braxbroscratcher wrote:

Sigton wrote:

iamunknown2 wrote:

Won't moderating mini-mods create even more work for the ST anyway?

Not if they stop by themselves.

Sigton

You know that that won't happen - so the main argument to moderate the minimods - the fact it would save the ST some work - is contradictory and null. Also - what even would you punish them with? A ban? IP ban? Mute? Forum ban? Account deletion?

You get what I mean.

An alert? Did the main method of warning skip your brain?
Considering alienation/being arrogant is rude and violates the community guidelines.

braxbroscratcher wrote:

KingOfAwesome58219 wrote:

Sigton wrote:

jji10 wrote:

MathlyCat wrote:

-snip-

I hate to mini-mod in a anti mini-mod suggestion, but your image breaks the no-names rule.

lol those posts were jokes.

Sigton

Even if they weren't jokes, they didn't break the rules. You can mention names on the forums lol.

No you can't. It's naming and shaming - if you name someone who exhibits something and then you use that name to describe them in a bad light (such as in this thread, calling them a minimod) it is not allowed and is reportable.

You can't name and shame, I understand that, but that doesn't mean that you can't mention literally any names at all.

braxbroscratcher wrote:

KingOfAwesome58219 wrote:

Sigton wrote:

jji10 wrote:

MathlyCat wrote:

-snip-

I hate to mini-mod in a anti mini-mod suggestion, but your image breaks the no-names rule.

lol those posts were jokes.

Sigton

Even if they weren't jokes, they didn't break the rules. You can mention names on the forums lol.

No you can't. It's naming and shaming - if you name someone who exhibits something and then you use that name to describe them in a bad light (such as in this thread, calling them a minimod) it is not allowed and is reportable.

They were naming, but not shaming.

Sigton

braxbroscratcher wrote:

You know that that won't happen

why not? I'd expect a minimod to know the rules and follow them.

__init__ wrote:

braxbroscratcher wrote:

You know that that won't happen

why not? I'd expect a minimod to know the rules and follow them.

Ay, there's the rub.

__init__ wrote:

braxbroscratcher wrote:

You know that that won't happen

why not? I'd expect a minimod to know the rules and follow them.

Ouch.

MathlyCat wrote:

dave4681 wrote:

Digital_Gaming wrote:

Sigton wrote:

They are pretty annoying. Tbh I could probably deal with it as long as they were generally nicer about correcting everyone…

Sigton

uh..sigton
no offence

I'm guessing why this was added:

Seventh Suggestion:

People who only warn Scratchers on the forums for doing something against these suggestions. I'd like to say something:

That's utterly counter intuitive.

The point of this sticky is to give you suggestions on what to and not to do. Simply warning someone is not adding to discussion, which is one of the main points here. Please, if you find someone doing:

1. Breaking a Guideline

Don't respond, just report it and move on.

2. Rejected Suggestion

Just make a long enough post explaining kindly that it's rejected and linking the sticky

3. Someone who isn't using one of these Suggestions

Inform them of this sticky, and after being constructive and ‘warning’ them, add to discussion

That sticky is full of recommendations ,not something encouraging people to savagely demand anyone who doesn't follow.

But all your other points are great, though.

The sticky has really nothing to do with mini-modding, especially if you read it. It's primarily directed at responding/making suggestions.

Which is not mini-modding.

While on it's own sure it's fine. But the culture that it created is largely resposibble for the mimi modding culture that we have currently. How many times does mini modding revolve around how constructive a comment is? I'm not blaming Sigton because I think he had good intentions but that post is largely responsible for this mini modding culture.

My perspective on it is probably a little bit different than everyone else's, but I think it's alright.

One of the most important community guidelines that applies to this is Be respectful. Many of the comments mentioned throughout the discussion were negative examples of this. But basing this argument on those specific posts and determining whether those constitute a ban on the whole subject is in no way our job. It is the job of the ST, and they determine such.

Mini-Modding may be annoying to some or a lot of users, but then again different subjects may be annoying to many different people. On the scratch forums, its the user who decides what he/she is going to post, not the community, and that is exactly how the community guidelines are written. We are asking to the scratch team to intervene because intervening ourselves would be hypocritical and probably would not get us very far.

Imagine a user posting about pancakes, and the community consensus was that pancakes are irrelevant and that the ST should send alerts to everyone who speaks about them. Would that be right? Does it break the Be constructive rule? I guess that depends on the context. But their are many posts which you can say are not constructive, far to many to moderate them all.

