« first day  last day (15 days later) » 

12:15 AM
I wonder if mentioning that our mods seem disengaged strikes a nerve?
If the community voted for, and in effect, put moderators where they are, why can't we question their actions after the fact?
 
1:16 AM
So . . . I'm a mod elsewhere on the network, and I'm a huge sci-fi geek (who has less time for reading than I wish I had), so I lurk on SFF a lot. Maybe I can say . . . something (?) about the sort of things mods do behind the scenes. They . . .

- . . . handle flags, which normal users can't see (save their own flags).
- . . . mod message and suspend users, where necessary, usually after a lot of consideration and thought.
- . . . interact with moderators from other sites in mod-only chat rooms, being emissaries for their site and working with others on migrations (bleh - I'm not a fan) an
These activities *rarely* get talked about. Disciplinary action is kept secret for the privacy of the users involved; nobody wants to shame someone for breaking the rules. Suspensions happen, and then they're over, a thing of the past if everything goes well. Fighting sockpuppets and spammers often involves dealing with [PII](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/pii), and, as per the mod agreement, that information *can not, under any circumstances, be released. Usually, only the PII can conclusively show if two accounts are from the same person, and telling the public about it w
This also means less time to answer and ask questions, which stinks. Everyone here loves science fiction, fantasy, and related genres, and that includes the moderators. But the workload of helping keep a site about what you love healthy also means you get to write less about what you love. The amount I post went down *drastically* after I became a mod. But that's okay. In most cases, a bunch of people know the answer to a given question (with, of course, some notable exceptions, for some of the toughest questions on site), and having one fewer people answering a specific question isn't a pr
Here's the thing: That's changed, especially on some of the more active sites. SFF is a large community, with plenty of high-activity regular users. And y'all have to be leaders, too - and some of you obviously *are* leaders. That's what a site *needs* to survive. My personal view - based on experiences across the network - is that a site dies only when it depends on a small cadre of people to keep the community alive. Moderation is, of course, just as important. But if only a handful of people are really keeping enthusiasm and content coming . . . eh, you've got a site on its last legs. SF
So now I'll shut up and maybe let some more intelligent people have their say. :-)
 
1:30 AM
@HDE226868 Even when it's not as weighty as matters of life and death it can be draining. A minute spent writing a nice, welcoming comment with a few important links being met by the response "FUCK ALL YOU FAGS YOU SHOULD GO DIE AFTER I KILL YOUR MOTHERS!!!" still does a pretty good job of getting me agitated enough that I know I shouldn't really be putting words down for the rest of the day. And the network gets a lot more stuff like that than non-mods are aware, IME.
 
@nitsua60 Yeah, exactly. That's what I meant when I talked about the worst bits of humanity. We're supposed to be here so that normal users don't have to see that (save deleted posts that 10k+ users can view). And having to get that chucked at you is . . . not great. If much of the rest of the community is seeing the same crap that we see, and having to put up with the same attacks and insults that we get thrown at us, we're not doing our jobs. We have to get rid of all that garbage.
 
@HDE226868 I'm like you--my contribution rate dropped off precipitously on mainsite when I was elected. There was the first few weeks of reading all the new stuff to self-orient, then there was the next few weeks where everything was all double- and triple-checking to make sure that a mod-action I took was right, then there's the first big blowup that knocked me on my heels for a week... and by then I was well out of the mindset of "hey, maybe I can repcap today!"
 
I had the same feelings. You get a lot of power when you become a mod, and I for one was mortified about making a mistake. It's said that student drivers are some of the last dangerous people on the road because they're scared stiff. I had the same sort of fear then, and I stepped gingerly.

Then there's the content withdrawal. :-( Some are lucky if they can keep doing what they love for work or school or whatever. For others, SE is maybe the best way they can explore their passions, and becoming a mod can so easily take that away.
But hey, thank goodness for the rest of the team. And the CMs. And the community, when needed.
 
