- Zealot Tony
- |
- Intrepid Heroic Member
"We live in a special time; the only time where we can observationally verify that we live in a very special time" - Lawrence Krauss.
I was a finalist :P
Posted by: Der Flatulator6
Posted by: Zealot Tony
Posted by: Der Flatulator6
Posted by: Zealot Tony
As other users have mentioned, the moderators don't cognitively think like a "hive-mind", more so have different perspectives on the rules and how they enforce them.
I can't speak for the moderators here, but as a member of the moderation team at Halo Waypoint, I can say that any decisions that aren't clear cut are discussed with other moderators before a decision is made, and/or action is taken. So we kinda are like a "hive-mind".
Yes, discussion would be encouraged when a moderator is unsure about how to handle a particular situation. However, a confident result which one moderator issues may be different to how another moderator deals with the same situation - they make this decision without consolidating anyone else, under the assumption that it is the right choice. I don't consider this as a "hive-mind" sort of behaviour (although there may other area of moderation which require it).As true as that may be, moderation is often simple when you have rules to go by. What's spam is spam, flaming is flaming, etc. However judgement calls are common, but as a rule, a decision that isn't clear cut, should be discussed. I'm not going into the details of the process, but you should be aware that there is more discussion going on than you think.
I believe a heck of a lot of discussion goes into any moderation team, which revolves about a variety of issues (I'd be scared if there wasn't). But, I also believe that having rules which are set in concrete don't give a moderator much leeway to make judgements, when compared to rules which are slightly more ambiguous ect.
If the rules where simple - one line - points, then we wouldn't see slight variations in judgement on the mains (such as if the a banned when another user would be banned for longer). Variables are factors which can contribute to this judgement, and it's ultimately the moderator to decide if they can be considered when making the final call about how long a user will be banned/warned, or if they will simply receive a PM from the moderator; not the entire moderation team.
Sure, variables are told to taken into consolidation when a moderator bans, but it is ultimately up to that single moderator to deduce the outcome of a problem (and how may they take into account each variable when making the final call); and this outcome may yield slightly different results, when compared to another moderator.
However - like you said - if one decision is so erratically different to how other moderators have been moderating, then I'd also be sure the moderator who carried out the decision would discuss it with his cohort about the why factor.