I wrote this a very long time ago and then forgot about it. This week's roleplay discussion reminded me about it. I would like to note that it is mostly directed at Furcadia dream administrators, but I think it's transferrable.
This has been constructed from my experiences as an administrator in various Imaginarium dreams. It's intended to be a set of guidelines to follow in order to be a responsible, fair administrator. And I am open to suggestions and differing opinions, so don't be afraid to add your two cents. Constructive criticism is encouraged, I want to know what you think! I want to make sure I've covered all my bases, and, most importantly, that I'm treating the subject fairly. Admins, if you want to use this for any group you run, you have my permission. A little credit is nice. You also have my permission to change or omit certain things, as long as you note that you have done so.
You do not have power, you have responsibility.
The most important part of being a successful administrator is being aware of how you understand your position. Almost everyone is familiar with the phrase 'with great power comes great responsibility', but I challenge you to discard the notion of a power relation between you and the players. You, as an administrator, have a responsibility to the greater good of the community. When you ask someone to change their description, you are not doing so because your power allows it. You are doing so because you have a responsibility to uphold the integrity of the continuity. When you eject someone, you are not doing so because you have the power to do so – because you don't – you are doing so because you have a responsibility to the other players. In this way, you should be able to stop thinking 'what am I able to do?', and start thinking, 'what am I required to do?' This also allows you to think in terms of your responsibility to the individual player, and not any power over them. Without the individual players, after all, there would be no one to administrate.
At all costs, avoid mention of power in conversation.
Punitive measures are a last resort. If the rules do not directly call for them, do not use them.
Try to view punitive measures such as ejection as the last resort when all other strategies have failed. Your dream may have specific rules about content, spamming, and trolling that are removable offenses. These are the only acceptable times to use the ability to take punitive action. If it does not state in your dream's rules, "this action is punishable by ejection on the first offense", then you don't need to eject. We will discuss alternative strategies in a moment.
You are never off-duty.
If you are online, you are on-duty. Conduct yourself accordingly. Do not discuss administration issues with anyone who is not another administrator, and never complain about players. You are a representative of the rules, and as such you should be a direct incarnation of a player who follows them at all times.
Be wary of gut feelings.
Your gut is a very useful tool, and is quite often correct. However, your gut feeling about a player will not always be correct, and is rarely, if ever fair. Be aware of your gut, the clues you get from it are valuable, but always engage it on an intellectual level. Separate it from your decision making process, use it as an adviser but never trust it.
Read your message before you push enter.
Being online gives you the distinct advantage of being able to edit what you say as much as you like before you say it. Use this opportunity. Never hit enter immediately after typing a message, read it first, and ask yourself how it might come across. Put yourself on the recieving end of it, and ask yourself whether you are about to create a tense interaction. If you are, rewrite.
Ask, don't tell.
Phrasing something as a question is one of the simplest, most effective ways to prevent a player from getting defensive. "Would you mind - ?" "Could you please - ?" An imperative is rarely necessary.
Explain yourself.
Why are you asking them to do what they're doing? You will find players more receptive to doing something that has a point to it, rather than following a rule that may seem arbitrary from their point of view. Being able to understand and relate to the reasons behind a rule should make a player more willing to respect it. So, during your explanation, relate the reasoning to them directly.
Don't copy and paste rules.
Players can read. Assuming they can't, even if they didn't, is confrontational. Paraphrase, then explain a rule, don't paste it to them. They might simply have misunderstood, forgotten, or missed the rule. It is acceptable to paste them the link to the rules page, but if you do this, always mention that it's standard procedure, or a "just in case you haven't found it yet". Be nice.
(EDIT: Thanks Kim!) Tread the line between informative and threatening.
People need to be aware what is acceptable, what isn't, and how their actions may affect them. Try and avoid discussing the consequences of someone's actions if it's a first offense. Guide them through proper behaviour. If they continue to act out, then consider informing them what the punishment may be if they refuse to conform to the rules. But try not to sound threatening, sometimes it can be helpful to express your reservations about using punitive measures like temporary banishments, but be firm about how they are applied.
Discuss, discuss, discuss.
