# Mods modding their own threads



## Delta (Mar 10, 2007)

There's another case in the Rules Forum where a moderator has been the principal poster in an argument, and at the end of the discussion has pulled out the moderator hat and locked the thread.

This has become fairly common and I think it's objectionable. There is a significant "conflict of interest" when a moderator promotes an ongoing argument for an extended period of time, and once people get sufficiently aggravated, shuts the thread down to further responses.

*My recommendation -- Have a policy where mods do not moderate (discipline or close threads) in a thread where they have been a discussion participant.* (Consider other sites like Slashdot that exclude moderating and posting in the same thread.) This would help solve the significant "conflict of interest" problem in these situations.


----------



## Pielorinho (Mar 10, 2007)

I think I know the thread you're talking about, *Delta*.  If it's the one I'm thinking of, after post 136, the overwhelming majority of posts were bickering about issues not germane to the thread topic; I'm certain any of the moderators would have closed it.

I see what you're saying about conflict of interest, and I can see how you're seeing that there.  Indeed, we mods often ask one another behind the scenes to step in in a thread that we're participating in, because we don't want to have our own position bias us in our moderation actions.

When we don't do that is when the moderating decision is so easy to make, as it was in this particular example.  Especially on weekends, when other mods may not be around as much.

I've really not been aware of this happening often (as you say, "fairly common").  Would you mind reporting this post and including a few other cases where you feel that this has happened?  That's probably what would be most helpful to us in deciding whether a policy like the one you suggest would be helpful.  If the only examples of this happening are examples where all us mods agree that the moderating actions were self-evidently required, then we're unlikely to institute such a policy; but if there have been several cases where a moderator acted questionably (in our viewpoints), then that'd be different.

Daniel


----------



## Delta (Mar 11, 2007)

Pielorinho, thank you for addressing this. I'll respectfully disagree that "when the moderating decision is so easy to make" makes a difference to a conflct-of-interest issue.

For example, here is a short article on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest



> A conflict of interest can exist even if no unethical or improper act results from it... The conflict can be mitigated by third party verification or third party evaluation noted below - - but it still exists...
> 
> The best way to handle conflicts of interest is to avoid them entirely... Those with a conflict of interest are expected to recuse themselves from (i.e., abstain from) decisions where such a conflict exists.



If you agree that this is an issue (even before we get to a provably "improper act"), then I'd be happy to do some work and track down other examples that I've seen. But, it sounds like you already know that this occurs. If we need to agree that we've found "improper acts", then that's a separate issue that I can't be confident you'd agree on, and is probably not worth my time to track down, or yours to evaluate.


In the case of the most recent Rules thread, the question would be exactly how this came to the attention of another moderator (a process which I'd not be privy to), after the first moderator seemed to be on the losing end of an argument, and regarding behavior which seemed fairly tame compared to lots of other recent Rules threads. Note, for example, that my concern is entirely aside from the fact that I 100% agreed with the moderator on the actual debate question in this case.


----------



## Piratecat (Mar 11, 2007)

The moderator did _exactly_ what he was supposed to. He enforced my previous warning when I wasn't around to do so. I'm sorry if you don't like it, but that's too bad; we recruit moderators precisely because they're able to divorce themselves from their own personal feeling about a thread when such a thread needs moderating. That's not going to change.

To provide a little clarity, though, please be aware that all the moderators discuss problematic threads in a private forum. That's one of the ways we strive to be consistent, and helps us speak with one voice. If or when you see signs of inconsistency, please be sure to report them using the small exclamation point in the bottom left of any post.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 11, 2007)

We do frequently alert other mods to a problem thread if we happen to be involved in it.  However, when there's nobody else around and a thread needs action, "apparent conflict of interest" takes a much lower priority than "keeping the boards civil"; when it comes down to it, it's just a thread closure on a D&D messageboard, with little to no real consequences.  

But if there is someone else available, then yeah, we tend to pass it on.


----------



## Delta (Mar 11, 2007)

Well, frankly I'm disappointed at ENWorld. I really expected that it could be held to the higher standard (again, like other highly-regarded notable online forums) once this was pointed out.

But, thanks for listening.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 11, 2007)

Delta said:
			
		

> Well, frankly I'm disappointed at ENWorld.




Sorry to hear that.


----------



## Nonlethal Force (Mar 11, 2007)

Delta said:
			
		

> Well, frankly I'm disappointed at ENWorld. I really expected that it could be held to the higher standard (again, like other highly-regarded notable online forums) once this was pointed out.
> 
> But, thanks for listening.




I'm not a mod, so I speak from a different perspective.  I, too, am sorry you are disappointed.  

