Moderator Performance, V.2, Suggestions/Complaints/Compliments Options

[*MyMichelle*]

Robbi rules.

[YourSuperior]

^I agree.

[radhikaeatsraman]

OK, here's my two cents on the overall performance on the moderating team.

Although certain teams on staff are doing a great job (Design Staff), I feel that other groups (People Staff) need to step it up. Especially within the Community Center, member bashing is a huge problem, and I don't see it getting any better. I feel that the members of People Staff are not as coordinated, because certain staff members are way too lenient while others are way too strict. The staff needs to start working together and coordinating duties with each other. If a warning is given to one person for, say, spamming, the other person who does it as well needs to be punished accordingly. The entire staff in general needs to get tough on people who break the rules and not just enforce the rules when it's convenient for them. (I've been seeing a hell of a lot of that lately.)

I know it's frustrating being a moderator, because I've been one before. If there are problems, the staff is blamed for not doing anything about it. When staff gets tough, people complain that they're being "too strict" and "need to loosen up". But as staff, you guys hold the power and make the final decisions. Yes, cB is a democratic community, but there's a point where you have to start making decisions without counting criticism. Enforcing the rules and making cB a pleasant experience for all should be the ultimate priorities, regardless of what certain members may say or do.

[YourSuperior]

^I'm going to have to say that she is damn right.

[radhikaeatsraman]

Your first paragraph was almost the exact same thing tripvertigo said earlier today..

Can you provide specific examples/situations though? I know personally, that I have been warning members for bashing and documenting verbal warnings, and following up on them. To me, the problem is steadily improving. Then again, I could be out of the loop..

The Kryo situation. I agree that he is an extreme example and has been consistently bashing, etc, so a lot of attention is given to him. But if you look through this thread, Diana (Mercy) gives a verbal warning to Tamacracker, but the bashing still continues from shotgunFUNERAL! Not one moderator has warned him yet in that thread. I'm not trying to attack any particular members, but this is simply one example.

[*davinci*]

They should be made in-thread, sent in a PM to the member, and recorded Backstage.

[*superstitious*]

Hm, maybe Diana was only joking around, as I thought. Verbal warnings are supposed to be made through PMs.

Both PMs and the thread in question.

The problem is when there is more than one thread in question. One thread you see it, the other you may not. And if it happens simultaneously, it's difficult to know whether or not the person has seen the PM part of the verbal warning.

Either way, there does need to be more of a coordinated effort. There is a place for documenting warnings and that method is being reviewed.

adsfawefhapwofah@Mona for beating me.

[radhikaeatsraman]

I think we need to overhaul the whole verbal warning system altogether. It's inefficient and ineffective. If we want to get stricter, we need to reform our consequences. Part of the problem is that moderators have to both post and PM the offender. If we eliminate the whole verbal warning deal, this problem will go away.

Here's my solution for offenses. It may seem harsh, but we need something that works:

First offense: Warning level raised to 10% and two-week suspension. Any subsequent accounts made by the offender should be permanently banned. Moderators shall be demoted for a period of two weeks.
Second offense: Warning level raised to 50%, two-month suspension. Same deal about subsequent accounts. Moderators' positions are permanently taken away and they are no longer allowed to apply for future positions, regardless of account.
Third offense: Permanent ban from the community along with all subsequent accounts.

Suspension times and actions taken can vary depending on the severity of the offense.

[*shotgunFUNERAL*]

so you're saying if i become off topic in the slightest bit, i should be banned for two weeks, no?

[Simba]

If we want to get stricter

Well, I suppose that's the question. =P


But yeah, I could agree that the system could be more efficient.

[*SayBloodyMary*]

I think we need to overhaul the whole verbal warning system altogether. It's inefficient and ineffective. If we want to get stricter, we need to reform our consequences. Part of the problem is that moderators have to both post and PM the offender. If we eliminate the whole verbal warning deal, this problem will go away.

Here's my solution for offenses. It may seem harsh, but we need something that works:

First offense: Warning level raised to 10% and two-week suspension. Any subsequent accounts made by the offender should be permanently banned. Moderators shall be demoted for a period of two weeks.
Second offense: Warning level raised to 50%, two-month suspension. Same deal about subsequent accounts. Moderators' positions are permanently taken away and they are no longer allowed to apply for future positions, regardless of account.
Third offense: Permanent ban from the community along with all subsequent accounts.

Suspension times and actions taken can vary depending on the severity of the offense.

That is far, far, too harsh, and I would out and out not support that were it to be introduced.

I understand that it is frustrating for people when it seems like a balance is not being maintained where discipline is concerned. However, I think that (and this isn't an attepmt to trivialize any complaints) a LOT of focus is given to the bad (which is, after all, broadly the purpose of this thread), and the fact that, for the most part, it works just fine is overlooked.

[*SayBloodyMary*]

^ See, now that I concur with. I've moved straight to disaling posting before, simply because I wanted an actual effect.

