Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

I'd Like Moderation In This Forum To Be...

OT Moderation Style

  • Please log in to reply
44 replies to this topic

Poll: I'd Like Moderation In This Forum To Be... (67 member(s) have cast votes)

I'd Like Moderation In This Forum To Be...

  1. Much more proactive (7 votes [10.45%])

    Percentage of vote: 10.45%

  2. Somewhat more proactive (29 votes [43.28%])

    Percentage of vote: 43.28%

  3. The same as it is now (30 votes [44.78%])

    Percentage of vote: 44.78%

  4. Somewhat less proactive (1 votes [1.49%])

    Percentage of vote: 1.49%

  5. Much less proactive (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 Appreciate

Appreciate
  • Islander
  • 4,651 posts

Posted 17 April 2004 - 02:41 PM

Hello!

It's time for our first ever EI user survey.  This quick survey is designed to measure user satisfaction with the moderating style used in each individual forum.  Therefore, we request that users answer the poll above in every forum they frequent.  Please note, however, that this is an advisory survey only.  


As referenced in the poll, "more proactive" would mean that users want the EI staff to be more active in overseeing this forum, dealing sternly with posts that seem to violate our guidelines through the use of hands-on tactics like edits and suspensions.  "Less proactive" would mean that users want the staff to take a gentler approach to dealing with posters--speaking up when violations occur, but trying to work with the violators to encourage them to change their own behavior rather than using edits or suspensions at all readily.

Clearly if porn or other extremely egregious material is posted, the staff will have to step in immediately.  But this survey is to get a feel for moderating in the grayer areas, and what you, the users, feel about the style we currently use.  For clarity: the implied tradeoff is that if users request a light hand, they must be prepared to tolerate occasional harsh words and profanity.  If they request a heavier one, they may see more frequent staff edits, and occasionally, suspensions.

Thank you very much in advance for your participation!  Your comments are also welcome below.

- Uncle Sid, Kevin, and Kathy

Edited by Appreciate, 17 April 2004 - 02:48 PM.

"Any dolt with half a brain/Can see that humankind has gone insane
To the point where I don't know if I'll upset the status quo
If I throw poison in the water main..."
- Billy (aka Dr. Horrible) in My Eyes from the AWESOME Dr. Horrible's SingAlong Blog

#2 Nick

Nick

    ...

  • Islander
  • 7,130 posts

Posted 17 April 2004 - 03:36 PM

Things can get a bit heated in here, but there haven't been much actual unpleasantness . . . problems get dealt with pretty quickly . . . My vote was for keeping the moderation as-is, but a little more proactiveness (proactivity?) wouldn't hurt.

-Nick

#3 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 17 April 2004 - 03:40 PM

I'd prefer moderation to be done with a reguard towards taking no position except to state to a user where they may have stepped over the line.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#4 Corwin

Corwin

    fortitudo ac honor

  • Islander
  • 1,695 posts

Posted 17 April 2004 - 03:53 PM

I agree with Nick.

In the specific situation with Fade, no one could have handled the situation better than Rov did.  He did exactly what I would expect any one of our moderators to do when a person violates the TOS as blantantly as Fade did.  The situation was defused very tactfully and quickly and before it exploded even further.   I realize that this specific situation is very out of norm for EI posters, and I am glad that with as much difference of strong opinion as in on OT at times the vast majority of us realize that at the end of the day, we still have to live with each other and word our posts accordingly.  The moderator system as is works exactly as it is designed without stepping over the line and squashing strong worded debate.


Corwin
"The Enemy is upon us, so Lock and Load, Brothers.  The Emperor Calls and the Forces of Chaos must be driven back.  Though all of us will fall, none of us shall fail!"

#5 Anna

Anna

    Island Native

  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 1,148 posts

Posted 17 April 2004 - 04:24 PM

I chose "somewhat more." While recently this *has* been happening, there are times when I'd like a Mod to step in with the "Okay, take a deep breath!" a little earlier than they have. I know perfect timing is difficult at best, since the mods do have a life ;), but a little more attention earlier is what I'd like to see.

