A Respectful Question about Moderation

[Artemis Black]

I have only recently started trying to keep up with LAF as a board, so if it's been discussed elsewhere, accept my apologies.

Is it a good idea to have the moderator of a board be the writer of the game the board is for?

There's literally one locked thread on this sub-board and it's a criticism thread, and it was locked by the writer of the game being criticised for, to me, the flimsiest of reasons. Plenty of other threads seem to have been left to die off on their own or run much longer.

Even if you agree with the reasoning, at the very least, that seems like very bad optics surely? Especially given  the recent change in ownership.

[Pijlie]

I was not aware that the author was also the moderator, but I was sorry to see the thread getting locked (ending possible nuance and/or solutions).

I am specifically NOT trying to get the thread re-opened but I do agree with Artemis Black on the choice of moderator.

[LeadAsbestos]

There are plenty of places to.go to bitch and moan and argue, and that.is all the thread had degenerated to. Glad to see it go, personally.

[Captain Blood]

The Frostgrave child board was set up as a place for people to ask questions about Frostgrave when it was a new rule set, and to get answers direct from the author. It therefore made perfect sense for the author to be one of the moderators there.
The child board wasn’t set up in the expectation that people would come here to complain in a sustained way about why they think the rules are crap.
You will see that several rule sets have (or have had) their own child boards here, and with the author(s) as moderator in some cases.
I guess The optics are only a problem if you assume the board is going to be somewhere people should come to pile into the author and criticise his work. We assumed it was there for discussion, clarification, questions, and yes, sometimes for proportionate, constructive criticism - which the author then has a chance to answer.

In the thread referred to, the critic in chief made his point at considerable length and in several posts. The author (and moderator) gave his response. They agreed to disagree at the instigation of the OP.
Seems reasonable to conclude it there.

[Artemis Black]

I wonder if he'd posted the same length and number of posts about how awesome Frostgrave was that he would have been shut down?

It's a board to discuss Frostgrave, if people were still replying to him then there was obvious interest in his post, even if it was to disagree with him. From such discussion regularly comes interesting outcomes, such as possible fixes for whatever the criticism was.

At the moment it just stands out like a sore thumb that the only locked post there has 'criticism' in the title and when you open it to look the person who locked it was the person being criticised.

Like I said, very bad optics.

[Gabbi]

The child board wasn’t set up in the expectation that people would come here to complain in a sustained way about why they think the rules are crap.

Wait. I don't think the author of that thread put it so harsh. But even that, in case I think that some ruleset is not well written, or it is a lazy product, or in some other way "not good" I cannot speak my opinion here?
Because if so, I would seriously consider about remaining a user here...

[Kommando_J]

It gets even more interesting when the product being discussed is owned(is that the right term?) by the fellow that now owns the entire forum.

The optics certainly do not look great, although personally I would agree that threads that just spiral need to be locked.

[Mr.J]

Forum Rules:

1.4 Know your limits and when to stop.

If you realize that a discussion isn’t really going anywhere, please don’t push the subject, and better call it a day. If you feel to further discuss it with your “opponent”, please use the Private Message functionality to sort it out amongst yourselves.

This constant griping at the moment is getting really tiresome, as far as I’m concerned the moderators have the patience of saints.

I would sincerely suggest if people are unhappy here or with the etiquette and rules then they do leave instead of starting or contributing towards provocative threads.

The thread in question was a circular I like/I don’t like thread it was going literally nowhere.

[Doug ex-em4]

I just want to know what “the optics” have to do with anything? I know you get them in pubs for dispensing spiritus liqueur but I don’t get the relevance in this discussion.

Management Speak....?

Doug

[Captain Blood]

Well the optics are down to how you see them.
The fellow that now owns the forum has done so for precisely 4 weeks, so there’s not much point in conspiracy theories when the Frostgrave board with Joe as moderator, has been running for several years.

Forum Rules:
This constant griping at the moment is getting really tiresome, as far as I’m concerned the moderators have the patience of saints.

I would sincerely suggest if people are unhappy here or with the etiquette and rules then they do leave instead of starting or contributing towards provocative threads.

I totally agree with you. If you come onto this forum, you’re accepting the forum rules, the forum etiquette, and the way things are done. I don’t join a club and promptly start complaining about the place and ask them to change their rules. And yet we’ve seen a fair bit of that here over the last few months. As Mr J suggests, no-one makes anyone come here.

I cannot speak my opinion here?

Yes you can speak your opinion here. But coming back time after time on a given topic, to criticise over and over at length, isn’t just speaking one’s opinion - it’s waging a campaign.

I would agree that threads that just spiral need to be locked.

Right. And now I’m locking this one before it descends into a spiral of its own.

I’m afraid that tolerant, polite and accommodating to its members as LAF has always been, it isn’t a democracy. Appointing moderators and setting the rules is, and always has been, solely down to the owner. If you feel a rule (or a moderator) should be changed, approach the owner.