Jump to content

[Extra Credits] A Short Tribute To The Community Managers


53 replies to this topic

#41 redandromeda

    Rookie

  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 3 posts

Posted 04 December 2013 - 03:43 PM

Like some people said, the players tend to see the CM as a liaison, i.e. to-and-from PGIGP. Regardless of the accuracy of this description, anything that helps either side of it will help.

One nice thing could be an official MWO calendar. Even something as sparse as laying out planned patch deployment days; you could stick on public test days, or anticipated mech drop days, or special sales, NGNG, what have you. But of course you guys would have to keep it updated, otherwise there's no point.

More build-a-mech competitions! More challenges like 3050 / operation 25. Core-A-Dev/Publisher weekend events could be fun, but of course time consuming for you guys. How about voting on parts of the weekend sales, like which color sets people will want? Inner Sphere's Funniest Cockpit Videos. Adopt-A-Noob weekend, make the vets recruit new players for you. Release more concept art & music, how about a monthly wallpaper?

TF2 sometimes runs events that depend on gamewide statistics, like how many demomen killed how many soldiers, and the class with the most kills got a unique hat. We could do that with weight classes and some kind of cockpit doodad.

Edited by redandromeda, 04 December 2013 - 03:47 PM.


#42 Tooooonpie

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 96 posts

Posted 04 December 2013 - 03:54 PM

The biggest flaw I've seen recently which you could easily rectify is the 2nd round of testing for UI2.0 - Almost none of the suggestions or feedback was taken into account, which left a lot of people seeing UI2.0 as a soon to be disappointment, and they weren't being listened to.

An easy and effective solution would be to simply list the feedback multiple people have suggested in a list, and let us know that this will be passed on to the people implementing UI2.0

See? Its not difficult! ;)

#43 Egomane

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,163 posts

Posted 04 December 2013 - 04:10 PM

I'd like to adress some of this (and more), fil...
Sorry, wall of text incoming!
(if I adress "you" in it, I mean it as "everyone in the MWO community")

I'm nearing my one year celebration of being a moderator here and I guess I appear as somewhat of a hardliner on moderation. I'm also a very active moderator, so I am a highly visible target. It seems I have attracted quite some "fans" because of that, who hate me with all they got, for what they believe I have done to them, or for voicing my opinion against them, since I have that green tag attached my forums account.

When I take a look over at the Star Citizen boards and how some of the ex-MWO players portray me there, I must be some kind of idiotic demon. I guess I can let them keep on believing that, but I haven't done anything to them, that they haven't brought upon themself and whenever I voiced my opinion, I made it clear that it was my own and that I'm not talking for someone else.

The rules are outlined pretty clear and it is not hard to follow them. Most users can do that just fine and never come into contact with one of the moderator team. Whenever we recieve a report or witness a rule violation by a user, we always look at his past behavior, if he is new and how severe his infringement is. A ban, temporary or not, is always only a last resort for us. If we issue one of those, the user will have repeatedly, knowingly and severly broken the rules.

We can not let rule violations stay on the forums and simply tell the users: "No, no, no! Please don't do this". If if we just somehow mark it as a violation and let it remain visible, the user only got more attention. Others will then copy him, knowing that whatever they do it will remain visible somehow. Some users strive for this type of attention and we are not here to give it to them. In addition to increasing our workload on the long run, it would also feel like we are complices in allowing them to post in violation to the rules.

There are some violations we consider to small, to be worth any more hassle, then to simply remove them. If a user notices one of his posts to be gone or changed, we hope he will think about in what way he might have broken the rules. If we edit his post, we will leave a note in the Edited by line. If he doesn't learn from those small early mistakes and keeps repeating them, we will someday warn him and tell him in a PM what rule he has broken. Those are mostly predefined protocols, so that our moderation is consistent. At this point latest, a user can no longer claim to have not known the rules, as we will always direct him to them.