 
4 hours later…
5:50 AM
I'm unsure how you're site operates (honestly I don't even know what site you're from) but you seem to say that only mods, or mostly mods see these outbursts from people based on actions taking. But the only place I can think of where a mod might see it where a community member couldn't is in a mod message (please do enlighten me if there are others).

As for comments on posts, as (one of) the most active reviewers on the site, I'd say I see far more of that "garbage" than you see to claim a user sees, not all that stuff is hidden, and with the invisibility of our mods (and imo absence) I'd
 
 
2 hours later…
8:20 AM
@Null The visible thing is the main concern, hence the title, using other statistics like that was just extra information (especially important because the flag handling times were thrown around a lot on the last post - that's the main reason I included it)
 
 
1 hour later…
9:33 AM
@Alenanno Definition of visible: 1: capable of being seen, 2: exposed to view, 3: capable of being discovered or perceived: So the standard definition of the word I suppose.
 
9:57 AM
@TheLethalCarrot well, I don't see the point of sharing the definition since I'm fully aware of what the word means. What I meant is of course how you think this concept applies to this case. By doing more of the activities you listed in your question?
 
10:10 AM
@Alenanno I'm only going to say this once more cos I've said the same thing about ten times now. THOSE WE'RE EXAMPLES. The point of the meta is for the mods to be more visible, which incidentally is what our mods understood from it, not what the off site mods did though.
 
10:43 AM
@Edlothiad We have had some highly unpleasant mod-message responses, yes. Also there's a lot of rudeness in comments which goes unseen by almost all non-mod users (maybe one or two people flag a rude comment, then it's gone, but mods can always see deleted comments). I'm not sure how relevant all this is to the main issue though ...
@Edlothiad As for "absence", that claim is a little hard to take seriously when at least two SFF mods have been actively commenting on this meta within hours of its creation.
 
The two mods commenting are clearly the ones no one has a problem with
I don't have a problem with any
I just want the whole team to be more visible
Not just hiding away in the background with everyone wondering "So where are they?"
 
Why, though? If things are getting taken care of, why does it matter if only two are actively commenting and being "visible"?
 
@TheLethalCarrot You named two mods in your question (right after saying you weren't going to point fingers): me and Thaddeus. Hard to tell what you or anyone else thinks of the other three.
 
I was thinking the same. To what ends? More visibility != more moderating. In fact if people aren't highly visible because they've only got half an hour every few days (I'm making a guess here as to circumstances), then asking they spend more time doing visible things is asking them to do less moderation things.
 
@Randal'Thor I named 2 on either end of the spectrum so it's clear there is an either end of the spectrum, and quite drastic differences too
You lot do realise a part of SE is transparency right? If there's no visible activity there's no transparency...
 
10:49 AM
Sometimes RPG.SE moderators during busy life periods will drop in, handle flags (not a visible action), then leave again, with no comments left or answers posted because they don't have time because they're using their time present to handle behind-the-scenes moderation tasks.
 
Yes, Thaddeus has been less active than the rest of us for a while. Due, I believe, to personal issues which I'm not comfortable sharing publicly. Are you calling for him to be demodded because of that, or what?
 
No and I never made that claim or half the others the network mods are claiming I have
 
He's still more active than some SE mods, like this chap who hasn't been seen for over a year.
 
If you want to make me look like a bad guy for wanting what is best for the site go ahead
 
@TheLethalCarrot It seems to me that comment could have been avoided.
 
10:51 AM
I don't think that's a fair to present me as such but I feel this is what is happening here
Especially as there's 5 or 6 off site mods all talking at me at the same time
 
@TheLethalCarrot I know you well enough to believe that you have good intentions. But I think some of us are confused about what you're actually calling for and why.
 
Here we go again.
 
@Randal'Thor More visibility to prove mods are actually moderating
Simple as that and I've said it enough times now
 
You want certain SFF mods to do more commenting/reviewing/chatting/etc. (be more 'visible' by some metric)?
 
Null understands what I was saying
@Randal'Thor There is no visible activity from certain mods in weeks, that shouldn't be the case
 
10:53 AM
@Randal'Thor that's what I also asked.
 
