Jump to content

Community Discussion - Moderation


Honey Monster
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Wiki Mod

Yay admission that the current rules need a rewrite. 

1. Don't spam. This includes ascii art, breaking your posts into an excessive number of replies, empty posts, adding an excessive number of emojis, & the other usual stuff.
2. Don't use profanity.
3. Don't attempt to bypass the profanity filter, this includes using reactions to spell it out.
4. All content should remain at a PG-13 level.
5. Trolling, shitposting, & flaming should be kept to reasonable levels, as determined by staff.
6. Racism, sexism, nazism and other bad 'isms' are not allowed.
7. Don't dox people.
8. It is sacrilegious to discuss forum modgod identities, heretics will be burned.
9. Some boards may have specific rules, check the pins.
10. Suspension & ban evasion will result in a ban of all concerned accounts.
11. Do not try the patience of mods for they are quick to anger and their hammers less then subtle.
12. The staff team reserves the right of moderator discretion.
13. Appeals should be posted in the 'ban appeals' area of the forum.
14. Hate Speech is forbidden. Discussions are allowed as long as it doesn't turn into any form of hate speech.
2. English only, short phrases from other languages are allowed; provided they are well know or a translation is provided.
9. Use boards for their intended purpose, if your not sure what that is ask.
42. Don't post in threads over 14 days old. Necromancy is bad.

Not perfect and needs to be cleaned but this would be a good basis for the actual rules. From here you could augment it with a longer explanation of the rules and some examples in a separate section. It would also probably be wise to bring in the Discord and Wikia mod teams for that part so we can establish a fairly global interpretation of the rules for all of p&ws mediums.

  • Upvote 1

 

 

23:38 Skable that's why we don't want Rose involved, so we can take the m all for ourselves

23:39 [] but Mensa is the cute girl at the school dance and she's only dancing with us right now to get our friend jealous

23:39 [] If Rose comes in and gives Mensa what she wants, she'll just toss us aside and forget we ever existed

23:39 zombie_lanae yeah I do hope we can keep having them all to ourselves

23:40 zombie_lanae I know it's selfish but I want all their love

 

 

6:55 PM <+Isolatar> Praise Dio

Pubstomper|BNC [20:01:55] Rose wouldn't plan a hit on Mensa because it would be &#33;@#&#036;ing stupid

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Frank Castle said:

I fail to see how removing anonimity would "alleviate many problems" - I personally don't care about that rule Alex made, id use my personal account and not care. I just don't feel like having anonymous mods really causes that issue - unless it pertains to personal grudges being used with mod power, which I'm working on changing.

Since @Dr Rush mentioned the Discord and Wiki mods, I am just pointing out that in these channels there is no anonymity and, to my knowledge, there have been no issues.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Ripper said:

Since @Dr Rush mentioned the Discord and Wiki mods, I am just pointing out that in these channels there is no anonymity and, to my knowledge, there have been no issues.

The question was, what issues are present with anonimity? It is pretty clear that I'm indifferent on this - I just would like some specific problems associated with anonimity if moderators. 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Gabranth said:

"Lose anonymity so you cop shit for unpopular and/or flat-out wrong decisions. Even when your mod team all agrees that something is bad or against the rules, you are still the mod team and have a power that none of the rest of us have - actions without consequence. 

Get rid of the "mod call-out" rule, since that just creates a superiority complex for the mods. See point 1."

Currently, the mod team has no accountability for bad decisions or changing the rules to fit whatever problem they have with a particular post, like Roz's posts for example. I don't know how I can spell it out for you any better than that.It just makes sure that the moderators act in accordance with the ruleset Alex created, and if they fear there will be ingame consequences then that's probably a result of crap moderating. If mods fear that they will be reprimanded for their work then don't be a mod at all, it's quite telling

Yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and say that this isn't even close to a feasible reason to remove anonimity. I've flat out had whole alliances knowing who I was back in the day and I still carried on as a mod doing my job and nobody was going to "hurt me" bc I warned someone.

That just makes no sense. 

I can understand the part where moderators shouldn't take in-game grievances into their moderation actions and as long as I'm here, that will not be happening. I've seen it happened waaaay back in the day and that's why we changed our operations to make it so one mod cannot make a decision without approval from another (or it is completely agreed upon before action is taken). 

