Public Moderators
- Thread starter mikestrauss
- Start date
jpariury
Duke
I have never thought "Ah, yes, more bureaucracy would make me feel better about this". I either think I'm right, or (hopefully) own up to my mistake.
Tantarus
Knight
It is not public so how are we to know? As I have been saying Transparency clears up a lot of things. And you know what they say about people that Assume stuff.
That would be a great start, I think.
Though honestly my annoyance with the paladins locking threads that are going along and having a good back and forth debate because they think it is more heated then it is. And that just kills the discussion forever. Even if it is just a 24 hour lock out, people never get back to it. Let people talk and moderate them as needed but paladins are very quick to lock threads and ruin good discussions. Keeping people in line or on topic it needed sometimes but total locks on threads with plenty of good discussion happens far to much, imo.
That is a good point.
We have been locking threads because we, as a group, thought that was a good idea.
We can reevaluate that philosophy.
I have to go spend time with my wife. I might not get to respond for a while.
My silence does not mean I am ignoring you.
I just want to play Splatoon.
My silence does not mean I am ignoring you.
I just want to play Splatoon.
Gunnar
Squire
The paladins will not be being made public. This is not up for discussion.
There will be a post discussing the new rules as well as the reasons behind them (including the anonymity of the Paldins) in upcoming weeks when I am back from vacation. I would very, very much appreciate it if questions could please go to the email provided, rather than be declared on the boards at this time.
While I appreciate everyone's opinion, the way this situation is to be handled is already something that is being worked on, and does not need further opinions on the matter. Please respect that at this time.
Thank you,
Alison Buntemeyer
Alliance Chairman
There will be a post discussing the new rules as well as the reasons behind them (including the anonymity of the Paldins) in upcoming weeks when I am back from vacation. I would very, very much appreciate it if questions could please go to the email provided, rather than be declared on the boards at this time.
While I appreciate everyone's opinion, the way this situation is to be handled is already something that is being worked on, and does not need further opinions on the matter. Please respect that at this time.
Thank you,
Alison Buntemeyer
Alliance Chairman
Last edited:
mikestrauss
Squire
I want to make myself clear in advance. I respect Alison, but I cannot acquiesce to her request on this. I will keep my posts polite and on point (as to avoid moderation on this thread), but I will continue to express my opinion. This is a pertinent topic that deserves public discussion, especially if a member of national staff is going to make what appears to be a unilateral decision and attempt to stifle discussion on that topic.
There are two major reasons that I feel moderators should be public. First is simple transparency. It is something that is sadly lacking in the Alliance and I have witnessed that lack of transparency create rifts and problems for the past 20 years. I am not trying to insult Alison, because I know she is simply doing what she thinks is best, but her recent posts on the boards highlight this lack of transparency. The post in this thread attempts to stifle public discussion. Similarly in a Gypsy thread she recently stifled discussion as well. Both posts come with a promise of explanation (which I firmly believe is forthcoming), but it seems rather heavy handed. The 2.0 rules are also an example which is problematic, because some people are "in the know" and others are not. If the knowledgeable people were just those working on the rules, that would be fair, but the information is shared more freely than that by some, creating another lack of transparency.
The second reason I feel moderators should be public has to do with personal disputes / favoritism. This really hit home for me recently when I received a warning from a Paladin. I had accidentally posted in the wrong forum and the Paladin game me a deserved warning. As part of that Paladin said that he or she knew me and knew I was just trying to be helpful. So, if anything, I might have benefited from my relationship (whatever it is) with that Paladin. But, even as I read that, I realized that if the Paladin had disliked me in real life, the situation might have turned out very different. It is an unfortunate fact that not everyone in our game gets along. And Paladins are people. If they dislike someone or don't trust them, they are likely to be harsher in enforcing board rules. And anonymity lets them get away with that. Similarly, anonymity lets Paladins get away with being more lenient to their friends.
Despite the statement of the Alliance GM, I will continue to petition for public moderators now and in the future. I think it is the right thing.
-MS
Note to Paladins: According to board rules, the Alliance GM cannot unilaterally decide to end a public thread that is on topic, in the correct forum category, and that is being discussed politely. And disagreeing politely is also not a violation of board rules. Thus, this topic should NOT be locked.
There are two major reasons that I feel moderators should be public. First is simple transparency. It is something that is sadly lacking in the Alliance and I have witnessed that lack of transparency create rifts and problems for the past 20 years. I am not trying to insult Alison, because I know she is simply doing what she thinks is best, but her recent posts on the boards highlight this lack of transparency. The post in this thread attempts to stifle public discussion. Similarly in a Gypsy thread she recently stifled discussion as well. Both posts come with a promise of explanation (which I firmly believe is forthcoming), but it seems rather heavy handed. The 2.0 rules are also an example which is problematic, because some people are "in the know" and others are not. If the knowledgeable people were just those working on the rules, that would be fair, but the information is shared more freely than that by some, creating another lack of transparency.
