Feedback on moderating work - Ruerl Khan. Give your thoughts

Important game and board announcements and website or forum related topics

Moderators: The Heralds, The Loremasters

Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Ruerl Khan
High Executioner
Posts: 1318
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 4:43 pm
Location: Århus, Denmark.

Feedback on moderating work - Ruerl Khan. Give your thoughts

#1 Post by Ruerl Khan »

Hello there,

First an introduction to what I intent with this topic:
1) To get your opinion on how I moderate topics.
2) To know both what you believe I do right but also what you believe could be done better.
3) To keep feedback out of the threads where I have made a moderator descision.

Feel free to make points towards allready done work, but do not expect me to overturn a descision I have allready made. I won't. The best I can promise you is to listen to your feedback, and act upon it if I, after reflection, find myself in agreement.

Also, if you find yourself in agreement with my actions, please tell me why you think this or that is good, I cannot use a "hey, good work mate" comment for anything other than bloating my ego. And it does'nt need that. :)

Thank you for your time and consideration in this.

Ruerl Khan
I love pushing around my small delicatedly painted dolls together with the rest of you.
geoguswrek
Posts: 1974
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 9:44 pm

Re: Feedback on moderating work - Ruerl Khan. Give your thoughts

#2 Post by geoguswrek »

First off i'd like to say kudos on having the guts to open yourself up to public critique on your moderation. This feels like a positve step as it means people who feel aggrieved in some way by your modding can comment on it and discuss through the issues without derailing a topic further. Good work.

Anyway, onto your moderation in general: Sometimes i feel some posts which go miles off topic are allowed to stay which may be to the detriment of the thread as a whole (though you may have made a decision that these are only removed at request of the thread's OP) and that a small amount of excessive flaming is allowed in some contreversial topics (i do refer to in the warhammer/tactics sections, not the off topic stuff). Personally i think when a post does nothing to add to the discussion, or to counter someone else's arguments, and becomes an attack on them as a person for using/doing/thinking whatever, these posters should be in someway reminded that this is a polite forum. (Here i recognise that there is some leeway allowed as the line between heated debate and vicious attack is a blurry one).

The only other gripe i really have is the amount of text-speak on the forums at the moment. Though i don't really know what to do about these, because an official warning seems a bit harsh and it is sometimes difficult for people for whom english is a second or third language to really know what text speak is, seeing as some may learn a lot of their english off of forums and online chats where this kind of speak is acceptable or even the norm.

So, those are the things i think could be improved, now some things i think are done right.
Firstly, i think it is a good practice, when a post is moderated, to make it clear that 1) it has been moderated, 2) who by and 3) for what infraction. This way people know exactly what it is they should avoid doing in future and it means less people feel they have been modded unfairly.

Secondly i like that you rarely lock threads, instead letting them die on their own, unless requested by the thread OP or because the thread is in direct contravention with the forum rules. Having seen at least two threads locked by another mod on this forum, simply because the mod disagreed with what was being said in the thread (this was not a discussion on something off topic, but pertained directly to warhammer) and instead of arguing his/her point logically resorted to hiding behind his/her moderator powers. (admittedly they used the excuse that the thread was going nowhere, but we were still discussing the issue), This bred a discontent in me as i couldn't really see some way of complaining or calling the mod out for what they had done, and indeed when a similar thing happened on a different forum i was so displeased i stopped using the forum altogether.

Finally: Hey, good work mate.
DAMN THE VENOM SWORD
http://www.druchii.net/viewtopic.php?t=44127
Allerion
Librarian
Posts: 544
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 7:14 pm

Re: Feedback on moderating work - Ruerl Khan. Give your thoughts

#3 Post by Allerion »

First off Id like to say that my comments here were mis-interpreted from their intent, and were no way a comment on you as a Lore at all. After reading it, I can see how it would be interpreted as such, but that was not the intent.

Overall I would say that the lores do a very good job on this site. Very much members of the community, which isnt always the case, unfortunately. Focusing on you, you do tend to be the more firm-handed one, but its not like youre swinging your axe at everything. Also, for being the only one who is noticeably active (well, just remembered silver, but its not like the campaign anymore), youre doing a very good job of keeping us ruffians all in line. The amount of give-and-take regarding randomness of threads is good; you know when to steer it back in the direction of the original post.

