What Does the Community Think of League Moderation? (ALL of your opinions, NONE of mine)

[Gustav 6,099]

14 minutes ago, ajwllmsn said:

I do have a question. Is the CoC not made to let people know that they should be respectable to everyone and lay down basic rules? To the people who are mad about the CoC, I just feel like they’re being assholes then and got caught in the wrong. I could be totally off so if someone can fill me in I would appreciate it.

 

From my own perspective--I'm not mad that we have a Code of Conduct at all. In fact, I think it's a good thing. The issues I've brought up lately (and which some responses seem to echo) have to do with my own perception of how it's been enforced. For example: punishing someone and just giving "Code of Conduct" as a reason is (in my own opinion) not very professional/transparent/whatever. Sometimes this gets misconstrued as "oh, well people are just mad that we have a Code of Conduct". I'm not! I just don't see "because rules" as a valid explanation, nor do I enjoy it when people start analyzing everything everyone says and judging whether it conforms with the rules.

 

Also, re: staff ownership of locker rooms:

 

15 minutes ago, Beketov said:

In the interest of fairness to this one the reason isn't necessarily to remove GM abilities but rather to avoid any potential transfer issues and to actually make sure that things are moderated fairly in the same way as they are in the public areas. The locker rooms are still related to the site. If someone wants a private server that's completely removed from the VHL then I have no problem with them having that but if something is called an official VHL locker room I do think that there should be a way to at least peak inside if need be. In the old days we could give ourselves permission if we received reports that something was going down that shouldn't have been but now we can't and if a mod asks for it a GM could theoretically start calling out their players for being narcs and cause more people to be afraid to come forward for anything. I get the idea of a slippery slope of problems but I think problems are present in both instances.

 

I agree that locker rooms are an extension of the league and are subject to the rules. But, let me ask you this--you (and the other commissioners) have mod powers in my server. You always have. Any commish can see whatever they want at any time. Why should I be forced to invite the entire mod team, or even worse, transfer ownership of the server, when no violations happen there and there are staff members with the ability to moderate? Hell, let's not act like I don't know the rules and I'm not capable of rational thought--I've told some people not to say some things before. In my case, the only reason why that would ever happen is that the league wants to assert its power over me and my team unnecessarily. We aren't a problem--so why treat us like we are? I'd imagine most (if not all) team servers are the same way.

Edited December 2, 2021 by GustavMattias

[Beketov 8,642]

34 minutes ago, GustavMattias said:

Any commish can see whatever they want at any time. Why should I be forced to invite the entire mod team, or even worse, transfer ownership of the server, when no violations happen there and there are staff members with the ability to moderate?

IMO us being in there is fine, the idea isn’t to have constant mod surveillance everyone but to have some presence to be able to confirm things. Yes, you allow the blues in but that’s not a universal thing.

 

35 minutes ago, GustavMattias said:

We aren't a problem--so why treat us like we are?

I’m not? It would be a matter of it being universal. As I said above, the issue isn’t necessarily YOUR server and shouldn’t be treated as if it’s some kind of attack at all. The issue is that between the three leagues we have 34 different locker rooms. Yours may not be a problem but does that mean there’s no potential for issue in any of the 34? It would just be fair to Handle it evenly rather than choosing which ones. And again, I don’t think a full mod team in every LR is fine or even reasonable for them to manage. Just someone from the staff that would be able to confirm some kind of report quickly and easily.

 

I don’t want a camera, I just want a key.

[Horcrux 322]

47 minutes ago, GustavMattias said:

 

From my own perspective--I'm not mad that we have a Code of Conduct at all. In fact, I think it's a good thing. The issues I've brought up lately (and which some responses seem to echo) have to do with my perception of how it's been enforced. For example: punishing someone and just giving "Code of Conduct" as a reason is (in my own opinion) not very professional/transparent/whatever. Sometimes this gets misconstrued as "oh, well people are just mad that we have a Code of Conduct". I'm not! I just don't see "because rules" as a valid explanation, nor do I enjoy it when people start analyzing everything everyone says and judging whether it conforms with the rules.

Transparency is a loaded word.  Transparency will mean different things to both of us, yes just citing (Code of conduct) is wrong and it should be narrowed down. 

 

However where I get the issue is some members feel they deserve or have a right to know. When they don't. Aside from "this is what the person did, here is the rule broken, here is the punishment" it's no one else business. 

