[serious] Off Topic Moderation Input - Part 2

[Sirotnikov]

Do you really not see the difference between a normal poster taking abuse and a mod taking abuse?

Regular posters should be able to go on without abuse. The whole job definition of a moderator includes dealing with troublesome posters. And that includes taking abuse from them too. That's why mods are volunteers, and that's what they are for.

If you think there's no point defending posters from abuse, because you don't want abuse aimed at you, then what are you doing with a mod title?

if you had said that you think banning is ineffective punishment, it would be one thing. But what I get from you is that you simply don't want to deal with the fallout of reprimanding troublesome posters. If this is your honest position - lose the title.

[Ecofarm]

Let them cower, none can deal with me.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Do you really not see the difference between a normal poster taking abuse and a mod taking abuse?

Regular posters should be able to go on without abuse. The whole job definition of a moderator includes dealing with troublesome posters. And that includes taking abuse from them too. That's why mods are volunteers, and that's what they are for.

If you think there's no point defending posters from abuse, because you don't want abuse aimed at you, then what are you doing with a mod title?

Why should mods hog all the fun?

[MikeH]

You've totally misunderstood my post. I don't give a crap if people say **** about me on the internet. I also generally think that people using a message board need to understand the environment and not expect a moderator to hold their hand through passionate debate in case they hear something they don't like.

My point was that it's bad for the forum if all there is on the forum is loads of abuse aimed at one poster, sure. But it's equally bad for the forum if all there is on the forum is loads of abuse aimed at the moderators for what people deem to be bad moderation decisions.

To add to that I guarantee that there is a massive difference in who different posters consider to be the "troublesome" posters. Siding with any faction would be the wrong decision IMO. There's also a huge range of views on what constitutes abuse. Often on a single issue it can just down to what one poster believes.

I don't see how turning an argument between 2 posters into one of those big Apolyton "OMG why was he banned?!" scandals is beneficial for the forum. The argument will usually peter out much faster than a ban scandal. And I really don't think there is a problem on the Off Topic with lots of personal abuse. Banter, arguments, passionate disagreements, personality clashes, ideological differences, yes. Get rid of that there'd be no posts.

[Drake Tungsten]

MikeH is proving to be far too perceptive and intelligent to be a mod.

[MikeH]

Please get your tongue out of my ass Drake.

[Drake Tungsten]

Give us an excuse for a big Apolyton "OMG why was he banned?!" scandal and I'll happily start accosting you.

[MikeH]

Drake Tungsten, 5 day ban for being a mod loving suck up.

[Drake Tungsten]

There's the kind of senseless and inflammatory behavior one would expect from a mod.

[Wezil]

And I really don't think there is a problem on the Off Topic with lots of personal abuse. Banter, arguments, passionate disagreements, personality clashes, ideological differences, yes. Get rid of that there'd be no posts.

You got that right.

I can't wait to see how hopping this place is going to be after the release of Civ5.

[SlowwHand]

OT has nothing to do with Civ. At max, only half of the OT posters even know what Civ is.
That's because they're turd buckets.

[ZEE]

You got that right.

I can't wait to see how hopping this place is going to be after the release of Civ5.

nothing will change. CFC will get all the traffic.

[Sirotnikov]

You've totally misunderstood my post. I don't give a crap if people say **** about me on the internet. I also generally think that people using a message board need to understand the environment and not expect a moderator to hold their hand through passionate debate in case they hear something they don't like.

My point was that it's bad for the forum if all there is on the forum is loads of abuse aimed at one poster, sure. But it's equally bad for the forum if all there is on the forum is loads of abuse aimed at the moderators for what people deem to be bad moderation decisions.

To add to that I guarantee that there is a massive difference in who different posters consider to be the "troublesome" posters. Siding with any faction would be the wrong decision IMO. There's also a huge range of views on what constitutes abuse. Often on a single issue it can just down to what one poster believes.

I don't see how turning an argument between 2 posters into one of those big Apolyton "OMG why was he banned?!" scandals is beneficial for the forum. The argument will usually peter out much faster than a ban scandal. And I really don't think there is a problem on the Off Topic with lots of personal abuse. Banter, arguments, passionate disagreements, personality clashes, ideological differences, yes. Get rid of that there'd be no posts.

I didn't mean to suggest you're afraid of being namecalled. But I was correct that you'd rather not stir up popular backlash. I do think that mod actions should often be taken without fear of popular backlash, if they are consistent with site rules.

"why was he banned" scandals only became popular when bannings became rare, and unusual even for major things. Assuming moderating action was taken in accordance with site rules, and within reason, public backlash goes on only as far as it is allowed to.

Good judgement has its place, and you have to know a short high tone argument from an actual disturbance. I don't question that and call for blind auto-moding.

And yet, some arguments don't settle down as quick as you suggest, and some create more drama and side-taking than is positive, often becoming quite large and becoming prolonged vendettas between posters. I doubt this is good for poly, despite proclamations such as "It's good X has left, he was a dumbass".

Eventis and CG seem to be a dream land lacking any moderation, and yet they aren't exactly successful communities. The more poly became similar to them moderation wise, the more it shrunk poster wise.

Despite all the self proclaimed tough guys in the OT, poly advertises itself as a gaming oriented site, and not \b\. So **** should be moderated, even in the OT, and all passionate arguments, banter and disagreements should be only passionate up to a certain limit.

Let me ask you this, what scenarios do you see as justifying your action?

[Drake Tungsten]

Despite all the self proclaimed tough guys in the OT, poly advertises itself as a gaming oriented site, and not \b\.

There's plenty of other Poly forums that you can post in if you don't like the OT, you crybaby.

[Jon Miller]

We, at least I, do ban for some stuff.

Just I don't see the point in arguing about what is and is not trolling or a personal attack. If you outlaw attacks, you just have a bunch of pointless moderation of things that may or may not be a personal attack (generally due to it being reported), because it is a judgement call at some level.

Yeah, you can ban some and not others. But that is a bit arbitrary and pointless too.

I spent a couple of years posting at a site that had more active moderation than what Ming did here. It was a frustrating experience, I was never quite sure what was allowed discussion and what wasn't. It seemed to be what wasn't was whatever was complained about.

JM