If I had a negative comment, it would be that sometime the punishment doesnt always fit the crime. As in Andy's case, I didnt see anything particularly wrong with the post that got him his permaban. Sure, he probably should have been banned long before I became a memeber here, but that particular post didnt seem very offensive to me, especially after reading some things some members have said about other members. One member called another member something particularly vulger, and it seemed like the response from the Lores was basically "HEY.... play nice" I dont know which lore did what (think it was you, might have been victork, I have a tendency to remember people by their avatars, and yours are kinda the same, and you both have red names), but do you kinda get what im trying to say? (note: andy was an example, unfortunately the only one I can remember running on little sleep. So dont make a big deal that its andy)

Overall nothing too objectionable. And I agree with pretty much everything geo said.
Excited for TOW
User avatar
Prince_Asuryan
Giantslayer
Posts: 1805
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2006 9:16 pm
Location: Somewhere dark and scary (Hull)

Re: Feedback on moderating work - Ruerl Khan. Give your thoughts

#4 Post by Prince_Asuryan »

Not got time to do a full in depth analysis ;)

However, generally I feel that you, you like the mods here, do an exceptional job. I find that the threads locked are ones I think should be, and you let arguments run for as long as they reasonably can.

My only real concern is that sometimes I think you can be overly harsh - not in the giving out of warnings, but in the way you phrase them, which I sometimes feel belittles the person or sees you using a tone where I think a simple 'stop, here's why' attitude may be better. Sometimes


Brave, and good, of you to do this though.
'The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.'
Eldacar
Auctoritas Principis
Posts: 1727
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2004 6:18 am
Contact:

Re: Feedback on moderating work - Ruerl Khan. Give your thoughts

#5 Post by Eldacar »

I'm just going to sidle in here and respond to a couple of things, hopefully without drawing attention off the main point.
(Here i recognise that there is some leeway allowed as the line between heated debate and vicious attack is a blurry one).
At the moment, we've defined it in the rules that critiquing arguments is fine - even disassembling them piecemeal is okay (though it is often quite aggressive) as long as it sticks to the argument. It's when you go after the person behind that argument that it crosses the line. Do you think that we could make the difference more clear?
This bred a discontent in me as i couldn't really see some way of complaining or calling the mod out for what they had done...
You're always welcome to drop a PM to one of the Loremasters if you strongly object to something a Herald has done, or come to me if it's one of the other Lores. We do consult with one another on particularly major issues, but for smaller ones each of us operates more or less autonomously.
"Hi guys, I just want to say that for some unknown reason I dreamed the entire Lore team was on my roof last night and we were barbequing a marlin while discussing some rand stuff. It was vivid enough for me that my mother had to wake me up to stop me from mumbling and twitching, believing I was having a nightmare." ~Giladis

"Think of the Loremasters as irresponsible parents. VictorK is the one you need to talk to if you want permission for something, I'm the evil parent that says 'no' and Eldacar is your grumpy grandfather who fought in some war and is scary and authoritative." ~Ruerl Khan

"And believe me, I like my websites like I like my boyfriends: wild, free, and unlikely to give me a virus." ~Sirist

[21:39:08] <Lethalis> Cenyu; I figured that with all the smoke that always seems to hang around you, you'd be used to it.
[21:39:49] <Cenyu> Bold words, flying Dutchman.
User avatar
Ruerl Khan
High Executioner
Posts: 1318
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 4:43 pm
Location: Århus, Denmark.

Re: Feedback on moderating work - Ruerl Khan. Give your thoughts

#6 Post by Ruerl Khan »

Right, time to give feedback on the feedback :)
geoguswrek wrote:First off i'd like to say kudos on having the guts to open yourself up to public critique on your moderation. This feels like a positve step as it means people who feel aggrieved in some way by your modding can comment on it and discuss through the issues without derailing a topic further. Good work.
Thank you, it was the intention that posters could freely give me their critism so that I could take it into account.
geoguswrek wrote:Anyway, onto your moderation in general: Sometimes i feel some posts which go miles off topic are allowed to stay which may be to the detriment of the thread as a whole (though you may have made a decision that these are only removed at request of the thread's OP) and that a small amount of excessive flaming is allowed in some contreversial topics (i do refer to in the warhammer/tactics sections, not the off topic stuff).
This is probably one of the, for me personally, hardest judgements to make. When is a topic off-topic? How much off-topic should a post be allowed to be before it is removed? On one hand I would like topics to stay on the topic, but on the other hand many topics rail themselves back on track again. And I don't want to stiffle or kill a good discussion. And sometimes I have, to my regret, managed to kill otherwise good discussions by overmoderation in the past.
geoguswrek wrote:Personally i think when a post does nothing to add to the discussion, or to counter someone else's arguments, and becomes an attack on them as a person for using/doing/thinking whatever, these posters should be in someway reminded that this is a polite forum. (Here i recognise that there is some leeway allowed as the line between heated debate and vicious attack is a blurry one).
There is also the genuine misunderstandings to take into account, this is an international forum and certain nationalities, due to the way their language is constructed, often sound more arrogant/harsh than the poster may well have intented, I know it is the case with danes as they frequently sound more arrogant than they are. I'm a dane myself btw. ;)
As such I frequently try to solve it by sending the involved party a PM asking the poster to consider his or her tone. And if I edit the posters original post I always include a copy of the post I removed, in its unaltered form, in my PM as a quote, to give an example of how I usually do it:
an example of a fictional PM wrote: Topic line: [Loremaster message]: On posting
PM message: Hello there,
I am sending you this PM to request that you consider your form of posting in the future and refrain from using personal attacks on posters, religions, ethnic group/race or nationality, and as such I have removed the following message:
an obvious carricature of an completly irresponsible poster whom I might actually do more than PM wrote: I think ur gay! And high elvs r faggots, ur mom sux
If you feel that this is unfair or you wish to have any point elaborated, feel free to send me a PM back. However, the verdict is not up to discussion.

