Skip to content

Instantly share code, notes, and snippets.

@Tunaki Tunaki/Nomination.md Secret
Created Mar 10, 2016

Embed
What would you like to do?

I'm a man of a few words so I'll make it brief and to the point. The SOCVR current team needs help on to shape and moderate the room, and I want to help.

  • I've been around since September 2015. I was introduced to the room by durron597 right here. First message said to me in chat here. Side-note: on the very next day, I was already reporting spam...!
  • Today, the FAQ has no secret from me and I do not hesitate to remind it to the chatters and link to it to new comers. That's actually a task I like to do: this room is under a lot of scrutinity and everytime I can help moderating by answering questions about the room's guidance, pointing out something to chatters or defusing a heated conversation, I feel great.
  • As a Room Owner, I'll continue doing those tasks, and more: supervising burnination efforts, coaching chatters, giving feedback on a review, improving the current room guidance...

That's pretty much it: I feel I have what it takes to lead this room with our current ROs, I'm positive I can help drive the room to a better horizon and I want to do it.

@rschrieken

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

rschrieken commented Mar 11, 2016

Can you describe a bit what that better horizon will look like?

@NathanOliver1

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

NathanOliver1 commented Mar 11, 2016

If there was one rule in our current FAQ that needs to be removed, which one would it be? If you can add one rule, that isn't currently in our guidance, which one would it be?

@werksjan

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

werksjan commented Mar 11, 2016

+1 for that, Nathan.

@jdd-software

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

jdd-software commented Mar 11, 2016

Tunaki you very active in SOCVR (correct time zone for me), you put an impressing amount of energy into it and when I have a question I always hope that you answer it (like a guess many of the new ones does). I love it when you take time to help out new users, just remember when it get hot you can not be silent anymore, just make everybody shut up!!.
(Petter Friberg)

@Aralun

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

Aralun commented Mar 11, 2016

What's your point of view on off-topic rooms such as the Ministry?
What do you think about monitoring them to check that nothing gets out of hand which could then be used against SOCVR? Examples could include bad mouthing of users, clear disagreement with room / SO policies, unicorn abuse...

@Tunaki

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Owner Author

Tunaki commented Mar 11, 2016

As of today, we have to realize that the room has a bad connotation to a lot of Stack Overflow users because it is perceived as a voting ring. There are regularly posts on Meta that are the result of actions made in the room like a closed or a deleted post. I personally think this is the result of a lack of transparency regarding what the room is about. I find the current FAQ a little bloated and not clear enough: it could be restructured so that SO users and room members can quickly read what they want to read. Having clear-cut and easy to read guidance would be a great start.

The "You closed my question!" section targeted at SO users is well hidden and should be expanded and be a whole part of its own, linking to relevant Meta posts, like this one. The general expectations are a mix of unrelated rules, which makes it hard to read, and this is combined with the fact that some rules aren't there but further down (like rules about flagging). There's also no mention in the FAQ about the burnination process, although this is possibly one of activity of the room with the most direct consequence on the site.

I'd also point out that it does not mention any process for handling Smokey reports. It is a fact that lots of room member are privileged users of Smokey. This really means a lot of room members have the power to take down a post and blacklist a user on the entire network. As an external SO user, this sounds scary. And it has happened in the past that posts were spam-deleted when such sanction wasn't entirely warranted. So, one change that I would definitely like to make is to clearly document what is expected of members and RO when a report is posted. A related note could be to only have RO as privileged users.

Regarding off-topic rooms, or all other rooms actually, the current FAQ is also lacking in that aspect. Users active in The Ministry for example are also active in SOCVR. IMO, it needs to be clear that, as far as SOCVR is concerned, those other rooms do not exist: what happens in them is regulated by their own rules and there should be no connection between SOCVR and those rooms. It is not up to the room to monitor and check that none of its members are going crazy in another room. After all, if bad mouthing is allowed there, there is nothing SOCVR can do about it (but I don't think such a room would last long anyway). The room can only be responsible for enforcing its rules to its members, not to members of another room (even if the members are the same).

(And thanks Petter :) ), no :)), still no. Meh. I'll leave it open and let parsers fail.

@Bhargav-Rao

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

Bhargav-Rao commented Mar 13, 2016

What do you do when the room goes completely off-topic and the users show mob-like attitude? For instance, in a recent incident, there were background comments being passed in the room on a meta post. There were moderators involved to shutdown the room for a few moments. In the occurrence of such an incident,

  1. What is your immediate action to prevent moderators from taking over?
  2. What are the measures that you take against the users involved?

P.s. As a room-owner there are a few additional arrows in the quiver, that are provided for the above circumstances.

