18 replies to this topic

[DoubleThink]

Time to get this done, now that I'm not entirely busy with other things on the site. For the time being, I'll let you all mention and discuss anything that you think needs to be added or made clearer, before I try to remember what I was intending to do I would also like to try and update the rules' format, to make it more reader-friendly and mention important things that aren't just the rules instead of adding to an ever-bloating numbered list. Updating IP Board to get some of the newer moderating functions is another possible improvement.

I'm also going to take this opportunity to see to it that another issue is resolved in a permanent manner: Backseat moderating/telling other uses what to do or not do. I can't even go one day without seeing some snide little remark at the moment and I'm getting very sick of it. Now, there can be a legitimate reason why this happens, which I'm willing to consider; that being that the general populace feels that the moderating staff aren't doing an adequate job on their own (much as I've done myself in the past (kind of)). If this is the case, I would like to hear it be said and why so, because it is very much preferable to the other possibility of "being an arsehat". Either way, it's going to be resolved. It would be easy for me to just sit back and wait for another drama pot to boil over, especially with this sort of behaviour constantly tying my hands, but that's not what I'm here for.

To be more specific, there are going to be provisions included in the update - which will be enforced - detailing what non-staff members shouldn't be trying to do. Nobody will be exempt from consideration, no matter how nice they are most of the time. Having said that, it doesn't have to be a big deal; most of this is probably simple misunderstanding, or at least, I don't want to believe that there's that much genuine animosity floating around. Again, I'll chisel out the fine details later, like tomorrow maybe.

[Dunc2403]

This seems like a good idea. It'd be great if we were able to see infractions given to us, because I got banned before when I didn't even realize I'd been bad. Of course, we had this discussion a while ago, I'm just restating it.
And what would "backseat moderating" entail? Would it be as serious as giving someone an infraction for saying "don't double post or Noxid will eat you" or actually like, telling the staff what to do?

[ShinyElectricBlueTiger]

I'm okay with backseat moderation being a bannable offence because it shows that the person does not think that the moderation team is not doing their job (even though they are), and is highly disrespectful, etc etc etc

Also as for the "important things that aren't just the rules," I would enjoy some details about lurking because that is in my opinion the most important thing that any person should do before joining any forum.

[Captain Fabulous]

So why don't we clear up exactly what backseat moderation is, because telling someone not to double post after they double post instead of waiting for the mods to rap their knuckles seems reasonable to me. Unless you mods want to nanny everyone who makes a stupid mistake, I think input from regular members on how to behave on our forums is useful for new members.

[cultr1]

I've never been to a forum where admonishing new users to help teach them the rules before moderators got involved is disallowed. What advantage is there to making it an offense? It seems to me that you're just giving our moderators more useless work.
As long as the moderators would be giving the user a warning in the first place, why can't they be spared the trouble by another user? I personally believe it makes any human feel better to be advised by peers before superiors, I was always a little scared of all the admins on each forum I joined.

It encourages them to abide by rules on their own accord because other users appreciate it, as opposed to making them scared for what happens when the rules aren't followed because the moderators will take action.

[Lace]

I kinda agree, but telling people not to double post can be and has gotten ridiculous in the past. If I remember correctly, there was one instance where a new user was told not to double post by three or four different members after Noxid had already told the newbie not to double post and had merged the posts. If I were the new member there, I'd rather a simple admonishment from a mod than the repeated jeers of my peers. That, at least, should be penelizable if not bannable.

Another case in which minor back seat modding is bad is when the newer/less educated members get it into their head that it's what all the cool kids do. That's when things can go overboard and lead to situations like the one I mentioned above.

[DoubleThink]

I'm okay with backseat moderation being a bannable offence because it shows that the person does not think that the moderation team is not doing their job (even though they are), and is highly disrespectful, etc etc etc

Erm, not quite what I meant ._. I was suggesting that if that were the case someone say so so that we know that there's something we actually need to improve.

So why don't we clear up exactly what backseat moderation is, because telling someone not to double post after they double post instead of waiting for the mods to rap their knuckles seems reasonable to me.

Why? Then there are two pointless posts lying around instead of one (in the case that the post doesn't say anything else). It's like responding to a necropost. This is what I'm talking about - is having to wait a few hours at most for a staff member to perform a 10-second post merge that's going to happen anyway inadequate?