yours sincerly
Ruerl khan
Loremaster at ulthuan.net
(okay, I might just show a poster writing lines like that the door. But believe me, they are very rare, even trolls tend to be better mannered)
geoguswrek wrote:So, those are the things i think could be improved, now some things i think are done right.
Firstly, i think it is a good practice, when a post is moderated, to make it clear that 1) it has been moderated, 2) who by and 3) for what infraction. This way people know exactly what it is they should avoid doing in future and it means less people feel they have been modded unfairly.
I used to do it like that, with a "[CHOP]this message has been edited by Ruerl Khan, please do not do XYZ" these days I only very rarely do it, instead I send a PM to the poster. The problem with visible edits is that you can "hang people out" in public, and we don't want them to feel unfairly treated ;)
geoguswrek wrote:Secondly i like that you rarely lock threads, instead letting them die on their own, unless requested by the thread OP or because the thread is in direct contravention with the forum rules. Having seen at least two threads locked by another mod on this forum, simply because the mod disagreed with what was being said in the thread (this was not a discussion on something off topic, but pertained directly to warhammer) and instead of arguing his/her point logically resorted to hiding behind his/her moderator powers. (admittedly they used the excuse that the thread was going nowhere, but we were still discussing the issue), This bred a discontent in me as i couldn't really see some way of complaining or calling the mod out for what they had done, and indeed when a similar thing happened on a different forum i was so displeased i stopped using the forum altogether.
If it was done by a Herald: PM any loremaster about it to take it up.
If it was done by a loremaster: PM the loremaster in question, or PM Eldacar.

I do not believe we condone closing down discussions because we personally disagree with a post. Personally I find that an unacceptable method of moderation, and should I do so myself i'd deserve to be reminded that I am here as a moderator for the forums, not for myself.
geoguswrek wrote:Finally: Hey, good work mate.
Screw you :P
Allerion wrote:First off Id like to say that my comments here were mis-interpreted from their intent, and were no way a comment on you as a Lore at all. After reading it, I can see how it would be interpreted as such, but that was not the intent.
None the less it prompted me to make this thread, and as such I think it was a good thing. Intented or not. Lets look at that silver lining that reveals the burning meteor of DOOM behind the clouds.
Allerion wrote:Overall I would say that the lores do a very good job on this site. Very much members of the community, which isnt always the case, unfortunately. Focusing on you, you do tend to be the more firm-handed one, but its not like youre swinging your axe at everything. Also, for being the only one who is noticeably active (well, just remembered silver, but its not like the campaign anymore), youre doing a very good job of keeping us ruffians all in line. The amount of give-and-take regarding randomness of threads is good; you know when to steer it back in the direction of the original post.
Moderation philosophically I am definitly one of the more firm-handed lores yes, but I try to do it with moderation still (heh, bad pun I know), if it is balanced it is good.
Allerion wrote:If I had a negative comment, it would be that sometime the punishment doesnt always fit the crime. As in Andy's case, I didnt see anything particularly wrong with the post that got him his permaban. Sure, he probably should have been banned long before I became a memeber here, but that particular post didnt seem very offensive to me, especially after reading some things some members have said about other members.
Now, I had no hand myself in the verdict on Andy, being on vacation at the time, and while I cannot discuss the details from our secret cabinet (its the place that smells of good brandy and evil laughter btw), but I do believe I can say that in this case it was not so much the event itself as the drop that broke the dam.
Allerion wrote:One member called another member something particularly vulger, and it seemed like the response from the Lores was basically "HEY.... play nice" I dont know which lore did what (think it was you, might have been victork, I have a tendency to remember people by their avatars, and yours are kinda the same, and you both have red names), but do you kinda get what im trying to say? (note: andy was an example, unfortunately the only one I can remember running on little sleep. So dont make a big deal that its andy)