Also, I've been a mod for quite some time and we have never changed any rules or actions just to justify what we want. I believe this thread reaching out to the community should be proof of that in itself. Things we wish to change we are asking your help with. This was also done about a year ago when we changed alot of rules at the request and approval of the community. 

 

Anonimity is being discussed because members bring it up negatively and then do not supply any facts to back up why it should be removed. There are never specific examples and never any specific issues. Anonimity is not up to moderators, although it's on them if they choose to tell people who they are, this rule has always been Alex's. I merely wanted to discuss what y'all specifically had issues with, but it seems to be the same people throwing some coulds and shoulds.  

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, G'Kar said:

He specifically doesn't want the playerbase trying to hold the mods hostage with threats of war or whatever.

Then, the same should apply for Discord mods, no? From all those people banned, muted or warned in the P&W channel, some of them may declare war to them!

(Which hasn't ever happened, to my knowledge.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Rozalia said:

Not addressing the "no call out" rule. 

Must be some conspiracy to sweep it under the rug. Oh my gosh. Call the conspiracy police and let's run some graphs. 

 

Relax, I actually forgot. 

 

The call-out rule falls in line with my personal view in anonimity. Let us review:

 

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, Alex, via pm.
  • Abuse of the report system is strictly prohibited.
  • Do not ask to become a moderator. Moderation positions are invitation only.

Like stated before. Anything really associated with moderators and the anonimity is up to Alex. If you're calling out a moderator simply bc you know who they are, prob gonna get in trubbs. 

In my history, call outs for improper justice have always been posted in this forum. More of a "hey I got this warn like why I totally follow the rules?!" - then it's explained. I think the reason for this rule is simply make it so that there isn't any tension at least publicly. 

I guess my personal view on it is, if you're gonna get butthurt (and I hate using that word) over a warn, why not directly talk to the moderator or Alex to figure it out? Or just post in moderation like an adult or at least with professionalism asking what's up. I believe callouts to be a negative source of "hey look at me I'm cool bc I'm standing up to moderation" even though you're really just another guy or girl or whatever that got a warn for violating the rules and now you're butthurt bc you have a smudge on your perfect behavior record. 

 

It is what it is. I mean, like I said - since my time here people have always argued warns in this form right here. That seems like it would be a call out to me unless you just want to remove the rule to really rip apart a moderator bc you knowingly bypassed the word filter! 

9 minutes ago, Ripper said:

Then, the same should apply for Discord mods, no? From all those people banned, muted or warned in the P&W channel, some of them may declare war to them!

(Which hasn't ever happened, to my knowledge.)

This is true. 

We speak consistency and it should be that way as well. I can clone my discord app and pop in there as Frank to be available. I just never thought discord was that "serious" to moderate. 

  • Downvote 1

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moderators identities would not be an issue if the moderator callout rule didn't exist and the rules were clear enough that there is no room for debate about whether a person broke a rule. The response from moderators in this thread alone illustrates exactly why the mods need accountability and the rules need to be clear.

In case my previous post wasn't concise enough, when I said the rules need to be clearer, I mean they need to be clear enough that moderator discretion never becomes a factor that comes into play. Good rules are instructions for moderators to follow not guidelines for them to rule upon, that opens up the door for incompetence and/or abuse, both of which the moderator team has been guilty of in the past.

2 hours ago, Frank Castle said:

Must be some conspiracy to sweep it under the rug. Oh my gosh. Call the conspiracy police and let's run some graphs. 

 

I guess my personal view on it is, if you're gonna get butthurt (and I hate using that word) over a warn, why not directly talk to the moderator or Alex to figure it out? Or just post in moderation like an adult or at least with professionalism asking what's up. I believe callouts to be a negative source of "hey look at me I'm cool bc I'm standing up to moderation" even though you're really just another guy or girl or whatever that got a warn for violating the rules and now you're butthurt bc you have a smudge on your perfect behavior record. 

If you are going to tell people to be "adults" and have some "professionalism", people who aren't moderators and who its ridiculous to hold that standard to, you should try following it yourself. I don't mean to personally attack you, but this kinda illustrates my entire point quite well. You can't even follow the standard you set for others yourself, when you should be exceeding it. Moderators should be held to a higher standard than the members.

Comments like these are part of the problem with peoples perception of the moderation team on this forum. There has to be some standard of professionalism among people with authority if you want people to respect it. Sarcastic barbs because someone said something you disagree with certainly doesn't fall under that category. 