 

Their is a lot of bitching and complaining about suspensions that frankly have nothing to do with the people bitching. Imo

[Baozi 1,635]

 

So just a quick point since we're on the topic and they involve me directly.

3 hours ago, GustavMattias said:

However, the chatter around staff ownership of locker rooms, abolishment of locker rooms and non-staff run VHL servers, and other community staples that moderators want to have control over concerns me, as its essentially removing the abilities for GMs and other community members to develop their own mini-communities and have more quality interactions.

 

The trade off is the deletion and loss of control of servers when events occur where the GM takes down the server or we have no control of it (with recent example). Also a number of complaints have come from discussions in the past that occurred in VHL affiliated LRs. I don't see how this would affect development of mini communities or quality interactions anyways, the mods are just there to ensure ownership of servers primarily and to ensure there is a presence to deter potential issues. They are not there to decide how conversations occur or what activities GMs want to do.

 

 

3 hours ago, GustavMattias said:

The recent VHL Mod Team Hiring thread is example number 1,2, and 3 of this. There are numerous posts hidden in there that do 0 harm - are they necessarily helpful? No, but what are we doing hiding forum posts? Why?

I literally said in the OP that I did not want discussion, just the applications and anything else would be deleted. I don't understand how this isn't clear.

 

59 minutes ago, GustavMattias said:

I agree that locker rooms are an extension of the league and are subject to the rules. But, let me ask you this--you (and the other commissioners) have mod powers in my server. You always have. Any commish can see whatever they want at any time. Why should I be forced to invite the entire mod team, or even worse, transfer ownership of the server, when no violations happen there and there are staff members with the ability to moderate? Hell, let's not act like I don't know the rules and I'm not capable of rational thought--I've told some people not to say some things before. In my case, the only reason why that would ever happen is that the league wants to assert its power over me and my team unnecessarily. We aren't a problem--so why treat us like we are? I'd imagine most (if not all) team servers are the same way.

 

So you may not be aware, but there have been now numerous issues stemming from individual LRs including the loss of such a server a few months ago. So this directly contradicts you "no violations ever happen there" including the fact you have now told people not to say certain things. So doesn't that basically reinforce my point?

 

Edited December 2, 2021 by tfong

[Gustav 6,099]

11 minutes ago, tfong said:

So you may not be aware, but there have been now numerous issues stemming from individual LRs including the loss of such a server a few months ago. So this directly contradicts you "no violations ever happen there" including the fact you have now told people not to say certain things. So doesn't that basically reinforce my point?

 

I suppose I shouldn't have made the implication that it isn't a problem in other places. It just annoys me that problems elsewhere might cause some mandatory policy change in my own server when my own server isn't part of the issue. Feels like a punishment for something I didn't do.

[Beketov 8,642]

11 minutes ago, GustavMattias said:

 

I suppose I shouldn't have made the implication that it isn't a problem in other places. It just annoys me that problems elsewhere might cause some mandatory policy change in my own server when my own server isn't part of the issue. Feels like a punishment for something I didn't do.

I know how it’s going to sound but if you know nothing is going on in your server then there’s no reason to think of such a thing as a punishment because nothing would change. Again, that’s how I look at it anyway. I haven’t seen the recent discussions on this but to me it’s just to be able to get a set of eyes if something comes up, not to actively walk in and enforce things.

[FrostBeard 1,975]

1 hour ago, GustavMattias said:

I agree that locker rooms are an extension of the league and are subject to the rules. But, let me ask you this--you (and the other commissioners) have mod powers in my server. You always have. Any commish can see whatever they want at any time. Why should I be forced to invite the entire mod team, or even worse, transfer ownership of the server, when no violations happen there and there are staff members with the ability to moderate? Hell, let's not act like I don't know the rules and I'm not capable of rational thought--I've told some people not to say some things before. In my case, the only reason why that would ever happen is that the league wants to assert its power over me and my team unnecessarily. We aren't a problem--so why treat us like we are? I'd imagine most (if not all) team servers are the same way.

23 minutes ago, tfong said:

So you may not be aware, but there have been now numerous issues stemming from individual LRs including the loss of such a server a few months ago. So this directly contradicts you "no violations ever happen there" including the fact you have now told people not to say certain things. So doesn't that basically reinforce my point?

 

I strongly believe that locker rooms added or managed more strongly wouldn't fix the problem of actual violations taking place. Also, the fact that most Locker Rooms have their own unique way of operating allows for each team to also be more unique.

