# On the Use of Colored Text by Moderators



## Umbran (Feb 8, 2010)

It has recently become clear to me that some folks have come to think that moderators have... personas.  They have their usual posting persona, and then, when they are using colored text, they are someone else, that non-colored text that references behavior can be ignored.

This is not why we use colored text.

Way back when, we didn't use colored text.  We had repeated problems when someone complained about not seeing when a moderator had said something about behavior.  We started using colored text as a _convenience_ - it helps make sure that someone casually scanning or skimming a thread doesn't miss highly important moderation points.  But that doesn't mean that if it isn't in colored text, you shouldn't engage your brain, and consider what you're saying.

EN World is at it's best when users self-moderate - consider what's being said around them, and choose accordingly.  You should not wait to see colored text to make such choices.  

EN World is in many ways like a large social gathering in Morrus' apartment.  If you were at such a gathering, and someone (anyone, not just the people who lived in the apartment) said, "I don't like the way this is going" you'd probably at least consider not plowing forward, right?  And, if you willfully decided that you were going to wait until you got slapped or shouted at before you changed how you were conversing, folks would rightfully say you had a solid failure of social skills.  

Waiting to see red text to reconsider where you're going is like waiting to get slapped.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 8, 2010)

I commend you for forking the thread.

Most (if not all) mods also post as themselves.  I rather like the orange low-grade warning mod text and red "I-mean-it-now" mod text that has been used by most mods lately.

You could, I suppose include a yellow this-is-my-neutral-mod-voice mod text, but with the sole exception of a mod trying to godwin an argument simply by being a mod (which is, of course, possible...but not AFAICT something done on EN World), I'm not sure why it would be used.

For that matter, I'm not sure why "I'm sorry I brought it up" would be written (or read) in a mod voice at all, unless there was a Rules violation involved.  Perhaps you would be good enough to explain?


RC


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 8, 2010)

I have repeatedly stated this position in private conversations with moderators that if the moderators persist in using moderator accounts to engage in debate, conversation, and other ordinary activities, that they cannot be terribly surprised that there is not an immediate recognition that a moderator is commenting on a thread or post in a moderator role. 

To be perfectly frank, I seldom bother to glance to the side to see who is posting what.  The use of avatars helps somewhat, but I don't always even look for the avatars as I read down a thread.   And sometimes, when I do glance to see who is posting what, it is entirely to follow the single thread of conversation that interests me and I completely skim over what everyone else in the thread is saying.   There have been times when I persisted in posting to a thread after a moderator warned me against doing so, when the simple fact was I didn't even realize in the avalanche of posts a moderator was involved.  I'm probably one of the ones responcible for the 'red text'.

I personally feel that using a bright red font is necessary but utterly insufficient in this regard.  I have previously held moderator authority elsewhere and when I did, I was not allowed to:

a) Post, debate, or discuss issues when wearing my moderator face.  
b) Publically reveal that I was a moderator or otherwise associate my moderator account with a user account.
c) Directly intervene and 'mod stomp' in a discussion where I was acting as a user.  If a conversation I was a part of got out of hand, I'd ask another mod to intervene.  If another user had a problem and reported me, they could do so without fear of bias because they had no idea that I was a moderator.  This also has the upshot that one moderator can moderate another moderator without publicly injuring his authority.

The reason people feel that moderators have persona's is that at EnWorld they do have personas.  Moderators are not impersonal agents, but have names like 'Umbran' and 'PirateCat' and 'Darkness' and whoever.  'Umbran' is a person with a personality and known likes and dislikes.  'Umbran' can't very well pretend to not have a personality and to be objective when he's going to 90% of the time demonstrate one.  'Umbran' can't very well pretend that he's not an equal, when 90% of the time he posts as one.  While you can pretend that moderators don't have personas because the rules forbid moderation to be commented on, I happen to know that the personas of moderators are extensively discussed elsewhere.

