QUESTION: Moderation Policies and Tendencies

[GespenstM]

This topic may seem inflammatory... I can't find a way to phrase it perfectly neutrally, so I'll preface it with "I left quietly last time, and if the reasons I left last time are still the case I will leave quietly again; not looking for trouble, won't cause trouble."

With that said, I'd like to bring up a concern.

A while back (I remember the ZU-G60 Anzu being 'the new hotness' for FWL, if this gives you an example of the timeframe... exact dates elude me), I began to worry that moderation was taking too heavy a tone on the forums. I would see regular use of the 'cop' emoticon over what appeared to be non-issues; it struck me as 'badge flashing', to use an odd term. At one point I even received a private message from a moderator threatening 'serious consequences' over an offhand remark that I've never seen any other forum take issue with (I think it was a joking "unsure if serious or trolling" remark, never seen this be a problem anywhere else and unsure why it was a problem here). I was 'let off with a warning' because apparently the moderation team felt there was no harmful intent in my comments, and there wasn't; even the guy I was speaking to didn't seem to take offense because "unsure if..." is a pretty common, generally harmless 'meme.'

These incidents across the span of several months caused me to feel like the moderation tone here was one of heavy-handed control, and aside from one brief grumbling post about it in one of the FWL-centric threads I left without causing a commotion; the whole thing felt really... 'authoritarian', like the mods feel they need to constantly police people rather than work with a more reconciliatory tone. It feels like we're being looked down on, in a way. It bothered me a lot, to the point where I stopped buying BattleTech products, stopped logging in here, uninstalled MegaMek, cleared my old minis off the desk, and basically moved on to other games. I became a former-customer over it, in effect.

Yet recently a friend asked me about some BattleTech lore. The discussion didn't go much of anywhere, but it did put the game back in my head and make me curious. So here I am.

With all this history laid out, here's what I'm asking: Has the moderation style here changed since then? If so, great, I'll be glad to come back. If it still revolves around frequent displays of authority and heavy warnings of 'dire consequences' over very minor events, let me know and I'll be glad to leave quietly; no cussing anyone out, no fuss, no commotion.

I realize that question probably seems loaded and unfair; it presumes 'guilt' by the moderators... but I've tried and tried to find ways to rephrase it and couldn't come up with a quick way to communicate "I think you're being too 'heavy' toward customers in the name of maintaining order... is that still the case, or should I stick around?". All I can say is I'm not here to pick fights, if our philosophies don't match then I will just walk away with no harm done.

Thank you for your time in considering this question.

EDIT: Don't mind that "likely won't reply" user title. I had that set when I first left, gonna figure out how to undo it if I decide to stick around. I'll be here to see responses.

[worktroll]

GespenstM,

Welcome back, and thanks for taking the opportunity to raise your question.

Short form, I suspect that there's a gap between what you're looking for in a forum, and what Catalyst Game Labs wants this forum to be.

I like to use the example of the shopping mall. The mall has dozens of shops, with dozens of different interest groups coming & going. You have the pensioners going to the hearing aid shop, the gamers hanging out at the electronics shop, even the tattoo shop minding its own business. Now the customers of the tattoo shop may like (betrays age) Rammstein more than they like Aerosmith, and some might like to play metal loud & strong in that shop. But it's not just about that shop and its' customers.

There's nothing wrong with metal, and there's nothing wrong with Rammstein. But the mall needs to be run for the benefit of all customers. And the mall cops exist to help keep things on an even keel.

I trust the analogy is clear. Yes, some forums allow - encourage - a high level of debate & argumentation. Some forums don't worry about aggressive or abusive language. Some forums encourage dogpiling on anyone who doesn't support the in-crowd vocally.

This isn't that sort of forum.

These forums are supported by CGL financially, as a place where a community interested in their stompy giant robot game can exist. The forum management team - moderators, admins, site admins etc - exist to support CGL's community.

Now note that no-one has ever been banned here for disagreeing with CGL's development line. Would we have had repeated threads on LAMs, monitors, ice hockey, etc etc if we simply attacked disagreement? Rather, people get warned - and banned - when their enthusiasm or passion for a particular topic causes them to attack others, or to treat them with contempt. That's not what CGL wants here, and therefore we exist to act.

