Discussion on transparency and staff at mcpublic

[Darkelmo]

Many of you make brilliant points, I think. I strongly agree that all players should have a say in the area of new mods, however keep voting disabled for all ranks lower than the mods themselves. I also think that the discussions on new mods should be paid more attention by the community as a whole, as that way no party receives all the benefit from new mods - thus allowing all new mods to be accepted widely. Of course, it's always up to the Admins and Head Admins to get the final say, but ordinary players should have the power to provide some insight on their overall decisions.

 

This is the kind of confusion many people are freaking out about. Words like 'ranks' and phrases like 'ordinary players' are exactly the kind of thing that makes players uneasy. I know the levels of responsibility that has been passed on to players has clearly been done in a way to allow trustworthy players (although I find it incredibly unrealistic to call them unbiased) to help maintain the players of undetermined trustworthiness. One reason why I particularly like this server is because its full of moderators who truly care for the server (some more than others). And if they could trust every single player that joins to act responsibly or with accordance with the rules, we would have little need for the strict 'behind closed doors' system that has been described by many. However, although this is a discussion about allowing the overall population of the nerd.nu to contribute and know more whilst maintaining the security and privacy of the server, much of the inspiration for said change has originated from particular staff dissatisfaction. While I don't trust the community to make intelligent decisions (and unbiased ones) I also feel the same way for a number of staff. I feel they over exaggerate their dedication to the good of the servers against their own normal emotional desires. The only reason I trust the moderation team to deal with the votes is because the ratio of good decision makers to bad decision makers in this team is more pleasing than that of the general public. Just how there are heaps of crazy lunatics who aren't politicians and there are only a bunch that are. 

[Guest Former Staff]

Since we're on the subject of moderator nominations / voting you may have noticed that we're currently within a voting period. Once the voting ends and we ask the chosen moderators to begin their training, we'll be opening a new moderator nomination topic* within the private mod forums, however I would like to see the opportunity for everyone to provide feedback and suggestions for nominees, similar to the current topic available on the next creative admin.

 

Based off the reaction and results to the linked topic, the feedback from everyone is proving invaluable.

 

*This is due to a demand for moderators, particularly on survival and that we have a few nominees to carry over to the new round of nominations.

[zifnab06]

I would like, in the future, to have a thread like the current Creative Admin thread just stating "We are looking for moderators. Please send <whoever> your reccommendations". I don't know if I'm clueless (its possible), but I had no idea there was even a nomination going on.

[Denevien]

I would like, in the future, to have a thread like the current Creative Admin thread just stating "We are looking for moderators. Please send <whoever> your reccommendations". I don't know if I'm clueless (its possible), but I had no idea there was even a nomination going on.

Currently, the nomination process is private to staff members because if there is a reason that someone shouldn't be staff, and it gets discussed, we don't like airing that out for everyone to see. Though, anyone can send nomination suggestions to any staff member anytime they want. If you'd like, feel free to email admins@nerd.nu with suggestions. We will ask see it and can get it in the next round of nominations. We may not approve them for various reasons, and if we don't add them, we may not say why (again, no need to spread dirt on people). I know I can speak for many of the admins when I say if someone suggests someone, we will honestly consider it, and try to get to know them if they are not someone we play with.

[Diznatch52]

Currently, the nomination process is private to staff members because if there is a reason that someone shouldn't be staff, and it gets discussed, we don't like airing that out for everyone to see. Though, anyone can send nomination suggestions to any staff member anytime they want. If you'd like, feel free to email admins@nerd.nu with suggestions. We will ask see it and can get it in the next round of nominations. We may not approve them for various reasons, and if we don't add them, we may not say why (again, no need to spread dirt on people). I know I can speak for many of the admins when I say if someone suggests someone, we will honestly consider it, and try to get to know them if they are not someone we play with.

I think what zifnab is trying to say is that similar to Barlimore's call for suggestions regarding new Cadmins, it would be nice to see a post go out whenever a new discussion thread was starting up in modchat private saying something to the effect of "it's that time again when we're consider people for moderator nominations, and we'd love to hear your feedback blah blah blah PM us with any suggestions and/or reasons you believe said people should be moderators." Again, very similar to Barlimore's thread asking for suggestions for a new Cadmin.

[JohnAdams1735]

I would like, in the future, to have a thread like the current Creative Admin thread just stating "We are looking for moderators. Please send <whoever> your reccommendations". I don't know if I'm clueless (its possible), but I had no idea there was even a nomination going on.

