Sign in to follow this  
SkyeWint

Moderation.

Recommended Posts

So I've been here for about four months, and moderating here for about 3 of those. I know that I'm not the most popular, but I don't aim to be - I just aim to do what I think is right. I try to listen, and I try to act based on what other users say - not just based on what myself and the other moderators discuss amongst ourselves. Through all this, I've noticed that many users don't understand my position on moderation. I'm trying to push this in moderation as well. When you're going to complain about somebody's moderation decision, please think about this.

 

Moderation is a job. It isn't a privilege. There are privileges associated with it, such as the abilities to kick and ban, and a greater impact in administration decisions. However, these privileges are not the job itself - they are there because they are necessary for the job to be performed correctly. This is an important distinction - in a job there are responsibilities which MUST be fulfilled. The same goes for moderation, and in this case the responsibility is: Enforcing the rules.

 

If somebody breaks the rules, the moderator is obliged to warn and then punish if it continues. This is the entire point of moderation. It is not about dislike, it isn't about sexism, it isn't about prejudice - it's merely that what they saw happen broke the rules. Remember, moderators are human and they can only act based on what they see. If they don't see a problem, they can't fix it - and if they see a problem which needs more information to be complete, they might not take action you see as appropriate. The best way to fix this issue is by telling the moderator the truth, backing it up as much as possible (screenshots and log files help), and just being decent to them. They're human. They make mistakes.

 

Speaking of making mistakes, moderators have it good and bad. Other moderators and staff typically understand that the mods are human and make mistakes, and are thus more accepting and understanding if a moderator accidentally breaks a rule or steps over the line somehow. Other users, however, tend to pounce on these mistakes as evidence that the moderator is a 'bad mod' because they accidentally break the rules. While moderators do need to stay more within the rules than other users, they can still make mistakes.

 

When moderators make mistakes, that's okay - just tell them they made a mistake respectfully. The key word is "respectfully". Moderators keep the place clean of spammers and trolls. They have to deal with all this, as well as countless complaints, discussion of new moderation ideas, criticism, and just plain hatred from some people. They do a lot of work trying to keep as many groups happy as possible, and complaining about things while simultaneously insulting them isn't helpful. Even if you're punished, be respectful and you'll be more likely to have the punishment lifted.

 

Remember: If moderation were all objective, it could be trusted to bots. But that isn't the case. Subjectivity is needed, and this requires people. People are fallible - they can hold grudges, and they tend to react more positively to positive criticism and appeals. It would be best if this weren't the case, but it is necessary.

 

Now, I don't want to sound too apologetic for the mods. Some mods do not take moderation seriously, and this is a problem. However, as I also stated: I am trying to push the idea of professionalism seriously, as are several other mods. This simply means being professional and taking moderation seriously, not "never fooling around".

 

tl;dr: The mods are human. They need to take moderation as a job, and this is something that should be encouraged. However, the mods are still human. The users need to be kinder and more understanding that they can make mistakes. They can get a more positive response by not flinging insults, and they can have more respect from the mods as well as more forgiveness if they are respectful. Both parties have stuff they can do to improve. Let's think about this before acting with relation to moderation.


If you, like me, think is is unfair for Pleeb to pay all the site costs alone, please consider making a private grant to tulpa.info

>Resig if you agree!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moderators are more often than not the targets of hate from users, that's just how it goes. Therefore, they will find and take any reason they can get their hands on to pick the moderation apart.

 

I won't lie, there is a lot of termoil going on right now between the users and the staff in this community. Due to this, I am not surprised that you (and other mods) are under fire from constant "bashing" and so forth. I think you might be taking it too personally.

 

Speaking on behalf of the userbase, we understand that moderation is a job, however I think that the "insults" mostly stem from the conception that the staff is not very good at well, changing to how some users may want it to change. I can see why that might make people angry.

