[natalia]

For whatever it's worth, I don't think moderators have to be anonymous. I like being able to interact with them. And for the most part, it's pretty easy to see when a mod is posting as a mod and not a forum member.

But I do think that discussing why a specific thread has been locked or why a particular poster has been banned should not be publicly discussed by moderators. There are forum rules posted on the site, and I generally assume that when someone is banned or a thread is closed, that one of those rules has been violated.

Forum members are always going to discuss what they think about what happened. But beyond the public warnings that people get, if moderators join in and start publically discussing the hows, the whys, and the specifics about why they banned someone or closed a thread they open themselves up to people questioning their tactics.

Just my two cents, and as usual, I'm just talking outta my butt, so feel free to pay me no heed.

[squarejawhero]

Originally Posted by Melanie68

I think it would be difficult to mod anonymously. I like knowing who the moderators are. I can tell when they are modding and when they aren't. Anonymity just creates a big brother, Orwellian feel whereas knowing who they are creates a more compassionate feeling for them in me. They are only human with good days and bad which will affect some decisions but not always. Also, you can never avoid conflict with the diverse group of people we have. I feel that the people here (forumites and mods) are a group of terrific, caring people who are doing the best they can.

I can tell you it's very easy.

Unfortunately, I'm not as liberal as I am in real life when it comes to modding on forums as I don't believe its conducive to maintaining balance. You may consider it "Orwellian" but that's just being reactionary - you have to draw a line, and it also makes it a lot easier for the mods. For the people posting they know when a mod comes on its serious. I don't get that at all here and its hard to judge tone in writing. Having someone with MOD1 post may be cold, but by hell it's effective.

Posting on a forum isn't a right, it's a privelege. Truth is, people argue openly with the mods and question them plus don't know how to react when a mod posts. We already know, but it's not easy if you're new to the forum.

[BoyToy]

Originally Posted by Jackal

This thread exists because you chose to start one despite our obvious wishes. [...] The act of closing threads may (and often does, as you say) RESULT in new ones being opened, but it doesn't CAUSE people do anything. That's the distinction I want clear here.

The closing of the thread itself isn't the cause that made me choose to point out that there was an obvious misinterpretation. But the closing of the thread is the cause for making a new thread. That's the point you miss.

((If you slap someone in the face, they have two (or more) choices. They can choose to run away, or choose to hit you back. So if you got slapped back, wouldn't you say your initial slap was the cause? That you made them hit you back? 'Cause and effect' doesn't mean there's no choice involved at all, as long as living beings are involved.))

Originally Posted by Jackal

It's a matter of responsibility.

Exactly!
I'm responsible for what I write and what I decide to do. And a moderator is responsible for what he writes or does.

That doesn't mean anyone has a right to get explanations from the moderators. But I think anyone has a right to ask. It's perfectly OK, if a moderater says: "I don't want to answer that."

Originally Posted by Jackal

The sense of entitlement to have a say in everything we do, or analyze and dissect all our decisions is the surest way to make all of us involved really not give a crap anymore. That's not a threat, not an attack. Just a fact. So if that's the goal of threads such as these, it's working.

Ignorance is a bliss, they say.

Well, my goal of this thread was to improve this place.
If you are generally not prepared to take criticism into account, as you've just stated, that's your choice. I'm perfectly fine if you simply disagree with me in the particular topic in question. (Though I think, it's hard to disagree there was a misunderstanding.) In my opinion, which you didn't ask for, it would be pretty stupid, if you weren't willing to learn and improve in general, just out of sheer principle.

Originally Posted by Jackal

To end on a more productive note, we DO invite questions and input from forum members, and WILL discuss matters to a degree we think is reasonable, and we TRY to provide a positive, constructive environment. We do what we can and improve as we're able, and learn as we go. If that's not enough, then don't expect us to be overly sympathetic.

Sorry, but what you said above sounded like the exact opposite.
Well, I am convinced that your goal truly is to improve and being constructive. Maybe you should read your posts again, and see whether it might be possible that the heat of the discussion and possibly hurt emotions lead you to be counter-productive, and which might have made you blind to see the positive?
Similarly, this applies to myself, and I want to apologize if I hurt anyone's feelings in the discussion.


