TRIALS.

An idea is suggested, a valid one I would have thought, and at best it's dismissed out of hand because, far as I can tell, discussion about what can be done about the rules has been done before. Even if it were to be something that the forum staff had no involvement with whatsoever; it was just between the complainents and an independant review team based on what's visable on the forums, if it would help relieve the concerns of some of the forum members then rather that trawl through a decade's worth of threads could it be explained here why this particular idea wouldn't work?

 

Well, for starters, there's no way IGN would or could do something like that. There's a reason we're moving, because IGN doesn't have the personnel anymore to handle the normal technical stuff for TF.N needs (that's a very simplified version of the reason, naturally), and they certainly don't have the time or inclination to do anything remotely like you suggest. And I don't think anyone else would have the inclination, either.

 

Because there's no need for it. Virtually nothing ever happens around here anymore, and this place is almost beyond quiet. The ship you're talking about boarding sailed when today's college freshmen were still in elementary school.

 

Thanks for making me feel old there

But KW is right, not much really happens around here anymore.

 

Maybe one of the reasons why no one posts is because they are afraid of somehow crossing one of the mods. I'm not saying it is one of the reasons, but it has to be said that if it is believed that criticism does lead to bans, that's one explanation for why it would be so quiet.

But like you said, there's the new Force Unleashed, what else? Not much. Just the same, anything I believe worthwhile I to suggest for improvesments, I'll post.

 

Well, I'll just be blunt. Totally disagree. Seven years ago when this place had pages of new threads and activity in one day, there could have been something said for mods glossing over problems or users being treated unfairly. Goodness knows we had enough Comms threads about every issue under the sun. We just had an incredible volume of traffic at that time. Personally, I think we did a damn good job dealing with the level of trolls, problem users, spammers, etc. all while trying to make this place fun.

Nowadays, there is, on average, about a quarter of the page as 'active' in a day in the JCC. The issues we had in the past are simply not relevant anymore. We've got a system here that pretty much regulates itself in terms of rules and regulations. How many new Comms threads are created because of serious policy or procedure issues rather than just revisiting old ideas? Yeah, my point exactly.

I'm not sure if people truly understand how the MS works. This isn't a system where a mod gets to do stuff on their own terms without other mods seeing it. I can go into the Admin panel and see what mods are doing in terms of bans, edits, etc. I can see unban requests and the responses made by the mods. I assume our admins are doing the same things in order to see what kinds of things are going on around this place. Therefore, an 'independent panel' wouldn't really be needed simply by virtue of the transparency of the way the MS works. We talk about issues as a group and work through problems together.

It's not a bad idea, it's just that the time for this type of action is long past any kind of relevance because we simply don't have the issues or volume of traffic we did in the past.

I'll add that whenever the comment comes up implying that mods ban a user when they get criticized, I get pretty ticked. In all my time modding and adminning (and at this point it's been a LOT), I've never seen a mod just ban someone because they criticized the way they modded. Flaming and baiting is different but I've never seen a mod go off and Rambo users because they got their panties in a twist because of something a user said about them.

 

Following up on what Katya said there, its also generally the case that when someone is banned for flaming a mod, someone (usually several other mods) is involved in the process besides the mod being flamed. Its not a case of a mod seeing someone being critical and calling it a flame and going off the deep end with the banstick - other mods (and admins) look at it to confirm that it was indeed a flame and that action does need to be taken, whether by the mod who was flamed or someone else. Or sometimes a post has been brought to the attention of MS, it was reviewed, and it was decided that it was acceptable and didn't cross the line into flaming, and then no action was taken. The latter case would be all but unnoticed by users outside of MS, as there is no edit/ban or any visible action.

 

Just a nitpick, but isn't calling out other users against the TOS anyways?

 

If someone makes a serious thread complaining about a mod or another user, it should be locked. What I'm talking about are posts where a user might make an offhand comment about a mod's moderating. I've seen plenty of these in my time here. As long as they're not flaming or baiting, those types of posts do not instigate some kind of witch hunt to ban or harass a user. As a mod, you have to have thick skin to realize that not everyone is going to like or agree with decisions you make. Goodness knows, I've had plenty of PM's and Comms threads about things I've done. All I'm trying to say here is that people really need to understand that moderating doesn't happen in a vacuum. My other forum mods see what I'm doing and I can see what mods are doing across forums.

