What do you expect from your moderators?

[Z-Man]

I don't think this is the place to complain about concrete actions, so let's just say I don't see the post you're referring to as anything but sarcastic and it had me stumped.

Also, asking us to not interpret posts is kind of silly. Of course we need to interpret them, otherwise, how can we even see what is a flamewar that needs stopping? How can we split off topic stuff if it's not for us to decide what is off topic? In the real world, it is the judges' (and juries') job to interpret the law and evaluate the evidence, too. Not that I care about real world comparisons too much, mind you. The real question is when we should interfere. Right when the first offensive post is made, or only when it resulted in an X page flamewar? When should we split off topic stuff? One or two off topic posts hardly hurt a thread.

Oh yeah, we have been discussing "Laws" in the devs only section for a bit. Here's the draft, mostly by me, with an edit by Tank:

1. Don't be an idiot.
2. Treat others respectfully, like human beings. Even if they violate rule 1.
Those are the axioms. Everything else derives from that. An incomplete list of conclusion follows:
3. Don't spam. If your post contains more smileys than text, it's probably spam. If your post adds nothing worthwile to the topic, it's probably spam. If your post only consists of 'lol', it's probably spam. You get the picture.
4. Don't post inappropriate material. Imagine a picture printed out and attached to an office door, or framed in your living room. Would you like your house guests, your relatives or your boss to see such a picture? If no, it has no place here. Same goes for videos, audio and, obviously, text.
5. Don't insult or patronize others.
6. Don't fight fire with fire. Threads sliding into flamewars will be locked, reopening the fight in new threads will not be looked upon kindly.
7. "It was meant to be funny" is no valid excuse, unless the moderators think it was funny. Do you want to take your chances with that?
8. Being in a clan you don't like is not a crime.

Light violations will be edited or deleted. Medium violations give you a warning. Strong or repeated violations will earn you a temporary ban, and extreme or persistent violations a permanent ban.

Before they get stickied somewhere, I guess it's not a bad idea to put them up for public discussion. But ultimately, Tank is the Dictator here, he gets the final word.

(Maybe add "This is not the place to fight out personal feuds." to 8?)

[Phytotron]

#6 definitely needs clarification. What exactly is "fire" and "flame?" Surely healthy debate and even argument should be allowed, so long as it's substantive. Additionally, to my points in this and the other thread, are we/you going to be relativist (and, I would argue, ineffectual) by equating the scolding, reprimanding, and/or censuring of bad behaviour with the bad behaviour itself? Please, no.

And, by all means, youse can, perhaps should, at times scold etc. people yourselves. Tank used to, and also generally offered the opportunity for one to explain, atone, etc. I think that's a proper approach. Like I said in another thread, if people want to behave like children, then treat them like children. That doesn't mean you immediately slap them across the face, tell them to shut up and sit them in the corner. Sometimes it means a lecture and exchange about correcting behaviour and getting an attitude adjustment. That, at least in theory (and there are exceptions, like when someone just goes off on a foul-mouthed rant), is more constructive and effective, especially if the purpose is to improve the overall culture, not just constantly play whack-a-deviant-mole. Show and explain to people the error of their ways, your position for reprimand and possible sanction, give them a chance to make their case (if there's one to be made), and straighten up. Then, if they continue to act up, send them to their room without dessert.

#3 What qualifies as "worthwhile" or not? For example, can something that may not necessarily be constructive, but is humorous be worthwhile? I mean, like you said, one or two (and sometimes more) off-topic posts won't usually hurt a thread.

#8 Yeah, go ahead and add the personal feuds bit, although, at what point does something actually become a feud? And what about cases where two people just happen to find themselves disagreeing on various things on a regular basis?

"Light violations will be edited or deleted." With exception to the sort of content I link to below, I don't necessarily agree with immediate editing or deleting of posts.

The real question is when we should interfere. Right when the first offensive post is made, or only when it resulted in an X page flamewar?

If a single post is blatantly offensive (examples of which I give here and elsewhere in that thread), then fine, jump right on it. With respect to "flame wars," initial impression one might flare up could warrant a "hey now, cool it" type of admonition. Then, if it actually explodes, would justify actual interference. But, in so doing, be aware of allowing one or another party to get any parting shot(s), because even if that particular "battle" is shut down (say, in the form of a forum lock), it allows that particular party the belief they "won," and encourages them to continue bullying the other (not only here, but in-game—and yes, there's plenty of carryover).