Unless you mods want to nanny everyone who makes a stupid mistake, I think input from regular members on how to behave on our forums is useful for new members.

Admonishing every new user that slips up is not "useful input", and I am telling you this as one of the guys whose job it is to deem what qualifies as such.

I've never been to a forum where admonishing new users to help teach them the rules before moderators got involved is disallowed.

Your forum experience could be a lot better then broski

What advantage is there to making it an offense? It seems to me that you're just giving our moderators more useless work.

This forum doesn't get enough traffic to be too much work even if I had to do it all on my own. It's a luxury we can afford here.

As long as the moderators would be giving the user a warning in the first place, why can't they be spared the trouble by another user?

Because if you say anything that isn't correct, or are a prick about it, it creates twice as much work for me. I can't then properly fault them for their behaviour because they've been fed misinformation, and I have somebody else's poor behaviour to deal with as well. Even if it is correct, new users are under no obligation to do what other users tell them, and I'm under no obligation to make them do so (barring cases like somebody requesting in their own thread that an argument stop).

Having said that, it wouldn't really be a problem if they (you) always got it right, or more precisely, had been getting it right, which is why there is one. You haven't been, and if there is one thing that utterly goads me it is somebody professing to speak for someone else and then doing so falsely. I think it's fairer and easier for everyone to say "don't try to go behind the moderators' back, they can do their job on their own" than "you can tell other users what to do if you want, but don't ever be wrong or otherwise I will crush your balls over it". It's just one of those things that I feel very strongly about

I personally believe it makes any human feel better to be advised by peers before superiors, I was always a little scared of all the admins on each forum I joined.
It encourages them to abide by rules on their own accord because other users appreciate it, as opposed to making them scared for what happens when the rules aren't followed because the moderators will take action.

Admins can be intimidating (insofar as I could intimidate a dunnart), but If the staff are bad a site isn't worth bothering with period. In my case, upon entering a new community, I find it far more painful to have to deal with the same cadre of horridly possessive little toerags that in fact often have the least to offer their community in terms of creativity or personal input. This site has had serious issues with such users in the past, and I have to say that at the moment the staff are being an awful lot nicer to new users than you guys are.

Will get to specifics next, so again I'll invite anyone who has anything about the rules they'd like to suggest to do so, otherwise I'll be running solely off memory and searches of my own posts

[Captain Fabulous]

If you don't want us toerags swamping new users with posts like "don't double post, faggot," make a rule against replying to a necrobump or a double post without contributing to the discussion, and also a rule against being a dick.

Oh, we have those rules? Good. And if someone is telling new members what to do and they are wrong or only projecting their opinion onto the rest of the forums, punish them for it. It's a luxury you can afford on forums as small as these.

To take a preventative step, in the new rules, inform the public that they will be punished for being dumbass vigilantes. I just don't think you need to outlaw helpfulness.

[Lace]

This is kinda stupid, but may I ask that the new rules be phrased as thou-shalts and thou-shalt-nots? I think it would vastly improve my forum experience. For example, rule 3 would become "Thou shalt not post twice in a row in the same thread without an intervening poster unless possessing good reason and temporal distance".

Alsoish concerning rule 3, I'm pretty sure a lot of new members don't know what double-posting etcetera is, as I certainly didn't when I signed up. Perhaps we should be a wee bit more explicit about that (along the lines of what I said in my thou shalt). Regarding other rules, 8 and 12 are fairly implicit and probably don't need to be mentioned. Rule 7 might be better phrased as "Accept moderation decisions" or perhaps "Rebellion is only permitted over PM or VM", and 18 seems pretty specific to be in our top-most-important-commandments-ever (how many requests do you really get?). The last clause of rule 1 could be dropped, as swearing doesn't typically limit itself to specific sections, and the have-beaten-cavestory clause seems kinda silly for the numerous people who come here asking "wat do." Maybe we could add a Wat-Do sticky?

Hurrah for hyphenation.

Edited by Lace, 16 July 2012 - 03:51 AM.

[Dunc2403]

Alright well you didn't really answer my question :/
But I'm assuming that you mean that saying "don't double post or noxid will eat you" should be punishable, which sort of makes sense.
I mean yes, if it's just a post saying that, then it's spam and should be treated as such. But I don't think the punishment should be for "backseat moderation". And if the post saying not to double post contains an @ontopic or something of the like that contributes to the discussion then I don't see why there'd be anything wrong with it.