|
Cessna posted:I suspect that you're referring to Matt's handling of Beast. People did. Just not on RPG.Net for fear of retribution. The White Wolf thread here was full of people talking about it as it was happening.
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2018 18:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 02:15 |
|
|
Comrade Gorbash posted:No one's asking you to do that. You're being asked to do really basic thinking ahead and controls for conflict of interest, and you're uninterested in even that. Because hey all our mods are cool people, we'll be fine. That's already been proven to be 100% not true. You assumed certain things, they were proven dead wrong, and you went back to assuming it was fixed. We get it. Now answer Cannibal Smiley's question, above. What change would you make to improve the site? What would you do differently? What do you think is the biggest problem RPGnet has? Edit: Better yet, answer that in the Trouble Tickets section of rpg.net. Register and use a fake/sock-puppet account with a faked IP so we don't know who posted it. I can't spend much more time here, but we'll let the thread play out over there. Cessna fucked around with this message at 18:56 on Feb 1, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2018 18:34
|
|
|
Over on SCP, we try to keep the mockery at a minimum these days. We don't require people to be polite to one another, but we do try to keep arguments based on people's works rather than the people themselves. However, we also come down heavily on passive aggressive shittiness. I've moderated a lot of places, and ultimately I find that you can't rely too much on specific rules. It's better to have at least some general rules, and then make sure your moderation team has good guidelines. We have a general "Don't be a dick" rule. When we have an issue with a user that falls into dickishness, we talk it over and if someone goes overboard, well, we'll walk things back. We also have procedures for users to talk to us, and we make sure they know we're listening to them, even if we disagree with them. We'll at least let them know why we came to the conclusion we did. It doesn't prevent all shittiness, passive aggressiveness, or disguntled users, but it goes a long way. We also have a separate team that deals with harassment and allows users to make anonymous reports. I own the site and I don't get anymore information than I need or that victims feel comfortable letting me have. Lord knows there's still poo poo we get wrong, but we're at least doing a lot better than we were back in the days when it was acceptable to tell people they were gently caress-offs who would never write a good SCP.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2018 18:40
|
|
|
Kurieg posted:People did. Just not on RPG.Net for fear of retribution. The White Wolf thread here was full of people talking about it as it was happening. I can not reasonably be expected to read complaints that happen elsewhere. I don't have time, or the inclination, to spend even more hours looking up complaints. (And if I did, people would complain about that.) If you send an e-mail to the admin e-mail account (admin.rpgnet@gmail.com) about a mod abusing their status, it will be read by the Admins and the site's owner. I can't promise they'll do exactly what you want, but they will be aware of the problem. I did not receive a single e-mail regarding Matt until after we'd already banned him. Edit to add: If you have a problem with how the site is run, send an e-mail to the site's owner. (Shannona@skotos.net) This can be done anonymously. I'll never see it, nor will any other mod or admin. They make the final decision on all things, if they can't resolve things to your satisfaction, no one can. Cessna fucked around with this message at 18:47 on Feb 1, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2018 18:42
|
|
|
God Bless the Paywall, honestly. I think having a consequence, even one as small as ten bucks, does a lot to keep things from going to hell.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2018 18:43
|
|
|
Cessna posted:I can not reasonably be expected to read complaints that happen elsewhere. I don't have time, or the inclination, to spend even more hours looking up complaints. (And if I did, people would complain about that.) I am not, and have never been a member of RPG.net, what I am is someone who was, and still is, very invested in Beast's development and eventual genesis into the horrifying thing it now is.What I am saying is that the reason you did not see the complaints is that people did not feel safe bringing them up to you, and just because you didn't see them doesn't mean they didn't exist. I am trying to provide an outsiders perspective that, at the time (and perhaps even now) people did not feel comfortable confronting moderators. Hell the person who brought Matt's actions to light couched her post in a "Well I'm going to get banned for this anyway but I'm going to say it" way. If you want people to have an alternative method to report mods abusing their status then say that on rpg.net. Make a general announcement, make mods put it in their signatures or something. Communicate with your users and try to be frank and open with them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2018 18:55