I believe that there are violations and things we have to moderate but there is also a trust in people you hire as GMs to moderate their own Locker Rooms. If that means hiring people based on their previous actions or things they have said, I am fine with it. I have always stood by the fact that certain things should not be said or they should be kept to themselves, there is a certain way how a person should act when he becomes a part of a larger community. Also, everyone should uphold that standard equally.

What I am trying to say here is that Moderators are not the only ones who should moderate and, well, some of us, of the people who have been here longer than some other also uphold this same understanding of conduct on the highest level but we are not afraid to talk, to explain, to teach. That is what moderation is all about - teaching about things, understanding each situation to the core.

The openness of the community to discuss things, to learn about each other and be confronted with things we don't like is what makes everyone stronger together. Is CoC bad? No. Should CoC looks like a document released by Ministry of Justice? No. We need simple, broad rules that work. We need honest explanations about bans so that the community knows why a certain person was banned, punished, warned. If we are not open about these things, we are not ready to be a community. 

[Beketov 8,642]

5 minutes ago, FrostBeard said:

I strongly believe that locker rooms added or managed more strongly wouldn't fix the problem of actual violations taking place. Also, the fact that most Locker Rooms have their own unique way of operating allows for each team to also be more unique.

I believe that there are violations and things we have to moderate but there is also a trust in people you hire as GMs to moderate their own Locker Rooms. If that means hiring people based on their previous actions or things they have said, I am fine with it. I have always stood by the fact that certain things should not be said or they should be kept to themselves, there is a certain way how a person should act when he becomes a part of a larger community. Also, everyone should uphold that standard equally.

I stand by my view of a middle ground on the matter. I don’t think the entire mod team needs to be in every LR, both because the GM’s should self moderate and because honestly it’s too much extra work. However I also think there is inherent risk to having areas associated with the league that no one could potentially see in the event something happened.

 

That’s why I’m not proposing that the league should have control of every LR and the full mod team in every LR but rather simply that every LR allow at least one member of staff full access, by that I mean they can see every channel (outside of like if there’s a private GM and AGM one obviously) not just the general one no one uses because there’s a locked off team one. This staff member would not be in there constantly to monitor the LR or hand out punishments but simply be present so that if something is brought forth they can take a look at it themselves with full context and no concern of someone tampering with screenshots.

 

Like I said, not a security camera but simply a set of keys. GM’s would still handle everything themselves but if there’s a specific complaint that comes forward it could be easily and efficiently investigated.

[Gustav 6,099]

12 minutes ago, Beketov said:

I know how it’s going to sound but if you know nothing is going on in your server then there’s no reason to think of such a thing as a punishment because nothing would change. Again, that’s how I look at it anyway. I haven’t seen the recent discussions on this but to me it’s just to be able to get a set of eyes if something comes up, not to actively walk in and enforce things.

 

And I get that.

 

Let's say the mayor of your town knocks on your door one day and tells you that your car is now owned by the town. You still get to drive it, you still get to keep the keys, you still get to park it in front of your house and keep it on your property. They're just there to make sure your insurance is up to date and that you stay under the speed limit. These were rules you always had to follow in the past (at your own risk), but others like you weren't following them enough so they've taken ownership to monitor the problem more efficiently.

 

You've never had problems with these things in the past, and don't intend to start having them in the future. You have nothing to worry about if you don't. It's just that other people are breaking those rules.

 

...that's weird, isn't it? 

[Beketov 8,642]

2 minutes ago, GustavMattias said:

 

And I get that.

 

Let's say the mayor of your town knocks on your door one day and tells you that your car is now owned by the town. You still get to drive it, you still get to keep the keys, you still get to park it in front of your house and keep it on your property. They're just there to make sure your insurance is up to date and that you stay under the speed limit. These were rules you always had to follow in the past (at your own risk), but others like you weren't following them enough so they've taken ownership to monitor the problem more efficiently.

 

You've never had problems with these things in the past, and don't intend to start having them in the future. You have nothing to worry about if you don't. It's just that other people are breaking those rules.

 

...that's weird, isn't it? 

It is weird admittedly, it’s also far more caught up on the ownership part which I’m much more “meh” on. I get the idea behind it but I’ve never felt it’s essential, especially in the VHL. Ownership transfers have traditionally not been an issues and if one crops up it’s easy to just make a new server.

