The community and the mods talk over what the issue is (part 2)

Nathan Tuggy

Feb 11, 2016 06:38

@SevenSidedDie Because the mistake was not the rules.

SevenSidedDie

@NathanTuggy Okay. You're welcome to propose something on meta about that.

I don't mean that sarcastically or passive-aggressively either. Please do, if you have something to offer, bring it to the site. It's not going to happen by yelling at us for not doing whatever you're picturing.

Pixie

@doppelgreener And there's only so many times we can express this before I have to conclude that we're still not being listened to. How do you communicate to someone that you'd like them to listen when it still seems like they're not listening? I've been trying to figure that out for over an hour now. That isn't passive-aggressive, either. I am really at a loss. I do not know what to do.

BESW

@SevenSidedDie So, in the future, the mods will make a greater effort to not be passive-aggressive or sarcastic, or use ad hominem attacks, or simply say the same thing over and over instead of trying to figure out why it's not connecting, or say there's a cutoff point for the number of people with a concern below which it's not important?

trogdor

@Pixie I couldn't care less about a single tag either, I would say the bigger problem is that a disagreement over a single tag has most obviously either created or exposed a bigger issue

SevenSidedDie

@doppelgreener Yes, the communication went poorly. I've asked what you wanted to be done about that, either in the fixed past or the changeable future, but didn't get much other than being more diplomatic. If that didn't resolve it, what's left to resolve wasn't expressed.

Miniman

Feb 11, 2016 06:43

@SevenSidedDie Ok, so, to be more specific, the resolution he (and others) is looking for is some sort of acknowledgment or admission that the whole issue was not perfectly handled. Personally, I find it vanishingly difficult to care about recs, and was ecstatic to see them go, but even I have to admit that I had no idea that all recs were going rather than just game-recs.

BESW

Without a reassurance of that effort... [shrug] "propose it on meta" is currently roughly equivalent to "go sit on a sharp stick."

SevenSidedDie

@Miniman No, it wasn't perfectly handled. Perfect isn't possible. We did our best.

Nathan Tuggy

@BESW With that said, I think it would be hypocritical of me to ask the mods to do something (accept blame) that they expect based on some past experience to be poorly received if I'm not willing to do something similarly likely to be futile (post several ideas on meta for policy process improvements).

So, I'll see if I can write that up tomorrow or the next day.

SevenSidedDie

@BESW I'm sorry, but if people want to completely throw out their confidence in even the possibility that the infrastructure of the site is worth even trying to use, they've already given up and we're not going to go chasing after them.

Nathan Tuggy

... incidentally, yes, "accept blame" is going to be one of the points.

@SevenSidedDie Uh, and the recent unanimous mod refusal to engage with meta conflict resolution...?

doppelgreener

Feb 11, 2016 06:46

@SevenSidedDie You did do your best. When my best causes tremendous damage, and I recognise what the damage is, I apologise for it to the people who it's hurt and acknowledge the damage I did, and offer a way for it to not happen again, and listen out for them to say what they have to say.

SevenSidedDie

@NathanTuggy Only blame, no. We're doing a practical job here. We want pragmatic, actionable things. "Feel bad" is not a request we have spoons to honour.

Miniman

@SevenSidedDie I know that. I'm not taking sides here, and I haven't joined in on this discussion much at all for a whole host of reasons. Just trying to facilitate communication where I see things that clearly aren't being communicated.

doppelgreener

@SevenSidedDie We have confidence in the infrastructure. We have little confidence the infrastructure is worth using to communicate certain issues to the mod team.

Nathan Tuggy

@SevenSidedDie It's not about feeling bad; it's about openly stating things that you agree with people about, even if those make you feel bad.

But hey, more elaboration in the post(s)

Miniman

@doppelgreener On that note, given that everyone seems to agree that recs should be off-topic, I suspect SSD is likely to want to know exactly what damage was caused.

SevenSidedDie

Feb 11, 2016 06:48

@NathanTuggy Wait. How does "we don't think this will be effective, and we're not interested in throwing mud ourselves, so we won't" equate to us deciding to ignore all metas forever?

Nathan Tuggy

@SevenSidedDie I dunno about "all metas forever", but that specific attempt at low-emotion, productive resolution, yes.

SevenSidedDie

@Miniman Yes.

BESW

@SevenSidedDie Okay, that's what I just told you.

Nathan Tuggy

You may have reasonably thought it would come to nothing. But if that sincere post from previously unheard users trying to pour oil on troubled waters was going to come to nothing, why would any other possible meta do the job?

SevenSidedDie

@NathanTuggy Do you think our principled "We're not comfortable throwing mud, and not sure what else this will result in" is objectionable?

BESW

Feb 11, 2016 06:50

I don't "want" to lose confidence in the mods' listening to meta proposals.

But the damage from the game-recs thing and other dramas is exactly that.

The mods respond to questions, challenges, and proposals erratically and often (not always, not even the majority of the time, but enough that it's confidence-shaking) inappropriately.

doppelgreener

@BESW We've learned that if we come to the mod team with sincere concerns, they will be entirely not listened to, and this and this and this will happen.

