MetaPost comments and questions about the messageboards and other parts of EN World. If you have a problem, this is where to go. Moderator email addresses are posted here.
There's another case in the Rules Forum where a moderator has been the principal poster in an argument, and at the end of the discussion has pulled out the moderator hat and locked the thread.
This has become fairly common and I think it's objectionable. There is a significant "conflict of interest" when a moderator promotes an ongoing argument for an extended period of time, and once people get sufficiently aggravated, shuts the thread down to further responses.
My recommendation -- Have a policy where mods do not moderate (discipline or close threads) in a thread where they have been a discussion participant. (Consider other sites like Slashdot that exclude moderating and posting in the same thread.) This would help solve the significant "conflict of interest" problem in these situations.
I think I know the thread you're talking about, Delta. If it's the one I'm thinking of, after post 136, the overwhelming majority of posts were bickering about issues not germane to the thread topic; I'm certain any of the moderators would have closed it.
I see what you're saying about conflict of interest, and I can see how you're seeing that there. Indeed, we mods often ask one another behind the scenes to step in in a thread that we're participating in, because we don't want to have our own position bias us in our moderation actions.
When we don't do that is when the moderating decision is so easy to make, as it was in this particular example. Especially on weekends, when other mods may not be around as much.
I've really not been aware of this happening often (as you say, "fairly common"). Would you mind reporting this post and including a few other cases where you feel that this has happened? That's probably what would be most helpful to us in deciding whether a policy like the one you suggest would be helpful. If the only examples of this happening are examples where all us mods agree that the moderating actions were self-evidently required, then we're unlikely to institute such a policy; but if there have been several cases where a moderator acted questionably (in our viewpoints), then that'd be different.
Daniel
__________________ Everything's better with monkeys!
-Hypersmurf
Pielorinho, thank you for addressing this. I'll respectfully disagree that "when the moderating decision is so easy to make" makes a difference to a conflct-of-interest issue.
A conflict of interest can exist even if no unethical or improper act results from it... The conflict can be mitigated by third party verification or third party evaluation noted below - - but it still exists...
The best way to handle conflicts of interest is to avoid them entirely... Those with a conflict of interest are expected to recuse themselves from (i.e., abstain from) decisions where such a conflict exists.
If you agree that this is an issue (even before we get to a provably "improper act"), then I'd be happy to do some work and track down other examples that I've seen. But, it sounds like you already know that this occurs. If we need to agree that we've found "improper acts", then that's a separate issue that I can't be confident you'd agree on, and is probably not worth my time to track down, or yours to evaluate.
In the case of the most recent Rules thread, the question would be exactly how this came to the attention of another moderator (a process which I'd not be privy to), after the first moderator seemed to be on the losing end of an argument, and regarding behavior which seemed fairly tame compared to lots of other recent Rules threads. Note, for example, that my concern is entirely aside from the fact that I 100% agreed with the moderator on the actual debate question in this case.
Last edited by Delta; 11th March 2007 at 08:25 AM..
The moderator did exactly what he was supposed to. He enforced my previous warning when I wasn't around to do so. I'm sorry if you don't like it, but that's too bad; we recruit moderators precisely because they're able to divorce themselves from their own personal feeling about a thread when such a thread needs moderating. That's not going to change.
To provide a little clarity, though, please be aware that all the moderators discuss problematic threads in a private forum. That's one of the ways we strive to be consistent, and helps us speak with one voice. If or when you see signs of inconsistency, please be sure to report them using the small exclamation point in the bottom left of any post.
__________________ - Piratecat, EN World Admin
Currently editing the 4e War of the Burning Sky adventure path. Support EN Publishing, get excellent modules!
We do frequently alert other mods to a problem thread if we happen to be involved in it. However, when there's nobody else around and a thread needs action, "apparent conflict of interest" takes a much lower priority than "keeping the boards civil"; when it comes down to it, it's just a thread closure on a D&D messageboard, with little to no real consequences.
But if there is someone else available, then yeah, we tend to pass it on.
Well, frankly I'm disappointed at ENWorld. I really expected that it could be held to the higher standard (again, like other highly-regarded notable online forums) once this was pointed out.
But, thanks for listening.
__________________ ADVANCED DUNGEONS &DRAGONS is first and foremost a game for the fun and enjoyment of those who seek to use imagination and creativity. This is not to say that where it does not interfere with the flow of the game that the highest degree of realism hasn‘t been attempted, but neither is a serious approach to play discouraged. (1E DMG p. 9)
Well, frankly I'm disappointed at ENWorld. I really expected that it could be held to the higher standard (again, like other highly-regarded notable online forums) once this was pointed out.
But, thanks for listening.
I'm not a mod, so I speak from a different perspective. I, too, am sorry you are disappointed.
I find the mods here to be particularily consistent - and I think it is due to both factors mentioned earlier: good recruitment and a seperate discussion forum that only mods have access to. I like the fact that I don't always see the same mod using the mod stick and that punishments are appropriate to the offense.