Try not to make decisions without consulting other members of staff. The opinion of someone who is not directly involved is usually very valuable. If you feel yourself becoming personally involved, step back and ask another member of staff to take your place. Being an admin requires a thick skin, it's like customer service. Not everyone can take everything thrown at them all the time, so remove yourself from a potentially confrontational situation and ask for help. There's no shame in it.
EDIT:
Don't back down.
Some players can come up with some pretty darn reasonable arguments for why they should get special treatment. Reward players who use innovative ways to create plot inside the rules, but do not pander to manipulative behaviour. Some players may try and twist your own rules into their own arguments. Do not set a precedent by allowing a player to squeeze exceptions out of you, even if they've got a good reason for it. In order to run a fair community, everyone must be accountable to the same rules.
Are there cases in which special treatment is justified? After all, real life law has exceptions.
Yes and no. The reason most people run a three strikes system is to make sure any exceptions are accounted for. Real life law doesn't often forgive a first offense with no punishment whatsoever. A three strikes rule system does.
I've had some people use mental issues or real life issues as an excuse for bad behaviour. To that I say: I am good friends with people who have severe mental instabilities. They're capable of following simple rules and not causing trouble, because they know their own limits. People with severe behavioural issues tend to live with caregivers and supervisors. So don't take the "I can't control myself" argument, remember that you have a responsibility to the community. I'm going to leave that there, because it's kind of a touchey subject.
As for real life issues: Just leave that at the door.
If someone is asking for special character considerations, the answer should almost always be no. Every world is defined by a set of rules, those are natural laws. Your rules about character limits, they are your world's physics. You can't bend physics because you want to flap your arms and fly.
This has been constructed from my experiences as an administrator in various Imaginarium dreams. It's intended to be a set of guidelines to follow in order to be a responsible, fair administrator. And I am open to suggestions and differing opinions, so don't be afraid to add your two cents. Constructive criticism is encouraged, I want to know what you think! I want to make sure I've covered all my bases, and, most importantly, that I'm treating the subject fairly. Admins, if you want to use this for any group you run, you have my permission. A little credit is nice. You also have my permission to change or omit certain things, as long as you note that you have done so.
Ben's Discourses on Successful Administration
Furcadia Dream Staff
Furcadia Dream Staff
You do not have power, you have responsibility.
The most important part of being a successful administrator is being aware of how you understand your position. Almost everyone is familiar with the phrase 'with great power comes great responsibility', but I challenge you to discard the notion of a power relation between you and the players. You, as an administrator, have a responsibility to the greater good of the community. When you ask someone to change their description, you are not doing so because your power allows it. You are doing so because you have a responsibility to uphold the integrity of the continuity. When you eject someone, you are not doing so because you have the power to do so – because you don't – you are doing so because you have a responsibility to the other players. In this way, you should be able to stop thinking 'what am I able to do?', and start thinking, 'what am I required to do?' This also allows you to think in terms of your responsibility to the individual player, and not any power over them. Without the individual players, after all, there would be no one to administrate.
At all costs, avoid mention of power in conversation.
Punitive measures are a last resort. If the rules do not directly call for them, do not use them.
Try to view punitive measures such as ejection as the last resort when all other strategies have failed. Your dream may have specific rules about content, spamming, and trolling that are removable offenses. These are the only acceptable times to use the ability to take punitive action. If it does not state in your dream's rules, "this action is punishable by ejection on the first offense", then you don't need to eject. We will discuss alternative strategies in a moment.
You are never off-duty.
If you are online, you are on-duty. Conduct yourself accordingly. Do not discuss administration issues with anyone who is not another administrator, and never complain about players. You are a representative of the rules, and as such you should be a direct incarnation of a player who follows them at all times.
Be wary of gut feelings.
Your gut is a very useful tool, and is quite often correct. However, your gut feeling about a player will not always be correct, and is rarely, if ever fair. Be aware of your gut, the clues you get from it are valuable, but always engage it on an intellectual level. Separate it from your decision making process, use it as an adviser but never trust it.
Strategies
Read your message before you push enter.
Being online gives you the distinct advantage of being able to edit what you say as much as you like before you say it. Use this opportunity. Never hit enter immediately after typing a message, read it first, and ask yourself how it might come across. Put yourself on the recieving end of it, and ask yourself whether you are about to create a tense interaction. If you are, rewrite.
