Forum policies

[Arcesious]

I don't see what's the big deal... Kavar's seems to have gotten nicer and calmer as we've all gotten used to each other, IMHO.

 

I suggest we all take a deep breath and try to have fun in the debates too. I have some great memories from being on this forum from some of the funny things that have happened as we sometimes went a bit off-topic. That's why I'm trying to make cheerful remarks more often...

 

Remember this from the Presupposition thread?

 

And the other atom says "Gimme!"

 

Why don't we do that kind of thing more often in all our posts?

[igyman]

We definitely won't start looking at political affiliations, religious beliefs, origin or whatever when we appoint moderators. It is irrelevant (and in some places it can also be considered illegal...not sure about the US though)...

Precisely. Appointing moderators shouldn't have anything to do with where they're from, or what their political and religious views are. However, on an english language forum, I suppose it's preferable that the mods are as good with english as they are with their native language.

My suggestion when it comes to moderating threads in Kavar's is that perhaps it wouldn't hurt that a moderator who, well, moderates a thread hasn't posted in it. Why? I think a moderator who hasn't even taken a look at a thread can be more objective when it comes to the big question: Has a member broken a forum rule?

If someone posts in a thread and then thinks it needs to be moderated, what may happen is (and I'm not saying that it has) that the person may on some level be influenced by his/her own opinion on the topic and might find some posts offensive, if they attack that point of view. Now, while I personally haven't seen this happen in Kavar's, it doesn't mean that it never has, or never will. Moderators are, after all, regular people like the rest of us, which means they can make mistakes and I'm sure each and every one of them has at least once made a moderator decision that was in part influenced by their own emotions.

[SD Nihil]

I got an idea. Maybe a screening test for new mods. Give a test. A written test with situations given and different situations of reported possible rules broken and the potential mod is to answer correctly which one is actually a rule break and which one is just a extreme political comment.

 

What I mean is a test with situations listed and you have to pick the one that is actually a rule break. If the person taking the test picks the wrong answers (meaning the legit posts that were just possibly extreme) then they are disqualified.

 

Or ones that are questionable and require a judgment call.

 

See what I mean some kind of test too see if the mod's judgment is based on bias or if they are making the decision based on objective thinking.

 

Yes I agree about the mods not posting on thread. I know it takes the fun out of it. But sometimes it can make people feel a little un comfortable. Especially if people think that mod is biased.

 

So yes this is difficult. We need some way to prevent biased mods from moderating only the one side. People may say they are not being biased, but there is such a thing as sub conscious bias.

 

About the threads being split up I am not sure on that either. On the one hand it does organize things better. But it does make the momentum lost. Also however, threads shouldn't always be split up if they go in a different direction. I know the reason is so that a newcomer to the thread doesn't come in not knowing the direction has been changed. But is it not the responsibility of the individual to read the posts before posting?

 

So yeah you could have pros and cons to both on that.

 

As for the comment of having liberal and conservative mods your right you cannot profile due to the law. But at the same time the problem with preventing mods from using bias in their decisions needs to be corrected.

 

No matter how hard we try to not use bias in our decision making it can be hard if say your on a news channel. Look at CNN or Fox. They don't want to be biased one way or the other, but it is hard to separate your core beliefs and convictions from the equation.

 

I can't just flip a switch and turn off my faith from effecting the decions I make in my life. I believe you shouldn't.

 

This is difficult. Aside from the test idea I said at the beginning I'm just not sure what the answer is here.

 

Conservatives here think there has been bias and a problem. I do too. liberals and liberal mods don't think there has been a problem. Higher admins that have not participated in all of this till now are looking at this and still are un sure if there is or is not a problem. I think they are at a loss here. They feel their guys until now have not done anything they are aware of until now.

 

So they are looking at this and wondering who do they believe here. They may have known their fellow mods and admins under them longer than they have us. So there is that trust and familiarity and loyalty.

 

So this can be tough on everyone and other's relationships. I don't think anyone here is a bad person. Nor do I hate or despise anyone. I don't. I just feel tired.

