Paizo, please recruit a trans moderator.

[Umbral Reaver]

This is clearly a weak point. This has been admitted.

You say you can't hire any, but most RPG forums and communities use volunteer mods. Why couldn't that work here?

[Leg o' Lamb]

Umbral Reaver wrote:

This is clearly a weak point. This has been admitted.

You say you can't hire any, but most RPG forums and communities use volunteer mods. Why couldn't that work here?

Access to private information; eg, credit card numbers, addresses, and real names was the reason in the past.

Spoiler:

yes, I am aware of the irony in that statement

[Umbral Reaver]

I worked as a moderator for the company forums of Privateer Press for most of a decade and mods weren't given that information.

[TOZ]

I've always said I would scorch the earth if I had moderation powers here.

Probably a big reason why they haven't given it to me, with complete justification. Plus, it's be one more white cismale with power.

[Leg o' Lamb]

Umbral Reaver wrote:

I worked as a moderator for the company forums of Privateer Press for most of a decade and mods weren't given that information.

Volunteer moderation gets brought up every so often, usually in the PFS forums. I just remember that being one of the reasons why it was not feasible. TOZ can prolly help me out here.

Privateer Press:

You were? That's cool as hell. I always liked the Iron Kingdoms setting. I have hope with Guns and Gears for PF2....

[Leg o' Lamb]

I think it had something to do with how the forums were integrated with the webstore, or something similar. There was not a very good way of separating people's account info a la forum and webstore.

I could be wrong, likely, but I remember that being one of the big reasons.

[vagrant-poet]

Umbral Reaver wrote:

I worked as a moderator for the company forums of Privateer Press for most of a decade and mods weren't given that information.

Oh man, I remember those forums well from before they got wiped out.

Different architecture here though, because the forums are basically built into the stores, digital content access, etc.

Paizo's forums have VERY idiosyncratic design.

Though, a volunteer mod crew that collates actions to be taken by XS staff with powers/access it might help with how the CS staff can't do infinite work, but the forums need time but in to clean it up.

[Umbral Reaver]

Leg o' Lamb wrote:

** spoiler omitted **

PP Aside:

Yeah, it was some good times. My username is a creature from the IK Monsternomicon printed for D&D 3.5, and my profile is its statline. (Though I was known by a different name as a moderator; I was not out as trans there at the time I created the account.)

[Leg o' Lamb]

vagrant-poet wrote:

Umbral Reaver wrote:

I worked as a moderator for the company forums of Privateer Press for most of a decade and mods weren't given that information.

Oh man, I remember those forums well from before they got wiped out.

That was a sad day in Muddville...

[thejeff]

vagrant-poet wrote:

Umbral Reaver wrote:

I worked as a moderator for the company forums of Privateer Press for most of a decade and mods weren't given that information.

Different architecture here though, because the forums are basically built into the stores, digital content access, etc.

Paizo's forums have VERY idiosyncratic design.

As a long term software guy, "idiosyncratic design" always makes me cringe. The benefits are so rarely worth it, however attached to it you get. There's never the development time to keep them updated. Almost always best to bite the bullet and shift to something off the shelf, unless your problem domain is really unique - which forums and storefront just aren't.

We've got some of that where I work - some of which is unique, but much of it isn't. And it's a hodgepodge of unmaintainable workarounds built on top of a rapidly aging database platform.

[Leg o' Lamb]

Umbral Reaver wrote:

Leg o' Lamb wrote:

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **

Spoiler:

I was not active at all on those boards. I never had an account. I would just look for answers to weird questions about lore or whatnot.

[Kobold Catgirl]

I agree that the forums could maybe benefit from some well-supervised volunteer moderators. It's thorny, but it would do a lot to solve a lot of current problems, and the problems it could create would be largely avoidable if Paizo was careful about it.

As for the original point of the thread, I sort of agree? I'm always leery of hiring/assigning people just for the sake of the signal it sends, but I'm sure a trans perspective would be helpful.

[Leg o' Lamb]

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

I think this thread, funny enough, sort of stumbled into something I've been half-thinking for a while, which is that the forums could maybe benefit from some well-supervised volunteer moderators. It's thorny, but it would do a lot to solve a lot of current problems, and the problems it could create would be largely avoidable if Paizo was careful about it.