TO go back to our analogy, you can walk through the mall humming Mein Teil as much as you want - you can even sing along quietly. The moment you start bellowing the words, the moment you fire up your boombox at 11, the moment you start yelling at the person who asks you to turn the music down ... you've crossed the line set out by the forum Rules.

I understand, and can accept, that people may wish that the line was somewhere else. We're all different; I might be able to tolerate certain forms of disputation more than you, and less of other forms. But the forums exist for the sake of a community. Of necessity, all members of a community do have to accept some forms of personal limitations in exchange for the benefits of that community. Here, the benefits include early news of new product, access to developers & writers, the opportunity to seek canon clarifications, and from time to time even the chance to provide input to the line developers.

If the limitations required to access the benefits of this community exceed their worth to a person, then this community may not be the right choice for that person. If a person does join the community, then there is a requirement to accept the limitations required.

At the end of the day, no-one's forced to join, or leave, this forum. It's a personal choice, and we're all adults - we have the right to choose, and the responsibility to accept the consequences of choice.

Regards,

Worktroll, Administrator
On behalf of the forum management team.

[GespenstM]

Now, I've never accused you of outright bans for 'ice hockey and LAMs'... that obviously has not happened. Nor am I suggesting you should let this place go totally wild. Obviously you can't have no moderation at all. Look at /m/ and other mecha venues to see how THAT turns out. They managed to pretty much destroy the playerbase of a mecha MMO a while back by being their usual selves when there was absolutely no control going on by the game's moderators.

My complaint has always been that I felt mods were too quick to 'flash a badge' when a softer tone might work just as well; sort of a "that sort of wording won't lead anywhere productive" instead of "Watch it. *cop emote*" Responding to even the tiniest events, or even non-events where nobody was upset, with said badge-flashing and warnings of 'severe consequences, makes me feel belittled. Like the moderation team feels people will rage out of control the instant they let even the tiniest thing go unchecked. In a lot of the instances I saw, nobody was 'screaming metal with the volume turned up to 11'... sometimes moderators would step in when nobody was bothered and nothing bad had gone on.

It comes across as degrading. I feel insulted, like the mods here actively do not trust us, when I see responses like that as the norm. I just can't find myself having fun in a venue that strict; surely there has to be a happy medium between these, or some means of a gentler tone, without this place turning into /m/ and destroying BattleTech just like they managed to ruin SD Gundam Online in the west prior to its license being yanked.

I'm not asking for an utter lack of control, but the atmosphere we have now drove me away some time ago. If the moderation team feels this is the course to maintain, then I'll probably have to remain an ex-customer; I feel like my purchases would go to support an environment that seems to expect the worst of its players.

If there's really nothing to be done for this, if my wishes for 'tone it down a little' versus CGL legitimately needing to protect their interests and ensuring this place doesn't turn into a hellhole just can't happen, then let me know and I'll show myself out.

In any case, thank you very much for responding on a Sunday. Honestly, I wasn't expecting to hear back for a few days. I do appreciate that.

[Tai Dai Cultist]

I've got a similar story: I'm back on the forum after taking a voluntary leave of absence after finding the mod staff's conduct intolerable.

It's not that the mod staff are bad guys.  IMO it's that bad guys are allowed to be ON the mod staff.  I'd say that most of the time they do an excellent job keeping peace among a rabid fanbase.  But most of the time isn't all the time, and sometimes those times seem to undo all the good the rest of the staff does.

I've watched a certain moderator issue personal attacks rather than confronting an opinion he didn't like.  I started flagging him but when his posts never came down, I just put him on ignore rather than deal with his hypocritical conduct and the acceptance of it from him by the rest of the mod staff.  If I don't see him shoot his mouth, I won't get offended by the rest of the staff's tolerance of it.

I've had it insinuated that discussing details of administrative actions are in of themselves warning worthy, so I won't discuss the incident that drove me to take a year off from the forums.  But the moral of that story is this:

Whenever the mod staff act like donkeys you can actually just ignore them.  Choose to heed what they say or not, as you like.  The game (and probably the forum) will still be around a year from now, but whatever BS warnings they may have given you won't be. 