I find the mods here to be particularily consistent - and I think it is due to both factors mentioned earlier: good recruitment and a seperate discussion forum that only mods have access to.  I like the fact that I don't always see the same mod using the mod stick and that punishments are appropriate to the offense.

Thread closure is actually a small consequence in the grander scheme of things.  The nice thing about thread closure is that if a thread was closed at it shouldn't have been, it could always be reopened if an error was ever made.

Anyway, like I said.  I'm not a mod and don't pretend to be speaking as one.  I am a supporter of ENWorld and appreciate the service provided.  I do hope that down the road Delta gives ENWorld another shake.  I've always found it to be fair and consistant.


----------



## Piratecat (Mar 11, 2007)

Nonlethal Force said:
			
		

> The nice thing about thread closure is that if a thread was closed at it shouldn't have been, it could always be reopened if an error was ever made.



I've done this a few times, either because I made a mistake or a member convinced me that closing the thread wasn't the best solution to a problem. 

While I greatly respect Delta's opinion, I currently view this somewhat as a solution looking for a problem. I welcome folks to email me (address in my sig) with concrete examples of moderators who close a thread in order to "win" it.  I'll be very surprised if this is a pattern, but I have an open mind and would very much like to see links to situations in which it has occurred.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Mar 12, 2007)

Delta said:
			
		

> *My recommendation -- Have a policy where mods do not moderate (discipline or close threads) in a thread where they have been a discussion participant.* (Consider other sites like Slashdot that exclude moderating and posting in the same thread.) This would help solve the significant "conflict of interest" problem in these situations.




Woohoo!  Since my job currently doesn't allow me much time to actively participate in random threads I could become the Master Moderator!

But seriously, when we think there might be a conflict of interest or if we think the thread is walking the border of the rules we do really ask each others' opinions, usually by reporting the thread and asking for other opinions.  One of the fantastic things about the moderating crew is that I can count on one hand the number of times we've significantly disagreed about each others' moderation decisions over the past couple years since I joined the staff.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 12, 2007)

I agree with the sentiment of the OP in this topic.

One thread I saw that involved this kind of issue did not need any immediate Mod attention.  The reason for the thread closing had nothing to do with something really bad going on, and the issue was one that had gone on for days.  

Perhaps another mod would have also closed it, and perhaps not, but the excuse of "nobody else was around to do it" didn't hold water, because no IMMEDIATE action was necessary anyway.  There was plenty of time to wait for another Mod to come along and deal with it, without any harm coming to the board.

For those cases, I too would prefer a Mod who isn't the one participating in the thread actively be the one to make the call as to whether or not to close it.

If someone is posting porn or something, I fully understand why immediate action by whoever is available be taken to stop it.  But for those common situations where the problem in question is relatively low priority, like things drifting off-topic, I think it would be best to wait.

And while I am sure there can be plenty of defenses for not doing this, we are talking about an issue that has almost universal agreement on the Internet.  Conflicts of interest exist, even if you are not aware you are involved in one.  Procedures like this help to avoid those conflicts, even if it is just the perception of a conflict of interest that is being avoided.

In other words, why NOT follow this new kind of procedure for lower priority issues?


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 12, 2007)

Dinkeldog said:
			
		

> Woohoo!  Since my job currently doesn't allow me much time to actively participate in random threads I could become the Master Moderator!
> 
> But seriously, when we think there might be a conflict of interest or if we think the thread is walking the border of the rules we do really ask each others' opinions, usually by reporting the thread and asking for other opinions.  One of the fantastic things about the moderating crew is that I can count on one hand the number of times we've significantly disagreed about each others' moderation decisions over the past couple years since I joined the staff.




Knowing when you have a conflict of interest is actually pretty difficult.  It's common to not be aware of your own conflict, or to not perceive a conflict where many others would see one.  That's why, for professions that involve conflicts of interest, there are independent rules that don't depend on your own self-awareness to avoid such a conflict.

To say "when we think..." about the topic of Conflicts of Interest seems unrealistic to me.  It's one of those kinds of issues in life where you often will not think it's happening when it might be, and so you wouldn't think to ask someone else if it is happening.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Mar 12, 2007)

Mistwell--I think that when another moderator has given a warning that is then violated that regardless of the usual severity of the infraction, this counts as a high-profile infraction that needs to be moderated quickly for a number of reasons, ranging from showing that the moderators are serious to avoiding possible accusations of favouritism for the person who 'got away with it'.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 12, 2007)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Mistwell--I think that when another moderator has given a warning that is then violated that regardless of the usual severity of the infraction, this counts as a high-profile infraction that needs to be moderated quickly for a number of reasons, ranging from showing that the moderators are serious to avoiding possible accusations of favouritism for the person who 'got away with it'.




