[Discuss] time to scrap the moderated list

[Robert Croson, Jr]

On 7 Dec 2007 at 11:18, psymann wrote:

> Main points:
> 1) Those on the unmoderated list must be able to see when a post has 
> been rejected from the moderated list.

Would probably be a good idea, but it can't be done easily using the current 
system.

You can go to the list archives and compare the two. But you can't know if a 
message has been rejected or just hasn't been modded yet.

> 2) The wording on the joining page must be changed, to refrain from 
> recommending the moderated list to people when it is often not suitable.

Meh... Depends on the person. It's all personal preference. Quite a few people 
like the modded list because they get all of Tom's posts, without having to read 
all the back-and-forth arguments. And if all you want is the insider information 
that you can get from reading Tom's messages, then that's great. Plus there 
sheer volume of messageson the unmodded list can often be a big turn-off to 
those who aren't big fans of mailing lists.

> Robert Croson, Jr wrote:
> > On 6 Dec 2007 at 11:10, John P. Murphy wrote:
> >> I followed the advice on the site ("we very strongly suggest you choose  
> >> the moderated list"), and subscribed to the moderated list.  As a  
> >> result, I've only sporadically gotten messages
> > 
> > There are many reasons that a message may not make it to the modded list. 
> > For example:
> > 
> > 1) It is HTML only.
> > 2) It uses top-posting or (extremely excessive) over-quoting.
> > 3) It is insulting or argumentative.
> > 4) It is a FAQ.
> > 5) It is a proposal for a frequently rejected idea. (Sea combat, non-human 
> > races, messages between islands, etc.)
> > 6) The sender's mail client does not produce a plain-text friendly version. 
> > (Alex!)
> > 7) The thread has devolved into people simply restating the same thing over 
> > and over again.
> > 8) The message adds nothing to the discussion. (Snarky comments (unless 
> > they're really funny!) or "Me too" posts usually get dumped.)
> > 9) The post is a response to any of the above. (No orphaned posts!)
> 
> Hmm, a number of issues with these:
> 1) It would help if you published this list somewhere, so that we knew 
> what we had to avoid in order not to be moderated out.  You could also 
> do with publishing the FAQ on the list.

This list isn't published because it's not an official list.

The FAQ is on the wiki.

> 2) A lot of these are very subjective

Correct. This is a modded list for a game, and there are many moderators who 
donate their free time to do this. Anything that increases the workload for the 
moderators decreases the number of messages that get reviewed by the mods, 
and reduces the pool of mods willing to do it.

> - what constitues "excessive" 
> over-quoting?

...over-quoting in an excessive manner?

> At what point are people saying the same thing over and 
> over again, and when are they just trying to rephrase their point until 
> the other party understands it?

It's really not that hard to figure out. It usually coincides with the time tempers 
start to flare, and when you start seeing phrases like "Stop misquoting me, 
that's not what I said, I said.."

> What consitutes a "really funny" snarky 
> comment?

Something that makes me go out and buy a new keyboard.

> This means it's very hard to tell whether you're going to have 
> your post moderated-out or not.

If you're *that* worried about whether or not your post is going to make it to 
the modded list, then you should either take the time to check and see if it has 
made it yourself, or be very careful in composing your message.

> 3) I completely disagree with the policy of rejecting any idea 
> considered as "frequently rejected".  This is partly because, for 
> example at the mere mention of a non-human race, you moderate out the 
> whole suggestion, regardless of whether it would have been possible to 
> change the non-human race into a human race and keep the rest of the 
> idea.

If someone posts and says "Hey, I think we should have elves in the game 
because I like elves, and want to ride a fairy dragon into battle. ~huggles!~" 
then that post will get dropped on the floor. And stepped on. Repeatedly. The 
moderator *might*, if they are feeling generous, include a note back to the 
poster pointing them to the wiki page about frequently asked, frequently 
rejected ideas.

