Monitoring the Forums

[Tolya Ugajin]

5 hours ago, Pussycat Catnap said:

I have been...

 

... noticed...

 

... quickly hides the ring...

 

Soooo, the Moderators are the Dark Lord?  Or the Nazgul?

[Tari Landar]

1 minute ago, Tolya Ugajin said:

Soooo, the Moderators are the Dark Lord?  Or the Nazgul?

What on earth is wrong with you, that's the Eye of Sauron!! 

Or my cat when he's on way too much nip...slightly photoshopped. 

[Pussycat Catnap]

17 minutes ago, Tari Landar said:

What on earth is wrong with you, that's the Eye of Sauron!! 

Or my cat when he's on way too much nip...

There's a difference?

 

[Tolya Ugajin]

5 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Sorry . . . I meant, when has anyone always reliably practiced what they preached?

Self-awareness about what one is doing is pretty important. I don't always catch myself saying something stupid or nasty or passive aggressive while I'm doing it though . . . it's usually something I pick up on after the heat of the moment has passed. And sometimes it takes being called out on it for me to appreciate it.

Most communities, including this one, are pretty fluid, and the relationships within them at least somewhat dynamic. There are at least a few people here with whom I am getting along pretty well now, who were at one time posters I'd have thought of as "adversaries." Possibly Tolya is one of those -- I don't remember enough about our early interactions. So, relationships change over time: I don't assume that someone with whom I am butting heads currently is always going to be someone I fight with. In fact, I generally (when I give my better self free rein) hope that those relationships will change: I really don't like fighting very much.

That doesn't very satisfactorily answer your main point, I suppose. Yeah, people can be crappy sometimes, and often they find new and exciting ways to articulate that crappiness. But I wouldn't assume that someone who has been crappy is necessarily inherently that way, or that my relationship with them won't eventually become a better one.

I solve this problem by being very self aware and setting expectations low by stating up front:

I'm a jerk.

If I'm currently not being a jerk, then it's your lucky day.  Be happy.  Otherwise, it's just a normal day, so don't get too down about it, it's not you, it's me.

In all seriousness, though, we all say stupid or nasty things without meaning to.  When you've experienced the joys of being a married man, you quickly realize "without meaning to" means "whenever my lips are moving", and, after a couple divorces, you get smart and start just apologizing reflexively.  By "reflexively" I mean, "after everything I say that was not itself an apology".  It's cheaper than divorce lawyers.

I remember our early interactions generally being adversarial in terms of being on different sides of most topics, but on the whole politely so. In fact, I found you annoyingly tolerant whenever the anti-BDSM crowd started in.  I always figured a wacky feminist lefty such as yourself would be all anti-Dom, but, no, you had to be measured and reasonable and make me start appreciating intelligent feminists.  I must say my patriarchal and misogynistic world view was ever so much more comfortable.

If someone finds themselves always being unpleasantly adversarial with another person, they really need to pause and take a few moments to reflect on their own behavior.  Chances are, both people are feeding the fire.  Apologize, try to deescalate, or at the very least disengage.  Life is too short.

BTW, I totally think you should be reported for not tagging me when referring to me - makes me think you're naming and shaming me behind my back 😛  Now I have to ready all 20,000 of your posts to see what else you've said about me without me knowing.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

10 minutes ago, Tolya Ugajin said:

I solve this problem by being very self aware and setting expectations low by stating up front:

I'm a jerk.

Yeah . . . no.

You're not a jerk. You just sometimes play one in SL!

More seriously, you aren't at all, and this is just one of the reasons why, because I've seen you -- very recently, in fact -- do just this:

1 hour ago, Tolya Ugajin said:

Apologize, try to deescalate, or at the very least disengage.

Anyone can be an actual jerk sometimes. A week or so ago, I apologized profusely to another poster for being one on another thread (in the Your Avatar section, so you won't have seen it) because I'd snapped unfairly at her. It was crappy and stupid to do so -- but sometimes I'm a crappy and stupid person. Usually, I hope, I catch it when I am, and try to atone.

1 hour ago, Tolya Ugajin said:

When you've experienced the joys of being a married man, you quickly realize "without meaning to" means "whenever my lips are moving", and, after a couple divorces, you get smart and start just apologizing reflexively.  By "reflexively" I mean, "after everything I say that was not itself an apology".  It's cheaper than divorce lawyers.

/me passes over this part in silence, with eyebrow raised . . .

