[mjn.mixael]

To be clear, I could care a less about most of the changes posted because they don't affect me, though I suspect that doing things anonomously and promising to discuss them in sekret won't solve some of the larger dramas we've had.

However, here's what does affect me and most of the boards on HLP. You said hosted projects can no longer moderate how they want and that they must adhere to the global rules. You gave a few passing examples, but I have no ideas what you expect of me on my boards... Especially since you guys came up with or are coming up with all those rules behind closed doors. The root problem from the last outburst that I recall still exists. There is a distinct lack of 'same pageness' with individual board moderators... Except now any higher up moderator can come in and do whatever under the guise of 'we talked about it'. I suppose it's a good thing I trust 1 or 2 of the ad mins :-) .

[karajorma]

Well the rules are basically the same as before. It's just that as a forum mod we don't want people breaking the basic HLP rules and then saying "My forum, my rules." The idea is to get everyone on the same page.

[pecenipicek]

Well the rules are basically the same as before. It's just that as a forum mod we don't want people breaking the basic HLP rules and then saying "My forum, my rules." The idea is to get everyone on the same page.

wasnt/isnt this the unwritten rule of forums anyhow? if they want to play "my forum, my rules" they can get off of hlp and make new ones.

[karajorma]

It wasn't unfortunately, which lead to all kinds of issues.

Mjn does bring up a good point about it not being crystal clear what a forum mod can and can't do so we'll see about getting some rules posted about that.

[Spoon]

Whenever possible, decisions will instead be taken after a moderator has consulted with one or more of their peers and agreed on whether or not there has been an infraction, how severe it is, and what should be done about it.

Are forum moderators included in this 'peer category'? Cause I happen to remember a certain semi recent incident with a global mod just going "whatever, I do what I want because I feel like I'm more important that you are" and completely bypassing this whole consulting and PMing part. Are these changes made to prevent that from happening again?
Is this system in place to provide more consistency between admins and global moderators?

I really want to focus on the high-level takeaway about systemic dysfunction here. Do you guys understand that, right now, the best way for a problem to be fixed on a project board - really, on any board - with a minimum of fuss and drama is to send a few quiet PMs and pray to god that no global moderator, admin, or HLP functionary gets involved? Because if they do, everybody knows there will be at least a mid-sized explosion and a lot of interpersonal tension (as we see here).

We have a system that makes problems harder to deal with the more the system is engaged. The incentive structure right now is set up such that the best move for project boards with a problem is to try to avoid that problem being passed to 'higher rank' (as Goober puts it).

HLP is first and foremost a pipeline for the development and delivery of content, remember? If content creators cannot work because people are obsessed with the jurisdiction of their spaceships forum badge, that is a serious problem. What can we do to fix that?

  Are these changes made to adress this issue? (reading through them im leaning to no)

However, here's what does affect me and most of the boards on HLP. You said hosted projects can no longer moderate how they want and that they must adhere to the global rules. You gave a few passing examples, but I have no ideas what you expect of me on my boards... Especially since you guys came up with or are coming up with all those rules behind closed doors. The root problem from the last outburst that I recall still exists. There is a distinct lack of 'same pageness' with individual board moderators... Except now any higher up moderator can come in and do whatever under the guise of 'we talked about it'. I suppose it's a good thing I trust 1 or 2 of the ad mins :-) .

This concerns me too.

[Flipside]

I think the idea here is that there will be no more hit-and-run moderation by anyone, be they Global or Board moderators. The last problem occurred because two people with board-control powers made two separate decisions, clashed, and because this is HLP, an awful lot of drama followed for what should have taken a short, intelligent conversation.

I'm pretty removed from it all now, I don't have time to moderate and am, strictly speaking, resigned, however, my own thought is that maybe having that conversation before taking action might just cut down on the drama.

[General Battuta]

More conversation by mods and admins is definitely good. I'm a little miffed that there are at least two separate chunks of rules aimed at keeping me muzzled, but hey, at least there are some for Lorric.

An official policy that there will be no consistency between punishments will provide grounds for real frustration. I already feel like I'm at risk of a ban for posting in good faith on several topics I'm interested in. The new rules mean that I need to make sure all edge cases are reported so I can understand when action is going to be taken and when it isn't. Is that the intent here? It does at least seem to jive with the request for more reports. Are posts by moderators safe to emulate? Can I insult someone as long as a moderator's used the same wording?

