Moderating in Moderation

There is a divide in the community, this much is blatantly clear. I have never been one to buy into the grandiose conspiracy theories. However, after much thought, I have come to a newly founded conclusion which I will attempt to demonstrate in this thread.

What is the importance of a coalition? If you naively believe they exist for competitive play then you are sadly mistaken as serious CWs rarely occur, and tournaments die nearly as quickly as they are created. The real essence of a coalition is a community within the greater community of Afterwind. These are the people you will be spending disproportionate amount of time playing, chatting, and socializing with.

Since I first started participating in the Afterwind society, I had no chance of avoiding the chorus of "mod bias" chats. While most of this can be disregarded as disgruntled players complaining about punishment - as I wrote a long post about this previously - I have recently seen the merit of their accusation somewhat. The bias does not exist in the decision making of the mods, but rather what has been engrained in their subconscious. They spend so much time existing within the brotherhood of a coalition that it cripples their ability to be objective towards the broader community as a whole.

I cannot sit here and claim elaborate scheming done on the behalf of certain members, however, I do have an argument to make. There exists an appalling schism between the moderating staff in the premier coalitions, and much of the old-guard community that resides outside these coalitions. New mods are chosen by admins of course, but they are not involved enough in the community to make such decisions. Therefore, they rely on the recommendations of the moderating staff. There is an inherent flaw in this system that arises here - these proposals are based on personal reference… thus automatically giving players who are in the current inner circles (most notably, coalitions) of the mods an automatic advantage.

I know the moderating staff personally, I am your friends, but I still feel the need to say my peace. It is impossible to remain unbiased while still conforming to the system of coalitions in the game. The reason being is that while in a coalition, groups of members work towards the superordinate goal of bettering the coalition. This is the reason clan mates are viewed more positively than those outside the clan. That, coupled with the prior mentioned disproportionate amount of time you spend together, causes these 'inner circle' players to be viewed as more viable options to join the moderating staff.

I wrote this hoping it would enlighten your views towards the angst many long time members feel. In my opinion members like Barry, Tophats, Pulse… who have been pillars of this community for well over a year, would make much more loyal and active moderators who would contribute more efficiently to the continued success of the game than someone who has only recently started playing afterwind a few months ago. This 'old guard' of players has stuck by this game through many changes, yet are simply not included in the 'in-group' that has developed. It makes clear sense to me that players like this would be much more committed to the success of our community and game, and those are the type of people I would want moderating.

Obviously there has been clashes with the coalition SRB. I am not here to defend them, obviously because they have been in the wrong, but I have at least grown a empathy for their plight. They are condemned for who they associate with, while other are celebrated for who they chose to correlate with.

I am not ranting about the recent choices, I am sure they will do fine and are good people. I am talking about the situation in general. They come from the same group of people with unwavering connection. In my mind, there can only be one solution to this entire problem:

As long as the conditions exist, this cycle will continue and the community will splinter even further. There is only one way to end the sequence, and it is done in many other communities. Moderators should not be associated with the coalition feature. Either they should refrain from being in any coalition, or join one together such as Squirrels. Guest14502 is considered by many to be the mod with the most objective based mindset. The obvious reasoning behind this is that he doesn't have a coalition clouding his judgment. The second you chose to accept the job of moderating a community, you must in some way make the sacrifice of separating your self from it so intimately. It is the only true way to remain unbiased.

Trust me, I understand this would be hard for many of you, but it seems like a necessary step to me. I am attempting to present my argument in a cohesive manner. Others have suggested eliminating moderators, or having player based election. I do not agree with either of these at all. The community needs a sense of order separate from mob rule, not some radical solution. A moderator free from the encompassing confines of a coalition would be an unbiased judge of the entirety of the community.

This is my full opinion on the matter.

Haha I am surprised you thought of this, I had actually proposed this a long time ago but they said it would be unfair to the mods themselves, I tend to agree, but I think it should come with such a position. I agree completely, and well said Nate.

EDIT: don't be surprised if this thread ends up with a lock, however.

Kirjoittanut Fruit, 08.08.2012 at 02:34

Haha I am surprised you thought of this, I had actually proposed this a long time ago but they said it would be unfair to the mods themselves, I tend to agree, but I think it should come with such a position. I agree completely, and well said Nate.

It would absolutely be tough. That is one of the reasons why choosing to become a moderator should be a hard decision to make.

I agree.

A very interesting read, thanks for taking the time to write this. (I do doubt it'll end up locked unless people below me act like idiots though)

Your points do make sense, I'll have to agree. The coalition system does induce bias in a player; I tend to automatically think of clanmates as friends, and I've sure as hell chatted with them more often than with other players. But if mods couldn't be in a coalition, how many mods do you think we would have? How many would give up 'modhood' for their smaller community? I can't at the moment offer a new idea, but indeed, it would be somewhat unfair to the mods, who have each been in their clans for months, and are valuable additions to each coalition.