|
|
|
For people who don't post on rpg.net you all certainly don't shut up about it. Leave this poor dude alone.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2018 18:57
|
|
|
Kurieg posted:Hell the person who brought Matt's actions to light couched her post in a "Well I'm going to get banned for this anyway but I'm going to say it" way. I will point out that she's still a member of the site and the mod got permabanned. Kurieg posted:If you want people to have an alternative method to report mods abusing their status then say that on rpg.net. Make a general announcement, make mods put it in their signatures or something. Communicate with your users and try to be frank and open with them. We put the admin email account in (most of) our sigs, we list it in the forum rules, we repost it regularly in trouble tickets, we list it in every infraction. The site owner regularly posts his private e-mail address. We post and repost this ALL THE TIME.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2018 19:01
|
|
|
NTRabbit posted:A community of that size doesn't need 24/7 coverage, without seeing your volumes of reports and new posts to sift through, you'd probably do just fine with one professional 3 hours a day - 1 hour on, 7 hours off across a day, or if your userbase is predominantly American, 2 hour morning, 1 hour lunch, 1 hour evening base on US mountain time. That would be something like $30,000 a year based on what another poster said they got paid hourly for that kind of work. And I guarantee you the company he or she worked for charged a lot more than US$27 an hour.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2018 19:09
|
|
|
Cessna posted:I've come to realize that there is no possible way to satisfy everyone. There are thousands of people over there, each with their own view of how things should be. As such, there's only so much I can really respond to productively over here. If you want to hold some sort of comprehensive review - Everything Wrong With Rpg.net - you are of course welcome to do so, but I can't realistically promise to fix everything. No one can. It's unrealistic to think that you'll make the site what you want - no one gets that, not even me. So I made the comment you are replying to about a very specific issue, and it took further badgering for you to finally actually engage with the issue in any meaningful sense (demonstrably incorrect though it is - OPP people lock and moderate OPP-related threads all the friggin' time). Read the above quote back to yourself: it's a classic non-answer and full-on evasion. How do you expect people to believe you take this poo poo seriously when you parrot the same lines over and over again? Do you have a script you're using to compose your replies?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2018 19:18
|
|
|
Cessna posted:I will point out that she's still a member of the site and the mod got permabanned. Yes, you did the correct thing. What I am trying to point out is that people were afraid that you would not. If you're already keeping that visible and people are still scared of moderator retribution I'm not sure how to help you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2018 19:20
|
|
|
Warthur posted:How do you expect people to believe you take this poo poo seriously when you parrot the same lines over and over again? Do you have a script you're using to compose your replies? I don't think I can give an answer that will make you happy, so I'll step out. Have a good day.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2018 19:23
|
|
|
Cessna posted:I don't think I can give an answer that will make you happy, so I'll step out. Have a good day.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2018 19:25
|
|
|
Kurieg posted:Yes, you did the correct thing. What I am trying to point out is that people were afraid that you would not. If you're already keeping that visible and people are still scared of moderator retribution I'm not sure how to help you. Posting from phone: That was her first post on the forum. Edit: That’s totally wrong; she had a post count in the 3000s, but was a retired user at time of posting. Will comment further when off my phone, but I don’t think that her fear of being banned was because of RPGnets reputation. I’ll also find the thread in question later. Cannibal Smiley fucked around with this message at 19:40 on Feb 1, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2018 19:28
|
|
|
Nothing fires this thread up like a chance to bitch about other forums.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2018 19:42
|
|
|
Isn't there a QCS-like there. Just like open one and let this offsite drama be settled there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2018 19:45
|
|
|
admanb posted:Nothing fires this thread up like a chance to bitch about other forums. It's what happens when we don't have grognards.txt nor the GW death thread 
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2018 19:48
|
|
|