EDIT:  No, the irony isn't missed on me.  I'm perhaps on the other side of the spectrum on the "Mods are acting inappropriately" discussion from GespenstM.  I'd like to use my acknowledgement of that to stress that I'm complaining about no more than a couple individuals who've been entrusted with red beemers.  My example of being someone so far from the OPs perspective goes to show how rough the Mods' jobs can sometimes be. 

[Adrian Gideon]

How about a civil discussion where we don't call people donkeys? No? That doesn't immediately discolor your entire post and put everyone on the moderation and staff on the defensive?

C'mon man. You don't like one or two people on the board (moderators they may be), but you've just insulted at least a couple dozen people who may have been open to discourse.

How about not doing that instead?

[Tai Dai Cultist]

How about a civil discussion where we don't call people donkeys? No? That doesn't immediately discolor your entire post and put everyone on the moderation and staff on the defensive?

Well, saying what I stressed up front as outlying behavior as asinine isn't the same thing as saying the person(s) in question ARE donkeys.  I may be expressing a negative opinion of past performance but let's not make it what it's not?

C'mon man. You don't like one or two people on the board (moderators they may be), but you've just insulted at least a couple dozen people who may have been open to discourse.

How about not doing that instead?

Well, I do have a serious grievance with what I perceive as a lack of personal integrity on the parts of certain members of the staff.  I didn't name them or try to shame them.  I also pointed out that I'm not accusing the entire staff of anything more insidious than, at the worst, closing ranks around one of their own.

Is that an opinion that can't even be expressed, or was I in your opinion disrespectful in my delivery?

[GespenstM]

EDIT:  No, the irony isn't missed on me.  I'm perhaps on the other side of the spectrum on the "Mods are being douches" discussion from GespenstM.

I... definitely want to distance myself from this kind of wording. I don't feel they're being 'douches' or 'donkeys.'

I do think they're being a little too heavy handed when a more gentle approach might suffice in the majority of cases, but that's not the same as outright thinking ill of them with this kind of wording.

My stance is basically "I support the overall intent of keeping this place safe, but I think the mods could tone it down a little; right now I'm more 'afraid' of mod responses than I am actual arguments with any users here."

[Adrian Gideon]

Is that an opinion that can't even be expressed, or was I in your opinion disrespectful in my delivery?

In my opinion you were disrespectful in your delivery.
Expressing the opinion is perfectly fine. Tossing in "whenever the mod staff act like donkeys" only hurts the expression of that opinion and the discussion as a whole.

[Tai Dai Cultist]

I... definitely want to distance myself from this kind of wording...

Well, since I basically expect to be issued a warning for daring to speak ill of Big Brother, I've gone back and reworded at least part of the post that I have to agree didn't serve to invite open discussion. 

n my opinion you were disrespectful in your delivery.
Expressing the opinion is perfectly fine. Tossing in "whenever the mod staff act like donkeys" only hurts the expression of that opinion and the discussion as a whole.

I'd disagree.  You're presuming that it's inaccurate to claim the mods ever act in that way.  It's my opinion that screwing up and then refusing to acknowedge their error is one such example.  Its understandable perhaps when being informed of such by a loudmouth with no gravitas, but it's still erroneous nonetheless.

A weakness of the forum is there's no interpersonal context.  When I say "a sucky job has been done" it's impossible to say whether or not I have malice for the mods who failed to perform.  I submit that contrary to what you're claiming, however I expressed my opinion it would have drawn a similar reaction.  I believe you see my opinion as the actual problem, not my language.  But I have no way of knowing... I know nothing about you personally.   So why do I think that?

Because of how a few individuals on the mod staff have behaved.  They've lowered the bar for the rest of the staff, and that's a disservice to them and probably to you. Yes, I truly believe that skin is so thin that expressing a critical opinion about anything results in the circling of the wagons.  Is my opinion groundless?  Well, I have no way of truly knowing.  But I know what'll reinforce it.

[DarkSpade]

I'm personally grateful for the mod staff here.   I visit FFG's x-wing boards from time to time and it's really made me appreciate how CGL handles these forums.  I wish the shadowrun boards were handled this well.

I do see [copper] from time to time, but it's usually used when there's several people in a thread that need to calm down a bit.  Yeah, they could PM each person, but some times the mall cop clearing his throat in the right area works better than pulling each individual aside to talk to them.

