Jump to content

Photo

THE SUBMISSION BOX [Moderator Transparency Discussion Thread]


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
35 replies to this topic

#21
Zaiduck

Zaiduck

    Commander-type Duck

  • Moderators
  • 1,241 posts
  • Alias:Zai
  • Spouse:Kate

Ngl winter's post is 4 days old and it hasn't been responded to, and that's not really in the team's favor.

I understand not wanting to spark a fight, but when there are no other posts, it just seems like there should be SOME form of correspondence or attempt to assuage concerns.

Especially considering how he does bring up points directly in regards to this thread's sister topic.

A thread about transparency and communication between the team and the members of the site began with someone being ignored for days, until I noticed. "Undesirable" or not, that's not building bridges.

that said, if a fucking fight or mob mentality begins happening on either side I will let you have it

I honestly don't/didn't know how to respond to winter's post. I didn't get my shit done in a timely manner. Saying anything further would either exacerbate problems we already have going on surrounding my promotion or spark a fight, so... I guess all i can do is apologize and shrug? I'm not going to not do my job, that much is for certain. Its just kind of hard to come up with things that are satisfactory to the community.

 

 

Oh, so THAT'S why I thought this situation had died down days ago. ...because it literally stopped being discussed days ago.

 

My apologies to Winter for your post being overlooked. (Why is this thread stickied, and therefore, very hard to notice? That might explain the lack of other posts in here)

 

I will point out that Giga making his post ~ Zai's promotion in the timeline is nothing more than a very tragic coincidence. You can blame me for it.

 

As for "where is the Debates/TCG Modship discussion ever?" question...it was only discussed internally, because we aren't actively looking for new moderators, but rather, determining who, among the ALREADY ACTIVE Moderators can potentially fill the position or assist the primary moderators. When many of our mods either resigned or got trimmed, we received several warnings from those resigning mods to not make the same mistake as before and promptly try to find replacements, and instead work on having the team as it stands cover perceived gaps, until it can be determined whether additional bodies is for the better.

I think its for the better that things were left to sit for a couple of days. Hopefully now we can all have a more rational, less mob-ey discussion. Can confirm that the timing of Evilfusion's promotion of me was just a very unfortunate coincidence, so please don't give the guy any flak over it regarding misgivings you guys may have about me doing my job.

 

Anyway, yes, my filling in in TCG and Debates is only a temporary thing. Just an extra bit of oversight, really. Don't see it as me becoming the moderator of either section so much as it me just helping out Dad and Evilfusion when they're busy.

 

 

Any concern will be spun as a witch-hunt, so I'll keep it brief here and expand in PM, or here w/ your permission later on.

 

1)

 

Having frequented both those sections fairly often, TCG/Debates, I'm not entirely sure what merits a new mod being needed in either. Would like elaboration on why this was needed?

 

2)

 

As much as I dislike a sprawling bureaucracy with multiple mods doing next to nothing (the old Order), it's equally dangerous, in my eyes, for you all to embrace a foot-in-the-door-expansionist model.

 

You guys do NOT remove mods easily. ie. Roxas, .Rai, LZ, or the "Zai Trail period" deal.

 

Adding additional powers to the mods w/ little to no public discourse is only going to deepen the swamp. 

 

3)

 

Zai is mod now- for better or worse- that seems to be the choice you have passed down to us.

 

Don't you think, at least for the sake of PR, that there should be an external discussion about the expansion of his powers?

 

I'm a little disappointed how little PR is actually went on after Bree's departure & hope you guys will endeavor to at least now right this ship.

 

What exactly were the Zai's qualifications for TCG/OCG & Debate mods? Is he a prolific YGO player? Does he know the community in Debates? How much has he interacted with either? I trust you guys must have good answers for both those questions (yes & intimately) given that y'all didn't feel the need alert the public about changes to the public relations moderator until the 13th hour. 

 

Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me thrice......???