A coalition is meant to be a smaller community, and as such, is a way to meet people better and worse than you. It's natural that mods know and befriend those in their clan, while not knowing those outside of their clan as well, with the exceptions of their friends. I honestly can't think of a fair way to eliminate bias like this, as one's friends would also count as their inner circle.

I can't think of a way to enforce lack of bias effectively and fairly, but it doesn't make you any less right.

Kirjoittanut NateBaller, 08.08.2012 at 02:27

As long as the conditions exist, this cycle will continue and the community will splinter even further. There is only one way to end the sequence, and it is done in many other communities. Moderators should not be associated with the coalition feature. Either they should refrain from being in any coalition, or join one together such as Squirrels. Guest14502 is considered by many to be the mod with the most objective based mindset. The obvious reasoning behind this is that he doesn't have a coalition clouding his judgment. The second you chose to accept the job of moderating a community, you must in some way make the sacrifice of separating your self from it so intimately. It is the only true way to remain unbiased.

Great wall of text, i quoted the Mainaspect for me personally.
I agree, it is hard to stay neutral while Leading a coalition or being part of a coalition on the otherhand. Any decisions realated to your Coalition will always be suspicios to others or because you fear to be to friendly to "your" Members you getting to strict to them.
I dont believe i would be unprejudiced if i had to judge one of my members, thats why i try to find a new Leader for Deutsche Koalition, because i had to be Mod first now. But thats just my point of view.
If you look at the other "older" players you mentioned, do you think they are not related to their friends and Coalitions? This balancing act you can find in every game where mods are not only mods.
Afterwind is not a comercial Game where Mods are paied for being neutral, where mods dont play, so even if a mod dont have a coalition here, he will still have friends he will give preference to. So i can understand the older mods when they stay in their factions, because there are their friends, with or without coalition.

The Solution the Mod team found here to maximize a fair judgement is that we discuss all decisions, before, if there is the time, or after the first response to any problem. And i believe this is the best we can do.

Well, we are at a problem. if the mods aren't allowed to be in a coalition, we run into the problems that Mathdino brought up. so, we are in predigament, we don't know what to do. honestly, I would rather have player elections, that for me seems more fair, but yet again, that will run into problems. So, we are in problems.

Forcing the mods from their coalitions would cause a lot of issues. While not being subjected to this bias from the start is one factor, you've got to consider that this bias has already existed and taken it's toll: The example everyone gives for this is Dalmati, with good reasoning. If all the moderators in Dalmati were to be forced out of the clan, we would be short both a leader and several members. It would basically be the death of one of the most active coalitions, for the sake of recruiting moderators from a wider pool of people rather than currently so.

While I think that we do need to come up with a way to at least weaken the amount of bias here, there's also other factors to consider: Who's to say that the bias even entirely is there? What if, persay, these moderators recruited people that they liked to their coalition, as well as likening them to the chance of a moderator position: in other words, what if they're in the coalition as a side effect of their likeliness to become a mod?

It's a very real thing to consider, I know I joined Dalmati Pups already knowing several members of the community, and had these people been said moderators who could have recommended me, rather than the ones I actually knew, I'd have joined Dalmati Pups thanks to the very people who may have recommended me in the first place (Hypothetical scenario, nobody in their right mind would recommend me for mod)

Kirjoittanut goodnames679, 08.08.2012 at 03:14

Forcing the mods from their coalitions would cause a lot of issues. While not being subjected to this bias from the start is one factor, you've got to consider that this bias has already existed and taken it's toll: The example everyone gives for this is Dalmati, with good reasoning. If all the moderators in Dalmati were to be forced out of the clan, we would be short both a leader and several members. It would basically be the death of one of the most active coalitions, for the sake of recruiting moderators from a wider pool of people rather than currently so.

What your describing is the end result of the problem I am trying to address.

Lainaa:

While I think that we do need to come up with a way to at least weaken the amount of bias here, there's also other factors to consider: Who's to say that the bias even entirely is there? What if, persay, these moderators recruited people that they liked to their coalition, as well as likening them to the chance of a moderator position: in other words, what if they're in the coalition as a side effect of their likeliness to become a mod?

The problem is that the pool of potential candidates is much larger then the few that can be recruited into these coalition because they are good people and also skilled players. If you are offered an invitations to one of these premier coalitions, should you feel like you need to accept it in order to get on the fast track to becoming a mod. Again, not saying there is a conspiracy, but this is how you get close to the current mods on a personal level.

