Don't worry, this isn't about SEN.

Recently, I was subjected to probably one of the most textbook moderator power abuse, or as I'd like to call it, Mod-fails.
You can read about it if you'd like but it's not really the main point. (but read it anyways, cause there're videos )


So, what I want to argue is that Moderators in every game seem to abuse their powers. It is evident in trivial games such as transformice, and in big-name games such as the sc2 forums (I dare you to try saying smth bad about sc2 there).

But why?

It can't be because all moderators are egotistic bastards with no regards to humanity. It can't be because people who are stuck up bitches and would gamble their mothers are more likely to be picked as moderators (except in the case of sc2)...
No, it is, in a very general sense, a case of somewhat extreme in-grouping, and authority.



The dilemma here is that Moderators must HAVE power in order to do their work. They must also be acknowledged, so it is inevitable that they will experience in-grouping. What I think needs to change is that Moderators in all forums/games must also be RESPONSIBLE for their actions.

I feel that in many forums, including this one, there is a lack of control over moderators, as moderators are trusted to exhibit reasonable judgments. This system does not work, as I've explained in my Science Content. Unreasonable/unfair behaviours come from bad situations, NOT from the disposition of the person in question. I.e., it isn't because Sexycaliforniabear is a hard-ass, it is because of the situation that he is put into that turned him into a hard-ass.

In order to make the situation more viable, moderators must face the same scrutiny, of not more, as everyone else. For example, If a moderator is being abusive, there must be a very simple way of reporting this abuse. More importantly, everyone's comments must be taken just as seriously as moderators and admins. Finally, moderators/admins must not be given "free chances", they must suffer the same consequences as everyone else, and in the same intensity. In order to make moderators more responsible for their actions, the rules of being a moderator/admin must also be explicitly known to everyone. And the rules must also be under the conditions of the general users of the forum so that the rules will not be in favor of the moderators/admins.

In another way, it is more of a distribution of power. The moderator should have as much power to ban players as the players can hold the moderator responsible for unjustifiable actions.

I want to know what you guys think about moderators in general (not just sen!), and what changes YOU think should be implemented.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Mar 28 2011, 8:49 pm by UnholyUrine.

In SEN's case, people have complained to me about moderator actions, and I've brought it up in our Staff Forum and/or talked to the moderators in question. Despite what it may seem, we discuss a lot of issues in our private Staff Forum and that is where major decisions are ultimately hashed out. We all follow the same rulebook, though we do have some staff members who may interpret the rules differently than other staff members (which unfortunately will be an issue no matter what, considering we all have varying personalities and opinions). /my 2 cents from SEN's perspective.

As a side note, I had no idea that Transformice had moderators.

I think it'd benefit all of us if some of these discussions are publicized, as we can bring our own perspectives while letting us know what's going on.

We have done that in the past with some community matters, but I'm referring to internal changes and things regarding moderation of specific members. We didn't need the community's input, for example, when it came to our 20+ page thread regarding devilesk. The Mods were "hired" to do this work, so it is their responsibility to give input.

And to clarify, a majority of the topics in there really are about members, moderation policy changes, moderation bugs, and various feature suggestions that are discussed before going public.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Mar 28 2011, 9:13 pm by DevliN.

I'd love to read my thread, I seem to recall calling out a few different mods for various things over the years so I'd be surprised if there wasn't something. I usually get a big one at every community and then they end up making me a mod. -.-

This shit happens everywhere, though. There will always be powerless fools who don't know how to handle responsibility except to abuse it, and there will always be higher-ups who don't really care who's in charge. There will also be people doing their best to handle a situation who just don't have sufficient objective judgment skills to make an unbiased decision.

You don't have a thread, FaZ-. You haven't caused nearly as much trouble as you may think.

99% of SEN's members do not have threads. Don't post asking if you have one, making reference to your thread if you assume you have one, or anything that can relate to either of these ideas.

Stay on topic.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Mar 28 2011, 11:59 pm by DevliN.

I damn well better have a thread. In fact, I distinctly remember there being at least one thread titled "Centreri". Can't trick me, Dev.

But, yeah, since Dev replaced Moosie I've liked the moderation a lot more. Dev actually listened, Moosie just spammed "I DONT CARE".

All moderators are different. You have a point when you suggest that positions of authority can lead to people having inflated opinions of themselves, but that is why you have a system of checks on moderator authority, an internal discipline system and it is why you (should) choose moderators based on their temperament and their track record of sticking to the rules.

Traits which make a good mod:

- A sense of duty and loyalty to the community
- Willingness to listen to members' complaints
- Humility
- Cool-headedness
- Fairness

What most community members want to see are moderators who are visible, approachable and make fair decisions according to clearly-defined rules. In some kinds of decision there will always be a party who feels hard done by - it's the nature of moderation that you can't make everyone happy - however in such cases it's the moderator's job to explain why they came to a particular decision and generally be understanding towards the annoyed party, while at the same time being firm about the decision itself.

