on a related note, when you we go to flag threads, can we get an option for off topic?
I've just used "breaks other guidelines." That seems a useful catch-all.
That's what the mods have asked us to use, yes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As an aside, yes, please use the "Breaks other guidelines" flag for anything you don't already see a flag for.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Moderating and adminship are tough cookies. Every place is going to have a flavor to it because it is run by people, not machines. There is no "neutral godhead" that oversees a forum or community or website, there is no "universal."
What there are, are people. In addition to being people, they are people who own the website or service.
This results in different flavors based on where you go. A place like 4chan will be different than someplace else. A place like MuzzyPetz for Kidz will have a different flavor and feel, and moderation, than say, Honda Racing Mods. I've never minded these differences as much because the internet is a wide place.
Also, context is very, very important.
I've found myself disagreeing with say, SKR from time to time. However, I absolutely respect his efforts and what he goes through. He does not have an easy job, and bottom line, he's human, too.
On the flip side, I would hope he'd say the same even though he'd likely disagree with me on a number of things. However, were he to come to my home, so to speak, I'd also expect him to be respectful to those there.
...and I can't imagine him not being so.
I'd also hope he liked queso.
Do you know what happens if you make the forums hostile enough that they're not worth moderating? Ask Games Workshop. You drop them.
This is what I tend to quote to pretty much anyone that has an issue with company-run forums, or even makes legitimate complaints about a product in public on a forum rather than in a private email to the manufacturer (maybe its the Brit in me, but I'd never post about a bad product on a company's own forums in public, it's very much a private customer service matter to me. If I really have to get into publically bashing a product then at least I'd take it to a third party site and not all over the manufacturer's own forums where they're likely to just end up banning me.)
When running them becomes more trouble than they're worth, turning them off tends to be the most favorable commercial outcome, which is why I try and treat them as a place for asking questions, making contact with other customers that I may want to use the product with, general friendly conversation, and making constructive suggestions rather than a place to voice an issue in the hope many others will join in to help me get my way through a seeming weight of opinion. The latter I've always thought of as "rabble rousing", and one of the reasons I tend to grimace whenever anyone starts mis-quoting "freedom of speech".
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Flagging seams like too easy a tool to silence opinions, doubly so if it is against a mods personal opinions. Debating the content is far more adult and honest than winning by whining and mods need to think hard about if they are deleting for actual content violations or personal reasons. same goes for the "personal attacks" violations, i have too often seen one side allowed to attack and the other side crushed if they respond. I like the mods being able to be part of the conversation and share opinions, but they also need to allow opposing opinions without abusing authority to silence what they might be personally offended by.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Flagging seams like too easy a tool to silence opinions, doubly so if it is against a mods personal opinions. Debating the content is far more adult and honest than winning by whining and mods need to think hard about if they are deleting for actual content violations or personal reasons. same goes for the "personal attacks" violations, i have too often seen one side allowed to attack and the other side crushed if they respond. I like the mods being able to be part of the conversation and share opinions, but they also need to allow opposing opinions without abusing authority to silence what they might be personally offended by.
Flagging doesn't silence anyone. It draws attention to a post of question, and then the staff confer with each other as to whether it's worth deleting, and then they act on it--or not. If it's obviously inflammatory ("I think all men stink and should die") then they probably don't need to confer on it.
I've flagged posts that were left intact (and probably should have been, upon reflection)
It isn't an instant ostracization tool (especially since no one can see what posts are flagged except the posts you yourself flagged).
If you see "one side" being picked on, flag the "other side" yourself, or email webmaster@paizo.com. The thing about this system is everyone participates. If you don't use the system or want it taken away, you're actually taking away your own voice.
While you and I likely read different threads, I do have to say, the only time I personally have ever seen "one sided" deletion has been where that one side WAS violating the rules, and the other side was not. The only time I've seen staff delete someone else's "disagreeing" post was where someone WAS saying something blatantly homophobic, sexist, or racist (ETA: or otherwise some kind of personal attack), which is clearly against the rules. I for one am delighted such muck is not tolerated here. If Paizo is unfair or one-sided for keeping the bigots at bay, than hurrah for unfairness and one-sidedness. This is a gaming forum--in my opinion absolutely not the kind of place to encourage inflammatory "debates" (over real world issues)---and frankly, I think people who want to engage in such debates should do it in person with other individuals to whom they can say what they have to say to someone else's face, not on the Internet, where not only can things be easily misinterpreted, but the person who can post most frequently wins and the cowardly hateful can hide from the people they are insulting and degrading.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
With a mere 46,421 emplyees, I'm sure they all know each other on a first-name basis.He works for Google now, you know. I have friends there.
