Thread locking and Four

[Avruch]

https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/12773-future-for-alpha/

 

See this thread. This is not the first time recently that "Four" has locked a thread for some variation on 'thread has run its course' 'everyone has had a chance to reply' 'posts are off-topic' or whatever. This seems to be a new phenomenon, can someone point to a statement somewhere that says moderators should close threads once the moderator stops wanting to read new posts in a thread? Inevitably someone will just open a new thread on essentially the same topic (the war is still going on...), so it seems both pointless and unnecessarily heavy handed. 

[Four]

For real?

 

Even before my time as a moderator threads were being closed like this - this isn't any type of new practice. In this particular case - which is the 2nd case relating to the Alpha events happening in Orbis - the thread had ran its course. There is no amount of arguments you could compile against my argument there. The general rules of play here are to follow the dialogue of the OP - the dialogue of the OP was answered and sustained through - what? - the first 1-2 pages, anything after that is a shit storm of folly back and fourth which does not follow the dialogue of the OP. 

 

Hence the close. 

 

Like I said in the last post - feel free to make more threads (IC) related to the Alpha events happening in the world, but stay within the dialogue of the OP. 

 

I work proactively not reactively. When I feel a thread is either at its tipping point, inappropriate, etc...it will get a warn in thread, certain members will be warned, and lastly it will be closed. I believe all of those were done in this particular thread. Hence the Job title - Moderator - I moderate. 

 

Quite clearly I am open to suggestions for future Moderations and obviously the community can share them here or by shooting me a message. I think I can justly say that I am a very fair Moderator in this community and I'm always up for a chat. 

 

Thanks.

[LordRahl2]

If you are actually open to suggestions then here is one.

 

If a thread is started about your actions in particular then do not reply to it. As it stands now you are in an argument with a member who feels he has a legit complaint that you are appearing to brush off with your "For real?" reply. Let other mods reply.

[Avruch]

I didn't say you were unfair or unjust. I just think closing threads because you think the discussion has "run its course" is a different path than I have seen moderators take for the last year, particularly when many of the posts are still related to central dispute and ongoing war. It seems silly to cut off discussion with a "thread closed!" diktat only to see another one pop up on the same topic, wait 2-3 days, close that one and repeat. Is there some new aversion to long threads?

 

My suggestion to you is that unless a thread has run fully off the rails or is attracting multiple policy violations that you not close it. If you expect a basically identical thread to just be opened immediately, then closing the current thread is probably not necessary. 

[Kastor]

I agree. I saw no reason for the thread to be closed. We may have not stayed directly on the topic per say, but we were talking about Alpha and how their actions were going to effect their future. We weren't talking about the Dallas Cowboys or Global Warming. Closing that topic seemed a bit premature.

[Clarke]

This isn't a practice just by Four or P&W moderators, for years threads in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) were locked for straying. Threads were locked for lesser problems than that thread, the discussion probably doesn't belong on these forums. 

[Chapsie]

I can for one understand the closure of the topic, after a few pages it becomes unwieldy for new participants to go through and read, so a new thread would not be a bad idea and the OP could be updated with new information in the relevant time instead of something from a few days ago. However if it is a general thread, I don't think they should be closed unless the points that have been already discussed were presant. 

[Alex]

I think that this post has brought attention to the moderation team that threads being locked is a concern for players - as it stands, locking a thread is an action that requires two moderators to consent before the action is taken. Hopefully everyone will think twice after considering this thread, and make a more careful evaluation before deciding whether or not to consent to a thread being locked, and we'll have a better thread-locking decision making process overall.

[Avruch]

I think that this post has brought attention to the moderation team that threads being locked is a concern for players - as it stands, locking a thread is an action that requires two moderators to consent before the action is taken. Hopefully everyone will think twice after considering this thread, and make a more careful evaluation before deciding whether or not to consent to a thread being locked, and we'll have a better thread-locking decision making process overall.

 

Thanks Sheepy. 

[Marco Polo]

I notice alot about short-hand use of words like OP and OOC, can you guys explain these terms....

[Avruch]

OP = original post (or poster)

OOC = out of character (as in, not roleplaying)

[Marco Polo]

OP = original post (or poster)

OOC = out of character (as in, not roleplaying)

Thanks...

[Dr Rush]

As a side note, I personally prefer to see threads moved or split when practical rather then locks. The former options allow discourse to continue while the latter kills it.

