# Use of "Professional Language" in Moderator Actions



## Todd Roybark (Aug 6, 2020)

Hello All.

I would like to suggest that more neutral language, more "professional language" be utilized when moderators issue a warning.
There should be, a more formal tone _coupled_ with general politeness, that should make it clear to readers that this is _an official moderator response_ regardless of the color text used.  Red text does not always show as red, especially if one has display settings set to augment ease of reading.

This is an example of a moderator response from today.  I am posting this for illustrative purposes only. For the record I wholeheartedly approve of the intervention, and the message, yet I feel strongly that moderators _should not use a Red Text Soap Box to make snarky comments_ and then claim they are unassailable because those comments are part of "official business".

The form of moderation comments matters, does the statement quoted bellow come across as professional?

*"For the record, this statement is factually incorrect. Let’s try to keep the utter BS to a minimum.

EVERYONE."*  Dannyalcatraz


----------



## Morrus (Aug 6, 2020)

I have always had a viewpoint on that. We aren't a court or an elected body; we're human people hanging around in a private gathering. The word "official" has no meaning in this context.  I feel it's important that the community sees us as people, not robots; and equally importantly, _treats_ us as people, not robots. Artificial formality can erode that.

Sure, as humans we can sometimes make mistakes or go a bit overboard; but I'd rather that than be a bot in a box. I don't want people to see me as a faceless official blandly and bureaucratically enforcing pre-programmed rules; I want them to see me as their host, foibles and all.


----------



## tommybahama (Aug 6, 2020)

Does the TOS for keeping it civil and inclusive apply to the mods as well?  Isn't that all the OP is asking for?

You've referred to this site as a private gathering and I like that metaphor.  But is it more like a public house?


----------



## Sabathius42 (Aug 6, 2020)

I never question moderation, and generally try to act like a guest in someones elses house when spending time here, however there is a moderator etiquette thing I have been noticing in the past few months.  And by past few months I am referring specifically to the massive wave of real life discussions revolving around D&D changes, inclusiveness, and diversity.  I don't complain about it to the mod team/Morrus because its not something wrecking the community or causing harm, but I will bring it up here because it is somewhat related to the OP.

I have noticed that when the discussions start to get heated up, and some mods have to step in and start enforcing "Keep it friendly" that the quickness with which they call out Side A is not the same as with Side B.  It just so happens they seem to be on Side B in the discussion in which they have to put on their mod hats.  While I agree with Morrus that mods are modding as a public service and they shouldn't have to be inhuman robots when doing so.  I don't even mind when they get a little snarky themselves towards someone that is being rude in the first place.  I DO hope that they do their best to be both human AND impartial when it comes to giving warning/points/kicks/bans to those who both support and object to their personal opinions.


----------



## Morrus (Aug 6, 2020)

Sabathius42 said:


> I have noticed that when the discussions start to get heated up, and some mods have to step in and start enforcing "Keep it friendly" that the quickness with which they call out Side A is not the same as with Side B.  It just so happens they seem to be on Side B in the discussion in which they have to put on their mod hats.




Yes. The side of inclusiveness. I thought we'd made that pretty clear! I even put it in the rules.


----------



## TheSword (Aug 6, 2020)

A very formal approach could really put people off when this whole experience is supposed to be entertainment.

Having been given a polite but firm ticking off in the last two weeks that was the equivalent of “...ok you two, knock it off!” I like the relatively familiar down to earth approach.

It doesn’t make us feel like kids, but it also makes us take it seriously enough to keep ENWorld out of the cesspit that so many other forums have turned into.

It’s a damn good resource and let’s be honest, most of us spend more time on here than we spend talking to our parents so we want it to feel comfortable and not too authoratarive!


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Aug 6, 2020)

I was thinking that each moderator could have their own catchphrase.

"You got served!" Eh ....

"Ya basic!" Mmmm.... too Moldvay.

How about, "I have never seen anybody take so many words to express a concept, and with such little result." A little shady.

I'm sure you can workshop it.


----------



## Morrus (Aug 6, 2020)

And let's face it I'm a naturally sarcastic person. I don't think I'm capable of changing that at this stage!


----------



## Sabathius42 (Aug 6, 2020)

Morrus said:


> Yes. The side of inclusiveness. I thought we'd made that pretty clear! I even put it in the rules.



I'm not talking about moderation on the content of the basic premise of what a person is saying.  I am referring to moderating people being rude, disrespectful, or needlessly angry, or using anti-grandma language.

Side A Poster:  I think cars should be blue.
Side B Poster:  I think they should be green, blue is inferior.
Side A Poster:  People who like green are horrible wastes of space.
Side B Poster:  You're being an idiot, I can't talk to you anymore.

MOD (Who likes blue): Hey Side B Poster, this is a civil discussion.


