Red Diamond Threads

[Knight-Dragon]

I'm really wondering what the advantage of this is over a separate forum. From a user perspective it would be less confusing if there were a separate forum with different rules, than to have some threads in the same forum follow different rules. Especially since the goal is to have all "serious" topics automatically designated RD.

Most of the mods would certainly love to split OT into two, for more obvious identification of the intended purpose and tone of a thread and to ease the eternal headache of trying to mod the light and the 'serious' threads differently.

However seeing as how some OT posters can go ballistic over even the mere suggestion of such a split and as how such a split won't solve our eternal headache of moderating the 'serious' threads other than shoving it into its own corner, admins have decided not to do this in the near future. So instead we're coming up with this initiative to achieve much the same purpose, and still keep OT intact.

Details need to be worked out and decided on later on, but what harm can there be in trying it out for a few threads for a while and seeing how it goes?

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Out of curiosity, since there's been around a dozen posts saying, "wait around, give it a chance, if it doesn't work we'll remove it easy enough," well... what exactly is success? A reduction in infracted posts overall? A livelier community? What are you looking for to see if RD threads "succeed" or not? Who is going to evaluate that success? Forum members? Administrators? Moderators?

Obviously, the evaluation will be done by the mods since we've the information and are small and cohesive enough to actually come to some sort of consensus (seeing how mutually contradictory and diverse the results of the OT survey sometimes were; I am not sure how leaving it to the community will play out). We have a ton of new mods who are just normal posters until recently, and we'll be weighing their opinions on the matter as well. This initiative has been thoroughly discussed by the largish OT mod team (incl input fr mods fr elsewhere as well).

The mods aren't out to wreck OT. If it doesn't work out, we'll can it. Don't worry.

We're also working out something else (get on it, Turner! ). Some time after we get that out, we'll run a second OT survey to get a sense of what OT posters think again (not just the loudest).

 

[Knight-Dragon]

This is really easy to overlook in a panic of "mods are going to start arbitrarily assigning EVEN MORE MODERATION". I like it, but you guys aren't selling it very well, packaged with mandatory RDs that throw everyone into a tizzy.

Yes indeed, the general idea is to tighten up on the 'serious' threads and to lighten up on all the rest. The RD tag is to help mods and posters identify which is which. One of the chief complaints in the OT survey was we're letting people rampaging and ruining some 'serious' threads unchecked as well as being too strict on the 'fun' stuff, IIRC vaguely.

The decisions will be made by BJ after input fr mods and community, since he's running this particular show and I'm confident that if necessary he can be convinced that OPers can decide if they want to RD their threads or not, if that's the main issue. He's hardly the authoritarian that I am.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

I want to make it clear I understand the motivation behind it and I share the perceived goal and it's very easy to criticize and much harder to come up with solutions, so my respect, whatever happens, to those who try to come up with solutions to improve CFC-OT.

Yeah this is exactly why it took forever to come up with ideas, after trying to make some sense of the inputs fr the OT survey, in between juggling with family, careers, and burnout.

Just saying we're now trying out some new things for OT after input fr the (diverse and sometimes contradictory results of the) OT survey, rather than just continue to plod along with doing the same things since 2000.

 

[North King]

Obviously, the evaluation will be done by the mods since we've the information and are small and cohesive enough to actually come to some sort of consensus (seeing how mutually contradictory and diverse the results of the OT survey sometimes were; I am not sure how leaving it to the community will play out). We have a ton of new mods who are just normal posters until recently, and we'll be weighing their opinions on the matter as well. This initiative has been thoroughly discussed by the largish OT mod team (incl input fr mods fr elsewhere as well).

The mods aren't out to wreck OT. If it doesn't work out, we'll can it. Don't worry.

We're also working out something else (get on it, Turner! ). Some time after we get that out, we'll run a second OT survey to get a sense of what OT posters think again (not just the loudest).

Okay, the thing is, and please don't take this as an attack, it's just an observation: you guys created the idea, in private, discussed it, in private, and decided to implement it, in private. It's extremely easy for anyone to get excited about the idea that they created, it becomes their baby, and apparently whatever objections were raised were minimal, because it went through.