 

I feel the liberal mods have a sub conscious bias at times. They don't mean to it's just hard I guess when you have your opinion you feel so strongly about. Or maybe some are conscious. I don't know. That's just me. I want to think good in people before bad.

 

All I know is something has to be done here. Totenkopft has told me he's left permanently until things change and those that did wrong in his opinion get a good dressing down. Garfield feels no ones changing their opinion when debating so it's like beating a dead well he said cow, I think it's horse.

 

I feel worried to post with all my infractions that are being looked into. I never meant to offend anyone here when I made comments. I never meant to offend anyone. Again I say I'm sorry. I just can't post right now until things are looked iꇸnto. Just too afraid of getting banned.

 

I just feel debating at this point is just not worth it. It's draining. I mean productive debates where others listen to words and listen that makes it worth while. I've felt some conversations have just gone in a circle where it's like they've heard not a word I said and still say the same question I've already answered.

 

That's why it can be equally draining.

 

So it's a number of things. We feel there has been bias with moderating, people that either don't read or listen, and yes the cursing and name calling I feel doesn't put anyone in a good mood.

 

I just don't know what the solution is here. Well besides my test idea. And yet with all of this I still want to know all I can about each of you.

 

Well that's enough from me tonight I'll check the posts on this tomorrow.

 

Good night everyone. Have a blessed tomorrow.

 

Says to self: Body, what the high admins have to now deal with. Being a leader. I could never be a leader. Such decisions. I'd beat myself up too much. Especially with this situion. I'd oworry about making the wrong decision. I'd question myself too much and if I am doing the right thing. I'd never want real power. I'm a follower. Not a leader. Well as the saying goes "All you can do in life is your best. That's all anyone can expect of you". Ah enough SD. lol.

[Jae Onasi]

My suggestion when it comes to moderating threads in Kavar's is that perhaps it wouldn't hurt that a moderator who, well, moderates a thread hasn't posted in it. Why? I think a moderator who hasn't even taken a look at a thread can be more objective when it comes to the big question: Has a member broken a forum rule?

.

With the rules set up the way they are, it's pretty easy to determine if a rule's been broken or not--flaming, porn, and swearing are the big bad uglies that will get people in trouble, and those are obvious to pretty much anyone. If there were some kind of content requirement or source requirement in Kavar's, the lines could become more blurred at that point (who determines if a source or the content of a post is acceptable, and how would we possibly legislate that?)

 

I read every single thread in this forum even if I don't comment. Flaming isn't any different in the threads I participate than the few I don't participate in. If the person who I'm discussing with specifically in a back-and-forth exchange is the one committing the infraction, I ask another moderator to evaluate it instead so there's no accusation of bias. The way most people have dealt with the rare case of moderator bias is to just report it to another mod or admin, and it gets discussed in the mod forum and addressed from there. A few infractions/warnings have been reversed as a result of those rare times where it's brought up, but in most cases, it's determined that there wasn't bias and the infraction/warning was appropriate. Understand that people don't like getting infracted/warned/banned, and it's not uncommon to get complaints about bias in those situations.

 

My philosophy on thread splitting/merging/etc.--if there are 2 threads on the same topic, that's redundant, and they'll get merged to avoid confusion. I'm a one-thread, one-topic person myself. While some leeway is OK, if discussion digresses to a great degree from the original, then it deserves its own thread. I believe it's a matter of courtesy to the thread author to keep the topic on target.

[SD Nihil]

Like I said liberals and mods of the liberal view seem to feel there is no problem here. We conservatives feel there is. And we feel the group discussing the posts in question are all either sub consious biased or consious biased. We are not sure. But again there is a problem. Otherwise why would so many on the conservative side feel there is a problem. This is not some few people with a problem that is easy to conclude. This is a problem that has made threads about closing the forum and now asking for suggestions. Darth333 says she has like 60 messages in her inbox *51 after counting them but far from all of them relate to kavar or moderation - d3 .

 

We feel there is a problem. We feel changes need to be done. And we will not yeild in those positions. We believe this. And it needs to be taken care of at this time. Otherwise conservatives will leave so I'm told by thoe that have private messaged me. So if conservatives leave and new ones come we feel that the same problems will crop up again and we'll be right back here.

