Backstage - OOC Forums
General Discussion => Moderation Discussion => Topic started by: Silver Night on 16 May 2011, 22:13
-
Targeted moderation, bias, 'looking for an excuse', poor justification and extremely broad interpretation of rulesets.
Never did see Louella being moderator material. Guess this proves it.
For the reasons others are mentioning here, and in my own post right here, I'm officially asking the Backstage administration to review Louella's position as a moderator, as I feel it's not conducive to a positive environment or the high standards of moderation Backstage needs.
[mod]As a note: While we encourage discussion of moderation, this section of the forums still falls under the Backstage rules and guidelines. That means that that discussion needs to be conducted in a way that is respectful of your fellow members, including moderation staff. Please keep that, and the other guidelines, in mind when posting.[/mod]
-
Keeping all those things in mind, the post still stands.
-
Something which many people could better understand is that just because they have an opinion, and they express it, and they believe that it is correct, that doesn't mean they are exempt from the rules. In fact, even if the opinion were verifiably correct, if it were a breach it would still be a breach.
For example: 'Ships have crew. Idiot. :roll:'
Would get you modded. And that is factually correct, not just an opinion, but it still breaks the guidelines.
So, you can express your opinion - or even state facts, with citations if you'd like - in a way that follows the guidelines of the board, or your posts will end up moderated - regardless of how correct you feel that opinion is (or indeed, if you were stating a fact and citing peer reviewed journal articles, for that matter). Correctness isn't the metric. Respect for other members and staying on the right side of the guidelines and rules so that we maintain the atmosphere of the board is.
-
I rather don't see Mizhara's post as breaking any of the forum guidelines Silver. Its well written, concise, and imo, avoids attacking Louella as a person, just her position as moderator.
That said, I agree with Miz.
-
So, question, sort of related to the discussion. We need to express opinions (and even facts) in a respectful manner. If the opinion you’re trying to express is “I don’t think Person X is up to the task of objectively moderating this board,” what is a respectful way to say that? No matter what, you’re explaining why you don’t think someone can do something, which is probably not going to involve complimenting them. Besides digging out a thesaurus to find the most neutral words possible to use, what can someone do?
We can polish a turd, it’s still a turd.
You can phrase it however you want, you’re still saying something uncomplimentary about someone’s abilities, in this case their ability to moderate.
-
Vicky makes a good point here. You can complain about someone really nicely, but at the end of the day, complaining is complaining.
-
I think the point was that some things that needs to be said just can't be said without touching upon uncomfortable viewpoints.
-
Especially in light of the situation that precipitated it, I read Miz's post as a perfectly legitimate and clearly defined statement of frustration and a respectful appeal for review of staff accountability by the mod team. No eye rolls. No name-calling. No four-letter words. No problem here.
-
"I disagree with Mizhara's interpretation of the rules, here. I think that her decision to post was hasty, and I hope in future this sort of thing won't happen again, because I don't think it's a direction we want Backstage going."
vs:
"I never did think Mizhara was Backstage material. Guess this proves it."
Q: So you want us to act all lovey-dovey?
A: Yes. Deal with it.
Q: Doesn't being polite to people I disagree with make me a hypocrite?
A: No. It makes you a grown-up.
-
While I can appreciate that saying "You're not backstage [moderator] material" might not be the way to go around it, what you've got there are two different statements. One says "I think you might have been a little hasty and made a mistake" and the other says "I don't think you should be a moderator."
If we feel that someone should not be a moderator, how should we convey this? Is it even something we're allowed to say? Would you want us to go through and give a list of reasons and basically make a case for why someone should be removed? And is there a way to do that while being 'lovey dovey'?
-
I would suggest that if you wish to make personal complaints about an individual on the moderation team, a PM to other members of the volunteer staff here would be more appropriate than choosing to ignore the guidelines of the forum.
The moderators apply a far looser standard to the PMs we receive than to post published to the entire Backstage community and preserved in public for the life of the forum.
And to our responses, of course.
-
I am extremely opposed to hiding such things in PMs. When the moderators actions are public and the prices paid for bad moderation is on the users themselves, then the discussions and debates on said moderation should be in public as well. To have an open dialogue on such things instead of hiding it and pretending problems doesn't exist in public is paramount to trust in such a community. Hiding it just means the trust erodes slowly but surely.
Edit: This also ensures that the rest of the community can weigh in and say "you're wrong" to the ones asking for such review of moderators or standards, which is important.
