Moderating and Enforcing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OJM

I guess mods would have to create alter egos as otherwise we might be able to identify the alt accounts. Of course nothing is stopping the mod crew to join in in normal discussions, but as people treat the different color titles so differently, it makes it really difficult.

---

I suppose that could work, but I don't see why they would have to have alter egos. When the "color is on", they're in mod-mode. Take notice and pay attention. When they post under their non-mod account they can let their hair down and not worry about their impartiality. When they get out of control, they can ban themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dougbiss

I suppose that could work, but I don't see why they would have to have alter egos. When the "color is on", they're in mod-mode. Take notice and pay attention. When they post under their non-mod account they can let their hair down and not worry about their impartiality. When they get out of control, they can ban themselves.

---

Hope the mods see that idea :) though it's against the forum rules to have multiple accounts but I think an exception could be made on such cases. I would be interested to see their thoughts about that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheRulingEmperor

Come one guys!! Dont we have something better to do than writing long replies. This is not snail mail where you must write EVERYTHING(unless you can from that era) So please, lets just be content of what mods do and deal with it. Just like we did with Bush before Obama came (or when Obama came), we dealed with it, usually with partisanship. So just deal with the mods because they are all young and will still live forever until they eventually die, like, 80 years later?
lets hope!
Sincerely,
TheEmperor


---
TheEmperor approves this plea

---

I got a question for ya. What is it that bothers you with long posts? You mentioned already earlier, that we should cut our texts into smaller pieces, but now this is the second time you bring it up. And not just for curiosity's sake, but I am really interested in what bothers you with them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OJM

I got a question for ya. What is it that bothers you with long posts? You mentioned already earlier, that we should cut our texts into smaller pieces, but now this is the second time you bring it up. And not just for curiosity's sake, but I am really interested in what bothers you with them.

---

This is not a newspaper. This is our thoughts. We don't use long words with thoughts. And if you want to be heard, simplicity will help you but complex thread are tend to be strayed away by most forumers. The people who usually post here is you and zachUVA(no offense but i do like zach's post)
keep it short and we will hear you more.

Sincerely,
TheEmperor

----
TheEmperor approves this message

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dougbiss

<tl;dr>
Moderation has many styles, all are valid but consistency would be nice.
Mods should be allowed to have dual accounts.
</tl;dr>

There are at least three attitudes you can have as a mod:

1. Activist moderation
2. Reluctant moderation
3. Neutral moderation

I'm not trying to place our mods in any of these categories. I'm not trying to suggest that one category is inherently better than the other, although I have my own preferences. I would go with #2 because I prefer to have an environment that's as open as possible. It's more interesting that way.

---

Edited out the descriptions to cut down on the text wall lol.

I think this is a very interesting point. The moderation style of the forums is very important, and I think most of us can agree that "activist" moderation is NOT the best option, and I agree that 2 is the preferred option (although its practicality may be an issue). I'm going to go a step further you did, and say that the current mods (collectively) are somewhere between 2 and 3, although back in the day I think they might have been somewhat closer to 1. Personally, I think sometimes they tend to stray a bit too close to 3, closing threads with only brief explanations of rule violations and that's that, but I can't say that they would be better off by being more "reluctant", mostly because of what dahimi mentioned earlier. They simply don't have enough people to do it, and they got a lot on their plate as is (especially if they follow through on the ideas subforum undertaking).

I think this is partially where the disconnect between what we would like and what is reasonably possible occurs. Wouldn't it be great if there were 20 mods, with 4 or 5 for each subforum, who never overstepped their bounds? Sure it would, but it ain't gonna happen. So I can kinda see why the mods do what they do.

Quote:

---

In any event, and I hope a mod corrects me if I'm wrong, it does not appear that SC has a specific expectation with respect to their mods as to which category they belong. As a result, we get a mix of all of them... and this sometimes leads to very different outcomes for what would otherwise be identical situations. A mod or two in category #1 tends to dominate a setting, often giving a mod in category #2 less of an opportunity to work their style. I think some of what this thread is discussing, at least with respect to the mods themselves, is whether or not the forumers have a preference as to which category should dominate the overall mod style. I think we'd all like more consistency, but I doubt there's a clear majority opinion as to which style should be used.

