I have nothing against Matt. I don't think he's evil or the devil or what have you. I do however think he is often in the midst of great controversy. And I think this makes him a poor choice to moderate forums. Or at least to moderate the threads in which he is participating. Can a rule be applied that if he is participating in a discussion that somone else will take over responsibility for that thread?

It seems like a mistake to have any of the people in charge of the top MUDs as moderators.

Ugh! I had no idea they were moderators. That's kind of disgusting. You all seem like very nice intelligent people... until you get to picking at one another, and then the professionalism goes right out the window. I think maybe Syoneezer needs to find a new way to find moderators.

My point is I think there is too much squabbling and bickering and finger pointing and insults. The fact that much of it comes from the moderators sets a really nasty precident.

I really have to apologize for posting at all. I had no idea that Valg and Kavir were also moderators. Maybe someone could moderate this thread into oblivion.

I myself think there's only one solution: I should be a moderator.

...  What, I can't be moderator?  What've they got that I don't have?  Well, aside from the MUDs...

I'll have to differ from you here, Aarn, Matt has pulled the trigger a couple of times.  Even though it's mostly been recently and confined to a couple of threads, we've had a couple of deletes and a couple of locks.  That doesn't bother me, as a matter of fact, I wish more flame topics were locked.

I love our moderators, they keep me entertained:)

I mean, that is what these forums are about right? Amusing flamewars that typically violate what you agreed not to do when you sign up for an account here, with the moderators typically being the some of the largest flamers.

It seems nowdays the minority of posts actually do what this forum was created for them to do.

I dont know if I would even read these things as much if the moderators would instantly cut off personal attacks or flames that are not in the flaming area, but I would definitely have alot more respect for them.

I fully support Matt as a moderator, and I'm thankful he is doing it, as it's mostly a thankless job, really.

Thanks Matt.

Xotl

Arn @ Mar. 31 2006,20:58
Umm, actually matt has deleted several posts, maybe not from you, but from others. He has also closed down at least 2 threads since he became moderator. One of them was the thread about which muds didn't allow players to buy perks, which to many was an important one that should have stayed open.

I never saw any of the others do this with posts just because they were inconvenient for them.
So yes, there is a problem.

I didn't have any particular issues with him until yesterday, when he took at potshot at wotmud. He just went ahead and flamed without actually doing the proper research. His initial allegation that the triple exp was about voting here was proven to be wrong and he still refuses to apologise. He also made some big fuss about a zmud script made by one of our players.

Now my profoundly unproven hunch is the reason he's actually so peeved about this sort of script is because he pays for banner ads here, and maybe it undermines the effectiveness of his ad spend. I also suspect that he probably dislikes things like triple exp because it undermines the pay-to-play muds. We're going to keep doing it, and actually I hope all other non pay-for-perks muds too too - see, we're happy to give away some of those perks that you have pay for at those IRE muds.

Anyhow, onto matt moderating. One thing is no biggie, it seems like bitching about other muds is quite the trendy thing to do here so sooner or later someone will take a shot at us. But combined together it all feels a bit sordid, low, political - playing to the crowd. I was about to point this out but he'd closed the thread already.

Now I might very well be wrong in which case I'd be the first to apologise, but I'm not seeing much detachment or objectivity there. I'm seeing someone with big advertising bucks being a bit of a jerk, trying to push his weight around to make other guys look bad and arrange things even more in his favour. He wants even more people going to his IRE muds. Imo, it a bad combination and this won't be the last time there is trouble because of it.

Speech over, having done so for years (since about '96 or so on our boards actually), I do recognise that moderating is a tricky thing to do. But, If I had to call it, I'd have to say that someone who deliberately creates controversy and whose motive is somewhat unclear is probably not the ideal moderator. But then on the other hand maybe controversy helps this place with traffic, and it's not exactly as if I've stepped up to the mark to volunteer to moderate myself...

I was a little worried the first time I heard(and read on your forums) that you were giving game wide XP bonuses if people voted you high enough, but you said Adam contacted you and it doesn't happen any more, no problems here.

I wasn't actually sure if it was a violation of the rules, as technically you could say it is giving rewards for voting, but at the same time it's also rewarding those that didn't vote so... but Adam is the man that makes that choice, and we all follow them or leave. If it were me, I would have just emailed Adam with what I thought was a problem and let him deal with it, instead of posting publically about it... but hey that's me.

