| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel similarly. Threads devoted to rules discussions really seem to have a much more unpleasant vibe.
One of the things that really bugs me personally are the one line posts along the lines of: "You again. You were wrong when <insert reference to some other, vaguely related thread here> and you're wrong now." similarly with labelling other posters trolls, declaring why they hold the views they do, etcetera etcetera.
It doesnt matter how right you are, posts like that dont add anything to the discussion except for ill feeling, in my view.
General Discussion has also been getting quite nasty.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Expecting to see "People need to develop thicker skins" in 5...4...3...2...
In my experience, it's only people who think it's their deity-given right to act like complete jerkwads that come up with that "thicker skins" line.
I'll add my voice to this.
The number of users discussing matters in such a way to invite aggressive backlash is increasing. In my opinion when this occurs both the person inviting aggression and the aggressor are to be blamed. A few hours of temp ban and a PM linking them to a general posting etiquette would be a godsend. Continued infractions should result in longer bans.
As an example so people don't think I'm crazy I'm thinking of posts like so.
"Anyone who thinks following the rulebook above all else is an idiot." Statements like that that use a great deal absolutes which generates a lot of vitriol.
In the posting etiquette guidelines, good examples would include something like "I think following the rulebook strictly makes for a less enjoyable game." This statement is significantly softer and bolstered by the fact that it's enforced by the "I think" which indicates it's a personal opinion.
Of course this is harder to implement in the Rules Forum since everyone thinks their opinion is the correct interpretation and anyone who says otherwise might be taken as a personal insult. Locking threads that begin to cycle the same arguments might be a good idea unless locking means that discussion won't be reviewed by the FAQ Team or some such.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's a truly meaty slab of social-commentary-analogy in this...
What baffles me is how a lot of people don't even seem to realize that they are being dismissive or pejorative; it's just so ingrained culturally now that that's how we communicate. I'm frequently stunned by the way I hear 'friends' talk to each other. God help us collective strangers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, and there's a couple of posters pulling the old trick of when the debate isn;t going the way they want it to, they start asking for a thread lock and insulting other posters- which means that post gets flagged, which does sometimes end in a thread lock. It's a nasty, cheap trick.
The mods are just so busy I don't think they catch it.
I have seen a Mod warning to lock a thread just because two persons were stabing at each other. In cases like that the specific persons should be treated individually instead of locking a entire thread.
I have seen a Mod warning to lock a thread just because two just were stabing at each other. In cases like that the specific persons shoudl be treated individually instead of locking a entire thread.
Yep. Just delete all their posts or warn them.
I totally agree with this and in fact posted a similar plea just the other day on this board. It is to the point that there are more posts that need to be flagged than actual content on the threads. It's unpleasant, unproductive, and really makes it difficult to want to deal with the boards.
I'd go as far as to say I'd like to see a function that flags a user, or barring that, if the mods have to remove more than X of your posts you are warned or barred for a time period. If people cannot behave and act civilized, they don't get to post.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I want to chime in that this is hardly a one-sided affair. Check General Discussion sometimes; there's too many threads where the discussion seems to be going reasonably or semi-reasonably, and then one or two jerks decided to be snide and passive-aggressive, then complain when the people they're intentionally angering call them out on it.
Not that I'm naming names. Or bitter.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's a truly meaty slab of social-commentary-analogy in this...
What baffles me is how a lot of people don't even seem to realize that they are being dismissive or pejorative; it's just so ingrained culturally now that that's how we communicate. I'm frequently stunned by the way I hear 'friends' talk to each other. God help us collective strangers.
Hence why the "don't be a jerk" rule doesn't work very often. The people pulling this don't believe they're being jerks.
Deleting posts completely and leaving general warnings can also add to the problem since people won't realize their posts are the ones being deleted unless they reread the thread and look for their missing posts.
I think a combination of more aimed warnings (in PMs if necessary) and perhaps the introduction of an "infraction" system could help greatly.
The problem with leaving the post there is people then know they can get across whatever rules-infringing post they want to make. I agree that *just* deleting the post isn't enough. I'd rather see removal of post as well as some kind of progressive track towards a ban, depending on the severity of what was said. I'd also like to see some kind of red flag sent to the poster so they know they did something wrong even if they never return to the thread.
