When are you actually going to listen to us? (@Pendragon @Tamat)

mi ramfan·Aug 28, 2014·29 votes·13,363 views

We've had a long list of issues we've been bringing up in Boards Feedback over and over again that haven't been addressed.

-Ghost mods who STILL don't delete blatant trolling threads. See yesterday, when the morning gave us a wonderful thread about how non-Diamonds have no right to any opinion about League and the afternoon gave us a thread about how all board users were anime fans (I won't be using that poster's term for it). Sure, the second thread got deleted by Pendragon, but not until six hours after it was made, and not by somebody who's actually on the job. -Single downvotes killing well-written posts. This is an issue with any voting based format. The ability to downvote something and make it less visible just enforces a circlejerk on popular opinions and makes it impossible for the other side of the argument to have their point of view heard. Imagine if, during a presidential debate, any person who was watching the debate on TV could instantly end either candidate's speaking time and give it to their opponent by pressing a button on their remote. That's what's happens every time somebody downvotes a good post because they don't like the opinions espoused within. -Confusing formatting, with little clarification in the help tool. This is a little bit less important, but there are so many tools in this forum set that we could use to make our posts more presentable that have only been figured out by Armalum and Rioters. When do you plan on opening the toolbox to all forum users in a transparent manner, instead of only those who have the time to source code Riot posts and figure out exactly how they got the formatting they did.

Riot, it's nice that you're trying to reboot your community after the royal clusterfuck that was GD. However, you've taken absolutely none of the steps you need to to prevent this forum from becoming GD again. In fact, if the GD community was all forced to come over here at once, I guarantee it would be worse then even current GD, because the trolls could literally prevent actual content from being visible by upvoting each other and downvoting any legitimate posts that get made.

If you want Boards to not be GD 2.0: Electric Boogaloo, this is what you need to do:

**Moderators must be REQUIRED to post in a thread when moving, deleting, or closing it, so that they can explain to the people actually using the thread for discussion why it had to be moved, deleted, or closed. **Additionally, the email addresses or some other means of contacting moderators MUST be made available, so that bans can be appealed and rules-related questions can be asked.
Something has to be done about single downvotes killing posts. We all agree that the community should be involved in getting rid of bad content; however, right now, people are abusing the system to get rid of good content they don't agree with instead of its intended purpose. Either scrap the downvote entirely, or require at least 3-4 downvotes in order to reduce a thread's visibility.
All of the formatting tools should be made available on the bottom bar, not just the simplistic ones you have currently. I know there's many, many more tools that exist for these forums then are down there, and I don't want to have to be a coding expert to put a little banner in my thread.

Riot, please.

52 Comments

PendragonAug 28, 201416 votes

One fundamental issue to think about when it comes to us responding to players is that there's a difference between doing what you ask - and addressing your concerns (where appropriate). Addressing each point...

We've made a huge number of improvements to the boards to specifically address player feedback over the last year. It would be hard to argue that we haven't been overall pretty responsive to community concerns and I think the boards community has significantly shaped the quality of this experience. I find the aggressive and accusatory tone of your post to be pretty unfair - and as a point of general feedback it makes me not want to respond to it.

To comment on your specific concerns

Moderators must be REQUIRED to post in a thread when moving, deleting, or closing it, so that they can explain to the people actually using the thread for discussion why it had to be moved, deleted, or closed. Additionally, the email addresses or some other means of contacting moderators MUST be made available, so that bans can be appealed and rules-related questions can be asked.

To me this would be nice to have as an evolution to our current approach to moderation, but I disagree that it's "mandatory". Right now if a post is deleted by a moderator the OP receives a message with details, and is still able to access the discussion - but people who posted in it may not be able to access it. Over time as we develop a more robust suite of moderation tools we would like to have options like "de-listing" which would be removing the post from the index of discussions, but still allowing people who have the link to view it - and potentially post in it (locked versus unlocked).

Overall I would like to have a way for players to privately send a message to the mod team.

Something has to be done about single downvotes killing posts. We all agree that the community should be involved in getting rid of bad content; however, right now, people are abusing the system to get rid of good content they don't agree with instead of its intended purpose. Either scrap the downvote entirely, or require at least 3-4 downvotes in order to reduce a thread's visibility.

Prioritizing work is tricky. We have a limited number of people on the team who can only do so many things at once. Sometimes it's really important that we get ahead of a problem because of the potential risk for it to become widespread and allow for exploitation. Sometimes though we have to acknowledge that something could be a problem in the future - and keep an eye on it. I think this could become a problem in the future, but is not a large enough problem now that it warrants a shift in development priority. The earliest potential abuse cases (downvote army, trolls, etc) can be handled through manual intervention, and generally right now I see the community self-correcting for this issue. I want to encourage people to vote more - the more players vote - and vote how they feel, the less potential for abuse there is. You have to remember that a single downvote is easily countered by a single upvote. Also just because something is well written doesn't necessarily mean it deserves attention.

All of the formatting tools should be made available on the bottom bar, not just the simplistic ones you have currently. I know there's many, many more tools that exist for these forums then are down there, and I don't want to have to be a coding expert to put a little banner in my thread.

We're going to do a pass at the editor at some point - I just don't have an ETA. Personally I'd like to see a full wysiwyg but we'll see.

PhailRaptorAug 28, 20141 votes

Moderators must be REQUIRED to post in a thread when moving, deleting, or closing it, so that they can explain to the people actually using the thread for discussion why it had to be moved, deleted, or closed. Additionally, the email addresses or some other means of contacting moderators MUST be made available, so that bans can be appealed and rules-related questions can be asked.