 

So this is not just to correct the problems now. This is to help things for the future.

 

And we conservatives from who I've talked to which seems to be all of them, we stand untied on this stand.

 

Again see you guys tomarrow.

[Tommycat]

I really do not like the idea of allowing threads to go off on tangents. Thread creep is what I call it. I mean there could be some really useful information that gets missed on a topic because now the thread is about how cheeze whiz would have changed 18th century.

 

I do however think that only the fairest of the moderators should have the supermoderation level. When a supermoderator makes an infraction, it tends to be kind of glossed over. Ignored. Or at least seemingly ignored. This smacks of hypocracy in the moderating. When a mod is free to spew forth gobs of foul language and insults, but the rest of the board risks getting banned(or at least moderated) for that type of language.

 

I also feel that a moderator should have the mod account that does not post(maybe with a generic account name like Mod01) except for infractions and closures. This way it comes from a source with no history of posting negatively towards one side or the other... Their posting account should not be given the privelages of moderating.

[Litofsky]

Like I said liberals and mods of the liberal view seem to feel there is no problem here. We conservatives feel there is. And we feel the group discussing the posts in question are all either sub consious biased or consious biased. We are not sure. But again there is a problem. Otherwise why would so many on the conservative side feel there is a problem. This is not some few people with a problem that is easy to conclude.

I, for one, see relatively few problems. Who do you refer to when you say "we?" I realize that you said 'conservatives,' but that's a pretty broad name.

 

We feel there is a problem. We feel changes need to be done. And we will not yeild in those positions. We believe this. And it needs to be taken care of at this time. Otherwise conservatives will leave so I'm told by thoe that have private messaged me. So if conservatives leave and new ones come we feel that the same problems will crop up again and we'll be right back here.

Again, I'd like to know what the problem is. You've stated that there might be a problem with moderation, but I've yet to see our staff fail in their task. Once we know what the problem is, we can try some "bipartisan action" to fix it ().

 

And we conservatives from who I've talked to which seems to be all of them, we stand untied on this stand.

Once more, would you reveal any of these conservatives that you've been in contact with, if only to help the 'healing?'

 

Again see you guys tomarrow.

See you tomorrow!

[Tommycat]

Oh and just to clarify, I don't necessarily think the mod team here is necessarily bad. I just feel that it would lessen preconcieved notions about who is doing the moderation.

 

It also has the added benefit of adding a level of seperation between the individual poster and the moderator, because moderators are real people with real opinions, but some ofthe opinions of a mod might appear to be the opinions of LucasForums.com.

[Web Rider]

And we conservatives from who I've talked to which seems to be all of them, we stand untied on this stand.

 

Do you have a midget in your pocket or something? We are the Borg, you will be assimilated?

 

If the staff appoint mods based on creed, they will be in deep doodo, because there are laws against hiring or firing people based on political affiliation, except for like, a political campaign where it can be proven that that political affiliation is a real qualifier to work.

[Inyri]

I don't think the forums can be prosecuted for 'hiring' or 'firing' based on anything -- it's a forum, and everyone here is a volunteer. It still wouldn't be good for the forum, though. The staff should be chosen based on their own merits, not their political party. I would wager that most, if not all, of the people working here are trustworthy enough to make unbiased decisions, else they would not be trusted to objectively moderate any forum.

[Astor]

As for the idea that a politics/current events board has no place in a video game forum, I respectfully disagree. Just because I like video games doesn't mean I want to talk about them all the time, and here I can talk with video gamers about these events.

 

Yes I agree about the mods not posting on thread. I know it takes the fun out of it. But sometimes it can make people feel a little un comfortable. Especially if people think that mod is biased.[/Quote]

 

So basically, Mods won't be allowed to post anything unless a rule is broken? They're here to have fun as well, you know.

 

I feel the liberal mods have a sub conscious bias at times. They don't mean to it's just hard I guess when you have your opinion you feel so strongly about. Or maybe some are conscious. I don't know. That's just me. I want to think good in people before bad.[/Quote]

 

Can you honestly say that a mod with Conservative beliefs wouldn't be biased?

