Should We Vote For Moderators?

[Kamea Arano]

Are the mods really that bad? I dont shitpost enough so i havnt had any interaction with them.

 

They can be. I mean. Out of all the mods i've met. I've have to say ONE out of.. i'd say six? are actually good.

[LordRahl2]

They can be. I mean. Out of all the mods i've met. I've have to say ONE out of.. i'd say six? are actually good.

This group is not terrible yet needs some diversity terrible bad.

[Saru]

Someone's bitter~

 

Bitter over what?

 

It was just a joke given how all of the polls go in the forums go, given the active presence of Mensa members on the forums. You need to get a grip. 

[Spite]

I stopped posting here because mods suck. People get warns and bans for posting OOC or having a signature with a few too many characters, yet apparently posting stuff straight out of stormfront goes without a raised eyebrow from the mod team.

[Donald Trump]

I stopped posting here because mods suck. People get warns and bans for posting OOC or having a signature with a few too many characters, yet apparently posting stuff straight out of stormfront goes without a raised eyebrow from the mod team.

Butthurt SJW is butthurt SJW.

 

Sensitive Spite needs to get away from the computer and go outside, clearly can't face anything that might hurt his feelings! Very sad.

[WISD0MTREE]

TBH, I'd say that the mods are better than the ones in Beta/Speed Round (mostly referencing Unokanjo or whatever his name was), but there are some ways to improve. I read Four's half-wall of text about the trolling/terrorism and see why the mods aren't as good as most people want, but there is definitely room to improve. 

 

Sensitive Spite needs to get away from the computer and go outside, clearly can't face anything that might hurt his feelings! Very sad.

But teh rayyype culture outside!!11!!!1one!

[Dr Rush]

Butthurt SJW is butthurt SJW.

 

Sensitive Spite needs to get away from the computer and go outside, clearly can't face anything that might hurt his feelings! Very sad.

This post is so very funny because it's so very wrong.

[Alex]

Moderation is inherently "bad" because everyone will always disagree on both the rules and how they are interpreted. Some players are going to argue that there is not enough moderation, others will argue that moderation is too restrictive and that we need a more hands-off moderation attitude.

 

I lean toward the latter, and would like to encourage as much discussion and activity as possible, however I agree that some form of moderation is necessary. Stricter moderation leads to higher quality, but fewer posts, while the opposite is a high volume of low quality posts. Again, some balance must be struck, and the entire community will never agree on what that balance should be. I do my best based on my own discretion with player feedback, tinkering with things as need be (requiring 2 moderator approval for warns and thread locks, telling moderators to take it easier, allowing more 'bad' words through the filter, etc.)

 

I am troubled by the few posts I've read in this thread by players claiming they've left the forums due to moderation actions (though it is ironic that they're here posting that they don't post anymore.) I think there were hard feelings over the signature violation warn escapade, which while technically many players were violating the rules on signatures, was never a primary concern of mine and nothing I intended to moderate other than gross violations. The moderator who took matters into his own hands, likely not foreseeing the lashback, is no longer a part of our moderation team (and hasn't been for a considerable length of time.)

 

Regardless, I'm always happy to hear suggestions from the community and to work toward a better moderation team and system, however many suggestions (this one included) I find are misguided and will not help moderation matters.

 

To address this particular suggestion, having the community elect moderators would require public moderators, which I believe is a foolish idea for reasons that Rameses has outlined here in previous posts. Furthermore, turning the moderation team into a group of the most popular players will likely lead to poor moderation execution. People tend to vote based on who they like, not based on who they believe will do the best job. Having both private moderator identities and a team that is invite only eliminates popularity from being a consideration, and focuses solely on a player's ability to make level headed, impartial decisions when it comes to moderating, and is the best system in my opinion.

[LordRahl2]

Its not the harsh/not-harsh bit.  It is the strangeness of it.

 

1) Funny ASCII art? (the rule was designed to deal with swastikas) = warns.

2) 1 too many hard return in your sig block? = Sig removed and some warns.

3) People who are either actual supporters of terrorism or are 26 year old dudes in their mom's basement trolling the forum? = Suspensions for some time.

 

Leaves one a bit confused.

[Alex]

Its not the harsh/not-harsh bit.  It is the strangeness of it.

 

1) Funny ASCII art? (the rule was designed to deal with swastikas) = warns.

2) 1 too many hard return in your sig block? = Sig removed and some warns.

3) People who are either actual supporters of terrorism or are 26 year old dudes in their mom's basement trolling the forum? = Suspensions for some time.

 

Leaves one a bit confused.

 

There are rules on the forum, and breaking them results in a warning point. As warning points accumulate, the punishment applied (generally a posting suspension for some amount of time) increases in severity, to ultimately a permanent ban. All of this is detailed in the Forum Rules.

 

2) I did address the signature debacle in my previous post.

3) "Supporters of terrorism" is vague and subjective. There is no member of this community that is actively and openly supporting or condoning terrorism. Some members do seem to toe the line, but proving definitively that a given image or statement is supportive of terrorism is not easy, and the players that fit this category almost always have an (arguably) valid explanation. I try to be as fair as possible, even to players that are not especially popular.

[LordRahl2]

But its not really vauge and subjective. There is an overwhelming body of evidence that they are trolls. Either real or just for trolls sake and the difference is immaterial.

 

The mod team seems super worried about the rules for rules sake vice a more common sense approach. We rarely permaban someone, 2 people total in 7ish years, but we also let the community self police and you really don't.