 

My bigger concern, as I said above, is more the transparency of knowing that any report we get is genuine and we can check how things went down in context. I’m not saying the entire mod team should need to be around 24/7 policing every LR, that’s insane, but someone could be present just in case they need to check something that was brought up.

 

Leas the government owning your car and more you needing an MVI to legally drive it.

[Nykonax 1,550]

I understand it for a VHLM thing, but just don't hire VHL GMs who are going to nuke their discord if a mod wants to look at something?

[Baozi 1,635]

54 minutes ago, FrostBeard said:

 

I strongly believe that locker rooms added or managed more strongly wouldn't fix the problem of actual violations taking place. Also, the fact that most Locker Rooms have their own unique way of operating allows for each team to also be more unique.

I believe that there are violations and things we have to moderate but there is also a trust in people you hire as GMs to moderate their own Locker Rooms. If that means hiring people based on their previous actions or things they have said, I am fine with it. I have always stood by the fact that certain things should not be said or they should be kept to themselves, there is a certain way how a person should act when he becomes a part of a larger community. Also, everyone should uphold that standard equally.

What I am trying to say here is that Moderators are not the only ones who should moderate and, well, some of us, of the people who have been here longer than some other also uphold this same understanding of conduct on the highest level but we are not afraid to talk, to explain, to teach. That is what moderation is all about - teaching about things, understanding each situation to the core.

The openness of the community to discuss things, to learn about each other and be confronted with things we don't like is what makes everyone stronger together. Is CoC bad? No. Should CoC looks like a document released by Ministry of Justice? No. We need simple, broad rules that work. We need honest explanations about bans so that the community knows why a certain person was banned, punished, warned. If we are not open about these things, we are not ready to be a community. 

 

I mean no mod is going to interfere with how you operate a locker room. That isn't my point.

 

Its akin to having the presence there and for lack of better comparison, is no different than having law enforcement patrol in the neighborhood. Do crimes still happen? Yes but it provides a modicum of comfort that the presence is there and it does provide quick access should an incident happen and it provides a certain amount of deterrence as well.

 

But again that's just an opinion I hold, not necessarily one shared by everyone on the team so its somewhat of a moot point in that regards.

 

In terms of having broad rules that work, that's basically the idea we are trying to utilize, but even looking at these results you can see it doesn't work for those that don't feel it defines enough or that they "want to know more" of what is wrong. I have literally zero desire to create something like a income tax act textbook guide and i don't see that being effective in any way either as people will lawyer around technicalities, so a certain flexibility/vagueness is required that is defined more like "spirit of the community" type rules.

[Spartan 3,997]

4 hours ago, Beketov said:

In the interest of fairness to this one the reason isn't necessarily to remove GM abilities but rather to avoid any potential transfer issues and to actually make sure that things are moderated fairly in the same way as they are in the public areas. The locker rooms are still related to the site. If someone wants a private server that's completely removed from the VHL then I have no problem with them having that but if something is called an official VHL locker room I do think that there should be a way to at least peak inside if need be. In the old days we could give ourselves permission if we received reports that something was going down that shouldn't have been but now we can't and if a mod asks for it a GM could theoretically start calling out their players for being narcs and cause more people to be afraid to come forward for anything. I get the idea of a slippery slope of problems but I think problems are present in both instances.

 

3 hours ago, tfong said:

The trade off is the deletion and loss of control of servers when events occur where the GM takes down the server or we have no control of it (with recent example). Also a number of complaints have come from discussions in the past that occurred in VHL affiliated LRs. I don't see how this would affect development of mini communities or quality interactions anyways, the mods are just there to ensure ownership of servers primarily and to ensure there is a presence to deter potential issues. They are not there to decide how conversations occur or what activities GMs want to do.

 

So you may not be aware, but there have been now numerous issues stemming from individual LRs including the loss of such a server a few months ago. So this directly contradicts you "no violations ever happen there" including the fact you have now told people not to say certain things. So doesn't that basically reinforce my point?

These two seem to be the main "official" responses to my quote about locker room ownership, so I'll respond to these.

