Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Subject: Super-Moderator
Firstly, it is not expected that a Super-Moderator would be walking around the forums doing the work of a Moderator.
Therefore, it is expected that if someone initially does a poor job, it will always be done by a regular moderator.
After experiencing this poor performance from the Moderator, the user complains to the Super-Moderator.
For an unfair decision to be made against a user, it would already be necessary for 2 people to be wrong. It is less likely that 2 people would be wrong than just 1. Therefore, this already increases user safety.
So, as I said above, I think there should be 3 Super-Moderators. Maybe one from each of the 3 main continents of Sokker. A reduced number of Super-Moderators facilitates coordination between the 3, having 3 instead of 1 prevents the existence of a dictator, and the fact that there is an odd number allows for an internal vote if there is no agreement among everyone.
There are dozens of moderators who have fallen from the sky. There is no verification or any criteria to guarantee the quality of the moderators. With only 3 Super-Moderators, they can be chosen more carefully, selecting those who are truly good.
And finally, the mere existence of Super-Moderators puts pressure on moderators who act like dictators. Regular moderators will feel more obligated to act according to the rules, as they know they could lose their jobs.
There are moderators whose work everyone complains about, who shouldn't be moderators on Sokker anymore because they invent whatever they want to punish people whenever they feel like it. But who should we report? Should we report someone only to then say that what happens on the forum doesn't matter? And if everyone reports a different person, nobody will have the complete set of complaints to understand what's really going on. Having a small group that centralizes the reception of complaints will allow that person to realize that dozens of people are complaining about the same thing, and remove the moderator from their position.
I see no problem whatsoever with having a new role to protect users from moderators who don't follow the rules.
Therefore, it is expected that if someone initially does a poor job, it will always be done by a regular moderator.
After experiencing this poor performance from the Moderator, the user complains to the Super-Moderator.
For an unfair decision to be made against a user, it would already be necessary for 2 people to be wrong. It is less likely that 2 people would be wrong than just 1. Therefore, this already increases user safety.
So, as I said above, I think there should be 3 Super-Moderators. Maybe one from each of the 3 main continents of Sokker. A reduced number of Super-Moderators facilitates coordination between the 3, having 3 instead of 1 prevents the existence of a dictator, and the fact that there is an odd number allows for an internal vote if there is no agreement among everyone.
There are dozens of moderators who have fallen from the sky. There is no verification or any criteria to guarantee the quality of the moderators. With only 3 Super-Moderators, they can be chosen more carefully, selecting those who are truly good.
And finally, the mere existence of Super-Moderators puts pressure on moderators who act like dictators. Regular moderators will feel more obligated to act according to the rules, as they know they could lose their jobs.
There are moderators whose work everyone complains about, who shouldn't be moderators on Sokker anymore because they invent whatever they want to punish people whenever they feel like it. But who should we report? Should we report someone only to then say that what happens on the forum doesn't matter? And if everyone reports a different person, nobody will have the complete set of complaints to understand what's really going on. Having a small group that centralizes the reception of complaints will allow that person to realize that dozens of people are complaining about the same thing, and remove the moderator from their position.
I see no problem whatsoever with having a new role to protect users from moderators who don't follow the rules.
There is two sorts of moderations:
1) Pure post cleaning.
It's for have normal language to read, without misunderstanding or "agressive" or unpolite language.
Sometimes the mod is destroying one from a double post or out of topic posts, sometimes grammatical cleaning.
Generaly, no informations are expected about this type of "esthetic" cleaning
2) Moderation with an official warning (posted to the writer by mel) or by giving a forum ban (for x days)
It's when the post broke the forum rules (here: https://sokker.org/forum_faq/page/rules )
Forum ban is obviously and for sure added at an official skmel to qualifying and justiying this ban.
But ...
in this case, publics comments are forbidden about this ban because ...
The banned forum writer is able to contest his own to another mod or an admin (by sk mel).
and then is comming ... the collegial supermoderator :-)
1) Pure post cleaning.
It's for have normal language to read, without misunderstanding or "agressive" or unpolite language.
Sometimes the mod is destroying one from a double post or out of topic posts, sometimes grammatical cleaning.
Generaly, no informations are expected about this type of "esthetic" cleaning
2) Moderation with an official warning (posted to the writer by mel) or by giving a forum ban (for x days)
It's when the post broke the forum rules (here: https://sokker.org/forum_faq/page/rules )
Forum ban is obviously and for sure added at an official skmel to qualifying and justiying this ban.
But ...
in this case, publics comments are forbidden about this ban because ...
The banned forum writer is able to contest his own to another mod or an admin (by sk mel).
and then is comming ... the collegial supermoderator :-)
I have practical experience that things as they are do not work.
Complaints against moderators must be centralized in order to be efficient, rather than completely disorganized.
Complaints against moderators must be centralized in order to be efficient, rather than completely disorganized.
I can relate that we see to it that the forum is as clean as possible.
And I also can relate that sometimes we need to make unpopular choices.
But I regret seeing you only complain about almost every aspect in the game, expecting everything to go as you want and stating everything and everyone is against you, or your opinion, or your club or NT or country.