 

As for people not wishing to discuss things, and leaving, nobody is forcing them to leave - I can understand their frustrations, but they should know and accept that this type of board is going to get pretty heated.

[Corinthian]

Of course a Conservative Mod would have a bias. But you're never going to get anyone who's unbiased, even a radical centrist would be biased. Just looking around, though, it does seem like there's a surprising tendency for Moderators to hover somewhere in the Left Wing.

[Marius Fett]

But you're never going to get anyone who's unbiased.

 

Unless some moderators were put in place here who don't really have opinions on politics/religion?

[Ray Jones]

Like me? I am sooooo a-politic. There is almost no way to drag me into a political discussion. URRGH!!

 

And thus, as the a-political person I am, I demand -- give mod powers to jaymack.

[stoffe]

When a supermoderator makes an infraction, it tends to be kind of glossed over. Ignored. Or at least seemingly ignored. This smacks of hypocracy in the moderating. When a mod is free to spew forth gobs of foul language and insults, but the rest of the board risks getting banned(or at least moderated) for that type of language.

 

That can be a somewhat tricky issue, which thankfully isn't very common over-all (as far as I am aware). As for infractions, the infractions system only allow you to issue infractions to someone who's below you in "ranks" (as the vBulletin software perceives it, which doesn't necessarily correlate perfectly to the Lucasforums structure). I.e. forum moderators can give infractions to regular members, but not fellow forum moderators/super moderators or administrators. Super Moderators can give members and forum moderators infractions, but not fellow supermods or admins. Etc.

 

But that's mostly moot anyway since a member of the forum staff cannot be banned unless they are demoted first. So problems involving other staff members tend to be handled behind the scenes instead, discussed in the private moderator forums and via PMs to try to solve the problem.

 

Still, if you see someone on the forum staff breaking the rules you should report it just like if it was made by a regular member. These reports aren't being ignored.

 

I also feel that a moderator should have the mod account that does not post(maybe with a generic account name like Mod01) except for infractions and closures. This way it comes from a source with no history of posting negatively towards one side or the other.

 

I don't think making it a secret who the moderators are would solve anything. It would still be the same people making the same decisions. Anonymity wouldn't make people any less partial. People would be able to figure out who they are pretty quick from posting style, and the regulars already know who the current moderator staff is anyway.

 

As for the Mod/Admin badges on posts, they aren't meant to intimidate people or give any special weight to what is posted in normal discussion. Their purpose is to point out who to contact with any questions or concerns about a particular forum, and who has been tasked with maintaining order in the place. People on the forum staff post as regular members worth paying no more or less attention to than anyone else, unless they specifically indicate that what they post is a Mod action (usually by posting in a different color).

 

 

It also has the added benefit of adding a level of seperation between the individual poster and the moderator, because moderators are real people with real opinions, but some ofthe opinions of a mod might appear to be the opinions of LucasForums.com.

 

I don't think there is such a thing as a "LucasForums.com opinion", for good or ill. This place is very loosely organized where the staff of each individual community listed on the front page pretty much decides what's acceptable in their corner of LF, with very few common, LF-wide rules. Opinions vary as much as the culture of the different communities here does, which is to say wildly.

 

Unless a moderator or admin directly claims to speak on behalf of the staff in the section they are posting it's safe to assume they speak for no one but themselves. (Like this post for example, which contains only my own opinions and observations. )

 

Just looking around, though, it does seem like there's a surprising tendency for Moderators to hover somewhere in the Left Wing.

 

That might in part have something to do with the fact that more than half of the Starwarsknights forum staff are not from the United States, and both the major political factions in the US tend to be fairly right-wing compared to most of the rest of the world.

 

Still, the political affiliation and ideas of the moderating staff should not matter when they enforce the forum rules, since there is nothing in the rules against expressing certain political ideas as long as it is done in a civil manner (i.e. no flaming, insulting other members personally etc).

 

Unless some moderators were put in place here who don't really have opinions on politics/religion?