You can't have it both ways.  You either are a moderator all the time, in which case every statement you make is from a moderator stance and is therefore the official voice of EnWorld and does not allow for contridiction or reply, or else you are not a moderator all the time and therefore some of the time you are just spouting like the rest of us and it may be treated just like anyone else's and some of the time your voice has special authority which no one else can pretend to.  Either I can reply to some of your posts, or else I can't.  You can't pretend that there isn't a distinguishment between posts I can reply to and those that I can't.

As for the analogies:

"EN World is in many ways like a large social gathering in Morrus' apartment."

No, it's nothing like a large social gathering in Morrus's apartment except for the fact that in both cases Morrus is the host and owner.  In large social gatherings, you don't usually employ bouncers and censors to control the guests.  EnWorld is in this way much more like a large social gathering at Morrus's bar.  Except that, at 'Morrus Place', the bouncers wear plain clothes and drink and dance when on duty, and then are surprised and offended when they discover that this makes their job as bouncers more difficult.

Now, generally, the mods here do a good enough job and the users here are respectful enough (you might not think so, but really, this is a good crowd) that its not a problem.  So, if the administration of the site doesn't want to panic and change the rules that have largely worked for going on 10 years now (with the exception in my opinion of one 3-4 month period), then I fully understand.  But pretending that moderators don't have persona's and pretending that the decision to allow moderator accounts to act like ordinary users doesn't have consquences, won't make it so.


----------



## Nifft (Feb 8, 2010)

I'm with *Celebrim*: you are either posting as a mod, or you are posting as a normal user. You can't have it both ways.

Frequently, just having a mod posting in a thread can have a cooling effect on tempers, but that's just everyone slowing down when they see the cop -- it doesn't mean you get to speak as both an on-duty cop and a regular dude.

- - -

My personal request would be for *only* mods & admins to be able to use red and orange text. As it is, I'm no longer stopping every time I see a line in red, because it's usually some attention whore's signature and not a moderation note.

I'd prefer to be able to always see moderation notes when skimming a thread.

Thanks, -- N


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 8, 2010)

The particular incident that sparked this forked thread came across as arbitary, petty and bizarre.  I would never in a million years have guessed that the post in question was a "moderator" post, in part because I never would have guessed that a moderator would arbitrarily ban a discussion _that they had initiated_ just because people were disagreeing with the conclusion that the the moderator had decreed was true by fiat.  There was nothing "moderateable" about the discussion until you decided that suddenly you were going to threaten to moderate it, as near as I can tell.  And frankly, that kind of preemptive "I'm going to moderate this now because someone _might_ possibly be offended by it if it goes on" style moderation is pretty ridiculous in my opinion anyway.

Plenty of the moderator action on these forums comes across as abritrary, petty, and nonsensical.  There are entire discussions on other messageboards, thousands of posts long, that largely discuss the arbitariness and nonsensical moderation that sometimes happens here.  The least the moderators could do when in engaging in it follow some posting protocol so people know clearly what in the world the moderators are doing.  If the moderators can be insulting and threatening to others, as the case here seems clearly to indicate, just because their opinions are not accepted as Truth with a capital T, then at least let us know that you're going to start "slapping people" to use your terminology, for disagreeing with what you say.

Because otherwise, all we've got is yet another example of moderation that doesn't make sense and ultimately harms the site overall.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 8, 2010)

Continuing on what Nifft said above,

Indented text should not be orange.​
RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 8, 2010)

Hobo said:


