[Discussion] Backseat moderating

[Exnem]

Leave your opinions here, after some criticism I will or will not be making a suggestion based on the replies.

Personaly I feel that people [Even though I just did it myself literally 5 minutes ago, but made me think about it] shouldn't be allowed considering some people get ticked off by it, I feel that an official staff member should be in their place to put their judgement out there, depending on if the rulebreak is severe or minimal is up to them.

As I said, leave your opinion.

 

[Allen Kennedy]

It shouldn't be a thing. People often have differing conceptions of certain rules. Pushing those upon others when they may well be incorrect is a stupid thing to do.

 

[Sonzy]

Some people just really want enforcer, baring in mind how hard it is too get sometimes one way to show current staff you know the rules and can enforce them is some good old back seat moderating.

@Thomas Fredrick + @iijokerxo *hint hint*

 

[Garret_Pp]

As staff we actually do have private forums in which we develop consensus opinions on the rules to help ensure we keep or opinions similar and our judgements similar and not arbitrary. We of course couldn't make this public because the opinions often differ until we finish and may involve private situations from players. But the players would not and could not know or interpret our opinions well.

I am okay with players working out smaller things on their own, but pseudo-moderation or vigilante staff ( @LordTyla ) could become a problem easily if we just allowed it. I.g. Give a mouse a cookie, and he will want a glass of milk to go with it.

It's important to understand that staff is a job and we aren't chosen because we are likeable or fun but we are good at our job and we are trained and we take time to learn with a lot more tools than you guys would imagine. Just take your videos and make your ARs and trust us

 

[Deleted member 5193]

If by "back seat moderating" you mean laying down rules whilst you play PERP then I can't see what your issue is?

I believe all staff members and the vast majority of enforcer candidates want what is best for the community. To add to that, enforcer candidates are trying to prove that they would be worthy members of server staff.

I get where you are coming from, at times I get distracted by players being a bit too into the rules, but I don't consider it a bad thing personally.

That's just my opinion on this. No need to bite my head off or anything.

 

[rogue]

of course you're allowed to tell people what rules they've broken. However don't be surprised if they say that you're wrong and you should feel stupid.

Of course don't disrupt an active situation because of it but there is nothing wrong with informing someone that they have violated something.

Also that's why you can talk to staff members to discuss what rules someone has broken on the funky SCAM menu.

 

[Imperial Watch]

If you think you're better than others and want to point out everything they have done wrong because you feel the need to scold others and hate yourself you should probably just take a hike and jump over the nearest bridge with cement shoes.
Also if you are in an admin sit just shut the fuck up and let the admin speak. I remember when I was mod and sometimes people would just not shut up about what rules people broke. I was like "dude stfu let me handle this shit".
It's fine to point out the little things but when you decide to do a 20 minute presentation to others on what rule they broke (which I have seen plenty of times believe me), that's just pretentious, selfrighteous douchebaggery

 

[M]

The issue in question includes people, either implicitly or explicitly, mimicking the role of server administration by:

• accusing others of wrongdoing;
• explaining server rules;
• attempting to mediate issues.

Whether this is a bad thing or not all comes down to one factor: are the person's actions beneficial or malicious?


It is not uncommon to see people accusing others, but this is already condemned as slander (it might not necessarily be slander or libel, however our rules define this term differently). For instance, the OOC chat there's the classic 'RDM!' or 'wtf why arrest' are generally deleted where possible and in severe cases where there is a clear attempt of defamation, a staff member may explicitly intervene. So on reflection, this is already accounted for - we do not allow it and we act against it.

A further example is where a member notices lack of familiarity or understanding of a rule, and autonomously offers explanation. Commonly this takes place with respect to new members, and I have even asked regular members to assist new players in learning how to play the server, and understanding the rules. This kind of thing is a blessing more than a problem!
On exception, accusatory behaviour in this context would be considered malicious: 'you know you cannot do x' in regard to an act, 'x', is technically accusing another member and therefore is slander. It comes down to discretion - if someone politely offers advice - only actually offering it with the consent of the other party - and that advice is genuine to the best of the other member's knowledge, there's no issue with this.

Mediation is where a member attempts to settle a dispute between two others, like the administration do with 'admin sits'. Generally, the person thought to be 'backseat moderating' offers their help, whips out their physgun, and tries to sort out a problem. So long as all involved are consenting, and the advice given is genuine and helpful - what is the problem; what has it got to do with you?!

Although I recognise and acknowledge that some members may be upset at the aforementioned actions - whether they are considered condescending or just irritating - the chances are that if someone acts maliciously or tries to act in these ways without consent of the other parties, they are already breaking the server rules. Imperial is correct in raising the fact that some members may feel inclined to list off every rule and essentially take the role of the staff member during interventions, but is also correct in pointing out that we will take steps to prevent this and do the job ourselves.

Overall, there is no problem as long as the offered help is beneficial, no rules are violated in the process, and those involved are satisfied that someone 'on their level' is trying to help them. In any other case, it's probably already covered by the server rules.

 

[John Daymon]

Closed