 

I'd like to just point at this thread from October 20th, which was a thread in the Suggestions and Complaints section specifically addressing the point here about locker room ownership - interestingly enough by Dom who became a mod (ties into my other comment that Bek responded to about mods/staff having a very similar collective perspective on moderation related topics beyond "don't be a dick", but that's mildly coincidental from my perspective and not overly relevant to the point I'm making about LR's). Seems like a knee jerk post considering Matty was banned on October 19th, and news spread pretty quickly that Houston's LR was deleted. It's basically exactly what Bek and Fong said in this thread, about making sure that anything officially related to the VHL is accessible to the VHL staff. Here are a few quotes from that thread, which eventually fizzled out and didn't gain any traction:

 

1. "teams would still have permissions to have private channels etc where 99% of people cant see but no risk of channels being deleted out of spite or malicious intent. It will easily be bypassed though and official and unofficial locker rooms would exist. All in all its a great idea but it probably will be worked around immediately" 

 

As Beaviss said before, if you decide to moderate anything VHL related, there is nothing stopping a GM or players from making an unofficial locker room in title, moving all activity there, and doing what they please. 

 

2. "i just dont think this is a huge issue, how many times are LR's nuked vs peaceful handovers, and is it enough to warrant commish's owning every LR. And if that happens what happens if the person who owns everything goes rogue."

 

We seem to be reacting to a recent incident where a user was already punished (aka staff got the information they needed) and THEN the locker room was deleted. I know for a fact that this locker room was already purged by the previous GM before he transitioned it over to Matty, and there were no complaints at that time from what I could see. People make new locker rooms and move on with their lives, but this seems to be a hot topic for a change because a locker room got deleted after a punishment. There was no hiding of information in this case, because moderators had already reviewed the report and handed out a punishment. I would also assume that someone making a report would carry the burden of proof, to at least show some sign of validity to their claim instead of having moderators act like detectives or investigators in locker rooms. If you're making a report, have your screenshots and evidence in your report. If the person being accused of some misconduct deletes the locker room, how does it help them? The screenshots in the report won't go away, and it just makes them look worse as Matty did.

 

Oh also on a note of a moderator owning the server, the GM would still have admin permission right? I don't see any world where a GM should have to ask a staff member to create a channel, or rename one. If that's the case, they'd also be able to delete channels anyways. While you get access to LOOK at everything, unless you want to deny admin access to GM's of their teams, you can't stop the deletion of messages or channels.

 

3. "What benefit is there to having things hidden away in different servers vs. having the league have them all under one banner like they were when they were on the forum?" - @Beketov

 

Bek, you're in Moscow. You see just about everything that happens in there, except a back room channel where we talk strats. I like controlling who can see team related discussions, and I'd rather not have to make a completely different server or group chat just to discuss it. You can see 99% of what happens in Moscow. You, or any other mod, do not need that last 1%. I'm sure if someone in there was concerned about something I said, they could report me without me even knowing about it. 

 

4. "This is a minor issue being overblown just because it's something that happened recently.  It's an extremely rare / low probability occurrence, and obviously the fix was fairly efficient and simple.  I don't think this comes down to a player retention issue either, I highly doubt we lose members just because they have to move to a new LR lol."

 

If retention is actually an issue here, I'd love to see some sort of evidence that is becomes an issue when locker rooms get deleted. If anything, people got nominated for community service awards for building temporary locker rooms before a new GM was hired, for bettering the community in the process. Outside Matty accidentally deleting Houston when leaving it and Dil holding Halifax hostage, how many times have LR's gotten nuked? Maybe there were more before my time, but since March 2020, I've seen 2. The community responded in a great way each time.

 

5. "Imagine how well it would go over if we told VHLM GMs that they have to give up ownership of their servers because they can't be trusted with them. Even if the commissioners tried to make a network of league-owned servers, I'd imagine most GMs would keep using their own server because they have everything just the way they want it.

 

I think that the GM should be able to own the server, and those GMs who leave should transfer ownership, and I can think of a couple examples where either ownership was held hostage by someone else who just didn't want to give it up or the GM disappeared or refused to bring in the new one out of spite or something...but in those cases, I think it's the healthier choice for all concerned to just move on and make a new one.

 

I get what you're saying, but it's a lot of unnecessary complication for what's ultimately a minor issue. " - @GustavMattias

 

He said it best, nothing more for me to add. Feel free to peruse the thread I initially linked if you want to check it out yourself.

 

Also specifically to @tfong relating to "there have been now numerous issues stemming from individual LRs including the loss of such a server a few months ago," I'll just reiterate that your punishment and judgement occurred before the server was deleted. From a moderation perspective the deletion didn't hamper your investigation considering a punishment signifies you had enough information to conclude on the situation. 

Lot of words, if you read it all, hope it made sense. Bye!