People who created an idea and pushed it through to completion are very likely to find it an agreeable idea. I don't think that you're necessarily going to get an objective evaluation of its success from its creators; moreover, I'm not even sure our metrics for success are going to be the same thing! And surely you'd agree that the posters' visions of OT matter as much as those of the moderation staff? The one was created to arbitrate between and help the other!

But instead you're essentially saying you're going to evaluate it, with your own metric, and honestly it feels a lot like you're just flat-out ignoring any disagreement from regular posters that comes your way. I know that apparently a few people's posts in this thread were noticed by the moderators, but the nearly silent response has given the impression that no one in the staff seems to care all that much. I shouldn't need to emphasize what a bad ambience that creates in the forum as a whole.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Okay, the thing is, and please don't take this as an attack, it's just an observation: you guys created the idea, in private, discussed it, in private, and decided to implement it, in private. It's extremely easy for anyone to get excited about the idea that they created, it becomes their baby, and apparently whatever objections were raised were minimal, because it went through.

Well if we consult the 'public', I am 100% sure that anything we propose will be sunk by some people, and if anything passes at all, it will be so weak and nebulous that it's hardly worth the effort. This is pretty much the only way things will get done on Internet forums effectively, imposed fr the top after wading thru opinions and whatever feedback there are.

This is really BJ's baby (most certainly not mine!), and the rest of us act as 'the other side' AFAICS. Or I would like to think so.

I know that apparently a few people's posts in this thread were noticed by the moderators, but the nearly silent response has given the impression that no one in the staff seems to care all that much. I shouldn't need to emphasize what a bad ambience that creates in the forum as a whole.

Yeah because I'm burned out (more like bored out) fr getting stuck in OT again (after getting away for 6 years straight), and can't seem to find the will to respond. Until now...

(Burnout is the major issue, afflicting mods.)

No idea for the rest... and I certainly can't order them to respond. This is an all-volunteers site anyways.

 

[choxorn]

Well if we consult the 'public', I am 100% sure that anything we propose will be sunk by some people, and if anything passes at all, it will be so weak and nebulous that it's hardly worth the effort. This is pretty much the only way things will get done on Internet forums effectively, imposed fr the top after wading thru opinions and whatever feedback there are.

That's true, there's probably going to be at least one person disliking anything you come up with. That's not going to sink it. It will sink if lots of people dislike it and you ignore their feedback on how it could be made better, which seems to be exactly what you are doing here.

 

[Plotinus]

But instead you're essentially saying you're going to evaluate it, with your own metric, and honestly it feels a lot like you're just flat-out ignoring any disagreement from regular posters that comes your way. I know that apparently a few people's posts in this thread were noticed by the moderators, but the nearly silent response has given the impression that no one in the staff seems to care all that much. I shouldn't need to emphasize what a bad ambience that creates in the forum as a whole.

Here's the thing: what we have in this thread is a lot of reactions to the announcement of the Red Diamond idea. In my opinion some of the criticisms articulated here are reasonable and some aren't. However, they are just predictions. They're not feedback based on how it's actually been working out. As has been made clear, this is a trial. If it doesn't work out, it could be tweaked, drastically altered, or abandoned altogether. Now, people have pointed out aspects of the idea that they don't think will work. Fine. But... how are we meant to react to that? Not try it out after all? Change it before we've even tried it?

The basic motivation behind the Red Diamond is a sort of toned-down version of a forum split. A lot of people like the idea of splitting OT into a "serious" OT and a "less serious" OT for ease of use. A lot of other people don't like the idea of fragmenting OT and losing its cohesive "culture". So what we have here is an idea to try to retain the positive value of a forum split without the negatives. The Red Diamond is meant to distinguish between the "serious" threads and the "non-serious" ones while still keeping everyone in the same place.

The feature that many people have objected to is the idea that moderators might assign a Red Diamond to threads that lack it, thereby effectively determining the nature of the thread and overriding the OP's wishes. I think the objection is reasonable. However, it's not a feature which is intended to be used much. People are reacting as if this is going to be a common occurrence and that the Red Diamond is basically a tool for the moderators to impose their will on threads. But the provision of having moderators assign a Red Diamond where they think appropriate was only meant for a small minority of cases - where the OP obviously intends a serious discussion but omits a Red Diamond, for example where the OP is a new poster unfamiliar with the conventions. And similar cases. It's not meant to be a frequently used measure, and it's mentioned in the rules of the Red Diamond basically as a sort of get-out clause for when it is required. Maybe it's a bad idea. In which case, we'll see what happens, and if it is bad we'll change it.

