MS Update Mod Squad Update for week ending 21 June 2006

I feel bad. I have oft times posted "Nice update" but only because there's nothing else I really wanted to comment on because like, it was a really slow week.

 

like droideka27 said Comms is supposed to be a stricter forum so the rules should be enforced more. but should someone get a ban right away for posting "nice update" or something like that? not right away. maybe a warning system like if you do it for 3 continuous MS Updates and make a habit of it and you don't post anything else constructive other than that then get a ban for whatever length of time the MS sees fit. personally i think banning someone for just doing it once might be a little harsh

 

Personally I think it's the principle here. If the rule is outdated and we need to revisit it, then we need to revisit it. We don't just say "oh well no more rule." We need to discuss it and go through the usual process.

 

I do agree with that - even though I dont' think the rule is really necessary anymore, it should still be changed with formal/standard procedure.

 

there's no real POINT to just posting 'nice update'. what's so nice about them? unless there's actually some kind of point of contention that can then be discussed, it's usually just boring comings and goings and whatnot. which is fine, that's what the updates are for. i just don't see what is particularly nice about it, though. perhaps the pwetty html but i think that's more just an excuse for the mods to get a bit creative.

MS Updates are purely informational -- there's no NEED to reply to them, unless there's an issue a user wants to discuss pertaining to the information contained within.

i don't think you should ban anyone for it though. if you want to make a point about it just remove the offending posts. people will get the idea.

 

I remember when we decided to ban "nice update" posts (at least one of the times it came up). One of the big reasons was because some users were simply abusing them (for example, there was one BF,T who would use it to increase his post count obsessively, and others who followed his example). Another was because there were complaints about the "nice update" posts getting in the way of the actual discussions in the MS Update.

However, in practice, we really only enforced it when people were taking it to extremes. The occasional "nice update" or "good job" post would be allowed to slip through, but when you start getting 5-6 in a row, we'd gently remind users that it really wasn't appropriate to do that (at least not as the entire substance of your post).

It really is one of those "common sense" things. A little is fine, but too much causes problems.

Kimball Kinnison

 

hence the ambiguity of the rule, then. doesn't make too much sense to allow it for some people (if you're, say, in the first few who do it) but then not for anyone else after that.

you'd think it would be easier just to outlaw them completely or allow them. one or the other.

 

This whole thing is making a Ronaldo out of a Robinho. Classic Comms fare.

The best strategy is to not worry about it. If someone wants to post "nice update", then let them. If someone posts it twice in quick succession they're spamming.




EDIT: Ronaldo out of a Robinho... sometimes I impress even myself.

 

Then you misunderstand the point of the rule.

The rule is there to use when things become problematic. As such, it doesn't have to be 100% enforced, nor 100% consistent. The administration has never claimed to be 100% consistent, nor has it ever said that it should be. That's why there are human moderators, to make the judgement calls needed in different situations.

Remember, every rule exists because sometime, somewhere, someone was stupid, and a foolish consistency (including consistency just for the sake of consistency) is the hobgoblin of little minds.

Think of it this way. You want to get rid of one fairly specific rule (not posting "nice update") because of the ambiguity, but you want it to be handled by another rule that is more ambiguous (spamming). Where is the logic in that?

Kimball Kinnison

 

Thanks for the explanation, Kimball. And I agree with you on the timing and usefulness of the rule, and remember some of the classic "spam" at the time. Heck, it went past updates into the real threads. We don't have that problem now that I've seen, really.

I also agree that to use it past a guideline would be doing exactly as Ev..er, I mean England described, making it a little more of a problem than it is. I guess that was my original question on the subject to Malkie, I didn't see people spamming up this thread with "nice update" or it being a problem. I haven't seen that in a long time, actually.


But for those who are more sticklers for concise rules rather than guidelines, I'd agree with Strilo that either Sape, gabe and I (as the "moderators" of the Comms forum) need to decide if it's something we need to mod more to be consistent or if we need to do away with the rule and use our best judgement. the latter being my recommendation. If the MS feels its something they don't want in their updates or we need to discuss more, then of course, we'd take that into consideration and we can all discuss.

 

Oh that's good.

 

Thanks for the nice update, Strilo.

I remember the rule being mentioned last summer, I believe. And I think it was enforced for at least a week or two. *grins*

My problem with promoting mods that are active in other forums to mods in those other forums (and this sentence made absolutely no sense) is that it seems to me like eventually there will only be a set number of mods and the ten, let's say, of them will just mod everything. Okay, so that is a bit on the extreme side. But I can't help but see that sort of happening, if mods are just 'promoted' to secondary and tertiary forums. Therefore I'd prefer to have a brand new mod for SFF:Movies and TV shows, and other forum 'openings' that may come up.

