Quantcast
The Moderator Thread

Forums - Website Topics - The Moderator Thread

Eagle367 said:
CGI-Quality said:

Read the PM I just sent you.

Thanks. Going through my history, this is the most recent one. I think the last 2 or 3 sentences are harsh and me today won't approve of them. I am thinking more calmly and analytically about it. I was wrong on that post and I should've been banned. But my point still stands. The mod thread opens and closes a lot. We should be trusted to have civil discussions about our ban with the community and get somewhere, whether that somewhere is the one being banned admitting they were wrong like I am right now or whether the mod who banned it admitting a mistake was made and improving. Also as an educational excersize of what the community itself should be wary of. It's hard to admit when you're wrong whether you are banning someone or being banned. But the community should be trusted to do that on an open thread for everyone to see. It's good for the community in my opinion and adds to a maturity that should be there in internet discourse. Also sry for my lousy typos that's because this site doesn't work well with mobile phones and autocorrect. Thank you CGI-Quality and Thank You Carl

You're welcome. 

Regarding the mod thread closure ~ we still have to treat the subject as a privilege. We are one of few forums, that I know of, that allow 1-on-1 discussions with moderators like this. Because of that, it makes for an easier way to speak with the authority on the site. However, unlike months/years prior, we have the ability to remove anyone that keeps progress from happening. This will also allow for those who just want a little more transparency to continue to receive it to the best of our abilities. 

In your case, I see that you want to learn and grow from what happened and that's exactly what we will encourage. Should you need anymore help, do not hesitate to reach out to myself and/or any of our other moderators



                                                                                                                                            

Around the Network
CGI-Quality said:

-snip-

In regards to Eagle367's problems.

Open communication and full explanation usually removes any kind of confusion. Dismissal of concerns and shrugging people off to other moderators or head moderators just creates more confusion for those who don't really know or understand what they've done wrong, showing that the PM route of discussion isn't always the best method. If things were kept to PM in this case, Eagle367 wouldn't have the answers he was searching for and would just have further problems.

I hope the mod team can learn from this small exchange.



I have noticed that there's still a big problem with attacks on sales insiders or people who put in the effort to give everyone a better idea about sales.

There have been multiple attempts to discredit Benji (a ResetEra user, might actually be the same guy who was BenVTrigger on VGC) in the current NPD thread and this is the only post that got moderated:
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8937860

That's a moderation for flaming for no other reason than context being ignored despite awareness of the context being displayed here:
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8937873

Not only does it look like the actions of the true offenders get condoned, they might get actively protected. Sure, it's okay to doubt someone, especially if said someone has made it repeatedly clear that he does not have insight for more than one retail chain. But there's a difference between reasonable doubt and denial of reality.

This has been an ongoing general problem on VGC, that people with a strong platform bias attack people who provide the community with information. The attacks are launched because the offenders in question don't like reality and that behavior is especially prevalent among PlayStation fans. Examples before the most recent incident:

1. The Amazon thread was under heavy fire because it showed Switch winning. The work of various people who kept the thread up to date was continuously attacked with the justification that Amazon predicted Switch to win one month (November 2017) when it didn't. Switch went on to win December 2017 and January 2018, but that didn't stop the attackers. Amazon did not have a perfect track record before Switch launched, so an occasional inaccuracy did in no way justify the relentless bashing. As far as I remember, nobody ever got moderated for it, despite it being so disheartening for the people who put in the work.

2. Likewise, the follow up to the Amazon thread (Amazon ultimately did see its value as a sales predictor reduced because of a dispute between Amazon and Sony) also came under fire despite being labeled as a work in progress. Same story here: Show Switch winning when it isn't on one occasion and apparently it's all rubbish. No moderations here either. Instead the people who called out the offenders were almost moderated.

3. Most notably, VGC was blessed for a very short time with someone who had access to NPD numbers:
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/profile/154959/librarian13579/

That was for the July 2017 NPD thread when Switch won the month after the PS4 had won the two preceding months. The insider's credibility was called into question because he had Switch as the winner for the month. The mod team failed to make the proper judgment calls, so the insider decided to stop posting altogether. That brings us full circle to the observation that zorg1000 made.

Conclusion

The mod team has to pay more attention to context and take appropriate measures, because we've repeatedly had insiders and valuable members call it quits because heavily biased people didn't like it that reality didn't line up with their console preference, and because the mod team failed to address such issues in proper fashion. There shouldn't be preferential treatment given to the people who don't contribute in a positive fashion to this community, but it happens all too often. The mod team should know this community well enough to recognize which kind of people are starting the trouble and it can't be that the mod team prefers troublemakers over sales contributors on this forum.

