Kyo:Sorry, I just disagree with that. If you don't want your mods to fucking hate their jobs, they do need to still be able to just be able to talk to people like a normal person. And if your mods fucking hate their jobs, no one wins. I know it's not an ideal situation but I absolutely think it's the lesser evil.
why are they mutually exclusive to the point where a distinction has to be made to begin with?
The assumption is that I want it to be the way it is now.
i know without a shadow of doubt that you don't want it to be this way. i'm troubled that anything i said was taken differently. i know you don't enjoy this, and i also know that figuring out how to change it is hard. i was part of those conversations, remember? the question here isn't if but how, and addressing real moderation action directly with the aim of figuring out a sustainable solution.
saying, "i know, we're working on it, as soon as we get the mod tools in place, it'll be better," isn't good enough and doesn't actually address the real problem. the fixes you're talking about are programmatic. i firmly believe that while certainly improvements can be made on that front, that good moderation is something that can be done without any "tools" at all. i've said that from the very beginning.
"mod tools," have become an albatross and a road block to actual change. waiting for them to be implemented before putting in place a moderation process is putting the cart before the horse.
Again, I think this is a semantics game. You didn't put that sentence in there for no reason. First you set up a premise and then you said if i believe in that premise, i must be delusional.
right. as in, "you're putting forward this idea, which taken to its natural conclusion will be interpreted as x. IF you intend for it to be interpreted that way, there's a problem." there's a really good reason why the word "if" is in there. why is it more important for you to focus on the word "delusional," than it is to address the context around it?
kyo:disagree. Mods should be able to emotionally withstand being yelled at, but I think users should also be able to keep their tempers in check. The rules about treating people with respect on the forums don't stop short at the mods. [...] I think letting people be hostile sets a bad precedent. A good moderator should be able to handle it, but also moderate that behaviour. That obviously doesn't mean "get revenge" or anything like that (not that you were implying that, just being clear)
how to you reconcile that perspective with what happened to me when i was a mod and my resignation?
Kyo:e: in regards to the hats, I do make an active effort to say "i'm not speaking as a mod here" when I sense ambiguity. But I'm only human. We had mod banners for this express purpose for a while, and people fucking hated them. I do try and be clear, but I'm only human and sometimes I will miss the mark.
mods do not have the luxury of not being mods when it suits them.
Kyo:No offense, but I think that criticism is completely unwarranted. I get where you are coming from, but like I said earlier in the thread, the changes that were discussed in the last megathread are still going to be implemented. It's going pretty slowly, due to personal reasons, but it is still happening. I'll just reiterate that here one more time.
are we even having the same conversation..?
With that in mind, your little speech just isn't helpful.
and calling my post a "little speech" is condescending and dismissive, without addressing what in particular you disagree with. how convenient.
You are operating under false assumptions here. I get that you're coming from a place of not having seen a lot of changes, and like I said to biff before, that's a totally valid point.
which assumptions would those be? i like how in the same paragraph you go on to assume MY position while telling me i've misread yours.
I wish you could make it without calling me delusional in the same breath, because I know that you are capable of doing that, even if, right as you are, maybe not everyone is.
did i call you delusional? really? that's your take away and the sole thing you've gotten out of those two posts? this is verbatim what i wrote, you can check it yourself because nothing's changed since i posted it the first time:
if you think for a hot second that you're going to moderate that while everyone remains calm and polite to everyone involved, you're delusional - and you clearly haven't been paying attention.
"if you think for a hot second that you're going to moderate that while everyone remains calm and polite to everyone involved"
in other words, people are going to get angry and fired up. it's not reasonable or fair to ask them to stay calm and penalize them if they don't. no one likes being yelled, but there's a certain element of "well, don't be a mod, then," if you're not cut out for that.
when you moderate a community, you're going to get into it with people. a good moderator can handle a certain amount of conflict and still come to a good resolution most of the time.
i don't think you inherently disagree with that or fail to realize that. my post was highlighting how when you ask people to stay calm like that, it creates this unrealistic expectation for them, and sets a standard that i don't think is possible to maintain.
trying to differentiate between saying that "as a mod" or as a "regular guy," just makes it that much more confusing. biff totally need moderation. that's in no way an unreasonable thing. but the moderation has to make sense and be consistent.
Kyo:I did hear the criticism. I literally changed the rules in response to it. Hearing it isn't the same as not being allowed to point it out when someone is crossing a line. Don't call me delusional.
aren't you tired of this? it's the same circle over and over again. the quiet, the build up, the shit storm. the public back and forth because we aren't talking on any other channels anymore.
it doesn't have to be like this. it doesn't have to be reactionary. it doesn't have to be this resigned, "fine, you clearly didn't understand what i was saying, but i'll change the rules to better clarify. can we all be ok now?" thing.
it can be more proactive. it can be better than this. and it doesn't all have to be on you. you built a great community. you've created something amazing here. you don't have to be the tune-up guy and the customer support department, too.
but you're the only one who can decide how to make that happen. right now, the only lead anyone can follow is to make threads like this. it's the only way things happen.
