A lighter touch for moderation?

[Truth Seeker]

I'm not sure it'd be possible for there to be a 'light touch' to moderating here on ENWorld without getting rid of the moderators all together...

Spoiler

Which is, of course, one step closer to my true plan of ultimate ENWorld Domination...

LOL ....DangGGGGGG!!! !

 

[diaglo]

Honestly, I prefer a heavy hand in moderating. That's why I narc on the trouble threads regularly.

I'm a regular no-good stool-pidgeon snitch of the lowest order!

ditto.

diaglo "HellHound's flunkie" Ooi

 

[woodelf]

A couple of random thoughts, based on your points:

1. Every internet message board has its own feel, style, and populace, much like every bar in one given city has its own clientele. What works for one may not work for another, because its makeup is different, and so what works for NTL, RPGnet, Dragonsfoot, etc. may not work for here. Chances are, different styles of moderation have been tried in the past just because different people have moderated; we may in fact be more lax now than in previous times, or more strict on topics.
2. Sometimes a "metacurrent" is going on in all forums that is hard for the casual reader/poster to get wind of; sometimes there's an argument being carried on by multiple people that's been carried from another thread or even another board, and no amount of "talking it out" will stop the sniping. This can result in a seeming policing of a topic or a group of posters without good reason, even though there probably is.
3. One thing we aim for (may not always hit) is actually more "hands off" moderation than hands on. Our goals are - if one person is thread-flaming, we edit and contact them; if a bunch are, its more time-effective to just shut the topic and let the posters cool off than to police every instance of someone slamming someone else. Sometimes, we're about to go offline for the evening, and don't want to take the chance that the relieving mods will have the same amount of info on a volatile thread. Believe me, we edit a LOT of threads instead of closing them.
4. For every flame war that turned productive, there's TEN that not only went nowhere, but caused a lot of hurt feelings and hostilities in the process. Personally, I don't want to wade through ten pages of "you're an ass!" "so are you!" to get to an actual POINT. Wouldn't it be easier for ALL involved if people knew to just skip the insults, and get to their point in the first place, instead of wasting bandwidth with put-downs? It's not something we care to do, and not something most people who come here care to do, either.
5. In the end, it comes down to forum style. Sometimes I DO want to kick back and discuss things that are not kosher here -- politics, religion, the guy who cut me off on the by-pass -- but then I have other venues to discuss these things, and leave ENWorld for the "straight-to-the-chase" RPG talk, and for my dose of work-safe funny. I don't begrudge ENWorld for what it isn't, I work within it for what it is.

Well, the forbidden topics is a different issue entirely. I understand why non-RPG stuff is off-topic, and it only barely intersects this particular issue (such as when someone aviods discussing a game-relevant political idea because of fears of getting in trouble.


On your other points: 3 is news to me. And that's not meant derisively--i really hadn't realized it. I may just be attracted to the heated topics. [I hope i'm not seen as one of the instigators--when i'm involved in heated threads, i'm trying to cut through the noise to get to the discussion, and, don't want to be one of the flamers. I'm also human, and sometimes overreact. Man, i miss UseNet readers--my standard procedure, whenever there was a question, was to write my response, then sit on it for a day before i decide whether or not to post it. Much harder to do with a webbrowser.]


1&2 are good points that i'd never thought of.


On 4, let my propose something: the *only* time i've ended up with hurt feelings in any discussion forum [it's happened both here and other places] is when i've felt like i was denied my fair say. Such as when a thread was shut down before i could respond to someone else's accusation or point--to counter, or clarify, or explain/justify. If you're motivated by protecting the participants, please consider that element, too.



