LucasForums

LucasForums (http://www.lucasforums.com/index.php)
-   Kavar's Corner (http://www.lucasforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=698)
-   -   Forum policies (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=192872)

Jae Onasi 10-10-2008 09:43 AM

Forum policies
 
In view of recent events, the negative tone that has cropped up in recent weeks, and questions about moderation, the staff is discussing changes to put in place both on the user end and the moderation end. If you have any comments, please make them here.

Please keep them constructive--we don't need any more diatribes at this time. I think people are feeling roughed up enough lately. Keep it civil and steer clear of accusations of each other.

GarfieldJL 10-10-2008 09:54 AM

I'm going to suggest there should be an equal number of conservative and liberal moderators here, and that it would take a Conservative and a Liberal moderator to sign off on disciplinary measures.

Yar-El 10-10-2008 09:57 AM

Main Board

Suggestion #1:
How about separating Kavar's Corner into a seperate group, so people can collapse the section through the use of the yellow arrows. (upper right hand corner in each section header). All the other sections in the current group are allways civil. Seeing a thread title may provoke people to comment in a negative way. Giving the user the ability to hide the forum will allow them to fully ignore Kavar's Corner.

Call the new group similar to Debates, Politics, and Current Events.

Suggestion #2
Put everything back into the Senate Chambers and call it a day. Out of sight and out of mind. Anyone who wants to debate heavily can do so, but it will not be in everyone elses face. It can happen quietly and behind closed doors.

Suggestion #3
Just close it down. Its extreme, but it is an option.

I don't like the idea of relating a Star Wars character to politics.

Stream 10-10-2008 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL (Post 2536454)
I'm going to suggest there should be an equal number of conservative and liberal moderators here, and that it would take a Conservative and a Liberal moderator to sign off on disciplinary measures.

That could end up making things a lot worse. If you do that, there could be a very strong possibility that the moderation team end up fighting amongst themselves which could create more havoc in the forum than there already is.

The general idea you have is a good one but I believe that it could work better if you had more moderators that aren't following the politics at all. The chances are you'd probably need people who don't live in the States and so, to a certain extent, aren't affected by the political issues of America.

That way the moderation team shouldn't take sides with any other member whether they're a general user or another member of the team.

EDIT: Looking back at this post it could be easy to misunderstand that last statement. Just to be clear, I don't believe that anything like that does happen anywhere on LF, the admins, supers and mods are a good bunch of guys & gals who are honest and fair. All I meant was, if some mods didn't have any reason to be bias with regards to the political affairs of America, then no one could accuse them of this.

--Stream

El Sitherino 10-10-2008 10:20 AM

Moderators leave politics aside.

Prime 10-10-2008 10:21 AM

That's so crazy it just might work.

jonathan7 10-10-2008 11:42 AM

Wow, I leave for 5 days, and you all manage to have serious fall outs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL (Post 2536454)
I'm going to suggest there should be an equal number of conservative and liberal moderators here, and that it would take a Conservative and a Liberal moderator to sign off on disciplinary measures.

A moderators political persuasion should have little to do with if a post is acceptable or not. I'm apparently a 'liberal' according to some of you, despite the fact I don't believe in democracy. I'm apparently a democrat, despite the fact I'm British, and couldn't give a monkeys about the American presidential election. - So I have been called biased by those who's posts I've moderated - convenient? A correlation? Perhaps a bias on my part is a convenient way of failing to admit something unacceptable has been posted.

I would suggest that remembering there is another human being on the end of a post would be beneficial to all.

Finally after recent events, I will be moderating with zero-tolerance - you have been warned - if you can't behave like adults I'll treat you like children, and discipline hard!

GarfieldJL 10-10-2008 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonathan7 (Post 2536517)
A moderators political persuasion should have little to do with if a post is acceptable or not. I'm apparently a 'liberal' according to some of you, despite the fact I don't believe in democracy. I'm apparently a democrat, despite the fact I'm British, and couldn't give a monkeys about the American presidential election. - So I have been called biased by those who's posts I've moderated - convenient? A correlation? Perhaps a bias on my part is a convenient way of failing to admit something unacceptable has been posted.

To set the record straight:

It has been argued recently that their political persuasion has had something to do with how they've been moderating and taking disciplinary measures. The arguments apparently have more merit than the usual complaints given the reaction by TK102 in one thread and now Jae in this one.

