Discussion on Minor Community Restructuring - Game Moderators

Started by Klaw, August 18, 2019, 02:12:31 pm

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Klaw

So, we have discussed the possibility of restructuring ourselves a little bit - and opening the door to some outside administrators for relevant games.

I believe the last thought dropped was  (or at least, one that appeals to me a bit) is the idea of a game moderator.

The idea being, we appoint a moderator for a certain game, grant them administrator access for that game, and they can help organize events, enforce the rules, etc etc. Just give us a little extra coverage for Server Admins.

Shall we continue our discussion? :)

Scott Archer

But they wouldn't be responsible for any more than that?

Klaw

correct - the focus would be on the game/games they oversee. I see them having the ability to kick players (for example) but not ban them - they're more a "police force" to help enforce the rules and enhance gameplay :)

Klaw

I feel like I've fallen behind a bit - sorry about that folks.

Any more thoughts on this idea?

Scott Archer

Quote from: Klaw on August 18, 2019, 05:34:51 pmcorrect - the focus would be on the game/games they oversee. I see them having the ability to kick players (for example) but not ban them - they're more a "police force" to help enforce the rules and enhance gameplay :)
I like this in principle.
How would this be decided?
- The Ops Team offer someone a position?
- The Ops Team put a 'job' out and then conduct an 'interview' for any interested applicants?
- The Ops Team put a 'job' out and any interested applicants get a Q&A thread and community vote?

Klaw

How would you like to decide?

Truthfully, each of these have their pros and cons.

1 - The pro being, we can have total control over who we put in the job - the con being, we risk creating a "good ol' boys" club, where only friends of the Ops team get anywhere.

2 - The Pro being, we're more open to applicants, and giving people a shot - The Con being about the same as the above.

3. - The pro being, we're grabbing community feedback, and letting the membership decide - the con, this is time consuming, and can serve as an inaccurate representation of the community as not everyone registered may vote...

While, at present, I don't see an immediate problem with any of the three - down the road, issues could arise - just wanting to make those possible issues a topic to consider.

Considering the current state of the CoC - Option one seems easiest to implement, and offers a decent amount of opportunity for "refreshment" if the membership deem it necessary - we could set the role up similar to the Community Advocate - in that they are appointed by the Ops Team, but can be refreshed by the membership if needed or desired.

Scott Archer

Quote from: Klaw on August 22, 2019, 05:25:30 pmHow would you like to decide?

Truthfully, each of these have their pros and cons.

1 - The pro being, we can have total control over who we put in the job - the con being, we risk creating a "good ol' boys" club, where only friends of the Ops team get anywhere.
I agree.

Quote from: undefined2 - The Pro being, we're more open to applicants, and giving people a shot - The Con being about the same as the above.
I disagree. With option 1, we are specifically saying to one person - we want you and I think we're naturally going to pick people we've worked with before and not give new members a chance.
Say we have two applicants, and we've worked with one before (for arguments sake, lets say Shoot) but also Mysterio - whose been here a month and looks like is sticking around and during the interview process we discover he used to be an admin on 'Old Massive STO Fleet' then we're maybe more likely to pick him or at least consider him more strongly in the future.

Quote from: undefined3. - The pro being, we're grabbing community feedback, and letting the membership decide - the con, this is time consuming, and can serve as an inaccurate representation of the community as not everyone registered may vote...
I agree with the first half here but I don't entirely agree with the cons.
It is time consuming (or more time consuming perhaps than the other two) but not for sure. If we opened applications for a 'job' and asked for maybe past experience and 1 or 2 ideas in the process and then by the time we've cut the list down based on that and arranged interviews and discussed it, we'd probably run at least the same amount of time as a week long election.
As for your second point, I would argue that if our active members check the forums (or Discord, where we'd promote the election) then we will get a fairly accurate representation of the active community.
There are also some other potential issues here, there's a possibility someone could ask friends or even create accounts on their own just to vote for themselves but it's a risk we'd take and I don't think people will really want to abuse the system.

