It is time for a change in the way things are moderated

[Camikaze]

There are already ideas posted in the staff forum about this, are there not? I know I at least intended to suggest a kind of "exchange program" where moderators change forums for awhile to get a fresh perspective.

I've on occasion suggested we invoke a clause to get some of the GOTM-specific moderators (for instance) to take a couple of OT reports (and to note, sometimes this does happen, which we're grateful for), but in the end it's entirely unfair to the majority of the staff to ask them to help babysit a non-Civ part of the forum.

This is one of the reasons the Content Staff was created. The Staff forum is too OT (or Colosseum)-focused, to the point where it was often seeming to drown out more important issues, to the detriment of the rest of the site.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Oh? I remember a freight-train load or dozen of problems related to Civ V and Civ III.

It's one thing to expect non-OT mods to venture into OT, but The_J has been in and out of there and is still alive... same with Lefty. I should think that if any mod is willing to help out or wants to try something new for a week or two, why not let them?

Part of the problem is that some moderators seem to feel jaded and their moderating has stagnated - yet they don't want to give up Their Turf.

 

[Camikaze]

Oh? I remember a freight-train load or dozen of problems related to Civ V and Civ III.

Civ5 and Civ3 problems were far more consolidated (as in, in a couple of threads), so didn't contribute to the same sort of dominant focus (they may have at one stage, but not at least since I've been on staff), and had (and have) subsided (though not completely disappeared) for the most part anyway. Though it is certainly true that another aspect of the Content Staff change was to separate out the moderation aspects of Civ5 staff responsibilities from the content aspects (particularly because of the aforementioned consolidation). Both that and the OT dominance were reasons, and there were others as well.

It's one thing to expect non-OT mods to venture into OT, but The_J has been in and out of there and is still alive... same with Lefty. I should think that if any mod is willing to help out or wants to try something new for a week or two, why not let them?

Part of the problem is that some moderators seem to feel jaded and their moderating has stagnated - yet they don't want to give up Their Turf.

An open invitation is out for existing moderators to ply their trade in OT, so yes, if someone is willing, they are very much welcome. 'Turf wars' aren't very much of a real thing in staff, so that's not at all an issue. A bigger concern when it comes to moderating in forums not one's own is potential unawareness of local standards or relationships between posters (which is particularly important in OT). What I was meaning was that drafting others in is not really fair, but would presumably be required in any sort of 'exchange' program.

 

[Tee Kay]

What is this easy way to moderate that you speak of? The easiest moderation is no moderation, which is not what people seem to want.

I do think we can afford to cut down of moderation. The primary issue with OT (which I outlined above) cannot resolved by traditional methods of moderation. The only way to up the quality of OT in the face of waves of obnoxious trolls is to add better quality active posters into the pool.

There are people who were so much more valuable to the community as active posters than as moderators who hardly ever post.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Civ5 and Civ3 problems were far more consolidated (as in, in a couple of threads), so didn't contribute to the same sort of dominant focus (they may have at one stage, but not at least since I've been on staff), and had (and have) subsided (though not completely disappeared) for the most part anyway. Though it is certainly true that another aspect of the Content Staff change was to separate out the moderation aspects of Civ5 staff responsibilities from the content aspects (particularly because of the aforementioned consolidation). Both that and the OT dominance were reasons, and there were others as well.

You weren't there when the Civ V hullabaloo started. If things are more orderly with that now, that's great. But there was a kind of "creep" of those topics in with other topics on occasion, so maybe you just haven't found all the discussions pertaining to those problems (it was you who said recently that the staff forum has a complete record of what went on before so new moderators can see what happened, wasn't it?).

An open invitation is out for existing moderators to ply their trade in OT, so yes, if someone is willing, they are very much welcome. 'Turf wars' aren't very much of a real thing in staff, so that's not at all an issue. A bigger concern when it comes to moderating in forums not one's own is potential unawareness of local standards or relationships between posters (which is particularly important in OT). What I was meaning was that drafting others in is not really fair, but would presumably be required in any sort of 'exchange' program.

Again, I suggest you explore the staff forum threads that date from a few months before your junior moderatorship began there, up until a few months after. You were learning the ropes during part of that time, so perhaps you didn't have time to see some of the discussion. I do recall the concern that a different moderator wouldn't know the local standards or relationships between posters... but that's due to unfamiliarity. Time and an honest, open discussion would make them more familiar with the issues - that's what happened with me. I asked questions and read the relevant discussions. There's no reason this wouldn't work for other people.

I was not meaning to suggest moderators be drafted. But volunteering should be encouraged. As I said, even a week or two would be a break for the moderator, they could see what goes on elsewhere in the forum, and get to know people (and fellow moderators) better through discussing any issues that may come up. You never know who might end up having a Really Good Idea on how to handle something that's been a problem for years, but nobody thought of it because they've simply been too close to be objective.

