Policy Changes: How do you feel?

[nthnclls]

The forum has gone through a lot of changes lately, like a teenager or caterpillar.  Our goal is to stem the tide of unpleasantness that was choking the forum, making tempers flare and making the forum environment toxic.  We're requiring that folks communicate with a certain level of civility and courtesy, and we're cracking down a lot harder on the kinds of crass, deliberately goading behavior and subject matter that seemed to be the root of the problem.

It's become clear that a number of you are uncomfortable with the actions of some of the moderators, but are afraid to speak up.  That's not good.  We want to make this forum a place where you can enjoy yourself again, not where you're living in fear of the Wrath of Mod.

If you have any suggestions on how better to accomplish this, or if you feel paranoid to bring up any topic at all for fear it'll be labeled TT, LET US KNOW.  We thrive on your feedback.  Share your thoughts here, or PM the mods if you'd rather your words be kept private.  Snide remarks about the mods and admins without specific grievances will not be taken well.  Constructive criticism, however, is welcomed, even if we end up disagreeing with it.  We want folks to take an active interest in making this forum a better place.  When folks whisper behind our backs, we can't exactly do anything to anything to remedy the problem they're whispering about, can we?

So have at it!  How do you feel about the changes?

Honestly, I thought that the forum was very well run and more-or-less free of flames before the recent changes, although that's entirely a matter of personal opinion, and it's Iago's opinion that counts.

However, since the changes, I've only seen one thread-locking that I was a little weirded out by, and that's when a topic in the DF spoilers section was locked because they were arguing about very specific details.  I'm still not sure why that was a problem, when the posters were on topic, even though they were getting very theoretical and delving into minor, almost insignificant details.  It still seemed like discussion of the books to me, which is, afterall, what the section is for...I'll stop now before I go off on a rant.  I'm sorry if this seems too snide, but I'm really not sure how to word it better.

Anyway, that raises the question (for me, at least) of how specific we are allowed to get, since I didn't see much difference between that thread and many others that have taken the same path.

DISCLAIMER:  I'm not a mod on any site, nor have I ever been.  Any site that has me as a mod would probably close within minutes.  

Btw, are we allowed to name names on this forum?  For example, could I have actually mentioned people's names in the above paragraph instead of saying "a mod" and "the posters"?  I'm only asking because another forum that's pretty much free swinging is rather strict about no unwanted attention, and I sort of do it out of reflex now...didn't even realize it until I looked back at what I had written.  

[Kali]

I have noticed almost zero difference.

But I never was the type to go looking for things to get in fights over, and once I identified the drama-seekers and attention hos in the "old" forums, I was quite capable of avoiding them.  I still continue to wistfully long for an "ignore" feature, but I soldier on womanfully.

The only thing I've noticed is a slight increase in some threads being relocated to boards that seem odd.  Once in a while, I've seen a thread locked, was completely unable to determine why it was locked by reading the thread, and there was no explanation given.  This may be uncharitable, but frankly I chalked it up to new middle managers flexing their muscles to prove they have them.  I don't mean to be insulting really, it's just what happens anytime you get a new 'boss'.  They get the job, make a bunch of changes, and after awhile everything settles down as the shiny wears off.

So aside from a slight increase in middle manager syndrome, and that merits nothing more on my part than a smile and a shake of the head, nothing's changed.  All to the good, as far as I'm concerned.

[Chiroptera]

The only thing I've noticed is a slight increase in some threads being relocated to boards that seem odd.  Once in a while, I've seen a thread locked, was completely unable to determine why it was locked by reading the thread, and there was no explanation given.  This may be uncharitable, but frankly I chalked it up to new middle managers flexing their muscles to prove they have them.  I don't mean to be insulting really, it's just what happens anytime you get a new 'boss'.  They get the job, make a bunch of changes, and after awhile everything settles down as the shiny wears off.

Some of the threads in The Bar?  If that's what you mean I think it's just due to the "rapid expiration" policy they've taken on the general chatter type threads.  I think they lock them after a week, even if they are active.  It doesn't mean anyone did anything wrong.

[Paynesgrey]

So if we have complaints on your modding, PG, we send them to onlyelise?   

Actually, go to Iago and Co first, they don't scare me as bad.  If you reaaaaaaaally get pissed at me, then tell Elise.  And if she cheeses you off, report the hell out of her, just not to me.

_{she knows where I sleep.}

[Priscellie]

If the general response is "This is the way it works, deal with it" and/or "It's ok for mods/admins because their forum experience is more stressful, deal with it". Then what is the point of asking for member feedback?

I understand all too well the work involved. I've seen and dealt with junk in other online communities that make the rudest post I've read here look like a pleasant conversation over tea (including stuff in TT). But I've never seen a forum/community where it was acceptable for the administration to break the same rules they were trying to enforce, regardless of how stressful or burdensome their task becomes.