Ask, don't tell.
Phrasing something as a question is one of the simplest, most effective ways to prevent a player from getting defensive. "Would you mind - ?" "Could you please - ?" An imperative is rarely necessary.
Explain yourself.
Why are you asking them to do what they're doing? You will find players more receptive to doing something that has a point to it, rather than following a rule that may seem arbitrary from their point of view. Being able to understand and relate to the reasons behind a rule should make a player more willing to respect it. So, during your explanation, relate the reasoning to them directly.
Don't copy and paste rules.
Players can read. Assuming they can't, even if they didn't, is confrontational. Paraphrase, then explain a rule, don't paste it to them. They might simply have misunderstood, forgotten, or missed the rule. It is acceptable to paste them the link to the rules page, but if you do this, always mention that it's standard procedure, or a "just in case you haven't found it yet". Be nice.
(EDIT: Thanks Kim!) Tread the line between informative and threatening.
People need to be aware what is acceptable, what isn't, and how their actions may affect them. Try and avoid discussing the consequences of someone's actions if it's a first offense. Guide them through proper behaviour. If they continue to act out, then consider informing them what the punishment may be if they refuse to conform to the rules. But try not to sound threatening, sometimes it can be helpful to express your reservations about using punitive measures like temporary banishments, but be firm about how they are applied.
Discuss, discuss, discuss.
Try not to make decisions without consulting other members of staff. The opinion of someone who is not directly involved is usually very valuable. If you feel yourself becoming personally involved, step back and ask another member of staff to take your place. Being an admin requires a thick skin, it's like customer service. Not everyone can take everything thrown at them all the time, so remove yourself from a potentially confrontational situation and ask for help. There's no shame in it.
EDIT:
Don't back down.
Some players can come up with some pretty darn reasonable arguments for why they should get special treatment. Reward players who use innovative ways to create plot inside the rules, but do not pander to manipulative behaviour. Some players may try and twist your own rules into their own arguments. Do not set a precedent by allowing a player to squeeze exceptions out of you, even if they've got a good reason for it. In order to run a fair community, everyone must be accountable to the same rules.
Are there cases in which special treatment is justified? After all, real life law has exceptions.
Yes and no. The reason most people run a three strikes system is to make sure any exceptions are accounted for. Real life law doesn't often forgive a first offense with no punishment whatsoever. A three strikes rule system does.
I've had some people use mental issues or real life issues as an excuse for bad behaviour. To that I say: I am good friends with people who have severe mental instabilities. They're capable of following simple rules and not causing trouble, because they know their own limits. People with severe behavioural issues tend to live with caregivers and supervisors. So don't take the "I can't control myself" argument, remember that you have a responsibility to the community. I'm going to leave that there, because it's kind of a touchey subject.
As for real life issues: Just leave that at the door.
If someone is asking for special character considerations, the answer should almost always be no. Every world is defined by a set of rules, those are natural laws. Your rules about character limits, they are your world's physics. You can't bend physics because you want to flap your arms and fly.
This is pure gold. I LOVE your opening statements about responsibility -- we have tried very very hard to maintain this feeling with the mods here.
Your notes about your gut being very useful but rarely fair is also brilliant. Your gut can help you point out problems, but often the response it wants does not come from a place of solving, but rather from defending or attacking.
This is the only bit I disagree with. I think it's only fair for people to have warning of how seriously a specific rule or request is taken, and that it is MUCH harsher to suddenly drop the ban hammer rather than telling them it's the next step. There are ways that this can be phrased as a warning rather than a threat -- I almost always emphasize that it makes me deeply unhappy to have to ruin someone's day like that, but it's my job, so please help me out by working on the issue.
Your notes about your gut being very useful but rarely fair is also brilliant. Your gut can help you point out problems, but often the response it wants does not come from a place of solving, but rather from defending or attacking.
Ben wrote:
Don't threaten with consequences.
Most players are aware of the powers of a member of staff. You talking to them is already putting them in a stressful situation, try not to make it worse.
Most players are aware of the powers of a member of staff. You talking to them is already putting them in a stressful situation, try not to make it worse.