[Jon Snow]

I think that this post has brought attention to the moderation team that threads being locked is a concern for players - as it stands, locking a thread is an action that requires two moderators to consent before the action is taken. Hopefully everyone will think twice after considering this thread, and make a more careful evaluation before deciding whether or not to consent to a thread being locked, and we'll have a better thread-locking decision making process overall.

 

tbf, the above mentioned thread only had a single post by a moderator who then decided to close the thread. no warns were issued and no other posts by moderators were made. how are we to know when a thread actually has a second moderator's consent?

[Alice Abernathy]

tbf, the above mentioned thread only had a single post by a moderator who then decided to close the thread. no warns were issued and no other posts by moderators were made. how are we to know when a thread actually has a second moderator's consent?

 

Four and I coordinate with each other via PM or Report function. 

 

If he is on and I am not, he usually reports to suggest thread lock, or if im on and he knows it, he'll pm me and we will review the topic together.

 

I can assure you that we discuss this together and review it to see if it is necessary to lock a thread.

 

Four isn't power hungry nor did he lock the thread for no reason. He posted our reason on the topic, locked the thread and thought nothing else of it till this thread popped up.

 

And to answer your question, PM the mod who locked it and asked who was the second mod to approve unless its me. I usually post the reasoning and the other mod's name in the comment. For example lets say a thread went out of control and filled with OOC attacks and Four and I both agreed to lock it. I would reply with something on the lines with:

 

 

This thread has went to derailment, OOC attacks, and etc. Warns have been issued and thread locked by Alice Abernathy and Four.

.

 

Of course not all mods do this. I have seen some threads locked without a "thread locked" comment replied to show which mod locked it. The mod Team isn't perfect like I have stated before in a different topic, but I can assure you we work to keep the forums clean and rolling for a better experience for you, the players. We don't do this because we want power or the control of other players. Bad mod kills a community and we definitely do not want to kill this fabulous community that Sheepy, the community, and the mods worked so hard to create. So when a mod does make a mistake, or you feel he is unjust. PM directly to Sheepy. Threads like these only serve one thing: to call out and make a division between the community an the moderators. 

 

If you have any questions about how moderation works, PM a member of the Mod team, and we will discuss how we do things.

[Peacity Peace]

As a newcomer, i must say, nothing here makes any sense.

[Alice Abernathy]

As a newcomer, i must say, nothing here makes any sense.

 

PM your questions to me, and Ill answer to the best of my abilities.

[Peacity Peace]

Watching people rage for no reason be like

 

[Crust]

So when a mod does make a mistake, or you feel he is unjust. PM directly to Sheepy. Threads like these only serve one thing: to call out and make a division between the community an the moderators.

I don't really agree. Having these discussions in the open serves a purpose. Members who are affected, but have for a lack care or thought not directly talked to sheepy, may add their view on the matter. The community as a whole gets a better understanding of what's up. And in a similar way we, the members, can understand how you the mods operate. Seeing your and sheepy's response in this thread actually made me less apathetic towards the forum community. Now I know you won't close a thread willy-nilly.

 

Openness can be good!

[Avruch]

I'm not sure why discussing a mod action is always classified as "calling a mod out", or why public criticism is seen so negatively. I'm OK with assuming that moderators are acting in good faith without particular bias or animus, but I don't see why it follows that any discussion or complaint must be made in secret and hidden away from the rest of the community. 

[Alice Abernathy]

Moderation Staff

• Speculation regarding the identities of game staff and/or revealing identities of game staff is strictly prohibited. These actions are punishable up to, and including, a ban on your forum and game account.
• Being rude or disrespectful to any of the game staff is not allowed. Creating posts “calling out†moderators or the game staff is prohibited.
• Impersonation of, or an intention to imply that you are a moderator, administrator, or other P&W official is forbidden.
• Any concerns with the moderation staff should be addressed with the game administrator, Sheepy, via pm.
• Abuse of the report system is strictly prohibited.
• Do not ask to become a moderator. Moderation positions are invitation only.

The two that are bold and underline are the specific rules concerning your issue.

 

There is rules in place for this. It states if you have concerns with the moderation staff should be addressed with the game administrator via pm. 

 

One this thread, even if not intended as being disrespectful, which I dont see you calling Four any disrespectful mod so lets ignore the first sentence. The calling out moderators or the game staff is prohibited. 

 

Not trying to say your concerns are not important, but you agreed to the rules when you made your account. The proper way to have handled this was via PM with Sheepy(Now Alex), who is very understanding and will respond to your concerns and bring it up to the moderation team to improve on our moderating.

