On Proactive Moderation

[Twilight Sparkle ✨ 8,520]

There has been some doubt and concern as of late over some of the administrative actions we have taken, like introducing new moderators and implementing character minimums, and whether this is some kind of scheme to start policing every breath you take.

 

Evilshy took the time to contact me about his concerns, and has given me permission to publish our conversation. It should answer a lot of questions and explain exactly why we do what we do.

 

So here it is, in its unedited entirety.

 

---

Wasn't sure who in the staff to send this too, so I figured you'd be a good place to start.

 

I asked several times in the Boatloads of Moderators thread, and never actually received an answer. Since that thread is now locked, I will ask in a PM.

 

 

Why, in your opinion, is proactive moderation a good idea?

It increases the chance of mods deleting things based off of personal bias and not the site rules (They don't like an argument a user is making, thus they see it in a different light than something they agree with. Everybody does this, unfortunately ), it opens up more room for misinterpretation (misreading what a users said, or misinterpreting the rules), and leads to greater dissimilarity in moderation policies (i.e. something most mods would allow, another might not, leading to unneeded deletion).

Also, it is a great step towards complete control over everything. Now, I know that's not your goal, and if ti was, you could just do it anyway, but I still can't help but get the feeling that with proactive moderation, if a post isn't deleted after a few days, somebody is saying "okay, you are allowed to say that". It places much more power in the hands of a few than reactive moderation does.

Having a large team dedicated to checking reported posts would be much better, I think. It lessens the potential of all three problems I mentioned, as well as putting a bit more power in the hands of users. It lets the users have more say in what is okay and what's not. Mature users can have a mature conversation about controversial topics without anybody being offended, and thus nothing is reported. A proactive mod might decide that, because they or somebody else might happen upon the discussion and be offended, they will delete or lock it, thus ruining a perfectly good discussion.

 

Also, to quote myself from earlier

...to address the issue of a report based system allowing users to single out other users and report all their stuff, the current system does nothing to prevent that either. Having completely reactive mods would not only prevent any mods from exercising bias on their own terms (since they'd had to wait for someone else to report the post), it would make it so more mods would see the reports, and more could be in the decision process of whether or not it should be deleted, also detracting from bias.

 

 

Also, unrelated but, a lot of people are skeptical about talking to mods to dispute a moderation. I know I am (in fact, I feel a bit awkward PMing staff of any site at all). A lot of it comes from the fact that on many other sites (and possibly this one. I've seen it a bit, but haven't had a lot of dealings with mods here) mods prop each other up, for lack of a better term. They'll often agree with each other, not because they actually agree, but because they are both mods. As I said before, I have never seen one mod reverse a post deletion made by another mod, on any forum I've ever been a part of. One time, I even had mod say that they wouldn't have deleted my post if they had seen the report first, but that they were still going to uphold the original mods decision.

The way that all the mods seem to agree with each other on everything doesn't give me any reason to believe that it's any different here.

I'll address the second concern you brought up first, with regards to mods propping each other up. Both are completely valid concerns that I'm more than willing to discuss.

 

Also, unrelated but, a lot of people are skeptical about talking to mods to dispute a moderation. I know I am (in fact, I feel a bit awkward PMing staff of any site at all). A lot of it comes from the fact that on many other sites (and possibly this one. I've seen it a bit, but haven't had a lot of dealings with mods here) mods prop each other up, for lack of a better term. They'll often agree with each other, not because they actually agree, but because they are both mods. As I said before, I have never seen one mod reverse a post deletion made by another mod, on any forum I've ever been a part of. One time, I even had mod say that they wouldn't have deleted my post if they had seen the report first, but that they were still going to uphold the original mods decision.

The way that all the mods seem to agree with each other on everything doesn't give me any reason to believe that it's any different here.

It's true that you have no reason to believe we won't prop each other's decisions up. However, we wouldn't constantly encourage people to get in touch with us to dispute a moderative decision if we didn't intend to be helpful. I don't hang around other forums much so I don't know how admins act elsewhere, but I run MLP Forums independently and have worked tirelessly since October 3 to make this a site where a symbiotic relationship exists between the users and the staff.

