My sincere thoughts on #modtheear

[fightinfrenchman]

My behavior is conducive to being a moderator, in that I am active on the forums and willing to listen to the entire community.

If those were the only things we require each moderator to be then there would be a LOT more moderators. There's at least a dozen people that meet that criteria that aren't moderators.

Can you really, honestly say I would not make a good moderator?

[lesllamas]

The off topic section on this forum is going through the same growing pains that practically every gaming forum's off topic section goes through. I can see this ending in one of three ways.

1) The off topic section is eventually closed

OR

2) It is kept open with an extremely short leash for certain problematic members (Jackson Pollack, Dr. Legend, other people who fill up the forums calling people unmanly fags, etc), ending in probable bans for those people.

OR

3) Mods abandon the off topic forum entirely. If this were the case, I'd imagine the off topic forum would be moved to a less prominent part of the site and active threads would not be displayed on the sidebar. This is probably the easiest way out, but it ultimately sacrifices the visibility of anything in off topic, so you lose some value there when good threads make their way onto that forum.

Personally, I prefer number two. In my eyes, this forum has a preponderance of good posters, and it can live perfectly fine without those bent on being assholes online. This forum isn't the United States government--we owe no freedoms to anybody. It's an AoE3 forum that has collected refuse from past communities. As far as modding the ear goes, I'm not a supporter. I think there are much better options in our pool of community members.

[momuuu]

The off topic section on this forum is going through the same growing pains that practically every gaming forum's off topic section goes through. I can see this ending in one of three ways.

1) The off topic section is eventually closed

OR

2) It is kept open with an extremely short leash for certain problematic members (Jackson Pollack, Dr. Legend, other people who fill up the forums calling people unmanly fags, etc), ending in probable bans for those people.

OR

3) Mods abandon the off topic forum entirely. If this were the case, I'd imagine the off topic forum would be moved to a less prominent part of the site and active threads would not be displayed on the sidebar. This is probably the easiest way out, but it ultimately sacrifices the visibility of anything in off topic, so you lose some value there when good threads make their way onto that forum.

Personally, I prefer number two. In my eyes, this forum has a preponderance of good posters, and it can live perfectly fine without those bent on being assholes online. This forum isn't the United States government--we owe no freedoms to anybody. It's an AoE3 forum that has collected refuse from past communities. As far as modding the ear goes, I'm not a supporter. I think there are much better options in our pool of community members.

It might be cool if you had a preference that would hide off topic from the active topics (and potentially unread posts) under forum preferences. I am pretty sure many people do not care for off topic (this is an aoe gaming forum after all) and don't like seeing all the spammy content on there.

I personally agree #2 is the best solution

[DivineFire]

I absolutely agree, the problem is that those people are extremely opposed to being on a "short leash" and much prefer to flame and spam and insult people and they're the ones that are vocal about changing the moderation policies.

[fightinfrenchman]

The off topic section on this forum is going through the same growing pains that practically every gaming forum's off topic section goes through. I can see this ending in one of three ways.

1) The off topic section is eventually closed

OR

2) It is kept open with an extremely short leash for certain problematic members (Jackson Pollack, Dr. Legend, other people who fill up the forums calling people unmanly fags, etc), ending in probable bans for those people.

OR

3) Mods abandon the off topic forum entirely. If this were the case, I'd imagine the off topic forum would be moved to a less prominent part of the site and active threads would not be displayed on the sidebar. This is probably the easiest way out, but it ultimately sacrifices the visibility of anything in off topic, so you lose some value there when good threads make their way onto that forum.

Personally, I prefer number two. In my eyes, this forum has a preponderance of good posters, and it can live perfectly fine without those bent on being assholes online. This forum isn't the United States government--we owe no freedoms to anybody. It's an AoE3 forum that has collected refuse from past communities. As far as modding the ear goes, I'm not a supporter. I think there are much better options in our pool of community members.

It might be cool if you had a preference that would hide off topic from the active topics (and potentially unread posts) under forum preferences. I am pretty sure many people do not care for off topic (this is an aoe gaming forum after all) and don't like seeing all the spammy content on there.

I personally agree #2 is the best solution

"Content I don't like = spam"

[fightinfrenchman]

I absolutely agree, the problem is that those people are extremely opposed to being on a "short leash" and much prefer to flame and spam and insult people and they're the ones that are vocal about changing the moderation policies.

You refer to people spamming and flaming way too often. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they are a troll.

[DivineFire]

I absolutely agree, the problem is that those people are extremely opposed to being on a "short leash" and much prefer to flame and spam and insult people and they're the ones that are vocal about changing the moderation policies.