 

As I mentioned earlier I doubt anyone with no interest in the topics would want to spend spend hours carefully reading through hundreds of long posts in their spare time just to ensure they conform to the forum rules. Moderators here tend to be people who are particularly active in the forum section they get assigned as moderator in. If being made a moderator means you aren't allowed to participate any more, who would want to accept such a position?

[SD Nihil]

While things are being looked into, giving names would not be prodent at this time. And the mods having fun yes when we are comfortable aroud them. When we feel they haven't been biased in our eyes. Not all are bad as Tomycat has said. Individuals who we do not wish to name at this time.

 

Can you honestly say that a mod with Conservative beliefs wouldn't be biased?

 

Yes they can. But that is why their decision making should be objective and free of political motivation. Can you say that a liberal can't be biased. Same question you asked me.

[igyman]

With the rules set up the way they are, it's pretty easy to determine if a rule's been broken or not--flaming, porn, and swearing are the big bad uglies that will get people in trouble, and those are obvious to pretty much anyone.

 

If it were any other forum, I'd agree without question. However, since Kavar's hosts serious and mature topics, that are presumably discussed by people mature enough to understand them, don't you think that in that kind of environment it can sometimes be difficult to ascertain whether a person insulted another person, or just challenged their way of thinking? What I'm trying to say is that most people who participate in Kavar's formulate their posts in a very intelligent manner and sometimes things they posted may be interpreted as a personal insult, while they are in fact more of an outraged reaction to someone's way of thinking. Vice versa may also apply, in my opinion - someone may have insulted another participant, but it may be interpreted as an outraged reaction to their way of thinking.

That's the only reason why I think it might be better that a mod who hasn't participated in a certain discussion be the one who very very carefully monitors and moderates that thread.

 

If the person who I'm discussing with specifically in a back-and-forth exchange is the one committing the infraction, I ask another moderator to evaluate it instead so there's no accusation of bias.

 

I think that's a very smart and objective move.

 

Understand that people don't like getting infracted/warned/banned, and it's not uncommon to get complaints about bias in those situations.

 

Very understandable. Nobody likes to be told that they're not acting properly and sometimes people don't even see why something they did was improper. I personally pride myself on never getting a single warning (except maybe one about double posting, or something like that back when I was still a newb) and I'm very careful in keeping it that way.

My advice to other members regarding flaming would be this: No matter how angry somebody's attitude makes you, think before you decide to call that person names, because I know if you think about it, you'll come to the conclusion that there's absolutely nothing to accomplish by insulting someone. What I'd rather do is try to prove them wrong, or show that their way of thinking is not the right way of thinking with appropriate arguments.

[Astor]

Yes they can. But that is why their decision making should be objective and free of political motivation. Can you say that a liberal can't be biased. Same question you asked me.

 

I've already said that they sometimes let their personal feelings get in the way, but as Jae has said, she often gets another Moderator to look at something in a thread she is participating in.

 

My point is that appointing more mods probably won't help - because then we'd just get the mods arguing amongst themselves, without actually getting anything done.

[SD Nihil]

As I said situations are being looked into right now concerning each conservative's complaints. So there are threads like this trying to come up with a solution. But there are things going on behind the scenes right now.And it's not smart during an investigation to devulge info just yet.

[Litofsky]

As I said situations are being looked into right now concerning each conservative's complaints. So there are threads like this trying to come up with a solution. But there are things going on behind the scenes right now.And it's not smart during an investigation to devulge info just yet.

 

With all possible respect, SD, the only problem that you've mentioned is bias. Besides the disproportionate amount of conservatives to liberals in Kavar's, please inform me what's so wrong. These cryptic warnings are doing nothing (at least for me) other than giving (me) the feeling that something's happening that you're not telling us. I'd appreciate it greatly if you would give (us?) a glimpse as to what this "investigation" is about.

 

Thanks a bunch.

[Astor]

Also, I don't like this whole 'Them' and 'Us' situation that has arisen... it's absurd, and pretty silly.

 

While I may agree with most liberals on one thing, I may agree with conservatives on another matter - no one here is set firmly into one group.

