Back to Epicmafia

Mod Moderation System

ReverseNinthMushroom
almost 8 years

There needs to be a system in place that would allow mods to be properly measured in there ability to handle reports fairly and properly. I very much doubt that there is some one who consistently looks over every report and evaluates if mods are making the correct verdicts.

Why not implement a way to allow the community to "vote" on the end report verdicts and let the players decide if they believe the decision is fair or not. This would prevent any sort of mod abuse and allows the people who run the site an easy way to evaluate wether or not the mods are doing there job well. This also would be helpful for mods in the appeal process, as mods would be able to read the results and if the overwhelming majority of people believe the verdict given was incorrect, they know that the report needs to be reassessed.

One possible way to do this would be to implement a poll after a report decision has been made. Mods would still have the ultimate power in the final decision, but at least this way we give the community an easy route to help improve and monitor the site.

Do you believe this is good idea?
37
No
16
Yes
ReverseNinthMushroom
almost 8 years

Rutab says


ReverseNinthMushroom says


StanleyPower says

What incentives can em offer that wouldn't also reward people who are randomly voting?




Actual incentives should only be necessary if there is a lack of participation in the system, but with its current design the players would make it clear what reports need to be voted on and the participation should be more then enough, but once again the final decision still lies with the mods, this just holds them accountable.


I'm also really confused on how you think there will be a spike in report reviewing/participation because of a random poll added at the end. What will you do to ensure people participate?


Once again the community will make it clear what reports need to be evaluated.
Rutab
almost 8 years

ReverseNinthMushroom says


Rutab says

Not to mention the confounding variable of user bias based on friendships and personal experiences.

There's no way you can get people to objectively vote in a poll with what they truly believe instead of trying to help their friends out.


Once again there should be a certain amount of votes in disagreement of the mods decision so unless this person has a great deal of friends voting for them it shouldn't become an issue, plus its easy to see who are friends of each other and you can take that into consideration.


You underestimate the community of multiple cliques my friend
deletedalmost 8 years

ReverseNinthMushroom says


Rutab says

Not to mention the confounding variable of user bias based on friendships and personal experiences.

There's no way you can get people to objectively vote in a poll with what they truly believe instead of trying to help their friends out.


Once again there should be a certain amount of votes in disagreement of the mods decision so unless this person has a great deal of friends voting for them it shouldn't become an issue, plus its easy to see who are friends of each other and you can take that into consideration.


so not only do the mods have to check for alts they have to check for everyone's friends
Rutab
almost 8 years

Sulfur says

I'm arguing for a revamp of the moderation team. Some people have been rejected up to 5 times.


Who are you referring to specifically?

Buddies aren't just modded all the time, but when they are, it's because the admins know they can trust them

No one is on the team to not do anything
deletedalmost 8 years
Maybe because they are bad options
ReverseNinthMushroom
almost 8 years

Rutab says

Not to mention the confounding variable of user bias based on friendships and personal experiences.

There's no way you can get people to objectively vote in a poll with what they truly believe instead of trying to help their friends out.


Once again there should be a certain amount of votes in disagreement of the mods decision so unless this person has a great deal of friends voting for them it shouldn't become an issue, plus its easy to see who are friends of each other and you can take that into consideration.
deletedalmost 8 years
I'm arguing for a revamp of the moderation team. Some people have been rejected up to 5 times.
ReverseNinthMushroom
almost 8 years

StanleyPower says


ReverseNinthMushroom says


Venus says

Random people won't read the games. They will just yolo vote. And if you expect people and mods to do this for every report it will take a long time 900 reports a week time probably at least 5 min that's 75 hours. It's not a full time job.


Community will make it apparent what reports need a second look. Obviously reports with small amount of votes will not be held with as much regard.

once again there would only be a small percentage of reports that this system would actually apply to, most reports are completely fair and would not be necessary for mods to look at more. This is for the select few unfair reports.


so not every report is being put up to a vote? how are reports chosen?


Every report should have the ability to be voted on, but if a report only has 4 votes there obviously isn't enough participation and that result isn't relevant, essentially unless a report gains traction and has for example 10+ votes on it disagreeing with the verdict mods dont have to even look it.
deletedalmost 8 years

Rutab says

Not to mention the confounding variable of user bias based on friendships and personal experiences.

There's no way you can get people to objectively vote in a poll with what they truly believe instead of trying to help their friends out.


That's also a flaw of having admins that choose their buddy instead of a person that would want to dedicate their time to this website.
deletedalmost 8 years
And if polls really do count why doesn't this one count
deletedalmost 8 years
how would players make it clear which reports need to be voted on? what basis do you have to claim that incentives wouldn't be necessary? How can you possibly claim that the community would be any more engaged in this system, than the complaints forum? (0 chance of higher engagement in a nonsocial system) You said there are EASY incentives, so if theyre so easy, you wouldnt need to dodge the pretty simple question.
Rutab
almost 8 years

Venus says


Rutab says

Not to mention the confounding variable of user bias based on friendships and personal experiences.

There's no way you can get people to objectively vote in a poll with what they truly believe instead of trying to help their friends out.


ive said this multiple times


I haven't read through the thread all the way since I left lol
deletedalmost 8 years
People will vote what benefits them and their friends.
Rutab
almost 8 years

ReverseNinthMushroom says


StanleyPower says

What incentives can em offer that wouldn't also reward people who are randomly voting?