That's why TK102 in one thread and now Jae in this thread are asking for suggestions.

That's why I suggested there be an equal number of conservative and liberal mods for Kavar's Corner, I don't mind the idea of the mods being apolitical like what Stream suggested, but it will be extremely difficult to find someone that is apolitical these days.

KinchyB 10-10-2008 12:38 PM

Well one thing, how about if a moderator is involved in a thread they can't modify the thread...? Not sure there are enough moderators for that, but that should help with anyone trying to say someone is being biased.

On the user side... we need to emphasize what is our opinion as opposed to what we believe to be fact. Also, when in a debate we should concentrate on the issues not on the individual (think this may be a rule already, but can't remember off the top of my head). If this isn't done maybe the post should be snipped...?

El Sitherino 10-10-2008 12:39 PM

Do you have proof moderation has been made based on political bias? As far as I can see from privileged information it's been pretty indescriminate.

Just because you are only aware of action taken against you doesn't mean action hasn't been taken against others involved in situations.

GarfieldJL 10-10-2008 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by El Sitherino (Post 2536542)
Do you have proof moderation has been made based on political bias? As far as I can see from privileged information it's been pretty indescriminate.

Just because you are only aware of action taken against you doesn't mean action hasn't been taken against others involved in situations.

I'm pointing out that there is more there just a few people complaining, and I really don't like being accused of being a liar and neither do the other people involved. So I suggest we stop with the back and forth.


Anyways, as I said about having an equal representation of Liberals and Conservatives in the mod staff for Kavar, it would at least help stiffle the accusations of moderators acting out of partisanship to silence one side or the other.

Astor 10-10-2008 12:49 PM

The moderators, in so far as I have seen, have never used their position to add more weight to their points.

That's why they have the different colour text for when they put on their moderating hats...

Every time i've seen something that has been edited, it's been for good reason. I had someone say some hurtful things to me, on a personal level, and they were removed because they were, quite rightly unacceptable things to say to someone in a discussion.

I've certainly never seen a mod delete or edit perfectly valid responses to a relevant discussion - they're there to see that things stay civil, and within the bounds of decency.

Det. Bart Lasiter 10-10-2008 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL (Post 2536551)
Anyways, as I said about having an equal representation of Liberals and Conservatives in the mod staff for Kavar, it would at least help stiffle the accusations of moderators acting out of partisanship to silence one side or the other.

Politics get put aside when a moderator has to clean up someone else's mess, and as stated before, having partisan moderators is just going to create more bull**** that smods or admins will have to come in and clean up.

Web Rider 10-10-2008 01:58 PM

I would suggest that instead of constantly cropping posts when a topic has moved to a new subject and sending them to all corners of the forum, topics should be allowed to transition into new subjects. Threads do that, everywhere I've ever been except here threads talk about the subject and transition into a new subject, sometimes directly related to the topic, sometimes not.

When threads are separated it really feels like a lot of the momentum gained just dies when that happens. I suggest this because that way mods could focus on when people get out of line instead of when a topic starts to stray.

Stream 10-10-2008 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Web Rider (Post 2536585)
I would suggest that instead of constantly cropping posts when a topic has moved to a new subject and sending them to all corners of the forum, topics should be allowed to transition into new subjects.

In my opinion that wouldn't actually help anything much, if someone comes into a thread halfway that could cause some major confusion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Web Rider (Post 2536585)
Threads do that, everywhere I've ever been except here threads talk about the subject and transition into a new subject, sometimes directly related to the topic, sometimes not.

And if the subject changes to something not related to the original post, what becomes of the thread title - it becomes useless, and the title is what draws a person into the conversation.

What the guys are doing here is fine, they're keeping threads in line with the original post, if it derails then it needs to become a completely new subject and thread - that way everyone knows what it is they're actually talking about.

--Stream

Jae Onasi 10-10-2008 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KinchyB (Post 2536541)
Well one thing, how about if a moderator is involved in a thread they can't modify the thread...? Not sure there are enough moderators for that, but that should help with anyone trying to say someone is being biased.