Sorry, I don't think so. See TOZ's post above for why.

[Kobold Catgirl]

Well, that's why we won't be making TOZ a moderator, yeah.

[Umbral Reaver]

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

I agree that the forums could maybe benefit from some well-supervised volunteer moderators. It's thorny, but it would do a lot to solve a lot of current problems, and the problems it could create would be largely avoidable if Paizo was careful about it.

As for the original point of the thread, I sort of agree? I'm always leery of hiring/assigning people just for the sake of the signal it sends, but I'm sure a trans perspective would be helpful.

The reason I said that is that trans issues are specifically a weak point right now and they need people that know them.

[Leg o' Lamb]

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Well, that's why we won't be making TOZ a moderator, yeah.

Touche.

[Umbral Reaver]

Also before anyone comes in to accuse me of trying to get the job:

I could not do it.

My health has deteriorated severely and I would not be able to perform it adequately.

[Kobold Catgirl]

*sends hugs, appreciation and banana bread Umbral's way*

[Andy Brown]

volunteer moderators are often like galactic presidents, nobody who really, really wants the job should be let anywhere near it

[vagrant-poet]

Umbral Reaver wrote:

Also before anyone comes in to accuse me of trying to get the job:

I could not do it.

My health has deteriorated severely and I would not be able to perform it adequately.

That sucks. I hope it gets better if that's possible.

[vagrant-poet]

Andy Brown wrote:

volunteer moderators are often like galactic presidents, nobody who really, really wants the job should be let anywhere near it

"Sign up to do a thankless job for some power" is usually not a winning strategy unless your playing sieve for sociopaths, and I think the Paizo forums are too big for a grassroots organic version to occur. I'd love to see something improve, but pruning the volunteers would take CS so much time it probably wouldn't save them work in the end.

[Umbral Reaver]

vagrant-poet wrote:

Umbral Reaver wrote:

Also before anyone comes in to accuse me of trying to get the job:

I could not do it.

My health has deteriorated severely and I would not be able to perform it adequately.

That sucks. I hope it gets better if that's possible.

Thanks, but I probably don't have much time left.

[Tonya Woldridge]

Not using OOC, as this isn't a moderator post.

Umbral, I'm sorry to hear of your health issues and I send as many healing thoughts as I can your way!

I appreciate your feedback & ideas. Regarding your specific requests, I see two issues upfront.

Using volunteer moderators seems like it would be the same issue as using volunteers in other areas - if Paizo pays a staff member to do the activity, it can't have volunteers. So while it would be lovely, I don't believe it is possible.

Regarding bringing on diverse voices with moderation experience to the team. That should be possible. Though I think we need to sort a few other things out first, including hiring the HR manager and determining work from home/relocation details (which will probably fall into collective bargaining agreement territory with UPW).

[Kobold Catgirl]

Umbral Reaver, for what it's worth, I think you're really cool and I'm always happy to see a post from you. I hope you're doing okay, whatever the situation may be, and I hope the situation improves. <3

Tonya, that's all very helpful information! I think a lot of communities use volunteer mods as sort of "helpers", with much more limited moderator power than the employees themselves. I dunno if that would be any different, I just thought I'd bring it up.

[Kevin Mack]

Tonya Woldridge wrote:

Using volunteer moderators seems like it would be the same issue as using volunteers in other areas - if Paizo pays a staff member to do the activity, it can't have volunteers. So while it would be lovely, I don't believe it is possible.

Yes I seem to remember something like this being mentioned before

[Rysky]

*sends all the hugs to Umbral Reaver*

[Vardoc Bloodstone]

Umbral Reaver wrote:

vagrant-poet wrote:

Umbral Reaver wrote:

Also before anyone comes in to accuse me of trying to get the job:

I could not do it.

My health has deteriorated severely and I would not be able to perform it adequately.

That sucks. I hope it gets better if that's possible.

Thanks, but I probably don't have much time left.

We don’t know each other - but for what it is worth, I hope what time you have is longer and better than you think.