I don't care about a particular thread.  We are not citing a particular thread here, and I don't think it's helpful to make it about a particular thread or moderator (because that would make a conflict of interest in discussing this issue itself!)

I think if a Mod plays a significant role in a thread, and the thread might need moderation but it's about an issue that isn't particularly high priority, that Mod should ask another Mod to decide if some sort of moderator action is warranted.  That's it.  

I think that is a fair way to approach the issue, helps address conflicts of interest, and is not particularly burdensome on Moderators.  It's not like Moderators don't already know the difference between a low priority and a high priority issue, or whether or not they are participating in the thread.  So why NOT have that kind of guideline for Mods?


----------



## Piratecat (Mar 12, 2007)

Because I have no interest in limiting Moderator flexibility if it doesn't solve some actual (as opposed to hypothetical) problem, and if there's not a compelling and concrete reason for me to do so. Mistwell, will you please email me a link to that thread (or some identifier by which I might find it)?


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 12, 2007)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Because I have no interest in limiting Moderator flexibility if it doesn't solve some actual (as opposed to hypothetical) problem, and if there's not a compelling and concrete reason for me to do so. Mistwell, will you please email me a link to that thread (or some identifier by which I might find it)?




Limit moderator flexibility?  How so?  If there might be an issue, and it is a low priority issue, you ask another mod to make the decision if you were involved.  How is moderator flexibility reduced?  What enforcement options were present before that guidelines, which were not present after?

Some users here think it is a problem, and there has yet to be an expressed reason why the proposed solution would be a burden on anyone.  That's the compelling reason.

I don't want to email you examples, because then it would be a discussion of whether or not there was a conflict of interest involved, and a debate, and you would personally be involved on some level, either as a mod in the thread or a mod who you know would be involved with the thread, creating your own conflict of interest in that discussion (perceived or real, one you could easily overcome or not, the issue would be present). 

And I am really not up for that, because I don't see the point.  I think you would, to a near certainty, default to defending the moderator decision in a particular thread without some massively compelling reason to not do so (as you should).  And for me to overcome that burden, I would have to debate intricacies with you of that thread (and even then the odds of persuading you would be very low).  Because when linking to a specific thread, a decision was already made by a Mod, and for you to see the issue I am talking about would mean you might be implying you see a problem with the way the Mod handled it.  And that is not something you are going to do if you can avoid it.

Which is why I prefer to keep it hypothetical.  It's not like I am some guy who posts in the meta thread all the time complaining about Mods or something, or even the one who raised this issue.  A user think it is an issue, and I agree with that user.  You think it is not, as do some other users.  Okay, fair enough.  So what is the reason to not treat it like it is a real issue?  Why should the default be no new Mod guideline on this issue, if the guideline doesn't actually harm anyone?


----------



## Piratecat (Mar 12, 2007)

I asked to see examples because I'm curious whether what you view as mod bias matches my own threshold, not because I plan to defend the moderation in each thread. Opinions differ between people, of course, and some people have a lower tolerance for issues than others. For instance, we recently asked a long term and well-liked member to stop reporting as many threads because his threshold for "problem" was so much lower than the moderating staff. I'm not sure if that's the case here, and there's no way to tell unless I can gauge what you see as biased behavior against my own standards.

Best to be clear.  I'm extraordinarily proud of how EN World's moderators handle the boards, and I'm not making changes for a hypothetical problem. I've never seen any actual signs of conflict of interest, so I have zero interest in putting additional policies in place unless there's a reason for 'em. If I see signs of such a problem, then we'll address it. Because all the moderators communicate closely and work together very well, I don't ever expect to see such signs. 

Sorry if you disagree with me, but that's how things are. I'm glad you and Delta have made your viewpoints clear, though. Simply discussing the issue reminds us all to consider it. I also really appreciate you taking the time in the above post to explain your position to me.


----------



## Michael Morris (Mar 12, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> If someone is posting porn or something, I fully understand why immediate action by whoever is available be taken to stop it. <snip>




That (and spam) is about the only circumstance I get to ban someone.  That won't lead to a thread closure though - that's a thread deletion which is a whole other animal.

Speaking of spam - if I get to count all the bannings the spambot has done over the years I think I've got more scalps - albeit by proxy - than any other admin


----------



## Nonlethal Force (Mar 13, 2007)

Michael Morris said:
			
		

> Speaking of spam - if I get to count all the bannings the spambot has done over the years I think I've got more scalps - albeit by proxy - than any other admin




There is a spambot?  Is this a serious comment?  I don't know why ... but this topic really interests me.  

