Discussion for new forum policies

@Gargantua:

That’s a very dead-serious request, and I’m not alone.

I would have to agree with this statement. Though there is one thing i’ve never understood about the moderators and that’s why there a forum specific ones? When going into the WW2 history thread it lists three members as moderators, dezrtfish, DarthMaximus, and Guerrilla Guy, yet it seems any moderator can go into these threads and delete posts and lock threads, so why are the three aforementioned members listed as moderators? Perhaps only allowing the stated moderators to police the certain forums they’re attached to would resolve this. Otherwise this seems to allow a small vocal group of moderators of wield a large amount of control and influence on the forum.

just my 2 cents

@Cmdr:

In regards to your example post, I was on vacation.  A certain person got me to stoop so far into the gutter trying to clean up his act, I got disgusted and needed some time off.  So I missed that one.

As far as I’m concerned, no apologies are necessary. My understanding is that you and other list moderators donate your time on a volunteer basis. I certainly don’t expect every moderator to read every thread. I for one appreciate the work you and other volunteers do for this site. And I’m sure your vacation was much-deserved! :)

My earlier comment on this subject should be taken to mean that when a moderator does become aware of a personal attack, that moderator must take action of some sort if civility standards are to be maintained. At very least, the offending person should receive a warning. I’d like to thank Gargantua for bringing up a specific example in which a moderator did not take action after having become aware of personal attacks. Unfortunately, the example Gargantua referenced is part of a larger pattern.

I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that djensen will probably look at the raw data (the thread that Gargantua referenced), and form his own conclusions, independently of what anyone might write here. That being the case, I’d encourage both Imperious Leader and Gargantua to return to the original topic of this thread. That incident has been discussed enough, and further discussion would diverge from David’s original purpose in having created this thread.

To return to the subject of David’s original purpose, I’d suggest the following process.

1. David and others should envision these forums not as they are, but as we would wish them to be.

2. David will need to make decisions about the steps necessary to implement the vision in step 1.

3. One of those steps is to select the right list moderation policies to create the kind of list envisioned in step 1.

4. Another of these steps is to select the right list moderators to implement that vision.

Earlier, I’d mentioned another, very well-run discussion list of which I’m a member. That list only had one rule: don’t engage in personal attacks. Be as polite on the list as you would be at a social gathering at someone else’s home.

A good group of list moderators was chosen to enforce that one rule. These list moderators were known as level-headed, rational people. People who’d keep their cool, who could be trusted to remain impartial. The sort of people who did not pick fights with other list participants, and who reacted in a restrained, disciplined way when someone picked a fight with them. (They’d shown themselves to be this on other, more rough-and-tumble lists, which is why they were selected to moderate this list.) These people could also be trusted to enforce the list policies as written. They never abused their moderator powers, or took unwarranted action. Nor did they ever fail to oppose any violation of that list’s one rule.

Ultimately, it’s up to David to decide on an overarching vision for these fora. But to the extent that vision includes a place in which people can discuss things about which they feel passionately, without resorting to personal attacks or flames, he could do a lot worse than to choose moderators like the ones described above.

Once David has decided on the list’s new moderation policy, he’s going to need people he trusts to implement that policy, and only that policy. Jennifer, from what little I know of you, I get the sense that you have the kind of restraint and self-discipline necessary to fit into that plan.

@Gargantua:

Can we call a vote?

Fortunately this is not a democracy.  If it were, the site would die out in chaos.

@KurtGodel7:

@Cmdr:

In regards to your example post, I was on vacation.  A certain person got me to stoop so far into the gutter trying to clean up his act, I got disgusted and needed some time off.  So I missed that one.

As far as I’m concerned, no apologies are necessary. My understanding is that you and other list moderators donate your time on a volunteer basis. I certainly don’t expect every moderator to read every thread. I for one appreciate the work you and other volunteers do for this site. And I’m sure your vacation was much-deserved! :)

My earlier comment on this subject should be taken to mean that when a moderator does become aware of a personal attack, that moderator must take action of some sort if civility standards are to be maintained. At very least, the offending person should receive a warning. I’d like to thank Gargantua for bringing up a specific example in which a moderator did not take action after having become aware of personal attacks. Unfortunately, the example Gargantua referenced is part of a larger pattern.

