Fun vs. Fair ... the debate between trolling and proper use.

[inkpwn]

Butts, butts, butts, butts, butts, big round bouncy butts, butts, butts.

[Digger Goreman]

I would hesitate to quote Voodoo Mike. I took his advice and he is the only person I have ever blocked and I had to do so at several BB forum sites.

EDIT He was the ultimate troller. He took great delight in trolling, and would never move on.

Don't know him from adam....

Whether from the mouth of a child, madman or random quidam, truth is truth....

[VoodooMike]

Hello Mike, I have missed you too... it almost sounded as if we were in agreement on the need for moderation, maybe, just a bit.

If that's your take-away from what I just said then I shudder to imagine your judgment calls based on your sketchy understanding of what OTHER people say to one another! To be clear, I absolutely DISagree with the need for moderator involvement in interpersonal interaction especially when that involvement is to censure (or in some of your own past cases... censor). What you're talking about is not promoting discussion, it is the enemy of discussion.

I suppose censure (which you regard as wielding the club) is a last resort when faced with breaches of site rules. if a user/member reaches that point on their own then they have no recourse if censure occurs. I would hope that we are all adult enough to never need that again. I hate it when I cannot get on here for whatever reason and I am sure most members feel the same.

When the same result can be achieved without the use of force then, quite simply, the use of force is not justified regardless of what rules you claim to be backed by. When people talk about jack-booted thugs they're not talking about criminals who are breaking the law, they're talking about people whose use of force is theoretically sanctioned by the laws - the laws are simply being enforced without moral cause or the laws are flat out wrong and should not exist.

I would hesitate to quote Voodoo Mike. I took his advice and he is the only person I have ever blocked and I had to do so at several BB forum sites.

...and yet, this proves my point. It does not take force to resolve interpersonal issues, as users have it within their power to solve their own issues just fine.

[voyagers_uk]

ok, ok, you win, I will block you now

[Heff]

Hello Mike, I have missed you too... it almost sounded as if we were in agreement on the need for moderation, maybe, just a bit.

If that's your take-away from what I just said then I shudder to imagine your judgment calls based on your sketchy understanding of what OTHER people say to one another! To be clear, I absolutely DISagree with the need for moderator involvement in interpersonal interaction especially when that involvement is to censure (or in some of your own past cases... censor). What you're talking about is not promoting discussion, it is the enemy of discussion.

I suppose censure (which you regard as wielding the club) is a last resort when faced with breaches of site rules. if a user/member reaches that point on their own then they have no recourse if censure occurs. I would hope that we are all adult enough to never need that again. I hate it when I cannot get on here for whatever reason and I am sure most members feel the same.

When the same result can be achieved without the use of force then, quite simply, the use of force is not justified regardless of what rules you claim to be backed by. When people talk about jack-booted thugs they're not talking about criminals who are breaking the law, they're talking about people whose use of force is theoretically sanctioned by the laws - the laws are simply being enforced without moral cause or the laws are flat out wrong and should not exist.

I would hesitate to quote Voodoo Mike. I took his advice and he is the only person I have ever blocked and I had to do so at several BB forum sites.

...and yet, this proves my point. It does not take force to resolve interpersonal issues, as users have it within their power to solve their own issues just fine.

Classic VM, I predict this thread will now degenerate at speed so am walking away Flame on mikey boy

[voyagers_uk]

Why quote him, I was happy not seeing his posts

[Darkson]

I call Godwin.

[burgun824]

I don't think we're going to get anywhere in this thread if we turn it into a bashfest on the mods. Not that it has yet, but just a friendly warning. I think the fact that this thread hasn't been locked yet is a testament to the fact that the moderators aren't as fascist as some make them out to be.

Lets take VooDooMike for example. I've seen a handful of threads on TFF that he shows up in and they always seem to have the same eventual outcome. That's with a lot of people that were taking part in the thread leaving angry. I admit that if I were a mod that would irritate the hell out of me. So on one hand it can be understood on some level why the mods would eventually cave into their personal feelings of irritation and react. On the other hand, no matter how much you may personally dislike him, VooDooMike often makes some solid points in his arguments. He just happens to do it in a way that is very abrasive and confrontational, which most people do not like.

So how do you moderate someone like that without seeming like you're being unfair?

[Purplegoo]

I think it’s good that there is more moderation (or, more accurately, moderator activity) going on than is immediately evident from reading the forum, but that doesn’t fix the issue Joe is describing in his above post (which seems to have been somewhat skimmed over), it’s just suggesting that the reason for the site’s decline is not merely moderator inactivity.