Nathan Tuggy

@SevenSidedDie Yes; that's not open communication. Being unable to discuss public faults publicly is a very serious problem.

doppelgreener

We'll be treated like crap and our concerns will be wholly ignored.

SevenSidedDie

@BESW If we'd made the wrong decision, I would understand how the game-recs thing did damage better. Yes, we ignore and dismissed objections to us implementing a principled outcome of a meta.

BESW

@SevenSidedDie Have you seen the stuff I've been linking?

Personal attacks?

Dismissing things not because of their content but because there's too few people worried, or because one person misbehaved?

If the mods behaved as you describe, I'd be happier and more confident. Unfortunately...

Nathan Tuggy

Feb 11, 2016 06:54

@BESW In particular, apparently assuming that everyone with the same concern will descend to the lowest denominator is wrong, and rather insulting.

BESW

@NathanTuggy Or letting one person's tantrum spoil the chances for a rational discussion, I'm not always sure which it is.

SevenSidedDie

@NathanTuggy If someone is descended somewhere unfortunate, they're not a good spokesperson for bringing an issue to the mods, no. Is that odd?

BESW

@SevenSidedDie ...what does that have to do with tarring others with the same brush?

Pixie

@BESW And these are things that have been said more than once by now.

SevenSidedDie

@BESW We have to respond to the actual person though.

Nathan Tuggy

Feb 11, 2016 06:56

@SevenSidedDie The fear expressed by mods in the "Use our words" meta was that, because some users had previously said things badly, all future attempts on meta to discuss these things would descend into terrible behavior.

BESW

@SevenSidedDie Great, sure. But at the cost of ignoring the concern which is obviously shared by others?

SevenSidedDie

@NathanTuggy What? No.

Pixie

@SevenSidedDie You don't have to respond to them by undermining the valid concern though!

Nathan Tuggy

@SevenSidedDie Whether you meant "the problem user(s) will of course post again and get upvoted", or whether you meant "everyone will say things the way they do" was not at all clear.

BESW

Sorry, that was out of line.

SevenSidedDie

Feb 11, 2016 06:58

@BESW Wait, how is that odd? If everyone rallies behind a poorly-spoken, critical fumble of a diplomatic envoy, we're supposed to do… what?

Pixie

4 hours ago, by Pixie

It needs to be acknowledged that we're not just upset about nothing, even in the face of users with bones to pick. They exist, and not letting the conversation devolve into petty bone-picking is important. It makes everything that much harder. But that doesn't mean there are no valid concerns. It's all too easy to point at one person being unreasonable and conclude that everyone is. Even those being unreasonable got to that point in a specific context.

Miniman

Tbh, having watched something similar play out on Puzzling, I suspect the only way in which this will be resolved is if a higher power descends - we need someone everyone will listen to.

Nathan Tuggy

Either way, you expressed that nothing good would come of it and you were already determined to avoid the discussion, because of previous actions.

doppelgreener

@SevenSidedDie Uh, listen to his message for what it's worth, not for what the person saying it is worth.

BESW

@SevenSidedDie Ah, so we'll just clutter up the meta with duplicates so the conversation is fragmented, yes?

SevenSidedDie

Feb 11, 2016 06:59

@doppelgreener Meta is where we deal with issues, brought up by individuals. We can't separate them.

Miniman

@BESW Well, that already happened.

BESW

@Miniman I try not to help.

Nathan Tuggy

@SevenSidedDie A post and the individual who posted it are, on SE, always treated differently.

SevenSidedDie

@BESW Sigh. You're oddly unreasonable suddenly. Yes. Do that. If someone is being unspeakably terrible, don't hitch your wagon to them if you want to be heard. Yes.

doppelgreener

@SevenSidedDie Yes you can. When Tritium21 comes to you with an issue that gets heftily upvoted (by people who are not Tritium21), you can go "Hey, maybe we think this Tritium21 person can't be taken seriously, but other people seem to agree with what he has to say." Specifically, +11/-1 on that question he raised by last count.

Nathan Tuggy

Feb 11, 2016 07:00

@SevenSidedDie If someone agrees with most of what someone says (but not necessarily the entire context of everything that individual has ever said and done), they upvote that post.

doppelgreener

@NathanTuggy Yes. "This question is useful." I've downvoted my fair share of Tritium's posts, but when I upvote one, that's my way of showing I share that concern. I don't go raising a second question mentioning the same thing: we respond to that by closing as duplicate, and it's discouraged, so I upvote.

SevenSidedDie

@NathanTuggy People bring context. Someone who was being unconstructively snippy in comments, continuing to do so in a meta question, is context.

Nathan Tuggy

So, is the snippiness apparent to any onlooker, or only those who are aware of the subtext?

BESW

Obviously mods can act like this when responding to poor emissaries, so it'd be nice to see it without doing this first.