Point of my long post, we all do things differently, the case with WoT is solved, Adam and Nass have spoken, Adam said what needs to be done, Nass complied, no more problems. How about we let it die?

As for Matt closing threads, I'd have to actually read them fully(I just skim those that seem to be the same old circle of arguements) to give an opinion on that.. but if he closed a thread that had just turned into flaming and insults then I'd agree with him. If it was an intellegent arguement going on, then yeah that would be a problem. Though, it's Adam that makes that choice as well, not us.

Meh. Matt is a bit of an uncompriimsing jackass, at times (who isn't?), but I highly doubt he would jeopordize IRE's 'sweet spot' here at TMS for the chance to whack a few non-complimentary threads. As much as some of us disagree with him, he's not an idiot or a monster, nor are the others.

I say: Rock and roll to Matt, KaViR and Valq. I've seen whining, crybaby, flaming threads roll on for days when they should have been sliced from day 1. Props to you guys for volunteering for a thankless, ****ty job.

Now, what we need is an iron fist around here. The same old Medievia or PayPerPlay/Perks discussion cluttering YET ANOTHER unrelated thread? Give it the wicked chop and set these wandering discussions back on the right path.

-WP

I disagree that Matt is an ass. I agree that he's not an idiot or a monster. I don't think the others are idots or monsters or jackasses. They all seem like fairly nice very smart people.

What they aren't is moderate. I don't think they're particularly good choices for moderators. I think Orion Elder would be a great moderator.

Regardless of what they may think about the topic, I highly doubt any of the people mentioned would abuse their mod powers to edit posts to prove their own point.

As someone said earlier, they've never had any of their posts deleted in topics moderated by one of the people in the argument.

It is obvious that Matt is abusing his powers as a moderator. That's why there aren't any flames of Matt and/or Iron Realms games any more. That's why there aren't 100+ page threads bashing on their payment model or the fact that they call themselves free. He must be deleting all those threads.

Oh wait...

... And that someone should be me. Think about it, Adam, because I don't own a MUD, I'm the perfect candidate. I can make unbiased decisions regarding the closing of threads and deletion of posts.

I don't think Matt's objective, and the reason I say that is because he's got his own points to prove.

There's nothing wrong with that, but moderators are supposed to be above the conflict, and not express their own opinions for the sake of keeping an orderly board.

If you like to argue you shouldn't moderate, and if we follow that one home then I'd say better ninety-five percent of us (me, too) are already out of the running.

I enjoy snapping off a good one, occasionally kicking a little sand in someone's eye, and I try (try) to concede someone else's point with some grace.

(As an aside, I hope some of you are at least giving that last one a try-- it's like taking bitter medicine mixed with ground-up broccoli, but most grown-up things taste bad at first. The upside is that other people who drink the same awful stuff have more respect for you and occasionally give you a turn at being right.)

Anyway, summing up, I just wanted to say I didn't think Matt was the ideal, or even a passable moderator, from what I'd seen, but he's willing to put in the hours and Synozeer's got final cut.

Lark's right, that's what's most wrong with this forum.  Nobody wants to admit that someone else is right.  That's where half the arguments come from on here, not legitimate discussions, just flames.  And these flames wouldn't be a problem if this was a different forum, but because this is TopMud, one single flame can result in five pages of posts.

I mean, come on guys, if you're never going to change your point of view, say it. Then it can all be over.

I don't agree.
I think Matt is doing a great job as moderator.

Matt has proven over and over again here that his only interest is in serving IRE and Achaea, and not the community as a whole. His community stances and attitudes towards other MUDs(he's widely considered extremely condescending to other MUDs here) have shown that over and over again.

As far as him abusing his moderator powers? I have had multiple posts criticizing his condescension and underhanded accusations of Aardwolf MUD recently deleted. When others began to approach the issue, Matt locked the thread(that was actually about promoting top non pay-for-perk MUDs).

I think that moderators should be proven to have good intentions to the community as a whole - but, based on other issues going on here right now, I do worry that Syno just doesn't care about the community aid aspect of this site enough to put Matt in his place.

Ilkidarios @ April 01 2006,18:51
With all due respect, Ilkidarios, a Discussion Forum is for discussions. If everyone had the same opinions, or just politely agreed to disagree, there wouldn't be any discussions, and what would be the point in having a Forum at all then?

I agree that the tone here could be a bit more civil at times. I also agree that some of the mega threads are sometimes drawn out to the point of the ridiculous.