I try to avoid moderating in the religion threads now for that reason (usually I'll PM another mod to have them look at something I think needs to be addressed), unless it''s such a clear violation of rules that withholding action would be worse. For example if someone started spewing a bunch of expletives or blatantly racist remarks in a religion thread, I would feel compelled to act on that violation.

The people who moderate here are in this forum because we're interested in current affairs and challenging issues just like the rest of our members here, and for the most part we can separate moderation issues from discussion with ease, barring specific subjects that turn out to be hot button issues for us personally. We also don't have the same level of staff available to us as something like the EvC forum which is a single topic, professional-level kind of place with a lot more participants than Kavar's will ever see. We're never going to be able to achieve something like that on a gaming forum with people ranging in age from 13 to 130. So, there is a limited pool of people interested in these topics, and an even more limited number of people who can moderate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KinchyB
On the user side... we need to emphasize what is our opinion as opposed to what we believe to be fact.

Easier said than done. Some of the people posting here just don't have the critical thinking skills developed enough yet. We have people here whose educational levels range from middle school where they're still learning the difference between a verb and an adverb all the way to people with doctorates who not only are comfortable researching but know how to evaluate those sources. It would probably be easier to assume everything here is opinion unless stated specifically otherwise with quoted sources. This forum was designed to run as discussion: 'here's what I think about x' (opinion), with ideally adding 'here's why' (insert fact).

Quote:

Originally Posted by KinchyB
Also, when in a debate we should concentrate on the issues not on the individual (think this may be a rule already, but can't remember off the top of my head). If this isn't done maybe the post should be snipped...?

That level of moderation is certainly doable. It will take some time for people to become accustomed to that, but I don't think it would take long for people to adjust.

tk102 10-10-2008 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Web Rider (Post 2536585)
I would suggest that instead of constantly cropping posts when a topic has moved to a new subject and sending them to all corners of the forum, topics should be allowed to transition into new subjects... When threads are separated it really feels like a lot of the momentum gained just dies when that happens. I suggest this because that way mods could focus on when people get out of line instead of when a topic starts to stray.

Hmm. I'm going to try to take that consequence into account. I know that threads that go off-topic bother me quite a bit. Guess that comes from getting my start with Holowan where tangents can severely limit the effectiveness of a thread. Though debate threads aren't serving the same purpose and modding threads, it's still a bit disorganized to try to find that one discussion about Obama's legal cases with ACORN in a thread named "Dow dips below 10000" (most recent example).

Darth333 10-10-2008 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL (Post 2536454)
I'm going to suggest there should be an equal number of conservative and liberal moderators here, and that it would take a Conservative and a Liberal moderator to sign off on disciplinary measures.

We definitely won't start looking at political affiliations, religious beliefs, origin or whatever when we appoint moderators. It is irrelevant (and in some places it can also be considered illegal...not sure about the US though)... Don't forget that while LF is a US based forums, there are members (regular and staff) from all around the world and from diverse backgrounds, age and origins who visit here and therefore, what you propose would be totally useless and would only create more problems. The objective of Kavar is to discuss "serious" topics and share your opinions with other LF members in an informal and friendly manner. Politics is only one of the many subjects that can be discussed here... if we start doing this with politics...then what about the threads on religion, foreign policy, etc... :whacked:


While mistakes can happen, we have forum rules and we try to be as objective as possible when we moderate and we certainly don't expect everyone to think alike...Sometimes, discussions get heated (and that is particularly true in Kavar due to the nature of the discussions) and it is not necessarily always easy to determine where exactly to draw the line as there are things that can be considered offensive to some people but not to others. Other times, some things can be misinterpreted too. A bit of tolerance from all sides can't hurt...lighten up!

I think everyone, not only the staff, should try to be respectful towards other members, regardless of their opinions and education on some issues. It is perfectly possible to make a point without having to call others "morons", "ignorants" or whatever... If people would take the time to re-read their posts as if they were on the "other" side before clicking the post button, maybe it would help the improve overall atmosphere here.

Edit: and I agree with WR to some extent. Just cropping a thread in the middle because it touches another subject isn't always the best solution. However, sometimes it can also be annoying, especially for the thread starter to see his or her thread taking an entirely different direction....I guess that's something that can only be done on a case by case basis and we should look at the possible consequences.


FYI, while I am not an active poster in Kavar for several reaons, I do read most of the threads.

Achilles 10-10-2008 04:19 PM

I agree with tk102.