Honestly, I had two goals when I choose to create this thread, with the best of intent:

• spawning a constructive (or plain theoretical) discussion about the use of thread-closures
• pointing out the apparent misunderstanding in the referenced closed thread

Now, admittedly my tone wasn't free of cynism, which was a reaction to the cynical tone in the 'causing' post.

[sarcasm]My apologies for the resulting mess. [/sarcasm]

[squarejawhero]

Originally Posted by pinkgothic

Very true



I understand the mindset, but I disagree. It's hell for a moderator to have to back up what they do especially if they do it all with best intentions. I've been flamed on The Abyss on countless occasions and it has, in fact, made me cry. But in the end, there's always the people that support one which yank you back on track, and in doing that, the entire community stays a lot more interwoven.

Being a mod isn't for people who can't handle it... sorry, but that's my belief. Being in the position of hiding your identity puts up a barrier between you and the troublemaker, and if they don't like it, f*ck them. You don't need support, you ARE the support. People PM you asking for assistance and noting issues and you help them. If you get stuck pass it to the admin.

I think here it's best to mention the example that is Trep. I think everyone considers him a good friend - with a couple of exceptions, perhaps. My first PM ever was to Trep before he had become aware of me (I hadn't posted yet, IIRC), thanking him, because he made me feel like this community would be worth dropping into.

I would have never joined this board if I felt there was no "open moderation".

It's an argument of emotions, granted, and it's all I can think of right now, but it's the reason I'll never consider "anonymous moderation" in any places I run.

Emotions have no place in moderating. You're the forum police. That's it. Trep recently decided to take a vacation from modding, hell, even change his account.

Why do you think that is? I think he's a great guy, brilliant, but I don't want to be in his shoes when the shit hits the fan, in fact, with none of the mods. The only two that strike fear into me is Fovily and Jackal - but only because they don't post much and I don't know them well. When Fovily notes something, or Jackal speaks, I sit up and pay attention far more than if Trep or Glenn were to post. Technically, there is some anonymous modding already going on, and that's the one that seems to work more.

Hell, I argue back at Jackal often. I don't think he likes me... but I still have more respect for him as a mod. When he says stop, I'd stop.

[pinkgothic]

Originally Posted by squarejawhero

Posting on a forum isn't a right, it's a privelege.

Not entirely related to this, or anything, but I find that's a problem with many, many people. They don't seem to grasp they are guests somewhere and should treat the owners with some respect. Every once in a while I see people saying things like "yeah, but we are the community, there would be no point running a site if no one came"... true, but on the same account you could argue that "hey, guess what? if no one bought Fahrenheit [or, for an even nastier analogy, insert your favorite brand of clothes], then there'd be no point making the game[/clothes], so what gives you the right to charge money for it?"... the thing that does is called work and effort.

I'm just glad there are so many people here (including BoyToy) that respect moderators. As I see it, Boysie's original intent really wasn't that bad, I just stick to my opinion it should have happened in PM for the above mentioned reasons... but it's not a sign of disrespect from him, or intentional undermining.

Keeping a board running, functioning, and 99% happy is something I strongly respect - I couldn't have dreamed up this place before I actually ran into it, it all runs so smoothly, people talk to each other and don't just flame... until this place, I was sure The Abyss was pretty close to the maximum possible warm-fuzziness. Now I don't think so anymore. So yeah, I guess it's called awe, and I guess it does make me biased

[squarejawhero]

It's all about maintaining a balance. I was comfy at JA+ for ages, but I chime in more with the personalities here. It's nothing to do with the modding. I don't enjoy that, perversely.

I wouldn't join a place like GB'ers as I think its far too heavily moderated. I post at MO/UO and I get words like "damn" edited and told off for double posting. That type of modding, I find, is counter productive, and nothing to do with anonymous modding.

[pinkgothic]

Originally Posted by squarejawhero

Being a mod isn't for people who can't handle it... sorry, but that's my belief.