Why is there no formal rule about moderating discussions you're participating in? What kind of recourse do we have when a thread ends up locked while a couple moderators complain about how dreadful everything is?

Unfortunately I think these rules are going to push forum discussion farther along in a direction it's previously tended to go: threads dominated by stubborn, underinformed people who can repeat the same points over and over again no matter what they're told, leading to frustration, irritation, page after page of posts trying to cover the same ground, and (under these new rules) a lot of recrimination for the people most likely to bring substance to a thread. A set of forum rules that sees MP-Ryan banned and Liberator left posting is not a set of forum rules that will provide an interesting culture.

There's also one huge, inherent flaw with the moderation system as it is right now: it rewards sniping. Let's say the issue in question is India vs. Pakistan and it's something a ton of forum members care about. It's easy to slip in a line or two aside about this issue in a place where it doesn't necessarily belong. It's difficult to reply to this point without creating a derail or being accused of soapboxing. This creates incentives for political and personal statements to be made obliquely where they can't be safely or productively engaged.

I'm a member of a number of forums with really, really successful moderation and a culture of agreeable collaboration. They're a lot bigger than HLP, which may have something to do with it, but the tone at the top is also much different - there's no attempt to run moderation by a set of comprehensive rules, and the focus of the moderation team is much less on by-the-line-item enforcement and much more on ensuring that discussion is substantive and interesting. If users post a lot and contribute little, they get banned. Part of my impatience with posting on HLP lies in this difference - the pretense of impartiality and legalism is, I think, actively opposed to successful forums moderation.

[NGTM-1R]

What is the point of giving forum moderators the ability to moderate at all if they will not be included in the discussions that appear to be the desired root of all moderation decisions? It says hosted projects mods are keeping their powers, after all, but that they will not be allowed to participate in such things.

It clearly has use perhaps in internals, but then restrict the powers to internals if that's so valuable.


More seriously, the reason to adopt this system seems to sit with the fact that existing moderators and admins are not trusted to perform these tasks as appropriate already. There is a much simpler and more effective solution to that problem: get new ones. If you have to codify some of this stuff, like the need to recuse yourself from moderating discussion you participate in, the need to engage in discussion before banning, the need to actually inform people that others have been banned (and should be unbanned at a certain date), you have in a real sense already lost.

I share Battuta's concerns on the health of the forum in general, but I'd like to also elaborate on one particular point further. We've gone through several iterations of the problem Batts refers to using Liberator and the moderation has not and does not appear interested in developing an effective reply to it, only allowing it to continue until finally the collective level of forum annoyance causes any thread with that poster in it to devolve into seething rage. High Max, Trashman on his bad days, Kazan, etc. Lorric is on the same road. A majority of problems revolve around such users. Yet HLP is completely uninterested in addressing them as a source of problems, only the individual problems. This is a serious issue because the individual problems frequently don't involve the source, but people reacting to the source.

[Fury]

User was issued a warning for this post.  Post adds nothing to the discussion, and is liable to provoke additional drama.

[karajorma]

As I pointed out on IRC, the changes to the guidelines are what you really should be looking at before commenting. High Max for instance wouldn't have lasted 5 minutes with the "HLP is not your blog. HLP is not your Twitter feed." guideline enforced. And even if he got past that, "If you can't shape your thinking into anything coherent, don't post." would clobber him.

[Lorric]

More conversation by mods and admins is definitely good. I'm a little miffed that there are at least two separate chunks of rules aimed at keeping me muzzled, but hey, at least there are some for Lorric.

I wonder what those are that will keep you muzzled.

As for me, yes, I've noticed. But I like the changes very much.

[MatthTheGeek]

If you can't shape your thinking into anything coherent, don't post." would clobber him.

Does that mean we're banning wouter, or anyone using Google Translate.

[Lorric]

Lorric is on the same road.

No. Only a very few individuals have taken an unhealthy interest in me.

[Androgeos Exeunt]

I suppose it's a good thing I trust 1 or 2 of the ad mins :-) .