You do realise that this game IS a game, right? And that it is in slow development, which we cannot speed up or change regarding our preferences.
baloomao explained it very well, stating that the ''supermoderator'' is in fact the collective of all moderators + admins. If you do not trust the collective, then what do you expect to happen? Everyone with a star resigns and you take over, along with anyone who agrees with you?
And I also can relate that sometimes we need to make unpopular choices.
But I regret seeing you only complain about almost every aspect in the game, expecting everything to go as you want and stating everything and everyone is against you, or your opinion, or your club or NT or country.
You do realise that this game IS a game, right? And that it is in slow development, which we cannot speed up or change regarding our preferences.
baloomao explained it very well, stating that the ''supermoderator'' is in fact the collective of all moderators + admins. If you do not trust the collective, then what do you expect to happen? Everyone with a star resigns and you take over, along with anyone who agrees with you?
One thing is this theoretical idea that you are expressing when you state: the ''supermoderator'' is in fact the collective of all moderators + admins
Another thing is that in practice this actually works. A moderator doesn't want to override another moderator, an administrator doesn't want to know what's happening on the forum... and in the end, if a moderator wants to, they can delete that message " comment?matchID=42976013 Everyone knows that there is a handicap that benefits teams with weaker players. That's probably what happened here " and ban a user for it, because the message was deleted and nobody can prove anything, and nobody will do anything.
However, if there is a small group, responsible only for supervising the work of the moderators, and that acts as the central point for complaints, to have all of them at hand and understand the pattern... instead of the complaints being scattered... and if this group is responsible only for this, these people will end up working focused on this, and will ensure that the forums have a much better environment.
Often, what ruins the atmosphere in forums are the moderators. Unfair decisions lead to outrage and escalate conflict. Once, someone called me stupid on a forum, and I responded by also calling the person stupid. I was banned, but the other person wasn't. Perhaps I wouldn't hate that person if I hadn't felt wronged by what happened afterward; I felt that people of his nationality were more protected than Portuguese people. So I'm always ruder to him because I hate him. That's a real example.
I was called sick on the forum, but nothing was done. What am I supposed to complain about? That the moderator saw it and pretended not to? At most, another moderator would delete the message, and the moderator who saw it and did nothing... would remain as a moderator and ban me for the first offense. Not banning the person who called me sick is a lack of impartiality, and that person shouldn't have the power to ban anyone.
The most important thing about having super-moderators is centralizing complaints to someone who only has that kind of function; otherwise, nobody will ever do anything.
In society there are:
- the police (moderators)
- and the judges (super-moderators)
And that's what we users need on Sokker.
Another thing is that in practice this actually works. A moderator doesn't want to override another moderator, an administrator doesn't want to know what's happening on the forum... and in the end, if a moderator wants to, they can delete that message " comment?matchID=42976013 Everyone knows that there is a handicap that benefits teams with weaker players. That's probably what happened here " and ban a user for it, because the message was deleted and nobody can prove anything, and nobody will do anything.
However, if there is a small group, responsible only for supervising the work of the moderators, and that acts as the central point for complaints, to have all of them at hand and understand the pattern... instead of the complaints being scattered... and if this group is responsible only for this, these people will end up working focused on this, and will ensure that the forums have a much better environment.
Often, what ruins the atmosphere in forums are the moderators. Unfair decisions lead to outrage and escalate conflict. Once, someone called me stupid on a forum, and I responded by also calling the person stupid. I was banned, but the other person wasn't. Perhaps I wouldn't hate that person if I hadn't felt wronged by what happened afterward; I felt that people of his nationality were more protected than Portuguese people. So I'm always ruder to him because I hate him. That's a real example.
I was called sick on the forum, but nothing was done. What am I supposed to complain about? That the moderator saw it and pretended not to? At most, another moderator would delete the message, and the moderator who saw it and did nothing... would remain as a moderator and ban me for the first offense. Not banning the person who called me sick is a lack of impartiality, and that person shouldn't have the power to ban anyone.
The most important thing about having super-moderators is centralizing complaints to someone who only has that kind of function; otherwise, nobody will ever do anything.
In society there are:
- the police (moderators)
- and the judges (super-moderators)
And that's what we users need on Sokker.
Then Tell me, who is qualified to be this super moderator? Certainly not a current moderator, cause we all fail in your eyes. Certainly not a current admin cause they don't Care in your eyes. Certainly not a Dev, cause they don't even have time to work on the game. So...who?
- The fact that a person doesn't care doesn't mean they won't work if they have a new role.
- I don't think the current moderators are all incompetent. But I think that if there are two moderators with the same level of hierarchy, one won't override the other's decision. And therefore, if a moderator makes a mistake, the mistake will stand.
I can't give specific names because I don't know all the moderators, but I can give you an idea of the type of Super-Moderator I think would be right.
- A European Super-Moderator. Since Poland is already very well represented in positions of power, I would suggest an Italian, which is currently the second country with the most user parents in Europe, and many people would be directly represented.
