Moderation discussion

Badger · Post by **Badger** » Wed Mar 23, 2005 11:33 am

i'm very fond of badger as a personal friend, but don't think the history of his actions on this board make him suitable to be moderator.

Buh!

Oh and Chai Guy as someone to consider whenever consideration is considered.

Tiara · Post by **Tiara** » Wed Mar 23, 2005 11:36 am

I agree that (1) PostPost seems most applicable to most parts of this board.

(3) ModPost Only for FAQ type areas seems appropriate, though does require a volunteer to devote a fair amount of time & thought, at least at the beginning, and also to make periodic updates as appropriate

(4) ModTopicOnly may be appropriate to some of the Q&A or Event Prep areas. For example, it would force people to look for a related folder, which may have answers previously given to a question similar to theirs. It would also prevent us from having 19 different threads asking which kind of tent is good for the desert, keep all the grey water discussions contained in one place, etc.

(2) PrePost seems pretty labor-intensive. I suppose a case could be made that it would be appropriate for specific circumstances, like a user who is on probation of some sort. But that seems like an awful lot of hand holding, and perhaps such a repeat offender doesn't merit the time and energy it would take to monitor their activity. Or maybe it could be used to help fill in the Q&A type threads as an adjunct to the ModPost only mechanism.

Tancorix · Post by **Tancorix** » Wed Mar 23, 2005 11:40 am

Excuse me while I pick my jaw up off the floor. Anyway if we can toss out names Spectabillis comes to mind, another one is the Cryptofishist. GuinivereElise is another one with the temperament to do it....

And while I'm tying up bandwidth, who is Bex?

And this will shock a few, but if you step past Badger's spat with me and a few others, Badger does have the qualities needed to be an effective moderator. He should NOT be excluded from consideration...besides past behavior is not always a reliable indicator of future performance.

Post by **actiongrl** » Wed Mar 23, 2005 11:43 am

I think of moderators as members of the community and I don't envision any of them coming from our staff, FWIW.

Nominations are a great way to think of this, I think. I think a fair minded, balanced person who'd make a good moderator might not be too quick to nominate themselves for such a position, but we've got to find them somehow...everyone I've pinged so far has come to mind both because I observed positive traits in their general demeanor on the board *and* because a trustworthy source mentioned them as an option...

There are other questions, though, relating to the actual folder structure...such as, how many moderators do we need?

tisha2 · Post by **tisha2** » Wed Mar 23, 2005 1:26 pm

i also think Badger is totally appropriate to moderate. hell, there are some threads (if this "take-yer-argument-here, Thunderdome-type" thread happens, fer instance) where someone like Iso could be an appropriate moderator, IMHO.

and I totally agree with ThePikey and others with the whole concept of clever-persuason style moderating:

Some of the more effective moderator actions are done off-line in PMs. If someone gets called to the carpet over their behavior, it can be less embarrassing and involve less drama if those actions are taken away from public view.

Falls in with Trey's comment "agreed that moderators should achieve as much as possible by way of persuasion and finagling, and should probably be chosen for their ability to do so and reluctance to resort to other measures"

My $.02

as Mark Morford once wrote: "All raging imbecilic grunting machismos are easily mollified by the presence of grace and intuition and the delicate arch of a graceful spine."
yep.

Captain Fuckwit · Post by **Captain Fuckwit** » Wed Mar 23, 2005 1:27 pm

If you can allow me "Moderator" priviledges for three (3) threads of my naming, I can return to you one (1) highly successful thread in terms of clarity, content and brevity. When I deliver the thread to you after ten (10) months, I'll tell you how I did it!

Would this offer be open to just anyone? The answer is no. It's up to you to figure out who has the chops to be a successful moderator. The sheer arrogance of my "stepping up" should suffice. Put me in, coach. Make me a Moderator; A Do-ocratator!

emily sparkle · Post by **emily sparkle** » Wed Mar 23, 2005 4:47 pm

i wonder if moderators wouldn't prefer to remain anonymous (ie, have different login for their moderator self) that would allow them to also participate in their own conversational way without the baggage of the title of moderator.

Tancorix · Post by **Tancorix** » Wed Mar 23, 2005 4:57 pm

I wasn't going to say anything but Emily had the same idea I've had all along. Anonymous moderators. I'd prefer NOT knowing who they are that way they can go in and do the work without jeopardizing friendships along the way.

And if it's anonymous then the PTB that make the choices can bypass the popularity contest and pick who they feel is best...I say give the current admins the power, let them pick and get this moving. You can't please everyone and they'll be anonymous so just do it.