Overall nothing too objectionable. And I agree with pretty much everything geo said.
I frequently use the "oh behave" or "play nice kids" line, so it might be me. VictorK, while I have a great respect for the man, has a much softer moderation style than me. Think of us as irresponsible parents, he's the one of the parents you need to talk to if you want permission for something, i'm the evil parent that says "no" and Eldacar is your grumpy grandfather who fought in some war and is scary and authoritative.
Prince_Asuryan wrote:My only real concern is that sometimes I think you can be overly harsh - not in the giving out of warnings, but in the way you phrase them, which I sometimes feel belittles the person or sees you using a tone where I think a simple 'stop, here's why' attitude may be better. Sometimes
Hey there PA, thank you for your feedback. Unfortunatly due to your disagreement i've decided to ban you from the... Nah, just kidding, seriously. When you think i'm out of line or phrase myself too harshly, then please drop me a PM, i'll happily look it over and even apologize for being too harsh (i've done so in the past actually), though I have a policy of never taking back a verdict once it is handed out.

You could say that I value feedback, but that the appeal-system is broken. ;)

I shall take it into account though, and consider how I phrase myself in the future, perhaps add a small smiley and/or statement into the moderated post to show the intent better.
I love pushing around my small delicatedly painted dolls together with the rest of you.
Tahl
Posts: 569
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2004 5:07 pm
Location: Caledor (Scotland)

Re: Feedback on moderating work - Ruerl Khan. Give your thoughts

#7 Post by Tahl »

First off let me echo the others in congratulating you for making this topic.

Personally I have never seen a problem with your moderation here, I like the fact that not only do you lock topics but that you actually give an explanation as to why you did it and also leave the topic up for people to read. You could just as easily have deleted the topic and left us all wondering what had happened. I also like the fact that you’re a member of this board and a lore, most of your posts are simply because you are interested in the hobby and seem to very rarely put on the admin hat.

I think that the level of moderation is just fine, it’s neither too harsh nor too lenient. I do think that sometimes the line between public announcements and private. On one hand it’s better for the board as a whole if you don’t parade around that X person has been banned, on the other it does breed criticism if people aren’t informed totally of why a decision was made. A good example of when this was done properly was with the case of Narmo a few years ago when there was basically a post saying “Narmo is banned, he did this”. That being said I can only recall a handful of people banned so it’s not really a problem.

As for the debate/attack thing, it is a very difficult line. I agree mostly with Eldacar on this one with the possible exception that it isn’t always a case of Member A with opinion X attacks opinion Y held by Member B. There are times when a point gets attacked for no greater reason than just to shoot down the point, sometimes this is needed in points that are flawed but in other cases it just seems like an attack on the person through their arguments.

The system as a whole: I think it works very well. Three years ago I was a complete douche and used to troll Eldacar, on more than one occasion he could have easily banned me but he didn’t and from that and the way in which the situation was dealt with I was able to become a better member of the community. I know that there are other members who similar to me have managed to move on from being a prat and onto the straight and narrow simply because of the way this place is moderated opposed to simply banning anyone who is annoying.

Thoughts on improvement:

The only thing that I would like to change is the warning system, and I am going to break this down into two parts:

1) I would like to see a time limit set on warnings, it seems silly that a warning lasts forever (or until a site reboot). Ideally I think it would be fairer if they had an expiration date (6 months maybe?). This way those of us with a more colourful history, like myself wont have it haunt us.

2) There seems to be little continuity as to what qualifies as a warning offence. It seems to be down directly to the mod/lore at the time and their reading of it and with very little possibility of having a decision overturned. For instance some people have received warnings for relatively minor things whilst others have got away with a slap on the wrist for more serious ones. The problem with the overturning a decision is that we’re all friends here and it is hard to say that a friend has done something wrong, in the past I have seen lores disagree with the actions of other lores but not do anything about it in order to avoid stepping on toes. On the other hand there has never been anything serious enough for another lore to need to get involved with.

On whole though there are very few problems with the site and the points above very rarely come up so it may just seem like nit picking a little bit. Overall I still love this place and it is easily my favourite website.
Winner of the 'Best member' award Incumbent
[img]http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b120/wraith-lord/misc/Animebanner.gif?t=1285150718[/img]
User avatar
Ruerl Khan
High Executioner
Posts: 1318
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 4:43 pm
Location: Århus, Denmark.