I mean, really, you're dealing with a lot of kids here (and some developmentally stunted adults), and you need to realise that. Z-Man, you in particular always seemed to have this ideal that they should be treated like mature, rational adults, or something, and that they will respond as such. But, besides the fact that the adolescent brain just plain doesn't work like that, man, I don't know if you're fully aware of what's going on out there, with respect to the web-based cultural celebration of offensiveness for its own sake, nuisance behaviour and internet bullying. Once again, simply playing "hear no evil, see no evil" and hoping it goes away, thinking that simply locking a topic or some such will actually change behaviour is not only ineffective but naive. Saying "not here, not now" gives them the implicit message, "somewhere else, another time." Of course, there is a limit to how far that goes before punitive sanction becomes necessary. And that itself has levels (analogous to detention, suspension, expulsion; or, citation, jail, prison), as you've already hinted at in the last line there.

But again, an assumed premise I'm working under here is that an actual change in culture is the object, not simply a crude act of the the oligarchy cracking down on the entirety of the rabble.


I noticed one example of epsy having edited a topic title to, I assume, better match the content (I didn't see the original title—I'm assuming it was one of those "help me" titles). I don't have a problem with that. Frankly, there are a lot of old topics that could stand having that done, especially those that actually have worthwhile/useful content, especially those in the support sections.

Likewise for double- or more posts. Nothing wrong with that. Embedded pictures, yes please. What do you refer to by fixed formatting?


Whew, that's too much typing.

[Concord]

Also, asking us to not interpret posts is kind of silly. Of course we need to interpret them, otherwise, how can we even see what is a flamewar that needs stopping? How can we split off topic stuff if it's not for us to decide what is off topic? In the real world, it is the judges' (and juries') job to interpret the law and evaluate the evidence, too. Not that I care about real world comparisons too much, mind you. The real question is when we should interfere. Right when the first offensive post is made, or only when it resulted in an X page flamewar? When should we split off topic stuff? One or two off topic posts hardly hurt a thread.

No it's not. I do not think making preemptive strikes is either respective of the poster or the community nor is it effective and in this case it made a would-be content forum contributor into an angry one. People ought to be allowed to insult each other and to have arguments, I would only intervene when either a participant or a bystander feels abused rather than just insulted. I specifically did not mention splitting or merging topics, because I feel that should be 90% of what the moderators do. No one gets upset by split topics.

[Lucifer]

I hate to go point by point, but Phytotron raises a lot of good questions and that's the best way I know of to answer them.

#6 definitely needs clarification. What exactly is "fire" and "flame?" Surely healthy debate and even argument should be allowed, so long as it's substantive.

"Flame" on the web has a specific meaning. It might be worthwhile to link to either urban dictionary or the jargon file with that specific word when the post is actually put up.

"Fire" would be anything that may provoke a reasonable, rational person into more exchanges of insults, imo. Note that I said "reasonable, rational person". I don't want anybody here walking on eggshells around people who are emotionally unbalanced.

Sooo.........

Additionally, to my points in this and the other thread, are we/you going to be relativist (and, I would argue, ineffectual) by equating the scolding, reprimanding, and/or censuring of bad behaviour with the bad behaviour itself? Please, no.

Imo, it depends on the tone of the scolding. If the tone is something like "You're acting childish" or any of a dozen different lectures you and I have both given , I think I'd say something to the poster about it. (And yes, if Tank had said something to me about it when I was doing it, it would have been well-deserved on my part). I would consider that "fire". More on this below...

And, by all means, youse can, perhaps should, at times scold etc. people yourselves.

After more reasonable attempts have been made, depending on the situation. Remember that a flamewar can develop while all the mods are sleeping and we could wake up to a full-blown flamewar where the opportunity to stop it with a scolding has long since passed.

Tank used to, and also generally offered the opportunity for one to explain, atone, etc. I think that's a proper approach.

Again, for, hmmm, lack of a better word, for light flamewars, sure. And also to your point that I deleted about giving people a chance for parting shots before locking the thread.

Like I said in another thread, if people want to behave like children, then treat them like children. That doesn't mean you immediately slap them across the face, tell them to shut up and sit them in the corner. Sometimes it means a lecture and exchange about correcting behaviour and getting an attitude adjustment.