The voting thread is in the forums. And you can always ask :)

 

Currently, the nomination process is private to staff members because if there is a reason that someone shouldn't be staff, and it gets discussed, we don't like airing that out for everyone to see. Though, anyone can send nomination suggestions to any staff member anytime they want. If you'd like, feel free to email admins@nerd.nu with suggestions. We will ask see it and can get it in the next round of nominations. We may not approve them for various reasons, and if we don't add them, we may not say why (again, no need to spread dirt on people). I know I can speak for many of the admins when I say if someone suggests someone, we will honestly consider it, and try to get to know them if they are not someone we play with.

Yep :)

 

I think what zifnab is trying to say is that similar to Barlimore's call for suggestions regarding new Cadmins, it would be nice to see a post go out whenever a new discussion thread was starting up in modchat private saying something to the effect of "it's that time again when we're consider people for moderator nominations, and we'd love to hear your feedback blah blah blah PM us with any suggestions and/or reasons you believe said people should be moderators." Again, very similar to Barlimore's thread asking for suggestions for a new Cadmin.

I've said it before above but I'll say it again - as Den also said we've had a pretty open policy (or I have) about players suggesting names. We'll consider them - I personally try to make an effort to see the person in action or try to talk with them a little to get to know them a bit so I can personally recommend them in the next round. I've usually got a running list of names on a post it note on my desk!

 

Again, though, as I said above, it seems we need to formalize this system with posts to the subreddit when we're going through a brainstorming thread, so people know for sure they can come to staff with names. Which, as Barlimore said, is something we're going to do next round! :)

[teddylover]

About voting on bans would it be that witnesses and some staff that have viewed logs would only be the people who vote as they'd know what had happened and there wouldn't be much arguments? 

 

Also if this was implemented and do you vote, first check to see if the person has been banned in past, particularly for the same reason, and second use your sense and don't vote if you have hated them before they didn't something to get banned.

[Zuziza]

The voting thread is in the forums. And you can always ask :)

 

Yep :)

 

I've said it before above but I'll say it again - as Den also said we've had a pretty open policy (or I have) about players suggesting names. We'll consider them - I personally try to make an effort to see the person in action or try to talk with them a little to get to know them a bit so I can personally recommend them in the next round. I've usually got a running list of names on a post it note on my desk!

 

Again, though, as I said above, it seems we need to formalize this system with posts to the subreddit when we're going through a brainstorming thread, so people know for sure they can come to staff with names. Which, as Barlimore said, is something we're going to do next round! :)

 

Crossposting the link sounds like a good follow up to this post, but I'd like to see this done regularly by the mods or admins posting the thread on the forum, instead of a player having to do it for them. Even if the post is a little "old", posting it now would be good instead of just saying something along the lines of "we should do that".

Edited August 3, 2013 by Zuziza

[Trooprm32]

About voting on bans would it be that witnesses and some staff that have viewed logs would only be the people who vote as they'd know what had happened and there wouldn't be much arguments? 

 

Also if this was implemented and do you vote, first check to see if the person has been banned in past, particularly for the same reason, and second use your sense and don't vote if you have hated them before they didn't something to get banned.

 

Communal voting on bans is a bad idea, it would become, once again, a popularity contest.

[PolarTux]

Just popping in here to post my opinion -

 

• Yes, I think Head Admins should be voted in by the player base. I think having admins that are supported by the community (and most likely voted for because of reputation for fairness, likeability, etc) would result in decisions made by said admins that are also supported by the community.
• YES. When I was a regular player I used to look through a lot of ban appeals. On controversial appeals, usually ones involving long-time community members, I would get agitated by some of the mods'/admins' decisions about the ban because I felt them to be unfair, and many others that I talked to would also find the bans to be unfair. Sometimes bias was apparent, or the banned player was disliked, etc. Letting players give their own input on the ban would result in a happier community overall.
• No, not exactly. Now this is where being popular would gain you more votes. There could be a perfectly deserving player that keeps to themselves more and isn't well known that wouldn't get mod for that reason. However, I think allowing the community to nominate players for mod would be a good idea.

[teddylover]

I check ban appeals every day and other topics that have been commented on while I was asleep.

 

I think we could do a trial to see how the two voting systems would work out. If one of them doesn't work out fine then we could still do the other.

[ROCKONN]

A voting system for bans, in my experience, is incredibly inefficient in an appeal process, and could be problematic. Say it WERE a voting system: there's always the possibility that less mature players (and/or players who just plain don't like the player in question) would vote negatively towards an otherwise potentially innocent player, causing them to be denied. I personally believe that our current system for appeals, where it is handled primarily by the staff member who issued the ban, with occassional input from relevant parties, is the best method for appeals.

