Discussion with BSO Split from how are you currently feeling

[BSO]

BSO, if you don't mind me intruding, may I ask why you will not disclose the details of Char's ban? Is it just because he's not going with the email? Or is there another issue?

Aside from the fact that we've been asked to not take these issues into public? I personally don't agree with the kind of moderation that would make those kinds of things a public spectacle.

[LimeCatMaster]

BSO, if you don't mind me intruding, may I ask why you will not disclose the details of Char's ban? Is it just because he's not going with the email? Or is there another issue?

Aside from the fact that we've been asked to not take these issues into public? I personally don't agree with the kind of moderation that would make those kinds of things a public spectacle.

That answers my question. Thank you.

[BSO]

BSO, if you don't mind me intruding, may I ask why you will not disclose the details of Char's ban? Is it just because he's not going with the email? Or is there another issue?

Aside from the fact that we've been asked to not take these issues into public? I personally don't agree with the kind of moderation that would make those kinds of things a public spectacle.

That answers my question. Thank you.

Of course.

[Psi-Zero]

I personally don't agree with the kind of moderation that would make those kinds of things a public spectacle.

Making a public spectacle is one thing, but hiding behind emails allows for some shady business without any real consequences... as long as everyone behind those doors is on the same page, anyway... and that's exactly what it seems like to everyone on the outside. Politicians pull some of their most heinous crap behind closed doors where nobody can see what they're up to...



The problem in that case and this one is a lack of transparency. It looks like favoritism and bias moderating because nobody is willing to address what's happening and why. How are other users supposed to know what's going on if it's all in emails? Don't say it's none of their business, because how are other users supposed to trust the moderators if they see things edited and deleted with no clear indication as to why. "You broke this rule" doesn't necessarily cut it. What part broke it? Specify, and be right about your reasoning or own up to it. Nobody will respect someone who doesn't accept their failings. This is true for non-authority-figures as well, but more-so for them due to the responsibility of their position.



I've seen screenshots of the post in question, and there were definitely mod-edit-worthy portions of it. A few, at the very least. The entire thing was brushed under the rug as "off topic" though, if I understand the situation correctly? Extremely tenuous reasoning aside, the "Other Games" argument doesn't really hold up to the level of response given. It's such an extremely minor thing that the reaction was overblown regardless of how it was handled by the moderated user. It is, to put it lightly, very extreme to be that tyrannical over such a tiny little matter like MN9 not being "all other games". It was relevant to the topic itself, which addressed games as a whole. If someone said what was your favorite character design, could they not say Beck? That's ridiculous. Making a fuss about it at all is doing far more than the 'infraction' is even worth. It's barely an infraction in the first place, because it's absurd that MN9 is outlawed outside of "MN9-specific sections"...



Anyway, I do commend you for coming out and talking about it. It's good to see you care enough to step out and deal with the masses anyway, even if it's certainly more stress than you deserve. Still, that's more than can be said for many others, to say the least. So take a breather if it gets too much... you're not a terrible person or anything, so you shouldn't endure more than the $0 worth they're paying you for anyway. It's voluntary, after all...

[BSO]

I personally don't agree with the kind of moderation that would make those kinds of things a public spectacle.

Making a public spectacle is one thing, but hiding behind emails allows for some shady business without any real consequences... as long as everyone behind those doors is on the same page, anyway... and that's exactly what it seems like to everyone on the outside. Politicians pull some of their most heinous crap behind closed doors where nobody can see what they're up to...



The problem in that case and this one is a lack of transparency. It looks like favoritism and bias moderating because nobody is willing to address what's happening and why. How are other users supposed to know what's going on if it's all in emails? Don't say it's none of their business, because how are other users supposed to trust the moderators if they see things edited and deleted with no clear indication as to why. "You broke this rule" doesn't necessarily cut it. What part broke it? Specify, and be right about your reasoning or own up to it. Nobody will respect someone who doesn't accept their failings. This is true for non-authority-figures as well, but more-so for them due to the responsibility of their position.



I've seen screenshots of the post in question, and there were definitely mod-edit-worthy portions of it. A few, at the very least. The entire thing was brushed under the rug as "off topic" though, if I understand the situation correctly? Extremely tenuous reasoning aside, the "Other Games" argument doesn't really hold up to the level of response given. It's such an extremely minor thing that the reaction was overblown regardless of how it was handled by the moderated user. It is, to put it lightly, very extreme to be that tyrannical over such a tiny little matter like MN9 not being "all other games". It was relevant to the topic itself, which addressed games as a whole. If someone said what was your favorite character design, could they not say Beck? That's ridiculous. Making a fuss about it at all is doing far more than the 'infraction' is even worth. It's barely an infraction in the first place, because it's absurd that MN9 is outlawed outside of "MN9-specific sections"...