I’m always skeptical when an Internet community or messageboard is being described as in decline, or not as good as it was in the olden days. More often than not, the accusation comes from a relatively old hand who has been beaten into cynicism by reading the same threads and / or arguments over a period of years, and he remembers ‘the good old days’ where the active members of the forum he recognised as people who joined around the same time he did. In actuality, in many cases, the olden days were not so much better as novel, for him at least.

In this case, however, I strongly believe Joe has a point. When I am out and about in the world of Blood Bowl, when TFF is mentioned there is tutting, rolling of eyes and comments such as “If only we didn’t have to” in a way there did not used to be. TFF is an absolutely vital resource to the British tournament coach, but outside of the tournament postings section, it is a struggle to put a finger on examples of positivity happening on the site, but easy to find bickering or pages of bashing companies or sections of the community. Changing behaviours to move tournament postings elsewhere is so difficult that TFF will remain a necessary evil, as it were, so here we are, and the site will endure happily, because it’s what we’ve always done.

How much of the site being the site it is (whether you agree the quality is poor or are actually happy with it, thank you very much) is down to moderation is a tough question to answer. It is certainly true, as Joe suggested in the thread this spun out from, that moderators set the tone. Putting aside the well known, unfortunate missteps for a moment (Gaspez et al), that thread actually highlights the day to day culture that has developed on TFF. It is not unusual for Martin to put house rule threads in General Chat, there is one there now. These rarely get tided, so the practice continues. The first moderator input is flippant, and then the tone isn’t addressed when challenged, the size of a picture is. We then go on to see old hobby horses surface about what Khorne should be rather than stay on topic or be helpful. That lead is followed in that thread, and will be in subsequent ones as the culture endures. It depends on whether that is the culture we want for the site as to whether that’s a bad thing, but I think it’s a great example of how TFF is. It can be a bit of a mess, it quickly devolves into hobby horse moaning (GW is another favourite target), and in many cases (as Joe mentions) the conversation is guided either subtly or by hard moderation into the interest area of those doing the moderating.

Moderation is a difficult, thankless task. It’s a black art. Good moderation is barely noticed, like good sport refereeing. I doubt any of us that do it do it perfectly. That thread and this spin off could have been easily avoided by good moderation up front, perhaps ten Martin threads back. Move it to the right place, leave an upbeat message about how it’s moved and how it isn’t for you, this Khorne thing, carry on with life. There are areas that you’ll never get right (I note VoodooMike has joined us, I'm yet to see the challenge he presents well dealt with, including by my own moderation elsewhere), but the trap I believe has been fallen into by the TFF mods is knowing that nerds are always going to be a moany lot, but then disregarding ongoing criticism as the same old nerd rage without wondering if people have a point.

I don’t want my authority figures to be opinion less, characterless robots, I want them to be themselves. I’m perfectly happy with them using established Internet shorthands like arguing to absurdity or being a bit sarcastic. I probably agree with most of Simon’s points regarding Khorne, but the culture that he and Thads propagate by their input in threads like that is something I don’t care for. I’ve given up on the other sections of this forum (only my second post in quite a few months now), and nothing really looks like it’s going to change or improve. The culture of the site means that I haven't really seen a constructive thread in such a long time in which I'm interested enough to post. Even when they come along, I wonder if I do post if it won't just be lost in the noise of flippant or shutting down sorts of comments. Perhaps the moderation is moulded by the community, or perhaps it moulds what is acceptable for the community. It’s probably a bit chicken and egg.

There are 11 mods / admins (people of ‘power’ I guess) behind the ‘TFF mods’ link. Two are active posters, a couple more are apparently active in at least reading the forum. When was the last time new blood was introduced? TFF could be so much more than it is. For that to happen, we need active (it is important mods post, for me), efficient moderators who set the tone for the community. What we currently have is a lot of moaning and axe grinding, and that can only come, at least in part, from the top. I am not deliberately being too hard on those that give up their time to help the site, but if they were to take a step back, is the site all they envisaged it could be? Do they not think a bit of extra help might be of use?

Either way, it would be nice if the powers that be would have a think about this theme. The culture of the site has come up more than once in the recent past (if we think back to the, albeit controversial, parody of the culture of posting every crackpot rumour, etc.), and perhaps a bit of a shaking up of what we have can improve things not only for those of us moaning, but those that are happy and the moderators themselves.

I shall toddle off to not posting again now, apologies that's an essay.

[VoodooMike]

If only I didn't have to point out the irony of postings about me being someone who flames and trolls which otherwise have nothing to do with the topic...

So how do you moderate someone like that without seeming like you're being unfair?

