[Fifi]

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?

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (Fifi @ Mar. 31 2006,20:00) 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?

Yes, after all, Valg and Kavir (two other moderators) are -never- involved in controversies, right?

--matt

[tehScarecrow]

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

[Aarn]

Have we had problems with any of them cutting out posts they don't like, just because they can? Even when I completely disagree with matt, I've never had him delete one of mine. He may reply completely unreasonably, but he doesn't pull the moderator trigger.

I'm not aware of anyone else doing it either. I don't see any reason to make a problem where there is none.

[Fifi]

Originally Posted by (the_logos @ Mar. 31 2006,20:41) 0--> Originally Posted by (Fifi @ Mar. 31 2006,20[img http://www.topmudsites.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif[/img]0)]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? Yes, after all, Valg and Kavir (two other moderators) are -never- involved in controversies, right? --matt

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.

[Fifi]

Originally Posted by (Aarn @ Mar. 31 2006,20:58) Have we had problems with any of them cutting out posts they don't like, just because they can?  Even when I completely disagree with matt, I've never had him delete one of mine.  He may reply completely unreasonably, but he doesn't pull the moderator trigger. I'm not aware of anyone else doing it either.  I don't see any reason to make a problem where there is none.

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.

[Fifi]

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.

[Ilkidarios]

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...

Originally Posted by He may reply completely unreasonably, but he doesn't pull the moderator trigger.

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.

[Luvan]

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.

[xotl]

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

[nhl]

Originally Posted by 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.

It would be fun to see the three of them get together for a beer or two. Sometimes the people who argue the most on the Internet, turn out to be pretty friendly in real life.

Hmm, or they would beat each other senseless in a drunken barfight. Either way, the tone on the forums might lighten up a little

[Anitra]

Arn @ Mar. 31 2006,20:58

Originally Posted by Have we had problems with any of them cutting out posts they don't like, just because they can? Even when I completely disagree with matt, I've never had him delete one of mine. He may reply completely unreasonably, but he doesn't pull the moderator trigger. I'm not aware of anyone else doing it either. I don't see any reason to make a problem where there is none.

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.

[nass]

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...

[Baram]

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.

[GuruPlayer]

There are moderators for these forums??!!  

[WarHound]

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

[Fifi]

Originally Posted by (WarHound @ April 01 2006,10:38) 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.

[Kvasir]

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.

[Milawe]

I suspect that these guys were made moderator because they 1) volunteered to do so and 2) post an obscene amount. Between my 3 different accounts over 6 years of participation on these forums, I have 1/10th of KaVir's posts if I added up all those accounts. I also flake out and don't check these forums for months at a time. A mod pretty much needs to make it part of their daily routine to check these forums several times a day. There's just not that many people out there doing that.

Besides, if they're busy flaming each other and modding each other, they're too busy to bother with me!

[Threshold]

Originally Posted by (Fifi @ Mar. 31 2006,20:00) 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 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...

[zombiedepot]

I don't see a problem with him as moderator, as long as he doesn't abuse it. Someone's got to moderate after all.

[Ilkidarios]

... 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.

[Lark]

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.

[Ilkidarios]

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.

[lovechiefs]

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

[DonathinFrye]

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.

[Anitra]

Ilkidarios @ April 01 2006,18:51

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

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.

[Hadoryu]

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.

[Jazuela]

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.

[Fifi]

Originally Posted by (Jazuela @ April 02 2006,11:58) 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.