 

(Edit: Removed this line "Hell, Dil got fired from Halifax and refused to transition ownership to the new GM, and he's a moderator now. " since it was made aware to me that it was incorrect.)

Edited December 3, 2021 by Spartan
Correcting myself

[Enorama 1,980]

5 hours ago, GustavMattias said:

(to whoever responded as me, I think I know who you are but I'm not going to assume).

 

 

[JardyB10 4,834]

Sam is already in every locker room anyway. I finally understand the logic of that hiring. @dasboot @Berocka more conspiracies.

[Spartan 3,997]

5 minutes ago, JardyB10 said:

Sam is already in every locker room anyway. I finally understand the logic of that hiring. @dasboot @Berocka more conspiracies.

sam = in every locker room

dasboot = timezone hire

dom = advocated for mods owning locker rooms in the past

dil = ????

 

we need to figure out the conspiracy logic behind dil's hire!

[Beketov 8,642]

Just now, Spartan said:

we need to figure out the conspiracy logic behind dil's hire!

Un-assuming gen chat mole.

 

Wait I wasn’t supposed to say that.

[diamond_ace 3,106]

50 minutes ago, Spartan said:

Hell, Dil got fired from Halifax and refused to transition ownership to the new GM, and he's a moderator now.

I have to admit it's been some time, but this is not my recollection of events. I could be wrong but I don't believe this is how it happened, so I want to give Dil a bit of a cleared name rather than him being thrown under the bus. He was obviously a bit salty at the firing, anyone would be in his circumstances, but I don't think he held any lr hostage? I know there were two Halis for a while, but think this particular recounting of what happened is incorrect.

[Spartan 3,997]

13 minutes ago, diamond_ace said:

I have to admit it's been some time, but this is not my recollection of events. I could be wrong but I don't believe this is how it happened, so I want to give Dil a bit of a cleared name rather than him being thrown under the bus. He was obviously a bit salty at the firing, anyone would be in his circumstances, but I don't think he held any lr hostage? I know there were two Halis for a while, but think this particular recounting of what happened is incorrect.

Yeah Dil dm'd me as well to let me know, I will go back and edit. I was under the impression that a new locker room was made at the time because Dil didn't hand over Halifax in a fit of rage, and that he ghosted on the league at the time. Apologies to Dil, and even fewer instances of LR's getting nuked outside a supposedly accidental one!

[bigAL 2,176]

15 hours ago, Beketov said:

Like I said, not a security camera but simply a set of keys. GM’s would still handle everything themselves but if there’s a specific complaint that comes forward it could be easily and efficiently investigated

This. 
 

I don’t want your server. Gus specifically messaged me out of the blue, caught me by surprise, and felt like he had to invite me into his LR. Sure, cool, now I see why. 
 

But I don’t want your server. I don’t care. I’ve got enough going on in discord. I’ve got it muted, I don’t go in there. That’s your place, I’m not a part of it, stay in my lane. 
 

BUT, I visit those LRs when I’m pinged. When we have a problem happening, it’s often in the team servers. The mods need to be able to see the context of those problems, instead of seeing cherry picked screenshots only. No one wants to or gets paid enough to moderate teams LRs. If you need us, we need to be available. That’s it. 
 

The only other time I visit LRs that aren’t mine is to do research during the hiring process. When I hired WJC GMs, I’d check their activity in their team server because that’s so much more indicative of managerial potential than an interview. That’s it. 
 

Ownership is meaningless. GMs have absolute autonomy to do good with their servers. When things go badly, ie: when someone complains, we can be there to help assist the GM in solving the problems. You’re still the owner, but staff can also be owners; it’s not a zero sum game. 

[STZ 5,280]

15 hours ago, ajwllmsn said:

To the people who are mad about the CoC, I just feel like they’re being assholes

I agree. Most people who are mad about the COC are probably assholes. Great point IMO.

[Shindigs 1,771]

18 hours ago, GustavMattias said:

"This isn't directly related to the moderators but wanted to say that I'm flabbergasted at the communities response since the CoC came out.  I could be wrong but I don't think most or any of the rules listed in the post are actually new items.  So I'm not sure why people have acted like the rules are so different now.  Same with people who think the rules are too vague and that every instance of something that can be classified as a wrong doing under the rules is going to get you in trouble.  If you haven't gotten in trouble in the last year, you probably have nothing to worry about.