Its a good story, and as i said, i understand your point of view. We (mods) should avoid the appearance of partiality; but not at all costs. In all our acting, we are trying to be fair to every player. But for example: If we think one of the Dalmati players is the best candidate for mod, we will promote him. Not because he is Dalmati, but because he is the best candidate. It's simple is that.

Some players are claiming that all new mods are comming from Dalmati/WBL/BM anyway. Well, this is simply not true. From the 3 players who are promoted this year to mod, none of them came from a coalition that already had a moderator: They are from: ULP (Glennmiller), Dutch Pride (PANTHA_1) and Deutsche Koalition (Tzeentch). So, the mods are spread in all coalitions.

As we think there is a new mod needed, we just discuss about good candidates. Being a friend of the mods, is not good enough. We stay factual and will look at the players history. If a player has been warned, muted or banned a few times; then this player might be a troller and will not be taken as moderator. Not to be harsh: But only by this criteria, a lot of players are off the list. Then we also have standard requirements for mods: Proper english speaking, helpfull towards other players (we can check this in games or in the forum posts), no troller, spammer, etc, etc. Then at last; when ALL mods agreed on someone becomming a mod (or at least: Didn't say NO) its the final judgement of Ivan or Amok to promote someone. If you are thinking: Why am i not promoted? Or why doesnt 'player x' get mod, just ask me and i'm willing to explain it to you.

Then on your idea that moderators shouldn't be in a coalition; I can agree with this, and if we should have to; i'm willing to do so. But if this is really needed: then players will see this as something that the mods admit on being biassed, and can also be explained negatively. Just saying with this that moderators are (by some players) biassed either way. As said many, many times before: As a mod; you are not loved by a lot of players, and some are always mad. Its very simple: Player A reports Player B. Whether you act against player B or not, one of the 2 players will be mad at your decision. And most of the time he will spread half the story to his friends on AW. This is the case many times.

Then last but not least:
To everyone on this topic: I am really willing to discuss this in a civil way, and i'm ready to respond this. But if this thread starts in trolling, off-topic posting and whining comments without any argumentation, i will do what fruit expect us to do:

Kirjoittanut Fruit, 08.08.2012 at 02:34

EDIT: don't be surprised if this thread ends up with a lock, however.

Kirjoittanut Hugosch, 08.08.2012 at 03:31

Its a good story, and as i said, i understand your point of view. We (mods) should avoid the appearance of partiality; but not at all costs. In all our acting, we are trying to be fair to every player. But for example: If we think one of the Dalmati players is the best candidate for mod, we will promote him. Not because he is Dalmati, but because he is the best candidate. It's simple is that.

I am not saying there is a Dalmati conspiracy. What I am trying to address is the issues of mods and their respective coalitions. All this does is work to create a sphere around people that blurs reality.

Lainaa:

Some players are claiming that all new mods are comming from Dalmati/WBL/BM anyway. Well, this is simply not true. From the 3 players who are promoted this year to mod, none of them came from a coalition that already had a moderator: They are from: ULP (Glennmiller), Dutch Pride (PANTHA_1) and Deutsche Koalition (Tzeentch). So, the mods are spread in all coalitions.

Let's be clear, moderators are not distributed evenly among the coalitions. That was not the point of this thread either as I don't think this approach is the right one. Glenn and Pantha were chosen, at least partially, because they were not in one of the main "mod coalitions." You told me this yourself. Do you not see how these players were still chosen based on the coalition they choose to be apart of? Basing decision to appease the players who talk about mod conspiracies is a sad outcome of having moderators be connected to coalitions. The solution is not to spread mods out among the various coalitions, it is merely to eliminate the clans from the process and there is only one way to do this entirely. Deutsche coalition is inevitably connected to Dalmati, but that is a discussion for another time.

Lainaa:

As we think there is a new mod needed, we just discuss about good candidates. Being a friend of the mods, is not good enough. We stay factual and will look at the players history. If a player has been warned, muted or banned a few times; then this player might be a troller and will not be taken as moderator. Not to be harsh: But only by this criteria, a lot of players are off the list. Then we also have standard requirements for mods: Good english speaking, helpfull towards other players (we can check this in games or in the forum posts), no troller, spammer, etc, etc. Then at last; when ALL mods agreed on someone becomming a mod (or at least: Didn't say NO) its the final judgement of Ivan or Amok to promote someone. If you are thinking: Why don't i am moderatar? Or why doesnt 'player x' get mod, just ask me and i'm willing to explain it to you personally.

I am not saying moderators are chosen by friendships. I am commenting that people you see most often ,and the ones able to demonstrate good characteristics in this regard, are those in the same coalition as yourself. I feel like I am just repeating myself, but I have to reiterate, this not a criticism of any one decision. I am upset with the how the whole system has begun to operate. I have felt this way for awhile.