A shame that ioi isn't around anymore, because he didn't hesitate to hand out week-long bans on a whim to people who attacked sales numbers and sales people. Back then people didn't form groups to attack good contributors, because it was abundantly clear what happened to troublemakers. But today it's possible for people to band together and then play the victim when they get called out. Something's not right when there is a higher risk of moderation for calling out bad behavior than committing bad behavior itself.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club

RolStoppable said:

I have noticed that there's still a big problem with attacks on sales insiders or people who put in the effort to give everyone a better idea about sales.

There have been multiple attempts to discredit Benji (a ResetEra user, might actually be the same guy who was BenVTrigger on VGC) in the current NPD thread and this is the only post that got moderated:
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8937860

That's a moderation for flaming for no other reason than context being ignored despite awareness of the context being displayed here:
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8937873

Not only does it look like the actions of the true offenders get condoned, they might get actively protected. Sure, it's okay to doubt someone, especially if said someone has made it repeatedly clear that he does not have insight for more than one retail chain. But there's a difference between reasonable doubt and denial of reality.

This has been an ongoing general problem on VGC, that people with a strong platform bias attack people who provide the community with information. The attacks are launched because the offenders in question don't like reality and that behavior is especially prevalent among PlayStation fans. Examples before the most recent incident:

1. The Amazon thread was under heavy fire because it showed Switch winning. The work of various people who kept the thread up to date was continuously attacked with the justification that Amazon predicted Switch to win one month (November 2017) when it didn't. Switch went on to win December 2017 and January 2018, but that didn't stop the attackers. Amazon did not have a perfect track record before Switch launched, so an occasional inaccuracy did in no way justify the relentless bashing. As far as I remember, nobody ever got moderated for it, despite it being so disheartening for the people who put in the work.

2. Likewise, the follow up to the Amazon thread (Amazon ultimately did see its value as a sales predictor reduced because of a dispute between Amazon and Sony) also came under fire despite being labeled as a work in progress. Same story here: Show Switch winning when it isn't on one occasion and apparently it's all rubbish. No moderations here either. Instead the people who called out the offenders were almost moderated.

3. Most notably, VGC was blessed for a very short time with someone who had access to NPD numbers:
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/profile/154959/librarian13579/

That was for the July 2017 NPD thread when Switch won the month after the PS4 had won the two preceding months. The insider's credibility was called into question because he had Switch as the winner for the month. The mod team failed to make the proper judgment calls, so the insider decided to stop posting altogether. That brings us full circle to the observation that zorg1000 made.

Conclusion

The mod team has to pay more attention to context and take appropriate measures, because we've repeatedly had insiders and valuable members call it quits because heavily biased people didn't like it that reality didn't line up with their console preference, and because the mod team failed to address such issues in proper fashion. There shouldn't be preferential treatment given to the people who don't contribute in a positive fashion to this community, but it happens all too often. The mod team should know this community well enough to recognize which kind of people are starting the trouble and it can't be that the mod team prefers troublemakers over sales contributors on this forum.

A shame that ioi isn't around anymore, because he didn't hesitate to hand out week-long bans on a whim to people who attacked sales numbers and sales people. Back then people didn't form groups to attack good contributors, because it was abundantly clear what happened to troublemakers. But today it's possible for people to band together and then play the victim when they get called out. Something's not right when there is a higher risk of moderation for calling out bad behavior than committing bad behavior itself.

I was moderated in that thread for calling people assholes (whether true or not, I broke the rules). The moderator pretty much said they agreed with the point I was trying to get across but still had to give me a warning for name calling, I have no complaints and agree with their decision on that front.

With that said, I do agree with your overall point that moderators do need to crack down more on users who act inflammatory towards leakers/insiders, so many of them have left this site and other forums over the years and without them this site loses a large chunk of its main purpose, gathering video game sales data.



When the herd loses its way, the shepard must kill the bull that leads them astray.

zorg1000 said:

I was moderated in that thread for calling people assholes (whether true or not, I broke the rules). The moderator pretty much said they agreed with the point I was trying to get across but still had to give me a warning for name calling, I have no complaints and agree with their decision on that front.

With that said, I do agree with your overall point that moderators do need to crack down more on users who act inflammatory towards leakers/insiders, so many of them have left this site and other forums over the years and without them this site loses a large chunk of its main purpose, gathering video game sales data.