III · Post by **III** » Wed Mar 23, 2005 5:04 pm

i'd prefer to have accountability.

emily sparkle · Post by **emily sparkle** » Wed Mar 23, 2005 5:21 pm

in my mind, the moderator id would be named, it wouldn't be a generic "moderator" id. and that named id would be accountable, but the person who has established relationships on this board could maintain those relationships -- their participation -- without the moderator role changing them.

just my perspective.

III · Post by **III** » Wed Mar 23, 2005 5:53 pm

i think having a moderator sock would set a bad precedent.

i understand the problem. i also think that honesty about what a persons role is would be better than trying to maintain a facade.

you know - that whole "flow my tears" thing...

Badger · Post by **Badger** » Wed Mar 23, 2005 6:15 pm

i wonder if moderators wouldn't prefer to remain anonymous (ie, have different login for their moderator self) that would allow them to also participate in their own conversational way without the baggage of the title of moderator.

I think everyone should know who the moderator is. If there's a dispute or if one just wants to explain one's reasoning for writing a post that was edited I think its appropriate to be able to engage the person and not some man behind the cutain.

III · Post by **III** » Wed Mar 23, 2005 6:24 pm

>know who the moderator is

i'd expect there to be a team of moderators who cooperate, rather than simply distributing responsibilities.

Post by **actiongrl** » Wed Mar 23, 2005 7:07 pm

The very value of these being community members who happen to be responsible for helping to keep things neat and on track is that they have those established relationships and aren't perceived as an "authority figger" but rather are folks empowered with a couple of tools and entrusted with using their words to do their job and making judgment calls where necessary. Anonymizing that role would remove any impetus to respond, really, and make for more problems in the vein of "The ORG is trying to censor me!" rather than having a member of your crew of online pals saying, "Hey, here's what this thread is for, dy'a think you could move your post/keep it clean/stop making personal attacks/stay on target?" It carries more weight, and moving away from the "evil anonymous admin cabal" is the whole idea here.

emily sparkle · Post by **emily sparkle** » Wed Mar 23, 2005 8:24 pm

fair enough, i'm just posting from my own viewpoint.

i may not have the bonded relationships a lot of folks have on the boards here, but i do keep up with various threads, get to know the personalities etc... and well... it has felt *uncomfortable* when we've enforced admin action on a eplayan who i enjoy reading (?) and/or contributes to the community... but concurred with the team's decisions.

as an admin, i've always stayed detached for just such a reason. i would think it would be even harder if i was a moderator.

emily sparkle · Post by **emily sparkle** » Wed Mar 23, 2005 8:27 pm

III wrote:i'd expect there to be a team of moderators who cooperate, rather than simply distributing responsibilities.

yes, this is what i pictured as well. a team. it's so much easier to have people to back you up.

*waves to ag, cg & spanky -- and techno if she's reading along*

Post by **actiongrl** » Wed Mar 23, 2005 10:33 pm

Goes off topic to lift her glass of vino to Ms. Sparkle and thank her for her efforts.

La Chaim!

III · Post by **III** » Wed Mar 23, 2005 11:38 pm

>enforced admin action on a eplayan who i enjoy reading (?) and/or contributes to the community

well, there's yer problem right there. i think the admin actions in the past went from nothing to draconian to quickly. a couple of the the things i keep harping on (banning from selected areas rather than the whole board, and providing an unmoderated free for all discussion area) should mitigate that feeling.

then again, i just realized i could never be moderator. i'd shut down and delete all the "we're going to have the coolest camp ever - please give us free stuff" posters at first sight.

Captain Fuckwit · Post by **Captain Fuckwit** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 3:08 am

The toughest but most persistant truth is that there is absolutely no user here who is qualified to be a Moderator of other human beings. The belief that one human should try to modify the behavior of another human is an age old battle.

Having a "voice" is so primal that people will contort themselves in the most amazing and harrowing ways to get their message out and be heard. This primal need has a lot to do with what drives people to create art.

Humans seem to also possess a primal need to moderate other people's voice. This primal need has a lot to do with what drives us to wage war. This is a conflict within the human condition.

Censorship is very rarely justly applied. Censorship causes intense emotions of infuriating anger, depression, resentment, betrayal and persecution. Censorship is evil.

If you can allow me "Moderator" priviledges for three (3) threads of my naming, I can return to you one (1) highly successful thread in terms of clarity, content and brevity. When I deliver the thread to you after ten (10) months, I'll tell you how I did it! It will be a challenge to me on how to cope with a over-proliferating user like DVD Burner without censoring him or her. He'd be welcome to boing-boing his brains out in my third thread. My second thread would be an open society. My first thread would be closed digest of what was produced in the second thread. Two of the three threads would have full Edit capability. And I should have the opportunity to try this, over every one else, because I am the one who asked for it first. I've presented a plan. I'm a Doacratator. Or I am a Fascist. Give me three (3) threads of my naming and find out!