* Androgeos checks the memberlist.

You could trust more of them. They've been running this place for the past decade (except rev, who manages the hardware if I remember it right, and Zacam, who got it a few years back).

...

Nngh, Hammer's no longer an admin...

[Spoon]

What is the point of giving forum moderators the ability to moderate at all if they will not be included in the discussions that appear to be the desired root of all moderation decisions? It says hosted projects mods are keeping their powers, after all, but that they will not be allowed to participate in such things.

It clearly has use perhaps in internals, but then restrict the powers to internals if that's so valuable.

It's because a few members think of HLP as a military hierarchy in which they can dickwave their e-power around instead of seeing what things really are. A community forum about a 10+ old spaceship game. I mean hell, look at Goober's view on things:

I want to make one thing clear.  Moderating responsibility is delegated on HLP.  Project leaders have discretion over their projects, and are encouraged to manage them as they see fit.  But Global Moderators, by definition, outrank standard moderators.  If a global moderator and a moderator have a conflict, the global moderator takes precedence.  In the same way, if an admin and a global moderator have a conflict, the admin takes precedence.  A project leader does not have veto power over a global moderator, even within his own project.  Although we encourage global moderators to let project moderators handle their problems, if a global moderator sees a problem, he is within his authority to step in.

Goober's idea of a healthy community is to put some people above other people.

But then there is Zacam who has a sane view on things:

Okay, so yes, Global Moderators are supposed to have a more "Global" consciousness of the Forum at large in terms of the over all behaviours and atmosphere for the board at large. Bully for them. That doesn't make them any more or less "Right" when dealing in an already actively moderated area that should grant them ANY exclusivity to their power to "out rank" somebody.

Because a community is not about Rank and Seniority. That's Military. Community is about collaboration and commonality. And discussion regarding that can often be flavorful and colorful and not without its issue, sure. But that is to be expected.

As I said above, there is no consistency and these supposed new 'better' rules don't really provide much clarity either. And my questions about them remain unanswered.

More seriously, the reason to adopt this system seems to sit with the fact that existing moderators and admins are not trusted to perform these tasks as appropriate already. There is a much simpler and more effective solution to that problem: get new ones. If you have to codify some of this stuff, like the need to recuse yourself from moderating discussion you participate in, the need to engage in discussion before banning, the need to actually inform people that others have been banned (and should be unbanned at a certain date), you have in a real sense already lost.

I for one don't trust most of the existing moderators and admins to perform these tasks appropriately. The years spend here have sort of bruised my confidence.

I share Battuta's concerns on the health of the forum in general, but I'd like to also elaborate on one particular point further. We've gone through several iterations of the problem Batts refers to using Liberator and the moderation has not and does not appear interested in developing an effective reply to it, only allowing it to continue until finally the collective level of forum annoyance causes any thread with that poster in it to devolve into seething rage. High Max, Trashman on his bad days, Kazan, etc. Lorric is on the same road. A majority of problems revolve around such users. Yet HLP is completely uninterested in addressing them as a source of problems, only the individual problems. This is a serious issue because the individual problems frequently don't involve the source, but people reacting to the source.

There is also the problem that when there are certain members that are just being a constant source of negativity there is nothing that is being done or under these rules can be done. Since you 'can't take matters into your own hand'. It's okay for certain people to continue being venomous but since there isn't any clear cut rule being violate there is nothing to really use the report button for. If you call them out on such behavior you are actually in violation of the 'no backseat moderating' rule and get punished instead.

* Androgeos checks the memberlist.

You could trust more of them. They've been running this place for the past decade

'Running' the place but barely involved with what is going on with the modding scene. At least Fury had the sense to 'step down' when he realized he just didn't had the same level of involvement as he did before.

[Lorric]

There is also the problem that when there are certain members that are just being a constant source of negativity there is nothing that is being done or under these rules can be done. Since you 'can't take matters into your own hand'. It's okay for certain people to continue being venomous but since there isn't any clear cut rule being violate there is nothing to really use the report button for. If you call them out on such behavior you are actually in violation of the 'no backseat moderating' rule and get punished instead.

Hmmm, that's a good point...