[*kryogenix*]

Except sometimes, users have been punished unfairly, and the staff has acknowledged the unfair punishments. However, they are still treated under a "ENEMY OF THE STATE" status.

[*SayBloodyMary*]

So, why don't we all just call it water under the bridge?

[*karmakiller*]

I must say that it seems that there have been times when certian staff members have been lenient to members. I don't think it's an issue of staff being lenient to certian members, though. Not every staff member is going to be exactly the same.

I know people have been saying that the staff needs to be on the same page for a while now, and that's something that I can assure you the staff has been working on.

I'm going to go out on a whim and say that if the rules of the warning system are changed that the staff should work with the members (ultimately the ones who would be getting punished) to make a system that seems fair. Obviously, not everyone would come to complete agreement and if it does happen I feel as though it will be something that will turn into members against staff. I deffinately think that things will need to cool down on the boards before that's even considered. I think that if the rules are just layed out to members and staff that it will become less likely for staff to be lenient and then members will know what their consequences will be, no and's if's or but's; They'll only have themselves to blame.

(I'm shutting up now.)

[*steve330*]

I don't think that the rules of the warning system need to be discussed with members, rather just let members know what's going on and what all the rules entail. Asking for member input as to rules such as that would lead to a clusterfuck if you will. You can't please everyone, so just lay down the rules, whether they be stricter or more lenient, and let people know that's that.

[*superstitious*]

Well, the rules are there, I just do not think that people read them, follow them, etc. At the same time people may think that those rules are too harsh and what not, particularly the "Personal Attacks" rule.

PERSONAL ATTACKS
Flaming, trolling, member bashing-you name it-will not be tolerated here. If you're making an argument, it's always better to retort with reason and composure. Personal attacks are childish and have no place in these forums.

Yet people get angry when they are warned for such things and we are referred to by colorful little names because we try to enforce this very rule. Diana made an attempt to engage in dialogue regarding bashing, but instead it (the discussion) evolved into, at times, bitter arguments about how rigid we are.

The "spam" thing is even more complicated. We have a pretty clear set of rules that defines spam, yet we are accused of being too rigid about enforcing these as well.

When one first becomes a moderator, you can get a little nervous. You want to do well, but you don't want to over do it either. So then on one hand, you're not doing enough and on the other you are being too restrictive and overbearing on the community. Sometimes it can be a pretty fine line. What you have to do is excercise your best judgement and know that not everyone will be pleased with your decision(s). This is part of the reason why I prefer PMing so much. I'll close something if I think it should be closed but I always ask that someone PM me if they disagree. I'm human and not at all immune to fallibility, none of us are - staff and members. So if someone PMs me, I usually am quite receptive and more often than not reopen their threads.

What I wish is that we could all find a way to communicate together; staff with staff, staff with members, etc. It would also be nice if people could understand that no one wants to or sets out to purposefully single out anyone, or warn anyone for the sake of warning them. No one wants to purposefully seek out threads to close, just for the sake of closing them. All we try to do is keep things trucking along, and sometimes warning, closing, etc is part of that functionality and ultimately something we signed up for when applying for staff (and being hired on as staff).

I hope I'm not adding to any arguments by saying all of this. I wanted to make an attempt at adding some perspective is all.

[*shotgunFUNERAL*]

kiera, anyone?

[*ersatz*]

What about her?

[*mzkandi*]

Yessssssssssssssss?

[*shotgunFUNERAL*]

just seeing if you're alive.

[radhikaeatsraman]

OH MY FUCKING GOD.
This thread is a fine example of the incompetence of the staff. You CLEARLY see what's going on here (blatant member bashing, off-topic arguing, etc) and the most someone did/said was "Let's get back on topic." Please tell me that some type of action was taken in this thread. -_-

[radhikaeatsraman]

^At this point, community criticism does not matter. They were violating the rules not only in that thread but in other threads as well. Therefore, action should have been taken a long time ago. Yes, community input is important, but it shouldn't interfere with proper enforcement of the rules.

[*superstitious*]

Well then shouldn't I be ignoring your input right now?

I think Radhika meant in regards to already existing rules, not the general feedback given here, such as that which she was giving (moderators not upholding guidelines).

Radhika, with much of what you said I am in absolute agreement. Right now though, we are trying to find some common ground. There is a topic in Feedback, "This is crap.." discussing this very thing. That was the catalyst to trying to meet halfway with the community. It will be an imperfect process and my hope is that no one will get terribly offended in the meanwhile. The line will be drawn, however. A moderator came in and requested that that thread be geared back to the OP's original intent. If the name-calling continues after the fact, yes, something will be done.

[radhikaeatsraman]

If you want to, go right ahead. Even though my feedback is correct and I don't think it should be ignored. =)

edit: Damnit, Rebecca beat me. Thanks though xD

edit2: It's good that you're trying to come to a common ground with members. That's all fine and dandy; however, one thing that should not be compromised is the enforcement of rules. We can work with members to adjust rules, but once they're there, they should be consistently enforced.