Well damn, that is a great darn reply Bill. I am humbled. Allow me to reply to this.
Yes, we understand the issue you mean and we feel these posters just need to embed a bit more against the grain. Eventually if you argue long and hard enough with someone you find a happy medium and even a friendship in disagreement at times. There will always be calling out but what we're hoping is this evolves into more friendly rib nudging instead of the bitter laced pokes we have at the moment. Unfortunately this is one of the things that takes time and is more a rounded 'culture' of acceptance that develops. That's not to say posters like
Nobody_Important
should '
brave it out' and we've had dialogues with them in the past. And I'm sure some outcomes are not what was hoped for but we feel we can usually explain how we arrive at a conclusion and we generally have a mutual respect for the community. By and large, it seems more 'mature' shall we say. I think it's likely activity is not as instant as core membership has shifted to those who don't live so completely on the internet,
Considering the POV of staff as understood. However, are there any long term ideas on how tackle this problem? I can imagine that for people subject to it it may prove to be a big challenge to them and they might run out of motivation to remain constructive, turning into
Bitters.*
*There is a nicely compiled document about the kinds of
trolls you can come across, with commentary how to avoid regular people to turn into one. Although it is made for humourous intent, in my experience it has really helped judging people and treating them accordingly (as an ex-moderator myself). I think Tyler has had this in his PM, but if it has not been passed around, ill just leave it
here.
Yes, we are working on a completely revamped FAQ section to replace the old outdated versions that will cover a lot of those and a little insight into what moderator's actually see and how reports are displayed and dealt with.
This is awesome. I think this will definitely help
seal the deal regarding certain questions that will spring up now and in the forthcoming future. For light jests, we should have a yearly
Ban Reason Olympiade where we can select Evilore's bests exit commentaries. There is a certain level of creativity in those, commercial me could see that been reworked into a book and sold
Either way, this is great stuff Bill.
That's actually a really good suggestion. How do you feel it would/should be implemented and what sort of things do you feel could be aired in there? We're open to a sticky but obviously don't want too many. But we do want an 'ear to the community' perhaps.
I think this could go in a few ways (Some i thought of at work). Some of this may overlap with other ideas so i try to make it in points, and they are by no means exclusive:
- A community pick. Whenever there is a new and shiny thing to present, whether that be a new theme, a new functionality, or just something interesting for Ban Justice (This should be brought back!) or moderation duties, let the community have a say in it before it gets introduced. To be done via poll or staff can present a list of features from which the community caa choose from. This works both ways: The community is introduced to a new layer of transparency, and the staff gets the benefit of user feedback so one can accustom to these needs.
- A moderator meeting. Each 2-3 months, evaluate how moderation has been recieved since and what the recurring themes are within these. This ensures that the community feels listened and it allows the staff to re-iterate on how moderation duties should be carried out. Con: This does require setting up a temp sticky thread of like a week or 2 so people have enough time to make their comments known. It should also be stressed that such a thread should not be for complaints about bans or about ERA-stuff: It should strictly be an evaluation on how staff interaction is recieved and/or how it can be improved.
- Newsletters. Perhaps every 4-8 weeks we could have a thread where staff is hosting updates on what has been going on so far. I think a big, but silent issue around the community here is that although we have a general idea of where the staff wants the site to go, as you can find that in certain comments, but that there isn't an overarching thread covering all these bases. For people less active, and just to put this more in the spotlight, it might be an option to notify the community site-wide. This does require some time however, and perhaps more than one might be willing to, but i think it provides an excellent way of communicating with your community on a bigger scale instead of making (very insightful!) case-by-case posts.
- On that note, Community Q&A. Host a generic AMA every few months or so to gauge general interest and issues. This is somewhat similar to the moderator meeting, but targets a more general topic and leaves the topics which to discuss open and subject to what the staff member in question wants.
- I previously suggested to Tyler, and this is less community but more a moderator idea, to create a Hall of unpleasantness where truly derailing posts go to die. This should serve as a continous example of what is okay and what isn't on GAF. I do realize that this generates a lot more moderation work however, so with the size of the community as is, it might be too much.
I think official matters should be presented in a
communal form: The staff is a
friend to the community, not an
employee of a company, if you know what i mean. I think the staff as is does a pretty good job in expressing that sentiment through the
holding reservations policy when moderating posts, so i think this should be a rather easy thing to do.
I'm not really sure to be honest. They seem to serve different purposes. One is just about the latest meltdown/overreaction and one is more about the offsite drama like doxxing from era/4chan/kiwi etc. However, it should be said that it doesn't have to be negative; sites that have been around and have heritage like these obviously have a place, even moreso at the moment arguably. For me, - speaking personally as a person invested in gaming - I think we need to do better at bringing all these communities together. Obviously people have their 'homes' or preferred places to post, but we're a small enough group as is and at the moment completely at loggerheads. We need to make it easier to have dialogues cross platform. What that looks like I have no idea though.
I think that the more active thread is now more akin to a
bin where all the news is dispensed. It might add value to denote particular high-visible controversies with an additional thread, although most of these controversies are intertwined with Twitter outrages and the like. This also would enhance negativity surrounding ERA and i don't think that's the way to go either.
This is something that perhaps might be a good topic for an AMA like the above: Have the community take a stab at what to do with this. Should it focus on ERA mostly or should we also talk about other sites? And if it should be ERA exclusive, should we only talk about highly controversial things or also just regular bans? Personally i think the latter is a
stale topic at this point: When you get banned, its usually a rather generic reason as to
why that is. I can see why this still has appeal to people, but personally, i would be in favor of generating a thread for highly controversial threads, as those usually target a bigger audience than just ERA alone.
I should keep it clear that an AMA first and formost (or something similar) regarding this for the community could be a beneficial idea. I am just one person making long novelles, but others may chip in aswell. I would especially like to hear those folks with opposite views like
Nobody_Important
: Because his onset is different from most ERA members (and has a link to ERA aswell), his stance might be interesting to evaluate. That way the negativity surrounding his view turns into a positive one.
As for the bolded:
YES. This is exactly what i am thinking aswell. This should be expressed more through official channels and in general behavior. I think that there is a lot of
old sore between now-ERA/Former-GAF members and i think it could be beneficial to get in touch with the both people's staff.
The name of 'NeoGAF' was talked about but that is more or a senior/admin discussion. I can't see it changing if I'm honest. At the moment we just have to ride out the last of the reputation and reinforce the positive heritage we have here. We're aware of the image that is being projected with those who are invested in portraying a downfall/destruction and we have to just keep doing what we're doing here. NeoGAF is not 'dead' or a 'ghost town'. It's only a ghost town in the same way any forum is a ghost town compared to the likes of twitter.
I understand that. At the same time, this is where i made my former comment - A bigger push to
remove the associations. Currently a lot of the superficial criticism is that GAF enables NeoNazism or Racism. Whilst a lot of that is in my eyes not something on the order, you could ask:
How did people arrive at that conclusion? What caused it?
A lot of it would simply be white noise and based on pre-bias and past histories with the site. But out of 100 criticisms adressing the same thing, atleast 1% up to 5% is likely legitimate. And in that sense, i believe it is important that these questions are asked. By the community, as a result of reflecting, and by staff. And i am sure one does.
Hopefully this book provides a proper commentary on your excellent comment for which i want to thank you. Hopefully there are some things that are inspirational.