The second reason I feel moderators should be public has to do with personal disputes / favoritism. This really hit home for me recently when I received a warning from a Paladin. I had accidentally posted in the wrong forum and the Paladin game me a deserved warning. As part of that Paladin said that he or she knew me and knew I was just trying to be helpful. So, if anything, I might have benefited from my relationship (whatever it is) with that Paladin. But, even as I read that, I realized that if the Paladin had disliked me in real life, the situation might have turned out very different. It is an unfortunate fact that not everyone in our game gets along. And Paladins are people. If they dislike someone or don't trust them, they are likely to be harsher in enforcing board rules. And anonymity lets them get away with that. Similarly, anonymity lets Paladins get away with being more lenient to their friends.
Despite the statement of the Alliance GM, I will continue to petition for public moderators now and in the future. I think it is the right thing.
-MS
Note to Paladins: According to board rules, the Alliance GM cannot unilaterally decide to end a public thread that is on topic, in the correct forum category, and that is being discussed politely. And disagreeing politely is also not a violation of board rules. Thus, this topic should NOT be locked.
Draven
Count
I believe the problems in question are more a subject of opinion, and ultimately, people are asking for transparency that, in their opinion, would be good for the game, and somehow feel entitled to.
Transparency like this? This is how you drive people away from doing their jobs. Accountable? They -aren't- accountable to the players. They won't ever be. Making their names public won't change it. It would only make retaliation possible, and -that's- not good for the game.
Transparency like this? This is how you drive people away from doing their jobs. Accountable? They -aren't- accountable to the players. They won't ever be. Making their names public won't change it. It would only make retaliation possible, and -that's- not good for the game.
Mike,
The thread isn't locked.
Regards,
Stephen
National CS
The thread isn't locked.
Regards,
Stephen
National CS
Mike Ventrella
Duke
Keep in mind that the Paladins answer to me and the GM. If anyone has a problem with them, there is a way to go over their heads and complain.
We didn't just pick our friends; we chose people who were reasonable online and who understood what their job is, and we have a hidden area where we can discuss bannings and other procedures so that no one paladin goes too far.
Keep in mind as well that while this is a public Board, no one has the "right" to post here, any more than you have the "right" to play our game. If you don't abide by the rules (including the "Good Sportsman" rule) we can make you leave.
As I've made the comparison on my blog, imagine this as a party where you are invited. If you start arguments and are making the party less fun for everyone else, we will ask you to leave. This does not violate your rights in the slightest.
Keeping the paladins secret is the best was to assure that they can continue to interact with everyone in the game without making unnecessary enemies.
The Paladins are accountable. They are accountable to management, not players.
We didn't just pick our friends; we chose people who were reasonable online and who understood what their job is, and we have a hidden area where we can discuss bannings and other procedures so that no one paladin goes too far.
Keep in mind as well that while this is a public Board, no one has the "right" to post here, any more than you have the "right" to play our game. If you don't abide by the rules (including the "Good Sportsman" rule) we can make you leave.
As I've made the comparison on my blog, imagine this as a party where you are invited. If you start arguments and are making the party less fun for everyone else, we will ask you to leave. This does not violate your rights in the slightest.
Keeping the paladins secret is the best was to assure that they can continue to interact with everyone in the game without making unnecessary enemies.
The Paladins are accountable. They are accountable to management, not players.
Muir
Fighter
Mike, the impression that I get is the same one that has come up in the Transforms/Greater Races/Etc thread. People encounter what they perceive, rightly or wrongly, as a situation where there is a clique, and the rules do not apply evenly to those who are and aren't in that favored position towards the people in power. Anonymity just makes that perception worse, because all the average player can rely on is a blanket statement that those in charge discipline their clique, which may or may not be accepted depending on how an individual poster's interactions with the staff have gone.
Inaryn
Knight
I'd personally rather not know who's moderating me if I get moderated. Because then it's just "I did something wrong" and not "John smith doesn't like me so he took exception and moderated me."
Because anonymous makes it business and known runs the very real risk of making it personal.
Because anonymous makes it business and known runs the very real risk of making it personal.
Draven
Count
Let's be real, here.
Public moderators aren't going to change someone's perception of fairness. Instead, they'll just be able to label who's "part of the club" in their perception of the imagined cliques.