Sending out some positivity your way. <3

[TwilightKnight]

Umbral Reaver wrote:

volunteer mods

Its not that they can/can't its that they don't want to. The simple, unpleasant reason is that there is/are member/s of the executive team that have a disdain for volunteers. I know because I heard it directly from s/he/them. It contributed to my resignation as a volunteer leader despite having invested more than a decade and often a full-time job's worth of hours to promoting Paizo's products and supporting the community. There are members of the executive team that truly believe anyone who works at or volunteers for Paizo should be honored for the privilege like its some kind of ultimate reward.

EDIT--Personally, I don't want any one person to moderate. I think it should be a team that includes diversity who must discuss and decide by majority opinion that some commentary violates rules and should be scrubbed. There are just too many examples of the moderators at Paizo scrubbing commentary that they just don't like rather than violates any published rules. The forums are theirs so they can moderate them however they like, but IMO those intentions should be public. If it is left to the moderators to remove any content simply because they disagree with it, that should be in the forum rules. As users, we are entitled to know what the rules are. Except, that is not what the rules say, so eliminating commentary based solely on personal bias itself violates the rules of the forums.

[CorvusMask]

I think that is common trait of employers though <_<

Like... I don't have ton of actual work experience, but my best employer experience was one that treated employees as customers (as it was one of those "rent workers to other companies" firms, so basically their business is making sure employer wants to be hired through them in future as well).

Lot of "we are looking for workers!" postings seem to forget that employer should provide reason for employee to want to work in the firm as well, like if they are basically describing job as "we want someone with five years worth of experience who is perfect as person and willing to do everything for us" while not providing practical information needed for job application or want to work in this work place in particular... It just screams the idea that some firms believe that employees are scrambling out for chance to work with them.

(yeah, I totally wasn't describing majority of game industry job postings)

[Kobold Catgirl]

The moderators don't just scrub commentary they don't like, from everything I've seen, nor do they act unilaterally--I'm given to understand they all talk out major decisions before taking action, like the banning of problematic individuals.

Also, all forum moderation is based on personal bias, and I think that's a good thing. If everything is governed by hard-and-fast rules, all you're really doing--to borrow a contraband metaphor from a "failed state" thread--is showing the mosquitoes a guide to what they have to do to narrowly avoid getting swatted.

You shouldn't even be coming close to breaking the rules, generally. If a post is "ambiguously" breaking the rules, it's a sign that the poster may be deliberately causing trouble. That's where moderator bias has value.

[thejeff]

And if all moderation, even removing comments, requires a discussion and consensus among moderators, even less moderation will happen. Probably none outside of regular working hours.

Even the unambiguously vile stuff will sit around doing its damage for even longer than it does now.

Of course, for those who think moderation is a bad thing and freedom of expression should rule despite the flame wars and general cesspits that follow, that could be a good thing.

[Storm Dragon]

thejeff wrote:

And if all moderation, even removing comments, requires a discussion and consensus among moderators, even less moderation will happen. Probably none outside of regular working hours.

Even the unambiguously vile stuff will sit around doing its damage for even longer than it does now.

Of course, for those who think moderation is a bad thing and freedom of expression should rule despite the flame wars and general cesspits that follow, that could be a good thing.

IME, having used a "consensus" system on an admittedly smaller forum, it worked fine.

Anything truly outrageous (porn and gore spams, etc.) was removed instantly. People breaking rules were given warnings first (no consensus required, but every mod got a ping about it), same with infractions; someone gets infracted, it gets sent to a Site Moderation queue, everybody has a pow-wow about it before it's properly finalized.

We only used a proper consensus required when discussion of bans came up, which was rare; we only ever banned two people: one temporarily (30 days) for flamebaiting, and one permanently (for the aforementioned porn/gore spamming); the latter got a temp ban indefinitely until we took about 5 minutes through other channels to figure out whether their account had been hacked or not (it had not been).

Of course, our forum also had a tool that I'm not sure Paizo does; we could hide posts and then later UN-hide them if we determined it didn't actually need to be removed for whatever reason.