Anyway, I do commend you for coming out and talking about it. It's good to see you care enough to step out and deal with the masses anyway, even if it's certainly more stress than you deserve. Still, that's more than can be said for many others, to say the least. So take a breather if it gets too much... you're not a terrible person or anything, so you shouldn't endure more than the $0 worth they're paying you for anyway. It's voluntary, after all...

What someone does with the reply to their e-mail is up to them. We're not going to be the one's to bring it to the forums though, and certainly not to a fan forum. The goal isn't to keep it "behind closed doors" we'd have to be delusional to think that was even possible given that we are willing to discuss these things. I'm not going to make it public just because someone doesn't want to use the method available to them though.



This is also why we've been using the e-mail more, to get messages out to people when they've done something that breaks the rules. The biggest problem with the early forum moderation was the lack of communication, which led to a lot of people not understanding why they were banned, and jumping to conclusions. I can't go back and change what already happened, but I've been able to get a lot of adjustments made to help with those problems.

[Psi-Zero]

What someone does with the reply to their e-mail is up to them. We're not going to be the one's to bring it to the forums though, and certainly not to a fan forum. The goal isn't to keep it "behind closed doors" we'd have to be delusional to think that was even possible given that we are willing to discuss these things. I'm not going to make it public just because someone doesn't want to use the method available to them though.

I think our definition of "public" is different here. This isn't the place to do it, no, but the users of the MN9 official forum should be able to know what's happening without having to view screenshots from other sites or otherwise having the exact right connections. It's easy to hide corruption if you force people to dig for it. Most people aren't going to bother, especially if it doesn't clearly and directly affect them immediately. Say what you will about that, it's not transparency if people can't see what's happening and why just by looking at what's going on at the site.

This is also why we've been using the e-mail more, to get messages out to people when they've done something that breaks the rules. The biggest problem with the early forum moderation was the lack of communication, which led to a lot of people not understanding why they were banned, and jumping to conclusions. I can't go back and change what already happened, but I've been able to get a lot of adjustments made to help with those problems.

And to that end, you deserve much credit. You've done a lot, from what little I've gathered. Still, this ruling reeks of bias, and if you insist it is a legitimate decision, you need to prove your case to the people. Asking them to just trust you by virtue of you being the authority is not reasonable in the least. You still have to explain your decisions to the one you're serving. If it isn't easy for everyone to know why something happened, they're still going to jump to conclusions. What's worse, if you confine it to emails, the user can spread whatever misinformation they like because the issue itself isn't public to cross-reference with their claims. It's in the moderation team's best interest to be as transparent as possible.

[BSO]

What someone does with the reply to their e-mail is up to them. We're not going to be the one's to bring it to the forums though, and certainly not to a fan forum. The goal isn't to keep it "behind closed doors" we'd have to be delusional to think that was even possible given that we are willing to discuss these things. I'm not going to make it public just because someone doesn't want to use the method available to them though.

I think our definition of "public" is different here. This isn't the place to do it, no, but the users of the MN9 official forum should be able to know what's happening without having to view screenshots from other sites or otherwise having the exact right connections. It's easy to hide corruption if you force people to dig for it. Most people aren't going to bother, especially if it doesn't clearly and directly affect them immediately. Say what you will about that, it's not transparency if people can't see what's happening and why just by looking at what's going on at the site.

This is also why we've been using the e-mail more, to get messages out to people when they've done something that breaks the rules. The biggest problem with the early forum moderation was the lack of communication, which led to a lot of people not understanding why they were banned, and jumping to conclusions. I can't go back and change what already happened, but I've been able to get a lot of adjustments made to help with those problems.

And to that end, you deserve much credit. You've done a lot, from what little I've gathered. Still, this ruling reeks of bias, and if you insist it is a legitimate decision, you need to prove your case to the people. Asking them to just trust you by virtue of you being the authority is not reasonable in the least. You still have to explain your decisions to the one you're serving. If it isn't easy for everyone to know why something happened, they're still going to jump to conclusions. What's worse, if you confine it to emails, the user can spread whatever misinformation they like because the issue itself isn't public to cross-reference with their claims. It's in the moderation team's best interest to be as transparent as possible.