-
Something which many people could better understand is that just because they have an opinion, and they express it, and they believe that it is correct, that doesn't mean they are exempt from the rules. In fact, even if the opinion were verifiably correct, if it were a breach it would still be a breach.
For example: 'Ships have crew. Idiot. :roll:'
Would get you modded. And that is factually correct, not just an opinion, but it still breaks the guidelines.
So, you can express your opinion - or even state facts, with citations if you'd like - in a way that follows the guidelines of the board, or your posts will end up moderated - regardless of how correct you feel that opinion is (or indeed, if you were stating a fact and citing peer reviewed journal articles, for that matter). Correctness isn't the metric. Respect for other members and staying on the right side of the guidelines and rules so that we maintain the atmosphere of the board is.
I think a better example would be saying "Bacch is an asshole". While technically 100% correct, it's not very nice and as such probably would be moderated. :D
-
I think a better example would be saying "Bacch is an asshole". While technically 100% correct, it's not very nice and as such probably would be moderated. :D
... Dude, I've been in fleets with you. Calling you an asshole is excessively nice in comparison to what you could be called for the things you do to our eyes every seven or eight links. :lol:
As for the issue of things "needing" to be done publicly, I disagree, and stand by Cia's suggestion of PMing the moderation team privately about the issue.
People need to be more proactive about reporting posts they feel are in violation of the rules, and about bringing up issues they see as being harmful to the Backstage community. Bringing up these issues in the way they have been brought up this time around does get our attention, but it is not a particularly productive way of doing so.
-
Stating that you think that someone's position as a moderator should be re-evaluated in the light of recent events would be alright - though whether any such evaluation took place and whether the results would be what you wished is another matter.
Posting a non-constructive message gloating about being right about someone 'not being moderator material' is not alright. Nor is stating as fact things that are both opinions and divisive. As with any discussion, whether it's regarding a moderator, or a point of PF.
Also, I want to clarify, the reason to use PMs isn't to 'hide' things. It is because there is a lower standard applied than to public posts as far as moderation. If you find that you cannot express your opinions, regarding the moderator staff or otherwise, in a way that stays on the right side of the guidelines with a public post, then expressing it more privately might just be an additional option - since as mentioned we generally don't apply the same standard, particularly when it has to do with 'forum business'.
This is all fairly off-topic, and I apologize for starting this separate discussion. I'm going to go ahead and split this discussion into it's own thread.
-
For the reasons others are mentioning here, and in my own post right here, I'm officially asking the Backstage administration to review Louella's position as a moderator, as I feel it's not conducive to a positive environment or the high standards of moderation Backstage needs.
Sounds like a public call for a vote of non confidence to me. How do you expect the moderation team to answer to this ? It can appeal to lynching and will only put the targeted moderator on the defensive.
It is also in my opinion something that can get very insane pretty quickly as not everyone shares this opinion (at least not me, I am fully behind the moderation team on this one, for what it is worth).
Which makes me think that even if it was not meant to be a troll, it looks like a troll to my eyes in its results.
-
If there any context to all this ?
-
Yes, see this thread (http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=2235.0).
-
Last time a group of users didn't like how a forum was moderated they formed backstage, which despite the idea that the two forums would continue to operate brought conversation on the other forum to a relative trickle.
-
And here I thought we were all driven off by a specific pair of users.
-
Let me throw out this question, then. I'd like your answers to be civil and courteous in their presentation, but of course I'm asking a difficult question.
Does my presence on the Backstage staff inhibit the community here? Mizhara clearly feels that way, and while I politely disagree, I respect his viewpoint. But does a consensus exist on that point?
-
Does my presence on the Backstage staff inhibit the community here?
No.
-
You can't please everyone. There's always gonna be a couple people who'll never like anything you do.
-
And here I thought we were all driven off by a specific pair of users.
Those users are here.
-
I don't believe that backstage has been "ruined" or "inhibited" by any specific users, mods, or rules we have. People will be people, people will have flaws, and at times we have to sit down and discuss the fact we are different and try to come to a middle point rather than aggressively taking action against the other party.
-
I don't believe that backstage has been "ruined" or "inhibited" by any specific users, mods, or rules we have. People will be people, people will have flaws, and at times we have to sit down and discuss the fact we are different and try to come to a middle point rather than aggressively taking action against the other party.
I like this guy. :D
-
Does my presence on the Backstage staff inhibit the community here?
No, at the contrary even.
-
And here I thought we were all driven off by a specific pair of users.
Those users are here.