I do wish there was more consistency with regards to posts that are snipped for off-topic, split for off-topic, merged for off-topic, etc.

Stream 10-10-2008 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darth333 (Post 2536653)
We definitely won't start looking at political affiliations, religious beliefs, origin or whatever when we appoint moderators. It is irrelevant (and in some places it can also be considered illegal)

When I first posted in this thread I hadn't thought about that. Here in the UK the laws would have you straight away for something like that and there would be no way out of it.

--Stream

Litofsky 10-10-2008 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darth333 (Post 2536653)
It is perfectly possible to make a point without having to call others "morons", "ignorants" or whatever... If people would take the time to re-read their post as if they were on the "other" side before clicking the "post button, maybe it would help the improve overall atmosphere here.

Quote for truth. I've almost posted things sometimes that were incorrect- only rereading stopped me. It helps to read things more than once, and rather than call people names, try to punch holes in their logic. If they refuse to see the other side, well, keep at it. :p

Hopefully this is the beginning of a semi-respectful time in Kavar's.

Yar-El 10-10-2008 04:35 PM

Discrimination is an ugly thing. United States has laws against such acts. I don't see how we can accomplish anything through discrimination.

Darth333 hit it on the nose. Everyone should be respectful and tolerant. I found in some cases people are agreeing with each other, but they don't fully read the posts in which they reply. Arguments are being made without full comprehension of a poster's statement. Sometimes some of us only read two lines from the top, three lines from the bottom, and then reply without a full understanding. I just had someone do that to me in another thread. He quickly apologized, and everything was oky. However, that was a rare occassion.

In another more recent thread, we were all talking about Universal Healthcare. Some how the thread turned into talking about death, but the person being attacked didn't make such of a claim. Following the initial poster's response, another individual made the comment about death. After a third visitor entered the thread, the original poster was accused of making the death statement. Some of the crazyness in here is about people skipping over posts and comments. Reading one post doesn't mean you comprehend the nature of a topic.

stoffe 10-10-2008 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KinchyB (Post 2536541)
Well one thing, how about if a moderator is involved in a thread they can't modify the thread...?

The biggest problem with that system is that the people who read the threads and knows the participants are generally those who are interested in the topic (and thus tends to participate). Someone completely disinterested in politics, for example, is unlikely to spend hours reading through hundreds of long posts discussing political issues just to make sure that nobody gets out of line. All the active forum staff are volunteers who look after the forum communities in our spare time. (I usually don't read this forum, for example, and would not consider myself either motivated or qualified to do any moderation in it, even if I technically could do so.)

Still, I can see the concern that moderators might let their personal opinions influence their decisions and how they perceive what's being written by others, subconsciously or otherwise, but I don't know if anything could be done about that. We're all human beings who make mistakes, can have a bad day, can misunderstand and misinterpret things. We tend to form opinions about others based on what they say and write.

In some more complex issues matters are brought up for discussion in the private moderator forum to get second opinions and hopefully reach the right decision. This usually isn't done in more minor or clear cut cases though since it would take too long to get anything done. In those cases it's usually left to the judgment of the individual moderator.

Ray Jones 10-10-2008 05:02 PM

I always figured the mods of Kavar's and the Senate are doing a pretty good job, a job which is not always easy to do at those places. I consider their decisions to have at least heard of the idea of trying to be fair and objective. (:p) And I don't see any problems with the current policy of cropping and merging post, either.

I see it that most "problems" really stem from the fact that some seem to think words like "moron" or "****" will strengthen the point they're trying to make. Also, people should consider to whine less when they recognise someone has a good point and just gives a ****load of work to the censor just because he can. -- People need to relax.

KinchyB 10-10-2008 05:18 PM

Suggestion #3

How about an IQ type test for those who are posting?! :D

You don't pass or score high enough you can't post! Problem solved!! I'm a solutioner! :)*

/levity

Edit by d3: not really a solution...people can still be [*censored*] no matter what their IQ, political affiliations, religious beliefs, education, origins, riches, etc... are.

Arcesious 10-10-2008 05:52 PM

I don't see what's the big deal... Kavar's seems to have gotten nicer and calmer as we've all gotten used to each other, IMHO.

