[Ilkidarios]

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.

[Dunestalker]

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.

[Angie]

Originally Posted by (Dunestalker @ April 02 2006,20:43) 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.

[Milawe]

Originally Posted by (Dunestalker @ April 02 2006,13:43) 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.

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.

[Dunestalker]

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.

[Fifi]

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

[Angie]

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.

[Zion-Altari]

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.

[GuruPlayer]

Originally Posted by (Fifi @ April 02 2006,12:36) 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.

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!

[Valg]

Originally Posted by (Zion-Altari @ April 02 2006,17:10) 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.

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.

[Fifi]

Originally Posted by (Valg @ April 02 2006,19:59) Originally Posted by (Zion-Altari @ April 02 2006,17:10) 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. 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

Originally Posted by I am not at all angry. I am however critical. I'm critical not of Matt in particular but of Matt and you and Kavir. I can address a private note to each of you if you like, but I think I've already stated the source of my discontent.

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.

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 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.

[Dunestalker]

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?

[gth]

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 http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/ with the policy explained here:
http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/index...=WP_ForumRules

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.

[Valg]

Originally Posted by (gth @ April 02 2006,21:27) 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?

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.

[prof1515]

Matt often is the one who causes discussions to degenerate into flame wars, but it is Synoozer's choice. May or may not be a wise one but if Matt abuses it, then it also falls to Synoozer to remove him (and if he doesn't, it'd show clear bias, which I doubt Synoozer would want to do). So the check and balance is probably in there. It does say something to Matt's credit that this discussion has gone on without him locking it.

In any respect, regardless of who the moderator is, if a discussion involves one of the moderators or their interests (ie, their MUD), they should probably steer clear of it out of conflict of interest. There are sufficient moderators to ensure that if one doesn't handle it, others will.

Take care,

Jason

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (Fifi @ April 02 2006,16:37) 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

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

[Fifi]

Originally Posted by (the_logos @ April 03 2006,00:40) Originally Posted by (Fifi @ April 02 2006,16:37) 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 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.

[Aztecia]

Originally Posted by (DonathinFrye @ April 02 2006,03:32) 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.

I seem to remember that Evil Matt opening a server for Aardwolf people to get together when their HQ was blown away (exaggeration) by a hurricane.

How dare you, Matt Mihaly. How dare you!

He's doing fine as a mod. As someone who cops more flack than I care to admit on the forum I mod, it's true it really is a thankless job.

Matt will always be in the centre of controversy as he's good at what he does and people don't like that when they aren't in on it. However I don't see him abusing his power as a moderator, if he did, it would be noticed and he would be removed as a mod. If anything, he probably loves the attention that people can't help but give him.