 

I'm not going to throw any names out, but some baseless rumours have been started here recently in a seeming effort to destroy that relationship and convince users that this place is "just as bad" as every other forum on the Internet. The truth is, I care very much about users because without them, there would be no community. Again, it may be that most forum admins in your experience are bigoted monarchs, but that simply isn't the way that I do things. I know you might be thinking, "that's easy for you to say - you're the big guy on top," but I guarantee that if you bring up a dispute with the admins, it's going to be evaluated fairly by myself, Swoop, and Zoop.

 

Therein lies a facet of our staff structure you should be aware of - there is a clear divide between the authority of the admins and the moderators here. The number of people sitting on top, who make up the rules that mods and members alike must abide by, has not changed. I'm well aware that hiring more moderators introduces an increased potential for biased decisions, but we trust the new moderators we've hired to not do so; and in the event that they do act out of line, the exact same people who would deal with it before will deal with it now. There is no increased bias factor if you disagree with a moderator's decision and take it up with an admin; and moreover, if the case works out in your favour, that means the moderator did something wrong and will receive an explanation from us as to where, why, and how. I know that our moderators aren't perfect, but we're able to train and improve the set of standards they judge content by if people are willing to talk to an admin about it.

 

For instance, the other admins and I performed an audit on a moderator yesterday after receiving a few reports that he is doing things he shouldn't be. We reversed a number of his actions, put him into a Skype chat, and carefully explained to him where the line lies. His performance has already improved noticeably.

 

Last night, a number of post removals and locked threads were brought directly to my attention and I personally reviewed each and every one of them by the rules that I wrote up myself last year. Again, a few posts were restored, some threads were unlocked, and I provided a comprehensive explanation of why each action should or should not have been taken. Afterwards, I had a chat with the relevant moderator and again, pointed out that they've been too liberal with a few of their mod tools.

 

All I can really say is that we do handle disputes over moderator decisions here in a fair manner, and the admins work as a separate unit from the moderators if you bring something up with us. We won't side with a moderator just for the sake of defending their decision because we know that they're not infallible. If a moderator did something that you want to contest, and you bring it up with an admin, you have my word that the case will be evaluated carefully, and you'll either receive a good explanation of why something was done or the decision will be reversed and the relevant moderator disciplined as needed.

 

I, Swoop, and Zoop are here to help when our moderators don't. Honestly. And in the unlikely event that Swoop or Zoop aren't cooperating, any member of the site is welcome to approach me directly.

 

---

Why, in your opinion, is proactive moderation a good idea?

MLP Forums was created with a certain set of standards for content quality and subject matter, and (like it or not) having complete control over the content output of the community helps to uphold these standards. I'm not going to lie, a more proactive approach to moderation will indeed allow the staff to see and monitor more of the community's content, and that was the whole point of hiring ten moderators each dedicated to focused monitoring of several areas of the site.

 

Why do I want to maintain a set of standards here even if no one feels some post or other is worth taking action against? It's going to sound counter-intuitive, but it keeps MLP Forums healthy in the long run and makes it more competitive as a site. This ventures into an aspect of webmastering that I doubt the majority of users here consciously appreciate: you and whoever else are replying to a thread aren't the only ones who are going to see it. Even after a thread "dies" and falls past the first page of a forum, it is going to stay online as long as MLP Forums does, and it's usually going to be seen again by someone.

 

Unregistered guests make up roughly one third of our traffic. The overwhelming majority of them stumble upon MLP Forums from Google or another search engine looking for a specific piece of information. They don't care how old the thread they find is. They're looking for something and the sooner they find it, the happier they'll be. They'll form a first impression of the site within several seconds. And if the impression is good enough, they're more likely to take a liking to the place, register, and decide to stay.