To me this would be nice to have as an evolution to our current approach to moderation, but I disagree that it's "mandatory". Right now if a post is deleted by a moderator the OP receives a message with details, and is still able to access the discussion - but people who posted in it may not be able to access it. Over time as we develop a more robust suite of moderation tools we would like to have options like "de-listing" which would be removing the post from the index of discussions, but still allowing people who have the link to view it - and potentially post in it (locked versus unlocked).

So... to clarify what you're saying here....

Tamat has finally conceded the point that "ghost mods" do not work, and that we the community will be able to see moderator accounts when they take action, once the systems come online?

PendragonAug 28, 20144 votes

Since we introduced the visual update to the boards we've been messaging someone when an action is taken against a post that they've made.

Moderators are not allowed to bypass that step - so every single time a moderator logs an action the player receives a notification. Sometimes more information is provided when it's reasonable to do so or difficult to discern the cause for the action.

This has been going on for awhile (months?).

Right now we don't have specific plans to make those actions MORE visible than to the player who the action was taken against such as those who posted in the offending discussion, or fully public, etc but could be something we consider in the future.

PhailRaptorAug 28, 20143 votes

Right now we don't have specific plans to make those actions MORE visible than to the player who the action was taken against such as those who posted in the offending discussion, or fully public, etc but could be something we consider in the future.

I sincerely hope you do, because at least from what I have seen, this is by far the most requested change to moderation, not just here on the Boards, but flat out in general, for * years. * I'm still stunned by the fact that you guys haven't acknowledge how important this is to us, the community.

PendragonAug 29, 20147 votes

I think that it's important for us to explain the rationale behind the decisions we make regarding moderation. I think it's the most important for us to do so to those directly impacted by those decisions.

I don't think we want to make a spectacle of moderation though, and it sounds like that's what you want

PhailRaptorAug 29, 20146 votes

I don't think we want to make a spectacle of moderation though, and it sounds like that's what you want

Please don't put words in my mouth.

What I want is for Moderators to be accountable for their actions (and, consequently, their inaction). When they close a thread that was completely benign, people get upset. In the current GD, we don't know whether threads are locked through moderator action, or through downvotes. There are times of day, and different days, where it's obvious that very different people are actively moderating GD. But what is even more telling is the things that do not get closed. Blatant hentai threads go on for pages and pages before being dealt with, if they get dealt with at all.

Besides which, from a business standpoint, don't you want to know which employees of yours are doing their jobs well, and which ones are not doing their jobs at all? Moderators having visible accounts with usernames can be reported when they abuse their power, or when they are actively performing parts of their job without performing all of their job.

PendragonAug 29, 20144 votes

Besides which, from a business standpoint, don't you want to know which employees of yours are doing their jobs well, and which ones are not doing their jobs at all? Moderators having visible accounts with usernames can be reported when they abuse their power, or when they are actively performing parts of their job without performing all of their job.

You can get all of this without a moderator having an individualized footprint. They have unique accounts, audit trails, are required to leave comments, etc. We also have a pretty robust suite of administrative tools here to make that process better of tracking and analysis more effective.

What I want is for Moderators to be accountable for their actions (and, consequently, their inaction). When they close a thread that was completely benign, people get upset. In the current GD, we don't know whether threads are locked through moderator action, or through downvotes. There are times of day, and different days, where it's obvious that very different people are actively moderating GD.

GD was certainly managed differently than boards are being managed. When a moderator takes an action - the player receives a notice (in every instance). Every decision that every moderator takes reflects the decision that Riot decided to take. You should hold Riot accountable for having good moderation (overall), not an individual moderator responsible. The same way you as a player would not hold an individual engineer responsible for a game crash bug. Good moderator coverage requires a whole team of people

It's pretty obvious in GD why a thread was locked. If the OP is collapsed - it was due to downvotes.

But what is even more telling is the things that do not get closed. Blatant hentai threads go on for pages and pages before being dealt with, if they get dealt with at all.

Yeah it's lame that stuff like that happened and you should be mad at us for it. I'm not expecting it to happen here - having a stronger moderator staffing model and a report queue should help substantially. We have internal response targets for reports (either acting or dismissing) that we hold ourselves accountable to.

HellioningAug 29, 20144 votes

And people who posted in the discussion that got deleted/locked aren't directly impacted by that decision? I'm not expecting a spectacle, but I really don't see why a mod can't post 'locking this thread because of porn' or 'locking this thread because it's devolved into a shouting match' before they do so. This helps inform people of what is or is not acceptable and allows for transparency around what's getting done.

Literally every forum I've ever been to as required their mods to do that or something similar.

PendragonAug 29, 20144 votes

Right now we're not actually locking any threads and the boards don't have the concept of locking. I think when we have locking and delisting (thread can't be navigated to, but can still be used by people who have the link/access) we would have some sort of way of making the decision known in the discussion.

You have to crawl before you can walk though

PryotraAug 29, 20143 votes

Way to assume intent and assign bias. If your Moderation team is a good as you claim, then there would be no spectacle, now would there? Seems like you don't have much more faith in them than we do. And it also appears that I can also assume intent and assign bias, so could we skip that from now on and actually try to be productive?

If you need a reminder on why visibility is good for moderation, perhaps you should revisit an old discussion on it. That said, I can elaborate how individualized moderators that actively and visibly moderate are better than the current system.