[NGTM-1R]

High Max for instance wouldn't have lasted 5 minutes with the "HLP is not your blog. HLP is not your Twitter feed." guideline enforced. And even if he got past that, "If you can't shape your thinking into anything coherent, don't post." would clobber him.

You have a very different memory of High Max. He could shape his thinking into something coherent. It was typically wrong and often repulsive, but it was coherent enough that it could be (pointlessly) engaged with and related to the topic at hand.

See also Trashman, Liberator, and Lorric in GenDisc right now. Threads do not descend into the pit of hell because these people post like it's a blog or twitter feed or their posting is incoherent. It's because people get immensely frustrated with them.

[Lorric]

High Max for instance wouldn't have lasted 5 minutes with the "HLP is not your blog. HLP is not your Twitter feed." guideline enforced. And even if he got past that, "If you can't shape your thinking into anything coherent, don't post." would clobber him.

You have a very different memory of High Max. He could shape his thinking into something coherent. It was typically wrong and often repulsive, but it was coherent enough that it could be (pointlessly) engaged with and related to the topic at hand.

See also Trashman, Liberator, and Lorric in GenDisc right now. Threads do not descend into the pit of hell because these people post like it's a blog or twitter feed or their posting is incoherent. It's because people get immensely frustrated with them.

Oh, I'm so sorry that I have a mind of my own and won't fit into the box you want to put me in.

[mjn.mixael]

High Max for instance wouldn't have lasted 5 minutes with the "HLP is not your blog. HLP is not your Twitter feed." guideline enforced. And even if he got past that, "If you can't shape your thinking into anything coherent, don't post." would clobber him.

You have a very different memory of High Max. He could shape his thinking into something coherent. It was typically wrong and often repulsive, but it was coherent enough that it could be (pointlessly) engaged with and related to the topic at hand.

See also Trashman, Liberator, and Lorric in GenDisc right now. Threads do not descend into the pit of hell because these people post like it's a blog or twitter feed or their posting is incoherent. It's because people get immensely frustrated with them.

Oh, I'm so sorry that I have a mind of my own and won't fit into the box you want to put me in.

This is not the thread for that. Take it elsewhere.

[karajorma]

You have a very different memory of High Max. He could shape his thinking into something coherent. It was typically wrong and often repulsive, but it was coherent enough that it could be (pointlessly) engaged with and related to the topic at hand.

See also Trashman, Liberator, and Lorric in GenDisc right now. Threads do not descend into the pit of hell because these people post like it's a blog or twitter feed or their posting is incoherent. It's because people get immensely frustrated with them.

High Max's posts were frequently off-topic stream of consciousness style posts often about his own life, set off by whatever buzzword was in the topic at hand.

Anyway, it doesn't really matter which of the guidelines you think he'd fall foul of. High Max was one of the individuals everyone had in mind when writing these guidelines. They were specifically designed to deal with people like him. Do you honestly think anyone wants someone like him back?

What you're doing in pointing out exactly why you think the guidelines wouldn't apply to High Max, is actually close to the kind of behaviour that has tied the admins hands when dealing with people like him. Although he was a great example of the sort of person no one wanted on HLP, he never really broke the rules. And because he never broke the rules, no one wanted to ban him, precisely because it would cause stupid forum drama from the people who would complain that the admins exceeded their authority by banning a user simply because they didn't like him. And people would do something very similar to what you're doing by starting an argument about how he didn't break any of the rules.

In the end he was banned for stupid **** like deleting posts. Twice. When no one could complain that he didn't deserve it.

The whole reason for the new guidelines is because we want to establish that a pattern of behaviour can get you in trouble even if no individual post is bad enough to get you thrown out. The problem with chastising someone for a pattern of behaviour is that it swiftly results in the person turning around and saying "I never posted anything bad enough to deserve a ban! User y does the same thing! Mod X has a vendetta against me!" and a whole other litany of whining as they try to absolve themselves of guilt.

Basically if you're repeatedly causing forum issues, you're in danger of it causing you issues. That can be from several things including general nastiness, soapboxing or dragging every interesting thread down to the idiot level you feel comfortable at. The guidelines don't cover every single way you can do that. But they don't need to. We've already said we'll send a PM to someone who is causing enough of a problem.