> The particular incident that sparked this forked thread came across as arbitary, petty and bizarre.  I would never in a million years have guessed that the post in question was a "moderator" post, in part because I never would have guessed that a moderator would arbitrarily ban a discussion _that they had initiated_ just because people were disagreeing with the conclusion that the the moderator had decreed was true by fiat.  There was nothing "moderateable" about the discussion until you decided that suddenly you were going to threaten to moderate it, as near as I can tell.  And frankly, that kind of preemptive "I'm going to moderate this now because someone _might_ possibly be offended by it if it goes on" style moderation is pretty ridiculous in my opinion anyway.
> 
> Plenty of the moderator action on these forums comes across as abritrary, petty, and nonsensical.  There are entire discussions on other messageboards, thousands of posts long, that largely discuss the arbitariness and nonsensical moderation that sometimes happens here.  The least the moderators could do when in engaging in it follow some posting protocol so people know clearly what in the world the moderators are doing.  If the moderators can be insulting and threatening to others, as the case here seems clearly to indicate, just because their opinions are not accepted as Truth with a capital T, then at least let us know that you're going to start "slapping people" to use your terminology, for disagreeing with what you say.
> 
> Because otherwise, all we've got is yet another example of moderation that doesn't make sense and ultimately harms the site overall.




I'm glad someone else said this.

I owe you XP, Hobo.

RC


----------



## Tewligan (Feb 8, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> I'm glad someone else said this.
> 
> I owe you XP, Hobo.
> 
> RC




Covered.


----------



## Piratecat (Feb 8, 2010)

Nifft said:


> I'm with *Celebrim*: you are either posting as a mod, or you are posting as a normal user. You can't have it both ways.



Huh. I'm not sure I agree. I'm not going to swap back and forth between two log-ins; not only am I not convinced it's necessary, if I had to do that I wouldn't actually post much, and I like posting. So don't expect that to change.

That being said, we often ask a different mod to handle a problem if we've been active in the thread, mostly because we don't like how it looks if we're disagreeing with someone who's angry at the topic at hand. If I'm going to lose an argument, I don't want to do it by threadbanning them.  

As mods it's in our best interest to make it really clear when we're speaking in an official position, though. If I say something that I expect to be followed as a rule, and it's ambiguous, sorting out the resulting confusion is usually more of a pain for me than the original problem.

I tend to agree with you about not having folks post in red or orange text, but there's no realistic way to enforce that. More trouble than it's worth; better to do our best to make it obvious and let members be responsible for their own actions.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 8, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Most (if not all) mods also post as themselves.  I rather like the orange low-grade warning mod text and red "I-mean-it-now" mod text that has been used by most mods lately.




I'm trying to be clear here:

Color is not a different person!  Color is to make it so people skimming the thread don't miss something.  It increases visibility.  When using color, we tend to be short and too the point, again, to increase clarity.  If we aren't writing in color, you can bet that we aren't terribly worried if someone misses the point - we probably don't see it as a fire that needs putting out, or something.  We are highly unlikely to slap a ban on someone for failing to see something we wrote in white. 

But Rel in Red is still Rel.  Umbran is Umbran, whether in Orange or Red or White.  Morrus is The Man, no matter the color.  If one of us says that something is uncool, that's someone who's an authority on behavior on the boards saying something is uncool.  

Heck, even if JohnQPoster says something is uncool, you should be considering that maybe that it is uncool.


----------



## Bullgrit (Feb 8, 2010)

I agree with Celebrim.

Bullgrit


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 8, 2010)

Umbran said:


> I'm trying to be clear here:
> 
> Color is not a different person!  Color is to make it so people skimming the thread don't miss something.  It increases visibility.  When using color, we tend to be short and too the point, again, to increase clarity.  If we aren't writing in color, you can bet that we aren't terribly worried if someone misses the point - we probably don't see it as a fire that needs putting out, or something.  We are highly unlikely to slap a ban on someone for failing to see something we wrote in white.
> 
> ...




Are you not the same Umbran who distinguished between mod-voice and poster-voice in the past, when posting something a mod should not?  Do I need to try to track down that post?

You are aware that this sounds very much like "I was trying to godwin the argument, but I'm not going to admit it", aren't you?  After all, one wonders what was "uncool" that you are referring to, apart from the observation that your Grand Truth was your Grand Opinion?