Nathan Tuggy

If the latter, assume the community is largely responding to the text, not the subtext.

doppelgreener

Feb 11, 2016 07:02

@BESW ~~Same link both times.~~

@BESW I really don't think that previous edit was out of line. This really does sound like a matter of "If the messenger is someone we'd ignore, the whole message is ignored, even if it happens to come with a lot of apparent support by people who aren't the messenger."

Nathan Tuggy

@SevenSidedDie Put another way, trust the community to vote on posts, not people, yes, even on meta.

doppelgreener

And apparently other people need to post the same message for it to be heard, unless they're also people who'd be ignored, until we find the right messenger, but that's not the done thing here because that's post duplication and we'd all respond to it as such.

Ignoring a supported message on meta because of who posted it, rather than the core of the message itself, is not appropriate.

SevenSidedDie

@doppelgreener Ignore? No. If the messenger is bringing "I have an unconstructive gripe, that you have heard before in comments" we're going to respond to that. We don't know why others are voting. They should maybe say.

@doppelgreener It wouldn't be the same message.

BESW

@SevenSidedDie Ummm. It feels like you're reading some alternate-universe version of the question.

doppelgreener

@SevenSidedDie We do say. You know how we talk about vote tooltips all the time, how we don't comment on a downvote because the downvote already says "this isn't useful" and a comment isn't needed? Same thing here.

SevenSidedDie

Feb 11, 2016 07:07

@BESW This is uncharitable, because I'm pretty sure you don't mean this, but I'm thoroughly confused because I can't figure out what else you mean, so to illustrate: you want us to speak with our own voice, but you don't want us to speak with our own voices?

doppelgreener

(This is the question presently being discussed, to keep people in the loop. It was raised by Tritium21 who has, well, a good way to put it is a history of histrionics‌.)

Nathan Tuggy

@SevenSidedDie I believe he means "answer the question square on, politely and thoroughly, even if the asker is not necessarily reliable."

BESW

@SevenSidedDie You answered the question. Mxy said that the person who asked it was a jerk and thus didn't deserve an answer.

While that might be 'speaking with your own voice' on both counts, what I'm focused on is the bit where you, personally, are clearly able to deal with a reasonable question from an unreasonable person--which you are now in chat saying should not be expected of you.

I'm not saying anything about "your own voice." That'd be changing the subject.

SevenSidedDie

@BESW Mxyzplk said that their contribution was limited to unconstructive comments instead of doing something constructive. Where is the "you're a jerk" part?

doppelgreener

> Now, your participation was limited to unconstructive sarcastic comments instead of offering your point of view or any constructive ways we might save game-recs, but I tend to think that's more on you than "how the question was."

BESW

Feb 11, 2016 07:12

I guess I read "unconstructive sarcastic comments instead of offering your point of view or any constructive [ideas]" as "you behaved like a troll."

doppelgreener

That's saying "you were a jerk", yeah.

BESW

At any rate, the gist is "You behaved poorly and so I shan't give an answer to the other people who also want to hear it either." Based on this chat the subtext is "They need to find someone who wasn't naughty and have him ask again."

SevenSidedDie

@BESW I believe what I was responding to earlier was a general "you should have listened, despite the messenger". I objected that we're not going to separate the asker from their problem with their use of the site. I didn't say I had to be unreasonable to them.

BESW

@SevenSidedDie No, but you said you wouldn't answer their question. That's more extreme than "not separating the asker from their problem" and seems actively obstructionist, especially for a site based on the idea that answers are for posterity at least as much as for the querent.

Nathan Tuggy

@BESW For clarity, it's normally OK on the main site to silently refuse to answer a question by someone you don't think is acting in good faith. It's not cool to call them out on that, generally. It's still less cool on meta, when there's a question that can only really be answered by one of the mods, for one of said mods to specifically say that they're not going to answer.

SevenSidedDie

Feb 11, 2016 07:16

For disclosure, I'm suddenly typing less because I'm staring at these lines, suddenly realising that we're very much not talking about the same thing, but I'm unsure where the divergence happened.

Nathan Tuggy

@SevenSidedDie This has happened before in this chat and we've worked through it. Mostly.

BESW

@SevenSidedDie I'm pleased to see that recognition, thank you.

That is progress.

SevenSidedDie

Not really. It's actually quite alarming.

Suddenly your responses to my messages are having to be completely re-evaluated.

Nathan Tuggy

@SevenSidedDie PROGRESS! :)

Pixie

@SevenSidedDie It is progress. That reevaluation is necessary.

Nathan Tuggy

Feb 11, 2016 07:19

But seriously, that really is good to hit that point where realization is striking.

BESW

@NathanTuggy Yeah, mainsite is totally cool with unanswered or unanswerable questions.

Pixie

This is part of what I mean when I say I do not feel like we're being listened to. There were many points during this conversation that I could have simply linked something we already said, sometimes twice, and answered the question posed just as well. And I don't think that's because you're trying not to listen, but we are trying very, very hard to get through, and it isn't working, and we're being told that we need to say what we already said.

SevenSidedDie

No, really, alarming. I'm scrolling pages and pages back, trying to find the genesis of this thread to find out where to stop recontextualising it, and I'm truly alarmed. All these pages of ink because you misremembered mxyzplk as calling Tritium a jerk?