This is the only bit I disagree with. I think it's only fair for people to have warning of how seriously a specific rule or request is taken, and that it is MUCH harsher to suddenly drop the ban hammer rather than telling them it's the next step. There are ways that this can be phrased as a warning rather than a threat -- I almost always emphasize that it makes me deeply unhappy to have to ruin someone's day like that, but it's my job, so please help me out by working on the issue.
Thanks for the reply Kim! I'm glad that you think there's some use to this.
I think perhaps I needed to be a little clearer here. My position assumes that punishments are clearly stated in the rules. But I think there's a lot of merit to what you're saying. People need to be aware of what the specific consequences are, but I always like to avoid that discussion unless they become difficult. Most of my interactions involve explaining how someone needs to change their behaviour, and a lot of the time that does the trick, and I don't need to warn them about consequences. Perhaps I should rephrase this section. "Don't talk about consequences unless you feel you may have to use them. But always give people warning, if you do."
Kim wrote:
This is the only bit I disagree with. I think it's only fair for people to have warning of how seriously a specific rule or request is taken, and that it is MUCH harsher to suddenly drop the ban hammer rather than telling them it's the next step. There are ways that this can be phrased as a warning rather than a threat -- I almost always emphasize that it makes me deeply unhappy to have to ruin someone's day like that, but it's my job, so please help me out by working on the issue.
I think perhaps I needed to be a little clearer here. My position assumes that punishments are clearly stated in the rules. But I think there's a lot of merit to what you're saying. People need to be aware of what the specific consequences are, but I always like to avoid that discussion unless they become difficult. Most of my interactions involve explaining how someone needs to change their behaviour, and a lot of the time that does the trick, and I don't need to warn them about consequences. Perhaps I should rephrase this section. "Don't talk about consequences unless you feel you may have to use them. But always give people warning, if you do."
Since most of our consequences occur on a third violation, the warning comes on the second, which is usually a good indicator that you're going to have to have the discussion again.
There are a few things which earn instant (but temporary) forum bans on the first offense here, though, and then we do include in that first message what the following repercussions will be if we have to have "the talk" a second and third time. These are reserved for things that can cause serious trouble and (we like to think) ought to be covered by most people's common sense. They're all clearly stated in the rules, but I have hard data on this, and I know how small a percentage of the population actually spends the time to read them!
There are a few things which earn instant (but temporary) forum bans on the first offense here, though, and then we do include in that first message what the following repercussions will be if we have to have "the talk" a second and third time. These are reserved for things that can cause serious trouble and (we like to think) ought to be covered by most people's common sense. They're all clearly stated in the rules, but I have hard data on this, and I know how small a percentage of the population actually spends the time to read them!
You've given me a lot to think about on that point. I think I'll rewrite it.
I would be extremely interested in reading that, too! 
Done!
Great edits. The new section on temperance in talking about when to warn does not read with the same crystal clarity as the other sections yet, but I agree with the sentiment much more now. Thank you for this debate!
Not only is this not a good excuse, it mandates the admin to take action!
If someone can't control themselves, they force a responsible admin to do so for them. To take an extreme example, a mass murderer doesn't get let off the hook by the police because they didn't have the mental ability to control their impulses.
We're not dealing with murder here, but disruptive behaviors can cause real damage to a larger community, even up to the point of disbanding a game.
Ben wrote:
So don't take the "I can't control myself" argument, remember that you have a responsibility to the community.
Not only is this not a good excuse, it mandates the admin to take action!
If someone can't control themselves, they force a responsible admin to do so for them. To take an extreme example, a mass murderer doesn't get let off the hook by the police because they didn't have the mental ability to control their impulses.
We're not dealing with murder here, but disruptive behaviors can cause real damage to a larger community, even up to the point of disbanding a game.
Exactly, Kim. I've seen many good communities die because corrosive behaviour was allowed, those excuses taken.
While I don't head up any roleplaying community myself, and never have/will, this was an interesting read for me. As a player and regular forum member, it's possible to gain a small amount of insight on what an admin deals with over time, and you can form a picture-perfect administrator in your head, but there are some things that you wrote about that provoked a "Oh, I see what he did there." response instead of "Well, that's silly, I would've just done [x]." response.
