There are two ways to make something transparent

[WayneByNumbers]

A lot of the more vocal elements of the community, on the forums especially, have been complaining about a lack of "transparency" in the servers in terms of policy and process recently.  I believe there is a very easy way to begin to address this.

 

A wall can be made to be seen through in two ways.  One way is to set up a camera on one side, run a wire through the wall, set up a projector on the other side, run power lines to both, have the projector put the camera image on the other side of the wall, aim and calibrate everything, and then actively maintain the whole system.

 

The other way is to make a window.

 

I think one of the problems with nerd.nu's openness in terms of process is not so much secret-keeping conspiracy or callous disregard.  It's because we've been relying on the camera/projector setup, which is a friggin' hassle.  A good example is the old thrawnlog.  Everyone thought it was a great idea and a good step for the staff in general--and it lasted 5 days.  With all the other stuff the admins do (which we got a glimpse of in said log), keeping up a little "minutes" thing every day, single-handedly, must have seemed pretty low priority.  The new changelogs are working out much better so far, I think, but it's still a just summary of a conclusion that someone has to put together, and its setup seems to be geared mostly towards major announcements.

 

So forget the projector, why don't we add a window.

 

To clarify;

 

It should be standard forum practice to hold staff discussions in the most public staff channel possible.

 

i.e. most mod discussions would happen here in Mod Chat, and would only take place in Mod Chat Private if privacy is absolutely necessary (e.g. nomination discussions or plans for surprise events).  Ditto for Admin Chat and Head Admin Chat; only if really necessary.  Ideally, HAC would become a pretty sparse place.  Really, I don't think there should be much discussion in there, that level of privacy is pretty high and should be reserved for when needed.

 

One reason I am suggesting this is because it would be very easy to implement.  No new plugins, no editing permission files, no website code changes--all it would take is for the staff in general to agree on it and then start doing it (which requires no more effort than clicking on a different link before hitting the "Start New Topic" button).  Think we can manage it?

[Trooprm32]

Looking through MCP, no, most of it wouldn't belong in Public mod chat.

[jchance]

I agree for the most part with this post.   I've always been big on admin transparency (which is why I started the changelog thing for C that all other servers have followed suit) and at the last admin meeting, which we have once a month, I urged the other admins to communicate with mods and players more.

 

However, I can tell you that there have only been 2 new threads in the head admin forum and 8 new threads in the admin forum this month so its not like an incredible amount of discussion is happening on the forums.  The vast majority of discussion happens in other threads throughout the forums and in IRC where we discuss what people are suggesting in threads, personnel issues, technical issues and requests for tech admins, and  if we need to take action in a scenario, etc.

 

I think the real problem with having policy discussions in the most public venue available is that the signal to noise ratio gets dramatically worse-  you go from 5 or 6 opinions of admins to 30 opinions of mods with cross talk and banter mixed in and it takes 3 pages to get to some sort of conclusion, if ever.  If you try to do that in IRC it becomes an impossible to follow wall of text where nobody can really tell what is going on in the end.  I'm not sure what the best solution to that problem is.

[Vortex_Oxide]

I would like to express that I fully agree with every point Wayne has made in this post. I have always believed that transparency is important around the servers, and I am delighted to see the issue being discussed.

[WayneByNumbers]

I agree for the most part with this post.   I've always been big on admin transparency (which is why I started the changelog thing for C that all other servers have followed suit) and at the last admin meeting, which we have once a month, I urged the other admins to communicate with mods and players more.

 

However, I can tell you that there have only been 2 new threads in the head admin forum and 8 new threads in the admin forum this month so its not like an incredible amount of discussion is happening on the forums.  The vast majority of discussion happens in other threads throughout the forums and in IRC where we discuss what people are suggesting in threads, personnel issues, technical issues and requests for tech admins, and  if we need to take action in a scenario, etc.

 

I think the real problem with having policy discussions in the most public venue available is that the signal to noise ratio gets dramatically worse-  you go from 5 or 6 opinions of admins to 30 opinions of mods with cross talk and banter mixed in and it takes 3 pages to get to some sort of conclusion, if ever.  If you try to do that in IRC it becomes an impossible to follow wall of text where nobody can really tell what is going on in the end.  I'm not sure what the best solution to that problem is.

 

I wasn't really referring to IRC (this idea, you're right, would apply quite poorly there), and my biggest point really is that Mod Chat is terribly underused.  I don't see why, for example, discussions about policy or moderating practice couldn't be made here, unless the discussion for some reason includes sensitive info.  I agree some threads could get rather long, but if an admin needs to speak up now and then and get things back on track, well, that's what admins are for.  In the current system, things often have to "trickle down" in order to get anybody in the loop.  If threads start to peter out without getting anywhere, the rest of the community know who to poke, and about what, rather than soapboxing and hoping the right person is listening.  Players can only see one channel of the Staff Discussion, and it's practically a ghost town.