But that is because some of the questions in these threads are important to many of us. And since certain opinions, and even very constructive suggestions for improvements, are constantly treated in a condescending way or, worse even, ignored or deleted, people do get frustrated. This is one of the reasons why certain subjects pop up over and over again, to a point where most other topics are drowned. It is because those subjects are important to many people, and until something actually is changed, they will keep popping up.

But if only the subjects and opinions that coincide with those of the moderator will be allowed on the Forums in the future, then we are heading down a very slippery slope. Suppressing free speech is usually the beginning of something much worse. It may be possible to suppress certain opinions, but as a result the discussions will eventually dwindle and die.

I agree with DonathinFrye that matt is not objective. He only cares about the Mud community and this List insofar that it offers a potential source for him to get more paying customers for his games. His main interest is to promote the IRE games and to defend the position of those games on the list. Anything that even remotely threatens that position is against his interests, and he acts accordingly.

As for the other two moderators, Valg and KaVir, they too have strong opinions and express them frequently on the boards. But in all the years that they have been moderating here, I have never seen either of them delete any posts or close any threads because criticism was aimed at them or their games.

Matt has done both already, in less than two weeks. He certainly has not made a good start as moderator, and I fear that it won’t improve in the future either. With him as moderator censorship has entered the boards. Personally I prefer the flames, as long as free speech is allowed. Without it the discussion boards could just as well be closed down.

Actually, Matt hasn't deleted posts or closed threads because they were critical of IRE that I've seen. He tried to clean up an otherwise productive topic and in the end when some particular posters were too insistent on derailing to suit their personal agenda, he closed the topic.

Matt's done his job as a moderator. And on this board there's no such thing as an unbiased participant - everybody is either the head of a particular MUD or a player of it.

This whole concept of "he's obviously biased therefore he can't moderate" is a bone of contention for me.

Outside the internet, you all have your own distinct personality, with opinions and vocabulary and habits and twitches. But you adjust all of this stuff in the company of certain other people, no?

Do you booze up with your co-workers at work? Do you get jiggy with your third cousin on top of the family reunion picnic table? Do you light up a smoke in the non-smoking section of the restaurant? Do you walk down the street buck-naked on a hot summer afternoon?

Just because we are "this way" in "this circumstance" doesn't mean we automatically behave the same way in "that circumstance."

When I was a player of a mud, I behaved one way, my way, the way that was natural to me. But when I became a staff member, I was all business, in a "customer service oriented" kind of way. Most of the time, I'm a staunch supporter of "stupid people suck" political party. But when I am given responsibility to oversee "stupid people" I become the gracious hostess.

Just because I have an opinion of something, doesn't mean I'm incapable of behaving contrary to that opinion when given the responsibility to do so. And I feel Matt, and the other moderators, have the intelligence and sensitivity required to do the same. Matt is certainly biased, and has his own personal agenda. But when he "puts on his moderator hat" he is a moderator, not "just another loud-mouthed forum member." I think he does a decent job of it.

I think all of the moderators here do a pretty crappy job. The entire board is just a rinse repeat of the same six arguments. Muds are not really discussed apart from the question of which mud owner is most likely to be satan, who is dishonestly profiting from what and who should or could be sued. I often do not read the posts here for months, and much like a soap opera when I come back I've missed nothing because the main characters are still doing and saying the same things. And most of them, it turns out, are moderators.

There was this one time where somebody who played or worked for a MUD or something left the forums because of something somebody said about the owner of said MUD.  I don't even remember who it was now.

Does anybody else remember that?  I think a couple of people left for TMC.  It was around the time Tyche spazzed out and left. It might have been because of Medievia's return to the listings, which it subsequently left from, or it might have been before that. I don't know.

I'm not saying that I've seen anyone abusing their moderator position. I'm not going to say that I haven't seen anyone abusing the position.

I will say that I don't believe -anyone- who is owner/staff on a mud listed here should be a moderator. It's a conflict of interests. No matter how hard someone tries, their decisions as moderator will be in some way influenced by their stake in a particular mud, to at least some minor extent.

But players are biased in exactly the same way. Do you suggest we hire some non-mudders to moderate a mud related forum?

Honestly, I haven't seen Matt (or any other moderator on here) abuse his moderatorship. Matt may be heavier-handed on the closings and deletes than the rest, but the threads in question were not getting anywhere anymore.