Keep in mind that we moderators communicate with each other, at times, to ensure our behavior does not get tainted with personal vendetta.  I’ve asked IL and DM a few times to review a ruling I’ve made, at least once in regards to Mr. Gargantua himself, though he never knew it, as we came to the mutual agreement that, while skirting the line that specific time, he did not cross it.

My, albeit singular, view on moderators might not be the same as for all others.  Some might think those with the longest tenure on the forums should be moderators, others only personal friends of the owner should be moderators, still others only those who play the game should be moderators, or whatever.  I am not going to say any of them are “right” because I don’t get to make that determination.  Djensen has chosen his moderators - some are not overly active anymore but retain their rank nonetheless - some are hyper vigiliant in the cases of IL and DM.  The more vigiliant the moderator (defined as closest to omnipresent on the forum) the more chance of crossing someone and earning the distinction of overly zealous.  It is quite unfortunate at times, but “it is, what it is.” (A phrase I am becomming intimitely familiar with for personal reasons.)

As for what the “process” is (your term, not mine.)  I disagree with number one.  Djensen should envision these forums as HE wants them to be, not what his moderators want them to be, not what his public want them to be, but as HE wants them to be.  Would it be wise to seek the council of those he has entrusted with power on his forums?  I feel it would be.  It would it both tactical and strategic of mind to seek the council of his public on what they want to see?  Again, I feel it would be.  Should he be required to do so?  Should he even be pressured into acting in other than his own self actualization?  I adamantly, and emphatically say no.

In regards to number three,  I do not necessarily agree with all of Djensen’s rules, but that is not my job here.  Do I feel they are functionable and for the best interests of the site?  Perhaps.  I’d like to see political discussion return one day, but I also remember the days of some that twisted and turned the site into a den of slandering monkeys and why all political discourse had to be ended here.  I, happened, to like the KARMA system, but again, it was abused - first there was a group of 7 who made sure to log in every (and i literally mean EVERY day) day, I’d wager even if they were 5 minutes from dying they would have logged in, just to give a couple people negative karma.  Then came a group who made sure to login whenever possible, to counter this attack with positive karma.  Soon the entire system was destroyed.  Good idea, faulty in practice.  (Yes, I was one who logged in everyday to give good karma to a few people who were maliciously attacked daily.  Emperor Mollari is a prime example of one who was routinely attacked without cause or provocation - he would not mind my releasing his name.)

@Cmdr:

Keep in mind that we moderators communicate with each other, at times, to ensure our behavior does not get tainted with personal vendetta. I’ve asked IL and DM a few times to review a ruling I’ve made, at least once in regards to Mr. Gargantua himself, though he never knew it, as we came to the mutual agreement that, while skirting the line that specific time, he did not cross it.

My, albeit singular, view on moderators might not be the same as for all others. Some might think those with the longest tenure on the forums should be moderators, others only personal friends of the owner should be moderators, still others only those who play the game should be moderators, or whatever. I am not going to say any of them are “right” because I don’t get to make that determination. Djensen has chosen his moderators - some are not overly active anymore but retain their rank nonetheless - some are hyper vigiliant in the cases of IL and DM. The more vigiliant the moderator (defined as closest to omnipresent on the forum) the more chance of crossing someone and earning the distinction of overly zealous. It is quite unfortunate at times, but “it is, what it is.” (A phrase I am becomming intimitely familiar with for personal reasons.)

---

As for what the “process” is (your term, not mine.) I disagree with number one. Djensen should envision these forums as HE wants them to be, not what his moderators want them to be, not what his public want them to be, but as HE wants them to be. Would it be wise to seek the council of those he has entrusted with power on his forums? I feel it would be. It would it both tactical and strategic of mind to seek the council of his public on what they want to see? Again, I feel it would be. Should he be required to do so? Should he even be pressured into acting in other than his own self actualization? I adamantly, and emphatically say no.