As a sidenote: If someone is taking part in any forum, he should always be aware of the rules and honor them, don't you agree? There are quite some users who will test out how far they can go or how far they can bend the rules in their favor. I had my share of users who told me: "But this isn't explicitly stated so it isn't forbidden." They tend to forget, that posting in any forums is a privilage and not a right. If they do not honor the rules in the spirit they are meant and if they don't accept that they are only guests even if the whole world explains it to them, do we not have the right to remove them from the forum community?

The reason we moderate mostly in private with the one who violated the rules, is also to protect them. We are just as much bound by the name and shame rules as anyone else here. We do not want a public execution of the users for their misbehavior. We want them to behave in a way that will help this community to grow. That's also the reason why we can not do that:

Quote

and honestly it's probably funnier to just add a mod edit to the person's post with how long since they last logged in to the game and let people judge for themselves if the opinion is informed or not

I agree that it might seem funny on first glance, but we try to treat even the bad guys with respect. Even if they do not return it.

When we move threads to jettisoned or even further to k-town we get attacked for that as well. We are told that we would be hiding these threads. If that were the case, why are they still accessible to the logged in user? Why can every player, who has an account with the forums (and played at least 25 games of MWO) still participate in them? Kaetetôã was created so we do not have to hide (in other words: delete or move to an unaccessible part of the forums) those threads. Ok... it is limited access, as you need to be an actual player of MWO to see them, but they are still there. The reason most users do not visit k-town, is because they soon realize just what type of topic tend to land there.

Still... not everything is bad in k-town. I have seen some threads, that I thought hopeless to recover, come up with some pretty good arguments between the users. If it weren't for the unconstructive parts of those topics, that got them there in the first place, I'd move them back.

I can't talk for IGP or PGI and I never will, unless I'm enforcing rules. Everything said here is my observation and interpretation and my own personal opinion. For that reason I can not comment on things like this.

Quote

I'd also suggest a review of some of the more... creative policies I've heard mention of, such as banning people from posting if they've said something negative but haven't played the game in a while.

All I know, is that this forum is the property of those two companies and they have every right in the world to decide, who they want or do not want on their boards. If they someday decide, that I'm no longer allowed here because I do not want to represent Comstar but the ConCap and ban me from the boards for it, I'll have to accept it and move on. I'll probably never touch MWO again afterwards, but it is their right to do so.

The moderation on the MWO forums isn't heavy handed. It only appears so if you start to look at it with a biased view, searching for moderation, silenced users and other such things. I can only repeat myself here. Everytime we touch a post, move it, edit it or delete it, we do it because a user broke a rule he should already be aware of. We understand angry posting (and advise against it for good reason) and let some things slip because of it. Just as often as a user calms down after a short while, one will feel encouraged if his angry post is not removed immediatly and therefore escelates himself through our protocols pretty fast and get even more angry when he actually gets moderated.

We aren't psychologicaly trained. We have to work on experience alone. Except for the IGP guys and gals, we are volunteers. Volunteers who want to help the game, the community as a whole and every single user as a part of it. My experience is telling me, that we have a very dedicated userbase. They will get worked up on the slightest mistake and they will rejoice whenever something happens they like, because they are so much into the game and the univers it comes from. Because of that we sometimes have to act hard and we sometimes have to loosen the reins a bit. We can't always act the same, as much as we want to. We would only alienate the community more by doing so. Of course, the hard episodes get noticed more. You will see less moderation in the relaxed phases. Added to that, that it is proven that memories, that are associated with strong emotions, are better remembered, then those without, it becomes obvious why we are often percieved as the bad guys. I recieved many PMs that thanked me for the way I handled one situation or another and it's more often from those violating the rules then from some victim.