For the record ... I envision some neo-matrix AI sentinel computer programmed to rifle through the threads over and over and it gets excited when it finds a post with absolutely nothing to say!

Spambots...  Hmmmm.

Of course, having made reference to them, it's only a matter of time before the spambot reads this post and decides that it is spam so it deletes it.  You know... to keep other posters from following the white rabbit and all.


----------



## Nifft (Mar 13, 2007)

Nonlethal Force said:
			
		

> You know... to keep other posters from following the white rabbit and all.




FOLLOW THE WHITE RABBIT TO GRATE TONER PRICES || INK JET || LASERJET || FAX SUPPLIES

HP:
- LJ 600mp $249.88 !!!
- LJ 600m $442.88 !!!
- LJ 420p $549.88 !!!

HELP IM BEING EATEN BY A SPAMBO


----------



## Pielorinho (Mar 13, 2007)

Nonlethal Force said:
			
		

> There is a spambot?  Is this a serious comment?  I don't know why ... but this topic really interests me.
> 
> For the record ... I envision some neo-matrix AI sentinel computer programmed to rifle through the threads over and over and it gets excited when it finds a post with absolutely nothing to say!



Sorry, but you're way off.  It's really just a chunky old-style robot built out of potted meat.  It can't move around under its own power, but *Michael Morris* likes to put it on like a puppet and talk in a nasal monotone when he sees someone posting something inappropriate.  "PORN--PORN--DESTROY--DESTROY!!" he'll shout as he bans them.

Daniel


----------



## Morrus (Mar 13, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> You think it is not, as do some other users.  Okay, fair enough.  So what is the reason to not treat it like it is a real issue?  Why should the default be no new Mod guideline on this issue, if the guideline doesn't actually harm anyone?




The default should be to make new rules for things we think are not issues?  Yikes.  We're gonna have a LOT of rules very very quickly that way!

Basically, the way we work is pretty laid back - if something turns out to be causing a problem, we look at it.  In this case, someone said it might potentially be a problem, but in our opinion it isn't one.  Maybe one day it will become one; maybe it won't.  If it does, we'll deal with it then.  But, as Piratecat said, we're not going to work out rules and guidelines for every hypothetical situation which might arise; and, in this case, again as he said, this is a solution looking for a problem.

If we were a multi-billion dollar company with directors and shareholders, then, yeah, I think the concept of "conflict of interest" regarding the actions of those involved in the company's management would be important.  If we were a courtroom and were trying someone for a serious crime, I daresay we'd consider "conflict of interest" to be of the utmost importance.  As it is, we're talking about... closing a thread on a D&D messageboard, one which has managed just fine without any such guideline for _years_.


----------



## el-remmen (Mar 13, 2007)

I'm staying out of this thread just in case I need to close it later.


----------



## Deset Gled (Mar 13, 2007)

If it ain't broken, don't fix it.

I have never seen a thread closed here that didn't deserve it.  If someone can show me any examples of a thread where a mod closed it when they shouldn't have because of their personal feelings about posting in the thread, then I would be willing to discuss it. But until someone can prove that there's an actual problem, I see no need to change or create policy.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Mar 13, 2007)

Its all a question of who is watching the watchers.  I suggest we set up a "Citizen's Council" to preiodically review the use of Moderator powers to ensure they are not being abused.  This council will be made up of Community Supporters.  

Then, since people with CS accounts may have their own conflicts of interest, we have another council made up of non-CS account members to check up on them.

Last, a council made up entirely of people who have never heard of EN World to check up on the non-CS member council.

As someone who had a CS account, which has since lapsed, but hopes to scrape together some $$ to start it back up soon, I feel I would not be able to serve on either the CS or the non-CS council, so I volunteer to vet any proposed council members.  

Oh, and we should allow the autospammers the opportunity to review the actions of the spambot.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Mar 13, 2007)

I moderate my own thread all the time, IYKWIMAITYD.    

In all seriousness, I just wanted to say I think the moderators do a fine job, and never have I seen a case where they're used their responsibility for their own gain.

Case in point, this thread could have been locked and further discussion quashed.  Instead, it's being talked about.  I've been to far too many boards, channels, and BBSs where that would never have been the case.


----------



## Mark (Mar 13, 2007)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> To provide a little clarity, though, please be aware that all the moderators discuss problematic threads in a private forum.





Then it should not be a problem for someone without a role (and possibly perceived stake) in a thread (someone who has posted and, perhaps, taken an opposing view within the thread to another EN Worlder) to be the one to close that thread should it need closing.  It avoids the appearance, even if only imagined, that the thread might have been closed out of spite or malice.