Accountability - been discussed, so I won't bother elaborating unless you ask.
Trust - Let's be honest. Not a single GD resident has even a milligram of trust for even a single moderator in your team. And that is a problem. You have a serious PR problem here, as no one trusts or respects your policemen to do their jobs, and as a result see any rules as more of a suggestion, and any action as tyranny. If you want to fix this, you are going to need to earn that trust back. Giving a face to these people can begin that process and, if they do more than just be moderation bots by sitting and chatting with us every once in a while, can easily solve this issue altogether.
Symbolism - Having the moderation team step out of the shadows means that the good side of the community has someone to rally around. Tamat has proven not to listen, and you aren't even a part of that team, by your own admission. If that has changed, feel free to let me know. As a result, the better parts of this community can only huddle together and attempt to persevere alone. This has proven ineffective time and time again, and each and every time your moderators have been invited to join with them at the table to discuss how to make this better. Doing just that can help you utilize the community to help save it.
A Name to Call. - In the early days of the tribunal, when someone claimed innocence, we called your name to smite them. When a person gets down to 0 RP, we call for RiotAmes. Even now, we call for Lyte when someone demands chat logs. This community wants someone to step forth when a thread need baleting. Any of your mods could be this person, with a digital "Bat-signal" in the form of private messaging when either further explanation is asked for or if there is pr0n on the loose. If the community is doing all the heavy lifting in finding these out of line threads, why wouldn't you give us a way to ensure that we can get this information to them ASAP? I know you said you wanted to have a way for this, but if they had names then that way could be the game client itself. That means 1 less feature you have to develop.

PendragonAug 29, 20146 votes

I'm not saying it should be invisible - I'm saying for the current actions that can be taken, the level of visibility is appropriate. An action is taken typically against an individual object that is in violation, and that person is provided with the context of the decision.

As we begin to develop other possible moderation actions - a new standard for visibility will need to be explored. Right now we don't have locked threads or delisted threads - those options will likely have a different mechanism for communication than the current private message that happens.

Right now you have the option to report every post, discussion, etc. There are a team of people who have standards for response times on those reports - which didn't exist before. That's your "bat-signal".

A 24x7 modern team is a dozen or so people on the smallest end - calling out individuals is not an effective way to communicate with a team like that.

DaenAug 29, 20143 votes

There are a team of people who have standards for response times on those reports - which didn't exist before. That's your "bat-signal".

To be fair, it's not exactly a bat-signal if it's not visible to users. I do see what you're going for however, and I agree that the ability to report is a huge step forward.

A 24x7 modern team is a dozen or so people on the smallest end - calling out individuals is not an effective way to communicate with a team like that.

It's not about calling out individuals for moderating poorly. It's about being able to interact with moderators as if they are actual people.

We call on Ames because we think it's awesome that we have created a small culture around the elusive 0 RP. We call on Lyte because we think it's awesome how involved in the community he is. We call on Ghostcrawler because we know he'll tell it to us straight and really engage with the community.

We want to be able to call on moderators because we think what they're doing to help our community is awesome and have dialogue with them. I totally get that they aren't actually Rioters so they can't really function in that capacity, which makes a lot of sense and explains why they can't be active with us. The reason the community is so up in arms about this, however, is that it seems like a conscious choice to deprive the community of interaction.

PendragonAug 29, 20145 votes

You can call Tamat or I out around anything moderation related and we'll happily represent the team.

I certainly understand the perspective and I believe that we're taking steps forward here. We will continue to expand our efforts there.

PryotraAug 29, 20141 votes

As far as current standards go you have fullfilled 1 of 4. That's a 25%, which is failing at every school I've ever gone to.

If the report feature truly does just this, then why do you even need private messaging to the mods? Only reason I get right now is for explanation, and as I said, the game client could very well be used as a private messager for these sort of things. De-listing, while on the way, will help provide further forms of dialogue between moderators and ourselves. I still see no reason for PM's to mods that Player support wouldn't be able to solve.

As far as Accountability is concerned, it's not just naming and shaming, but also a way to cheer for our heros. We called you as you smited the Trash that the tribunal kicked from our games, not because we wanted you gone, but because we applauded your actions. Similarly we do this with Lyte and Ames, and Ames has his fanbase simply for creating a culture all on his own. We want to cheer them on for doing good, but we can't cheer for a faceless machine.

As far as trust is concerned, the mods will not get it without a face. It really is that simple. They have abused and lost all trust that they once held, and they now need to work to earn it back. They won't be able to do that unless we see them and the actions. It's not about a spectacle, it's about proving their worth. Again, the only thing we have witnessed is them flounder a potential touchdown, and You, a non-moderator, picking up the slack. Not good, but at this point it really doesn't hurt them either. It's kinda expected, and that is the problem.

While symbolism may seem like trust, it's more than that. Right now, it doesn't really show that Riot cares about either forum community very much. You have left GD to rot, and now the filth is moving here. There has been next to no response to this phenomena, even when it sometimes blatantly disregards the "Don't be a Jerk" rule. The little response that we do see is you, here, doing damage control. This doesn't show that Riot really cares. This can start to be fixed by Moderation opening a brainstorming thread with the community on how to better handle this, but first they would need names. They need to not just be seen, but seen as involved in helping us clean this community up. Can't do that as ghosts, now can they?

I really hope you look at this later, and really think about it. As of right now, it seems you are pretty dismissive of all this, even though we have been asking for more visibility like the above for a year now on the CB/Boards alone.

PendragonAug 29, 20146 votes

If the report feature truly does just this, then why do you even need private messaging to the mods? Only reason I get right now is for explanation, and as I said, the game client could very well be used as a private messager for these sort of things.

For any reason a player might want to have a private one-way communication to the moderation team. Reporting potential abuse that's not attached to a specific discussion or post, to provide private feedback on rules and guidelines, etc.

As far as Accountability is concerned, it's not just naming and shaming, but also a way to cheer for our heros.