Lainaa:

Then on your idea that moderators shouldn't be in a coalition; I can agree with this, and if we should have to; i'm willing to do so. But if this is really needed: then players will see this as something that the mods admit on being biassed, and can also be explained negatively. Just saying with this that moderators are (by some players) biassed either way. As said many, many times before: As a mod; you are not loved by a lot of players, and some are always mad. Its very simple: Player A reports Player B. Whether you act against player B or not, one of the 2 players will be mad at your decision. And most of the time he will spread half the story to his friends on AW. This is the case many times.

It is the only way I see possible to limit subjective decision making. I appreciate your reply though.

Kirjoittanut NateBaller, 08.08.2012 at 03:46

Let's be clear, moderators are not distributed evenly among the coalitions. That was not the point of this thread either as I don't think this approach is the right one. Glenn and Pantha were chosen, at least partially, because they were not in one of the main "mod coalitions." You told me this yourself. Do you not see how these players were still chosen based on the coalition they choose to be apart of? Basing decision to appease the players who talk about mod conspiracies is a sad outcome of having moderators be connected to coalitions. The solution is not to spread mods out among the various coalitions, it is merely to eliminate the clans from the process and there is only one way to do this entirely. Deutsche coalition is inevitably connected to Dalmati, but that is a discussion for another time.

I think you understood me wrong if i told you that glenn and pantha were chosen because they are in a other coalition. It is not because of that, but if we have 2 candidates that both satisfy our requirements then it might be a extra reason to choose someone before another. This has nothing to do with 'biassed' or choosing someone because he is (or isn't) in a specific coalition. The reason for doing this; is that this new moderator, has a other 'friendslist' and a other 'community' in witch he plays. These things give us (other moderators) new views and a new sound will be heard. Thats the only reason to prever one player above another. That doesn't mean we do not take a look at candidates in coalitions that already have a moderator.
Last thing: The fact that i didn't know the connection between Dalmati and Deutsche Koalition (if there is), is saying enough i think.

There is no connection between Dalmati and Deutsche Koalition, except maybe that they are a bunch of nice guys with whom is a pleasure to play. Now, please leave the offtopic and conspiracy theories aside.

Great thread Nate.

Here's hoping we can continue this discussion without tin foil hats and trolling. The threads continued existance shows that the mods are not terrible human beings who exist to make the players lives miserable; the thread stays open because the critique is not surrounded by profanity and terrible terrible grammer.

I've been on the recieving end of mod bans but I know full well that when I got banned it's because I deserved it. When I've been muted I've deserved it and I've never been muted without a warning. That's pretty textbook stuff so I've always struggled to comprehend the level of hostility towards mods from the majority of my friends on this game.

There is very little faith in the system and the mod community can be seen as a clique - by extension those clans with a mod are members of that clique. That leaves the rest of us who have no power and no real voice.

I discussed this with Hugo last night and I (admittedly rather dramatically) compared the conflict we have to that of 'The Troubles' in Northern Ireland. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_troubles
The gist of it is that protestant majority controlled the government of Northern Ireland and used their power to rearrange the voting boundries to deprive Catholics of representation in parliament. Deprived of a legitimate voice the Catholics turned to Terrorism to express their grievances which led to further clamp downs on the Catholic community and 30 years of violence.

The scale of the thing is not the same but the essence is: Without representation on the 'board of mods' a vast swathe of the community is isolated from discussions about the future and control of the game. To continue with the Northern Ireland metaphor a bit, mods are the police and 'Catholics' aren't allowed to join the police. This leaves the police to act pretty much however they like to Catholics and Catholics to have to turn to violence to get their voices heard.

Again, it's a dramatic parallel to make but surely we can see the similarities. SRB members have been banned a lot (and I'll agree that a lot of them were entirely justified). However we have no one to speak for us and a mod position would give us that outlet. I don't want it to be misconstrued that we're blackmailing the AW community here and that repeatedly breaking the rules is the best way to get your own way so what I'll do is make the case for an SRB mod:

Players in SRB have generally been amongst the best in the game since the very start. Aristosseur won the 1v1 tourney last year and Aristo and Fruit won the 2v2 tourney. I'm represented in the last 4 of the current tourney (and of course I won the rap battle tourney xaxaxa). We have made guides - The SM guide that I wrote led to the popularisation of what is known as "flowering", I know players like Fruit, Ironail and Desu have put a lot of time and energy into training up new generations of players. Players like Dbacks or V-Dog would not be as strong as they are today without this help which was freely given.
We have made numerous suggestions to improve the quality of the game even when it went against what the establishment wanted. We spoke out against the removal of turnblocks so we got the compromise version we have today. We made recommendations to the balancing of strategies which improved Tank General and Desert Storm.
Lastly we've been in the top 3 of clans in some shape or form since... forever? Yet we're the only top guild to not be represented by a mod.

