Appeal to the moderation

Moderation isn't a popularity contest, but it still often seems like the mods and the userbase have contradictory ideas of where the site should be going, and while it will be necessary to prune some people out of the userbase, if too much pruning happens, the set of mods and the set of userbase will be the same.

Perhaps I'm not the best person to chime in, because I can sometimes come off as a "moderator's pet," or at least I fear as much.

In my experience with cadres that run websites, both from the perspective of the userbase and as someone who has been part of said cadres, I think there are ups and downs to how things are handled here.

For the most part, I tend to think that the moderation here is actually fairly robust, given their numbers for what they're trying to do. Yes, some proposals do fall through the cracks at times, but it isn't because of malice or ignoring folks. They just have a ton to deal with. It can help to holler for more attention if you really think it's worth it.

I also sometimes think mountains get made out of molehills. Like the comment in the Badge thread that precipitated this. It honestly sounded like there was strenuous objection to the mods planning on some sort of surprise that's meant to be fun. Boo fun. Just because some things get settled in private doesn't mean that pleasant surprises are impossible.

That said, there are some legit issues. This thread being a bit buried, for example - having a thread where folks can rationally discuss mod actions and appeal to them for non-ban reasons is useful, and it shouldn't be capable of being buried. A sticky, maybe even movement to Frequently Asked Questions, might make it more prominent.

Also, speaking as someone who knows all about this from rueful experience, the moderation doesn't really have a ton of experience with public relations. One problem that has happened multiple times is that certain actions end up looking worse than they are because of word choice, and the fact that the mods tend not to get out in front of an issue to control the message. And this is in no way an indictment of anyone - PR training is more often than not a "school of hard knocks" sort of thing, and much of the site leadership is still working on that. It's very much a work in progress.

I think that is actually why there is generally a feeling that the mods don't communicate everything well. Much of the text of many issues is actually discussed in the forums - it's just seldom in one place. Moreover, it tends to get buried quickly. Know how the Edit Banned thread used to have tropers constantly drowning out the mods? Pretty much all major news discussions about the site still have that issue, except that the mods have chosen not to lock those threads down to particular users. The upside is a free exchange of ideas; the downside is that there's a frequent signal/noise issue. There are various theories on how to amend this; not sure which would actually work for the wiki.

One thing I find is extremely helpful is to note that, for all the issues that the various mods may have, they are all trying to do the right thing for the readership, the editors, and the wiki at large. It's much easier to approach all of them and the problems that may develop if that is kept in mind.

We're all probably just keyed up about all the changes. The mods mean well, but on the other hand, I don't like changes.

To be fair, based on how things have read, I don't think the moderation does, either. They're trying to make the best of a bad situation.

A few weeks ago, somebody asked where to go to raise a discussion with the mods. I suggested this thread and somebody said "no, that was for the OTC issue and picking mods. Don't go there."

It wasn't anybody on staff, though.

I was indeed overworked about something meant as a harmless joke. I humbly ask for blowing that way out of proportion.

I think that's part of it. Had things always been this way, I think it would be very easy to have accepted that as the norm. Change is difficult to accept, and it's even more so when it appears to be made in poor judgement, or crassly, or without an explanation. I understand that the moderation team is doing what they genuinely feel is the best for the good of the wiki. Anyone who claims to care more, or have done more, about this site than Fast Eddie is either delusional or lying to themselves. We wouldn't be here without the quite literally 100,000 hours or more of work he's put into the site over the past 8+ years.

But then we have comments like this one: “There is no explanation needed beyond the fact that the topic is a pain in the ass to keep clean and it endangers the wiki’s revenues. We just won’t have articles about rape. Super easy. No big loss.”

Certainly, site revenue is an issue. If that truly were the choice, between losing a section of the wiki, and losing it all, the choice is obvious, and I think we would all have chosen as the Fast One did. I cannot fault the staff for making the tough, unpopular choices needed to maintain the wiki. However, I feel that this sort of cavalier, nonchalant tone about it all really speaks to disrespect everyone who has put in the time and effort to making those pages. And yeah, there are going to be people out there who want to insert their personal fetishes into this site and make us all look bad in the process. So, I guess ultimately, staff and users are going to have to come together to figure something out. As a team.

edited 26th Jun '12 9:10:54 PM by DarkConfidant

Irony does not work on the internet. Irony does not work on the internet.Irony does not work on the internet.Irony does not work on the internet.Irony does not work on the internet.Irony does not work on the internet.Irony does not work on the internet.Irony does not work on the internet.Irony does not work on the internet.Irony does not work on the internet.Irony does not work on the internet.Irony does not work on the internet.Irony does not work on the internet.Irony does not work on the internet.Irony does not work on the internet.Irony does not work on the internet.Irony does not work on the internet.

