Qhimm.com Forums

Read this first! => Announcements and site development => Topic started by: Sad Jari on 2005-06-16 19:53:19

Title: Thoughts
Post by: Sad Jari on 2005-06-16 19:53:19
Most of this is based on the notion:

Code: [Select]
The moderation here has always been very lax. Lately, with the influx of stupid people, it has become too lax. Or people have become too stupid for it, take your pick.

If you disagree with this notion (I would certainly like to hear how you possibly can, considering the events), you will not get much out of it, since it's aimed at fixing that problem.

It's somewhat disorganized, but should be readable. Oh yeah, my spelling chequer is not working with DP Alpha 1, so there might be boo-boos.


Moderator/admin side of things

1) Rules must be written down, as specifically as possible. Moderators are not mind readers - unfortunately.

If they do not know what the appropriate action is, they will choose the most lenient option, just to err on the side of caution - like you would in any social situation. This erring on the side of caution is one of the reasons for the current situation; if the idiots are given free reign, they will take advantage of it.

It's lot of work trying to create as complete and foolproof set of rules as possible, but it will save you from even more work; namely fixing things after your moderators.


2) Rules must be made a whole lot more strict. While the humane "let all the flowers bloom"-approach (otherwise known as a hippy way) is all fine and dandy, it will not work with large, heterogeneous crowds. Which has been seen here.

The old system worked as long as there were only very few users, it's not working now. The time of the old system is over, do not even think about the old rules anymore; you'll have to start fresh.

Don't get overly worried about what is "fair" or humane; it's a forum, not a civil right. You do not have to make every person in the world happy, you need to make most of the people in the forums happy.


3) The yellow card is nearly useless and should be removed entirely. Reasoning; it will only work if the person is really concerned in what other people think of him. The card system itself is good, because it gives the moderators more power. And that is exactly what they'll need.


4) Multi-forum moderators, or supermods are a good idea. To certain extent. The problem is that if there are not enough of them, the workload will get too large.

The thing that admins can moderate is kinda tricky in this sense; since their names are not listed on the forums (as moderators), it can create the illusion that only the moderators are responsible for the forum. This in turn can create more stress for them, if they feel that they have to do all the work, since they'll obviously get blamed for not doing it.


5) So called Judge Dredd-moderator. Term coined by yours truly. Moderator who is the law; police, judge and jury in one person. You'll need them. Since it seems that there are more idiots and mods have less time in their hands you  must give more responsibility to the mods. Lots more.

This basically means that moderators act independently, based on the rules. They'll ban users independently. If you can get this to work, you'll get the forum you dream of (lot less work for you, that is).


6) Rules must be enforced in much more strict way. Seriously much more strict. No more yellow cards. No warnings.

a) Ban on the first offense (no, I most certainly am not kidding, I've seen it and it works).

Title: Thoughts
Post by: Alhexx on 2005-06-16 20:42:44
Wow, I haven't seen such a constructive post from you for a long time, Jari.
It seems like there'S still a part of you which does not want to see the board end as you predict it will be...
I'm not going to make hundrets of quotes here, I'll just refer to your numbers. I'll quote only if I think it's necessary.

3)
I do not think that the yellow card is senseless. It maybe does not matter for the ones who got the warning, however this member is "brandmarked" on this forum. That means that other members, especially new ones, can see that this member has not been so innocent as he might look. So leave the warning system alive.

5)
In my opinion, banning is a thing that only an admin should decide, and we have 3 of them now here. Banning is not a 24-7 job here, we do not have to ban 10 users per day (even if some of us would like to).
If a moderator thinks that someone is making so much trouble that he should get banned, he (the mod) can talk to an admin about that.
And I think that banning (I mean the action, not the decision) is not a lot of work, so this can be done by the admins.
So our admins are our Judge-Dredd-Moderators.

6) a)
Banning for the first rule break? I think this is a bit too hard. If it was a heavy rule-break (e.g. posting warez, rude offense, bitching admins or mods, offense spamming, rassistic/ sexistic post, or any illegal action) then it's okay.
But I don't think that someone whould be banned for having a too big avatar or things like that. We have our warning system for that.

7) (Second point)
You cannot expect that someone sits 24-7 in front of this monitor and browses this forum, even not from a moderator or admin. So that's the reason why there should be a moderator crew for each forum, at least 2 per forum.

10)
Uh...This somehow reminds me of the StaSi...
This is a forum, and forums should be available to everyone after all. You cannot understand what kind of human someone is by letting him writing a few lines about himself.
There are people, who are just browsing the web, find this board, just want to register to post a quick question... and some of them even become honorable members...
Then, on the other hand, there are a lot who want to register, who would take their time to fill out that "character test" form, and after 2 weeks they start pissing other members off...
No, I don't think that is a good idea. Registration should be free for everyone.

10) I'm not sure if you're talking about that what I think about. Is this karma system that, where members can "rate" another members behaviour?
If yes, this might be a good idea.
(But it is more or less equal to the yellow-card system)

I agree to all other points more or less...


And there's one thing I have to add:
I think it would be a good idea to open a "moderator Forum", which only admins and mods are allowed to visit. This would be a good place for discussing moderative questions, coordinating work between moderators etc...

Let's see what the admins have to say to that...

 - Alhexx
Title: Thoughts
Post by: Sad Jari on 2005-06-16 21:22:38
I'll use quotes, since it makes the specific points I'm addressing more obvious.

Quote from: Alhexx
It maybe does not matter for the ones who got the warning, however this member is "brandmarked" on this forum. That means that other members, especially new ones, can see that this member has not been so innocent as he might look.

But what good comes out of this? That they can make fun of the person? That they can switch into the "daddy's little moderator"-mode, where they start to criticize what he does?

I was under the impression that the point of the warning was to prevent similar behaviour in future, not to make a circus freak out of the person.... which would be ok, if it actually would prevent the said behaviour.

Quote from: Alhexx
And I think that banning (I mean the action, not the decision) is not a lot of work, so this can be done by the admins.

It sure ain't, but how long does it take before your admin has the time do that? I dunno if you have noticed, but ironically all three of them are very busy.

Because while the banning does not take long, all kinds of stuff can happen while you are waiting for one of your admins to show up.

Quote from: Alhexx
But I don't think that someone whould be banned for having a too big avatar or things like that. We have our warning system for that.

Can you prove to me that your warning system actually works?

It's not a ban for life, one week is a nice amount of time, during which they can think about the rules.

Besides, the concept is that it is a proactive measure. Ban enough idiots - preferably make a list of banned users - and you'll see how it starts to work.

7) Well, I was referring to weeks, not hours.

Quote from: Alhexx
This is a forum, and forums should be available to everyone after all.

Since when? It's not democracy, it's not right to vote, it's a forum. Not a civil right, like I said.

Do you have experience of forums that limit their registration, for one reason or another? They are pretty darn nice, in general.

Quote from: Alhexx
You cannot understand what king of human someone is by letting him writing a few lines about himself.

But you sure can see if he's capable of producing something that even remotely resembles English language. ... Although my real point was that it takes some effort, that alone will cut down the idiots. Plus as a bonus, it will prevent the ad-bots from registering.

Quote from: Alhexx
There are people, who are just browsing the web, find this board, just want to register to post a quick question... and some of them even become honorable members...

Very few. Remember the active/inactive members statistics? Most of them ask a question that has been answered many times already. Rest can wait for some time. You have to think about the good of the many before good of the few.

Quote from: Alhexx
Then, on the other hand, there are a lot who want to register, who would take their time to fill out that "character test" form, and after 2 weeks they start pissing other members off...

Are you basing this on personal experience, or...? The "lot", I mean. Certainly there are some, no doubt.

10) Yeah, that's karma.