We have had a bad reputation in the past yes but if you look at the clans behavior as a whole in the last few months it's been remarkably improved. Compare SRB members to people like Hdrakon or the constant Turkbashing or Homophobic chat that occurs most days and I think you'll agree with me that we're not quite the menace to public order that we are percieved as being. Hell even Avatar who is a fairly notorious spammer won the first Player of the Month title. We are broadly a nice bunch of guys that enjoy playing afterwind and having a laugh together however we have been ostracised from the community and repeatedly denied representation by a mod.

The thing is it's not just us. The Turkish community is the largest set of people in this game without a mod. I'm not saying every clan and every ethnicity should get them but I will say it would help improve general behaviour a lot.

What I propose is this: I'm not a big fan of democracy but I do believe that there should be a publically elected mod. Players put themselves forward and we have a fair election (with IPs monitered if needs be). Even if this mod only has powers for a temporary amount of time it would give a massive boost to the way that mods are viewed. There would no longer be an 'us and them' divide amongst mods and their supporters and the rest of us because that representation exists.

The mindset of a person who plays Afterwind is rooted in history and politics. You can see that in the numerous scenarios that have been made about truly obscure conflicts. We have seen time and time against how minorities need representation and once they achieve it then everything calms down. It happened in Northern Ireland and it can happen here.

Good job on getting through the wall of text guys. As you can see work is slow today.

Keep the thread alive and for gods sake keep it constructive.

I don't want to enter deep inside this discussion by now, but I feel the need to comment one especific point:

You mentioned the fact that some older and skilled players aren't choose to be promoted. This is simply because we observe and take many more factors into account and there are good reasons to avoid some of them and to promote anothers.

Our choices have nothing to do with coalition or friendship. I barely knew Caulerpa or Hugosch before they became mods, for example.

Anyway, the fact that this opinion emerges from the leader of my own coalition worries me, therefore I'm willing to do what you suggested just now.

You are saying that not being in a coalition would removed the bias from the mod. Let's hypothetically say I'm biased (just an example) and I leave Dalmati. How would that change anything? I would still chat with them everyday and our relations would stay the same and the bias would still be here. I don't see how would that solve anything, I would still be the part of Dalmati community just I wouldn't be officially within a coalition.
The same goes for mod's friends, not only his coalition.

Also, friendship doesn't play any role when appointing a new mod. When I started, about a year ago, I didn't know any of the mods. Furthermore, when we appointed GlennMiller, Pantha or Tzeenzch (damn, still can't spell his nick ), we weren't friends with them but we thought they could do the mod job correctly based on their in-game behaviour, forum posts etc.

Kirjoittanut Barrymore, 08.08.2012 at 08:09

Wall of Text

The two main points I'm picking up from the above is that 1. Empire SRB is made up of good guys and should get mod representation, and 2. We should have a player election. Starting with the second, I must say PLEASE NO.

Way too many ways for exploits, and I don't see how a democracy is going to reduce overall contempt towards the mods, reduce bias, or necessarily elect someone from SRB/Byz/Rev/WGS/That clan full of pros. Notice that if you're elected President of the USA, or elected anywhere really, half the country will hate your guts- not everyone will like you if you're publicly elected. I'm just going to say about the IP thing, that hdrakon1 has shown us all that IP bans don't help one bit.

And who says that the person who's elected is a long time, unbiased, and pro member of the community? Watch as you get votes flooding in for hdrakon1 alts, or popular community members who are just trolls. Popular vote is just not the way to go.

A representative from your coalition would be good, and it would help represent more clans in the community. However, according to what the mods are saying, you'd obviously need to be eligible for mod first and foremost; one can't just pick the best 'model citizen' or SRB and make him mod. According to Hugosch, people who have trolled or get muted or banned often aren't generally eligible for mods. A representative from most parts of the community is nice, but you do need just the right person.

Mini wall o' text... complete.

Kirjoittanut Pinheiro, 08.08.2012 at 08:09

...therefore I'm willing to do what you suggested just now.

Respect, Pinheiro. Didn't see that coming from any of the mods.

I'm totally against an elected mod, because popularity means nothing to the quality of a mod. Also, that way things would trully become biased and I bet he wouldn't be so popular after moderating for a while .

Also, I thought the problems related with SRB were solved in my opinion, am I wrong? I would like to discuss specific problems that I might be not aware of by PM if that's not the case, I would be glad to work on a solution to this.

Kirjoittanut Caulerpa, 08.08.2012 at 08:26

You are saying that not being in a coalition would removed the bias from the mod. Let's hypothetically say I'm biased (just an example) and I leave Dalmati. How would that change anything? I would still chat with them everyday and our relations would stay the same and the bias would still be here. I don't see how would that solve anything, I would still be the part of Dalmati community just I wouldn't be officially within a coalition.
The same goes for mod's friends, not only his coalition.