[frex, in the 2nd thread referenced in my original post in this thread, the last post before it was closed was someone accusing me of playing devil's advocate and implying i was advocating positions/behaviors that i didn't believe in and would never practice, just to get others in trouble. When they are, in fact, positions i sincerely believe, have researched extensively, and am putting my money where my mouth is with regards to. I wasn't upset when it was posted--i was upset when i discovered i couldn't respond. Generally, i don't care what someone says about me, or how someone disagrees with me, so long as i get a chance to respond/clarify. And i know one of my hot buttons is people dismissing my POV--disagreeing with it? not a problem. Kicking the legs out from under my argument, making me look the fool? Well, i don't like it, but it happens. Not even acknowledging that my point is worth acknowledging, much less countering? That drives me batty.]

 

[woodelf]

Last, one of the main reasons I visit EN World on a regular basis is because I don't have to put up with that kind of stuff in thread after thread. You start allowing it in one case, people will understand that it is OK and not feel the need to restrain themselves in other threads. The reason for the general civility on this site is because people understand that those are the rules and act accordingly. Some of the same people here who are posting on Nothingland have a very different tone to many of their posts over there. Why? Because it is allowed.

That's a good point, that i hadn't thought of in that direction. I agree: behavior in a particular thread spills over, and affects the general tone. My basic premise is that if the expected behavior is self-moderation and behaving oneself, that is the overall result. And that the feel i get from the boards right now is of being baby-sat. Which, IMHO, leads to people pushing the limits more, not less, because rather than moderating themselves, they keep pushing until they're shut down. But maybe it's just my perception. Or i'm wrong. Maybe the effect you're talking about is simply more powerful than the one i'm talking about.

Never been on Nutkinland/Nothingland. My counter-observation is the people i know from here and RPGNet who seem to be much better-behaved on RPGNet than here. Or, more often, behave the same in either place--i.e., obviously setting their own standards.

 

[woodelf]

I think you still have a great deal to prove.

Well, in the context of the original thread, i was countering the claim that it never occurred. It only takes one counter-case to disprove an absolute statement. I wasn't claiming proof that moderation is bad, only that it is possible for a heated thread to turn around and become productive.

Psion is a wise person. But not only is he not infallible, but his opinion of one isolated incident does not a case for overall policy change make. What you need is not one incident, but evidence that, in general, allowing continued heated discussion will produce more positive results than negative. Given that it takes only a few bad apples to ruin the whole barrel, you'd need to find a whole passle of such threads, and then you'd have a case.

You note that there's not a lot of data to go on, and that is true. However, I think you'd have a hard time making a case that, out in the wide world, allowing heated discussion to continue is constructive. So, the next logical step would be to find evidence that EN Worlders, by nature, are better behaved than the general populace, such that we can continue without moderation beyond the point where the general populace could go and still be constructive. In analogy with the above, not only do we have to be better, a great many of us have to be a great deal better.

Well, i don't want to turn this into a board-wars thread, but i think that i *can* point to a whole passle of such threads--they're all over RPGNet and r.g.f.advocacy. The former of which seems to have a "as long as you're not making death threats or a non-game-related neo-Nazi political screed, it's ok", and the latter of which doesn't have moderation, AFAIK. I find RPGNet to be a much more hospitable and friendly atmosphere, and the most-obvious difference is the tone of discussion and moderation. But i also have the skin of a rhino, so very little bugs me--so there might be a lot of flameage that just slides off my back and i don't even notice it. [Or i'm just oblivious, if you prefer to characterize it that way. ]

Now, obviously, you can just respond "well, you like it better there, go over there and leave us alone." And perhaps that *is* the solution. But some topics simply generate more-interesting discussions here than anywhere else i'm aware of.

And you might be right. Both the generally-positive reputation of EnWorld, and the responses in this thread seem to point to the idea that i'm simply in the minority (at least around here), and i should just deal. The world can't bend to my wishes, and what i needed was to raise the point and have the discussion, not necessarily "win".

But i'll counter your challenge with one of my own: can you show that the denizens of EnWorld are any less well-behaved than the general populace? Because i can point to plenty of examples of places that accept much-more-heated discussions, with only self-moderation, and haven't blown up yet. IME, it doesn't take the exceptional individuals you describe to manage it.