Gee, and I thought that I was the only person abusing the Remake forum as a moderator forum. In other words; the idea certainly has some merit, but I'm willing to bet a sizeable sum on that forum being very quiet place.
Title: Thoughts
Post by: Bunnie-Maru on 2005-06-16 22:49:58
On the subject of warnings/bannings:

1st Card: 1 week suspension
2nd Card: 1 month suspension
3rd Card: Gone

I would say keep the cards and add in the suspensions. If anything, I'd consider this a psychological reminder. If I were to ever get a card, I would remember why I got it for the rest of my time here.

I like the idea of temporary suspensions, but I think it should be a three step phase, not two. 1 week to permanent banning seems a little steep, there should be some transition between the two.

Also, is there a way to limit an IP to only one account at a time?
Title: Thoughts
Post by: Relf on 2005-06-16 23:04:14
I think that ban-on first offence should be a sliding scale method, you'r avatar's too big, 'you double post or you revive should be the use of those yellow cards, a nice sign saying "you screwed up big time". Anything worse than that should be an instant permaban, any second offence thats not painfully obvious as an accident should also be a permaban.

Mabye there should also be a third portion of the sight, the main website, the forums, and the FAQ section where you can get the answers quickly so that you dont spam the fourms.

I also think that Mods should'nt be able to ban unless its the short time ban, might lead to abuse if you just decide you dont like someone because of say, a political view.

Im not really the best person to be making or even suggesting rules (I've broken several myself) but I'd really like to see these put into effect. I wasn't here for the Illustrious "Days of Olden Tymes" but I do remember how great it was when I first showed up.


Also, Qhimm, mabye it would be a good idea to post who you would want as a mod to skip some of these pointless "Applications".
Title: Thoughts
Post by: Sad Jari on 2005-06-17 00:42:01
Quote from: Bunnie-Maru
Also, is there a way to limit an IP to only one account at a time?

Not with standard phpBB, I think.

You could ban all user"s" coming from a single IP, of course.

Quote from: Relf
I also think that Mods should'nt be able to ban unless its the short time ban, might lead to abuse if you just decide you dont like someone because of say, a political view.

Well, they haven't abused it thus far... you do know that they have had banning powers since they have been able to give cards?

Give them some credit, they are not power hungry freaks.

Anyway, abuse of power of course means that they won't have the power for much longer.
Title: Thoughts
Post by: Qhimm on 2005-06-17 05:21:21
Quote
The moderation here has always been very lax. Lately, with the influx of stupid people, it has become too lax. Or people have become too stupid for it, take your pick.

I agree completely. Unfortunately that also means admitting that I've been utterly insufficient in my job of maintaining this place (either myself or by appointing enough moderators), but seeing as how bad things have gotten I would be quite arrogant to suggest otherwise.

Quote
1) Rules must be written down, as specifically as possible. Moderators are not mind readers - unfortunately.

I originally meant for the Administration forum (invisible to normal users) to contain the "ruleset for moderators", complete with appropriate actions to be taken in certain situations, or when to notify admin instead. I never got around to actually formalizing the rules though, and as you say, as a result moderators have been extremely careful not to "do too much" (and so the final decision usually comes to rest with me anyway). Stronger moderation requires stronger guidance, which I'll try to provide, somehow.

Quote
2) Rules must be made a whole lot more strict. While the humane "let all the flowers bloom"-approach (otherwise known as a hippy way) is all fine and dandy, it will not work with large, heterogeneous crowds. Which has been seen here.

I agree completely, the rule system (as it is) was never meant to be actually enforced, as it makes a fatally incorrect assumption; that all members share a common sense of how to behave in a group. It worked only as long as the majority of active members were sensible, but now we've had an outflux of sensible people and a huge influx of socially inept people, tipping the balance way into crapland.

Quote
3) The yellow card is nearly useless and should be removed entirely. Reasoning; it will only work if the person is really concerned in what other people think of him. The card system itself is good, because it gives the moderators more power. And that is exactly what they'll need.

For a few users the yellow card has actually snapped them back into reality, but this just falls into the "nearly useless" of your statement. As with so many other things around here, I originally meant for the system to be quite a bit more extensive, with more levels of "punishment" between warning and ban. The level system was meant to be its positive reinforcement counterpart, to encourage good behaviour just as bad behaviour was punished. None of these systems were developed far enough to actually do the intended job, however, for example the current level system merely encourages post flooding instead. A balanced level/rank system, more cards, and more importantly more cards that hurt a little more than your ego would probably provide a positive effect.

As Alhexx points out though, it does also have the positive effect of letting other users (who might not have seen the offense) know that the guy isn't to be taken at face value. It might not mean much to the offender itself, but we might get a few less users starting to defend "innocent newbies" just because they don't know the truth. On the other hand, those defenders probably deserve a kick in the groin for being too gullible to begin with, and speaking without first checking.

Quote
4) Multi-forum moderators, or supermods are a good idea. To certain extent. The problem is that if there are not enough of them, the workload will get too large.

Unfortunately phpBB does not come with "supermod" functionality built-in, so right now I have to actually appoint these mods to every forum. There's probably a hack for it though, as I'd love a more stable implementation of different levels of authority here.

Quote
5) So called Judge Dredd-moderator. Term coined by yours truly. Moderator who is the law; police, judge and jury in one person. You'll need them. Since it seems that there are more idiots and mods have less time in their hands you must give more responsibility to the mods. Lots more.

Heh, I like that idea. Not unlimited power, but pretty damn close. I'd be prepared to at least cut off a few sub-forums (like General or Unrelated) into Judge Dredd-controlled territory, and get them off my mind. Note that todays moderators technically have this power already, but are afraid to use it (point 1). The banning issue itself isn't a huge administrative deal (since I made a card button to do it in two clicks), and while I do appreciate making final calls, I'm way too lenient in many cases and quite frankly it's a bit tiring to always be the one "responsible" for banning people, even if they are morons.

Quote
6) Rules must be enforced in much more strict way. Seriously much more strict. No more yellow cards. No warnings.

This is actually what I wanted with my yellow cards (or rather, the multiple levels of cards I had in mind). First card, time-limited ban. Second card, longer ban (or permanent), and so on. Also cards would be time-limited, so if a user warned once kept clean for, say, six months, the card would automatically be pardoned. This of course also requires that the rules become way more formalized and prominently displayed. A lot of the simpler rules could even be scripted to be prevented, like double-posting, thread revival or avatar abuse. Or at least to display a warning, like "you risk breaking the rules / offending people at this point", after which any annoyed moderator could instaban (since the user obviously had the intent, then).

Permaban for repeat offenders is certainly the way to go, and is how we do things now (except the definition of "offense" is way too lenient). I'd also like a system where moderators could attach a reason for the ban, which could then be seen both by users (via banner user's profile), and the user himself (trying to visit the forums).

Alhexx: I'm way for something more than a silent warning for first offense, it should be felt. Of course there are varying degrees of offenses, but offenders should at least feel they lost something because of what they did, and if a sincere apology is not quickly forthcoming (either directly or after a temporary ban is lifted), then the user should be banned anyway (since he's clearly not in possession of the common sense we so value here).

Quote
7) Moderators must be responsible for their forum.

Speaking of this problem, it could maybe be solved by another "feature" I was thinking about a while back, namely publically indicating when a user last logged in. For forum moderators, this information could even be presented as part of the forum display, a notice displaying the "activeness" of the current moderators. Stripping the moderator of powers every time he/she will be busy simply creates more administrative work, so if this sort of thing could be automated instead, it would be much preferable. And I don't mean automatically stripping mods of power, but rather indicating that they're just currently inactive and will still kick your ass later.

Quote
8) Moderators, especially supermods and mods for high-volume forums simply must be fluent in English. Not speaking, but they must be able to read between the lines, see hidden meanings, notice attitude and get jokes. It also helps if they write well, or at least well enough that there will be no misunderstandings because of that, but understanding written English is a must.

