Proposal: Mod Liason

[Softly]

I'd like to propose a new post for mod liason.

What is it?
It would be held by someone who isn't a mod and would be responsible for helping handle appeals of moderator decisions, as well as providing a means to enable discussion between mod team and other members of the community.

I think it should be someone jointly chosen by Player and Moderator councillors, and the post should rotate every 6 months or so, rather than being a position for life.

What's the point?
Well there seems to be semi-frequent problems with people complaining about the unilateral power the mods superficially appear to have, especially the fact that to appeal a moderators decision you have to go back and talk to the moderators. Given that the mods will have just made the decision, this will avoid situations where they may be seen as biased (whether this is a fair accusation is beside the point).

A mod liason would take the task of identifying legitimate appeals off the mods (leaving them to get on with less annoying things), as well as providing independent arbitration in the case of more borderline disputes.

---

I'd like to close by asking people not to pollute this thread with discussions about specific moderator actions, since that would totally miss the point (the point by the way, is that its better to work together to positively solve issues than it is to moan to each other about historical grievances).

So what does everyone think?

[Blodir]

I don't see this being necessary. Sure there might be some inconsistency in kicks/bans, but I think that's alright, you shouldn't be walking the line near ban anyway. More often I see mods being too lenient than too strict

[BRNKoINSANITY]

Also, when you appeal a ban, it doesn't go to whatever mod banned you in the first place. It goes to the ENTIRE mod group and it does get discussed. This means that 2-3 people who weren't even online at the time (different time zones) will see what happened and be able to more objectively decide of the ban was right (like if a mod was personally involved in an argument at the time or #aeolus was "hot").

I don't think this would solve anything, it would just add one more person to the list of people to blame. The bottom line is that if you are poking and prodding to see just how far you can go before you get banned, then you get banned, you have no leg to stand on disputing the ban. Yup, you found the line, now sit in the corner till your ban is up and then you can be nice again. Repeatedly poking the mods is not going to get you leniency, and definitely does not make you a martyr. If you look at the list of people who are complaining about the methods of the mod group, there is a fairly large correlation with the list of people who have had multiple reprimands, a lot of times by at least two different mods. That would tell me that it is a problem with the people, not with the mods (at least to some degree).

[briang]

Firstly: *Liaison*

I think you guys are missing the other side of this. There are people who've been toeing the line for months who I'd like to see nothing more than permanently muted, but I don't think the purpose of a mod liaison has anything to do with being a blame magnet for someone not getting/getting banned. There are cases where there needs to be explanation both ways, and while I don't think consistency is a major problem, this essentially ensures that it can't be. What I think this prevents is (insert idiot) stirring up garbage about X troll friend receiving a chat ban and causing some idiotic ruckus (multiple times) with no accountability.

I've been banned legitimately before and I've successful appealed a ban I thought was unjust. What I will say about the appeal process is that there was no formal way to submit one, especially considering it was for a forum ban. I ended up having to go through one person who sent it to the mods and then one day I was magically un-banned.

While Softly focuses on how this places a check on the mods, I think it also keeps the players accountable. Let's be real here, we all know there are 4+ people who take absolute dumps on chat constantly with Lenny spam and complaining about the mods and complaining about the fact that there even are mods. They do the same garbage every day, end up banned for it, come back and then complain about the fact that they were banned for it. For some reason the mods are able to stand this crap and haven't just chat banned them permanently yet.

I see a mod liaison position as someone who can choose whether or not to advocate on behalf of someone based on their history and the incident at hand; keeping the mods in check the VERY few times they need to be checked and giving them the latitude to do away with people who have spent hundreds of hours shitting up chat and tens of hours actually playing Supreme Commander. If someone isn't worth advocating for because they've been chat banned 5 times and continue to smash their face into a brick wall, the mod liaison can chuckle at them and let their brains ooze onto the concrete.

In attempt to truly legitimize what I'm saying, I'll be brave and say that if I got permanently forum banned, I would not be worth advocating for. Anyone who would advocate for me would probably not be a good choice for the position.

TLDR:

This position can keep mods and players in check, not just the mods.

[Morax]

Firstly: *Liaison*

I think you guys are missing the other side of this. There are people who've been toeing the line for months who I'd like to see nothing more than permanently muted, but I don't think the purpose of a mod liaison has anything to do with being a blame magnet for someone not getting/getting banned. There are cases where there needs to be explanation both ways, and while I don't think consistency is a major problem, this essentially ensures that it can't be. What I think this prevents is (insert idiot) stirring up garbage about X troll friend receiving a chat ban and causing some idiotic ruckus (multiple times) with no accountability.

