I feel like rep wars are kind of a waste of time. So many more productive things people could be doing with that time. But I don't really care either way if the mods engage in it. As long as it doesn't affect their job... can they remain impartial and fair to someone regardless of how much feuding they may do with that person?
That's the 25 million dollar question. I would like to think the caliber of people I've picked would be able to do so. But, if it doesn't work out, we'll change the rules again.
I never got involved with rep wars before I was on staff, so I never saw it as a burden, myself. But there is no good reason besides "appearences" to deny moderators a board function. They can only do it in the Red/Gray Rooms like anyone else, where they can troll too already so it's not really a big deal, IMO.
I would say, IMHO, I would be a pretty decent mod. But I don't want the job. AT ALL. I think there needs to be a way to sweeten the pot to be a mod. Start giving candy out or something. It is a thankless job. I don't see why any sane person would want to do it. Maybe the curiousity surrounding The Shelter, but it's usually deader than the deadest forum on here most of the time.
Bonzie: I see what you're saying, however - that's like saying a mod shouldn't troll in the Red Room. That sort of think really reduces a mod to second class citizenship.
Eh, if someone's retarded enough to repwar, and retarded enough beyond that to do it with a mod, then I'd rather see the mod, or an admin if that's required, respond by manually setting the retard's rep to -10,000 than with repwar. At least that way the manifestation of retardation comes to a screeching halt. Better just to ignore it, of course, but mods shouldn't stoop to playing retards' games. Letting a retarded troll be successful is not a good moderator decision.
You do realize impartial and fair are synonyms, right? The perception of whether you can expect fairness from the mods is far more important than the reality. And a mod engaging in a rep war with a poster would certainly alter that perception for me. It adds nothing to the board. And quite frankly, if not being able to engage in a rep war is a breaking point for whether or not someone is willing to join the staff, you don't want that person as staff. The major concern to be a staff member shouldn't be merely how much free time you have.
Call me crazy, but I would much prefer the reality of mods being fair than unfair mods languishing under the appearance of being fair.
In some ways, yes. That's the price you pay for being a mod. The price I pay for running a board is that I have to throttle myself WAYYYY back. I can't even do anything on my board that is close to the line, much less on the line. So yes, something is lost. However, why does one want to be a mod? To help, right? (Unless one goes into it for "power" in which case, the aggravation of moderating quickly drives one out or they're driven out by their behaviors.) To help with board shaping and policy? So what you lose as a poster (I'm more like Temis the Vorta at TrekBBS, I mean if I were allowed to act like my real self over there, I'm much more mischievous and a slight troll) you gain in being able to shape/influence your board. So it's a wash. As I said in the other thread, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Either you help run the place, in which case, you really need to behave, or you remain a poster who can misbehave a bit, in which case you lose some of the mod privileges. It depends on what you want as a person, when you're on a board and what is more important to you. I did the mod bit on a lot of boards, I'm down to just TrekBBS. After so many years, I prefer working behind the scenes (which I did originally at TrekBBS before taking over.) I find it very relaxing to "just be a poster". The price for that is a loss of visible influence. At TrekBBS, I can help make the board into what I think it should be. At other boards, I can relax and just enjoy myself. Both have their good points, both have their annoyances. I sometimes grind my teeth over here when I see something boneheaded being done. I grind my teeth over there when someone photoshops a photo of myself for a gag (a public one), it's funny as hell, and yet a few posters give me hell over it, which would never happen if I were just a poster. Basically, mods and admins shouldn't do stuff that will make trouble for their board. If they can't refrain, they should stay posters. It's bad enough dealing with troublesome posters, but when a staff member decides to make trouble, it's 3X as annoying as the posters get all up in arms and stuff.
Here it's a delicate balance. Take the Red Room...I have never had the shit tossed at me Bear and Nick have and there is a good reason for that... We can troll and be posters like anyone else...and I did, all the time. But..and this is the important part...if there is a thread where you have to be a staff member...in that thread I was Tamar the Administrator and not Tamar the poster. If I had to ask someone to ease off or alter something or answer any questions, no shenanigans while doing those things. There was awhile there Face was doing his damndest to make me, to make me lose it and turn troll where it didn't belong...and you just have to not rise to it. Seperating it makes all the difference, I think. No one wants to be told to fuck off when they feel what they are saying is important.
I would think the Red Room would be the easiest to mod, personally. I don't know what there is to do except act like a poster Illegal stuff and personal information is your only job.
I'm going to interupt leading the TK invasion in the RR to point out I really dislike the visible rep feature on any board. It seems to cause more trouble than any other feature. But most people seem to like it for some reason. There is no way for staff to be 100% fair. They can try, but it will never happen. mm
The Red Room doesn't need a mod at all. Admins and Supermods can deal with the rare issue that crops up there. The problem with being mod of the RR is the ambiguous "Extreme Trolling" rule that no one can define and everyone suitably offended thinks should be invoked for them. Happiest day was when I wasn't dedicated mod for that room any more. It was worse than being Admin.
Well, speaking only for myself, I care nothing for rep at all. I use it for pretty much quick replies and comedic effect. Tex just negged me in one of the released shelter threads. To some of you, that would mean instant retaliation in a random Tex post. To me, it means Tex must be bored or something.