Thread closure is actually a small consequence in the grander scheme of things. The nice thing about thread closure is that if a thread was closed at it shouldn't have been, it could always be reopened if an error was ever made.
Anyway, like I said. I'm not a mod and don't pretend to be speaking as one. I am a supporter of ENWorld and appreciate the service provided. I do hope that down the road Delta gives ENWorld another shake. I've always found it to be fair and consistant.
__________________ Most recent products published:
Complete Control - Turn your 3.x game into a game without multiclassing, or classes for that matter! Make your character exactly how you want it.
Complete Gear - Eliminate item issues in your gaming. NPCs can have any gear without impacting game balance. Magic Marts don't need to even exist!
The nice thing about thread closure is that if a thread was closed at it shouldn't have been, it could always be reopened if an error was ever made.
I've done this a few times, either because I made a mistake or a member convinced me that closing the thread wasn't the best solution to a problem.
While I greatly respect Delta's opinion, I currently view this somewhat as a solution looking for a problem. I welcome folks to email me (address in my sig) with concrete examples of moderators who close a thread in order to "win" it. I'll be very surprised if this is a pattern, but I have an open mind and would very much like to see links to situations in which it has occurred.
__________________ - Piratecat, EN World Admin
Currently editing the 4e War of the Burning Sky adventure path. Support EN Publishing, get excellent modules!
My recommendation -- Have a policy where mods do not moderate (discipline or close threads) in a thread where they have been a discussion participant. (Consider other sites like Slashdot that exclude moderating and posting in the same thread.) This would help solve the significant "conflict of interest" problem in these situations.
Woohoo! Since my job currently doesn't allow me much time to actively participate in random threads I could become the Master Moderator!
But seriously, when we think there might be a conflict of interest or if we think the thread is walking the border of the rules we do really ask each others' opinions, usually by reporting the thread and asking for other opinions. One of the fantastic things about the moderating crew is that I can count on one hand the number of times we've significantly disagreed about each others' moderation decisions over the past couple years since I joined the staff.
I agree with the sentiment of the OP in this topic.
One thread I saw that involved this kind of issue did not need any immediate Mod attention. The reason for the thread closing had nothing to do with something really bad going on, and the issue was one that had gone on for days.
Perhaps another mod would have also closed it, and perhaps not, but the excuse of "nobody else was around to do it" didn't hold water, because no IMMEDIATE action was necessary anyway. There was plenty of time to wait for another Mod to come along and deal with it, without any harm coming to the board.
For those cases, I too would prefer a Mod who isn't the one participating in the thread actively be the one to make the call as to whether or not to close it.
If someone is posting porn or something, I fully understand why immediate action by whoever is available be taken to stop it. But for those common situations where the problem in question is relatively low priority, like things drifting off-topic, I think it would be best to wait.
And while I am sure there can be plenty of defenses for not doing this, we are talking about an issue that has almost universal agreement on the Internet. Conflicts of interest exist, even if you are not aware you are involved in one. Procedures like this help to avoid those conflicts, even if it is just the perception of a conflict of interest that is being avoided.
In other words, why NOT follow this new kind of procedure for lower priority issues?
Woohoo! Since my job currently doesn't allow me much time to actively participate in random threads I could become the Master Moderator!
But seriously, when we think there might be a conflict of interest or if we think the thread is walking the border of the rules we do really ask each others' opinions, usually by reporting the thread and asking for other opinions. One of the fantastic things about the moderating crew is that I can count on one hand the number of times we've significantly disagreed about each others' moderation decisions over the past couple years since I joined the staff.
Knowing when you have a conflict of interest is actually pretty difficult. It's common to not be aware of your own conflict, or to not perceive a conflict where many others would see one. That's why, for professions that involve conflicts of interest, there are independent rules that don't depend on your own self-awareness to avoid such a conflict.
To say "when we think..." about the topic of Conflicts of Interest seems unrealistic to me. It's one of those kinds of issues in life where you often will not think it's happening when it might be, and so you wouldn't think to ask someone else if it is happening.
Mistwell--I think that when another moderator has given a warning that is then violated that regardless of the usual severity of the infraction, this counts as a high-profile infraction that needs to be moderated quickly for a number of reasons, ranging from showing that the moderators are serious to avoiding possible accusations of favouritism for the person who 'got away with it'.
Mistwell--I think that when another moderator has given a warning that is then violated that regardless of the usual severity of the infraction, this counts as a high-profile infraction that needs to be moderated quickly for a number of reasons, ranging from showing that the moderators are serious to avoiding possible accusations of favouritism for the person who 'got away with it'.
I don't care about a particular thread. We are not citing a particular thread here, and I don't think it's helpful to make it about a particular thread or moderator (because that would make a conflict of interest in discussing this issue itself!)