 

A well-kept site with a relatively consistent level of content quality is going to make a better impression than one which serves the lowest common denominator. It also gives the community a sense of direction, unity, and makes it something more than "here's a free site to dump anything to do with ponies". In the long run, such consistency helps us rank higher in search engines, look better to guests, and gain more members to grow the community and replace the ones we lose over time.

 

If you'd like an example for one of the more "aggressive" things we do to uphold our standards, I've pasted an article I wrote for my moderators in the following spoiler:

 

 

 

 

Improving Our SEO: A Visual Guide

 

Noun

 

SEO (uncountable)

• (Internet) Initialism of search engine optimization, the use of various techniques to improve a web site's ranking in the search engines and thus attract more visitors.

Our search engine ranking placement - SERP for short - is a major source of traffic for us, and a high SERP is very beneficial to the long-term success of MLP Forums. The site's domain already ranks very highly for many key phrases (primarily "my little pony forums", "my little pony", and "mlp forums"), but we should work a bit more on our long-tail results as well - results that come from the depths of the site rather than the front page.

 

Long-tail results are important because they provide concrete content to a guest - for instance, specific advice on approaching family members about their new fandom. And sometimes, guests will register just to reply to a topic they found - only to later be sucked into the rest of the community.

 

So, what can we do to improve this particular aspect of our SEO? Simple - the single most important element of a page, as far as search engines are concerned, is its title. There is a stunning breadth of content to be found on MLP Forums, from detailed character analyses to incredible fan art. Trouble is, though, that many topics' titles aren't exactly... descriptive. And while you might be thinking, "who cares about search engines, we humans can read it better than them, anyway," good SEO also makes for much more user-friendly experiences - it will both boost the site's SERP and encourage more clickthroughs from search results.

 

Just to demonstrate, here's an example of a relatively simple topic I found just by doing a quick site:mlpforums.com search:

 

The topic's current search listing:

 

 

Pretty uninteresting, right? Just some random "prediction" - neither the search engine nor someone browsing the search results will probably find this result too worthy of their attention. It takes up valuable space in our search results and is of hardly any value in itself.

 

But wait, what if we changed the title to something more descriptive of the actual content within?

 

 

Suddenly, search engines and searchers will both know immediately that the search listing they're looking at is a discussion about whether Daring Do could possibly be Scootaloo's mother. This could be taken even further with the addition of a prefix, which makes our simplistic little thread suddenly look like a well-formulated theory (and I didn't even fix the description's spelling mistakes!):

 

 

Visitors like sensible, descriptive titles because they are frankly more interesting. Search engines like these titles because they contain key words and phrases pertaining to the page they are on - in the above examples, "prediction" is a horribly generic and nearly useless keyword, while my corrected version introduces "Daring Do", "Scootaloo", and "Scootaloo's mother" as key words and phrases - thus, the thread now has a better chance of receiving traffic from people looking for information on Scootaloo, her mother, or Daring Do's identity. Pretty sweet, eh?

 

SEO isn't an exact science, and there is no guarantee that we actually will get more traffic for this. But even then, having a bunch of properly-named threads sure makes things easier for us users at the end of the day, too.

 

---

So if you are a moderator and see a thread with a weird, generic, or non-descriptive title, take a few seconds to see what the thread is actually about and rename it to something better if you feel it would be beneficial. If there is a spelling error or ROYAL CANTERLOCK in the title, be especially sure to fix it up. It will help not only our existing users, but also prospective new ones and search engines.

 

 

 

And that's just one of the docs that we moderate by. We have a few more of them.

 

The intent was always to make MLP Forums a "classier" community, for lack of a better term. Roleplay World was introduced to establish a common format and standard for roleplays - ever since we did that, we've actually received a noticeable boost of people finding us in search of a place to roleplay. We have a strict format for topics in our Episode Discussion section - the result is hundreds of visitors finding MLP Forums every Saturday that an episode airs. There are even a few members who joined us in search of a pony-themed Minecraft server and stuck around for the forums.

