PD of PDMA

[hobbsyoyo]

Damn I spend too much time here. Hope that was of use.

If we're turning mods into attorneys and judges, I want my lawyers. I summon MobBoss to the stand as my pro tempore counsel.

Mods have always been judge, jury and executioner. Don't forget that.

 

[Takhisis]

Yes, well, that was a none too subtle avatar that ainwood used to have.

 

[Maniacal]

I can't imagine a more shining example of civil behaviour, brilliant ideas, and highly intelligent discussion to represent your interests in a dispute.

 

[Mise]

Seriously though can we get some kind of commitment from the admins that the idea in the OP will be investigated, preferably with some timescales?

There are a number of talented developers and programmers on this forum; it would be a good idea to solicit opinions publicly on the feasibility of this and the various implementation options. And of course, any volunteers to actually make the bot would be very useful.

vBulletin has a feature to log moderator actions: http://www.vbulletin.com/docs/html/stats_logs_modlog

It would be fairly simple to make a bot to monitor that log file and post certain mod actions to a special locked thread, would it not?

 

[Maniacal]

I am highly in favour of a moderator log, at least for 'publicly' viewable actions anyway. As it is its hard to tell if a moderator is just having a grumpy day, genuinely is doing a bad job overall, does a bad job in specific areas, is doing anything at all (may only really be focusing on another part of the forum he or she moderates) and/or how much is just confirmation bias based on a few poor experiences.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

To the extent that this conversation seems largely about the Tavern alone, it's worth noting that one of the ideas of the Tavern is that moderators should only have to intervene in very limited circumstances, and if you're behaving in such a way as to require our attention, then there's going to be a greater punishment for that (i.e. summary bans). In OT we used to do a lot more 'keep it civil, guys' warnings if things were starting to heat up, but that's much more towards the hand-holding end of the spectrum than what the Tavern is designed for. You're much more likely to see that sort of warning in other forums (e.g. Civ5), where we often intervene just to tell people to cool it a little.

You are aware that some of we OT regulars frequent other parts of the forum as well, right? I post in Civ II, and used to post in Civ III and IV; in fact, those were the areas I posted in for a long time before discovering OT.

The perception I'm getting from your post, Camikaze, is that Civ players are worth the trouble to help them and OT (specifically Tavern OT) posters are not. How do you reconcile it when these people are sometimes the same?

EDIT:

I am highly in favour of a moderator log, at least for 'publicly' viewable actions anyway. As it is its hard to tell if a moderator is just having a grumpy day, genuinely is doing a bad job overall, does a bad job in specific areas, is doing anything at all (may only really be focusing on another part of the forum he or she moderates) and/or how much is just confirmation bias.

Moderators have no business dishing out infractions or warnings based on what happened that morning in their offline life. If a moderator's kid broke a vase or spilled cereal all over the floor at breakfast (hypothetical, general examples), that is no excuse whatsoever to give a heavier penalty to someone on the forum (or any penalty at all, if it's not really something that deserves it).

 

[Camikaze]

Well, a large part of the thinking in the less hand-holding approach in the Tavern is that we really should spend more time on the Civ forums, and agonise less over OT, or give people a bit more freedom there, seeing as it's not front of house anyway. I guess the necessary consequence of the Civ forums being more worth our time (this being a Civ site afterall), is that the OTs are less worth our time, but that's relatively speaking, and isn't saying that the OTs aren't worth any attention. It's simply stating what the purpose of the site is. I don't feel there's anything to reconcile, because it's not a matter of some people not being worth our time as much as others, but about forums. You are worth our time when posting in Civ2 just as much as anyone else posting in Civ2, and the fact that you also post in OT obviously doesn't change that. Similarly, someone who happens to post in one of the civ forums isn't worth more of our time in OT than someone who doesn't. If a feud is restricted to the Tavern, that's naturally less of a concern to us than if it spills over into the Civ forums, even if it's the same people. We're going to be less concerned about mediating disagreements in a forum with laxer rules where less moderator attention is the order of the day than in a forum with stricter rules where more moderator attention is supposed to be given.

