I wanted to give some feedback on the new 4e forum moderation and how to perhaps do it without arousing a lot of community ire. I know that it's being done in good faith and I'm sure everyone involved is doing their best. I also wanted to chime in as a semi-impartial observer - I don't think I'eve ever been censured on this or any other forum (ENWorld, Wizards) - I don't roll that way. Also, IRL I help run a major company's Web site and so have some insight into the subject.
I do think the switch to moderation is unfortunate; I post more often here than in those other two places because of my perception that this forum is more conducive to free speech and has in general better and more informed and open-minded discussion on it, so I do want to preserve that. It is of course Paizo's "right" to do whatever they want on their forums, but obviously companies that value free and open stuff get the better press nowadays.
Anyway. The one major error I see being made so far is that the communication strategy isn't aligning well with the stated goal of "minimal moderation." Minimal moderation is fine and it's a good strategy. However, mods have to realize that their postings now carry a lot more weight and frankly need to be minimized.
I'm going to start with Gary as an example - again, I'm not saying he's doing anything in bad faith or doing anything "wrong" per se, but I want to illustrate how you have to change your behavior for successful moderation.
Gary says that "only one post has been moderated since this began," which is good. However, there have been many more posts that an impartial reader views as kinda threatening when coming from a moderator. Go hit "recent posts" from Gary. As I read through 4e threads, every time I come across one of these it takes me aback.
Razz, actually we'd prefer if you didn't. Please feel free to repost your comment without the second paragraph.
I don't think we care what happens on other messageboards, and I'm not sure I see the relevance of bringing it up here. "Keepin' it real" is a thin disguise for a veiled insult, if that was what you were intending.
Tensor, I love ya, but please don't do this on every single post. I think we got the joke the first time. :-)
I think I'll place this comment in my mental category of "good-natured prodding from a friend" and not in the "borderline personal insult" category. ;-)
Hey Krome, you could have posted your entire reply and left this one sentence out. That would have been stellar. Please don't do that again.
These aren't deleted posts, but they are active moderation. No amount of "I love ya" or smileys make communications from mods feel good, just as getting pulled over by a cop and given a "award for good driving!" doesn't make people feel good. (Some police departments actually do this, because they also don't understand this core concept). In fact, by their natre, posts like this are higher profile than deletes or bans, which are inherently hard to see.
So pretty much as I, as a general reader, go look through the forums, there are posts like this in nearly every thread on the 4e forum. It gives a poor overall impression. If you're going to moderate minimally, do that. If you're going to chip in on every post that "might be a veiled insult," or even tell people "hey, please don't post that .sig in other posts) - change the stated moderation goals because they're untrue. Also realize that whether you take action or not it is seen as heavy handed - cops on every streetcorner, even if "they're not arresting everyone" are chilling. So you will unfortunately (again, to be successful at your stated goals) need to tone down the communication and only post when it is very warranted.
Also, whatever you decide are the moderation rules - all mods need to stick to them and re-communicate them clearly in the same language. We see some posts from Lisa saying "It's just about not being a jerk." But then in random other posts from other Paizoans, you see a lot of other odd critera. "Don't mention what happens on other forums." Is that really a valid rule? Come up with clear guidelines and be very consistent about their execution and communication.
I think a lot of people feel that they may fall under censure for saying things that frankly fall under legitimate discourse. Examples:
* WotC is acting in bad faith by not releasing the new license and/or rules to 3p companies yet
* I don't like 4e and feel that it dumbs down the game, and that the designers intend that
* I feel like the mods are being too heavy handed
* Any statement using sarcasm or irony (as it may be "snark")
* Any hypothetical (as it may be a "troll")
* Any disagreement with some other person
You've built up a lot of community trust so as long as you handle this well you should be able to surf right along without any hiccups. But community trust is notoriously fickle, and handling issues like this without the utmost care can generate backlash. Google lost a lot of community goodwill when they censored for China, and then even when they stood up to the DoJ on search logs, a lot of people were like "Oh, look who's picking and choosing their battles; 'Do no evil' my tuckus."
So to sum up - to enforce minimal moderation without community backlash - mods should:
* have clear guidelines they are consistently following
* communicate those guidelines consistently and in the same language
* do not post in non-technical forums unless they really need to take action
Thanks for listening!