Overall I think moderation has been fine, but I guess it's all in the eyes of the beholder." -Anonymous

This response pretty much highlights the biggest issue with the Hogan ban. For 4 months he didn't get the feedback that he couldn't keep doing that. Which leads to the insecurity in other people second guessing if what they have been doing is/isn't fine. The ban itself wasn't the issue, but the 4 month lag was a pretty massive issue. Because it introduces doubt, and when you ask about said doubt you get no answer. Which leads to more insecurity and doubt, and Yoda would probably find some way to conclude that that leads to the dark side.

 

But yeah this whole thing was a good read. I'm way too new to have any specific views on anything aside from the quote above. But overall this has felt like one of the most open and welcoming communities I've joined. Though I only really keep to the forum and team discord, not the league discord. So no idea what's going on there. Though based on this survey it seems quite a lot of the questionable stuff happens in there.

 

From a sociology standpoint I really like that you used a grading scale where the average is 5.5. A number that you literally cannot pick. Because as it turns out, if you are given a 1-5 scale. Everyone and their mom picks 3, because it's the middle choice*. That being said I think the clarification on the 1-9 with 5 being average for moderation volume was needlessly unclear on if 1 was too harsh or too lenient. Which is probably the cause of that 1, that was supposed to be a 9. You really could have interpreted it either way, based on the given information.

 

*Note that on the Volume question you (somewhat arbitrarily) picked 1-9 as the scale, instead of 1-10. Compare your results on that graph with the others and you will see this in effect. 5 is the middle number there, and 5 is over-represented. Human beings are so predictable...

[Gustav 6,099]

20 minutes ago, Shindigs said:

From a sociology standpoint I really like that you used a grading scale where the average is 5.5. A number that you literally cannot pick. Because as it turns out, if you are given a 1-5 scale. Everyone and their mom picks 3, because it's the middle choice*. That being said I think the clarification on the 1-9 with 5 being average for moderation volume was needlessly unclear on if 1 was too harsh or too lenient. Which is probably the cause of that 1, that was supposed to be a 9. You really could have interpreted it either way, based on the given information.

 

*Note that on the Volume question you (somewhat arbitrarily) picked 1-9 as the scale, instead of 1-10. Compare your results on that graph with the others and you will see this in effect. 5 is the middle number there, and 5 is over-represented. Human beings are so predictable...

 

I just picked 1-10 because that's just what made sense--the "no median" thing didn't even occur to me.

 

I agree that the 1-9 one was a bit needlessly confusing, and ironically in that case I wanted a response that was "just right" as for the others, presumably, a higher score meant doing better and there was no real single "middle ground" option. I did end up rejecting both 1s for that question--one of them because I'm 99% sure someone just read it wrong, and the other because it was part of the one anonymous response I got that was just 1 for everything with no explanation (I rejected the whole thing, including this question, but that's probably also a case of reading it wrong).

[jhatty8 662]

From an (somewhat) outsider perspective, I think that GMs should have enough trust to simply run their own servers if they have enough trust already to make managerial moves as a face of the league. I understand your perspectives on wanting to know what's going on as the LRs are a direct connection to the VHL. That being said, if the coach doesn't want to let their superiors see everything they are doing with their team at any given time, that's their choice to make.

 

Frankly all the Mods that I know and have talked with seem like amazing people that I would definitely invite to my LR if I had one. At the same time, that shouldn't mean everyone has to let them in. It's flawed to try and establish Mods in every LR on the basis of potential CoC violations. That should be the exception, not the rule, if you have faith in the GM hires.

 

[jhatty8 662]

1 minute ago, jhatty8 said:

From an (somewhat) outsider perspective, I think that GMs should have enough trust to simply run their own servers if they have enough trust already to make managerial moves as a face of the league. I understand your perspectives on wanting to know what's going on as the LRs are a direct connection to the VHL. That being said, if the coach doesn't want to let their superiors see everything they are doing with their team at any given time, that's their choice to make.

 

Frankly all the Mods that I know and have talked with seem like amazing people that I would definitely invite to my LR if I had one. At the same time, that shouldn't mean everyone has to let them in. It's flawed to try and establish Mods in every LR on the basis of potential CoC violations. That should be the exception, not the rule, if you have faith in the GM hires.

 

 

Also want to add on that it goes both ways. GMs should have enough trust in the Moderators to correctly handle situations as part of their job, and that trust can be reciprocated with locker room access. But as evident by some of the answers given in the form, that level of trust isn't quite there.

Edited December 3, 2021 by jhatty8