I admit that the red sometimes gives me a shock when a mod is on vacation. But once I see that their title says 'on vacation' and not 'emeritus', it's evident that they're actually having a vacation and not demoted. And as someone mentioned- black makes me think of funerals. Why not green or hot pink? *grins*

 

As we have a (sort of) new moderator already for SFF Films and TV, I have edited in a link to the welcome thread.

 

Might want to check page 1 of this thread :-

 

And those posts are a problem why?

 

IMO to ban/warn/add it to the notes to someone for saying "Nice update" is stupid, frivilous and a complete waste of time. OMG someone got a +1 for saying "NICE UPDATE" the world is coming to an end! I mean hell its not like there arn't a thousand other places on the JC where one can get a +1 that means even less "legally".

I understand what you're saying Alethia and I do agree that new blood is the way to go.

 

Except, I don't recall anyone ever getting even a user note for "nice update". At least every time I gave the warning, it was to the thread in general (along the lines of "let's keep this on track to discuss the issues"). I can't even think of a single user (not even the aformentioned BF,T) that got banned for the practice.

Please try not to blow it out of proportion. It's not a rule that exists just to be the final straw to permban users, but it's there to give the mods a tool for when MS updates get too chatty, drowning out the actual policy discussions. Just because a rule exists and you can be banned for violating the rules doesn't mean that every case (or even any case) is necessarily going to get the worst possible response.

Consider the case of "WT*". How many people do you know of were banned for posting the extra letter? Could they be banned? Of course (since it counts as profanity), but how likely is it that they will actually be banned?

Kimball Kinnison

 

Fact is, the effort that goes into MS Updates (the majority of the time anyway) is deserving of praise and certainly elevates the threads above the dry fare Comms usually serves up. Even the less spectacular MS updates are evidence of time taken to collate comings and goings into one place for everyone to read. A thank-you is nothing to be scourned.

 

Forgot to mention this earlier Timo. Good work on the update Tim. Very fine job and very purty.


Edit: 2 removed some stuff.

 

Made his day.

 

It seems that this is similar to the "QFT" and in the WNU just posting "Welcome" in a new users thread. I agree that some moderators go to lengths to make the MSUs look very nice [and some have even sounded nice]. They deserve praise for their effort. Perhaps people can be encourage to do more than just say "Nice Update" but expound on at least something in the MSU.

malkie demonstrated that there are quite few "Nice Update" comments on page 1. There have been several people who have included "Nice Update" in their post but expounded on their post to actually discuss some of the things in the Update.

 

The no-"nice update" rule could easily result in users simply making a huge post filled with fluff and other useless bits just to avoid that rule. And it might therefore have a reverse effect as well, creating more text to dig through in order to find a different kind of post. It's easier to ignore a one-liner with a complement then an entire paragraph of it.

 

Any message board that sets out such precise restrictions about what users can say in positive response to a simple administrative update is a daft message board. malkie did indeed demonstrate a lot of 'Nice update' posts (my own fantastic contribution included), but their presence really really doesn't matter. Honestly. If someone starts breaking the established rules of the JC in replying to MS updates, then fine censor them, but don't go so far as to lose perspective, don't go so far as to punish people for genuine appreciation. Yes, you might get the odd bad egg, but I'd rather deal with one unwelcome whiff by itself than prevent a smattering of other users posting 'Nice Update!' and really meaning it.

 

lol

 

Don't lose perspective yourself on the matter.

Can you tell me how many people have actually been punished for posting "nice update"? You could probably count them on one finger, at most. The most I have ever seen (or done, in my time as Comms Admin) was a general warning to the thread as a whole. It's not there for the purpose of punishing users, but to keep threads on track. Nothing more.

The core of it comes from how argumentative quite a few users can be, and how many of them try to push the limits of the rules. When the "nice update" posts started causing problems, the MS asked that people try to limit them so that the threads could stay on track. Some users (including the aforementioned BF,T) tried to argue on the basis that it wasn't explicitly against the rules.

All of the arguments against the rule basically boil down to "what if" situations. Remember, the point of having human moderators is so that they can exercise judgement, not simply mechanically enforce the rules. One of the key things that the MS looks for in moderator candidates is common sense. If a moderator does make a mistake or overstep what is required by the situation, there is a complaint process that actually works (or at least did when I was in the MS, since I'm not privvy to the administrative discussions anymore).

This isn't a life or death matter, and it's not as if the MS has been unreasonable in applying the rule. There aren't any examples of times when the MS has abused the rule. The most you have is that there is the potential for it to be abused in the future, and even then there's a process to handle that sort of situation.

I just don't see how it's unreasonable.

Kimball Kinnison