Visible can be whatever the hell you want it to be
As long as there is something to see
 
Obviously I can't really address your concern, nor can anyone else currently in this room.
My style of moderation involves a lot of engagement, e.g. in meta and comments and chat.
 
Right, the concern wasn't for most of the people in the room to address
It was for the SFF mods too
 
Different way this meta could have been approached: "Hey, I'm concerned these two moderators haven't been active. They don't have visible activity signs, but the theory of moderation says there should be. Are they OK? Are they still actively moderating? If not, shouldn't they stand down or shouldn't there be an election?" (That's pretty much 99% less demand & ultimatum.)
 
Kevin and Thaddeus aren't so chatty as me. Does that make them less effective as moderators?
 
10:55 AM
Not my problem it drew the heat
 
They can still (e.g.) delete posts and comments, and have been doing so.
 
Okay then, do we get any statistics on that? Cos last time I asked it wasn't allowed
 
If they are still actively moderating or the mods don't see a need for a new election, that can be answered... but it already was, last time this topic came up a few weeks ago: moderators get stood down after months of inactivity, and elections get called when workload needs new moderators (as determined by the current standing diamond moderators, usually), and these two things are handled separately.
 
That's a different topic and something I'm sure is still working
I don't see why that's being brought up again as I have never mentioned anything of the sort
 
@TheLethalCarrot It's kinda implied by “prove they're moderating because there's no proof they are because they're not active”
I mean, it's a natural consequence if they can't/won't, I imagine
 
10:58 AM
No that implies I want to see them being visible
 
Gotcha
 
@Randal'Thor FWIW if I'm involved in the "seeking drama" then the whole point of my post has gone over the mods heads and I mean that network wide, not just our mods. — TheLethalCarrot 14 mins ago
@TheLethalCarrot I was deliberately not pointing fingers. No, I don't think you're just seeking drama, but your post and discussion seems to have caused some anyway :-/
 
Which is what I've been saying this whole time
@Randal'Thor Any post about the moderators here seems to cause some
 
For my part I might be bringing unwarranted context in from the last time this got brought up
 
Whether that's because SFF's community is "drama prone" or a group of off site mods jumped on the meta the minute it was posted I don't know
 
11:00 AM
@doppelgreener Which, let's be honest, smelled a lot more like drama-seeking than the new meta post does.
 
@Randal'Thor Completely agreed
 
Someone posting from an anonymous sock, for a start.
 
Well to be honest I can see why they did now
 
@TheLethalCarrot I lurk scifi & scifi meta sometimes, and it looks like there's people who jump on these topics to increase the drama factor
 
@TheLethalCarrot Why do you keep bringing up "off site mods"? Why does it matter if someone's a mod somewhere else? If they're not a mod on SFF, then it shouldn't matter... except that they probably have more experience with the way things work from the mod side than regular users.
3
 
11:02 AM
Moderates a different stack site != member of the scifi community in their own right
I'm here because I lurk scifi.se, not because I'm a moderator
(I don't usually have much to post about, so I spend most of my time here reading, and sometimes editing)
 
Ideally, in a less confrontational manner Perhaps this is a difference in opinion, but I saw no evidence of confrontation from TLC. — Möoz 12 hours ago
@Möoz I don't think the underlying request of the meta question is an unreasonable one, but trying to make the mod team sound like a bunch of whiny cover-uppers ("we're fiiiine") rubbed me the wrong way, and from comments it seems like several others felt the same way.
OK, since you want to toss this can around again Huh? How is this a nice way to answer someone? You sound like you've entered passive-aggressive mode, which I don't think is necessary or required, perhaps take a breather? — Möoz 12 hours ago
@Möoz Perhaps this is a difference in opinion, but I don't see anything rude in this. TLC is re-raising an issue which was already raised, what, a month ago?
 
