On the Use of Colored Text by Moderators

[Umbran]

It has recently become clear to me that some folks have come to think that moderators have... personas. They have their usual posting persona, and then, when they are using colored text, they are someone else, that non-colored text that references behavior can be ignored.

This is not why we use colored text.

Way back when, we didn't use colored text. We had repeated problems when someone complained about not seeing when a moderator had said something about behavior. We started using colored text as a convenience - it helps make sure that someone casually scanning or skimming a thread doesn't miss highly important moderation points. But that doesn't mean that if it isn't in colored text, you shouldn't engage your brain, and consider what you're saying.

EN World is at it's best when users self-moderate - consider what's being said around them, and choose accordingly. You should not wait to see colored text to make such choices.

EN World is in many ways like a large social gathering in Morrus' apartment. If you were at such a gathering, and someone (anyone, not just the people who lived in the apartment) said, "I don't like the way this is going" you'd probably at least consider not plowing forward, right? And, if you willfully decided that you were going to wait until you got slapped or shouted at before you changed how you were conversing, folks would rightfully say you had a solid failure of social skills.

Waiting to see red text to reconsider where you're going is like waiting to get slapped.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I commend you for forking the thread.

Most (if not all) mods also post as themselves. I rather like the orange low-grade warning mod text and red "I-mean-it-now" mod text that has been used by most mods lately.

You could, I suppose include a yellow this-is-my-neutral-mod-voice mod text, but with the sole exception of a mod trying to godwin an argument simply by being a mod (which is, of course, possible...but not AFAICT something done on EN World), I'm not sure why it would be used.

For that matter, I'm not sure why "I'm sorry I brought it up" would be written (or read) in a mod voice at all, unless there was a Rules violation involved. Perhaps you would be good enough to explain?


RC

 

[Celebrim]

I have repeatedly stated this position in private conversations with moderators that if the moderators persist in using moderator accounts to engage in debate, conversation, and other ordinary activities, that they cannot be terribly surprised that there is not an immediate recognition that a moderator is commenting on a thread or post in a moderator role.

To be perfectly frank, I seldom bother to glance to the side to see who is posting what. The use of avatars helps somewhat, but I don't always even look for the avatars as I read down a thread. And sometimes, when I do glance to see who is posting what, it is entirely to follow the single thread of conversation that interests me and I completely skim over what everyone else in the thread is saying. There have been times when I persisted in posting to a thread after a moderator warned me against doing so, when the simple fact was I didn't even realize in the avalanche of posts a moderator was involved. I'm probably one of the ones responcible for the 'red text'.

I personally feel that using a bright red font is necessary but utterly insufficient in this regard. I have previously held moderator authority elsewhere and when I did, I was not allowed to:

a) Post, debate, or discuss issues when wearing my moderator face.
b) Publically reveal that I was a moderator or otherwise associate my moderator account with a user account.
c) Directly intervene and 'mod stomp' in a discussion where I was acting as a user. If a conversation I was a part of got out of hand, I'd ask another mod to intervene. If another user had a problem and reported me, they could do so without fear of bias because they had no idea that I was a moderator. This also has the upshot that one moderator can moderate another moderator without publicly injuring his authority.

The reason people feel that moderators have persona's is that at EnWorld they do have personas. Moderators are not impersonal agents, but have names like 'Umbran' and 'PirateCat' and 'Darkness' and whoever. 'Umbran' is a person with a personality and known likes and dislikes. 'Umbran' can't very well pretend to not have a personality and to be objective when he's going to 90% of the time demonstrate one. 'Umbran' can't very well pretend that he's not an equal, when 90% of the time he posts as one. While you can pretend that moderators don't have personas because the rules forbid moderation to be commented on, I happen to know that the personas of moderators are extensively discussed elsewhere.

You can't have it both ways. You either are a moderator all the time, in which case every statement you make is from a moderator stance and is therefore the official voice of EnWorld and does not allow for contridiction or reply, or else you are not a moderator all the time and therefore some of the time you are just spouting like the rest of us and it may be treated just like anyone else's and some of the time your voice has special authority which no one else can pretend to. Either I can reply to some of your posts, or else I can't. You can't pretend that there isn't a distinguishment between posts I can reply to and those that I can't.

As for the analogies:

"EN World is in many ways like a large social gathering in Morrus' apartment."

No, it's nothing like a large social gathering in Morrus's apartment except for the fact that in both cases Morrus is the host and owner. In large social gatherings, you don't usually employ bouncers and censors to control the guests. EnWorld is in this way much more like a large social gathering at Morrus's bar. Except that, at 'Morrus Place', the bouncers wear plain clothes and drink and dance when on duty, and then are surprised and offended when they discover that this makes their job as bouncers more difficult.

Now, generally, the mods here do a good enough job and the users here are respectful enough (you might not think so, but really, this is a good crowd) that its not a problem. So, if the administration of the site doesn't want to panic and change the rules that have largely worked for going on 10 years now (with the exception in my opinion of one 3-4 month period), then I fully understand. But pretending that moderators don't have persona's and pretending that the decision to allow moderator accounts to act like ordinary users doesn't have consquences, won't make it so.