Maybe I'll remember that, next time.

I think part of the problem is that every time you take the time out to explain what you're doing, someone sees it as an opportunity to argue with you, and try to turn it into some huge debate, and then a dozen people who have no idea what's going on will try to throw in their two cents worth, and soon, feelings are hurt, lamps are broken, and the cat is pregnant. And a whole lot of peoples' time has been wasted that could have been more productively spent. By everyone, including the staff. Which means the next problem has just progressed from being a minor irritation into a full-blown crisis. And people are demanding explanations before you do anything about it....

If you present people with a fait accompli, there will be some grumbling, but for the most part, people will go along with it. I mean, what are they going to do? Find someone else foolish enough to provide this sort of service for free?

You can't make everyone happy, especially when you have thousands of different people with different wants, and in their hearts, most people know that. They just wish it were someone else being made unhappy. In each and every case.

I like this place. If it changes, it changes. I'll probably still like it. If not, I'll go elsewhere. I'd like to thank FE and the staff for keeping this zoo halfway sane half the time.

But sometimes the arguments, cat impregnation, etc, can give solutions that might not have been immediately apparent. It's a hundred sets of eyes seeing things from different perspectives.

@Lu:

For the most part, I've had the exact opposite experience, especially when it comes to particularly delicate subject matter. When we were coming up with No Lewdness No Prudishness, I asked Eddie and several other mods to define what "Lewdness" meant. Eddie himself basically brushed off the question and insinuated that you know it if you see it, and if you can't see it, you're part of the problem. I got the impression that everyone was fine with drawing this line in the sand and if you weren't on their side, you were an "other".

That isn't the first time I've had a reaction like that, but I've come to expect it because I tend to defend explicit content and "lewdness", so to speak. I've also been outspoken against the whole policy of "if tropers can't moderate themselves, then we'll take away their toys" attitude that most of the administration tends to have.

edited 27th Jun '12 7:18:32 AM by KingZeal

You are the first person to ever say that we come off as unattentive because we may not call crowners right away. In fact, we've had multiple threads on TRS problems and this issue has never come up. Even more so since we almost invariably post in thread to say "we need a greater difference in the ratios" or "Bump for votes" when we get a holler about a crowner we won't call. So, I can't say this is an issue. I myself used to do a lot of hollering before I got modded, so I can speak firsthand.

....We do that. All the time in fact. Just ask ccoa, for starters.

The users who do work for the wiki are acknowledged and recognised. In fact, they rarely ask for credit. We always hand them badges to award them publicly.

I have yet to see you point out the so-called secret process. The decision on Nightmare Fuel was done with a crowner in Special Efforts, which a user called hastily. We then, however, saw the content, and submitted the cutlist request after we saw that we're better off without it after all. That was all in public. Nothing in the mod forum. I even specified the reasons behind it in my post.

We've taken a week to decide on your request. That's because we want input from as many people as possible in the team. Also, it has nothing to do with secrecy.

And by the way, I was not a mod when 2GI struck. Still, when I saw Eddie had wiped Naughty Tentacles, I did not flip out but told everyone to calm down until we hear from him. So I know what it's like to wait for official word.

Perhaps our experiences have been different then, because I've never received any sort of official notice whenever I've asked to call a crowner and it's been decided not to call it. But I suppose the question I would like to have answered is "What guidelines are used to determine whether a crowner is ready to be called", because I don't want to feel like an idiot and waste time on all sides if it hasn't been long enough.

Maybe it's just me having to come to grips that no matter how much time and effort any one individual puts into this site, there's a practically limitless amount of work still to go, and because there is so much work, it's basically impossible for a person to keep up with every TRS thread, every IP thread, and still be able to find time to edit and chat with friends. In that respect, decisions that aren't actually secret come off as such because you never hear about the crowner until it's long called and the fix is halfway through. I guess the magnitude of the tasks at hand is beyond my (or anyone else's ability) to handle. Perhaps I'm a bit envious in that regard.