This could be said of players of muds, too. We all have our own particular muds that we play and that we think are "the best". In fact, some players are more rabid in defending their muds than admins are. Lots of players, though, have no idea how the business side, the code side, or the balance side of a mud is decided or how it operates. Thus, they're operating with less information than the administrators.

The best moderators for any forums are the people who are actually willing to do it and stick with it. All of the moderators here benefit in some way from the existance of TMS, and thus, they have a vested interest in promoting the site.

Yes, some players can have the same biases as well. In a perfect world, the moderators would be people that work for TMS strictly and aren't working for any of the muds listed.
I think it's -more- likely when someone has a -financial- interest in a particular mud that it will affect their judgment. Players at least, don't have a financial interest in -any- mud. Therefore, as the lesser of the two evils, I think that moderators should be selected from non-staff/non-owner people.

My issue with the current moderators isn't their lack of objectivity, or any perception of bias. My issue is that every thread degenerates into flames. No one seems to be doing any kind of moderating at all. The fact that all of the moderators are amongst the main contributors of the acrimony and deterioration of every thread seems a logical explaination of this phenomenon

Like it or not, Matt, Valg, KaVir, Iluvatar and the other moderators are well recognised, long-time members of the mudding community. Ilkidarios, Dunestalker and Fifi are not. I'll rather have a mudding forum moderated by somebody who knows what's going on.

What is there to say, that hasn't really been said already? But wait... this whole thread seems to have turned into 4 pages of flames... Yes, flames, most of which are directed at Matt, and he seems to have done nothing about them. Now, I'm not going to say anything about Matt's a bad moderator, or he's a good one, or an y of the others, I'm just throwing in a suggestion.

Since your all complaining about Matt and KaVir and Valg being moderators, stop and think for a moment. Pay for perks, or free to play, Their respective muds are fairly big ones. If your concerned about Mods being involved in controversy, then get mods from the smaller muds, who arn't mentioned in these sorts of discussions.

Excuse me, but a moderator's job is not to invent new & original threads for viewers to discuss.  One of the problems is there are about a half-dozen posters who have a "bash the_logos" jones, & look for any excuse to flame him.  How else do you explain when the_logos posts a IRE promotion thread that turns into a 10+ pages of flames! Now I'm no the_logos fan, but this crapola is getting pretty old. And you have contributed to this "soap opera" by posting this thread, yet another slam against the_logos & then bitching about the moderation. Hell, if I were a moderator, this thread would have been long gone.

If anyone has some proof of the_logos, or any of the moderators abusing their authority, then show proof or STFU!

1) If Matt did close the thread, the same people could claim an abuse of power, (non-applicable) First Amendment rights, or something similar. Criticism of moderators is always tricky. If two were active, I'd say have the other one handle this thread, but I don't think that's the case.

2) Angry threads here really don't do anything, and in fact call into question your desire for a 'flame-free' environment. If you have a problem with the way Matt moderates, first take it up with him privately, then take it up with Synozeer, the only person who can or should do anything about it. If you just think Matt is a dick, that doesn't disqualify him from holding the position. I work in RL with a few people who I think are dicks, but I don't ask for them to be fired over it. If they were stealing money from the accounts, that would be a different story, because that has to do with the job in question.

3) It's not a negative when established, experienced MUD owners moderate a board about MUDs. They know the particulars about the issues in question, can sort posts into the correct topics judiciously, and they have an incentive to check in frequently.

4) You're always welcome to approach Synozeer about moderating a board yourself if you have the background, presence, and temperament to do so. He asked for volunteers a while back, and might still want some.

I appreciate what you're saying. However, I don't think you are really hearing what I am saying. First, when I originally posted I didn't realize that you and Kavir were also moderators. In light of that there is no issue with Matt. He's no worse than either of you.

Addressing your points
[/quote]
1) If Matt did close the thread, the same people could claim an abuse of power, (non-applicable) First Amendment rights, or something similar. Criticism of moderators is always tricky. If two were active, I'd say have the other one handle this thread, but I don't think that's the case.
[/quote]

It would not be an abuse. Especially in light that once I acknowledged my error I asked that the thread be deleted.

[/quote]
2) Angry threads here really don't do anything, and in fact call into question your desire for a 'flame-free' environment. If you have a problem with the way Matt moderates, first take it up with him privately, then take it up with 3) It's not a negative when established, experienced MUD owners moderate a board about MUDs. They know the particulars about the issues in question, can sort posts into the correct topics judiciously, and they have an incentive to check in frequently.[quote= ]

I agree. I think it is negative that there is no moderation at all that I see and every flame deteriorates.