This isn't meant to convey "oh, the community's opinion doesn't matter." Rather, it's that the community as a whole often mistakes the facts of the ban, whether it be something as simple as some griefing to a full out DDOS attack. Various opinions, hear-say, and subliminal bias would come into play whether it was intended or not, obscuring the relevant points of an appeal.

[xXNjordXx]

Im sorry but i see it different.

A Headadmin that was voted by the community always has the fact that he was votet in the back of his head, with that on his mind he cant do his job right, because he always fears to "punish" ppl that voted for him. Also it would become a popularity contest.

 

Also users should never under any circumstances vote on bans or their duration.

why ?

Simple they dont know what happened or all they know is what they heard from a friend.

The users dont all like each other so they will vote for a ban or a longer banduration against a player they dont like

The ban just involves the Mod/Admin/Headadmin and the banned User, and if the user doesnt want that the mod that banned him takes charge he can always say he wants another mod to take care of him.

The other users are completely uninvolved, so why should we drag them into it ?

If a user has a good and valid point for a Ban he can always post it in the banappeal (as long as he doesnt barge in and says the typical hes a nice player unban him plox)

 

 

• No, not exactly. Now this is where being popular would gain you more votes. There could be a perfectly deserving player that keeps to themselves more and isn't well known that wouldn't get mod for that reason. However, I think allowing the community to nominate players for mod would be a good idea.

 

 

You are already able to nominate players for a Moderation post. Just pm your oppinion to a admin or headadmin.

Also a little story about that.

When i was asked if i would like to become a mod for the first time i said No because i didnt feel ready for it.

Two months later i was asked again, and again i answered No , but at that time Barlimore was around a little longer so i added, But if you are looking for a mod take a look at Barlimore hes pure modmaterial imho

Later that month he was modded.

 

So as you can see your oppinion always matters.

[PolarTux]

@ROCKONN: You're worried about bias if the community, I understand that. But (unlike you, perhaps) I really do feel like the community as a whole is fairly mature *overall* from the time I've spent on the server/mumble/forums. There might possibly be a handful of biased players that vote to unfairly ban someone only because they dislike them, but the rest of the player base's fairness would outweigh that handful. Also, it's perfectly possible for a mod/admin to be biased in a ban and unfairly punish a player, too, but in that situation there are no other opinions to weigh against them. If people are really uncomfortable with players having a say in bans, then at least let all of the staff have a say, rather then one or two people.

@Njord: Part of becoming a headadmin would be to accept your new responsibilities, and I don't think any admin candidates would be biased towards players that voted them into the positions at all.

On your second point, 'dragging players in' to decide on a ban isn't the right way to word the situation imo, because I know as a player myself and others would sure as hell wanted a say in issues like controversial bans. To be honest, one reason I was willing to become a mod was that i felt my opinion would actually be valid, and I don't think that's a good mentality for players to have. What you say about having other staff members deal with a ban is true, but I feel like others would be influenced by the banning admin/mod and are hesitant to take the ban in a different direction than the original staff member dealing with it, because they are afraid of angering the original banner.

On the third point, do you think your opinion was considered just because you suggested it, or was it taken more seriously because you were seen as 'mod material'? My idea was more like an official nomination 'vote' where players would nominate others for mod and the nominations would be voted on, the top voted ones becoming mod candidates.

On another note, I see a lot of people bringing up that 'it would become a popularity contest' with no real logical reasoning behind the statement. I think a lot of people are severely underestimating the community's maturity and fairness, especially of those who are dedicated players that use the forums/subreddit and would be the ones voting on these things.

Sorry for the long post! :)

[schererererer]

On another note, I see a lot of people bringing up that 'it would become a popularity contest' with no real logical reasoning behind the statement.

I already addressed this with respect to the example given in voting on a ban, where one of the highest comments was a vote to ban the player in question because "He's a tool".

 

People who end up getting an actual vote held on their bans are likely to be more prominent members of the community, and thus have more friends (or "enemies") among those active users of the forums/subreddit. People with abrasive or irritating personalities would also tend to acquire a disproportionate number of votes to ban due to this factor. People seem to use upvotes and downvotes on the subreddit to indicate approval or disagreement, sometimes based on a username alone; it's not a stretch to think the same could easily happen with votes on bans. I've seen enough personal attacks and hostility on both the subreddit and forums to doubt the maturity of a not-insignificant proportion of the community that actively participates off-server.

