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

[Cutlass]

What does that have to do with anything? I've a great many Internet friends, whom I think are great guys. Doesn't mean I think all of them are OT mod material.

We also have one further consideration that probably never occur to most people - people we pick as OT mods have a very high chance to stop contributing to OT. Hence there're a few we think would be good as OT mods but can't touch, because it's very likely to impact their rather unique contribution to OT.

Between this and that and vetting by all the mods of CFC, it's not unusual we won't have very many names to go on at times.

Odd. I can't think of anyone remaining in OT that would be a good candidate for moderator....

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

Odd. I can't think of anyone remaining in OT that would be a good candidate for moderator....

I'm definitely a little too loopy to qualify. I'd probably end up erasing a few dozen thousand threads.

 

[GenMarshall]

I'm definitely a little too loopy to qualify.

That would account for 99% of the posters of OT .

 

[GhostWriter16]

not be good for consistency.

Because our consistency is just great as it is

@Valka- To carry on would be PDMA, but I do have something very specific in mind.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Because our consistency is just great as it is

@Valka- To carry on would be PDMA, but I do have something very specific in mind.

Feel free to drop me a PM, then. Now you've got me curious.

 

[Camikaze]

Did you ask them if they'd like to join the staff, or did you just assume they wouldn't? Or was it "Well, _____ makes such great posts, we won't even bother asking if they'd like to be a moderator, because they'd stop making such great posts."

We've considered people and then dismissed that consideration partially based on the possibility that enmoderating them would have a negative impact on OT as a whole. A consideration amongst many, sometimes a primary one. We then haven't asked them because we've come to a different conclusion (i.e. we've decided to ask someone else, or have decided to not ask anyone).

Because our consistency is just great as it is

@Valka- To carry on would be PDMA, but I do have something very specific in mind.

Feel free to PM me about it too. We go to quite some effort to make sure we're not being biased, given how easy it is for people to make baseless accusations, so if we've gone wrong in that regard in a specific incident, it would be helpful to know.

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

I also visit this free site and enjoy myself , thus I demand that moderators contribute a great deal of time and effort and anything less than perfection will be noted .

Obviously that's a little extreme , and it's good that the quality of moderation is discussed . But I just think it wouldn't hurt to be a little more appreciative . It won't kill ya .

 

[Senethro]

Split OT. Keep one forum called OT that is explicitly for non-political, non-philosophical, non-religious light discussion. Have a hard no flaming, no homophobia, no racism, no misogyny ruleset. Only Friendship and Sunlight Allowed.

Politics, religion etc get labelled as serious discussion only, and posted in a new forum considered to be under Red Diamond standards at all times. I guess in this forum you could allow the low grade racism and homophobia that some posters claim are core components of their belief systems, and so therefore protected against criticism, much as what goes on in current OT.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I don't think such ideas are protected against criticism, just that they don't get infracted just for their views. Racism I'm pretty sure is specifically banned anyway though.

What I think is really ridiculous is what certain people will let pass for racism, homophobia, or misogyny. But that's another thread.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

Split OT. Keep one forum called OT that is explicitly for non-political, non-philosophical, non-religious light discussion. Have a hard no flaming, no homophobia, no racism, no misogyny ruleset. Only Friendship and Sunlight Allowed.

Politics, religion etc get labelled as serious discussion only, and posted in a new forum considered to be under Red Diamond standards at all times. I guess in this forum you could allow the low grade racism and homophobia that some posters claim are core components of their belief systems, and so therefore protected against criticism, much as what goes on in current OT.

I had an idea like that and was going to post it but decided I did not want to get laughed off.

My idea was to create two forums, Lite-OT and Serious-OT. Light-OT can contain the cereal threads and perhaps the Arts & Entertainment and Jokes and maybe Sports subforums. Serious-OT would be most of the OT and the other subforums for history and science. I say put them as subforums to keep it relatively organized. And of course the names would be up to debate (Light-OT and Serious-OT just dont sound that good).

Of course now that Ive posted it nobody will take the idea seriously

 

[Senethro]

I don't think such ideas are protected against criticism, just that they don't get infracted just for their views. Racism I'm pretty sure is specifically banned anyway though.

What I think is really ridiculous is what certain people will let pass for racism, homophobia, or misogyny. But that's another thread.

