OT Split - One Year On

[Camikaze]

Earlier I think BJ mentioned that there was mod discussion about what to do with inactive mods. I am curious why that is even a point of discussion; it just seems that if you go inactive for 6+ months you shouldn't keep your modship.

Some of the moderators have been around for a decade, and have had long periods of inactivity in the past, eventually coming back to contribute heavily again. Just turfing them out would pretty much ensure we lost their experience forever. So the discussion is partly balancing that against the need for a presently useful moderator list. Also, we need to look at inactivity more carefully than just having a single cut-off point. What is 'inactive'? We have some moderators who haven't been online for a long time. So they obviously qualify. We have some moderators who have been online recently, but haven't posted in ages, and they probably qualify as inactive too (despite not meeting an arbitrary '6 month inactivity' criterion). Then there's moderators who are frequently online, and post regularly, but haven't posted in staff in ages. For some of them, it's because their areas of CFC have no need for such contribution. For others, it's because they aren't moderating anymore. Then there's supermods v senior mods v regular mods - are different levels of activity expected? So anyway, those are all elements of discussion.

Given that there are so few active mods, might it be time for new ones as well? Wouldn't that help with this?

This is one of the things we are looking at (though they don't grow on trees). I imagine we're going to wait until after we've done the OT survey and implemented other changes BJ alluded to before making any changes in that department.

 

[Cutlass]

If you haven't heard from a moderator in a while, why don't you send them an email and ask them what their intentions are?

 

[Camikaze]

I think that's probably what will be done, once we know what we'll actually be doing once we get a reply.

 

[azzaman333]

I think that's probably what will be done, once we know what we'll actually be doing once we get a reply.

Quoting this because it's easier than cutting down your massive post above on my phone.

Re: inactive mods;
there needs to be a more proactive response to mods going inactive. You don't have to get rid of them, but being more prepared to introduce new mods if someone goes inactive for a couple of months would help. Too many mods is a better problem for the forum than not enough, especially when there's only a couple who actually give a damn.

 

[Antilogic]

I got an infraction for posting a picture of roadkill in some thread and another one for a Onion link with profanity or something like that. That's like 5 months right there.

I think my only infraction is linking to the video of Shepard Smith on Fox News saying "we don't effing torture" but it was uncensored. The profanity rule, especially given that is applied to the poster when he is merely quoting a public figure or otherwise newsworthy event and not using it aggressively against another poster, seemed somewhat odd to me. But it's (or at least was) the rule at the time.

Yes; a conundrum.

Question for those who were here and remember OT 2005-2009: How was moderating different? What was moderated and what was not? Have posters changed? Are people posting differently than back then?

I largely agree with JR (and MobBoss); it was a little tighter than the Tavern is now but not significantly so.

What about a category of moderators (call them Community Moderators or something) who aren't proper moderators but can use mod text to break up bickering? The only problem is that, lacking teeth, the bickerers might just ignore them. But then you can have the proper moderators levy greater sanctions on bickerers who ignore the Community Moderator (say, double the usual points, or a 5 day ban or something).

This isn't a bad idea--there have been a few times when a plea from myself or DT has re-tracked a rapidly derailing thread, although I don't know how often that would work or whether it would hold up with some kind of community mod hall monitor police badge.



In any case, I preferred the old system of RD threads and a single forum as opposed to 2 OTs. I feel that not every poster can determine the direction a thread will take with the first few posts, and it makes more sense to let it develop as-is in one forum and then apply the RD sticker or not later on if necessary. Or, if the thread originator wants it to have stronger moderation and more high-level discussion, he or she can put down a RD sticker at the start, giving them a little control over where the thread goes.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Re: inactive mods;
there needs to be a more proactive response to mods going inactive. You don't have to get rid of them, but being more prepared to introduce new mods if someone goes inactive for a couple of months would help. Too many mods is a better problem for the forum than not enough, especially when there's only a couple who actually give a damn.

Sometimes mods just disappear without a word or a trace. One thing that really cannot be tested when selecting a new mod is the time commitment necessary to be active and current. It is substantial. If I miss two or three days in a row, I get pretty far behind in keeping up with active threads, pms, reported posts, and mod discussions. A thread that gets hot can add 4-8 pages in an evening and if I've missed a few days of reading it, then catching up on it, and perhaps others, is a full evenings concentrated work. Moderating here is mostly work. I was out of town for two days this week and when I got back, I had a Netflix movie waiting. It is still waiting and I will try to watch it over the weekend once I have caught up. It is easy for mods to get burned out and leave or take substantial breaks to revive themselves.

Keeping mods "in stock" is not easy and keeping them around to deal with the Colosseum and the latest version of Civ is harder still.

@The guy who sent me a pm and told me not to pm him ever again: This is to let you know that your pm made no sense to me. Part A did not connect with part B at all. I am quite happy to comply, but a clearer explanation would be nice.

 

[Joecoolyo]

Here's an idea: make the forum pay-to-use, and if you're racist or stupid you get banned and lose your investment.

But what about us poors?

 

[choxorn]

Let all current members not have to pay, unless they're one of the 4 problem posters.