I especially like the bit about not copying and pasting the rules - I've been in situations where that's happened, and it's never a pleasant thing feeling like you're receiving a slap in the face that basically says, "THE RULES: CAN YOU READ THEM?" That would especially apply for someone who thought they were following the rules.
Overall a good read, thank you for posting it up, Ben.
I especially like the bit about not copying and pasting the rules - I've been in situations where that's happened, and it's never a pleasant thing feeling like you're receiving a slap in the face that basically says, "THE RULES: CAN YOU READ THEM?" That would especially apply for someone who thought they were following the rules.
Overall a good read, thank you for posting it up, Ben.
Thank you for the response, Bonebag! I'm glad that the information is helpful. I was thinking about posting one along the lines of "how to deal with administrators" from the point of view of a player. Even though that you may not ever take on the admin role, I hope this has helped you recognize the fair treatment you are entitled to.
Admins really do deal with a lot, it's a lot like customer service. We can't be perfect all the time, but we do our best.
Admins really do deal with a lot, it's a lot like customer service. We can't be perfect all the time, but we do our best.
Ben wrote:
Thank you for the response, Bonebag! I'm glad that the information is helpful. I was thinking about posting one along the lines of "how to deal with administrators" from the point of view of a player. Even though that you may not ever take on the admin role, I hope this has helped you recognize the fair treatment you are entitled to.
Admins really do deal with a lot, it's a lot like customer service. We can't be perfect all the time, but we do our best.
Admins really do deal with a lot, it's a lot like customer service. We can't be perfect all the time, but we do our best.
I think that posting an article on how to deal with or better help an administrator would be an excellent. I know that *I* have been around the RP/internet forum scene since I was about 14, and I know *I* have ways of dealing with admin disagreements/altercations that have mutually beneficial endings for all involved, but I think it would be a great help for those who have never had to deal with a situation like that, or are perhaps just new to the scene - maybe they just want to be prepared for such a situation, who knows.
Fun fact: Ben's comparison of Administration/Customer Service is very much true. I've worked a few customer service jobs, and I can tell you that the experience is VERY much the same: sometimes you get a few bad eggs, sometimes you get a couple good eggs, but most of the time as long as everyone involved is amiable about the whole thing, it can all be resolved peacefully and without issue.
This is all overwhelmingly true. I struggled a lot with RP administration when I ran Northkeep, years ago. The only thing I'd like to add is don't be a pushover. That was what got me. We had a couple real bad people and it took me AGES to ban them because their actions were always iffy. But if they're causing trouble and making other people in the dream (or game) uncomfortable in a way that the RP doesn't call for (or OOCly), you have a responsibility to confront them about it. And, if necessary, remove them from play!
Another mistake I made in Northkeep was pushing the rules too hard. It was really frustrating--Northkeep was a semi-closed continuity that had a lot of particularities and little rules designed to make the RP more immersive. We required people in the IC area to either have an IC description or the word "OOC" in their desc. Little things like that. These were all laid out clear as day in our rules, but people kept ignoring them! I got increasingly flustered and tried to make the rules and continuity info more and more obvious, even going so far as to add a little room before the IC area. When non-members arrived, a huge button popped up on their screen that they had to click in order to see anything, telling them to read the rules. And people still ignored it. I realize now that there will always be people who ignore your rules (and an even fewer subset of those who mean any harm) and you shouldn't penalize those who do with extra hoops. That button maybe got me a handful more rules-readers, but it wasn't worth it for how our group (and me) was appearing to new players. I was threatening the wrong group of people.
Another mistake I made in Northkeep was pushing the rules too hard. It was really frustrating--Northkeep was a semi-closed continuity that had a lot of particularities and little rules designed to make the RP more immersive. We required people in the IC area to either have an IC description or the word "OOC" in their desc. Little things like that. These were all laid out clear as day in our rules, but people kept ignoring them! I got increasingly flustered and tried to make the rules and continuity info more and more obvious, even going so far as to add a little room before the IC area. When non-members arrived, a huge button popped up on their screen that they had to click in order to see anything, telling them to read the rules. And people still ignored it. I realize now that there will always be people who ignore your rules (and an even fewer subset of those who mean any harm) and you shouldn't penalize those who do with extra hoops. That button maybe got me a handful more rules-readers, but it wasn't worth it for how our group (and me) was appearing to new players. I was threatening the wrong group of people.