The best case scenario is that you don't feel moderation as an average boards poster or visitor. Bad threads and abusive comments should mostly magically disappear. The vast majority of moderator actions are not closing a discussion that got derailed or turned toxic - it's deleting spam and banning abusing posters. The moderation team is not one or two people who are largely taking most of the actions. The hundreds of daily moderation actions are taken by a bunch of folks. It's a completely different team dynamic than your example.

As far as trust is concerned, the mods will not get it without a face.

Moderation should be judged by the net result - not indivudal actions. If the boards are healthy, if there aren't a bunch of spam comments or offensive images, the moderation team is doing a good job. If it's not enough for you that it's the case - then I think your standards aren't fair.

You, a non-moderator, picking up the slack. Not good, but at this point it really doesn't hurt them either. It's kinda expected, and that is the problem.

I'm a moderator as much as anyone.

While symbolism may seem like trust, it's more than that. Right now, it doesn't really show that Riot cares about either forum community very much.

I just don't buy that sentiment and if that's really how you feel I think you're beyond pleasing. You invidually continue to just be adamant that unless we bow to every request that you have we're failing the community and we don't care. You're abusing the relationship here. I've made a dozen posts in the last 48 hours about moderation yet you say there's no response. The solution to that post problem wasn't hard - it was that a moderator who saw the post should have deleted it. It's an internal calibration issue.

I really hope you look at this later, and really think about it. As of right now, it seems you are pretty dismissive of all this, even though we have been asking for more visibility like the above for a year now on the CB/Boards alone.

You're not requesting an outcome, you're requesting a tactic. I think the tactic you recommend is an ineffective way to create your desired outcome and would result in a substantially less efficient and effective moderation team. You should hold Tamat and I accountable for the actions of the moderation team in its entirety, be it praise or otherwise. I've said it a bunch of times and you continue to ignore the point that every single moderation action taken on these boards results in a notification being sent to the player with the rationale. I've said that as we add more types of moderation actions we'll add more types of communication mechanisms. It's not enough for you. It's not enough if the moderation is reliable and effective, if there there is no spam and bad posts. It's not enough for you if you have people to hold accountable who represent the moderation team and effort - the same way Lyte represents the dozens of people who work on Player Behavior.

AnitreaAug 29, 20141 votes

Ok, reading through this a lot has jumped out at me. We all know how many trolls are on here, and while at times I dont agree with how the mods work, I can say at least they get things done at times. None of us know the mods, and yes that can be frustrating, and I would love to have a chat with them, points on here were made of why we should not be allowed to talk to them. Mods have a job to do, and it has to be frustrating.

A 24x7 modern team is a dozen or so people on the smallest end - calling out individuals is not an effective way to communicate with a team like that.

Ok, so a dozen or so people that have to monitor every post made on here? So it say 10000 posts are made an hour on the boards divided by 12..... Wow, they have no time to have arguments over why your post was removed because you decided it was ok to be a dick to someone.

We dont know what the guidelines are for the mods. Do they have a rule set they have to follow? Are the rules different for them from the new boards to the old boards? I saw the diamond dont talk to me because you are bronze thread. I found it stupid and wish the mods did the job and closed it, or removed it, senseless trolling to me, but they didnt. Could they have closed it? No one has asked if Riot has rules that said a mod cant close it. I dont know just thought it was a good point there.

We all know trolls exist on here, they go off the handle at the stupidest things. Can you imagine a system where a troll gets say banned for a day and is able to yell at a mod for it on all 50 of the accounts this person has? I mean a mod just would not have time for it. On the other hand if a way for the mods could be used to talk with us, I almost feel it should be pretty much one way, that way users can not abuse the fact that they can yell or rant at someone. Im sorry but from what I know of GD, its a lot of kids that feel they are privileged and should be the only voice to talk on here. Mods cant deal with that with a cool head I feel.

I could talk on here for hours over what I feel but let me know what you think.

PendragonAug 29, 20142 votes

Ok, reading through this a lot has jumped out at me. We all know how many trolls are on here, and while at times I dont agree with how the mods work, I can say at least they get things done at times. None of us know the mods, and yes that can be frustrating, and I would love to have a chat with them, points on here were made of why we should not be allowed to talk to them. Mods have a job to do, and it has to be frustrating.

Tamat or I will happily represent the mod team. He works actively with them every day to set the processes and standards, and we regularly review the work of the team.

Ok, so a dozen or so people that have to monitor every post made on here? So it say 10000 posts are made an hour on the boards divided by 12..... Wow, they have no time to have arguments over why your post was removed because you decided it was ok to be a dick to someone.

A dozen or so is the minimum required to have a 24x7 team doing anything just due to shifts and scheduling. That doesn't necessarily reflect the size of our team. On the old forums there are between 25k and 75k posts made per day - not quite the numbers you're reflecting.

We dont know what the guidelines are for the mods. Do they have a rule set they have to follow? Are the rules different for them from the new boards to the old boards? I saw the diamond dont talk to me because you are bronze thread. I found it stupid and wish the mods did the job and closed it, or removed it, senseless trolling to me, but they didnt. Could they have closed it? No one has asked if Riot has rules that said a mod cant close it. I dont know just thought it was a good point there.

That one totally should have been closed - it's just a calibration process that we go through. Sometimes things slip through the cracks like that. Every time they do it's an opportunity to revisit our practices and figure out how it was missed.

DaenAug 29, 20143 votes

The best case scenario is that you don't feel moderation as an average boards poster or visitor.

Here lies the crux of the issue. It seems that the community members interested in moderation hold a radically different high-level view of moderation from Riot, and I think I might be able to chip away at why that is.

