[REDACTED]

[DumbPaladin]

I used to moderate rather like DumbPaladin requests - very formal, proper, empty of emotional content, and all.

And I got lots of complaints on it: I was told I came across as cold, haughty, elitist, and a number of other things folks apparently didn't want to see in a moderator. I specifically worked on changing the voice I used, and those complaints ceased.

Now, DumbPaladin complains the other way.

I think we may be in the realm of, "You can't please everyone all the time."

To clarify, since you're misstating what I've actually said:

I object to any moderating calling anyone "jerks" OR anything worse. It's unnecessary.

The entirety of the REST of your statement? No problem at all with any of it. I also wouldn't have a problem with it if you publicly posted the names of users who had behaved inappropriately, or if you suggested that numerous people (named or unnamed) are facing some sort of disciplinary action. Public shaming is a perfectly valid method for handling people behaving ... like how many people on EN World behave.

The namecalling is unnecessary and comes off as very petty, because it is poor behavior no matter who's doing it. Being a moderator doesn't make poor behavior seem any less poor -- if anything, it amplifies how bad it is, because you're in a position of authority and expected to know, and do, better.

Hopefully that doesn't leave any questions as to what I'm saying.

 

[Rel]

The namecalling is unnecessary and comes off as very petty, because it is poor behavior no matter who's doing it. Being a moderator doesn't make poor behavior seem any less poor -- if anything, it amplifies how bad it is, because you're in a position of authority and expected to know, and do, better.

Hopefully that doesn't leave any questions as to what I'm saying.

How about if I said to somebody, "You're driving the wrong way down Dick Street."?

I came up with that this past weekend and I've been DYING to use it!

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

How about if I said to somebody, "You're driving the wrong way down Dick Street."?

I came up with that this past weekend and I've been DYING to use it!

That is so good I almost want to start a troll thread or post something Grandma-unfriendly just so you can use it!

Almost.

(BTW- tried to XP you for your post and it wouldn't do anything, no message, nothing. Is it telling me you've disabled XP without telling me?)

(BTW #2- Dick Street is a great name for a MIB.)

 

[pawsplay]

I've been called a jerk, and recently. I thought it was insulting and petty, and make the mod in question come across as more than a little jerk-ish to me. I know it's not a policy to revisit or discuss specific incidents in public, but I would like to say something generally about the experience. If someone seriously trolls me, and I respond with a single one-liner, that does not in any way insult their charater or worth as a human being, and that clearly indicates I am declining to respond further, and I walk away... and then I get called a "jerk" for that, yeah, that kind of upsets me. The other guy was being a jerk, I just let him know I was offended.

I don't take it personally. Mod was having a bad day, doesn't like me, thought I was someone else, etc. Maybe they just see things differently than I do.

The thing is, when the mod hammer comes down, there is no opportunity to have a friendly discussion about differing viewpoints. And THAT is why I think mods should refrain from name-calling, unless the forum is going to afford regular users the same discretion in calling people out. Mod authority does not legitamize name-calling; rather, as an authority figure, I would imagine mods would be held to a higher level of restraint.

A number of years ago on RPGnet, I had a couple of mod run-ins, including one bizarre and seriously disturbing misunderstanding in which a mod claimed I was attacking Gareth Michael-Skarka when I was actually defending him, and another in which I lost my cool over being called a racist. Then a mod came back and issued me a warning for "continuing to argue" because someone else posted some trolling comments in a contentious thread I had participated in the week before (!). When I asked about the reason for my warning, I was accused of trolling the mods. So I made a short announcement I was taking a break from the boards. A breather should help everyone clear their heads, right? A couple of mods came back, locked the thread, and proceeded to viciously insult me. So in a moment of lacking in self-preservation instinct, right before beginning my vacation from the board, I reported (using the board's report feature) one of the mods in question. That resulted in my immediate perma-ban.

I've never seen an issue of that nature come up on EnWorld. But it does raise my hackles when I see mods shooting from behind the mod shield. Dude, not cool. Seriously.

In my experience, there are very few problems that cannot be solved by:

User X, please refrain from Y as you appear to be doing in this thread.

followed by a short vacation if they in fact do Y. I've never felt the need to peramanently ban anybody, except for violating bandwidth or the terms of their bans; enough vacations and the posters in question either fly right, or they lose interest because half the time they can't post.

Week-bans go away. Locked threads fade from the mind. But when you call someone a jerk, there's not a good way to undo that, unless you are willing to apologize.

 

[pawsplay]

And the irony, of course, is that a defense of the call in question would consist of, "Well, pawsplay, actually you are a jerk and deserved to be called that."

 

[Morrus]

I thought it was insulting and petty, and make the mod in question come across as more than a little jerk-ish to me.

To be fair, that is the opinion of 90% of people on the wrong end of moderation, and would be even if we included a gift basket. That's just the nature of the game.

 

[wedgeski]

I don't take it personally. Mod was having a bad day, doesn't like me, thought I was someone else, etc. Maybe they just see things differently than I do.

That last option is certainly the most likely.

The thing is, when the mod hammer comes down, there is no opportunity to have a friendly discussion about differing viewpoints.

On the contrary, you can have a private discussion with the mod about it. Perhaps the problem is you fear that being moderated is a slight on your posting character that you can't publically redress? If so that's understandable.

Mod authority does not legitamize name-calling; rather, as an authority figure, I would imagine mods would be held to a higher level of restraint.

I tend to see things differently. When posting as themselves, mods should absolutely obey every rule in the book. But when they post in mod colours, I think there is a certain level of operating outside the rules. I'm sure many would disagree.

 

[Morrus]

The thing is, when the mod hammer comes down, there is no opportunity to have a friendly discussion about differing viewpoints.

Of course there is. You just do it privately.

The reason for that rules is that if every mod decision (and there are many) is subject to a peanut gallery, dissection, and endless debate there would be no modding.

Nobody has the time or inclination to be forced to publically defend every little decision they make - and make no mistake, that's exactly what would happen (heck, enough of it goes on privately - making it public discourse subject to everyone's opinion would multiply than tenfold - and, frankly, name one person who doesn't think their viewpoint is the correct one?) I've certainly no interest in running a website which involves most of my time defending every decision I make, and the rest of the mods feel the same.

But those who have made the observation that mods are not subject t the same rules as the rest of the posters - they are correct. The mods operate under very different rules and powers to everyone else. That doesn't mean they get to wander around being obnoxious, but it does mean the occasional strongly worded - and dare I say personal - comment is a valid and permitted tool in their modding repertoire. That, I'm afraid is not going to change.

 

[pawsplay]

To be fair, that is the opinion of 90% of people on the wrong end of moderation, and would be even if we included a gift basket. That's just the nature of the game.

If you know moderation is not going to be well-received, throwing in a "there ya are, ye jerk" in top of it seems unhelpful. If the subject of moderation agrees the moderator action is reasonable, then the remark is needlessly disparaging; if they disagree, then the remark needlessly burns goodwill.

 

[pawsplay]

That doesn't mean they get to wander around being obnoxious, but it does mean the occasional strongly worded - and dare I say personal - comment is a valid and permitted tool in their modding repertoire. That, I'm afraid is not going to change.

I''m sorry to hear that. However friendly and beneficent the mods may be, and they are a good bunch, certainly, it amounts to running a brute squad. Again, if the mods are held to a different standard, I would expect it to be a higher level of restraint. It also means the mods can fulfill only a limited role as model posters. Hopefully, board members will discern, by their own judgment, who is to be emulated and who is not.

It is your board and not mine. I have offered my perspective, I hope it was helpful to you, if only as a mirror.

Thanks for running a pretty cool board.