 

You've been here since the day this place opened, Evilshy, and these standards really haven't changed much since then. Kurtiss and I personally moderated just about everything in the site's earlier days. With the growth of activity from 400 posts per day to 4000 posts per day, we've just got an increased amount of content we need to keep track of one way or another, and a directly proportional increase in actionable content.

 

With 19 staff members, our member-to-staff ratio is now 232:1. This ratio was 490:1 prior to our hiring of the ten new mods. The last time we hired a moderator prior to the other day, the site was getting around 2500 posts per day, but we're now at ~4000 per day and most of us felt we were being stretched past our capacity.

 

---

Why not adopt a reactive moderation model instead?

 

We tried. We've more or less been running on such a model for a couple of months now. The result is, while it certainly sounds ideal, a surprising number of members aren't even aware of the existence of the "Report" button. Moreover, our experience shows that people themselves tend to prefer reacting directly to a situation or consciously choosing not to report it it for various reasons, including but not limited to these:

• they feel the need to "do something about it" and respond (usually results in a flame war)
• they believe that backseat modding will draw a moderator's attention to the thread
• they're in doubt whether something is "report-worthy" and don't want to waste our time
• they're scared of the staff
• they're worried they'll get in trouble for "mis-reporting" something
• they believe the report will be ignored because we're a gang of power-drunk bigots
• they feel like a taddle-taler

The interpretation of what content meets the site's standards is then relegated to almost 4500 people, versus 16 + 3 with a predominantly proactive model. Assuming we did manage to make everyone fully aware of the report system, whenever someone gets in trouble or has a post deleted, we're very likely to experience tension between members. I can think of a few members who would flare up and start some needless "Who reported me? I'm gonna get you for it!" drama every time they received a warning under such a system. This isn't kindergarten, and the last thing we need is rumour-mongering over who reported what.

 

The primary advantage that a proactive model has over this is that there are 16 people who actively moderate and 3 admins calling the shots. They're handpicked to be relatively mature people who'll own up to their mistakes and are able to defer to higher authority if they don't. It's relatively easy for the 19 of us to bounce decisions and disputes around among ourselves as well, as we aren't that large a group.

 

---

Neither approach is perfect, but for what I want to accomplish with this site, the proactive one is ultimately going to work better. I hope this message answered your questions, but please let me know if there's anything you'd like to discuss further.

I guess I just wasn't aware that you are indeed trying to control everything. Though I don't agree, I can see where you're coming from.

 

 

I am now somewhat more confident that I can bring up concerns about mod actions with you administrative types, so that's good.

But how exactly would I go about it? Just send a PM to an admin of my choosing?

 

 

Also, you may be interested to know that the spoiler wouldn't open on mobile; I had to switch to full to read it, and it was interesting. I agree with what it said, and I personally have fun coming up with long and descriptive thread titles

The best way to bring something up with the administration is to start a personal conversation with all three of us. That way, we're all going to see it and whoever has time to respond first will do so.

 

Thanks for the heads-up on the mobile skin derping the spoiler tag. The mobile skin is a carefully crafted little piece of work, though, and I'd really rather not touch it especially as I don't have a smartphone to properly test any changes I make to it.

 

The reason I included that article was to try and illustrate some of the potential benefits to proactively moderating the site. I'm aware of the potential controversy; but on the other hand, you honestly have nothing to worry about if you're following the site's rules anyway, and this place has an active team of staff that's willing to communicate with its members like the human beings they are. A crappy thread title is likely to never be reported, so it's just going to dilute the value of whatever content may lie in the thread. Likewise, posts consisting primarily of the word "lol", "this", "agreed", or smileys generally aren't going to add anything to the site's value a week, month, or year from when they were made.

 

It's these things we look out for more than anything. It's an effort to maintain a standard of post quality and keep down what Tich calls "Facebookitis" - a proliferation of short and snappy comments that are better suited for a chatroom or Facebook wall than a forum where they'll be permanently, publicly archived. The intent never was to create oppression or put the staff on a pedestal. The moderators are really closer to being janitors rather than deities, and they've been chosen to lack a superiority complex (and if you seem them developing one, again, please tell the admins).