One of the main things I tell myself over and over, or even mention to OOC Staff in TGT is try to be beekin friendly and have beekin patience. But sometimes it is difficult, incredibly so. Like Heimdall said, you don't want to be a pushover-- as soon as you are there will be people who will take advantage of you and walk all over you.
I am a big fan of the three strikes rule, though this is flexible about the situation. I try to be nice and polite on the first go and inform the people of the rules, second I tell them if they do it again they'll be ejected/banned depending on what happens. But I have zero tolerance for trolls and spammers. If someone comes into the dream blatantly trolling and spamming I banish without blinking an eye or whispering them to stop before I banish. Why? Because more often than not when I whisper first they log out and I'm never able to banish them.
I could on! Furrepaw News did a podcast here (which is also me tooting my own horn) about starting up a new dream and running a new dream. You'll also hear Rei-Jin in it!
On a side note, it's wonderful to see something so extensively put together. Thank you!
I am a big fan of the three strikes rule, though this is flexible about the situation. I try to be nice and polite on the first go and inform the people of the rules, second I tell them if they do it again they'll be ejected/banned depending on what happens. But I have zero tolerance for trolls and spammers. If someone comes into the dream blatantly trolling and spamming I banish without blinking an eye or whispering them to stop before I banish. Why? Because more often than not when I whisper first they log out and I'm never able to banish them.
I could on! Furrepaw News did a podcast here (which is also me tooting my own horn) about starting up a new dream and running a new dream. You'll also hear Rei-Jin in it!
On a side note, it's wonderful to see something so extensively put together. Thank you!
Heimdall wrote:
We had a couple real bad people and it took me AGES to ban them because their actions were always iffy.
Iffy and borderline behavior is my worst nightmare. It makes it incredibly difficult to say to someone "You are breaking the rules, here are the clear cut consequences." It puts you in a position of just having to say, "Although you are not violating the letter of the law, you are violating the spirit. Or in other words, you are being really unpleasant." (Obviously I'm paraphrasing here)
Before I have these confrontations, I agonize. Always for too long. There's never been a case where I didn't think boy, I should have done that sooner when I finally did it. But I'm terrified I'm just being a grump or going too far or being unfair, because they're just being iffy, not outright breaking rules. But other people suffer for all that cumulative iffiness -- worse, it sets the example that it's okay, which is far harder to undo. Every month I get a little more callous and a little more "Good of the many", but it's taken a long time to get perspective on this.
Thanks for your input guys! Heimdall, I'm very sorry to hear about the problems you had. One of the ways the continuity I currently administrate for tries to solve that issue is personal greetings. If we see a new player in the dream, whether they're breaking the rules or not, they get a friendly welcome message from a member of staff. We tell them a little bit about the continuity, link them to the rules page if we think we need to, and outline a few of the basics that make our dream different. Most people respond really well to this type of personal greeting, even if we're asking them to put up a description or something.
We also have a couple of rules that are very generalized, that don't deal with specific subjects. We have the "don't be stupid" rule, and the "subversive behaviour" rule. We warn people on our rules page that manipulation of the rules, or borderline behaviour, IS an offense. We recognize that manipulative behaviour is worse than outright rule breaking because it almost certainly comes from malicious intent. One of our most harshly dealt with offenses is those that aren't, outright, in violation of any rules, but still damage the community.
I'm listening to that podcast now, cool stuff
We also have a couple of rules that are very generalized, that don't deal with specific subjects. We have the "don't be stupid" rule, and the "subversive behaviour" rule. We warn people on our rules page that manipulation of the rules, or borderline behaviour, IS an offense. We recognize that manipulative behaviour is worse than outright rule breaking because it almost certainly comes from malicious intent. One of our most harshly dealt with offenses is those that aren't, outright, in violation of any rules, but still damage the community.
I'm listening to that podcast now, cool stuff
Ben wrote:
We recognize that manipulative behaviour is worse than outright rule breaking because it almost certainly comes from malicious intent.
I don't agree with this after some of the things I've seen as a moderator on RPR.
If you go in with the mindset that someone who toes the lines has malicious intentions by default, you've already got your verdict ready and it becomes easy to punish them without giving them a chance to rectify their mistakes. (Not that you do, but when you're biased you're less eager to consider other options, understandably.)