You refer to people spamming and flaming way too often. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they are a troll.

I refer to people flaming and spamming because it's a huge problem facing us right now. And I never said or eluded to people that disagree with me being trolls.

[fightinfrenchman]

I absolutely agree, the problem is that those people are extremely opposed to being on a "short leash" and much prefer to flame and spam and insult people and they're the ones that are vocal about changing the moderation policies.

You refer to people spamming and flaming way too often. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they are a troll.

I refer to people flaming and spamming because it's a huge problem facing us right now. And I never said or eluded to people that disagree with me being trolls.

You're lumping in people who disagree with moderation policies with them.

[Kaiserklein]

My opinion:
- the rules are very consistent for all staff members
- communication with forum users is absolutely fine. Every warning comes with a complete description of what is wrong. It is fine to respond to it if you don't understand via pm and very much so possible. I respond to all messages with regards to that and I am sure all other mods do. I don't know why people think communication is an issue if they aren't even reaching out to moderators via pm if they don't understand or don't agree with something. There's even the thread that h2o made in which he put a lot of effort
- incog didn't leave the forums because he didn't want his posts to reflect negatively on the ESOC Staff
- I think you are not behaving in a way that could convince anyone that you would make a decent mod
- If people would behave decently, there are plenty of moderators. Right now it seems the community as a whole is having issues adapting to a new set of rules that aim to make this place more peaceful.

Further more I would like to say that the people complaining about moderation right now might seem to be the only people that have an opinion on it, but I've heard from many people, and I think other team members have heard similair stories, that they don't visit the forums anymore or don't want to make posts because of the hostile environment. At the moment we are not ESO-Community. The forums is only attractive to a specific few (especially for people that enjoy spam and flame). This should be a generic forum where everyone can freely talk about aoe related topics without consistently being harassed. The new rules are very decent and not that complex. It's not hard to just not flame a person or create a completely nonsensical topic. Thats what we expect from you, a very small amount of decency. Why don't people concerned about "strict" moderation show us that we don't have to moderate by just following these very basic rules?

Jerom, you must stop saying everything is going fine with moderation and people are behaving badly. Seriously, it's normal you want to cover the mod team, but be realistic, there are issues. And it's not only because of "trolls", so many threads are getting locked for no reason... Like the thread that h2o made, it was indeed a good thread, and indeed people didn't respect the template, but does this mean it had to be locked ? Some constructive discussion was coming out of it. Anyway, DivineFire didn't lock it just because people weren't following the template, and we both know that...

While I do agree that adding some fresh blood to the team would definitely be helpful, and also agree that having someone read the off topic forums and devote their time to chatting in depth with people that are causing problems; your current behavior is just not conducive to you being that person.

I agree with Jerom on all of his points:
-Warnings we issue come with a full description of the issue and if anything is unclear users are always welcome to respond to them and we will take the time to explain anything that isn't making sense.
-Rules are applied to ALL staff members, and many staff members have warnings associated with their accounts.
-He is also right when he says that there are plenty of moderators if people wouldn't have such a hard time adjusting to more generic forum rules instead of what we had before which was just flame and spam everywhere.

At the moment ESOC is an extremely hostile place to post just about anything and as a group the staff has decided to moderate the site for everyone and not just for the active users we already have.

Of course you agree with all his points... He's covering your ass. But again, there are issues on the moderation side as well as on the member side.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you do things terribly etc, I'm not saying it's especially both you guys' fault (I know some other mods are kinda hiding atm instead of risking to take decisions). Just that, for the first time since I've been on these forums, there are indeed some big flaws in moderation.
But anyway it's pointless to discuss this once more, because you guys won't change your point of view that there is no problem with moderation. So I'll rather go back on topic.

I'd say it's not a bad idea. Tbh the ear, I'm not sure you would be a good mod overall, but I like the idea of someone who is active on off-topic and really follows what's happening there. I'd also add it's important to have what I would call "real" mods ; by "real", I mean a full-time mod. Not someone who has to do other stuff before he can be a mod... Like making maps, designing the website, being admin of a tourney, etc. Someone that can focus on moderating actively, that's what we need imo. Or if there already is that guy (I guess DivineFire is, which is why he's the one locking more threads and getting flamed more, because he's more active than other mods), maybe we need several of those full-time mods. That way, we would be sure they can cover most threads quickly enough to prevent them from being derailed for example. Or that they will be able to check more or less all threads, not only those where posts have been reported by thebritish... Etc.
So it could be the ear, or someone else, as long as the guy is active enough and can handle a mod job.