1 hour ago, Tolya Ugajin said:

remember our early interactions generally being adversarial in terms of being on different sides of most topics, but on the whole politely so. In fact, I found you annoyingly tolerant whenever the anti-BDSM crowd started in.  I always figured a wacky feminist lefty such as yourself would be all anti-Dom, but, no, you had to be measured and reasonable and make me start appreciating intelligent feminists.  I must say my patriarchal and misogynistic world view was ever so much more comfortable.

Well, good. This is more or less how I remember it, but I didn't want to presume. Your arrival on the scene was both mildly disturbing -- because your ideas were challenging -- but also lovely, because it was so clear that you a) had a sense of humour (of a sort . . .) and b) were willing to discuss things in a rational and intelligent manner. And I knew I could learn things from you -- which I did. Also, you're a pretty likable jerk.

1 hour ago, Tolya Ugajin said:

BTW, I totally think you should be reported for not tagging me when referring to me - makes me think you're naming and shaming me behind my back 😛  Now I have to ready all 20,000 of your posts to see what else you've said about me without me knowing.

Well, oddly, I think that one of the reasons I was "warned" my first time was essentially for "calling out" someone by referencing their comments in the third person, in a post directed at someone else. Maybe. So, since then, whenever I talk about someone posts or views in a response to someone else, I'm careful to tag them and address them directly.

Except you, because I don't want you seeing all of the terrible things I'm saying about you elsewhere.

[Sylvia Tamalyn]

1 hour ago, Tari Landar said:

I just actually am of the camp that believes the wrong people get moderated more often than not...I'd rather see some of the white knights I previously mentioned get moderated more, they're a detriment and cause more divides than most others, because they hide the controversy they cause,  they're super annoying and they "pretend" to confront but really don't actually confront or even address actual issues, at all (but that might be more personal opinion than fact, probably, lol)

I agree with your entire post, but especially this last bit. I think most trouble is caused by the self-appointed white knights and their sock puppets. They charge into a thread and stir things up while feigning concern so they can then analyze, diagnose, and "fix" everyone, and are generally more of a pain than more obvious offenders. They also tend to be more tenacious and keep the arguments going and going and going.... 

It's hard to pin an actual "violation" worthy of a report on them, but I think many of us see what's really going on. (I also think that a fair number of people here are aware of issues that happened on another forum, so know exactly who they are dealing with here.)

[Luna Bliss]

1 hour ago, Tolya Ugajin said:

I'm a jerk.

You haven't seemed like a jerk to me..

I admit I was a little bit wary of you in the beginning, you being a conservative and all.

I've been surprise that we actually agree on quite a few points, though i do feel the forum has to have some sort of moderation...I would just rather there be a professional, dedicated moderator as opposed to residents potentially turning against each other.

[Luna Bliss]

3 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Again, Pam is not talking about collective action, "neighbourhood watches" in the organized sense, but the point I was making was simply that I worry when a collective determination about wrongdoing and responses to it begins to nudge from the legitimate and intended use of the AR tool, as an individual response to a particular post, to a more disciplined and structured group response.

Yes, I especially worry about this when new people enter the forum...they don't know the rules yet and can easily feel ganged-up on unless approached kindly.

[Mollymews]

13 hours ago, sirhc DeSantis said:

Two obvious answers to the bolded part

a) increase the number of staff monitoring

b) decrease the workload

First is probably not an option and the second would mean basically removing the bits that cause the most work. No idea how many are involved with the mod process anyway nor which sections generate the most hassle.

One thing, I was curious so did a quick tally and over 16 hours-ish this has generated responses form just under 30 individuals (inc me and Jagix). During the same period, accounts logged in varied between approx 27 and 45k. So what is the Lab's take on the cost/benefit side?

is quite interesting this topic

i think that in correcting behaviours then overall the random hammer works nearly as well as does the always hammer, and at a significantly reduced cost. The random hammer will fall, we just dunno when, unlike the always hammer

when look at moderators as in the role of parents. The issue with the always hammer is that we can end up with overly-obedient children. The issue with the random hammer is that the children can in some cases, but not every, grow up pretty dysfunctional and/or aggrieved

the balance is somewhere in between.  Sometimes is good to let a child who is being disobedient to continue on their path. Knowing as a parent/moderator that the path the child/poster has taken is factually untrue. Knowing also that the other children/forum posters will always correct factually untrue posts. On being factually corrected, the disobedient child will pretty much always stop arguing and withdraw from the conversation