Still, this conversation was much appreciated, so again, I thank you for your time.

One thing to keep in mind is that we're a fairly big Wiki, with more than 80 000 active editors and over 5000 active forumgoers. No one, not a single person in the Wiki, could ever hope to see everything. We're probably growing at a faster rate than most people could read, and behind most major changes, the actual change is very small compared to the discussion that preceded it.

Crowner being ready to be called is a subjective area. If I get called in on a crowner that I don't feel is ready, I try to leave a post bumping for votes or explaining the problem, though. These are just my guidelines, keep in mind. We don't have an official rulebook and the other mods may not have the same views.

• Consensus (>2:1 vote ratio) or it being obvious consensus won't be reached, either because the crowner is old and all options fail, or because the option is deep in the red.
• At least 15 votes. Sometimes I'll call it with less, but only if it's unanimous or nearly so and has been open for a long time, and is thus unlikely to get more.
• A good gap between the leading options, if they are mutually exclusive. I don't particularly like to call a crowner if the first and second green options are separated by only a vote or two.
• Open at least 5 days, preferably without changing much in about 24 hours.
• No major, unrefuted objections to the winning option that I can find.
• Not at exactly a 2:1 consensus. It's too easy for one vote to tip that into failing rather than passing. I'm far more comfortable with greater than 2. Although if the crowner is old and stable, I'll call it anyway.

There are other things that go through my head, but I think that's the gist of it.

edited 27th Jun '12 9:06:19 AM by ccoa

I'm aware there are problems with that attitude, but at the same time, I'm not sure what you'd expect them to do otherwise. The alternative is "if the tropers can't moderate themselves, let them keep screwing around and causing trouble". No matter what methods we settle on, it's going to end up bothering somebody.

edited 27th Jun '12 11:22:54 AM by JapaneseTeeth

No, I can't agree with that. Nothing good can come of flat out making an enemy of your contributors.

An improvement would be not to start pointing fingers and blame when your community "misbehaves", and it would certainly be an improvement not to punish everyone for the mistakes of a group.

Okay, let me try this again. I agree that punishing the many for the sins of the few is bad, and I think we need to look for ways to avoid doing that. (Although I do think that "making enemies" out of the posters is an exaggeration; while I disagree with a lot of the decisions made by the people who run things, I think most of the time they're acting in what they believe is for the site's best interests).

What I'm asking is for your proposed alternative to the current way that things are run. The ideal is obvious to only target those who create trouble, but that's wildly impractical. The other thing is that sometimes (not always, obviously, but there are cases) it is the editors' fault for some problems. I don't think the contributors are to blame for everything, but they're definitely to blame for some things.

edited 27th Jun '12 12:21:15 PM by JapaneseTeeth

Hmm. I'm satisfied with what I've heard. As I said, the only thing I'm really wanting is more communication and explanation for the decisions that are made. As long as there's some reasoning given, I have no problem accepting decisions that I don't personally agree with.

So, as I said, thank you to all the moderators who took time to address my concerns.

Well, quite honestly, a few things have already been done that I had originally been arguing for. Such as specialized mods that handle specific tasks. That was something I'd mentioned back when it was stated that the few mods we had were being overworked having to look over the entire forum. I didn't understand why we couldn't just adopt the v-Bulletin structure of assigning "sub-mods" to individual fora. But that seems to be happening now—but for a while, the argument was that the solution was to make the tropers police themselves. FE has even threatened to shut down the forums (whether in whole or selected ones) in their entirety before, which would be a disastrous choice. I'm not sure how serious he was about that, though.

Another example would be the aversion to creating general rules for nebulous subjects. For example, I mentioned before that when No Lewdness No Prudishness was first being built, several posters were concerned with the definition admins used for the terms "porn", "paedoshit", "creepiness" and "pervs". Apparently, these are all things we don't want—but all of them are just vague words without any context. When people pointed out as much, we were told that they were a "know it when you see it" matter, which doesn't work when you're making a hard content policy.