 

I hope the Irony here isn't running too thick

Well, at least -I- won't spin it as a witch-hunt. *pause* Zai is male. It's a warlock-hunt. *shot*

 

I can't speak for debates. For TCG, it's only being suggested because I'm often busy during a sizeable chunk of the day on the days I work, and some of the now-resigned mods (Koko, Black, etc) used to watch the section in my absence due to frequenting it themselves, but I don't believe we have any current team members doing so. The idea was first suggested in the wake of the Babymon topics.

 

Is it a dire need? No.

 

You have a point with the dangers of both methods. We are still in the transition period of "Okay, we're reduced to X mods...what is everyone's role...and let's randomly throw out names for potential moderator additions because...why the fuck not?" (That's my interpretation, this is not what is literally happening...but it's not an exaggeration, either...).

 

We...admittedly like Zai's potential as a moderator. No, that's like...literally the only justification I've got at the moment as to why I'm not acknowledging your totally legit "failed as PR" point. But yes, before throwing mods to cover other sections, it should probably be brought up with the public, not for the sake of "PR", but because it could help avert haphazardly assigning mods to sections they don't specialize in.

 

I...don't think Zai is actually being considered as helping to cover TCG. I don't even recall if he ever goes in that section. I think he was being considered as either RP or helping with Debates.

Evilfusion's kind of busy, so when he isn't around I volunteered to keep an eye on TCG. I play ygo irl and i keep up with the game, so I know enough to understand what's being discussed and police the place until an actual moderator is promoted to better run it (if one is needed). Again, not actually being the section's mod so much as I am just lending other team members a hand. Same in debates, since Dad has coursework and I'm fairly knowledgeable when it comes to politics and philosophy, so i'm lending a hand. As far as I'm aware that was the consensus. If its changed, so be it.

 

As for us throwing random names out, that's... kiiiiind of what's happening? We're figuring shit out, more or less.

 

 

TCG always feels like a section that's like, chill most of the time unti occasions when it explodes especially lately with the dip in activity there.

 

However...most of the time issues and incidents erupting on TCG are really because of minor issues that didn't get handled in time before it explodes because YCM.

 

Iunno, from the time of Klav to the pot of greed thread of now, it's always like this. So at the very least in my opinion, even if you guys don't elect a new moderator for TCG, I believe the section still deserve more attention than it gets now. I mean yes most of the time it doesn't need moderation unlike General or Debates or CC, but with how the relative neglect was the reasoning behind most issues that passed the mod's attention, it's definitely something to consider.

Something to this effect. Just someone else who can pay attention to TCG when the need arises.

 

 

1. Get someone, anyone to watch over TCG and let the members know that the section is watched.

 

2. Constant updates on the plans posted on the News thread. 

 

3. Show progress on it. Yes I know I'm being hypocritical about this since the rules are stalled because of me, but hearing constant updates with progress is definitely going to show that yes, the mod team is actually reading the topics in the Moderator Forum and discussing things instead of seeing them as irrelevant to their interest for whatever reasons.

 

4. Generally faster decision making, please. Maybe not on the mod stuffs yet, but sooner or later you really going to need to decide on whether the team really need a new member or not. And on other things too. Am not really sure about how incidents or issues are dealt with now, but hopefully it doesn't involve days-long discussions while ignoring to strike while the iron's hot regarding punishments. Overly delayed light punishments are laughably ineffective.

 

5. More involvement in the community at wide, perhaps even to the super mods. Yes, I get that Super Mods are meant more to supervise and regulate the moderators on the team in a way and is generally less needed to be active, but having good perception on what is happening on the community would perhaps make it more reassuring for the team and the memberbase alike.

 

6. Mods should generally have more autonomy imo. I agree on the notion that the moderator team is a team for a reason and big decisions should be done with everyone discussing it, but right now (although things might have changed lately) I believe that mods should be allowed for more autonomy in doing their job. I mean, by accepting a mod on the team, that already means that you guys had trusted said mod to do their job. 

