The Tavern

In the last 3-4 days or so. Aside from that they have done a fine job.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the job our mods do, and I think they do a far better job than is normally expected of moderators, but I assume they would like to know if they are making some mistakes.

Here is the first example I would like to bring attention to: viewtopic.php?f=17&t=20291

Why was this moved to CYC? It was in GDD for a good reason, it was a thread about discussing design choices that we liked and that we didn't like. There was nothing CYC about that thread, and I even tried reporting it and requesting a moderator move it back and I was ignored.

Maybe I put it there on accident, and if so I apologize for wrongly accusing you, but even so the mods should have moved it back via my request, or at the very least responded.

Second example: viewtopic.php?f=17&t=20297

This had no reason to be locked. Let threads like that die on their own, there was nothing toxic going on or anything that implied there was something toxic going on. Don't fucking lock threads for no reason, and yes "The thread doesn't need to be open" is not a reason to close something in CYC. This one especially bothers me, the first example can at least be chalked up as a negligent misunderstanding, but in this situation its almost as though a moderator looked at the thread and just said "Lol it would be funny if I locked this, " and then actually did it.

Also, its not an excuse to say everything that could have been said had already been said, because I was right about to post something new there before it was locked.

That's two examples of failures to effectively moderate in the last few days, and I'm also not a fan of how the mods allowed the gender politics thread to go on so long then just abruptly end it. If you aren't okay with the discussion, just lock the thread and say why, don't let it go on that long and randomly decide its time to stop the discussion. But I'll admit maybe thats up for interpretation, unlike the first two examples. I imagine the mods were just trying to nip the thread in the bud to avoid any issues.

TL;DR: These are two mistakes that I felt I should express my disapproval of to the mod staff. Thank you for reading my criticism, and remember that I still appreciate the work you do, I just didn't want these mistakes to go unnoticed.

#lettiktacyspeak

See, Chequers gets it!

Am I getting trolled here? You posted a forum game in GDD and complain when it gets moved?

are you still liking the tavern now tiktacy????

Why am I not aloud to post a forum game in GDD if it follows the rules of the forum?

"posters can propose changes to the game and discuss existing proposals or game mechanics. "

There is nothing in the rules that says discussions can't be had in that form, the OP does need to make the question clear however "Threads that begin by discussing numerous unrelated topics are less helpful than focused threads." Fortunately, the thread did not start with numerous unrelated topics, it started with one discussion and the appropriate responses to the discussion. Additionally, the thread was not a proposal or brainstorming so the third mentioned rule doesn't apply either.

Not true. There was an unwarranted outburst of relentless, groundless bigotry.

I've reproduced but SPOILERED that unacceptable violation - it is NOT for the squeamish!

OMG! Basic observation! Why wasn't that person burned at the stake?

But yeah, I've complained countless (Ok, more like 4 or 5) times about mods locking cyc threads because they didn't like the discussion, not because any rules were being broken. Just because they disagreed with what was being said. The mods and devs had a mini meeting, and said (I'm paraphrasing, and uncharitably at that!) "No, mods and devs should be able to lock threads they have participated in, and are personally invested in, because being able to silence dissenting opinions is what makes it worthwhile for some of us!"

Good lord, guys.

duvessa got it right on the first thread. For the same reason we don't encourage polls in GDD, we don't really want to encourage game-y posts like "name one good thing and name one bad thing." It's not actually a good format for discussing game design in any rational fashion; if you want to talk about something you like or don't like, make a thread, let's not collect them all in one thread that will inevitably lead to unproductive bickering. Of course, it also didn't break any rules, so it got moved to CYC, something that I'll add is fairly rare these days.

As for the thread I locked, mea culpa, I guess, because I didn't leave a note explaining myself. It wasn't because of uncomfortable discussion, though I'll note that most of those sorts of threads only get locked after 100+ replies and after the "discussion" has ended to be replaced by filibustering and bluster. It was because it was a dead thread. The OP left. There was no reason to keep a thread open if it was just going to be a bunch of people bashing the unpopular opinion and poor play of somebody who rage quit. Is there a reason? Should I have left that thread open?

It's crazy to me that anyone thinks this is an over-moderated forum.

Are you actually claiming to uphold or raise standards of discussion?

Nothing is done to delete, lock, stigmatize, or scold posts/threads that are wrong/stupid/bitchy/unfunny.

Meanwhile, the forum has a policy of tolerance toward obscenity and coarse language, which makes the forum feel like a dirty place without any redeeming value, when it's not allowed to be directed or used honestly.

What I find more crazy is thinking that occasionally muzzling conversations in midstream is somehow going to make the forum a better place. Is this style of moderation advised somewhere? This is what locking is for.

There is nothing bad about "a bunch of people bashing the unpopular opinion and poor play of somebody who rage quit", I mean come on, this is a videogame site, might as well lock the "dead thread" that's just "a bunch of people praising the game to which the forum is dedicated and its developers".

When I get tired of a thread, I stop reading it, it's simple. I don't need it locked, so locking it doesn't do anything for me, except make it more likely for me to run into that conversation anyway, because it seeps into other threads. Are these lockings aimed at people compelled to read every post?

You say "muzzling conversations in midstream", but I'm with Archaeo when he says it's "filibustering and bluster".

I am usually the first to slam the mods here but today I'm going to go out a limb and defend them.

They have clearly been doing a good job or else the extremely trollish userbase of this forum would not be so upset. The fact that jimmies have been rustled points to them actually doing their jobs for once.

Mods are gods.

Extremely trollish userbase? Really? This is one of the most civil game forums on the internet, in my experience, especially given the number of people that post here. The fact that threads are locked usually not due to bigoted tirades or insults, but instead because the user took a particularly unpopular viewpoint on some aspect of the game, points to the fact that moderation typically isn't about stopping trolls.

Also... nobody seems to upset here... people are pretty calmly discussing the standards of moderation. It's almost like you're trying to 'rustle jimmies' or even... troll the userbase.

The mods here are pretty great though. I mean, look at this thread calling them out for dropping the ball, and it's not locked, nor is it filled with childish insults. Just see what happens with a similar thread on another popular gaming forum....