I'm bringing it up because I don't see most of the lot I've been talking to around SFF and then you all jump on me. For example, this morning I've been fielding comments from 4 or 5 moderators, only 1 of whom is a mod SFF
It feels like it was shared in the mod room and then you all came over to attack me, not saying you are attacking me but it does feel like that i.e. like I'm getting ganged up on
 
That, however, doesn't mean that mods can't take a holiday and come back after a while Several months of disappearance doesn't sound like a holiday to me, it sounds like disengagement. — Möoz 12 hours ago
@Möoz Except that the very post you're commenting on establishes that nobody has disappeared for several months.
 
Well tbf Thaddeus was off for several months (if I remember rightly) came back for a few days and has since left again
Again not saying I want him gone but I think that's what Mooz means by that
 
TLC - you're not an unreasonable person. But the way certain things were phrased and presented in your post rubs people the wrong way and gives an impression you probably don't want to make.
2
 
11:08 AM
^
 
I can understand that, I said so to terdon yesterday but that was an attempt at a bit of humour (failed miserably) and probably some personal opinions of mine I should have left out of it. I see no point changing the post now though any harm it's done has already been done
 
@TheLethalCarrot Not to sound like Mr Morden, but what do you want? Let's say Thaddeus doesn't respond to your meta post (he's never been very meta-active) and doesn't increase his volume of commenting/reviewing/etc. What then?
 
When raising a topic that historically has proven controversial, taking some time to assess your tone, implications, and the impression that it'll make, no matter how unintentional those may be.
 
@Randal'Thor I haven't thought of that, the post isn't a I want this to happen or else sort of thing. It's a can the mods be more visible post. If nothing happens then maybe I'll think it over in a few months for something that could happen. I'd never say I want something to happen instantly, the first step is always to start the communication.
 
@Mithrandir In those situations I usually ask someone to review my meta before I post it -- and I ask someone who's raised similar topics well in the past to good effect, or at least, to the kind of effect I'd like to see happen.
 
11:12 AM
@doppelgreener To be fair there's no where I can really do that though
 
@TheLethalCarrot Chat?
 
@Randal'Thor Likely to cause drama before it's even posted in my opinion but it is an option
 
@TheLethalCarrot I've done so by opening a google doc for sharing purposes and pinging someone in chat.
 
15 hours ago, by Mithrandir
@TheLethalCarrot you can always bounce stuff off me if you like
 
In the SFF mod chat, we often post the entire text of a draft meta post to be reviewed by the rest of the team before going live.
 
11:13 AM
(I don't link the doc publicly in chat and ask everyone to comment if I think it might cause drama because of my intention to minimize drama when lots of people see it; I do what I can to share the link only with the person I've requested collaboration with.)
 
Admittedly that's a private chat, so guaranteed not to cause drama elsewhere.
 
Aye we can't create private chats though can we? Anything that can be seen public (before actually posting) isn't really worth it but your mileage may vary
@TheLethalCarrot Drifted off topic a bit but this was the last on topic post if anyone wants to reply to it
 
One thing Google Docs lets you do is send someone a link, have them request access, you check with them (in chat) the name that sent access your way ("I got a request from someone starting with M, is that you?") then you grant it.
 
Or onetimesecret a link to a private GH gist or something.
 
@Edlothiad Oh, one other thing I wanted to respond to here: yes, a lot of VLQ and NAA flags are handled by the community, but that's not because the mods are absent: it's because we deliberately leave some of those flags for community review.
@Mithrandir Tricks picked up from Puzzling? ;-)
 
11:22 AM
@Randal'Thor Codenames FTW
 
@TheLethalCarrot I think this message got lost in all the off topic chatter. It's still there though if anyone wants to reply to it
 
@TheLethalCarrot I'm not sure why you keep pointing to this - what sort of reply are you expecting?
I realise the post wasn't a "do this or else" sort of thing; I was just wondering what will happen if it has no discernable effect.
 
Well you asked me a question for what I wanted to happen and my response went ignored. I just assumed it got lost in the talk about other stuff
 
You've said you're not calling for anyone to step down. Would that change if they don't change their behaviour in response to your meta post?
 
I read it, but I was scaling back my chattiness since you were mentioning feeling piled on / attacked by people like me. :P I'm still formulating my thoughts on what response I'd have, but I'm also not one of the site mods whose replies are more pertinent.
 
