The difference being, of course, that it's not illegal to give someone directions whereas we have a rule asking people to use the Report button. The reason this rule exists (and the reason it is enforeced in situations like this) is so that moderators are the ones deciding if something is in the right place, or needs moved, or needs closed, etc., as well as to avoid any potential confusion when people other than moderators start giving rules advice.
While I can empathise your point, there seemed to be no reason for BoJag to use the report button -- he/she may not have believed that the thread should be moved or closed and indeed, he/she may have believed that the thread is a separate discussion altogether and gave the link to add additional content to the discussion. BoJag did not explicitly make any moderator decision: "this thread should be used instead", "this thread should be closed", "this thread is in the wrong place", etc.
As you correctly mentioned, the spirit of the rule is to avoid any confusion when people other than moderators start giving rules advice. However BoJag was not giving any rules advice. He/she merely posted a link which adds content to the discussion at hand. It also seems unlikely that any confusion is being generated by BoJag's comment either -- if anything, the warning is generating more confusion on moderating policies (at least to me and a few others).
The 'no backseat mod' rule basically keeps the anal retentive posters from making nothing but "this thread really belongs here" posts all day. At least that's how I came to understand it; it was never a huge issue to me.
I agree with this, and I understand why the rule is in place to begin with. What I think is maltreatment is the way certain situations are handled. For instance, the post in question was actually quite helpful. A link was actually provided instead of (this is not the place for that, gtfo noob) and they didn't say stupid stuff like (/thread).
Specifically commenting on the retentive poster mod-wannabes, if they go on a string of backseat modding or don't otherwise contribute useful posts, they should be talked to/infracted/warned. Otherwise, these kinds of posts when helpful should be, in my opinion, tread lightly by mods. Even pop in to say thanks.
What if no one reported problematic posts? Just sayin'...
Seriously how is it good for site and indeed moderator workload if you warn people for being helpful .....
The rule was actually created to stop people from trolling other users with comments such as "SPAM!!!" etc.
I don't think the OP offering help should really fall under back-seat modding at all but meh, it's good to know that societies decline in helping people also applies online.
This, this, this.
I could have easily have made a similar post on a thread.
There are much more irritating posts made in the rumor mill that are left altogether alone.
I'm all for severe moderation in the rumor mill, but modding people who are helpful over people who deliver migraines to whosoever reads their posts just doesn't add up to me.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
News and spoiler contributor for GatheringMagic.com
One thing that Binary used to do that was really nice was give someone the PM for a warning when they did nothing wrong but still "broke a rule." With nothing in the thread and no red text.
I always thought that was a very classy way to handle borderline warnings where the guy didn't intentionally do anything wrong.
Yes, there were certainly times where people violated the letter of a rule, and I felt it necessary to point that out, but I just couldn't bring myself to give them an "official" warning for it.
I'm not necessarily expecting anybody else to do that simply because I did it though.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I am no longer on MTGS staff, so please don't contact me asking me to do staff things. :|
Im starting to notice a trend in former moderators thoughts on this subject contrasting to the moderation that occurs now... Hmm...
On the topic though, I used to do just what said user was warned for on another (much more major) game related forum. By this I mean, during that time the forum was so clogged with duplicate threads, every one I saw I would link to the related topic that was already far along via posting. This continued for about a month. I was never warned or anything. In fact due to that site probably getting double the traffic MTGS does, the mods there were probably thankful. Which brings me to my point; some of the things that users do and are infracted or warned for reduces moderator workload. Case in point, this thread. A better system would be to allow this sort of thing to happen, and then infractions users who continue discussion after a user has pointed another one in the correct direction, or repeat the same answer 5 different times (one of the things I personally hate about the rulings forum). This allows self-policing of users, leaving you to take care of more important matters like making sure that BTRs don't get out of hand for a third time.
Thinking about it, some users here probably don't get enough credit where they deserve it. And of course the obvious, this system could be implemented for other things around the site as well. Im just speaking generally since replying from my phone makes it difficult to make more elaborate posts.
As someone that has been overly critical of the Staff in the past, I wanted to chime in. Kudos to you guys for overturning this warning.
I think that the entire 'warning for backseat moderation' rule needs to be scrapped(or used on a much more 'case by case' basis). This is a great start.
As someone that has been overly critical of the Staff in the past, I wanted to chime in. Kudos to you guys for overturning this warning.