[xXNjordXx]

On another note, I see a lot of people bringing up that 'it would become a popularity contest' with no real logical reasoning behind the statement. I think a lot of people are severely underestimating the community's maturity and fairness, especially of those who are dedicated players that use the forums/subreddit and would be the ones voting on these things.

Sorry for the long post! :)

 

Ive been a mod on severeal websites/forums/browsergames since 2003 and so far as soon as the community got involved into the work of the mods it immidiadly brought bad blood with it.

Annoying users were singled out and as soon as someone saw a chance to get rid of one he tried it.

Troll accounts were created to annoy the rest of the community and bring up more bed blood etc

and the worst part the mods needet to explain every single action they took into the smallest detail (srty i have to mention it but it was alot like barneygale on his own subreddit)

Also i have to bring it up again and im sorry for it but the beheavior on S shows exactly this.

As soon as someone gets into any bad blood with someone else he will take every chance to get rid of him.

either by modreqing him after a combat log where the other one came back said he was sorry and let himself be killed.

or my favorite the hacking accusation out of nowhere just because someone was beaten in a fight.

or by trying to make the other one angry enough so he would use homophobic slurs

or simply by griefing him with an alt account

 

Got message content removed

[PolarTux]

I already addressed this with respect to the example given in voting on a ban, where one of the highest comments was a vote to ban the player in question because "He's a tool".

 

Didn't see your post, sorry - also, what I'm not really talking about 'voting to ban someone'. Apologies for being unclear, but my idea isn't for players to just cast a vote yes/no, but for there to be an open discussion about the ban on the forums/sub. Obviously comments like "He's a tool' would be ignored, but constructive, reasonable posts would be made and based upon the responses/votes on the comments we could get an idea of how the community feels about the ban, and move forward from there.

 

 

Ive been a mod on severeal websites/forums/browsergames since 2003 and so far as soon as the community got involved into the work of the mods it immidiadly brought bad blood with it.

Annoying users were singled out and as soon as someone saw a chance to get rid of one he tried it.

Troll accounts were created to annoy the rest of the community and bring up more bed blood etc

and the worst part the mods needet to explain every single action they took into the smallest detail (srty i have to mention it but it was alot like barneygale on his own subreddit)

Also i have to bring it up again and im sorry for it but the beheavior on S shows exactly this.

As soon as someone gets into any bad blood with someone else he will take every chance to get rid of him.

either by modreqing him after a combat log where the other one came back said he was sorry and let himself be killed.

or my favorite the hacking accusation out of nowhere just because someone was beaten in a fight.

or by trying to make the other one angry enough so he would use homophobic slurs

or simply by griefing him with an alt account

 

Or another example

I apologize in advance for this i am truly sorry to write this stuff about you teddylover but it is just a perfekt example, and doesnt reflect what i am thinking.

 

Teddylover, based on her reputation on the forum and the karma on the subreddit  is by far on of the most unliked users here (sorry to be so honest teddylover). Not because she is always breaking the rules more because she seems to be an annoyence.

Honestly i believe that if we would let users interfere or take part in modwork, teddylover would be one of the first victims, not because she did something wrong but because someone saw a chaance to get rid of her and took his chance.

 

(Again Teddylover i am terrible sorry for using you as an example in this case and if you dont like it i will remove it just pm me and i will remove it asap)

 

Njord, sorry if I was unclear, but refer to my response to scher - the community would have a say in users that have already been banned by a staff member. It wouldn't be some sort of witch hunt where disliked players are voted to be banned by the community like you're implying, but rather a discussion about a controversial ban that has already been made by staff.

[schererererer]

Apologies for being unclear, but my idea isn't for players to just cast a vote yes/no, but for there to be an open discussion about the ban on the forums/sub. Obviously comments like "He's a tool' would be ignored, but constructive, reasonable posts would be made and based upon the responses/votes on the comments we could get an idea of how the community feels about the ban, and move forward from there.

 

I'm curious to know what moving forward here would entail. If the banning moderator/admins proceed with their original line of action, that is one that garners vocal opposition in open discussion, there is no effective difference from our current system, besides the hosting of these discussions between players in public rather than private. We currently have a general policy of not discussing bans outside of ban appeals partly to smooth the appeals process and partly to reduce frictional drama generated by the throwing about of accusations and denunciations (which occasionally happens regardless). On the other hand, if a consensus, majority, or plurality opinion in an open discussion thread has actual weight to throw around in the final resolution of the ban, it is to some degree a vote. The pure facts of these cases are typically settled and agreed upon, so a discussion would only impact the realm of banning philosophies - that is, the subjective rationales for ban length and breadth - which are deep-rooted, slow to change in most people, and are unlikely to be swayed in a single thread.