I've been banned legitimately before and I've successful appealed a ban I thought was unjust. What I will say about the appeal process is that there was no formal way to submit one, especially considering it was for a forum ban. I ended up having to go through one person who sent it to the mods and then one day I was magically un-banned.

While Softly focuses on how this places a check on the mods, I think it also keeps the players accountable. Let's be real here, we all know there are 4+ people who take absolute dumps on chat constantly with Lenny spam and complaining about the mods and complaining about the fact that there even are mods. They do the same garbage every day, end up banned for it, come back and then complain about the fact that they were banned for it. For some reason the mods are able to stand this crap and haven't just chat banned them permanently yet.

I see a mod liaison position as someone who can choose whether or not to advocate on behalf of someone based on their history and the incident at hand; keeping the mods in check the VERY few times they need to be checked and giving them the latitude to do away with people who have spent hundreds of hours shitting up chat and tens of hours actually playing Supreme Commander. If someone isn't worth advocating for because they've been chat banned 5 times and continue to smash their face into a brick wall, the mod liaison can chuckle at them and let their brains ooze onto the concrete.

In attempt to truly legitimize what I'm saying, I'll be brave and say that if I got permanently forum banned, I would not be worth advocating for. Anyone who would advocate for me would probably not be a good choice for the position.

TLDR:

This position can keep mods and players in check, not just the mods.

P.S. for the lolz:
One of the people I'm ranting about even liked this thread!

P.S.S.

While the thread said not to give specific examples, it is fairly integral to my argument...

[theeggroll]

The fact of the matter is that SOMETHING needs to be done. Almost every day I hear or see someone complain about mod bs and i think part of that does stem from the fact that mods are completely unchecked, and if we want things changed... well change over rules and the moderation team pretty much won't ever happen. Most people in aeolus I see just want to have a good time, and maybe they get a little close to the edge of lenny spam, but theres really nothing in the rules about lenny, its just whatever the mod is in the mood for will be the line for lenny to become a ban. And most things in aeolus that really aren't that bad (lenny spam, minor trolling, etc) are all up to what the mod feels at the time. Such inconsistency is not fair to the players (I imagine someone will complain about people skirting towards the edge of the rules blah blah) and just leads to bans. More bans = less players, in a small community, we want players, unless they are toxic.

Now to all you people who complain about people skirting the limits of the rules; write better rules, be more consistent about when you ban, maybe stop banning for that particular reason, etc. Think creatively. You're first idea should not be just banning people, that makes them have less fun, which is bad. Aeolus and faf exist for people to have fun (its a game godammit), and talking and trolling around in aeolus is fun for a lot of people, and yet mods (from some POV's) just exist to make aeolus a boring place for people to only talk about serious things.

Briang are you talking about yourself in your post?

[biass]

There is nothing wrong with the position, i think it is a good idea

that is all

[briang]

It is easy to complain about the rules when you walk the line like a man on a wire.

To Morax: constructive and intelligent as usual from you, we all appreciate your valuable input. I'll be sure to constructively put that video back up.

Pitiful...

[Mel_Gibson]

How to make an irrelevant post and sit on the fence 101:

Humans dispute. As do the things in aeolus. "abusive, hateful, harassing, respectful, trolling, objectionable, offensive". All subjective. Objective rules are nigh impossible, and perhaps terms like "frowned upon" and "discouraged" don't help. One man's offence is another man's humor. Inevitably a difference in personality will lead to situations where by people may feel someone has been unjustly banned, and a mod may feel they are being unjustly criticised. And i'm sure all mods have different tolerances as well.

Perhaps more open communication would lead to more objective framework of the rules as applied by the mods, maybe reassure any that suspect foul play and generally lead to a greater consensus among the community, but then perhaps a middle man will undermine the ability of a mod to make a decision when required, confuse things that bit more, and ultimately defeat the purpose of having chat mods in the first place.

I tend to err on the greater openness, less draconian side, but then i'm the kind of guy that would !op Donald Trump

[RaptorJesus]

As someone who gets moderated often, I think this position is necessary. As it stands, the appeal process isn't obvious or intuitive and trying to get details about bans is like trying to get blood from a stone. It's also quite hard to think that there isn't bias in the mod team, but this isn't the right place to talk about that.

I think a liason like this could convince a lot of people that the mod team is not as corrupt as they claim it to be and help both sides understand each other better, especially with the recent storm about IRC evasion.


I'm eager to see how this plays out.