Also, friendship doesn't play any role when appointing a new mod. When I started, about a year ago, I didn't know any of the mods. Furthermore, when we appointed GlennMiller, Pantha or Tzeenzch (damn, still can't spell his nick ), we weren't friends with them but we thought they could do the mod job correctly based on their in-game behaviour, forum posts etc.

If at this moment the change happened, of course this is the way you would act. Continuing the hypothetical scenario you brought up, and moving on further down the road. Without the constant large-scale communication(clan chat) between you and all the members of Dalmati, your relationships obviously will subside and you would find yourself in communication with many individuals you like, rather than a group you only marginally like. Meaning if a new member were to join Dalmati, you wouldn't make an automatic connection to him unless either of you sought eachother out and had constant communication. Thus the bias only continues with friends you already had.

But you do see how, in the long run, the bias would be lessened. Obviously not completely gone, but diminished.

@OP: I do agree this thread in general. If this is taken into account, the people that are approached and asked to be mods, would have to think of their priorities and we may see some refusals.


edit:

Kirjoittanut Pinheiro, 08.08.2012 at 09:04

I'm totally against an elected mod, because popularity means nothing to the quality of a mod. Also, that way things would trully become biased and I bet he wouldn't be so popular after moderating for a while .

Also, I thought the problems related with SRB were solved in my opinion, am I wrong? I would like to discuss specific problems that I might be not aware of by PM if that's not the case, I would be glad to work on a solution to this.

Most people, when given responsibility, smarten up. Not that I support the whole elected mod thing, but I wouldn't say an elected mod would be automatically biased and unpopular.

About the problems related to SRB, they were never solved. Barrymore very neatly outlined the public problems in this thread, hopefully they will be addressed, responded to, and discussed openly.


edit#2:

Kirjoittanut Mathdino, 08.08.2012 at 09:01

Way too many ways for exploits, and I don't see how a democracy is going to reduce overall contempt towards the mods, reduce bias, or necessarily elect someone from SRB/Byz/Rev/WGS/That clan full of pros. Notice that if you're elected President of the USA, or elected anywhere really, half the country will hate your guts- not everyone will like you if you're publicly elected. I'm just going to say about the IP thing, that hdrakon1 has shown us all that IP bans don't help one bit.

Are we comparing the hectic politics of the USA to our lil' game? I think someone who is a professional at some video game would be a pretty popular president in the United States.

@the ip adress problem. Just put a limit on who can vote, say by a join date or rank. Prevents millions of alts by one person the moment before an election. Again, not that I want a democratically elected mod, just saying that if it were to happen, there are ways to make it work.

Kirjoittanut Mathdino, 08.08.2012 at 09:01

A representative from your coalition would be good, and it would help represent more clans in the community. However, according to what the mods are saying, you'd obviously need to be eligible for mod first and foremost; one can't just pick the best 'model citizen' or SRB and make him mod. According to Hugosch, people who have trolled or get muted or banned often aren't generally eligible for mods. A representative from most parts of the community is nice, but you do need just the right person.

That's the most obvious paragraph there is on this thread. Eligibility isn't much of a problem, you either are, or you are not.

Interesting thread.

Firstly, having mod elections is an absolutely horrendous idea. As Pin communicated, moderators should be chosen for perceived ability to be successful in moderating, not for popularity with the AW community. This is fairly obvious to me and I'm sure it is to Ivan and Amok so I'm not going to spend any more time on it.

The suggestion that all mods leave their clans is at least legitimate, or rather, comes from a legitimate place. I won't deny that there is mod bias but this is overkill. Perhaps I would be able to sympathize more if mods were payed, but as of now the only benefits from being a mod are a few in game perks and greater influence in helping to shape the community. Most of the job is hardwork, dedication, and little thanks. Perhaps I'm saying this because I'm not the greatest mod, but if I had to choose between moderating and Dalmati, I would choose Dalmati without hesitation. I enjoy being a mod, that's the truth. But to deprive me of one of the best parts of this game (a coalition) because of some unavoidable bias is I think reflective of how this community views mods.

I'll be sure to post more but as of now this is all I have time for.

Edit: Something I forgot to mention. I can vouch that there is no identifiable "secret connection" between Dalmati and Deutsche Koalition, so please stop spreading this nonsense.

Edit #2: To be clear, I don't actually want to get paid for being a mod lawl. I'm just trying to communicate that there are already little benefits for being mod. Making us leave our clans is like an unnecessary kick in the balls.

As I said, I'm not the biggest fan of democracy but I couldn't just say GIVE SRB A MOD EVERYONE ELSE GO TO FUCK. I still believe that there should be some kind of elected person but maybe we could cope without if there wasn't as big of a divide between mods and players as there is.

