Public Moderators

M

mikestrauss

Squire
I went back and forth on posting this, especially since I think the Alliance GM is opposed to the idea (this is my belief and could be incorrect). But at the end of the day, I believe it is an issue worth raising.

I fully believe the moderators of this board (Paladins) should be identified. At this moment, they hold the one position in the entire Alliance which is not part of the public record. This is particularly worrisome because they hold considerable power on the Alliance boards, with very few checks.

I especially think this is pertinent in the wake of the recent GM announcement regarding online decorum. If all members are to be held to higher standards (and they should), the standards should be even higher for those enforce those standards. While I hope and expect that the moderators are beyond approach, some people in positions of power commonly abuse that power, both in the world at large, and (unfortunately) historically within our organization. Anonymity makes such abuses easier to engage in and less likely to be discovered.

I am proposing, either now, or in the upcoming reorganization of the boards, that moderators are identified publicly. I especially find this important since it appears they will soon possess banning authority. In the same way we as a society would not accept our police officers being anonymous, I do not believe the Alliance society should continue to accept our enforcers being anonymous.

-MS

P.S. - Read the next post for a compromise option.
 
I didn't want to include this in the original post, because it dilutes the point, but here is a compromise proposal for those concerned about "outing" moderators.

Make the names of all moderators public, but continue to use pseudonyms (Paladins) for moderation duties. The names of moderators would not be associated with a specific Paladin name.

This still creates more scrutiny, but less direct blow-back when a player disagrees with a Paladin decision.

-MS
 
Last edited:
I don't know that using the handles will prevent blowback in any particular fashion, but it would be a useful device for delineating when someone is "speaking from their office" vs when they're just chatting things up.
 
Mike,

Your suggestion has been duly noted.

However, to make one thing clear... The Paladins already have banning authority. They have been able to issues warnings and 24 hour bans since their implementation.

Further, there has never... And I will repeat this to be clear... Never been a ban longer than 24 hours placed against a user where that ban was not first vetted by Joe (the committee chair), Ali (or whoever the chair was at that time), or myself.

With that said, the Paladins themselves have been questioning the value of anonymity although there has been no consensus to speak of.

This will be addressed when final changes are made. Although I do not feel comfortable making any guarantees either way.

If you, or anyone, has further questions I would urge you to contact me via the email listed in the announcement.

Regards,
Stephen
National CS
 
I would agree with Mike on this. My personal opinion on the matter leans towards the perceived 'toxicity' being in large part a result of the perceived tendency of the anonymous moderation team to jump on discussion posts for issues of tone rather than substance.

This board is, on the whole, remarkably polite in comparison to most internet discussion forums. Trying to read intent via written tone is a deeply problematic issue because it leads to what are simply poorly worded discussions being taken as personal insults, and jumping on a thread and locking it down rather than calling it out and letting the person whose writing is problematic restate their position. This creates a hostile atmosphere, and tension between a userbase that has no real metric to gauge at what point an anonymous moderator is going to sweep down on a discussion and lock it, meaning that open and frank discussion of differences in perception of the spirit of the game, or local rules, are essentially impossible.

I would suggest that this is much more likely to be the culprit for people moving to other, less strictly controlled discussion avenues rather than using these forums often.
 
Your suggestions are duly noted and will be considered as we make changes.

With that said, our chair is on vacation with her family. So it will be waiting until she returns.

Regards,

Stephen
National CS
 
It is worth noting, however, that the percieved "toxicity" is not the perception of all of the users on the forums.

You are correct when you say that the forums are ON THE WHOLE better than a lot of other forums online. But, we do have a very vocal minority who takes their arguments too far.

Just because you have been moderated in the past does not mean you are part of the problem. So don't take this that way.

I, as a customer service rep, receive regular complaints from people who play the game but don't feel comfortable on our boards because of the way "discussions" are handled. That is a problem and one that we need to find a way to address.

We should endeavor to be more than polite.

Regards,
Stephen
National CS
 
To be honest, I can totally understand the reason for the Paladins being anonymous, because I'd really, really hate to moderate my friends publicly, when they get a little "free with their words."
 
Draven said:
To be honest, I can totally understand the reason for the Paladins being anonymous, because I'd really, really hate to moderate my friends publicly, when they get a little "free with their words."
Click to expand...