----------



## billd91 (Aug 6, 2020)

Since this isn't a professional board, I don't see why moderator actions would need to be professional. I might expect a certain amount of it with respect to ENWorld's publishing elements and discussion of said products, but that's it.


----------



## Helldritch (Aug 6, 2020)

I prefer that my moderators speak their minds than to see them waffles? with words and nonsense. Political correctness can have its uses but If I have a warning, I want it to be crystal clear. 
So far, I am entirely satisfied.


----------



## FrogReaver (Aug 6, 2020)

billd91 said:


> Since this isn't a professional board, I don't see why moderator actions would need to be professional. I might expect a certain amount of it with respect to ENWorld's publishing elements and discussion of said products, but that's it.




I read the request to be more of “a can we get them To follow the board rules the rest of us follow even when They are moderating.”  One way to accomplish that would be a professional tone. Certainly not the only way though. Consider The issue of Being told to not be snarky or rude by a snarky or rude mod text comment.


----------



## Maxperson (Aug 6, 2020)

Sabathius42 said:


> I'm not talking about moderation on the content of the basic premise of what a person is saying.  I am referring to moderating people being rude, disrespectful, or needlessly angry, or using anti-grandma language.
> 
> Side A Poster:  I think cars should be blue.
> Side B Poster:  I think they should be green, blue is inferior.
> ...



This.   

If the moderator has deemed you to be on the anti inclusive side of things and engage in a fallacy, the modern hammer comes out.  If the moderator has deemed you to be on the inclusive side of things, you can engage in a dozen blatant fallacies over a dozen posts and even attack the poster and not the post, and nothing.


----------



## Morrus (Aug 6, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> If the moderator has deemed you to be on the anti inclusive side of things and engage in a fallacy, the modern hammer comes out.  If the moderator has deemed you to be on the inclusive side of things, you can engage in a dozen blatant fallacies over a dozen posts and even attack the poster and not the post, and nothing.



If you're on the anti-inclusive side of things, we'd honestly rather you just leave. This is an inclusive community, and we're very, very publicly clear about that.


----------



## FrogReaver (Aug 6, 2020)

Morrus said:


> If you're on the anti-inclusive side of things, we'd honestly rather you just leave. This is an inclusive community, and we're very, very publicly clear about that.





sincere question.

If that’s your position then why not just ban all those you Deem to be too anti-inclusive.  Why say you would rather have them leave?  Why have mods single out for moderation those you deem too anti-inclusive?  Why all that inderectness when you have the power to immediately enact your desires?


----------



## Morrus (Aug 6, 2020)

FrogReaver said:


> sincere question.
> 
> If that’s your position then why not just ban all those you Deem to be too anti-inclusive.  Why say you would rather have them leave?  Why have mods single out for moderation those you deem too anti-inclusive?  Why all that inderectness when you have the power to immediately enact your desires?



I"m busy. And I (perhaps unrealistically) hope that people will take the hint and act nicely, because at heart I'm an optimist and hate banning people. It upsets me every time I'm forced to do it.


----------



## cmad1977 (Aug 6, 2020)

I’ve never been reprimanded for anything I didn’t deserve. I have no issues with the moderation I’ve seen or experienced.


----------



## Maxperson (Aug 6, 2020)

Morrus said:


> If you're on the anti-inclusive side of things, we'd honestly rather you just leave. This is an inclusive community, and we're very, very publicly clear about that.



I'm not, though.  People are often quick to label and just because I've been deemed to be on that side, doesn't make it true.  Nor is that a great reason to let one side flagrantly break the rules.


----------



## Sabathius42 (Aug 7, 2020)

Morrus said:


> If you're on the anti-inclusive side of things, we'd honestly rather you just leave. This is an inclusive community, and we're very, very publicly clear about that.



If you want to say "We don't wear the moderator hat impartially" that's fine.  I don't think its a good look, but its also not my house so I can't complain about it.

I think you are incorrectly attributing the term "anti-inclusive" to the kinds of comments I am referring to.  Having the opinion "All orcs being evil isn't a problem" is NOT anti-inclusive.  Despite this I have seen many posters (and possibly some mods) equate having that opinion with being anti-inclusive, thus labeling the poster saying so as against something they aren't at all against.  This supports what @Maxperson is saying, and its happened to me multiple times over the past few months in the heated discussions.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 7, 2020)

Todd Roybark said:


> I would like to suggest that more neutral language, more "professional language" be utilized when moderators issue a warning.




Yeah, so, years ago, I used to use professional language in moderation. 

People hated it.  They gave more resistance to moderation, tried harder to find loopholes*, were generally more argumentative.

A more conversational, informal tone just works better.



*Professional language sounds like strict rules.  And among rules-lawyers, that doesn't work out well.