Really we just need to talk more openly about everything, play some afterwind and relax a bit. There's no reason at all why we can't all get on (God I hate how hippy I sound). I reckon if there was an Afterwind Ventrillo or something so we could all socialise a bit more it would do wonders for the games atmosphere.

Barry I think we are on pretty much the same page here. I passionately hate censorship and I've always supported transparency + open communication as the surefire way to deal with these issues. However, I don't think that Nate's intention was to turn this into a "SRB needs a mod" thread. I think he's trying to turn discussion to bigger ideas about moderation and the role moderators should play in the community. (not saying I support these specific suggestions)

Once upon a time, in a land far away, I was a moderator for a gaming forum. A trip to the sand box eventually made it impossible for me to continue in that role and the repercussions of that trip have severely curtailed my on-line time. While I was moderator in that place, a few things were changed to address issues similar to what is happening here.

First was when a moderator was selected, they were given an account that was used exclusively for moderation activities and that account was anonymous.

Second, each anonymous moderator had a "complaint thread" dedicated to it. It provided a public place for thank you and complaints. The moderator who was the subject of the thread was forbidden from moderating in that thread and highly encouraged to not post in it.


This approach removed perceptions of bias since the anonymous Moderator account had no connection to any group. People could (and would) guess but there was never confirmation. It also allowed the anonymous moderator to follow his (her) heart with out concern about how friends might feel about being punished by their friend, the moderator.

The complaint thread was also valuable. It provided a place for public discussion of moderator actions enabling the community to both define what they felt was the desired level of moderation and therefore also give the moderators the strength of the community in the decisions being made.

I don't know if this model will work here. I only offer it as a possible way to address the issues raised by the original poster.

Kirjoittanut I_like_squirrels, 08.08.2012 at 10:34

First was when a moderator was selected, they were given an account that was used exclusively for moderation activities and that account was anonymous.

Second, each anonymous moderator had a "complaint thread" dedicated to it. It provided a public place for thank you and complaints. The moderator who was the subject of the thread was forbidden from moderating in that thread and highly encouraged to not post in it.


This approach removed perceptions of bias since the anonymous Moderator account had no connection to any group. People could (and would) guess but there was never confirmation. It also allowed the anonymous moderator to follow his (her) heart with out concern about how friends might feel about being punished by their friend, the moderator.

The complaint thread was also valuable. It provided a place for public discussion of moderator actions enabling the community to both define what they felt was the desired level of moderation and therefore also give the moderators the strength of the community in the decisions being made.



I honestly think this a good idea, better than the election thing because in election, as has been stated, popular members will be elected, and some of them are known trolls, spammers, etc, or some of the players will use different IP addresses to rig the election (I especially don't want to give people like hdrakon1 more power than they have because they have proven to me that if they get more power, they will surely abuse it without a doubt). now, another reason why I think that this is a good idea because it would be more of a compromise rather than a radical solution to the problem we have, and nearly everybody has shown to oppose the other radical solutions that have been stated. I honestly can't think why we haven't thought of this.

I guess with all this text I have to pen my views on this matter as well.

In my opinion, the moderation isn't as bad as many have been ostentatiously flaunting. As of now, i think the banning/muting process of the moderation is as good is it'll get. Although the "risk of termination" rule should be applied more often. Especially since "muting", players for a certain amount of time will just irritate the situation and cause one to be more tempted in trolling again once his mute is lifted.

Consequently, my problem with the moderation system is simply the influence they have over the implementation sector and the electoral process. I'm not implying that it has happened often at all, but it's definitely something that vexes me to a certain extent. The only recommendation I have is to investigate the ideas and opinions that other players have instead of those of the mods. If something is verging implementation it should first be approved by the community.

Moreover, electing a new mod, in my opinion, should be associated with experience, knowledge and commitment to the game. Not trying to target any of the recent mods who have been elected, but there are many great candidates that haven't yet been given their chance. All in all, the moderation is decent as of now, but surely it could be much better.

Let me clear some things up.

I specifically said I was against elections. That is way beyond what is needed and is obviously the wrong course to take. Secondly, I not trying to make an argument for 'give that coalition a mod' or 'take a mod away from that coalition.' I am actually attempting to do the opposite by merely separating the whole process of moderating from the clan part of the game as I feel these two have become too intertwined.

My suggestion was not an immediate fix. There will of course be connections that survive with moderator's old clans. However, going forward having mods separate from coalitions will lead to a less biased system in general.

I am not complaining here about certain decision relating to punishment as I truly believe our current moderators attempt to be as objective as possible. The problem is that no matter how hard they try, they cannot escape the inherent bias caused by their connections to the respective clan they are apart of.