Giving people the freedom to do many different things is ultimately what saves the ST the most time. They are really only looking for offences which truly break these rules in ways which are very clear. Anything other than that seems to be an over-extension or interpretation.

If a user feels that performing these sorts of actions is gratifying for them personally, then it's more for the individual rather than the user who originally posted.

Enjoy picking this apart xD

Isn't this a good example of a mini-mod interaction?

https://scratch-mit-edu.ezproxyberklee.flo.org/discuss/topic/257338/?page=1#post-2619878

makethebrainhappy wrote:

Isn't this a good example of a mini-mod interaction?

https://scratch-mit-edu.ezproxyberklee.flo.org/discuss/topic/257338/?page=1#post-2619878

Yes, I'd say so.

makethebrainhappy wrote:

Isn't this a good example of a mini-mod interaction?

https://scratch-mit-edu.ezproxyberklee.flo.org/discuss/topic/257338/?page=1#post-2619878

yes.

Let's take a look at what happened
- they were concise, so they're not wasting anyone's time
- they weren't rude, a side effect of conciseness
- they left the final decision up to the ST instead of pretending their word is law

makethebrainhappy wrote:

But basing this argument on those specific posts and determining whether those constitute a ban on the whole subject is in no way our job. It is the job of the ST, and they determine such

he's not calling for a ban on the “whole subject”, as shown in the post above.

That aside, I'm pretty sure this is literally why MATU is suggesting this. “determining whether those constitute a ban on the whole subject is in no way our job. It is the job of the ST, and they determine such” - replace “those” with “a given forum post” and “constitute a ban on the whole subject” with “should be moderated” and you end up with this suggestion. Here, let's do that! “determining whether a given forum post should be moderated is in no way our job. It is the job of the ST, and they determine such”

The difference is that this is a suggestion to the ST, while minimodding isn't - reports are suggestions to the ST that the reported topic needs some moderation action performed on it, while minimod posting… doesn't really do much to help in a lot of cases.

MegaApuTurkUltra wrote:

makethebrainhappy wrote:

Isn't this a good example of a mini-mod interaction?

https://scratch-mit-edu.ezproxyberklee.flo.org/discuss/topic/257338/?page=1#post-2619878

yes.

Let's take a look at what happened
- they were concise, so they're not wasting anyone's time
- they weren't rude, a side effect of conciseness
- they left the final decision up to the ST instead of pretending their word is law

Exactly. However 9 out of 10 minimods arent like this which is why they need moderation.

Digital_Gaming wrote:

MathlyCat wrote:

dave4681 wrote:

Digital_Gaming wrote:

Sigton wrote:

They are pretty annoying. Tbh I could probably deal with it as long as they were generally nicer about correcting everyone…

Sigton

uh..sigton
no offence

I'm guessing why this was added:

Seventh Suggestion:

People who only warn Scratchers on the forums for doing something against these suggestions. I'd like to say something:

That's utterly counter intuitive.

The point of this sticky is to give you suggestions on what to and not to do. Simply warning someone is not adding to discussion, which is one of the main points here. Please, if you find someone doing:

1. Breaking a Guideline

Don't respond, just report it and move on.

2. Rejected Suggestion

Just make a long enough post explaining kindly that it's rejected and linking the sticky

3. Someone who isn't using one of these Suggestions

Inform them of this sticky, and after being constructive and ‘warning’ them, add to discussion

That sticky is full of recommendations ,not something encouraging people to savagely demand anyone who doesn't follow.

But all your other points are great, though.

The sticky has really nothing to do with mini-modding, especially if you read it. It's primarily directed at responding/making suggestions.

Which is not mini-modding.

While on it's own sure it's fine. But the culture that it created is largely resposibble for the mimi modding culture that we have currently. How many times does mini modding revolve around how constructive a comment is? I'm not blaming Sigton because I think he had good intentions but that post is largely responsible for this mini modding culture.

Even though it solely directs towards making suggestions and telling people to not do things?
I think you've got it all wrong. That sticky is treated by mini-mods as an extra set of rules, which is made clear:

a. Isn't
b. you shouldn't be mini-modding the junk in there

–
The culture grew from an ST member or other users mini-modding and making it seem okay.
The sticky in no way has direct promotion or reference to mini-modding.
Indirectly? I agree there.

MathlyCat wrote:

braxbroscratcher wrote:

Sigton wrote:

iamunknown2 wrote:

Won't moderating mini-mods create even more work for the ST anyway?

