I actually care that a faulty admin may cause the site to implode. It hasn't happened so far, but it did at 'News.... If this can get powertrips in check, it's worth it, I guess. I also share your view that this is just a site, but why not protect it from a random ego. It's damage prevention, IMO. Plus, I don't want to do this because user A or B can't isn't satisfied. People will always be displeased. But why not try to improve the site?
And yes, Sen, it seems your memory isn't that good we didn't talk much back then, but we were staff together. However, if I recall correctly, I only became a Global after you left.
The S_S thing couldn't have been resolved through a Tribunal anyway; he was directly appointed by Raa, and really the biggest trouble was that he wouldn't abide by the traditions of the site. Neither would the Xenphire thing; he was willing to unmod most of the staff out of paranoia to keep himself in. The sort of things that would cause MTGS to blow up are the sort of things that are inherently outside of the norm.
The more I think about it, yeah, I remember you being around. You're one of the few still left, I think?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
The anti-judiciary review side has quite a few good points going for it, but the main problem with the proposal is simply that it'll take a too much friggin' time to pound out the details, especially because if you don't do it right the very first time it's needed, the whole thing falls apart in the most dramatic way possible. The pro-review side, on the other hand, has only a ubiquitous "we just really, really hate drama bombs, they goddamn hurt" to go off of, which despite being difficult to quantify should not be discounted.
So my suggestion is that we turn our attention away from judiciary action and try to figure out what makes this site so much of a friggin' drama magnet in the first place. Any ideas?
Thing is, this already exists. It's just kind of in a different order than you would expect.
Instead of saying 'the members have a right to not be harassed', we've said 'harassing members is against the rules'. Instead of saying 'you have a right to not to be abused by mods', we say 'mods cannot abuse members'. Same thing, inverse wording.
Those things already exist. The problem here, to a lot of people, is how these actually get applied and handled.
Where can I read this constitution, and I completely agree how it's handled is the real issue. How is the constitution being enforced?
I think the whole infraction system allows too much to decrepancy of the moderator. More often it seems like an exercise of creative writing in how posts are twisted in meaning to trigger a infraction twisted in meaning.
I've always thought it was the fact that the Staff actually cared about drama in CI.
This is a long-standing thing, and it starts out with good intentions. If people complain about something happening in the CI, and they have good points, it's a good idea to at least try to see where they're coming from. And if they're really obviously right, then that's definitely something you have to take care of.
The trouble is that for a lot of the time this site has been around, there's been an attitude that "if enough people complain, that's a problem in itself." It's sort of a lack of self-confidence in the decision-making abilities of the Staff; everyone's a volunteer, and the staff doesn't really feel it's better-equipped to make decisions than anyone else, so it hedges, it debates with people in the CI, and if enough people complain it'll often as not reverse itself. That's all well and good sometimes, but when it becomes a common pattern it encourages people to complain about anything they disagree with, in the hopes that they can win over enough vocal people to change the dynamic.
See, the CI isn't really a place for the whole community to complain, or even really a place for a large part of the community; it's only a very small subset of active users who ever bother to look in here, much less post repeatedly on complaint threads. In both this and the "Gloves" thread, way less than half of the people who posted there ever posted more than once. Combine that with the easy ability to make fake accounts and the general apathy about decisions on this site, and you create the potential for a very small number of active (or just bored) users to appear to be a big enough number to overrule the staff's judgment.
The staff needs the ability and the confidence to make decisions which are closely divided, controversial, or unpopular, if they honestly believe that it helps the site. Pandering to the drama in the CI whenever there is a controversial decision only encourages more drama.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
I've always thought it was the fact that the Staff actually cared about drama in CI.
This is a long-standing thing, and it starts out with good intentions. If people complain about something happening in the CI, and they have good points, it's a good idea to at least try to see where they're coming from. And if they're really obviously right, then that's definitely something you have to take care of.
The trouble is that for a lot of the time this site has been around, there's been an attitude that "if enough people complain, that's a problem in itself." It's sort of a lack of self-confidence in the decision-making abilities of the Staff; everyone's a volunteer, and the staff doesn't really feel it's better-equipped to make decisions than anyone else, so it hedges, it debates with people in the CI, and if enough people complain it'll often as not reverse itself. That's all well and good sometimes, but when it becomes a common pattern it encourages people to complain about anything they disagree with, in the hopes that they can win over enough vocal people to change the dynamic.
See, the CI isn't really a place for the whole community to complain, or even really a place for a large part of the community; it's only a very small subset of active users who ever bother to look in here, much less post repeatedly on complaint threads. In both this and the "Gloves" thread, way less than half of the people who posted there ever posted more than once. Combine that with the easy ability to make fake accounts and the general apathy about decisions on this site, and you create the potential for a very small number of active (or just bored) users to appear to be a big enough number to overrule the staff's judgment.
The staff needs the ability and the confidence to make decisions which are closely divided, controversial, or unpopular, if they honestly believe that it helps the site. Pandering to the drama in the CI whenever there is a controversial decision only encourages more drama.
Sure, but vox populi, even vox populi dimini, is one of the most powerful tools for change society has. I'd hoped to avoid the loaded examples, but the equal rights movements are the clear comparison here: black people, gay people, etc. are just small segments of the population but without their ability to speak up for change they would just continue to be repressed.. the status quo simply wouldn't care enough about them otherwise. To suggest that the staff should just kind realize their own bias without having to let the people not getting fair treatment scream their heads off is pretty optimistic of you.
Alternatively, what you're suggesting is that this site should just disregard the users who don't fit into whatever definition of "normal" the site decides to maintain, which has some merit but risks making this site "just another Magic website"; there'd be little reason to come here instead of, say, the Mothership (magicthegathering.com) without our policy of being open to anyone.
Edit- the preceding didn't accurately portray the questioning tone I was hoping for. I'm not looking to start a fight, just figure out how to maintain what we've got and what people like while removing what we don't want.
I think that rather than a tribunal, we should arrange more Summit-kind of group chats between the staff and vocal members of the community. The problem with a huge CI drama thread is that it moves so fast, and there is so much hyperbole and hostility (from both sides), and users who aren't fully informed, so it becomes a huge mess almost instantly. When we can actually sit down and calmly talk about the issue(s), it should be much easier to reach agreement.
Another way to address that concern without setting up some tribunal would be simply to disclose the relevant discussions. Just as you did with the Summer Summit Summary. Redact what ought not be disclosed, refrain from using mods' names who wish to remain unidentified, and present the discussion to CI when appropriate. Show the community that it was discussed and why a particular decision was reached. The staff can't be accused of doing nothing if you show what you did.
Posting a relevant Mod Lounge discussion (with sensitive information and mods' names redacted) for the community to see is something I wouldn't mind doing again.
Lastly, a biannual "State of the Community" thread is a good idea too, in my opinion, and might help prevent drama to occur in the first place.
The anti-judiciary review side has quite a few good points going for it, but the main problem with the proposal is simply that it'll take a too much friggin' time to pound out the details, especially because if you don't do it right the very first time it's needed, the whole thing falls apart in the most dramatic way possible. The pro-review side, on the other hand, has only a ubiquitous "we just really, really hate drama bombs, they goddamn hurt" to go off of, which despite being difficult to quantify should not be discounted.
So my suggestion is that we turn our attention away from judiciary action and try to figure out what makes this site so much of a friggin' drama magnet in the first place. Any ideas?
This makes so much sense to me. The idea of the "Tribunal" feels a lot like putting a patch (over complex and layered patch) on a punctured tire.
From my perspective it comes back to the whole infraction system. The reality is people hate getting infractions, sometimes they might be justified but other times they are not. I'm sure most users don't have any problems with the staff until they start to get infractions to which they react, "hey that wasn't really fair" or "how did that moderator interpret that?" or "I think this guy is being really harsh"
This creates friction between the staff and members. Inspite of the "customer service" friendly letter you get with an infraction, which stinks of condescension I would add. It would be better to get a letter claiming that a complaint was made and then an actual transaction like "did you know this post caused some members to complain" or asking "did you mean this from your post?". The whole storyline about how infractions don't mean anything is pure nonsense. So many times I've had a moderator respond to questions of an infraction by saying "based on your history of infractions....". The product of this is not a more friendly site, but rather a level of suspiciousness between staff and moderation.
This creates tension, conflict and resentment. Members often feel like 2nd class citizens from moderators when they abuse or push their rank. I believe this causes tension up and down. Up and down through admin, staff, members. There is a culture of being condescending. I see it when new posters post on the site and are belittled by members. They treat them as "scrubs" because they don't know how to find the information they are looking for on site or their ideas are ridiculed.
