Spawned by discussions with a number of individuals on the responsibilities of moderators. If you need to make a point either way in this regard, please be civil. Please keep in mind that not all aspects of moderation are openly visible to those who are not moderators.

I have a bias towards his moderating because of how annoying I find his persistant arguments about Lusternian skills and mythology, and how he kept trying (keeps trying?) to tell Serenwilde how its RP is wrong.

So, I'll refrain from voting.

EDIT: Just spotted something that tipped the balance, actually. I'm in.

I appreciate how you have warned about civility and mentioned the visibility of moderation, Rhysus, but I fear such a topic is only designed to rant about Daganev, and were I one of the admin I would consider this unhelpful to your cause.

If you have concerns about moderation, you should address what is being done rather than who is doing it. As all moderators are responsible for the quality of the forums, all moderators are therefore responsible for facing criticism over poor moderation choices. If they as a group decide one among them is letting down the team, it is their call to single that one out.

It is fairly easy (I imagine) for the game administration to determine which moderators are doing what, and they can deal with inappropriate enforcement as necessary. Intimating that one person's moderation is bad appears biased unless you can justify what actions of moderation were bad. And as I said, responsibility for these are borne by the moderators as a team, not individually.

That is just my opinion though. If you want moderation changed, address the moderation itself, not who's behind it.

Were I of the opinion that the guidelines for moderation were in error, I'd dispute those. I'm not. I'm of the opinion that a particular moderator's actions have been less than in standing with said guidelines.

Hey, at least wait until this whole fuss has died down so you actually get a real proportion of votes. :/

I'm not sure I understand that statement... Arguments have nothing to do with moderating. As far as I know, moderating is only about closing topics, deleting posts/topics, censoring and, all in all, making sure the forums in general keep a civil tone and do not end up too vulgar.

When a moderator posts an opinion, they are just another player and can be treated the same way as any other player. Sure, sometimes his posts can sound a bit arrogant but... let's face it, he is -hardly- the only one , I could easily name at least ten other people who act the same way on a regular basis.

I would like any evidence of wrong doing on my part so I can change.

Yes but his arguments create a bias, at least in myself, against him in general. You might like to think it possible, but I really can't see anyone creating strict divisions between one person when they perform multiple roles (regular poster and moderator). Bias is natural and it's only a problem when you can't see it or won't admit to it, really.

Bolded for emphasis.

Daganev is not an oracle of wisdon that I run to. He is a decent enough moderator, though. Why can't we keep the two seperate? Is that Daganev's shortcoming, or is it your shortcoming?

When Moderator's resort to petty personal attacks based on someone's points of view, that does interfere with his ability to moderate.

It's my shortcoming, that's the point of me pointing out the bias. I know I do not like a lot of what he says, I know he makes me angry and annoys me a lot of the time with his ideas that I find totally silly. Therefore, I know that I am, more than likely, biased against him in general.

I could always pretend I don't have a problem with what he says, if that's better?

I think overall Daganev has been doing a competent job at moderating. Just because he's a moderator, doesn't mean he can't be opinionated. The only thing that has been pointed out to me was a log posted of some IRC conversation, which admittedly was in bad taste to post.

Anyway, I don't find this poll to be overly useful as being a moderator isn't exactly a popularity contest. However, in the interest of constructive criticism, and as Daganev has asked how he can improve, we'll keep it up for now.

I maintain, though, painting people as racists simply for giving credit to controversial historical figures is quite beyond bad tastes for a moderator.

Daganev, in my opinion, needs to learn that, omg, we don't agree with him. If he keeps pushing points, insulting people, being rude - we'll fight back. And, eventually, we'll all break at once - and it won't be pretty, like tonight. Honestly, a lot of things said were said simply because of the way he chooses to behave, and to talk to people.

Allright, define Personal attacks.

I'm obviously seeing things differently than you.

to me a personal attack is a factually unsustanable attack.

"You don't know what your talking about" is not a personal attack, because, well we can find out if the person knows what they are talking about or not.

"You are arrogant" does seem like a personal attack, since only the person being accused will know if this is true or not, and that rumor of that being true or not, will affect how people treat them and how that person thinks about themselves.


Is that what this issue comes down to?

I have to raise my disdain for this topic. Though I don't like Daganev that much but I have never seen him overstepped his boundaries or abused his moderating priviledges. From times to times he may do something dumb (like telling Ceres to PM Kaervas when she was addressing him on another thread) but he is still doing a competent job at editing some useless posts and bad words. It isn't like he is getting any benefits from being moderator, so cut him some slacks already.

Since there have been no specifics on what Daganev has done to deserve the criticism, I'll just say that those who actively moderate get criticism. I haven't deleted/moved/censored anything in a while, and not surprisingly, no one has any complaints about me right now.

A moderator should stick to the rules all of the time if they are the ones chosen to enfore them. Daganev labelling someone a rascist, for example, is insulting someone.

Would that mean that calling someone a republican is also an insult?

I'd certainly take it as an insult.

Right, I was afraid you'd say that.

See, I may have an opinion you don't agree with, but if me having that opinion makes you biased against me, thats an issue on your part, not mine. I, nor can anyone else, be expected to have opinions that everyone agrees with. The fact that one would be insulted by being called a repbulican, is in itself very insulting to anyone who believes strongly in being a republican. And this was my issue with the IRC chat room, and the way its being moderated.

The question is no longer if someone can have an opinion, its an issue of having an opinion that the more loudly spoken people agree with, or can spend the mental effort to find reason behind.

I'm sure someone is going to say "but they were just joking." And I question the banality of those types of arguments because, would said person make the same joke in the opposite direction? Most often, they do not, and when they don't that "joke" turns from 'humor' to a 'humours expression of the view they hold.'


Another MAJOR falacy that people keep making is the thought that if someone questions something, it means they suppport the position that you think the answer to that question leads to. And yet another is the thought that one person is incapable of arguing more than one point of view.

I can't begin to count the number of times I've been attacked for asking a question.