What kind of moderation would YOU like to see on Prydwen.net?

[Lieva]

yea satyns right actually

think is been an unwritten rule as i dont think any mod would lock a thread theyve been participating in cuz they would feel they were abusing their own powers without before anyone actually pointed it out.

We have good mods people

[Tare]

Oh please, don't make me google the cyfr threads guys

Anyway, the modding is good, the current atmosphere on the forum is good aaand..well dunno what else to say, tis all good i guess

[Lieva]

cyfr was an entertiy of his own

even with correct spelling of that word

[Xest]

Oh please, don't make me google the cyfr threads guys

Anyway, the modding is good, the current atmosphere on the forum is good aaand..well dunno what else to say, tis all good i guess

Indeed. Some threads have to be locked even if the mod is involved in the discussion though because if they're the only person on then there's little choice. Some threads shouldn't really be left until morning unlocked.

[Jupi]

I am generally happy with the modding, some decisions have been over zealous IMO but nothing major, i would prefer threads being locked rather than posts deleted and as twisted as it might be those threads entertain us ] i am not overly happy with some of the mods TBH i just dont think they are experienced or neutral enough, but thats just my liberal opinion [/B]

i agree with him, especially the bold bit, and in this thread we have mods agreeing with mods... u want to run something your way u appoint who wont critique ur ideas & generally agrre with u to the position......... workplace bullies adopt this tactic regularly /ducks.... not that i'm calling anybody a bully but as somebody once said "print and be-damned"

[Quinlan]

Moderation is never perfect. It is impossible to make everyone happy and what will a forum be without complainers and different opinions.

Maybe i didnt handle the 7.10 thread perfectly. I handled it in the way i thought was best at the time. I adjusted it a bit later after getting some good and reasonable feedback from people (mostly via PM and non mod people).

IMO there is nothing wrong with Mods having an opinion. So far i have yet to see an example here of a mod 'abusing' his mod status to get a point across. Eventho several mods have been accused of doing so.

For me personally i will keep posting as i always have and i will mod based on the polls result.

Edit: Ow and i havent voted as i see a mixture between 1 and 2 the best option. no CoC will ever cover all the grey areas

[Satyn]

i agree with him, especially the bold bit, and in this thread we have mods agreeing with mods... u want to run something your way u appoint who wont critique ur ideas & generally agrre with u to the position......... workplace bullies adopt this tactic regularly /ducks.... not that i'm calling anybody a bully but as somebody once said "print and be-damned"

So you really think that i'm going to agree with a co-mod just because he's a mod and not because he's actually right? No way. This girl here had a mind of her own, I dont need to suck up to anyone so i dont see why i should agree with a view i actually dont agree on. And I think i can speak for all mods.
I will always use my personal views when I do my modding job allong with following the coc. Cos sometimes the CoC might not be clear enough.

[stupeh]

I'd love for everything to be done by the CoC, so i knew exactly what i could, and could not post. Of course, it would be unfair to request a mod/admin to write a CoC with references to every possible circumstance, it just won't happen. Although, if the outcome of this poll pointed towards moderation via the CoC, then imo, there needs to be quite a bit of detail added too it. As Quin said, a CoC won't ever be able to cover all grey areas, but for me there are currently too many, several which could be fixed with a few lines.

If the moderation was more directed towards judgement, i'd like to see more situations solved by giving people the "benefit of doubt". There will always be different interpretations of something, maybe entirely different to how the poster meant it to be. When a mod see's something that they KNOW can be interpreted in many different ways, i'd prefer for them to just post a note in the thread, or via a pm, to warn the poster that some people may have taken it the wrong way, and that they are verging on gaining themselves a warning, rather than just giving away warnings.

[Scabs]

I'd love for everything to be done by the CoC, so i knew exactly what i could, and could not post. Of course, it would be unfair to request a mod/admin to write a CoC with references to every possible circumstance, it just won't happen. Although, if the outcome of this poll pointed towards moderation via the CoC, then imo, there needs to be quite a bit of detail added too it. As Quin said, a CoC won't ever be able to cover all grey areas, but for me there are currently too many, several which could be fixed with a few lines.

If the moderation was more directed towards judgement, i'd like to see more situations solved by giving people the "benefit of doubt". There will always be different interpretations of something, maybe entirely different to how the poster meant it to be. When a mod see's something that they KNOW can be interpreted in many different ways, i'd prefer for them to just post a note in the thread, or via a pm, to warn the poster that some people may have taken it the wrong way, and that they are verging on gaining themselves a warning, rather than just giving away warnings.

Totally agree with you. I have voted the way I want but see it going one of these 2 ways and think what you've written above is a fair way.

[Sharkith]

I am kind of like Ovi on this I do not like censorship but appreciate that there are varied levels of tolerance for people who use these boards and so there is a requirement to moderate those differences. So for me this is what moderation means. The smoothing over of different expectations about what is and is not appropriate to say to another person on a semi-anonymous board. Put another way it is about trying to make sure that the different tolerance levels of a diverse group of people all interacting non-simultaneously do not lead to break downs of communication. It is there to help keep people talking to each other.

In this respect then moderation is not something that is done solely by a moderator because people already self moderate according to what they would and wouldn't say in public. Equally it would be silly to believe that the CoC can achieve this because after all you have to be bothered to read it. In that case some will and some won't. It can act as a useful point of reference but likewise should not be used as a big stick to beat people - otherwise well your not really being moderate whilst moderating are you?

The moderators certainly do their job if at times they can be a little over enthusiastic. So I am all for a little moderation.

Personally therefore semantically moderation is just that - moderate intervention. Sometimes the moderation has been immoderate if you catch my drift? A lot of the time howeever it has been spot on.

regards

Sharkith