I agree that this is indeed damn near necessary in order to fairly (and strictly) moderate a public forum. Or course, a lot of the visitors that need moderation don't speak good English to begin with, so the moderator's skills are often a bit wasted. But having educated and literate people on the top certainly increases enjoyability for the intended target audience. The only problem I can see is that as it stands, there aren't enough highly literate people that I can trust as moderators around here these days. If the forums somehow get back to their glory days, they would probably attract more, but for now probably at least the non-technical forums will have to have a few less-than-perfect moderators (albeit they might exercise a bit more care when stepping into situations).

Quote
9) Registration needs to be more strict, if you want to control the idiot flood. Sure, it will prevent people just from popping in and asking things, but then again... most people seem to be rather pooping in than popping in these days.

The forced lurk period is a good idea, though maybe with one or two forums still open for public posting. Rather than closing registration periodically though (which still leaves the open period open for morons), I'd like a registration + lurk (limited posting) + full user rights sort of process, with a forced lurk period where you can't post in "content" forums. Special users could be exempt, of course. The "questionnaire" thing at registration is also a grand idea, both to know how people get here, and more importantly to find out what they hope to accomplish here. I'd also like more user levels to accomplish this, i.e. you could either have guest posting or "limited" users that are allowed to post relatively freely in some parts of the forums, while "proper" accounts require the full registration process (either with lurking or by reference of some regular). This could be done with phpBB via user groups and manually keeping track of lurkers, but definitely needs a script.

Oops, I notice I hadn't finished reading point 9 before writing the above. So yes, the forced lurk is my favorite. At least Sweden has laws against keeping personally identifiable information on mass registry (it could even be argued that the IP logs violates laws such as this). However, if the user explicitly has to approve of his data being part of the site's database (doesn't have to be public), then the legal issues would mostly evaporate. Forum registration and participation is not forced upon anyone after all, so we can require users to give up a few of their own rights to gain the right of posting. Just like those EULAs.

Alhexx: While we most certainly would not get to know the person from a few lines written at registration, we would certainly be able to weed out the most unpromising candidates. Also, there aren't a lot of people registrering really (typically a few each week at most), so I can probably live with an admin-approved registration process. If you have a lurk period, then the admin has plenty of time to decide whether to approve the ultimate registration, or to cancel the request.

Quote
10) Karma system. This has been talked about before, but for different reason. It might help, though. But is there per-post-karma-rating mod for phpBB?

This ties in closely with the level system I originally wanted. My original idea was quite an extensive per-user karma system that would ultimately display as (or at least affect) your "level". Positive karma would be given by various actions, like posting in content forums, and to a small extent also in off-topic forums. Small amounts of karma could be given/taken by specific per-post feedback, where karma from high-level users would count more than karma from low-level users etc. Negative karma would be given (in descending order of magnitute) by warnings, having your topic deleted, having your post deleted, having your topic moved, or by per-post feedback. Inactivity would not affect karma. Also, users' karma record would be on public display in their profile. It might work (with the whole positive/negative reinforcement thing), of course it would mainly affect people who were good to begin with. I'm not sure if warnings should be automatically issued if your karma becomes negative enough. I think there are some mods for this sort of thing, but as with any mod I'd want to personally adapt it for the forums before putting into extensive use (plus I don't think there's a pre-made script as extensive as I'd like anyway).

Quote
11) Titles. It needs to be very clear who is admin or mod. Make it so with their title. Use the colors and bold to make it stand out. Remove possible "Moderator" custom titles, if the person is not one anymore. Vice versa, mods and admins with custom titles still need to have the "Mod" or "Admin" visible.

This is a problem I noticed a while back, that any title (like our 'Freak' and 'No life' titles) overrides moderator/admin titles. This is utterly stupid and should be changed, actually moderator/admin status should be shown in a different way than a title altogether, like a small icon and/or colored user name.

Quote
1) Rules must be written down, as specifically as possible.

Yes. Preferably as a special, clearly visible link at the top of every forum index, plus the post editor. Quoting the rules should not have to involve finding the rules topic and making a link, it should optimally just be a pre-made moderator tag, such as:

[ rules ] --> rules (http://forums.qhimm.com/rules.php)
[ mod ] Some text [ /mod ] --> MOD EDIT: Some text

Quote from: Alhexx
I think it would be a good idea to open a "moderator Forum", which only admins and mods are allowed to visit. This would be a good place for discussing moderative questions, coordinating work between moderators etc...

What, it's not visible? Well fuck, that would explain a thing or two... *goes off to check permissions*

Quote from: Relf
I also think that Mods should'nt be able to ban unless its the short time ban, might lead to abuse if you just decide you dont like someone because of say, a political view.

So far the only case of moderator abuse was Jari banning himself, moving some topic and editing his own posts to nothingness (which doesn't even require moderator rights). And the only reason I called that "abuse" is because his posts were quite valuable to the forum to begin with. I still take care about which moderators I select, plus I think moderator abuse is the least of our worries right now -- rather the complete opposite.
Title: Thoughts
Post by: mirex on 2005-06-17 11:38:05
Ohh, how I hate reading long threads like this. I have done it now to add my opinion this time:

Quote
IP Block ban on further offenses. Not single IP ban, they are nearly useless. Simply ban the entire block at once.
Sometimes innocent people might get banned by this. Well, boo-hoo. Go get a life instead posting to forums, or go beat up the person who caused the block ban, chances are that he's living nearby anyway.

Heh what's this for a solution. Hurt innocent because of bad guys.

Quote
9) Registration needs to be more strict, if you want to control the idiot flood. Sure, it will prevent people just from popping in and asking things, but then again... most people seem to be rather pooping in than popping in these days.
Close the registration. Seriously. Close it for three months, then open for one. Repeat year around. This forces n00bs to lurk and read first.

Very good idea but hard to manage. It takes too much time, I know it from different forums. Those forums are good because of that. They are around for 3 years or such; They have 3k+ users, and so far there was only 1(one) ban (few weeks ago) because user was posting without any sense.
Its managed in a different way. Useless posts are not discussed over and over, if someone is abusive or offensive he gets ban to the thread, if the post/thread is useless it gets deleted with no big talking.
But though there are alot more mods (each thread creator is the admin of the thread). And its better because of the strict registration. You have to write few sentences about you by which you will be judged and you will gain access eventually. There are approx 10 registration attempts daily.
Yup it is hard, I'm feeling lucky I got in. ;)

Quote
One option might be this; when person registers, he can't write. He must stick to reading for some time... 2-4 weeks? After that he automatically gets the rights to write. Should cut down the "This has been asked 10001 times before, but I must know it"-questions.

Good idea. I'd give it to 4(or more) hours of board surfing time, so even guys visiting only once per week won't have it too easy. But how about guys (like me) that read first (for a few hours/days) and register afterwards when they finally want to write something usefull ? Will they have to wait more and more ?

Quote
10) Karma system. This has been talked about before, but for different reason. It might help, though. But is there per-post-karma-rating mod for phpBB?
Aren't you at the same forum I'm talking about ? It has karma too. Its for the posts or the users. Though many times it misses its purpose. Not the valuable posts are marked, but funny or extreme posts get highest karma rating. I dont think that K!arma system is needed here.

---
Generally my idea of managing the forums is:
Let anyone get into forums.
If user does something wrong tell him in short what he did wrong PM or reply - warn him about it.
If user obviously does not belong to these forums, ignores you, does something against forums, then ban him.
Warnings are not needed. Warning was the notification from other members / moderators.
rules: I think that people can distinguish if they are doing good thing or bad thing that should not be done. Rules here seem too strict for some points, and there are none for other points.

I know it takes alot of time to manage this number of newbies, but its a role of moderators. If its too much work, get more moderators.
Title: Thoughts
Post by: Alhexx on 2005-06-17 12:18:45
I'm not going to post that much as before, since it seems we're starting to have a concrete concept on how to improve the situation. And I agree to most of your points.

