FaerieFate

Inherent admod bias, and how can we deal with it?

Recommended Posts

FaerieFate   
FaerieFate

Oh, admods KNEW I was going to look at the report and appeal, right? Knowing that I as a mod have always been for fairness and called admods out when they were being biased in a decision.

 

So, here I am bringing up points and flaws in the system.

1. Several admods pointed out here that the original decision was made under bias. This was pointed out when admods said that emotions were high when they made the initial vote. Yes, admods always say, "If we can't be biased then we should abstain." However, I don't think that any admods even follow that (other than the one admods who actually followed that rule, you know who you are and I thank you for being logical here).

2. An admod pointed out after the vote that they thought the rest were being biased, and granted I know admods wanted to get a response to me quickly I'd have much rather appreciated them actually taking care in making sure I'm treated fairly. Really a PM saying, "Hey, something went wrong on the appeal thread we're fixing it and so it may take a few extra days" would have done nicely. Otherwise it just looks like someone seeing that they are being biased and not doing anything about it because of their bias.

3. If someone like (let's say myself) looks into archive and sees bias, what can they do? As pointed out in here, an admod can point out after the vote that there was bias and admods will straight up do nothing but argue with them about why their point is right. But that really makes a point to the regular member. If a member sees a bias occurring in admods, they aren't allowed to do anything because the vote was taken and the consequences carried out.

 

Also, I want to point out how admods said they "demodded" me for constructive criticism when they point out in here that it wasn't the constructive criticism that was wrong, but the discussion on why I feel it's essential for constructive criticism to be given and received. Admods as a whole are really discounting the ability to communicate principles and values here. I never said anyone had to agree with what I said, I never inherently said, "I'm right and you're wrong." I simply stated why I felt the need to do what I did. It is inherently clear to me within this thread that admods were LOOKING for a reason to demod me. Granted, I knew for a while that this was occurring, I was just stupid enoguh to give those that disliked me that reason because I'm not the type to just shut up when I'm told to. Which wraps into the whole bias thing. I think admods voted this way not because I did anything wrong, but because they wanted to get rid of me. And that is my main beef with admods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ciri   
Ciri

Least you knew you could appeal xD

 

I do actually have something to say, I'm just reminding myself to post here after my nap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FaerieFate   
FaerieFate
9 minutes ago, Ciri said:

Least you knew you could appeal xD

 

I do actually have something to say, I'm just reminding myself to post here after my nap.

What was the point in trying to appeal if they'd be biased against me, though?

 

Does applying foran appeal count if admods never intended to grant you your appeal (even if they were in the wrong)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
float on   
float on

as I usually say, I think there is too much gravity to the modding decisions, and too much deliberation over them. they should have options that carry less weight, have clearer instructions on how to use them, process the whole thing quicker with less folk needing to chime in than is currently done, and in general reduce stress and workload.

 

if instructions can't be clear and simple, maybe the ToS rule isn't a good one and should be "tos"sed out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FictoVore.   
FictoVore.
3 hours ago, FaerieFate said:

What was the point in trying to appeal if they'd be biased against me, though?

 

Does applying foran appeal count if admods never intended to grant you your appeal (even if they were in the wrong)?

Is appealing even worth it? I tried it for a warn I got over something that didn't break ToS and someone who is now a mod (but wasn't at the time, though they'd been one previously) said I had grounds for appeal. ..I didn't hear anything back but mentioned the situation (without details) like a week later in the forums and my comments got deleted, and a mod reminded me 'you're not allowed to discuss a warn while on appeal' (which I didn't know and couldn't find written in the ToS) ..so I said "well is anything even being done about the appeal?" And like a week later got told it was denied. Even though there wasn't actually grounds for a warn (as ToS was not broken) for that warn in particular. So yeah, seems pointless to even try appealing if you ask me, if they want you to have a warn or whatever then you're stuck with it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FictoVore.   
FictoVore.

Also regarding the thread you linked: 

 

Fart: Sometimes I wish you'd tell Admods what you think rather than bottle it up. 