There are many topics I want to take part of, but I can't because I'll for sure get attacked for doing so. If I voice my opinion on a game matter that I like, for example on ghost heat, I'll get attacked for defending PGI, being a white knight or, and that's where I aways get a good laugh, because I am forced by the higher ups to post that stuff. It will for sure derail the thread and cause work for the other moderators. I'm essentially locked out from part of the discussions on the forums for my believs. I'm doing this volunteer work, so that this doesn't happen to others as well. I still try to look for topics I can take part of, that are less controversial, I often find them in the support forums or in less common topics for a specific module, mech or map and I can also take refugee in the german part of the boards. There are far less attacks on me there and my opinion is mostly rated as such. If I were in this for the power (which is in fact not much more then anybody elses, as every moderation I do has to recieve a final approval), I'd have gone, for the continued abuse I recieved, long ago.

So... I don't know for sure if I stepped over the line in my post somewhere for talking in to much detail about the moderator protocols. I'm pretty sure someone will use my post and twist parts of it, to again attack me, the moderator team as such, PGI or IGP somehow (please surprise me). I do hope it helps everyone to better understand what we are doing here and why we are doing it.

#44 Homeless Bill

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 1,968 posts
  • LocationA Box Near You

Posted 04 December 2013 - 06:24 PM

I'll paste here what I said over on reddit. I'll preface that by saying I don't give a **** about these forums or how they're handled. The organization is bad, the users are bad, and the moderation is inconsistent; I'll pass on giving my two cents about how to improve that. What I would really like is an improvement in how communication is handled in general:

Really, the biggest issue is that there doesn't seem to be a community management "strategy." There are a bunch of you, and you all just sort of interact or release information whenever, often seemingly without a lot of thought put into it.

So many things could use serious proof-reading, and I'm not talking about spelling or grammar. Things that are worded weirdly often generate useless controversy (team deathmatch that's only one-vs-one, "collision module," and countless other instances), while other things are just worded in a way that is clearly just going to rile people up (particularly the forums).

And then the timing of it all is usually bad. We had an information drought for a month (aside from Paul's nice little hitbox updates), and then we got a project update, matchmaker details, a Hero, and the announcement of turrets all on a single day. Why? Why would you not spread that out and milk it?

Sometimes, PGI is active and communicates regularly for a couple weeks straight. Other times, it's like we have to blow someone over there to get a response. And then having so many places that you release information - all of which you force players to aggregate - doesn't help, either.

We don't need events or contests or awards - we need some coherency in how communication is approached. Like, one person over there needs to be in charge of scheduling, vetting, and aggregating communication. Just a thought.

#45 fil5000

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 1,573 posts
  • LocationInternet County, USA

Posted 05 December 2013 - 12:20 AM

View PostEgomane, on 04 December 2013 - 04:10 PM, said:

I'd like to adress some of this (and more), fil...
Sorry, wall of text incoming!
(if I adress "you" in it, I mean it as "everyone in the MWO community")

I'm nearing my one year celebration of being a moderator here and I guess I appear as somewhat of a hardliner on moderation. I'm also a very active moderator, so I am a highly visible target. It seems I have attracted quite some "fans" because of that, who hate me with all they got, for what they believe I have done to them, or for voicing my opinion against them, since I have that green tag attached my forums account.

When I take a look over at the Star Citizen boards and how some of the ex-MWO players portray me there, I must be some kind of idiotic demon. I guess I can let them keep on believing that, but I haven't done anything to them, that they haven't brought upon themself and whenever I voiced my opinion, I made it clear that it was my own and that I'm not talking for someone else.

The rules are outlined pretty clear and it is not hard to follow them. Most users can do that just fine and never come into contact with one of the moderator team. Whenever we recieve a report or witness a rule violation by a user, we always look at his past behavior, if he is new and how severe his infringement is. A ban, temporary or not, is always only a last resort for us. If we issue one of those, the user will have repeatedly, knowingly and severly broken the rules.

We can not let rule violations stay on the forums and simply tell the users: "No, no, no! Please don't do this". If if we just somehow mark it as a violation and let it remain visible, the user only got more attention. Others will then copy him, knowing that whatever they do it will remain visible somehow. Some users strive for this type of attention and we are not here to give it to them. In addition to increasing our workload on the long run, it would also feel like we are complices in allowing them to post in violation to the rules.