[CROCKODUCK]

I'm curious to know what moving forward here would entail. If the banning moderator/admins proceed with their original line of action, that is one that garners vocal opposition in open discussion, there is no effective difference from our current system, besides the hosting of these discussions between players in public rather than private. We currently have a general policy of not discussing bans outside of ban appeals partly to smooth the appeals process and partly to reduce frictional drama generated by the throwing about of accusations and denunciations (which occasionally happens regardless). On the other hand, if a consensus, majority, or plurality opinion in an open discussion thread has actual weight to throw around in the final resolution of the ban, it is to some degree a vote. The pure facts of these cases are typically settled and agreed upon, so a discussion would only impact the realm of banning philosophies - that is, the subjective rationales for ban length and breadth - which are deep-rooted, slow to change in most people, and are unlikely to be swayed in a single thread.

I do agree with this, frankly I find this whole thread to be dramatic.  I have been on the subreddit since about PVE rev 6 and actual servers since rev 8 and have watched it grow from "oh you are a griefer (possibly by accident) well sorry find somewhere else to play.  To the current system that actually gives players a chance to explain to show that they are serious about playing.  I think any sort of discussion system that would be public is asking for trouble, along with already mentioned, more drama.  I like the steps that the nerd community has stepped in, and I truly see nothing "broken" or even remotely wrong with it.  As far as "voting for head admins or moderators"... nope x100000.  This is would be as already mentioned, a "popularity contest."  

 

TL;DR dont fix what is not broken.

 

Just my two cents.   

[teddylover]

I don't mind Jord. It's just that some people like TornadoHorse and Ozomahtlii who usually wouldn't comment in stuff would just downvote my every comment with no explanation. Bit unfair?

 

I think downvoting should really be for disagreeing with them, not because you dislike them.

 

Upvoting should be for agreeing with them, not just because you like them.

 

Why can't all players just make an effort to get along. I'm fine with a lot of people but 1 or 2 P players and a lot of S players I don't seem to get along with. (None of these P or S players are staff)

 

(Derailing the topic a bit)

[Ozomahtlii]

I don't mind Jord. It's just that some people like TornadoHorse and Ozomahtlii who usually wouldn't comment in stuff would just downvote my every comment with no explanation. Bit unfair?

 

I think downvoting should really be for disagreeing with them, not because you dislike them.

 

Upvoting should be for agreeing with them, not just because you like them.

 

Why can't all players just make an effort to get along. I'm fine with a lot of people but 1 or 2 P players and a lot of S players I don't seem to get along with. (None of these P or S players are staff)

 

(Derailing the topic a bit)

I usually only downvote you when you make pointless comments in post that have no (positive) effect on the discussion, me disliking you has nothing to do with this, I will downvote people who act like that, you should stop taking everything personal.

 

Like right now I'm not sure how this comment you made has anything to do with this post? There are posts open about the down and upvoting systems, why not post it there?

 

Also saying 'why can't all players just make an effort to get along', you should definitely try that sometimes, heard it does wonders :)

[buzzinbee]

You are both drawing this into a personal matter between yourselves please keep this in private message or bring it up with an admin if you have a problem with each other.

[Ozomahtlii]

You are both drawing this into a personal matter between yourselves please keep this in private message or bring it up with an admin if you have a problem with each other.

I'm not taking anything into a personal matter, I'm just saying that I would like to keep comments in this post actually about the post and not about something of which there is another post open already where she could comment.

[buzzinbee]

 

Also saying 'why can't all players just make an effort to get along', you should definitely try that sometimes, heard it does wonders :)

 

I was referring to this comment, you are making it personal by saying "you should definitely try that sometimes, heard it does wonders :)" teddy's comment is a perfectly valid point, if she abides by what she says or not it's not your place to use it to take a dig at her. But this is off topic so could we please get back to the subject in hand?

 

EDIT: Don't get me wrong teddylover is also making it personal by calling you out, i'm just saying keep it to private chat.

[teddylover]

Having discussions on bans wouldn't benefit as there'd be quite a lot of them and people would start getting confused which would led to a lot of mix-ups. I think just mailing admins is fine the way it is.