an air of illegitimacy. Open moderators are also vulnerable to player action against their player accounts, influencing the integrity of their moderator decisions, and it can also make the moderation more political than an anonymous moderation system.

 

The two other alternatives are short-term rotating moderation, which often creates problems of a lack of player experience and a high administrative work-load in selection and term imposition, as well as using retired players as moderators, which is dependent on a small supply of truly retired players, and can also lead to accusations of favoritism towards these players' former networks, as well as out of touch moderators.

 

In general, as is, the closed moderation system has its flaws, the most egregious being moderator corruption in the long-term, as closed moderation prevents supervision and can create a French esprit de corps (the English and French definitions have drifted, despite it being a loanword in English), which refers to things like corrupt cops closing ranks around misdeeds; you cover my shit I'll cover yours. However, given the alternatives possible, this is a workable system and probably the best system that can be implemented on a small workload.

[LordRahl2]

As logical as that sounds inst it does not pan out that way in the "real" fake world of forums.  For example, they just closed a thread for grave digging (and warned some poor soul).  That might be technically correct - however the reply bumped a thread about an alliance action that was highly topical to current events.  Now we are left to wonder if the mod team had some bias or not.  The distance from the community makes all actions opaque and suspicious.

 

Nor do I understand how "closed" modding as you put it builds more esprit de corps.  One does not logically follow the other.

[Magneto]

As logical as that sounds inst it does not pan out that way in the "real" fake world of forums.  For example, they just closed a thread for grave digging (and warned some poor soul).  That might be technically correct - however the reply bumped a thread about an alliance action that was highly topical to current events.  Now we are left to wonder if the mod team had some bias or not.  The distance from the community makes all actions opaque and suspicious.

 

Nor do I understand how "closed" modding as you put it builds more esprit de corps.  One does not logically follow the other.

 

We enforce the forum rules, so if there was a case of grave digging, there would be proper action on that. If there was a disagreement that there was gravedigging, there should be a report of that to Sheepy about the forum rule, not the mod decision. Now if the moderator made a post that appeared to be biased while closing the thread, then there is an issue. Otherwise, I do not see the issue to the example you pointed out. The forum rules are the forum rules.

 

Gravedigging

Replying to, or “bumpingâ€, old, unpinned topics which have been inactive for at least 30 days. The following exceptions apply:

 

Alliance Affairs - topics with no posts for at least 10 days will be considering gravedigging.

 

The following are immune to the rule, as long as replies are constructive and remain on-topic.

 

Alliance Recruitment

Free Trade Market

Game Discussion

Game Suggestions

All forums in the Social Hub

[Nie Li]

I want a girlfriend?

[LordRahl2]

We enforce the forum rules, so if there was a case of grave digging, there would be proper action on that. If there was a disagreement that there was gravedigging, there should be a report of that to Sheepy about the forum rule, not the mod decision. Now if the moderator made a post that appeared to be biased while closing the thread, then there is an issue. Otherwise, I do not see the issue to the example you pointed out. The forum rules are the forum rules.

 

Indirectly my point friend.  There are rules and then judgment applied to those rules.  You may be as technocratic as you desire but it does not result in a well modded forum.

 

All decisions are judgement based even if you think you are strictly applying rules - there is always an element of judgement.  So yes, I can see where application and anonymity lead to distrust in a generic example and in the example I provided.

 

In this case the thread was over 30 days old, true, however it was highly topical to an in game event.  Could one of the mods who decided to lock it have a political interest in the matter?  Maybe.  I don't know, nor can I know.  It is impossible to know because of the veil of anonymity.  Hence the problem and why I used it as an example.

[Nie Li]

Can u teach me the skills of a modererator?

[Four]

Indirectly my point friend.  There are rules and then judgment applied to those rules.  You may be as technocratic as you desire but it does not result in a well modded forum.

 

All decisions are judgement based even if you think you are strictly applying rules - there is always an element of judgement.  So yes, I can see where application and anonymity lead to distrust in a generic example and in the example I provided.

 

In this case the thread was over 30 days old, true, however it was highly topical to an in game event.  Could one of the mods who decided to lock it have a political interest in the matter?  Maybe.  I don't know, nor can I know.  It is impossible to know because of the veil of anonymity.  Hence the problem and why I used it as an example.

 

Just like any laws and policing in RL there is judgement and discretion added to the overall warn/decision making of the subject at hand. It would be foolish to say that there is no discretion and there is no form of judgement expressed by the moderation team when dealing with rule breaks and reported content. For example, when reported content comes across my desk I simply review it and work my hardest to find a way to not give a warn point. Most cases are cut and dry - rule breaks are rule breaks after all. 