Or was the above supposed to be a mod warning not to discuss how "arbitary, petty and bizarre" this is?


RC


----------



## Piratecat (Feb 8, 2010)

So we're clear: let's discuss the topic. Any attempt at baiting or personal attacks, like your's, RC, aren't going to be tolerated.  We're talking about the use of colored text by mods, not moderator decisions you may or may not agree with. I'd rather not mix the two.

And hey, I made it red!


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 8, 2010)

Sorry....let me rephrase:

A major benefit to using colour-coding is to avoid sending mixed messages.

RC


----------



## Piratecat (Feb 8, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Sorry....let me rephrase:
> 
> A major benefit to using colour-coding is to avoid sending mixed messages.
> 
> RC



I think we can all agree on that. 

We're chatting about this in the mod forum, and I suspect we'll work to be as consistent as possible. We'll still require people to use their best judgment, of course. If you ever use your best judgment and end up on the wrong side, be sure to talk to us about it so we can figure out how the situation could have been improved.


----------



## jaerdaph (Feb 8, 2010)

You're all kidding, right? Because I think - "I" being someone who has been on the receiving end of a few of those red text warnings (and deservedly so in each case) - EN World probably has the most level-headed, fair and consistent moderators and moderation guidelines that I've ever seen on any message board, RPG-related or otherwise. 

Maybe we should do a Moderator Exchange Program with some other sites I could (but won't) suggest to see how good we have it - that would definitely be interesting!


----------



## Pseudonym (Feb 8, 2010)

With the new version of the board software, is there some way to flag a particular post as being a Moderator post separate from a normal post?  Something that may not involve text color but something more distinctive?

This would enable the ability to put moderators on ignore lists.  That way when a moderator is posting with their Mod Hat on the post would be flagged visible, but when posting as some guy with an opinion, I won't.


----------



## Piratecat (Feb 8, 2010)

Pseudonym said:


> This would enable the ability to put moderators on ignore lists.  That way when a moderator is posting with their Mod Hat on the post would be flagged visible, but when posting as some guy with an opinion, I won't.



That's it, mister; I'm putting your hero Hemlock the Magician on "ignore" next time we play MnM!

And the actual answer is: I don't know.


----------



## Pseudonym (Feb 8, 2010)

Piratecat said:


> That's it, mister; I'm putting your hero Hemlock the Magician on "ignore" next time we play MnM!




I'll just use an Action Point to power stunt a Mod Hat for an encounter then.


----------



## Nifft (Feb 9, 2010)

Piratecat said:


> As mods it's in our best interest to make it really clear when we're speaking in an official position, though. If I say something that I expect to be followed as a rule, and it's ambiguous, sorting out the resulting confusion is usually more of a pain for me than the original problem.



 This is all I mean about not being able to post as both at once: it's got to be unambiguous when you're talking in "mod-voice" and when you're just posting as a normal dude.

You just can't use both "voices" at once: either you speak for the site policy as an enforcer -- in which case questioning your pronouncements is to be avoided -- or you speak as a normal dude whose opinions must stand on their merits.



Piratecat said:


> I tend to agree with you about not having folks post in red or orange text, but there's no realistic way to enforce that. More trouble than it's worth; better to do our best to make it obvious and let members be responsible for their own actions.



 It could work like this:

1/ Only mod-level accounts get [red] and [orange] translated into HTML colors; and
2/ When a mod-level account edits a post, that post cannot be edited by lower level accounts.

That should cover all corner cases.

- - -

However, the thing that sets "mod-voice" apart from regular voice need not be red text! It just needs to be visually distinct, and unavailable to regular users -- and IMHO it would be nice if it were easy to spot when skimming a thread.

Maybe use background colors instead of foreground?
Black text on yellow, black text on orange?

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Nifft (Feb 9, 2010)

jaerdaph said:


> EN World probably has the most level-headed, fair and consistent moderators and moderation guidelines that I've ever seen on any message board, RPG-related or otherwise.