While it would take a lot of work, having a brigade of moderators in the same vein as Giant in the Playground's moderators would be a huge help. Their forum is about as active as here, maybe a bit less, and they get by with 10 moderators (plus 2 admins) who sort of break down into "territories" that they're in charge of.

And more to the point, that site has a very stringent set of rules for every poster to follow.

While these forums have come a long way since "Don't be a jerk" was the only laughable guideline written down, it still could use some work in that department.

Along with, there being more moderators, having the luxury to actually tell people exactly what they've done wrong when you send out warnings/infractions (something this forum also doesn't do, but is PERHAPS not needed).

Whether this be because there's malicious intent ("Hey this post seems to be needlessly inflammatory/overly graphic/trips a hard 'no' topic, tone it down") or just because some guidance needs to be given (I was once given a warning over there for using religious terminology non-maliciously as just a "Hey, yes this counts for the 'no religious discussion' rule, don't do it again" dealy).

As you might imagine...that site sees far, far fewer board spanning flamewars than Paizo historically has.

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

The moderators don't just scrub commentary they don't like, from everything I've seen, nor do they act unilaterally--I'm given to understand they all talk out major decisions before taking action, like the banning of problematic individuals.

Also, all forum moderation is based on personal bias, and I think that's a good thing. If everything is governed by hard-and-fast rules, all you're really doing--to borrow a contraband metaphor from a "failed state" thread--is showing the mosquitoes a guide to what they have to do to narrowly avoid getting swatted.

You shouldn't even be coming close to breaking the rules, generally. If a post is "ambiguously" breaking the rules, it's a sign that the poster may be deliberately causing trouble. That's where moderator bias has value.

I find "teaching mosquitoes to avoid being swatted" is valuable in and of itself.

The best way to avoid a swat is to avoid the line. Knowing where the line IS helps people do this, and it guides discourse in such a way that everyone knows when they're nearing that line...and people can call them out on it.

Both in thread and, if a forum has it, via a detailed reporting system.

Empathy is hard. Empathy is actually something some people are completely incapable of.

Rules though...rules are easy. Clear. Defined.

For someone who has issues with empathy, either due to a medical condition, developmental disorder, or just GIFS...well, a "citizen" who acts in a moral manner due to a fear of consequences is largely indistinguishable from one who does it out of a sense of empathy anyway.

[Kobold Catgirl]

I almost fully agree. I'd certainly much rather people toe the line than jump over it. That being said, people who learn to toe the line only to avoid a ban often develop habits of teasing at gray areas, working out exactly the limits of what they're allowed to say. Trolls and bigots often get very really good at it. That's why I think, ultimately, the mods should always have final say, and "but there's not a rule for this" or "what about my three strikes" shouldn't become tools used by abusers to pull shenanigans.

Ultimately, someone who wants to, say, harass gay people, but only stops because of the rules, is probably going to find plenty of plausibly deniable ways to make gay people miserable.

We seem to basically agree except over what issues we prioritize, though. I prioritize moderator discretion, but I recognize the value of having some clear rules in place.

[Kobold Catgirl]

Oh, also, low empathy doesn't actually preclude wanting to be a good person. Lots of people with NPD still place a very high value on being kind to others or doing "the right thing". That's not super on-topic, I just learned about it recently and thought it was interesting.

[Wei Ji the Learner]

I've seen it abused with an assumption that 'the right thing' was 'the only thing' done to a particular belief path's 'right thing' .

It is very hard to discuss anything in 'good' faith with someone that assumes automatically that what you're telling them is outside of their experience and therefore 'bad'.

When one tries to break it down further to a basic level of decency and empathy, the response generally falls into "Are you saying that I'm not a moral person?"

Almost as if decency and empathy save for a very tightly narrow defined band are not values that should walk hand-in-hand with moral values.

I've seen Good people who don't hold to any particular faith or reasoning.

I've seen many more Bad people who assume that because they follow a particular faith or reasoning that their belief path is the Bestest Path and No Deviance, Kilroy!