 

I do believe that a grave dig is a grave dig - which in the current, is against the rules. Hence those people receiving a warn. Its cut and dry. I do believe that your discussion is quite positive in what we were looking for in this thread and I do think that should a post be brought back to surface and it does pertain to an ongoing world event, then discretion should be initiated.

 

...and of course there should never be bias from the moderation staff, which I hope that if you do think there is bias you do take it up with sheepy or moderator for rectification. 

 

Can u teach me the skills of a modererator?

 

I shouldn't have to say this, but please positively add to the discussion - if you cannot do that, refrain from posting in this thread. If you have specific questions regarding PW Moderation and how Moderators can get in touch with the community more, ask away/discuss. Thank You.

[Hereno]

did your mother ever say "just wait until your daddy comes home!" when you were a kid?

 

have you ever noticed that your supervisor at work never actually has any power over you?

 

familiarity is the problem, not the solution. mods should not just be anonymous but seek to restrict personality as much as possible. that's how you get consistency - you don't comment on things, you don't like posts and act like a player, because in your capacity as a moderator you are not a player. you enforce the rules, give explanations, and function as part of the team. that's it. if you want to have an opinion log onto your regular game account.

 

one big problem in the past was mods making snap decisions after falling for trolls. you have to have mods who have the maturity to let things slide off and just do their thankless job. that's not something that can be fixed in the short-term, although kudos for requiring 2+ mods to give input before making decisions. but also, once a clear precedent has been established for most rule-breaking activities, moderation becomes a lot less about reasoning and more about just following protocol. as a suggestion, maybe sheepy could make a dummy forum here only accessible to mods, to train them on how they should react to specific posts/situations.

Edited January 4, 2016 by Hierophant

[Saruman]

as a suggestion, maybe sheepy could make a dummy forum here only accessible to mods, to train them on how they should react to specific posts/situations.

I believe that there already is a moderator-exclusive forum, correct me if I'm mistaken mods.

[Magneto]

I believe that there already is a moderator-exclusive forum, correct me if I'm mistaken mods.

You are correct we do have a mod forum, however there are not any dummy posts in there as examples.

 

I honestly would think Sheepy shouldn't have to spend time working on things like that when he has so much to do already. That however, is not up to myself.

[greatkitteh]

This may come off as rude,and I apologize in advance so I dont get a ban on me or something, but is our credits funding the moderators?

Edited January 8, 2016 by greatkitteh

[Thor (Former Moderator)]

His may come off as rude, I apologize so dont thrust a ban on me or something, But is our credits funding the moderators?

 

No, moderators do not get paid. 

[Rameses]

Just wanted to address something here really quickly:

The big reason I don't support public moderator identities is that some people in nation sims are really petty. I don't mean that as an insult to the general playerbase, but it is true with some players. If somebody feels slighted by the fact that we warned them for something that was in fact against the rules, it puts us and our alliances in danger of being attacked. Moreover, what happens when you warn members from your own alliance? I've had to do that plenty, and if it was more public that could have lead to a divide in the alliance.

 

We're in a position that regularly upsets other players, even when we do everything correctly, because some people are just unhappy that they got in trouble for breaking the rules. I do my best to do everything completely unbiased, and I'll keep doing so. If people disagree with anything I've done, they can talk to me - I've overturned my own warns in the past. I just don't want people causing ingame trouble because of it. 

[Kurdanak]

I agree with the above. See (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways): people going after others for simply reporting their rule violations.

Edited January 9, 2016 by Kurdanak

[Fox Fire]

I'm just curious to know if the mods post the same thing in every single introduction thread or not. If not, you should stop. 

Edited January 11, 2016 by Fox Fire

[Four]

I'm just curious to know if the mods post the same thing in every single introduction thread or not. If not, you should stop. 

 

My main locale is the social hub - therefore I don't post in the welcome thread, but I do agree with you. Should be a bit more personal or at least have 1 mod welcoming.

[Fox Fire]

My main locale is the social hub - therefore I don't post in the welcome thread, but I do agree with you. Should be a bit more personal or at least have 1 mod welcoming.

The problem I see, and I take this personally from an old critique of when I was once a mod here (from a current mod who basically hates me non the less), is that it can appear to be bias if things are not distributed evenly. So unless the same exact thing is being posted in every single welcome thread, I'd suggest avoiding it entirely. It's not the moderators job to welcome new players. Welcoming some and not others, or welcoming some more than others, can give an appearance of bias.

Edited January 11, 2016 by Fox Fire