 I don't disagree with this.

I'm just saying "mod-voice" ought to be unambiguous.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## jaerdaph (Feb 9, 2010)

Nifft said:


> I don't disagree with this.
> 
> I'm just saying "mod-voice" ought to be unambiguous.
> 
> Cheers, -- N




Yeah - I was commenting on the tangential comments about the moderation.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 9, 2010)

jaerdaph said:


> Yeah - I was commenting on the tangential comments about the moderation.




In my case anyway, no tangential comment was intended as a generalization.


RC


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 9, 2010)

Nifft said:


> This is all I mean about not being able to post as both at once: it's got to be unambiguous when you're talking in "mod-voice" and when you're just posting as a normal dude.
> 
> You just can't use both "voices" at once: either you speak for the site policy as an enforcer -- in which case questioning your pronouncements is to be avoided -- or you speak as a normal dude whose opinions must stand on their merits.



That's definitely a very important point. If we shouldn't discuss moderation publically, we need to be clear when there is moderation happening or just another poster speaking his mind. Whether we like or want it or not - everyone with a moderator account has two personas, and one of these two personas has certain responsibilities and priviliges the other has not.


----------



## Starfox (Feb 9, 2010)

Umbran said:


> It has recently become clear to me that some folks have come to think that moderators have... personas.




I must admit the recent discussion has me confused on this point. Do moderators have separate identities that they use to be "just regular posters?" Does anyone? Are you permitted to use several separate identities to post on EN World? (No matter this might be hard to enforce; is it permitted by the rules?)

No particular judgments involved, I'd just like to know.


----------



## DaveyJones (Feb 9, 2010)

Starfox said:


> I must admit the recent discussion has me confused on this point. Do moderators have separate identities that they use to be "just regular posters?" Does anyone? Are you permitted to use several separate identities to post on EN World? (No matter this might be hard to enforce; is it permitted by the rules?)
> 
> No particular judgments involved, I'd just like to know.




no rules broken by it.
i have 2 accounts here. one to read/reply to all posts in a thread. and one to read/reply to only the posts that interest me.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Feb 9, 2010)

I am all for self-monitoring on the boards as well.  But I think there is a definite need for colored text for when a moderator is posting as a moderator and when he or she is posting as a poster.  It's a role conflict issue.

(remember, if you multiclass, tell your ref which class you will be using for the session!)


----------



## Neonchameleon (Feb 9, 2010)

As a newbie, how am I meant to know who's moderating or even who the mods are unless special fonts are used?  I don't read every line of every post on a thread - I normally skim half the thread.  But if when posting as moderators you use bright red text, that makes it clear.  Otherwise, do I have to read every post by PirateCat on PirateCat's story hour to tell if any are mod posts?  (Not that that's a hardship, but still...)


----------



## jaerdaph (Feb 9, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> In my case anyway, no tangential comment was intended as a generalization.




Cool, no worries.


----------



## Starfox (Feb 9, 2010)

If its public and considered generally know, would people list their alt accounts so that you know who you are talking to? Not asking for any secret revelations, just that some posters might not be as "into" these things as we are presumed to be.


----------



## Not Nifft (Feb 9, 2010)

Starfox said:


> Do moderators have separate identities that they use to be "just regular posters?" Does anyone? Are you permitted to use several separate identities to post on EN World? (No matter this might be hard to enforce; is it permitted by the rules?)
> 
> No particular judgments involved, I'd just like to know.



 Can't you respect the privacy of folks with multiple personality disorder?



Neonchameleon said:


> As a newbie, how am I meant to know who's moderating or even who the mods are unless special fonts are used?  I don't read every line of every post on a thread - I normally skim half the thread.  But if when posting as moderators you use bright red text, that makes it clear.  Otherwise, do I have to read every post by PirateCat on PirateCat's story hour to tell if any are mod posts?  (Not that that's a hardship, but still...)