Qhimm's answer on #7:
Well, do you want to have the moderators keeping an eye on the forum members, or otherwise? I think that presenting a moderators activity to public in form of a note on the forum display is not a good idea.
I think that if a mod is unable to do his job for a period (as mentioned in #7), then he should tell - but only the moderators and admins. The Administrative Crew is a team after all - they have to do the job together. Everyone has to do his individual part, of course, but it only works when all mods are doind their job.
So if one mod is not able to do his job for some time, then the team has to compensate this. But for that, I think we would need a few mods more...
Displaying the mods status publicly may make some members think: "Oh, he's gone for 5 days, so I've got two more days to spam this forum..."
Oh, and if someone is really interested in the activity of a moderator, he can still take a look at his (the mods) profile and click on that "Find all posts by ...." button...

And finally - thanks for showing me that admin forum  8)

 - Alhexx
Title: Thoughts
Post by: Sad Jari on 2005-06-17 13:01:31
Quote from: mirex
Quote
IP Block ban on further offenses. Not single IP ban, they are nearly useless. Simply ban the entire block at once.
Sometimes innocent people might get banned by this. Well, boo-hoo. Go get a life instead posting to forums, or go beat up the person who caused the block ban, chances are that he's living nearby anyway.

Heh what's this for a solution. Hurt innocent because of bad guys.

I would guess that for example this forum has only a handful of people actually sharing IP block (and these dudes might know each other in real life), so the problem might not be as bad as you think. At least larger ISPs have several blocks that they use, often distributed according to location and/or connection type. Considering that there are only so many active users - globally - I think that the possibility of getting blocked because someone else is rather minor.

If someone really, really wanted to post, regardless of IP block ban, there might be a way to make it happen; can mod_rewrite be used to redirect/ban based on the User Agent string (I don't know/remember)? Because if you did the IP block ban with it, you could give the user a special UA string to insert into his browser (even IE can do it, via registry) and the server would let him through.

It's quite a bit of work, though. If you don't make an automatic gadget for it.

There's another aspect as well; it's not necessarily "Hurt innocent because of bad guys", but rather "make bad guys hurt innocents". Because they are the ones who brought the ban upon them, not moderators. Many of them would not care about that, some might actually want it, few might avoid being bad because of it.

I think that I might have bit more to say about some things, but that'll have to wait for a little while.
Title: Thoughts
Post by: RPGillespie on 2005-06-17 20:29:59
I may have mentioned this before, but looking at how other successful forums function is probably a good idea. Sometimes I'll go to other websites to see how I can make mine better  :wink: . Just my thoughts on the matter.

RPGillespie
Title: Thoughts
Post by: Sad Jari on 2005-06-17 21:03:40
Ah, more time...

Quote from: mirex
Quote
One option might be this; when person registers, he can't write. He must stick to reading for some time... 2-4 weeks? After that he automatically gets the rights to write. Should cut down the "This has been asked 10001 times before, but I must know it"-questions.

Good idea. I'd give it to 4(or more) hours of board surfing time, so even guys visiting only once per week won't have it too easy.

Both, hours and weeks would be best, I think. They work in slightly different ways, after all. Hours might be easy to manipulate though, unless the logging system is reasonably smart; you could just leave the browser open, displaying some topic and go to bed. If you pay flat rate, that is. Also with tabbed browsers you could leave the forums open in some background tab you'll never even look at.

Whether people would actually try to manipulate it is a different matter altogether.

Quote from: mirex
But how about guys (like me) that read first (for a few hours/days) and register afterwards when they finally want to write something usefull ? Will they have to wait more and more ?

Yes. You could try displaying a small notice about the registration method, so that they would know about it. Usually the stuff written here is not urgent though, people can actually wait few weeks. Most tech support questions (which might be one of the more urgent things) do get answered by the current forum population anyway, so you don't actually need quickie-registration just so that people could answer them. Most of them have also been asked and answered already.

Quote from: mirex
Not the valuable posts are marked, but funny or extreme posts get highest karma rating.

This is unfortunately rather common. More elaborate system, like the one Qhimm described, should be able to avoid this truly annoying phenomenon.

Quote from: Alhexx
Displaying the mods status publicly may make some members think: "Oh, he's gone for 5 days, so I've got two more days to spam this forum..."

I think that Qhimm meant system that won't predict future; it just shows what has happened. Making decisions based on how active the moderator has been might turn out to be a very bad choice (for the bad person, that is); it could even be used to entrap potential troublemakers - make it seem like mods are not active - wait for the idiots to show up - remove the idiots.

Quote from: Alhexx
Oh, and if someone is really interested in the activity of a moderator, he can still take a look at his (the mods) profile and click on that "Find all posts by ...." button...

Are you saying that mods should spam the forums to appear active? :P Because that's the flip side of using posts to determine activity.
Title: Thoughts
Post by: Relf on 2005-06-17 22:41:24
Quote
So far the only case of moderator abuse was Jari banning himself, moving some topic and editing his own posts to nothingness (which doesn't even require moderator rights). And the only reason I called that "abuse" is because his posts were quite valuable to the forum to begin with. I still take care about which moderators I select, plus I think moderator abuse is the least of our worries right now -- rather the complete opposite.


More of a preventitve measure if all of Jari's plan's go through and it become's a very well moderated ( almost to the degree of over doing it; it could be a problem if the mod's arent VERY carefully selected like they have been in the past).


For Karma, mabye several types of karma should be used, karma given due to the humor of a post counting less for a running tally. Posts that are informational and helpful in general being worth the most.

Jari would/could do the job of Judge Dredd quite well, I still remember being warned by Nori when I first joined to be careful around him . :D
Title: Thoughts
Post by: Qhimm on 2005-06-18 07:43:51
Quote from: mirex
Heh what's this for a solution. Hurt innocent because of bad guys. (about IP range bans)

Well, it can be equally argued that not effectively banning these bad guys would hurt more innocent (i.e. the entire memberlist). Only a few users share IP ranges here anyway, in fact it is so rare I can use the IPs to effectively trace account spoofs even for dynamic IP users.

Quote from: Relf
More of a preventitve measure if all of Jari's plan's go through and it become's a very well moderated ( almost to the degree of over doing it; it could be a problem if the mod's arent VERY carefully selected like they have been in the past).

Well, personally, I think the goal should be to rewrite the forums themselves to enforce the rules, instead of creating tons of paperwork for moderators. Moderating should be easy as pie, and the really simple day-to-day offenses like double-posting shouldn't really need a human being to go in and clean it up. It's shit like that that tires us out. If the forums themselves provide enough "administrative support", i.e. well-defined systems that prevent most of the everyday offenses, we'd be well on the way already. Of course moderators are needed to deal with the idiots, but at least they shouldn't have to go around with pooper scoopers.

Quote from: Relf
For Karma, mabye several types of karma should be used, karma given due to the humor of a post counting less for a running tally. Posts that are informational and helpful in general being worth the most.

This problem would be mostly solved with the more extensive system I proposed (if you've ever read about Google's PageRank, you know what I'm talking about). Uninteresting or uncontributing users would never be able to provide high karma boosts anyway, and unrelated topics would contribute much less than on-topic ones. Also, spoofing would be hard (by say posting crap in a high-value forum, since large negative karma would be given if a thread is moved (at least from a high-value to a low-value forum). It's a lot of work though...
Title: Thoughts
Post by: L. Spiro on 2005-06-18 08:06:22
Quote
It's a lot of work though...


[Wisdom]
It’s a lot of one-time work though.
It relates to programming very well (especially considering it IS programming).  Program it once, the right way, and save hundreds of man-hours of work.
Program it poorly to save yourself a bit of time, but cost the users tons of hours (adding up) by having to, for example, retype the command line, adding the parameters, etc.

Command-line programs that are meant to be used by a human (rather than command-line programs that are meant to be used by other software) really bother me in this respect.
The author saved himself 2 hours by not adding a menu, buttons, user interface, etc.
In the long run, the amount of time it takes for every user to type the command line and parameters to use his program adds up to well over 2 hours, easily into the hundreds of hours.


Whatever solution you decide to pursue now is going to effect the forum for a long time, adding up to either tons more hours of troubles for the moderators, or tons more hours worry-free, leaving the moderators time to hack the battle animation file format (wink wink).