In regards to number three, I do not necessarily agree with all of Djensen’s rules, but that is not my job here. Do I feel they are functionable and for the best interests of the site? Perhaps. I’d like to see political discussion return one day, but I also remember the days of some that twisted and turned the site into a den of slandering monkeys and why all political discourse had to be ended here. I, happened, to like the KARMA system, but again, it was abused - first there was a group of 7 who made sure to log in every (and i literally mean EVERY day) day, I’d wager even if they were 5 minutes from dying they would have logged in, just to give a couple people negative karma. Then came a group who made sure to login whenever possible, to counter this attack with positive karma. Soon the entire system was destroyed. Good idea, faulty in practice. (Yes, I was one who logged in everyday to give good karma to a few people who were maliciously attacked daily. Emperor Mollari is a prime example of one who was routinely attacked without cause or provocation - he would not mind my releasing his name.)

I’d like to clarify a few points.

1. I fully agree that the ultimate responsibility for envisioning what the forums should be like is David’s, and David’s alone. My earlier comment should be taken to mean that it would be appropriate for other people to develop their own visions for this forum, and to articulate those visions to David. David will then decide what parts (if any) of those other visions he wishes to accept.

2. You’ve made a very good point about the karma system, and how it was abused. Any system in which people can vote on posts will have similar problems.

3. My take on the subject of overly zealous moderators is the following:

a) List moderators should be predictable in their actions.
b) List moderators’ decisions should be unbiased.
c) The actions list moderators will take should correspond with the terms of service, or with some other generally available written document.
d) List moderators should clearly articulate the bases for their decisions.

If a list moderator departs from some or all of the above, while engaging in a high level of moderation activity, that moderator will receive the overly zealous label. And rightly so.

@djensen:

Kurt, you’re describing an ideal that’s never going to happen. We’re people and there is always going to be differing opinions and difficulty to be unbiased. If you operate one way and nobody complains because nobody is bothered and then one day it stops working in a particular situation, what do you expect?

Anyway, now I really need to get back to work.

I agree that it’s impossible for someone to be 100% unbiased. But some people are more biased than others. :) Which is why it’s important to have list moderators who are either a) considerably less biased than average, or b) able to put their biases aside when making a judgment. Ideally both.

I’d also add that list moderation policies should be as simple, clear, and unambiguous as possible. This reduces the need for judgment calls, making moderator bias less relevant.

Thank you for your time, comments, and patience D.

I’ll do my part in figuring it out with IL.

Thank you for your time, comments, and patience D.

I’ll do my part in figuring it out with IL.

Oh wow a positive development! Good Joel.

You refer to users of the site being “children”. A disposition and comment trail I often see you post; And I have to admit that it’s disappointing behaviour and commentary to be seen coming from site moderation, another “Policy” which should be discussed, in this ON TOPIC thread.

I would have to agree.

I think even the worst culprits ought not to be called names by moderators even though they probably deserve a vigorous b**ch slap.  I would posit that moderators ought to be or at least act holier than thou.

Fortunately this is not a democracy.  If it were, the site would die out in chaos.

Why?  I’ve spent my life in sales, a no is merely an objection to overcome, therefore, where others see a NO, I see a solution.

So, back to WHY?  In fact, let X represent WHY.

Establish policies to negate X.  Next……

Perhaps the voters should be ‘land owners’, ie, up-to-date PATRONs.  In other words, put your money where your mouth is if you feel so strongly about XYZ then pay up MoFo and vote on it.

The more vigiliant the moderator (defined as closest to omnipresent on the forum) the more chance of crossing someone and earning the distinction of overly zealous.

Of course 100% true, so the solution to this is to determine the percentage of moderators rulings that causes complaints.  I’m not saying keep a running total of course, who has time for that!