 

I'm not trying to create the next Gestapo that's going to ban members over voicing an opinion that disagrees with a staff member's (I'm honestly disgusted that some members are under the impression that this is the case - we've allowed plenty of incredibly controversial things to remain open and are more tolerant of religious or political threads here than most places you'll find). Nothing has really changed in the management of the community since the day it was opened; moderation has only become a bit laxer in recent memory and we decided it was time to tighten things up again.

 

While I agree that adding ten moderators in a single night probably came off as overwhelming to some and could likely have been done more delicately, I can't help but reiterate that they're all sectional moderators, not global ones. As was said in the announcement thread at some point, it's really more like adding 2-3 new "moderators" and dividing their power among ten people.

Well, I am feeling a bit better about all this now

 

Thank you for your time.

No problem; if there's anything else you want to talk about, please feel free to approach me or the other admins anytime. That's what we're here for.

 

On a side note, I'm considering publishing an edited version of this conversation to help clear things up for everyone else, too. I won't mention your name if I do that. Is that all right with you?

Fine with me, and feel free to mention my name. I see no reason to hide my opinions.

Great, thanks for your permission. I'll give you credit if I publish this, then.

[Neikos 968]

Reactive does not work, when I was a mod, I was constantly sitting on the reports, reading all of them, reacting on them if necessary, or ask others for consensus. This built up to: Nothing. Seriously, most of the stuff that was soft-deletion worthy was not reported, and instead replied to, overlooked, ignored w/e.

And if you don't believe that the admins don't take you users seriously check right under my name, and remember what was there a month ago.

[Finesthour 7,284]

And this is why this is the best forum on the net.

I admit, I was one of the believers of the unfair moderation, but after reading through this, I understand now that they are each their own, and you do take action if one gets of line.

 

I am proud to be an old member here, and plan to be here much longer.

Always takes a feld0 to clear people's minds of worry.

[False Perception 482]

Dat quote.

 

I see where 'Shy is coming from with this. Moderator's (even on other forums or sites) almost always either prop each other up, or tear on the new one.

 

Though Feld, if Evilshy was the only one posting this, do you really feel it was neccesary to infom us of it? I mean, I thought about this too, but I figured that the growing number of normal users needed a better ratio of members:mods.

[Titan Rising 2,156]

Very nice, I don't always think it's necessary for mods to hide a lot of posts, but it is not at the point where I feel the need to tell any admins about it. That's the case for me at least. Overall, I think the mods you guys have chosen act fairly and want to do the site good - and I think there is a lot to be said for that.

 

I've never seen a forum run so well, and with so many people caring for its well being to make it the best it can be. You should be proud of what you've created here, and who knows.... Maybe we can change the internet

ONE

USER

AT

A

TIME. . .

dot

dot

dot

lol na probably not

[Neikos 968]

To add something, I myself am also on another forum since 2008. It is called "Facepunch" and it is much more elitist than here, the community will bash you for not knowing how to lurk before hand. The moderators will ban you if you don't follow the rules, they don't remove posts. So the moment you call someone an idiot? 1 Day ban, next time you do that? 3 Days, 7 Days, 1 Month, Perma. It's simple, effective. And not forgiving.

I don't understand why some people feel entitled to what they believe is 'fair treatment' when arbitrary rules exist. Especially when they are the first to whine once they see something that might offend them.

[NavelColt 22,876]

The eternal struggle. Glad this was picked up on, because I do remember Evilshy saying over and over in the cesspool of twenty million pages the 'boatload of mods' thread was, about proactive moderation, and never receiving a straight answer if any answers that didn't satisfy them. Nice to see they finally got an answer, and that now, everyone else can grasp all this and take it into account as well, because reading through this thread, I'm already seeing nods of agreement and understanding. Faith in humanity hath been restored a smidgen, that harmony can be reached no matter the struggle between the authority and the people. All it takes is cooperation and understanding. That's all it has ever taken, and that's all it will ever take,

 

Not much for me to say that I haven't already complimented on as far as the maturity and professionalism of this staff group before so, I'll just be cliche and post Dashie instead.