---

I honestly don't think SC has a preference, as long as enforcement of the rules is somewhat reasonable. After all, the forums are a place for the community, and it wouldn't make sense for them to impose a certain style of moderation if the community wasn't ok with it. And you bring up the biggest question of them all... does the community actually have a preference? As a whole, I would say no. Most people here are at least somewhat reasonable, and as long as things don't get crazy, it probably won't bother many of them. Most of us discussing this here are in the minority, in that we do have stronger preferences.

But, back to the mods. As you note, there are a small variety of styles and personalities among the mod team, but I don't see strong enough differences to say that any of them overshadow the rest (not really any of them fit strongly in category 1, in my opinion). Obviously, certainty of action is a huge issue, and one that is very difficult to disagree with, but at the same time, you can't erase all of the different approaches that each mod takes. I think I too would like to see mods behave more "reluctantly", but it is important to remember that how each of them treats a situation is bound to be different, and that those differences are fine.

Quote:

---

On a separate note, for the one or two of you who got this far, I think the mods have all made tremendous sacrifices to their personal identities in order to assume their mod duties. This is a shame. By becoming a mod they have all become more impartial than they once were, sometimes losing big parts of their character as a result, because they have only one forum presence and they place their mod-hood above their own opinions. I would like to see them have dual accounts so they could more easily be themselves when they choose to be, and so that there is absolutely no question when they are speaking with the voice of authority.

---

Well, sometimes they try to post in this manner anyway, but I suppose having some sort of official mod-on, mod-off posting wouldn't really hurt. But honestly, there is no escaping that trap. If they feel obligated to withold their opinions, or modify them publicly in any way, then there isn't much that can be done to change that. I'm obviously not a mod, but I imagine that this is something that is an almost natural consequence of representing SC in the way that they do. Judging from their posts, I can't say that SC itself promotes or forces anything like this, but I think some (if not all) of the mods feel that it is necessary given their positions.




And my apologies to the Emperor for the length of this post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheRulingEmperor

This is not a newspaper. This is our thoughts. We don't use long words with thoughts. And if you want to be heard, simplicity will help you but complex thread are tend to be strayed away by most forumers. The people who usually post here is you and zachUVA(no offense but i do like zach's post)
keep it short and we will hear you more.

Sincerely,
TheEmperor

----
TheEmperor approves this message

---

Let's see did I hear you correctly. You have hard time keeping track on my posts (as in, how my thoughts go) and therefore don't like them.

What can I say... I'm complex guy :rolleyes:

Now that I gave it bit more thought, I realized, that one reason for such could be my writing speed. I'm typing much slower than I used to, so I manage to think much more while typing :) But hey, it's all good. Nobody has to like my posts and I'm still gonna keep posting them exactly how I see fit ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheRulingEmperor

Come one guys!! Dont we have something better to do than writing long replies. This is not snail mail where you must write EVERYTHING(unless you can from that era) So please, lets just be content of what mods do and deal with it. Just like we did with Bush before Obama came (or when Obama came), we dealed with it, usually with partisanship. So just deal with the mods because they are all young and will still live forever until they eventually die, like, 80 years later?
lets hope!
Sincerely,
TheEmperor


---
TheEmperor approves this plea

---

If you dont like it, you dont have to read it. These are the best kinds of threads imo. Interesting, thought provoking, and sometimes change the forums, for instance a thread of zach's a while back got the forum game section added.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zachUVA

Edited out the descriptions to cut down on the text wall lol.

I think this is a very interesting point. The moderation style of the forums is very important, and I think most of us can agree that "activist" moderation is NOT the best option, and I agree that 2 is the preferred option (although its practicality may be an issue). I'm going to go a step further you did, and say that the current mods (collectively) are somewhere between 2 and 3, although back in the day I think they might have been somewhat closer to 1. Personally, I think sometimes they tend to stray a bit too close to 3, closing threads with only brief explanations of rule violations and that's that, but I can't say that they would be better off by being more "reluctant", mostly because of what dahimi mentioned earlier. They simply don't have enough people to do it, and they got a lot on their plate as is (especially if they follow through on the ideas subforum undertaking).