BESW

...no.

Pixie

... what?

BESW

Feb 11, 2016 07:23

All these pages of ink because you seem to feel that it's okay to refuse to answer a reasonably-worded question that multiple people are interested in, if the querent has a history of misbehaviour with the subject matter.

Nathan Tuggy

@SevenSidedDie That's not been the centerpiece of most of what I've said, for what it's worth, but no, I don't think it's a misremembering or misrepresentation to peg that answer as "calling him a jerk" or, for that matter, "dismissing him".

SevenSidedDie

@BESW Exactly why I'm alarmed: if that's what you understood from all this, I despair for communication being possible.

BESW

@SevenSidedDie Then give me a few minutes to dig into the bits where I read you saying that.

Maybe you can clarify what you really meant.

SevenSidedDie

Please, yes. I don't know where that idea came from.

BESW

Because for me right now, this is about the mods saying "You can take it to meta" but then turning around and saying in the same conversation "But we'll ignore the problem until the right person asks it, just keep trying."

Pixie

Feb 11, 2016 07:26

@SevenSidedDie I've been despairing for communication being possible for a while now. I still am.

SevenSidedDie

@BESW Please do find the thing you read. That message is not constructive.

BESW

This is going to take several posts. [opens a text file]

Here I made an overly sarcastic remark which stated that if the messenger is wrong the message will be ignored.

Here you responded by saying "How is that odd?"

In turn I asked if that meant others should make additional questions differentiated from the original only by the identity of the querent (duplicates).

You said "Yes" and clarified that a reasonable concern posted by someone with a poor character should be ignored and duplicated by someone with a better character.

SevenSidedDie

Okay, I see where I contributed to that misunderstanding now. And the rest of the conversation going off the rails makes sense.

BESW

Since the context was already clear from my multiple linkings to Tritium's question (which wasn't even "a poorly-spoken, critical fumble of a diplomatic envoy" except in context of his behaviour) and Mxy's ad hominem non-answer of a response, I'm unsure how it could have been possibly unclear what I was asking or what you meant in response.

Nathan Tuggy

@BESW How the tables have turned?

SevenSidedDie

Feb 11, 2016 07:38

Ironically, your last link is to the wrong message I think, but is a message that more accurately reflects my position.

BESW

@SevenSidedDie Oops, I think I meant this one.

SevenSidedDie

@BESW That makes more sense. And I should have known at the time: you're quite reasonable, and my sense that something had suddenly gone weird there should have been a flag that signals had suddenly got badly crossed.

BESW

If you weren't responding in the context of Tritium's question, please consider how ironic that is in light of the game-rec miscommunication.

To be fair, I've stopped feeling particularly reasonable about this whole debacle about a day ago. I've even said [snip].

SevenSidedDie

@BESW I was responding in context to Tritium's question. But I was also reacting too strongly to the sarcastic comment, which you deleted. I had not taken it literally, but for the cry of frustration that it was.

My response was similarly non-literal: a general sense of "yeah, if someone's being pointedly difficult, we're not going to take that well." Whereas you took it, fairly, as a literal "yes we're going to ignore."

No, we're not going to generally ignore people on meta. That would be terrible policy, or even ad-hoc responses.

BESW

@SevenSidedDie In the context of Mxy's non-answer, and the fact that Tritium had obviously calmed down, and the subsequent pushback from the mods on the game-rec topic? Yeah, I'm going to be inclined to read it that way.

'cause here's the thing.

SevenSidedDie

Feb 11, 2016 07:46

@BESW I think we're going to disagree on that, hopefully understanding that we have different perspectives. I think it's fair to say "you dithered while the discussion was had, and now you're unhappy with it… is something you only really have yourself to thank for."

Pixie

I was feeling pretty unreasonable right about then myself, though luckily I managed to (mostly) hold my tongue. A cry of frustration is exactly right. Please understand that this whole thing has been incredibly frustrating. I know it has for you, too. Nobody's having fun right now.

BESW

You expected people to have familiarised themselves with old meta posts. Frequently linked ones, yes, but old meta posts that retained value for posterity for years.

And that's reasonable, it's the way the site works.

So when we respond to new meta posts, we should be making them not just for the immediate querent. We should be making them for the folks in the wings who didn't have the [snip] to speak up but want to know, and we should especially be making them for posterity to reference.

Nathan Tuggy

@SevenSidedDie It would be, if the question was "why did this turn out in a way I don't like", but if it's "this doesn't seem to make sense given what we knew at the time", complaining about a lack of comments for something that wasn't obvious at the time is strange.

Pixie

But there are still a lot of our concerns that are unaddressed despite numerous attempts at getting through. When you're desperately trying to believe that communication is possible, and someone you don't think has yet really listened (or at least understood) tells you that they don't think it's possible...

BESW

So in regards to Trit's behaviour on another post, I'm having a hard time saying "Yeah, that means it's okay to throw his question out." It's bigger than him.