All just suggestions, of course, at the end of the day this is Paizo's house and their rules - with the proviso that the rules you set tend to be reflected in the type of house guest you attract ;)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with leaving the post there is people then know they can get across whatever rules-infringing post they want to make. (...)
I don't think the idea is to leave the post unaltered but rather leave a tangible mark that the post has been found to be in violation of the forum rules and edited. It's easier for the user (and other users) to realize his post was found to be an issue.
In the GitP forums they replace the text with ***SCRUBBED*** in large red letters, for instance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with leaving the post there is people then know they can get across whatever rules-infringing post they want to make. (...)I don't think the idea is to leave the post unaltered but rather leave a tangible mark that the post has been found to be in violation of the forum rules and edited rather than make it disappear completely. It's easier for the user (and other users) to realize his post was found to be an issue.
In the GitP forums they replace the text with ***SCRUBBED*** in large red letters, for instance.
Ahhh, yeah, that makes a lot more sense :)
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would suggest looking at the Penny Arcade forums for a model of how good moderation and application of the rules can create a good community that generally does a decent job of self-policing. Patrick Groome (lead moderator) has an interesting blog on some of the concepts and methods used for moderating a community. Another decent resource is Sanya Weather's blog, which explains a number of other concepts behind community management and community building.
Paizo's forums moderation, appears to be done by staff who are not community managers, and as such they have run across a number of common pitfalls for people in their situation. With the growth of the forums that has accompanied the growth of Pathfinder, they seem to have found themselves in a situation many others who have walked similar paths with respect to their forums and forum community.
Paizo has stated numerous times over the past few years that they have no desire to grant mod access to non-employees. Given that Paizo is a business and not just a fansite, I think their policy is in their best interest.
-Skeld
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't take from Caedwyr's posts that it promoted mod-access to non-employees.
Now I haven't reads the linked posts, but I thought Caedwyr was talking more to the lack of "community manager-focus" in the moderation by Paizo staff.
If there are steps in community building and community building that can be implemented, then there will be less moderation needed, or the nature of moderation will change as the community moderates itself - not through hard-code and ban-hammering (regardless of who does it), but through etiquette, mindful behaviour and subscription to social tenets more conducive to positive and creative discussion.
This seems to be a non-sequitor with respect to my message. Could you please clarify how this relates to the quoted text?I would suggest looking at the Penny Arcade forums for a model of how good moderation and application of the rules can create a good community that generally does a decent job of self-policing. Patrick Groome (lead moderator) has an interesting blog on some of the concepts and methods used for moderating a community. Another decent resource is Sanya Weather's blog, which explains a number of other concepts behind community management and community building.
Paizo's forums moderation, appears to be done by staff who are not community managers, and as such they have run across a number of common pitfalls for people in their situation. With the growth of the forums that has accompanied the growth of Pathfinder, they seem to have found themselves in a situation many others who have walked similar paths with respect to their forums and forum community.
Paizo has stated numerous times over the past few years that they have no desire to grant mod access to non-employees. Given that Paizo is a business and not just a fansite, I think their policy is in their best interest.
-Skeld
Presumably he took "self policing" literally.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ah. By self-policing I meant that the poster self-moderates or self-censors before they hit the post button.
Which would be great. That said, there are posters that have said they are just speaking in a blunt manner and will not change, or that honestly don't see anything wrong with how they are presenting themselves. There are others that I believe are doing it to provoke a reaction from the other side(s).
Whatever the reason, I'm not confident that several are willing to change -- it is more about "winning" the argument or being seen as the smartest in the room rather than being polite or constructive.
|
|
Presumably he took "self policing" literally.This seems to be a non-sequitor with respect to my message. Could you please clarify how this relates to the quoted text?I would suggest looking at the Penny Arcade forums for a model of how good moderation and application of the rules can create a good community that generally does a decent job of self-policing. Patrick Groome (lead moderator) has an interesting blog on some of the concepts and methods used for moderating a community. Another decent resource is Sanya Weather's blog, which explains a number of other concepts behind community management and community building.
Paizo's forums moderation, appears to be done by staff who are not community managers, and as such they have run across a number of common pitfalls for people in their situation. With the growth of the forums that has accompanied the growth of Pathfinder, they seem to have found themselves in a situation many others who have walked similar paths with respect to their forums and forum community.