MY POINT.
Admin and moderation must be a friendly and positive thing if you don't want members to grow resentful of the staff. When resentment is present it's not very hard to rally the masses to bring down the head of the King.
3 things I have to say about this:
1 - the only time when past infractions should matter is when a user has an history of infractions of that nature. It's natural that he/she gets a harsher punishment for trolling a user when he/she is repeating the offense. The first one is just a "hey, this isn't allowed", at some point it starts to look like one can't behave.
2 - About being condescending: I have written a few Infraction letters where I had no idea how to say things, really. I accept that I may have come across as condescending sometimes, but that's not on purpose. Mods are human too.
3 - If you feel like you were badly judge on account of past infractions, that's not a problem with the system, it's a problem with the mod. You should report that and talk it out with the senior staff.
I don't think the infraction system is bad. Even if I did, I couldn't find another system that would work, so I have to support it.
Thanks for your contribution, but this is what you needs to consider. Infractions are given by different moderators, and weighed differently and puts the onus on the user to clear things up. Some moderators do have problems and are thick headed. I am a repeat offender according to my infraction record, I have challenged infractions in the past and by using the whole "repeat offender view" you have no longer judged the situation in an objective way, in fact you are taking a view that this guy must be guilty, look at his record. This in itself is unfair and cause for resentment. This is not isolated to just me, but many many members of the community. Most don't speak up because they are tired of the nonsense.
In regard to 2 and 3
You take that stance that moderators are human and therefore entitled to make mistakes. And if I have a problem with a moderator that I can take it up with that moderator. But since this human moderator can make mistakes too. I can report it, but often it goes back to number 1 and the cycle begins again.
If moderators are human, then are users not human too? If you're entitled to leniency "for being human" when you write a poorly written message that is misconstrued. Can it be possible that a user writes a message that is poorly written is misconstrued?
The difference is the power structure in the relationship. Do you not see a reason why people would be unhappy?
I'm not calling for an end to infractions, I'm saying that there needs to be a change in how its handled. Because the baseline test is if people are happy of sad. From everything that I can see, people are very unhappy.
I still say that a triennial or biannual "State of the Community" summit would be a very good idea, as it might provide some much-needed preventative action, as opposed to trying to constantly deal with things after they've blown over.
That said, N_S does have a valid point regarding the height of the hostility feeding into why the Summit was universally acclaimed, and he's right -- there is no guarantee that it would work again. -However- I do think that it should be near the top of the short-list for if/when another dramabomb comes along for things to try. The simple fact of the matter is that one success is poor testing date. But it would likewise be foolish to throw out the idea of the Summit as something that will never work again. So far, we only have evidence of it working.
For everyone who's wondering why this is important, and is taking the "chill off, it's a gaming website" approach, I'll direct them to this post:
...which I originally made in the "Gloves" thread. I'm not going to re-type and re-state everything I said there. I believe my points still stand.
I do believe that as responsible members of this community, we have a responsibility to figure this problem out -- and I believe that those who are saying there isn't a problem have their heads in the sand. Apologies if that's a bit harsh, but the goal should be to always strive for betterment....not to accept that dramabombs happen and that "we've always recovered from them in the past." Has nobody ever thought of actually trying to figure out a way to -stop- them from happening?
]
How hard is it to just fire Ria?
We have replaced admins before.
*snip*
People are taking this forum way too seriously. Just fire Ria, don't craft the magna carta.
A large part of the reason I've spent as much time on this as I have is that I have an agenda wholly unrelated to any importance the site itself has. My only interest stems from the fact that people care about the site, and have fun here, and occasionally overbearing admins tend to threaten that enjoyment. Both mafia and gutter have had to deal with those issues several times over the years, to the point that both subforums' existences has been threatened, and I would derive a certain degree of satisfaction at putting an end to that trend for good and seeing some of the other flaws of the site's management policy disappear along the way.
The entire point of this, from my perspective, is to avoid having to spend more time on the process than it's worth. Firing admins in cold blood is tough. Dealing with recurrent CI drama is ridiculous. "Drafting the magna carta" streamlines the entire process and makes that go much more smoothly. Complexity can lead to greater efficiency - that's why we have it.
I have three options at this point. I can go back to the mafia forum and hope the site finally bucks its recurrent staffing problems, fingers crossed, and hope the staff never goes off the rails again despite having done so 5-7 times in as many years, and just suck up whatever terrible thing comes next like the apathetic chump the latest sentiments in this thread are suggesting I should be.
Or I can keep fighting endless battles in CI whenever someone does something terribly insensitive, or annoying, or inconsiderate, and satisfy myself that my local pet site is being well-run, at the cost of far more hours than it's possibly worth.
Or I can shoot for a systemic fix for the problem that should save us from the same, sad story being played out in CI whenever the wrong person inevitably manages to get themselves into position.
The wonderful thing about the watchdog group is that it requires zero effort until a dramabomb threatens on the horizon. Then you have a nice, easy way of ensuring that people's concerns are taken seriously, and processed.
Having more admins probably wouldn't hurt either, since it lessens the impact of bad apples. Three really isn't enough. But the number of staff members who are well-suited to the job is somewhat limited, and those who can do it, don't always stay.
Which is why we get admin who aren't always a good fit on a such a regular basis. And which is why we need a nice, preestablished mechanism to gently usher them out the door. Because I certainly don't intend to keep on wasting this many hours to fix the site's problems and keep it from trampling people's internet parades when there's a way to streamline the process.
Easy enough for those of you who've been lounging on the sidelines without a horse in the race to say it's not hard to fire an admin, or to have the site pick good administrators, and that it doesn't matter if x or y's 'net buddies have to put up with turds being dropped in their local hangouts. I certainly have a much different perspective on that, and so does the site admin and everyone else who has actually had to take a hand in sorting out this mess.
My only point of uncertainty is how/when the WTO is enacted. To return to Az's "Break Glass In Case of Emergency" metaphor, I'm not sure how to define "Emergency". Currently, I feel like it's the SCOTUS definition of obscenity: I know when I see it[/spoiler]
My suggested metric was ten persons agreeing that it's an issue. That can adjusted upwards as needed.
Nothing will happen? Notice: ria ain't an admin no more. Nor is Xenphire or extremeicon or any other problematic Admin of the past.
Yes, and it didn't happen thanks to people who looked down their pince-nez at the people working to actually fix the problem, trivial as it may seem.
Quote from Senori »
Yeah, when this sort of thing happens there's drama, but that's because people take this way too seriously, and try to make some big public crusade of it every time they have a beef. Instead of making some dumb dramatic Tribunal, step back and remember that you're dealing with what are literally the lowest stakes imaginable. More people are affected by a suburban bingo game than are really touched by whatever issues people have with the Administrators here. And if the Administrators--of this small online gaming forum--are having trouble seeing how small the stakes are, then they should be taking a step back anyway.
Important? Of course not. Annoying? Unnecessary? Yes.
And anything that reduces the amount of effort necessary to deal with these relatively unimportant -yet annoying- issues, which continually crop up, has my approval and support.
A large part of the reason I've spent as much time on this as I have is that I have an agenda wholly unrelated to any importance the site itself has. My only interest stems from the fact that people care about the site, and have fun here, and occasionally overbearing admins tend to threaten that enjoyment. Both mafia and gutter have had to deal with those issues several times over the years, to the point that both subforums' existences has been threatened, and I would derive a certain degree of satisfaction at putting an end to that trend for good and seeing some of the other flaws of the site's management policy disappear along the way.
A minority of the users are causing the majority of drama and strife for the admins. I think your speculative gaze should be pointed elsewhere than admins. However, most people are loathe to see their own/groupthink faults and only focus on the typical "us against the world" mentality.
To be perfectly blunt, we had problems with two admins in just one year.
We had a first dramabomb with extremeicon and lack of communication after some situation arised regarding the perceived agressive tone of one moderator.
Now we had the rianalnn dramabomb.
These two situations had a positive outcome, but not before having the two more monstruous CI threads ever (1000+ and 2000+ posts each), and a lot of bad blood and mudslinging.
If some people think these were perfectly reasonable processes for fixing up things, thats fine and swell. I'd still love to think there are ways to solve such future issues with less drama. The discussion about reform of this site rules (whichever it may be) seems perfectly warranted to me.
This post has forced me to jump off the fence and rejoin the side of "Pro-WTO Group". Monstrous CI threads are not the best solution to this problem.
My point of wariness still stands though: How will the Watchdog/Tribunal/Ombuds Group get inacted?