Kyo:And for the record, I wasn't giving biff a formal stern talking to. I was telling him something as a person, on the forums.
oh, are we going to have "regular person" post flair now when mods want to relate to the users as peers (even though they aren't)? is that part of the mod tool kit?
you can't have it both ways, mate. you're the creator of this site and a forum administrator. you MAKE the rules. you can't switch gears and just expect everyone to know where you stand. and fuck that anyway, i don't know how you keep it straight yourself - i'd go insane trying to remember which particular hat i was wearing in a particular situation. it's unfair and unreasonable to expect anyone else to know which it is.
eta: and switching like that even if everyone did know where you stood is disingenuous. it's suspect. i don't believe you're suddenly the friendly neighborhood kyo in one post just because you say so, and then all of a sudden you're wearing your mod hat and laying down the law in the next. that's notoriously been a challenge to deal with on the forums. no one knows exactly what triggers the switch or where the line is. that's not ok.
Bolderousness:So, Cutething, what would have been the correct way of handling the anti-korean thread in a perfect world where all of the mod tools imaginable are available? Nama knew about all of the Korean spam, but he viewed the thread didn't work out of context. Is this something to blame on mod tools, or did Nama just see it and went "No" with or without reports? I think there's a bit of assumption going on and this wouldn't have changed even if mod tools were altered.
to take a step back for a second before i answer this - because this is a damned good question - i want to point out that my two cents post was very much a general commentary on moderation, rather than addressing this specific situation. i stand by it, i think it relates, but that's really where it was coming from. which is why this is a really good question.
in this instance, i think the issue is consistency and reasoning. look, i'm never going to say, "oh, intervening in a thread, locking a thread, or sending a PM to a user is an inherently BAD thing for a mod to do." that's what moderation is. the critical missing component is the amount of forum surface area any one mod can reasonably be expected to cover, and the expectations around what is actually involved in moderation. right now, it's a fairly knee-jerk response to reports with the odd fly by modding.
so, inevitably, things get lost in translation. on the one hand, part of that is pretty helpful. having that degree of separation can keep mods a bit more objective. but mods do not and should not exclusively serve the interests of hypothetical new users. they should, in my mind, primarily serve the active community. a lot of the argument here was perception and how a thread like that might be interpreted by someone unfamiliar with CF. if that was the actual reason for closing it, there are a multitude of things that arguably could have been done instead:
1. ask the OP to change the title of the thread to better reflect what it's actually about / fix the problem
2. proactively changing the title of the thread to better reflect what its actually about and make a comment about it in thread explaining why it changed
oh wait, we can't change thread titles.
it's not about "mod tools." it's about basic forum functionality that doesn't currently exist on CF, but is a standard feature everywhere else. mods don't need special tools to do their jobs. they just need to be able to filter new posts.
this isn't about creating some complicated system to enable moderation to actually function, it's about creating basic functions that everyone on the forum can utilize and adapt to fit their own purpose.
what actually happened was a stern finger shaking and a thread lock. "you said something i didn't like, fuck you, stop talking." that's not effective moderation. that doesn't fix the problem. it's just a huge, "fuck you, come at me, bro."
and that's not a nama problem. that's not a tools problem. that's a systemic CF moderation problem. that's a top down policy of "you resolve conflict by shutting it down and sticking your fingers in your ears, rather than actually trying to communicate with users and empower them to change their own behavior to align with our policies."
biffboff:I'm not just the Devil's Advocate; I'm on retainer. What happens when a similar incident occurs? This is not a level of Moderator engagement that I'm comfortable with. I do not recognize the Mods as my self-appointed Moral Arbiters nor do I like the underlying insinuation that I'm a racist.
biffboff:More active Mods, yes. At least two in two very different time-zones.
whether you guys like it or not, biff is the canary in the coal mine. he's the beta tester for mod policy. you might not like his methods, hell, you might not like him. but when you cut through everything else, his message is abundantly clear: "you fell for it again, and here's why that's a problem."
Kyo:and I'm saying that while you obviously have a valid point, you should perhaps consider that hostility tends not to be a good motivator. I ain't trying to be spiteful or nothing, but that is just human nature.
kyo, you and the moderators have a responsibility to hear the valid point and be able to dismiss the hostility. your user base is comprised of kids, artists, and politically diverse people with strong opinions on a webcomic hosting forum. if you think for a hot second that you're going to moderate that while everyone remains calm and polite to everyone involved, you're delusional - and you clearly haven't been paying attention.
moderators need to be able to stay objective and intervene. that doesn't mean this weird pendulum between "please don't raise your voice, biff, i'm scandalized," and "it's okay for you to call me a pig fucking asshole, because let's be honest."
i do not like how certain members of this community have spoken to you, in particular, or others. but the inconsistency in how that's addressed is really troubling. to me as a member of this community, and also on a personal level as your friend. it's fucked up, man.
GMan003:Hey biff, if the mods - the people who, kinda by definition, are longstanding, well-regarded members of the community - aren't able to recognize the context, why do you expect anyone else will recognize it?
my two cents: mods need to remain objective - to have the presence of mind to see how the average new user will perceive a thread. so if a thread taken OUT of context appears to be a problem, a mod clarifying is important, or locking a thread that in-context doesn't work either.
the problem with context is that there is no way for a mod to stay in the loop right now. there's no way to filter new threads or topics to make skimming threads easy. modding this community is time consuming and difficult.
moderation tools to date are reactionary, based on reports, rather than mods actually, y'know, staying informed of what's going on by reading through community threads.