If unfair punishment would be a worry, then a fix in the rulebook would do things to deal with that issue.

 

Kinda more of a stream of consciousness list than anything concrete atm, just feeling like saying some things that I wanted to say. 

Kinda of multitasking at the moment so i can't really elaborate, but all of the above I agree with, more or less.

 

.


4F4kNzA.png


#22
Pendulum Black

Pendulum Black

    Pendulum of Souls

  • Performa✩Star
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 46,284 posts
  • Alias:Black
  • Spouse:Melody & Birdie

Do note, I never named you. I think that it's on the team as a whole, in this situation.



#23
White

White

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,105 posts
  • Spouse:Life and Death

Well, I'm interested to see what you have to offer. Birdie set the bar pretty high for you to try to meet. I hope I was wrong in my initial skepticism. 

 

The first post was my displeasure on the matter of your ascension and the surrounding fanfare. You don't know how to respond? Here's an idea. Talk to Birdie. She did a damn good job. If you end up being able to half of what she was doing before resigning, that's enough of a response to prove my concerns wrong.

 

I'll be watching closely. 


Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image

Thanks Tormey & Smear!!

Posted Image


#24
Zaiduck

Zaiduck

    Commander-type Duck

  • Moderators
  • 1,241 posts
  • Alias:Zai
  • Spouse:Kate

Well, I'm interested to see what you have to offer. Birdie set the bar pretty high for you to try to meet. I hope I was wrong in my initial skepticism. 

 

The first post was my displeasure on the matter of your ascension and the surrounding fanfare. You don't know how to respond? Here's an idea. Talk to Birdie. She did a damn good job. If you end up being able to half of what she was doing before resigning, that's enough of a response to prove my concerns wrong.

 

I'll be watching closely. 

I think comparing me to Birdie is irrelevant, honestly. We're different people and we're going to handle this job differently. Misgivings about how I got here aside, I'm going to be me and do what I feel I should, to the best of my ability. Period, end of story.

 

As far as me getting the job goes. I volunteered, the mods took me seriously, I was elected. Was the thread handled poorly? yes. Could things have been done differently? probably. But honestly, its time to move on and worry about fixing more pressing concerns.

 

If I start to actively suck at this, de-mod me. But I don;t think that's going to happen.


4F4kNzA.png


#25
White

White

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,105 posts
  • Spouse:Life and Death

Let's be honest at least now: (1) You're not getting demodded. You were selected by the mod team. They has "high hopes for you" - ie. you're not going anywhere.

 

Let's dispel with that notion. They've kept less controversial and inactive mods than you on.

 

Now that's done, if you think your method works, then put your method into action and let their results decide.

 

I haven't seen your new method yet. Or if they're being done, I haven't seen great results. 

 

The problem WAS how you were selected. The problem now IS what you've done (or rather not done) for your trial period. Your explanation defending Evil for promoting you doesn't answer the criticism. At least not regarding my point.

 

I'm curious why you were promoted to mod after not doing anything in your trial period. Giga's problems (if they still remain) are separate. The problem in the future WILL be if you continue as you have in the last month.

 

Yes, you were busy, so was Birdie. She stepped down. You did not. She did stuff actively while she was around. I'm still waiting to see what people claim you did during the same period. See the difference? 

 

Dismissing everything negative about as a witch-hunt won't help your plan and it makes you look childish. 

 

You were given a chance in your trial period, and you're being given a second chance now it seems. Please don't squander it. I'm asking more than ordering; even if you do squander it, nothing is gonna happen to you or your position. YCM just won't improve. 


Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image

Thanks Tormey & Smear!!

Posted Image


#26
Night

Night

    ليلة ماشي

  • Super Moderators
  • 7,771 posts
  • Spouse:you

Let's be honest at least now, you're not getting demodded. You were selected by the mod team. They has "high hopes for you" - ie, you're not going anywhere.

