Is The Forum Getting More Antagonistic?

[GMforPowergamers]

I think it's inappropriate and not conducive to good conversation when mods fully engage in forum discussions, especially heated ones, which is something I've often seen happen on Enworld.

the problem is I don't think there ARE official mod accounts, it's just regular accounts that get the authorization.

Debating a mod on an internet forum feels a bit like debating a police officer on duty IRL. It's uncomfortable.

most of the time the mods I know of (morus and Umbran) are pretty cool about talking to them... but I can see this.

 

[Umbran]

I think it's inappropriate and not conducive to good conversation when mods fully engage in forum discussions, especially heated ones, which is something I've often seen happen on Enworld.

We have seen, here and observing elsewhere, that moderators who do not engage with the community generally lose touch, and seem even more arbitrary than moderation usually does. YMMV, but that's our opinion

At the very least, I believe that mods should use an alt account (not their "official" mod one) when actively engaging in discussions. Mod accounts should only be used (again, fully IMO) for mod duties.

Given the above - whatever account we are using, we'd be in discussions. This is most obvious and transparent if we use only one account. The failure modes of not being open about this are pretty bad. At least this way, you don't have any question of who you are talking to.

When we are speaking "as moderators" we use colored text. And I generally put "Mod Note" in bold at the start of any such post, for the benefit of those who might have color blindness.

Debating a mod on an internet forum feels a bit like debating a police officer on duty IRL. It's uncomfortable.

Then don't. You are free to not engage with us as individual posters. We don't take any offense at that. There are hundreds of other people on the forums to discuss things with.

 

[Umbran]

the problem is I don't think there ARE official mod accounts, it's just regular accounts that get the authorization.

Yes, but technically, we could each have an alternate account used for discussion.

Mind you, the software does not allow us to be logged in to two accounts in the same browser at the same time. There'd be a lot of logging out, and logging in under the second account to do moderation. And the security around moderator logins is a little tighter, which means frequent logins would become a pain in the neck.

And that's beside the usual issue of simply forgetting which account you're logged in with at the moment creating confusion.

With all those issues, and the transparency I mentioned above, we've historically found single accounts to be a better system.

 

[MGibster]

There are particular subjects that do seem to touch a nerve as emotions can run high. Bring up safety tools like the X-Card, racial ASI, or always evil orcs and the conversation can quickly escalate. But I've noticed people are sometimes a bit snippy when others have different opinions from them. I think a lot of problems might be solved if we all imagined "In my opinion" was placed in front of most posts here.

Edit: (In my opinion) As far as the moderators are concerned, they do an excellent job here. It can't be easy herding all these cats.

 

[Umbran]

I think a lot of problems might be solved if we all imagined "In my opinion" was placed in front of most posts here.

But, we can as easily say that a lot of problems might be solved if everyone was conscientious and always put some variation of "in my opinion," into their posts when they were actually stating their opinion. The amount of pushback I get when I suggest that is prodigious.

A major problem with a solution of the form, "If only everyone did X," is that it requires everyone to actually do X. You yourself note how this place is like herding cats. Such solutions are a non-starter.

That aside, there's also an issue in that "if everyone imagined" is, well, mandating thought - it is thought policing. "If everyone wrote," still allows them to think what they want, it merely puts expectations on how thought is expressed. Most forms of publishing have style guidelines - an "online discussion style guide" might include such suggestions on structure.

 

[Lanefan]

We have seen, here and observing elsewhere, that moderators who do not engage with the community generally lose touch, and seem even more arbitrary than moderation usually does. YMMV, but that's our opinion

Given the above - whatever account we are using, we'd be in discussions. This is most obvious and transparent if we use only one account. The failure modes of not being open about this are pretty bad. At least this way, you don't have any question of who you are talking to.

When we are speaking "as moderators" we use colored text. And I generally put "Mod Note" in bold at the start of any such post, for the benefit of those who might have color blindness.

Then don't. You are free to not engage with us as individual posters. We don't take any offense at that. There are hundreds of other people on the forums to discuss things with.