			
				Piratecat said:
			
		

> I've never seen any actual signs of conflict of interest, (. . .)





You're soaking in it.   That is to say that this thread is a bell that cannot be unrung.  It's why nearly every organized body that governs itself by any rules has some sort of policy in place to avoid conflicts of interet and smarts ones have policies that avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest.


It's a simple matter.  Unless a thread requires immediate closure, a mod (involved in a thread as a regular EN Worlder) simply posts in the private discussion thread that a thread in question probably needs to be closed, then someone uninvolved does the closing based on the unbiased reason that already surely exists.  No problem.  And, perhaps more importantly, never even a perceived problem.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 13, 2007)

Morrus said:
			
		

> The default should be to make new rules for things we think are not issues?  Yikes.  We're gonna have a LOT of rules very very quickly that way!
> 
> Basically, the way we work is pretty laid back - if something turns out to be causing a problem, we look at it.  In this case, someone said it might potentially be a problem, but in our opinion it isn't one.  Maybe one day it will become one; maybe it won't.  If it does, we'll deal with it then.  But, as Piratecat said, we're not going to work out rules and guidelines for every hypothetical situation which might arise; and, in this case, again as he said, this is a solution looking for a problem.




It looks like three of your users think it is currently a problem.  Not hypothetical, not maybe, not potentially, not some day, but currently a problem.  I have explained my reluctance to focus on particular already-closed threads: because the very bias a mod should have to defend another mods past decisions will make a discussion of a particular closed thread that already happened useless. No mod is going to publically say another mod was wrong over such a relatively minor issue, and so no discussion would really be furthered by even mentioning it.

If we call out a particular closed thread, you and others will defend the mod decision and explain why it was fine and not an issue (for the perfectly reasonable reasons listed above).  If we do not call out a particular closed thread, you and others will claim this is all hypothetical because we cannot point to a thread where this is going on.  So you have us in a catch-22.  Any offer we make or do not make to back up this issue will not help.

So we fall back on the only thing we have - telling you this is an issue to us, and unless there is a reason why doing something about it would harm anyone, the fact that it is an issue to us should have some meaning beyond a blanket dismissal as all hypothetical.

I understand that you think there is no issue, and I think that is a valid position.  But I don't understand why you and a couple of others continue to frame this debate as if nobody thinks it's a problem and it's actually all hypothetical and we shouldn't make a rule about something that nobody thinks is actually going on.  That is not the case.  Perhaps some users (like myself) are being overly sensitive weenies.   But us overly sensitive weenies think this is a real thing actually currently happening, and not some mythical future maybe possibility.


----------



## billd91 (Mar 13, 2007)

I'm not sure I would ever consider a moderator "conflict of interest" on a gaming discussion board a significant problem. It's not like they're making legal rulings or anything. They're just trying to keep the place humming at a reasonable level of civility. It's simply not that important.

I'd be more concerned if they were wielding the banhammer without consultation in those cases, but I can't see it ever being a problem worth worrying about for thread closure.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 13, 2007)

billd91 said:
			
		

> I'm not sure I would ever consider a moderator "conflict of interest" on a gaming discussion board a significant problem. It's not like they're making legal rulings or anything. They're just trying to keep the place humming at a reasonable level of civility. It's simply not that important.
> 
> I'd be more concerned if they were wielding the banhammer without consultation in those cases, but I can't see it ever being a problem worth worrying about for thread closure.




I mean, relative to most things in life, NOTHING that happens here is significant.

However, relative to this community, it's significant enough to post about for some apparently.

People keep mentioning the law and courtrooms and such.  I am not sure why that is relevant.  Hundreds of small time boards use this same kind of guideline.  I bet I could find a forum about pez collecting that uses that kind of conflict of interest guideline for mods.  This isn't some new and groundbreaking idea.  LOTS of boards of all sizes embrace this idea as non-controversial and not major and not akin to a courtroom.  Heck, this board already has a system set up for mods to post to other mods to avoid conflicts of interest in other areas, so it's not even a foreign concept here!


----------



## Piratecat (Mar 13, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> I don't understand why you and a couple of others continue to frame this debate as if nobody thinks it's a problem and it's actually all hypothetical and we shouldn't make a rule about something that nobody thinks is actually going on.  That is not the case.



Here's the thing. The one concrete example we've been given isn't actually a problem in our opinion. I don't disagree that some people perceive it to be a problem. I disagree that it _is_ a problem, and as one of the admins I'd need to be shown evidence that I'm mistaken before I'd consider changing anything.



			
				Mark said:
			
		

> You're soaking in it.   That is to say that this thread is a bell that cannot be unrung.