 Exactly.

However, you should read PC's story hour anyway.

Cheers, -- Not N


----------



## Starfox (Feb 10, 2010)

Not Nifft said:


> Cheers, -- Not N




Hm... Who is this mysterious person?


----------



## LightPhoenix (Feb 10, 2010)

I have to admit to being a little confused as to the purpose of this discussion.

Is the initial problem being a moderator moderating a thread they started/participated in?  I mean this question to be both in the theoretical or practical sense.  The solution then is simple: moderators can't moderate threads they post in.  I've never really noticed this to be a problem around here, but it's not a terribly bad policy anyway.

If the problem is telling when a moderator is specifically moderating, I don't think that's really been a problem either.  Certainly, the cop analogy is true, but in my opinion it's always been clear when the moderators have been speaking in mod-speak.  As to colored text from non-mods, there's a list of moderators for each forum at the bottom of the page.  It's not like it's hidden information.  If it's confusing mod-speak and signatures, I'd personally say it's a problem with signatures.  I don't like them anyway, so I may be biased on this point.

If it's a problem with posters... well, I accidentally reported Celebrim's post trying to give him XP for the apt cop/moderator analogy, so I can't really speak to them.  Obviously I'm borderline useless though.


----------



## Piratecat (Feb 10, 2010)

LightPhoenix said:


> If it's a problem with posters... well, I accidentally reported Celebrim's post trying to give him XP for the apt cop/moderator analogy



I noticed, you goof.  

By the way, I think that Moderator and Admin usernames are bolded. Is that true on browsers other than my own?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 10, 2010)

It is, but it doesn't show up very well IMHO.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 10, 2010)

In any event, IMHO, the problem arises specifically when a moderator is posting in such as way as though to seem to be participating in the thread as a poster.  Apart from the thread this was forked from, it hasn't been a serious problem IMHO, and overall there is remarkably little to complain about in EN World's moderation.

I don't know how to discuss the specific problem here without violating the Rules, but I think that there is a serious problem inherent in what happened in that thread.

(I have also noticed a rise in CM-style posting here, which should perhaps be looked at.)


RC


----------



## Piratecat (Feb 10, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> (I have also noticed a rise in CM-style posting here, which should perhaps be looked at.)



Can you explain what you mean by that? I want to make sure I understand.


----------



## Nifft (Feb 10, 2010)

LightPhoenix said:


> I have to admit to being a little confused as to the purpose of this discussion.
> 
> Is the initial problem being a moderator moderating a thread they started/participated in?  I mean this question to be both in the theoretical or practical sense.



 Here is the thread from which this discussion was forked:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...ivity-one-true-wayism-rpgs-2.html#post5082505

Cheers, -- N


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 10, 2010)

Piratecat said:


> Huh. I'm not sure I agree. I'm not going to swap back and forth between two log-ins; not only am I not convinced it's necessary, if I had to do that I wouldn't actually post much, and I like posting. So don't expect that to change.




That is the primary benefit of red text; it indicates you are speaking in an official capacity. If a mod is involved in a participant in a discussion, not only would I not expect them to be trying to moderate in-line without making that very clear, I think they should be very cautious about moderating at all in threads in which they are active participants. 

Ultimately, when mods are just "one of the gang" but are also empowered to use their authority at will to impose a certain view of decorum on the site, the result is an impression that the mods are, essentially above the law. Because mods don't have to worry about being summarily banned by a mod, they can post with less inhibition, and let's be honest here, in such a situation, inevitibly will. You can take a look at theRPGsite for an example of where such things are dealt with in a straightforward manner: it's the Pundit's site, period, and the freewheeling style he fosters is his preference, not a compact he has made with any other person. On the other hand, if you want to look at duck blind moderation at it's worst, you need look no further than RPGnet. The put out attitude that gets paraded out every time someone asks, "Is that official?" is a symptom of a situation in which the policies state a very high standard of neutrality, but no one really wants to take responsibility for being the grownup. "Officiality" is the only defense against arbitrary mod action in such a scenario, and hence is dispensed with great reluctance.