As for the comments about being butthurt over warns, why wouldn't people be butthurt if they are warned for something they are not or perceive themselves not to be guilty of? Unless you are making the case they don't actually matter, which makes them pointless and you might as well just not enforce the rules at all.

Also the idea that people should have a private talk with the person that warned them of all people, as if that will actually make a difference, is ridiculous. Alex is not much different, he has a history of ruling as inconsistently as the moderation team.

A clear set of rules removes the need for discretion, and the ability to appeal warnings publicly (call it a moderator call out if you like, or just make an actual appeal process like any decent administration system has) gives moderators the accountability needed. Then there is no need to reveal moderator identities and whether people like the rules or hate them, they can't justifiably complain if they break them.

 

 

  • Upvote 1

XLL3z4T.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Ripper said:

Then, the same should apply for Discord mods, no? From all those people banned, muted or warned in the P&W channel, some of them may declare war to them!

(Which hasn't ever happened, to my knowledge.)

Discord and Wiki mods do not require anonymity. You'd think they'd be more susceptible to be witch hunted? Nobody tried to kill you yet. Or me in that matter. And our friends that are moderating the OWF have already expressed feeling that they don't care about anonymity. I'm all for dropping that rule altogether for Forum Mods. Or at least make it optional.

Edited by Featherine
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Make me a mod.  I don't need to be anonymous.

 

Also, I petition Frank Castle to change his name.   The real "Frank Castle" wouldn't put up with any crap.  I feel let down by this.  Need a more tactful, diplomatic character for that mod to switch to.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh boy a mod civil war...this should be interesting

 

Edited by Patrick Higgins
"There's nothing you can know that isn't known,
Nothing you can see that isn't shown,
There's nowhere you can be that isn't where you're meant to be,
All you need is love,
Love is all you need."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Skimming the replies, I'm rather worried at all the support for removing the anonymity of mods. It exists as a screen of protection for the mods from the players. A basically rule of management is that you have to separate personal from professional and since there's no "dedicated mod team" just players selected to be mods, we need that layer of separation to keep things unbiased. This community has proven repeatedly that too much personal involvement leads to dark roads.

 

I would like to see a stricter enforcement of IC vs OOC. I avoid the OOC debate areas for a reason, I don't like seeing RL politics brought into the IC areas. There has been an explosion, from both sides of the aisle, of people posting OOC-related comments and threads relating to politics from real life and having nothing to do with in-game things.

More importantly, this stricter enforcement needs to be equal across all political spectrums. It's fine to write announcements and threads according to your alliance theme (within the rules, sorry would-be nazis), but when people are posting about sexism or gender equality or trump etc... That has nothing to do with the in-game politics of our game. If you want to roleplay your specific nation theme, there's a section for that too.

 

 

tl;dr- moderate according to the sections you've already established. If it's not relevant to the IC game, please remove it from the IC forums and use common sense.

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1

Superbia


vuSNqof.jpg


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Sketchy said:

Read 

This is true - and you're right.

I was wrong in my reply - I was trying to be playful and sarcastic, but I understand the reasoning behind your post. I also received a message from Alex identifying the error in KY response as well - and from here on out, you can expect professionalism and adult behavior when handling moderator issues or generally assuming this role. 

Thanks for your feedback. 

18 minutes ago, Smith said:

Can you guys explain to me the current state of the Alliance Affairs subforum and why it is overrun with shitposts and OOC threads 

Been looking into this. I have noticed the same - if you feel a post shouldn't be there just use the report button and let us know - it will draw our attention there much faster. 

Thank you. 

  • Upvote 1

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the mods do a decent job regarding warnings, I haven't received any since 2016 I think when I went crazy about Nation Roleplaying. Moderators should remain anonymous. 

The one issue I have is with the locking of threads and the obvious bias to stop all talk on topics that deal with real problems and real solutions that may trigger people. Predatory moderators who moderate a thread closely looking for any excuse to lock it or simply outright denying the conversation to happen. That's what happened to my last thread.

  • Upvote 1

IpHGyGc.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Lightning said:

I think the mods do a decent job regarding warnings, I haven't received any since 2016 I think when I went crazy about Nation Roleplaying. Moderators should remain anonymous. 