I'm not really concerned with trying to keep the paranoia of other users in check over issues that aren't related to them. Some people seem to want some kind of public ban list, but I greatly dislike sites that do this. It puts a spotlight on people that broke the rules for no reason other than to let people know about it. In many cases this can do a lot more harm than good as it permanently paints these people in some kind of bad light. Sure a lot of people that get banned are probably going to have it happen again, but there are a number who actually take from it and change. More importantly though, even if I agreed that letting everyone know exactly what users did was the best option, comcept isn't going to go for it. It was hard enough getting them to agree that sharing the information privately would be fine, as they are very protective of private information. I can make as many suggestions as I want, but in the end comcept makes final decision on what we can and can't do, and how we do it. This just happens to be something I agree with.



If I've learned anything over the last month, it's that Japan has very different views on internet culture than we do.

[Psi-Zero]

I'm not really concerned with trying to keep the paranoia of other users in check over issues that aren't related to them. Some people seem to want some kind of public ban list, but I greatly dislike sites that do this. It puts a spotlight on people that broke the rules for no reason other than to let people know about it. In many cases this can do a lot more harm than good as it permanently paints these people in some kind of bad light. Sure a lot of people that get banned are probably going to have it happen again, but there are a number who actually take from it and change. More importantly though, even if I agreed that letting everyone know exactly what users did was the best option, comcept isn't going to go for it. It was hard enough getting them to agree that sharing the information privately would be fine, as they are very protective of private information. I can make as many suggestions as I want, but in the end comcept makes final decision on what we can and can't do, and how we do it. This just happens to be something I agree with.



If I've learned anything over the last month, it's that Japan has very different views on internet culture than we do.

To begin with, you're probably going to want to adjust that view about paranoia. It's not an issue of paranoia, it's an issue of credibility. Your actions are not inherently right, and not allowing a review of their integrity means you can't improve. I'm not saying the public masses should be responsible for this, but there does need to be some accountability. Without that, credibility is given on faith alone, and that is not a reliable system of governance at all.



That said, you're right about the list thing. I was never advocating that. I was saying that each case needs to be addressed in front of the concerned members of the community. That's a wholly different matter entirely than any lists. I get that Comcept isn't exactly being reasonable here (and if you agree with them, seriously rethink your position here... more on that below), but advocating their problems when they're not even giving you a paycheck isn't doing anybody any favors. Even if they were paying you, it'd be shallow to not stand up and speak. I realize you've been doing a lot of that, and again I commend you... but on this matter, they're wrong, and it doesn't do anyone any good to side with them on this. I'm not saying to go in guns a-blazing. That's the same thing that gets people banned, and rightfully so... but a firm, civilized, and well-mannered approach does wonders. I'm probably preaching to the choir on this point, though, so just consider this part more of a general addressing of things overall. This does lead me to my last and most important point, though...

If I've learned anything over the last month, it's that Japan has very different views on internet culture than we do.

This. This is what Comcept is doing wrong here. I know the amount of people upset at them right now is a smaller percentile than could ever be considered a majority, but these are still paying backers... and as things progress, more people are going to surface with issues unless Comcept adapts. They have a massively western audience and mostly western investors, and capitalism does not adapt to business-- business adapts to capitalism. People will not pay money to a company that did not meet their expectations, and if Comcept doesn't learn how to deliver to a western market, they will have a very hard time in the future to say the least. A lot of people backed the project for the community aspect... if Comcept is not respecting their interests, they aren't accepting their future business. If this is the approach they take, they aren't in a business at all.



This isn't about you, obviously, but it might be something worth mentioning in your next Mod Chat or whatever it is you guys use to communicate with each other...

[BSO]

To begin with, you're probably going to want to adjust that view about paranoia. It's not an issue of paranoia, it's an issue of credibility. Your actions are not inherently right, and not allowing a review of their integrity means you can't improve. I'm not saying the public masses should be responsible for this, but there does need to be some accountability. Without that, credibility is given on faith alone, and that is not a reliable system of governance at all.



That said, you're right about the list thing. I was never advocating that. I was saying that each case needs to be addressed in front of the concerned members of the community. That's a wholly different matter entirely than any lists. I get that Comcept isn't exactly being reasonable here (and if you agree with them, seriously rethink your position here... more on that below), but advocating their problems when they're not even giving you a paycheck isn't doing anybody any favors. Even if they were paying you, it'd be shallow to not stand up and speak. I realize you've been doing a lot of that, and again I commend you... but on this matter, they're wrong, and it doesn't do anyone any good to side with them on this. I'm not saying to go in guns a-blazing. That's the same thing that gets people banned, and rightfully so... but a firm, civilized, and well-mannered approach does wonders. I'm probably preaching to the choir on this point, though, so just consider this part more of a general addressing of things overall. This does lead me to my last and most important point, though...