The Red Diamond is meant to make things easier for everyone, members and moderators alike. It's meant to help the forum become a bit more self-regulating. Once the system is in place and people are used to it, the hope is that people posting in Red Diamond threads will know to maintain a higher level of discussion and not need to be prodded all the time before they do so. Conversely, people posting in other threads will know that they have the latitude to joke around and not worry that they might get infracted for spam (for that, I mean - of course they might get infracted for spam for other things). In other words, the hope is that the system will encourage and enable members to self-select when it comes to how they behave in the different kinds of threads and that a lighter moderating touch will be needed as a result. Will this actually be the case? I don't know, and no-one else does, which is why this is a trial and there is provision to change it if need be. But let's give it a go. People may disagree with the details of this idea or even with the idea itself, but I hope they won't disagree with the intent behind it or the looked-for outcome. So enough with the jeremiads: instead of glumly predicting failure, let's look at the positives and try to make it work, and if it doesn't work, then we can think about what the problems are and what to do next.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

There have been times when I'm unsure of whether I'm being trolled on this board or not, and I ask the person in question, and they quite reasonably tell me what's what, and serious conversation continues. And we move on, and the thread continues, and everyone, more or less, is happy.

This is how I have always tried to handle things - when in doubt, just ask. If you ask in a civil way, chances are good that you will get a civil answer... except if you happen to ask somebody who has no intention of being civil, period.

It is clear to me that the goal of the people who are in charge of this site and people like me have diverged. Have any of the current Admins ever once made a post that is humorous or even worse - a light hearted jab. The idea that you will control the style of the posts to drive the herd into more appropriate discussion sounds like a lot of fun. I forget, are we here for fun or to move forward the cumulative wisdom of mankind. As I pointed out there is now an army of mods that sometimes surpasses the number of actual members logged in-absurd.

In defense of my former colleagues on staff, I can attest that they have indeed occasionally made humorous posts. As for the "army of mods" - in recent times (last year or two that I'm aware of), one criterion for choosing new staff has been what time zone the individual is in. The intent is to spread out the staff members over various time zones, to cover as much of a normal 24-hour-day as possible.

As I posted above, though, it needs to be an option. Forcing the RDing of every thread on whatever topics they deem worthy is not coöperative, it's just yet more unappreciated overmoderation.

Does anyone actually have a problem with this RD thing as an option? Not whether you'll make use of it, whether you're personally interested in such threads, whether you think it'll work out at all - if threads only get the designation by the OP, is that really objectionable?

If it's optional, that would be less heavy-handed. However, I'm one of the people who would rather see "OT-lite" and "OT-serious" so there would be no confusion whatsoever. And the forum would not start looking like a box of Lucky Charms.

In otherwords, RD has the potential to be used in many different ways, to many different ends. Mods should be indifferent to why we're using the RD icon; they should just enforce the rules more stringently in those topics, and let us decide what the purpose of using the RD icon should be. Dropping the goal of "serious discussion" and being absolutely clear that this is only about tighter moderation will allow us to decide whether RD'ing our threads will be good or bad for our thread.

"Would my thread benefit from tighter moderation?" If the answer is Yes, put an RD icon on it. That's how we should be using it.

Absolutely. One of the major reasons why I start so few threads here is that I prefer my threads to stay on-topic and not get derailed into nonsense. Even OPs that literally beg people to cooperate and not drag the thread down into the muck are often ignored.

Details need to be worked out and decided on later on, but what harm can there be in trying it out for a few threads for a while and seeing how it goes?

Now where have I heard the "try it and see what happens" concept encouraged before?

Oh, right. That's the sort of thing I've been saying for years. From my experiences and perceptions gained in Site Feedback, this is a concept that has been noticeably lacking in the mindsets of most staff members, as a lot of ideas people have wanted to try over the years have simply been dismissed with a "Nope. Won't work. Period." Interesting that we see this trotted out when it's something that people have not been asking for...

This is really BJ's baby (most certainly not mine!), and the rest of us act as 'the other side' AFAICS. Or I would like to think so.

Then why aren't we hearing from Birdjaguar? Surely, the architect of this idea would be the most appropriate person to explain it.