Not if they stop by themselves.

Sigton

You know that that won't happen - so the main argument to moderate the minimods - the fact it would save the ST some work - is contradictory and null. Also - what even would you punish them with? A ban? IP ban? Mute? Forum ban? Account deletion?

You get what I mean.

An alert? Did the main method of warning skip your brain?
Considering alienation/being arrogant is rude and violates the community guidelines.

But not all minimodding is rude or ‘alienation’. Arrogance is allowed btw. Being rude and arrogant are two different things. By definition:
Arrogant, adj. 1. having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities.

Problem is - how do you punish someone for trying to make your job easier? It's counter intuitive - especially in a non-socialist system.

I think along similar lines to MTBH -

makethebrainhappy wrote:

My perspective on it is probably a little bit different than everyone else's, but I think it's alright.

One of the most important community guidelines that applies to this is Be respectful. Many of the comments mentioned throughout the discussion were negative examples of this. But basing this argument on those specific posts and determining whether those constitute a ban on the whole subject is in no way our job. It is the job of the ST, and they determine such.

Mini-Modding may be annoying to some or a lot of users, but then again different subjects may be annoying to many different people. On the scratch forums, its the user who decides what he/she is going to post, not the community, and that is exactly how the community guidelines are written. We are asking to the scratch team to intervene because intervening ourselves would be hypocritical and probably would not get us very far.

Imagine a user posting about pancakes, and the community consensus was that pancakes are irrelevant and that the ST should send alerts to everyone who speaks about them. Would that be right? Does it break the Be constructive rule? I guess that depends on the context. But their are many posts which you can say are not constructive, far to many to moderate them all.

Giving people the freedom to do many different things is ultimately what saves the ST the most time. They are really only looking for offences which truly break these rules in ways which are very clear. Anything other than that seems to be an over-extension or interpretation.

If a user feels that performing these sorts of actions is gratifying for them personally, then it's more for the individual rather than the user who originally posted.

Enjoy picking this apart xD

What I think - Minimodding is a gray zone. Similar to hacked blocks, and comment-based RP's. There's sufficient evidence to prove them as illegal, but there's also sufficient evidence to prove them legal. Since both sets of evidence contradict each other… it's a mess. There are good minimods and bad minimods. Bad ones are condescending and mean, good ones are friendly and assistive. Then there are the people in the middle who have the ‘I don’t care' style of attitude.

cheddargirl wrote:

Econinja wrote:

cheddargirl wrote:

Did you try reporting the mini-modding comments yet?

That'll take eternity to do.

Not really. It helps to have a record.

Anyways, I thought the ST allowed mini-modding?

It depends. Example 1 and 3 in the original post doesn't bug us as much (though we prefer if you don't do it), but Example 2 would bother us a lot and real moderators would see that as being disrespectful.

I'd like to note that there has already been one official stance given.

stickfiregames wrote:

No support for the same reason as I don't support most rule-change ideas: I think the rules should be up to the ST, and it's clear from how they respond to minimodding that they don't have a problem with it.

In fact, given how small the moderating team is (I only see two mods regularly) it probably saves them some time, like the example you gave of pointing out a rejected suggestion. If the poster didn't put the quote there the ST would have to go there instead. The same goes for linking duplicates, which lets people know it's a duplicate and go to the right topic before the ST responds, and then lets the ST just use their standard “looks like this is a duplicate” copypasta. For moving topics to another forum, if no-one posts about it then the topic is normally just moved without comment which sometimes gets confusing.

IMO the worse type of minimodding is when people push things as if they were rules when actually they're just community conventions, I'm thinking of this topic especially. That needs to stop but I don't think there's much the ST could do about it, my preferred way of dealing with stuff like that would just be to leave a comment on the worst offenders' profiles (like repeatedly saying no support without a reason, or making a ton of topics without bothering to read the stickies), and otherwise just letting them get away with minor stuff. There's also the really patronising tone of some minimod comments but again that's not really something you can make a rule against.

Since this suggestion relates directly to the ST, I'll ask them what their opinion on it is.

My opinion on this is very similar to yours. When it's helpful to the moderation team - and it's done politely - I'm in favor of forum users pointing out the rules or including links to the duplicate or rejected topics. When it's not helpful, such as quoting spam or likely to start a flame war, I am not in favor of it. If there is any question of interpretation (“is this post constructive?”), it is probably best to just use the silent report option and let the Scratch Team moderator make the call.