This all seems pretty obvious, yet easily 90% of all people like to think only about the task at hand and the effort it requires for the moment rather than the effort it saves over the long run.
It could be argued that the forum is where it is now because of what wasn’t done long ego, despite there not being a need back then.
It’s no one’s fault; no one saw this happening and there wasn’t a need, but the most constructive path forward is to look back.

In 4 years from now, let’s not look back and think, “If only I did this or that…”.



I say, whatever it is you want to implement, get your ideas clear and organized, laid out and easy to read/understand, then go full force.
Don’t make something that is just going to leave you wishing for more.
Don’t stop until you are satisfied fully with the results.
[/Wisdom]



L. Spiro
Title: Thoughts
Post by: Sad Jari on 2005-06-18 08:24:43
Quote from: Qhimm
Well, personally, I think the goal should be to rewrite the forums themselves to enforce the rules, instead of creating tons of paperwork for moderators.

The question is, can phpBB be made into a system like that, with a reasonable amount of work? Or would it actually be less work to build a complete forum system from scratch?

In either case, there's fame - if not fortune, to be gained if such a system is made available to others.
Title: Thoughts
Post by: Caddberry on 2005-06-19 01:16:54
So Jari are you staying this time?

Anyway Qhimm.. If you like you can use these rules as a template

Quote
AnimeNfo Forum Rules (Version 1.9 )


1. Be respectful to both the moderators as well as other members. Direct attacks on others with obvious malicious intent will NOT be tolerated.

2. Posting guidelines:
__a. Post your topics in the appropriate forum.
__b. No useless threads/posts (ie. "I like to shower")
__c. No obscenities. This includes:
____i. Porn or hentai pictures.
____ii. Other pictures that could be considered overly obscene.
____iii. Discussions that are graphic in a sexual nature. Hentai discussion is allowed, but any improper discussion will not be tolerated.
__d. No links to copyrighted digital material, and no asking for links.
____i. No links pointing to places to download anime, manga, mp3's.
____ii. No posting or asking for CD-Keys, Serial numbers, or other ways to get this information.
____iii. Do not use the names of sites either. Posting the name of a website is just like posting a link.
__e. Avoid cloning existing threads. Search the forum a bit before you post.
__f. Do NOT flame. Flame post wars will be policed and most likely locked.
__g. Stay on topic with the thread's purpose and subject.
__h. No unauthorized advertising is allowed on the forum.
__i. All spoilers need to be quoted and colored white. However, spoilers pertaining to the subject do not need to be marked if the subject line of the thread has a spoiler warning in place, and it specifies the series. If no series is specified include the subject of your spoiler.
__j. Do not double post (See the Forum FAQ)
__k. This is an English forum not a chat-room, instant message, or a cell phone. We expect members to use the proper English words.

Abbreviations are acceptable. eg: lol, iirc, imho, imo, etc.
Slang abbreviations are not. eg: da, fo, needa, dess, 4, dis, n, etc.


3. Rule enforcement measures:
A problem poster will get two warnings before they are punished. The first general punishment will be a one to two week ban from the AnimeNfo Forum. If a user continues to break the forum rules then the admistration can consider a permanent ban. If necessary, an IP ban will be used.

In extreme cases we reserve the right to IP ban on the first offense. This may also include a ban from the main site.

4. Please report any problems with the forum to the moderators. This includes all forms of SPAM and even something as trivial as a double post.

5. No more than one account per user.


Immediate ban is not a good thing unless its something that is necessary or someone is a total ass.. I've banned people for a first offense, but only when it was something extremely bad.
Title: Thoughts
Post by: Sad Jari on 2005-06-19 11:19:51
If I'm such a problem for you, what the fuck are you doing in my thread?

EDIT: You couldn't be following me around, trying to provoke me, could you? Nooooo, you couldn't - after all that's something only I do.
Title: Thoughts
Post by: mirex on 2005-06-19 17:28:53
Anyhow I think that you are taking it too seriously. I don't think these forums need so radical changes, things are good as they are. Fools will find their way around anyhow and people can get disgusted by whats going on here. Those changes could be just a waste of time (or maybe not).
Title: Thoughts
Post by: Sad Jari on 2005-06-20 05:06:19
Quote from: mirex
...things are good as they are.

*snicker*

Yeah.
Title: Thoughts
Post by: Sad Jari on 2005-06-22 21:07:20
Double-post time; new idea, needs bumpage:

Here's an idea, aimed to fix a problem I perceived when I was a moderator; I was bit wary about getting into debates, because I feared that one of these things would happen:

1) People would be unnecessarily careful, because they might be afraid of angering a mod. Some people might even do the exact opposite.

2) Shit flies might step in, to side with the mod. Because they think that it would benefit them later on... which it wouldn't, but it still sucks for the other guy. Plenty of examples of this, lately.

3) Moderator's opinions might be seen as the official opinions of the board.

In addition, this will fix the problem where people get personal with the mods... to some degree.


So, the fix itself:

Mods need dual accounts. One for their personal use. Other for moderating. Nobody except the mods and admins must know which moderation account belongs to which person. That way there is moderating and there are personal opinions, which are two different things. It's bit harder to get personal, when you don't know who you should get personal with. It can't completely remove the problems (at least as long as people know who are moderating...), but it can help by introducing a clear separation of moderation and discussion.

As for moderator names - Reservoir Dogs, can't go wrong with that. Or numbers.

Or perhaps even use same name for all: "Moderator"? Can phpBB do this, without forcing them to use shared account?
Title: Thoughts
Post by: RPGillespie on 2005-06-22 22:09:14
Quote from: Monkey on your back


[1]

3) Moderator's opinions might be seen as the official opinions of the board.

[2]

Mods need dual accounts. One for their personal use. Other for moderating. Nobody except the mods and admins must know which moderation account belongs to which person. That way there is moderating and there are personal opinions, which are two different things. It's bit harder to get personal, when you don't know who you should get personal with. It can't completely remove the problems (at least as long as people know who are moderating...), but it can help by introducing a clear separation of moderation and discussion

Or perhaps even use same name for all: "Moderator"? Can phpBB do this, without forcing them to use shared account?


1) Thats the way it is, it seems that if you disagree w/ the moderator you'll be on bad terms with them and thats not good.

2)Dude, thats a good idea... thats a really good idea, at least I think. That way we (at least I) can interact with Alhexx and other mods and stuff like normal people and also if you were bad, you wouldn't know how to react if you got in trouble with a mod, you mess with the mod you could be messing with Aaron or Qhimm etc., but you wouldn't know. Also to make someone a mod all you would have to do is pm them the mod password, and vice versa to disband a moderator.

Hmm, well, I know vBulletin can do the task but its quite expensive. It could be possible with PHPbb but I wouldn't know ;).
Title: Thoughts
Post by: Alhexx on 2005-06-22 22:54:35
Well, I don't think that this is a good idea.

This seems like the "God can see everything" argument. Since HE can see you, but not the other way, you're getting scared. At least if you're a child.
I think that everyone on the board should know who's moderating, the administrative crew is not going to be some kind of NSA here...
And btw: Moderators are just "simple" members, too. They just have to give the admin a hand in moderating here.
So your problems 1 and 2 do also (or especially) apply to the admin, and what you want to do here? Run an anonym-admin board? No, bad idea.

 - Alhexx
Title: Thoughts
Post by: Sad Jari on 2005-06-22 23:15:26
Do tell me, since you were against telling people when mods are not active - yet you are also against making them anonymous... are you just disagreeing on principle? :P

Or do you feel that your own position is threatened? :lol:

Quote from: Alhexx
I think that everyone on the board should know who's moderating, the administrative crew is not going to be some kind of NSA here...
And btw: Moderators are just "simple" members, too. They just have to give the admin a hand in moderating here.
So your problems 1 and 2 do also (or especially) apply to the admin, and what you want to do here? Run an anonym-admin board? No, bad idea.