11:31 AM
Would this discussion get perpetuated in yet another meta post about the same thing?
 
Well there's no other way to start a discussion really so it would have to be meta yeah
 
I'd like to add "would you accept that there isn't really a problem" as an option, but you don't seem to be being convinced.
 
Isn't a problem is fine but that was said last time and the only two visible mods I see are you and Null still. It just doesn't look right when only 2 of the mods appear to be the only ones doing work
Not saying they aren't doing anything but there's nothing to tell us that they are
That is essentially the point of the post, be more visible and we can see you are moderating still
Without that it's hard to tell
 
What's wrong with just trusting us?
That's what most communities do with the mods they elected.
 
Well most communities I've been involved in it's easy to see that the moderators are visible so I can't comment too far on that point, but...
Trust only goes so far, at some point something more needs to happen to prove that everyone is still doing what they were elected to do
 
11:41 AM
So I'm also looking through the comment threads, and the people I see commenting are: TLC, Terdon (scifi member, also incidentally a moderator on several other sites), Skooba (scifi member), Valorum (same as Skooba), Mithrandir (same as Terdon), Null and Rand (diamond mods), Mooz (scifi member), zabeus (scifi member).
I'm saying this 'cause it's been mentioned several times that the only people commenting are other sites' mods and the two active mods... but the people who also moderate other sites are also scifi members in their own right, and there's several other scifi members responding.
I know Mithrandir is super active here and Terdon has more rep here than even I have.
 
@TheLethalCarrot Earlier on in this room, I linked to a mod on RPG (and two other sites) who hasn't been seen in over a year. As far as I know (@doppelgreener will know better), there haven't been any witch hunts for that mod or calls for them to participate more.
 
@doppelgreener He means in here.
 
@Edlothiad Who means, and where, and why can't this "he" speak for himself?
 
@doppelgreener well, the fact that other mods are also posting something is not a bad thing in my opinion. They can offer additional experience with the tools and explain why some actions are not visible by default or by design, for example
 
@Randal'Thor Yeah there haven't been. People are sorry to see them inactive, and unless we see them soon it's probably coming up time for their diamond to be put away until they're happy to unbox it again. But otherwise it doesn't get much attention. Last time we had an election, we mathed it assuming wax eagle would continue inactivity.
@Edlothiad This comment wasn't specific about where, but let's include chat acitivity: that adds yourself (a scifi member), several users who are scifi members who also moderate elsewhere (Vogel612, HDE, Alenanno), and only one moderator who doesn't seem to be an active scifi member (nitsua60).
 
11:53 AM
@Randal'Thor Different sites, different cultures and I know nothing of RPG so can't comment. But using an extreme case of something doesn't make this case any different
@doppelgreener FWIW I'm sorry to see them inactive, part of the reason of the meta, i.e. the very first sentence it is to try and reach out to them to get them re-involved with the community again.
I'd also like to comment that being a member of the site doesn't mean you are an active part of the community. A small but important distinction in my mind
 
I believe that the meta post has been slightly appropriated by those who just want drama/for a mod to be de-diamonded rather than TLC's initial intent of giving a poke, unhelpfully exacerbated by unfortunate wording.
This whole thing about off site mods should be irrelevant to the matter at hand.
 
I agree @Mithrandir which probably confused the signals TLC was trying to send.
 
@TheLethalCarrot Different sites, different cultures is very true. But why should it be a problem on SFF when a mod doesn't log in for a month, if it's not a problem on RPG when a mod doesn't log in for a year? Is it just because SFF has a long history of being drama-prone and having fights with mods on meta, or is there an underlying reason why SFF's mods should be more consistently and visibly active than other sites'?
@Mithrandir Agreed. TLC hasn't been very unreasonable here, and is probably catching more heat than he deserves.
 
@TheLethalCarrot Thing is, I see that getting brought up as if they are not also members of the scifi community or that their moderation elsewhere means they're only here because they have a special interest on account of that (as opposed to "they're here because they're scifi members").
 
