Jump to content
  • Advertisement
Sign in to follow this  
Adraeus

Disallow moderators from viewing those who rated them down

This topic is 5399 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Recommended Posts

Quote:

If a mod were so shallow as to rate you down for rating them down, then they wouldn't be a mod. I've got all sorts of negative ratings on my page, and most of them I've never rated, let alone rated down. As far as I can tell, most people aren't affraid to rate us down, so I see no grounds for your excuse. While I'm not opposed to disallowing moderators from viewing their negative ratings, I'm also not really for it. It would sure make it harder to catch ratings abusers (as most of us find them due to the fact that they have a penchant for rating moderators down.)


As I said, I haven't seen anything from the mods that deserved a down-rating. In either case, I think my point is still valid. Some people have rated you down, and some haven't.
The problem I see with the current system is that it actually protects the "shallow" mod's who shouldn't really be mods.

If you're a proper mod, then 1) You don't really deserve a down-rating, and 2) People won't be afraid to rate you down, because they trust you to handle it in a mature manner.
In that case, it doesn't really make a big difference.
But if you're a lousy mod, then people might think twice about rating you down, because they expect you to get really pissed off about it, and do evil mod-things in return. ;)

Finally, as the original poster suggested, mods could still be able to see who has rated other people (including other mods) down. That way you can still catch ratings abusers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement
Ho-ly CRAP! I wish I had this much free time to complain, in depth, about a moot point. Leave the moderators and their system alone. They may not NEED to see their own mods, and yet they can because it helps in situations where people are turds and just start random rating-- everyone. Ya know why it helps? Because they MODERATE THE FORUMS. Not you. And we see, here, why that is. You're abusing your privilige to use this site, for free, by bitching at some really helpful people who do their duties for free. I'm honestly surprised that a moderator hasn't thrown a brick at you for being so condecending.

Go do something constructive like uh, I dunno.. help someone. That's the general idea of the community, as far as i'm aware (awaiting the "ya well you're dense" reply.)

I say good job moderators, keep up the fantastic work. I digitally salute you.

/salute

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by joanusdmentia
To be honest I don't think that's an unfair question. If I was rated down I'd love to know why as well. The problem is more that mods by their very nature are seen as far more intimidating than a normal user (regardless of whether its justified) and that can influence the perceived tone of the question. You see the question as demanding justification, but I see it as nothing more than someone wanting to know what they did wrong so they can correct it (which IMHO is a sign of a good moderator).


I can quite guarantee you that's not what happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frankly i think that the people who get to be moderators are generally chosen because they won't be so childish as to seek retribution for being rated down.

Obviously it might happen but if it does then it can be reported to GameDev or another moderator and dealt with accordingly, don't blow your top just because you're afraid it "might" happen to you, just deal with it through the proper channels.

On a different note, i'd like it if there was an option in the rating system to get a message about why you've been rated down. I got rated down the other day by someone which is fine, i dont think it was being very helpful in a post, but thats just a guess, i was trying to be useful but obviously failed, without any message coming back i really dont know how to improve.

Generally keep up the good work and leave the system as it is.

Andy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you care about ratings so much that you fear 'retribution', you should never disagree with anybody in a post. They'll see the post where you disagree with them and just assume any rating down they got was by you.

If a mod does do 'rating retribution', you'll probably notice when your rating drops 20+ points at once. In that case:

If the issue is truly not trusting the mods with their power(which is what you're saying despite assertations otherwise, unless you're making differentiations between trust and trustworthyness, in which case there are trust problems not to trust somebody you find trustworthy), just remeber that you can always PM staff (or email them if you've been banned) about the mods. Moderators moderate us, and Staff moderates moderators.
Really though, the last time I remeber a mod abusing his/her powers was quite a long time ago, and that was just two mods with a personality clash.

Now if you actually want to complain about the mods, I'd agree with you if you said that there are several who represent gamedev.net very poorly, and I wouldn't doubt if a few newbies have been scared off by those select few.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by HexiDave
You're abusing your privilige to use this site, for free, by bitching at some really helpful people who do their duties for free.