Example, instead of you thinking the Paladin of Awesome is Part Of The Club, you'll think it's John Carpenter. But at least now, you can tell John Carpenter exactly what you think of his moderating.
OrcFighterFTW
Spellsword
I'm going to post to give some transparency on this. I was a Paladin for two years. The process may have changed since I left the position, but when I did it, this is generally what happened:
1) The Paladins are each assigned to to specific board topics and are required to monitor them on a regular basis, at least a few times per week or when reports come in. The reports are updated in real-time.
2) If a post is deemed to violate the rules, the Paladin must make a posting on the Moderate boards with all sorts of documentation including the complete text of the post, the IP address of the poster, and the exact violation and the actions taken.
3) Other Paladins and those who have access to the Paladins report to can also see these and respond to the discussion accordingly.
4) If there is ever a question of what to do or if the Paladins disagree, the Paladins discuss it in the thread and through that process an agreement is made and action is taken. This was usually within 24 hours of the original post.
5) Follow up actions and responses from the original poster are also documented. Repeat offenders are watched more closely.
6) Rinse and repeat this process.
Basically what I'm trying to say is that while Paladins are anonymous, their actions are not. Everything is documented in great detail and saved on the boards. As best I knew, both national staff and owners could see the Moderator boards.
Additionally, I fully support the anonymity. I once had to warn a friend while I was living with him as a roommate. I would have never done so if I had to identify myself (for obvious reasons). However, since his post was under the board topic that was assigned to me, I was required to act in my position. These types of cases are why anonymity is important.
On a final point, do not assume that the Paladin of Whatever who you talked to last year is the same Paladin of Whatever as this year. Like all staff positions, these change over time. If you have a problem or question about a Paladin, please reach out to those who have been identified previously in this thread.
1) The Paladins are each assigned to to specific board topics and are required to monitor them on a regular basis, at least a few times per week or when reports come in. The reports are updated in real-time.
2) If a post is deemed to violate the rules, the Paladin must make a posting on the Moderate boards with all sorts of documentation including the complete text of the post, the IP address of the poster, and the exact violation and the actions taken.
3) Other Paladins and those who have access to the Paladins report to can also see these and respond to the discussion accordingly.
4) If there is ever a question of what to do or if the Paladins disagree, the Paladins discuss it in the thread and through that process an agreement is made and action is taken. This was usually within 24 hours of the original post.
5) Follow up actions and responses from the original poster are also documented. Repeat offenders are watched more closely.
6) Rinse and repeat this process.
Basically what I'm trying to say is that while Paladins are anonymous, their actions are not. Everything is documented in great detail and saved on the boards. As best I knew, both national staff and owners could see the Moderator boards.
Additionally, I fully support the anonymity. I once had to warn a friend while I was living with him as a roommate. I would have never done so if I had to identify myself (for obvious reasons). However, since his post was under the board topic that was assigned to me, I was required to act in my position. These types of cases are why anonymity is important.
On a final point, do not assume that the Paladin of Whatever who you talked to last year is the same Paladin of Whatever as this year. Like all staff positions, these change over time. If you have a problem or question about a Paladin, please reach out to those who have been identified previously in this thread.
I firmly support the Paladins remaining anonymous from the general public, and I firmly support Ali and Mike in their decision to maintain that anonymity, and in their (joint) decision to restructure the forums. The actual identities of the Paladins isn't something that needs to be public knowledge. Every Paladin can see every instance of moderation that Paladin does, they self report every action they take, and their identities are known to Stephen D, Joe P, Ali, Mike, and all of the Chapter Owners. They are absolutely accountable for their actions.
If someone has a problem with something a Paladin does there are multiple avenues to report it. They best way to avoid having such a problem is to post courteously when you are able to, and to not post at all when you are not. These are internet discussion forums to share and advance a hobby that the users have in common. There will never be something anyone here has to say that is so important that it's worth belittling or insulting another human being. As Mike said, posting here is not a right, and it certainly isn't a requirement.
Again, I firmly support the anonymity of the Paladins and I am doing so while posting under my actual legal name, as I have since day one.
-Daniel Sanders Beshers
If someone has a problem with something a Paladin does there are multiple avenues to report it. They best way to avoid having such a problem is to post courteously when you are able to, and to not post at all when you are not. These are internet discussion forums to share and advance a hobby that the users have in common. There will never be something anyone here has to say that is so important that it's worth belittling or insulting another human being. As Mike said, posting here is not a right, and it certainly isn't a requirement.
Again, I firmly support the anonymity of the Paladins and I am doing so while posting under my actual legal name, as I have since day one.
-Daniel Sanders Beshers
markusdark
Knight
As for anyone thinking that the 'higher ups' only choose moderators who are basically their lickspittles, allow me to make a note about something.
