Out a moderator! - Page 32

Arthais · 09-27-2006, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RadarX

Sorry, I'm making assumptions based on the usage of "we." Mixing that with the fact you seem gravely concerned about an EQ2 related travesty, it appeared to me you were actually involved. My mistake, and you have my apologies.

Here's a thought for ya chuckles.

Could it be that maybe, just maybe, I'm less active then I could be just MIGHT be in some way related to a particular dislike over issues just like this?

Arthais · 09-27-2006, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darammer

* looks at the URL of the forum *

heh, well point taken.

Well, any reason other than shits and giggles, I suppose.

Arthais · 09-27-2006, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Savanja

But since no one is there to confirm what goes on between the mods and the red names, people have no clue how they are dealt with when complaints are made or a mod steps out of line.

Well, honestly sav...that's kind of the problem.

Darammer · 09-27-2006, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pinski

Starryeyedelf is still a mod.

And yet just went a long while not modding. The official line was because of her wedding... and yet Mawie was posting at this same time. And in fact, seemed to be posting more. It was almost as if SEE was suspended from her mod duties...

Much like action taken against another player's account, SOE would not disclose action taken against a moderator. Since they are volunteers, I think this a good policy; no need to shame somebody trying to help, even if they're doing a shitty job.

LFG · 09-27-2006, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ishbu

Game. Set. Match.

Ishbu, you are totally missing out on the action in another section of this site:

http://www.eq2flames.com/showpost.ph...5&postcount=40

Nurta · 09-27-2006, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arthais

I do not compare one to the other. I thought that you did, I guess I can dig back and find where you did but it doesn't really matter b/c we both are arguing for the same thing just in different ways. I will definitely agree that the moderation has been inconsistent and that SoE did a wrong thing in who they chose and how they went about implementing it and you can bet your bank I bitched and bitched and bitched and was told if it becomes a problem we'll change it. Well HELLO??!?!?! it's still the way it is.

Elaine had an interesting idea of a rotating account, I think that's how I read that, but I can see pros and cons against that too. The interesting thing that could sway yours and mine argument's would be whether SoE publicly stated the ethics or RoC for the mods? That would be interesting to see. But, another curious thing would be how a court of law would interpret the EULA with regards to people feeling as though the forums are a "right" and not a "priviledge". And also, as players is it unethical to "out" said moderators publicly? We don't have a set of guidelines.

I state that they are both the same thing, positions of relative power over others through the course of business.

If I wasn't clear on that, let me be so now. I do not refer to guild leaders, or parents, or anything else, only those who have a position of power and influence over others through the course of business (you can also add public works to that I suppose). ehh??? I guess I don't see how a moderator has powers to influence from a business perspective explain pls.

paid, unpaid, trained, untrained, doesn't matter.

And in every SINGLE example I can think of, every single one, in which one is placed in a position of relative power over another through the course of business or public works, there are ethical guidelines in place to prevent conflict of interest.

I rejected your guild leader example as it doesn't fit in with the framework, though I am willing to concede that I perhaps did not outline that framework sufficiently.

Training, expense, time, anything like that is irrelevant, since my postion is, with exceptions to things like this, it seems that any example of when one person is in a position of relative power and influence over another person through the course of business or public works, policies are in place to prevent conflict of interest and self dealing..

Now I don't wish to open old wounds here, and I'm quite happy to have an intelligent conversation on the matter, if you can think of something that fits in to that framework and is without that exception, feel free, I can not think of one.

As for the fish thing, yeah I remembered that after I submitted it. *blinks*

bleh just b/c I have to type b/c message said it was too short I guess b/c I quoted? dumb rule btw.

Arthais · 09-27-2006, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darammer

And yet just went a long while not modding. The official line was because of her wedding... and yet Mawie was posting at this same time. And in fact, seemed to be posting more. It was almost as if SEE was suspended from her mod duties...

Much like action taken against another player's account, SOE would not disclose action taken against a moderator. Since they are volunteers, I think this a good policy; no need to shame somebody trying to help, even if they're doing a shitty job.

It's...a tough line trying to balance the point of privacy and anonymity of your volunteers/employees while at the same time satisfying your consumer base. It's not a decision that's easy to make and, this along with all the other reasons, is why I continue to say that this program was just a bad idea to begin with.

When this FIRST started, the first thing I said was "this won't go well for SOE". It just seemed to me that they were setting themselves up with something where they would, eventually, put themselves in a corner where no matter what they did, someone would be hurt. I thought, and still think, that fundamentally it was just a bad business decision that was, consistantly, handled badly.

And again I'm not even talking about WHO got picked, that's a whole 'nother matter, I'm simply talking about what they did, and how they did it. There was no part of this that I ever thought was a good idea.

Darammer · 09-27-2006, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LFG

Ishbu, you are totally missing out on the action in another section of this site:

http://www.eq2flames.com/showpost.ph...5&postcount=40

Please don't drag that issue into this thread. This site does not have many rules, but derailing a thread by posting off-topic is one of the few.

The management thanks you.

Alania · 09-27-2006, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darammer

Please don't drag that issue into this thread. This site does not have many rules, but derailing a thread by posting off-topic is one of the few.

The management thanks you.

pwnd....

Anyway, yes Nurta, that's what I was talking about. Mixing up who was actually using what mod account at any given time would make things more difficult for the players to know who actually mod'd their particular post, but for the supervisors of said mods (Raijinn) to easily know who did what as he would have been the one to set up the rotation.

Arthais · 09-27-2006, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nurta

I thought that you did, I guess I can dig back and find where you did but it doesn't really matter b/c we both are arguing for the same thing just in different ways. I will definitely agree that the moderation has been inconsistent and that SoE did a wrong thing in who they chose and how they went about implementing it and you can bet your bank I bitched and bitched and bitched and was told if it becomes a problem we'll change it. Well HELLO??!?!?! it's still the way it is.

Agreed, see my post just above this one.

Quote:

Elaine had an interesting idea of a rotating account, I think that's how I read that, but I can see pros and cons against that too. The interesting thing that could sway yours and mine argument's would be whether SoE publicly stated the ethics or RoC for the mods? That would be interesting to see.

I'd be for it, however as I said, as long as I saw some evidence that some form of policy was being in place, I'd be ok with not knowing the specifics of it.

Quote:

But, another curious thing would be how a court of law would interpret the EULA with regards to people feeling as though the forums are a "right" and not a "priviledge". And also, as players is it unethical to "out" said moderators publicly? We don't have a set of guidelines.

Legally those are somewhat interesting question. I'll spare you the boring legalize of it, but suffice to say that there have been problems with "click" contracts, and how binding is something that you only virtually authorize.

Quote:

ehh??? I guess I don't see how a moderator has powers to influence from a business perspective explain pls.

I didn't say power to influence, I said power and influence, as in, either/or. I don't think a mod necessarily has influence, but they have some degree of power. I merely threw in "influence" in there for a sense of completeness, in that many positions, for instance lawyers, may not have power over someone (ignoring the pun of "power of attorney") but they do have influence. I agree a mod likely has no influence, but there is a degree of power.

Quote:

*blinks*

I had a flashback to highschool biology and learning some fish do, in fact, live out of water, I just didn't feel like going back and creating a more watertight (pun intended) analogy.