Ok, I'll take a stab,
Why is the quality of discussion and argument on reddit generally considered to be higher than on the League boards?
The quality of discussion on Reddit is arguably better or arguably worse dependant on what you are looking to talk about. I go there for a couple subreddits to laugh at memes or "Am I the Asshole" but I don't usually read the comments at all because I fucking hate that layout. Regarding the League sub-reddit. Meh. I prefer Boards layout and content. I can only take so much e-sports "discussion"/"analysis" and links to pro players youtube/twitch montages.
Why do more Rioters tend to go to Reddit than the League boards?
More Rioters go to Reddit because it is the prescribed place to speak to the community (and social media sites like Twitter) by the corporation at large as it is a free platform that has an extensive reach and is well known, easily frequented and relatively free from a time-sink analysis for any Rioter in any department to post on. There is moderation that disallows posts that are directed solely at Rioters, which allows for Rioters to be free and clear to respond to any post they want and it be a treat; a welcome surprise without having to deal with "why didn't you respond to XYZ" problem post.
Did the moderators on the League boards ever make a successful effort to remove spam and low effort posts on important boards such as gameplay?
I would say that hey probably did make an effort. Whether that effort resulted in much is a byproduct of (likely) the sheer amount of shit to sift through and from what I understand the poor tools at their disposal. Without knowing the ins and outs of their background platform, I would say it's hard to understand the difficulties it might present in quickly and efficiently sorting and moderating threads. From what they have told the community, it would seem that is garbage.
Did the moderators here hold personal grudges against users and allow that to impact their considering of those users suggestions/complaints?
As with any human-led moderation there is bound to be some personal bias included in it. Biases are implicit when humans interact with other humans regularly. I would assume that problem posters were probably treated as such. Posters who are frequently helpful and kind probably were given relaxed standards on things like spam or the occasional shitpost/calling some a jerkpost. I don't think that is necessarily bad, but I can see why it might be frustrating. IDK if someone who consistently breaks the don't shit on other people rule is really the person to be taking advice from about the don't shit on other people rule when that advice is "I want to shit on other people and you tell me I cant so I don't like that rule and it should be deleted"
Did Riot ever attempt to enforce standards on the moderators?
If Riot didn't enforce rules upon the moderation team here then how would they exist to begin with. Riot just eeniemeenieminiemoed some people in and peaced out? The general rules and guidelines haven't changed here much outside of the original transition from old vbullitin to Boards in the first place. If Riot wanted the strictest of standards for their mods they would have retained paid moderation. Clearly they wanted a more relaxed (and free) moderation approach, as outlined by the moderation ppl that explained the standards of what Riot wanted for rules.
Did Riot ever set rules as to removal of low effort content on the boards, or did Riot just move to Reddit when the mods there proved better?
Part of this I answered above but "removing posts feelsbadman" seems like the reigning thought process from Riot to moderation for "low effort" posting. Also low effort posting is pretty wide range and up to debate on what actually that entails. Also different for different sub-boards. This isn't a "delete all posts under 100 words" situation. What you think is low effort, I might believe otherwise. That's a semi-difficult line to walk, even for Riot. This question also is clearly biased towards Reddit format modding (or anti-Boards modding, which is more likely), considering you have provided the basis "proved better", which is arguable to many people, myself included.
Did the moderators here maintain a moderation "staff" of adequate size for the size of the boards?
&
Did the moderators here bring on new moderators frequently enough to keep a team of adequate size?
I don't think there was ever a volunteer moderation team of any realistic size that could approach Boards and maintain them 100% of the time the way some people wanted the Boards to be moderated it would seem. Training people to mod was likely time intensive itself, the tools being trash and having to learn 3rd party software (as described by mods) on top of the trash infrastructure already given in order to moderate would also need to be taught. That's not even mentioning the time it takes to start a recruitment process, let the recruitment phase run it's course, then go through all the applicants history to make sure they were ok from the get go AND then conducting interviews and onboarding. That's a large process. That process is normally ran by an entire HR department at any company/business. Doing that as well as moderating while unpaid is a lot. So I expect it was done infrequently and was a huge investment when it needed to occur. I only remember a couple times so I assume it wasn't that many.
Were changes "talked about" or "being considered" for too long before an inevitable action was taken?
- We wouldn't really know how long it took for every decision to be made or what hoops mods would have had to jump through. I imagine that they cant just unilaterally make changes without running it past their Riot contact and they are not always in control of how long that process may take. I'm positive they would have had some situations where it took longer than anticipated. Volunteer teams suffer from lots of roadblocks in these situations, which makes them sub-par in the getting shit completed category. Getting members together at one time to process a list of things to implement was probably impossible with more than 5 people lol.
How much time did the moderators spend in boards such as gameplay reading posts and replying to them?
I don't see how we could know that for sure outside of doing an indepth analysis of every mods history and even then we don't know how often they were engaging and posting on possible alt accounts. It seems likely that if you wanted to post and not be hounded regarding moderation or have your opinions discounted immediately by some people you would post on a smurf. Lots of ppl do this just casually on Boards without that stigma so I don't see why mods wouldn't. I don't think all mods had the same job or position regarding moderation either. You don't have to post all the time to understand that being an asshole is against the rules of Boards. I'm sure there was a breadth of mod activity depending on the moderators themselves.
Was the boards better under the old program where moderators were "per board" or "specialized mods" (ex: arbiters)?
I dunno? I don't think so by the standards you have placed.I think universally Boards was still seen negatively by Redditors and some Rioters at that point in time as well so I don't really think it's an applicable standard. By all accounts you would think that specialized folk dedicated to moderating one Board only would cause disruptions in moderation for larger Boards and well what if no mods were interested in or no mods applied to mod certain Boards? Those just go unmoderated? idk.
Is it worth letting users remain who prove to have no interest in discussion and only want to rant/spew nonsense in their posts?
That question is difficult because part of understanding criticism is being able to weed out through that kind of shit and find the actual cause of frustrations. Sure some people post just to be dicks, absolutely, that is a given, and those people will get banned, or should be banned. Some people however just get fuckin mad at this game and mad at decisions that are made. So they rant. They are still people and their feelings are still actual human feelings that exist for a REASON. It is definitely not as effective as positive based informative criticism but if a large number of players are expressing anger and frustration about something, you can pinpoint that something and look at it to see if there is in fact an issue that might need to be tweaked. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.
All and all, this "questionnaire" seems highly motivated by your OWN PERSONAL opinions about moderation and Riot's involvement in it. The "glaringly obvious" is only "glaringly obvious" to you as other people have their own opinions and mindset regarding these things. Most mod posts I've seen regarding this are frustrated and sad. Almost every single post I've seen they have also taken a modicum of responsibility (varying degrees). I've also seen apologies from mods about different situations since I've been lurking here on this smurf.
Insulting everyone who posts here isn't really a great look, from mods or from you. I find it curious that looking through your interactions you tell the community to "listen when people tell you you're wrong or that there is other data/information at play" but I've seen moderators and other users express that to you, and you refuse to listen to them. Honestly, I know posting this is a giant whatever because I'm going to immediately log off again and go play Bioshock or something else, but holy Christ my man, take your frustrations and channel them into something that actually matters at this point, but I'm guessing you will just scream into the void until it collapses upon itself.