I have never seen good things come from communities that are allowed to moderate themselves. The primary problems are bias in favor of or against others and abuse of powers given. The biggest challenge would be to find people who can remain neutral and unbiased and won't abuse the powers given to them. And in any MMO that is very challenging.
I feel that paid moderators would be so much better in ensuring that people remain unbiased and non abusing.
I may have missed it, but who is going to keep an eye on these community moderators so they don't abuse their power? Hopefully Cryptic employees?
I have never seen good things come from communities that are allowed to moderate themselves. The primary problems are bias in favor of or against others and abuse of powers given. The biggest challenge would be to find people who can remain neutral and unbiased and won't abuse the powers given to them. And in any MMO that is very challenging.
I feel that paid moderators would be so much better in ensuring that people remain unbiased and non abusing.
I may have missed it, but who is going to keep an eye on these community moderators so they don't abuse their power? Hopefully Cryptic employees?
Well, the problem herein is that those who are paid, are immediately more biased towards those who are paying them. The company line rules all. I feel an unpaid moderator would probably be less biased than anyone paid. Yet also less motivated. It's a bit of a quandry.
Unless, like me, you're one of the ones Nimoy told to "get a life".
Yet here he is, at a hundred-and-three, is he? spouting off dialogue for Star Trek Online. :rolleyes:
Now, lets talk about the new Community Moderators:
lets not. far too many companies have been sued over incidents regarding 'volunteer moderators' both by said moderators and by customers. its not a minor chance nor a minor issue. it happens. even the former owners of meridian 59 absolutely refused to allow volunteer moderators of any kind - a lack of admin presence being a large factor in that game later failing, because they were well aware of the very real risks involved in having them
in short, they are a bad, bad idea. sooner or later somebody always goes corrupt and causes problems. that is why it should be left to professional admin staff and company employees
Using the interview, we will narrow the field further, and select our top candidates. If we have more acceptable candidates than we have positions, then we will be posting a poll, which will allow the community to have the final choice in the matter. The poll will last for one week, and close after that time. Winners of the poll will be contacted, and enter a 30-60 day probationary training period, where they will work with us to learn the ropes.
if thats actually what you intend to do the whole situation is asking for trouble. administration should never in any way whatsoever involve a popularity contest.
It is important to understand that community moderators are completely unpaid
and yet a company is still liable for their actions and can still get sued because of them. if your lawyers have claimed otherwise I would get better lawyers
At the same time, not adding additional moderators right now seems like a horrible thing to me. Q, Branflakes, and myself can only do so much moderation each day, and still do all the other things we're supposed to do.
then hire proper moderators.
I am going to reiterate this. not only have I myself been one of these 'volunteer' moderators on occasion, I have seen this kind of setup many many times. it has never ended well. no matter how well intentioned, sooner or later somebody goes corrupt. thats when bad things happen to the company that employed them (and yes I did say employed them, because according to california state law they are still technically employees. there are all kinds of regulations about that - a fact that was brought up by the owners of meridian 59 I mentioned earlier - sidenote: the person that made that comment was a recognized authority on the legal aspects of running an mmo and had acted as such for several companies. he knew what he was talking about and was smart enough to avoid this)
Aye, as I've already spouted once in this thread - you pay peanuts, and you get monkeys.
yes. and you also in doing so get the more corrupt types that because they are unpaid and have no official status tend to get shall we say disgruntled, see no reason to take their job seriously and turn corrupt. getting themselves and the company in trouble in doing so. *cough* GM Darwin, BardCloud, GuardianKana *cough*
Yeah, you definitely want to be giving people special "gold/yellow" names for forum duties. Otherwise, as Mirror-Master hints at, it's a recipe for a disaster for those few fortunate enough to get the posts.
correct. though I wouldn't exactly call getting the post fortunate. i've been there. but they won't do the gold name thing. that would identify those people as legitimate employees of cryptic and could then get the company in trouble if something happened
Since I know you guys are going to do it anyway, all I ask is that you're extremely careful about who you allow to moderate
so careful in fact they're doing a poll to choose...yeah they sure know how to do it :rolleyes:
I would suggest, that those you interview, you ask a good long series of Star Trek trivia questions, and if they take long enough to answer that they could have been on Google for the answer.. you disregard their application. That's just me.
what? they're moderators not designers. star trek knowledge has nothing to do with it
I believe that if a New CM begins to "abuse their power", that reports will come in and that CM will be relieved of duty after investigating the inccident. I'm confident Stormy would drop the "ban hammer" just as quickly, if not quicker, on a bad CM as he would a "troll". O
as much as I would like to believe this to be the case, it never, ever is.
and just to make this clear - if this disaster of an idea is actually implemented, count me as someone who will not acknowledge any 'authority' they claim to have, will not accept any form of recommendation, positive or negative made by any of them about me, will not accept any infractions, rewards, warnings or any decision made for or against me by any mod, dev or administrator that had any input whatsoever from one of these 'volunteer moderators' they are not officially representing cryptic, therefore they have no right to do any of the above nor to have any input toward anything in regards to me.
in short, I will have nothing whatsoever to do with them and will not recognize any supposed 'authority' they have. don't push me on this cryptic. i've been burned bad by this kind of thing more than once and have a low tolerance for such programs. consider this notice to keep such people away from me in any capacity. if anybody from cryptic has an admin issue thats fine, I expect to deal with a cryptic admin in such situations and only a cryptic admin.