Rhandhali posted:That would be something like $30,000 a year based on what another poster said they got paid hourly for that kind of work. And I guarantee you the company he or she worked for charged a lot more than US$27 an hour. I was that poster, and I don't know exactly what my ex-employer billed, only what I was paid. There are larger, more unrestricted capitalist agencies out there that pay their workers less than half of that, and I used to work for one of those shitshow places as well. Quality of work varies considerably, but I believe they bill less to maximise client numbers over takings per client.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2018 19:58
|
|
|
Kurieg posted:What I am saying is that the reason you did not see the complaints is that people did not feel safe bringing them up to you, and just because you didn't see them doesn't mean they didn't exist. I am trying to provide an outsiders perspective that, at the time (and perhaps even now) people did not feel comfortable confronting moderators. Hell the person who brought Matt's actions to light couched her post in a "Well I'm going to get banned for this anyway but I'm going to say it" way. quote:What I am trying to point out is that people were afraid that you would not. If you're already keeping that visible and people are still scared of moderator retribution I'm not sure how to help you. I think that you're mischaracterizing what actually happened. That people are afraid to confront moderators, fine, that's a criticism that can be argued one way or the other. However, the post where Irlymvhir suggested that she was going to be be banned was followed closely by two moderators saying that wasn't going to happen - and I should have said directly what Bailywolf said, rather than "you're being overly cynical". You can see it on this page: https://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?817741-RPG-Industry-sexual-harassment-Mentzer-abuse-and-what-do-we-do-about-it/page7 I'll be honest: I was surprised that she thought that we were going to ban her. Press conference thread? Sure, that'll get shut down. But an open accusation of sexual assault against a moderator...that's kind of in a different ballpark. If you look at post #365, she wasn't even sure that she was going to be believed; I think that she was in a dark place at that particular time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2018 20:24
|
|
|
1: For people who don't have accounts it's page 35. https://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?817741-RPG-Industry-sexual-harassment-Mentzer-abuse-and-what-do-we-do-about-it/page35 2: She still thought she was going to be banned for speaking up, you had to correct them on that fact. 3: Per Cessna's post Matt stepped down voluntarily, and he did not dispute the claims. At that point demodding him is the moderation equivalent of a slow ball. What would you have done if he hadn't fessed up? A situation like that is what started this whole discussion in the first place, and a sideways (and perhaps unwarranted, but at this point it doesn't matter) comparison to rpg.net's handling of Matt brought Cessna to the thread. 4:Also per the thread within the hour after speaking up Irlymvhir's 150 message inbox filled up. So clearly people wanted to say things to her that they didn't want to say publicly, for good or for ill.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2018 20:50
|
|
|
Kurieg posted:2: She still thought she was going to be banned for speaking up, you had to correct them on that fact. We have to correct people all the time. One person's apprehension that they're going to be banned does not translate to an entire board living in fear of the moderation. quote:3: Per Cessna's post Matt stepped down voluntarily, and he did not dispute the claims. At that point demodding him is the moderation equivalent of a slow ball. What would you have done if he hadn't fessed up? We would have figured it out after consulting with Shannon and points related. But, like we've said before, we don't rule on hypotheticals - and I'm not sure why it matters so much to you what could have hapened. quote:4:Also per the thread within the hour after speaking up Irlymvhir's 150 message inbox filled up. So clearly people wanted to say things to her that they didn't want to say publicly, for good or for ill. That's presuming that the message box was empty to begin with - and what exactly is the problem with private communication between users? Should I read something into the fact that there's a PM system on Something Awful?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2018 21:03
|
|
|
Kurieg posted:4:Also per the thread within the hour after speaking up Irlymvhir's 150 message inbox filled up. So clearly people wanted to say things to her that they didn't want to say publicly, for good or for ill. Or, you know, wanted to send messages of support without filling the thread with them. Shockingly we do do that! Seriously, dude, now it just looks like you're trying to drum up a conspiracy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2018 21:10
|
|
|
Cannibal Smiley posted:We have to correct people all the time. One person's apprehension that they're going to be banned does not translate to an entire board living in fear of the moderation. I think this is exactly the kind of "nah there's no problem"-ism that creates the fear she had. You don't address fear of speaking out by correction, you address it by policing your culture. This speaks to a culture where the mods are seen as unapproachable, flippant, and arbitrary - especially if you need to "correct people all the time. "