 

[Camikaze]

Crosspost @tailless-
Dealing with trolls that are obnoxious in the way you described is probably one of the biggest challenges, and this is something the RD idea was meant to help with, and whilst it is successful to an extent when it is used, it isn't used enough to be very helpful overall. That's not really something we have much control over, though. It's up to OT posters to use it. We don't seem to get positive feedback when we attempt to deal with those problems beyond a clearly defined RD scope, however (though it's hard to tell, because often the loudest complaints are from the people we probably shouldn't be listening to, reacting simply on the basis of, "I don't mind the rules except when they apply to me," potentially drowning out a silent majority; the most recent OT survey was very inconclusive in this regard. Do we take the very low level of responses as meaning that people are satisfied with how things are, so don't have any complaints to register, or do we take it as meaning that people are exasperated with the moderation team to the extent that they feel responding to the survey would be futile?).

 

[Tee Kay]

Do we take the very low level of responses as meaning that people are satisfied with how things are, so don't have any complaints to register, or do we take it as meaning that people are exasperated with the moderation team to the extent that they feel responding to the survey would be futile?).

I'm in the latter camp. The problem is you guys are at a limit when it comes to dealing with Problem Posters, and there's not a lot more that traditional moderation (by which I mean enforcing forum rules, giving out infractions, that sort of thing) can do. To really appreciate these types of posters in action you actually need to be active in OT discussions, and mods aren't.

The only way to make OT better is to make OT posters as a group better. Right now, we are pretty much stuck with posters who are either obnoxious trolls the type of which I'm sure most of you are familiar with, or otherwise decent people who lost interest in OT because of the first group.

Forum rules and infractions can't help with this; they really only exist to control really egregious behaviour. When moderation tries to improve the general quality of a forum by imposing new penalties, it tends to backfire.

 

[Camikaze]

You weren't there when the Civ V hullabaloo started. If things are more orderly with that now, that's great. But there was a kind of "creep" of those topics in with other topics on occasion, so maybe you just haven't found all the discussions pertaining to those problems (it was you who said recently that the staff forum has a complete record of what went on before so new moderators can see what happened, wasn't it?).

Yes, I've read all threads in staff in full (excluding user infraction threads (which don't contain discussion) and report threads with less than 10 replies) back to about 2005. I'm aware of how big an issue Civ5 forum moderation was. And yet it still doesn't compare to the pervasiveness of OT/Colosseum issues within staff. And more relevantly to what I'm talking about, a saturation of non-Colosseum moderation problems certainly was not a big problem identified in the discussions about the creation of the Content Staff (apart from the problems associated with consolidating moderation and content issues into the one megathread). We didn't create the Content Staff at the end of last year because Civ5 moderation issues were dominating the staff forum the year before.

I'm not quite sure what you're driving at here, though. Whether Civ5 was or was not a big resource-hog for staff (which I'm not arguing with, in any case) seems kinda irrelevant to whether or not OT was or is.

Again, I suggest you explore the staff forum threads that date from a few months before your junior moderatorship began there, up until a few months after. You were learning the ropes during part of that time, so perhaps you didn't have time to see some of the discussion. I do recall the concern that a different moderator wouldn't know the local standards or relationships between posters... but that's due to unfamiliarity. Time and an honest, open discussion would make them more familiar with the issues - that's what happened with me. I asked questions and read the relevant discussions. There's no reason this wouldn't work for other people.

Again, I have read those threads. What you suggest does work and that's how we do function (as you can see by the various contributions by non-OT moderators to OT moderation on occasion, most recently by The_J and leif in particular), but it requires the non-OT moderators to actually have the time and be willing to volunteer it towards familiarising themselves with OT, and there is absolutely no reason why they should be compelled to do so (and hardly a reason why they would want to do so, if they were not already interested in OT discussions anyway). There are few non-OT moderators who are both willing to moderate in OT and have the time to familiarise themselves with the both the forum and the forum moderation standards.

I was not meaning to suggest moderators be drafted. But volunteering should be encouraged. As I said, even a week or two would be a break for the moderator, they could see what goes on elsewhere in the forum, and get to know people (and fellow moderators) better through discussing any issues that may come up. You never know who might end up having a Really Good Idea on how to handle something that's been a problem for years, but nobody thought of it because they've simply been too close to be objective.

Well yes, as I said, volunteering is certainly encouraged, with OT currently being open slather for all existing moderators. They are all entirely welcome.

 

[Tee Kay]

Maybe we should have a rotating or roster system for moderators.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

I do think we can afford to cut down of moderation. The primary issue with OT (which I outlined above) cannot resolved by traditional methods of moderation. The only way to up the quality of OT in the face of waves of obnoxious trolls is to add better quality active posters into the pool.

There are people who were so much more valuable to the community as active posters than as moderators who hardly ever post.