Well, 'cause you've been around for a while, and you never seem to jump on flaming bandwagons or anything like that. You always keep it civil, and you have an air of maturity and sensibility about you.
Well, 'cause you've been around for a while, and you never seem to jump on flaming bandwagons or anything like that. You always keep it civil, and you have an air of maturity and sensibility about you.
and just to make this clear - if this disaster of an idea is actually implemented, count me as someone who will not acknowledge any 'authority' they claim to have, will not accept any form of recommendation, positive or negative made by any of them about me, will not accept any infractions, rewards, warnings or any decision made for or against me by any mod, dev or administrator that had any input whatsoever from one of these 'volunteer moderators'
You say that as if whether you "accept" an administrators decision is actually meaningful. If they recommend you get banned and you get banned, your acceptance is not relevant.
As for the whole volunteer mod things, just give all Cryptic employees the power to be mods. At least that way there is still accountability and we know some of them like to hang out here after hours.
As for the whole volunteer mod things, just give all Cryptic employees the power to be mods. At least that way there is still accountability and we know some of them like to hang out here after hours.
Some of them might not want to, and I couldn't blame them lol
I understand and agree that there will be a need for many more moderators very soon. I even believe this process should've begun weeks ago considering F2P is here in ten days.
I've been for Cryptic on some issues and against them on others. I've tried (not always successfully) to argue logically and dispassionately. For the most part, people who fall on the opposite side of an issue have argued their point with me in a very respectful manner. There's been playful "jabs" meant to lighten the mood and I've never taken any of those personally, as I hope none of mine ever were.
Sorry for the long winded preface, but here's my point; There are ALWAYS people who come in to every thread to insult anyone who's opinion is different from theirs. This is not isolated to one side, there are the "Cryptic can do no right" crowd, and the "Cryptic can do no wrong" crowd. My biggest concern is this; I doubt Cryptic would choose moderators from the "Cryptic sucks" crowd and I don't think they should, but I do believe that the "Cryptic is God" crowd has a good shot of becoming moderators. They never say anything negative about Cryptic, and they definitely have the mindset that would motivate them to volunteer for a payless "job" with Cryptic.
I'm fearful that if this is the pool from which the new moderators will come, that the forums will quickly become deserted, that anyone who dares to disagree with some change or marketing scheme (red boxes), will get banned for speaking out. I'm not trying to imply that this is what Cryptic wants, I'm just saying it's a worry of mine.
I honestly believe that it is important for the community to ALWAYS be able to voice their opinion of Cryptic or STO - for OR against - and NOT be picked on for that opinion. EVERYONE here contributes to the life of STO and the success or failure of Cryptic, EVERYONE here deserves to communicate their opinions to Cryptic - fanboys and nay-sayers alike. Some trolls not withstanding, this is currently how it is, I hope the new batch of volunter moderators doesn't change it.
Just what we DON"T need. There's already been enough hate between the community and the overmoderation AS-IS <.<. I've never, once, been to a forum where community moderators has been good.
I mean, honestly, is PWI/Cryptic so cheap they can't afford to pay a few people minimum wage to moderate the forums..?
Well, speaking for myself, I'd be happy to take up the banner and dish out infractions for things like fowl language or blatant abuse of other forum users who exercise their right to state their opinion. Extreme measures against extreme trollishness.
I'm fearful that if this is the pool from which the new moderators will come, that the forums will quickly become deserted, that anyone who dares to disagree with some change or marketing scheme (red boxes), will get banned for speaking out. I'm not trying to imply that this is what Cryptic wants, I'm just saying it's a worry of mine.
I have this same fear as well, as I have seen this exact thing happen elsewhere and it became worse the more it went on.
I have this same fear as well, as I have seen this exact thing happen elsewhere and it became worse the more it went on.
Any moderator worth his salt will only dish out infractions if the person truly deserves it. Not only that, they'll defend forum users who have been unjustly threatened with an infraction.
If any one moderator thinks someone deserves an infraction, I hope it goes to the rest of the team to see what they think.
That's why I suggest some kind of Star Trek loyalty test before hiring anybody.
Any moderator worth his salt will only dish out infractions if the person truly deserves it. Not only that, they'll defend forum users who have been unjustly threatened with an infraction.