 

Let's dispel with that notion. They've kept less controversial and inactive mods than you on.

 

Now that's done, if you think your method works, then do something I guess. I haven't seen your new method yet.

 

The problem WAS how you were selected, the problem now IS what you've done (or rather not done) for your trial period. Your explanation defending Evil for promoting you doesn't answer the criticism. At least not regarding my point.

 

I'm curious why you were promoted to mod after not doing anything in your trial period. Giga's problems (if they remain) are separate. The problem in the future WILL be if you continue as you have in the last month.

 

Yes you were busy, so was Birdie. She stepped down. You did not. She did stuff actively while she was around. I'm still waiting to see what people claim you did during the same period.

 

Dismissing everything negative about as a witch hunt will only make that more likely to pass. Them blinders helps no-one

 

You were given a chance in your trial period, and you're being given a second chance now it seems. Please don't squander it. I'm asking more than ordering; even if you do squander it, nothing is gonna happen to you or your position. YCM just won't improve. 

 

If he doesn't do shit and/or doesn't do it well I'll personally demote him. 

Now you can stop worrying that nothing will happen because I'm far too prideful to go back on my word. 



#27
White

White

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,105 posts
  • Spouse:Life and Death

In that case I look forward to a new age of more amicable Mod-Userbase relations w/ our PR mod spearheading the effort


Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image

Thanks Tormey & Smear!!

Posted Image


#28
[email protected]

[email protected]

    Isn't it sad, Sacchin?

  • Back Alley Alliance
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,811 posts
  • Alias:Mitcher

https://forum.yugioh...read/?p=6999301

 

In response to this(because I can't fucking quote it)

 

I'd rather the suggestion prohibit political discussions in the status bar instead of just plain out 'political content'. The latter is way too wide a blanket ban that basically gives you the right to punish anyone for posting news that's politically relevant anywhere. This rule, I will assume, is being proposed because of the shit flinging that results from people posting political content in the status bar, rather than the initial posting of that content itself. It'd be much more natural to target the resulting arguments instead of the initial status message. If someone wants to debate/discuss/shame the initial status poster they can make an actual debates thread, which is then subject to that section's rules and standards.


Posted Image


#29
Eros Thanatos

Eros Thanatos

    Ya'll say we gone crazy, but we ain't gone anywhere.

  • Moderators
  • 13,263 posts
  • Alias:Dad
  • Spouse:Hip-hop

https://forum.yugioh...read/?p=6999301
 
In response to this(because I can't fucking quote it)
 
I'd rather the suggestion prohibit political discussions in the status bar instead of just plain out 'political content'. The latter is way too wide a blanket ban that basically gives you the right to punish anyone for posting news that's politically relevant anywhere. This rule, I will assume, is being proposed because of the shit flinging that results from people posting political content in the status bar, rather than the initial posting of that content itself. It'd be much more natural to target the resulting arguments instead of the initial status message. If someone wants to debate/discuss/shame the initial status poster they can make an actual debates thread, which is then subject to that section's rules and standards.


Good lookin. I'll bring this up. Much clearer than what i had in mind.

3dYbyUV.jpg

 

"Nothing can truly save a person, but themselves." --Hina


#30
Ninanai Nanashi

Ninanai Nanashi

    With Love Out of an Integral

  • Aurora
  • 9,627 posts
  • Alias:Nai
What would constitute as a political content in this case, for clarification?

tVwgKmF.jpg?1

 

"From here perhaps, I thought that I could finally understand you.

 

At least, let me embrace dream that I might."


#31
Eros Thanatos

Eros Thanatos

    Ya'll say we gone crazy, but we ain't gone anywhere.

  • Moderators
  • 13,263 posts
  • Alias:Dad
  • Spouse:Hip-hop

For example:  

 

Anything about Russia and Syria discrepancies against the U.S.