Anna
Seldom do we regret words we do not speak.

--------------

Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

#6 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,300 posts

Posted 17 April 2004 - 04:25 PM

I think the moderation level is fine. I just think that the moderators need to be highly sensitive to the fact that they may be moderating against type, i.e., if someone has a reputation in a forum, the mod may treat the reputation and not the actual incident... that's a concern to watch for, but has nothing to do with levels of activity.

HM07

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#7 Chakotay

Chakotay

    For gosh sakes let me out of here!

  • Islander
  • 6,657 posts

Posted 17 April 2004 - 04:26 PM

I put 'the same' because I've seen no evidence of mod failure anywhere so far.

So people sometimes fail to agree, that's going to happen, but by and large, we're all adult(ish) and quite capable of not adding the reply if it really is way out of line.
  No plan survives first contact with the enemy - military axiom.

#8 Ilphi

Ilphi
  • Islander
  • 4,071 posts

Posted 17 April 2004 - 04:37 PM

I've not seen the mods take a step out of line IMO, so I have to say I'm happy with the current performance and keep up the good work :)
Yea, ere my hot youth pass, I speak to my people and say:
Ye shall be foolish as I; ye shall scatter, not save;
Ye shall venture your all, lest ye lose what is more than all;
Ye shall call for a miracle, taking Christ at His word.
And for this I will answer, O people, answer here and hereafter,
The Fool - Padraic Pearse

#9 Kevin Street

Kevin Street
  • Islander
  • 6,256 posts

Posted 17 April 2004 - 07:09 PM

I'd like to address a question those who want more proactive moderation. Are you looking for an increased presence from the moderators, with more editing and more suspensions, or do you want be us to pay more attention to the tone of the threads, warning people to settle down more often when arguments break out?
Per aspera ad astra

#10 Mary Rose

Mary Rose

    Charlie's Asthmatic Angel

  • Moderator
  • 22,331 posts

Posted 17 April 2004 - 10:39 PM

I'm pretty happpy with the level of moderation.  I know things get heated in here but since I love conflict that's never been a problem for me. :p  :D  :lol:  :cool:  :hehe:  :devil:
Mary Rose, Official Missionary for the Church of Beka angst.  Please join us for worship at the EI fanfic board.  Jill-- on what my name badge should say.
Proud Andromeda and Forever Knight fanfic writer
    Posted Image           Posted Image           Posted Image
Proud parent of thriving Beka and Tracy muses
Posted Image

#11 the 'Hawk

the 'Hawk
  • Islander
  • 5,281 posts

Posted 17 April 2004 - 10:50 PM

Kevin Street, on Apr 17 2004, 08:07 PM, said:

Are you looking for an increased presence from the moderators, with more editing and more suspensions, or do you want be us to pay more attention to the tone of the threads, warning people to settle down more often when arguments break out?
If I may....

Both. And neither.

Arguments will break out over politics. But what I think merits consideration is the way the arguments (not necessarily in terms of verbal politics, but in terms of rhetoric and reasoning) are composed.

It's the trolling and the escalation that goes along with it that bothers me. There are certain aspects of the wording of posts made from time to time that can come off as very domineering, condescending, and insulting to the intelligence of members.

That's the *only* thing that bothers me. The arguments can be made withOUT resorting to the "what are you, stupid for thinking that?" sorts of traps I see laid in thread after thread. I've done it from time to time myself, and had it done to me-- I know it hurts, and I've used it *to* hurt. It's got to stop.

And, to be honest, the bashing on certain groups, ethnic/religious/political and otherwise, needs to be reined in. It's just not fair. And it derails meaningful --thoughtful-- discussion. I don't think it's a stretch to include that under "respect".