But if the poster has other good points in their message, the non-human race 
was one of a list, perhaps, then the post would probably make it through. 
Especially if there was a post immediately following it poitning out that the non-
human race would *never* happen.

> This is also because some ideas might have been bad four years 
> ago, but might be good now with technology and game changes brought in. 

It's not technology that stops many things from being implemented. Many of 
them are simply things that Tom has stated will *never* be implemented in 
BattleMaster because he doesn't want them in it. Period. Like an archery skill, 
archery contests in tournaments, naval battles, non-human races, etc. Check 
the Wiki for a longer list.

> And it is also because something may have been repeatedly rejected 
> through some sort of group-think, and it takes a new person to question 
> it before you realise you're all wrong - 

Any idea that is "Frequently rejected" is not frequently rejected by the 
moderators or the posters to the DList. It is frequently rejected by Tom. 
Whether we think he is wrong or not has no point. The mods do not filter out 
thigns theypersonally don't like. They filter out stuff that is publically listed as 
"Will not happen. Ever." If you have an idea that is posted politely, it will make 
it to the modded list.

> for example, it is common 
> thought here that a discussion list has only advantages compared to a
> forum. This is nonsense; a forum has many advantages that this 
> discussion list doesn't.  But yet the common thought here is that forums 
> are worthless, and it is good for that sort of thing to be challenged. 
> Never say never...

As you have pointed out forums are frequently suggested, and frequently 
rejected. Therefore, this post won't make the modded list. :p

* Tom hates forums.
* Tom will not host a forum.
* Tom will not participate in forums.

If you feel that a forum will make a valuable contribution to BattleMaster, then 
you are, of course, perfectly welcome to host a forum yourself.

> 4) And perhaps most significantly, the biggest problem is that you have 
> no idea whether something had been moderated or not unless you subscribe 
> to both lists.  I use the unmoderated list.  Some of my posts do not 
> make it to the moderated list, but I have no way of knowing that, which 
> is really very annoying.

Sometimes the mods will send back a rejection notice, depending on why it was 
rejected. This obviously does not happen all the time. The most common reason 
is that you responded to a post that was not sent on to the modded list.

> > Item 9 is very important to remember. If a post has been rejected for *any* 
> > reason, any responses to that post will also be rejected, as will responses to 
> > them, etc. Basically, a rejected post kills the thread.
> 
> And Item 9 is also a stupid rule,

Talk to Timothy.

> > But if the modded list doesn't contain the posts you want, then join the 
> > unmodded list. The mere presence of a modded list doesn't hurt anyone.
> 
> I do agree with this.  It's not hurting anyone to have it.  But the 
> major problem is with the wording on the page.  It says you are highly 
> recommended to subscribe to the moderated list.

That is Tom's opinion.

> In fact, the unmoderated list has hardly any posts which I would 
> consider require moderating.  You say that the moderation requirements 
> are "fairly loose" but I would disagree with that.

The majority of posts that get sent to the unmodded list *do* get passed on to 
the modded list. With the exception of those huge-o-mungous 200-post threads 
that just never seem to die. (There are almost 200 messages sitting in the mod-
list queue right now from the profusion of excessively long threads in the past 
week or so. It's going to take the moderators a LOT of work to plow through 
them all.)

> Then, if we all used the unmoderated list so we could actually have a 
> discussion, and then we were all made better aware of the moderation 
> rules, and then if posts removed from the moderated list were identified 
> as such on the unmoderated list so we knew whether out discussions were 
> getting through to Tom and others or not, we might have a system that 
> worked a little better.

I won't deny that you have some good ideas. The problem is that they almost 
universally require *major* changes to the way things work. This means new 
software, programming time and effort, and generally a lot of work.

If you know of better mod-list software that does what you are suggesting, and 
works with Tom's mail server, then please suggest it. Otherwise, there's nothing 
we can do to change the way it works.


-- 
Rob

Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day.
Teach him how to fish, and he will sit in a boat and
drink beer all day.