@Randal'Thor FWIW if I was a member of RPG I would find it a huge problem that a mod hasn't been on for a year. I find it a small problem for a month but that's understandable every now and then. Once you start getting to 3+ months something should be done in my mind. Though in the gap up to 3 months, asking questions and reaching out to them should be perfectly common.
2
 
12:01 PM
In this and other metas I've seen a sort of "us and Not Truly Us" line get drawn up, where if anyone has more activity and/or a diamond on any other site, their opinion doesn't count because they're not a True Scifi Community Member. And that sucks!
2
 
@doppelgreener Well when a load of off site mods all jump in around the same time it does appear like they are here because they are mods elsewhere. Especially when they aren't active for anything else really
2
 
@doppelgreener (There were some even worse comments in the same vein on terdon's answer, now deleted.)
 
@TheLethalCarrot Sure. But. What if they're here because they're scifi members? And their attention got drawn back here -- they were given a reason for activity -- because of a meta worth their attention as scifi members?
@Randal'Thor Thanks, that would explain why I couldn't find links for some of that stuff I've seen.
 
@TheLethalCarrot The same could be said about a bunch of other people. Take Mooz, who by his own admission isn't a very active user, but always seems to show up and pitch in whenever there's drama on meta.
2
 
@doppelgreener That is of course a possibility. But 5 or 6, all mods, seems very suspicious. I obviously can't say for certain but it seems like that
@Randal'Thor Of course, and I haven't commented on that side because I haven't been involved there
 
12:06 PM
@TheLethalCarrot Sure. But the thing is: it hasn't been a problem. What matters is that moderation tasks get handled. We sized our moderation team appropriately. Last election was called because the 2 active mods needed more hands, and 2 slots opened up to bring us up to 4 active mods. (Wax eagle occupying a slot was effectively a non-factor.) The non-presence of one of the moderators is a separate issue to whether or not the moderator team can do their jobs, so that's handled separately accordingly.
 
@TheLethalCarrot Let's say this meta was linked in the Teachers' Lounge (the private network-wide mod chatroom). Even if that's how some people became aware of its existence, their reason for commenting on it might still be because of their SFF involvement rather than some kind of vested interest as off-site moderators.
 
@TheLethalCarrot for what it's worth, this site is probably my most natural home on the network. I am a huge SFF buff and always have been. So I happily started participating (years before you did, by the way) and was eventually driven away by various reasons, including but not limited to an excess of drama. I still come by from time to time and post, and I am likely in the top 10% of active users (since the vast majority are drive bys).
I am not among the top users by rep, but I do have my >3k which should at the very least give me the right to speak up on the site's meta. Being told I am not an "active part of the community" seems unfair to say the least. Who gets to decide who is and is not part of the community?
 
@TheLethalCarrot Not sure what you mean by "haven't been involved"? All of these people have been commenting on your post and its answers.
 
Hold on, give me a minute...
 
Sorry for the pingfest!
 
12:08 PM
Yeah, this is kinda hard to do without giving the impression of ganging up on poor TLC. Sorry about that :/
 
@doppelgreener Oh of course it's a separate issue. I don't personally see the point of having a mod who isn't active. Especially considering a lot can happen in over a year, new policies are formed, culture changes etc.
@Randal'Thor Again perfectly acceptable reasoning, but with the amount it seems like there's something else other than that. And I'm not the only one that seemed to think that.
 
Anecdote time! The other day, I became aware of a discussion on a site where I'm not the most active through mod means. I took a look at it, and wrote an answer. I wrote the answer not because I was a mod and became aware of it through mod channels, but because I consider myself a part of that community.
 
One fundamental misunderstanding that seems to be shared by many users, and many SFFers, is that moderators are some sort of homogeneous group. We aren't. Each of us comes from a different community and the ~300 or so mods on the network are a very disparate group.
 
@terdon And that's fine and I'm aware of some other users who are the same as you.
 
The only thing we do have in common is that all of us were not mods once and all of us are mods now. Which means we've seen things from both sides.
 