Paizo has stated numerous times over the past few years that they have no desire to grant mod access to non-employees. Given that Paizo is a business and not just a fansite, I think their policy is in their best interest.
-Skeld
What Steve said. I took "self-policing" to mean the community would self-police, not the individual.
-Skeld
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey guys, I just wanted to drop in and say we are reading through these comments. If you have any ideas for how we can improve in this area, please post them. For now we have nothing to announce on this front, but maybe we can implement some of these ideas sooner rather than later.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My problem right now is the rules forum. There is a chilling effect in my opinion for people who post there, and there is a very toxic discourse happening daily. A growing number of people are being very insulting when basic questions are asked, or when there is disagreement on what rules mean.
Having frequented the Rules forum for a few years now, I can definitely sympathize. However, it's complicated.
I've seen people respond to assertions they disagree with by claiming there's no way a reasonable person could hold that position, when really it's just a matter of the poster disagreeing. But on the other side of the coin, I've also seen people make assertions that truly are beyond the bounds of being "reasonable".
So who gets to decide which post gets moderated? The one making the allegedly unreasonable, possibly trolling assertion? Or the one labeling it as such?
For that matter, what's a polite, non-jerk way of explaining to someone that their view goes completely against common sense and reasonableness? What's a polite, non-jerk way of responding to someone who claims that of your own position but you think is really just not willing to see dissenting viewpoints? How do you even have that discussion?
It might sound nice to get people to stop labeling opposing viewpoints as absurd, but sometimes those viewpoints are absurd. How do you filter out the unwarranted hostility without also getting rid of posts where someone's trying their best to tactfully point out actual ridiculousness?
Hey guys, I just wanted to drop in and say we are reading through these comments. If you have any ideas for how we can improve in this area, please post them. For now we have nothing to announce on this front, but maybe we can implement some of these ideas sooner rather than later.
On a personal note, my biggest frustration is how passive-aggressive and toxic conversations are permitted to get. Sarcasm is nice, healthy even, but in too many threads what we see are posters being snide, dismissive, or even downright hostile towards other viewpoints and getting away with it over, and over, and over - and then when their victims blow up about it, it's the victims that get the mod hammer.
Wanting to keep the peace is fine, but it'd be nice to see it happen in a more...nuanced, manner. Admittedly I'm fairly certain you simply don't have the raw staff to do this, but...
I dunno. I don't exactly moderate any communities myself. I can see the problem but I don't have a solution for you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, Chris, how about this? A assistant Mod, who can only delete and ban Spammers. This could even be given to a volunteer.
Just taking that off your plate would help.
Also, really, I know that some of the FAQ's on the more outré stuff are seen as "not necessary " due to the fact that no sane person plays it that way. Like, for instance, the "Sno-cone Wish machine". But these crazy things are constantly being thrown into debates.
It'd be easy for the Design team to knock a number of those out. A small change in the wording os Simulacrum and even Teleport, a tiny fix for Blood Money, etc.
Nor would these quick fixes lead to a backlash as other more controversial FAQ's have done.
PS- Great work!
|
|
Gotcha. As I mentioned before, it was for the individual, but in a well-developed community there also exists a certain amount of social pressure to conform with the community standards. Depending on how the moderating is done and how this pressure is managed, it can be a good thing to help relieve the burden of the moderators.
I don't think I'd call Paizo's forums a "well-developed community" though. It's the community that sprung up organically based around a company who's products have greatly increased in popularity over the past few years, thus attracting a wider variety of participants.
What kind of social pressure do you think can be exerted and by whom?
-Skeld
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From my readings of various threads on the Rules forum, many people don't believe that an employee coming into a thread to say what a rule is supposed to convey as "official ruling", citing that it needs to be in an FAQ or Errata for them to consider it official.
I have seen someone quote James Jacobs on a ruling when it comes up in another thread, and the person replies to that as "He's not a rule guy so what he says doesn't count" and other such things.
Whether that's why they don't do what you ask or not, I can't say. But, that's my understanding.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From my readings of various threads on the Rules forum, many people don't believe that an employee coming into a thread to say what a rule is supposed to convey as "official ruling", citing that it needs to be in an FAQ or Errata for them to consider it official.