 

Truth is, a large sum of people want the way tulpa.info is run to change. I have suggested in the past a total re-election of staff/mods, that way the community can't complain that they don't like so-and-so because x, y and z, as well as a re-writing of the entire rulebook.

 

As the saying goes, the customer is always right. Instead of acting on what the staff things is the best in the interest of the community, they should act on what the majority of the community wants to happen. Tulpa.info's staff should be a bit more interactive and more transparent with the users when it comes to making decisions if they want to please them.

 

 

That means no secret IRC channels.

 


My guide on tulpa creation

 

Please consider making a private grant to tulpa.info to keep the community alive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see what's so bad about the rules now, Thunderclap. They didn't seem so strict when I read them.

 

"Remember: If moderation were all objective, it could be trusted to bots. But that isn't the case. Subjectivity is needed, and this requires people. "

 

I don't see why subjectivity itself would be needed. The only reason it can't be trusted to bots is because there's not an advanced enough bot to make decisions about bans and ban length.


My lip hurts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I won't lie, there is a lot of termoil going on right now between the users and the staff in this community. Due to this, I am not surprised that you (and other mods) are under fire from constant "bashing" and so forth. I think you might be taking it too personally.

 

Speaking on behalf of the userbase, we understand that moderation is a job, however I think that the "insults" mostly stem from the conception that the staff is not very good at well, changing to how some users may want it to change. I can see why that might make people angry.

 

Truth is, a large sum of people want the way tulpa.info is run to change. I have suggested in the past a total re-election of staff/mods, that way the community can't complain that they don't like so-and-so because x, y and z, as well as a re-writing of the entire rulebook.

I disagree on the personal note: This happens in just about every community I've seen which gets this large or larger. As I also said: There are things that the mods can work on too. I'm not going to excuse mods who have failed, and I am pushing to stop issues like this. We need to listen to the community, yes. Unfortunately, every community will say "the mods suck" at some point. I've seen that too. I might be new to this side of the fence, but I've been watching from the side you're on in this community for a long time in a lot of different communities.

 

As the saying goes, the customer is always right. Instead of acting on what the staff things is the best in the interest of the community, they should act on what the majority of the community wants to happen. Tulpa.info's staff should be a bit more interactive and more transparent with the users when it comes to making decisions if they want to please them.

 

 

That means no secret IRC channels.

 

No, the customer is not always right. That saying is bogus. When customers come in and demand that you wait on them hand and foot while only giving the bare minimum in exchange, they're *not* right. Sometimes this happens, and people raise hell about it. The vocal complaining minority is not the majority. I'm not saying that the mods shouldn't listen. I actually pointed out recently that we NEED to interact with the community more because it appears as if we don't care.

 

Also, the secret IRC channel does have a purpose: Some things discussed there need to be kept private for security reasons. Can't exactly publicly allow non-staff to know all the information sent from the server provider, or information about the site which could be used to mount an attack/exploit loopholes, or information about IRC which could be exploited. This kind of stuff needs to be discussed in private. There's also the issue of interruption. Sometimes we need a place to to discuss things without a bunch of users coming in, all with their own differing and sometimes contradictory opinions of what needs to be done, and spamming the place. I support transparency and I support giving users power. I try to tell people what's going on - you can ask me at any time, and I'll tell you as much as I can without revealing anything compromising.

 

I don't see why subjectivity itself would be needed. The only reason it can't be trusted to bots is because there's not an advanced enough bot to make decisions about bans and ban length.

Appeals, context, and meaning. A bot cannot keep up with the rapid shift of culture and meaning of words, as it would not be involved in it. If it were intelligent/advanced enough to make such decisions, it would also be subjective.


If you, like me, think is is unfair for Pleeb to pay all the site costs alone, please consider making a private grant to tulpa.info

>Resig if you agree!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, the customer is not always right. That saying is bogus. When customers come in and demand that you wait on them hand and foot while only giving the bare minimum in exchange, they're *not* right. Sometimes this happens, and people raise hell about it. The vocal complaining minority is not the majority. I'm not saying that the mods shouldn't listen. I actually pointed out recently that we NEED to interact with the community more because it appears as if we don't care.