If any one moderator thinks someone deserves an infraction, I hope it goes to the rest of the team to see what they think.
That's why I suggest some kind of Star Trek loyalty test before hiring anybody.
Based on your posted views on how mods should operate, I'd vote for you if you wanted the job.
Any moderator worth his salt will only dish out infractions if the person truly deserves it. Not only that, they'll defend forum users who have been unjustly threatened with an infraction.
If any one moderator thinks someone deserves an infraction, I hope it goes to the rest of the team to see what they think.
I completely agree with (and have done so on sites I admin) this.
Any moderator worth his salt will only dish out infractions if the person truly deserves it. Not only that, they'll defend forum users who have been unjustly threatened with an infraction.
If any one moderator thinks someone deserves an infraction, I hope it goes to the rest of the team to see what they think.
That's why I suggest some kind of Star Trek loyalty test before hiring anybody.
The only time a mod needs to be referring posters for infractions is in the event that person is belligerent. Mods will need to be able to tell the difference between systematic trolling and someone having just a bad day. I'd rather the mods just edit any offending post and send a helpful reminder of the rules and leave it there.
The only time a mod needs to be referring posters for infractions is in the event that person is belligerent. Mods will need to be able to tell the difference between systematic trolling and someone having just a bad day. I'd rather the mods just edit any offending post and send a helpful reminder of the rules and leave it there.
Aye, a good old "This post has been edited to remove stuff the powers that be don't wanna see. X"
Aye, a good old "This post has been edited to remove stuff the powers that be don't wanna see. X"
That's the thing. The devs will need to find people who don't mind debate but draws the line at language and behavior. Some of the best ones I've ever encountered would remove only the rant part of a post but leave every thing else.
That's the thing. The devs will need to find people who don't mind debate but draws the line at language and behavior. Some of the best ones I've ever encountered would remove only the rant part of a post but leave every thing else.
I love your singature lol
Language and behavioour is where I draw the line too. I don't begrudge anyone expressing their opinion, as long as they do it in a civilised way.
I'm not gonna apply anyway. To put a job application in a ticket queue with a waiting list of about a million-and-a-third people, well... by the time they read it I'll probably have a job.
Comments
I feel that paid moderators would be so much better in ensuring that people remain unbiased and non abusing.
I may have missed it, but who is going to keep an eye on these community moderators so they don't abuse their power? Hopefully Cryptic employees?
Well, the problem herein is that those who are paid, are immediately more biased towards those who are paying them. The company line rules all. I feel an unpaid moderator would probably be less biased than anyone paid. Yet also less motivated. It's a bit of a quandry.
Unless, like me, you're one of the ones Nimoy told to "get a life".
Yet here he is, at a hundred-and-three, is he?
lets not. far too many companies have been sued over incidents regarding 'volunteer moderators' both by said moderators and by customers. its not a minor chance nor a minor issue. it happens. even the former owners of meridian 59 absolutely refused to allow volunteer moderators of any kind - a lack of admin presence being a large factor in that game later failing, because they were well aware of the very real risks involved in having them
in short, they are a bad, bad idea. sooner or later somebody always goes corrupt and causes problems. that is why it should be left to professional admin staff and company employees
if thats actually what you intend to do the whole situation is asking for trouble. administration should never in any way whatsoever involve a popularity contest.
and yet a company is still liable for their actions and can still get sued because of them. if your lawyers have claimed otherwise I would get better lawyers
then hire proper moderators.
I am going to reiterate this. not only have I myself been one of these 'volunteer' moderators on occasion, I have seen this kind of setup many many times. it has never ended well. no matter how well intentioned, sooner or later somebody goes corrupt. thats when bad things happen to the company that employed them (and yes I did say employed them, because according to california state law they are still technically employees. there are all kinds of regulations about that - a fact that was brought up by the owners of meridian 59 I mentioned earlier - sidenote: the person that made that comment was a recognized authority on the legal aspects of running an mmo and had acted as such for several companies. he knew what he was talking about and was smart enough to avoid this)
yes. and you also in doing so get the more corrupt types that because they are unpaid and have no official status tend to get shall we say disgruntled, see no reason to take their job seriously and turn corrupt. getting themselves and the company in trouble in doing so. *cough* GM Darwin, BardCloud, GuardianKana *cough*
correct. though I wouldn't exactly call getting the post fortunate. i've been there. but they won't do the gold name thing. that would identify those people as legitimate employees of cryptic and could then get the company in trouble if something happened
so careful in fact they're doing a poll to choose...yeah they sure know how to do it :rolleyes:
what? they're moderators not designers. star trek knowledge has nothing to do with it
as much as I would like to believe this to be the case, it never, ever is.
and just to make this clear - if this disaster of an idea is actually implemented, count me as someone who will not acknowledge any 'authority' they claim to have, will not accept any form of recommendation, positive or negative made by any of them about me, will not accept any infractions, rewards, warnings or any decision made for or against me by any mod, dev or administrator that had any input whatsoever from one of these 'volunteer moderators' they are not officially representing cryptic, therefore they have no right to do any of the above nor to have any input toward anything in regards to me.
in short, I will have nothing whatsoever to do with them and will not recognize any supposed 'authority' they have. don't push me on this cryptic. i've been burned bad by this kind of thing more than once and have a low tolerance for such programs. consider this notice to keep such people away from me in any capacity. if anybody from cryptic has an admin issue thats fine, I expect to deal with a cryptic admin in such situations and only a cryptic admin.