Sure, we're allowed to bash public figures all we want, but with the election coming up in the US (and, I hope to God, in Canada), I don't think it's unreasonable to leave the posturing and the rhetoric at the door. If I can't come *HERE* of ALL PLACES to get me some relatively unbiased and semi-factual analysis of the real issues..... well, I sure as hell ain't gonna get it from a news channel.

That's the best I can do on that. And I'm not sure it answers anything, because I'm sure I'll get asked to explain further--- and I simply can't be any more clear.

:cool:
“Now is the hour, Riders of Rohan, oaths you have taken! Now, fulfil them all! To lord and land!”  
~ Eomer, LotR:RotK

#12 Harpie4

Harpie4

    Exisle: "Where does my allegiance lie, if not here?"

  • Islander
  • 845 posts

Posted 18 April 2004 - 12:01 AM

See the response that I posted in the GMD version( detailed below) of this poll as it applies doubly to OT! ;)

I voted for somewhat more moderation just because I think that there is a SMALL faction on here that sometimes push the limits TOO far and they sometimes need to be reigned in a wee bit or at least get a warning shot across the bow to let them know that they are pushing their luck. Yes, there are some opinionated and very educated people on here and that's great in itself but sometimes their eloquence and cleverness with words borders on downright aggression and rudeness and I think that the Mods could sometimes step in a wee bit earlier to "nip things in the bud" as it were.

Now I am not talking Big Brother here or sending us in the direction of "Slipstream" ( just pre-empting responses) ..I am just saying that there is a fine line between healthy debate between those with differing viewpoints and downright mud slinging and slanging matches. If the mods can keep a slightly closer eye on fiery topics, then we will have far more of the former - YAY! and far less of the latter - DOUBLE YAY!  Therefore, a very happy Island for all of us ExIslers to inhabit.

Edited by Harpie4, 18 April 2004 - 02:06 AM.

"Home is behind, the world ahead, & there are many paths to tread.
Through shadow, to the edge of night, until the stars are all alight.
Mist & shadow, cloud & shade. All shall pale, all shall... fade."


Peregrin Took, Son of Paladin. In the Great hall of Minas Tirith. ROTK

#13 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 18 April 2004 - 01:55 AM

Kevin Street, on Apr 17 2004, 05:07 PM, said:

I'd like to address a question those who want more proactive moderation. Are you looking for an increased presence from the moderators, with more editing and more suspensions, or do you want be us to pay more attention to the tone of the threads, warning people to settle down more often when arguments break out?
Those are great questions Kevin and I don't know that there are easy answers.  I think that people need to know *at the time it happens* or as close thereto as possible when they have crossed a line.  I don't mean any kind of public lashing but a note in a pm or an email or something.  I get the sense that maybe this is an area where there is a bit of a lapse in moderation (not intentional or anything).  I voted "somewhat more" myself because I think that OT by its nature gets hotter than the other forums (at least recently) and I think moderation needs to adjust accordingly.  I also feel that there needs to be as much agreement as possible between the mods of this forum and the admins as to what specific conduct constitutes crossing *the line*.  Just as examples of things upon which reasonable minds might differ: a thread making fun of immigrants, a thread disrespecting our soldiers during a time of war, a post in which someone calls someone a liar, a post in which someone accuses someone of "bashing"...and the list goes on.  I think that the key is consistency and I'm sure that this is what everyone moderating and administrating strives for but does not always get achieved.  If anyone wants to discuss this further via pm or in a different thread or email, you know how to find me...;)

Lil
Posted Image

#14 Kevin Street

Kevin Street
  • Islander
  • 6,256 posts

Posted 18 April 2004 - 02:18 AM

Una Salus Lillius, on Apr 17 2004, 11:53 PM, said:

I think that people need to know *at the time it happens* or as close thereto as possible when they have crossed a line.  I don't mean any kind of public lashing but a note in a pm or an email or something.  I get the sense that maybe this is an area where there is a bit of a lapse in moderation (not intentional or anything).
I hear what you're saying Lil, and we try to do our best, but this an area where it's not always possible to react quickly. Sometimes delays occur because the mods aren't online, and sometimes there are delays because we discuss certain posts in the ML and debate whether or not to take action. Sometimes there are posts that we discuss and then decide to leave alone, because the thread has moved on, and sometimes we decide to take issue over things that happened a day or two ago because the thread has become active again.