The one issue I have is with the locking of threads and the obvious bias to stop all talk on topics that deal with real problems and real solutions that may trigger people. Predatory moderators who moderate a thread closely looking for any excuse to lock it or simply outright denying the conversation to happen. That's what happened to my last thread.

 

 

 

Shoot me a link to your thread so I can check it out.  Thank you for your feedback. 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Smith said:

Can you guys explain to me the current state of the Alliance Affairs subforum and why it is overrun with shitposts and OOC threads 

No wars. What else is there to talk about? 

2 hours ago, Holton said:

Skimming the replies, I'm rather worried at all the support for removing the anonymity of mods. It exists as a screen of protection for the mods from the players. A basically rule of management is that you have to separate personal from professional and since there's no "dedicated mod team" just players selected to be mods, we need that layer of separation to keep things unbiased. This community has proven repeatedly that too much personal involvement leads to dark roads.

There has been support for removing the mods anonymity from the beginning. The only reason why it's so popular is because people see posts that they believe should be warned (right or wrong) and get warned for posts the poster deems acceptable. I think if there was a way to appeal the warn/lock (within a timely manner for the lock), many people would be fine with anonymous moderation. 

  • Upvote 1

NODOLsmall.png.a7aa9c0a05fa266425cd7e83d8ccb3dd.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
19 minutes ago, WISD0MTREE said:

I think if there was a way to appeal the warn/lock (within a timely manner for the lock), many people would be fine with anonymous moderation. 

But there is a way, going to Alex. 

 

However I would support this idea, and will talk with the rest of the mod team about it

O/

giphy.gif

If you see something you think is breaking the Forum Rules please click the report button, and I will get an email stating that a report has been sent. Thanks!

Suspended and have questions? You can contact me at my email at: [email protected]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Erin Brockovich said:

But there is a way, going to Alex. 

 

However I would support this idea, and will talk with the rest of the mod team about it

O/

Just want to say that moderators have been discussing this and we are just working on a plan to make it fair for everyone. This is the way to progress, thank you all again for your feedback. 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think rather than creating an avenue for non-IC drama would simply do harm to the community. (appealing warns/points)

 

If things are to the point of seriously needing an appeal system for warnings then the rest of the system isn't working in one of two (or both) ways:

 

1. The rules aren't clear enough. Simplification, clarity, and precision should be the three words you repeat to yourself when writing or tweaking forum rules. The mods should have as little "wiggle room" as possible when enforcing rules. The goal is to have fair rules than can be enforced in a black and white way. No e-lawyering needed.

 

2. The moderation staff is not up to par. Either through the refusal to enforce the rules or the overzealous enforcement of elastic rules. Moderation needs to remain neutral and consistent, it's part of a wider duty to the community. Do we have a hierarchy system in place to police the mods (I know we do). Is it being used? A cursory glance at some of the sections of this forum show that we either don't have enough active moderators or we don't have a staff being held accountable.

 

 

tl;dr - creating yet another avenue to appeal and second-guess a moderator decision will have a negative impact on the community. Other, more systemic problems should be addressed before considering adding new appellate methods.

  • Upvote 1

Superbia


vuSNqof.jpg


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Wiki Mod

Moderator discretion and an appeal system are both integral parts of a functioning moderation system. Your never going to write a set of rules that covers every issue in every situation, if we could we'd just have a bot do the modding. And the mere attempt would create a monstrosity that no one is ever going to read much less actually be able to follow. As for the appeal process, even in a perfect system there will always be mistakes or times when more information comes in after the decision was made. 

  • Upvote 3

 

 

23:38 Skable that's why we don't want Rose involved, so we can take the m all for ourselves

23:39 [] but Mensa is the cute girl at the school dance and she's only dancing with us right now to get our friend jealous

23:39 [] If Rose comes in and gives Mensa what she wants, she'll just toss us aside and forget we ever existed

23:39 zombie_lanae yeah I do hope we can keep having them all to ourselves

23:40 zombie_lanae I know it's selfish but I want all their love

 

 

6:55 PM <+Isolatar> Praise Dio

Pubstomper|BNC [20:01:55] Rose wouldn't plan a hit on Mensa because it would be &#33;@#&#036;ing stupid

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And we have further examples of bad moderation by @Frank Castle and @Erin Brockovich and perhaps the rest of them while at it as they may have signed off on it. 