Which is an interesting point in the context of the thread actually. Much was said about the terrible status of chatsubo but the reality was the moderation climate there had been manipulated over many years by many users seeking to win their arguments through petition-war and exploiting the admins and such. Lots of people accused the administration there of bias and ultimately the only "win" remaining was to ditch the forum and restart over with an entirely new and tighter moderation system.
Backstage is working under that system. Here it is pretty much impossible to be an ass at people and get away with it (and for all the mud thrown about the evil people around at the chatsubo crash the reality was everyone liked to throw mud there.) But since nobody is allowed to throw any mud around here now, surprise surprise and voilà! there are no evil people any more!
Sure. The resolution at backstage involves more heavy handed moderation that ends up annoying some sensitive people (who feel they should never be moderated) but its the price paid for civility.
For my part I've been pleasantly surprised just how even-handed Backstage moderation has been and how neutral in the main the mods and admins are.
End of the day you see the rules and aspirations for the forum when you sign up. Its simply a choice of agreeing to abide by them or not really.
And for what its worth I haven't yet seen *any* moderator truly "inhibiting" the community here. They are simply doing what the community asked them to do at the founding.
What I'd suggest is that people should be less sensitive about getting moderated. It isn't a slur and terrible condemnation of your character - its a sign you are human and the moderation culture you supported is even-handed and universally applied.
-
Let me throw out this question, then. I'd like your answers to be civil and courteous in their presentation, but of course I'm asking a difficult question.
Does my presence on the Backstage staff inhibit the community here? Mizhara clearly feels that way, and while I politely disagree, I respect his viewpoint. But does a consensus exist on that point?
No, you aren't perfect but then nobody is. Miz ain't perfect either.
-
Let me throw out this question, then. I'd like your answers to be civil and courteous in their presentation, but of course I'm asking a difficult question.
Does my presence on the Backstage staff inhibit the community here? Mizhara clearly feels that way, and while I politely disagree, I respect his viewpoint. But does a consensus exist on that point?
no, not in the least bit.
-
And here I thought we were all driven off by a specific pair of users.
Those users are here.
I'm aware.
-
Let me throw out this question, then. I'd like your answers to be civil and courteous in their presentation, but of course I'm asking a difficult question.
Does my presence on the Backstage staff inhibit the community here? Mizhara clearly feels that way, and while I politely disagree, I respect his viewpoint. But does a consensus exist on that point?
First off, it should read "Mizhara seems to feel that way", unless you can see into his/her head.
Secondly, I do not think your presence is harmful to anything - I will stand to my point that some moderation descisions should either be taken more carefully - or for them to be applied to any and everyone.
-
Does my presence on the Backstage staff inhibit the community here?
Not to me.
Overall I think that the moderation team is doing a great job and not being biased. Sometimes it may appear that there is bias, but that could also be attributed to who answers the reports depending on when they are filed. I believe regardless of how neutral a party tries to be there will always be someone in the community that thinks they are getting the short end of the stick. Esna has the right of it in saying we should discuss this and maybe even change the rules based on that discussion as opposed to just getting rid of certain members of the mod team.
-
First off, it should read "Mizhara seems to feel that way", unless you can see into his/her head.
I asked the question for specific reasons, and while I can't actually speak for Mizhara, I'm confident he would not disagree with my representation of his opinion.
-
Wouldn't have worded it that way. I don't think you're inhibiting the community as such, but I don't think you're a good moderator. Your moderation already chased off a good member of the RP community and with some quite questionable moderation at that. Like Louella, I honestly feel you interpret the very loose ruleset we have very widely and that your moderation standards differ between different users.
On the whole, Backstage moderation is good. And on most other forums, I think you and even Louella would have been good mods, but when the rest of the moderation team sets a much higher standard than you two do... you're pulling down the average. I don't think this is conducive to reaching the potential of Backstage and thus I question your position as a moderator. However, you are a good addition to the website in general through your technical expertise and through your RP related stuff. Just... not as a moderator, I feel. Not compared to the standards Backstage is supposed to set.
-
Miz, should I assume you're referring to the issue with Vikarion (http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=1904.0)? The one where I just posted a moderator comment rather than remove anything, later apologized, and still had comments from other staff members that they would have done more? The one where Vik deleted his account within minutes of seeing something he didn't like, and while I was asleep and thus unable to respond in a rapid fashion?
Because, while I admit that I don't count that moment as anything like one of my most shining examples, neither do I think that it serves as a good example of my 'moderation chasing off a good member of the RP community' (though I'll stipulate that I believe Vik is indeed just that).
If you mean some other example, please let me know.