I suggest we all take a deep breath and try to have fun in the debates too. I have some great memories from being on this forum from some of the funny things that have happened as we sometimes went a bit off-topic. That's why I'm trying to make cheerful remarks more often...

Remember this from the Presupposition thread?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Me, the almighty haXXor Arcesious
And the other atom says "Gimme!"

Why don't we do that kind of thing more often in all our posts?

igyman 10-10-2008 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darth333
We definitely won't start looking at political affiliations, religious beliefs, origin or whatever when we appoint moderators. It is irrelevant (and in some places it can also be considered illegal...not sure about the US though)...

Precisely. Appointing moderators shouldn't have anything to do with where they're from, or what their political and religious views are. However, on an english language forum, I suppose it's preferable that the mods are as good with english as they are with their native language.
My suggestion when it comes to moderating threads in Kavar's is that perhaps it wouldn't hurt that a moderator who, well, moderates a thread hasn't posted in it. Why? I think a moderator who hasn't even taken a look at a thread can be more objective when it comes to the big question: Has a member broken a forum rule?
If someone posts in a thread and then thinks it needs to be moderated, what may happen is (and I'm not saying that it has) that the person may on some level be influenced by his/her own opinion on the topic and might find some posts offensive, if they attack that point of view. Now, while I personally haven't seen this happen in Kavar's, it doesn't mean that it never has, or never will. Moderators are, after all, regular people like the rest of us, which means they can make mistakes and I'm sure each and every one of them has at least once made a moderator decision that was in part influenced by their own emotions.

SD Nihil 10-10-2008 08:54 PM

I got an idea. Maybe a screening test for new mods. Give a test. A written test with situations given and different situations of reported possible rules broken and the potential mod is to answer correctly which one is actually a rule break and which one is just a extreme political comment.

What I mean is a test with situations listed and you have to pick the one that is actually a rule break. If the person taking the test picks the wrong answers (meaning the legit posts that were just possibly extreme) then they are disqualified.

Or ones that are questionable and require a judgment call.

See what I mean some kind of test too see if the mod's judgment is based on bias or if they are making the decision based on objective thinking.

Yes I agree about the mods not posting on thread. I know it takes the fun out of it. But sometimes it can make people feel a little un comfortable. Especially if people think that mod is biased.

So yes this is difficult. We need some way to prevent biased mods from moderating only the one side. People may say they are not being biased, but there is such a thing as sub conscious bias.

About the threads being split up I am not sure on that either. On the one hand it does organize things better. But it does make the momentum lost. Also however, threads shouldn't always be split up if they go in a different direction. I know the reason is so that a newcomer to the thread doesn't come in not knowing the direction has been changed. But is it not the responsibility of the individual to read the posts before posting?

So yeah you could have pros and cons to both on that.

As for the comment of having liberal and conservative mods your right you cannot profile due to the law. But at the same time the problem with preventing mods from using bias in their decisions needs to be corrected.

No matter how hard we try to not use bias in our decision making it can be hard if say your on a news channel. Look at CNN or Fox. They don't want to be biased one way or the other, but it is hard to separate your core beliefs and convictions from the equation.

I can't just flip a switch and turn off my faith from effecting the decions I make in my life. I believe you shouldn't.

This is difficult. Aside from the test idea I said at the beginning I'm just not sure what the answer is here.

Conservatives here think there has been bias and a problem. I do too. liberals and liberal mods don't think there has been a problem. Higher admins that have not participated in all of this till now are looking at this and still are un sure if there is or is not a problem. I think they are at a loss here. They feel their guys until now have not done anything they are aware of until now.

So they are looking at this and wondering who do they believe here. They may have known their fellow mods and admins under them longer than they have us. So there is that trust and familiarity and loyalty.

So this can be tough on everyone and other's relationships. I don't think anyone here is a bad person. Nor do I hate or despise anyone. I don't. I just feel tired.

I feel the liberal mods have a sub conscious bias at times. They don't mean to it's just hard I guess when you have your opinion you feel so strongly about. Or maybe some are conscious. I don't know. That's just me. I want to think good in people before bad.

All I know is something has to be done here. Totenkopft has told me he's left permanently until things change and those that did wrong in his opinion get a good dressing down. Garfield feels no ones changing their opinion when debating so it's like beating a dead well he said cow, I think it's horse.:)

I feel worried to post with all my infractions that are being looked into. I never meant to offend anyone here when I made comments. I never meant to offend anyone. Again I say I'm sorry. I just can't post right now until things are looked iꇸnto. Just too afraid of getting banned.