Reasons! Reasons would be really good, instead of just stating that it's "bad".

Why is it bad?

Why should everyone know?
Title: Thoughts
Post by: Alhexx on 2005-06-22 23:36:41
There are no "hard" reasons, it's just my personal opinion.

I, as a member, do not like the feeling of being observed. If go out on the street, then when the police watches me, they wear a uniform (usually).
Like I said, it's that "They can see you, but you can't see them"-feeling - I just hate it...
And as I already mentioned, this is a free board, not a NSA central...
We've got problems with some annoying newbs, not with any terrorist who want to cut our heads off...
And that anonymous-thingy reminds me of be band Slipknot, if you know them. They also always wear masks to stay anonymous, and what? Everyone says that they're simply to shy to show their real faces.
I'll leave the rest to your interpretation...

 - Alhexx
Title: Thoughts
Post by: Caddberry on 2005-06-23 01:27:52
Quote from: Monkey on your back
Mods need dual accounts. One for their personal use. Other for moderating. Nobody except the mods and admins must know which moderation account belongs to which person. That way there is moderating and there are personal opinions, which are two different things. It's bit harder to get personal, when you don't know who you should get personal with. It can't completely remove the problems (at least as long as people know who are moderating...), but it can help by introducing a clear separation of moderation and discussion.


I'm with Alhexx on this one. I dont like the idea of having dual accounts. It is definitely an interesting take on moderation, but I like my own account. I think moderating shouldn't be anonymous. I dont like the idea because you then don't know who is doing what moderation. I think it's important for the staff to know who is doing what, and also perhaps even the users.

Moderators are also people that users can come to with problems. If they have a question about something for example they PM a moderator. If everything is weird with 2 accounts it would make this more difficult to do.

Some people fear moderators just because of the name moderator. It's the same with an Administrator title. People watch what they say around staff members being careful or as you said not being careful to insult them. This has it's good points. Moderators are more respected generally speaking, and because of that their presence on any forum helps maintain order.

That's why I disagree with the dual account idea.
Title: Thoughts
Post by: Qhimm on 2005-06-23 02:16:14
original message accidentally destroyed
Title: Thoughts
Post by: Alhexx on 2005-06-23 11:01:41
First, I've got to admit that it was me who "destroyed" Qhimm's original message. Sorry about that.

Quote from: Qhimm
Moderators can choose between the two types while posting, and typically the moderation type of post would only display "Moderator", only revealing the true poster to other moderators/admins.


Well, this sounds a bit better in my ears.
However, this should be clearly written down in the forum faq, otherwise new members could get confused when they only see "Moderator" moderating, and all other "member moderators" do never do their work...

 - Alhexx
Title: Thoughts
Post by: Relf on 2005-06-23 12:17:39
....Most people already know who the Mod's are, wouldn't this would only really do anything to newbs nless all Mod's change their account name.
Title: Thoughts
Post by: Sad Jari on 2005-06-23 18:34:56
Quote from: Alhexx
I, as a member, do not like the feeling of being observed. If go out on the street, then when the police watches me, they wear a uniform (usually).

How does Moderator #4 not wear an uniform? It's more freaking obvious than it's with the current system - the moderation account is just that; only for moderation.

Quote from: Alhexx
Like I said, it's that "They can see you, but you can't see them"-feeling - I just hate it...

You really need to explain how this arrangement would create the said situation.

Quote from: Alhexx
And that anonymous-thingy reminds me of be band Slipknot, if you know them. They also always wear masks to stay anonymous, and what? Everyone says that they're simply to shy to show their real faces.
I'll leave the rest to your interpretation...

And I refuse to take anyone who forms an argument around Slipknot seriously.

Quote from: Caddberry
...but I like my own account.

In other words; you like the prestige of having the little title there. Nobody - well, at least I (can't say for Qhimm, since some monkey censored him) - didn't suggest taking your regular account away. You just don't use it for moderation.

Quote from: Caddberry
If they have a question about something for example they PM a moderator. If everything is weird with 2 accounts it would make this more difficult to do.

How exactly? Is it more difficult to write "Moderator #4" to the recipient field of that PM? There is nothing "weird with 2 accounts", the regular account is not moderation account, period.

Quote from: Caddberry
Some people fear moderators just because of the name moderator. It's the same with an Administrator title. People watch what they say around staff members being careful or as you said not being careful to insult them. This has it's good points. Moderators are more respected generally speaking, and because of that their presence on any forum helps maintain order.

And this would create exactly what kind of problem with the system I suggested? There are moderators, there are admins - you just can't associate them with their regular usernames.

They get respect where they need it - or don't get it, if the current trend continues - but they don't enjoy any kind of unnecessary privileges.

Quote from: Alhexx
First, I've got to admit that it was me who "destroyed" Qhimm's original message. Sorry about that.

You can move the quotation marks from destroyed to sorry, it certainly seems to be gone - but at least I don't believe one letter of that sorry.

I've seen you trying to grab more power by lying and resist everything little thing that would take it away from you, or would take away the prestige associated with being a moderator.

What an assclown.

Quote from: Relf
....Most people already know who the Mod's are, wouldn't this would only really do anything to newbs nless all Mod's change their account name.

You are seriously suggesting that it would not fix #3?
Title: Thoughts
Post by: Aaron on 2005-06-23 18:46:16
I read Qhimm's post before it disappeared, and I won't pretend to be able to quote it exactly, but he said something about not wanting to do the double account stuff, but perhaps giving mods the choice to post a message as either themselves or a "Moderator" user when they are composing a message, which pretty much would accomplish the same thing without having to worry about multiple accounts, names for the accounts, logging out and logging in, etc.
Title: Thoughts
Post by: Bunnie-Maru on 2005-06-23 19:20:53
If anything, the mystery would add even more respect in my opinion to the moderator. It would give more respect to the moderator and not the user himself. A moderator would have respect no matter who he was. The title alone represents the importance and respect needed.

I dont need to know who the cop is, or what his name is. I'll still be pissing my pants when he pulls me over.

The user's dont have to know who's moderating. It gives no edge whatsoever, besides the person with the moderating title outside moderating, i.e. debates/discussions/opinions.

Would you openly disagree and criticize your boss? No, I don't think anyone would, because hell, you're scared stiff of him.

My point: People shouldnt fear users, they should fear Moderators. With mystery mods, everyone has an equal playing field, and the play and  business time are seperated.

Hope I made sense  :-?
Title: Thoughts
Post by: Alhexx on 2005-06-23 19:35:10
Quote from: Jari
I've seen you trying to grab more power by lying and resist everything little thing that would take it away from you, or would take away the prestige associated with being a moderator.

What an assclown.

Very funny.
Jari, why don't you finally create a thread called "bitching alhexx"...
I'll invite my mother, I'm sure she has to add a few things, too.

 - Alhexx
Title: Thoughts
Post by: Threesixty on 2005-06-23 19:40:31
Dual Handles:
I feel dual handles are the best option, for personal posts... in theory.

But, I don't think a whole lot of people are capable of keeping such a masquerade for a long period of time.  It's really going to boil down to keeping a secret, for the people who know. And staying humble, for the people having the secret.

The only thing I can think of, is to not have handles associated with the title of, "Moderator". But, then....that's not much fun, is it. I doubt anyone would want to be an the, "Unknown Moderator", for free. The payoff of being an unpaid Mod. is respect; isn't it? (Or a feeling of belonging....at the very least.). It's a double edged sword.

Your going to have your favorites and your brown nosers... there is just no, real, way around that. Using dual handles will only hide it for a little while. It just going to depend on how long the secret can be kept, and how long humbleness is broken by pride. (Pride always wins.)

edit:
heh...guess I should have hit the post button before lunch...and not one hour after it..... I was expecting this post to fall under Relf's Post of: 2005-06-23 06:17 but, forgot what I was doing.
 