 

[Nifft]

I'm with Celebrim: you are either posting as a mod, or you are posting as a normal user. You can't have it both ways.

Frequently, just having a mod posting in a thread can have a cooling effect on tempers, but that's just everyone slowing down when they see the cop -- it doesn't mean you get to speak as both an on-duty cop and a regular dude.

- - -

My personal request would be for only mods & admins to be able to use red and orange text. As it is, I'm no longer stopping every time I see a line in red, because it's usually some attention whore's signature and not a moderation note.

I'd prefer to be able to always see moderation notes when skimming a thread.

Thanks, -- N

 

[Desdichado]

The particular incident that sparked this forked thread came across as arbitary, petty and bizarre. I would never in a million years have guessed that the post in question was a "moderator" post, in part because I never would have guessed that a moderator would arbitrarily ban a discussion that they had initiated just because people were disagreeing with the conclusion that the the moderator had decreed was true by fiat. There was nothing "moderateable" about the discussion until you decided that suddenly you were going to threaten to moderate it, as near as I can tell. And frankly, that kind of preemptive "I'm going to moderate this now because someone might possibly be offended by it if it goes on" style moderation is pretty ridiculous in my opinion anyway.

Plenty of the moderator action on these forums comes across as abritrary, petty, and nonsensical. There are entire discussions on other messageboards, thousands of posts long, that largely discuss the arbitariness and nonsensical moderation that sometimes happens here. The least the moderators could do when in engaging in it follow some posting protocol so people know clearly what in the world the moderators are doing. If the moderators can be insulting and threatening to others, as the case here seems clearly to indicate, just because their opinions are not accepted as Truth with a capital T, then at least let us know that you're going to start "slapping people" to use your terminology, for disagreeing with what you say.

Because otherwise, all we've got is yet another example of moderation that doesn't make sense and ultimately harms the site overall.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Continuing on what Nifft said above,

Indented text should not be orange.​

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

The particular incident that sparked this forked thread came across as arbitary, petty and bizarre. I would never in a million years have guessed that the post in question was a "moderator" post, in part because I never would have guessed that a moderator would arbitrarily ban a discussion that they had initiated just because people were disagreeing with the conclusion that the the moderator had decreed was true by fiat. There was nothing "moderateable" about the discussion until you decided that suddenly you were going to threaten to moderate it, as near as I can tell. And frankly, that kind of preemptive "I'm going to moderate this now because someone might possibly be offended by it if it goes on" style moderation is pretty ridiculous in my opinion anyway.

Plenty of the moderator action on these forums comes across as abritrary, petty, and nonsensical. There are entire discussions on other messageboards, thousands of posts long, that largely discuss the arbitariness and nonsensical moderation that sometimes happens here. The least the moderators could do when in engaging in it follow some posting protocol so people know clearly what in the world the moderators are doing. If the moderators can be insulting and threatening to others, as the case here seems clearly to indicate, just because their opinions are not accepted as Truth with a capital T, then at least let us know that you're going to start "slapping people" to use your terminology, for disagreeing with what you say.

Because otherwise, all we've got is yet another example of moderation that doesn't make sense and ultimately harms the site overall.

I'm glad someone else said this.

I owe you XP, Hobo.

RC

 

[Tewligan]

I'm glad someone else said this.

I owe you XP, Hobo.

RC

Covered.

 

[Piratecat]

I'm with Celebrim: you are either posting as a mod, or you are posting as a normal user. You can't have it both ways.

Huh. I'm not sure I agree. I'm not going to swap back and forth between two log-ins; not only am I not convinced it's necessary, if I had to do that I wouldn't actually post much, and I like posting. So don't expect that to change.

That being said, we often ask a different mod to handle a problem if we've been active in the thread, mostly because we don't like how it looks if we're disagreeing with someone who's angry at the topic at hand. If I'm going to lose an argument, I don't want to do it by threadbanning them.

As mods it's in our best interest to make it really clear when we're speaking in an official position, though. If I say something that I expect to be followed as a rule, and it's ambiguous, sorting out the resulting confusion is usually more of a pain for me than the original problem.

I tend to agree with you about not having folks post in red or orange text, but there's no realistic way to enforce that. More trouble than it's worth; better to do our best to make it obvious and let members be responsible for their own actions.

 

[Umbran]

Most (if not all) mods also post as themselves. I rather like the orange low-grade warning mod text and red "I-mean-it-now" mod text that has been used by most mods lately.

I'm trying to be clear here:

Color is not a different person! Color is to make it so people skimming the thread don't miss something. It increases visibility. When using color, we tend to be short and too the point, again, to increase clarity. If we aren't writing in color, you can bet that we aren't terribly worried if someone misses the point - we probably don't see it as a fire that needs putting out, or something. We are highly unlikely to slap a ban on someone for failing to see something we wrote in white.

But Rel in Red is still Rel. Umbran is Umbran, whether in Orange or Red or White. Morrus is The Man, no matter the color. If one of us says that something is uncool, that's someone who's an authority on behavior on the boards saying something is uncool.

Heck, even if JohnQPoster says something is uncool, you should be considering that maybe that it is uncool.