Well put. This is what is great about these boards. Sooner or later, someone expresses my thoughts better than I could.
And if I could add a little hindsight, the announcement was the worst part. I get that Paizo prefers a position of up front communication... But when it comes to moderation policy changes, it tends to inflame the situation.
When a board reaches the point where an increase of moderation is required, it is usually because there is some split in the community. Announcing the increase in moderation only increases that split. Some feel the increase is against them, and then try to prove how it is being unfairly levied. Others feel the increase is for them, and take that to mean they are "marshaled" and free to moderate others as they see fit.
On the other hand, had the appointed mods just started "publicly" modding posts - pointing out unacceptable wording, deleting particularly offensive sections and adding in a warning, and such - in the clear and consistent way that Ernest Mueller suggests, things would have gone much smoother.
But then I have already had a statement that my opinion is wrong QFT'ed... So I could very well be wrong here too.
With no disrespect, I want to give a point of view from the other direction. I know some people are hoping and lobbying for the boards to be run "just so," but I find myself hoping that in light of the circumstances facing Paizo, people try to cut them some slack if they do something that seems off base. The work they are doing on this board is in addition to their primary jobs.
I'm reposting something I put up yesterday, because I think it sunk beneath the waves without anyone seeing it, and my feelings haven't changed.
I know a lot of people are worried about the possibility of their game going away. Just try to remember that with all the turmoil going on, the Paizo people have to face that and the possibility their jobs could go away. I don't think they will, since they are savvy and talented, but it is a possibility they have to struggle with, and time spent finessing the board is time not spent trying to enhance their odds of coming out on top when all is said and done.
Here's what I wrote yesterday. Sorry for the repeat:
Today I logged in to the Paizo board and while scanning what had recently been posted, I saw that, in service of the goal of making things as friendly as they can be, Gary had followed up on someone else's comment, to let them know that the poster had made some good points, but really hurt his case by tacking a gratuitous insult to another poster on the end. This is Gary, who works such long hours helping to keep our forums and orders going that he always seems to be at work, taking time to critique, in recognition of the fact that people were getting really upset over the issue of posts disappearing.
This, in addition to Paizo people from Lisa on down, taking time from their already busy schedule of production, and time from their planning on how to survive as a company through the tidal wave that is about to blast through, to explain how they would like the message boards they host run and why.
Nobody does this. Or maybe they do, but I have not seen it, and though I am fairly new here, I have canvassed the terrain of blogs and message boards heavily for many, many years, and have the low user IDs to show for it.
Again, not discounting anyone else's experiences or feelings, but I have been blown away. Even the Paizo staff members taking the most heat have been kid gloves compared to how moderation is usually implemented, and doing it while they are probably would rather be getting strategies together for when the shock waves from 4e blast through.
Sure, I have been on the fence for a Planet Stories subscription, and I will definitely be getting my money's worth, but I still don't have time to read them. I am buying today because I want Paizo to be here for a long, long time. Gary closed the deal, but everyone else gets credit for the assist. From where I stand, Paizo is a great company, and that extends to the people working for it.
I really hope everyone, posters and Paizo, can find common ground, because it's really all our loss if we don't. In the meantime, this is one guy's "thank you" for all everyone, company and visitors, contributes here. I am personally grateful for it, even if it might seem like this post puts me on the opposite side of the fence from you.
With no disrespect, I want to give a point of view from the other direction. I know some people are hoping and lobbying for the boards to be run "just so," but I find myself hoping that in light of the circumstances facing Paizo, people try to cut them some slack if they do something that seems off base. The work they are doing on this board is in addition to their primary jobs.
Sure, which is why I'm commenting. Everyone at Paizo is always "doing their best," and we have no reason to doubt that. However, as it isn't their core job, but forum presence is a very critical part of a company's PR when they are Internet-facing, they need to train themselves and step lightly. I'm sure Gary's intent was good in his various posts, but unfortunately that's not how frequent "mod suggestions" are taken by online communities in general. *I* may be willing to cut them slack, but by the nature that you're asking people to cut you slack, you're using time, goodwill, etc. that has better uses.