Oh....and Alhexx you're becoming personal, right now... This is why the idea of dual handles has come up, I imagine. Simply by arguing, you're being seen as a normal user, not a Mod.  In fact, your not playing the role of a Mod. currently...just your average everyday user, that so happens to have Mod privileges. It sends mix messages to new users.... and that's why this forum has become.... immature, for the most part.

end edit.


-------
First time offenses:
Tempory bans would be the best deterrent for first time offenses, I think.  It'll be up to you on deciding what will classify, though. You could also do the expiration like IGN does. When you get a temporary ban there, you must contact the Mod to get unbanned, even if the period of the banning has expired. In fact...you have to contact them to find out why you got banned. It's like, one day you have access, and the next you find yoruself logged into a, "you are banned", page..

But it's one thing to have the tools to do this....It a whole other thing to actually do it, consistantly. That's is when crew selection becomes important...but you already know that.
Title: Thoughts
Post by: Relf on 2005-06-23 20:35:28
Your right it would solve it, though I'm not entirely sure it should even be classified as a problem...
Title: Thoughts
Post by: Sad Jari on 2005-06-23 22:48:58
Quote from: Threesixty
The payoff of being an unpaid Mod. is respect; isn't it? (Or a feeling of belonging....at the very least.).

Not better forum? :-?
Title: Thoughts
Post by: Qhimm on 2005-06-24 07:14:17
Quote from: Monkey on your back
Quote from: Caddberry
...but I like my own account.

In other words; you like the prestige of having the little title there. Nobody - well, at least I (can't say for Qhimm, since some monkey censored him) - didn't suggest taking your regular account away. You just don't use it for moderation.

My own view was something to the effect of not having actual dual accounts (at least not under the current account system, which would create lots of extra work for moderators), but rather to have sort of a pseudo-identity just called "Moderator". Moderators could, when posting, choose whether to post as themselves (for normal posts) or as "Moderator", in which case their identity would be hidden. This could, for example, be separated into two entirely different pages, "post reply" and "moderate" (with added moderation tools). To normal users, it appears that a magical "Moderator" user has posted. Thus we have the advantage that moderators can do their work separately from their normal posting, with the added benefit that it's harder to bitch back with personal insults since you don't know exactly who posted (unless the moderator uses a very characteristic writing style, which would show through anyway).

Quote from: Monkey on your back
Quote from: Caddberry
If they have a question about something for example they PM a moderator. If everything is weird with 2 accounts it would make this more difficult to do.

How exactly? Is it more difficult to write "Moderator #4" to the recipient field of that PM? There is nothing "weird with 2 accounts", the regular account is not moderation account, period.

This is one of the bits that would not work with my idea, as the "Moderator" user doesn't really exist. But ideally you'd want some form of "notify moderator" system instead of PMs anyway, which would be just special PMs that would show up in some special bin accessible by any moderator. Replies could be written using the same "Moderator" pseudo-user, and replying to that I guess would just send the new message into the moderator bin again. Though this system would probably not be used for lengthy discussion anyway. So essentially what I'm suggesting is a system to mimic actually having a separate moderator account, but which moderators can use without actually having to switch back and forth.

Quote from: Monkey on your back
Quote from: Caddberry
Some people fear moderators just because of the name moderator. It's the same with an Administrator title. People watch what they say around staff members being careful or as you said not being careful to insult them. This has it's good points. Moderators are more respected generally speaking, and because of that their presence on any forum helps maintain order.

And this would create exactly what kind of problem with the system I suggested? There are moderators, there are admins - you just can't associate them with their regular usernames.

They get respect where they need it - or don't get it, if the current trend continues - but they don't enjoy any kind of unnecessary privileges.

I'm still split on the issue of actually hiding the identities of the administrative staff. Most of the benefits can be drawn just by obscuring the precise identity of individual moderation actions. If there are enough moderators, they can be visible and it's still not trivial to associate them with moderation posts. The problem with keeping the actual "who's a moderator?" secret is that the secret will eventually get out, and then the point is lost. There's also the (admittedly optimistic) idea that a visible moderation staff sets an example for other users even when they post as normal users. Sure if you stay long enough you sort of pick up who's important and who's not, but for new users it's often a relief to be able to clearly see "proper users". This could probably be better established by using different ranks than moderators, though.

I do believe there should be some reward for being a moderator other than seeing a mildly cleaner forum though, so I think the visible titles should stay. Though perhaps one shouldn't reveal exactly who moderates what, just keep a list of "these people help moderate various parts of the forums". And perhaps the title displayed next to their posts shouldn't be so blatantly official-sounding as "moderator". A small icon would suffice, with a mouse-over text or something, then users could see that he's a higher-ranking member, but would get the immediate feeling that the post contains official forum opinions. I know some people (including me) like the added respect by having the title publically displayed, but we don't always want the room to go quiet when we enter. This would probably still continue with separate moderation posts, since the word "moderator" is to firmly connected to official posts from all the other forums on the internet. A more balanced approach would be needed, I think.

Quote from: Monkey on your back
Quote from: Alhexx
First, I've got to admit that it was me who "destroyed" Qhimm's original message. Sorry about that.

You can move the quotation marks from destroyed to sorry, it certainly seems to be gone - but at least I don't believe one letter of that sorry.

Now I'm as annoyed as anyone that my extremely well-formulated post was destroyed by a fresh moderator who couldn't tell the difference between the "quote" and the "edit" button. Not a great start on the job, Alhexx... I'm not going to bother with it further though, I've got your assurance it won't happen again, so if it does, and another content post disappears somewhere, I won't consider it accidental. Fair deal, no?

Quote from: Monkey on your back
Quote from: Threesixty
The payoff of being an unpaid Mod. is respect; isn't it? (Or a feeling of belonging....at the very least.).

Not better forum? :-?

I'd think a moderator's primary motivation should be to preserve the community, yes. The added respect comes from him doing a good job, not automatically with the title. Unfortunately the new system would obscure this, so if some moderators do crap work, people won't know, neither will they know who to respect as a person for doing a great job. This is admittedly a small problem, because even in the current situation we've had several moderators burn out because of the small perceived rewards for dealing with idiots all day long. Hopefully this could be partly solved by having stronger-scripted forum restrictions, reducing moderation to the more intellectually stimulating parts of the job. It really shouldn't be about arguing and convincing people of their wrongdoings (as it appears today), it should be about seeing an idiot and clicking the warning/ban button. Easy as pie, like calling the maid instead of scrubbing the floor yourself.

Still quite a ways to go before I get there though... *looks at mess that is phpBB code*
Title: Thoughts
Post by: Sad Jari on 2005-06-24 10:19:35
Quote from: Qhimm
But ideally you'd want some form of "notify moderator" system instead of PMs anyway, which would be just special PMs that would show up in some special bin accessible by any moderator.

Or even as a topic in Moderator-only forum?

That would not solve the issue of replying to such message, though.
Title: Thoughts
Post by: Threesixty on 2005-06-24 16:21:09
I don't know if this can be done with the current forum or the new one. (if there is going to be a new one?) But, if the, 'notify a mod' was something like an email or a fill in the blank form, it would be a little harder to respond to. You could also hide the tattle reports from the public.

Hmm... just like Private Email...but Private Email that only your Administration can read.

The public shouldn't be able to see who is that tattler anyway. Usually just leads to more trouble. Especially, if the thread turns out to be okay.

On the flipside....I don't know if this forum is big enough to really need a notify a moderator link. I also am not sure if it would increase your workload or decrease it. Could go either way, I guess. At the very least...you'll see who the crybabies are.

Anyway...have fun with that... it's not a job I'd ever want.
Title: Thoughts
Post by: Sad Jari on 2005-06-24 20:07:00
Post counts should go.

Especially if the Karma-system can and will be implemented in the scale Qhimm envisioned, there's absolutely no need for visible post counts. Karma will do everything the post count could, only much better and without the downsides.


EDIT: Killfile would be nice in some cases. Not necessary, but it's a nice thing to have. Totally "User"-feature though, mods couldn't really use it.