In case you haven't noticed, you're posting in the "GDNet Comments, Suggestions and Ideas: Help us make this site better for you" forum. One of our privileges is the posting of criticism.

As stakeholders, it is our right to provide it.

Quote:
Original post by Extrarius
If the issue is truly not trusting the mods with their power(which is what you're saying despite assertations otherwise, unless you're making differentiations between trust and trustworthyness, in which case there are trust problems not to trust somebody you find trustworthy), just remeber that you can always PM staff (or email them if you've been banned) about the mods. Moderators moderate us, and Staff moderates moderators.

1. I only delved into the trust topic because Sneftel, a moderator, initiated the first instance of a trust issue.
2. There is a difference between trustworthiness and trust. Trustworthiness is an attribute. Trust is a behavior.
3. Contacting staff about moderators is not always useful. I've actually been turned away by one staff member because inquiries about moderators weren't his department.
4. A moderator is someone who mediates disputes and attempts to avoid violence. Dispute mediation is also called conflict resolution and those that practice conflict resolution require impartiality in order to be successful. Some GDNet moderators perform well. Others sit too high to reach.
5. Moderators resolve conflicts between individual users. The staff resolve conflicts between individual moderators. The community resolves conflicts within the community. Telling me that my suggestion sucks because "you can always talk to staff" is just a copout. I won't accept it.

I fail to understand why you oppose a highly useful checks and balances system unless, of course, you feel that GDNet is Utopia and isn't in need of repairs or enhancements.

Quote:
Original post by Promit
I have to say though, Adraeus definitely wins the paranoia prize.

Like we discussed, reasonable paranoia. Very reasonable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Adraeus
In case you haven't noticed, you're posting in the "GDNet Comments, Suggestions and Ideas: Help us make this site better for you" forum. One of our privileges is the posting of criticism.
As stakeholders, it is our right to provide it.

Yes, as members of this community, we value your input. It helps us to improve this site, and the community as a whole.
Quote:

1. I only delved into the trust topic because Sneftel, a moderator, initiated the first instance of a trust issue.
2. There is a difference between trustworthiness and trust. Trustworthiness is an attribute. Trust is a behavior.
3. Contacting staff about moderators is not always useful. I've actually been turned away by one staff member because inquiries about moderators weren't his department.
4. A moderator is someone who mediates disputes and attempts to avoid violence. Dispute mediation is also called conflict resolution and those that practice conflict resolution require impartiality in order to be successful. Some GDNet moderators perform well. Others sit too high to reach.
5. Moderators resolve conflicts between individual users. The staff resolve conflicts between individual moderators. The community resolves conflicts within the community. Telling me that my suggestion sucks because "you can always talk to staff" is just a copout. I won't accept it.

Point number 2, and your previous posts would sugest you don't trust us, or find us not trustworthy. If this is the case, I am sorry that we have lost your confidence in us. None the less, the staff has found us to be trustworthy, and has placed their trust in us to perform our duties as we see fit. We don't have unlimited leway, and contacting the proper staffer (like Dave) about us can get issues resolved very quickly.
As for point number 4... there is a general rule: mods will not moderate threads they participate in. While this isn't always held true, it is the general case.
Quote:

I fail to understand why you oppose a highly useful checks and balances system unless, of course, you feel that GDNet is Utopia and isn't in need of repairs or enhancements.
Like we discussed, reasonable paranoia. Very reasonable.

I could care less either way. If you remove my ability to check it myself, I can just have a friend check it. Also, being paranoid about the ratings system is stupid. It's not even an officially recognized punishment and evaluation system. When dishing out punishments, the ratings never come in, but instead your posting history.

GDNet is hardly a utopia, however it is a developed community that has been improving over the years. Community input has helped to drive this development, and continued input is very valuable. However, don't expect to see this 'feature' anytime soon. There are other, far more important, features that need to be done.

The opinions expressed in this post are mine, and mine alone. They do not reflect the opinions of other moderators, the staff, or GameDev.net, LLC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Washu
However, don't expect to see this 'feature' anytime soon.