[Mark Stratton]

TwilightKnight wrote:

Umbral Reaver wrote:

volunteer mods

Its not that they can/can't its that they don't want to. The simple, unpleasant reason is that there is/are member/s of the executive team that have a disdain for volunteers. I know because I heard it directly from s/he/them. It contributed to my resignation as a volunteer leader despite having invested more than a decade and often a full-time job's worth of hours to promoting Paizo's products and supporting the community. There are members of the executive team that truly believe anyone who works at or volunteers for Paizo should be honored for the privilege like its some kind of ultimate reward.

I am stunned to hear this. Though my time wasn’t as long or as high profile as yours, I volunteered for Paizo for a number of years. Now, I do consider it a privilege to be able to volunteer for Paizo (I have no right to volunteer, so I view it as a privilege.)

But to hear this attitude exists among someone on the executive team is greatly disappointing. I mean, I thought it was bad enough when a former project manager for Paizo ripped into Venture-Officers for asking for the scenarios for Gen Con more than a week before the con, and that PM’s terrible treatment of volunteers. I didn’t realize that sort of view existed in the higher ranks, too.

That’s very disconcerting, and if that was in part responsible for you stepping down, then the loss even more disappointing because it might have been avoidable.

People are replaceable, yes, but we shouldn’t treat them like they are.

And, if that view still exists, I’m not sure there should be volunteer moderators of any stripe on these boards (and, for the reasons Tonya mentioned, I’m not sure they can have volunteer moderators anyway - I remember the issue of not being able to have volunteers do certain things came up during my time as a VO.)

[Themetricsystem]

EDIT: Nevermind, it's not worth the effort or potential consequences as I've already been given a temp suspension for apparently discussing mental health concerns and it's not worth it despite my interest being piqued by the off-topic comment.

If you already saw my question and have/want to reply, please don't, and if you already have please delete it. I'm not deleting the post itself because I don't want to give an impression that I am hiding something. If anyone is really so motivated to care about the subject feel free to DM me I guess.

[Leg o' Lamb]

Mark Stratton wrote:

TwilightKnight wrote:

Umbral Reaver wrote:

volunteer mods

Its not that they can/can't its that they don't want to. The simple, unpleasant reason is that there is/are member/s of the executive team that have a disdain for volunteers. I know because I heard it directly from s/he/them. It contributed to my resignation as a volunteer leader despite having invested more than a decade and often a full-time job's worth of hours to promoting Paizo's products and supporting the community. There are members of the executive team that truly believe anyone who works at or volunteers for Paizo should be honored for the privilege like its some kind of ultimate reward.

I am stunned to hear this. Though my time wasn’t as long or as high profile as yours, I volunteered for Paizo for a number of years. Now, I do consider it a privilege to be able to volunteer for Paizo (I have no right to volunteer, so I view it as a privilege.)

But to hear this attitude exists among someone on the executive team is greatly disappointing. I mean, I thought it was bad enough when a former project manager for Paizo ripped into Venture-Officers for asking for the scenarios for Gen Con more than a week before the con, and that PM’s terrible treatment of volunteers. I didn’t realize that sort of view existed in the higher ranks, too.

That’s very disconcerting, and if that was in part responsible for you stepping down, then the loss even more disappointing because it might have been avoidable.

People are replaceable, yes, but we shouldn’t treat them like they are.

And, if that view still exists, I’m not sure there should be volunteer moderators of any stripe on these boards (and, for the reasons Tonya mentioned, I’m not sure they can have volunteer moderators anyway - I remember the issue of not being able to have volunteers do certain things came up during my time as a VO.)

There is a whole lot of animus towards volunteers. Remember when the middle slot for PFS at Paizo Con was eliminated? Remember how eventually us volunteers had to create our own game sessions? Want to know why? Because some folks just couldn't understand why people would go to the con to just play PFS and not attend all their wonderful panel discussions! It was as if the people who play the game and promote the game were an afterthought. And then we discovered Washington State law was pretty clear about volunteers for a for profit company. Feels like they never accepted that volunteers deserve to be treated with kindness and respect.

Kinda like what our transgender community members are shouting about.

[Mark Stratton]

Good comparison, though I don’t remember the Paizo Con stuff. But I agree with your post, Leg.