I myself have broken a rule or two or 3... 4...  anyway, in all but one case all I got was a short PM basically saying "hey, all's cool, but maybe avoid doing that in the future."  The one case I did get an on the books warning was a brain fart on my part, but I pretty clearly broke the rule so the fault was all mine.

[Adrian Gideon]

I'd disagree.

So you're sticking to the notion that calling people donkeys is not disrespectful and not something that could sour a discussion or kill any potential positive exchange outright? You're gonna stick to that? Maybe turn it around, what if those words were out of someone else's mouth against you, how far would that go towards any kind of introspection or at least discussion of potential problems?

You're presuming that it's inaccurate to claim the mods ever act in that way.

I haven't said a word about mod behavior one way or the other.

I submit that contrary to what you're claiming, however I expressed my opinion it would have drawn a similar reaction.

It's true you don't know me, so you don't know my intent here or how I'd react. But notice I don't have a single problem with what the OP said (and in fact in his case personally, I can sympathize to an extent), I've so far only had an issue with the name calling. Heck, the OP said "I... definitely want to distance myself from this kind of wording..."

Is my opinion groundless?

Oh, *I* don't think so, but you know what? *How* you express yourself *is* important.

[nckestrel]

While I understand the trepidation from anytime I see blue flashing lights in my rear view mirror, I think calling cop emoticons as wrong is missing (glad I caught the autocorrect putting that as kissing) the other side of the story.  The moderators are fans too, and plenty of their posts are made as fans.  I've seen several times where they've posted something and it was taken as "why are the moderators telling me I'm wrong" when it wasn't posted as a moderator comment but just a fan.

So the cop emoticon makes it clear it's not just as a fan.  But often times it's no more than "hey, work zone ahead, slow down" time warning.  Nobody is doing anything wrong yet, but the situation is one where they want to head things off before they have to do anything.  It's far better than slapping a warning after the fact.  It is friendly, they see a cliff and dont want anybody to fall off it. 

At some point it's up to you, if the thought of seeing a cop/moderator is that upsetting, the moderators can't just stop doing their jobs so you don't see them.  Not without a resulting increase in warnings and other after the fact punishments.  I would rather get proactive, preventative moderators than reactive, punishing moderators.  Take it as its intended, an attempt to avoid punishing people.

[GespenstM]

At some point it's up to you, if the thought of seeing a cop/moderator is that upsetting, the moderators can't just stop doing their jobs so you don't see them.  Not without a resulting increase in warnings and other after the fact punishments.  I would rather get proactive, preventative moderators than reactive, punishing moderators.  Take it as its intended, an attempt to avoid punishing people.

That's... a fairly compelling reply, I admit. Enough of one to make me stop and consider the matter.

I'm still not entirely won over; memories of that 'warning of severe consequences' over a very minor event ring clear in my head, but I'm at least pondering what you're saying.

Let me approach it this way: Let's say I come back. If I legitimately feel a mod's response was unwarranted, do I have any sort of realistic recourse for it?

[worktroll]

Yes - report it to the admins.

God and Davion, and I, perform no moderator duties. It's our job to make sure that things are running how CGL wants it. Send a copy of the PM received to myself and G&D (he's in Spain, I'm in Australia, one of us will respond).

All moderation interactions are logged. I have reviewed many Warning appeals, and overturned those which were not justified. That goes into the record too.

If the administrators don't give you comfort, or you disagree with our response, then email the Catalyst Games Lab observer - observer@catalystgamelabs.com. The Observer is a CGL employee with the ultimate responsibility on the forums. The Observer has access to all the correspondance & details, including copies of any posts as they were at the time of reporting. The Observer has the authority to overturn any Moderator or Admin decision, including permabans. You contact the Observer via email, not PM, because you're then outside the view of the forum team; there's no way we could interfere with such an appeal.

Also, one additional note. One of the things I'm proudest of in my time here is supporting & getting in place the concept of "Warn expiry". After 12 months, each Warning fades out. Under the old rules, I had to permaban someone who'd been confrontational and problematic in his interactions, ot the point he was one step off the permaban, but had begun to turn things around ... when he posted a picture of an Unseen.  I'm glad to say this can't happen again.