Um, out of curiosity, why?
Well, 'cause you've been around for a while, and you never seem to jump on flaming bandwagons or anything like that. You always keep it civil, and you have an air of maturity and sensibility about you.
Well, I appreciate that. *humbled*
You say that as if whether you "accept" an administrators decision is actually meaningful. If they recommend you get banned and you get banned, your acceptance is not relevant.
Roll tide! Go 'bama!
You better believe it!
As for the whole volunteer mod things, just give all Cryptic employees the power to be mods. At least that way there is still accountability and we know some of them like to hang out here after hours.
Some of them might not want to, and I couldn't blame them lol
Ok, I went to the Support page, what should be the Category *Community/Forum Issues?
Issue Summary * Community Moderator Application?
I understand and agree that there will be a need for many more moderators very soon. I even believe this process should've begun weeks ago considering F2P is here in ten days.
I've been for Cryptic on some issues and against them on others. I've tried (not always successfully) to argue logically and dispassionately. For the most part, people who fall on the opposite side of an issue have argued their point with me in a very respectful manner. There's been playful "jabs" meant to lighten the mood and I've never taken any of those personally, as I hope none of mine ever were.
Sorry for the long winded preface, but here's my point; There are ALWAYS people who come in to every thread to insult anyone who's opinion is different from theirs. This is not isolated to one side, there are the "Cryptic can do no right" crowd, and the "Cryptic can do no wrong" crowd. My biggest concern is this; I doubt Cryptic would choose moderators from the "Cryptic sucks" crowd and I don't think they should, but I do believe that the "Cryptic is God" crowd has a good shot of becoming moderators. They never say anything negative about Cryptic, and they definitely have the mindset that would motivate them to volunteer for a payless "job" with Cryptic.
I'm fearful that if this is the pool from which the new moderators will come, that the forums will quickly become deserted, that anyone who dares to disagree with some change or marketing scheme (red boxes), will get banned for speaking out. I'm not trying to imply that this is what Cryptic wants, I'm just saying it's a worry of mine.
I honestly believe that it is important for the community to ALWAYS be able to voice their opinion of Cryptic or STO - for OR against - and NOT be picked on for that opinion. EVERYONE here contributes to the life of STO and the success or failure of Cryptic, EVERYONE here deserves to communicate their opinions to Cryptic - fanboys and nay-sayers alike. Some trolls not withstanding, this is currently how it is, I hope the new batch of volunter moderators doesn't change it.
Thanks for reading, and sorry for the length.
I mean, honestly, is PWI/Cryptic so cheap they can't afford to pay a few people minimum wage to moderate the forums..?
I have this same fear as well, as I have seen this exact thing happen elsewhere and it became worse the more it went on.
Any moderator worth his salt will only dish out infractions if the person truly deserves it. Not only that, they'll defend forum users who have been unjustly threatened with an infraction.
If any one moderator thinks someone deserves an infraction, I hope it goes to the rest of the team to see what they think.
That's why I suggest some kind of Star Trek loyalty test before hiring anybody.
Based on your posted views on how mods should operate, I'd vote for you if you wanted the job.
I completely agree with (and have done so on sites I admin) this.
The only time a mod needs to be referring posters for infractions is in the event that person is belligerent. Mods will need to be able to tell the difference between systematic trolling and someone having just a bad day. I'd rather the mods just edit any offending post and send a helpful reminder of the rules and leave it there.
The devs hate me, I'd never get it. I love Star Trek too much
Aye, a good old "This post has been edited to remove stuff the powers that be don't wanna see. X"
For me, it goes:
Star Trek...
Everything else.
For them it goes:
Make a game, get paid.
That's the thing. The devs will need to find people who don't mind debate but draws the line at language and behavior. Some of the best ones I've ever encountered would remove only the rant part of a post but leave every thing else.
Hey, that could make a nice sig.. lol
I love your singature lol
Language and behavioour is where I draw the line too. I don't begrudge anyone expressing their opinion, as long as they do it in a civilised way.
Thanks. It was my way of mocking those who always say the devs have done nothing to this game since launch.
Even if they are wrong....