 

[Grisu]

Just because I say I want "less talk and more action" doesn't mean that I support any action you do. Don't try to pretend that my call for more action means that I shouldn't find this particular action a bad idea. (Or indeed that my dislike for one aspect of the idea means that I think the whole idea is stupid and wrong. It isn't. It needs work. But what needs even more work is moderators' attitudes to the users.)

well, obviously. I was just saying that I have trouble understanding the whole outrage part. I can see the reason behind many of the arguments/critizism of the new system, and I'm sure we can work many of those parts out. what I don't understand is the "OMG, the mods are going to impose even more authoritan measures on us"-outrage. My apoligies if I misunderstood that part.

What does interest me is what you mean about the moderators' attitude that needs work?

You're missing an excellent opportunity to devolve some of the decision making from moderators to users. Some users want more moderation in threads: Great! Those users can now put a Red Diamond on their threads, giving them exactly what they want.

as it has already been pointed out, that point is being discussed, and it was never intended as the standard procedure anyway. In the vast majority of cases the OP will be left to decide if he wants an RD or not.

If you're saying that this heralds a new era of "try it out and see what sticks", then that's great. I'm all for trials of new ideas to see if it works. I would love to see "like" buttons in OT. Can we trial that first please?

That's not up for me to decide, though personally I don't see what the great benefit of it would be. With the thread rating there's already a similar feature in place, let's see how this works out first. Besides unlike the thread rating, the like-feature seems to get much less support from the users, at least form what I saw in the thread in SF.

Since this is a trial, why not make changes to it now, instead of sticking steadfast to a plan that many users categorically reject? Afterall, it's just a trial, right? So what's the harm in dumping the "forced RD" aim now? Let us decide whether we want to use it.

This feature was introduced what, 3 days ago? Not having deviated by now hardly counts as sticking steadfast to the original plan. Besides it's just an aim and has not been implemented yet, so no harm done, right?

All we are asking is to let us decide what is fun/light-hearted. If my thread is abducted kicking and screaming into the Red Non-Light District, imma going to start to quoting U.S. Constitution debaters so you all can infract their way with words.

As far as I can see that's not all you (general you) are asking for, but I think that idea does have its merit.

This is really easy to overlook in a panic of "mods are going to start arbitrarily assigning EVEN MORE MODERATION". I like it, but you guys aren't selling it very well, packaged with mandatory RDs that throw everyone into a tizzy.

Maybe we should hire Steve Jobs to sell new features to the OT crowd....he'd probably get you to even pay for it

All hail the new iRD feature

In defense of my former colleagues on staff, I can attest that they have indeed occasionally made humorous posts.

no, we had to turn in our sense of humour when we got the mod-powers

Then why aren't we hearing from Birdjaguar? Surely, the architect of this idea would be the most appropriate person to explain it.

Well, he has been posting in this thread, but yesterday being a holiday in the states and all, I guess he dares having a life outsided OT (I know, outrageous behaviour for a mod, but there you go).

 

[Valka D'Ur]

no, we had to turn in our sense of humour when we got the mod-powers

I don't remember turning mine in. I kept it just fine.

Well, he has been posting in this thread, but yesterday being a holiday in the states and all, I guess he dares having a life outsided OT (I know, outrageous behaviour for a mod, but there you go).

National holidays are no excuse.

 

[LucyDuke]

Mods, thanks for your efforts. I do at least my share of complaining but I appreciate those of you that have been available to talk to in PM and chat. It can get really goddamn frustrating on this side of the stone wall when you guys put it up.

Yeah because I'm burned out (more like bored out) fr getting stuck in OT again (after getting away for 6 years straight), and can't seem to find the will to respond. Until now...

(Burnout is the major issue, afflicting mods.)

To be perfectly blunt... maybe you should get back out of OT, then. Just sayin'.

The feature that many people have objected to is the idea that moderators might assign a Red Diamond to threads that lack it, thereby effectively determining the nature of the thread and overriding the OP's wishes. I think the objection is reasonable. However, it's not a feature which is intended to be used much. People are reacting as if this is going to be a common occurrence and that the Red Diamond is basically a tool for the moderators to impose their will on threads. But the provision of having moderators assign a Red Diamond where they think appropriate was only meant for a small minority of cases - where the OP obviously intends a serious discussion but omits a Red Diamond, for example where the OP is a new poster unfamiliar with the conventions. And similar cases. It's not meant to be a frequently used measure, and it's mentioned in the rules of the Red Diamond basically as a sort of get-out clause for when it is required. Maybe it's a bad idea. In which case, we'll see what happens, and if it is bad we'll change it.