I think that the entire 'warning for backseat moderation' rule needs to be scrapped(or used on a much more 'case by case' basis). This is a great start.
Honestly, I could see that as a possibility. Most of the "backseat moderation" that I would even bother with would just as easily fall under the spamming or trolling rules.
Well, I can see the reasoning of it (mostly it is used to deal with the inb4TL spam I s´pose, and things like this), but then again, Yukora is correct that it´s mostly covered by the trolling and/or spamming paragraphs.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Petals within petals within petals, tadpole. The truth lurks below an opulence of illusion."
—Neerdiv, fallowsage
Honestly, I could see that as a possibility. Most of the "backseat moderation" that I would even bother with would just as easily fall under the spamming or trolling rules.
I would be surprised if any member, regular poster or mod, disagrees with this. And if they are in any sort of authoritative position, they should rethink their role to this site.
Don't be counterproductive works both ways. Don't troll or spam for the flock, and don't make bad calls for the refs.
I am sorry for my lack of thought behind this warning. I wouldn't have given this a warning or much of a thought today, which means i let my mood effect my job. I will be doing a better job of not letting my mood effect my judgement on such borderline cases in the future.
I am sorry for my lack of thought behind this warning. I wouldn't have given this a warning or much of a thought today, which means i let my mood effect my job. I will be doing a better job of not letting my mood effect my judgement on such borderline cases in the future.
Eh, we all have our bad days....just as long as its recognized and rectified. And hey, this is bringing a change (albiet small ) to mtgs.... which in the end helps simplfy the rules, which is never a bad thing.
On other sites that I'm on, besides the one I'm a writer for, things like this get quahed sometimes, or ignored, or turn into a huge debate over why all mods are evil(which is usually just the result of an angry user, more often then some people think), and this...was just a healthy talk about forum policies, that ended well, with (hopefully) no hurt feelings.
These forums have a really tight-knit feeling and, though I'm very new, I already love it here, because of this kind of stuff =3
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Currently Getting Back into the swing of MTGS. Bear with me folks~
I am sorry for my lack of thought behind this warning. I wouldn't have given this a warning or much of a thought today, which means i let my mood effect my job. I will be doing a better job of not letting my mood effect my judgement on such borderline cases in the future.
To be honest, even though I disagreed with the original warning, I wouldn't put it down to "lack of thought" or "having your mood affect your job" Based on the warning and your subsequent defence, there was no evidence of malicious intent nor negligence on your part. Your justifications were sensible and were based on a reasonable interpretation of the rules. I believe that this disagreement only came into place because we had differing ideas on the intent and spirit of the rules rather than any actual disagreement with the rules
Kudos to the admins for their consideration in this matter.
Honestly, I could see that as a possibility. Most of the "backseat moderation" that I would even bother with would just as easily fall under the spamming or trolling rules.
I think this is a major point in favor of eliminating the rule because it's a good acid test for telling the difference between helpful and spammy backseat modding.
I'd also like to echo the comments of people who've pointed out that it's not always clear-cut or obvious when a post should be reported. I post mainly in the Modern forum, and for a while things were getting very cluttered with multiple threads for slightly different builds of the same deck. On multiple occasions I would begin to report such threads, but then would decide against it because of the draconian language on the report page. Instead I would usually post something to the effect of "Here are my suggestions for your build, and here's another thread that might have some good ideas." I was never tapped for backseat modding, but it seems like I easily could've (should've?) been under the current rules.
I think this is a major point in favor of eliminating the rule because it's a good acid test for telling the difference between helpful and spammy backseat modding.
I'd also like to echo the comments of people who've pointed out that it's not always clear-cut or obvious when a post should be reported. I post mainly in the Modern forum, and for a while things were getting very cluttered with multiple threads for slightly different builds of the same deck. On multiple occasions I would begin to report such threads, but then would decide against it because of the draconian language on the report page. Instead I would usually post something to the effect of "Here are my suggestions for your build, and here's another thread that might have some good ideas." I was never tapped for backseat modding, but it seems like I easily could've (should've?) been under the current rules.
When in doubt, use the reported post function. At wort, it just takes one of us an extra couple of seconds to deice if something is worth moderating or not.. At the very least, we have the opportunity to make that decision when you report.
Please ignore the draconian language in the report post screen. It's something that's hardwired into vbulletin and we can't seem to be able to change it.
When in doubt, use the reported post function. At wort, it just takes one of us an extra couple of seconds to deice if something is worth moderating or not.. At the very least, we have the opportunity to make that decision when you report.