 

 

I believe this situation was handled a while ago, when Sheepy replied. The mod team is planning on to improve the way we mod that will be favorable to the community but still have the ability to keep the forums clean.

 

Like I said earlier, if you have any questions, you can always PM a mod or the game administrator, and we will answer your concerns to the best of our abilities. o/

[Lu Xun]

This is why strong communication skills are so important for an effective moderation team.

 

It is true that shitty mods are, in some contexts, a feature, not a bug; players love complaining about moderation and moderator bias, and it often gives them something to do. However, an effective game requires happy users and user complaints decrease satisfaction. The best way to handle it is to take individuals aside, on IRC or in another informal channel, get people adept at communication and cajoling (do you actually have effective diplomats on your moderation team? Or just people who think they're good at diplomacy, like on certain teams?) to talk to them, and see if they can't have moderation policy explained to them. Handling it on the forums is usually a recipe for a lynch mob; as more users express their discontent, opinion changes due to groupthink, and when it's 10 users against 2-3 mods, concerns cannot be addressed adequately. This is why it's imperative to pick the ringleaders, talk to them, and apply carrots and sticks to ensure compliance.

[LordRahl2]

Inst is completely wrong in his analysis. By refusing open public debate resentment and conspiracy theory tendencies grow in any community. A system such as this which deliberatly and systematically limits public discourse leads to the situationally attributable dynamic that we see on this forum.

 

It is an interesting enough case study but not useful enough to continue for science.

 

tldr: A system where staff engages the community is far healthier than the current system.

[Lu Xun]

I was told that you actually had a substantial response, so since I'm leaving, I'll look at it and reply to it.

 

First, I don't criticize the handling here; it's seems relatively effective, but I have no idea what Mensa is !@#$ing about internally. In the case of a dogpile, as do exist, however, internal communications are more ideal, because discussing matters in depth, and hopefully collegially, with specific users is better than getting involved in a huge forum flamewar. Think alliance diplomacy, for instance. Much of the key business is handled between individual leaders or small leadership teams, not by having the entirety of both sides come out and !@#$ at each other.

 

Second, as with regards transparency, you cannot expect moderation teams to be completely transparent. Communications with the playerbase, as I've mentioned before, is essential, but neither is it useful for every aspect of administration to be placed under player purview. For instance, as I've mentioned before, putting threads fully into discussion mean that they could derail and turn into a lynch mob. Moreover, an excess of openness means that moderation decisions could come under excessive player pressure, as we saw when Shellhound managed to get off with a deletion. It's for this reason that player moderator identities are secret, and we can't ask the moderation play openly with that information, no?

 

That said, there must be some degree of transparency to facilitate communications. For example, punishments and rules must be clearly known to the players so that they will treat the moderation regime as legitimate. Players knowing what policy is, how policy is shifting, and so on, is necessary for players to feel that the moderation team is impartial and worthy of respect. A sense of unpredictability can be useful in getting players to not near red lines, but the lack of legitimacy promotes a passive-aggressive relationship with the moderation team. And in itself, players knowing what is going on is conducive to user satisfaction.

 

Lastly, an excess of familiarity between players and moderators creates accusations of bias. It's not something that's impossible under a less transparent moderation system, but dividing moderation responsibility and communications responsibility means that the same people who become buddy-buddy with certain users are not the same people who make the majority of moderator decisions.

 

In general, the moderation team could use some improvement, but you are mischaracterizing my description and your call for transparency is more total than it is reasonable.

[LordRahl2]

Well thanks for your consideration and reply.

 

My main issue with your 1st post is that you characterized private interactions as the best way to handle situations. I believe, given your elucidation in the second post, that you believe that somehow alliance leadership is or should be the ones policing their memberships on the forums. I note you referred to me by my alliance vice as an individual.

 

Perhaps alliance self policing happens to some extent, however, it is not the norm for these formats/games. Individuals make up the real community and moderation practices should be addressed with that in mind.

 

Your general opinion simply makes a faulty assumption about how the community works.

 

Now your point that rules and their application must be known is absolutly right. How does that happen? Through transparency which is an openness to having public debate and explaining decisions. What goes on behind closed doors and how they reach decisions and shift moderation over time is fine. They should be debating in private. That being said, there is far more harm in having and enforcing a strict "never question mods publicly" than the what? requirement to explain enforcement decision?