This is what we are reacting to:

Can I start an old style OT discussion thread that does not have all these new restrictions?
For now you can. Soon though we will require that all “serious” discussion threads (determined by the mods) fall under the Red Diamond moniker and those who start a political discussion or economics discussion etc without it, will find that the thread is closed or we have added the designation and moderated it to the higher standards. We do not know how long that transition will take.

Whatever BirdJag may have intended to say, what he did say was all political/economics [and presumably similar SRSBZNS topics] threads are eventually getting squeezed. Your post gives me the impression that this is not the case, so maybe it would help if that passage were struck and re-stated.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

To be perfectly blunt... maybe you should get back out of OT, then. Just sayin'.

I am indeed trying.

 

[Mise]

Here's the thing: what we have in this thread is a lot of reactions to the announcement of the Red Diamond idea. In my opinion some of the criticisms articulated here are reasonable and some aren't. However, they are just predictions. They're not feedback based on how it's actually been working out. As has been made clear, this is a trial. If it doesn't work out, it could be tweaked, drastically altered, or abandoned altogether. Now, people have pointed out aspects of the idea that they don't think will work. Fine. But... how are we meant to react to that? Not try it out after all? Change it before we've even tried it?

Whenever we try to use this argument in Site Feedback we get shot down by a million mods repeating their inane predictions ad nauseum. Maybe you should post in SF more, if this is how you feel about "trials".

Why can't we trial things that we actually want?

The basic motivation behind the Red Diamond is a sort of toned-down version of a forum split. A lot of people like the idea of splitting OT into a "serious" OT and a "less serious" OT for ease of use. A lot of other people don't like the idea of fragmenting OT and losing its cohesive "culture". So what we have here is an idea to try to retain the positive value of a forum split without the negatives. The Red Diamond is meant to distinguish between the "serious" threads and the "non-serious" ones while still keeping everyone in the same place.

The feature that many people have objected to is the idea that moderators might assign a Red Diamond to threads that lack it, thereby effectively determining the nature of the thread and overriding the OP's wishes. I think the objection is reasonable. However, it's not a feature which is intended to be used much. People are reacting as if this is going to be a common occurrence and that the Red Diamond is basically a tool for the moderators to impose their will on threads. But the provision of having moderators assign a Red Diamond where they think appropriate was only meant for a small minority of cases - where the OP obviously intends a serious discussion but omits a Red Diamond, for example where the OP is a new poster unfamiliar with the conventions. And similar cases. It's not meant to be a frequently used measure, and it's mentioned in the rules of the Red Diamond basically as a sort of get-out clause for when it is required. Maybe it's a bad idea. In which case, we'll see what happens, and if it is bad we'll change it.

Hi Plotinus. Have you read the OP? This is what it says:

Can I start an old style OT discussion thread that does not have all these new restrictions?
For now you can. Soon though we will require that all “serious” discussion threads (determined by the mods) fall under the Red Diamond moniker and those who start a political discussion or economics discussion etc without it, will find that the thread is closed or we have added the designation and moderated it to the higher standards. We do not know how long that transition will take.

This makes it perfectly clear that all serious discussion threads will have be RD, and that politics and economics threads without the RD will be locked. I don't know what part of the OP makes you think this is supposed to be used sparingly, or if the OP is unfamiliar with the RD convention, or if the OP secretly wanted the RD but neglected to attach it, or as a "get-out clause" to be used only in case of emergency, or that this is optional and if we want to start a politics or economics discussion without the RD we still can. In fact, it says the exact opposite: "soon", we will no longer be allowed to start politics or economics discussions without the RD. It doesn't say that it will only be used in the "small minority of cases", as you seem to believe. It says that it will be used in all serious discussion threads.

If you're telling us now that BirdJaguar meant all along that RD would be optional, and that he merely miscommunicated his true intentions in the above quoted paragraph, then that would be great!