I think if a Mod plays a significant role in a thread, and the thread might need moderation but it's about an issue that isn't particularly high priority, that Mod should ask another Mod to decide if some sort of moderator action is warranted. That's it.
I think that is a fair way to approach the issue, helps address conflicts of interest, and is not particularly burdensome on Moderators. It's not like Moderators don't already know the difference between a low priority and a high priority issue, or whether or not they are participating in the thread. So why NOT have that kind of guideline for Mods?
Because I have no interest in limiting Moderator flexibility if it doesn't solve some actual (as opposed to hypothetical) problem, and if there's not a compelling and concrete reason for me to do so. Mistwell, will you please email me a link to that thread (or some identifier by which I might find it)?
__________________ - Piratecat, EN World Admin
Currently editing the 4e War of the Burning Sky adventure path. Support EN Publishing, get excellent modules!
Because I have no interest in limiting Moderator flexibility if it doesn't solve some actual (as opposed to hypothetical) problem, and if there's not a compelling and concrete reason for me to do so. Mistwell, will you please email me a link to that thread (or some identifier by which I might find it)?
Limit moderator flexibility? How so? If there might be an issue, and it is a low priority issue, you ask another mod to make the decision if you were involved. How is moderator flexibility reduced? What enforcement options were present before that guidelines, which were not present after?
Some users here think it is a problem, and there has yet to be an expressed reason why the proposed solution would be a burden on anyone. That's the compelling reason.
I don't want to email you examples, because then it would be a discussion of whether or not there was a conflict of interest involved, and a debate, and you would personally be involved on some level, either as a mod in the thread or a mod who you know would be involved with the thread, creating your own conflict of interest in that discussion (perceived or real, one you could easily overcome or not, the issue would be present).
And I am really not up for that, because I don't see the point. I think you would, to a near certainty, default to defending the moderator decision in a particular thread without some massively compelling reason to not do so (as you should). And for me to overcome that burden, I would have to debate intricacies with you of that thread (and even then the odds of persuading you would be very low). Because when linking to a specific thread, a decision was already made by a Mod, and for you to see the issue I am talking about would mean you might be implying you see a problem with the way the Mod handled it. And that is not something you are going to do if you can avoid it.
Which is why I prefer to keep it hypothetical. It's not like I am some guy who posts in the meta thread all the time complaining about Mods or something, or even the one who raised this issue. A user think it is an issue, and I agree with that user. You think it is not, as do some other users. Okay, fair enough. So what is the reason to not treat it like it is a real issue? Why should the default be no new Mod guideline on this issue, if the guideline doesn't actually harm anyone?
I asked to see examples because I'm curious whether what you view as mod bias matches my own threshold, not because I plan to defend the moderation in each thread. Opinions differ between people, of course, and some people have a lower tolerance for issues than others. For instance, we recently asked a long term and well-liked member to stop reporting as many threads because his threshold for "problem" was so much lower than the moderating staff. I'm not sure if that's the case here, and there's no way to tell unless I can gauge what you see as biased behavior against my own standards.
Best to be clear. I'm extraordinarily proud of how EN World's moderators handle the boards, and I'm not making changes for a hypothetical problem. I've never seen any actual signs of conflict of interest, so I have zero interest in putting additional policies in place unless there's a reason for 'em. If I see signs of such a problem, then we'll address it. Because all the moderators communicate closely and work together very well, I don't ever expect to see such signs.
Sorry if you disagree with me, but that's how things are. I'm glad you and Delta have made your viewpoints clear, though. Simply discussing the issue reminds us all to consider it. I also really appreciate you taking the time in the above post to explain your position to me.
__________________ - Piratecat, EN World Admin
Currently editing the 4e War of the Burning Sky adventure path. Support EN Publishing, get excellent modules!
If someone is posting porn or something, I fully understand why immediate action by whoever is available be taken to stop it. <snip>
That (and spam) is about the only circumstance I get to ban someone. That won't lead to a thread closure though - that's a thread deletion which is a whole other animal.
Speaking of spam - if I get to count all the bannings the spambot has done over the years I think I've got more scalps - albeit by proxy - than any other admin
Speaking of spam - if I get to count all the bannings the spambot has done over the years I think I've got more scalps - albeit by proxy - than any other admin
There is a spambot? Is this a serious comment? I don't know why ... but this topic really interests me.
For the record ... I envision some neo-matrix AI sentinel computer programmed to rifle through the threads over and over and it gets excited when it finds a post with absolutely nothing to say!
Spambots... Hmmmm.
Of course, having made reference to them, it's only a matter of time before the spambot reads this post and decides that it is spam so it deletes it. You know... to keep other posters from following the white rabbit and all.
__________________ Most recent products published:
Complete Control - Turn your 3.x game into a game without multiclassing, or classes for that matter! Make your character exactly how you want it.
Complete Gear - Eliminate item issues in your gaming. NPCs can have any gear without impacting game balance. Magic Marts don't need to even exist!
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
