Moderation/Rule/Site Concerns and Suggestions

[Wahrheit]

Evilfusion has the same powers as YCMaker

 

And we brought YCMaker back for a few days after Tormey slut shamed him

No, it would need access to Marketplace, which Evilfusion doesn't have

 

I know someone else is an admin but it's different please trust me I've run IP.Board software for like 10 years

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

No, it would need access to Marketplace, which Evilfusion doesn't have

 

I know someone else is an admin but it's different please trust me I've run IP.Board software for like 10 years

Oh, is it a feature you need to buy ...well that sucks

[Wahrheit]

Oh, is it a feature you need to buy ...well that sucks

Marketplace has both free and paid addons, but you would need an addon to change this, and only the admin of the account has access to Marketplace.

[vla1ne]

...seven pages of wtf... 

 

alright i suppose i'll throw some cents in the piggy bank.

first up, the whole page glitch issue is also happening to me, it's somewhat annoying that i have to refresh the page and/or reclick the my profile link before doing anything, and if possible, that would be a really helpful fix.

 

second, i would give my opinion on the mods, but it's rather late, and i'll save that for a time when i have time to actually post more length reviews.

 

third, again, i've been mentioned for mod position and i will paraphrase here what i said then, i do want mod position, but i would not be a good mod right now, i have no time to properly moderate due to RL developments, and while i think i'd be a decent mod in time, i don't think now is that time. in the future, i will likely aim for a mod position, but that will be on my own terms. until then, i will neither request, or accept any form of mod position.

 

lastly, transparency, (odds are this'll sound basic, but i just want to put it out there in case it isn't) to me, it's not too much of an issue if you talk over an issue in quiet, to sharpen it up before presenting them, that's your right as mods, but while i support forming your policies in quiet, i think there should always be at least an announcement of intent, and then some form of grace period, maybe 1-2 weeks before rollout, that you put them up for public review an discussion, that way you can make said rules as defined as you believe necessary. and then we the members can take the time to provide our suggestions for improvement, or even rejection (provided logical basis of course) that would lead to fewer rules that are rejected or misunderstood by the majority, and everybody could have their say on the rules before implementation, leaving fewer mouths bitter. would that be a decent plan? again that's likely how you already do things, but i just had to ask to make sure.

[Tourmaline]

Oh, I wasn't being totally silly when I mentioned moderator status. That is, if a search for another one was to indeed happen, I would be willing and able to try. I have a lot of confidence I could do whatever well, especially if Dad someday wanted (or required) an antithesis. I'm too ambitious these days to ignore the possibility, though I should get to Evilfusion on a particular private issue.

 

It's fun to contemplate, I guess.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Adding Mako to a PM is difficult cause his name is too short. Any fixes

[ENMaker]

Ragnarok never showed any signs of reform.

 

He's been banned for over 5 years.

People change over time, especially young people, and we are extremely receptive to new information, in most cases. Sometimes we need time to process and reflect on that new information, but we are indeed malleable. We can be wiser, more thoughtful, and ultimately better people, given some time and distance.

[Wahrheit]

 

He's been banned for over 5 years.

 

You're clever to quote me, but if I recall correctly, he was allowed back once, and was just as awful. If he actually wants to come back and can of his own recognizance admit that his prior behavior was wrong (he never did), then sure, give him a go on a short leash.

[ENMaker]

You're clever to quote me, but if I recall correctly, he was allowed back once, and was just as awful. If he actually wants to come back and can of his own recognizance admit that his prior behavior was wrong (he never did), then sure, give him a go on a short leash.

 

Everyone is now on board. #unbanrag2017

[Wahrheit]

Everyone is now on board. #unbanrag2017

I didn't say I'm on board. My being on board is conditional.

[Blake]

I am definitely opposed to Rag coming back, as are others I know, so it's certainly not unanimous.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

Okay cause Black (Kinda) asked me to; posting what I made a status about yesterday. Didn't read all the stuff yet so sorry if I'm repeating. Also copied it weird too lazy to fix.
 