Lets run through the rules shall we:

Quote

When creating a thread

1: Thread titles should be a brief description of the thread topic. Moderation has the right to alter thread titles that do not follow this rule.
2: Topics should contain the subject you want to discuss backed by facts to support that discussion subject.
3: Whether a thread has sufficiently set a basis for respectful discussion on the thread topic will be at the discretion of the moderators.
4: This is not a debate forum. We have one of those. If your "discussion" toes the line of a debate it will be moved.
5: This is not a spam forum. We have one of those. If your "discussion" toes the line of a spam it will be moved.
6: Opening posts should be long enough to develop a positive discussion.

1: Title was appropriate, summing up the contents nicely. 
2: In immigration thread linked to the article with the information being discussed. 
3: I took some pieces of the article and started the discussion off.
4: This one applies to the Trump Day one most. There indeed is no debate there, it is a listing of events after all, but it doesn't have to be. A subject merely needs to be provided for discussion.
5: Not spam. If linking to an article and talking about it is spam then everything is. Oddly I've done this article linking many times and only now are the mods trying to stop me... wonder why.
6: My opening posts in both cases were in depth.

Conclusion: In the Trump thread I mentioned Trump Derangement Syndrome, what those mad at Trump often suffer from. In the immigration thread I ripped apart the lefty policy of deeming everything racist. They belong to those groups. They're mad that the mean ol' Roz is easily making them look like the joke they are. They are moderating, a verbal warning yes, but with a threat of actual warnings if continued to try to make the Roz stop in his posting of threads that show their politics for what they are. Insane disgusting, garbage. 

@Alex I get you're a lefty progressive type too, except when you go off the reservation anyway, but this is blatantly transparent. Tell your mods to man up (crap, negative gender based statement) and face me in debate if they're so triggered (of course I know, you know, everybody knows that the Roz would then easily destroy them) and not to try these pathetic attempts while hiding behind moderation. Oh and as seen above, your mods clearly have no understanding of the rules as I previously said. They only provide more evidence of this fact.

Edited by Rozalia
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Rozalia said:

And we have further examples of bad moderation by @Frank Castle and @Erin Brockovich and perhaps the rest of them while at it as they may have signed off on it. 

Lets run through the rules shall we:

1: Title was appropriate, summing up the contents nicely. 
2: In immigration thread linked to the article with the information being discussed. 
3: I took some pieces of the article and started the discussion off.
4: This one applies to the Trump Day one most. There indeed is no debate there, it is a listing of events after all, but it doesn't have to be. A subject merely needs to be provided for discussion.
5: Not spam. If linking to an article and talking about it is spam then everything is. Oddly I've done this article linking many times and only now are the mods trying to stop me... wonder why.
6: My opening posts in both cases were in depth.

Conclusion: In the Trump thread I mentioned Trump Derangement Syndrome, what those mad at Trump often suffer from. In the immigration thread I ripped apart the lefty policy of deeming everything racist. They belong to those groups. They're mad that the mean ol' Roz is easily making them look like the joke they are. They are moderating, a verbal warning yes, but with a threat of actual warnings if continued to try to make the Roz stop in his posting of threads that show their politics for what they are. Insane disgusting, garbage. 

@Alex I get you're a lefty progressive type too, except when you go off the reservation anyway, but this is blatantly transparent. Tell your mods to man up (crap, negative gender based statement) and face me in debate if they're so triggered (of course I know, you know, everybody knows that the Roz would then easily destroy them) and not to try these pathetic attempts while hiding behind moderation. Oh and as seen above, your mods clearly have no understanding of the rules as I previously said. They only provide more evidence of this fact.

This had nothing to do with your topics. 

I stated before that moderation will be heavier in those forums to route out spam and posts that are not created in that effort to provide a substantial base of discussion or debate. 

I don't care about the topics you want to discuss - but they need to hold substance and actually create a discussion or have a working debate. We have done this in the past and it created a strong community where even you were posting good stuff that had positive response and discussion. 

I asked you to reword your OP and you refused because of your opinion on it. We must remain consistent and provide a positive environment for the community. Allowing posts like that in those forums would be the same as allowing OOC spam in alliance affairs forums. 

Feel free to reintroduce your topics in the future and follow those guidelines for a fruitful and constructive debate or discussion. 

 

Thank you for your feedback. 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.