Between the steps in what we call the "ban ladder", and the expiry time, frankly, someone has to work at it to get permabanned. It can still happen - we've had exactly one permaban in the last 18 months, ignoring repeats of Herochip sock puppets. But someone would have to actively work at getting there, in my opinion.

(It amuses me when I see users here talk about being "Banned on the CBT forum", when I know it was a first warning. I shouldn't laugh, but I'm human too ...)

Does that help?

[GespenstM]

Does that help?

It does indeed.

Thank you for your thoughts. From the sounds of it, the issues I experienced may have been addressed in the time I was gone. We'll give it a shot.

Give me a few minutes to clean up my account-trash and it should look proper again.

EDIT: Lift, embargo. </MasterBlaster>

[Adrian Gideon]

If I legitimately feel a mod's response was unwarranted, do I have any sort of realistic recourse for it?

As Worktroll said. Also, those steps are on the bottom of the Rules page, and every warning given out includes the appeal and contact information. And that chain is not only to contest disciplinary action, but if you feel that there's inappropriate behavior on a moderator's part, contact the Site Administrators (but keep in mind, disciplinary action is private for all posters).

Another point that bears explaining, is sometimes you'll see a Moderator come in and ask for a course of action that may not make sense, such as toning down a heated discussion where there is none, or to remember not to wander into political discussion, and no one had. What you may be seeing is the result of one or more posters breaking said rules, and the relevant posts had been pulled. The moderator usually has every reason to be making that post, you may not be seeing the posts that required the Moderators' response. (Related to that are a few cases where a Moderator or Catalyst Volunteer breaks a rule, and the post vanishes. On occasion this has been called into questions as CGL or the Moderation staff "disappearing" the evidence of the inappropriate behavior—what you're actually seeing is the standard operating proceedure of the offending post(s) being removed in conjunction to disciplinary action. Not any conspiracy of whitewashing or wagon circling.)

[GespenstM]

I... don't think I actually got that standardized warning at the time. Probably because the action taken against me was a 'friendly warning' in the end rather than formal discipline.

Also interesting, re: moderators responding to 'phantom events.'

In any case, thank you for talking this out with me. ...On a Sunday evening no less; I really didn't expect any of you to show up until like Tuesday or something. Sorry if I disrupted your weekend?

[worktroll]

You're very welcome. We're all fans of those giant stompy robots :)

[Adrian Gideon]

I... don't think I actually got that standardized warning at the time. Probably because the action taken against me was a 'friendly warning' in the end rather than formal discipline.

Looking at it, that is exactly what happened in your case (you have a clean history). In the cop analogy, you were pulled over and not issued a ticket, so its understandable that you were left with no information to either fight it (no ticket) or complain about the experience.

Also interesting, re: moderators responding to 'phantom events.'

I'm really thinking that should be explained somewhere. I've seen a lot of (understandable) negative reaction to that, but from this side, it makes complete sense--in the years before that was done, if there was even the slightest lag between the posts being pulled and the disciplinary actions, the parties involved would jump right back into the thick of it (sometimes even reposting/rewriting/relinking whatever it was that broke the rule in the first place, believing their post was eaten by a glitch). Anyone have any thoughts on this? Would it make sense to have that explained in the Rules page (IMO, it would be lost there), or maybe some standard blurb when a Moderator drops a general 'heads up' into a thread?

In any case, thank you for talking this out with me.

You're welcome (though it's mostly Worktroll you're thanking  ;))

[GespenstM]

A form-letter sentence included in moderating posts might work. Something like:

"Please Note: My remarks above may seem to reference events that you never saw happen. You're not going insane; it is possible I am referring to posts and events that were deleted prior to my comments."

People will see it in the posts. Have a standard line you can easily copy & paste in. Eventually people will figure it out.

[worktroll]

FYI, we do let people know when their otherwise innocent posts get pulled. That typically happens when they quote a rule-breaking post in their reply.

This is just a notification to let you know that one or more of your posts have been removed due to a moderation action.

You are not in any sort of trouble and no warning is being issued to you; this is merely a courtesy notification.


Thanks and best regards

<insert name here>,
Moderator

We decided a long time ago that we would not edit other poster's posts; our preferred option is to pull the entire post. We're more than happy to send the poster a copy of his/her original post, with a recommendation of what bits to exclude, where appropriate - eg. if someone had done a big "Of the Week" article on the Rifleman, and used an Unseen pic at the top, we'd not make them retype all the text just for the sake of the wrong image.