Oh, totally. But I see no reason why not to indulge in some venting of frustration - which is what crying can be. It's good, so why not do it? It doesn't change the fact the people who flamed me are dicks I'm still there and still global moderator. And proud of it.

Originally Posted by squarejawhero

Emotions have no place in moderating. You're the forum police. That's it.

You can have your opinion, but like I said above - if it didn't demand empathy, write a program, it's more effective to be the cold, distant moderator than any human ever will be. Moot, IMO. That's not moderation. And that's my opinion.

[squarejawhero]

Originally Posted by pinkgothic

Oh, totally. But I see no reason why not to indulge in some venting of frustration - which is what crying can be. It's good, so why not do it? It doesn't change the fact the people who flamed me are dicks I'm still there and still global moderator. And proud of it.



You can have your opinion, but like I said above - if it didn't demand empathy, write a program, it's more effective to be the cold, distant moderator than any human ever will be. Moot, IMO. That's not moderation. And that's my opinion.

It's not to do with being cold. It's to do with being partisan, balanced, questioning. The human element is still there, but I found that even on threads I'd helped get heated, putting the mod hat on and changing my account forced me to be responsible for my posts. I never, ever misused it. Hell, I even had to tell myself off once or twice when coming back the morning after and realising what a dick I'd sounded and how I'd treated someone.

You have to use some empathy in order to judge who's in the wrong in heated discussion, for sure, but warnings must be clear and directed to the right person. A general warning used to get stuff back on track.

And I was very, very rarely questioned.

[Jackal]

Originally Posted by mag

There's no interest in having honest and open discussions.

Yawn. Once more for the reading impaired:

...we DO invite questions and input from forum members, and WILL discuss matters to a degree we think is reasonable, and we TRY to provide a positive, constructive environment. We do what we can and improve as we're able, and learn as we go.

I must have missed anything resembling constructive input from you, mag. You have the freedom to express your opinion, but you don't have the right to demand we justify ourselves to you. I'm afraid it's no one else's fault if you're unwilling to understand that distinction.

As far as I can tell, there are no guidelines here. It's just totally random.

If it SEEMS random it's because we usually err on the side of leniency. But the guidelines of conduct are certainly spelled out. If our guidelines of enforcement are somewhat erratic, that's hardly permission for others to step farther out of line.

What we get instead is, "If you don't like it, you can just get out." Well, you know what? I think I'll do just that.

Someone please remind me where I ever suggested anyone should leave. My memory is clearly failing me. But if you're going, then good luck finding another community with nothing better to do than catering to your every whim.

[squarejawhero]

It's Jackal!

*runs*

[Melanie68]

You may be scared of Anubis but I think he's just a warm and fuzzy guy (who occasionally gets a little irked).

[Jackal]

Dammit, took so long to post mine that 862 more posts have happened since I started.

BoyToy, most of what you've said (about my apparently being closed to criticism) has been addressed by pinkgothic as well as I could have said it, so I'll just repeat it here.

Originally Posted by PG

What the...? I never said not to criticise moderators. I said TAKE IT TO PM. If they don't respond to it, then you can still take it to the public board if you absolutely must, though honestly it would be better to leave if you disagree with a moderator despite having attempted to talk to them in PM.

If you want to know why, it's because if you start mod criticisms in public, you are undermining what little authority moderators have - people will jump the bandwagon like mag has... and moderators will feel attacked in turn, which is their full right to - and it makes them grouchy and it means your original point might just fall through the cracks.

What reason was there to post what you thought was a misunderstanding between two people publically? Would you not, if it had not been a moderator, tried to PM the person who misunderstood and point out how it could have been meant? It's a lot kinder to take it up with a person in person! This way it just looks like an accusation. A fingerpointing. A "look what XYZ did wrong". And it escalates from there.

Posting moderator criticisms in public helps no side as I see it.

The only other thing I'll add is that a debate between "rights" or even "privileges" here seems a stunningly selfish approach to me. For the life of me, I don't get why someone wouldn't out of courtesy and respect for unpaid staff, choose a more tactful method of raising issues. That's what I meant by working WITH us.