That's a neat metaphor, but I'm not sure what you mean. I invite you and anyone else to email with specific problems. If anyone does so, I'll review those and address them as necessary; I'm very much end-results oriented. If you're hoping to get a change made for the purpose of making a change, though, I suspect that you'll be disappointed.


----------



## Pielorinho (Mar 13, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> It looks like three of your users think it is currently a problem.



To the best of my knowledge, nobody has yet either reported a thread in which the closure was a problem or emailed a link to such a thread to Piratecat.  Again, if you have seen this actually being a problem, we invite you to take those steps.  If you're not taking those steps, I guess I'm not sure that you really do consider it to be a significant problem, given that those are the ways to reach a solution, not posting in this thread about it.

Daniel


----------



## Deset Gled (Mar 13, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> I have explained my reluctance to focus on particular already-closed threads: because the very bias a mod should have to defend another mods past decisions will make a discussion of a particular closed thread that already happened useless. No mod is going to publically say another mod was wrong over such a relatively minor issue, and so no discussion would really be furthered by even mentioning it.
> 
> If we call out a particular closed thread, you and others will defend the mod decision and explain why it was fine and not an issue (for the perfectly reasonable reasons listed above).  If we do not call out a particular closed thread, you and others will claim this is all hypothetical because we cannot point to a thread where this is going on.  So you have us in a catch-22.  Any offer we make or do not make to back up this issue will not help.
> 
> So we fall back on the only thing we have - telling you this is an issue to us, and unless there is a reason why doing something about it would harm anyone, the fact that it is an issue to us should have some meaning beyond a blanket dismissal as all hypothetical.




Frankly, this is BS.  If you've got an example, give it.  If your complaint is true in that case, people like me will consider it honestly.  If it really is a perfectly reasonable case of a mod doing what they're supposed to do, then you don't have a leg to stand on.  You've got the rest of us caught in a catch-22 of you own.  



> However, relative to this community, it's significant enough to post about for some apparently.




Three complainers pales in comparison to the number of people that post in the "Thanks Mods!" threads that start up here at least once a year.


----------



## nerfherder (Mar 13, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> LOTS of boards of all sizes embrace this idea as non-controversial and not major and not akin to a courtroom.  Heck, this board already has a system set up for mods to post to other mods to avoid conflicts of interest in other areas, so it's not even a foreign concept here!



I don't think any of the boards I frequent have the rule of mods not moderating in threads they participate in.  I just don't see it as a problem, and, not being a mod, I don't think I have a conflict of interest...


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 13, 2007)

Deset Gled said:
			
		

> Frankly, this is BS.  If you've got an example, give it.  If your complaint is true in that case, people like me will consider it honestly.  If it really is a perfectly reasonable case of a mod doing what they're supposed to do, then you don't have a leg to stand on.  You've got the rest of us caught in a catch-22 of you own.
> 
> 
> 
> Three complainers pales in comparison to the number of people that post in the "Thanks Mods!" threads that start up here at least once a year.




So is it your opinion that I have not seen this happen, and I am simply lying in order to create drama?  I mean that as an honest question.  If you suspect there is no thread where I have seen this happen, then what are you saying when I tell you I have seen it (and the original poster apparently as well)?

As for me catching others in a catch-22, hey we are asking for a guideline that apparently causes nobody any harm at all.  Untill I see someone actually give a reason why it would harm anyone in the least, I'm not sure how I've caught anyone in anything.

As for the thanks mods - I thank the mods often.  I think they do a great job in general.  I do not think raising this issue of an internal guideline (which doesn't even have to be announced to users - since it really is an internal thing) is some broad brush comdemnation of mods.  I've been a mod on several other boards, and I know how hard it is to do and how thankless it can be, and I am fully in support of the mods in general on this board.  It's one of the other reasons I don't want to single out any particular mod on this issue.  But I think people should feel safe in raising this kind of topic without the fear that others will frame it as an attack on the mods.

Heck, the mere fact that you raise the "thanks mods" issue shows the circling the wagon mentallity.  Already we are at the point where I suspect if I linked to a thread where a mod threatend to ban someone for smiling wrong, a huge number of people would defend the mod merely out of instinct to defend the mod (and no that has not happened - that one really is a hypothetical).  The issue has already risen to the level of being an impossible burden to overcome the presumption that a mod's decision to close a thread is correct.

I guess I should bow out of this one (not trying to be dramatic "take my toys and go home" there, though I admit it sounds like that).  I really do think there is no possible thread I could present at this point that would result in any reaction other than "you are wrong", because people think I am attacking the mods rather than suggesting a guideline.  And if I don't post a link to a thread, people will either continue to imply that the claim we saw it happen is either a lie, or at best an overreaction.  This is a no win at this point.  