 

[azzaman333]

Sometimes mods just disappear without a word or a trace. One thing that really cannot be tested when selecting a new mod is the time commitment necessary to be active and current. It is substantial. If I miss two or three days in a row, I get pretty far behind in keeping up with active threads, pms, reported posts, and mod discussions. A thread that gets hot can add 4-8 pages in an evening and if I've missed a few days of reading it, then catching up on it, and perhaps others, is a full evenings concentrated work. Moderating here is mostly work. I was out of town for two days this week and when I got back, I had a Netflix movie waiting. It is still waiting and I will try to watch it over the weekend once I have caught up. It is easy for mods to get burned out and leave or take substantial breaks to revive themselves.

Keeping mods "in stock" is not easy and keeping them around to deal with the Colosseum and the latest version of Civ is harder still.

@The guy who sent me a pm and told me not to pm him ever again: This is to let you know that your pm made no sense to me. Part A did not connect with part B at all. I am quite happy to comply, but a clearer explanation would be nice.

That's what I mean though. If you had more moderators available, it wouldn't be such a burden to moderate. You'd have more people available to moderate situations as they occur, and less to catch up on if you do leave for a few days due to whatever reason. You're overworking yourselves by not having enough moderators to deal with situations where even a single moderator is unavailable, which is a completely unreasonable situation.

 

[MobBoss]

Let all current members not have to pay, unless they're one of the 4 problem posters.

Who's the 4 then?

Point is this: people love to argue, and find guilty pleasure in watching two people tear each other apart and THEN complain about it as if it where abhorrent to them; even while they still read it and comment on it themselves.

It's the same thing that drives us to rubber neck at an accident on the road, or for people to watch those horrible day time reality tv shows that truely suck but some just cant seem to stop watching.

People complain about low hanging fruit, but then again they are more than willing to eat it. So what to do?

Why not just back off and ignore the whiners, and only get rid of the most obvious and truly offensive and hateful posters that are out to just hurt people and thats it?

Personally I think you guys are really trying to over-think this entire thing. People are going to post here...or they aren't. The main thing is to recognize those that want to just hatefully rip into someone and deal with them, and still let the other 'low hanging fruit' do it's thing so others can partake of it as well.

 

[Perfection]

Can I be number 5?

 

[choxorn]

Who's the 4 then?

Nobody knows who they are, they're just those 4 posters, because we can't agree on which 4.

Well, okay, maybe we can all agree on one of the 4, but the other three?

 

[MobBoss]

Nobody knows who they are, they're just those 4 posters, because we can't agree on which 4.

Well, okay, maybe we can all agree on one of the 4, but the other three?

I'm willing to bet everyone couldnt even agree on 1.

 

[Camikaze]

When I asked for names earlier on, I ended up receiving 4 PMs. One name was on two of the four lists, the remainder were all unique.

 

[choxorn]

Maybe not everyone, and I only just saw this thread so I don't know what all of the snips are, but if I'm reading what's left of the snips right, there is one certain poster who would show up on far more people's lists than anyone else. And it's a poster who I know many have wished to see permabanned for years now, which makes me think I'm reading it right.

 

[Antilogic]

I'd feel bad if I wasn't named. From the Boondocks:

Huey: So you judge your success by the amount of ill will you generate from those around you?
Riley: Hey, if n****s ain't mad at you, you are doing something wrong.

Truly words to live by.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

What about a category of moderators (call them Community Moderators or something) who aren't proper moderators but can use mod text to break up bickering? The only problem is that, lacking teeth, the bickerers might just ignore them. But then you can have the proper moderators levy greater sanctions on bickerers who ignore the Community Moderator (say, double the usual points, or a 5 day ban or something).

Mise thats a bit like my suggestion

So gangleri2001 could make a post about no more posts about pokemon in his Catalan thread "Europe is the past".

The combination of these ideas sound like a sound idea to me.

When I asked for names earlier on, I ended up receiving 4 PMs. One name was on two of the four lists, the remainder were all unique.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I bet all of the 4 guys who sent the PM were on the other's lists?

 

[Thedrin]

Sometimes mods just disappear without a word or a trace. One thing that really cannot be tested when selecting a new mod is the time commitment necessary to be active and current. It is substantial. If I miss two or three days in a row, I get pretty far behind in keeping up with active threads, pms, reported posts, and mod discussions. A thread that gets hot can add 4-8 pages in an evening and if I've missed a few days of reading it, then catching up on it, and perhaps others, is a full evenings concentrated work. Moderating here is mostly work. I was out of town for two days this week and when I got back, I had a Netflix movie waiting. It is still waiting and I will try to watch it over the weekend once I have caught up. It is easy for mods to get burned out and leave or take substantial breaks to revive themselves.

Back in 2003 I was moderating on a board that had similar rules and about 2/3s of the traffic that civfanatics had then. It was very time consuming and detracted from my enjoyment of the site.

Does modern forum software permit one mod to know if another mod has reviewed a thread already or is the intention that every active moderator reviews every active thread?

 

[JohannaK]

The combination of these ideas sound like a sound idea to me.

But Pokemon posts are best posts!

 

[Lone Wolf]

I think that no active user is currently worthy of a ban. There were some, but they seem to be inactive as of now. I find the Voldemort poster (aka the poster-who-must-not-be-named) and other "disruptive" current posters to be comically inept more then anything. I don't think that they need anything more then an occasional slap in the wrist. They seem to be blamed for bigger issues.