Please ignore the draconian language in the report post screen. It's something that's hardwired into vbulletin and we can't seem to be able to change it.
Yeah, I was eventually informed of the same thing via PM from Korsakovia. It just seems odd that something so (apparently) fundamental isn't better explained in an obvious location (e.g. the report page itself).
I think this is a major point in favor of eliminating the rule because it's a good acid test for telling the difference between helpful and spammy backseat modding.
I'd also like to echo the comments of people who've pointed out that it's not always clear-cut or obvious when a post should be reported. I post mainly in the Modern forum, and for a while things were getting very cluttered with multiple threads for slightly different builds of the same deck. On multiple occasions I would begin to report such threads, but then would decide against it because of the draconian language on the report page. Instead I would usually post something to the effect of "Here are my suggestions for your build, and here's another thread that might have some good ideas." I was never tapped for backseat modding, but it seems like I easily could've (should've?) been under the current rules.
I think there is a big difference between.
"Your deck looks good, In the forums.otherdeckthread.forthis we talked about adding xyz to help out." Check it out.
and
"Dude there is already a thread for this" forums.otherdeckthread.forthis
One adds content and is helpful. One is rude and spamlike
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Out of the blackness and stench of the engulfing swamp emerged a shimmering figure. Only the splattered armor and ichor-stained sword hinted at the unfathomable evil the knight had just laid waste.
All I can say on the matter is that the zeal of the moderators and the extensivity of the rules here make it uncomfortable posting on the boards. It keeps me at more of a looky-loo status.
"Your deck looks good, In the forums.otherdeckthread.forthis we talked about adding xyz to help out." Check it out.
and
"Dude there is already a thread for this" forums.otherdeckthread.forthis
One adds content and is helpful. One is rude and spamlike
That was precisely my logic, and at least was the way I "justified" it in my mind. Glad to know it wasn't just me
More on topic, if the actual page text isn't editable, is the report post image customizable? It might not make a huge difference, but maybe if the button and page title conveyed a sense of "tell the moderators to review this post and make a decision" as opposed to "flag this post for breaking the rules" it might help. Just a thought.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
While I can empathise your point, there seemed to be no reason for BoJag to use the report button -- he/she may not have believed that the thread should be moved or closed and indeed, he/she may have believed that the thread is a separate discussion altogether and gave the link to add additional content to the discussion. BoJag did not explicitly make any moderator decision: "this thread should be used instead", "this thread should be closed", "this thread is in the wrong place", etc.
As you correctly mentioned, the spirit of the rule is to avoid any confusion when people other than moderators start giving rules advice. However BoJag was not giving any rules advice. He/she merely posted a link which adds content to the discussion at hand. It also seems unlikely that any confusion is being generated by BoJag's comment either -- if anything, the warning is generating more confusion on moderating policies (at least to me and a few others).
I agree with this, and I understand why the rule is in place to begin with. What I think is maltreatment is the way certain situations are handled. For instance, the post in question was actually quite helpful. A link was actually provided instead of (this is not the place for that, gtfo noob) and they didn't say stupid stuff like (/thread).
Specifically commenting on the retentive poster mod-wannabes, if they go on a string of backseat modding or don't otherwise contribute useful posts, they should be talked to/infracted/warned. Otherwise, these kinds of posts when helpful should be, in my opinion, tread lightly by mods. Even pop in to say thanks.
What if no one reported problematic posts? Just sayin'...
This, this, this.
I could have easily have made a similar post on a thread.
There are much more irritating posts made in the rumor mill that are left altogether alone.
I'm all for severe moderation in the rumor mill, but modding people who are helpful over people who deliver migraines to whosoever reads their posts just doesn't add up to me.
Twitter
Yes, there were certainly times where people violated the letter of a rule, and I felt it necessary to point that out, but I just couldn't bring myself to give them an "official" warning for it.
I'm not necessarily expecting anybody else to do that simply because I did it though.
On the topic though, I used to do just what said user was warned for on another (much more major) game related forum. By this I mean, during that time the forum was so clogged with duplicate threads, every one I saw I would link to the related topic that was already far along via posting. This continued for about a month. I was never warned or anything. In fact due to that site probably getting double the traffic MTGS does, the mods there were probably thankful. Which brings me to my point; some of the things that users do and are infracted or warned for reduces moderator workload. Case in point, this thread. A better system would be to allow this sort of thing to happen, and then infractions users who continue discussion after a user has pointed another one in the correct direction, or repeat the same answer 5 different times (one of the things I personally hate about the rulings forum). This allows self-policing of users, leaving you to take care of more important matters like making sure that BTRs don't get out of hand for a third time.