Mod's I'd suggest CONSIDERING be removed (note nothing personal in this):

• .Rai: Honestly after Dad came into the picture he's not really shown his furry tail much. I get busy but if a mod is too busy to mod should they mod?
• Aix: Sorry Aixy but it's true. :T RP only needs occasional moderating and Nai is enough for that imo and well, you also barely show up. There was a time you were considered for a Super due to how much you did back in the day but now? Not so much.
• Koko: IF they are actually "gone". Otherwise I assume they're doing fine for TCG
• Night: Yeah, I went there. If Smear can promise to stay more active.
• Roxas: Surprised? Well I advocated considering this before and, while he's probably the LEAST of the candidates he also should be considered simply due to not adding as much as others. No offense dude I might be wrong obviously I don't see all.
• Gadj: Though this one I don't know if they're doing anything because of the sections they oversee.
  Yesterday, 03:12 PM 
• This is mostly a "this should be looked into" list. I don't dislike anyone here and they have done well in the past.
  It's mainly that with so many mods it makes it seem like the mods are in a better position than they are. When really the ACTUAL mod team is much smaller.
• Yesterday, 03:13 PM And of course I could be wrong about how much they do. Partially the other mods would have to give some insight into this.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

I don't see why inactivity necessarily needs to result in a demotion. So long as they have a reasonable track record and keep up with rule updates when they do return/pop in, it can't hurt to have them in reserve.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

I don't see why inactivity necessarily needs to result in a demotion. So long as they have a reasonable track record and keep up with rule updates when they do return/pop in, it can't hurt to have them in reserve.

I can't trust someone to moderate when they don't even bother to be around. Plus moderation is helped by keeping up to date with the going-ons of YCM and the various members.

Plus I don't think "in reserve" is a good thing for a mod because they need to be able to be there especially for newer members. If someone sees the mod list they should be able to know they can contact them about an issue and get responses.

It also makes the mod team seem larger than it is and gives people certain expectations.

That's my reasoning, at least, take it or leave it. ^^;

[Blake]

I don't see why inactivity necessarily needs to result in a demotion. So long as they have a reasonable track record and keep up with rule updates when they do return/pop in, it can't hurt to have them in reserve.

The biggest issue really boils down to making decisions.

 

Only a portion of us actually post in the moderator forum on issues, not to mention a lack of forum prescence.

 

It makes us move even slower than normal to have inactive moderators. 

 

My earlier points about power abuse were more of a "let's indulge the logic" moment, but this is the truer issue.

 

And Cow's points aren't without merit. When Roxas hit RAEG with a 7 point warn, he hadn't been active in a while, and it made it so that he was unaware of the circumstances: A shitposter making a joke report.

 

And thus a small shitstorm occured.

 

I'm not saying we need to just cut all the supposed chaff ASAP, but that's the reasoning behind it.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

@God Cattle Beast:

Those are good points.

 

The way things currently are though there's an impression that the mods are understaffed and that it's a long and arduous process for new ones to be appointed. The way I see it, the more the merrier. For cases in which members need to get a hold of any moderator they can always check for recent activity or go to another mod if they don't get a response. 

[Blake]

@God Cattle Beast:

Those are good points.

 

The way things currently are though there's an impression that the mods are understaffed and that it's a long and arduous process for new ones to be appointed. The way I see it, the more the merrier. For cases in which members need to get a hold of any moderator they can always check for recent activity or go to another mod if they don't get a response. 

actually the understaffing is due to said inactivity/lack of input, soooo

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

Demotions don't do anything for their activity as moderators, or for the mod team's total activity.

[Blake]

Demotions don't do anything for their activity as moderators.

They remove them so people can fill in the role while not having to wait on them for input that may or may not happen.

 

Having proverbial randoms come back and insert their opinion because they're still a mod has happened and has had issues, outside of the Roxas example.