There's nothing wrong with "Ok, this person was banned because <insert reason>". But there's a big jump between that and "Wow you guys are ignorant children. Stfu or i'll ban you... on second thought, I'll just ban you now!". That kind of thing is unnecessary and promotes the same kind of issues that the administration is trying to prevent. And it just plain looks bad.

Why are we asking folks for feedback?  We want to clear the air.  We want folks who are harboring frustration and resentment to come forward and speak their piece, and know that their concerns are being heard and taken into consideration.  We may or may not change our policies, but the knowledge of what mod behavior triggers negative reactions in our membership may inform the way we go about our duties.  And if we can help you folks understand our process, so you might have an appreciation of the complexity of thought and action that goes into our decisions, all the better.

I must say, though, I'm scratching my head over your last paragraph.  Your perception of the level of mod civility on this forum is so wildly different from mine that I don't even know how to approach your complaint.  Can you PM me with a link to the specific example to which you refer?  

The only thing I've noticed is a slight increase in some threads being relocated to boards that seem odd.  Once in a while, I've seen a thread locked, was completely unable to determine why it was locked by reading the thread, and there was no explanation given.  This may be uncharitable, but frankly I chalked it up to new middle managers flexing their muscles to prove they have them.  I don't mean to be insulting really, it's just what happens anytime you get a new 'boss'.  They get the job, make a bunch of changes, and after awhile everything settles down as the shiny wears off.

That's part of the automated thread-cleanup initiative.  Threads of a certain age are locked, then eventually deleted.

[Myyrdn Eopia]

Okay, first off, I know that while I'm not exactly new, I've also not built up a reputation like the others—which has led to some questioning why I was asked to bartend.  Which also means people aren't sure of my personality, or how I generally react to posts, PMs, etc.

Fair enough.

That being said, you don't know until you try.  In my earlier post, I recognized and apologized for a couple of my flaws—I'm only human, after all—and have given those some thought over the past couple days.

As to the specific and non-specific warning posts, there are a couple reasons, voiced by other mods, which I will [try to] reiterate here, for sake of clarity.  

For those posts that are general, seeming to be addressed to all posting in a thread:  1) There are a number of offenders, and the mod does not wish to call out all of them, 2) the topic of the thread has derailed to a Touchy Topic or otherwise, and 3) quips and gibes at other posters can be implied from comments.

1.  In these scenarios, it is up to the member to determine in their best judgment whether or not anything they said could be taken as over the line.  Such a judgment is not always black and white, yes and no; it is again up to the poster to determine if they are out of line, and if so, how far out of line they are.  If you are still unsure as to whether you were out of line, send the mod a PM asking if it was or not.

2.  In the one occasion I have had to post about this, yes, it was a reiteration of something another barkeep had already said.  But that was due in part to some of the members posting after the barkeep's comment either didn't read his statement, or ignored it, at which point I added a reminder.

3.  The cases I have seen of this have been fairly one-sided, though just as often, both parties are contributing.  In these cases, oftentimes I will post a comment as well as send a PM.  Overkill?  Maybe.  Something else for me to think about.

As to the sheer amount of moderating posts being made, keep in mind what Iago said.  The boards did not immediately revert to the level of moderation before the renovation.  On the contrary, he made it very clear [to me, anway] that there would be an increase in moderation over the course of a month or so, and an increased awareness of potential fires.  Which is why some campfires have been stamped on—the attempt to prevent another forest fire.

Myyr

[Paynesgrey]

I have noticed almost zero difference.

But I never was the type to go looking for things to get in fights over, and once I identified the drama-seekers and attention hos in the "old" forums, I was quite capable of avoiding them.  I still continue to wistfully long for an "ignore" feature, but I soldier on womanfully.

The only thing I've noticed is a slight increase in some threads being relocated to boards that seem odd.  Once in a while, I've seen a thread locked, was completely unable to determine why it was locked by reading the thread, and there was no explanation given.  This may be uncharitable, but frankly I chalked it up to new middle managers flexing their muscles to prove they have them.  I don't mean to be insulting really, it's just what happens anytime you get a new 'boss'.  They get the job, make a bunch of changes, and after awhile everything settles down as the shiny wears off.

So aside from a slight increase in middle manager syndrome, and that merits nothing more on my part than a smile and a shake of the head, nothing's changed.  All to the good, as far as I'm concerned.

Actually, we Bartenders can only lock or modify threads in the Bar.  Not in "Mac's" or any of the other sections like "Spoilers" and the like.  Outside that  http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/board,1.0.html , it's The Bigg'ns.

[Myyrdn Eopia]

Actually, we Bartenders can only lock or modify threads in the Bar.  Not in "Mac's" or any of the other sections like "Spoilers" and the like.  Outside that  http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/board,1.0.html , it's The Bigg'ns.