I also agree that "State of the Community" posts and occasional summaries of Staff Lounge discussions regarding some decisions would be a welcome addition to the Forums.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Mafia Stats (10-22 Overall) Random Mafia 2 Town MVP '08 MTGS Fantasy Football Overall Champion Best Non-SK Neutral Performance (Individual)
Sure, but vox populi, even vox populi dimini, is one of the most powerful tools for change society has. I'd hoped to avoid the loaded examples, but the equal rights movements are the clear comparison here: black people, gay people, etc. are just small segments of the population but without their ability to speak up for change they would just continue to be repressed.. the status quo simply wouldn't care enough about them otherwise. To suggest that the staff should just kind realize their own bias without having to let the people not getting fair treatment scream their heads off is pretty optimistic of you.
...
First of all, seriously? Go outside. Get a breath of fresh air. Talk to me when you have some perspective.
Second, I can tell you that as someone who was once a Moderator both here and on 'news and elsewhere, who has been dear friends with many Moderators, and who remembers quite clearly what it was like; the Staff do realize their own biases. Maybe one individual member of the Staff doesn't, but another does, and they talk to each other. These people are colleagues, but also friends; they are on friendly terms and discuss with each other things that are going on. No-one's blinded by their own prejudices.
Third, what exactly are the prejudices that Moderators have? Let's come up with a list;
- they might be mean people who don't get along with others.
- they might not like certain people they're moderating.
- they might have a certain idea of the forum they're running that a member disagrees with.
...am I missing anything?
Look at those. The first one is just basic personal skills, and if they don't have those, they should be removed--tribunal or not. The second is human nature, and if I can be frank with you, we have a way of dealing with that particular bias; you can appeal a warning. The third is something the Moderators should have.
So tell me, what "civil right" are we fighting for here?
Quote from Misclick »
Alternatively, what you're suggesting is that this site should just disregard the users who don't fit into whatever definition of "normal" the site decides to maintain, which has some merit but risks making this site "just another Magic website"; there'd be little reason to come here instead of, say, the Mothership (magicthegathering.com) without our policy of being open to anyone.
"Open to anyone" is one of the basic values of the forum, and I doubt anyone on the staff would disagree with it (though if any do, they're free to correct me!) But being open doesn't mean that the staff shouldn't be able to have a vision of the site, even if it's different from a few vocal users. Right or wrong, a site has to have some direction if it's going to go anywhere.
We don't blindly follow the public opinion. If enough people voice out, we (the staff) discuss the issue and decide if the claim is valid. If it's not, we discard it, even if a lot of people agree with it.
Oh, I know. I didn't mean to suggest that this was some automatic process.
Quote from votan »
the thing is, with most decisions, if enough people support it, it becomes the right call. But we mostly make the decisions among ourselves. Most of the time, we agree with the general opinion, but that's not so odd, it is? We all want the same thing, after all.
That doesn't follow. Why is something right if a bunch of people yell that it's right? I mean, it's one thing if the staff decides (to use an inane example) "I think the users would like the site to be green" and hundreds of users suddenly protest. But it's quite another if the staff says "the site should be green, because green has some positive value to the site" and even more people protest, because then switching back from green is deleterious.
Quote from SilverSihhe »
For everyone who's wondering why this is important, and is taking the "chill off, it's a gaming website" approach, I'll direct them to this post:
I honestly think your post is a case in point of how people need to take a step back.
Speaking of which:
Quote from Azrael »
Yes, and it didn't happen thanks to people who looked down their pince-nez at the people working to actually fix the problem, trivial as it may seem.
Man, what is that even supposed to mean? If you're trying to imply that I'm some sort of Gilded Age/Progressive Age industrialist/patrician/politician (eg. Aldrich or Hughes or the Roosevelts or Wilson), um, I don't honestly know what you're trying to say, because that's pretty absurd.
Or if you're trying to say that I'm trying to take some sort of "patrician" approach to this (which I also don't really understand, but let's run with it), well, I'm not. I just think you're caught up in the heat of the moment, and if you stepped back for a few weeks and thought about it, the need for this stupid thing would be a lot less apparent.
It's actually kinda funny that you compare me implicitly to Gilded Age politicians, because their great stronghold was in the Senate, designed intentionally for the purpose of making people take time to think about what they're doing, making them cool off, and, um, having a repository of people who have been around for a while and have experience in the matter.
I'm going to be blunt now.
Quote from Azrael »
A large part of the reason I've spent as much time on this as I have is that I have an agenda wholly unrelated to any importance the site itself has. My only interest stems from the fact that people care about the site, and have fun here, and occasionally overbearing admins tend to threaten that enjoyment.
I might ask, if I were being nitpicky, how in fact that is an agenda separate from the value of the site--given that the value everyone here places on this website is that they care about it and have fun here--but I don't want to be an ass. By and large, however, I agree with you; this is a magical place, diverse and unique and immensely interesting, which is occasionally threatened by the misdeeds of an Administrator. Of five or six of them, by my count, over seven years, but maybe you can revise that number upward or downward.
Quote from Azrael »
Both mafia and gutter have had to deal with those issues several times over the years, to the point that both subforums' existences has been threatened, and I would derive a certain degree of satisfaction at putting an end to that trend for good and seeing some of the other flaws of the site's management policy disappear along the way.
As someone whose domain was once two areas of the website whose value was not immediately apparent to most (the Colosseum and Debate, or as it was called for a time, "Outside Magic") I sympathize with your desire to protect the particular areas from which you derive enjoyment. That said, I fear you are over-optimistic about the potential of this proposal; I cannot speak to whatever caused the Mafia areas to be threatened, but the Gutter will likely be controversial and endangered for as long as it exists. I see no way that instituting Tribunals would give any more security to the existence of that forum than it has, since the debate about it has not, from what evidence I have seen, hinged on moderatorial abuse.
Quote from Azrael »
The entire point of this, from my perspective, is to avoid having to spend more time on the process than it's worth.
I share your goal.
Quote from Azrael »
Firing admins in cold blood is tough.
Very!
Quote from Azrael »
Dealing with recurrent CI drama is ridiculous.
Beyond!
Quote from Azrael »
"Drafting the magna carta" streamlines the entire process and makes that go much more smoothly. Complexity can lead to greater efficiency - that's why we have it.
Now, see, here is where we have a philosophical disagreement.
From my perspective, the more complexity you introduce into the running of this website, the more difficult it will be to effectively run it--not only because the Tribunals are, themselves, an enormous potential source of drama, an argument which (so far as I have noticed) no one yet has attempted to refute, but because they further institutionalize the attitude that complaining loud enough will lead to the complainer getting what they want.
The reason people complain so much in this forum is not that there are really so many terrible things going on (though, mark my words, there are things which have needed redress) but because of the feeling that complaining loud enough will get results. This may be used to noble ends, such as yours, or it may be to entirely ignoble ends; either way, the evidence of the past is that the "squeaky wheel gets the grease," so to speak. This doesn't happen every time, but it happens enough to make it worthwhile for dedicated groups to make the drama, on the chance that their pet issue will be decided in their favor.
You cannot resolve the potential for drama in CI without either shutting down the ability to complain (as many sites do, remember) or without entirely giving up on decision-making. Neither of these are desirable circumstances. But the Tribunal is neither, and that is why it will fail.
Quote from Azrael »
I have three options at this point. I can go back to the mafia forum and hope the site finally bucks its recurrent staffing problems, fingers crossed, and hope the staff never goes off the rails again despite having done so 5-7 times in as many years, and just suck up whatever terrible thing comes next like the apathetic chump the latest sentiments in this thread are suggesting I should be.
Don't be over-dramatic.
Quote from Azrael »
Or I can keep fighting endless battles in CI whenever someone does something terribly insensitive, or annoying, or inconsiderate, and satisfy myself that my local pet site is being well-run, at the cost of far more hours than it's possibly worth.
I ask you; wouldn't it make more sense, instead of fighting a battle in CI over an inconsiderate remark, to ask someone to talk to the person who made the inconsiderate remark first?
I mean, I'm sure you did that with ria, and it didn't work, and that's why this mess had to happen. But to be honest, the great majority of inconsiderate remarks are revealed as inconsiderate to the person who says them when someone they trust and respect points that fact out to them. I say this not only as someone who has been known to make inconsiderate remarks myself (both on this website and off!) and also as someone who has talked to people, again here and elsewhere, about their foibles to great effect.
Quote from Azrael »
Or I can shoot for a systemic fix for the problem that should save us from the same, sad story being played out in CI whenever the wrong person inevitably manages to get themselves into position.
The wonderful thing about the watchdog group is that it requires zero effort until a dramabomb threatens on the horizon. Then you have a nice, easy way of ensuring that people's concerns are taken seriously, and processed.