I just feel debating at this point is just not worth it. It's draining. I mean productive debates where others listen to words and listen that makes it worth while. I've felt some conversations have just gone in a circle where it's like they've heard not a word I said and still say the same question I've already answered.

That's why it can be equally draining.

So it's a number of things. We feel there has been bias with moderating, people that either don't read or listen, and yes the cursing and name calling I feel doesn't put anyone in a good mood.

I just don't know what the solution is here. Well besides my test idea. And yet with all of this I still want to know all I can about each of you.

Well that's enough from me tonight I'll check the posts on this tomorrow.

Good night everyone. Have a blessed tomorrow.

Says to self: Body, what the high admins have to now deal with. Being a leader. I could never be a leader. Such decisions. I'd beat myself up too much. Especially with this situion. I'd oworry about making the wrong decision. I'd question myself too much and if I am doing the right thing. I'd never want real power. I'm a follower. Not a leader. Well as the saying goes "All you can do in life is your best. That's all anyone can expect of you". Ah enough SD. lol.

Jae Onasi 10-10-2008 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by igyman (Post 2536729)
My suggestion when it comes to moderating threads in Kavar's is that perhaps it wouldn't hurt that a moderator who, well, moderates a thread hasn't posted in it. Why? I think a moderator who hasn't even taken a look at a thread can be more objective when it comes to the big question: Has a member broken a forum rule?
.

With the rules set up the way they are, it's pretty easy to determine if a rule's been broken or not--flaming, porn, and swearing are the big bad uglies that will get people in trouble, and those are obvious to pretty much anyone. If there were some kind of content requirement or source requirement in Kavar's, the lines could become more blurred at that point (who determines if a source or the content of a post is acceptable, and how would we possibly legislate that?)

I read every single thread in this forum even if I don't comment. Flaming isn't any different in the threads I participate than the few I don't participate in. If the person who I'm discussing with specifically in a back-and-forth exchange is the one committing the infraction, I ask another moderator to evaluate it instead so there's no accusation of bias. The way most people have dealt with the rare case of moderator bias is to just report it to another mod or admin, and it gets discussed in the mod forum and addressed from there. A few infractions/warnings have been reversed as a result of those rare times where it's brought up, but in most cases, it's determined that there wasn't bias and the infraction/warning was appropriate. Understand that people don't like getting infracted/warned/banned, and it's not uncommon to get complaints about bias in those situations.

My philosophy on thread splitting/merging/etc.--if there are 2 threads on the same topic, that's redundant, and they'll get merged to avoid confusion. I'm a one-thread, one-topic person myself. While some leeway is OK, if discussion digresses to a great degree from the original, then it deserves its own thread. I believe it's a matter of courtesy to the thread author to keep the topic on target.

SD Nihil 10-10-2008 10:10 PM

Like I said liberals and mods of the liberal view seem to feel there is no problem here. We conservatives feel there is. And we feel the group discussing the posts in question are all either sub consious biased or consious biased. We are not sure. But again there is a problem. Otherwise why would so many on the conservative side feel there is a problem. This is not some few people with a problem that is easy to conclude. This is a problem that has made threads about closing the forum and now asking for suggestions. Darth333 says she has like 60 messages in her inbox *51 after counting them but far from all of them relate to kavar or moderation ;) - d3 .

We feel there is a problem. We feel changes need to be done. And we will not yeild in those positions. We believe this. And it needs to be taken care of at this time. Otherwise conservatives will leave so I'm told by thoe that have private messaged me. So if conservatives leave and new ones come we feel that the same problems will crop up again and we'll be right back here.

So this is not just to correct the problems now. This is to help things for the future.

And we conservatives from who I've talked to which seems to be all of them, we stand untied on this stand.

Again see you guys tomarrow.

Tommycat 10-10-2008 10:22 PM

I really do not like the idea of allowing threads to go off on tangents. Thread creep is what I call it. I mean there could be some really useful information that gets missed on a topic because now the thread is about how cheeze whiz would have changed 18th century.