Actual incentives should only be necessary if there is a lack of participation in the system, but with its current design the players would make it clear what reports need to be voted on and the participation should be more then enough, but once again the final decision still lies with the mods, this just holds them accountable.


I'm also really confused on how you think there will be a spike in report reviewing/participation because of a random poll added at the end. What will you do to ensure people participate?
deletedalmost 8 years

Rutab says

Not to mention the confounding variable of user bias based on friendships and personal experiences.

There's no way you can get people to objectively vote in a poll with what they truly believe instead of trying to help their friends out.


ive said this multiple times
Rutab
almost 8 years
Not to mention the confounding variable of user bias based on friendships and personal experiences.

There's no way you can get people to objectively vote in a poll with what they truly believe instead of trying to help their friends out.
ReverseNinthMushroom
almost 8 years

StanleyPower says

What incentives can em offer that wouldn't also reward people who are randomly voting?




Actual incentives should only be necessary if there is a lack of participation in the system, but with its current design the players would make it clear what reports need to be voted on and the participation should be more then enough, but once again the final decision still lies with the mods, this just holds them accountable.
deletedalmost 8 years

ReverseNinthMushroom says


Venus says

Random people won't read the games. They will just yolo vote. And if you expect people and mods to do this for every report it will take a long time 900 reports a week time probably at least 5 min that's 75 hours. It's not a full time job.


Community will make it apparent what reports need a second look. Obviously reports with small amount of votes will not be held with as much regard.

once again there would only be a small percentage of reports that this system would actually apply to, most reports are completely fair and would not be necessary for mods to look at more. This is for the select few unfair reports.


so not every report is being put up to a vote? how are reports chosen?
Rutab
almost 8 years

ReverseNinthMushroom says


StanleyPower says

reverse, Im a little confused here.

You expect everyday em players to just read random games? why? At least in the current system, people can make a thread in complaints (for everyone to see) and implore people/other moderators to read their games to double check the ruling. Why, under your system, would random people read random reports?

Even if someone makes a complaint thread that gets a lot of community participation and goes on for pages on end, you can tell only a small percentage of participators even bothered to read the game


There hasent been any incentive to look through reports previously, now there is and I am quite confident that players would be willing to look through the reports and give there input, although if that does become an issue there are easy ways to provide incentives to those that do. Plus im sure more of the the more controversial reports will be made quite clear to the community via the community itself.

Although i doubt that players are going to randomly vote especially because it should be limited to experienced players who are less likely to make "troll" votes, the mods still have final say.


Honestly I'm more inclined to believe the experienced players would troll more than new players
ReverseNinthMushroom
almost 8 years

Venus says

Random people won't read the games. They will just yolo vote. And if you expect people and mods to do this for every report it will take a long time 900 reports a week time probably at least 5 min that's 75 hours. It's not a full time job.


Community will make it apparent what reports need a second look. Obviously reports with small amount of votes will not be held with as much regard.

once again there would only be a small percentage of reports that this system would actually apply to, most reports are completely fair and would not be necessary for mods to look at more. This is for the select few unfair reports.
deletedalmost 8 years
What incentives can em offer that wouldn't also reward people who are randomly voting?
ReverseNinthMushroom
almost 8 years

StanleyPower says

reverse, Im a little confused here.

You expect everyday em players to just read random games? why? At least in the current system, people can make a thread in complaints (for everyone to see) and implore people/other moderators to read their games to double check the ruling. Why, under your system, would random people read random reports?

Even if someone makes a complaint thread that gets a lot of community participation and goes on for pages on end, you can tell only a small percentage of participators even bothered to read the game


There hasent been any incentive to look through reports previously, now there is and I am quite confident that players would be willing to look through the reports and give there input, although if that does become an issue there are easy ways to provide incentives to those that do. Plus im sure more of the the more controversial reports will be made quite clear to the community via the community itself.

Although i doubt that players are going to randomly vote especially because it should be limited to experienced players who are less likely to make "troll" votes, the mods still have final say.
deletedalmost 8 years

Rutab says


Sulfur says


Venus says

why should the role mods have to waste time doing this for people's who's opinions are probably wrong.



Moderator Application Guidelines says

Being a moderator can be a big time commitment.


What were you saying Venusian?


Okay I would like to say this is probably this post really shows how ignorant you are

No one would ever be a moderator if it took hours upon hours to do our work

This isn't a job


I appreciate your work, but I am saying that there's tools that could help you do the job more efficiently.
Rutab
almost 8 years

Sulfur says


Venus says

why should the role mods have to waste time doing this for people's who's opinions are probably wrong.



Moderator Application Guidelines says

Being a moderator can be a big time commitment.


What were you saying Venusian?


Okay I would like to say this is probably this post really shows how ignorant you are

No one would ever be a moderator if it took hours upon hours to do our work

This isn't a job
deletedalmost 8 years
Random people won't read the games. They will just yolo vote. And if you expect people and mods to do this for every report it will take a long time 900 reports a week time probably at least 5 min that's 75 hours. It's not a full time job.