You don't. Even if a disgruntled user lacks the self-control necessary to simply skip over another user's postings these forum scripts almost always offer a "Block" function which allows users to automagically remove that poster's postings from their forum experience. If a moderator decides to actively get involved in these scenarios all they're doing is creating a larger conflict while promoting dependency on their policing rather than letting users learn to handle their own problems directly. It's a bit like running to mommy when anybody hurts your feelings - if you want your children to grow up you have to dissuade them from using that as their go-to solution.

I think it’s good that there is more moderation (or, more accurately, moderator activity) going on than is immediately evident from reading the forum, but that doesn’t fix the issue Joe is describing in his above post (which seems to have been somewhat skimmed over), it’s just suggesting that the reason for the site’s decline is not merely moderator inactivity.

I don't think it was skimmed over, really. If Darkson and Thadrin weren't posting AS moderators when they made their snide comments then nobody would give them a second thought. I do agree that, to some degree, TFF has become less of a resource than a personal fiefdom, with the Gaspez Arts thing being the biggest example... and that should never have happened (I said as much at the time, too). That sort of thing will always happen, though, when the administration (including the site owner) have strong personal feelings and investment in the topics of the forum. Yes, they should probably work hard to be objective, but it won't always happen. In those situations its up to the community to tell them that maybe they're taking the wrong approach to the situation.

In this case, however, I strongly believe Joe has a point. When I am out and about in the world of Blood Bowl, when TFF is mentioned there is tutting, rolling of eyes and comments such as “If only we didn’t have to” in a way there did not used to be.

You can replace "TFF" with NAF, FUMBBL, or Cyanide and it works equally well. There's plenty of disillusionment going around in recent years.

I don’t want my authority figures to be opinion less, characterless robots, I want them to be themselves.

I don't see a need for so-called authority figures in a community of peers, personally. Presenting moderators as such is the beginning of all the problems people HAVE with moderators - it creates a power/authority differential that will eventually lead to resentment and conflict. Let people be people, and let moderators be the folks who enable people's discussion rather than attempting to control it.

Honestly, I don't see the major need for a shake-up of the moderation here. The objection seems to be that some moderators post disparaging comments to threads, and being that they are moderators it sets the tone for the site as being hostile to discussion and unappealing to new users. Totally ignoring the irony of this coming from a moderator on the FUMBBL forums, the solution to that issue seems to be to simply not have anyone post overtly as a moderator. Personally, I think the issue is that moderators need to stop trying to act as thread police altogether, but other than that I'm not seeing that TFF is being somehow deeply mismanaged to a degree that it needs to be put under new management.

[Shteve0]

There's a back end switch in phpBB that allows you to turn off the user or group specific name colours. If you use it it makes the mods and admins look like everyone else. Just throwing it out there that new accounts aren't required.

I disagree with Mike's theme only in that I suspect there is occasion for those who (repeatedly) break the forum rules to take an enforced time out (such as in theoretical example of repeated verbal abuse, or many other types of illegal activity).

[voyagers_uk]

fair point Shteveo, un-highlighting people may work, but hasn't that horse bolted? I mean most members know who the mods/admins are.

in terms of the bumping unanswered threads or developing discussion it may help to nominate some of the most active members to do just that.

given some of the feedback we receive, isn't our involvement in a thread an opportunity for the stone throwing mob to ply their trade?

[Purplegoo]

I'm not going to post any further on this topic after answering the FUMBBL specific part of your post, Mike, on the basis I don't really want to become part of a long, cyclical debate that tends to spin out of threads you involve yourself in. I don't have time this week, and I've had my say at some length.

No area of the Blood Bowling Internet is perfect. I am not perfect, neither am I a FUMBBL spokesperson, although I recognise I tend to bite when it comes up as a subject.

FUMBBL is no different from other sites of it's kind in that there is a baseline level of anti-staff feeling that bubbles up from time to time. However, the case of FUMBBL, I believe, is quite different to that of TFF. If you look at the site now, it's full of praise for both staff and user lead initiatives, a new user is being warmly welcomed and debate is underway on a number of issues. The overall feeling is positive (inclusive of heated debate, which is a positive thing). Moreover: the mods there are active and relatively often refreshed, with a clear boss you can contact with any issues.

Of course, there are missteps, there are everywhere. There is also a less nicey-nicey culture there than here (that some find abrasive, some view as healthy or self policing, but if you take the Internet as a whole, it's friendly), with little tolerance for certain well worn subjects or challenges to site rules. I don't know if the mods set that culture or reflect it back, but the boss seems happy, and it has been many moons since there has been any serious mod disquiet in the forum.