The Red Diamond is meant to make things easier for everyone, members and moderators alike. It's meant to help the forum become a bit more self-regulating. Once the system is in place and people are used to it, the hope is that people posting in Red Diamond threads will know to maintain a higher level of discussion and not need to be prodded all the time before they do so. Conversely, people posting in other threads will know that they have the latitude to joke around and not worry that they might get infracted for spam (for that, I mean - of course they might get infracted for spam for other things). In other words, the hope is that the system will encourage and enable members to self-select when it comes to how they behave in the different kinds of threads and that a lighter moderating touch will be needed as a result. Will this actually be the case? I don't know, and no-one else does, which is why this is a trial and there is provision to change it if need be. But let's give it a go. People may disagree with the details of this idea or even with the idea itself, but I hope they won't disagree with the intent behind it or the looked-for outcome. So enough with the jeremiads: instead of glumly predicting failure, let's look at the positives and try to make it work, and if it doesn't work, then we can think about what the problems are and what to do next.

You don't need to make it compulsory for this to work. In fact, it would work much better if it was optional.

You need to change the OP now.

 

[BvBPL]

Is there space for red diamond and non-red diamond topics on the same subject? It would be nice if the increased red diamond enforcement came with relaxation on other issues, like duplication of thread topics. I know that the original post said that all serious topics will be obliged to carry the red diamond designation. I think that’s a little severe for the same reasons Mise pointed out above.

What about thread deviation and sidebars? BJ’s original post says that posts in a red diamond thread must further the discussion, but there is no statement that such discussion must remain on the original topic. It seems reasonable to me that the course of a discussion could gradually change to include items outside the realms discussed and laid out in the original post. For example, it seems reasonable to me that a discussion on philosophical postmodernism could be expanded through organic discussion to include posts about modern art, for example. Presuming that such sidebars and deviations are performed in a serious manner in keeping with the red diamond protocols will they be allowed? I ask this because without explicit statements from the mods some posters will have different expectations about whether or not the red diamond designation allows for thread deviation.

This whole idea, the whole argument for the red diamond protocol, is being sold to us primarily as a means to make things easier on the mods. This is an unconvincing argument. For one, I don’t really care how hard it is to be a mod. Furthermore, we haven’t been sold the connection between easing mod work load and having a superior community and expecting the community to infer that such a correlation exists without explicitly spelling it out is presumptive. Finally, it’s just the wrong argument to make. Tell me how this will improve my experience, not the mods’.

 

[Silurian]

If a Mod thinks a thread should be RD then they should PM the person who posted the OP and suggest it. If the OPer agrees then change it to RD if not it stays non RD.

 

[Ajidica]

Question: I may have missed it, but what actions will be taken in RD threads against overly combative/discussion destroying posters? Their actions are never in violation of the rules but they either take undefendable positions just to 'win a thread' or defend their idea in such a way that it drives the thread into the ground? (I know of some examples, including a few where I participated in driving it into the ground.)

 

[JollyRoger]

The feature that many people have objected to is the idea that moderators might assign a Red Diamond to threads that lack it, thereby effectively determining the nature of the thread and overriding the OP's wishes. I think the objection is reasonable. However, it's not a feature which is intended to be used much. People are reacting as if this is going to be a common occurrence and that the Red Diamond is basically a tool for the moderators to impose their will on threads. But the provision of having moderators assign a Red Diamond where they think appropriate was only meant for a small minority of cases - where the OP obviously intends a serious discussion but omits a Red Diamond, for example where the OP is a new poster unfamiliar with the conventions. And similar cases. It's not meant to be a frequently used measure, and it's mentioned in the rules of the Red Diamond basically as a sort of get-out clause for when it is required.

If this is true, then my objections are gone. However, that is not the way I and others read the feature as originally stated. Others have pointed out the clause in question.

 

[Mise]

The very first line in an FAQ is a funny place to put a get-out clause.

And yes, if what Plotinus is saying is true then the OP needs to be "rephrased" to a way that doesn't directly contradict that.

(the reason I'm harping on about this is that I don't like the insinuation that we have all collectively misread a paragraph in the exact same way: that it's somehow our fault. Take responsibility and show some leadership for god's sake - nobody likes that it's compulsory, so scrap that part and we can move this forward.)

 

[RedRalph]

My stance again: let's see how it goes. If there are big problems with mods' use of the RD, then let them know when the problems have actually come up. No doubt they will make mistakes, but wait until they do to have a go. I suspect they won't make many.