I've seen a lot of people toeing the lines and honest to god believing they were within their rights and not doing anything wrong. Their intentions are not malicious even if the effect they're having on the community is extremely negative and destructive. Often times this behavior is shaped by other communities where rules were allowed to get bent and stretched. They've never been confronted about it and told that it's actually bad behavior and provokes bad responses, so they've never evaluated their own behavior or considered it wrong.
A lot of members on RPR who did this surprised me. Sometimes they shaped up and became much more pleasant members of the community. Other times they were so rusted into their destructive patterns there was no hope and they had to be removed.
I guess in a nutshell my post is about not jumping to conclusions too quickly when someone is exhibiting particular behavior. It can be as destructive to your community as that member is if you don't give them a chance!
When I have moderator problems, sometimes I talk to my mother, who is one smart cookie. She's never been a moderator, but she gives me parenting advice.
One of her axioms for maintaining fairness is to set boundaries in close. I used to let people have a lot of leash because it felt unfair to punish them for minor infractions.
But as I've been learning, people naturally test boundaries. If I set the boundary way out on the edge of what is and is not acceptable, when someone inevitably steps over, it's a disaster. People get hurt. People get incredibly upset. There might be external repercussions. Injuries. Lawsuits. Definitely a lot of screaming and yelling and crying. It is very hard to deal with the issue in a clear-headed way.
If you set your boundaries in close, then someone stepping over is a mild annoyance. No one gets hurt, and you retain the presence of mind to correct the behavior calmly and consistently. No one needs to cry or yell. People are able to test boundaries and thereby learn and understand them without jeopardizing anything. A few will complain that your rules are too strict or "unfair", but overall, you have protected many more people - including your own sanity.
I thought that might be an interesting perspective for admins struggling with the balance between being nice to individuals vs. being responsible for a large community.
One of her axioms for maintaining fairness is to set boundaries in close. I used to let people have a lot of leash because it felt unfair to punish them for minor infractions.
But as I've been learning, people naturally test boundaries. If I set the boundary way out on the edge of what is and is not acceptable, when someone inevitably steps over, it's a disaster. People get hurt. People get incredibly upset. There might be external repercussions. Injuries. Lawsuits. Definitely a lot of screaming and yelling and crying. It is very hard to deal with the issue in a clear-headed way.
If you set your boundaries in close, then someone stepping over is a mild annoyance. No one gets hurt, and you retain the presence of mind to correct the behavior calmly and consistently. No one needs to cry or yell. People are able to test boundaries and thereby learn and understand them without jeopardizing anything. A few will complain that your rules are too strict or "unfair", but overall, you have protected many more people - including your own sanity.
I thought that might be an interesting perspective for admins struggling with the balance between being nice to individuals vs. being responsible for a large community.
Sanne wrote:
If you go in with the mindset that someone who toes the lines has malicious intentions by default, you've already got your verdict ready and it becomes easy to punish them without giving them a chance to rectify their mistakes. (Not that you do, but when you're biased you're less eager to consider other options, understandably.)
I've seen a lot of people toeing the lines and honest to god believing they were within their rights and not doing anything wrong.
I've seen a lot of people toeing the lines and honest to god believing they were within their rights and not doing anything wrong.
You make a good point for the careful consideration of a situation. However as a general rule, I have never found that anyone who is attempting to manipulate the rules is doing so out of innocent intention. You're speaking specifically about toeing the line between allowed and disallowed, which on occasion can be relatively harmless. That's why I made the disctinction between rule breaking and manipulative behaviour. When someone breaks a rule, or pushes a rule, it's usually a harmless mistake. But attempts to twist the rules into one's own favour requires intent, it means they have read, understand, and are choosing to try and manipulate the rules. That's a person you want removed from any community.
Kim wrote:
When I have moderator problems, sometimes I talk to my mother, who is one smart cookie. She's never been a moderator, but she gives me parenting advice.
I do that too
You are on: Forums » RP Discussion » As Requested: An Article About Roleplay Admin
Moderators: Mina, Keke, Cass, Auberon, Claine, Ilmarinen, Ben, Darth_Angelus