- A Super-Moderator from the American continent. In this case, I would suggest a Brazilian, since Brazil is the largest country in the Americas.
- And finally, a Super-Moderator for Asia. Vietnam is the largest country in Asia, and therefore I would suggest a moderator from that country.
Italy, Brazil, and Vietnam offer good diversity in terms of representation, and this diversity will prevent biased or xenophobic decisions.
- I don't think the current moderators are all incompetent. But I think that if there are two moderators with the same level of hierarchy, one won't override the other's decision. And therefore, if a moderator makes a mistake, the mistake will stand.
I can't give specific names because I don't know all the moderators, but I can give you an idea of the type of Super-Moderator I think would be right.
- A European Super-Moderator. Since Poland is already very well represented in positions of power, I would suggest an Italian, which is currently the second country with the most user parents in Europe, and many people would be directly represented.
- A Super-Moderator from the American continent. In this case, I would suggest a Brazilian, since Brazil is the largest country in the Americas.
- And finally, a Super-Moderator for Asia. Vietnam is the largest country in Asia, and therefore I would suggest a moderator from that country.
Italy, Brazil, and Vietnam offer good diversity in terms of representation, and this diversity will prevent biased or xenophobic decisions.
Italy, Brazil, and Vietnam offer good diversity in terms of representation, and this diversity will prevent biased or xenophobic decisions.
Why? There is 0 ground of facts in this statement. Right now, all mods are so diverse that they all cover almost every language in sokker. And still, they are biased in your eyes. You want to pull back diversity to 3 people, coming from 50+? And that will guarantee that everything will go much better. We're all adults on this forum. Yet, not a single mod or admin, or supermod can prevent people from behaving like children. If every word which may be taken as offensive should be punished, then you can close the forum within months. No one obliges you to use the forum and write whatever you want. And on the other side, no one prevents you from writing on the forum. But mods or admins can intervene when it's going too far. But with 3000 active users of which maybe 1/3th uses the forum, you can hardly say that we're in need of supermoderators. Because a handfull of people feel offended...
Look, the amount of reactions, and the type of reactions you got on this topic says it all imo...
I'm not going to react anymore. If Sokker needs this type of moderators, then so be it. Until then, you will need to take satisfaction with the existing staff. Good luck.
Why? There is 0 ground of facts in this statement. Right now, all mods are so diverse that they all cover almost every language in sokker. And still, they are biased in your eyes. You want to pull back diversity to 3 people, coming from 50+? And that will guarantee that everything will go much better. We're all adults on this forum. Yet, not a single mod or admin, or supermod can prevent people from behaving like children. If every word which may be taken as offensive should be punished, then you can close the forum within months. No one obliges you to use the forum and write whatever you want. And on the other side, no one prevents you from writing on the forum. But mods or admins can intervene when it's going too far. But with 3000 active users of which maybe 1/3th uses the forum, you can hardly say that we're in need of supermoderators. Because a handfull of people feel offended...
Look, the amount of reactions, and the type of reactions you got on this topic says it all imo...
I'm not going to react anymore. If Sokker needs this type of moderators, then so be it. Until then, you will need to take satisfaction with the existing staff. Good luck.
what happens if Supermoderator makes a mistake?
Would there be a joined decision by other Supermods to clarify possible mistakes?
would all Supermods communicate and maybe agree on certain hard decisions?
Or would we say that Supermoderator cant make a mistake (example : like catholic christians say for pope) and just accept all his decisions as ultimate (dogma, axiom)
Would there be a joined decision by other Supermods to clarify possible mistakes?
would all Supermods communicate and maybe agree on certain hard decisions?
Or would we say that Supermoderator cant make a mistake (example : like catholic christians say for pope) and just accept all his decisions as ultimate (dogma, axiom)
There may be more than 50, but if there is a problem... no one knows exactly who to talk to. There need to be references. People need to know who to turn to. One of Sokker's mistakes is to have a page for each country with a list of DEVs, administrators, moderators, etc. Okay, there can be these pages, but there needs to be a page that covers all countries, so that people know who to talk to. In Portugal, I am the one who receives all situations as if I were the administrator, and then I forward those users to an administrator.
Yes, there are many people on Sokker, many moderators, but the organization is very weak.
Therefore, 3 SMs would be a good start to establish references and improve organization.
Yes, there are many people on Sokker, many moderators, but the organization is very weak.
Therefore, 3 SMs would be a good start to establish references and improve organization.
A super-moderator will only intervene after a moderator has intervened and possibly made a mistake, resulting in a complaint. There will always be mistakes, but the probability of there being a sequence of two mistakes is lower than there being a single mistake.
I hope I don't have to repeat this again.
I hope I don't have to repeat this again.
Often, what ruins the atmosphere in forums are the moderators.
What a joke :-)
It ruins your atmosphere, you mean :-)
(edited)
What a joke :-)
It ruins your atmosphere, you mean :-)
(edited)
There are several complaints against the same moderator that are being discussed on Facebook and WhatsApp. You only say "my" atmosphere until one day it becomes your atmosphere too, and then you will change your attitude, but by then it will be a little too late.