Hey Ross, you know a Jeff B.? Kinda new, programmer?
Stranger things have happened. I took karate with Craig Silverstein.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
DQ I do suspect that the flagging system may be easily abused though because mods don't have a lot of spare time to look at posts in their entire context.
I used to really enjoy the longer rules debates, and I truly participated in them because I thought it could make me a better GM, not to score rhetorical points or "win the internetz".
I noticed though, sometimes, posts disappearing that advocated one stance more often than posts advocating the other stance, irrespective of the degree of infraction of forum rules.
For a while I was sure this was symptomatic of moderator bias, but I later came to consider that there was simply someone in one "camp" flagging things.
In other words, the moderator doing the deleting may not even have a horse in the race, they're just made to appear as if they do because someone is flag-happy.
I think the aversion to the flagging process is grounded in a misunderstanding. There doesn't seem to be any issue if one "side" flags more than the other, unless paizo have some kind of threshold where they auto delete any post with more than x flags.
I don't think that's how it works. There's still a human there making the judgement call. A flurry of flags might be indicative that one "side" is more offended than the other "side" but I'm sure that doesn't automatically translate into "lots of people flagged this, so I'll delete it".
In my mind, it works well. You don't have to tell the obnoxious jerk they're being a jerk (and then get involved in a back and forth about who was a jerk first). The moderators will have their attention drawn to it and can act even more efficiently than they usually do. Those times I'm supersensitive mean the rest of the forum doesn't need to watch me argue about it - I flag it, the moderators do nothing and nobody needs to know there was even an issue.
I agree with Grimmy. It seems to me that what sometimes happens is when a thread does go over the line this can be really obvious in the last fews posts which are quite bad. Of course there will be lots of flags, and then our poor overworked staff may not be able to spend the time carefully reading each line by line. The thread has "gone bad" (maybe even locked). Posts are Flagged. I am sure it's not bias , just lack of time that cause posts which may be argumentative but not actually over the line to get deleted- after all they were flagged.
I think others have noticed this, they then flag posts which they disagree with, in the hopes they will go bye-bye in the general purge.
In at least one case, one poster even stated they were doing this and encouraged others to Flag.
DQ I do suspect that the flagging system may be easily abused though because mods don't have a lot of spare time to look at posts in their entire context.
I used to really enjoy the longer rules debates, and I truly participated in them because I thought it could make me a better GM, not to score rhetorical points or "win the internetz".
I noticed though, sometimes, posts disappearing that advocated one stance more often than posts advocating the other stance, irrespective of the degree of infraction of forum rules.
For a while I was sure this was symptomatic of moderator bias, but I later came to consider that there was simply someone in one "camp" flagging things.
In other words, the moderator doing the deleting may not even have a horse in the race, they're just made to appear as if they do because someone is flag-happy.
If you think this really happens--which sorry, I really don't as I've seen no evidence of it--then I'd suggest screen capping some of the "debate" which is starting to draw moderator attention, and then if you see posts disappear you don't think deserve it, screencap again and share the caps with the Paizo staff and ask them what's going on. It will take some work, but if you really think that's what's happening, then it should be worth taking the time to help bring the issue to light with concrete evidence. Paizo appears to stand pretty firmly by its flagging policy. If you want to change their minds on it, you're going to have to provide more than theory and hearsay.
In at least one case, one poster even stated they were doing this and encouraged others to Flag.
You and one other person brought up this possibility in this thread. Again, if you see a post like that, screencap it AND flag it. If you've got evidence people are using the flagging system to gang up on people, you need to provide it to Paizo. Just saying so isn't enough.
For both of you, I'm not the person you need to convince. I'm just a useless schlub on the Internet. You need to convince Paizo, by backing up what you're saying.
]
For both of you, I'm not the person you need to convince. I'm just a...
I'm not out to convince anyone, just a thought I wanted to share because it made me less uncomfortable around here when I considered it as a possibility.
I'm not out to convince anyone, just a thought I wanted to share because it made me less uncomfortable around here when I considered it as a possibility.]
For both of you, I'm not the person you need to convince. I'm just a...
You're not alone in your concern. It has crossed my mind too, particularly when an offender post is deleted along with responses and other related posts. Often, those other posts do have some nuggets of good information in them and, probably, weren't flagged even though they too felt the axe.
For me, when well thought out, polite posts are disappearing and obvious flame-bait remains, chalking it up to flaggers instead of mods choosing sides and enforcing rules unevenly seems like the lesser of two evils.