 

This makes everything seem so much less serious, but I'm immature Iike that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Polygon   
Polygon

Spitballin', but it might be reduced if member names are omitted in the decision process. 

 

ex.

 

person 1 reports person 2 for God knows what

 

Some admod reads report, takes it to a vote, but instead of including person 2's name, include only the offense that was made so that only the one admod knows who they're dealing with (granted, voters could easily look up who it is by text, or may have seen the text themselves prior to the report... not sure how that could be circumvented)

 

Vote's taken, they decide on a warn (poor person 2.. I was really rooting for them), so the person can then be notified. 

 

Reducing identifying factors could reduce bias. Problem is, admods are fairly active and will probably see for themselves who was at fault and then the unconscious bias could then play a role. I would like to think most people wouldn't bother to go to such lengths to find out exactly what user is responsible for what, but I'm sort of pessimistic there. 

 

Would be a fun but unscientific experiment, at least. Take two identical comments, one by a regular and the other by a new/random user, and see if the punishments differ. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yato   
Yato
3 hours ago, float on said:

as I usually say, I think there is too much gravity to the modding decisions, and too much deliberation over them. they should have options that carry less weight, have clearer instructions on how to use them, process the whole thing quicker with less folk needing to chime in than is currently done, and in general reduce stress and workload.

 

if instructions can't be clear and simple, maybe the ToS rule isn't a good one and should be "tos"sed out.

Telling a bunch of introverts to act like extroverts is not going to happen lol.

 

You can say its because there are many rules, and interpretations of them. That we need discussions over what rules are actually broken and how. I do however, agree that the ToS is too much... but that is just modern day culture it seems now. It won't change, so gotta do the best with what you have. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.Lia   
.Lia
10 minutes ago, Polygon said:

Spitballin', but it might be reduced if member names are omitted in the decision process. 

 

ex.

 

person 1 reports person 2 for God knows what

 

Some admod reads report, takes it to a vote, but instead of including person 2's name, include only the offense that was made so that only the one admod knows who they're dealing with (granted, voters could easily look up who it is by text, or may have seen the text themselves prior to the report... not sure how that could be circumvented)

 

Vote's taken, they decide on a warn (poor person 2.. I was really rooting for them), so the person can then be notified. 

 

Reducing identifying factors could reduce bias. Problem is, admods are fairly active and will probably see for themselves who was at fault and then the unconscious bias could then play a role. I would like to think most people wouldn't bother to go to such lengths to find out exactly what user is responsible for what, but I'm sort of pessimistic there. 

 

Would be a fun but unscientific experiment, at least. Take two identical comments, one by a regular and the other by a new/random user, and see if the punishments differ. 

Impossible with this new system - all Admods can see all reports, meaning they can see who reported and who was reported.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ciri   
Ciri

^ Kinda sucks when a mods been reported and their reporters supposed to remain anonymous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Polygon   
Polygon
7 minutes ago, .Lia said:

Impossible with this new system - all Admods can see all reports, meaning they can see who reported and who was reported.

Huh. Probably wouldn't have made much of a difference, anyway. It wouldn't be hard to track who posted, even if reports were filtered only through the mod(s) of a particular subforum. I assume the new system's in place so reports could be more quickly tended to since every mod can see them? That comes with its own downsides, though.

 

I still like the idea that as much anonymity as possible would be helpful in the report and decision process, but that implementation would be a pain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.Lia   
.Lia
25 minutes ago, Ciri said:

^ Kinda sucks when a mods been reported and their reporters supposed to remain anonymous.

If you'd like to report a staff member and remain anonymous, simply PM an Admin with a link to the content that you're reporting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FaerieFate   
FaerieFate
On 9/13/2017 at 4:20 PM, FictoVore. said:

Is appealing even worth it? I tried it for a warn I got over something that didn't break ToS and someone who is now a mod (but wasn't at the time, though they'd been one previously) said I had grounds for appeal. ..I didn't hear anything back but mentioned the situation (without details) like a week later in the forums and my comments got deleted, and a mod reminded me 'you're not allowed to discuss a warn while on appeal' (which I didn't know and couldn't find written in the ToS) ..so I said "well is anything even being done about the appeal?" And like a week later got told it was denied. Even though there wasn't actually grounds for a warn (as ToS was not broken) for that warn in particular. So yeah, seems pointless to even try appealing if you ask me, if they want you to have a warn or whatever then you're stuck with it. 