Or cut down on infracting stuff that, in the long run, isn't that harmful and get tougher on the nasty stuff. I'm sure at the end of it nobody will worry about one or two meme images getting posted (as long as it doesn't get excessive to the point of those being the only posts). But they will worry if people get away with trolling others -- or trolling their interests, etc. etc. (which, depending on ones opinion, could also be insulting them). I've been down before. I ain't going down again.

At times its particularly vexing, especially when the moderating in some threads seems to be depending on the OP. In fact, several months ago, I was basically told to stop posting in my own thread despite other people going horribly off-topic and changing the focus of the thread (which I had stated clearly in the OP). It was not legitimate topic drift, it was an attempt to drag the thread off-topic. Yet I got told, basically, to shut up and deal with it. Yet, some months later, I posted one vaguely relevant post in another thread and got infracted for it, despite it being at a less severe degree. Oh, it was popular members who dragged my thread off-topic.

Either you should have dealt with both or neither. But not one and then not the other. It seems it depends on how much such-and-such a moderator likes you.

I won't even mention which threads these were because this is getting awful close to a PDMA.

At times, I wish there was a mode for moderators so they could not see who was posting a specific post and it won't influenced by that. But then they might notice distinctive writing styles (or my strange grammar and vocabulary) so it might not work.

 

[The_J]

Oh? I remember a freight-train load or dozen of problems related to Civ V and Civ III.

You weren't there when the Civ V hullabaloo started. If things are more orderly with that now, that's great. But there was a kind of "creep" of those topics in with other topics on occasion, so maybe you just haven't found all the discussions pertaining to those problems (it was you who said recently that the staff forum has a complete record of what went on before so new moderators can see what happened, wasn't it?).

Cam is right about it, there are no big Civ5 problems (unless I don't see them, which is possible in some areas, but in some sure not). I'd say the Civ5 problems consist atm out of 5 persons at max, so not really a big issue.
(which doesn't mean that I'm overall satisfied with it, but that's not the question)

Maybe we should have a rotating or roster system for moderators.

Might be. Maybe just a better turnover/faster reaction time might also do it.

It's one thing to expect non-OT mods to venture into OT, but The_J has been in and out of there and is still alive... same with Lefty. I should think that if any mod is willing to help out or wants to try something new for a week or two, why not let them?

Oh, great, expecting nervous collaps in a week .

Part of the problem is that some moderators seem to feel jaded and their moderating has stagnated - yet they don't want to give up Their Turf.

It's rather that there's no structure to care about that.
There are persons in the mod team who haven't been online or posted only once in the whole time I've been registered here. Even if what you said was totally true for everyone (which I'm also totally sure it isn't), then this still shows another problem.
I guess I'll get on someones nerves in the next time...

 

[useless]

It is quite frustrating to see obvious trolls get away with no infractions, whilst a single post made in jest can land you in hot water

 

[DaveShack]

My opinion is that some people confuse debate with trolling. I happen to like reading some of the things that others call trolling. It's certainly better than reading a thread where a bunch of leftists are all agreeing with each other. And frankly, I don't spend much time in OT because it's all so one-sided.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

My opinion is that some people confuse debate with trolling. I happen to like reading some of the things that others call trolling. It's certainly better than reading a thread where a bunch of leftists are all agreeing with each other. And frankly, I don't spend much time in OT because it's all so one-sided.

That's not what I'm referring to.. Some of the stuff that I refer to isn't even political in nature.

 

[useless]

My opinion is that some people confuse debate with trolling. I happen to like reading some of the things that others call trolling. It's certainly better than reading a thread where a bunch of leftists are all agreeing with each other. And frankly, I don't spend much time in OT because it's all so one-sided.

...What do you mean it's all one sided? Have you actually read some of the threads as of late, or seen some of the opinions on said threads?

Sorry to be so abrassive, but there really is a multitude of political ideologies in OT beyond just the stereotypical "leftist" (and I assume you're using the american definition). We have libertarians, anarchists, communists, conservatives, white nationalists/facists, etc.

 

[Luckymoose]

The problem with OT is simply that if you don't agree with the majority you are a troll and get reported. I've been infracted for simply calling out trolls before, and I think that kind of moderation is the serious issue around here.

Debating isn't trolling. Then there are some people who post sarcastic responses to real debates that turn out to make the debate useless.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

Or even worse, being infracted for "spam" for posting something that was on-topic

 

[illram]

The only way to make OT better is to make OT posters as a group better. Right now, we are pretty much stuck with posters who are either obnoxious trolls the type of which I'm sure most of you are familiar with, or otherwise decent people who lost interest in OT because of the first group.

(Bolding mine.) I tend to agree with the bolded part, except no one can "make" anyone else better, everyone has to strive to make their own posts better on their own.

 

[JollyRoger]

It's probably as tough to moderate OT as it has been to stay awake while reading OT the last couple of months.

 

[Luckymoose]

It's probably as tough to moderate OT as it has been to stay awake while reading OT the last couple of months.

You can owe that to the moderation.