I suppose I could. I think I'd be less likely to get involved in the fray. Ultimately, I think the moderators you have are more -qualified- than I. But they're not moderating. What about Orien Elder? He's always polite, reasonable, intelligent and he's accomplished.

Okay, alot of people seem to be taking a very combative attitude about this. I thought this was supposed to be a "discussion" board?

I don't think I made a personal dig at anyone.

I just stated the -fact- that when someone has a vested interest in something and is supposed to be completely objective about it; that in -some- way, whether it's consciously or subconsciously, it -will- have an affect to some degree on how objectively they look at it.

I wasn't suggesting that I wanted to do it myself either. I was trying to be a voice of reason in a "discussion" where some people seemed to be taking a very combative stance, one way or another.

I can see how -both- sides feel about the subject of people acting as moderators.


Can't we all just get along?

Having moderated various boards for years, there are various approaches that may or may not work well here. I did find matt's moderation of threads about himself and muds he administers and pays ads at this website for a tad inappropriate. That I find his post content itself generally inflammatory is my own opinion (and that of many others), but is nonetheless irrelevant unless he starts flaming madly when reprimanding those he is moderating. Regarding IRE topics, pay vs. free debates, I would have thought matt would disqualify himself from moderating such threads given the obvious conflict of interest - better to leave it to other moderators to take care of (assuming they don't also have similar issues).

I see very little in the way of accountability or transparency in the moderation that goes on here. That people are moderators but not known to be such is surprising. That other people's post text itself is editted by moderators is not my own preferred way of moderating either, since it opens up a can of worms about who wrote what, which particular part of a post requires moderating and which is okay - does anyone prefer to explain the difference between moderating and censorship?

The best approach I've seen (and I'm not affiliated in any way with this site) is in use at with the policy explained here:


Although there's a lot of coding behind the example forums given above, the spirit and intent is to make both sides play fair, to know what is happening and what will happen, and to be able to see after the fact (even if only from an administrator's point of view) exactly what happened and who took what action, and why.

If you want a loose, casual approach to forum moderating where the only exceptions are profanity and vilification, then of course flame wars are going to be commonplace. But if there is meant to be a strict moderating policy in place and the intention is to prevent flaming and insults, especially when there are very common bones of contention (free vs. pay, licensing debates, which codebase is better, yada yada yada), you're going to have to tread carefully.

Ergh, I ramble. Enough from me.

1) If you click on 'forums', all moderators are listed next to the forums they are assigned to. There is total transparency and accountability there.

2) If a moderator edits someone's text, I believe it says "Edited by: " next to it. Do you have a specific example in mind where a moderator edited something without explanation?

3) I can only speak for myself, but if I do change a thread, I make a post explaining it.

Well, if it helps, I intend to ensure that the discussions in Tavern of the Blue hand will not be permitted to degenerate into off-topic flaming. On-topic flaming will be fine (within reasonable limits) for now.

--matt

Actually, yes. That does help. Thank you, Matt.

Simply put - you are wrong as to why people do not like him. But this is not the point of the thread; the point is that Matt has burned a couple people very quickly with his moderating already. I am probably the one most "burned", as he deleted several of my posts that were written to defend Aardwolf and criticize Matt's own underhanded jabs at Aardwolf on a thread that was meant to promote true 100% Free MUDs. He even deleted information in posts that were not critical, and gave the original poster(Nass) information on various MUDs that were 100% Free and in the Top 20 List, which was the point of the post. He said that the information was "off-topic and insulting", even though that part of it had nothing to do with him.

So, basically - from what I have seen(and not all of you have actually seen the deleted posts, as he deleted them), Matt has so far allowed his bias and protection of IRE command his moderating, and has also not taken any less of a condescending attitude on these forums. It would be my suggest to him to rethink his recent moderating tactics, so that Syno does not have to get involved(if he'd care).

As I said in the previous post - Matt's censorship did not anger me, or get me "riled" up. It does only further attest to his own character, though. And it does not mean that people who try to look through the point of view of what is best for the community as a whole are going to go away.

Flaming IRE doesn't excuse you from being moderated by Matt. You blatantly tried to derail a topic about listing which muds were pay-for-perks and which weren't and got moderated. If you want to speak on the evils of pay-for-perks system, start a different topic about it.