True that. I had several admods and ex-admods tell me that I did nothing wrong. I even had 2 ex-admods help me draft the appeal. And an admod even called them out for being biased IN MY APPEAL because they didn't grant it. 

 

Also, I think the 2 week to appeal thing is far too short. You're going to make me wait THREE MONTHS to see all of this because you're afraid I'll still harbor anger. Yet this appeal clearly shows that admods will still harbor too much anger after 2 weeks to make a fair decision.

 

And don't give me that, "If the admod can't be unbiased they should abstain." We all know that admods don't obstain from decisions they are biased.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
float on   
float on

oh, did I mention yet, duh bias? I look to you and boom I'm biased. you look to yourself and boom a different bias than mine. I get caught in a teleporter accident and end up as two people instead of one and BOOM bias is introduced. one of us is here and the other is there. it only gets more biased from that point!

 

so "Dealing with bias" -- accept the bias. stop trying to disabuse people of it lol. maybe you have standards you want people to meet, that's one thing. but to try to remove all bias? not going to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FaerieFate   
FaerieFate
49 minutes ago, float on said:

oh, did I mention yet, duh bias? I look to you and boom I'm biased. you look to yourself and boom a different bias than mine. I get caught in a teleporter accident and end up as two people instead of one and BOOM bias is introduced. one of us is here and the other is there. it only gets more biased from that point!

 

so "Dealing with bias" -- accept the bias. stop trying to disabuse people of it lol. maybe you have standards you want people to meet, that's one thing. but to try to remove all bias? not going to happen.

So we should just let admods warn all of the members that they dislike because "Duh, bias!" Really?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yato   
Yato
43 minutes ago, FaerieFate said:

So we should just let admods warn all of the members that they dislike because "Duh, bias!" Really?

It isn't that extreme and you know it. Besides, there has been a ton of changes since this specific instance. There are new mods etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
float on   
float on
48 minutes ago, FaerieFate said:

So we should just let admods warn all of the members that they dislike because "Duh, bias!" Really?

having standards you want to meet is very different from shaming bias.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FaerieFate   
FaerieFate
6 minutes ago, Yato said:

It isn't that extreme and you know it. Besides, there has been a ton of changes since this specific instance. There are new mods etc.

New mods are trained by the old mods. Most of the mods in this case that didn't show bias left, leaving the new mods to be trained by the mods that think it's okay to make decisions based on their emotions even if they can't verbalize or write out exactly why they made their decision (ie the mods that voted for the appeal were the ones that drafted my reply rather the ones that wanted to deny it). The fact that so much has been allowed to change after this instance just proves that the 3 month timeline to declass is ridiculous because by the time I'm able to see it, bring it up, and complain about unfair treatment enough time has passed for the admods to shrug me off by saying "that's in the past". Also, the very fact that it's 3 months to declass because people need to "calm down" is equally ridiculous because when they see admod wrongdoing they'll just get riled up again. Furthermore, they'll get more upset because admods are continuously shrugging them off. And even if you don't consider the feelings of the wrongly accused, it proves another flaw in the system.

 

I have to wait for 3 months for my emotions to calm down before I can see this. Yet the admods were able to vote on this appeal when THEY were still in the heat of the moment. That's why this bias occurred in the first place. You can say there are tons of changes all you want, it means nothing to the average member. New mods? How do I know these mods are good? Even the ones I've trusted to go it, how do I know their ideals won't be swayed by the corrupt admods that let this mistake happen and stuck by it. Admods step down because they are fed up with actions like these all of the time, which doesn't prove a good track record because that just leaves the admods that think that voting against someone they don't like is perfectly okay. Also, all of the "etc" in your comment still means nothing. We as members have no proof admods change. Rules change, but obviously they don't always follow the rules. Right now, I have very little "good faith" in admods, and they've done little to try to show that they are changing. In fact, the most I've received was condolences from admods that knew I was being wronged, which does absolutely nothing because this very example proves their opinions are outright ignored.