This was all, of course, in response to the idea that moderators should take a more interventionist role in the Tavern. That's open to discussion, and we had the OT survey to discuss that and related issues. But as things stand, intensive moderator involvement in disputes between two posters would run contrary to the guiding principles of Tavern moderation.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

So it really does boil down to Civ = good stuff worth the time and effort, and OT = inconvenient stuff that isn't really worth that much time and effort, even though both areas involve real people, with real opinions and concerns, and who usually have the desire to interact with other posters in a positive way, in a positive environment, and believe that the staff will be approachable and helpful when problems arise.

Or in other words (using myself as an example): if I happen to have an issue with someone in Civ II, the staff will make the effort to resolve the situation without necessarily handing out infractions, but if the same sort of problem happens in OT, the response will either be "Pfft. It's OT, so ignore it" or "It's OT. How many points shall we dish out?"

This is what it appears you are saying.

 

[Buster's Uncle]

Valka, I have to side with the staff on that one, to the extent Camikaze's take is typical. OTs can be wonderful things, indeed, the good ones can end up sucking up a lot more of a nominally on-topic Civ gamer poster's time. But that's precisely the problem from a valid perspective; OTs are prone to end up wagging the dog, and I could point at a well-known example if bad-mouthing other sites was allowed (not a complaint this time as it's a classy idea, but that's another one that can make things awkward).

It sucks that MTV doesn't play videos anymore, and that the Weather Channel spends so much time on not-weather, doesn't it? The site has a mission that it needs to not stray too far from. All hail having a robust OT -I'm making good progress trying to build up one myself- but on-topic should outrank off. [shrugs]

Nothing I've previously posted has to do with the Tavern, except as part of the whole forum, BTW.

...

hobbsyoyo seems to be someone definitely Worth Listening To.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I'm just trying to get clarity on what Camikaze really means, because it's not clear to me. I am just trying to understand what he's saying, in concise terms.

It's important to me to understand this, because I had the experience on another gaming forum long ago, where one of the admins said flat out that any poster on that forum who wasn't buying the forum owner's product (a gaming comic/magazine), that poster was a leech, sucking up bandwidth, and stealing the food off their children's supper table. That's not an exaggeration; he used those exact terms.

I want to be very sure that none of the staff here feel this way (or similar) about the posters who may not play Civilization or any other Sid Meiers game, or who haven't in a long time.

 

[Buster's Uncle]

It is good for everyone to know what the deal is. (That's only fair, and it's good policy that makes things run more smoothly.)

It is the duty of leaders to make sure.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Well, a large part of the thinking in the less hand-holding approach in the Tavern is that we really should spend more time on the Civ forums, and agonise less over OT, or give people a bit more freedom there, seeing as it's not front of house anyway. I guess the necessary consequence of the Civ forums being more worth our time (this being a Civ site afterall), is that the OTs are less worth our time, but that's relatively speaking, and isn't saying that the OTs aren't worth any attention. It's simply stating what the purpose of the site is. I don't feel there's anything to reconcile, because it's not a matter of some people not being worth our time as much as others, but about forums. You are worth our time when posting in Civ2 just as much as anyone else posting in Civ2, and the fact that you also post in OT obviously doesn't change that. Similarly, someone who happens to post in one of the civ forums isn't worth more of our time in OT than someone who doesn't. If a feud is restricted to the Tavern, that's naturally less of a concern to us than if it spills over into the Civ forums, even if it's the same people. We're going to be less concerned about mediating disagreements in a forum with laxer rules where less moderator attention is the order of the day than in a forum with stricter rules where more moderator attention is supposed to be given.

This was all, of course, in response to the idea that moderators should take a more interventionist role in the Tavern. That's open to discussion, and we had the OT survey to discuss that and related issues. But as things stand, intensive moderator involvement in disputes between two posters would run contrary to the guiding principles of Tavern moderation.

To your last sentence, well ainwood asked for input so I gave it and took the time to put good effort into it to boot. But if we are talking about OT then obviously it isn't worth the time.

Did you read where I suggested it wasn't even needed at the moment, or how it could actually save time in the long run?

 

[Zelig]

I support the idea of logs in the Tavern.

And Maniacal, mod actions caused one or two "rebellions" once

Not any good ones since you've been a member.

