I think if a mod shows the behavior of dickery or offensive remarks, the post should be hollered and 2-3 other mods have to comment in the thread what do they think about the post.
Also maybe keep a sandbox with a list of links to offending posts that the mod team collectively agrees to not interfere with unless it's misused.
It would also be nice if admins used the forums at least once in a while or promoted someone for contact and bug-checking purposes, because neither have an activity on the site at all for a year.
Edited by Amonimus on Jan 4th 2023 at 4:23:27 PM
TroperWall / WikiMagic Cleanup"I/my mod friend is totally not misusing my/their authority or otherwise acting like a dick, we're clearly in the right and the person reporting us is clearly just being an asshole, so the sandbox is clearly being misused and it's OK for us to mess with it!" That's what I can see happening unless there's a clear standard for what counts as misuse.
As we don't have much in the ways of relation to the admins one way or another I'm happy to proceed in good faith another "level" of guidance will be sufficient to police mod behaviour and correct where needed, unless we think this will just push the problem upstairs and eventually we'll wind up with another Fighteer situation at the admin level instead of the moderator one?
Agreed 1000% that terms will need to be explicitly spelled out before we go forth!
Edited by 43110 on Jan 4th 2023 at 8:28:53 AM
The power imbalance means that if we have a (perceived) behavioural problem with the majority of the mods and/or admins, we're not going to be in a great position to request/demand changes. Which is a common issue across other sites.
But what we can do is look at codes of conduct and processes for dealing with an individual mod saying or doing problematic things that are out of step with site customs. Which relies on the other mods and admins to take action.
So completely In favour of laying out some transparent guidance on what sort of action that should be, and ensuring it gets handled consistently.
Is an Administrivia "what to expect from the mods” / “code of conduct” page going too far? Ideally one that also talks about how a mod's actions when not wearing a mod hat should be considered - e.g. are they held to exactly the same standards as another user, or are there additional concerns (on heated debates that might be just short of a Thump if another user was saying stuff, for example).
Depending on one's viewpoint, "multiple people closing ranks around someone" cannot easily be distinguished from "multiple people agreeing with that someone". Sometimes the distinction is primarily a matter of whether you disagree or agree with a given stance.
What I would like to see is some more admin activity, in particular with regards to setting agenda. But it's not a likely thing to happen. So instead, what we the moderators need to do is to be more proactive at handling problems with ourselves. To take the example of Fighteer, the "stop participating for a month" decision should have come much earlier.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanIf multiple mods agreed with Fighteer's behavior on many occasions, then that only deepens the need for oversight. There is a huge lack of transparency. Because "stop participating for a month" shouldn't be the whole only thing to have come much earlier. "You should stop being toxic and abusive to people in the community, or you should stop being a mod" should have come earlier, and people chimed in when mods told them to "just ignore it." Even then, the punishment feels disturbingly lenient.
So we need to be able to trust that when it happens that mods agree, it's actual agreement and not just closing ranks because they happen to be mods. What are you going to do to handle those issues? Is it still going to be done behind closed doors entirely? What the moderators need is full transparency and to engage more. So, the question is: would there be agreement with that stance if they weren't mods? We're having an issue where you've said "this was a mistake and we shouldn't have done it" over certain statements from the mod team, and yet multiple mods came up with it together, why? To protect and shield Fighteer by making accusations on his critics. Now that's been walked back, but it's emblematic of this very issue.
Edited by Lightysnake on Jan 4th 2023 at 8:00:53 AM
ive yelled about this on the moderator activity thread but:
i think the well is kind of poisoned already because the 'snarky angry attitude is for mods' 'tude was exemplified and encouraged by Fast Eddie, and Fighteer reaaaaallllyyyyy leaned into it
it is hard to raise objections against a dude who enacted permas on a whim and got off on making banned users grovel for him
first and foremost we would need some kind of guarantee that criticising a mod action (and i dont mean mod sass) wont get you suspended/bounced
second, dropping the snark is a must. if i want asshole commentary id stay on Something Awful. im p. sure even wikipedia has a policy against comments like that. i hate to quote fighteer but "Clear and Concise" is best when it comes to mod posts.
im not asking moderators to stop posting except for mod posts, ofc.
i may be dead inside but at least i have Mystery :,)
I'd be absolutely in favour of any code of conduct that suggests mods wearing their mod hat should not snark at tropers.
And when I mention snark, I'm including the sort of “well, that made it easy for us" (paraphrased) quips that have sometimes been levelled at edit banned folk who get bounced for being abusive or otherwise acting like a dick.