Anything about the U.S. bombing another country over seas

Anything about statistics as it relates to voting from elections current or previous

Anything about how Islam impacts the world (positively or negatively)

Anything about U.S. laws that are changing or will be changed

Anything about the UK split

 

Really I could go on, but its easier to ask me if something is okay to post.  However, this rule has not yet been implemented or refined, so feel free to carry on as you normally would.


3dYbyUV.jpg

 

"Nothing can truly save a person, but themselves." --Hina


#32
Pendulum Black

Pendulum Black

    Pendulum of Souls

  • Performa✩Star
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 46,284 posts
  • Alias:Black
  • Spouse:Melody & Birdie

Seems like a stupid idea.

 

If you think specific people are out of line, weed them out. That is far too broad, and only serves to allow the power to shut down basically anything, re:Islam example.

 

It's overkill in the first place, and it should not be acted upon by any means, because the politics are not the issue.



#33
(៚)

(៚)

    Little by little, we advance with each turn.

  • Ace Investigator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,162 posts
  • Alias:(parenthesis)
  • Spouse:some shitty waifu
At this point, political discussion isn't the problem. The issue comes from political rhetoric used by both sides of the spectrum.

Quite frankly, if someone put up a status saying "I agree with Trump's decision to strike against Syria" there shouldn't be anything wrong with it. As long as people can properly conduct themselves (which should be a standard they are held to regardless of whether the subject matter is political) there really isn't an issue.

Making an ultimately arbitrary distinction like this will just change the flavor of the status bar's toxicity.

That said, if this ends up working, I'm not going to oppose it. I have had my mind changed many times before.

tumblr_mkr3nrXIWo1sn5teeo1_500.gif


#34
Ninanai Nanashi

Ninanai Nanashi

    With Love Out of an Integral

  • Aurora
  • 9,627 posts
  • Alias:Nai

i feel that it's a bit late for this kind of rule to be implemented - as far as I am aware, even with the events of late, a proper urgency of the implementation of such rule isn't really there anymore. Comparing the first to third quarter of 2016 to the situation now, conflicts caused by such discussion are minimal now. I mean I guess Shard now picking up the pace of posting such statuses but the political statuses of now are far less attention-grabbing and polarizing as back then. Without a sense of urgency, I'm unsure about the semi-sudden decision to discuss this now of all time.

 

I'm not opposed to this by any means, in fact I still have the same stance on this from last year (those statuses were especially quite an eyesore back then - and still somewhat disappointed that my proposal back then got buried due to the sexual content debacle). It's just that, right now it's far better to just impose a standard of conduct and push more intensive discussion and debating to the section it's meant to, something like Giga and Mitch said.

 

Doubts on effectiveness aside, between this and the [USER WAS WARNED FOR THIS POST] thread, it's pretty clear that there really is an issue on our general memberbase. Not one person, not a few person, not just one side of the argument. The taint in our community is in everything, instead of a clear rotten part now. That is the issue we have.

 

Mods are not glorified forum janitors. While I don't want to see them being unjust despot either, it's situations like this that calls for them to properly exert their authority to control and contain the masses. Create a standard of conduct, stop conflicts and deal with both sides fairly and sternly, and in general, do whatever is necessary for the sake of the forum, not for the sake of vocal memberbases of any kind. So if a proposal's primary issue is the worry that some people might use it to shame or mock the people that got warned (and promptly derailing the thread with ad hominems anyway), just shoot down such behavior whenever they appear.

 

Just be harsh as necessary, I guess that's the tl;dr from here.


tVwgKmF.jpg?1

 

"From here perhaps, I thought that I could finally understand you.

 

At least, let me embrace dream that I might."


#35
Phantom Roxas

Phantom Roxas

    I don't even know anymore

  • Legendary Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,595 posts

For example:  
 
Anything about Russia and Syria discrepancies against the U.S.
Anything about the U.S. bombing another country over seas
Anything about statistics as it relates to voting from elections current or previous
Anything about how Islam impacts the world (positively or negatively)
Anything about U.S. laws that are changing or will be changed
Anything about the UK split
 
Really I could go on, but its easier to ask me if something is okay to post.  However, this rule has not yet been implemented or refined, so feel free to carry on as you normally would.