There are some violations we consider to small, to be worth any more hassle, then to simply remove them. If a user notices one of his posts to be gone or changed, we hope he will think about in what way he might have broken the rules. If we edit his post, we will leave a note in the Edited by line. If he doesn't learn from those small early mistakes and keeps repeating them, we will someday warn him and tell him in a PM what rule he has broken. Those are mostly predefined protocols, so that our moderation is consistent. At this point latest, a user can no longer claim to have not known the rules, as we will always direct him to them.

As a sidenote: If someone is taking part in any forum, he should always be aware of the rules and honor them, don't you agree? There are quite some users who will test out how far they can go or how far they can bend the rules in their favor. I had my share of users who told me: "But this isn't explicitly stated so it isn't forbidden." They tend to forget, that posting in any forums is a privilage and not a right. If they do not honor the rules in the spirit they are meant and if they don't accept that they are only guests even if the whole world explains it to them, do we not have the right to remove them from the forum community?

The reason we moderate mostly in private with the one who violated the rules, is also to protect them. We are just as much bound by the name and shame rules as anyone else here. We do not want a public execution of the users for their misbehavior. We want them to behave in a way that will help this community to grow. That's also the reason why we can not do that:

I agree that it might seem funny on first glance, but we try to treat even the bad guys with respect. Even if they do not return it.

When we move threads to jettisoned or even further to k-town we get attacked for that as well. We are told that we would be hiding these threads. If that were the case, why are they still accessible to the logged in user? Why can every player, who has an account with the forums (and played at least 25 games of MWO) still participate in them? Kaetetôã was created so we do not have to hide (in other words: delete or move to an unaccessible part of the forums) those threads. Ok... it is limited access, as you need to be an actual player of MWO to see them, but they are still there. The reason most users do not visit k-town, is because they soon realize just what type of topic tend to land there.

Still... not everything is bad in k-town. I have seen some threads, that I thought hopeless to recover, come up with some pretty good arguments between the users. If it weren't for the unconstructive parts of those topics, that got them there in the first place, I'd move them back.

I can't talk for IGP or PGI and I never will, unless I'm enforcing rules. Everything said here is my observation and interpretation and my own personal opinion. For that reason I can not comment on things like this.

All I know, is that this forum is the property of those two companies and they have every right in the world to decide, who they want or do not want on their boards. If they someday decide, that I'm no longer allowed here because I do not want to represent Comstar but the ConCap and ban me from the boards for it, I'll have to accept it and move on. I'll probably never touch MWO again afterwards, but it is their right to do so.

The moderation on the MWO forums isn't heavy handed. It only appears so if you start to look at it with a biased view, searching for moderation, silenced users and other such things. I can only repeat myself here. Everytime we touch a post, move it, edit it or delete it, we do it because a user broke a rule he should already be aware of. We understand angry posting (and advise against it for good reason) and let some things slip because of it. Just as often as a user calms down after a short while, one will feel encouraged if his angry post is not removed immediatly and therefore escelates himself through our protocols pretty fast and get even more angry when he actually gets moderated.

We aren't psychologicaly trained. We have to work on experience alone. Except for the IGP guys and gals, we are volunteers. Volunteers who want to help the game, the community as a whole and every single user as a part of it. My experience is telling me, that we have a very dedicated userbase. They will get worked up on the slightest mistake and they will rejoice whenever something happens they like, because they are so much into the game and the univers it comes from. Because of that we sometimes have to act hard and we sometimes have to loosen the reins a bit. We can't always act the same, as much as we want to. We would only alienate the community more by doing so. Of course, the hard episodes get noticed more. You will see less moderation in the relaxed phases. Added to that, that it is proven that memories, that are associated with strong emotions, are better remembered, then those without, it becomes obvious why we are often percieved as the bad guys. I recieved many PMs that thanked me for the way I handled one situation or another and it's more often from those violating the rules then from some victim.