It is quite expected that many current moderators will feel uneasy about leaving their coalitions. While I feel this proves my point that coalitions are sometimes put above their moderating duties, they must understand being a moderator is a choice, and I'll agree that is a tough decision to make.

I never was one to buy into the hype about some massive conspiracy between Dalmati and Deutsche Koalition, but it is clear to me they are connected even if it only through close friendship. They are still in the 'inner-circle' I talked about earlier. The disproportional amount of cw's played between the two shows this.

I believe Tophats has made the best and most reasonable post so far. Increased communication with the community regarding future mod selections is to me the clear solution. It's reasonable, moderate, and shouldn't lead to many further problems.

Nate, you write "I feel this proves my point that coalitions are sometimes put above their moderating duties", I suppose in reference to my unwillingness to leave Dalmati. The problem here is that you are trying to equate duty with participation when the two should not be equated. Just because I'm more inclined to participate in a clan does not mean in the slightest that I prioritize my duty as a mod over loyalty to my coalition. This distinction is imperative so I hope I am making it clear. If not I'll be glad to elaborate.

Moreover, while I understand that you want to limit mod bias to the greatest extent, I believe your suggestion will do more harm than good. How far are we willing to go to extinguish even a vague hint of mod bias? Perhaps excluding mods from participation in public games or tournaments would also decrease mod bias because mods would interact less with players and would not make 'favorites'? But of course, no one makes these suggestions because they are extreme in nature. In the same way, your suggestion seeks to reduce mod bias but inadvertently does more harm than good.

I won't say much more about the Dalmati/Deutsche coalition issue because it's really not worth responding to and this isn't really the right place anyway. The two clans are in no way affiliated with one another. The fact that we have played more cws with them means little more than that both clns were available to cw when we did. I'll ask again, please stop spreading this 'inner-circle' fantasy.

Kirjoittanut Acquiesce, 08.08.2012 at 15:57

Nate, you write "I feel this proves my point that coalitions are sometimes put above their moderating duties", I suppose in reference to my unwillingness to leave Dalmati. The problem here is that you are trying to equate duty with participation when the two should not be equated. Just because I'm more inclined to participate in a clan does not mean in the slightest that I prioritize my duty as a mod over loyalty to my coalition. This distinction is imperative so I hope I am making it clear. If not I'll be glad to elaborate.

You misunderstand... In no way did I hint at people treating their own clan better due to conscious decisions. I will agree that most mods attempt to remain unbiased, but it is impossible when there is a veil shrouding their vision caused by their intimate involvement in the community. It is human nature to seek out a group to belong in. These cliques are not only represented by coalitions, but it is the most apparent groupings of players. The problem is that no matter hard you try to separate yourself from this sphere, it is impossible. They will have an automatic advantage when it comes to how you moderate.

Lainaa:

Moreover, while I understand that you want to limit mod bias to the greatest extent, I believe your suggestion will do more harm than good. How far are we willing to go to extinguish even a vague hint of mod bias? Perhaps excluding mods from participation in public games or tournaments would also decrease mod bias because mods would interact less with players and would not make 'favorites'? But of course, no one makes these suggestions because they are extreme in nature. In the same way, your suggestion seeks to reduce mod bias but inadvertently does more harm than good.

I am only trying to end the cycle of alienation which I perceive and destroying the community. I do not see any harm in having a player join a single mod coalition when they are chosen. It may be sad for them to leave their old coalition, but that is a sacrifice that must be made.

Having witnessed the selection of most if not all of the active mods I can say that it had nothing to do with what clan they were in.

A mod clan is unnecessary. If mods are biased, they will be biased regardless of whether they are in a single clan or not. (I.e., If Acquiesce favors dalmati because those guys are his friends he will continue to do so even after he leaves).

"Sacrifices" the mods must make? Give me a break. This isn't like world of warcraft where the mods are paid and must be robotic and remain separate from the rest of the players. We're just normal players like everyone else, who have agreed to take the time to enforce the rules. Everyone should stop whining so much about the mods and focus on themselves and their own behavior.

Kirjoittanut Guest14502, 08.08.2012 at 16:32

"Sacrifices" the mods must make? Give me a break. This isn't like world of warcraft where the mods are paid and must be robotic and remain separate from the rest of the players. We're just normal players like everyone else, who have agreed to take the time to enforce the rules. Everyone should stop whining so much about the mods and focus on themselves and their own behavior.

Ok, sure, we can watch more our own behavior, but lets just say this, there is still the condition that Nate has mentioned and it is dividing the AW community. We must find a way to solve it, or as Barrymore has mentioned, we will have bigger problems. and your last sentence, to be honest, angered me a bit because I feel you are saying that everybody should stop complaining about the mods. maybe you aren't saying that, but from what it look like, that is what it makes me think.