(I'm sure we're all glad to see some of them bounced, but that sort of comment sends the wrong message, imo)
Edited by Mrph1 on Jan 4th 2023 at 4:53:46 PM
I assume from above posts the suggestion is
- If someone disagrees with a mod decision, they can talk about it and other users can gather consensus, and mods would have to follow the consensus.
- To not have personal comments or style in red mod posts, they should just tell the procedure.
Some level of personal style is inevitable, but if a red mod post is positioned as the voice of the mods as a whole, I think it's better not to mix that with comments from a single person within the same post.
A lot of the feedback on the other thread has been because it was unclear which category some comments fell into (the 'glass houses' stuff), so it would be good to avoid that happening again.
"Transparency" is kind of a buzzword. Are we talking about making moderator decision making processes public, in general or in specific cases? Because what will happen (in either situation) is that folks will show up who agree with taking an action, folks will show up who disagree with taking an action, at some point there will be an argument about whether to ban or thump someone and that then becomes a spat fight. Even if it doesn't, a discussion that consists of people passing judgment on other people is by nature alienating and unfriendly, which is why we conduct them behind closed doors most of the time. That's without going into decisions (e.g PM reviews, IP checks) that have to be private by nature.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
I'm not expecting individual decisions to be initially discussed in public, but I'd like transparency/clarity/whatever about the broader framework used as guidance for those decisions. Which then lets tropers look at the framework, look at the outcome, and appeal or query it if the two don't seem to match.
Edit - just to add, I fully appreciate that 'rules' lead to rules lawyering and loopholes. But the 'customs, not rules' approach used elsewhere on the site feels like a good start?
Edited by Mrph1 on Jan 4th 2023 at 5:16:51 PM
What Mrph said. Obviously some things will have to happen in private for things to function well. But policy changes, when problems come up with the moderators themselves, people being added to the mod staff? Think a more transparent framework would be useful
Edited by Lightysnake on Jan 4th 2023 at 9:18:50 AM
Then we'll need need to come up with a list of mod actions (actually, a full list of mod duties in general would be helpful) that are public (crowner calls, suspending someone for filing notifiers or vandalism) and those that are private (ip overlap with a ban evader or rudeness in PM).
Edited by Amonimus on Jan 4th 2023 at 8:20:33 PM
TroperWall / WikiMagic Cleanupid also like mods to acknowledge non-mods getting snarky or temperamental on their behalf or trying to get people suspended super-fast for minor things. ive hollered several different people mini-modding and there was maybe one mod post about "please don't fight"
i believe gastonrabbit and several other moderators have already raised the issue of ATT/TRS being quick to want someone suspended and combined with the snarky mod edits even at obvious bad faith trolls it isnt a good look
the "non-mods fighting mod battles" normally isnt an issue but it sticks out when Lightysnake was singled out for it when the mods took note of the same issue in the LTP forum, and especially when at least one ATT regular tried to argue and snark at the affected threads
(to clarify, im not referring to Lightysnake as a bad faith troll, im talking about what mrph said in regards to snarky ban posts being a no-go even if it's for obvious trolls)
Edited by MsOranjeDiscoDancer on Jan 4th 2023 at 9:26:08 AM
i may be dead inside but at least i have Mystery :,)I left the moderation thread furor fairly early on, but one of my points was that moderators should be subject to the same rules as tropers: if someone is repeatedly involved in derailing threads and inciting flame wars, they're sent to Edit Banned until they can identify what they did wrong and what they should do instead (emphasising behaviour correction, not punishment). That discussion happens in public but isolated from commentary.
ERROR: The current state of the world is unacceptable. Save anyway? YES/NOLightysnake, do you have suggestions for such system?
This thread was made in mind that we've already agreed on that, but without specific ideas there's no point.
Edited by Amonimus on Jan 4th 2023 at 3:58:47 PM
TroperWall / WikiMagic Cleanup

So this post was uh preceded by a discussion going on about Fighteer's uh issues in the discussion with moderation thread
and sone of the uh not great responses from moderators we've gotten their that have shown that we do
A common issue that came up is that their is no official way to police moderation
leading to issues of their being no way to handle when things go wrong like this. Hence it was suggested
by a couple of people to come here and help design them.
So I'm creating this thread to brainstorm as a wiki as awhole.
Edited by miraculous on Jan 4th 2023 at 5:02:28 AM
"That's right mortal. By channeling my divine rage into power, I have forged a new instrument in which to destroy you."