I personally am not one of the "threatening to leave" folks. And Paizo, again due to the goodwill they have built up, can expect to get cut some slack. But you want to burn community goodwill carefully and ideally on something that gives you business advantage (like, if they decided to go away from 4e and go "3.75e forever") - not over something like this.
do not post in non-technical forums unless they really need to take action
The difficulty with this concept is that they create much of their good will in the first place by being extremely responsive.
Possibly they could try and split the difference. Since its basically the 4E forum thats the problem they could avoid unnecessary posting there and simply mod the place while remaining interactive and responsive on the rest of the forums.
From this thread in the 4th Edition forums.
Given this statement:
The way some people talk you'd think this was life or death. Maybe we should get off the computer and go walk in the real world for a while. Do some volunteer work, sponsor a food drive, or protest atrocities in Darfur. Something meaningful.
Along with this admission:
I knew some people would get mad over my post, but I decided the risk of hurt feelings was worth expressing myself. There is a lot of resistance against censorship being expressed here, but when I say something unpopular those same people accuse me of being insulting and unhelpful.
I would think there should be a moderator comment about insulting people. But I don't see any. Might be the post eating forum bug, although the posts were sitting there for about 12 hours now.
Please note: I am not trying to say Amber shouldn't be able to post stuff like this. I would much rather have an honest discussion rather than have people hide their opinions behind a veil of false civility.
But the posters Amber is intentionally insulting aren't the type of people to report this "abuse" to the moderators. The rest of the community won't say anything, because they feel the insulted people deserve it. And yet, if any of the insulted people responded in kind, you just know someone would report it. This is a grade A "concern troll" as Set called it.
This is why your moderation comes off as one sided.
This is why your moderators look like a@@%&~@s.
This is why your moderation is tearing the community up.
And this is why you are losing customers over the moderation.
Oh yeah, despite BarelyCoherents threat to never start spending money here, if any of your paying customers suggest they might leave because of what the moderation is causing, we receive the following condescending remarks:
I’d prefer a level playing field. I prefer no ticky tack fouls and that the players be allowed to play, particularly as this game is largely at Paizo’s specific invitation. If you prefer, however, a “moderated” forum that advantages one group, and summon up what logic you will but the fact remains that those in opposition to anything are always more subject to being “moderated,” I can live with that. Paizo may, however, find me as dubious about matters as the poster who first inquired “Is this board really how Paizo wants to be represented?” I can withhold my patronage as easily as the previous guy, particularly if or when Paizo goes 4e.Ah yes, the threat. I can take my ball (money) and go somewhere else. Give me an exception to the rules.
Erik Mona asked for some credit, but I think some posters have cashed it all in.
I wasn't intentionally trying to insult anyone. My statement is that I knew some people would 'get mad', not that I was trying to make anyone 'get mad'. I hoped that by admitting my comments would be unpopular, people would read them with more of an open mind. Obviously I didn't make that clear -- my apologies.
-Amber S.
|
The way some people talk you'd think this was life or death. Maybe we should get off the computer and go walk in the real world for a while. Do some volunteer work, sponsor a food drive, or protest atrocities in Darfur. Something meaningful.Along with this admission:
I knew some people would get mad over my post, but I decided the risk of hurt feelings was worth expressing myself. There is a lot of resistance against censorship being expressed here, but when I say something unpopular those same people accuse me of being insulting and unhelpful.I would think there should be a moderator comment about insulting people. But I don't see any. Might be the post eating forum bug, although the posts were sitting there for about 12 hours now.
This is why your moderation comes off as one sided.
This is why your moderators look like a#@&~&#s.
This is why your moderation is tearing the community up.
And...
The problem with this is, everyone is assuming she was talking to the anti-4E people, whereas I think she was actually aiming it at everyone that gets so worked up over this issue that they feel they have to insult people.
Also, while I generally hate the "if you feel X, you should go outside and get a life" type statements, I don't feel this falls into that category. I took it as more of a "get away for a bit, maybe get some perspective, and when you've calmed down, come back a make a rational post".
I'm not pro- or anti-4E, I'm currently a fence-sitter. Personally, I don't see the (minimal) moderation as being one-sided. What I see, is that you appear to be decidedly anti-4E (based on your previous postings) and have taken an instant strong dislike to moderation of these boards, and so you may be seeing thing from a skewed perspective. I'd ask that you take a step back and look at this from a more neutral point of view.