The opinions expressed in this post are mine, and mine alone. They do not reflect the opinions of other moderators, the staff, or GameDev.net, LLC.

It's a good thing you have a disclaimer now or more people would be appropriately accusing you of attempting to speak on behalf of the staff again. A feature is nothing more than a characteristic. Your subjective emphasis on feature is duly noted.

Quote:
If you remove my ability to check it myself, I can just have a friend check it.

I stated in the initial post of this thread, "Any corruption would require the partnership of two moderators or more, which is unlikely, and it retains the moderators' responsibilities to ensure fairness in ratings." I say it is unlikely because it is unlikely any moderator-worth-being-a-moderator would ask another moderator or staff member to check if some user rated you negatively every time you have a disagreement, etc. Of course, if you shouldn't be a moderator, you're probably checking your negative ratings often, asking why you've been rated down, and being overly concerned (stupidly, as you said) about your negative rating.

Quote:
None the less, the staff has found us to be trustworthy, and has placed their trust in us to perform our duties as we see fit.

You moderators like to claim that as a golden rule. The staff have made it clear they are open to the appropriate demotion of moderators. Like you said, you don't have unlimited leeway. Moreover, trustworthiness is not the issue. In case you didn't read that, TRUSTWORTHINESS IS NOT THE ISSUE!! Moderators consistently claim they can be trusted because other people trust them. Trustworthiness via association is not a valid argument unless you're a propagandist. I should act as you do. Maybe I'll get more support...

Trust me. My suggestion is reasonable and beneficial to the community. I am trustworthy. ;)

[Edited by - Adraeus on September 12, 2004 5:06:22 PM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Adraeus
It's a good thing you have a disclaimer now or more people would be appropriately accusing you of attempting to speak on behalf of the staff again. A feature is nothing more than a characteristic. Your subjective emphasis on feature is duly noted.

I think you misunderstand. I said 'feature' because I could not think of any other name for it. What would you call it? Also, that disclaimer was being applied to the rest of the post. That last part is not an opinion at all. As for any post where people may have misinterpreted me as speaking for staff, you are wrong. I never claimed to speak for staff and moderators as a whole. I get the feeling from this response that you think I am opposing your proposition. I don't, but I also don't support it.
Quote:

I stated in the initial post of this thread, "Any corruption would require the partnership of two moderators or more, which is unlikely, and it retains the moderators' responsibilities to ensure fairness in ratings." I say it is unlikely because it is unlikely any moderator-worth-being-a-moderator would ask another moderator or staff member to check if some user rated you negatively every time you have a disagreement, etc. Of course, if you shouldn't be a moderator, you're probably checking your negative ratings often, asking why you've been rated down, and being overly concerned (stupidly, as you said) about your negative rating.

Yes, it would require two or more moderators. However, we moderators are all friends :P Which means it wouldn't be that hard for this "corruption" to be spread.
Quote:

You moderators like to claim that as a golden rule. The staff have made it clear they are open to the appropriate demotion of moderators. Like you said, you don't have unlimited leeway. Moreover, trustworthiness is not the issue. In case you didn't read that, TRUSTWOTHINESS IS NOT THE ISSUE!! Moderators consistently claim they can be trusted because other people trust them. Trustworthiness via association is not a valid argument unless you're a propagandist. I should act as you do. Maybe I'll get more support...

I like that 'You moderators', it amuses me greatly.
I have never claimed it as a golden rule. I don't have a shield. If anything, I've got less protection than you, because my every action will be watched and scruitinized.
Trustworthiness is the issue. You feel that we will be corrupted by our power. Yet moderators have had pretty much all the same powers now as they have had for the last 4 years. In all of that time there have only been a very few instances of abuse in which the staff have not stepped in and stopped it. The ratings system is the same thing as the old post count rankings. Yet even those were not abused by the mods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This topic is 5399 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Advertisement
×

Important Information

By using GameDev.net, you agree to our community Guidelines, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.

GameDev.net is your game development community. Create an account for your GameDev Portfolio and participate in the largest developer community in the games industry.

Sign me up!