Mods modding their own threads

[Rel]

Well, except for Rel. All his posts generate conflicts of interest - even before he became a mod!

It's just that he's so damned sexy we let him get away with it.

-Hyp.

Your check is in the mail, sir.

As for the topic at hand, I'd like to point out something that I think could be a general trend and I know it's a trend for me: I post in a much greater percentage of threads that are ultimately closed than I do in the general population of threads on the boards.

Most of the time when one or more posts in a thread are reported it means that thread is in trouble. A mod will post a call for civility or point out one or more posters that are causing problems. That mod might take an interest in the topic however and hang around to continue posting on it in a non-moderatorial capacity. But this also means they've got a front row seat to see any further problems in the thread. They are closely watching the posting trends in the thread and I think they are actually MORE qualified to decide whether that thread needs to be closed.

 

[Nonlethal Force]

Good counterpoint, Rel. That makes sense. Of course, it's not the only answer out there, but that one does make logical sense.

On an aside ... so does it surprise anyone that this thread is only one of two in the meta forum that made it to a second page? (assuming you have your preferences set to creating a new page at 40 posts, of course). Just thought I'd point that out. I personally didn't expect this much dialogue. Not that it is a bad thing, of course.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Your check is in the mail, sir.

As for the topic at hand, I'd like to point out something that I think could be a general trend and I know it's a trend for me: I post in a much greater percentage of threads that are ultimately closed than I do in the general population of threads on the boards.

Most of the time when one or more posts in a thread are reported it means that thread is in trouble. A mod will post a call for civility or point out one or more posters that are causing problems. That mod might take an interest in the topic however and hang around to continue posting on it in a non-moderatorial capacity. But this also means they've got a front row seat to see any further problems in the thread. They are closely watching the posting trends in the thread and I think they are actually MORE qualified to decide whether that thread needs to be closed.

I'll agree with Rel's sentiment as well. I have always seen reasoned and in-context dialogue from mods who have been participating somewhat in the thread, whereas one time long ago in the Rules Forum, there was a rather ill-informed warning (one of the few I've ever seen from the mod staff in all my time here, and I see a lot of them because I intentionally check locked threads to see what happened ) from a mod who admitted that he doesn't like the rules forum and hadn't read the thread but simply responded to a report post call without putting anything into context (that's another thing I like about the mods here, though--the one time there was an ill-informed warning, the mod was up-front in admitting it). Personally, I'd rather have the mod who was participating and knows what is going on any day of the week.

 

[Jdvn1]

I personally didn't expect this much dialogue. Not that it is a bad thing, of course.

Indeed, I think it's a very good thing. I'm glad the moderators take the time to read and openly discuss such matters with the posting public (at least, a section thereof, since a lot of people never wander into Meta unless they need something). I think it speaks a lot of our moderators that they try to be open minded.

While this may have been taken to emails, I think that some topics (like this one) benefit from the input of a variety of people.

 

[Bad Paper]

Might I point out that ENWorld is not a popularly governed body or similar organization that owes anything to its users?

I ran a BBS for a couple of years, and sysopped a couple others, and I'm all for pointing out that you exist at the whim of the mods. And I'm OK with that, because the quality of the mods' behavior dictates the quality of the BBS (err...website, OK, this isn't WWIVNet or something...).

I thought the fact that Hyp closed the thread was an unfortunate coincidence, because it implied exactly the motivation that Delta brought up. Also, because Hyp was the only guy on my side, and yeah, it does smack of elitism -- on the surface. But Hyp is the most even-handed, short-winded (while wearing the Mod hat), and experienced of the Mods (judging by post-count, anyway), and his previous behavior highlights that what happened in that thread was merely an unfortunate coincidence.

Or a happy one, if you're the one who started that thread, and watched in horror as it disintegrated, though not quite as badly as this one did.

 

[Ry]

I just wanted to say that I completely support the mods making these calls - in fact, some of the best discussions I see online are in moderated comments on livejournal accounts, which can stay on-topic and civil precisely because they're being moderated by someone who is seriously participating in the conversation.

 

[Graf]

I ran a BBS for a couple of years, and sysopped a couple others, and I'm all for pointing out that you exist at the whim of the mods.

Your board must have been a thrilling place to visit.
Probably the biggest reason EnWorld's been successful is that the mods aren't in it to acheive ego gratification by pushing people around.

Most rules threads are unfortunately ego contests.
Someone posts, someone else posts their verision, the first point re-states the debate in their favor and on and on.
They persist until someone gives up or is tired.

They provide value to the community only in that people can search a thread topic (or start another one if they're masochists) and see various points of view and form their own opinion.

Since most rules threads are being driven by semi/pseudo-logic and people really just want to "win" (but can't admit it openly) you're not going to be in a position to really cut them off at some kind of easily defined point.

And, once a thread has gone over a cliff, then the mod has an unappetizing choice between deleting it (loss of knowledge for the community) and pruning out the offenders (damages the ability of people to follow what was happening, looks like it favors one side).

So they close a thread 5 or 20 posts before it would have completely degraded .... it's not a significant loss to the community.

It's only a "conflicit of interest" if you felt like you didn't get a chance to post your "winning post" and were somehow diminished or not allowed to participate in a "fair fight".

 

[Rel]

Probably the biggest reason EnWorld's been successful is that the mods aren't in it to acheive ego gratification by pushing people around.

We do it for one simple reason: The babes.

 

[Darkness]

We do it for one simple reason: The babes.

Specifically, this one and this one.

 

[Rel]

and this one.

He WAS delicious. But I did think that the apple in the mouth was a little disrespectful.