I am fine if EN World wants to take the "this is my front porch" position, but in that case, if the site staff don't want to run off open, engaging discussion, there needs to be fair warning. Red text is fair warning.


----------



## wedgeski (Feb 10, 2010)

I share jaerdaph's bemusement, and seek no change to the current system. As far as I am concerned, ENW has the most effective moderation I have ever seen on an internet message board.

The issues raised here are only issues when a mod tries to abuse his or her power in the course of a discussion. Has this *ever* happened? I would hate to see changes to what is a very effective system (and frankly, I could care less what opinions are expressed on other boards about the moderation here) brought about by a purely hypothetical problem.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 10, 2010)

Piratecat said:


> Can you explain what you mean by that? I want to make sure I understand.




How can I do so without pointing to specifics?  How can I point to specifics without seeming to be picking on specific individuals?

I have noted a certain increase in outright insults and threadcraps which, not so long ago, would have had appropriate moderator attention.  I imagine that the rise has to do with the fallout of edition wars, and perhaps with moderator attention being focused on the new site.  I don't know, but it does feel as though the tone of the site is changing, and not in a good way.

I do know that the moderation sets the tone for the site.  That is why moderation should be clear, and should at least seem to be impartial.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 10, 2010)

Nifft said:


> Here is the thread from which this discussion was forked:
> 
> http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...ivity-one-true-wayism-rpgs-2.html#post5082505






wedgeski said:


> The issues raised here are only issues when a mod tries to abuse his or her power in the course of a discussion. Has this *ever* happened?




See the above thread, and decide for yourself.  I think so.


RC


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 10, 2010)

jaerdaph said:


> You're all kidding, right? Because I think - "I" being someone who has been on the receiving end of a few of those red text warnings (and deservedly so in each case) - EN World probably has the most level-headed, fair and consistent moderators and moderation guidelines that I've ever seen on any message board, RPG-related or otherwise.
> 
> Maybe we should do a Moderator Exchange Program with some other sites I could (but won't) suggest to see how good we have it - that would definitely be interesting!




I don't disagree that ENWorld moderation is very good for what it is.  But, it's a simple factor of statistical probabilities.  The userbase here is huge.  The boards have been around for years.  There's a bazillion posts.  There are a lot of them that, for various reasons, are problematic.  That means that the total population of "moderator actions", if you will, is quite a large one by now.

The bigger the sample size, the more "odd" cases will start to show up.  Perhaps its just a question of context; in the grand scheme of things, the moderation, like I said, is very good.  But I've certainly noticed _a lot_ of cases where the moderation made absolutely no sense to me, was not consistent with  moderator behavior in the past, was not consistent moderator to moderator, etc.

None of that is necessarily a problem, or unexpected, but it certainly happens.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Feb 11, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> See the above thread, and decide for yourself.  I think so.




Having looked at the thread (thanks Nifft!), and with the caveat that I didn't read the thread it was forked from, I can't possibly agree.

There's one cardinal rule here at ENW: No politics, no religion.

The topic at hand skirts the edge of religion very finely.  The very first post in the thread by Mercurius opened the door for problems by mentioning religion (as howandwhy99 posted).  I think that the discussion, while heated, was fine.  However, Celebrim's post (#33) clearly breaks the "no religion" rule.  It was this post, and I believe that specific aspect of it, that Umbran was responding to.  He also warned everyone else not to go down that path, and rightfully so.

Would the moderation have been better coming from a mod uninvolved in the discussion?  Probably.  Was it an appropriate mod action nonetheless?  Yes.


----------



## Starfox (Feb 11, 2010)

To elaborate an earlier question to the point where it can perhaps be answered:


Raven Crowking said:


> (I have also noticed a rise in CM-style posting here, which should perhaps be looked at.