 

But another reason for opening staff discussion a bit would be as a way to combat some of the "divide" between players and staff and even between the staff roles.  Nobody creates this divide on purpose; it's a side effect of private discussion.  The more you discuss with just a few people, the more time you are spending with only those people.  They'll probably, on average, know each other better and become closer friends, leading them to trust each other's judgement all the more, and feeling less need for further discussion.  This kind of thing happens naturally and gradually, which is why it's so easy to overlook and why it needs to be actively countered now and then.

 

And if there have only been 2 or 8 threads made in admin level forums, maybe those are currently being a bit underused too.  Real-time discussion is inestimable, no question.  But they do leave out anyone who's not "there" at the time.  And if discussions are being born, growing, and dying in there with no sign or record, then the illusion of inactivity remains, and I think that's something we need to push back a bit as well (although the changelogs have taken that pretty far already, it's true).

[Cyotie911]

(Excuse this as I am going to reply even though I'm extremely tired, This may get edited for clarity sake tomorrow but I wanted to get my ideas down)

 

I am against this for a few reasons.  The biggest one I will mention here. 

 

Mod chat private keeps decisions that, when they are made, come from the staff as a whole.  Players in the community don't need to hold grudges against any staff member who agrees or disagrees with any decisions made.

All decisions that come from the staff, come from all of the staff and the staff are expected to support all decisions that are made.

 

What I do suggest is (and I'm pretty sure we do a decent job of this as it is but maybe it can be improved upon) when we make a decision, we can create a thread regarding the decision and any and all reasoning behind this decision.  I also hope that anyone who has any questions regarding a decision, to feel free to contact any staff personnel and discuss it with them.

[XkinOEC]

You say this Cyotie, yet then we make one of the biggest grudge-holding features public, the modvotes. Anyone can see what votes I or other staff members made. While it doesn't concern me personally as I no longer care what people think of my opinion, it has been made apparent before that staff members feel uncomfortable expressing their true opinion on people simply because it will cause people to hold a grudge towards them, and rightfully so, as I know a significant number of people who are currently on staff that feel a bit of a negative vibe with those who voted no for them. So really what more are we protecting if it's a staff members job to give accurate input on those?

 

As far as I can tell, many of the things we currently talk about in the main section of that forum are things that have no reason to be hidden... Many of them require community input more than our own, yet we're restricting them to moderator + status for some reason.

[Cyotie911]

I am against mod votes being made public. I got over ruled. Therefore I support the decision.

[Cyotie911]

As far as things that nedd with public opinion, 99% of the time, we have polls for those. I am also for have the poll count public, but the voter private.

[WayneByNumbers]

All decisions that come from the staff, come from all of the staff and the staff are expected to support all decisions that are made.

 

I am against mod votes being made public. I got over ruled. Therefore I support the decision.

 

Usually that should go without saying, but I suppose in context it's worth articulating.

 

Any moderator or admin that can't adopt this attitude should ask themselves if they really want to be on staff, because, as you say, that's the expectation.  That "negative vibe" you mention, nickeox, shouldn't really be there.  That's what the staff members are supposed to be; the players who can get past that kind of thing.  If you were voted in, then you have the support of the entirety of the rest of the staff, including those who apparently felt you weren't right for the position (or you should, anyway, and anyone who sticks to their "no" vote is as guilty as any grudge holder if not more).  As long as the community understands this, then seeing some of the process of how some things get hashed out shouldn't be a danger.  Anyone who would try to gain advantage by driving a wedge between staff members should be beating their heads against a brick wall.

 

While it is important for the sake of consistency in moderating, we shouldn't need to keep everything under wraps just so we present that "united front."  With transparency comes some accountability, another thing staff members are selected for being able to handle.  If people are more careful about what they say because more people can read it, so much the better.  Disagreeing in public is not something we should be afraid of.  The nerd.nu community isn't something we should be afraid of.  We're supposed to be part of it.

 

And there's another thing I would hope we could chip away at.  For a few of the players and a few of the staff, it's clear from what they say that they don't trust each other anymore.  nerd.nu has existed for over 5 years and all sorts of trusts have been burned this way and that.  But the staff's authority is supposed to be based on that trust, with the force of permission settings a fallback.  If we let ourselves get cynical and jaded, we might slightly reduce the total volume of disruption, but we all have less fun.  Which is kind of the servers' root issue right now.

 

Oh, and reading back through my posts, I suppose I'd better reiterate here that I'm not advocating making everything open.  There are still issues for which the private channels exist in the first place, and they should stay there.