SevenSidedDie

Feb 11, 2016 07:50

@NathanTuggy I don't think we're looking at the same post?

doppelgreener

@SevenSidedDie Sorry, are we talking about the game rec re-evaluation?

SevenSidedDie

@doppelgreener Tritium's post, right?

doppelgreener

No, the game rec re-evaluation.

Nathan Tuggy

@SevenSidedDie Tritium's question is complaining about being caught off guard by the results, based on initial posts.

BESW

@doppelgreener That's not on the table right now.

doppelgreener

Feb 11, 2016 07:52

Or is that a quote from something?

@BESW OK.

BESW

@doppelgreener Yes, it's a quote from Mxy on Trit's Q.

doppelgreener

@BESW Thanks for clarifying.

SevenSidedDie

@NathanTuggy Yes. Which is different from how you summarised it in the previous message.

BESW

And it's fair to say to Trit. But to then use that as a reason not to take the time to respond for the sake of others.... [sigh]

SevenSidedDie

@BESW But… it was answered?

Nathan Tuggy

Feb 11, 2016 07:54

@SevenSidedDie How so? Complaining about being caught off guard by how things were interpreted is the same as complaining about the implementation of a question's resolution not making sense, right?

SevenSidedDie

@NathanTuggy That summary is different again. It sounds like you're saying that Tritium's meta Q was saying something about the result being different than what the accepted answer says. That's not what that Q is about. It's objecting that the accepted answer was more consequential than the initial Q would have suggested.

BESW

@SevenSidedDie Yup. By another mod. Though... [pokes time stamps] I'm sorry, I thought Mxy answered first.

Nathan Tuggy

@SevenSidedDie "This also applies to XY and Z that you did not expect" is the same as "this is a different result than you expected".

A result that differs, even in scope, is a different result.

SevenSidedDie

@BESW I'm not sure that order would matter though. Would it?

@NathanTuggy No, I do think you're conflating that meta Q with a different one.

BESW

Oh, it would. Because now instead of "Mxy took the time to dress him down rather than give anyone an answer, with a post that made it sound like no answer would be forthcoming, and then SSD came in later to answer it," we've got "SSD answered the question and then Mxy showed up to chastise the querent for misbehaviour in another part of the site."

SevenSidedDie

Feb 11, 2016 07:58

@NathanTuggy Tritium's objection was not about the scope of "game-rec now off topic", it was an objection that a meta Q asking how game-recs are doing could result in their removal.

Nathan Tuggy

@SevenSidedDie Hmm. I think you're right. I kept checking back and looking at that and seeing "this isn't what we expected based on what we were reading".

Which is still basically the same, but I was wandering a bit onto the other very similar objection to the other side of things.

SevenSidedDie

@BESW I do think "you had plenty of opportunity to get involved, chose not to, and now you don't like that the top answer is being acted on" is a fair response though.

Nathan Tuggy

(That is probably a good sign that I need to wrap things up pretty soon....)

BESW

@SevenSidedDie It's a true response. I'm not sure it's useful or Nice.

If Doppelgreener had said it, would you feel the same?

SevenSidedDie

@BESW Possibly not nice. I still don't think it's calling him a jerk or troll, but shades of meaning are going to be received differently by us, and I can't claim to know better what mxyzplk intended to convey.

BESW

Feb 11, 2016 08:01

Or would you think it should be flagged as non-constructive?

[sigh] At this point it's all rhetorical.

SevenSidedDie

@BESW Eh, asking about flagging would just muddy the issue. Flags on meta aren't accepted as readily, so whether it was delete-worthy isn't the thing to ask me. But taking your meaning instead: if someone else had written it, I still would have thought it a fair cop.

BESW

Thank you.

SevenSidedDie

I mean, if someone has dug their own hole and jumped in it, it's fair to point out that they don't get to complain about the dirt at the bottom. It can be done nicer or less nice.

Pixie

@SevenSidedDie What mxyzplk intended to convey is less important than what he actually did convey. That's not to say intent doesn't matter at all, but this is one point I think we keep getting caught on. People are responsible for the results of their words and actions, regardless whether they line up with their intentions.

2

SevenSidedDie

Ironically, if Doppelgreener had written it, I'd be even less concerned about it's appropriateness, because he's even-tempered enough that I would read it as saying exactly what it says, no chance of implied meaning.

Pixie

Feb 11, 2016 08:05

If what mxy had said wasn't bad, it wouldn't matter if he really wanted to be super mean. If what he said was really bad, it wouldn't matter if he thought he was being totally reasonable.

SevenSidedDie

@Pixie Yeah, and it got the downvotes it earned. I guess… that's not enough?

BESW

I need to head out. I'll just say: I'm glad the mod team is thinking about how to improve its relations with the site, and I'm hopeful. But I'm also concerned that there's an attitude it's the rules results which determine the success of mod actions, and the community's failing cohesion and health and trust can blamed on citizens but moderators seem reluctant use it as another gauge for their own effectiveness.

2

Nathan Tuggy

Take care, BESW

BESW

> As a moderator, your actions now represent the community, so you will be held to a higher standard of behavior. You are an ambassador of trust, with the same sorts of rights that the official development team and community coordinators have. (source)

@NathanTuggy ttfn. Thanks for participating.