W.

[Paul]

FYI, we do let people know when their otherwise innocent posts get pulled. That typically happens when they quote a rule-breaking post in their reply.

I think he's referring to adding a message in the thread that had posts removed, as a public notice that some posts got removed. After all, if none of your own posts got yanked, you wouldn't get the PM notification, so a Mods' public warning for 'everyone to calm down' would seem to have no context to warrant it such a demand. The posts that provoked such a public remark are now invisible to the majority of the people in the thread.

Paul

[worktroll]

Worth thinking about.

But obviously, we'd not be mentioning exactly what the reason a post or posts were pulled, nor would we be mentioning names.

The other issue is, any post the moderators would put up would necessarily not be in sequence. So it'd be a case of:

Inoffensive post
Inoffensive post
Inoffensive post
Offensive post
Post quoting inoffensive post
Post quoting post quoting inoffensive post
Inoffensive post
Inoffensive post
Inoffensive post
Inoffensive post
Inoffensive post
Inoffensive post

becoming

Inoffensive post
Inoffensive post
Inoffensive post
Inoffensive post
Inoffensive post
Inoffensive post
Inoffensive post
Inoffensive post
Inoffensive post
Post from moderator saying some posts have been removed from somewhere

I mean, ideally I imagine we'd want

Inoffensive post
Inoffensive post
Inoffensive post
Post from moderator saying some posts have been removed from somewhere
Inoffensive post
Inoffensive post
Inoffensive post
Inoffensive post
Inoffensive post
Inoffensive post

but the forum functionality doesn't allow for that.

[Paul]

But obviously, we'd not be mentioning exactly what the reason a post or posts were pulled, nor would we be mentioning names.

Absolutely.
I think the intent is to improve context to thread viewers who received no notification in PM. Since a public post is common policy anyway (I think?), it'd just be a matter of specifically mentioning that several posts have been removed, rather than only asking people to steer away from heated debate (or whatever).
Otherwise it might seem like the Mod just kicked down the door to the tea parlor, yelling "EVERYONE CALM DOWN!" to an outsider, who happened to miss the bar brawl.

The other issue is, any post the moderators would put up would necessarily not be in sequence. So it'd be a case of:
*snip*
but the forum functionality doesn't allow for that.

Doesn't seem to painful a problem. If the concern that's discussed is perception, then a new reader to the thread won't notice the difference between the two flavors. He'll just spot evidence that things apparently got out of hand at one point, prompting action.

Paul

[GespenstM]

Yeah... speaking as an end user, I don't need the sequence of events to be in perfect order. A remark a few posts further into the thread of "Flagrant insults are unacceptable, knock it off. (Note to Public: Moderation resulted in some offending posts containing insults being deleted from this thread. Those posts are gone; I'm addressing the actions in those posts nonetheless. If this makes it look like I'm referring to events that 'never happened', it is because the offending posts have been removed)" would be sane enough to me.

I'd pick up on the fact some Winston Smithing had happened, but that it was for a good reason and THAT'S why the moderator is talking about events that appeared to 'never happen' from my perspective.

It need not be perfectly clean. So long as we're notified somehow that we have always been at war with Eastasia and always allies with Eurasia, I'll smile, nod, and understand that the moderator is not in fact in the middle of losing their mind and lashing out at people for things they never did.

...Even if I AM now having a giggle-fit over envisioning one of you just suddenly stomping into a thread and shouting at everyone for purely random reasons. "No religion discussions, please!" while we're talking about someone's fan-mech design, for example.

[worktroll]

It's something we'll discuss internally.

...Even if I AM now having a giggle-fit over envisioning one of you just suddenly stomping into a thread and shouting at everyone for purely random reasons. "No religion discussions, please!" while we're talking about someone's fan-mech design, for example.

Don't tempt me ...  O:-)

[Bedwyr]

That will be QUITE enough discussion of jellyfish as pets and there will be NO more references to Squishy.  >:(


(You know this could be a lot of fun. It's almost like Pinky and the Brain.

...

Alright. Fine. I'll go back in my corner.  ::))