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2018 21:15
|
|
|
Cannibal Smiley posted:I'll be honest: I was surprised that she thought that we were going to ban her. Press conference thread? Sure, that'll get shut down. But an open accusation of sexual assault against a moderator...that's kind of in a different ballpark. If you look at post #365, she wasn't even sure that she was going to be believed; I think that she was in a dark place at that particular time. Well, if you want a suggestion for how to improve... Creating a feeling of safety requires not only that you have a policy on how to handle misconduct among your staff, but that these rules are blazoned in kilometer-tall neon letters all across your website until it is clear to any casual visitor to RPG.net that you will not take action against people coming forward about harassment, and you will take their accusations seriously. You really shouldn't be surprised she thought you'd ban her. Firstly because the usual way of handling this in the great "elsewhere" is to ban or silence victims for being troublemakers - secondly because RPG.net has an extremely strict policy on what you can say or imply about someone else; when calling someone's work incompetent (or something to that effect) is considered a personal attack, who in their right mind would think it's OK to accuse a staff member of sexual assault? More suggestions: relax your rules on asking questions about and calling into question moderator actions. While I'm sure it takes a load off your mind not to have to explain yourself all the time, it also makes your moderation seem incredibly opaque: who knows why you moderate the way you do, except for your blanket statements that "This is the way it's done. Thread closed."? It'd also make it easier for people to actually express their concerns to you because they wouldn't be afraid that questioning your authority would be met with snide dismissal at best and red text and infraction at worst. When McFarland banned Jon Chung from talking about Exalted and I called into question whether he should be the one doing that, the last post before the lock was a moderator ridiculing that I'd talked about "conflicts of interest". That's legitimately what happens when you question OPP employees banning people from talking negatively about OPP products on RPG.net: snide dismissal. And it wasn't McFarland that did the snide dismissal. E: Also, not ruling on hypotheticals is the dumbest loving rule. There are bridges you can cross when you come to them, but there's also having actual policies in place to keep the gates shut before the horse escapes, and you don't have to sacrifice your sexual harassment policy for the sake of not having to answer convoluted hypotheticals. E2: Also also, to make your policies less opaque, spell out how rule 2 actually works. A reasonable person isn't going to read that you ban personal attacks and understand that you can't accuse someone of arguing in bad faith. "You're an idiot" is commonly understood to be a personal attack; "You're making an argument in bad faith" is not. Until you spell that kind of stuff out, your moderation will seem opaque as gently caress. LatwPIAT fucked around with this message at 21:50 on Feb 1, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2018 21:33
|
|
|
Cannibal Smiley posted:We have to correct people all the time. One person's apprehension that they're going to be banned does not translate to an entire board living in fear of the moderation. quote:That's presuming that the message box was empty to begin with - and what exactly is the problem with private communication between users? Should I read something into the fact that there's a PM system on Something Awful? taichara posted:Or, you know, wanted to send messages of support without filling the thread with them. Shockingly we do do that! Maybe she did just let her mailbox fill up I'll give you that. Hell I'll concede the point entirely because I can't prove it wasn't. It still doesn't change the fact that your forum has problems and just saying 'well it's not for everyone' isn't going to fix them. You did a thing that was the bare minimum thing you could have done in that situation. That doesn't get you a medal.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2018 21:40
|
|
|
LatwPIAT posted:E: Also, not ruling on hypotheticals is the dumbest loving rule. There are bridges you can cross when you come to them, but there's also having actual policies in place to keep the gates shut before the horse escapes, and you don't have to sacrifice your sexual harassment policy for the sake of not having to answer convoluted hypotheticals. You say that, but lord, people ask for rulings on dumb hypotheticals all the dang time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2018 21:44
|
|
|