#Community View

Moderators should be a part of the community
Moderation actions should be visible to anyone interested
Players should be able to relate to moderators on a personal level as a community

#Riot View

Moderators should not be a part of the community
Moderation actions should not be visible except to the specific content creator
Players should be able to relate to a figurehead on a personal level to represent moderators

Do we notice anything interesting? The community view for moderation includes things that are customarily done via Community Management peeps, whereas the Riot view is much more conservative and assumes that moderation is an insular system.

This brings up a question in my mind; are we really up in arms about moderation having issues, or the lack of something else?

PryotraAug 29, 20141 votes

You are very close. So very close. I find it funny you see it, but penny doesn't.

Maybe he does, but is using the mod team as a metaphore.

DaenAug 29, 20141 votes

You are very close. So very close.

Close to what, exactly?

Discussion is about amalgamating ideas and trying to figure out where the common ground is and how to build upon it. Not bashing ideas against each other to see if one breaks.

PryotraAug 30, 20141 votes

As Phail Raptor mentioned, this sort of thing has been requested for years. This is something of a request that seems Pendragon automatically will fight tooth and nail, and the reason that GD is the way it is today.

#BACKSTORY TIME

So, back in S1, things were good. Yes, GD was where everything happened, and yes, Rioters obviously moderated in their spare time, but at the end of the day, there were a set of stickied rules, and because the rioters were there quite a bit, people followed and respected them.

Then that fateful project, the one that has made Riot afraid to talk to us, happened. The Rioters began to leave the forums, and as a result GD began it's decent. There were many threads that called out, trying to get some help from the reds, even a sign that they were there. The Response? GD's rules were removed.

The change happened pretty fast after that, and people openly mocked Riot for doing the exact opposite of what the community asked for. I mean, the request was that the rules had someone to visibly back them up, and they decided to remove them instead. The only response as to why they were removed was from Penny himself, iirc, stating that we didn't need the rules to know how to act. couldn't find this, I'll keep looking I later found out it was due to them fearing Rule Lawyering, or people intentionally misinterpreting the rules to abuse them. Apparantly, Anarchy is better than rules that are misinterpreted, and thus GD's fate was sealed.

Well, you can imagine how fast GD was falling at this point, but we still haven't gotten to the porn era yet. Riot Ambassadors happened. If you don't know what that was, Basically it was a failed attempt from Riot to use them as both a moderation team and a way to never talk to us directly again. This Ultimately Flopped when TheBeard closed a thread trying to get news on a certain rework, saying that there were other threads like it. Not actually the case. He got sacked.

However, This was not the bottom, not even close. It kept getting worse. Then the banning of Iaw happened. This was the beginning of the end. While they claim he broke forum rules, remember those things that they removed, lol, no evidence was given. He simply was popular, and frankly I don't know if he did or not, but with how the mods acted afterwords, I'm inclined to believe innocence.

This is where the gauntlet was thrown down, where GD felt challenged. It started as a game, try and sneak the porn by, but eventually grew to just posting it whenever and still getting 60+ pages before a close during day hours. This, for some, feels like the depth, but it is not. Yes, it got worse. What follows porn? Gore, and while it was never as popular, it still happened. This sort of thing continued till Frosthaven stepped in.

Frosthaven was the hero we needed, not the hero we deserved. Frankly, he kept his head above the garbage, and called to others for help. He picked up the FEK project, and got his moderators to help lead the charge for a better forum. While this is wasn't with any real power, it was working. Vamp used his smurf army to help close garbage threads, and things started to pick up. There was no hiding, and the whole team was very visible. The worst part was, it was working.

This lead to action. Vamps smurf army got forum banned, and Frost had been asked to keep FEK in OT by un-named Rioters. CB was announced, and flopped without moderators, as it was essentially a worse version of GD, especially when you factor in FEK. They got Frost to help them out, which he did, and the Boards are birthed. However, with "ghost mods" which apparently are as effective as the Riot Ambassadors, just more hidden.

There is no tl;dr for all that, but the point is that this is redundant. We have seen visibility work better than anything Riot has tried, and they flat out refuse. Every other functioning forum has this, yet Riot refuses. This is how it is.

DaenAug 30, 20141 votes

I have a question to present, then I will address your comment:

Do you feel that a solution (assuming perfect implementation) where moderators remain invisible but there is a very strong Community Management presence from Riot that interacts with the community and represents the moderators could work in the way you envision?

Anyway, back to your reply.

this sort of thing has been requested for years.

Yes. However, Riot is finally trying to rectify it. Aggressively trying to force a singular point is not the way to effect (yes, it's correct grammar) change.

Then that fateful project, the one that has made Riot afraid to talk to us, happened. The Rioters began to leave the forums, and as a result GD began it's decent.

Agreed. The Riot response to their PR blunder was so much more significant than the blunder itself, though it took a long time to manifest.

Riot Ambassadors happened.

Yeah...that was a huge failure. At least they tried something new, however, and bashing Riot for attempting solutions is not the...solution.

TheBeard closed a thread trying to get news on a certain rework, saying that there were other threads like it. Not actually the case. He got sacked.

Do you have a source for this being the sole reason for TheBeard being fired? That sounds very un-Riot.

CB was announced, and flopped without moderators, as it was essentially a worse version of GD

This is a little unfair. The Community Beta was released with express knowledge that it was very much in development and not yet ready. I don't think there can be much debate that it's better than GD at facilitating conversation in its current state, other than a couple of (relatively) minor features.

PryotraAug 30, 20141 votes

Do you feel that a solution (assuming perfect implementation) where moderators remain invisible but there is a very strong Community Management presence from Riot that interacts with the community and represents the moderators could work in the way you envision?

