zultar said:
“The laissez-faire attitude on the forum bred malcontent and hostility. It created an environment where it seemed acceptable for member [sic] to attack each other endlessly, where users have [sic] little to no respect for other users, the mods, or the owner.”
[1] I do not see the causal link you are trying to draw. I think the most charitable reading I can give you is that the environment of “anything goes” in the forum spilled over into other aspects of the website. This is unsupported. That, in your view, horrific things were happening while the forum was laissez-faire proves nothing. That, following your introduction of new rules to the forum, the amount of work the forum moderators had to do went down proves nothing. You have not demonstrated causality: merely correlation.
[2] It's entirely possible that the reduction in forum moderator work was due to the series of bans and silences that were issued at the outset of the new rules. I think that if people thought it acceptable to threaten physical harm to other users, a long-winded treatise on the necessity of forum moderation would not deter them from doing so. Harassment, threats of violence, and the like are not caused by a forum environment nor are they caused by moderation philosophy. They are caused by assholes. Your rules do nothing to address this issue.
[3] I also find it rather counterintuitive that, as you have increased the moderator presence in the forum, the overall work of the moderation team has gone down. It is strange to say that after stepping up moderator involvement from zero to fifty, you've had less to do. The way I see it is this: you are combining *reactive* work and *proactive* work without acknowledging this. Whereas before you had to respond to every (or most) emails to the moderation team as they arose, now you can nip these problems in the bud by monitoring the forum more closely. Whether or not you have more work now than before is up for debate, then, because you also need to factor in the amount of proactive work that you have to do.
[4] To me, this doesn't indicate that you had a total laissez-faire approach to forum moderation before the new rules. If truly anything went in the forum, then you would simply ignore most emails about the forum that you got. This is actually a case of minimal moderation of the forum versus tighter moderation of the forum. It might very well be the case that you have less work now than before, even factoring in the differences between reactive and proactive work. But that's not necessarily because the rules are working; indeed, it's probably because you weren't operating a laissez-faire forum beforehand.
[5] Now, as for respect of moderators, I think you do yourself and the entire moderation team a great disservice when you participate in the forum to defend yourselves. First of all, anyone who is steadfastly against your position will not be moved by your words. Anyone whose sympathies you have were already in your camp, so you have also not affected them. But what you have done is show that your authority is open to question.
[6] Moderators and owners of other sites don't allow much discussion on the rules they institute. Them's the rules and if you don't like 'em you can leave. Rules are often in locked threads that are pinned to the top of the forum. This is the source of their social authority: that the moderation team is beyond reproach. Problems are dealt with swiftly and decisively, and if you dare question the mods, you're banned. Here at webDip, if you question the mods, JMO posts a few paragraphs justifying his decision, and then the rest of the moderation team comes in to defend JMO. Then, after some bickering and some +1 whoring, zultar, you come in and you attempt to assert your authority by saying that there are rules. And if the thread goes on for much longer, you and JMO start hunting through old forum posts to prove some petty point to a member that you disagree with. Your responses to Chaqa are the most recent example. This is not the behaviour of a moderation team, nor is it even the behaviour of mature adults. This is what I would expect from children, bickering in the schoolyard.
[7] My recommendation to you is to refrain from defending your decisions in unlocked threads. If you want to implement something, do it. Don't ask at every step of the way for feedback. Don't try to defend yourselves from YJ or semck or anyone else. This accomplishes nothing. If you want respect, act like you deserve it.
[8] Now, my personal preference for forum moderation is to have none at all, save for the removal of child pornography. You may also want to remove various members' posts about contact information, but I'm not 100% convinced of the need for that. This means true laissez-faire moderation. If someone emails you and complains that they're being harassed, you tell them that the forum is not your problem. If someone says that they've received death threats in the forum (through PM is another matter) you tell them it's not your problem. Let people sort it out themselves. This might not be a popular option amongst many people here, and I understand that. However, I think this is the clearest and most straightforward method of moderation. There are no ambiguities or shades of grey.
[9] Let's remember that this is a gaming website and the forum is simply a perk. We talk about all sorts of things here not necessarily related to Diplomacy, and that's great. If people aren't interested in participating in forum discussion, they don't have to because it is not an essential part of the webDip experience.
On Time
)
)
)
)
)