Kurieg posted:The fact that it isn't obvious and common knowledge is your fault. She'd been gone from the forum a long time, by her own admission - and believe me, RPGnet's culture changes all the time. It's not surprising if she came back with bad information about how the moderation acted. quote:And using ModeratorText to comfort people usually does the opposite. Basically, if we don't use red text, it's not considered official; there's no way that I could have reassured her that she wouldn't be banned without it. quote:How is "Posting Support Of A Person Outing A Rapist" 'filling up a thread'? How is posting that publicly not a good thing? Maybe people want to share their experiences with sexual assault without having to out themselves to an entire board, maybe? quote:Maybe she did just let her mailbox fill up I'll give you that. Hell I'll concede the point entirely because I can't prove it wasn't. It's almost certain. Her first post to that thread occurs at 7:37 PM, and Holden notes that her inbox is full at 8:57. The odds of 150 people sending her a message with an hour and a half are pretty slender. quote:You did a thing that was the bare minimum thing you could have done in that situation. That doesn't get you a medal. Did I ask for one?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2018 21:48
|
|
|
moths posted:I think this is exactly the kind of "nah there's no problem"-ism that creates the fear she had. What I was alluding to, and should have been more direct in saying, is that we moderate people all the time, by admonishing and banning them. That's the basic definition of moderation. I should have been more clear.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2018 21:50
|
|
|
LatwPIAT posted:Well, if you want a suggestion for how to improve... At the risk of getting dinged for contentless posting, this is all stuff that I am going to take into consideration.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2018 22:29
|
|
|
LatwPIAT posted:Creating a feeling of safety requires not only that you have a policy on how to handle misconduct among your staff, but that these rules are blazoned in kilometer-tall neon letters all across your website until it is clear to any casual visitor to RPG.net that you will not take action against people coming forward about harassment, and you will take their accusations seriously. Good idea. Where? (i.e., in the rules?) LatwPIAT posted:You really shouldn't be surprised she thought you'd ban her. Firstly because the usual way of handling this in the great "elsewhere" is to ban or silence victims for being troublemakers - secondly because RPG.net has an extremely strict policy on what you can say or imply about someone else; when calling someone's work incompetent (or something to that effect) is considered a personal attack, who in their right mind would think it's OK to accuse a staff member of sexual assault? That's fair. LatwPIAT posted:More suggestions: relax your rules on asking questions about and calling into question moderator actions. While I'm sure it takes a load off your mind not to have to explain yourself all the time, it also makes your moderation seem incredibly opaque: who knows why you moderate the way you do, except for your blanket statements that "This is the way it's done. Thread closed."? With absolutely no snark or hostility, I'm really hesitant to do that, because we have been so burned by letting things spiral out of control in the past. (From 2002 to roughly 2012.) Someone would do something blatantly against the rules. Not little stuff, but often stuff that was flat-out illegal. We'd step in and stop it. This would immediately lead to a thread in Trouble Tickets where people would demand to know why we DARED to stop them from posting illegal stuff, then others would dive in, trying to pick apart every possible thread of contention, opening up dorm-room theoretical debates on "what is the nature of justice" or "what is truth" and on and on. Threads for a single warning would reach a hundred posts or more. This went on for years. It became clear that we just did not have the time to address every concern. On a forum full of gamers, people love to rules lawyer, and they will do it over every. Single. Thing. So, with that in mind. Yes, I'm open to feedback. I can't promise that we'll change everything, because as I said, we have to try to balance a lot of concerns. How do we get meaningful feedback without it turning into endless theoretical debates? And - look, I want good feedback. "You mods are assholes" doesn't help. "You have a problem" doesn't help without giving us some sort of realistic way to fix things. LatwPIAT posted:E: Also, not ruling on hypotheticals is the dumbest loving rule. There are bridges you can cross when you come to them, but there's also having actual policies in place to keep the gates shut before the horse escapes, and you don't have to sacrifice your sexual harassment policy for the sake of not having to answer convoluted hypotheticals. Again, a board full of gamers. I could set up shop in Trouble Tickets and answer hypotheticals ALL DAY for weeks and people would only be more dissatisfied then they were to start with - and I know this because I've done it. LatwPIAT posted:E2: Also also, to make your policies less opaque, spell out how rule 2 actually works. A reasonable person isn't going to read that you ban personal attacks and understand that you can't accuse someone of arguing in bad faith. "You're an idiot" is commonly understood to be a personal attack; "You're making an argument in bad faith" is not. Until you spell that kind of stuff out, your moderation will seem opaque as gently caress. Write me a better Rule 2 and I'll change it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2018 22:48