And yes, I know there are site hiccups, but when vanishing posts are followed up with mods saying "removed some posts", I'm not willing to bury my head that far in the sand to ease my own mind :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
[nsa]Right. Site hiccups...[/nsa]
My tinfoil hat works fine thank you!
Seriously, they have a tough job, I don't envy them. I'm sure they aren't out to get anyone.
The big debates just aren't for me anymore. I used to get a lot of enrichment and edification out of them, but thread locks and post deletes stifled that for me.
I do PbP now which adds just as much value to my life as forum discussions ever did, just in a completely different way. So I'm grateful to Paizo and will continue to send money their way.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The big debates just aren't for me anymore. I used to get a lot of enrichment and edification out of them, but thread locks and post deletes stifled that for me.
I think part of this is the big debates have gotten, well, bigger. Even the ones that stay relatively civil get more and more likely to have people in them that will argue anything to death, and a large enough pool of participants that the same arguments will be repeated ad nauseum.
I've spent time on long, thoughtful posts in a lot of these threads, only to have it turn out to being like shouting into a thunderstorm. No one offended or hurt, just no return on my investment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Huh what?
Just kidding :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
[nsa]Right. Site hiccups...[/nsa]
This isn't the gaming site we monitor...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not out to convince anyone, just a thought I wanted to share because it made me less uncomfortable around here when I considered it as a possibility.]
For both of you, I'm not the person you need to convince. I'm just a...
You're not alone in your concern. It has crossed my mind too, particularly when an offender post is deleted along with responses and other related posts. Often, those other posts do have some nuggets of good information in them and, probably, weren't flagged even though they too felt the axe.
Well the "easy" solution to that is not reply to people who have made an offensive post. I put "easy" in quotes because apparently few have enough self control to avoid this kind of situation, as simple as it may seem.
Message board rule zero: don't feed the trolls. Then your post won't get deleted and the offender won't start the flamewar he wanted to.
The other trick is if you MUST reply, don't quote it. They will delete any post that has quoted a post they feel they need to delete, no matter how Pulitzer-prize deserving the post beneath the quote is.
I do wish they would edit posts rather than delete them, the way other boards do (edits are noted in another color that others cannot post in, like red, so people know they have been modded), but they've stated several times that they're not going to do that.
TL;DR: Don't quote jerks, and in fact don't reply to them period.
I do wish they would edit posts rather than delete them, the way other boards do (edits are noted in another color that others cannot post in, like red, so people know they have been modded), but they've stated several times that they're not going to do that.
I would generally prefer that as well. I have no idea how well their software supports it compared to the messageboard software that other sites like ENWorld have.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
[nsa]Right. Site hiccups...[/nsa]This isn't the gaming site we monitor...
No, it´s the people´s sexual preferences, like you do with several free dating apps etc^^
Because that´s very important for national security.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would generally prefer that as well. I have no idea how well their software supports it compared to the messageboard software that other sites like ENWorld have.
I do wish they would edit posts rather than delete them, the way other boards do (edits are noted in another color that others cannot post in, like red, so people know they have been modded), but they've stated several times that they're not going to do that.
If we did that, it could easily (and likely) turn to posters accusing us of putting words in their mouth, or changing what they said, etc.
Can o' worms better left unopened.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not to mention that editing a post is a heck of a lot more work than removing it, and removing it de-incentivizes replying to jerks.
Customer Service Dire Care Bear Manager
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Making edits to users' post content is a huge slippery slope and not one any of us are inclined to start down.
When we feel the situation warrants it (usually with long posts) we will try to email the poster the content of the removed post so they can reword and repost.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I pretty strongly disagree with the idea that Paizo staff should stay out of moderating threads in which they are conversing. For me it's one of the great features of the board that we get to interact with Paizo staff as people and not just in their capacity as Paizo staff members.
Its a conflict of interest, or a perception of such. If your arguing passionate about something and then moderates the opposing view with warnings, time outs or pot removal, its hard not to draw that conclusion.
I've seen much worse over at sat the battletech boards of CGL. Their moderation is HORRIBLE, with mods getting into arguments and other mods slapping you down for responding. Its THE reason I left there and will never return, nor buy a single BT product EVER.
