06-28-2013, 03:21 PM #41
- Liked 339 Times in 224 Posts
- Blog Entries
I was asked to be a moderator and I agreed because I love this site. My opinion on moderating is pretty worthless right now because I've been one for about 14 seconds and I'm still learning.
However, I am quite experienced in the numbers that John lists below.
This is what I do for a living and it's all about growth.
Consider for a bit the numbers above.
Ok... Now consider how many people watch the Twins or attend the Twins or care about the Twins and also consider how many of these people have internet access and use the internet daily.
Now add in Twins Daily on-line competition as a factor.
When you consider all of that... You can easily see the tremendous growth potential of Twins Daily. We have some very metric skilled posters on this site so surely the metric growth of this site is something that all can wrap their arms around.
If you have a website... Metrics are very important!!! I know everyone can understand that.
If a handful of posters are potentially harmful for growth? What is the sensible solution?
#1. First time posters or bloggers are going to be nervous about joining in and increasing numbers if there is a fairly decent chance that someone is going to tear them apart. This limits growth! So bickering and personal attacks have to be stopped completely in my opinion and I believe this is what the entire administration is trying to accomplish! I've personally been a part of that bickering from time to time in the past so I include myself to not be hypocritical.
#2. The 2,700 plus readers of Twins Daily can and will tire of excessive negativity and even excessive positivity. If you want to increase numbers... Balance has to be achieved!
It is quite possible that the negative side has been over represented lately but let's face it... The team has been struggling and they have a little more ammo but balance needs to be achieved.
Just try to be respectful to all. Saying Gardy is stupid, Terry Ryan is worthless, Joe Mauer is a cry baby, Aaron Gleeman is a whatever and Riverbrian smells bad isn't respectful and it curbs growth in the end.
Respect all posters and subjects of the posts. With respect... you can state that Gardy messed up... Without respect... It can and most likely will be perceived as excessive negativity and when you have too much of that... it curbs growth.
Try to consider what the name calling and bickering looks like for someone who stumbled on the site and is thinking about joining. Take that 10,000 foot view.
Encourage participation don't attack it.
Let's try clean the slate for all going forward... If you have past issues with certain posters... let go of that baggage and let's see what happens going forward.
Right now... As a moderator... that's learning how to moderate... I'm taking baby steps and just looking for the personal attacks because potentially that is the most damaging to the growth of this site.
I'm not speaking for John or the adminstrators... I'm speaking for myself and what I'm looking for and what is my impression from what they have explained to the moderators.
Over my time on this site... There are so many tremendous posters and I appreciate all of you and I'm on board for growth of this wonderful location that we can all gather.
Last edited by Riverbrian; 06-28-2013 at 03:27 PM."9. Lipstick"
"How can Canada produce Tie Domi and not have a better military"?
"I noticed while robbing the First State Bank last night that if you go into the vault when nobody is looking... You can get away with it".
06-28-2013, 03:43 PM #42
- Liked 140 Times in 100 Posts
To you larger point, I'm surprised this is a story at all. These meetings happen all the time, especially after the draft and before the trade deadline.Are you sure? Who's your source? Dubay?
06-28-2013, 04:33 PM #43
Here's another example of the confusion.
This was posted by Brock Beauchamp in the thread about trading Perkins:
I'd rather punch myself in the face every time I pick up my phone than follow FanaticJack on Twitter. Because, at the end of the day, those two things are pretty much the same thing.
How is this not at least as bad as what was posted about AG??? Or is it simply okay because it was posted by a moderator?
I've never received even a reprimand or an e-mail here but that doesn't mean that I don't feel the chilling effect of all of this moderation and of the varying standards.
While I appreciate your desire to grow the site, you are simply taking most of the fun out of it.
06-28-2013, 09:42 PM #44
- Liked 83 Times in 45 Posts
- Blog Entries
Lots of stuff out here. I'll try to reply to 3 repeated points and make one myself:
1) Growing the site is important, but even more important is not being embarrassed of our own site and the discussion in it.
2) As for the arbitrariness of enforcement - it's fine not to like it. But we're going to have to live with it for now. We've got a big site and moderation is a multi-member job and we're going to need to figure some things out as we go along and so are you. And when we screw up, I think you can deal with it. We aren't caning anyone. Just redo your post in a more civil manner or enjoy a timeout.
3) "It's less fun." I heard the same thing from a vocal minority three months ago when we tightened up enforcement of civility here and I didn't have any sympathy then and I don't now. The numbers give me faith. I firmly believe the 97% will find it more fun to not have to read a bickering exchange surrounding insight about their favorite team.
Finally, I'll pass along something despite it probably being insulting to some because I want to be very candid.
I was speaking to another moderator from a bigger forum about these issues and he confided that his moderators call their problem members "kindergartners." As in "The kindergartners are bickering again."
Kindergartners bicker. They are more interested in winning than gaining any insight. They latch onto their issue and whine about it endlessly. They freak out when something isn't fair, even if the consequences are minor. They crave attention. They hold grudges. Being a kindergartner is not about positivity or negativity. It's not about intelligence. It's about emotional maturity. And generally once they identify kindergartners who lack that maturity, they ultimately ban them, because sooner or later it rears its ugly head.
I think we could almost rewrite the entire comment policy to read: "If there is a chance that a moderator is going to read this and think 'This guy is a kindergartner' then don't post it. Especially if you think a moderator already likely considers you a kindergartner.