Mods modding their own threads

[Pielorinho]

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!

Sorry, but you're way off. It's really just a chunky old-style robot built out of potted meat. It can't move around under its own power, but Michael Morris likes to put it on like a puppet and talk in a nasal monotone when he sees someone posting something inappropriate. "PORN--PORN--DESTROY--DESTROY!!" he'll shout as he bans them.

Daniel

 

[Morrus]

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?

The default should be to make new rules for things we think are not issues? Yikes. We're gonna have a LOT of rules very very quickly that way!

Basically, the way we work is pretty laid back - if something turns out to be causing a problem, we look at it. In this case, someone said it might potentially be a problem, but in our opinion it isn't one. Maybe one day it will become one; maybe it won't. If it does, we'll deal with it then. But, as Piratecat said, we're not going to work out rules and guidelines for every hypothetical situation which might arise; and, in this case, again as he said, this is a solution looking for a problem.

If we were a multi-billion dollar company with directors and shareholders, then, yeah, I think the concept of "conflict of interest" regarding the actions of those involved in the company's management would be important. If we were a courtroom and were trying someone for a serious crime, I daresay we'd consider "conflict of interest" to be of the utmost importance. As it is, we're talking about... closing a thread on a D&D messageboard, one which has managed just fine without any such guideline for years.

 

[el-remmen]

I'm staying out of this thread just in case I need to close it later.

 

[Deset Gled]

If it ain't broken, don't fix it.

I have never seen a thread closed here that didn't deserve it. If someone can show me any examples of a thread where a mod closed it when they shouldn't have because of their personal feelings about posting in the thread, then I would be willing to discuss it. But until someone can prove that there's an actual problem, I see no need to change or create policy.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

Its all a question of who is watching the watchers. I suggest we set up a "Citizen's Council" to preiodically review the use of Moderator powers to ensure they are not being abused. This council will be made up of Community Supporters.

Then, since people with CS accounts may have their own conflicts of interest, we have another council made up of non-CS account members to check up on them.

Last, a council made up entirely of people who have never heard of EN World to check up on the non-CS member council.

As someone who had a CS account, which has since lapsed, but hopes to scrape together some $$ to start it back up soon, I feel I would not be able to serve on either the CS or the non-CS council, so I volunteer to vet any proposed council members.

Oh, and we should allow the autospammers the opportunity to review the actions of the spambot.

 

[LightPhoenix]

I moderate my own thread all the time, IYKWIMAITYD.

In all seriousness, I just wanted to say I think the moderators do a fine job, and never have I seen a case where they're used their responsibility for their own gain.

Case in point, this thread could have been locked and further discussion quashed. Instead, it's being talked about. I've been to far too many boards, channels, and BBSs where that would never have been the case.

 

[Mark]

To provide a little clarity, though, please be aware that all the moderators discuss problematic threads in a private forum.

Then it should not be a problem for someone without a role (and possibly perceived stake) in a thread (someone who has posted and, perhaps, taken an opposing view within the thread to another EN Worlder) to be the one to close that thread should it need closing. It avoids the appearance, even if only imagined, that the thread might have been closed out of spite or malice.

I've never seen any actual signs of conflict of interest, (. . .)

You're soaking in it. That is to say that this thread is a bell that cannot be unrung. It's why nearly every organized body that governs itself by any rules has some sort of policy in place to avoid conflicts of interet and smarts ones have policies that avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest.


It's a simple matter. Unless a thread requires immediate closure, a mod (involved in a thread as a regular EN Worlder) simply posts in the private discussion thread that a thread in question probably needs to be closed, then someone uninvolved does the closing based on the unbiased reason that already surely exists. No problem. And, perhaps more importantly, never even a perceived problem.

 

[Mistwell]

The default should be to make new rules for things we think are not issues? Yikes. We're gonna have a LOT of rules very very quickly that way!

Basically, the way we work is pretty laid back - if something turns out to be causing a problem, we look at it. In this case, someone said it might potentially be a problem, but in our opinion it isn't one. Maybe one day it will become one; maybe it won't. If it does, we'll deal with it then. But, as Piratecat said, we're not going to work out rules and guidelines for every hypothetical situation which might arise; and, in this case, again as he said, this is a solution looking for a problem.

It looks like three of your users think it is currently a problem. Not hypothetical, not maybe, not potentially, not some day, but currently a problem. I have explained my reluctance to focus on particular already-closed threads: because the very bias a mod should have to defend another mods past decisions will make a discussion of a particular closed thread that already happened useless. No mod is going to publically say another mod was wrong over such a relatively minor issue, and so no discussion would really be furthered by even mentioning it.

If we call out a particular closed thread, you and others will defend the mod decision and explain why it was fine and not an issue (for the perfectly reasonable reasons listed above). If we do not call out a particular closed thread, you and others will claim this is all hypothetical because we cannot point to a thread where this is going on. So you have us in a catch-22. Any offer we make or do not make to back up this issue will not help.

So we fall back on the only thing we have - telling you this is an issue to us, and unless there is a reason why doing something about it would harm anyone, the fact that it is an issue to us should have some meaning beyond a blanket dismissal as all hypothetical.

I understand that you think there is no issue, and I think that is a valid position. But I don't understand why you and a couple of others continue to frame this debate as if nobody thinks it's a problem and it's actually all hypothetical and we shouldn't make a rule about something that nobody thinks is actually going on. That is not the case. Perhaps some users (like myself) are being overly sensitive weenies. But us overly sensitive weenies think this is a real thing actually currently happening, and not some mythical future maybe possibility.

 

[billd91]

I'm not sure I would ever consider a moderator "conflict of interest" on a gaming discussion board a significant problem. It's not like they're making legal rulings or anything. They're just trying to keep the place humming at a reasonable level of civility. It's simply not that important.

I'd be more concerned if they were wielding the banhammer without consultation in those cases, but I can't see it ever being a problem worth worrying about for thread closure.

 

[Mistwell]

I'm not sure I would ever consider a moderator "conflict of interest" on a gaming discussion board a significant problem. It's not like they're making legal rulings or anything. They're just trying to keep the place humming at a reasonable level of civility. It's simply not that important.

I'd be more concerned if they were wielding the banhammer without consultation in those cases, but I can't see it ever being a problem worth worrying about for thread closure.

I mean, relative to most things in life, NOTHING that happens here is significant.

However, relative to this community, it's significant enough to post about for some apparently.

People keep mentioning the law and courtrooms and such. I am not sure why that is relevant. Hundreds of small time boards use this same kind of guideline. I bet I could find a forum about pez collecting that uses that kind of conflict of interest guideline for mods. This isn't some new and groundbreaking idea. LOTS of boards of all sizes embrace this idea as non-controversial and not major and not akin to a courtroom. Heck, this board already has a system set up for mods to post to other mods to avoid conflicts of interest in other areas, so it's not even a foreign concept here!