The next big phpBB is supposed to have something like that, but I think that it was rather elementary at least few months ago - for example it couldn't block quotes from a person in your killfile.
Title: Thoughts
Post by: RPGillespie on 2005-06-25 01:29:57
But will I still be the equivalent of a "Lv. 16 Crazy poster" in terms of Karma, or will I have to start over?
Title: Thoughts
Post by: Contra on 2005-06-25 03:32:08
Quote from: RPGillespie
But will I still be the equivalent of a "Lv. 16 Crazy poster" in terms of Karma, or will I have to start over?


Not to sound like I'm attacking you, but I think the whole point is that it *doesn't freaking matter*. The post counts and related titles only really serve to make people want to "Get to the next level" by any means possible. At least in some cases, and not necessarily yours. Karma is as Karma does. It goes up, and it goes down. Your own actions determine your fate. Seeing as the number of times you've posted isn't a factor, I'd say that if a Karma system goes into effect, your current level means precisely squat. To be simple for moderation, and relatively fair to the users, I'm guessing everyone would start fresh.

But that's just me.
Title: Thoughts
Post by: Caddberry on 2005-06-26 01:43:41
All I'm basically saying is that I like the idea of knowing who moderators are on a forum. I can turn to them for help or ask questions, and basically I like knowing they are there and who they are..

Plus, my writing style is easily identified.. I have a habit of using elipses waay to much to break thoughts.  

It's not about a title for me at all. To prove that I'd take back my other title it wouldnt matter to me.

I don't think this forum requires detailed moderation. There seriously aren't that many problems that we run into here.

I don't like the idea of having to log out of my account to moderate. If you see an issue you fix it on the spot. Having to log out would be a pain. It would seriously get old fast.
Title: Thoughts
Post by: Sad Jari on 2005-06-26 11:47:56
Quote from: Caddberry
All I'm basically saying is that I like the idea of knowing who moderators are on a forum. I can turn to them for help or ask questions, and basically I like knowing they are there and who they are..

And suck up to them? :P

Seriously though, you can turn to them - even if there is no way of messaging a specific moderator.

I think that anonymous mods might even be better in that respect, as long as the messages send to them get seen by all of them and for example only admin can delete them for the public bin or forum or whatever will be used. Thing is, the replies they send should be visible to all mods as well - that way none of them can go solo.

No doubt that at least one moderator will come crying, when I suggest something like that. :P

It is a nice method of self control. As long as everyone (every mod, that is) can see the messages and replies to them, the chances of someone trying persuade a single moderator to their side are much lower.

Yes yes, they can send email, or IM, I know that. Still, it's better than totally uncontrolled system, I think.

Quote from: Caddberry
Plus, my writing style is easily identified.. I have a habit of using elipses waay to much to break thoughts.

I know. Write less? When you moderate, that is. Often times it's not actually required to write a novel.

Quote from: Caddberry
It's not about a title for me at all. To prove that I'd take back my other title it wouldnt matter to me.

Isn't there a contradiction there? :P Think of it this way; if the moderator title would not be visible on your regular account, you could have your custom title back - since it wouldn't be blocking your moderator title anymore.

Quote from: Caddberry
I don't like the idea of having to log out of my account to moderate. If you see an issue you fix it on the spot. Having to log out would be a pain. It would seriously get old fast.

It's a good point, in theory. But I don't see it as a serious problem, unless there's a great deal of moderation to be done.
Title: Thoughts
Post by: L. Spiro on 2005-06-26 17:15:57
Why does it need to be the moderator account that is fake?
Why don’t the mods keep their accounts, keep their current names, keep the “respect” or “fear” that goes with their names, and instead execute your plan by creating fake normal accounts?

The existing mods keep their names and all the crap that goes with it.
Users PM/e-mail/notify them in the same manner as they currently do.
Modify the button Qhimm mentioned before (for posting) so that it toggles between your normal account and your moderator account.

Alhexx gets to lay down the law with his moderator (Alhexx) account while entering heated debates with his normal (Bad Mr. Frosty) account.
No one knows Alhexx is Bad Mr. Frosty.
Alhexx needs only to choose between the two names when posting.
Easy for Alhexx to do, solves all problems, etc.

Problem A: Sucking up to mods during debates/opinionated discussions.
Will they be inhibited?  They shouldn’t be if the mod team does their job right.  If they are doing the job correctly, the only users who should feel any kind of pressure are the ones who like to cause trouble.  That holds true even with the current method of moderation.  Even with today’s method, people should know that they can disagree with a mod without being banned.  This should not change, regardless of any new moderation methods.[/list:u]


I already know what Qhimm has to say about this idea, and I already know what Qhimm is planning to do.
This is intended for everyone else.


L. Spiro
Title: Thoughts
Post by: Sad Jari on 2005-06-26 17:53:41
You know, that is a pretty nice idea.

One problem, though; the rather distinctive writing styles of some mods are even worse problem when you do it this way. Now they have to (well, they don't have to, but they are likely to) write lot more on their "secret" account. Thus making it that that much more easier to spot them.

Even though you have to ID the "secret" account out of all users, instead of having to ID the said account of rather small number of users, suspected or known to be mods.

Also, the people who register soon after the change and post a lot... are likely to be the mods. It's kinda obvious. Perhaps they could use some old, unused accounts?

I still think that when it comes to Problem G, it would be better with anonymous mods and normal user accounts.

Oh, as for that problem F: I don't think that moderator's personal opinions on totally unrelated matters (politics, for example) should represent the forum officially, but that's not really the point.

I'm not sure... but I suspect that at least some people would like to keep their username for regular discussion, instead of modding. But like I said, that's just a guess.
Title: Thoughts
Post by: Qhimm on 2005-06-26 18:24:53
Quote from: Monkey on your back
I'm not sure... but I suspect that at least some people would like to keep their username for regular discussion, instead of modding. But like I said, that's just a guess.

I suppose this as well, and people are not going to be willing to start a new "normal" account and start from scratch at earning people's respect, and they wouldn't want to dedicate their entire original identity to moderating. Heck, we're not the Men in Black. :P

Probably all the problems can't be simultaneously solved, but personally I'm leaning towards the whole "make moderation non-personal" idea. Don't reveal who the moderators are, and don't reveal who moderates what. Keep moderation posts "anonymous", and instead provide a common communication channel to the more abstract concept of "the administrative staff" whenever such talk is needed. Keep moderating as simple as possible, not as a huge task that needs public recognition (this can be done with ranks instead). I'll try to do a quick run-through of Spiro's problem list with this idea:
Title: Thoughts
Post by: Caddberry on 2005-07-04 21:12:01
Quote
Quote from: Caddberry
It's not about a title for me at all. To prove that I'd take back my other title it wouldnt matter to me.

Isn't there a contradiction there? :P Think of it this way; if the moderator title would not be visible on your regular account, you could have your custom title back - since it wouldn't be blocking your moderator title anymore.


Damn.. You are right.. That is a glaring contradiction.. LoL .. Well.. Ok.. Titles on forums do mean something to me.. "Druggie Chess Master" meant something to me.. I wont lie, but everyone that I care about on this forum knows me regardless of title. And if they dont know me regardless of title chances are that I wont care about them until they do.. So.. Really, a title wouldnt matter to me, but I wont lie and say it's meaningless.

Quote
Quote from: Caddberry
I don't like the idea of having to log out of my account to moderate. If you see an issue you fix it on the spot. Having to log out would be a pain. It would seriously get old fast.

It's a good point, in theory. But I don't see it as a serious problem, unless there's a great deal of moderation to be done.


True.. Switching wouldnt be difficult unless there was a lot of crap to mod.. But would we still be able to retain post flags? When switching?

If it can be made into an easy system then I guess I wouldnt mind, but if we lose post flags or it becomes any bit of complicated I'd rather not.

Ultimately I'm lazy. Truly .. I know this may be hard for some of you to believe.. *Caddberry looks around and sees shock on everyone's face*

I like to make moderation as easy as possible.