Maybe, just by raising the issue, it means it is less likely to happen in the future.  I hope so.


----------



## Crothian (Mar 13, 2007)

I think the mods do a fine job and I can see how one might think there could be a conflict of interests but that would have the mods being a lot more petty then they are.  I can't think of a single instance, even the ones linked to here, I would call a conflict of interests.  The mods have done very well in that regards.


----------



## nerfherder (Mar 13, 2007)

I think even if there were a conflict of interest, then... I wouldn't really care.  If I thought there was a problem, then I'd report the post.

Actually, I see that PC already mentioned to report a post, earlier in the thread.

Mistwell, I don't think you have a hate on for the mods or anything, it just looks to me like they disagree with you.  Amyway, there's no harm in having this debate.


----------



## Piratecat (Mar 13, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> I suspect if I linked to a thread where a mod threatend to ban someone for smiling wrong, a huge number of people would defend the mod merely out of instinct to defend the mod (and no that has not happened - that one really is a hypothetical).



Man, were you not around when I deleted the "roll eyes" smiley? 

I don't see this as an attack, and (in case it's not clear) I think your interest in this speaks incredibly highly about how much you care for these boards. You've articulated your opinion clearly, and I value that tremendously because it's really obvious to me that you aren't just trying to make change for change's sake. 

We'll keep an eye open for examples, and as always please call them out to me if you see them.


----------



## Deset Gled (Mar 13, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> So is it your opinion that I have not seen this happen, and I am simply lying in order to create drama?  I mean that as an honest question.  If you suspect there is no thread where I have seen this happen, then what are you saying when I tell you I have seen it (and the original poster apparently as well)?




I don't think you're lying to create drama.  I do think you're either intentionally withholding information or exagerating circumstances to create drama.



> As for me catching others in a catch-22, hey we are asking for a guideline that apparently causes nobody any harm at all.  Untill I see someone actually give a reason why it would harm anyone in the least, I'm not sure how I've caught anyone in anything.




Creating rules for the sake of creating rules hurts the entire community in the long run.  Even the rules that this board has are vague and left almost entirely to the moderators to interpret.  Its worked for years with almost no problems.  I fail to see how creating specific rules for them now will help in any way.  I do, however, easily see ways that it will lead to more people complaining about if the mods don't follow specific rules like the ones you propose to the letter.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Mar 13, 2007)

Crothian said:
			
		

> I can't think of a single instance, even the ones linked to here, I would call a conflict of interests.




Well, except for Rel.  All his posts generate conflicts of interest - even before he became a mod!

It's just that he's so damned sexy we let him get away with it.

-Hyp.


----------



## Rel (Mar 14, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Well, except for Rel.  All his posts generate conflicts of interest - even before he became a mod!
> 
> It's just that he's so damned sexy we let him get away with it.
> 
> -Hyp.




Your check is in the mail, sir.

As for the topic at hand, I'd like to point out something that I think could be a general trend and I know it's a trend for me:  I post in a much greater percentage of threads that are ultimately closed than I do in the general population of threads on the boards.

Most of the time when one or more posts in a thread are reported it means that thread is in trouble.  A mod will post a call for civility or point out one or more posters that are causing problems.  That mod might take an interest in the topic however and hang around to continue posting on it in a non-moderatorial capacity.  But this also means they've got a front row seat to see any further problems in the thread.  They are closely watching the posting trends in the thread and I think they are actually MORE qualified to decide whether that thread needs to be closed.


----------



## Nonlethal Force (Mar 14, 2007)

Good counterpoint, Rel.  That makes sense.  Of course, it's not the only answer out there, but that one does make logical sense.

On an aside ... so does it surprise anyone that this thread is only one of two in the meta forum that made it to a second page? (assuming you have your preferences set to creating a new page at 40 posts, of course).  Just thought I'd point that out.  I personally didn't expect this much dialogue.  Not that it is a bad thing, of course.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Mar 14, 2007)

Rel said:
			
		

> Your check is in the mail, sir.
> 
> As for the topic at hand, I'd like to point out something that I think could be a general trend and I know it's a trend for me:  I post in a much greater percentage of threads that are ultimately closed than I do in the general population of threads on the boards.
> 
> Most of the time when one or more posts in a thread are reported it means that thread is in trouble.  A mod will post a call for civility or point out one or more posters that are causing problems.  That mod might take an interest in the topic however and hang around to continue posting on it in a non-moderatorial capacity.  But this also means they've got a front row seat to see any further problems in the thread.  They are closely watching the posting trends in the thread and I think they are actually MORE qualified to decide whether that thread needs to be closed.