I have seen someone quote James Jacobs on a ruling when it comes up in another thread, and the person replies to that as "He's not a rule guy so what he says doesn't count" and other such things.
Whether that's why they don't do what you ask or not, I can't say. But, that's my understanding.
James Jacobs is the Creative Director, not a member of the Design Team, and has said himself on numerous occasions that his answers are merely how he runs things at his own table, and not necessarily what the rules actually mean.
So there's some legitimacy to not taking his answers as "official".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
From my readings of various threads on the Rules forum, many people don't believe that an employee coming into a thread to say what a rule is supposed to convey as "official ruling", citing that it needs to be in an FAQ or Errata for them to consider it official.
I have seen someone quote James Jacobs on a ruling when it comes up in another thread, and the person replies to that as "He's not a rule guy so what he says doesn't count" and other such things.
Whether that's why they don't do what you ask or not, I can't say. But, that's my understanding.
This very much depends on what the topic is, and what employee actually gives an answer. JJ usually goes out of his way to say something like "I'm not a rules person, this is not official or rules-binding, but this is how I'd handle it if the problem came up at my home table." I greatly appreciate the insight offered by those posts, but I wouldn't consider them binding for, say, Pathfinder Society.
Conversely if Jason Bulmahn, Sean K Reynolds (when he was working at Paizo), Stephen Radney-MacFarland or one of the other developers post an answer to a rules question, that answer is pretty much as "rules-legal" as it's going to get, barring an official errata or FAQ.
You'll also note that JJ tends to post a lot more than the developers mentioned above, which I at times suspect is in part because he can post his thoughts and opinions without worrying that what he types up before he's had his morning coffee becomes RAW-legalese and suddenly limits barbarians to only using crossbows with pounce or something.
Personally I gotta say I'd find it exhausting to post on a message board and know that people will inspect, analyze and at times dissect my post for ulterior meaning. An example of the latter would be the ridiculous conspiracy theories spawned after Jason made a joke about weapon cords on his facebook profile.
Anyways, back to the thread topic... I think the more antagonistic threads could be improved greatly by targeting specific users instead of making general "let's break it up guys"-type posts. As Knightnday notes, there are posters who probably don't realize that their particular style of communication can come across as rude or antagonistic and so never really take it in when the moderator drops a post with something like "let's keep it polite or this thread will be locked." since they don't see themselves as being impolite.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've got to say, I do wish the messages that moderators leave behind after removing posts were a little more specific.
Imagine this exchange:
Bob: "You'd have to be an idiot to think X!"
Jim: "Bob, I think it's clear that a common-sense reading really does suggest X."
Then Chris (or whoever) comes by, deletes both posts, and drops in the usual:
Bob, if he even sees that message, thinks one of two things:
1) "Serves that jerk Bob right for insulting my intelligence with his 'common sense' comment!"
2) "WHAT?! Paizo is discriminating in its moderation!"
I have to say that though I didn't start a thread on Website Feedback, I've had more or less exactly what Jiggy describes above happen to me at least once. In my case the offending poster was actually banned, which I didn't realize until about six months later.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Back in ye olde days when I modded at a place, one of our biggest problems was 'needling'. We saw a lot of very clever posters skirt the edges of the rules to upset others and cause them to blow up, and eventually had to add Needling to the infraction system. I know the mods here aren't full time and have other jobs, but it's a good idea to look at why people start foaming at the mouth.
I would suggest some kind of infraction system. Where I was at we had a points based one - something minor would net you one point, an insult ten, etc. You needed 30 points for a 1 day ban, 40 for a week ban, and 100 for a permaban - although we occasionally chose to move to permabanning earlier due to particularly troublesome characters. One especially fun function was the option to make those points permanent or extend how long they lasted, giving people a last chance situation.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Gotcha. As I mentioned before, it was for the individual, but in a well-developed community there also exists a certain amount of social pressure to conform with the community standards. Depending on how the moderating is done and how this pressure is managed, it can be a good thing to help relieve the burden of the moderators.I don't think I'd call Paizo's forums a "well-developed community" though. It's the community that sprung up organically based around a company who's products have greatly increased in popularity over the past few years, thus attracting a wider variety of participants.
What kind of social pressure do you think can be exerted and by whom?