 

[spas-ticShotty 3,582]

I've only had 1 post deleted, so I don't really care.

 

....even though I never understood why it was

[Azura 1,107]

A few of my posts got deleted and I forgot what I said, they should show the user what they did say or send an automated message why it was.

 

Anyway, I didn't have time to read it all but I guess problems need to be solved as soon as they can before s*** gets real.

[spas-ticShotty 3,582]

A few of my posts got deleted and I forgot what I said, they should show the user what they did say or send an automated message why it was.

 

Anyway, I didn't have time to read it all but I guess problems need to be solved as soon as they can before s*** gets real.

 

That's how I got that first post hidden. I can't blame Arylett though. I may disagree, but it wasn't real nescessary for me to post it, so I guess it's her doing her job...... :/

 

Please don't hide this though

[Akemi Homura 7,680]

I've only had 1 post deleted, so I don't really care.

 

....even though I never understood why it was

 

You can contact the appropriate moderator(s) if you do not understand why your post was deleted, but we re-introduced a feature to let your deleted posts become "visible" as a red bar with the explanation as to why it was deleted, so in most cases it won't have to come to that. Still, take my word for it when I say that your posts do get deleted for reason , and almost everyone's posts do get deleted from time to time because people do make mistakes, and also take my word for it when I say that tt's nothing personal. We try to maintain the peace and keep discussions flowing nicely as much as we can, but in order to do that, we sometimes have to use the appropriate force necessary to meet really everyone's primary goal - have nice discussions across the board.

 

That being said, please don't hesitate to report a post if you feel that it's detrimental to anyone involved, especially if you are unsure of what is to come. Quite frankly, we are not 3rd graders attempting to get other people in trouble (what is currently perceived to be, at least), but rather to resolve problems maturely. I will admit that this forum isn't perfect, but speaking on Feld0's goal of making the Forum as "classy" as possible, it's best for everyone to be aware of what's going on and to tell the staff about their findings (good and bad, should the time come for any one of you) so that we may all post in harmony.

[spas-ticShotty 3,582]

You can contact the appropriate moderator(s) if you do not understand why your post was deleted, but we re-introduced a feature to let your deleted posts become "visible" as a red bar with the explanation as to why it was deleted, so in most cases it won't have to come to that. Still, take my word for it when I say that your posts do get deleted for reason , and almost everyone's posts do get deleted from time to time because people do make mistakes, and also take my word for it when I say that tt's nothing personal. We try to maintain the peace and keep discussions flowing nicely as much as we can, but in order to do that, we sometimes have to use the appropriate force necessary to meet really everyone's primary goal - have nice discussions across the board.

 

That being said, please don't hesitate to report a post if you feel that it's detrimental to anyone involved, especially if you are unsure of what is to come. Quite frankly, we are not 3rd graders attempting to get other people in trouble (what is currently perceived to be, at least), but rather to resolve problems maturely. I will admit that this forum isn't perfect, but speaking on Feld0's goal of making the Forum as "classy" as possible, it's best for everyone to be aware of what's going on and to tell the staff about their findings (good and bad, should the time come for any one of you) so that we may all post in harmony.

 

Problem is, that post is lost in a sea of statuses.

 

A BIIIIIG sea.

 

Ehh, I don't care anyways now

[Whiteshade 1,426]

Interesting. For Feld0's articulation, I award a 10/10. For the business model, also a 10/10. I expect to see these standards upheld.

[Doctor XFizzle 8,651]

As one of the main dissenters (and eventually, yet still cautiously, agreed) in the original Boatload of Mods thread, this was a nice read and I applaud both Evilshy for amicably re-engaging the concern and Feld0 for professionally addressing it. It's not a perfect world and people can make mistakes from time to time, but we're all friends here and I'm sure we all want to see this place grow and prosper not just off the backs of the staff, but off the backs of every user as well. Because like Feld0 said, it's not a community without the users.