There are many topics I want to take part of, but I can't because I'll for sure get attacked for doing so. If I voice my opinion on a game matter that I like, for example on ghost heat, I'll get attacked for defending PGI, being a white knight or, and that's where I aways get a good laugh, because I am forced by the higher ups to post that stuff. It will for sure derail the thread and cause work for the other moderators. I'm essentially locked out from part of the discussions on the forums for my believs. I'm doing this volunteer work, so that this doesn't happen to others as well. I still try to look for topics I can take part of, that are less controversial, I often find them in the support forums or in less common topics for a specific module, mech or map and I can also take refugee in the german part of the boards. There are far less attacks on me there and my opinion is mostly rated as such. If I were in this for the power (which is in fact not much more then anybody elses, as every moderation I do has to recieve a final approval), I'd have gone, for the continued abuse I recieved, long ago.

So... I don't know for sure if I stepped over the line in my post somewhere for talking in to much detail about the moderator protocols. I'm pretty sure someone will use my post and twist parts of it, to again attack me, the moderator team as such, PGI or IGP somehow (please surprise me). I do hope it helps everyone to better understand what we are doing here and why we are doing it.


I'm going to pull bits of this out to respond to Egomane - thank you for the in depth reply, and I HAVE read the whole thing so forgive me if I don't acknowledge absolutely all of it:

1. Yes, the rules are clear. No, it's not hard to follow them. Equally, it's not hard to deal with violations of the rules without dissapearing them. I appreciate that if a post is entirely full of profanity and is a million miles off topic that might be appropriate, however I've seen salient posts removed entirely just because they had one disagreeable thing in them. This behavior hasn't been consistent between moderators, some will remove posts entirely some will edit out the offending portion. Consistency is required. It's disingenuous to characterise what I'm asking for as going "No no no, please don't do this!" and I think you know that.
2. Your paragraph about forums use being a privilege and not a right is, while accurate, a bit haughty and hectoring. Yes, the owners of the forums have the right to do what they want with it, but the question Niko posed was around how you, as a team of community managers, foster that community. And I think the best way of doing that is to be transparent as to when and why people are losing those privileges.
3. I don't feel that the name and shame policy in this particular respect actually protects your end users from anything. I think it protects moderators from having to justify their actions. There's a reason for not letting people post "<PLAYER NAME> IS A HACKER/TEAM KILLER!". There's no reason to not explain the reasons for a player being banned. There's also no reason to prohibit the discussion of moderation activity. If it's within the defined rules then why conceal it?
4. Regarding the "banning people from posting because they haven't played the game in a while" - yes, I accept this is their board. The question, again, was how the community managers improve what they do. Regardless of what they are ENTITLED to do, I think that policy (if indeed it IS a policy) is a rather silly one that adds no value and looks petty.
5. Regarding how careful you have to be about posting in particular threads - yes, you do have to do that. It's something you implicitly accepted when you took on the community mod mantle. In terms of people attacking you as a mod - yes, that's going to happen as well, because a large portion of the community is unhappy with the state of the game and the forums and you represent PGI. I'm not sure what point you're trying to convey here - moderators should be seen to be impartial and held to a higher standard than the people they moderate. I think most of the time, most of you are. There's times when Niko's snark is in slightly the wrong place (though mostly not), and there's times when I've seen mods appear to deliberately agitate a thread so they have an excuse to hurl it into the void. It's not frequent, but I'd like to see it stop entirely.

Thank you for the in depth response - none of this is intended as an attack on anyone, but as a sincere response to Niko's question. I don't think you guys have necessarily got the best community to work with in the first place, but I do believe your interactions with it could be better than they have been historically.

Edited by fil5000, 05 December 2013 - 12:47 AM.