SevenSidedDie

@Pixie No, I know. If it was bad in its text, it would have been bad regardless. I think the text is unnecessarily harsh in its delivery but fair in its content.

It was said up-chat that it carried other meanings that I don't agree are there, but that's even more reason for me to look at the text, as a mod.

Pixie

Feb 11, 2016 08:12

@SevenSidedDie It's not enough when it's part of a larger pattern of moderation behavior that just doesn't feel like it's being addressed. "Unnecessarily harsh" is not an okay thing for mods to project toward users. It's not good for the site. That, there, is bad, even if you think it was fair in content. And that is one of the problems we keep running into.

SevenSidedDie

@BESW It's not that the rulings outcome determines success of mod action. It's that when the community objects, but it turns out that the principles we followed were for very good reasons, we'd hope that the community would notice that we shouldn't have been swayed by objections from enacting those principles.

Pixie

But my initial point was about your not knowing what Mxy had intended. That doesn't have much bearing on the quality and effect of the answer.

SevenSidedDie

@Pixie Ah. That was me implying that I didn't have any special grasp on the truth of what BESW and I were disagreeing was in that post. I might've made that too subtle.

Pixie

Ah, okay.

trogdor

@Pixie I want to personally fully admit that this happens to me almost semi regularly

at least online here

when I speaking to someone face to face they can usually tell I am joking or being sarcastic

Pixie

Feb 11, 2016 08:17

It happens to everyone. We all say stuff that didn't come out the way we wanted it to.

It's what we do after that that matters.

trogdor

yeah exactly

I was going to say, whenever that does happen, I try to explain and or appologize

depending on what exactly is warranted, or seems to be warranted.

SevenSidedDie

@Pixie I did use "unnecessarily" mindfully there, though. There's such a mess around feedback for mxyzplk's communication that it's not something I can reasonably wade into much more. I hope it's finally turning productive, whatever avenues it takes, instead of whatever adjective fits what had been happening.

Pixie

The practical, actionable advice I'm giving the moderation team is to think more about the way they interact with the community and the effect that their words can have (and have had), even when unintended, keeping this in mind. I also advise you to acknowledge that things have been mishandled, not simply to say "we're not perfect" but to say, and mean, that you're going to work to keep it from happening again.

5

And sometimes it might happen again anyway. There will be misunderstandings. But what you need to be doing now is trying to shore up communication across the board in order to reestablish faith that there is communication, and that our concerns have some chance of being heard.

Nathan Tuggy

@SevenSidedDie If we're all voting on something, and then 1) the result (informational to action) and scope ([game-recs] to game-recs) are not clearly understood until after the vote has been counted and implemented, being "swayed" from doing that would not be such a bad thing. Relying only on certain principles, but not on others that are highly valued in the community (like a vote actually meaning a straightforward, understandable vote) is not good.

But I, too, really need to sign off now. Take care all!

doppelgreener

@Pixie And taken seriously in the process of being heard, and responded to and acted on.

Pixie

Feb 11, 2016 08:29

Yes.

SevenSidedDie

@Pixie My trouble now is that past things that have been mishandled have been communicated. So I experience significant cognitive dissonance when given the advice, again, that we need to communicate and need to acknowledge that things have gone wrong. It makes me wonder what I'm missing.

doppelgreener

"Heard" we've got plenty of, "dismissed and ignored" tends to come with it.

SevenSidedDie

@doppelgreener chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/30178/… ??

Ahriman

I'm a bit flabbergasted by the discussion above....

SevenSidedDie

@doppelgreener ??

@Ahriman Okay. Not helpful though.

Ahriman

Feb 11, 2016 08:31

English is not y mothertongue, so taht may complicate things

doppelgreener

@SevenSidedDie I am not sure to what extent that got acted on, it appeared to change very little afterwards.

Ahriman

From the discussion above I have the distinct feeling that the mod team operates in another plane of existence compared to the community

SevenSidedDie

@doppelgreener How? I'm not a mind-reader.

@Ahriman That's really quite true in a lot of ways, having experienced the transition of perspective myself semi-recently.

Ahriman

perhaps

doppelgreener

@SevenSidedDie You've acknowledged it, from memory, a couple of times here and there in comments, and now here in chat. The mod team most recently did so in this one, and while I'm thankful that response happened, it's buried deep in a comment thread lots of people won't be digging through.

SevenSidedDie

Feb 11, 2016 08:35

@doppelgreener Okay? But where have we failed?

doppelgreener

It's often said apologies need to be made at the same scale of the thing you're apologising for. To take something that isn't analogous: if I embarrassed someone in front of an entire group of people, I should apologise and clear things up in front of that same group. The same wisdom would suggest you should be addressing the community, acnkowledging our issues, apologising for the fallout in a meta question. That's what I'd advise.

Because, this does involve the whole community, so the thing that is "to the whole community" is the appropriate way to acknowledge it.