But "taking their concerns seriously" is not a way to prevent drama; if it were, we should have very little drama here at all, for all that would have to be done would be for an Admin to come in (assuming the Admin was not the problem) and say that he was taking the matter seriously. But that doesn't work. Drama happens because people disagree with the result, not because they don't think they're being listened to.
For example, I'm sure you and I are both quite aware that we're listening to each other and seriously trying to understand each others' arguments, and still this argument is being had.
Quote from Azrael »
Easy enough for those of you who've been lounging on the sidelines without a horse in the race to say it's not hard to fire an admin, or to have the site pick good administrators, and that it doesn't matter if x or y's 'net buddies have to put up with turds being dropped in their local hangouts. I certainly have a much different perspective on that, and so does the site admin and everyone else who has actually had to take a hand in sorting out this mess.
I can assure you that I have had a hand in cleaning up many messes, as have many others who are disagreeing with you. We do not do so unaware of its challenges; we do so confident that you are unaware of the challenges that the course you are advocating would present.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
First of all, seriously? Go outside. Get a breath of fresh air. Talk to me when you have some perspective.
It's extremely hard to take you seriously when you continue making these sorts of snarky comments about my lifestyle, dude. I get plenty of fresh air, thanks. Show me that you can respect your opponent and win the day with the fairness and quality of your argument instead of simply trying to browbeat the opposition into frustration, please.
The civil right that we're seeking here is simple: the right of information. It is through unhampered discussion that we can best assimilate knowledge, and this freedom should be given to each and every poster here, regardless of their "level of usership," and which has been harmed by attempts from the staff to squelch it. I strongly feel that we need to protect this freedom, don't you?
It's extremely hard to take you seriously when you continue making these sorts of snarky comments about my lifestyle, dude. I get plenty of fresh air, thanks. Show me that you can respect your opponent and win the day with the fairness and quality of your argument instead of simply trying to browbeat the opposition into frustration, please.
The civil right that we're seeking here is simple: the right of information. It is through unhampered discussion that we can best assimilate knowledge, and this freedom should be given to each and every poster here, regardless of their "level of usership," and which has been harmed by attempts from the staff to squelch it. I strongly feel that we need to protect this freedom, don't you?
I'm not trolling you, sir. But I truly do feel that you do not have the proper degree of perspective when you are honestly trying to compare minor disagreements on an internet forum to the systematic disenfranchisement and frequent murder of tens of millions of people based on the color of their skin. Not only is that lacking in perspective, it's offensive, in the same way that comparing removing the Gutter to the Holocaust would be; it trivializes what is, to a great many people in this country, a real and very painful issue.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
I'm not trolling you, sir. But I truly do feel that you do not have the proper degree of perspective when you are honestly trying to compare minor disagreements on an internet forum to the systematic disenfranchisement and frequent murder of tens of millions of people based on the color of their skin. Not only is that lacking in perspective, it's offensive, in the same way that comparing removing the Gutter to the Holocaust would be; it trivializes what is, to a great many people in this country, a real and very painful issue.
Very well, I apologize. My words tend to fail me when I get worked up about something I, personally, care deeply about.. this site has helped me broaden my own perspective too much to give up on the free exchange of information it offers without getting at least a little choked up.
Would you care to answer my question? I'd appreciate knowing that we both value knowledge to a great degree before we continue.
The civil right that we're seeking here is simple: the right of information. It is through unhampered discussion that we can best assimilate knowledge, and this freedom should be given to each and every poster here, regardless of their "level of usership," and which has been harmed by attempts from the staff to squelch it. I strongly feel that we need to protect this freedom, don't you?
I think that people should know what's going on, generally. I wouldn't frame it as a "right," because I think that's a little bit melodramatic, but I think that information (within reason) is good to have. I also think there's a value to a certain level of confidentiality in the Mod Lounge, which has to be balanced with that.
I also don't think that a Tribunal would help that cause.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
I think that people should know what's going on, generally. I wouldn't frame it as a "right," because I think that's a little bit melodramatic, but I think that information (within reason) is good to have. I also think there's a value to a certain level of confidentiality in the Mod Lounge, which has to be balanced with that.
I also don't think that a Tribunal would help that cause.
Ah, perhaps we're talking past each other then, because I tend to agree. My stake in this thread is to try to get action taken, yes, but I've been trying to get people away from judicial review for a while now. I personally favor a group that convenes to discuss peer reviews of staff and the site as a whole, and during my time of research on the subject have come to think that neither lounge access or a threat of tribunal is needed; giving users who want to help the site a place to do so, as well as having the CI thread to bring up any nagging concerns they may have, is enough, I feel. My last suggestion in the Staff Inbox is simply to open up a uber-clan for the purpose of doing so, although I do feel that a hidden subforum would be more beneficial.
From my perspective, the more complexity you introduce into the running of this website, the more difficult it will be to effectively run it--not only because the Tribunals are, themselves, an enormous potential source of drama, an argument which (so far as I have noticed) no one yet has attempted to refute, but because they further institutionalize the attitude that complaining loud enough will lead to the complainer getting what they want.
My experience leads to expect a much different result.
In the mafia sub, we use an administrative council which takes complaints from the public and adjudicates them on a regular basis. The membership of the council is carefully selected with the intention of being immune to questions of bias. Since questions brought to the council are dealt with even-handedly and addressed on the merits, very little sustained drama is incurred.
Here, we're talking about something several major steps less involved in that. We're not even talking about a group that has to make decisions on a daily basis. We're not adding layers of complexity to the site's management. We're setting up a clear and elegant path of dispute resolution that we can turn to every once in a very great while.
If your concern is people are going to run to the group too quickly with every minor complaint, raise the threshold of members that trigger review. Or just count on the group to be judicious - with the right membership, it will be.
Quote from Senori »
The reason people complain so much in this forum is not that there are really so many terrible things going on (though, mark my words, there are things which have needed redress) but because of the feeling that complaining loud enough will get results.
It's worse than that. It's not that the squeaky wheel gets results - it's frequently the case that the only way to get results is to be the squeaky wheel. Under the current system. And that doesn't work well for anybody.
Quote from Senori »
You cannot resolve the potential for drama in CI without either shutting down the ability to complain (as many sites do, remember) or without entirely giving up on decision-making. Neither of these are desirable circumstances. But the Tribunal is neither, and that is why it will fail.
Nonsense. Only two solutions to the problem? Any time you set up an either/or statement like that in an argument, you should have alarm sirens blaring in your ear.
Drama is a sliding scale and exists in the fourth dimension. An initial complaint can start out shrill, but wind up mild as milk once a calm, supervisory force that you trust in comes in to sweep up the mess. You want to solve for complaints? Provide an outlet for them.
You might as well say that the entire customer service industry shouldn't exist, if we followed the logic of your above quote. You can solve for complaints without giving up all autonomy or making things god-awful complicated.
I don't think a watchdog group with authority to settle these disputes is anything outlandishly sophisticated. The worst you can say about it is that it might turn out to be unnecessary. In which case, the person most happy with that result would be yours truly. But if you pay the slightest attention to the history of the site, which I know you do, how can you reasonably expect that we're not going to be back in this exact position some day, with an angry mob in CI? And yet again, with no impartial body that can be trusted to step in and be the mediator.
You say it's a problem. Well, I'd like to hear your suggestions for fixing it, other than telling people not to care about things that they care about.
Quote from Senori »
Drama happens because people disagree with the result, not because they don't think they're being listened to.
I think you are absolutely dead wrong on this point. Complete 180 degrees.
When it comes to resolving complaints, listening carefully to the evidence, giving it a fair shake, and seeing the other person's point of view can go long, long miles to defusing potential drama.
I'll stand by my record in either the council forum, or during my tenure as admin. CI was a graveyard - and that was directly in response to listening to the users, and when we disagreed with them, disagreeing with courtesy and reason. People respect that, and when they feel that their viewpoint is being respected, they're fine with walking away without a perfect resolution.
Respect and impartiality and objectivity are indispensable to conflict resolution. The summit stands as a testimony to that; but unless we take steps to preserve that approach for use in future conflicts, it could easily be left by the wayside cluttered with the forgotten policies and philosophies of other past administrations.
Quote from Senori »
I can assure you that I have had a hand in cleaning up many messes, as have many others who are disagreeing with you. We do not do so unaware of its challenges; we do so confident that you are unaware of the challenges that the course you are advocating would present.
Your objections seem rooted more in ideology than in practice or observation. I've seen talking to people with respect and objectivity work to resolve conflicts quickly and smoothly, time and again. I want to make sure it continues being used, and isn't discarded carelessly.