Time is a funny thing on message boards, because I think it varies depending on the user. Some members are very active, checking the forum each day, and for them a thread can go stale and "old" in hours, or a single day - but some users only check in a few times per week, or even once a week, and for them the lifetime of a thread (and any problem posts within that thread) may be much longer. If a thread is growing very quickly, with a lot of posts added to it in a short time, we might not immediately act on problem posts within it for fear of stifling discussion (mod warnings and edits have a chilling effect on most conversations), but we may act later and "clean up" the thread so members who check in on a slower basis won't be disturbed by the problem and bring up the issue again. This sort of thing - the speed with which we should react - varies a lot between individual mods and admins, and it's something we discuss frequently.

Quote

I voted "somewhat more" myself because I think that OT by its nature gets hotter than the other forums (at least recently) and I think moderation needs to adjust accordingly. I also feel that there needs to be as much agreement as possible between the mods of this forum and the admins as to what specific conduct constitutes crossing *the line*. Just as examples of things upon which reasonable minds might differ: a thread making fun of immigrants, a thread disrespecting our soldiers during a time of war, a post in which someone calls someone a liar, a post in which someone accuses someone of "bashing"...and the list goes on. I think that the key is consistency and I'm sure that this is what everyone moderating and administrating strives for but does not always get achieved.

We try our best, but it is difficult to always be consistent. That's why we try to stick closely to the guidelines. Believe me, there have been plenty of posts I wanted to edit, but could not because they didn't violate the guidelines. And in the end, that's probably best. With this system, the standards are posted in AQG, and you can judge for yourself if we are being too lax, or too strict.

#15 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 18 April 2004 - 02:23 AM

Hey *you* asked the questions.  ;)  Like I said, I don't think there are easy answers.  One suggestion I do have however is perhaps something that is a part of the guidelines that addresses the situation of when there is only one person around and they're not in their "jurisdiction" and see something that gives cause for concern or alarm.  I think that so long as people know the rules going in and are satisfied that people are doing their best to follow them, it's gonna be just fine.:)
Posted Image

#16 StarDust

StarDust
  • Islander
  • 1,155 posts

Posted 18 April 2004 - 12:28 PM

I think the moderation is fine.

The very nature of the forum is going to create heat. If people can't handle it they should just stay out of the particular thread, or the forum all together. It shouldn't be ruined for everyone else and made toothless (and thus obsolete). It's a place where people discuss politics, beliefs, and opinons of these things.

It consistently amazes me how some feel they are obligated to be in every thread, and therefore every thread must be palatable to them.  Some things don't interest me, some times I don't want to get into it, some times I can tell it's more of the same and ignore, some times I'm just too pissed and at least wait awhile, and some times I jump right in.

Short of overtly bad behavior, it should be up to individuals to moderate themselves, including not getting involved if they can't handle it.

#17 Peridot

Peridot

    Elf Lynx

  • Islander
  • 2,916 posts

Posted 18 April 2004 - 09:25 PM

StarDust, on Apr 18 2004, 05:26 PM, said:

The very nature of the forum is going to create heat. If people can't handle it they should just stay out of the particular thread, or the forum all together. It shouldn't be ruined for everyone else and made toothless (and thus obsolete). It's a place where people discuss politics, beliefs, and opinons of these things.
The concept that wanting to see a bit more courtesy at times in a thread (or in the forum) is equivalent to not being able to "handle it" when things get heated is an equation that just doesn't balance.  :Oo:

One does expect that opinions will be stated forcefully at times in this forum, but a little civility often actually helps to clarify things.  And one can be civil, and still have one's teeth. :angel:


Kevin, that was a good question you posed. To me, being more proactive by its nature means doing more before things get out of hand, rather than doing more editing and giving more suspensions.