[Anorak]

Umbral Reaver wrote:

Thanks, but I probably don't have much time left.

I am so sorry to hear that, Umbral. *Hugs*

[Kobold Catgirl]

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

It is very hard to discuss anything in 'good' faith with someone that assumes automatically that what you're telling them is outside of their experience and therefore 'bad'.

Oversharing Tangent I guess:

Oh, yeah, totally. My point was just that empathy isn't intrinsic to being a good person. In fact, empathy can kind of undermine being a good person, since empathy tends to be really biased based on who we're trained by society to empathize with. Like, I sometimes have empathy for my partner's abusive mother, because I know how it feels to be cut out of someone's life for past screw-ups... but that's not an empathy that leads me anywhere healthy or good.

[Catulle]

In the trade, we're trained to draw a distinction between *empathy* and *sympathy* for pretty much those reasons (and what you're describing seems to lie closer to what we would call sympathy).

[Kobold Catgirl]

I couldn't say for sure, but I remember listening to an NPR story with some guy making the case against empathy, and I remember those being at least similar to the points being made.

That being said, I also think the whole "arguing about the fine distinctions between words that mostly seem to exist to correct people" thing is sort of, I dunno, tiresome? I feel the same way when people correct me about "shame" vs. "guilt". You know what I meant. :P

[TwilightKnight]

As someone who has very little natural empathy and has to focus on it at times, I can appreciate the notion that empathy, in moderation, is important to fully understanding an issue. Not enough empathy can lead to stark analysis that is generally bad for the subject of the empathy. Much of the suffering by marginalized communities is a result of too little empathy. Too much empathy can result in reactionary decisions that can be bad in the long term. Something like eliminating law enforcement in response to a bad incident, while "feel good," is a bad long term solution. Empathy is a factor and like many others, should be given a measure of weight.

[Kobold Catgirl]

Let's not bring in the subject of police abolition/defunding into this conversation. I don't agree with you and it is distracting to me.

I think it's sort of misdirected, too, to focus on "too much empathy for marginalized people" when "toxic empathy" is so much more often directed the other way. Empathy is easier to direct at people who are like you, and/or people who you've been trained by society to empathize with. It tends to feed into inequality and discrimination. As one example, in the aftermath of disasters, the media is much more likely to frame black people as "looters" and white people as "survivors". There's also how gun violence tends to mainly become a hot button issue when there's a mass shooting in an affluent white neighborhood.

To paraphrase a quote from that radio interview, "Some of the cruelest and most destructive laws on our books bear the names of dead children."

This is not a jab at gun control laws.

[Lissa Guillet]

You know how exhausting it is for people to constantly debate whether you should exist or not as a valid debate topic and when you point that out have your hands slapped away from the forum controls? Oh, yeah, I do. It's terribly exhausting. -_-

On a side note, maybe just listen to your trans-employees when they say they feel attacked and treat the topic as you would anyone actually attacking other employees. Just my two cents.

[MadScientistWorking]

Lissa Guillet wrote:

You know how exhausting it is for people to constantly debate whether you should exist or not as a valid debate topic and when you point that out have your hands slapped away from the forum controls? Oh, yeah, I do. It's terribly exhausting. -_-

On a side note, maybe just listen to your trans-employees when they say they feel attacked and treat the topic as you would anyone actually attacking other employees. Just my two cents.

Oooo no. Please don't tell me it involved the playtest. For the love of God don't tell me it involved the 2e playtest....

[Tonya Woldridge]

Removed a harassment post. While I'm unsure asking for details is appropriate on a public forum, responses will only escalate into problematic territory.

[Lissa Guillet]

MadScientistWorking wrote:

Oooo no. Please don't tell me it involved the playtest. For the love of God don't tell me it involved the 2e playtest....

Oh this was a long time ago. Well before 2e. But to be fair, I would have taken a heavier hand. For better or for worse. We disagreed. It was fairly amicable. Chris and Sara did their best and we all appreciate that even if we disagreed on the extent to which the hand of moderation should be applied. But, it certainly wasn't pleasant in the years after to have to endure those comments anytime we included a queer NPC. Which we did often.