In some ways, that's true. But then again, spam attacks, "illegal activity" and the like usually occur in the RR. That's the forum that attracts the destructive trolls. RR may be "easy" in some ways but it does have it's own unique issues as well.
The only time I went on a neg rep campaign was when Chewie requested it that time and I found it incredibly boring and tedious to look up posts to neg. I neg when someone is an ass beyond the pale or if I really disagree and they were somehow annoying in presentation. Even if I disagree, I often Pos-rep and say I disagree in the comments. The nice side effect of not being a rep-bitch is when someone neg-reps me usually 3-4 people come along to block them. Which is very appreciated.
For Christian, perhaps. The rest of us came to talk Trek and stayed for the people. So pretty much the same principles apply. You don't have to be a business to appreciate logic, common sense and customer service.
So.....the very first order of business to be taken care of after all the...whatever the hell it was, is to allow the mods to engage in "rep war"?
The only instance of "Extreme Trolling" that was justified in my own experience here was Polarslam pissing over Wayno/Caboose about leaving his wife to die during Hurricane Rita 05. That and his permaban about that poor Nibbles girl six months later. Anything else being extreme trolling in RR = IMHO.
Actually, you need both - if the membership doesn't think the mods are fair, the board is going to suffer for it. And as basically every mod action is a judgement call, there is always going to be something to bitch over. If you think the intent is also problematic, things go downhill rapidly.
I think a person's actions as a moderator should speak for themselves and nothing else. Why? Because it is a damn BBS not the fucking presidency. This unbelievable need to be so controlling on both sides of the pips is ridiculous. OMG! We need perfect little automatons or it's ABUSE! OMG! Let's keep crap policies because it's tradition! OMG! The Sky is falling! OMG! It's SERIOUS FUCKING BUSINESS!!!!!!
Intent does play a big role in the membership's perception of the administration. Right now, there is very little faith among some in the effectiveness of the adminstration, and the people who have the administration's ear. As I said, rules will not only have to change, but behaviors as well. Hyberbole in any form will not solve these problems, IMO. Mods *should* enjoy the act of posting and forming friendships. But it has been perceived by some that these friendships have gotten in the way of fair judgment. Also, when people on staff participate in actions such as a repwar against someone, how is the target of said war assured of fair treatment by staff in the future? Such actions on the part of the staff do not foster a feeling of trust.
OK. I fought with Elwood tooth-and-nail on this subject. Now that he's finally come around to the side I argued, I can't very well leave him out here to get beaten up with his own argument. First off, I guess part of the matter is what you consider a "rep war". And what you think are the responsibilities of a Moderator. (And, for that matter, the responsibilities of a Poster.) In my view, Moderators are supposed to ensure things run smoothly at the board and head off any problems with the least use of force possible. One of the tools a Poster has if they have a problem with another Poster is Negrep. If--oh, I don't know--someone says and you don't agree with that, a poster can't warn anyone. Oh, they can click the little "Notify Moderator" button, but that's about it. And they shouldn't warn someone for that (at least not in the Red Room). But a Poster is perfectly justified to Negrep the offender. And if the offender takes it personally and replies by starting a Rep War, the Poster is justified in fighting back (Hell, he or she is justified in making a First Strike, but I digress). So why on Earth would we take this tool away from someone, when it is their job to try and make things run smoothly on the board? Yes, for some people rep is a toy, but for others, rep can be a powerful sanctioning tool. And it isn't nearly as heavy-handed as a warning. The genesis (for me) of the discussion was Tasvir. At the time, I think he was skating on thin ice with a number of warnings under his belt, and he was being a disruptive tool, but he wasn't really doing anything that merited banning him. So I started negrepping him. And he'd negrep me back. Before I knew it I was in what could be argued was a "Rep War." And I was told that Moderators didn't do such things. I argued my point, but wasn't persuasive enough. IIRC got told if I wanted to negrep Tasvir, I couldn't be a moderator, so I said "Fine. I quit." The "resignation" wasn't initially accepted, but it didn't make for good times between me and Elwood and eventually I left after another, unrelated disagreement. But at the time I made the right call. Tasvir, whether he admitted it or not, cared about rep. And getting negreps bothered him. While I was watching him like a hawk, he was a model poster. Eventually I took him off "probation" and stopped watching him. Phantom agreed with my assessment and, when he'd decided T was getting out of line again, left the staff so he could freely "spank" Tas. Eventually Tas got enough negrep that he left the board. And there was much rejoicing. Now I'm not here to discuss whether Tas deserves to be negrepped right now or whether it was right to drive him off, but I am here to argue that rep is an important tool for influencing behavior here. More forceful than a PM, but less drastic than a warning, rep is able to influence behavior. And it is foolish to take that tool for sanctioning away from the people who are responsible for maintaining order.
Thanks for the post, Volpone. I see a number of flaws, but here is the biggest: What will it do the the reputation of the staff if they conduct a rep war against a poster for questioning policy? And I still feel that, why in the seven hell's are we discussing something like "rep war" as the first order of business?