If you truly do think arguing about things on a website is trivial, you should suit your words with actions. You've already spent more time on this than it's worth, apparently.
But if you don't feel that your time spent here is actually wholly wasted, I'd invite you to take a crack at coming up with a solution yourself, other than "don't care", or "the admins should be more careful in hiring and policing other admins". The latter methodology works in theory, but the staff doesn't have a bottomless pool of leadership talent than can commit to the site day-to-day. Pretty much the opposite of that. Our solution has to address that reality.
My experience leads to expect a much different result.
In the mafia sub, we use an administrative council which takes complaints from the public and adjudicates them on a regular basis. The membership of the council is carefully selected with the intention of being immune to questions of bias. Since questions brought to the council are dealt with even-handedly and addressed on the merits, very little sustained drama is incurred.
Swell. Has there been a history of drama in the mafia forum?
Quote from Azrael »
Here, we're talking about something several major steps less involved in that. We're not even talking about a group that has to make decisions on a daily basis. We're not adding layers of complexity to the site's management. We're setting up a clear and elegant path of dispute resolution that we can turn to every once in a very great while.
I think that the way that this proposal is currently constituted very clearly adds what is indisputably another layer of complexity to this site's management, with something that is neither clear nor elegant. But I don't think either of us are going to convince each other about that.
Quote from Azrael »
If your concern is people are going to run to the group too quickly with every minor complaint, raise the threshold of members that trigger review. Or just count on the group to be judicious - with the right membership, it will be.
If it doesn't review the complaints that sufficiently squeaky people think are important, then there will still be drama--perhaps even more, since you have the added drama of "the tribunal is ignoring this"--and nothing will be accomplished.
Quote from Azrael »
It's worse than that. It's not that the squeaky wheel gets results - it's frequently the case that the only way to get results is to be the squeaky wheel. Under the current system. And that doesn't work well for anybody.
Bull****. People have decided that's the case because everyone's used to being a major pain in CI. It's because people are used to making big drama bombs that there are drama bombs. The great majority of drama issues in this forum could be more easily taken care of with PM conversations to the right people.
Quote from Azrael »
Nonsense. Only two solutions to the problem? Any time you set up an either/or statement like that in an argument, you should have alarm sirens blaring in your ear.
Granted. Let me amend that; there are only two solutions that I have ever found to work.
Quote from Azrael »
Drama is a sliding scale and exists in the fourth dimension. An initial complaint can start out shrill, but wind up mild as milk once a calm, supervisory force that you trust in comes in to sweep up the mess. You want to solve for complaints? Provide an outlet for them.
I think you vastly overestimate the extent to which people trust institutions.
Quote from Azrael »
I don't think a watchdog group with authority to settle these disputes is anything outlandishly sophisticated. The worst you can say about it is that it might turn out to be unnecessary.
No, that's not the worst I can say about it. In fact, I've said far worse things about it. I've told you those things, as it happens.
Quote from Azrael »
In which case, the person most happy with that result would be yours truly. But if you pay the slightest attention to the history of the site, which I know you do, how can you reasonably expect that we're not going to be back in this exact position some day, with an angry mob in CI? And yet again, with no impartial body that can be trusted to step in and be the mediator.
You say it's a problem. Well, I'd like to hear your suggestions for fixing it, other than telling people not to care about things that they care about.
Because this sort of situation, this big drama bomb, happens at most once a year. In that one situation, a couple of people (how many people have posted in this thread? thirty? forty?) make a big back-and-forth for a while, and then it's settled, and **** goes back to normal. And everyone forgets about it in six months!
See, you're right, I do know the history of this website. And I know that no one else cares about it after a month, because the stakes are so minuscule. That drama you had with ria was nothing compared to some of the controversy that's happened before, and you know what? It wasn't hard to solve those things before. The more red tape you tie yourself up in, the harder it becomes to solve an issue.
Quote from Azrael »
I think you are absolutely dead wrong on this point. Complete 180 degrees.
When it comes to resolving complaints, listening carefully to the evidence, giving it a fair shake, and seeing the other person's point of view can go long, long miles to defusing potential drama.
And I think you're wrong, but that doesn't get us anywhere.
When someone gets an infraction here, and they appeal it, if that infraction doesn't get overturned they'll be upset--even if they thought it was a fair shake, because that's human nature. If someone has a problem with a Mod, and they appeal to an Admin they think is fair and the Admin says "sorry dude, this guy's right" you aren't going to think "oh, well, I guess I was wrong." If you'd had your "summit", and everyone in the summit had told you that what ria was doing was completely normal, would you have felt less bothered by it?
A fair shake gets you a good distance, but it doesn't undo the problems people have.
Quote from Azrael »
I'll stand by my record in either the council forum, or during my tenure as admin. CI was a graveyard - and that was directly in response to listening to the users, and when we disagreed with them, disagreeing with courtesy and reason. People respect that, and when they feel that their viewpoint is being respected, they're fine with walking away without a perfect resolution.
I am glad that you were able to listen, respond to criticism reasonably, and judge fairly; I would, however, say that's about the minimum I expect of a good Admin.
Quote from Azrael »
Your objections seem rooted more in ideology than in practice or observation. I've seen talking to people with respect and objectivity work to resolve conflicts quickly and smoothly, time and again. I want to make sure it continues being used, and isn't discarded carelessly.
To be perfectly honest, I feel that your position is rooted in ideology as well. I fully admit that dealing with people openly and fairly is important, even critical. But I really don't think that's the key to preventing drama.
I mean, honestly, what has been the drama that's had any traction (100+ posts) in CI in the past six months? ria, the Gutter, Kijin quitting, some guy complaining about the Market modding, and some guy complaining about how he didn't like the Mods. The Gutter thing was partly timing, and partly poor handling, but I can guarantee you that there would have been argument about it even if the world's fairest man had been adjudicating. The Kijin thing was unavoidable, and the other stuff aside from the ria thing is just bull****. So that leaves the ria thing. What about that wasn't fairly adjudicated? And what about that wouldn't have required a 100+ post thread in CI anyway?
Quote from Azrael »
If you truly do think arguing about things on a website is trivial, you should suit your words with actions. You've already spent more time on this than it's worth, apparently.
I'm sitting at work and bored.
Quote from Azrael »
But if you don't feel that your time spent here is actually wholly wasted, I'd invite you to take a crack at coming up with a solution yourself, other than "don't care", or "the admins should be more careful in hiring and policing other admins". The latter methodology works in theory, but the staff doesn't have a bottomless pool of leadership talent than can commit to the site day-to-day. Pretty much the opposite of that. Our solution has to address that reality.
I think that solution does address reality. Once in a blue moon **** happens and people complain. Literally 360 days out of the year, however, it works pretty well.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
There's two discussions now. The Mod Lounge one, and this one. For the most part, it seems that there's a few major complaints about this idea. That it's super-complicated, and that there's enough holes in it that filling them will be more so. Among other major issues I don't think we can shave off enough to make it a particularly quick idea, though the discussion can move forwards. I also have been convinced that it's not that amazing of an idea in the first place. Too bureaucratic and not quick enough. I have to pull support for my own idea. :/
I've proposed an alternate based on some ideas in here and some ideas in the Mod Lounge. I'm not sure how feasible it is, and it will require discussion. So stay tuned for me, and hopefully we'll have a nice solution.
I still like the idea of just having a summit again every time we have a serious issue. It seemed to work with the issue concerning ria.
The tribunal does seems a little... much, at least for a card game forum. I know Salvation is a great place with a lot of members, but it appears we are getting too bogged down in the politics of it.
Plus just running a summit if need be seems a lot simpler.
I would MUCH prefer a Summit every once in awhile with a select few weighing in and voicing rather than a "Tribunal". Albeit we would have to make sure that the people that 'voice' are unbiased, OR:
1. They are of the people involved providing POINTS instead of hearsay.
2. Mediators that are willing to hear BOTH sides and then make a fair, unbiased judgment
The people of such can (must) be selected from people NOT involved in the issue, NOT gimmicks, and have more than 2-3 years on here (if the second) as to provide a fair and accurate judgment based on facts given and noted. This would be random based on staff AND involved users, consisting of an ODD number of people.
But anyway, that's just my perspective. Whether or not it's good is well, beyond my scope of caring/consideration.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Infraction issued for Trolling. - Nai
The S_S thing couldn't have been resolved through a Tribunal anyway; he was directly appointed by Raa, and really the biggest trouble was that he wouldn't abide by the traditions of the site. Neither would the Xenphire thing; he was willing to unmod most of the staff out of paranoia to keep himself in. The sort of things that would cause MTGS to blow up are the sort of things that are inherently outside of the norm.