[_H2O]

I would say actions speak louder than words for this one. If the interest really is there then try to post like a mod and also show it. That's how we have added staff members. I appreciate the enthusiasm and I'll keep an ear out for you to show it.

[DivineFire]

Anyway, DivineFire didn't lock it just because people weren't following the template, and we both know that...

That's exactly why I locked it, would just like H2O to clean it up and respond to things as he sees fit, then set everyone back on the threads original purpose.

[fightinfrenchman]

I'd say it's not a bad idea. Tbh the ear, I'm not sure you would be a good mod overall, but I like the idea of someone who is active on off-topic and really follows what's happening there. I'd also add it's important to have what I would call "real" mods ; by "real", I mean a full-time mod. Not someone who has to do other stuff before he can be a mod... Like making maps, designing the website, being admin of a tourney, etc. Someone that can focus on moderating actively, that's what we need imo. Or if there already is that guy (I guess DivineFire is, which is why he's the one locking more threads and getting flamed more, because he's more active than other mods), maybe we need several of those full-time mods. That way, we would be sure they can cover most threads quickly enough to prevent them from being derailed for example. Or that they will be able to check more or less all threads, not only those where posts have been reported by thebritish... Etc.
So it could be the ear, or someone else, as long as the guy is active enough and can handle a mod job.

Thank you, Kaiser Klein. I know we've had our disagreements in the past, but I appreciate that you see the problems and realize some potential solutions.

[fightinfrenchman]

I would say actions speak louder than words for this one. If the interest really is there then try to post like a mod and also show it. That's how we have added staff members. I appreciate the enthusiasm and I'll keep an ear out for you to show it.

Moreso than just the interest, I think it's pretty clear there is a need, especially with other moderators stating that they don't have the time to put into moderating.

[momuuu]

How can you say this is the "first time there are flaws in moderation since your stay" if it was completely possible to flame someone as hard as you could and not receive any penalty, no warning not even a moderator comment for it?

This is why I think things are mostly okay:

I absolutely agree, the problem is that those people are extremely opposed to being on a "short leash" and much prefer to flame and spam and insult people and they're the ones that are vocal about changing the moderation policies.

Ive said it in various places and I will say it again: I understand that people are angry that some policies changed in a way that forces them to adjust their behaviour. The people complaining are the ones that apperantly really liked the negative environment on esoc. The fact that these people seem to be upset is somewhat logical to me. The forums are being changed, and some of the people that are here right now really like the way it is. I think the way it is is mostly very destructive and has to be changed up. We don't ask much but some common sense from users.

Also I would like to stress once more that I read all the posts there are. Not only off topic, all of it.

[fightinfrenchman]

How can you say this is the "first time there are flaws in moderation since your stay" if it was completely possible to flame someone as hard as you could and not receive any penalty, no warning not even a moderator comment for it?

This is why I think things are mostly okay:

I absolutely agree, the problem is that those people are extremely opposed to being on a "short leash" and much prefer to flame and spam and insult people and they're the ones that are vocal about changing the moderation policies.

Ive said it in various places and I will say it again: I understand that people are angry that some policies changed in a way that forces them to adjust their behaviour. The people complaining are the ones that apperantly really liked the negative environment on esoc. The fact that these people seem to be upset is somewhat logical to me. The forums are being changed, and some of the people that are here right now really like the way it is. I think the way it is is mostly very destructive and has to be changed up. We don't ask much but some common sense from users.

Also I would like to stress once more that I read all the posts there are. Not only off topic, all of it.

Do you realize how condescending it is to say that anyone who complains enjoys a negative environment?

[momuuu]

How can you say this is the "first time there are flaws in moderation since your stay" if it was completely possible to flame someone as hard as you could and not receive any penalty, no warning not even a moderator comment for it?

This is why I think things are mostly okay:

I absolutely agree, the problem is that those people are extremely opposed to being on a "short leash" and much prefer to flame and spam and insult people and they're the ones that are vocal about changing the moderation policies.

Ive said it in various places and I will say it again: I understand that people are angry that some policies changed in a way that forces them to adjust their behaviour. The people complaining are the ones that apperantly really liked the negative environment on esoc. The fact that these people seem to be upset is somewhat logical to me. The forums are being changed, and some of the people that are here right now really like the way it is. I think the way it is is mostly very destructive and has to be changed up. We don't ask much but some common sense from users.

Also I would like to stress once more that I read all the posts there are. Not only off topic, all of it.

Do you realize how condescending it is to say that anyone who complains enjoys a negative environment?