There are always going to be approaches that a person likes more than others, and if you don't like FUMBBL, fine, good luck to you, I am not suggesting TFF becomes FUMBBL. There are always going to be people that rage against the Man. But I think lumping in TFF with those other sites or organisations you mention (in terms of nerd disquiet) is dead wrong. TFF is the problem people bring up when you meet them, over and over again, not when they're behind a keyboard and monitor just bleating because they can bleat, when they are physically talking to you. TFF is the place, over and over again on my daily trawl around BB online, where there is some drama or moaning. This undercurrent of disquiet is mentioned as far back as 2010 in threads elsewhere. If the output of this thread is really changing the colour of mod names such that they are invisible, then the issues being debated are being ignored. If they aren't active or they're contributing in a consistently negative and closing way to threads, it doesn't really matter if they are camouflaged or not. The NAF disquiet, for instance, never actually spilled over into election results or other quantitative measurable. Cyanide still shift units. I'm not sure how one would quantify a site's decline, but because we can't, it's not a good response to assume everything is fine.

The answer to this is not to throw your hands up and lament your thankless task is thankless and not worthwhile bothering. I am not running around with a pitchfork demanding heads. I merely suggest that a bit of a refresh might up everyone's game and arrest the perceived slide. If you don't think there is a slide, it can't hurt anyway, can it?

Anyway, I've already written more than I intended. Good luck, everyone.

[VoodooMike]

There's a back end switch in phpBB that allows you to turn off the user or group specific name colours. If you use it it makes the mods and admins look like everyone else. Just throwing it out there that new accounts aren't required.

Even if such an option did not exist, it lets you define the colours for various groups. They could all be set to black. That said, there are times when an official representative of the forum/site does need to make a public statement and have it known that they are in a position to make official statements... but none of those people would be the moderators, they'd more likely be someone like doubleskulls who is technically the owner of the site (or some such.. I could be wrong on the specific person).

I disagree with Mike's theme only in that I suspect there is occasion for those who (repeatedly) break the forum rules to take an enforced time out (such as in theoretical example of repeated verbal abuse, or many other types of illegal activity).

I can only see the need to block spam accounts, personally. If someone wants to post they're going to post... at most the forum script can block specific account names or specific IP addresses, each of which can be changed in under a minute. At best things go your way and the person voluntarily bows out... at worst, you've created an actual heated conflict that is worse than the situation you imagined you were solving. You may end up spending all your time deleting the person's new accounts and postings, which at this point are probably ALL terrible stuff deliberately. Even if you don't mind cleaning up the mess for a while, it does eventually get to the point where the outcomes are worse than the situations you thought you were fixing... which is especially true when you consider the fact that users who objected could have handled the situation on their own, and had the problem user just gotten bored they'd have moved on voluntarily.

Just step back and let people be themselves and things will all work out. How do I know that? It's what has always happened with people for as far back as history is recorded. Things only get ugly when one or more people decide to enforce their mindset at the point of a sword. Yes, people will argue. Yes, people will fight about things. Yes feeling will get hurt and tempers will sometimes flare. All of those things are a sign of a community's diversity and passion. I can't imagine wanting to stifle that in the name of "the rules". If "the rules" mandate it should be, then the rules are wrong.

fair point Shteveo, un-highlighting people may work, but hasn't that horse bolted? I mean most members know who the mods/admins are.

I think one of the key issues was that NEW users are more likely to feel alienated by the berating of overt moderators and administrators. I would certainly agree that removing the colouring would be pointless if said admins were prone to whipping out their nightsticks during conversations they were taking part in... or, y'know... at all. Change people's perception of what moderators do and are, and it all stops being an issue regardless.

in terms of the bumping unanswered threads or developing discussion it may help to nominate some of the most active members to do just that.

Give them the ability to split or merge threads as well and call them "moderators" and be done with it.

If you look at the site now, it's full of praise for both staff and user lead initiatives, a new user is being warmly welcomed and debate is underway on a number of issues.

Of course it is: because the Tutsis are all dead.

[Shteve0]

Yep, understand where you're coming from there, but I don't totally agree, that's all. I don't intend that people's opinions be supressed but, as a theoretical straw man, take casual homophobia as an example; its a short leap from a poster saying a miniature pose looks "gay" to another poster not feeling they're entirely welcome to express themselves. In those instances I think its appropriate for the team to moderate the comment to better express the original post to more appropriately express the point without alienating a portion of the readership. Not censorship, merely simple language moderation.

Voyagers, I'm certainly not suggesting the moderators hide; I was just pointing out that in the back end there's a functionality to separate the moderator from the universal mark of their role to try to limit the opprobrium they may or may not receive in posting as themselves, if they were seeking such a tool. Theyre still listed as mods in the personnel lists.