|
|
|
LatwPIAT posted:E: Also, not ruling on hypotheticals is the dumbest loving rule. I'm gonna disagree with this part. A lot of posters (on RPGnet and SA) like to rules-lawyer every infraction they get, and RPGnet has the extra problems of people who post poo poo like "I made a spreadsheet to track moderator infractions and Kai Tave's numbers seem off" and nobody letting me post "hahaha shut the gently caress up" at them. Ruling on hypotheticals mostly means a fuckload of "a-ha! You probated me for X, but two years ago you said you'd let my good friend The_OSR_Cummer post X to avenge his family so how "zero-tolerance" is this policy really?" posts.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2018 22:49
|
|
|
LatwPIAT posted:It'd also make it easier for people to actually express their concerns to you because they wouldn't be afraid that questioning your authority would be met with snide dismissal at best and red text and infraction at worst. When McFarland banned Jon Chung from talking about Exalted and I called into question whether he should be the one doing that, the last post before the lock was a moderator ridiculing that I'd talked about "conflicts of interest". This stuff is the biggest problem I have with RPG.net. I mean, hell, I got a day suspension once just for saying that the stickied post with guideline stuff in Trouble Tickets needed to be improved.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2018 22:52
|
|
|
Ettin posted:"I made a spreadsheet to track moderator infractions and Kai Tave's numbers seem off" Note: This is not an exaggeration.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2018 22:53
|
|
|
Roadie posted:This stuff is the biggest problem I have with RPG.net. I mean, hell, I got a day suspension once just for saying that the stickied post with guideline stuff in Trouble Tickets needed to be improved. I don't remember the circumstances, but I apologize for that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2018 22:56
|
|
|
Cessna posted:With absolutely no snark or hostility, I'm really hesitant to do that, because we have been so burned by letting things spiral out of control in the past. (From 2002 to roughly 2012.) There is substantial middle ground between "not responding to users" and "endlessly responding to users about something that obviously will never change for legal reasons". Roadie fucked around with this message at 23:24 on Feb 1, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2018 23:20
|
|
|
Cessna posted:Note: This is not an exaggeration. I can't imagine any online community that would be better served by not removing someone who tried to pull this poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2018 23:24
|
|
|
Cannibal Smiley posted:At the risk of getting dinged for contentless posting, this is all stuff that I am going to take into consideration. To be extremely blunt, Cessna came in loaded for bear at the hint that criticism was being leveled. And I wasn't even critiquing RPG.net with my initial posts. Those were literally about how the McFarland situation was an incredibly difficult one and that it was understandable that RPG.net was caught off guard. But that also revealed some universal issues about dealing with harassment in this space, the very ones One Shot referenced in their post, and tried to address. I started at the point that RPG.net had done about as well as could be done with the model they had, but that also revealed that the model was insufficient. And that was a disservice to the admins and mods at RPG.net. It wasn't fair to them either, and hey, here's a way to do it that at least suggested a way to avoid those inherent issues. The IMMEDIATE response from an RPG.net admin was to shoot that down because site didn't have the resources for it, and then what turned out to be a platitude about being willing to accept critique. Because even the mildest critique or suggestion for improvement got push back as being too difficult for RPG.net to manage or out of their hands. That, frankly, speaks to RPG.net being a lot more interested in maintaining the status quo above all else. And again, this is not about a hypothetical situation. It's about a thing that happened. That first critique was that the lesson's learned from the McFarland situation didn't appear to be getting picked up. That concern has gone from a worry to a certainty to me due to the responses in this thread. Regardless of how well you think you've spelled things out, there's is immense evidence that the users of your forum haven't heard the message. At this point that means the delivery is flawed. More over, it worries me that the problem with "I didn't get any message about Matt until after he was banned" isn't glaringly obvious. At no point do I think that other RPG.net mods and admins being unaware of McFarland's behavior is a failing on their part. I am in complete