Very much so, but the moderators won't succeed without it. It is critical that we have a form of open dialogue as well as closed, and if there was an active Community Management presence, then the mods could theoretically not have to have that as an integral part of their job. Thing is, and this is the funniest part, Community Management used to be Pendragon's title. I no longer know who, if anyone, holds it. Regardless, if we wanted to purify the job roles, then there would need to be an active Community Manager.

Yes. However, Riot is finally trying to rectify it. Aggressively trying to force a singular point is not the way to effect (yes, it's correct grammar) change.

I am impressed with your literacy. We need more posters like you.

As for the attempt at rectification, I believe that I have opened many different avenues, but none have been listened to. I chose one for this thread, as it's the longest standing, unanswered point. Hence, why I believe it to be most on topic. If he wanted to progress from there, he could have actually read the post instead of inserting words into my mouth and throwing accusations my way.

Also, I enjoy picking at people who stop trying to hold reasonable discussion and instead make jabs at the speaker. If you read back a bit, that was how I got started here. I do try to keep it civil, and I did read his post. I just don't see how it addressed my point in the slightest. I did see a whole lot of him attacking the speaker, and inserting words into my mouth, but not a whole lot on the points of Trust or Showing support for the community. I don't qualify a bunch of post = care if all those posts are condescending and attacking of the other side. Context is infact key.

Yeah...that was a huge failure. At least they tried something new, however, and bashing Riot for attempting solutions is not the...solution.

Obviously they don't just come out and say it. They've only done it once, and from then on policy became to not really discuss it. That one time though was a HUGE abuse of power, and could not really be addressed any other way, and was too big to ignore.

That said, I do have a few quotes that support this.

http://forums.na.leagueoflegends.com/board/showthread.php?p=20387996#20387996

http://forums.na.leagueoflegends.com/board/showthread.php?p=20402790#20402790

There was a another post I recall about the beard getting "trimmed", but that appears to be lost in the bowels in GD. It gets really difficult to dig some of these quotes up.

This is a little unfair. The Community Beta was released with express knowledge that it was very much in development and not yet ready. I don't think there can be much debate that it's better than GD at facilitating conversation in its current state, other than a couple of (relatively) minor features.

I wouldn't consider it a rousing success, but It currently does have some things over GD ATM. For example, it doesn't make my eyes bleed after 15 minutes. I'm not lying, as GD does this without my skin GDNight, and CB did it too.

That said, it kinda depends. ATM, GD would theoretically be better, if it had the same level of moderation. IMHO, if you are going to build something from the ground up to replace an old system, you have to compare both systems with equal resources to determine whether or not the new model is better. With the current level of moderation, I feel that GD could actually be better for discussions. It is logical, easy to follow, and I don't need to minimize things to figure out who is talking to who.

That said, I do think that the Boards have the potential to be better. If they finish the Chrono view, and fix sorting to not one-shot new posts by a stray downvote early in life, then this board could be much better than GD. Currently, this is not the case.

PryotraAug 30, 20141 votes

It seems we hit the reply limit. I just thought I should let you know via notifications. Yet another way GD wins, IMO, as it's not hard to track a discussion after X amount of replies.

PryotraAug 29, 20141 votes

I got to go to work soon, so I'll try to be to the point.

For any reason a player might want to have a private one-way communication to the moderation team. Reporting potential abuse that's not attached to a specific discussion or post, to provide private feedback on rules and guidelines, etc.

See, that makes sense. It's the first time I've heard this reasoning, so thanks for sharing.

The best case scenario is that you don't feel moderation as an average boards poster or visitor.

It depends on the definition of best. While I could spend days contrasting your best to worst case scenarios, I would simply remind you that the boards are not a Best Case scenario, and your track record is GD. While I'm not trying to imply success or failure, I simply want you to be aware that what is current isn't best.

Also, I should point out that your current best "win" scenario is that you don't appear to or appear to need to exist. My best case scenario is a community at your side, supporting you. Either way is a win, so long as the boards get clean. If you want the Moderators to shoulder the burden alone, then by all means, shoulder away.

I just don't buy that sentiment and if that's really how you feel I think you're beyond pleasing. You invidually continue to just be adamant that unless we bow to every request that you have we're failing the community and we don't care.

You're not requesting an outcome, you're requesting a tactic. I think the tactic you recommend is an ineffective way to create your desired outcome and would result in a substantially less efficient and effective moderation team. You should hold Tamat and I accountable for the actions of the moderation team in its entirety, be it praise or otherwise.

And I could claim you are intentionally being offensive and attacking to the poster, while ignoring the content of the post. I have not tried to offend, but if you feel offended I apologize for that. I simply am stating what I see, and how I could see it better. You could call it a tactic, but at the end of the day I simply am trying to suggest something that seems intentionally ignored with no rational. I am not demanding you use it, but rather simply consider it. Quite honestly, if I didn't see all this toxicity moving over from GD, then I guess I wouldn't be here, now would I?

We realize that notifications are sent, we never once faulted you, or the team for it. I, and others I've seen, seem to think it simply isn't effective. While a post in the wrong section is immediately removed, a toxic post is left untouched. As I am witnessing the toxic type of threads on the boards this morning, even more arise. I think that if you want no help, then you don't need it to find all these threads I am seeing.

I'm a moderator as much as anyone.

Well then, looks like I'm behind the times. Last I heard you denied this, so things must have changed. Welcome to the table. I just wish it was as allies and possibly friends.

Hyrum GraffAug 31, 20141 votes

I don't think we want to make a spectacle of moderation though, and it sounds like that's what you want

Why not?

Let's look at a system that VERY closely parallels moderation: the interim in-game discipline systems since the tribunal went down.