Thinking about it, some users here probably don't get enough credit where they deserve it. And of course the obvious, this system could be implemented for other things around the site as well. Im just speaking generally since replying from my phone makes it difficult to make more elaborate posts.
https://twitch.tv/annorax10 (classic retro speedruns & occasional MTGO/MTGA screwaround streams)
https://twitch.tv/SwiftorCasino (yes, my team and I run live dealer games for the baldman using his channel points as chips)
I think that the entire 'warning for backseat moderation' rule needs to be scrapped(or used on a much more 'case by case' basis). This is a great start.
Honestly, I could see that as a possibility. Most of the "backseat moderation" that I would even bother with would just as easily fall under the spamming or trolling rules.
—Neerdiv, fallowsage
I would be surprised if any member, regular poster or mod, disagrees with this. And if they are in any sort of authoritative position, they should rethink their role to this site.
Don't be counterproductive works both ways. Don't troll or spam for the flock, and don't make bad calls for the refs.
My wife was on MTV with this video.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUutIZg2EpU
Eh, we all have our bad days....just as long as its recognized and rectified. And hey, this is bringing a change (albiet small ) to mtgs.... which in the end helps simplfy the rules, which is never a bad thing.
540 Peasant cube- Gold EditionSomething SpicyAll in all, I think this thread was a healthy thing to happen. Good on you, folks~ Hopefully, though, in the future, we take this to helpdesks...
Done by Rivenor of Miraculous Recovery signatures!
im not so sure.....yes, helpdesk is right, but we showed that there can be a respectful and logical conversation...
540 Peasant cube- Gold EditionSomething SpicyDone by Rivenor of Miraculous Recovery signatures!
very true....go look at vipers for a talk on food...
but yea, its good when everything works out in the end.
540 Peasant cube- Gold EditionSomething SpicyThese forums have a really tight-knit feeling and, though I'm very new, I already love it here, because of this kind of stuff =3
Done by Rivenor of Miraculous Recovery signatures!
To be honest, even though I disagreed with the original warning, I wouldn't put it down to "lack of thought" or "having your mood affect your job" Based on the warning and your subsequent defence, there was no evidence of malicious intent nor negligence on your part. Your justifications were sensible and were based on a reasonable interpretation of the rules. I believe that this disagreement only came into place because we had differing ideas on the intent and spirit of the rules rather than any actual disagreement with the rules
Kudos to the admins for their consideration in this matter.
I think this is a major point in favor of eliminating the rule because it's a good acid test for telling the difference between helpful and spammy backseat modding.
I'd also like to echo the comments of people who've pointed out that it's not always clear-cut or obvious when a post should be reported. I post mainly in the Modern forum, and for a while things were getting very cluttered with multiple threads for slightly different builds of the same deck. On multiple occasions I would begin to report such threads, but then would decide against it because of the draconian language on the report page. Instead I would usually post something to the effect of "Here are my suggestions for your build, and here's another thread that might have some good ideas." I was never tapped for backseat modding, but it seems like I easily could've (should've?) been under the current rules.
When in doubt, use the reported post function. At wort, it just takes one of us an extra couple of seconds to deice if something is worth moderating or not.. At the very least, we have the opportunity to make that decision when you report.
Please ignore the draconian language in the report post screen. It's something that's hardwired into vbulletin and we can't seem to be able to change it.
Yeah, I was eventually informed of the same thing via PM from Korsakovia. It just seems odd that something so (apparently) fundamental isn't better explained in an obvious location (e.g. the report page itself).
I think there is a big difference between.
"Your deck looks good, In the forums.otherdeckthread.forthis we talked about adding xyz to help out." Check it out.
and
"Dude there is already a thread for this" forums.otherdeckthread.forthis
One adds content and is helpful. One is rude and spamlike
That was precisely my logic, and at least was the way I "justified" it in my mind. Glad to know it wasn't just me
More on topic, if the actual page text isn't editable, is the report post image customizable? It might not make a huge difference, but maybe if the button and page title conveyed a sense of "tell the moderators to review this post and make a decision" as opposed to "flag this post for breaking the rules" it might help. Just a thought.