This. This is what Comcept is doing wrong here. I know the amount of people upset at them right now is a smaller percentile than could ever be considered a majority, but these are still paying backers... and as things progress, more people are going to surface with issues unless Comcept adapts. They have a massively western audience and mostly western investors, and capitalism does not adapt to business-- business adapts to capitalism. People will not pay money to a company that did not meet their expectations, and if Comcept doesn't learn how to deliver to a western market, they will have a very hard time in the future to say the least. A lot of people backed the project for the community aspect... if Comcept is not respecting their interests, they aren't accepting their future business. If this is the approach they take, they aren't in a business at all.



This isn't about you, obviously, but it might be something worth mentioning in your next Mod Chat or whatever it is you guys use to communicate with each other...

I'm not agreeing with them because that's their stance, I'm agreeing because this is the same opinion that I've had for years when it comes to user's private information in regards to warnings or bans. Which is that it doesn't need to be discussed with anyone other than them. Frankly you'd probably have an easier time convincing Dina that it'd be a good idea than me, as this is pretty well ingrained into my style of moderation.



That accountability comes with that option for discussion. If for some reason they think that a moderator has overstepped their boundaries, they can send in an e-mail to comcept. That doesn't mean they'll agree with them, but not agreeing doesn't automatically equate to not being listened to.

[TheCloudyEye]

If I've learned anything over the last month, it's that Japan has very different views on internet culture than we do.

You know, the funny part is that Comcept knows that they are dealing with an international community:



They opened an official forum for international backers, yet they expect everyone to behave like they are in Japan. This is definitely not "learn from and work with the West". It seems to me that Comcept was ill prepared to handle an international community when they launched their Kickstarter campaign. The result is this whole mess we are having right now.

[Psi-Zero]

I'm not agreeing with them because that's their stance, I'm agreeing because this is the same opinion that I've had for years when it comes to user's private information in regards to warnings or bans. Which is that it doesn't need to be discussed with anyone other than them. Frankly you'd probably have an easier time convincing Dina that it'd be a good idea than me, as this is pretty well ingrained into my style of moderation.



That accountability comes with that option for discussion. If for some reason they think that a moderator has overstepped their boundaries, they can send in an e-mail to comcept. That doesn't mean they'll agree with them, but not agreeing doesn't automatically equate to not being listened to.

Well, this situation forces users into a state of ignorance. It's not helpful to anyone, and it only complicates matters further-- as you've seen repeatedly by now, I'm sure.



At any rate, as you said, Comcept makes the policy decisions. They are ultimately responsible for that, not you. However, if they do change their stance on this matter, what would you do? Assuming it was one you disagreed with, would you uphold it? I don't care if it's a feasible scenario or not, consider it a hypothetical if you want. I just want to know how you'd approach that situation.

[BSO]

I'm not agreeing with them because that's their stance, I'm agreeing because this is the same opinion that I've had for years when it comes to user's private information in regards to warnings or bans. Which is that it doesn't need to be discussed with anyone other than them. Frankly you'd probably have an easier time convincing Dina that it'd be a good idea than me, as this is pretty well ingrained into my style of moderation.



That accountability comes with that option for discussion. If for some reason they think that a moderator has overstepped their boundaries, they can send in an e-mail to comcept. That doesn't mean they'll agree with them, but not agreeing doesn't automatically equate to not being listened to.

Well, this situation forces users into a state of ignorance. It's not helpful to anyone, and it only complicates matters further-- as you've seen repeatedly by now, I'm sure.



At any rate, as you said, Comcept makes the policy decisions. They are ultimately responsible for that, not you. However, if they do change their stance on this matter, what would you do? Assuming it was one you disagreed with, would you uphold it? I don't care if it's a feasible scenario or not, consider it a hypothetical if you want. I just want to know how you'd approach that situation.

I certainty wouldn't like it, but I'm not new to dealing with policies I don't like. That being said, I'm not the only moderator there.

[NotSpiderBread]

It was hard enough getting them to agree that sharing the information privately would be fine, as they are very protective of private information.

I would argue that this particular bit of information was not made aware to a particular moderator that you all currently have "on staff". She seems to have missed that memo. Either way, I've sent you all an email regarding it.

[Quattro Bajeena]

I don't recall makign this thread, oh well, it isn't private information when the person it concerns wants it publicized, I mean hell even generic run of the mill forums show you the post that gained you an infraction, unedited.



oh sorry I expected professionalism from paid professionals and people chosen by the said professionals



I noticed now the emails have stopped because you know full well I intend on dragging the incompetence of the forum staff into the open

[Psi-Zero]

I certainty wouldn't like it, but I'm not new to dealing with policies I don't like. That being said, I'm not the only moderator there.

I guess that's as close to an answer as I'm going to get. Anyway, thanks for your time.