This.
As the former customer service rep for one of our chapters, it's hard enough having to go to people you otherwise adore and have a serious, face-to-face confidential discussion with them about complaints brought against them. It is also hard having to moderate interpersonal conflict as a mediator or middleman - even privately. These things are not easy, not fun, and if the party against whom the complaint is leveraged chooses to interpret the complaint as being made by, say, the CS guy/gal and not the person who actually made it, it can make friendships tenuous or, worse, fall apart.

Now put that in a public forum, where everyone can see. I've been in that place, as the moderator of the forums for a movie with a decently large following circa 2008-2010. It sucks.

I can't fault wanting to let there be some personal buffer space between our forum moderators and forum patrons, because their job a) sucks, b) is necessary, and c) can be really uncomfortable when the guy you have to banhammer is, oops, maybe a dear friend to you and this is an important space to them.

Do I think this should come down to the feelings of our mods? Not exclusively, maybe. Do I think that is a thing to consider? Yes, because I already see enough petty stuff come between friendships in our game and don't think this needs to be one of them.
 
I always have disliked the secret police that the paladins become. If they are not doing anything wrong then why should they need to hide who they are. It creates a very us vs them environment. If you have to mod your friends and the modding is for a legit reason they will/should understand that. Or you can just let the other mods deal with an issue you might have a personal conflict of interest in.

I can't see anything wrong with more Transparency from the people with the power in the forums and the game. But having to hide behind anonymous names implies you have something to hide. If you want to yield the power of the banhammer you should be willing to do it openly and publicly.
 
Tantarus said:
I always have disliked the secret police that the paladins become. If they are not doing anything wrong then why should they need to hide who they are. It creates a very us vs them environment. If you have to mod your friends and the modding is for a legit reason they will/should understand that. Or you can just let the other mods deal with an issue you might have a personal conflict of interest in.

I can't see anything wrong with more Transparency from the people with the power in the forums and the game. But having to hide behind anonymous names implies you have something to hide. If you want to yield the power of the banhammer you should be willing to do it openly and publicly.
Click to expand...

And generally people who receive the power of the banhammer (or even just getting warned) aren't acting with maturity and could potentially act petty towards someone who's just trying to do their job.

While being Public would discourage Bad Folks from abusing their authority, it would also discourage Good Folks from actually using theirs.

If you don't trust Upper Management to employ good Paladins, then I don't think making them Public would resolve the core issue that exists.

Edit: To compare, there's a reason why most HR groups allow people to report violations of business rules anonymously. It's because retaliation against Good Folks is a thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jim
Why would good folks who have the authority be scared to use it if they are in the right? If that is the case I would argue that the right people have the power in this case if they lack the will to use it just because there name will be attached to that use, and they can be held accountable to abuses.

Draven said:
If you don't trust Upper Management to employ good Paladins, then I don't think making them Public would resolve the core issue that exists.
Click to expand...

Why? Would it hurt? Since when has more transparency hurt? It can help build a bridge of trust, if anything. When someone you know says hey, chill out you are getting a bit heated it will mean alot more then if a random Anon mod comes down on you. For all you know that guys is buddy buddy with the person on the other side of the disagreement and just backing there friend using their mod powers to do it.

More openness can only lead to better things. It is easy to feel like a Anon mod is being unfair, but if you have a name/face to attach to it, perhaps you will be less likely to lash out at them or assume the worst of them.

Your comparison is pretty non-sequator to modding a forum. The Anon mods have all the power in this discussion not the posters. In your example the business has all the power not the anon reporting employee.

Edit: I am not saying the mods are bad people, or not trustworthy. So.... Trust but verify. (Don't ban me please!)
 
Last edited:
Draven said:
Edit: To compare, there's a reason why most HR groups allow people to report violations of business rules anonymously. It's because retaliation against Good Folks is a thing.
Click to expand...

Not really a valid comparison. This would be more along the lines of having anonymous line managers to discipline staff who speak up if they do not agree with the tone of their commentary.
 
Tantarus said:
Why would good folks who have the authority be scared to use it if they are in the right?
Click to expand...

Because, in the real world, people don't perceive the reason that they were banhammered as being justified and reasonable?

Person A: This idea is stupid! I can't believe you suggested it! You clearly have no place making suggestions like this! Please refrain from posting until you learn2rules!

Person B (Admin): <Banhammer>

Person A sending Person B a FB message: Why'd I get banhammered?

Person B: Because you acted against the rules of the forums. Sorry, pal.