Edited July 25, 2016 by LordRahl2

[Alex]

But its not really vauge and subjective. There is an overwhelming body of evidence that they are trolls. Either real or just for trolls sake and the difference is immaterial.

 

The mod team seems super worried about the rules for rules sake vice a more common sense approach. We rarely permaban someone, 2 people total in 7ish years, but we also let the community self police and you really don't.

 

A rules based approach is about as objective as we can be. As for who is a "troll" is very subjective, and while I may agree with you personally that I think someone is just a troll, professionally, I can't make a judgement call and remove someone from the forum/game based on my own whims.

 

Well, I can, but I don't to protect you and the other players, and would rather offer you the benefit of the doubt.

[Peacity Peace]

As someone who's been a nuisance to moderators and have been a moderator before, if you're an enthusiastic poster, if you don't hate your moderators, they're not doing their job.

 

 

Unfortunately for us to have the worst of the worst removed, potentially amazing posts can get hindered.

 

 

If you make rules very strict, they will be exploited. If you make decisions based on what you feel, people will eventually get outraged.

 

 

 

Trying to keep an internet forum civil isn't the easiest thing to do.

[LordRahl2]

A rules based approach is about as objective as we can be. As for who is a "troll" is very subjective, and while I may agree with you personally that I think someone is just a troll, professionally, I can't make a judgement call and remove someone from the forum/game based on my own whims.

 

Well, I can, but I don't to protect you and the other players, and would rather offer you the benefit of the doubt.

 

As you wish.

[Ekejen Luish]

Candidates for mods could include anyone with 2 warning points or less.

As well as like 500+ posts or something.

[WISD0MTREE]

Candidates for mods could include anyone with 2 warning points or less.

 

As well as like 500+ posts or something.

Sheepy already said it wasn't happening. And that is a bad idea. See the following: 

My post count

 

There is no member of this community that is actively and openly supporting or condoning terrorism. 

Not trying to name names here, but there was a player who said something about wanting to go to Syria to join ISIS? I'll try finding the quote tomorrow.

[Rameses]

Not trying to name names here, but there was a player who said something about wanting to go to Syria to join ISIS? I'll try finding the quote tomorrow.

 

I don't recall seeing that specific post getting reported, unless that was from quite a few months+ back.

 

If you see anything like that, give us a heads up and we'll take care of it. Most of those types of posts people report are people who imply support to those groups but never directly say anything or really do anything I can do much about, but if somebody directly crosses the line I try to take care of it. Moreover, those specific types of posts (if you can tell that they're actually fairly serious and not just going "lul I'm going to syria now") can put a context to a user's post history - if they make a bunch of those posts toeing the line, we might not be able to do anything, but if they cross it, it makes it pretty clear to everyone exactly what they meant by their old posts and makes it possible to take more serious actions like suspensions or bans.

[Donald Trump]

Sheepy already said it wasn't happening. And that is a bad idea. See the following: 

My post count

 

Not trying to name names here, but there was a player who said something about wanting to go to Syria to join ISIS? I'll try finding the quote tomorrow.

They'll just give him a little verbal warning and be done with it. 

[Buorhann]

What if we ended up voting in moderators that we already moderators?  Dun dun duuun.

[Frank Todd]

Are the mods really that bad? I dont shitpost enough so i havnt had any interaction with them.

They usually take weeks to fix anything, or reprimand anyone...

 

*cough* not that I've had personal experience *cough*

[Frank Todd]

Idk, Alex should just cycle through mods. Worst that happens is that it doesn't work and we have to go back to the OG guys from before cycling. Meh.

[Frijoles]

New here, so I don't know of the alleged problems with the Mod team. I didn't read all the comments, either, but I only wanted to post to say two things:

 

1. Unless you're a sheriff in the US, you aren't an elected officer (far as I know).

 

2. Electing mods is a terrible idea. Alex is the creator/owner of the game and has full right to dictate who will uphold his standards. The community cannot dictate who will uphold standards it does not regulate. What if we elect a Mod that disagrees with the fundamentals of Alex's standards? That puts Alex and the Mod in positions that cannot be sustained. 

 

Sorry if that is repeated. 

[Frank Todd]

2. Electing mods is a terrible idea. Alex is the creator/owner of the game and has full right to dictate who will uphold his standards. The community cannot dictate who will uphold standards it does not regulate. What if we elect a Mod that disagrees with the fundamentals of Alex's standards? That puts Alex and the Mod in positions that cannot be sustained. 

 

Sorry if that is repeated. 

 

Welll normally I'd agree with you, but seeing as Alex made a game comprised of "Politics" it would seem fitting to have officials elected in such a manner in P&W forums. If they were payed (which I assume they aren't) then there would be no room for electing seeing as someones job would be on the line, but that isn't the case. The worse that would happen is that certain Mods wouldn't be able to lock/ban someone from something with a snarky remark anymore.

[Frijoles]

I cannot speak to any alleged locking/banning, but I can speak to the idea that PnW and the forums are separate things. Yes, there are areas on the forum that allow for Politics, but there is no place for war, so that isn't a credible argument. The moderators for the forum are separate from the game itself. They are here to uphold rules and standards set forth by the owner. 

 

From what I've read, Mods do not act alone. Their actions must be approved or seconded by another Mod or by Alex himself. Though, I'll gladly be corrected if I'm wrong on that.

[Dr Rush]

Yes it takes two mods for most things. Though as with every rule there are exceptions.