The more I think about it, yeah, I remember you being around. You're one of the few still left, I think?
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
The anti-judiciary review side has quite a few good points going for it, but the main problem with the proposal is simply that it'll take a too much friggin' time to pound out the details, especially because if you don't do it right the very first time it's needed, the whole thing falls apart in the most dramatic way possible. The pro-review side, on the other hand, has only a ubiquitous "we just really, really hate drama bombs, they goddamn hurt" to go off of, which despite being difficult to quantify should not be discounted.
So my suggestion is that we turn our attention away from judiciary action and try to figure out what makes this site so much of a friggin' drama magnet in the first place. Any ideas?
Where can I read this constitution, and I completely agree how it's handled is the real issue. How is the constitution being enforced?
I think the whole infraction system allows too much to decrepancy of the moderator. More often it seems like an exercise of creative writing in how posts are twisted in meaning to trigger a infraction twisted in meaning.
It's very troubling.
This is a long-standing thing, and it starts out with good intentions. If people complain about something happening in the CI, and they have good points, it's a good idea to at least try to see where they're coming from. And if they're really obviously right, then that's definitely something you have to take care of.
The trouble is that for a lot of the time this site has been around, there's been an attitude that "if enough people complain, that's a problem in itself." It's sort of a lack of self-confidence in the decision-making abilities of the Staff; everyone's a volunteer, and the staff doesn't really feel it's better-equipped to make decisions than anyone else, so it hedges, it debates with people in the CI, and if enough people complain it'll often as not reverse itself. That's all well and good sometimes, but when it becomes a common pattern it encourages people to complain about anything they disagree with, in the hopes that they can win over enough vocal people to change the dynamic.
See, the CI isn't really a place for the whole community to complain, or even really a place for a large part of the community; it's only a very small subset of active users who ever bother to look in here, much less post repeatedly on complaint threads. In both this and the "Gloves" thread, way less than half of the people who posted there ever posted more than once. Combine that with the easy ability to make fake accounts and the general apathy about decisions on this site, and you create the potential for a very small number of active (or just bored) users to appear to be a big enough number to overrule the staff's judgment.
The staff needs the ability and the confidence to make decisions which are closely divided, controversial, or unpopular, if they honestly believe that it helps the site. Pandering to the drama in the CI whenever there is a controversial decision only encourages more drama.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
Sure, but vox populi, even vox populi dimini, is one of the most powerful tools for change society has. I'd hoped to avoid the loaded examples, but the equal rights movements are the clear comparison here: black people, gay people, etc. are just small segments of the population but without their ability to speak up for change they would just continue to be repressed.. the status quo simply wouldn't care enough about them otherwise. To suggest that the staff should just kind realize their own bias without having to let the people not getting fair treatment scream their heads off is pretty optimistic of you.
Alternatively, what you're suggesting is that this site should just disregard the users who don't fit into whatever definition of "normal" the site decides to maintain, which has some merit but risks making this site "just another Magic website"; there'd be little reason to come here instead of, say, the Mothership (magicthegathering.com) without our policy of being open to anyone.
Edit- the preceding didn't accurately portray the questioning tone I was hoping for. I'm not looking to start a fight, just figure out how to maintain what we've got and what people like while removing what we don't want.
Also, this:
Posting a relevant Mod Lounge discussion (with sensitive information and mods' names redacted) for the community to see is something I wouldn't mind doing again.
Lastly, a biannual "State of the Community" thread is a good idea too, in my opinion, and might help prevent drama to occur in the first place.
This makes so much sense to me. The idea of the "Tribunal" feels a lot like putting a patch (over complex and layered patch) on a punctured tire.
From my perspective it comes back to the whole infraction system. The reality is people hate getting infractions, sometimes they might be justified but other times they are not. I'm sure most users don't have any problems with the staff until they start to get infractions to which they react, "hey that wasn't really fair" or "how did that moderator interpret that?" or "I think this guy is being really harsh"
This creates friction between the staff and members. Inspite of the "customer service" friendly letter you get with an infraction, which stinks of condescension I would add. It would be better to get a letter claiming that a complaint was made and then an actual transaction like "did you know this post caused some members to complain" or asking "did you mean this from your post?". The whole storyline about how infractions don't mean anything is pure nonsense. So many times I've had a moderator respond to questions of an infraction by saying "based on your history of infractions....". The product of this is not a more friendly site, but rather a level of suspiciousness between staff and moderation.
This creates tension, conflict and resentment. Members often feel like 2nd class citizens from moderators when they abuse or push their rank. I believe this causes tension up and down. Up and down through admin, staff, members. There is a culture of being condescending. I see it when new posters post on the site and are belittled by members. They treat them as "scrubs" because they don't know how to find the information they are looking for on site or their ideas are ridiculed.
MY POINT.
Admin and moderation must be a friendly and positive thing if you don't want members to grow resentful of the staff. When resentment is present it's not very hard to rally the masses to bring down the head of the King.
Thanks for your contribution, but this is what you needs to consider. Infractions are given by different moderators, and weighed differently and puts the onus on the user to clear things up. Some moderators do have problems and are thick headed. I am a repeat offender according to my infraction record, I have challenged infractions in the past and by using the whole "repeat offender view" you have no longer judged the situation in an objective way, in fact you are taking a view that this guy must be guilty, look at his record. This in itself is unfair and cause for resentment. This is not isolated to just me, but many many members of the community. Most don't speak up because they are tired of the nonsense.
In regard to 2 and 3
You take that stance that moderators are human and therefore entitled to make mistakes. And if I have a problem with a moderator that I can take it up with that moderator. But since this human moderator can make mistakes too. I can report it, but often it goes back to number 1 and the cycle begins again.
If moderators are human, then are users not human too? If you're entitled to leniency "for being human" when you write a poorly written message that is misconstrued. Can it be possible that a user writes a message that is poorly written is misconstrued?
The difference is the power structure in the relationship. Do you not see a reason why people would be unhappy?
I'm not calling for an end to infractions, I'm saying that there needs to be a change in how its handled. Because the baseline test is if people are happy of sad. From everything that I can see, people are very unhappy.
That said, N_S does have a valid point regarding the height of the hostility feeding into why the Summit was universally acclaimed, and he's right -- there is no guarantee that it would work again. -However- I do think that it should be near the top of the short-list for if/when another dramabomb comes along for things to try. The simple fact of the matter is that one success is poor testing date. But it would likewise be foolish to throw out the idea of the Summit as something that will never work again. So far, we only have evidence of it working.
For everyone who's wondering why this is important, and is taking the "chill off, it's a gaming website" approach, I'll direct them to this post:
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=8719361&postcount=601
...which I originally made in the "Gloves" thread. I'm not going to re-type and re-state everything I said there. I believe my points still stand.
I do believe that as responsible members of this community, we have a responsibility to figure this problem out -- and I believe that those who are saying there isn't a problem have their heads in the sand. Apologies if that's a bit harsh, but the goal should be to always strive for betterment....not to accept that dramabombs happen and that "we've always recovered from them in the past." Has nobody ever thought of actually trying to figure out a way to -stop- them from happening?
A large part of the reason I've spent as much time on this as I have is that I have an agenda wholly unrelated to any importance the site itself has. My only interest stems from the fact that people care about the site, and have fun here, and occasionally overbearing admins tend to threaten that enjoyment. Both mafia and gutter have had to deal with those issues several times over the years, to the point that both subforums' existences has been threatened, and I would derive a certain degree of satisfaction at putting an end to that trend for good and seeing some of the other flaws of the site's management policy disappear along the way.
The entire point of this, from my perspective, is to avoid having to spend more time on the process than it's worth. Firing admins in cold blood is tough. Dealing with recurrent CI drama is ridiculous. "Drafting the magna carta" streamlines the entire process and makes that go much more smoothly. Complexity can lead to greater efficiency - that's why we have it.
I have three options at this point. I can go back to the mafia forum and hope the site finally bucks its recurrent staffing problems, fingers crossed, and hope the staff never goes off the rails again despite having done so 5-7 times in as many years, and just suck up whatever terrible thing comes next like the apathetic chump the latest sentiments in this thread are suggesting I should be.
Or I can keep fighting endless battles in CI whenever someone does something terribly insensitive, or annoying, or inconsiderate, and satisfy myself that my local pet site is being well-run, at the cost of far more hours than it's possibly worth.
Or I can shoot for a systemic fix for the problem that should save us from the same, sad story being played out in CI whenever the wrong person inevitably manages to get themselves into position.
The wonderful thing about the watchdog group is that it requires zero effort until a dramabomb threatens on the horizon. Then you have a nice, easy way of ensuring that people's concerns are taken seriously, and processed.