I do however think that only the fairest of the moderators should have the supermoderation level. When a supermoderator makes an infraction, it tends to be kind of glossed over. Ignored. Or at least seemingly ignored. This smacks of hypocracy in the moderating. When a mod is free to spew forth gobs of foul language and insults, but the rest of the board risks getting banned(or at least moderated) for that type of language.

I also feel that a moderator should have the mod account that does not post(maybe with a generic account name like Mod01) except for infractions and closures. This way it comes from a source with no history of posting negatively towards one side or the other... Their posting account should not be given the privelages of moderating.

Litofsky 10-10-2008 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SD Nihil (Post 2536843)
Like I said liberals and mods of the liberal view seem to feel there is no problem here. We conservatives feel there is. And we feel the group discussing the posts in question are all either sub consious biased or consious biased. We are not sure. But again there is a problem. Otherwise why would so many on the conservative side feel there is a problem. This is not some few people with a problem that is easy to conclude.

I, for one, see relatively few problems. Who do you refer to when you say "we?" I realize that you said 'conservatives,' but that's a pretty broad name.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SD Nihil (Post 2536843)
We feel there is a problem. We feel changes need to be done. And we will not yeild in those positions. We believe this. And it needs to be taken care of at this time. Otherwise conservatives will leave so I'm told by thoe that have private messaged me. So if conservatives leave and new ones come we feel that the same problems will crop up again and we'll be right back here.

Again, I'd like to know what the problem is. You've stated that there might be a problem with moderation, but I've yet to see our staff fail in their task. Once we know what the problem is, we can try some "bipartisan action" to fix it (:p).

Quote:

Originally Posted by SD Nihil (Post 2536843)
And we conservatives from who I've talked to which seems to be all of them, we stand untied on this stand.

Once more, would you reveal any of these conservatives that you've been in contact with, if only to help the 'healing?'

Quote:

Originally Posted by SD Nihil (Post 2536843)
Again see you guys tomarrow.

See you tomorrow! :)

Tommycat 10-10-2008 11:07 PM

Oh and just to clarify, I don't necessarily think the mod team here is necessarily bad. I just feel that it would lessen preconcieved notions about who is doing the moderation.

It also has the added benefit of adding a level of seperation between the individual poster and the moderator, because moderators are real people with real opinions, but some ofthe opinions of a mod might appear to be the opinions of LucasForums.com.

Web Rider 10-11-2008 01:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SD Nihil (Post 2536843)
And we conservatives from who I've talked to which seems to be all of them, we stand untied on this stand.

Do you have a midget in your pocket or something? We are the Borg, you will be assimilated?

If the staff appoint mods based on creed, they will be in deep doodo, because there are laws against hiring or firing people based on political affiliation, except for like, a political campaign where it can be proven that that political affiliation is a real qualifier to work.

Inyri 10-11-2008 01:50 AM

I don't think the forums can be prosecuted for 'hiring' or 'firing' based on anything -- it's a forum, and everyone here is a volunteer. It still wouldn't be good for the forum, though. The staff should be chosen based on their own merits, not their political party. I would wager that most, if not all, of the people working here are trustworthy enough to make unbiased decisions, else they would not be trusted to objectively moderate any forum.

Astor 10-11-2008 03:37 AM

As for the idea that a politics/current events board has no place in a video game forum, I respectfully disagree. Just because I like video games doesn't mean I want to talk about them all the time, and here I can talk with video gamers about these events.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SD Nihil (Post 2536803)
Yes I agree about the mods not posting on thread. I know it takes the fun out of it. But sometimes it can make people feel a little un comfortable. Especially if people think that mod is biased.

So basically, Mods won't be allowed to post anything unless a rule is broken? They're here to have fun as well, you know.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SD Nihil
I feel the liberal mods have a sub conscious bias at times. They don't mean to it's just hard I guess when you have your opinion you feel so strongly about. Or maybe some are conscious. I don't know. That's just me. I want to think good in people before bad.

Can you honestly say that a mod with Conservative beliefs wouldn't be biased?

As for people not wishing to discuss things, and leaving, nobody is forcing them to leave - I can understand their frustrations, but they should know and accept that this type of board is going to get pretty heated.

Corinthian 10-11-2008 05:17 AM

Of course a Conservative Mod would have a bias. But you're never going to get anyone who's unbiased, even a radical centrist would be biased. Just looking around, though, it does seem like there's a surprising tendency for Moderators to hover somewhere in the Left Wing.