SEN has had its fair share of moderators over the years, each with a different temperament. I can pick out a few "moderator personalities" which I've noticed on this and other sites.

The Maverick
A difficult person to have on a moderation team. They can take their own interpretations of the rules too far, sometimes appearing quite arbitrary in their decisions. They aren't careful and tend to annoy a lot of people. They don't respond well to warnings about their behaviour from other mods.

The Autocrat
For whatever reason, this type of moderator thinks that they are better than ordinary users and likes to make sure that they all know it. Gives out consistently harsh punishments for infractions and refuses to accept any argument from community members. Will defend moderators as a group vigorously and firmly believes that the community needs strong policing or it will fall apart. Occasionally makes snide comments about the intellectual capacity of normal members.

The Madman
A mod who is fair most of the time but sometimes goes on a moderating rampage. Inconsistent and therefore unpredictable.

The Absentee
Rarely does anything.

The Bureaucrat
Is completely by-the-book and doesn't seem to exercise any independent thought. Gives copy-pasted explanations for decisions and always punishes infractions, however minor. The larger the forum/community, the more likely its moderators will lean towards this type.

The Brown Envelope
This moderator is quite simply biased towards their friends and against people they dislike. Guaranteed to lose the faith of everyone in the community, depending on how obviously they are partial. I consider this type to be corrupt.

When I was a mod here I tried to be fair and exercise my better judgement. There is no access here to the staff forums, but if people are interested in the kind of discussions which go on in them then they should check out the static SEN v4, as it has a backup of the Staff Lounge from back then.

Yeah, the current Staff Lounge is very similar to the v4 one, with the exception of my occasional "Fuck it, I don't want to deal with this" post (which I suppose is similar to Moose's in v4, though).

Some of SEN's moderators made no sense and weren't controlled well. I still remember when Cecil gave me severity for not putting the name of the person I'm quoting in the quote (in a situation when the person being quoted was in the previous post). And, as you all know, that wasn't in any rulebook, and I never managed to get that severity point off despite ranting about it on every occasion.

From what I've seen of SEN, none of the moderators are even comparable the absurdity CC had with RCX in power. That guy was just a rampant dipshit. Editing/deleting posts or entire threads at a whim if he was rubbed the wrong way by anything. He was rubbed the wrong way by everything. I took me starting a shitstorm to get that jackass dropped from his pedestal.

And RCX isn't comparable to when Xaran was in power at SA. RCX deleted stuff at a whim. Xaran just banned you if you so much as glanced at him the wrong way. Then you have Baja, who doesn't know what the fuck he's doing other than flipping out on random people on his forum and just banning you because he feels like it.

Some people really want their sites to be all for themselves I guess.

I suppose in the context of how bad it could've been, it wasn't so bad.

Yeah, you get inflated egos everywhere. What you really don't need is one in overall control of a community (i.e. an admin). Unfortunately, some people set up communities just because they do have problems with their ego or self-worth.

So for good moderation you need a good admin/boss to begin with. A bad admin will hire bad mods and prevent good mods from doing their job by undermining them.

+2 Severity for my Winning thread. That's all I have to say about this.

Or I could like at my log and bring up more lulz, but I think Nude is already going to try to banhammer me.

CC = what now?

And compared to what COULD've happened, SEN isn't bad at all. Or else, I wouldn't still be here, talking about this lol

@CaptainWill
well, other than the entertainment value, these mods all pretty much abuse their power (except the absentee)

I was thinking about what sort of system SHOULD be implemented in ANY forums (not just SEN) that could've prevented people from being power mad... which is why I went on underlining things people should do....

Create a real world equivalent to the people on SEN, and have the mods mod that along with the boards. They'll be so busy running the real life people they'll be more lax on the board. Really though, that's about all I see that'd work.

So Ex is an autocrat?

I never said anything about causing trouble, I said I've called out a lot of moderators.

... Really? You've never heard of Campaign Creations? Well, you're probably better off until semi-recently. It has a long way to go if it ever wants to get the kind of activity SEN has.

Yo, Will, your list forgets the "softie". Mod who rarely, if ever, punishes an infraction. Namely, Farty

Though, I suppose it's fair to say that's the kind of mod I'd be too

Quote from Fire_Kame

Create a real world equivalent to the people on SEN, and have the mods mod that along with the boards. They'll be so busy running the real life people they'll be more lax on the board. Really though, that's about all I see that'd work.

Or they could be disgusted by society and take it out on those completely under their thumb (us).

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Mar 29 2011, 4:37 pm by poison_us.