 

I know it's not that extreme? I've known for MONTHS that admods held a bias against me. I felt as long as they acted rationally with me and COMMUNICATED with me rather than letting their negative thoughts on me get in the way we'd be fine. Here, though, we clearly see that this was no the case. I was demodded because of this very example where admods were biased, a fellow mod called them out on it, and they just collectively shrugged and did nothing about it. How is that not extreme here? If they can just kick off the staff they don't like, they can keep this bias going with zero cares.

 

16 minutes ago, float on said:

having standards you want to meet is very different from shaming bias.

It's not the inherent having a bias that bothers me. It's the fact that admods clearly let that guide their decisions and no one cares. I've known many mods with a bias that didn't let that sway them. Was I among them? No, sometimes I was guilty of that mistake, but I owned up to it, acknowledged it, and apologized when I did so. Here, admdos saw it and were just like, "Well, I guess it's too late to change that." Then continued to act as if it didn't even happen!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yato   
Yato
8 minutes ago, FaerieFate said:

New mods are trained by the old mods. Most of the mods in this case that didn't show bias left, leaving the new mods to be trained by the mods that think it's okay to make decisions based on their emotions even if they can't verbalize or write out exactly why they made their decision (ie the mods that voted for the appeal were the ones that drafted my reply rather the ones that wanted to deny it). The fact that so much has been allowed to change after this instance just proves that the 3 month timeline to declass is ridiculous because by the time I'm able to see it, bring it up, and complain about unfair treatment enough time has passed for the admods to shrug me off by saying "that's in the past". Also, the very fact that it's 3 months to declass because people need to "calm down" is equally ridiculous because when they see admod wrongdoing they'll just get riled up again. Furthermore, they'll get more upset because admods are continuously shrugging them off. And even if you don't consider the feelings of the wrongly accused, it proves another flaw in the system.

 

I have to wait for 3 months for my emotions to calm down before I can see this. Yet the admods were able to vote on this appeal when THEY were still in the heat of the moment. That's why this bias occurred in the first place. You can say there are tons of changes all you want, it means nothing to the average member. New mods? How do I know these mods are good? Even the ones I've trusted to go it, how do I know their ideals won't be swayed by the corrupt admods that let this mistake happen and stuck by it. Admods step down because they are fed up with actions like these all of the time, which doesn't prove a good track record because that just leaves the admods that think that voting against someone they don't like is perfectly okay. Also, all of the "etc" in your comment still means nothing. We as members have no proof admods change. Rules change, but obviously they don't always follow the rules. Right now, I have very little "good faith" in admods, and they've done little to try to show that they are changing. In fact, the most I've received was condolences from admods that knew I was being wronged, which does absolutely nothing because this very example proves their opinions are outright ignored.

 

I know it's not that extreme? I've known for MONTHS that admods held a bias against me. I felt as long as they acted rationally with me and COMMUNICATED with me rather than letting their negative thoughts on me get in the way we'd be fine. Here, though, we clearly see that this was no the case. I was demodded because of this very example where admods were biased, a fellow mod called them out on it, and they just collectively shrugged and did nothing about it. How is that not extreme here? If they can just kick off the staff they don't like, they can keep this bias going with zero cares.

I'm sorry you feel this way, and its ok to vent your frustrations. But as a newer mod I can only do what I can now. Don't worry, I try to prevent biases from happening just by being me. You know how much I like to fight. I'm "literally Hitler" to some people in Admods, and we get along just fine. I don't feel any biases towards me. What am I doing right?

 

The training team does not pass on biases. I don't know where you got that idea. They are the most neutral bunch around.