That ties into a much more general point regarding moderation, one that Carl mentioned about a couple of weeks ago:

Carl said:
CGI-Quality said:

What is it exactly that you'd like to see changed? Let's start with feedback here and see if there are areas that can be agreed upon.

A few things from the top of my head.

I'll give a list of a few rule changes later, but as for right now the ruleset is too bloated and can be used against the mod team and the community with relative ease. The mod teams use of said ruleset is problematic, because a lot of things are taken too literal. I've argued for years that moderators should use them as basic guidelines rather than an exhaustive list of what should and shouldn't be moderated. Using the ruleset in this way leads to a lack of common sense ruling.

As an example, this can lead to members being moderated for calling out trolls and trouble causers, while trolls and trouble causers remain free because the ruleset lets them get away with it. This leads to extended discussion in this very thread where members of the community are having to repeatedly complain about said trouble causers.

This can be called a Conegamer situation.

(...)

Now for those members of the community who aren't familiar with Conegamer, his interpretation of the moderator job was that he applied rules literally and in the strictest sense, so there were repeatedly situations where he had to get overruled by the head moderators who applied more common sense. On the flipside, people who were up to no good could get a pass because they didn't break any rules in the literal sense.

Back to the specific moderation for zorg1000, it is such a case where even the moderator himself feels that something's wrong, but a moderation or lack thereof is still dependent on whether a user broke a rule in the literal sense or not. That's why common sense ruling matters. In this specific case the common sense ruling would dictate that if people don't like being called assholes, then they shouldn't act like assholes.

The overall direction needs an adjustment. If nothing else, if troublemakers get a pass, then at least the people who call them out should get a pass as well. That would already be a step in the right direction.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club

Around the Network

I've been perma banned from a forum for the first time ever so despite vgchartz looking like it would be the first for years another site has taken that accolade. Tbh I'm surprised it took so long, I'd be actively trying to get banned a while now. After signing up to a few new forums recently someone had to be cut.



Kerotan said:
I've been perma banned from a forum for the first time ever so despite vgchartz looking like it would be the first for years another site has taken that accolade. Tbh I'm surprised it took so long, I'd be actively trying to get banned a while now. After signing up to a few new forums recently someone had to be cut.

Do you mind sharing why?



Carl said:
Kerotan said:
I've been perma banned from a forum for the first time ever so despite vgchartz looking like it would be the first for years another site has taken that accolade. Tbh I'm surprised it took so long, I'd be actively trying to get banned a while now. After signing up to a few new forums recently someone had to be cut.

Do you mind sharing why?

Banned last month for insulting somebody when turning their logic on why we shouldn't be allowed use the term "gays" into other examples to prove my point. Fair enough. When I return from the 3 day ban, i find out my posts have to be approved by a moderator for an entire month.

 

Considering I'm now on too many gaming forums I said fuck this so did my best to get permabanned. I spent the guts of a month writing "wank" or a variation of that word alongside every post. The mods didn't approve the wank parts of my posts but also did nothing in terms of moderations. So I wrote "Uruguay" on the wall of the guy who I was banned over originally and now I'm banned permanently. I presume that's what it was for. 



Kerotan said:
Carl said:

Do you mind sharing why?

Banned last month for insulting somebody when turning their logic on why we shouldn't be allowed use the term "gays" into other examples to prove my point. Fair enough. When I return from the 3 day ban, i find out my posts have to be approved by a moderator for an entire month.

 

Considering I'm now on too many gaming forums I said fuck this so did my best to get permabanned. I spent the guts of a month writing "wank" or a variation of that word alongside every post. The mods didn't approve the wank parts of my posts but also did nothing in terms of moderations. So I wrote "Uruguay" on the wall of the guy who I was banned over originally and now I'm banned permanently. I presume that's what it was for. 

Why did you need to be permabanned ? Wouldn’t be simpler to just stop visiting said forum ?



abronn627 said:
Kerotan said:

Banned last month for insulting somebody when turning their logic on why we shouldn't be allowed use the term "gays" into other examples to prove my point. Fair enough. When I return from the 3 day ban, i find out my posts have to be approved by a moderator for an entire month.

 

Considering I'm now on too many gaming forums I said fuck this so did my best to get permabanned. I spent the guts of a month writing "wank" or a variation of that word alongside every post. The mods didn't approve the wank parts of my posts but also did nothing in terms of moderations. So I wrote "Uruguay" on the wall of the guy who I was banned over originally and now I'm banned permanently. I presume that's what it was for. 

Why did you need to be permabanned ? Wouldn’t be simpler to just stop visiting said forum ?

Was about to ask the very same thing lol