@Tunaki

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Owner Author

Tunaki commented Mar 13, 2016

That's indeed a scenario that has happened in the past and could very well happen again in the future. What we want to avoid is the room being frozen by moderators: this sends a very bad signal to the community at large that could be seen as several possible things:

  • This room doesn't control what is happening inside it so the moderation is not strong enough;
  • All members of the room agreed to make mob-like comments so the room is actively not moderated and harmful;
  • It was a lone incident and an unfortunate instance where all ROs and members had lost their keys at the same time.

I'd argue that all of those 3 scenarios are very worrysome, and I certainly do not want SO users to think of the room like that.

When such a situation is developing, the best course of action is to first alert the concerned chatter(s). Be nice, be professional and remember to not target users. In the case of a heated Meta post, I would reply to them to stop discussing and commenting what happens in this post; we definitely do not want one side of the argument happening inside the room, from members feeling "at home". One recommendation that I would also make is to invite those users to, first, take a break, and second, if appropriate for the situation, invite them to write their feelings into a proper question / answer if they still feel they have something to ask / say after having cooled down.

I hope this first warning will not come unheard. As a RO, I don't want to be a moderation tyran, hence the warning. It is not my goal for the members to introduce a defiance or a grudge. But I also cannot be passive. If I feel that warning is not being taken into account (it is debated or it simply is ignored), I'll quickly write another stronger message in the lines of "If any of the members continues to discuss the matter, they will be kicked without further warning".

In the mean time, I will discuss the behaviour of those users to other potential active RO (in another private room) if there are. In those heated moments, all actions usually happen quite fast and if not handled from the start, it can very quickly develop into something unmanageable. I will apply that last warning if it is ignored. I'm not saying I will like it but if the other RO agree with me (or if I'm the lone RO at the moment), it is something that I will have to do. I will notify the situation and make a recap to all ROs in a private room so that they have all the elements at hand, and then continue with moderating the room. When the kicked users come back in the room, I feel it would be a good idea to invite them into a private room and go into more detail as to why they were kicked with a constructive feedback.

@joncle

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

joncle commented Mar 13, 2016

How do you feel about diamond moderators frequenting the room?

@ghost

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

ghost commented Mar 14, 2016

What is your stance on this What exactly is “artificial inflation of reputation”, and where is the line? with reference to the situation in the room?

@Tunaki

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Owner Author

Tunaki commented Mar 14, 2016

@joncle

I welcome them! It's a great and positive thing for the room to have moderators as members. It shows that there can be a group of people interacting "freely" with moderators. And SOCVR is not the only room to have such privilege. Still, this is a tricky question because it raises important challenges that the room faces. Moderators were elected by the whole Stack Overflow community, RO were not. However, in the room, they are under the same set of rules as all other members.

The first important point is that never should the room take for granted having moderators around. It is a wonderful thing but the room cannot rely on that. It has to do its own moderation, and, as a result, even moderate messages posted by diamonds themselves, in accordance with the FAQ. Members of the room should also not count on moderators to take any actions regarding cv-pls or reflag-pls. It also goes without saying that never should one member face up to a moderator because of a declined flag for example.

How are others members going to interact with them? That's another tricky point: yes, they are members of the room but they also have a greater challenge and mission. This means that other members should try to avoid pinging one moderator for feedback / actions / explanation... If someone has an issue on their hands and feel it requires moderator intervention, the main vector of action is still to raise a mod-flag and not try to involve a mod currently present in the room.

Given that today, there are quite a few diamond moderators active in the room, I think such a general guidance should be written explicitely in the FAQ.

@Tunaki

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Owner Author

Tunaki commented Mar 14, 2016

@yvettec

This question hides several important aspects: what should the room as a whole do? What should the Stack Overflow community do? I am not running for Stack Overflow moderator but SOCVR room owner so I cannot speak for the Stack Overflow community. But I can speak with what I think the room should do.

There are several considerations about the room and the user interacting in it. Should the room be responsible for actions done by its members outside of the room? No, it can only moderate what happens inside its borders in accordance with the FAQ. Should the room sanction / authorize its members to discuss bountying each other in the room? Definitely not. The FAQ is very clear on this matter: coordinated voting (whether it is by upvotes or bounties) is not tolerated. The actions that lead to the Meta post you're linking to definitely should never have happened in the room. And, in the future, should I become a room owner or not, I will certainly and sincerely hope that this never happens again.

Does this mean that those actions should never have happened at all? Well, this is a question that I cannot answer because it goes outside of the room's scope. Users are free to do what they want: their actions will be regulated by the Stack Overflow rules, not by the rules of the room.

@Bhargav-Rao

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

Bhargav-Rao commented Mar 18, 2016

on the very next day, I was already reporting spam...!

Really Tuna? ... I was reporting spam, 24 minutes after entering the room. 😄

Congratulations on becoming a RO and all the best for the future.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.