 

I think you are mistaking personality differences, with defined biases. Dealing with different personalities is far more difficult than just getting along with similar personalities that disagree on something. Perhaps you are feeling negative things towards you, because you have a difficult time getting along , and communicating with certain kinds of people?

 

I do however, agree there needs to be more communication between team members. But thats difficult with 99% of them being introverted. Vote for more extroverted people. If most of the admod team was extroverted. You would see hella communication. But I don't think this will change easily, because its the internet. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FaerieFate   
FaerieFate
2 minutes ago, Yato said:

The training team does not pass on biases. I don't know where you got that idea. They are the most neutral bunch around.

I'm sorry, the Training Team came in after I was a mod, so I can't vouch for them. My point was more, "If newer admods see a more experienced admod voting based on a bias, they'll be more likely to do so because they'll think it's okay." I also am not aware how the new Training Team members were chosen but the original ones were chosen by admods and were selected through their own biases.

 

Point being, admods have WAY too much control on what effects admods. There needs to be more outside intervention Training Team chosen by members. Members having a hand in admin elections. Some other group that ISN'T admods working on appeals. I know admods are concerned with what the members don't see, which kinda proves my earlier point. Admods need to communicate with members better. We need to SEE the changes they are making to improve themselves. Otherwise the whole, "Admods are working on it." Line feels like a cop-out. Furthermore, there are more groups than just admods that can see what happens behind admods. So, there is more than one group tat can see the reports, and admods don't have to be the people in charge of appeals when they come by. Granted, that'd be some work for admods to accomplish, but if they don't at least try it really proves how little they value the opinions of members that felt wronged by the appeal system. I'm not only talking about myself, here. I'm not only one complaining about this. I'm just the most vocal, because I'm one of the few that have been behind the curtains. I'm one of the few that has given the, "Thanks for making me aware of the issue, I assure you I'm working on it." line. After hearing admods say that a million times behind the curtain, I want to hold them to that promise, and until something changes I will continue to pester them about it.

 

Also, I'm well aware some admods don't like to read Site Comments. I'm also well aware specific admods are choosing to not read my thread because they can't handle my blatant criticism. I know everyone wants the best here, but if you're not trying I really question your motives, guys. I'm calling you all out, right now. Every time I see situations like there were only a couple of admods (and usually the newer admods) trying to deal with issues brought up in Site Comments it really makes the membership not trust you.

 

I don't know how Yato is as a mod, but right now they're the only one that's talking to me, so they're the easiest one for me to trust here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ItWasNiceKnowingYou   
ItWasNiceKnowingYou

Sorry for the late reply!! 

Well this happened before i even ran for mod sooo i can't speak on it specifically.

In general, bias can be an issue. Not because of people not trying but because of people being human. No matter how hard we try, there's rarely a decision that's completely objective.

I agree with @Yato wholeheartedly as well. If there's a decision i know i can't be unbiased about, then i abstain & refrain from participating in the resulting communications. Quite frankly, i do wish the entire admod team had better communication. I am fairly introverted.... But I'm also bs intolerant & have little problem speaking up about things i believe are going wrong. However, a lot of recent discussions i am not knowledgeable about have resurfaced, so i have no room to give much of an opinion. I try to be objective in modding the forums I do.... And that requires stepping back to fully evaluate a situation before responding.

There are a multitude of things that can be improved about AVEN in both admods and membership alike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kyon.   
Kyon.

Hi FF

 

I've been reading this thread over the past few days, but as it relates to stuff that happened before I was a mod, I don't really feel like I'm in any kind of position to really be able to comment on most of it.

 

I understand you're looking for some general thoughts though, so I'll do what I can.

 

I've only been a mod for a few weeks, but I've already abstained from a number of votes, because they related to people I like or consider to be my friends. I'm very conscious of being biased in situations like this, so if I feel too invested in the situation, I'd much rather just abstain from it altogether.

 

I know other mods do the same (like SA mentions right above this post) - and presumably do the same if there's a member they don't get along with for whatever reason. I've personally not seen any direct evidence of bias from any staff members over the past few weeks...but unless someone directly comes out and says it, I don't think it's really possible to prove one way or the other.