The thing is, if someone really doesn't want to engage with you as a poster there's no option to put you on ignore*; as mods cannot be ignored. If, however, you had a normal account and a mod account, the normal one could be ignored just like anyone else while the mod one could not.

To maintain the transparency you could even use the same name, more or less: for example in your case "Umbran" could be your normal posting account and "Umbran-M" could be your mod account.

* - not that I'd do this as on principle I don't believe in ignoring people, but some might want the option.

 

[Umbran]

The thing is, if someone really doesn't want to engage with you as a poster there's no option to put you on ignore*; as mods cannot be ignored.

That is true, but it seems like a separate issue, or at least a more extreme case than currently stated.

The stated problem was about being uncomfortable debating a mod. If someone is uncomfortable in discussion with one of us, using an alternate account should not make them comfortable doing so - we are still who we are, after all.

It is unclear how many people are so uncomfortable with the prospect of debating one of us that they want a safeguard against ever even doing so by accident. If that number were so large that it was affecting operation of the site, that might be an issue we'd want to address somehow. But we are unlikely to entirely change how we do things for just a couple of posters.

 

[CapnZapp]

Then don't. You are free to not engage with us as individual posters. We don't take any offense at that. There are hundreds of other people on the forums to discuss things with.

I truly hope you realize that when you respond to a poster, which you do just like any other poster, that is unsolicited (much like me here and now replying to your post) people can be acutely aware that you really aren't just any other poster.

Suggesting that these people can just "not engage" comes across as flippant. You replied to them. But you have the power to sanction them if they tell you something you don't like literally as easy as switching text color.

I'm not saying you're abusing your powers. I am saying that in a confrontational landscape, this idea, that you can walk among ordinary men just like an equal among equals comes off as slightly naive.

The thing I'm saying is that you are likely underestimating the amount of people holding their tongue. It's just not as simple as "they can choose to not engage". That might be true when they choose to reply or not reply to something you said (again like right here and now - I could have chosen to not engage here, but I am making the judgement call I am not saying anything inflammatory or rulesbreaking here), but it is much less true when you engage them.

Regards,
Zapp

 

[Olrox17]

I truly hope you realize that when you respond to a poster, which you do just like any other poster, that is unsolicited (much like me here and now replying to your post) people can be acutely aware that you really aren't just any other poster.

Suggesting that these people can just "not engage" comes across as flippant. You replied to them. But you have the power to sanction them if they tell you something you don't like literally as easy as switching text color.

I'm not saying you're abusing your powers. I am saying that in a confrontational landscape, this idea, that you can walk among ordinary men just like an equal among equals comes off as slightly naive.

The thing I'm saying is that you are likely underestimating the amount of people holding their tongue. It's just not as simple as "they can choose to not engage". That might be true when they choose to reply or not reply to something you said (again like right here and now - I could have chosen to not engage here, but I am making the judgement call I am not saying anything inflammatory or rulesbreaking here), but it is much less true when you engage them.

Pretty much this. People who disagree with a mod's personal opinion are very likely to think twice about expressing their disagreement, and may decide to hold their tongue. That could lead to frustration, and possibly to more passive-aggressive posting.
Moreover, people who are fully onboard with the mods' personal opinion may feel emboldened, "protected", so to speak, to be overly aggressive in their posting. Even if such protection doesn't actually materialize, that alone may degrade the quality of discussion.

@Lanefan also brings up a good point about the ignore function - one I hadn't considered because I tend not to use that function, myself. If a mod's personal opinions, posting style, tone or whatever rubs someone the wrong way, there is no recourse. Having separate accounts for mod work and regular posting would help with that.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I agree with the @Olrox17, @CapnZapp and @Lanefan however there is one I'd say technical/pragmatic issue in their request.

So say we have a handful of people who place moderator X's public account on ignore, the moderator would literally have to have reports on their other mod account to police the hidden posts otherwise they wouldn't necessarily see them if they are browsing on their general member account.
I'm thinking the mod and poster account should indeed be one to have dual functionality where it's possible to see ignored posts (and they'd know they're being ignored), otherwise it would very much be a chore for the mods switching between the two accounts.