Having more admins probably wouldn't hurt either, since it lessens the impact of bad apples. Three really isn't enough. But the number of staff members who are well-suited to the job is somewhat limited, and those who can do it, don't always stay.
Which is why we get admin who aren't always a good fit on a such a regular basis. And which is why we need a nice, preestablished mechanism to gently usher them out the door. Because I certainly don't intend to keep on wasting this many hours to fix the site's problems and keep it from trampling people's internet parades when there's a way to streamline the process.
Easy enough for those of you who've been lounging on the sidelines without a horse in the race to say it's not hard to fire an admin, or to have the site pick good administrators, and that it doesn't matter if x or y's 'net buddies have to put up with turds being dropped in their local hangouts. I certainly have a much different perspective on that, and so does the site admin and everyone else who has actually had to take a hand in sorting out this mess.
My suggested metric was ten persons agreeing that it's an issue. That can adjusted upwards as needed.
Yes, and it didn't happen thanks to people who looked down their pince-nez at the people working to actually fix the problem, trivial as it may seem.
Important? Of course not. Annoying? Unnecessary? Yes.
And anything that reduces the amount of effort necessary to deal with these relatively unimportant -yet annoying- issues, which continually crop up, has my approval and support.
/end cranky old man
A minority of the users are causing the majority of drama and strife for the admins. I think your speculative gaze should be pointed elsewhere than admins. However, most people are loathe to see their own/groupthink faults and only focus on the typical "us against the world" mentality.
This post has forced me to jump off the fence and rejoin the side of "Pro-WTO Group". Monstrous CI threads are not the best solution to this problem.
My point of wariness still stands though: How will the Watchdog/Tribunal/Ombuds Group get inacted?
I also agree that "State of the Community" posts and occasional summaries of Staff Lounge discussions regarding some decisions would be a welcome addition to the Forums.
Random Mafia 2 Town MVP
'08 MTGS Fantasy Football Overall Champion
Best Non-SK Neutral Performance (Individual)
...
First of all, seriously? Go outside. Get a breath of fresh air. Talk to me when you have some perspective.
Second, I can tell you that as someone who was once a Moderator both here and on 'news and elsewhere, who has been dear friends with many Moderators, and who remembers quite clearly what it was like; the Staff do realize their own biases. Maybe one individual member of the Staff doesn't, but another does, and they talk to each other. These people are colleagues, but also friends; they are on friendly terms and discuss with each other things that are going on. No-one's blinded by their own prejudices.
Third, what exactly are the prejudices that Moderators have? Let's come up with a list;
- they might be mean people who don't get along with others.
- they might not like certain people they're moderating.
- they might have a certain idea of the forum they're running that a member disagrees with.
...am I missing anything?
Look at those. The first one is just basic personal skills, and if they don't have those, they should be removed--tribunal or not. The second is human nature, and if I can be frank with you, we have a way of dealing with that particular bias; you can appeal a warning. The third is something the Moderators should have.
So tell me, what "civil right" are we fighting for here?
"Open to anyone" is one of the basic values of the forum, and I doubt anyone on the staff would disagree with it (though if any do, they're free to correct me!) But being open doesn't mean that the staff shouldn't be able to have a vision of the site, even if it's different from a few vocal users. Right or wrong, a site has to have some direction if it's going to go anywhere.
Oh, I know. I didn't mean to suggest that this was some automatic process.
That doesn't follow. Why is something right if a bunch of people yell that it's right? I mean, it's one thing if the staff decides (to use an inane example) "I think the users would like the site to be green" and hundreds of users suddenly protest. But it's quite another if the staff says "the site should be green, because green has some positive value to the site" and even more people protest, because then switching back from green is deleterious.
I honestly think your post is a case in point of how people need to take a step back.
Speaking of which:
Man, what is that even supposed to mean? If you're trying to imply that I'm some sort of Gilded Age/Progressive Age industrialist/patrician/politician (eg. Aldrich or Hughes or the Roosevelts or Wilson), um, I don't honestly know what you're trying to say, because that's pretty absurd.
Or if you're trying to say that I'm trying to take some sort of "patrician" approach to this (which I also don't really understand, but let's run with it), well, I'm not. I just think you're caught up in the heat of the moment, and if you stepped back for a few weeks and thought about it, the need for this stupid thing would be a lot less apparent.
It's actually kinda funny that you compare me implicitly to Gilded Age politicians, because their great stronghold was in the Senate, designed intentionally for the purpose of making people take time to think about what they're doing, making them cool off, and, um, having a repository of people who have been around for a while and have experience in the matter.
I'm going to be blunt now.
I might ask, if I were being nitpicky, how in fact that is an agenda separate from the value of the site--given that the value everyone here places on this website is that they care about it and have fun here--but I don't want to be an ass. By and large, however, I agree with you; this is a magical place, diverse and unique and immensely interesting, which is occasionally threatened by the misdeeds of an Administrator. Of five or six of them, by my count, over seven years, but maybe you can revise that number upward or downward.
As someone whose domain was once two areas of the website whose value was not immediately apparent to most (the Colosseum and Debate, or as it was called for a time, "Outside Magic") I sympathize with your desire to protect the particular areas from which you derive enjoyment. That said, I fear you are over-optimistic about the potential of this proposal; I cannot speak to whatever caused the Mafia areas to be threatened, but the Gutter will likely be controversial and endangered for as long as it exists. I see no way that instituting Tribunals would give any more security to the existence of that forum than it has, since the debate about it has not, from what evidence I have seen, hinged on moderatorial abuse.
I share your goal.
Very!
Beyond!
Now, see, here is where we have a philosophical disagreement.
From my perspective, the more complexity you introduce into the running of this website, the more difficult it will be to effectively run it--not only because the Tribunals are, themselves, an enormous potential source of drama, an argument which (so far as I have noticed) no one yet has attempted to refute, but because they further institutionalize the attitude that complaining loud enough will lead to the complainer getting what they want.
The reason people complain so much in this forum is not that there are really so many terrible things going on (though, mark my words, there are things which have needed redress) but because of the feeling that complaining loud enough will get results. This may be used to noble ends, such as yours, or it may be to entirely ignoble ends; either way, the evidence of the past is that the "squeaky wheel gets the grease," so to speak. This doesn't happen every time, but it happens enough to make it worthwhile for dedicated groups to make the drama, on the chance that their pet issue will be decided in their favor.
You cannot resolve the potential for drama in CI without either shutting down the ability to complain (as many sites do, remember) or without entirely giving up on decision-making. Neither of these are desirable circumstances. But the Tribunal is neither, and that is why it will fail.
Don't be over-dramatic.
I ask you; wouldn't it make more sense, instead of fighting a battle in CI over an inconsiderate remark, to ask someone to talk to the person who made the inconsiderate remark first?
I mean, I'm sure you did that with ria, and it didn't work, and that's why this mess had to happen. But to be honest, the great majority of inconsiderate remarks are revealed as inconsiderate to the person who says them when someone they trust and respect points that fact out to them. I say this not only as someone who has been known to make inconsiderate remarks myself (both on this website and off!) and also as someone who has talked to people, again here and elsewhere, about their foibles to great effect.
But "taking their concerns seriously" is not a way to prevent drama; if it were, we should have very little drama here at all, for all that would have to be done would be for an Admin to come in (assuming the Admin was not the problem) and say that he was taking the matter seriously. But that doesn't work. Drama happens because people disagree with the result, not because they don't think they're being listened to.
For example, I'm sure you and I are both quite aware that we're listening to each other and seriously trying to understand each others' arguments, and still this argument is being had.
I can assure you that I have had a hand in cleaning up many messes, as have many others who are disagreeing with you. We do not do so unaware of its challenges; we do so confident that you are unaware of the challenges that the course you are advocating would present.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
It's extremely hard to take you seriously when you continue making these sorts of snarky comments about my lifestyle, dude. I get plenty of fresh air, thanks. Show me that you can respect your opponent and win the day with the fairness and quality of your argument instead of simply trying to browbeat the opposition into frustration, please.
The civil right that we're seeking here is simple: the right of information. It is through unhampered discussion that we can best assimilate knowledge, and this freedom should be given to each and every poster here, regardless of their "level of usership," and which has been harmed by attempts from the staff to squelch it. I strongly feel that we need to protect this freedom, don't you?
I'm not trolling you, sir. But I truly do feel that you do not have the proper degree of perspective when you are honestly trying to compare minor disagreements on an internet forum to the systematic disenfranchisement and frequent murder of tens of millions of people based on the color of their skin. Not only is that lacking in perspective, it's offensive, in the same way that comparing removing the Gutter to the Holocaust would be; it trivializes what is, to a great many people in this country, a real and very painful issue.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
Very well, I apologize. My words tend to fail me when I get worked up about something I, personally, care deeply about.. this site has helped me broaden my own perspective too much to give up on the free exchange of information it offers without getting at least a little choked up.