The other pros are that the community is deciding and they (and us) get an opportunity to ask questions and then pick the person that the community thinks is best (again this could be abused, but I think manageable)

Quote from: undefinedWhile, at present, I don't see an immediate problem with any of the three - down the road, issues could arise - just wanting to make those possible issues a topic to consider.

Considering the current state of the CoC - Option one seems easiest to implement, and offers a decent amount of opportunity for "refreshment" if the membership deem it necessary - we could set the role up similar to the Community Advocate - in that they are appointed by the Ops Team, but can be refreshed by the membership if needed or desired.
I think option 2 is potentially the best longer term. It gives a balance of giving people opportunity without giving much opportunity for the process to be abused.
But I think we also need to recognise that how we do things will need to change as we grow. Plucking some figures out of the air, how we decide to do things now might be great up to 100 people but after that we might need to restructure again and have 'head admins' or some kind of position like that in certain games and give them autonomy over hiring other admins or support people. And when we hit 1000, we'll need to rethink again.

So right now, I think we need to think about what will work for the community best now and will for the next 50, 60, etc new members

Personally, I don't think option 1 fits in with where we're going as a community.

Klaw

As mentioned, I'm not opposed to any of these, they can all have their merits, and draw backs.

I think, no matter how we do this, we should mold the design similar to the Community Advocate - in that they serve on a time limit, then after the new Ops Team is elected - they can reevaluate the positions, and select the best people for the jobs - assuming we go down an ops team selection method, vs full membership election (which I think 1 and 2 may work best of the 3)

my intent isn't to open a new branch of governance, but to give a little extra admin coverage to our games - while at the same time, giving people a better feeling of their day to day abilities to enact change by opening up additional jobs to folks

StringTheorist

 I think that an application and appointment system would work well here. Elections might be a bit of a hassle, especially if we tie it to the cycle of the Operations Team. In that case, with one moderator for each server, we could have four or five additional elections running at the same time. The applications allow for everyone to have an opportunity to put their name forward, but the appointments would make the system more flexible. To use an analogy: administrators on the server are the sheriff and moderators are deputies. It is important for admins with wider powers and the authority to make long-term decisions to be elected. But electing each police officer responsible for enforcing the rules and responding to immediate emergencies is not as essential.

 My proposal would be that applications can be opened as additional coverage is needed. They can be open for perhaps a week, ask a few questions, and give an applicant pool for the Operations Team to choose from. New moderators would be given the specific privileges and powers given to moderators in the game in question for the length of their appointment. This appointment would be until the start of a new Ops Team cycle or a year after their appointment (whichever we'd like to use). These appointments would be provisional and could be revoked at any time. If members have concerns about the behavior of a moderator, it can be brought to the Community Advocate. Under Section 6.2 of the CoC:

Quote2. The disciplinary options available to the Community Advocate include, but are not limited to: unofficial warnings, official warnings, temporary server or forum bans (lasting no more than 5 days), revocation of awards, suspension of moderator/administrative privileges, removal from staff positons, server or forum bans, and expulsion from the community.

 In the event of any abuses of power the Community Advocate could submit a recommendation for removal or suspension of moderator privileges to the Operations Team.

 As for what powers moderators would have, I think a good guideline would be that they have the authority to take any temporary measures needed to stop major disruptions on the server (kicking disruptive players, putting out fires, etc.) and what I would call "insignificant authority". For want of a better term, I will use that as a blanket term to describe powers that are extremely minor just to help things on the server running a bit smoother. As an example, providing an RPG-X player with a tricorder or patching up a wall in Minecraft that was destroyed by a misplaced TNT blast.

Klaw

(Sorry, I let this lapse)

So where do we stand here?

From what I'm gathering - We're leaning toward an application/appointment model, that reopens with each new ops team?