This is a rather selfish question, but would this also cover "Calexit" / Yes California, or just anything to do with California secession in general? It does have a fair amount of overlap with the points U.S. laws and the UK split. If that's too broad, then to be more specific, I imagine that comments like "I would be happy to roll tanks into your state" should be considered out of line. When statuses reach the point where a user is genuinely advocating a real life war against another user, that's too far.



#36
Eros Thanatos

Eros Thanatos

    Ya'll say we gone crazy, but we ain't gone anywhere.

  • Moderators
  • 13,263 posts
  • Alias:Dad
  • Spouse:Hip-hop

This is a rather selfish question, but would this also cover "Calexit" / Yes California, or just anything to do with California secession in general? It does have a fair amount of overlap with the points U.S. laws and the UK split. If that's too broad, then to be more specific, I imagine that comments like "I would be happy to roll tanks into your state" should be considered out of line. When statuses reach the point where a user is genuinely advocating a real life war against another user, that's too far.

 

It's so broad that I actually forgot about this topic.  That's bad news for the implementation of such a poorly constructed rule (on my part obviously).

 

i feel that it's a bit late for this kind of rule to be implemented - as far as I am aware, even with the events of late, a proper urgency of the implementation of such rule isn't really there anymore. Comparing the first to third quarter of 2016 to the situation now, conflicts caused by such discussion are minimal now. I mean I guess Shard now picking up the pace of posting such statuses but the political statuses of now are far less attention-grabbing and polarizing as back then. Without a sense of urgency, I'm unsure about the semi-sudden decision to discuss this now of all time.

 

I'm not opposed to this by any means, in fact I still have the same stance on this from last year (those statuses were especially quite an eyesore back then - and still somewhat disappointed that my proposal back then got buried due to the sexual content debacle). It's just that, right now it's far better to just impose a standard of conduct and push more intensive discussion and debating to the section it's meant to, something like Giga and Mitch said.

 

Doubts on effectiveness aside, between this and the [USER WAS WARNED FOR THIS POST] thread, it's pretty clear that there really is an issue on our general memberbase. Not one person, not a few person, not just one side of the argument. The taint in our community is in everything, instead of a clear rotten part now. That is the issue we have.

 

Mods are not glorified forum janitors. While I don't want to see them being unjust despot either, it's situations like this that calls for them to properly exert their authority to control and contain the masses. Create a standard of conduct, stop conflicts and deal with both sides fairly and sternly, and in general, do whatever is necessary for the sake of the forum, not for the sake of vocal memberbases of any kind. So if a proposal's primary issue is the worry that some people might use it to shame or mock the people that got warned (and promptly derailing the thread with ad hominems anyway), just shoot down such behavior whenever they appear.

 

Just be harsh as necessary, I guess that's the tl;dr from here.

 

At this point, political discussion isn't the problem. The issue comes from political rhetoric used by both sides of the spectrum.

Quite frankly, if someone put up a status saying "I agree with Trump's decision to strike against Syria" there shouldn't be anything wrong with it. As long as people can properly conduct themselves (which should be a standard they are held to regardless of whether the subject matter is political) there really isn't an issue.

Making an ultimately arbitrary distinction like this will just change the flavor of the status bar's toxicity.

That said, if this ends up working, I'm not going to oppose it. I have had my mind changed many times before.

 

These are all fantastic points.  And you're absolutely right.  Discussion shouldn't be restricted due to a few pains in the ass.  I think I'm going to withdraw my request and just look to punish stupid people in the status bar more often.

 

Thank you for your feedback.


3dYbyUV.jpg

 

"Nothing can truly save a person, but themselves." --Hina





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users