#46 Egomane

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,163 posts

Posted 05 December 2013 - 02:36 AM

View Postfil5000, on 05 December 2013 - 12:20 AM, said:

5. Regarding how careful you have to be about posting in particular threads - yes, you do have to do that. It's something you implicitly accepted when you took on the community mod mantle. In terms of people attacking you as a mod - yes, that's going to happen as well, because a large portion of the community is unhappy with the state of the game and the forums and you represent PGI. I'm not sure what point you're trying to convey here - moderators should be seen to be impartial and held to a higher standard than the people they moderate. I think most of the time, most of you are.


The point I tried to make is, that I'm not representing anyone but myself. When I'm moderating, I'm representing the rules and that's it!

Volunteers are not responsible for, or making decisions in regards to the forums or the game. They are normal users like everyone else, who just happen to be granted some authority to enforce the rules on the forums. Volunteer moderators should be treated like every other user, when they want to argue on a topic. Just like any other user we have our agreements and disagreements with the development of the game.

#47 fil5000

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 1,573 posts
  • LocationInternet County, USA

Posted 05 December 2013 - 03:14 AM

View PostEgomane, on 05 December 2013 - 02:36 AM, said:


The point I tried to make is, that I'm not representing anyone but myself. When I'm moderating, I'm representing the rules and that's it!

Volunteers are not responsible for, or making decisions in regards to the forums or the game. They are normal users like everyone else, who just happen to be granted some authority to enforce the rules on the forums. Volunteer moderators should be treated like every other user, when they want to argue on a topic. Just like any other user we have our agreements and disagreements with the development of the game.


You don't INTEND to represent anything other than yourself, I understand that. But you do, whether you intend to or not. And you won't be treated the same as other users when posting, because you're being moderated by a group that you're part of. I'm not saying you're responsible for the development of the game, or for the forum rules - but as far as a lot of people are concerned you're a PGI representative because you do work for them (albeit unpaid). I'm not saying this is right, just that it's what people see, and people's expectations of a representative of PGI are different to those they have of a regular forums goer. And you'll never be treated like a regular user in a forum discussion because you have the ability to close it down or delete posts - I've not seen YOU do this, but I have seen cases where a (now former) mod deleted posts he didn't personally like and banned people from posting without going through appropriate channels. That sort of thing colours a community's interaction with it's moderators.

#48 Egomane

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,163 posts

Posted 05 December 2013 - 03:54 AM

I'm fully aware of all that. I need to be blind not to notice that and it played a big part in my decision making when I got the offer to become a mod. I took several days to think about the offer and all the pros and cons that might come with it, before I accepted it.

But just because that's the way it currently is, I don't have to be satisfied by it. I can deal with those attacks and I learned to mostly avoid them. Also most users accept the fact that a volunteer is nothing special, when it's told to them. It's the users that do not want to accept this fact, or do not care about it, that are the big problem for us. A change to that situation is possible, but it needs work from all sides. From the officials at PGI/IGP, the volunteers and the users. The unwillingness to change by some of them, is what is making this so hard for everyone.

If enough users agree with you, that moderation should showcase the wrongdoings of the individual and suggest it as a change to the moderating protocols, I'm pretty sure it will be taken into consideration by the community reps in one of their meetings. I'll fight you and everyone else in the community with toes and nails if I have to, to make sure it doesn't get implemented, because I'm sure that it would do more harm then good. But if you find a majority for it (please note that this forum is still not a democracy and the companies have the final word) and it does provoke a change in the policies, I'll deal with it. Change is possible, but you have to work for it. We have to work for it!

#49 fil5000

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 1,573 posts
  • LocationInternet County, USA

Posted 05 December 2013 - 03:57 AM

Could you explain why you think it would be harmful to say why a user has been banned or had a post removed?

#50 Egomane

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,163 posts

Posted 05 December 2013 - 04:08 AM

As I said before, it is a name and shame situation.

If we outline the negative behavior of a user, or even only the punishment he recieved for it, we display him in a negative light. The user might then feel uncomfortable to come back to the forums if others start to use those informations against him in an argument. It will be a feast for trolls and will enable a form of forum griefing.