 

Now if we can only get that chatroom back open >______> /sarcasm, please Celestia don't take what I just said seriously

Edited July 22, 2012 by Doctor XFizzle

[3005 330]

Thank you very much for the expanded analysis of everything; in fact, after things were truly explained, I'd say I'm a huge supporter of this endeavor! Apologies for my rashness; I'm far more comfortable with the current governing style of MLPF now than I was before reading that article.

[NeverNeverland 1,940]

I think I've yet to see a post of mine get hidden when this proactive method was enforced. Only one I remember getting deleted was for soemthing stupid back in May I think. Point is, almost anything for the sake of progress and this method so far has made somewhat of an improvement on the site from what I've seen...

 

Now if we can only get that chatroom back open >______> /sarcasm

Pray to Feld0 that those revolution avatars/signature never appear again.

Edited July 22, 2012 by NeverNeverland

[Radiance64 7,051]

Interesting insight, though I can't say I myself have noticed any wrong doing by the moderaters, this site is very well moderated in my opinion, and I try to report whenever I see something amiss. In other words, keep up the good work guys!

[Glaceon 793]

Feld0 is such an awesome admin. Most other admins on other sites don't respond to user PMs. Keep up the good work Feld0 and moderator staff!

[Twilight Sparkle ✨ 8,520]

Dat quote.

 

I see where 'Shy is coming from with this. Moderator's (even on other forums or sites) almost always either prop each other up, or tear on the new one.

 

Though Feld, if Evilshy was the only one posting this, do you really feel it was neccesary to infom us of it? I mean, I thought about this too, but I figured that the growing number of normal users needed a better ratio of members:mods.

 

If you browse around Canterlot Castle and the feedback section, you'll see just how many times I or the other administrators have advised members to contact us about moderation or managerial problems. It appalls me that some people bring up a complaint, and when we tell them how to resolve it (send a PM to an admin), they refuse to do so but continue to complain publicly.

 

You'd think that most people would realize that the admins are here to help, and more moderators are needed as the site grows bigger. However, when someone repeatedly complains about biased moderation but doesn't actually do anything about it, I can't help but feel that they're only trying to vilify us for the sake of vilifying us. For example, if you complain that your posts are getting deleted and someone else's aren't but should be, we expect you to show us the other posts that you believe should be deleted. If you refuse to show us those posts, there isn't much we can do other than assume you're deliberately wasting our time or trying to make us look bad, rather than having any actual interest in resolving the issue.

 

I decided to publish Evilshy's conversation with me to provide an example of what happens when you bring something up with an admin, and prove that the site's management hates biased moderation and unfounded "censorship" as much as the users do (we publicly refused to ban religious threads, for example, despite the problems that they tend to cause). The difference is, we admins have the power to do something about it, and I personally handpicked the other two admins to be helpful and objective people who are willing to work with "mere mortals."

 

The thing is, we can't work with you if you're not willing to work with us.

[Shankveld 4,945]

Yay Evilshy looking out for the little guy !

I'm glad we have an awesome admins like Feld0 and Swoop that deeply care for the concerns of its users in a friendly and sympathetic way .

~

[Ol' Sarge 885]

I have had one post deleted, I know why because the mod was professional enough to PM me. For that, I thank him and that is the type of moderation that makes this forum great. I lurked around some of the others while trying to decide where to land, and it was the overall way that this forum is run that brought me here ultimately. And for that, thank you Feld0.

[False Perception 482]

If you browse around Canterlot Castle and the feedback section, you'll see just how many times I or the other administrators have advised members to contact us about moderation or managerial problems. It appalls me that some people bring up a complaint, and when we tell them how to resolve it (send a PM to an admin), they refuse to do so but continue to complain publicly.Like that story about that guy praying to win the lottery, and God finally said yes, but go buy a ticket first? That's a good analogy, right?