I do not agree that treating people like children encourages adult behavior. I think that treating people like reasonable, rational adults encourages such behavior. Showing them when they are out of line is perfectly fine and within the realm of treating people like reasonable, rational adults.

That, at least in theory (and there are exceptions, like when someone just goes off on a foul-mouthed rant), is more constructive and effective, especially if the purpose is to improve the overall culture, not just constantly play whack-a-deviant-mole. Show and explain to people the error of their ways, your position for reprimand and possible sanction, give them a chance to make their case (if there's one to be made), and straighten up. Then, if they continue to act up, send them to their room without dessert.

I don't think I'd mind at all editing out foul-mouthed rants. There's another thread where I seriously considered doing it, but decided to hold off while this topic was still active.

#3 What qualifies as "worthwhile" or not? For example, can something that may not necessarily be constructive, but is humorous be worthwhile? I mean, like you said, one or two (and sometimes more) off-topic posts won't usually hurt a thread.

This is always going to be a subjective call on the part of the moderator. We could write a big long list of dos, only to find that it doesn't cover enough. In fact, I think keeping it a subjective call on the part of the moderators lets us avoid all the rule-lawyering that we're going to get as soon as we post any sort of guidelines. More on rule-lawyering below....

#8 Yeah, go ahead and add the personal feuds bit, although, at what point does something actually become a feud? And what about cases where two people just happen to find themselves disagreeing on various things on a regular basis?

People can disagree frequently and get along fine. Personal feuds are when people who disagree also flame each other every time they disagree.

But again, an assumed premise I'm working under here is that an actual change in culture is the object, not simply a crude act of the the oligarchy cracking down on the entirety of the rabble.

This moderator thing probably can't be called successful if it only turns into a crackdown of some sort.

I noticed one example of epsy having edited a topic title to, I assume, better match the content (I didn't see the original title—I'm assuming it was one of those "help me" titles). I don't have a problem with that. Frankly, there are a lot of old topics that could stand having that done, especially those that actually have worthwhile/useful content, especially those in the support sections.

I'm not only in favor of this (which you can see by my editing of another post just a few minutes ago), I'm also in favor of warning people that "HELP HELP HELP" topics are unacceptable. I'm also in favor of correcting such things in the archives when a moderator should happen to stumble across them. (There's a certain amount of retroactive moderation that I agree with for anybody who either wants to spend the time with it, or happens to stumble across such things and wants to go ahead and make the edits) And I'm in favor of censuring repeat offenders. But I'd rather not have to use moderator powers to deal with it, other than editing the post, and then posting to provide a link to the appropriate post telling people not to do that in the first place.

Likewise for double- or more posts. Nothing wrong with that. Embedded pictures, yes please. What do you refer to by fixed formatting?

Formatting that's intended to break the html layout, or widen the screen. Typical troll behavior.

No it's not. I do not think making preemptive strikes is either respective of the poster or the community nor is it effective and in this case it made a would-be content forum contributor into an angry one. People ought to be allowed to insult each other and to have arguments, I would only intervene when either a participant or a bystander feels abused rather than just insulted.

I'm going to disagree with pretty much everything here. There are users here for whom I would think any moderator is completely justified in making preemptive strikes. Also, if a moderator is already aware of an existing fight that appears on the forums, then his actions to stop it may *look* like a preemptive strike, but aren't.

Finally, no, people shouldn't be allowed to insult each other. There's a difference between a friendly jibe and a blatant insult. In fact, there was a recent ridiculous exchange that I personally thought was either users testing the moderators, or intentionally exaggerated insults just for fun, and therefore deserving of no attention on my part. Had I thought it was an actual fight, I would have posted and said something, and if the behavior continued, locked the thread and edited out the insults. Because that's how I personally think a fight or feud should be handled. Is there a reason not to handle it that way?

Finally, on the subject of rule-lawyering, that's another way moderation systems get abused. A person will decide to interpret the rules and show how the moderator misused his super powers and proceed to make a big series of fusses over the moderator. That is *exactly* what we have going on right now and is why I started *this* thread, even though we don't have any posted rules of behavior.