# summoner 14 When they first came out, there was a lot of mistrust. "I was banned unfairly" posts abound. This is actualy still the case. But the community reaction was different. Back then, when people were making "Unfair Ban" posts, the community took their side. They complained about how it's not possible for an automated system to be fair, etc.

# Then, came Wookie and Lyte. Now, when people make those posts, the majority of comments are people bumping, waiting for the OP to get #rekt.

The important thing to note here is that now people trust the system. Not completely, but much better than they did before. This was a direct result of increased transparency. If Wookie and Lyte had smited (smote?) those people in private, the community never would have trusted that the system works.

######And - let's be honest - it's fun seeing OP get Rekt.

Thunder DreamssAug 29, 20142 votes

Personally I'd like to see a full wysiwyg but we'll see.

Please no. Strait text editing tends to be much more stable and produce much more predictable results. Cut and past in particular tends to fail hard when it meets forum wysisyg editors that lack the full functionality of desktop editing software.

Otherwise, thank you for your work on these new Boards and good luck when GD starts coming over in greater numbers.

BabySledgeAug 28, 201411 votes

I don't agree with making mod emails available, but there should definitely be a way to contact them. Or at the very least, make the mods more visible and well-known to the community. It's hard to trust in them when we don't even know who they are, aside from a select few. We don't even need to see them once a minute either. Just be a solid presence on the boards/forums so it's obvious that someone is around to moderate what is going on in here. IMO, it would go a long way in fostering more trust and confidence in the moderation of the boards if the moderators were more visible.

Thunder DreamssAug 29, 20141 votes

I don't agree with making mod emails available, but there should definitely be a way to contact them.

I'd assume the email provided would be a work account specifically for contact with the player base. Private messages on Boards can also work but email is nice for dispute resolution because it's more of a neutral ground not controlled by the same moderators you're disagreeing with.

Sir ArmaMalumAug 28, 20147 votes

Good feedback.

On the subject of a single downvote sniping killing a well written thread, that can be an issue I agree but it's only really an issue in the 'hot' ordering. 'Recent' and 'recently replied' are not affected by that. I honestly think it's more of an issue of lack of upvotes, as I can imagine people are more inclined to downvote things they don't agree with versus upvoting things they do.

MrBuffingtonAug 28, 20141 votes

Even if we believe people are using your system of voting based on the merits of the post, it more likely to conflate bad posts with ones you disagree with, than good posts with ones you agree with. It's not always deliberate, I think this is a flaw.

12talesAug 28, 20144 votes

Moderators must be REQUIRED to post in a thread when moving, deleting, or closing it, so that they can explain to the people actually using the thread for discussion why it had to be moved, deleted, or closed. Additionally, the email addresses or some other means of contacting moderators MUST be made available, so that bans can be appealed and rules-related questions can be asked.

Disagree with the approach here, although I like the concept. You delete or close a thread because you don't want it to remain visible to the general public - simultaneously bumping it defeats the point, and wastes the moderator's time. I also think that having moderators act in an official capacity publicly reinforces the schism between mods and regular posters, which seems to bother some people.

I definitely agree that increased transparency for moderation would be a step forward. If something akin to what you suggest could be done automatically, that'd be fantastic.

SunfieldAug 28, 20141 votes

When I saw how it works in other forums ex Battlelog, I was actually quite suprised that Lol hasnt implemented this yet. A mod posts why he is deleting the thread and does it. It works just great, I have never seen the toxicity on bf forums that is visible on boards and GD

Thunder DreamssAug 29, 20141 votes

In other forums I've been on mods post when closing a thread or leave a post in place of a deleted thread explaining the action. It helps allot for a few reasons.

Firstly, it makes it publicly clear what behavior is not allowed. This helps remove confusion about what is or is not allowed. When a thread is closed without comment everyone just kinda guesses what was wrong with it so different people will be avoiding different things and some people will see the same thing they think the thread was banned for elsewhere and think the mods are showing favoritism.

Secondly, it makes justice obvious. When people log in and look at new comments they'll notice new threads that are bad. If the thread is closed/deleted without comment they won't see it again and are likely to just assume it disappeared down the list on it's own. This in turn makes it look as if moderation is not occurring at all and can cause people to become disillusions because they see all these bad threads and the mods "never do anything."

Thirdly, it helps identify trolls. If you notice threads by A_Troll are always closed for trolling then when you see a thread by A_Troll that pisses you off you'll likely remember that it's just trolling that will be gone soon and hence be less likely to respond and exacerbate the problem.

DiamonesdAug 29, 20143 votes

All comments should be seen by everyone reading. That is why General Discussion makes so much sense. I can read every comment, BY THE ORDER they were commented. I dont give a flying fuck about who gets more upvotes. I dont want to see those post first and scroll all the way down to the dissenting post. I want to see every post in the order they were written. That gives so much context to each response.

Hyrum GraffAug 31, 20141 votes

Try nested comments, but sorted by "recent" instead of "best".

That's currently my preferred view, for reading longer threads like this one. Upvote sorting works great for skimming threads, but when you want to participate in them, you need chronological order. However, I also like seeing nesting for context.

GranspearZXAug 28, 20142 votes

"The ability to downvote something and make it less visible just enforces a circlejerk on popular opinions and makes it impossible for the other side of the argument to have their point of view heard."

Up until now, I wasn't aware that the Boards team had implemented a feature that prevented people from posting their own counterpoint threads.

Even the most 'well written' post can be filled with flawed arguments, unresearched information, and uninformed opinions. For example, I'm willing to bet that any evidence you have of people "abusing" downvotes is purely anecdotal and not based on anything but the same information any regular user has. There's also the fact that your hypothetical about GD's forced migration is a non-issue, because it's been said numerous times that it won't happen. Now, does that mean your entire post should be downvoted? More to the point--should your post be entitled to visibility simply because it's in coherent English?