 

You'd think that most people would realize that the admins are here to help, But some people don't think too logically Feld. Note the need for a thread like"Boatloads Of Moderators. It got smarter and more accepting near the fringe of it's life. The purpose's intents never change. It's just usually unclear at the time. and more moderators are needed as the site grows bigger. I believe I said this. However, when someone repeatedly complains about biased moderation but doesn't actually do anything about it, I can't help but feel that they're only trying to vilify us for the sake of vilifying us. For example, if you complain that your posts are getting deleted and someone else's aren't but should be, we expect you to show us the other posts that you believe should be deleted. The courts call this incriminating proof, I believe.If you refuse to show us those posts, there isn't much we can do other than assume you're deliberately wasting our time or trying to make us look bad, rather than having any actual interest in resolving the issue. It's usually both.

 

I decided to publish Evilshy's conversation with me to provide an example of what happens when you bring something up with an admin, and prove that the site's management hates biased moderation and unfounded "censorship" as much as the users do (we publicly refused to ban religious threads, for example, despite the problems that they tend to cause). The difference is, we admins have the power to do something about it, and I personally handpicked the other two admins to be helpful and objective people who are willing to work with "mere mortals." I still believe that since this is/was not a minor issue, it could have better been resolved with a thread of it's own, or was there and I had just happened to miss it, which would explain why we are here now.

 

The thing is, we can't work with you if you're not willing to work with us. Due to bad experiences on other forums, people might be hesitant to interacting with moderators. Which again, explains THIS.

What I'm trying to say in all, is was there a feedback thread made for this asking resolution? Or did Evilshy feel as though it would be pounced upon by Section Moderators and shut down and hidden due to slander of moderators? If so, then it feels the community is feeling like they have the Gestapo on them. If there was no thread, then the process has been mucked in my opinion.

 

Oh, and uh....I've had multiple posts deleted. I would go up to about ten. Only one stands out to where they shouldn't have deleted it, but instead edited out something. Most of it was a very well thought out post, but the last sentece or so was calling the OP a troll under the bridge.

Edited July 22, 2012 by DoubleFrenzyWithCheese

[3005 330]

What I'm trying to say in all, is was there a feedback thread made for this asking resolution? Or did Evilshy feel as though it would be pounced upon by Section Moderators and shut down and hidden due to slander of moderators? If so, then it feels the community is feeling like they have the Gestapo on them. If there was no thread, then the process has been mucked in my opinion.

 

Oh, and uh....I've had multiple posts deleted. I would go up to about ten. Only one stands out to where they shouldn't have deleted it, but instead edited out something. Most of it was a very well thought out post, but the last sentece or so was calling the OP a troll under the bridge.

 

Have you contacted a moderator or an administrator about this beforehand? If not, you're basically playing into the exact same vein that Feld was discussing in the very post you quoted. Furthermore, I doubt Feld0 knows how Evilshy was feeling; how could he? Based on your post, it seems unlikely you've contacted any sort of staff personnel, which is what he has been promoting.

[False Perception 482]

Have you contacted a moderator or an administrator about this beforehand? If not, you're basically playing into the exact same vein that Feld was discussing in the very post you quoted. Furthermore, I doubt Feld0 knows how Evilshy was feeling; how could he? Based on your post, it seems unlikely you've contacted any sort of staff personnel, which is what he has been promoting.

 

Only one stands out

 

I believe the bold says it. I knew I was in the wrong with the others, or it was an accidental lag double post, or I was demontrating a limit bypass. Not so hard, invisible text is there... and if you're just a few characters short then I don't feel I should have to add a stupid sentence that's unneeded or undo a contraction. If I get my point across I should be allowed to use as little as space as possible. Edited July 22, 2012 by Feld0
White text? Please no.

[HomuraBL 851]

My complaint was that the people who were mods would change...Which only sorta happen...They didn't really change enough for it to be a bad thing, also, I really stopped caring about the fact they became moderators a long time ago. But this was good read, and seems to have been good for a bunch of people. I have no doubt now that that was a good idea.