What is CM-style posting?


----------



## diaglo (Feb 11, 2010)

Starfox said:


> What is CM-style posting?




there is a link to Circvs Maximvs in the header of the off topic forum.

it is not grandma-safe to put it bluntly. no nudity as that is not allowed. but the language and reparte is more than a bit direct and off colo(u)r.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 11, 2010)

LightPhoenix said:


> There's one cardinal rule here at ENW: No politics, no religion.





Excepting that the thread remained open, and the warning has nothing to do with politics or religion.


RC


EDIT:  It occurs to me that you might be thinking that this post (http://www.enworld.org/forum/5082426-post34.html) is the one in question.  I agree; that is legitimate moderation.  If you were skimming the thread to look for mod posts, the colours would help you find it.

However, if you look at this post (http://www.enworld.org/forum/5082447-post36.html) followed by this post (http://www.enworld.org/forum/5082505-post38.html), you will maybe be scratching your head with me by the time you get to this post (http://www.enworld.org/forum/5082561-post45.html).

Or not.

It could just be my own reader bias.


RC


----------



## Piratecat (Feb 11, 2010)

Remember the first page, where I said "We're talking about the use of colored text by mods, not moderator decisions you may or may not agree with. I'd rather not mix the two." It really sounds like you want to discuss that, and that's understandable, but it's not going to happen in this thread. 

Where we are:

- As mods, we'll continue to work to make sure that we're as consistent as possible.
- We'll also try to make sure that our requests are crystal clear. 
- Often, but not always, that will involve using colored text; I'd like to say "always", but speaking only for myself I know I'll slip occasionally. That means that it always behooves you to take a glance at who's posting. In addition to the bolded username and the custom avatar, our user titles and sigs generally mention admin or moderator status.
- If for someone reason our requests aren't crystal clear, and you think you got the short end of the stick, please talk to us about it. No big deal. 
- You will always get a better response when you drop us a note asking about a moderation decision, instead of sending an angry and sarcasm-filled diatribe. (That wasn't a problem in this case - people have been really cool about their questions - but I figured I'd state it for the record.)

Hmm. I miss anything?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 11, 2010)

You did; I apologize.

It examples how difficult it might be to discern a moderator post without the colour coding, however.

A button to click that makes it easier for a moderator to make a post appear in "moderator mode" might be a good idea, and more likely to be used that having to select a colour each time.  Just a thought.





RC


----------



## Piratecat (Feb 11, 2010)

Agreed. Unless it comes already integrated (or easily addable) into vBulletin, though, it's likely not going to happen. We'll want to find nice solutions like that which don't require customization of the code base.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 11, 2010)

I don't know anything about the code base.......I'm just tossing spaghetti at the wall.  If something sticks, cool.  Either way, there's a mess to clean up.  


RC


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 11, 2010)

Piratecat said:


> - You will always get a better response when you drop us a note asking about a moderation decision, instead of sending an angry and sarcasm-filled diatribe. (That wasn't a problem in this case - people have been really cool about their questions - but I figured I'd state it for the record.)



Well.  For certain values of better.


----------



## Piratecat (Feb 11, 2010)

Hobo said:


> Well.  For certain values of better.



Heh. Put it this way -- sending a self-righteous and profanity-filled rant makes our job much easier, because we no longer have any difficult decisions to make.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 11, 2010)

Piratecat said:


> Heh. Put it this way -- sending a self-righteous and profanity-filled rant makes our job much easier, because we no longer have any difficult decisions to make.




Why didn't you tell me that earlier!?!


----------



## aurance (Feb 17, 2010)

I like things the way they are.


----------



## Mark (Feb 21, 2010)

aurance said:


> I like things the way they are.





Yup.  Keep using the color text for warnings to avoid any confusion.  It just makes sense.  Maybe the next version of the board will have a one-click moderator button that makes the text color easier to implement.


----------