----------



## Morrus (Aug 7, 2020)

Sabathius42 said:


> If you want to say "We don't wear the moderator hat impartially" that's fine.  I don't think its a good look, but its also not my house so I can't complain about it.
> 
> I think you are incorrectly attributing the term "anti-inclusive" to the kinds of comments I am referring to.  Having the opinion "All orcs being evil isn't a problem" is NOT anti-inclusive.  Despite this I have seen many posters (and possibly some mods) equate having that opinion with being anti-inclusive, thus labeling the poster saying so as against something they aren't at all against.  This supports what @Maxperson is saying, and its happened to me multiple times over the past few months in the heated discussions.



I’m confused. Have you or have you not been moderated for saying”all orcs being evil isn’t a problem”? If not, what does that have to do with this discussion about the use of professional language in moderation?


----------



## Eric V (Aug 7, 2020)

Sabathius42 said:


> If you want to say "We don't wear the moderator hat impartially" that's fine.  I don't think its a good look, but its also not my house so I can't complain about it.
> 
> I think you are incorrectly attributing the term "anti-inclusive" to the kinds of comments I am referring to.  *Having the opinion "All orcs being evil isn't a problem" is NOT anti-inclusive.  *Despite this I have seen many posters (and possibly some mods) equate having that opinion with being anti-inclusive, thus labeling the poster saying so as against something they aren't at all against.  This supports what @Maxperson is saying, and its happened to me multiple times over the past few months in the heated discussions.



Haven't people explained (patiently and in great detail) how it is, though?  So, if after that, one still takes the position, then...


----------



## Morrus (Aug 7, 2020)

(I’ve answered the initial question in this thread, incidentally, and the prospect of an endless Gish-gallop on every imaginable moderation topic isn’t appealing, so I’ll be dropping out now; if you have other mod questions than the one in the OP, feel free to start a thread about them).


----------



## FrogReaver (Aug 7, 2020)

Umbran said:


> Yeah, so, years ago, I used to use professional language in moderation.
> 
> People hated it.  They gave more resistance to moderation, tried harder to find loopholes*, were generally more argumentative.
> 
> ...




an example of your conversational tone:



Umbran said:


> *Mod Note:*
> 
> Next time, read the moderator notes before posting.  This nonsense is not constructive, and you're done in the thread.




You believe this “Conversational tone” juSt works better?


----------



## Maxperson (Aug 7, 2020)

Eric V said:


> Haven't people explained (patiently and in great detail) how it is, though?  So, if after that, one still takes the position, then...



No.  Use this analogy.  Some people want to help the poor by giving them money. Other people want to help the poor not by giving them money, but by educating them in something that pays well and is in demand.  Different ways to want to help the poor.  Similarly, some of you want to be inclusive by changing everything that might possibly maybe harm someone.  Others of us want to have hard proof of harm before we will support change.  Both sides support inclusivity, just in different ways.   Your side, though, likes to accuse those of us who want inclusivity in a different manner, of being non-inclusive.  That's the problem.


----------



## cmad1977 (Aug 7, 2020)

I’m sensing high levels of pout from some folks in this thread.


----------



## Maxperson (Aug 7, 2020)

cmad1977 said:


> I’m sensing high levels of pout from some folks in this thread.



You're misreading things I think.


----------



## Eltab (Aug 8, 2020)

Morrus said:


> (I’ve answered the initial question in this thread, incidentally, and the prospect of an endless Gish-gallop on every imaginable moderation topic isn’t appealing, so I’ll be dropping out now; if you have other mod questions than the one in the OP, feel free to start a thread about them).



The moderators - especially you, Morrus, when you fulfill that task - speak with the Voice of EnWorld.  They set the tone that posters will emulate.  If they are rude, snarky, dismissive, snobbish ... then they are telling everybody who reads their posts what EnWorld expects and will tolerate.  They define *Be Polite* in practice on a day-by-day basis.

A forum full of rude, snarky, dismissive, and/or snobbish threads is neither Be Polite nor Be Inclusive.  In practice, it functions as a KEEP OUT sign to would-be new players.

A few months ago there was a thread themed "What I Like About EnWorld".  I know you saw it because you red-ink commented "I don't want to become the forum that complains about other websites."  The strongest sentiments expressed about 'EnWorld is good because...' were the rules No Politics and Be Polite.
Why are you trying to give yourself (and staff) a 'personal except clause' to the strengths of your website?


----------



## Morrus (Aug 8, 2020)

Eltab said:


> The moderators - especially you, Morrus, when you fulfill that task - speak with the Voice of EnWorld.  They set the tone that posters will emulate.  If they are rude, snarky, dismissive, snobbish ... then they are telling everybody who reads their posts what EnWorld expects and will tolerate.  They define *Be Polite* in practice on a day-by-day basis.
> 
> A forum full of rude, snarky, dismissive, and/or snobbish threads is neither Be Polite nor Be Inclusive.  In practice, it functions as a KEEP OUT sign to would-be new players.
> 
> ...



You’d make a good politician.


----------