I see no reason to tolerate rule-lawyering of any sort. When we post moderator guidelines, I strongly believe those are just that: guidelines. They can't possibly cover all situations, and moderators are expected to interpret posts and exercise their best judgment. If we later determine that a particular moderator doesn't actually have very good judgment (a determination based on their behavior and how they moderate), then we can deal with it (yes, even if it's me that has bad judgment). Users are often too close to a situation to see how the moderator is using good judgment. Also, particularly in breaking up a fight, you all need to understand that the moderator may have stepped in to stop the fight with no regard to what's fair. My own take is that if people are fighting, they've forfeited their right to fair treatment. If you want to be treated fairly, don't start fights, don't get involved with fights, don't lose your cool, and don't behave badly.

So, absolutely no rule-lawyering, because we don't want to have rules anyway. That doesn't mean you can't interpret the guidelines differently than the moderators. Feel free to do so. Also feel free to question moderator decisions. Do not feel free to take issue with a particular moderator and post at every available opportunity how bad you think that moderator is. That will get other moderators down on you, too. In the end, whether you agree with the moderator or not, you have to face the fact that the moderator has the responsibility, and you don't. If you feel like you need to expose a moderator as being a bad moderator, don't do it in a bad way. Make damn sure you're behaving reasonably and rationally yourself. Question the moderator, starting a new thread if need be. Engage in discussion without flames, insults, or any of that non-respectful stuff. You don't have to kiss anybody's ass, just don't act like an asshat yourself when you challenge a moderator's decision. Wait for other moderators to chime in. You may find that even after the moderator has explained his decision, you disagree, but several of the other moderators agree.

To show that a moderator is bad, you have to show a pattern of bad behavior. I haven't seen one single action on epsy's part that I'd consider bad. He's done things I wouldn't have done, but that's his call to make, that's why we have more than one moderator, right? Doesn't mean I disagree with him, just means that I would have passed those posts up.

That's what I think, anyway. Now you guys tear it apart. (I don't know that any guidelines are set in stone yet, and keep in mind that even though I'm expressing my own opinions, this thread exists for us all to see what others opinions are so we can mind them when we're moderating and when we're not)

[Phytotron]

Just want to clarify something, in case it was misunderstood, with respect to "parting shots." I used poor phrasing there that may have been interpreted as saying that people should be allowed them, when I meant the opposite. Moderators should be aware of not allowing them by virtue of how they end a spat.

I'm thinking of instances where people are going back and forth at one another (whether it's one-on-one, or several ganging up on one, or whatever), the thread gets locked, and whatever the last post was becomes the de facto "parting shot." That leaves whomever made that final post (or series thereof, if it's a gang-up deal) believe they got the last word and are some kind of "victor" and they got away with something, whereas the subject of those shots has to just deal with it. I'm not entirely sure how to resolve that—it wouldn't be good to allow the subject to come back and get his own last word, either. But, I just don't like the way a lot of thread locks have ended. Perhaps the last word should be from a moderator.


There's some other semantic stuff I maybe wasn't clear enough about, and concepts of degree and process. Eh, I can't pick it all apart right now. But....

For instance, scolding and treating people like children or adults (and I realise I may have conveyed muddled messages there, as well). We may have different ideas of what those concepts entail. I suppose I am in part thinking of the sort of lectures we've given—although perhaps, admittedly, not as strident as mine can come across (what Tank called "taking people by the shoulders and shaking them," but by god, sometimes people need it, heh)—and I don't necessarily think they're a bad thing. Either way, I think the main point is with most any moderating action, particularly that which involves bad behaviour, there should be some reason given, rather than just taking an action and leaving it there (the equivalent of smacking them and telling them to shut up; "stop it, bad boy"—not to mention the fact that that can totally backfire). Sometimes—and, again, particularly in the case of bad behaviour, verbal abuse, etc.—I think it would be appropriate for that reason to include a reprimand of the offender in the sort of way I described. Tell them what they did wrong, and why it's wrong. The exact tact and severity of it would of course vary depending on who is the subject of the reprimand, and what it is over.

I also do think that it's appropriate for forum members to engage in that among themselves—obviously, since I do it myself, for reasons I've given in various posts (here's just one recent example I recalled where to locate). So I guess we disagree there. I see that as part of the self-regulation that should be a part of this thing as a whole, though. That said, even in those cases, moderation or mediation of that wouldn't be totally objectionable. However, culture can't effectively be changed from the top-down alone. I think you get that.