 

I've personally been satisfied with the level of communication in admods. I can understand why people might want more. There are probably some people who think there's too much. But it's fine for me.

 

I read Site Comments a lot, but as I'm still settling in, I don't currently feel in a position to be able to answer a lot of the things I see (I stated something like this during the election).

 

Please note that this isn't intended as an argument against any of your posts in this thread and I'm not trying to invalidate of your feelings around what's happened - this is just a few brief thoughts on my experience so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
float on   
float on
2 hours ago, FaerieFate said:

It's the fact that admods clearly let that guide their decisions

um, you need some kind of bias to make a decision. otherwise you're literally flipping a coin - wait except, that's biasing the decision.

 

the point is - there is not a very clear line between "too much bias" and "the desired bias" and so if you want to make a claim against whatever's problematic here, you need a different argument. unless, you're happy shaming people for using their gut to help them make their decision. which a very significant number of people do. and it works consistently for them.

 

 

this isn't nitpicking. "bias" is a good thing to have. "bad decisions" are clearly what we don't want. but what is the point of getting flustered about bias when bias is what we want?

 

we don't want people exercising favoritism, perhaps. is this what you mean? or maybe we want some way to respond to someone inexperienced making too many mistakes. these both seem like reasonable things I suspect you might be caring about. but "bias" is not either of these things, specifically. bias is someone having seen a user making a lot of reports against another user, and taking them with less trust because that user might be clouding their view or words with anger. we want some form of bias to be a part of decisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ItWasNiceKnowingYou   
ItWasNiceKnowingYou
8 minutes ago, Kyon. said:

I've personally been satisfied with the level of communication in admods. I can understand why people might want more. There are probably some people who think there's too much. But it's fine for me.

I think the communication reference is something like making sure admin talk to mods who talk to DT who talk to PT who talks back to admin. We all have our separate roles but in some cases we focus on those roles & forget to communicate with one another effectively (?) .... If that makes any sense xD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.Lia   
.Lia

This thread is making me a bit angry, and I'll tell you why:

Changes have been made since you left Admods, and they're fairly significant changes. And yet, there are still blanket statements being thrown around as though those changes haven't happened, simply because they happened after you left. 

 

Another thing: You want members to choose TT members. How? Members don't know what goes into modding. They have no clue what knowledge it takes in order to be a mod. "Does this need to be hidden?" "Where do I log this?" "Why is it done this way?" "Do I hide this, or send it to the graveyard?" "How do you word a green post?" "Is this the right way to sign a green post?" "Does this nudge draft look okay?"

 

Any member who can answer those questions, can help choose the TT. And I guarantee you, only ex-Admods will know those answers. Also, who would train this TT, then, if they're not ex-Admods and chosen by members? The same "biased" Admods that are currently moderators? 

 

I get being angry. But this thread (and another one I can't remember the name of) is a clear example of why there was, initially, a 6 month waiting period for declassifying disciplinary threads, because it's clear that 3 months hasn't been enough time in this situation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NerotheReaper   
NerotheReaper
8 hours ago, FaerieFate said:

So we should just let admods warn all of the members that they dislike because "Duh, bias!" Really?

Umm no, that is a bit silly and has no logic. There has to be enough evidence to warn someone, and admods discuss this heavily it isn't made in a snap decision. Like a legal case it takes time to look through evidence that is provided, and if one admod doesn't like the member in question they should abstain. If possible it is good to put personal feelings aside and look at it from an objective point and make a decision. 

 

7 hours ago, FaerieFate said:

New mods are trained by the old mods. Most of the mods in this case that didn't show bias left, leaving the new mods to be trained by the mods that think it's okay to make decisions based on their emotions. 