Djensen should envision these forums as HE wants them to be, not what his moderators want them to be, not what his public want them to be, but as HE wants them to be.

Nobody is suggesting they have the power to require David to do anything, but I suspect he appreciates feedback particularly when the problem is stated clearly and potential viable solutions offered.  The worst thing a customer can do is complain and not provide a path to problem resolution.

Moderators do a valuable job and I appreciate their presences.  That being said, nobody ought to rest on their laurels and feel they are doing the best job they can do so therefore no self-reflection is required since there is no room for improving on perfection.  Anyone who is ranked #1 in the world works very hard every day to improve on being the best.

@MrMalachiCrunch:

You refer to users of the site being “children”. A disposition and comment trail I often see you post; And I have to admit that it’s disappointing behaviour and commentary to be seen coming from site moderation, another “Policy” which should be discussed, in this ON TOPIC thread.

I would have to agree.

I think even the worst culprits ought not to be called names by moderators even though they probably deserve a vigorous b**ch slap.  I would posit that moderators ought to be or at least act holier than thou.

Fortunately this is not a democracy.  If it were, the site would die out in chaos.

Why?  I’ve spent my life in sales, a no is merely an objection to overcome, therefore, where others see a NO, I see a solution.

So, back to WHY?  In fact, let X represent WHY.

Establish policies to negate X.  Next……

Perhaps the voters should be ‘land owners’, ie, up-to-date PATRONs.  In other words, put your money where your mouth is if you feel so strongly about XYZ then pay up MoFo and vote on it.

Of course 100% true, so the solution to this is to determine the percentage of moderators rulings that causes complaints.   I’m not saying keep a running total of course, who has time for that!

Nobody is suggesting they have the power to require David to do anything, but I suspect he appreciates feedback particularly when the problem is stated clearly and potential viable solutions offered.  The worst thing a customer can do is complain and not provide a path to problem resolution.

Moderators do a valuable job and I appreciate their presences.   That being said, nobody ought to rest on their laurels and feel they are doing the best job they can do so therefore no self-reflection is required since there is no room for improving on perfection.  Anyone who is ranked #1 in the world works very hard every day to improve on being the best.

Good post! :) I like what you had to say about the need for self-reflection; as well as with just about everything else you had to say.

The one point where you and I may differ is about whether, or to what degree, this site should become a democracy. My own thoughts on this subject have not crystallized, and I’m certainly open to listening to concrete proposals. My chief concern about making this site a democracy has been eloquently articulated by economist David Friedman.

@DavidFriedman:

Imagine buying cars the way we buy governments. Ten thousand people would get together and agree to vote, each for the car he preferred. Whichever car won, each of the ten thousand would have to buy it. It would not pay any of us to make any serious effort to find out which car is best; whatever I decide, my car is being picked for me by the other members of the group. Under such institutions, the quality of cars would quickly decline.

Well-run institutions are normally the result of deep, serious thought. If there is only one power-holder–djensen in this case–it’s in his interest to give list moderation policies deep, serious thought before making any changes. My concern is that in a democracy, large numbers of people might vote without having given that same level of serious thought to the issues on which they’re voting. Those votes are still data, and I feel those data should be captured. I just don’t know if the voters should be the ones to make the final call.

My concern is that in a democracy, large numbers of people might vote without having given that same level of serious thought to the issues on which they’re voting. Those votes are still data, and I feel those data should be captured. I just don’t know if the voters should be the ones to make the final call.

Kurt, you have a valid point with this.  In the worst case, new accounts could be created just to SPAM a vote.  Being a PATRON would by and large prevent this, or at the least be lucrative for David.

A method to ensure that the user casting the vote is somewhat qualified then?  Also a system to ensure the voting is not fraudulent or limiting it at the least.

If requiring one to become a PATRON is too onerous then perhaps a certain number of posts combined with a time spam between first and last post to ensure you don’t get 100 posts by rolling dice 100 times in an afternoon.  Maybe a weighted voting system but this adds a layer of complexity.