And mind you—and here I go with the distinctions again—there's a big difference between a reprimand or censure on the one hand, and chewing out or going off on someone on the other. I'm advocating more for the former. The latter, in most cases, probably shouldn't happen, except maybe in extreme cases of repeated offenders.


And yeah, we agree on editing obvious obscenities, in case you though I meant the opposite there, too.

[Lucifer]

We're probably more agreeing than disagreeing. I agree that people here that aren't moderators should step up and participate in moderation even when they don't have explicit moderator powers here, just like they always have. Community standards of behavior should be enforced by the community, not some top-down group of authoritarians.

I think that people will be looking up to the group of moderators just as they have always looked to Tank for the example to follow and that the new moderators (myself included) need to be aware of that and behave accordingly. (For practical purposes, it means that some of my own antics will probably get toned down some, and probably some others here too, so keep an eye out for that )

And actual moderator power usage that's more than just administrative should be minimal. (Administrative would be splitting off-topic threads that develop, editing "HELP HELP HELP ME!" subject lines, and I think that's it)

I would like to see everyone continue to self-censor as they deem appropriate. There have been quite a few occasions where someone pointed out bad behavior in a post, and the poster went back and edited it to fix it. I'd like to see that continue.

I would prefer if moderators *never* have to edit posts or lock threads. But I also don't want a bunch of people left in a lurch where they have to seriously consider making repeated posts of 666 stupid cats to try to stop a flamewar. Drama comes along every now and then, and we used to be able to lighten it up and get a real dialogue going without needing a special moderator to step in. I'd like us to get back to where that stuff works again, if possible.

And, since it's been mentioned but I haven't given my take on it, I think moderators should be able to gratuitously "do stuff", for fun. Just keep in mind the difference between a silly prank between friends and something that leaves a permanent record that could be used against someone later. I.e. in irc I don't have any problem randomly OPping myself and booting people just for fun. Once I even booted everyone from the channel just to see how long it took for everyone to rejoin. Heh, I also talked Tank into OPping me one time when luke-jr and I were fighting, and then kicked Tank. It *did* end the fight with luke.... Stuff like that can be fun, if annoying, and I'm seeing lots of fun possibilities with being able to edit posts. Just have to keep in mind the potential lingering effects. A kick in irc is always temporary, but an edited post could linger for years before anybody notices, so some discretion is called for if a moderator wants to pull a silly prank between friends. Think of vote-kicking on servers. Back before there was a temporary ban associated with it, it was fun to vote for yourself and also for other random people. After the ban appeared, it became necessary to think about your vote every time.

Damn, it's too late now, but we should have done an April Fool's joke with post editing.

[Z-Man]

Essentially, on the things he touched, I agree with Lucifer, so no need for a long post myself.

Feuds. A feud is, broadly speaking, when off topic past events get dragged into the current discussion and cause stress. For example:
Luke-Jr: I think we should enforce central player registration.
Lucifer: Yeah, we all know you're a control freak.
Or, I hate your guts because your great-grandfather stole my grand-uncle's donkey.
There doesn't really need to be a special guideline about feuds, because they usually already covered by the personal attack guidelines. It's just that feud based disputes spin out of control faster and can be kicked off by less than fights where the participants don't have a history.

Relevant posts: We should, of course, err on the side of 'relevant' when judging posts. Yeah, friendly jabs are OK (except when there's good reason to think they are only friendly on the surface or at least will be interpreted that way, but no need to rush moderation there.) Funny remarks are OK. And of course, our action for violation will be just to split the offending posts 99% of the time.

And yes, when it works, self-moderation of the community by the community is the best moderation.

The culture debate: We have control over this place here. "Not here" is the only thing we can say. We can't stop people from being jerks all over the internet, all we can do is try to stop them here. I do read other (game related) forums, I am somewhat active on XBox Live. Most people are perfectly fine and nice on their own. Some are jerks for the sake of being jerks, and because they can. I don't really see a large difference between that and youth culture back when I was young myself, it's just that the electronic media gives physically weak people the chance to be bullies as well. Umm, forgot where I was going with that.

Treating people like children: I believe the right way is to first treat everyone like a reasonable thinking being, and only if that fails, fall back to treating them like children.

[Concord]

I'm going to disagree with pretty much everything here. There are users here for whom I would think any moderator is completely justified in making preemptive strikes. Also, if a moderator is already aware of an existing fight that appears on the forums, then his actions to stop it may *look* like a preemptive strike, but aren't.