If the users have a problem with grasping the concept of volunteer moderators, they will make an absolute mess out of this.

Edited by Egomane, 05 December 2013 - 04:09 AM.


#51 fil5000

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 1,573 posts
  • LocationInternet County, USA

Posted 05 December 2013 - 04:11 AM

If you're punishing these users, then generally the punishment is a ban or a posting restriction for a period of time. That suggests you don't want the user posting. Why would the user not WANTING to post be seen as a possible negative consequence of not LETTING them post?

#52 Egomane

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,163 posts

Posted 05 December 2013 - 04:27 AM

That's a misconcept on your part. A ban or post restriction is only a last resort for us. Only the most harmful users recieve them.

And even then, I do not want them to be shamed. They misbehaved on the MWO forums, but that doesn't neccessarily mean that they will do the same on other boards. If IGP makes such a punishment public, those users might have to feel repercussions in other places on the web as well. Why would I / IGP want to cause that?

Not everyone uses a different nickname wherever he registers. It would be a mark on their name wherever they go on the net. What if the user only used the name on the MWO forums and somewhere else, somebody completly different who simply uses the same name will be attacked for it? I would, at least in parts, be responsible for that.

The internet is a bad place. I don't see the need to make it even worse. That's not what I became a volunteer moderator for.

#53 RG Notch

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • 2,987 posts
  • LocationNYC

Posted 05 December 2013 - 06:14 AM

View PostEgomane, on 05 December 2013 - 03:54 AM, said:

I'm fully aware of all that. I need to be blind not to notice that and it played a big part in my decision making when I got the offer to become a mod. I took several days to think about the offer and all the pros and cons that might come with it, before I accepted it.

But just because that's the way it currently is, I don't have to be satisfied by it. I can deal with those attacks and I learned to mostly avoid them. Also most users accept the fact that a volunteer is nothing special, when it's told to them. It's the users that do not want to accept this fact, or do not care about it, that are the big problem for us. A change to that situation is possible, but it needs work from all sides. From the officials at PGI/IGP, the volunteers and the users. The unwillingness to change by some of them, is what is making this so hard for everyone.

If enough users agree with you, that moderation should showcase the wrongdoings of the individual and suggest it as a change to the moderating protocols, I'm pretty sure it will be taken into consideration by the community reps in one of their meetings. I'll fight you and everyone else in the community with toes and nails if I have to, to make sure it doesn't get implemented, because I'm sure that it would do more harm then good. But if you find a majority for it (please note that this forum is still not a democracy and the companies have the final word) and it does provoke a change in the policies, I'll deal with it. Change is possible, but you have to work for it. We have to work for it!

What a joke. You aren't just an ordinary user. IGP selected you to be a moderator. They didn't randomly send out invites for such positions. Do they choose people who are critical of them? Do they monitor what you post? Once you took the job you became part of their team. You can spin it anyway you want but with privileges and powers come responsibilities. If you want to pretend that you're just some ordinary poster it's you who are in the wrong. Stop acting like the aggrieved party. If you wanted to post like an ordinary user you wouldn't have taken the position. You get to shut down threads and shunt them to less used forums, in return for that you can't simply express your opinion anymore.
You knew what you were getting into, you even said you deliberated over it. Now deal with it. Stop looking for sympathy and do the job you volunteered for. Besides, IGP wouldn't have selected you if you weren't all in with their program. Spin all you want, this is their forum, their rules and they choose yes men to be mods. They would be foolish not to. Again don't waste the time to type about your "disagreements" it's like the racist who says they have black friends. No one but other racists buys it.
You have a job to do. Do it and be happy you have it. No one is interested in your opinion, since it's just IGP's coming out of your mouth. If it wasn't, you wouldn't be a moderator for long, since it's been a year, it's kind of obvious where you stand.

#54 fil5000

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 1,573 posts
  • LocationInternet County, USA

Posted 05 December 2013 - 07:28 AM

Well THAT'S not going to help.





9 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 9 guests, 0 anonymous users