12:12 PM
@TheLethalCarrot Yep, so, they get several months of inactivity leeway, then their diamond gets boxed up. Here's a comment of me responding to someone suggesting they should get boxed up eventually, explaining why it takes a while --
@Lightness That's true, but there's got to be a cutoff and whatever the choice is, it's going to be kinda arbitrary. Every day I don't use my moderation powers for at least ten straight hours. Sometimes it's a few days because I have stuff to tend to. Sometimes someone's away for a few weeks because of family emergency, moving house, etc. None of those warrant diamond removal & there's 2+ other diamonds to run backup. An account doing nothing is also doing little harm, so 6-12 months works well enough as a cutoff. The diamond team can still call for elections if more hands are needed. — doppelgreener May 1 at 22:58
 
Btw if you keep messaging me, there's no way I'll be able to keep up, trying my best though
 
Yes you are. I really am sorry this feels like a blue fest. I do get that that can be off-putting.
 
@terdon Some of us more "from both sides" than others :-P
 
@terdon Well that's where I chose my words, I didn't say you're not a part of the community, or anyone here for that matter. I said you're not an active part of the community. Which like I say is important because a lot can happen that you are unaware of if you aren't an active member
 
@terdon If it helps, I can change all of your chat parents to SFF to de-blue you for a while.
;-)
 
12:14 PM
@Randal'Thor Haven't been involved in that users particular discussion. Just because it's my post doesn't mean I've interacted with everyone about it... is essentially what I mean
 
@TheLethalCarrot That is a very problematic stance though. I would like to focus on it for a bit. That suggests that only the dozen or so most active users are "active parts of the community" and that everyone else is somehow less important or a second class citizen. That's a bit of an issue. Everyone who participates on an SE site is part of the community. Not just the tiny group of regulars.
 
@terdon I am aware of that, but when the network mods seem to jump on some specific posts it seems like something more is going on.
 
There is: we're sci-fi members. An important meta came up, and a chat room connected to it. We're engaging in that meta on account of it being important and us being sci-fi members.
 
@terdon Well the tiny group of regulars are who effectively "run the site" (can't think of a better way of phrasing that) but that's not what I mean. Active can be regular user every few days or coming by every few weeks. But I'm not saying they are second class citizens or less important, I am saying it looks odd when a group of inactive community members, who all happen to be moderators elsewhere, all appear at the same time.
@doppelgreener Again not saying it's a problem that you're participating, just something looks odd that the amount of off site mods, who don't appear to be active in the community have all turned up
 
Right, I'm just trying to suggest: it shouldn't look that odd.
Nobody asked us to do this or told us and I don't think this meta even got linked in a mod room.
 
12:21 PM
But you can understand how it does?
 
I can understand.
 
@doppelgreener Well I would hope that no one asked you to
 
@TheLethalCarrot Yeah, that "run the site" thing is just wrong. Please don't think of it that way. The regulars do not and should not run the site. And, in fact, therein lies a large part of the issue: some users seem to think they represent the entire community when in fact they represent only a handful of users.
 
@TheLethalCarrot And yet, nobody is suggesting that Mooz's contribution to the discussion is less valid because he's a less active user. Or that he should add disclaimers to say he's a member of a private chat in which this post came up.
3
 
@terdon That's not what I meant by that, I just couldn't think how to word it
 
12:25 PM
@terdon'ssock ?
 
@TheLethalCarrot Could you clarify then? Because I think that really is a big part of the issue.
 
@Randal'Thor And I'm not saying their contribution is less valid
 
@Randal'Thor yeah, wanted to come in as a less threatening non-blue, but my old sock seems to have been joined to my main account and the new one I just created doesn't have the rep to chat :/
 
@terdon Well the regular users are who do the main body of the community moderation, they usually post more which keeps the site going etc. etc. (I know I'll likely be proved wrong with statistics because there's lots of drive by users here but they're usually a one time thing)
I think from that you know what I'm getting at, it's hard to word though
 
Yeah, I don't know specifics of SFF but on all other sites I am familiar with, drive by users are a clear majority.
You get a core of regulars who answer a lot, yes, but the vast majority of users post less than once a month. And yet, they are a part of the community and, in fact, the largest part of it without whom the site would be useless.
 