Ahriman

Maybe I should have used the ivory tower symbol. I don't think the mod team understands the community over which it presides

SevenSidedDie

@doppelgreener Ah. Okay, that's much more clear and concrete.

Pixie

@SevenSidedDie This was a good step, sure, but it's only part of it. Problems were around before then, and they've persisted since. The effort seems disproportional to the problem, and its effects have not been felt by the community. Even now, during this conversation, the problems persist. And comments like this continue to happen. The community is not solely responsible for painting the mods into this corner.

Ahriman

Combined with a helping of not really caring either

Pixie

Feb 11, 2016 08:37

@doppelgreener Yes, I agree with this.

SevenSidedDie

@Pixie Okay, that's twice that message has been linked, I think by two different people. Can you explain what's the issue I'm supposed to intuit from these links? What's wrong with that message?

doppelgreener

@SevenSidedDie Also, because we're talking apologies and the sentiment "I'm sorry you felt that way" has come from a certain mod in the past, I will forewarn that language is not a form of apology. In that, there is no being apologetic for one's own actions.

SevenSidedDie

@doppelgreener No, I know that one. The politician's apology isn't.

Ahriman

ooh passive-aggressive crap

doppelgreener

@SevenSidedDie Thanks. I am glad you recognise it for what it is(n't).

Pixie

Feb 11, 2016 08:41

@SevenSidedDie It reads as if we, the community, are the ones responsible for putting you into this situation you can't get out of, rather than acknowledging that you helped yourself get there.

SevenSidedDie

@Pixie Oh goodness, no.

Pixie

Well, that's how the message often comes through, so that's something to be aware of.

Ahriman

Combined with follow the process (post on meta), where we'll only look at it if we like the poster

SevenSidedDie

@Ahriman Huh?

@Pixie That painted corner is entirely and specifically the ridiculous catch-22 that KRyan has (I think, to be fair, entirely unconsciously) constructed for us.

Ahriman

@SevenSidedDie The "Just use the process" bit?

SevenSidedDie

Feb 11, 2016 08:45

@Pixie Also, we can get out of it fine. The question is how to do so gracefully, in a way that is best for the site.

doppelgreener

@SevenSidedDie I am going to ping @BESW, in case he would later like to explain what he intended you to glean from his linking to that message himself (BESW, SevenSidedDie is referring to this one)

SevenSidedDie

@Ahriman Instead of avoiding the process designed for such complaints, and continuing to snipe and fight in comments scattered across the main site, to its detriment? Yes, yes use the process designed for such issues.

I don't know where you get the "if we like the poster" bit though.

Ahriman

Mxy stabbity stab response from meta.rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/5753/…

SevenSidedDie

@Ahriman Sorry, what?

Ahriman

Feb 11, 2016 09:00

That response translates to: I don't like you, so I'm not going to answer

SevenSidedDie

@Ahriman Hm. You used "we" to indicate the mods in general. Notice that it is answered, by me, a mod.

If you have an issue, I apologise that I'm not getting it. It's long since time I retired anyway. Take some time to formulate it and see if I can grasp it tomorrow.

Ahriman

I doubt I can word it correctly

It's more of a sentiment thing...

The mod speaks as one, so one mods response reflects back to the entire team

But that's how it works in my head

Pixie

We're aware that due process should have happened and that some users take things too far. Unfortunately, this is often the first and only thing we hear from mods: there are those users, who have messed things up. We get a great deal more about that than we do acknowledgment of mod issues. Parts of that conversation read very much like "we could engage in diplomacy, or those users could fix themselves." It's not an "or."

Even in this particular situation, with users who have taken things too far, it's not an "or."

trogdor

mm, and if mods speak as one unit, IF they do not disputing that one way or the other here, the users of this site cannot be expected to be seen as one unit

we don't all have some place where we discuss things with all the other users and come to an unanimous agreement

listening to something inflamitory from one or more (but still not all or even the majority) user(s) should not be recourse to then ignore everything every one of the other users has to say

if that is what is happening, or if something close to that is happening, it needs to stop

regardless of to what degree

I say IF

not accusing on that point

Pixie

Yeah. In my case, I don't think that the mods are viewing us as one entity, but I do feel like they've allowed the misbehavior of one segment to overshadow the needs and concerns of many others.

trogdor

Feb 11, 2016 09:14

@Pixie this is why I say "something close to it"

taking us as one large unit, or something close to that, may be very convenient, but it ignores our status as separate individuals with feelings and different ideas from each other

Pixie

Which, as I said earlier, also makes it harder on the mods, because we all have developed opinions about the site. Those opinions are often conflicting, sometimes irreconcilable. I'm sympathetic to that.

trogdor

again, I don't mean to accuse the mods of anything so much as I mean to point out that not all of the users are acting like raving lunatics or war hawks, if that is even happening to any degree, and regardless of how many users ARE acting that way, not all of us are

I don't know who is or isn't acting in that manner regardless of user status

besides the fact that I DO know that I certainly am not acting that way, and I have seen plenty of users being completely reasonable, and many others keeping out of this entire,... thing entirely because they don't want to deal with it