understanding as to why this blindsided them. But that should spark a discussion and changes. Even when the people involved aren't at fault and did the best they could, it is critical that an organization take a hard look at itself and figure out if there's a better way to handle it in the future. To look for places where abuse could happen in the future and try to address it before it becomes a problem. One of those areas is how McFarland ended up in position to moderate discussions about his own work, especially when those discussion touched on the very issues that resulted in his ban. Another is why many felt that they wouldn't be listened to and even retaliated against if they came forward. And last why it wasn't clear to them what recourse they would actually have. You've got to take a long hard look at what happened and make changes to protect people going forward. LatwPIAT has given you a really excellent starting point on that. It would be reassuring if there was more than a lukewarm "we'll consider it." Comrade Gorbash fucked around with this message at 23:28 on Feb 1, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2018 23:24
|
|
|
Roadie posted:There is substantial middle ground between "responding to users" and "endlessly responding to users about something that obviously will never change for legal reasons". Absolutely. And it is hard to find a good balance between hearing people out and burning out the staff. It's a fair criticism that we're closing feedback threads too soon. I can't change things unilaterally, but this was already brought up by Cannibal Smiley in the mods-only forum with the intention of changing things. Cessna fucked around with this message at 23:30 on Feb 1, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2018 23:24
|
|
|
Comrade Gorbash posted:
I'll admit up front I got defensive because I try very, very hard to do the best job I can over there. Critique isn't fun, but yes, it's often necessary. I can not promise that everything will change, because I'm one person, part of a team. But I think these are fair issues to bring up. But at the same time, there are some things that we just can not do. Edit: As said below, we can not hire professionals because we don't have that available; that's a site-owner decision at a minimum, and I doubt they have the money. Comrade Gorbash posted:At no point do I think that other RPG.net mods and admins being unaware of McFarland's behavior is a failing on their part. I am in complete understanding as to why this blindsided them. But that should spark a discussion and changes. Even when the people involved aren't at fault and did the best they could, it is critical that an organization take a hard look at itself and figure out if there's a better way to handle it in the future. To look for places where abuse could happen in the future and try to address it before it becomes a problem. And... Comrade Gorbash posted:You've got to take a long hard look at what happened and make changes to protect people going forward. LatwPIAT has given you a really excellent starting point on that. It would be reassuring if there was more than a lukewarm "we'll consider it." I'll take it to heart. I mean that. I can't make promises on behalf of the other mods, because I can't speak for them or make promises on their behalf, but I CAN promise that we're going to have a long talk about this. Edit to add: I've reposted your post, unedited, in the mod-forum to get that discussion going. Cessna fucked around with this message at 23:40 on Feb 1, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2018 23:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 02:15 |
|
|
Comrade Gorbash posted:. I started at the point that RPG.net had done about as well as could be done with the model they had, but that also revealed that the model was insufficient. And that was a disservice to the admins and mods at RPG.net. It wasn't fair to them either, and hey, here's a way to do it that at least suggested a way to avoid those inherent issues. You suggested that we should hire professional help to police our forums. We pointed out that we don't have any money. Basically, you're dinging us for something that we literally have no control over. We aren't employed by Skotos; we're volunteers who moderate one of their forums for free. You're asking us to spend money that we do not have. I must be missing something. I'm not joking; I've seen you on these forums, you're pretty intelligent, so maybe I'm reading too fast. quote:Regardless of how well you think you've spelled things out, there's is immense evidence that the users of your forum haven't heard the message. I have to ask: you don't think that maybe demodding and banning a moderator sends that message? quote:LatwPIAT has given you a really excellent starting point on that. It would be reassuring if there was more than a lukewarm "we'll consider it." I don't operate alone. I can't say "We'll change this right now, thank you Lawtpiat" because I have the input of sixteen other people to consider, some of whom will be unhappy with me if I unilaterally make a change to the forum's rules and culture without consulting them first.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2018 23:34
|
|