 I'll agree with Rel's sentiment as well.  I have always seen reasoned and in-context dialogue from mods who have been participating somewhat in the thread, whereas one time long ago in the Rules Forum, there was a rather ill-informed warning (one of the few I've ever seen from the mod staff in all my time here, and I see a lot of them because I intentionally check locked threads to see what happened ) from a mod who admitted that he doesn't like the rules forum and hadn't read the thread but simply responded to a report post call without putting anything into context (that's another thing I like about the mods here, though--the one time there was an ill-informed warning, the mod was up-front in admitting it).  Personally, I'd rather have the mod who was participating and knows what is going on any day of the week.


----------



## Jdvn1 (Mar 14, 2007)

Nonlethal Force said:
			
		

> I personally didn't expect this much dialogue.  Not that it is a bad thing, of course.



Indeed, I think it's a very good thing. I'm glad the moderators take the time to read and openly discuss such matters with the posting public (at least, a section thereof, since a lot of people never wander into Meta unless they need something). I think it speaks a lot of our moderators that they try to be open minded.

While this may have been taken to emails, I think that some topics (like this one) benefit from the input of a variety of people.


----------



## Bad Paper (Mar 15, 2007)

Might I point out that ENWorld is not a popularly governed body or similar organization that owes *anything* to its users?

I ran a BBS for a couple of years, and sysopped a couple others, and I'm all for pointing out that _you exist at the whim of the mods_.  And I'm OK with that, because the quality of the mods' behavior dictates the quality of the BBS (err...website, OK, this isn't WWIVNet or something...).

I thought the fact that Hyp closed the thread was an unfortunate coincidence, because it implied exactly the motivation that Delta brought up.  Also, because Hyp was the only guy on my side, and yeah, it does smack of elitism -- on the surface.  But Hyp is the most even-handed, short-winded (while wearing the Mod hat), and experienced of the Mods (judging by post-count, anyway), and his previous behavior highlights that what happened in that thread was merely _an unfortunate coincidence_.

Or a happy one, if you're the one who started that thread, and watched in horror as it disintegrated, though not quite as badly as this one did.


----------



## Ry (Mar 15, 2007)

I just wanted to say that I completely support the mods making these calls - in fact, some of the best discussions I see online are in moderated comments on livejournal accounts, which can stay on-topic and civil _precisely because _they're being moderated by someone who is seriously participating in the conversation.


----------



## Graf (Mar 21, 2007)

Bad Paper said:
			
		

> I ran a BBS for a couple of years, and sysopped a couple others, and I'm all for pointing out that _you exist at the whim of the mods_.




Your board must have been a thrilling place to visit.
Probably the biggest reason EnWorld's been successful is that the mods aren't in it to acheive ego gratification by pushing people around.

Most rules threads are unfortunately ego contests. 
Someone posts, someone else posts their verision, the first point re-states the debate in their favor and on and on.
They persist until someone gives up or is tired.

They provide value to the community only in that people can search a thread topic (or start another one if they're masochists) and see various points of view and form their own opinion.

Since most rules threads are being driven by semi/pseudo-logic and people really just want to "win" (but can't admit it openly) you're not going to be in a position to really cut them off at some kind of easily defined point.

And, once a thread has gone over a cliff, then the mod has an unappetizing choice between deleting it (loss of knowledge for the community) and pruning out the offenders (damages the ability of people to follow what was happening, looks like it favors one side).

So they close a thread 5 or 20 posts before it would have completely degraded .... it's not a significant loss to the community.

It's only a "conflicit of interest" if you felt like you didn't get a chance to post your "winning post" and were somehow diminished or not allowed to participate in a "fair fight".


----------



## Rel (Mar 21, 2007)

Graf said:
			
		

> Probably the biggest reason EnWorld's been successful is that the mods aren't in it to acheive ego gratification by pushing people around.




We do it for one simple reason:  The babes.


----------



## Darkness (Mar 21, 2007)

Rel said:
			
		

> We do it for one simple reason:  The babes.



 Specifically, this one and this one.


----------



## Rel (Mar 21, 2007)

Darkness said:
			
		

> and this one.




He WAS delicious.  But I did think that the apple in the mouth was a little disrespectful.


----------



## diaglo (Mar 21, 2007)

Darkness said:
			
		

> Specifically, this one and this one.



Bah. Ram. Ewe.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Mar 22, 2007)

diaglo said:
			
		

> Bah. Ram. Ewe.




Hey, it could have been Klaatu. Barada. Nikto


----------