I think this is partially where the disconnect between what we would like and what is reasonably possible occurs. Wouldn't it be great if there were 20 mods, with 4 or 5 for each subforum, who never overstepped their bounds? Sure it would, but it ain't gonna happen. So I can kinda see why the mods do what they do.

I honestly don't think SC has a preference, as long as enforcement of the rules is somewhat reasonable. After all, the forums are a place for the community, and it wouldn't make sense for them to impose a certain style of moderation if the community wasn't ok with it. And you bring up the biggest question of them all... does the community actually have a preference? As a whole, I would say no. Most people here are at least somewhat reasonable, and as long as things don't get crazy, it probably won't bother many of them. Most of us discussing this here are in the minority, in that we do have stronger preferences.

But, back to the mods. As you note, there are a small variety of styles and personalities among the mod team, but I don't see strong enough differences to say that any of them overshadow the rest (not really any of them fit strongly in category 1, in my opinion). Obviously, certainty of action is a huge issue, and one that is very difficult to disagree with, but at the same time, you can't erase all of the different approaches that each mod takes. I think I too would like to see mods behave more "reluctantly", but it is important to remember that how each of them treats a situation is bound to be different, and that those differences are fine.



Well, sometimes they try to post in this manner anyway, but I suppose having some sort of official mod-on, mod-off posting wouldn't really hurt. But honestly, there is no escaping that trap. If they feel obligated to withold their opinions, or modify them publicly in any way, then there isn't much that can be done to change that. I'm obviously not a mod, but I imagine that this is something that is an almost natural consequence of representing SC in the way that they do. Judging from their posts, I can't say that SC itself promotes or forces anything like this, but I think some (if not all) of the mods feel that it is necessary given their positions.




And my apologies to the Emperor for the length of this post.

---

Edited. So, we were talking about the mod's job..aight?
They are doing a finer job...but summarize where are we..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OJM

Let's see did I hear you correctly. You have hard time keeping track on my posts (as in, how my thoughts go) and therefore don't like them.

What can I say... I'm complex guy :rolleyes:

Now that I gave it bit more thought, I realized, that one reason for such could be my writing speed. I'm typing much slower than I used to, so I manage to think much more while typing :) But hey, it's all good. Nobody has to like my posts and I'm still gonna keep posting them exactly how I see fit ;)

---

Complex? Lets just have bullet points...easier to keep track of. And typing is bad for me, so i use the ipad!
back on topic, mods are doing a fine job, not great, just fine. further details will appear later.

Sincerely,
TheEmperor


---
He has no time to approve it yet. has class

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kendra1168

First let me say that the moderating team always appreciates feedback on how they are doing- and anything that could be done to make the forums a better place.

---

In that case, I think you guys have a lot of work to do to make this forum an enjoyable place for people who like to have mature discussions about topics rather than a bunch of post-boosting users who post rubbish one word posts solely so they can say they have x-amount of posts.

If you guys enforced the rules against these things (or at the very least, reset the post counts of the abusers) then the forum might be enjoyable for the rest of us.

Just because the forums look active, doesn't mean they contain any threads of value. I would say 1 in every 75 threads is worth reading. That is a terrible ratio for a forum. Quality posts > Quantity of posts

I would also say, the majority of posts belong in off-topic. Mods need to start moving them there. Don't have time for that? Start infracting users who continuously post in the wrong forum.

The mods do a pretty good job in some aspects, but completely neglect other aspects.

If you notice, many members who contribute posts that actually have some thought, aren't posting as often anymore. They are tired of the forum being over-run by 14-years spamming the most meaningless posts. Eventually the forum will be only that.

Look at this thread for example. Many people ignored OJM's post simply because it was long...that shows the mindset of many of the posters. They don't care what is said, but they feel like they need to post. If they aren't going to read, why should they be posting things like "oh, you again." simply infract/ban repeat offenders and perhaps they will learn to change a bit.

Everyday I see more and more people complaining about how General is become a trash bin of random posts. It is basically turning into a spam board.