 

Might I point out, as I'm sure it already has been, but I've missed it.........

What's the point of the MS if they're gonna need outside help, that so many in here have bitched about?

That's the whole point of the MS. Them being users as well is the whole point, they know their forums, their regular users and if they need an outside opinion, they can get from a larger group.

Though I can agree on certain members really not needing an opinion, because usernotes CAN be biased, if read by people that don't know the user, getting outside help even furthers people that have no experience with any of the users period, is not the solution.

Trust me, I have plenty of experience, in the mod didn't know me, but went off of my usernotes from other forums they aren't even familiar with, but, what you're suggesting would even further complicate situations that don't need to be complicated in the first place.

 

The point is, the current system doesn't seem to satisfy some people. Even with over two hundred mods working together and the changes that had been implemented over the years some still find cause for complaint. So...what might be done to appease those dissatisfied with the current setup? At the very least by suggesting ideas we can hopefully dispell some of the issues with the forum staff.

 

More like 50 or 60 than 200.

I'm not dismissing complaints AT ALL, but you also have to consider that not everyone will be satisfied with the system - ANY system. There will always be a few who disagree. And the system we've got in place has worked pretty well for the last 12 years, which is why a lot of people don't see a reason to change (if it ain't broke, don't fix it).

That being said, if you have an idea, we'd like to hear it. However, the chances of anything changing are slim to none, if only because we do have a good system already in place.

 

When we're talking about 'some people', what kind of number is that? Two? Ten? Out of hundreds of users and years of this place running, we're never going to appease every single person. I can think of a minimum of five people right now who think we're horrible moderators and out to get them. Which, frankly, isn't true. You have to realize that a good percentage of 'some people' feel persecuted and will never be happy unless we're doing things their way. So there will always be users who find something about which to complain. We can't run this place to the lowest common denominator/minority. If they can't understand how and why we do the things we do, then this may not be the place for them.

Now, I'm not trying to be a downer on your idea here. I'm always open and willing to explore new ways to make this place effective. I just don't agree with an outside person taking a look at how we do things because there really isn't any need. I'm all for people enjoying their experience here, but I'm also a realist and know that not everyone is going to agree with how things are run.

 

I think it was an Amazing guy named "B" that once said it best.

THE JCC CAN'T BE EVERYTHING FO EVERYBODY".

Some people have issues, and yes, maybe some would have ben valid points years ago. There really isn't an issue now. You get edited/banned/etc. you get punish, by the TOS for it.

Jeez, even I understand that by now.

 

A. How will we know if the independent review board is truly independent and not simply trying to curry favor with the MS? Will we have a review board to ensure the review board is behaving properly? Who will police the police?!

B. There used to be Advisory Councils made up of a handful of established members with whom the MS would discuss issues. The AC was seen as a stepping stone to mod-dom, a move designed to placate the masses with no ultimate impact, a useless entity, a great move towards transparency, and roughly everything in between. And that was during a time when new and significant issues would arise every day in Comms and there was a severe (real or perceived depending on one's point of view) disconnect between the MS and the members.

C. I don't really have a C but I hate stopping at two bullet points.

I think it was an Amazing guy named "B" that once said it best.

THE JCC CAN'T BE EVERYTHING FO EVERYBODY

Nah, wasn't me. But it remains a truism.

Amazing.

 

Time flies when you're being baned!!!

It was around quite awhile before I was here, but for some reason I remembered it as B at first.

Mayhaps it's because he has a whole month dedicated to him?

 

If there are suggestions to be made, I think they need to be addressed to a specific example of the problem occurring. I think this has been the problem with most of the suggestions made in this thread - they are always in terms of generalities but lack specific examples that can be looked at and identified and worked on from there.

I think Jello summed it up the best - the system in place here didn't descend down from on high one day in a form that's been adhered to ever since; it's a mish-mash of ideas and proposals that have been cobbled together over the years - some ideas sticking, others not - that have resulted in the system in place today. For it's intended purpose I think it does the job rather well IMHO.

EDIT: ugh, sorry everyone. This is a response to standalone's post a page back - I didn't realise there was a whole extra page of posts.