Actually, as far as anything remotely democracy-resembling would work, the only relevant demographic IS the vocal one. Perhaps not just the one who brawls hands about individual moderation semantics for hours, but just about anyone who expresses an opinion; passive silence equals as compliance. The worst possible starting point for changes is to base them on assumptions and the needs of the imaginary majority, as what was going on in IRC the past few days ago before the... criticism.

 

I hope this is what the promised community interaction tries to achieve, the fault is much more in the people than the moderation; talentless hacks not stating possible opinions out loud, and the few idiots like me that do tend to lose credibility when the same criticism starts looking repetitive, near-memetic.

Also, people aren't exactly fond of mods who do the occasional irrelevant rule enforcement here and there and otherwise are practically invisible; People assume that mods with this kind of bot-type behaviour 1) are never up to date with the standards 2) Don't really care besides the occasional instant gratification egotrip. That's obviously false in most cases, but it's still how the image reflects to a lot of people.

 

That said, you have certainly walked over those boobytraps by actually being active. Top-tier moderation is always close to the people, kudos to you.


tell the rapper what i'm gonna do with all this money

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's unfortunate that the image reflects that way. This is why I wrote this. It's not necessarily trying to apologize for the mods or excuse bad behavior on their part. It's simply saying "Think about this from our perspective - we have to deal with a lot of shit anyway, and it would be so much nicer if people would give criticism without lobbing insults along with it.

 

At the very least, I do listen - to the vocal complaining minority too. I should probably clarify, bersinger: When I say the vocal complaining minority, I mean the minority of people who do talk consistently. Some will say we're doing a good job, some will say we're doing a bad job. When people are saying we're doing a bad job and do so without flipping shit about it, it's much nicer and far more easily taken (whether it *should be* or not).


If you, like me, think is is unfair for Pleeb to pay all the site costs alone, please consider making a private grant to tulpa.info

>Resig if you agree!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest, I don't really see the point of this thread. That aside, you were pretty vindictive on the IRC and I think Thunderclap got it right when he said you take things too seriously.


I've seen good people bleed

And I thought I'd seen it all

But my own two eyes would prove me wrong that day.

 

There are things that I've done

Only seen by the sun

And those things will be buried in my grave.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, the customer is not always right. That saying is bogus. When customers come in and demand that you wait on them hand and foot while only giving the bare minimum in exchange, they're *not* right.

 

I'm getting mixed signals from this. What are the users supposed to give in exchange, especially if they do not agree with what you are doing?

 

Also, the secret IRC channel does have a purpose: Some things discussed there need to be kept private for security reasons.

 

I never said it doesn't have a purpose. I am sure there are matters discussed in there that the userbase can afford to know about.


My guide on tulpa creation

 

Please consider making a private grant to tulpa.info to keep the community alive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm getting mixed signals from this. What are the users supposed to give in exchange, especially if they do not agree with what you are doing?

Criticism, sure. But that doesn't mean all of it has to be taken - there's a difference between a customer who complains about an employee being rude at a restaurant and a customer who thinks they're entitled to sit at a table yelling at the top of their lungs, then complain and ask to speak to the manager when the employees ask them to stop. Not saying anyone in particular is doing that right now, but the customer isn't always right.

 

I never said it doesn't have a purpose. I am sure there are matters discussed in there that the userbase can afford to know about.

I know. But that still means that there needs to be the private channel. As I said...

 

I support transparency and I support giving users power. I try to tell people what's going on - you can ask me at any time, and I'll tell you as much as I can without revealing anything compromising.


If you, like me, think is is unfair for Pleeb to pay all the site costs alone, please consider making a private grant to tulpa.info

>Resig if you agree!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.