Don't take this the wrong way, you many of the mods work hard at making this place enjoyable, but you guys completely neglect enforcing half of the rules.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheRulingEmperor

Come one guys!! Dont we have something better to do than writing long replies. This is not snail mail where you must write EVERYTHING(unless you can from that era)

---

Sorry, but if you won't read all of a reply, why even bother replying yourself? You want to talk but not listen to others having a conversation with you?

To me, that is a mix between lazy and self-absorbed.

Quote:

---

So please, lets just be content of what mods do and deal with it. Just like we did with Bush before Obama came (or when Obama came), we dealed with it, usually with partisanship. So just deal with the mods because they are all young and will still live forever until they eventually die, like, 80 years later?
lets hope!
Sincerely,
TheEmperor


---
TheEmperor approves this plea

---

I fail to follow your analogy. I think you went a bit off the deep end with this one to be honest. How are they to fix their problem if they aren't informed about it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zachUVA

Edited out the descriptions to cut down on the text wall lol.

---

Never surrender! Keep them walls coming, this ain't a tabloid where you can just look at the picture and read one line to get all there is ;) I'm gonna test this dissecting type reply now :D

Quote:

---

I think this is a very interesting point. The moderation style of the forums is very important, and I think most of us can agree that "activist" moderation is NOT the best option, and I agree that 2 is the preferred option (although its practicality may be an issue). I'm going to go a step further you did, and say that the current mods (collectively) are somewhere between 2 and 3, although back in the day I think they might have been somewhat closer to 1. Personally, I think sometimes they tend to stray a bit too close to 3, closing threads with only brief explanations of rule violations and that's that, but I can't say that they would be better off by being more "reluctant", mostly because of what dahimi mentioned earlier. They simply don't have enough people to do it, and they got a lot on their plate as is (especially if they follow through on the ideas subforum undertaking).

---

I agree. I'd also steer clear of the 1's and had I choose, it'd be definitely 2's. Placing our mod crew in any of the categories isn't quite that easy as they are all their own personalities. (They aren't robots ... Right? ... Right? ) I've had my fair share of thread closures when trying to reply already, so now I'm much more reluctant to even start writing on a heated topic.

Quote:

---

I think this is partially where the disconnect between what we would like and what is reasonably possible occurs. Wouldn't it be great if there were 20 mods, with 4 or 5 for each subforum, who never overstepped their bounds? Sure it would, but it ain't gonna happen. So I can kinda see why the mods do what they do.

---

I think I asked dahimi if he would be willing to moderate the ideas area with limited powers and I think he just might. Same might go with some other members and other areas, too. But I don't know is it possible to give half-mod rights to people. If it was, I'm guessing at least few people might step up and take some of the weight off from the crew.

Quote:

---

But, back to the mods. As you note, there are a small variety of styles and personalities among the mod team, but I don't see strong enough differences to say that any of them overshadow the rest (not really any of them fit strongly in category 1, in my opinion). Obviously, certainty of action is a huge issue, and one that is very difficult to disagree with, but at the same time, you can't erase all of the different approaches that each mod takes. I think I too would like to see mods behave more "reluctantly", but it is important to remember that how each of them treats a situation is bound to be different, and that those differences are fine.

---

Agreed. Getting away with rule breakings is, I imagine, a strong motivator for trolls. If you can repeatedly get away with all kinds of carp, you are getting quick rewards on people getting all upset. I'm not sure how would it affect the forums, if more members would report all rulebreakings they see. I know I report quite little amount and mostly just bots. Occasionally, when it goes to threatenings and such, I tap the triangle.

Quote:

---

Well, sometimes they try to post in this manner anyway, but I suppose having some sort of official mod-on, mod-off posting wouldn't really hurt. But honestly, there is no escaping that trap. If they feel obligated to withold their opinions, or modify them publicly in any way, then there isn't much that can be done to change that. I'm obviously not a mod, but I imagine that this is something that is an almost natural consequence of representing SC in the way that they do. Judging from their posts, I can't say that SC itself promotes or forces anything like this, but I think some (if not all) of the mods feel that it is necessary given their positions.

---

I'd really like to hear mod's opinion on this on/off idea. There's a saying round here, which loosely translates to "whose bread you eat, those songs you sing." And I guess that is bit the way things are.