Re: Feedback on moderating work - Ruerl Khan. Give your thoughts

#8 Post by Ruerl Khan »

Hello there Tahl and thank you for your feedback,

I will jump across the agreement points and go straight to the points of your thoughts of improvements.
Tahl wrote:Thoughts on improvement:

The only thing that I would like to change is the warning system, and I am going to break this down into two parts:

1) I would like to see a time limit set on warnings, it seems silly that a warning lasts forever (or until a site reboot). Ideally I think it would be fairer if they had an expiration date (6 months maybe?). This way those of us with a more colourful history, like myself wont have it haunt us.
Now, we do not put an expiration date onto the criminal offenses that the scum of the universe (read: you) do, but we do as of some time ago put a date of the last warning into the file with the person, and most "slap across the wrist" warnings are never actually logged. I cannot tell you how many warnings a given member have, not even yourself, but I can tell you that the number of PM's telling people to behave, or the number of posts a loremaster makes warning a person to behave, is far greater than any actual number of logged warnings in the cabinet.

As a sidenote, once a log crosses a certain age, we have at times been known to archive them into the dumpster of forgotten. It depends on the severity of the warning.
Tahl wrote:2) There seems to be little continuity as to what qualifies as a warning offence. It seems to be down directly to the mod/lore at the time and their reading of it and with very little possibility of having a decision overturned. For instance some people have received warnings for relatively minor things whilst others have got away with a slap on the wrist for more serious ones. The problem with the overturning a decision is that we’re all friends here and it is hard to say that a friend has done something wrong, in the past I have seen lores disagree with the actions of other lores but not do anything about it in order to avoid stepping on toes. On the other hand there has never been anything serious enough for another lore to need to get involved with.
Now, I personally do not work with overturning a descision. Once I have made a descision it is final. And not up for discussion. The reason for this is that i've tried working the other way around, and typically I end up spending nine-tenths of my time getting irritated about people wanting to debate and nitpick every detail rather than just move on. Especially as these things tend to be minor, who I did not even bother logging into our archives.

The reason we do not, in case of lores, step on the toes of one another is because we are actually all having the same rank formally, with the exception of Eldacar. That means that I cannot police say Voodoomaster, (nor would I, we mostly agree), but if I could then what? I would likedly spend more of my time considering the actions of another lore, by the request of a player, than it would be worthwhile, especially since most grieviances in my experience are rather petty. And worst of all it would harm the working enviroment, we need to back each other up, and trust each other, to work as a team in the end.

This does not mean that you cannot disagree, or PM another lore concerning a descision, and if you do I promise you that we will discuss it in our cabinet, you might not see the result and you might not see the discussion, but it is there.
Tahl wrote:On whole though there are very few problems with the site and the points above very rarely come up so it may just seem like nit picking a little bit. Overall I still love this place and it is easily my favourite website.
There is no such a thing as nitpicking when feedback is requested, it is from "nitpickers" that we learn to improve, we do not improve by people slapping our backs and saying good work, we improve from constructive critism.
I love pushing around my small delicatedly painted dolls together with the rest of you.
User avatar
Aryel
Posts: 185
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 4:35 am
Location: Buenos Aires, República Argentina
Contact:

Re: Feedback on moderating work - Ruerl Khan. Give your thoughts

#9 Post by Aryel »

I think Ruerl is a filthy druchii, but he's a good Lore and doesn't afraid on anything.
I'm from Buenos Aires, and I say "snuggle 'em all!"
User avatar
Baalan
Posts: 402
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 11:58 pm
Location: HellasNagarythe

Re: Feedback on moderating work - Ruerl Khan. Give your thoughts

#10 Post by Baalan »

Ruerl, i always thought you have a distinct way of making a point (even before taking the mantle of loremaster) and to be honest it never bothered me, because overall you have no malice when you try to keep people in line - not the easiest job, especially in the form of written speech.
Also, i believe we are all mature enough to realise when something 'said' is personal or not...and so far you have kept an even hand on dealing with any 'unpleasantries'. Granted, there might be some occassions where you could have simply shown your dread axe to a member ...not using it straight away upon them (but i guess somethings are inevitable when you come from the Land of Chill).
But then again, it is understandable that you want to get things sorted out as fast as possible, since you do this essentially on your spare time and i know you cannot discuss the minutiae with each and everyone that has a beef about someone/something.


cheers
"Full of pride and sorrow for what i am gonna do with tears in my eyes and a dream in my heart...Nagarythe shall endure..."
Post Reply