12:28 PM
@TheLethalCarrot It's not like I post the most, but I am relatively active in VTDing/VTCing/flagging/whatnot...
 
@terdon Majority yes, but if all you have is drive by, you don't get a community and the site will probably die
@LocutusofBorg "Community moderation", and as an aside I don't really post that much at the moment
 
@TheLethalCarrot sure. But there's drive by at one end, very active users who're here every day on the other end, and the main body of the community in the middle.
 
@terdon Yes and the main body still has varying degrees of activity, it is of course not black and white
 
It is inherently a problem to draw a loop around some section of the community and draw some assertation that their voice counts more & others don't (and that if those others participate it's suspicious, which compounds on the suckiness)
 
If you've got an account, you're a member of the community.
 
12:31 PM
Yeah
 
@doppelgreener Again I never said some persons views count more than someone else's. The suspicious part that I mentioned is what I think you understand from earlier
@LocutusofBorg And I said that earlier
 
Yes, I get that
I'm suggesting, this shouldn't be suspicious or a delineation we should be preoccupied with
The meta got posted and has drawn lots of activity -- from meta members! That's successful.
"but they're off-site mods" got brought up by multiple users as if it doesn't count that they're scifi members
 
Well I did try to get the discussion drawn back towards the point of the meta
 
(I am, in part, saying this not at you TLC specifically but because this is a discussion space for the meta)
 
Fair enough
 
12:45 PM
I'm still trying to understand your distinction between a user and an active user.
 
(also in part because this is the first time I've gotten to talk about it. Imagine if you've been reading several prior metas like this and wanted to participate, but there have been users busy telling people like you -- more active off-site, or a diamond elsewhere on the network -- that their views don't count, or questioning the authenticity or motives of their responses, based purely on those factors. I think I had a bit of venting to do about that.)
 
Well an active user is someone who is active, not sure what's not to understand about that
 
How do you define "active"?
 
Well the meaning of the word is what I mean, I'm not sure where you're going with this
 
...that's a Humpty Dumpty definition.
 
12:48 PM
Active: participating or engaged in a particular sphere or activity.
Is that what you wanted?
 
Is someone who posts every 3 months active? Or only someone who posts every day? Multiple times a day? Once a year? Is it only users who have gained X rep in the past month? What of users who are gaining rep passively but aren't around any more?
 
(I'm not sure TLC is still married to the whole active users vs inactive users idea, from what I'm reading?)
 
No I'm not
But if I've got to defend what active means, for some reason, I might as well
 
Is a user who doesn't post but visits every day "active"? Is a user who posts a lot but doesn't read meta "active"? I'm just trying to figure out what your criteria are for being defined as an active user.
 
If TLC doesn't consider the distinction important, we can consider this message retracted and move on.
38 mins ago, by TheLethalCarrot
@terdon Well that's where I chose my words, I didn't say you're not a part of the community, or anyone here for that matter. I said you're not an active part of the community. Which like I say is important because a lot can happen that you are unaware of if you aren't an active member
 
12:52 PM
Well there is going to be no hard and fast rule for what an active user, the very word is somewhat subjective
@terdon I consider it important but not in the context it's being user here
 
I'm very confused by this, but it seems to be a line that was important enough to draw, and that line being drawn was used to indicate their activity as a sign of the meta failing, so I imagine you can understand why those users trying to honestly participate would try to understand what exactly is being said about them (at the very least so they can be counted) and hope you can understand why this comes across with tones of second class citizenry.
So the line seems important somehow, but if it isn't important, then their voices ought to matter as scifi members present to participate in the meta
 
@doppelgreener I was questioned on it so I mentioned it. Though it has nothing to do with the meta in question.
 
So it is both important and not important
 
It's important in other contexts, imo, but not in context to this particular meta
 
12:58 PM
As I said before I never said a users voice was less important based on some criteria. The active part was only brought up when I was questioned about saying off site mods
 

« first day  last day (15 days later) »