People leave all the time for personal reasons, forcing someone to stay is completely pointless. We don't want people on the team to be miserable, helping out here is a choice and leaving for personal reasons is their choice too. People need to take care of themselves first before helping out here, so some people who can stick around have to help the new ones coming into the position. Someone has to help them learn the ropes, but they are their own person and decide what kind of style they have or personality. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Randomchaos   
Randomchaos
8 hours ago, FaerieFate said:

Some other group that ISN'T admods working on appeals.

What type of group would you suggest then? 

 

8 hours ago, FaerieFate said:

Also, I'm well aware some admods don't like to read Site Comments. I'm also well aware specific admods are choosing to not read my thread because they can't handle my blatant criticism. I know everyone wants the best here, but if you're not trying I really question your motives, guys. I'm calling you all out, right now. Every time I see situations like there were only a couple of admods (and usually the newer admods) trying to deal with issues brought up in Site Comments it really makes the membership not trust you.

tbh I just had nothing to say? I made my stance clear in both places and I never changed my main focus.  So I didn't really feel it had anything to do with me.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FaerieFate   
FaerieFate
6 hours ago, .Lia said:

This thread is making me a bit angry, and I'll tell you why:

Changes have been made since you left Admods, and they're fairly significant changes. And yet, there are still blanket statements being thrown around as though those changes haven't happened, simply because they happened after you left. 

 

Another thing: You want members to choose TT members. How? Members don't know what goes into modding. They have no clue what knowledge it takes in order to be a mod. "Does this need to be hidden?" "Where do I log this?" "Why is it done this way?" "Do I hide this, or send it to the graveyard?" "How do you word a green post?" "Is this the right way to sign a green post?" "Does this nudge draft look okay?"

 

Any member who can answer those questions, can help choose the TT. And I guarantee you, only ex-Admods will know those answers. Also, who would train this TT, then, if they're not ex-Admods and chosen by members? The same "biased" Admods that are currently moderators? 

 

I get being angry. But this thread (and another one I can't remember the name of) is a clear example of why there was, initially, a 6 month waiting period for declassifying disciplinary threads, because it's clear that 3 months hasn't been enough time in this situation. 

Most of your issues with this thread would be solved if admods communicated with members more. Everyone is saying changes, and I'm not saying changes aren't being made. I'm saying that I see an issue with admods, and admods are doing nothing to tell me that they are fixing it. There needs to be increased communication between admods and members, and yet... the only mod willing to tell me anything are the mods that have been elected RECENTLY. Do you not think that's a problem? Admods are trying to fix their issues? GREAT! But if we're left in the dark, how can we know? TELL US!

 

If amods again shared more with members and were more open with them rather than all of these non-answers to their questions, then perhaps members could actually have some insight in who would make a good TT? That's just my thought. Or perhaps DT could be the one that decides who becomes TT because they're the ones reading old reports?

 

TT is a fairly knew group, based on admod roles, there to train the new admods. I would suspect that the best choices of TT are longtime admods that have already proven to train admods well when they were admods. Otherwise, how would admods even know if they can train a new admod well based on the system to choose TT?

 

3 months isn't enough time? No. I'd be just as angry in 6 months as I am now. Why? Because something OBVIOUSLY went wrong, admods collectively shrugged to ignore it, and now that I'm saying something, the only admods that are speaking to me are the ones that weren't even around when this mistake was made! That's why I'm angry. It has nothing to do with how ling this thread had to wait, and everything to do with what I said earlier. Admods want me to believe something has changed? TELL ME! Please, tell me what has been done to prevent this from happening again? What has been done in case this happens again? Furthermore, 3 months is far too long. Why? Because it's been 3 months since my warning, and now admods are all allowed to shrug off my problems with what happened here and just say, "But that was so long ago!" No, it's insanely disrespectful to make me wait 3 months, because that lets them shrug it off as "things have changed" without directly dealing with what happened here.

 

Also, if I have to wait 3 months to calm down after my warning, why do admods get to make a decision on my appeal in the heat of the moment? Admods were clearly still running on their emotions from the event when the appeal was done, why do they get to make a decision when they're still in the heat of the moment, but I don't get to know why they did it until 3 months later?