 

I think that what J7 and Jae have said about people who have been moderated feel that they are the victim of bias is a bit extreme- every instance i've seen of moderating here has been fully justified - and it happens to both sides - not just one side - as far as I have seen, when someone has been out of line, then they have had action taken against them.

 

The only problem is that people often have differing views of what is acceptable.

[Bee Hoon]

And it's not smart during an investigation to devulge info just yet.

I doubt that the mods will ever divulge information which is not directly related to you:/ Every member has a right to privacy!

 

As mentioned way waaaay back in thread, I agree with thread splitting. I may not be the most organized person, but leaving something with the wrong title (especially if it seemed like a potential source of info!) makes me sad

[El Sitherino]

So far no one has proven any unethical actions by moderators, but yet I keep hearing it.

 

Curious.

[Yar-El]

With all possible respect, SD, the only problem that you've mentioned is bias. Besides the disproportionate amount of conservatives to liberals in Kavar's, please inform me what's so wrong. These cryptic warnings are doing nothing (at least for me) other than giving (me) the feeling that something's happening that you're not telling us. I'd appreciate it greatly if you would give (us?) a glimpse as to what this "investigation" is about.

Thanks a bunch,

Litofsky

I'm going to jump in here. If I'm reading SD's posts correctly, I believe he is refering to how the forums are moderated. We have visitors who are liberal, but we also have a high number of moderators that are liberal. There is an inbalance of moderation based upon post edits, deletions, and so forth. Are the moderators editing conservative posts more so than liberals? Are the moderators fueled by emotions, and do they act upon those emotions with bans, editting, or closures?

 

I didn't want to be involved with this type of isssue, and behind the scenes I tried to distance myself from the problem. Sorry for repeating myself again (for those of you who have read my posts), but this is how I see what is going down.

 

Everyone who visits, moderates, and posts on these boards are genuinely good folk. We may have different stances on issues, but overall everyone converses in a respectable manner. Religion and politics can be approached by two angles. Conservative and liberal beliefs on both issues sometimes conflict, and at times it can get down right ugly. How does someone moderate a forum where two sides believe they are right? I don't know, and I don't think any of the moderators know. That is why these threads are open. They need our help, and we need their help. Everyone who visits or volunteers on this forum has an agenda, which is based upon a personal and unique perspective. Most of what we bring with us is derived from the world around us. We can have rules that stretch as far as Atlantis, but they will not stop how people view the world. Being a noobie to these forums gives me a unique perception. I see all of these awsome and unique worlds interacting. Outside of these forum walls, the actual world is in chaotic flux. People argue over parking spaces, taxes, oil, and the right time of day. However, here at LucaForums we converse on a level that our leaders can't. We use these threads to find differences and similarities in how another person preceives the human race. I don't think there is any real way to moderate these forums without affecting someone. Regardless about what changes are put in place, there is allways going to be a group that disagrees. If you sum this whole thing up, we are not Democrats or Republicans. We are human beings with feelings, opinions, and voices.

 

Entering these forums should be the disrobbing of division. Respect, patience, and tolerance should be exercised. My beliefs are true to me, and your beliefs are true to you. I'm not going to tell you that your wrong. All I'm going to ask is that everyone should approach these topics with knowing we are all unique.

 

I come here for the entertaining nature of LucasArts' products, and I want to share something that I know others also like.

 

What is everyone? Are you a healer? Are you a divider? Its your choice.

[Jae Onasi]

My point is that appointing more mods probably won't help - because then we'd just get the mods arguing amongst themselves, without actually getting anything done.

We actually talk a lot among ouselves in mod forum and in IM--some of the staff I talk to on a daily or near daily basis, so if there's something borderline, more than a few times I've talked to them and said 'what do you think?' before taking or not taking action. There's quite a bit more chatting behind the scenes than most people realize.

 

One thing I''d also like to say is that when we give an infraction, it doesn't mean we hate someone's guts or necessarily hate the idea that person is talking about. It just means we've found a post that violates the rules and the specific posting behavior needs to be corrected. We know people are going to have bad days, and we mods are going to have good and bad days like everyone else. It's hard not to take an infraction personally, but it's nearly always nothing more than a corrective action to maintain good quality rather than punitive or spiteful.