[pinkgothic]

Originally Posted by pinkgothic

If you want to know why, it's because if you start mod criticisms in public, you are undermining what little authority moderators have - people will jump the bandwagon like mag has... and moderators will feel attacked in turn, which is their full right to - and it makes them grouchy and it means your original point might just fall through the cracks.

Quick add-on to this because I just found a way to summarise this! (GASP!)

If you post it in public, the subject immediately falls prey to favoritism. People who hadn't looked at the topic, or did look at it and thought nothing for it, will think again in a manner of, say, "Well, if he says that, then maybe that's true," and look at it again, likely see a problem where they previously saw and felt none, and then you've essentially got two camps.

...like right now...

[squarejawhero]

I'm going to ban you all!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!

Thread locked.

Damn, that didn't work.

[pinkgothic]

You know you're an internet addict when... a discussion with your boyfriend happens 99% online on a forum, rather than verbally, and you're both sitting in the same room, tapping away at your laptops. Whoohoo.

Originally Posted by pinkgothic

Not you did that - mag did. Mag was criticising that the posts being locked seems random to him, which is unfair, for the mentioned reasons.

Bold laced in for highlighting.

Anyway, BoyToy, verbally and IRL, pointed out to me that "unfair" in that context sounds a lot like I'm saying mag is doing it on purpose. Or anyone that might do it. I don't think this - it can be true, but it certainly does not have to be. So, for the record: The effects are unfair. The intentions might not be.

[Jackal]

About moderating, this is my own opinion (not some official AG stance). I believe good moderating is far more than simple policing, which is why anonymity isn't desirable. The mods here actively work to help build community by welcoming newcomers, facilitating discussion, keeping threads in reasonable order, etc. I think that's a strength of AG, but yes, it does have the drawback to making it more difficult to assert authority. I try to help out by jumping in as bad cop occasionally (as Squarejaw has learned ), which pretty much guarantees I won't win any popularity contests any time soon. But I'd still rather us try to be actively constructive with our modding than have it reduced strictly to discipline and admin duties.

(Incidentally, I am never EVER forgiving Emily for being on vacation this week. )

Originally Posted by Melanie68

You may be scared of Anubis but I think he's just a warm and fuzzy guy (who occasionally gets a little irked).

Ack! So much for the bad cop mystique.

[Jeysie]

Well, I've moderated a forum before, and I personally prefer to discuss such things openly in public. Why? Because IMHO if someone gets in trouble for something other people need to know so they can, well, not do it themselves.

I found it easier to just state the reason plainly to everyone at once rather than having several different people all PMing and e-mailing separately and several other people just sitting around wondering what just happened. I've seen a few forums in my day where things got messy because everyone was talking about problems behind everyone else's back because nobody was allowed to say anything "publically".

Furthermore, I had a situation a while back where as a regular poster I felt a high-up moderator was being out of line, and when I tried to resolve it privately it ended up being my word against theirs because there was no "public record".

Peace & Luv, Liz

[squarejawhero]

Well, I'm guess I'm in the minority. Which makes sense, really. I'm just relaying my experiences, which point to anonymous moderating being far, far more effective in keeping the peace, helping maintain the mods relationship with the community and inhibiting the development of threads like these.

But what do I know?

[pinkgothic]

Originally Posted by Jeysie

Well, I've moderated a forum before, and I personally prefer to discuss such things openly in public. Why? Because IMHO if someone gets in trouble for something other people need to know so they can, well, not do it themselves.

Well, all I can say to that is my experience has been the opposite. See my "favoritism" post a bit further up - that's essentially what I've run into during all my moderating life. Even this place isn't clear of it.

Curious, what size was the forum you moderated? If it was a small one, I might even agree with you, since a small community tends to be one where everyone knows each other and so public discussions are less, well. Camp-based?

I run a tiny community called Arcadia which I suppose I would still want people PMing me first, but I wouldn't so much mind a public discussion there. But I'm not sure. Just me rambling.

[pinkgothic]

Originally Posted by squarejawhero

But what do I know?

Convinced by your model or not, I must say: Quite a lot, apparently