You are right. I don't mean it badly and I'm sorry if that seemed that way. It is very interesting though that the biggest complainers at the moment also appear to be amazing hoarders of warnings.

[gibson]

Ive complained a decent amount and to my knowledge have not received a warning.

[momuuu]

Ive complained a decent amount and to my knowledge have not received a warning.

Weirdly enough your post is a prime example on how to talk about moderation policies: its respectful and constructive. And funnily enough the point you raise are almost entirely in line with the current moderation policies. I do not see that as a complaint but mostly as constructive feedback to improve upon something you mostly agree with in the first place.

[_H2O]

Anyway, DivineFire didn't lock it just because people weren't following the template, and we both know that...

That's exactly why I locked it, would just like H2O to clean it up and respond to things as he sees fit, then set everyone back on the threads original purpose.

Its helpful since i didnt have time to keep up with it and it was just about getting flooded

[lesllamas]

Spammy content is spammy content.

If someone like JacksonPollack makes a post: "you're a dumb fag", that shit receives a warning not because mods or anyone fucking disagrees with the content, but because it's spammy bullshit that adds nothing to any discussion whatsoever. The "outcry" coming from like 5 people about "FREE SPEECH MODS ARE WOMEN WHO SHOULD STAY IN THE KITCHEN" just shouldn't be listened to. The biggest mistake the mods have made IMO is not outright permabanning some of these people. There's an inflated sense of self-importance among most of the vocal critics of moderation, and to quote Kevin Spacey/Frank Underwood, here is the brutal fucking truth--you are not an important person. Nobody gives a shit if you have 5000 posts, because they're probably all garbage anyways. The site staff and mods can't put it like this because they have to be adults and treat everyone with respect which (SHOCKER) is the only goddamn thing you have to do to not get banned on this site.

[fightinfrenchman]

Anyway, DivineFire didn't lock it just because people weren't following the template, and we both know that...

That's exactly why I locked it, would just like H2O to clean it up and respond to things as he sees fit, then set everyone back on the threads original purpose.

Its helpful since i didnt have time to keep up with it and it was just about getting flooded

That's a reason to have more mods who can monitor such threads.

[fightinfrenchman]

Spammy content is spammy content.

If someone like JacksonPollack makes a post: "you're a dumb fag", that shit receives a warning not because mods or anyone fucking disagrees with the content, but because it's spammy bullshit that adds nothing to any discussion whatsoever. The "outcry" coming from like 5 people about "FREE SPEECH MODS ARE WOMEN WHO SHOULD STAY IN THE KITCHEN" just shouldn't be listened to. The biggest mistake the mods have made IMO is not outright permabanning some of these people. There's an inflated sense of self-importance among most of the vocal critics of moderation, and to quote Kevin Spacey/Frank Underwood, here is the brutal fucking truth--you are not an important person. Nobody gives a shit if you have 5000 posts, because they're probably all garbage anyways. The site staff and mods can't put it like this because they have to be adults and treat everyone with respect which (SHOCKER) is the only goddamn thing you have to do to not get banned on this site.

I'm a big fan of House of Cards

[lesllamas]

Congratulations. A bit of advice--maybe campaigning to be a mod isn't the best way to prove your mod-worthiness. Unlike Season 4's democratic convention, becoming a mod isn't up to a public vote.

[momuuu]

Spammy content is spammy content.

If someone like JacksonPollack makes a post: "you're a dumb fag", that shit receives a warning not because mods or anyone fucking disagrees with the content, but because it's spammy bullshit that adds nothing to any discussion whatsoever. The "outcry" coming from like 5 people about "FREE SPEECH MODS ARE WOMEN WHO SHOULD STAY IN THE KITCHEN" just shouldn't be listened to. The biggest mistake the mods have made IMO is not outright permabanning some of these people. There's an inflated sense of self-importance among most of the vocal critics of moderation, and to quote Kevin Spacey/Frank Underwood, here is the brutal fucking truth--you are not an important person. Nobody gives a shit if you have 5000 posts, because they're probably all garbage anyways. The site staff and mods can't put it like this because they have to be adults and treat everyone with respect which (SHOCKER) is the only goddamn thing you have to do to not get banned on this site.

I think we shouldnt single out the user with 5000 posts.

[fightinfrenchman]

Congratulations. A bit of advice--maybe campaigning to be a mod isn't the best way to prove your mod-worthiness. Unlike Season 4's democratic convention, becoming a mod isn't up to a public vote.

No, but the public pressure can still exist. And I want it to be obvious that I'm willing to do this when the mods say they don't have the time to fulfill their duties.