-Skeld
I agree. Paizo's forums are not what I would consider a well-developed community. My post was referring to well developed message board communities in general. There aren't a huge number of them out there. The PA forums are probably the best example I've run across to date. Most official publisher forums tend to be pretty bad at the whole community/warm and welcoming place to visit role.
So as such, there's not a whole lot of social pressure to produce good posts that can be exerted on these forums at all. In fact, I'd guess that any attempt to do so would backfire badly. If anything, the prevailing social pressure is to fight fire with fire, because it's all going to be deleted and covered up anyways so you might as well get your licks in.
I'm quite surprised to hear this. I think paizo forums are a great, friendly place by and large.
I think the belittling, antagonistic posting generally comes up in those subforums primarily devoted to rules discussions and perhaps also "gaming theory". (Even contentious, real world policy arguments one might expect to get heated seem more substantive to me than those about the pros and cons of optimising).
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll throw a coin onto the "Be more specific when you remove a post". Send a PM to the poster(s) who have had their posts removed and explain WHY.
Because as-is you generally remove a post for one of a few reasons: It is rude, it is off-topic, or it REPLIED to a rude post. And all get the same message.
That last one is particularly frustrating, because it is potentially scrubbing out large SWATHES of conversation because they sprung up from replying to a post you consider a "jerk post", or making the parts of the conversation that weren't scrubbed impossible to follow (since they were all following off of that first "jerk" post).
I don't think your policy of scrubbing any post that might be considered rude to be helpful. It covers the problem, doesn't fix it. Because when a post is removed, people are left wondering what exactly was so wrong with it. And sometimes it's very minor things that struck a nerve with someone on the mod team in particular.
If you can't tell WHY a post was removed, you can't avoid doing it in the future. I've had posts removed that I still to this day can't figure out why they were removed and following the suggestion to email the webmaster is, inevitably, met with silence. For ANY reason, be it asking about a moderating policy or requesting that a game I had taken over from another poster be swapped over to my control.
What I'm saying is, the moderation team needs to communicate more with the community here. It'll help a LOT more in the long run than simply deleting anything you find offensive or rude.
And maybe the implementation of an infraction system in place of blanket removal, as long as it was well implemented. Please do not use SPUF's "Oh we use a 10 point infraction system (before a permaban) but all offenses are worth a minimum of 4 points basically meaning it's a 3 strikes rule". Though it wouldn't be AS much of a problem here considering I trust the mods here to be a lot more mature and serious about their job than community moderators.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I think the belittling, antagonistic posting generally comes up in those subforums primarily devoted to rules discussions and perhaps also "gaming theory".
There's definitely plenty of that, though there's also lots of nastiness in places like Pathfinder General Discussion or Advice where "only an idiot would..." is pointed at just about any topic on which someone could have a preference - from stat generation to which spells to ban to how much loot to give out... and need I mention paladins and alignment?
I think the belittling, antagonistic posting generally comes up in those subforums primarily devoted to rules discussions and perhaps also "gaming theory".There's definitely plenty of that, though there's also lots of nastiness in places like Pathfinder General Discussion or Advice where "only an idiot would..." is pointed at just about any topic on which someone could have a preference - from stat generation to which spells to ban to how much loot to give out... and need I mention paladins and alignment?
No doubt my perceptions are skewed based on what threads I read - it's almost certainly broader than I suggested.
Nonetheless, I was surprised by Caedwyr's characterisation. I think the problem CWheezy drew attention to is the exception, not the rule - it's just a particularly unpleasant and visible exception which is hard to ignore even if you dont particularly care about the issue people are screaming about.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...We saw a lot of very clever posters skirt the edges of the rules to upset others and cause them to blow up, and eventually had to add Needling to the infraction system...Hm, I've been pretty good about sticking inside the Paizo limits, but I think I (among others) would be in serious trouble if anybody started purging stuff for needling. The trouble there, of course, is that it's hard to gauge the intentions of somebody who inadvertently sets off a flame-war that doesn't even involve that initial poster.
..."Draconian" is always a fun accusatory term. I also enjoy "narcissistic," "jackbooted," "totalitarian," "misanthropic," "demented" and "abominable".
Pathfinder: enhancing your vocabulary!
"Misguided" is a nice option for those looking for a more patronising approach.