Although I did vote for somewhat more proactive, that doesn't mean I see a fault with current moderating.  I think the mods do a good job; I simply think it might be worth trying a more pro-active stance.

Peridot

#18 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 18 April 2004 - 09:32 PM

Peridot, on Apr 18 2004, 07:23 PM, said:

Although I did vote for somewhat more proactive, that doesn't mean I see a fault with current moderating.  I think the mods do a good job; I simply think it might be worth trying a more pro-active stance.
Well said!
Posted Image

#19 Mr.Calgary

Mr.Calgary

    Has left.

  • Islander
  • 1,348 posts

Posted 18 April 2004 - 09:41 PM

StarDust, on Apr 18 2004, 10:26 AM, said:

It consistently amazes me how some feel they are obligated to be in every thread, and therefore every thread must be palatable to them.  Some things don't interest me, some times I don't want to get into it, some times I can tell it's more of the same and ignore, some times I'm just too pissed and at least wait awhile, and some times I jump right in.

Short of overtly bad behavior, it should be up to individuals to moderate themselves, including not getting involved if they can't handle it.
:welldone:

Sounds mighty good to me.  And it relates to another discussion I've had this weekend in these poll threads  :hugs:
Favourite Coda thread quotes.....

(1)  Yes. Bad Trance! Wicked, Evil Trance!

(2)  Stayed purple.   (3)  Bad, bad Trance!

(4)  Love and Blowing Things Up continue forever. The universe wins

#20 StarDust

StarDust
  • Islander
  • 1,155 posts

Posted 19 April 2004 - 10:31 AM

Peridot, on Apr 18 2004, 10:23 PM, said:

StarDust, on Apr 18 2004, 05:26 PM, said:


The very nature of the forum is going to create heat. If people can't handle it they should just stay out of the particular thread, or the forum all together. It shouldn't be ruined for everyone else and made toothless (and thus obsolete). It's a place where people discuss politics, beliefs, and opinons of these things.
The concept that wanting to see a bit more courtesy at times in a thread (or in the forum) is equivalent to not being able to "handle it" when things get heated is an equation that just doesn't balance.  :Oo:
I don't believe I equated them, I believe you just did.

Certainly, civility is best and being rational definitely helps to make a point better.  That was part of my point about taking a deep breath and calming down.  And sticking to facts, which requires some effort to stay informed to have, helps in a discussion instead of assumptions and inuendo.

However, the very nature of this forum is going to upset some people.  If, for example, we start having a discussion about certain things going on in the Catholic church, and I express an opinion about it which may not be flattering but is very legitimate, it may upset some catholics. That doesn't mean my point would be incorrect or that many Catholics even would agree.  Someone will see it as an insult. But you can't have a discussion/debate about things without stating your opinions.

And I'm sure somethings said here about Islamists may offend some people, doesn't mean the facts are incorrect. It would be incorrect to assume all Muslems feel like the Islamists do.

Just like discussions about France may upset some French people. Or somethings non-Americans have said about us.  And then there is the ever opinionated Canadians, but no one had better have an opinion about them!

The very nature of this forum, in discussing world issues, is going to cause friction and maybe some hurt feelings. If some want to pretend to live in a world where everyone thinks the same, they probably shouldn't be here.  For some the very existance of an opinion, no matter how factually/logically and calmly presented, is too much for them.

We all remember the heated discussion over Andromeda in days past, and that was a TV show. God forbid that some have problems with it as it went along, and stated so even in a very factual and detailed way.  If anything, that made it worse because they were presenting proof others didn't want to hear.  It was also amusing to see some switch from one side to the other over time, eventually doing the very thing they railed against previously.  If things got that involved over a TV show, it certainly makes sense that real life issues are going to be even more so.



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: OT, Moderation Style

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users