 

They could be gone for months or years and show back up just to stake their claim, even if they're no longer involved.

 

Such is not currently the issue, but it has the potential to be in the longer term, which is why there's a logic to demoting them.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

The very fact that a returning moderator would have to intuit how things are done points to the greater issue at hand. 

 

It wouldn't be a problem if there were anything resembling concrete standards in how the rules are enforced. It shouldn't be a moderator's job to be hip to the unwritten ways in which the active mod team does things any more than a returning member should be up to date on unwritten rules. 

[Blake]

The very fact that a returning moderator would have to intuit how things are done points to the greater issue at hand. 

 

It wouldn't be a problem if there were anything resembling concrete standards in how the rules are enforced. It shouldn't be a moderator's job to be hip to the unwritten ways in which things are done any more than a returning member is obliged to be up to date on unwritten rules. 

When a Mod marches back in after 15~ months and demands Ragnarok be unbanned or equivalent, there's an issue.

 

You're imposing one issue upon another, while taking only part of what I said about Roxas to back it up.

 

The issue with Roxas was that a known shitposter reported RAEG for saying "kys" in a lolmisc thread. It was written in a way to imply it was serious, even though it was immediately acknowledged as an elaborate joke.

 

Lack of context with the user is what caused this to occur. That's nothing to do with rules, nor is the other example.

 

Pick one issue at a time to tackle.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

They're interwoven issues.

 

Either telling a member "kill yourself" has a penalty or it doesn't. 

 

Either an admission of making a report as a joke results in a penalty for feature abuse or it doesn't. Ultimately, it shouldn't matter whether the report is a joke or not in how telling a member "kill yourself" is addressed, for which I still don't see why a solid warning isn't appropriate.  

 

To make an exception based on a character argument that [redacted] somehow isn't a legitimate member is the exact thing that should be avoided. 

 

EDIT: "[redacted]" is XXX, being edited out of my post by a moderator. 

[Blake]

They're interwoven issues.

 

Either telling a member "kill yourself" has a penalty or it doesn't. 

 

Either an admission of making a report as a joke results in a penalty for feature abuse or it doesn't. 

 

To make an exception based on a character argument that [redacted] somehow isn't a legitimate member is the exact thing that should be avoided. 

They're not.

 

The one who reported it was warned. The issue was warning RAEG, especially that harshly, was unwarranted and pushed a member away due to a harsh overreaction. 

 

Understanding who members are allows a member of the team to better understand a situation. No one is saying said member "isn't a legitimate member", only that it was clearly out of character for the one who made the report. Roxas didn't know this, due to previous inactivity, and this is the sort of thing we want to avoid.

 

Nevermind that said member says/said KYS all the time or was told such, which made it even more suspect that he randomly reported it.

 

The issue wasn't the "KYS", which happened to offend Roxas on a personal level, it was the actions that came from it that resulted in scaring a member who hadn't really done anything wrong off because someone who made a joke report decided to.

 

The situation was fixed, but the damage was done to both RAEG and Roxas' reputation.

 

I'd also ask you not to mention names that aren't previously brought up in situations like this. Even if it's common knowledge, this thread is not meant to evoke hostility of any kind, so preventing any further knowledge of the event can only help.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

I was saying that [said member] shouldn't be characterized as a "known shitposter". Especially where moderation is concerned. 

  

 

The situation was fixed, but the damage was done to both RAEG and Roxas' reputation.

 

 

This is "evoking hostility". 

[Blake]

I was saying that [said member] shouldn't be characterized as a "known shitposter". 

 

The situation was fixed, but the damage was done to both RAEG and Roxas' reputation.

 

This is "evoking hostility". 

Why not? A member shouldn't have a reputation that they themselves earned?

 

Stating that RAEG suffered from it and Roxas suffered damage to his reputation is evoking hostility? His relationship with the site has been strained since, so...