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 6:39 am

Captain Fuckwit wrote: how to cope with a over-proliferating user like DVD Burner without censoring him or her. He'd be welcome to boing-boing his brains out

HUH?

Let’s be real here. It’s not about DVD boing boinging his brains out; it's about certain individuals not being able to handle the truth for starters.
Second, it's also about a select few not being able to follow the rules.
Third, it's about weather or not some can fit in a certain clique or not by assimilating accordingly.

Eplaya is going to have the hardest time coming back up to speed NOT because of me, but because of the issues I've just described.
There is no moderating of any kind that can be done to screen individuals that speak truth such as those like landra_lee or just those that want to speak their minds as jimmason has tried to do.

As long as the name calling, the lying, the slander continues, so will the problems exist of eplaya and so will this be the face of Burningman.

If anything I truly hope that something can be done about what has been just described before any thoughts be put to how big a width, long a page, who is wearing the coolest clothes and whatever is started, Ie; the TOS/CG.

Oh and good morning good people.

Have a lovely day.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 6:53 am

Just for the record,

That was not a post for anyone to get upset about.

It really needs to be thought about.

I will continue my lurking now.

Badger · Post by **Badger** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 11:00 am

WHich one of them little smileys am I supposed to click?

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 11:11 am

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 11:14 am

I agree with the principle behind having the moderators be known. Still, those brave folks who take on that role should be aware that their condition will color their experience here a great deal.

spectabillis · Post by **spectabillis** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 11:17 am

Observation: This is the second time, in almost as many threads, that using peoples specific names as examples has made people feel the need to defend themselves. It will help the topic of discussion if we can keep the personal names out of it for now.

But thats not saying the points being made are not good ones, they really are, and this is the place to discuss them. I would just like to see it done without getting personal and out of control.

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 11:31 am

spectabillis wrote:Observation: This is the second time, in almost as many threads, that using peoples specific names as examples has made people feel the need to defend themselves. It will help the topic of discussion if we can keep the personal names out of it for now.

Offer Fauxeplayans. Hm. Darling Billy. RedWingFootPrint. Nautius Maximus. 2BFree. ButtFunGUSBreath. FlirtyGurl. FlatChestXPo.

That's 7 of them, enough to make all sorts of scenerios. Although I suppose we should run them through the member list first to make sure that they don't exist.

Oh yeah and for heavily gendered questions: ShePlaya and HePlaya.

emily sparkle · Post by **emily sparkle** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 12:49 pm

III wrote:well, there's yer problem right there. i think the admin actions in the past went from nothing to draconian to quickly.

actually, i've been doing admin duties pretty much every day on these boards since sometime in 2000. mostly i get to be helpful behind the scenes, and that's the way (uh-huh) i like it. when the user complaints and tos/cg violations swelled to a unmanagable amount and horrifying quality recently it was challenging for everyone involved. the admin team did our best.

however, actions just like these had been taken prior to the recent shitstorm (user suspension, user account termination, thread/post deletion, moving topics, etc.) over the years, they just didn't draw as much attention.

antron · Post by **antron** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 4:06 pm

my thinking is to let the board run for a while, learn what's working, see what (if anything), and then add moderation.

before advocating more or what kinds of changes, i would like to see the result on the community from the (major) changes to the board, especially including the experience management smiley icons.

Zane5100 · Post by **Zane5100** » Fri Mar 25, 2005 9:31 am

let the board run for a while, learn what's working, see what (if anything), and then add moderation

I think this approach makes sense. I also think that moderators should not have a "sock" to come in under--yes, it'll affect their eplaya experience to be labeled as such, but that doesn't always mean that's a bad thing.

Also, I have a thought to toss up in the air: what are the processes for when an admin has a problem with a moderator (or the other way around), or a moderator with another moderator? Is there going to be some structure for mediation/conflict resolution, or will decisions be based on power and the depth of inter-company connections (i.e. a "Don't you know who am I?" type of situation)?

Post by **actiongrl** » Fri Mar 25, 2005 10:31 am

Ours is a consensus organization - but to understand what is meant by that, one must understand a bit about how it relates to heirarchy, and that what it doesn't mean is "we keep talking until we all agree 100%".

It's nicely explained here by that erudite fella in the hat: http://afterburn.burningman.com/01/org/consensus.html

So, we'll try to work under that precept and see how it goes. And if not...Thunderdome!

Just kidding.

Moderation discussion

Put me in, coach

Censorship, Moderator, Voice, Tier

Re: Censorship, Moderator, Voice, Tier

all things in moderation