Now also remember that these policies were not drawn out of thin air. They were designed in response to observed behavior. So, you have to show that the observed behavior no longer exists. Good luck.

I haven't been around long enough to witness poor behavior here--did it used to be rowdier? IOW, i wasn't aware that the "observed behavior" was ever actually observed here.

I think you mistake oversimplified theory for actual practical social dynamics. In theory, it is a simple people who want can have them, people who don't want, don't have them. But in reality, flamewars tend to bleed throughout the site. Animosity lingers. The whole place becomes more confrontational and less cooperative.

The following may sound paternal, but it is also true - what people want or don't want may not be the same thing as what is best for the overall atmosphere of the place. This is why this is not a democracy. If we really could behave ourselves, we wouldn't have moderators,because the moderation arose as a response to the observed behavior of the people here and elsewhere.

You may well be right. No, let me rephrase that: i think you are right. The mood in individual threads spills over and forms the general tone of the boards. For good and ill. The good, in this case? Civility. The ill? In addition to topics i know i can't discuss (real-world religion), i fear saying things that are a lot less offensive, because i figure they'll get shot down/shut down. Maybe i'm wrong. And i'm sure part of it is personal preference: i'd rather be in an environment that is rowdy and impolite, than one that has the oppresive feel of censorship. Others (presumably yourself) consider what i characterize as 'censorship' to be 'civil standards.' And i understand that there is no absolute standard, so we can both be equally 'right' or 'wrong'.

Anyway, i've had my say. Like i said when i started the thread--i wanted to raise the topic for discussion. I've made my points; if they don't persuade, i'm simply outvoted. Such is life.

 

[Crothian]

I haven't been around long enough to witness poor behavior here--did it used to be rowdier? IOW, i wasn't aware that the "observed behavior" was ever actually observed here.

Things were different back in 1999 and 2000, and while there were some bad behavior I remeber for the most part people behaved well. Eric, who was in charge at the time, set a great example and people from what I recall did not cause as much problems. And that has become even less over the years.

 

[Henry]

We originally didn't really have a "no politics or religion" rule in ye early days -- it was all Eric closing threads that people were fighting in. (Good God those proto-forums were nasty-looking software, but they were free! ) His original rule? "Guys and gals, play fair, and keep it clean - I like to keep it such that my grandmother could read these boards and I wouldn't feel embarrassed."

The more formal yet still loose rules grew from Eric observing what got pointless flames and what got meaningful discussion. The watchword was "His house, his rules" - meaning it's like coming into Eric's house like you would for a get-together. Just like one would ask the host if it's OK to smoke, or watch for cues on whether to drink, curse, etc. We watched Eric and his mods for cues on what's OK and what's not. When Eric made a deal with Morrus to take over the site and forums, he liked Eric's rules and moderation style, and kept it. What it did foster was an atmosphere in which a lot of people feel comfortable in - just one more venue and one more option to experience on the net, alongside the RPGnets, the NTLs, the WOtC's, etc. If the moderation style changed drastically, it wouldn't feel like the same place for a lot of people. As I said, I enjoy it for what it is, and it's why I spend as much effort as I do to be here and help out.

 

[HellHound]

But i'll counter your challenge with one of my own: can you show that the denizens of EnWorld are any less well-behaved than the general populace? Because i can point to plenty of examples of places that accept much-more-heated discussions, with only self-moderation, and haven't blown up yet.

They haven't blown up, certainly. But I won't post to them anymore. There are a lot of boards that 'allow' more heated discussions, and it DOES flow bakc into the general attitudes of the users, to the point where I just won't post to said boards in general anymore.

 

[Morrus]

We originally didn't really have a "no politics or religion" rule in ye early days -- .

I just noticed the irony in someone using Henry VIII as his username moderating political and religious threads!

 

[diaglo]

I just noticed the irony in someone using Henry VIII as his username moderating political and religious threads!

irony is his middle name or something like that if you play with the letters....

HIrony Link.