-
That is the example indeed, but what wasn't apparent from Backstage talks about it was that this was the drop that made it overflow for him. Looking through the Catacombs after he spoke of it in-game confirmed this fairly well.
-
If it was just a "drop that made it overflow", I think it is fair to assume that if he left was not only/really because of Casiella ? Sounds quite convenient to me to point at the last guy doing a clumsy thing (that he admits), which eventually leads someone already totally pissed to leave.
-
If it was just a "drop that made it overflow", I think it is fair to assume that if he left was not only/really because of Casiella ?
Sounds quite convenient to me to point at the last guy doing a clumsy thing (that he admits), which eventually leads someone already totally pissed to leave.
It's also quite unfair to interpret other peoples words in a way you find fitting Lyn.
-
I have to admit I do not understand what you mean. :o
-
Lyn: he means that while the events that eventually made Vik leave were effectively just the straw that broke the camel's back, Cassiella had been responsible for the biased moderation against Vik for a while, I disagree with this, but that's just what he was saying imo
Laerise: I'm fairly sure you're violating the 'don't be an asshat' rule with what you posted. I'm reporting your post. Play nice.
-
Lyn: he means that while the events that eventually made Vik leave were effectively just the straw that broke the camel's back, Cassiella had been responsible for the biased moderation against Vik for a while, I disagree with this, but that's just what he was saying imo
Ah ok. Was not obvious, sorry. :/
-
[gmod] Please be aware that the rules and standards of Backstage apply in this sub-forum as well, and do steer clear of point-scoring, sniping, and stating opinion as fact. [/gmod]
-
Hehe, you said staff...and member.
-
Well, I for one will support the heavy handed enforcement of wanting us to act all lovey-dovey.
So far I have not seen any moderation I could not agree with or the departure of any person whose presence I felt invigorating.
-
Stating that you think that someone's position as a moderator should be re-evaluated in the light of recent events would be alright - though whether any such evaluation took place and whether the results would be what you wished is another matter.
Posting a non-constructive message gloating about being right about someone 'not being moderator material' is not alright. Nor is stating as fact things that are both opinions and divisive. As with any discussion, whether it's regarding a moderator, or a point of PF.
Also, I want to clarify, the reason to use PMs isn't to 'hide' things. It is because there is a lower standard applied than to public posts as far as moderation. If you find that you cannot express your opinions, regarding the moderator staff or otherwise, in a way that stays on the right side of the guidelines with a public post, then expressing it more privately might just be an additional option - since as mentioned we generally don't apply the same standard, particularly when it has to do with 'forum business'.
This is all fairly off-topic, and I apologize for starting this separate discussion. I'm going to go ahead and split this discussion into it's own thread.
There are some aspects of the Backstage discussion in the smoke-filled-room that didn't appear to progress from blueprint/idea status which may be helpful in this scenario.
I reference the following thread: http://www.sanmatari.com/viewtopic.php?t=4025
Quotes from referenced thread follow below.
1. With relevance to assessment of moderators:
- Moderators are 'reassessed' by the general userbase every 3 or 6 months. If they aren't active (not doing acceptably representative % of moderation) or there are substantiated complaints about them then their removal should be considered by the moderation team.
With hindsight it may be beneficial to consider aspects of this design proposal. I would update the proposal to suggest that in order for a review of a moderator to take place, a formal request would need to be made in writing publicly and there would need to be reasons attached. If the reasons are deemed valid a poll can be held for a fortnight. Would it be reasonable to suggest that moderators need >2/3 approval to remain in office?
2. With relevance to moderator accountability
- When a moderator tampers with a post of another poster, the forum should clearly show a 'moderated by + time' notification at the top of the post.
This is a problem I saw mentioned in the Dust 514 thread. It may be beneficial for moderator actions to be linked with the moderator taking the action to help with assessment and allotment of complaints by the userbase. If moderators are taking just action there is no reason they should be worried of being linked to their work.
At the end of the day if there is a moderator decision that is disagreed with and this is raised as a complaint, the moderator taking the decision would by courtesy be expected to explain their rationale. This promotes an atmosphere of accountability and also helps keep with the spirit of another principle that was mentioned in the blueprint discussions:
- Moderators are not allowed to moderate threads where there is a clear conflict of interests or one where they are involved heavily. I will not define a conflict of interests at this time. If it is not possible to find a moderator without a conflict of interests in a thread then the moderation team should recruit more members, and aim to be representative of the userbase.
As I recall, most if not all members of the current moderator team were part of the referenced discussion and didn't raise issues against the principles quoted.