And there's literally nothing preventing people from spamming a moderator's e-mail address. If the goal is to move away from the landfill that has been General Discussion, somehow giving people another anonymous avenue for abuse doesn't really seem to be all that productive a solution. Maybe people should read the board description before posting there? It's a crazy idea, I know, but considering how many people advocate for prior knowledge before going into a Ranked game, this shouldn't be that hard.

It's, at best, a gross exaggeration. It's a cop-out for people who can't craft an argument and rely on the same poor articulation to get people who stop thinking at the last word of a post to agree with whatever's been said. Giving merit to the meritless should *never *be the default. But that could just be me.

mi ramfanAug 28, 20142 votes

The circlejerk doesn't just apply to comments within a thread, it applies to the threads themselves. One downvote on a thread moves it down 5 pages, making it nearly impossible to find. You can't post unpopular opinions on the Boards the way they're currently set up, even if you back them up with logic and facts-you will be downvoted and your post will be impossible to find within a few hours.

Since you seemed to focus on the idea of posts and not threads, let me ask you this: how unhappy would you be if I downvoted your well written post, burying it near the bottom of this thread?

(I won't, by the way)

You'd be unhappy. You'd want to know what about your post merited a downvote. I, the downvoter, could just walk away from the comment, having safely buried a contradictory opinion so I don't have to see it again.

And there's literally nothing preventing people from spamming a moderator's e-mail address. If the goal is to move away from the landfill that has been General Discussion, somehow giving people another anonymous avenue for abuse doesn't really seem to be all that productive a solution. Maybe people should read the board description before posting there? It's a crazy idea, I know, but considering how many people advocate for prior knowledge before going into a Ranked game, this shouldn't be that hard.

Without a way to contact the moderators directly, there can be no moderator accountability. On most forums, the moderators are just other members of the forum community who happen to have the power to delete troll posts/threads. They participate in discussions like everyone else. They have PM inboxes just like everyone else, allowing you to contact them if you want to appeal something or ask a question. The current moderators aren't members of the community; as far as we know, they may not even exist.

If you don't want us to be able to contact the moderators (a valid opinion), then how do you plan to make the moderators accountable to the community?

It's, at best, a gross exaggeration. It's a cop-out for people who can't craft an argument and rely on the same poor articulation to get people who stop thinking at the last word of a post to agree with whatever's been said. Giving merit to the meritless should never be the default. But that could just be me.

Strawman-nobody is saying that you should upvote everything except troll posts. We're saying that you shouldn't DOWNVOTE anything except troll votes. If you don't like a post, but it's not trolling, then not voting is always an option.

If the community is not mature enough to handle the upvote/downvote the way it was always meant to be used, it should go away.

GranspearZXAug 28, 20141 votes

Since you seemed to focus on the idea of posts and not threads, let me ask you this: how unhappy would you be if I downvoted your well written post, burying it near the bottom of this thread?

(I won't, by the way)

You'd be unhappy. You'd want to know what about your post merited a downvote. I, the downvoter, could just walk away from the comment, having safely buried a contradictory opinion so I don't have to see it again.

See, I'm going to have to push back on this one... because it's predicated on the notion that I'd be hung up on, for whatever reason, the idea that the worth of my opinion is measured in upvotes and downvotes. I'm not sure if that's a healthy position for anyone to take, let alone Riot. It doesn't help to dispel the illusion that pandering for upvotes is the only way to get an opinion heard.

As far as moderator accountability goes, I feel like the "faceless cabal" that was and still is GD moderation colors a lot of this particular discussion. There's been years of incidents that back users who feel a need for greater transparency. A better solution might be to put a PM system in place on the boards--for everyone, not necessarily just moderators--but that might be a little bit too much given the number of users that actually do and will use the boards... something to think about, I suppose.

MrBuffingtonAug 28, 20141 votes

People will just circle jerk for the necessary 3-4 down votes, it happened both ways with the two threads you mentioned; they spiked to like 20 up votes a piece then down to single digits again within an hour or so.

mi ramfanAug 28, 20141 votes

If 3-4 downvotes are required in order to reduce the visibility of a thread, then that means three or four people have to ALL read it and agree that it's low quality/trolling/pr0n in order to make it disappear.

I would always prefer to err on the side of "more difficult to make legitimate posts go away", even if it also makes it harder to make pr0n go away as well. That's what the report button and the moderators are SUPPOSED to be for-it just seems like the only moderator on these forums is Pendragon, and then only occasionally.

Colonel JAug 28, 20141 votes

RIot should just delete Boards because it's terrible and no one will use over Reddit and just stick with gee dee.

mi ramfanAug 28, 20145 votes

There are quite a few of us here who are trying to improve it by setting standards, giving feedback to Riot, etc.

That alone puts it 3 steps above GD, which is so infested with trolls and porn spammers that even GDers have given up on it.

Colonel JAug 28, 20141 votes

Even so, people will just use Reddit. Riot themselves uses it more than Boards. This is nice and all, but it's like making a competitor to YouTube. Not really doable.

I can really only see people from Reddit coming here if Riot commanded all of their staff to use it, but I doubt it will ever happen. Rioters love them some upvotes.

Also, more people use gee dee than Boards :]

(Porn isn't that big either. Blame it on lack of moderation.)

mi ramfanAug 28, 20143 votes

Riot uses Boards more then you'd think.

You're right that more people use GD then boards, but the troll to legit poster ratio is somewhere between 2:1 and 3:1. On boards it's like 0.25:1. More people on Boards legitimately want a better forum then on GD-GD has long since given up on improving the quality of discussion in favor of more image copypastas and trolling.