 

I've been asking MANY questions SEVERAL times in this thread, and no one has tried to answer me, so yeah, I'm kinda mad. Perhaps if they actually TALK TO ME about what happened, we could smooth this out. I'm a member now, not a mod, so talk to me. I brought up an issue, and all I'm getting are non-answers. Communicate with me. Tell me what you have done to fix it. Tell me how you'll prevent this from happening again. Tell me what you will do IF it happens again. Although my thread is the example here, it's far from about just me. I'm not the only member here that's brought up the fact that admods showed bias. I'm just the most vocal, because that's why I became a mod back in the day, to speak for the members.

 

2 hours ago, NerotheReaper said:

Umm no, that is a bit silly and has no logic. There has to be enough evidence to warn someone, and admods discuss this heavily it isn't made in a snap decision. Like a legal case it takes time to look through evidence that is provided, and if one admod doesn't like the member in question they should abstain. If possible it is good to put personal feelings aside and look at it from an objective point and make a decision. 

 

People leave all the time for personal reasons, forcing someone to stay is completely pointless. We don't want people on the team to be miserable, helping out here is a choice and leaving for personal reasons is their choice too. People need to take care of themselves first before helping out here, so some people who can stick around have to help the new ones coming into the position. Someone has to help them learn the ropes, but they are their own person and decide what kind of style they have or personality. 

 

I don't mind people leaving, my issue is why people are leaving. Admods are leaving because they are noticing that the rest of the admods are getting away with things they shouldn't. Do I want them to stay with a group they despise? Absolutely not, but I do want someone to acknowledge that having the admods that see something wrong leave and having the admods that are getting away with things stay.

 

As for your first paragraph, I've already made my point clear on that.

 

45 minutes ago, Randomchaos said:

What type of group would you suggest then? 

 

tbh I just had nothing to say? I made my stance clear in both places and I never changed my main focus.  So I didn't really feel it had anything to do with me.

 

 

I don't know? DT? They read old reports, so they'd have the knowledge to make that decision? TT? They are old admods that are clearly trusted to train admods for a reason, they were good at what they did, so perhaps they could be trusted to make a sound decision? BOD? Webmasters? They might not want to be dragged into it, but that are completely separate from admods and know enoguh about the site to be able to make the decision. Perhaps we have an appeals team specifically for this task? Admods have made new groups where there was a need before. Or perhaps we turn the whole appeal system on it's head and actually do it similar to a court system? That'd be beneficial in several ways. It'd let the member know that the appeal is actively being discussed, it actually gives the member to have a chance to dispute admods claims (like the claim that I should have been a mind-reader and known that I was LOA too often because of my illness because admods never cared enough to actually figure out what was going on). I mean, Nero wants to use the court system as an example, let's make the warn-appeal system more court based.

 

I am really REALLY not getting into what I think about decisions admods made in the report or appeal. I have very strong opinions about both threads and believe I wasn't the only one disrespected here, but I've made promises not to drag others into it. But I find it unpleasant that a mod thinks that a complaint to admods has nothing to do with them. It makes me feel nice and ignored here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Una Salus Victus   
Una Salus Victus

Wg9zK.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jayce   
Jayce

 I know you're upset and want answers but i don't think it's fair to completely blaim the TT for being biased and them training admods in that fashion. They didn't have anything to do with the constructive criticsism thread drama nor with the decision made in regards to your warn and appeal. The ones who did were the admods who were involved in the process so to demand for members to choose the new TT is a bit unfair imo because members do not know the ins and outs of the backroom unless they've been there.

Bias is a big word and i honestly don't think it's fair to put all mods on the bias train where not every single one of them had been there when you were in staff. This horse has been beaten to death, if you wanna talk then ask the mods involved to have a convo with them, maybe a mediated one but honestly, I can understand why people are angry and why you are angry because this was absolutly unneccessary to begin with.I would've rather seen a mediated convo with the ones involved so you could sort it out with them.I'm not picking sides but this is what i notice from i've read in this thread alone and it upsets me a bit.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now