Except for Blaze, who lairs in the "I Made an Art" board, and myself in the FAQ boards.

[Paynesgrey]

I stand corrected.

Even so, I remain infallible and mad with power.  At least in the Bar.  Well, a little bit anyway.

[Mickey Finn]

"Honestly, I don't know if I've annoyed any mode/admins or not."

I can state unequivocally that you have not annoyed me.

A few points:

*I've been fairly sparse from the public side of the boards the past month due to work (and this will likely continue another few weeks), but I've been poking around behind the scenes and I can say that IMHO, the bartenders have not been flexing their muscles and are very wary of appearing to be doing so. I say IMHO because I'm not seeing all their modding posts, just their comments and questions in the back. As noted, if anyone has any concerns, raise them.

*People seem to have zero problems sending me a PM as a mod. (On a side note, I'm giving another shout out that if there's a code issue, don't PM me, I have no access, that's Iago & Priscilla)

*If you ever consider the boards may turn into our private stomping ground, there's something you need to remember...the rules of play nice trickle down from Jim's wishes. We're held to the same standards, and if it ever became happy-power-mod-trip-ago-go, Jim Would Not Like It. So we do answer to a higher power here, folks. Report it if a mod of any level goes weird. We all have bad days.

[nthnclls]

Btw, are we allowed to name names on this forum?  For example, could I have actually mentioned people's names in the above paragraph instead of saying "a mod" and "the posters"?  I'm only asking because another forum that's pretty much free swinging is rather strict about no unwanted attention, and I sort of do it out of reflex now...didn't even realize it until I looked back at what I had written.  

This is something I would like answered...

[Myyrdn Eopia]

This is something I would like answered...

That'd be a question for the full-grown-senior-modling-types. 

[Shecky]

In short, I've said this privately to a number of people (thanks for the PMs, by the way; it's always best to keep potentially sensitive topics out of the public eye where no one can tick themselves off over something): yes, some mods have occasionally come down extremely hard in a very public, very visible/audible way. I can only assure you that the severity of the public spanking is in direct correlation to the severity of the willfully horrid public behavior. Does this make the forums less of a happy-rainbow, shiny-unicorn place of love? Yes... for that moment. When it happens, it's intentionally done in directly proportional response to the level of the infraction's (or infractions') nastiness - for the purpose of painting in giant, day-glo, Technicolor letters of eldritch fire, "WE'VE TOLD YOU AGAIN AND AGAIN NOT DO NOT FREAKING DO THIS OR WE'LL RIP OFF AN E-BODY PART SELECTED AT RANDOM." Because the approach of "Sir, my deepest regrets go into broaching this sensitive subject with you, but would you be so kind as to grant us the boon of moderating ever so slightly the connotative inflection of your postings? It would seem that all are not quite in harmonious accord with the register of your speech" has already been tried. More than once and in more than one way. Just banning somone simply doesn't have the necessary deterrent effect sometimes; the Big Gesture has to come out to play then.

Because while many seem to think that it's all about the punishment, I can tell you in all honesty that the O-Mods (Original Mods, if you'll pardon my pseudo-hip speech, yo) have the good of the forums overall in the forefront of their minds. And that includes preemptively trying to persuade potential offenders of the folly of importing fresh new attitude when there's already more than enough lurking as it is.

Hell, people, I was one of those people who got the ban-SCUD from over the horizon once. Because I wasn't frakkin' listening when a mod told me more than once that my behavior was clearly and excessively over the line, and I ignored it because of Quivery Self-Righteous Indignation. I took my lumps... and I learned from it. Am I the soul of sweetness, light and reason now? Nah. But I can personally testify that it did make me think twice every time afterwards that I contemplated telling someone exactly what I thought of their Silly Ideas. Sometimes, just sometimes, when the self-appointed victim is hard-headed enough to ignore warnings Because I'm Right, the only thing that's GOING to work is a semi-permanent treadmark on the butt from Ashton's Big Damn Ban-Boots. And I know for a fact that that boot to the head DID get the attention of more than one other person. It works - for the very reason that it's honestly shocking to a lot of people. It gets the necessary attention when nothing else has proven up to the task. It sure worked in my case.

[Kali]

I stand corrected.

Even so, I remain infallible and mad with power.  At least in the Bar.  Well, a little bit anyway.

You are, it's true.  But since your avatar is from the best, weirdest Angel ever, we forgive you.

I'll try to make a note of the next quietly-and-inexplicably locked thread I find.  I know the ones in the Bar expire; I even explained the process once (sorta).  This wasn't that.  I've only noticed it twice that I remember.  Like I said, for the most part, the changes have been invisible to me which is exactly what they should be for any poster who gets the whole 'behave as you would if your grandmother was in the room' thing.

[Amber]

The old True Blood thread was locked in media favorites, and I never knew why, other than that it was quite old.  *shrug* I just started a new one.