---What we'd like to believe happens---
Person A: You're totes correct. I was a jerk. My bad. Won't happen again.

---What really happens---

Person A to Person C: I can't believe it. I got banned!

Person C: What? Why?

person A: I told someone why their rules suggestion wouldn't work. And Person B banned me! And since The Guy I criticized is a friend of Big Mucky Muck, I bet he was all butthurt and complained.

Person C: That's so stupid. I'm sorry, man. I can't believe they let that crap happen.

-----------

So yeah, if you trust the Paladins, like you said you do, then you probably understand why they'd want to avoid some drama for doing what's basically a thankless job.
 
I moderate under this account.

To say that I have been treated "reasonably" by people I have disciplined because my name is public is false.

There are some arguments against anonymous Paladins... That is plainly not one of them.

With that said... These complaints and suggestions are being taken under advisement. We will consider them when it is time.

Until then... I will not close this discussion so long as we can remain civil and cool.
 
For the record: I don't trust the Paladins. I find them annoying and generally full of themselves (seriously, Paladin of Ice? "Everyone should chill out?" C'mon.) (Also, what's up with the aggrandizement of "Paladin" and then hiding in anonymity... "I'm so good and pure!" "Who are you?" "Eeek, hide me, hide me!!!") . I generally don't agree with all the times they've chastised me (good job chastising those other people, though!), and find their job entirely necessary and irritating, and I'm thankful they're doing it. The players I respect are pretty much in a lose-lose situation. At best, I accept their chastisement on the chin and just move on. Worst, I think they've been secretly out to get me (lookin' at you, Chaos!) and now are using their powers for eeeeeevil. The players I really don't respect are pretty much boned at every turn, unless they're supporting me, in which case maybe I'll give them a silver star (but not gold, that's only for my friend).

Does that sound like I don't really know what I think? Cuz, I don't. Do I think they should be made public? I dunno. I'm not too concerned with it.
 
I... am of two minds here. I appreciate Paladin anonymity because people generally can be unreasonable when censured. I am concerned with Paladin anonymity because they are as fallible as any of us. They may read tone where there is none, or over-react in a given situation. Ultimately, I'd rather there be Paladin anonymity, but a record of grievances made against a given Paladin title that is made public every quarter or so (a generalized list that is non-identifying of the complainant)
 
jpariury said:
For the record: I don't trust the Paladins. I find them annoying and generally full of themselves (seriously, Paladin of Ice? "Everyone should chill out?" C'mon.) (Also, what's up with the aggrandizement of "Paladin" and then hiding in anonymity... "I'm so good and pure!" "Who are you?" "Eeek, hide me, hide me!!!") . I generally don't agree with all the times they've chastised me (good job chastising those other people, though!), and find their job entirely necessary and irritating, and I'm thankful they're doing it. The players I respect are pretty much in a lose-lose situation. At best, I accept their chastisement on the chin and just move on. Worst, I think they've been secretly out to get me (lookin' at you, Chaos!) and now are using their powers for eeeeeevil. The players I really don't respect are pretty much boned at every turn, unless they're supporting me, in which case maybe I'll give them a silver star (but not gold, that's only for my friend).

Does that sound like I don't really know what I think? Cuz, I don't. Do I think they should be made public? I dunno. I'm not too concerned with it.
Click to expand...

I don't know how entertaining this post was supposed to be, but it made my day.
 
Draven said:
So yeah, if you trust the Paladins, like you said you do, then you probably understand why they'd want to avoid some drama for doing what's basically a thankless job.
Click to expand...

I didn't say I trust them. I said I was not calling them untrustworthy. It was more a neutral statement. It is pretty hard to trust someone hiding who they are and judging from up high. What I want is transparency, which also gives accountability.

They (you as well) ask for us to trust them but do not offer any of the same trust in return. We are all adults. They should trust us to follow the rules, and we should trust them to moderate the boards fairly. And when we don't follow the board rules, then they have the power to act. They hold all the power, expect all the trust. And give nothing in return. As it is, it is a pretty one sided arrangement. If they want the trust of the community they should put trust in the community and stop hiding behind aliases.
 
The Paladins are anonymous, but the people who manage them are not.

Is it really assumed that we don't deal with them? Or talk with them? or anything?

Serious question... Would a more regimented appeals system make people less aggitated?

Say.. If paladin of flame bans you for whatever.. You can appeal to someone. And then the appeal person and three other Paladins would review the case?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top