EDIT: That applies to just mods, not staff I should say.
|
|
Do you know what happens if you make the forums hostile enough that they're not worth moderating? Ask Games Workshop. You drop them.This is what I tend to quote to pretty much anyone that has an issue with company-run forums, or even makes legitimate complaints about a product in public on a forum rather than in a private email to the manufacturer (maybe its the Brit in me, but I'd never post about a bad product on a company's own forums in public, it's very much a private customer service matter to me. If I really have to get into publically bashing a product then at least I'd take it to a third party site and not all over the manufacturer's own forums where they're likely to just end up banning me.)
When running them becomes more trouble than they're worth, turning them off tends to be the most favorable commercial outcome, which is why I try and treat them as a place for asking questions, making contact with other customers that I may want to use the product with, general friendly conversation, and making constructive suggestions rather than a place to voice an issue in the hope many others will join in to help me get my way through a seeming weight of opinion. The latter I've always thought of as "rabble rousing", and one of the reasons I tend to grimace whenever anyone starts mis-quoting "freedom of speech".
Now hold on a minute,if your going to us GW as an example of boards, you need to tell the WHOLE story.
GW has ALWAYS been hostile to Its customer base. r rather has always been agononaltistic to it. GW does NOT handle criticism well. n its products, its rules or as a company. Its clamped down HARD on rumors of upcoming items unlike ANYONE in the gaming industry that ususally HYPES its upcoming releases.
So running them became more trouble then its worth LONG before the boards became hostile, because of GW's attitude to fans and feedback. GW boards are a bad example of "too much trouble then its worth"
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I pretty strongly disagree with the idea that Paizo staff should stay out of moderating threads in which they are conversing. For me it's one of the great features of the board that we get to interact with Paizo staff as people and not just in their capacity as Paizo staff members.Its a conflict of interest, or a perception of such. If your arguing passionate about something and then moderates the opposing view with warnings, time outs or pot removal, its hard not to draw that conclusion.
I've seen much worse over at sat the battletech boards of CGL. Their moderation is HORRIBLE, with mods getting into arguments and other mods slapping you down for responding. Its THE reason I left there and will never return, nor buy a single BT product EVER.
EDIT: That applies to just mods, not staff I should say.
I do not see it as a conflict of interest. I see it as a passion for their product and that is all. THat and just plain passion for what they want to believe in and or discuss. When a staff member does moderate a post from a thread, even one they are participating in with their own discussions just means that they felt it was over the line and that is all. I am not going to say that any moderation is going to be perfect and that their own bias will not come in to play... but it is part of being a "human" moderator and not a robot. I would rather see a little bias rather then just a blanket moderation of a robotic post moderation I have seen on some sites.. To me this means that they will take the postings in context as well as the sites guidelines.
So lets not go down the slippery slope of preventing someone from modding a thread they are participating in.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
TL;DR: Don't quote jerks, and in fact don't reply to them period.This is horrible advice. I would have no one to talk to if everyone followed it.
I'm not seeing the downside here...
;)
First of all we should not forget that some participators here might not be what is called "adult", just because they have to get some years older before. Then, even in one´s 20ies, puberty can have a firm grip on you.
After that, people can be passionate, proud, agitated, frustrated and do suboptimal things. Just look at sports fans. Need any more explanations of unreasonable behaviour?
So yes moderation is definately needed.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So lets not go down the slippery slope of preventing someone from modding a thread they are participating in.
A "slope" that I would love to see occur (though understand and accept won't happen on the Paizo boards... as unfortunate as that is).
|
|
So lets not go down the slippery slope of preventing someone from modding a thread they are participating in.A "slope" that I would love to see occur (though understand and accept won't happen on the Paizo boards... as unfortunate as that is).
If you enjoy having the staff members be so that they can not say anything about their products... even product that is currently released, or barely coming here at all and the boards being so choked with moderation that it causes these boards to have little to no discourse like it has now.. then I am sure you would LOVE that slippery slope. Me I prefer to have the boards we have now with the staff/developers coming on here and being able to discuss freely with us as much as we do with them.
If you want to have that type of forum might I suggest another forum such as WotC's, Blizzard forum or Battletech?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not only do I entirely doubt any of that would occur on Paizo's boards, I don't even know how you are possibly coming to that conclusion. I don't think your prediction is even remotely realistic. *shrug*
(They could even participate in 'heated' threads - well, all but 1 could, theoretically. They just couldn't moderate anyone else in there with them. The one(s) who aren't in there, could moderate as usual.)
|
Moderating is by its nature subjective. It's never going to be perfect for everyone.
It is not easy, by any means.
Personally I don't think I've ever seen the mods go "too far", though that's just my opinion.
Anywhere you go on the internet that needs moderation (be it a forum, a chat room, or anywhere else), you need to have some respect and trust in the moderators, even if they make a call that directly contradicts yours.