I have seen some users acting angry, and comments reflecting that some of them may possibly have acted out of line in some way, but I have seen similar comments reflecting on certain mods, or the mods as a whole

I choose not to judge anyone based on these comments, but the real issue needs to be that not everyone on this site is choosing to act in some unacceptable fashion

and that fact needs to be addressed by BOTH (actually more like 3 at least, seemingly) SIDES ( again I wish this was not addressable as an issue of people on "sides") of this ridiculous misunderstanding (as I hope it is only that)

I wish everyone was able to say "ok look lets just talk about this like reasonable adults"

I am not accusing anyone specific of not being able to say this, but if literally everyone was in that state of mind I would be disinclined to think we would have our current issue

Pixie

I need to pass out now myself, but I'll end with this: it's good to see mods engaging on this. Silence is not encouraging. As @doppelgreener suggested, I think it would help for mods to go through meta to address this. Make an apology (if sincere) and communicate an effort to listen and improve. Extend an olive branch, and mean it.

trogdor

@Pixie and yes, I acknowledge this could make things harder for the mods

but it still is not an excuse for ignoring this issue to the degree it has apparently been ignored

I will also say, one difficult thing about this I could perceive from the mods is that given some users may well be more reasonable than others, that it could be hard to apologize or even engage because of a certain fear of any less reasonable user reactions, IE possibly taking it as some admission of horrible guilt and culpability

I can see that issue might be a problem

but it doesn't mean all users should just be stonewalled, which seems to be the case of what has happened to some degree

Pixie

Feb 11, 2016 09:32

Yes. And to that I say: don't worry about users who see it as an opportunity to act unreasonably. If someone truly refuses to listen to anything you say, they're not your audience here. However, think about it carefully before you conclude that users are being unreasonable. Realize that not all anger is unjustified here, and also don't expect it to cause instant results. It's a first step. It won't work if you don't follow up on it.

trogdor

yeah, that is my point

you can't let a vocal minority keep you from talking to reasonable people

Pixie

Anyway! See you all later. [flies off into the night]

trogdor

otherwise that same philosophy would involve staying inside forever in fear of running into crazy people

@Pixie bye, see you sometime later

night

and some users are angry yes, part of that is because they are seeing little to no response when they asked reasonable questions

or even possibly responses that were too noncommittal or didn't address the issue the right way or something

I don't claim to know much about this issue as a whole, or too many specific details, but I have heard some things to the effect that the mods have ignored a majority of user inquiry into this subject, and if that is the case to any degree, that needs to stop being the response

because if it is the case THAT is the cause of plenty of reasonable users becoming angry

again, I can see certain reasons for not wanting to respond too much involving this whole situation

any dismissal of a reasonable inquiry or question is not going to be put up with forever, even by reasonable people

I do not intend by any of this to say that the mods, or even only the mods, are at fault or entirely at fault for the springing up of this issue

I do intend to say that they way the issue has been treated by the mods very well could have exacerbated the issue, and some mods could have been on the ground floor of the issue becoming an actual issue, I don't know

I do personally find it hard to believe that only users are to blame

we are all human, and I am sure plenty of people have made mistakes, mods, users, whoever, it doesn't matter to me

what matters to me is everyone putting down any mudslinging devices they may or may not be brandishing, and actually talk about this thing like rational adults

and the mods, regardless of whether they already are or not, need to start/continue to speak to the users about this in a fashion that acknowledges that users also have feelings and are people and have opinions

this is going to take some time, it is going to be difficult, but we can do this if all parties are allowed to speak up, and are listened to

if any individual takes the opportunity to use that to sling more mud, or even already has, feel free to ignore that person

not everyone automatically after the first shot gets fired

which is sort of my rudimentary understanding of part of what has happened

sorry for wall of text

I almost wish I was still blissfully unaware of the apparent extent of this issue like I was about a week or so ago

but there is my more-than-two-cents on the whole thing

SevenSidedDie

Feb 11, 2016 17:29

I'm officially done with this. I'm a volunteer with a specific job: handling the main site where regular user privileges can't. Meta is a tool for that. Right now meta is eating its own tail, and that doesn't in any way help me do my job on the main site. So I'm going to do my job—the alternative being resigning. My job is not PR, it's not soothing feelings, it's not massaging how I'm seen. I'm not a politician. I'm a janitor. I'm gonna keep things tidy.

SevenSidedDie

Feb 11, 2016 17:40

If someone thinks I make a wrong call, fine, we can talk about that. Talk shop, about my mopping. If someone acknowledges that I made the right call, but they object with how I presented it: I literally (the real sense of literally, not the sense that means "figuratively") do not have time for that kind of meta-meta discussion.

If that kind of time is necessary? Then acknowledge that I'm unwilling to do it and call for my resignation or removal. This is a volunteer position on a site about imaginary stories. It is literally not worth the energy that it would take to shoulder that extra job on top of the job of moderating the main site.

Ahriman

One question @SevenSidedDie: does that mean that the communication between the mod team and the community will remain the same?

Not a bar, but plays one on TV

Participants