Your not describing preemptive strike, your describe early action based on user's histories, which makes a lot of sense and something I agree with. I would venture to define a preemptive strike as early moderation unwarranted by the individual poster but rather a reflection of other poster's actions. Just because there are trolls running around, doesn't mean John Doe's post with hints of trolling deserves moderation, necessarily. Each users must be treated as an individual. Look at fortress servers, each non-grinder is given about two rounds before people start telling him what to do. Then it's about three more until they suspend him to watch. If he comes back in and still doesn't grind, they kick. But if another non-grinder comes in, he doesn't get kicked right off, he gets the same clean slate as the guy before him.

Finally, no, people shouldn't be allowed to insult each other. There's a difference between a friendly jibe and a blatant insult. In fact, there was a recent ridiculous exchange that I personally thought was either users testing the moderators, or intentionally exaggerated insults just for fun, and therefore deserving of no attention on my part. Had I thought it was an actual fight, I would have posted and said something, and if the behavior continued, locked the thread and edited out the insults. Because that's how I personally think a fight or feud should be handled. Is there a reason not to handle it that way?

Kind of. If two people are going back and forth and no one (including you and them) is bothered by it I don't see any harm in letting it run out. As soon as one person expresses disdain about the thread itself, then go ahead and do your stuff. We're not here to change people, we're here to change how they act on the forums.

[subby]

ok just a short suggestion... not sure if it should go here?

If a subject heading is edited to fit more to what is being asked etc. I think it would be good to have some reference to what it was before.

For example "Help Help Help" edited to

"How do I get X server running well (was Help Help ...)"

The original poster may not realise his subject heading was changed and will miss it?

Same goes for split posts.

no big deal just a suggestion.

[INW]

Yes that is a good idea...when z-man split a previous topic, i had no idea what the topic was...just went right by it and didn't mind to it. Then i opened it up eventually and realized it was a topic i posted on. It might be good to at least try the above idea.

Back to topic: I believe inn freedom of speech since i live here in the U.S. and when two people are going at it, i believe the topic should be split so that the original idea of the topic can be posted. However, the argumentative sections should be split into another section where the 2 or more players are free to rant on about each other while keeping the old topic back on "topic". (:

[sinewav]

I believe inn freedom of speech...

Freedom of speech is a complicated subject, and most interpretations have restrictions on the type of speech that's actually free. Be careful when invoking the "free speech" argument, you'll find it doesn't always mean what you think.

The recent splitting of topics is nice. Maybe split topics can have a suffix, or a format like: new title [Changed from "old title"]. And if it's split because of an argument, maybe mark it as such or make an argument/spam sub-forum to place it in?

People are going to take shots at each other once in a while; you can't stop them all. But if an exchange goes on too long (several exchanges), then the parties should be asked to continue their discussion in private, and lock the topic.

[Lucifer]

Also on the topic of free speech, this is an international community and standards of free speech vary (although most people here are in countries who recognize free speech in some form, but every now and then we *do* get people from countries who don't recognize free speech).

I don't want to play to the lowest common denominator, but I also don't want access to these forums restricted because of the speech we engage in. More importantly, I don't want people who come here to wind up penalized in their home countries just for being here.

[Z-Man]

Yeah, marking split threads better sounds like a good idea. Marking renamed threads, I dunno. I think it's better to make an edit comment that shows up in the first post, and, depending on the situation, make a post in the thread saying it was renamed/moved and why. That should get the OP's attention enough.

[Phytotron]

I believe inn freedom of speech...

Freedom of speech is a complicated subject, and most interpretations have restrictions on the type of speech that's actually free. Be careful when invoking the "free speech" argument, you'll find it doesn't always mean what you think.

For instance, legalised corruption in the form of corporate bribery of elected officials is now protected as "free speech."

We have control over this place here. "Not here" is the only thing we can say. We can't stop people from being jerks all over the internet,

Sorry, by "not here" the here I was referring to was a given topic thread. I was recalling a topic lock Tank made once where that's all he said: "not here, not now."

[compguygene]

I would just like to chime in to say that I really appreciate what has been done thus far in terms of moderation. Already, the forums are much more pleasant. Also, it seems from the discussions here and what the moderation team has indicated as to goals, etc. I really think that the long term growth of the community will be much better.
In other words, THANKS GUYS!