It's comparable to playing at a table with a GM. Provide feedback, but don't go too far with it.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
[]I do not see it as a conflict of interest. I see it as a passion for their product and that is all. THat and just plain passion for what they want to believe in and or discuss. When a staff member does moderate a post from a thread, even one they are participating in with their own discussions just means that they felt it was over the line and that is all. I am not going to say that any moderation is going to be perfect and that their own bias will not come in to play... but it is part of being a "human" moderator and not a robot. I would rather see a little bias rather then just a blanket moderation of a robotic post moderation I have seen on some sites.. To me this means that they will take the postings in context as well as the sites guidelines.
So lets not go down the slippery slope of preventing someone from modding a thread they are participating in.
If you passionate about something, you're not impartial. Moderation has to be applied EQUALLY. If you're siding with one side, it can be implied you might be applying rules equally. As per the OP xample, its not being applied equally.
So lets not go down the slippery slope of pretending things are beng applied equally.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you enjoy having the staff members be so that they can not say anything about their products... even product that is currently released, or barely coming here at all and the boards being so choked with moderation that it causes these boards to have little to no discourse like it has now.. then I am sure you would LOVE that slippery slope. Me I prefer to have the boards we have now with the staff/developers coming on here and being able to discuss freely with us as much as we do with them.
If you want to have that type of forum might I suggest another forum such as WotC's, Blizzard forum or Battletech?
You do know that its not a zero sum game right? The real easy cure for that is if you decide to participate, someone else should moderate. Therein removing ay conflict of interest and preserving even handedness
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I completely trust our staff here. I have said they are overworked, thus could make some mistakes, but I trust their judgement completely.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you passionate about something, you're not impartial. Moderation has to be applied EQUALLY.
Why? If a private company has an agenda to promote (whether related to their core business or not) why shouldnt they enforce rules on a forum in such a way to further that agenda?
.FWIW, I think Paizo do a good job of allowing contrary views to be advanced on the messageboards, but as a general principle, I dont see any necessity for "equality" on a private company's website.
Not only do I entirely doubt any of that would occur on Paizo's boards, I don't even know how you are possibly coming to that conclusion. I don't think your prediction is even remotely realistic. *shrug*(They could even participate in 'heated' threads - well, all but 1 could, theoretically. They just couldn't moderate anyone else in there with them. The one(s) who aren't in there, could moderate as usual.)
How many employees do you think Paizo has? It's not a megacorporation. They have jobs to do, of which moderation is only one. Probably not their most important one either. If the involved staffer doesn't moderate there is a longer delay in moderation. Maybe much longer. More replies get eliminated as a result, the thread becomes less coherent (many posts contain a lot of information beyond replying to something in another post that initially gets moderated). More information lost due to delaying moderation. I think they do a good job moderating. And, I'd rather have the surgery early when the disruption is minimal, rather than later when it wipes out the thread or gets it locked. The reason this site has a lower proportion of dysfunctional threads is because of the moderation (and the posters I might add). My 2 cp.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why? If a private company has an agenda to promote (whether related to their core business or not) why shouldnt they enforce rules on a forum in such a way to further that agenda?
Its a really good way to look customers. Playing devils advocate, one could notice that the paizo of 2014 is not the same one back in 2008, both in actions and deeds.
I must have misunderstood, I didn't take your comment to mean you thought their sales/reputation would suffer if they took sides, I thought you were making some kind of normative claim about how moderation "should" be done.
I don't really agree it will be net negative for them, even if they alienate some customers. I'm not in any position to argue the point though.
|
|
I must have misunderstood, I didn't take your comment to mean you thought their sales/reputation would suffer if they took sides, I thought you were making some kind of normative claim about how moderation "should" be done.
Both actually. But when you use agenda, it has all sorts of meanings. I we just use it in connection with moderating, moderating is SUPPOSE to be even handed. If your promoting an agenda(whatever it is) then you cant be even handed.
I don't really agree it will be net negative for them, even if they alienate some customers. I'm not in any position to argue the point though.
Business job is to attract customers. If moderating problems(and there appears to be some given the thread that was started) then it can drive folks away. Businesses tend to err on the side of what keeps cutomers(unless you are games workshop, which is a completely different argument).
To use CGL as an example, their battletech boards have issues in moderation. It HAS driven folks away, myself included. Speaking to others driven away, we all had planned on buying but not anymore.
Its a minor example. I could us GW just as well. Where as say, privateer press forums are an excellent example of whats going right.