Marius Fett 10-11-2008 06:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corinthian (Post 2536944)
But you're never going to get anyone who's unbiased.

Unless some moderators were put in place here who don't really have opinions on politics/religion?

Ray Jones 10-11-2008 07:23 AM

Like me? I am sooooo a-politic. There is almost no way to drag me into a political discussion. URRGH!!

And thus, as the a-political person I am, I demand -- give mod powers to jaymack.

stoffe 10-11-2008 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tommycat (Post 2536845)
When a supermoderator makes an infraction, it tends to be kind of glossed over. Ignored. Or at least seemingly ignored. This smacks of hypocracy in the moderating. When a mod is free to spew forth gobs of foul language and insults, but the rest of the board risks getting banned(or at least moderated) for that type of language.

That can be a somewhat tricky issue, which thankfully isn't very common over-all (as far as I am aware). As for infractions, the infractions system only allow you to issue infractions to someone who's below you in "ranks" (as the vBulletin software perceives it, which doesn't necessarily correlate perfectly to the Lucasforums structure). I.e. forum moderators can give infractions to regular members, but not fellow forum moderators/super moderators or administrators. Super Moderators can give members and forum moderators infractions, but not fellow supermods or admins. Etc.

But that's mostly moot anyway since a member of the forum staff cannot be banned unless they are demoted first. So problems involving other staff members tend to be handled behind the scenes instead, discussed in the private moderator forums and via PMs to try to solve the problem.

Still, if you see someone on the forum staff breaking the rules you should report it just like if it was made by a regular member. These reports aren't being ignored.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tommycat (Post 2536845)
I also feel that a moderator should have the mod account that does not post(maybe with a generic account name like Mod01) except for infractions and closures. This way it comes from a source with no history of posting negatively towards one side or the other.

I don't think making it a secret who the moderators are would solve anything. It would still be the same people making the same decisions. Anonymity wouldn't make people any less partial. People would be able to figure out who they are pretty quick from posting style, and the regulars already know who the current moderator staff is anyway. :)

As for the Mod/Admin badges on posts, they aren't meant to intimidate people or give any special weight to what is posted in normal discussion. Their purpose is to point out who to contact with any questions or concerns about a particular forum, and who has been tasked with maintaining order in the place. People on the forum staff post as regular members worth paying no more or less attention to than anyone else, unless they specifically indicate that what they post is a Mod action (usually by posting in a different color).


Quote:

Originally Posted by Tommycat (Post 2536858)
It also has the added benefit of adding a level of seperation between the individual poster and the moderator, because moderators are real people with real opinions, but some ofthe opinions of a mod might appear to be the opinions of LucasForums.com.

I don't think there is such a thing as a "LucasForums.com opinion", for good or ill. :) This place is very loosely organized where the staff of each individual community listed on the front page pretty much decides what's acceptable in their corner of LF, with very few common, LF-wide rules. Opinions vary as much as the culture of the different communities here does, which is to say wildly. :)

Unless a moderator or admin directly claims to speak on behalf of the staff in the section they are posting it's safe to assume they speak for no one but themselves. (Like this post for example, which contains only my own opinions and observations. :))

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corinthian (Post 2536944)
Just looking around, though, it does seem like there's a surprising tendency for Moderators to hover somewhere in the Left Wing.

That might in part have something to do with the fact that more than half of the Starwarsknights forum staff are not from the United States, and both the major political factions in the US tend to be fairly right-wing compared to most of the rest of the world. :)

Still, the political affiliation and ideas of the moderating staff should not matter when they enforce the forum rules, since there is nothing in the rules against expressing certain political ideas as long as it is done in a civil manner (i.e. no flaming, insulting other members personally etc).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marius Fett (Post 2536958)
Unless some moderators were put in place here who don't really have opinions on politics/religion?

As I mentioned earlier I doubt anyone with no interest in the topics would want to spend spend hours carefully reading through hundreds of long posts in their spare time just to ensure they conform to the forum rules. Moderators here tend to be people who are particularly active in the forum section they get assigned as moderator in. If being made a moderator means you aren't allowed to participate any more, who would want to accept such a position?


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:52 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.