Can we have some specific actions please? There was a bot that used to post various news articles in a special forum. It got axed because it was kind of useless. But the idea of using a bot to post in a special forum is nonetheless not unprecedented. Can this be investigated seriously by the admins, or anyone with some technical knowledge of bots and so on? Rather than just saying "this is a good idea but it's too hard", can the admins take the time to investigate this idea fully?

We don't really needs admin involvement for bots.

Yes, acting in good faith, with an honest desire from all parties to meet the other person at least part way, is critical. If those conditions aren't met, mediation is basically futile, and the situation won't be resolved.

Well in some cases one person is completely and objectively wrong and should meet the other person all the way.

 

[The_J]

Seriously though can we get some kind of commitment from the admins that the idea in the OP will be investigated, preferably with some timescales?

[...]

It would be fairly simple to make a bot to monitor that log file and post certain mod actions to a special locked thread, would it not?

The problem: This is, as most things, not applicable everywhere, doesn't make sense, or is just not wanted.
If a thread "User XY sucks" (not hypothetical) is deleted, then you don't want to log that in public, because that pretty much defeats the point of deleting it.
If you delete a thread "I'm going to kill myself" (not hypothetical), then because you don't want that it is public, so no log.
If someone embarrasses him/herself by posting drunk (not hypothetical), then logging that deletion would also be of no point.
And things like death or violence threats (not hypothetical) should also not be broadcasted to the wide public.

-> Public log doesn't work, because the really "interesting" things are not meant to stay public.

 

[Mise]

Fortunately, nobody is asking for a log of those particular moderator actions.

 

[The_J]

In that case I must have missed the solution (and also can't find it anymore). Would anyone be so kind to summarize the solution for these problems?

 

[Mise]

The solution is that nobody is asking for any of that to be logged.

 

[Buster's Uncle]

I'm working on a Grand Unified Theory of Forum Management and a Better Way speech covering that right now...

 

[Valka D'Ur]

The problem: This is, as most things, not applicable everywhere, doesn't make sense, or is just not wanted.
If a thread "User XY sucks" (not hypothetical) is deleted, then you don't want to log that in public, because that pretty much defeats the point of deleting it.
If you delete a thread "I'm going to kill myself" (not hypothetical), then because you don't want that it is public, so no log.
If someone embarrasses him/herself by posting drunk (not hypothetical), then logging that deletion would also be of no point.
And things like death or violence threats (not hypothetical) should also not be broadcasted to the wide public.

-> Public log doesn't work, because the really "interesting" things are not meant to stay public.

If the members see something like "one incident of advocating self-harm/suicide; offender banned for 1 week", how would that be a bad thing? It brings home to everyone that a really serious offense was committed, and a serious consequence happened. Hopefully other people would realize that they shouldn't post similar things because that, too, would result in punishment. No names are named, nothing is quoted. The only people who would know would be those who saw the offending post(s) before their deletion, the person(s) who reported it, if any, and the member(s) involved in the offense.

It's a way of bringing home to people that such offenses do sometimes occur, they're completely unacceptable, and the members SEE that the staff has done something about it. Seeing that something has occurred and been dealt with is one way to lessen the rumors and gossip that can go around a forum and the inevitable misunderstandings. And for sure it would cut down on the moderators having to keep hearing, "Why should I bother to report anything - it's not like they bother doing something about it."

 

[Mise]

That's a good point, Valka.

The admins/supermods etc can always decide what particular moderator actions they want to log publicly afterwards, and change it as we go along. There's simply no need to say that 5% of moderator actions shouldn't be logged, therefore the other 95% of moderator actions shouldn't be logged either.

The thing that frustrates me the most about this forum is that whenever someone comes up with a new idea, it is ALWAYS immediately shot down. Always. Without fail. You get 1 or 2 moderators -- usually BirdJaguar -- who cheer-lead for the change, but he's up against a dozen moderators who will never ever even consider the change and will always argue against it. It happens every single time, and after 9 years, I'm sick and tired of it. Is it any wonder that BirdJaguar is pretty much the only moderator I actually trust, when he's the only one who isn't stubbornly, reflexively and arrogantly opposed to any suggestion any user has ever made?

If you think I'm wrong, and if you think that, actually, you do fully investigate the good ideas that we users generate on SF, then go ahead, prove me wrong. I'd be delighted.