Again, this is something that's been addressed, but this wasn't an isolated incident. Quite a few times, when it's been suggested that we should come up with "rules" for a particular touchy subject, the objection is that rules are useless because people will still be Rules Lawyers. But that in itself is a Perfect Solution Fallacy, and nothing is saying that any rules made couldn't be amended.

These are just off the top of my head. In general, I think there's a "slant" (so to speak) that needs to be worked on for the wiki and site as a whole which is more concerned with assigning blame and punishment for things that go wrong rather than choosing the most efficient solutions.

Okay, now I understand where you're coming from.

There are several points your missing here, Zeal:

• Subforum moderation is a terrible system. It tends to be highly inconsistent and it ends up with a lot of stuff slipping through the cracks because no one sees the bigger picture. I've never seen it implemented effectively.
• The mod staff is not overworked. No, we don't read every thread on the forum, but even with subforum moderation that doesn't happen. In both systems you still need people to report to you.
• We've tried sub forum-mods. That's what engineers were when we still had them. The amount of things we needed to do to be effective made it so that it was far more practical for us to just be full mods.
• We don't have enough good candidates to make as many moderators as we'd need to give each of the fora it's own moderators. We're having a hard enough time getting enough heralds.
• There's nothing giving each forum it's own moderator would fix and a lot of things it would break. It wouldn't fix the fact that you can't have one person familiar with every single work in a medium. It can't change the fact that you can't have one person read every single post without making it their full time job.

It's not a reasonable system, and we won't ever adopt it. The biggest reason being, it really doesn't work very well.

I hate to be repeating things that have already been said, but I feel I have to ask: If the Supreme Court of the US cannot define "porn" beyond "you know it when you see it", how, exactly, do you expect us to?

It's easy to say you want a precise definition of things like "porn", but do you have a suggestion for how we can do it in such a way that 1) defines the term unambiguously, 2) catches all porn, 3) catches no collateral works that aren't porn, 4) doesn't require someone to devote their lives to watching everything that might be porn and timing the sex scenes or measuring how much skin is shown?

Hmm. In that case, would it be possible to get more examples of what is and is not acceptable behavior? Reliance on the holler system requires that the userbase be familiar with the regulations and expectations of forum protocol, and I'm not sure that that underlying framework is in place. Hence, the users underutilize the system because they're not sure whether to call it, and the moderators have fewer chances to nip problems in the bud before they become full-on Flame Wars. I would be more willing to holler if I knew what the expectations were, and if I could be reasonably certain that the issue(-s) would be addressed in a reasonable timeframe.

(Grammar nitpick: "it's" in the final bullet should be "its")

edited 27th Jun '12 1:56:07 PM by DarkConfidant

That's kind of a vague protest. I'm not doubting that it has faults, but can you specify what sort of problems do you have examples of?

Just saying, I've heard people say "the staff is overworked" before as a reasoning why something doesn't get done. If you're saying that's not true, then my objection is dropped because it means those people had no basis for saying as much.

Once again, such as what, exactly? What exactly failed? Just saying that there were problems doesn't tell us much.

Really? This is a huge forum, and you don't have enough candidates? Why? What would be stopping, say, Karalora from being a decent mod? I'm not saying she'd be interested or anything, but just throwing her name out.

But that's not really here nor there. For example, let's say someone frequents the Comics forum constantly, and has been following the medium both from the entertainment and business side of things for years. They may also frequent Writer's Block a lot because they're a writer. They may not know know crap about Tech, and so stay out of that forum, and may be unfamiliar with television or movies. What, specifically, would we be hurting if someone like this from keeping the peace on those types of fora?

It's not about what the Supreme Court sees as porn. It's about what's porn for the purposes of this site. Every person has a different definition of obscenity or lewdness, but everyone has to abide by the standards of wherever they are. If you're at work, there's generally a written rule about what constitutes work-appropriate behavior. These statutes will likely vary from place to place, and will probably need adjustment from time to time.

You can't just throw out terms like "creepy" or "inappropriate" without context and expect everybody to know what you mean. If you have a definition in mind, define it. It's only proving my point that you seem to have done so.

edited 27th Jun '12 2:28:39 PM by KingZeal

The staff isn't overworked - they say so much. That problems tend to be underreported seems to be an issue, though.