That there are different treatments of these forms of bigotry because some targets are more socially acceptable than others is evidence of prejudice on the part of the moderation team.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

I had an idea like that and was going to post it but decided I did not want to get laughed off.

My idea was to create two forums, Lite-OT and Serious-OT. Light-OT can contain the cereal threads and perhaps the Arts & Entertainment and Jokes and maybe Sports subforums. Serious-OT would be most of the OT and the other subforums for history and science. I say put them as subforums to keep it relatively organized. And of course the names would be up to debate (Light-OT and Serious-OT just dont sound that good).

Of course now that Ive posted it nobody will take the idea seriously

Nobody is going to laugh at this. I proposed this back in 2005 and actually seeked public input (you can still find the threads if you search hard enough); TF was actually going to implement it until I asked him to hold off because I got cold feet at the last minute, over the very loud objections fr maybe 1/10 to 1/3 of the OT posterkind back then (depending on how large I want to estimate the silent lurker-type population to be).

Since then, I'm pretty much can't be motivated to go thru trying to 'convince' (battle?) these people to at least give it a try and see how it goes.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

When I said cereal threads I meant serial and not threads about Cheerios vs. Rice Krispies or something. I always seem to do that

Also this leads to another idea. Split the OT mods into two groups. Have a rotating system where one week Group A does Light-OT and Group B does Serious-OT. Then second week, Group A does Serious-OT and Group B does Light-OT. It may help somewhat if you know you dont have to deal with political debates at the end of the week. Also just put all the mods on both forums so you dont need an admin to constantly change that and one of the others could help out in case of a spambot infestation.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

That there are different treatments of these forms of bigotry because some targets are more socially acceptable than others is evidence of prejudice on the part of the moderation team.

Most of the perceived inaction probably stems fr us not agreeing on whether it's actionable or non-actionable. We have a large team nowadays; if mods disagree too much (believe me, we're sometimes so 'different' that someone's 'prejudice' will be cancelled out by the rest), we usually don't take action. We try not to let prejudice get in the way. Most of the time, there's no black-or-white way to decide on action for most of the issues you attribute to 'prejudice'.

At the end of the day, this is a free site, with volunteers helping to keep order in OT. Yes, the main objective is to maintain order in the forums, so everyone can enjoy using them and that we don't get into trouble with various authorities, rather than trying to run and manage debates (we try where possible and as you can see, we're justly being rewarded with complaints). I've always said in the staff forum - there shld a limit to how much effort we want to (or can) run the 'perfect' political-type debate.

If you really want real, unlimited, no holds barred, heavy political debate (which is where most of our OT issues are from), maybe you shldn't try to get it at a gaming forum?

 

[Knight-Dragon]

When I said cereal threads I meant serial and not threads about Cheerios vs. Rice Krispies or something. I always seem to do that

There's no reason why 'light' 'social' threads need to be restricted to cereal threads, once we have a social forum set up?

Non-political threads can also be fairly serious and informative in its own ways - like seeking advice/suggestions for health improvements, exercising, raising kids etc.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

Well sereal threads are the main example of "light" ones -- birthday threads are another, and the ones about cameras circling the world, interesting non-political (as in unlikely to start a flamewar) news, etc.

 

[Synobun]

Nice, got my post deleted. Bravo.

Moderator Action: Pls discuss your initial infraction with the mod issuing it using PMs, rather than in public, if you have an issue. You'll find most will be quite willing to talk about it so long as it's not just another 'you can't do this' type of message. If we start to publicly discuss every infraction in public, with everyone joining in, nothing will ever get done around here, most mods would quit in disgust rather than put up with the public grilling and we'd be forced to shut down for good. Thank you very much. - KD

 

[Synobun]

I would request that you stop deleting my posts in this thread. My opinion is just as valuable as the next.

kthxluvubai.

 

[Senethro]

If you really want real, unlimited, no holds barred, heavy political debate (which is where most of our OT issues are from), maybe you shldn't try to get it at a gaming forum?

This is an amazing copout for pretty much any criticism of anything at CFC.

 

[LucyDuke]

We have a large team nowadays; if mods disagree too much (believe me, we're sometimes so 'different' that someone's 'prejudice' will be cancelled out by the rest), we usually don't take action.

Is most of the team even participating regularly?