I was once a moderator.
My dissenting voice about a few aspects of the Alliance game as a whole are well known. I was once told that when my name came up in meetings, there would be a collective groan. And yet when I submitted my request all those years ago to become a moderator, it was accepted because despite my views, they were always put out in a manner fitting within the boards (well except for a couple a few years ago but I had removed myself from the moderator role by that time).
Now it was a bit intriguing when I notice that whenever a paladin shut down something I was involved in, it tended to be the same paladin. Further human instincts to finding patterns even where there weren't any had me seeing a pattern and I figured I knew who it was. But that was irrelevant as I also know that whenever action is taken against an individual, an explanation needs to be submitted for all moderators to see and review for the reason and if it was done unfairly, it would be immediately rectified.
When I was a moderator, I would not have been able to do my job effectively if my identity was known. I would be worried about people taking things the wrong way, holding a grudge and with those that I game with, it would make things more troublesome and awkward during the events. To believe that every player would be grown up about things happening here would be wishful thinking as many of us can see how such grudges and prejudices manifest within the games themselves why should it go away in a medium where you don't have to physically face your opponent?
Also, I don't see the difference between reporting to the GM "The Paladin of Donuts wrongly blocked me" vs "JP wrongly blocked me". The only thing knowing the paladin's identity does is allow you to directly confront them which you should never do. When they do something, they believe they are in the right. Your words will rarely change that. Appealing to their superior is the route to go. As such, it doesn't matter whether it's their handle or their real name. However, you can wind up swinging just a bit harder at another player if you know their real name.
In the end, I trust in Mike V. If I feel there is a legitimate and important issue, I'll contact him about it. But I won't be writing him because someone closed down my thread about why I feel that green spell packets would be better for Alchemical globes than orange. I don't prescribe to the boy who called wolf style of reporting.
I was once a moderator.
My dissenting voice about a few aspects of the Alliance game as a whole are well known. I was once told that when my name came up in meetings, there would be a collective groan. And yet when I submitted my request all those years ago to become a moderator, it was accepted because despite my views, they were always put out in a manner fitting within the boards (well except for a couple a few years ago but I had removed myself from the moderator role by that time).
Now it was a bit intriguing when I notice that whenever a paladin shut down something I was involved in, it tended to be the same paladin. Further human instincts to finding patterns even where there weren't any had me seeing a pattern and I figured I knew who it was. But that was irrelevant as I also know that whenever action is taken against an individual, an explanation needs to be submitted for all moderators to see and review for the reason and if it was done unfairly, it would be immediately rectified.
When I was a moderator, I would not have been able to do my job effectively if my identity was known. I would be worried about people taking things the wrong way, holding a grudge and with those that I game with, it would make things more troublesome and awkward during the events. To believe that every player would be grown up about things happening here would be wishful thinking as many of us can see how such grudges and prejudices manifest within the games themselves why should it go away in a medium where you don't have to physically face your opponent?
Also, I don't see the difference between reporting to the GM "The Paladin of Donuts wrongly blocked me" vs "JP wrongly blocked me". The only thing knowing the paladin's identity does is allow you to directly confront them which you should never do. When they do something, they believe they are in the right. Your words will rarely change that. Appealing to their superior is the route to go. As such, it doesn't matter whether it's their handle or their real name. However, you can wind up swinging just a bit harder at another player if you know their real name.
In the end, I trust in Mike V. If I feel there is a legitimate and important issue, I'll contact him about it. But I won't be writing him because someone closed down my thread about why I feel that green spell packets would be better for Alchemical globes than orange. I don't prescribe to the boy who called wolf style of reporting.
Gunnar
Squire
My opinions are echoed by multiple postings on this thread, including Mike V himself. The moderators will be remaining anonymous. As Dan Beshers mentioned, there are plenty of avenues in which to report bad behavior. Please continue to use those avenues freely.
"They best way to avoid having such a problem is to post courteously when you are able to, and to not post at all when you are not. These are internet discussion forums to share and advance a hobby that the users have in common. There will never be something anyone here has to say that is so important that it's worth belittling or insulting another human being. As Mike said, posting here is not a right, and it certainly isn't a requirement."
-Ali Buntemeyer
Alliance Chairman
"They best way to avoid having such a problem is to post courteously when you are able to, and to not post at all when you are not. These are internet discussion forums to share and advance a hobby that the users have in common. There will never be something anyone here has to say that is so important that it's worth belittling or insulting another human being. As Mike said, posting here is not a right, and it certainly isn't a requirement."
-Ali Buntemeyer
Alliance Chairman