Would you care to answer my question? I'd appreciate knowing that we both value knowledge to a great degree before we continue.
I think that people should know what's going on, generally. I wouldn't frame it as a "right," because I think that's a little bit melodramatic, but I think that information (within reason) is good to have. I also think there's a value to a certain level of confidentiality in the Mod Lounge, which has to be balanced with that.
I also don't think that a Tribunal would help that cause.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
I greatly appreciate it.
Ah, perhaps we're talking past each other then, because I tend to agree. My stake in this thread is to try to get action taken, yes, but I've been trying to get people away from judicial review for a while now. I personally favor a group that convenes to discuss peer reviews of staff and the site as a whole, and during my time of research on the subject have come to think that neither lounge access or a threat of tribunal is needed; giving users who want to help the site a place to do so, as well as having the CI thread to bring up any nagging concerns they may have, is enough, I feel. My last suggestion in the Staff Inbox is simply to open up a uber-clan for the purpose of doing so, although I do feel that a hidden subforum would be more beneficial.
My experience leads to expect a much different result.
In the mafia sub, we use an administrative council which takes complaints from the public and adjudicates them on a regular basis. The membership of the council is carefully selected with the intention of being immune to questions of bias. Since questions brought to the council are dealt with even-handedly and addressed on the merits, very little sustained drama is incurred.
Here, we're talking about something several major steps less involved in that. We're not even talking about a group that has to make decisions on a daily basis. We're not adding layers of complexity to the site's management. We're setting up a clear and elegant path of dispute resolution that we can turn to every once in a very great while.
If your concern is people are going to run to the group too quickly with every minor complaint, raise the threshold of members that trigger review. Or just count on the group to be judicious - with the right membership, it will be.
It's worse than that. It's not that the squeaky wheel gets results - it's frequently the case that the only way to get results is to be the squeaky wheel. Under the current system. And that doesn't work well for anybody.
Nonsense. Only two solutions to the problem? Any time you set up an either/or statement like that in an argument, you should have alarm sirens blaring in your ear.
Drama is a sliding scale and exists in the fourth dimension. An initial complaint can start out shrill, but wind up mild as milk once a calm, supervisory force that you trust in comes in to sweep up the mess. You want to solve for complaints? Provide an outlet for them.
You might as well say that the entire customer service industry shouldn't exist, if we followed the logic of your above quote. You can solve for complaints without giving up all autonomy or making things god-awful complicated.
I don't think a watchdog group with authority to settle these disputes is anything outlandishly sophisticated. The worst you can say about it is that it might turn out to be unnecessary. In which case, the person most happy with that result would be yours truly. But if you pay the slightest attention to the history of the site, which I know you do, how can you reasonably expect that we're not going to be back in this exact position some day, with an angry mob in CI? And yet again, with no impartial body that can be trusted to step in and be the mediator.
You say it's a problem. Well, I'd like to hear your suggestions for fixing it, other than telling people not to care about things that they care about.
I think you are absolutely dead wrong on this point. Complete 180 degrees.
When it comes to resolving complaints, listening carefully to the evidence, giving it a fair shake, and seeing the other person's point of view can go long, long miles to defusing potential drama.
I'll stand by my record in either the council forum, or during my tenure as admin. CI was a graveyard - and that was directly in response to listening to the users, and when we disagreed with them, disagreeing with courtesy and reason. People respect that, and when they feel that their viewpoint is being respected, they're fine with walking away without a perfect resolution.
Respect and impartiality and objectivity are indispensable to conflict resolution. The summit stands as a testimony to that; but unless we take steps to preserve that approach for use in future conflicts, it could easily be left by the wayside cluttered with the forgotten policies and philosophies of other past administrations.
Your objections seem rooted more in ideology than in practice or observation. I've seen talking to people with respect and objectivity work to resolve conflicts quickly and smoothly, time and again. I want to make sure it continues being used, and isn't discarded carelessly.
If you truly do think arguing about things on a website is trivial, you should suit your words with actions. You've already spent more time on this than it's worth, apparently.
But if you don't feel that your time spent here is actually wholly wasted, I'd invite you to take a crack at coming up with a solution yourself, other than "don't care", or "the admins should be more careful in hiring and policing other admins". The latter methodology works in theory, but the staff doesn't have a bottomless pool of leadership talent than can commit to the site day-to-day. Pretty much the opposite of that. Our solution has to address that reality.
Swell. Has there been a history of drama in the mafia forum?
I think that the way that this proposal is currently constituted very clearly adds what is indisputably another layer of complexity to this site's management, with something that is neither clear nor elegant. But I don't think either of us are going to convince each other about that.
If it doesn't review the complaints that sufficiently squeaky people think are important, then there will still be drama--perhaps even more, since you have the added drama of "the tribunal is ignoring this"--and nothing will be accomplished.
Bull****. People have decided that's the case because everyone's used to being a major pain in CI. It's because people are used to making big drama bombs that there are drama bombs. The great majority of drama issues in this forum could be more easily taken care of with PM conversations to the right people.
Granted. Let me amend that; there are only two solutions that I have ever found to work.
I think you vastly overestimate the extent to which people trust institutions.
No, that's not the worst I can say about it. In fact, I've said far worse things about it. I've told you those things, as it happens.
Because this sort of situation, this big drama bomb, happens at most once a year. In that one situation, a couple of people (how many people have posted in this thread? thirty? forty?) make a big back-and-forth for a while, and then it's settled, and **** goes back to normal. And everyone forgets about it in six months!
See, you're right, I do know the history of this website. And I know that no one else cares about it after a month, because the stakes are so minuscule. That drama you had with ria was nothing compared to some of the controversy that's happened before, and you know what? It wasn't hard to solve those things before. The more red tape you tie yourself up in, the harder it becomes to solve an issue.
And I think you're wrong, but that doesn't get us anywhere.
When someone gets an infraction here, and they appeal it, if that infraction doesn't get overturned they'll be upset--even if they thought it was a fair shake, because that's human nature. If someone has a problem with a Mod, and they appeal to an Admin they think is fair and the Admin says "sorry dude, this guy's right" you aren't going to think "oh, well, I guess I was wrong." If you'd had your "summit", and everyone in the summit had told you that what ria was doing was completely normal, would you have felt less bothered by it?
A fair shake gets you a good distance, but it doesn't undo the problems people have.
I am glad that you were able to listen, respond to criticism reasonably, and judge fairly; I would, however, say that's about the minimum I expect of a good Admin.
To be perfectly honest, I feel that your position is rooted in ideology as well. I fully admit that dealing with people openly and fairly is important, even critical. But I really don't think that's the key to preventing drama.
I mean, honestly, what has been the drama that's had any traction (100+ posts) in CI in the past six months? ria, the Gutter, Kijin quitting, some guy complaining about the Market modding, and some guy complaining about how he didn't like the Mods. The Gutter thing was partly timing, and partly poor handling, but I can guarantee you that there would have been argument about it even if the world's fairest man had been adjudicating. The Kijin thing was unavoidable, and the other stuff aside from the ria thing is just bull****. So that leaves the ria thing. What about that wasn't fairly adjudicated? And what about that wouldn't have required a 100+ post thread in CI anyway?
I'm sitting at work and bored.
I think that solution does address reality. Once in a blue moon **** happens and people complain. Literally 360 days out of the year, however, it works pretty well.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
This thread is so bogged down that it is impossible to follow. I have absolutely no clue what is going on anymore with this proposal.
I doubt I am the only one.
I've proposed an alternate based on some ideas in here and some ideas in the Mod Lounge. I'm not sure how feasible it is, and it will require discussion. So stay tuned for me, and hopefully we'll have a nice solution.
My helpdesk should you need me.
The tribunal does seems a little... much, at least for a card game forum. I know Salvation is a great place with a lot of members, but it appears we are getting too bogged down in the politics of it.
Plus just running a summit if need be seems a lot simpler.
1. They are of the people involved providing POINTS instead of hearsay.
2. Mediators that are willing to hear BOTH sides and then make a fair, unbiased judgment
The people of such can (must) be selected from people NOT involved in the issue, NOT gimmicks, and have more than 2-3 years on here (if the second) as to provide a fair and accurate judgment based on facts given and noted. This would be random based on staff AND involved users, consisting of an ODD number of people.
But anyway, that's just my perspective. Whether or not it's good is well, beyond my scope of caring/consideration.