Total Posts:123|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

DDO Peace Keepers

Mikal
Posts: 11,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2014 8:17:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Unitomic messaged me last night and despite our little spat in an earlier thread he had a great idea that I was more than willing to advocate. I want him to have full credit for this because it's his concept, and I want him to be able to run it since he worked on it. I thin't this is an amazing system overall and should be advocated for. This is his general outline, if any ideas or enchantments could be made , this would be the place to discuss this. I fully endorse this and will do anything I can to help with it.

______________________________________________________________

The Peacekeeper Corp (PKC)

What is it:
The Peacekeeper Corp is a group of average site members such as yourself who are chosen to become "Peacekeepers". What this means is that they will be trusted to solve issues, and settle matters in a fair and professional way, without needing to get Mods (PeaceMakers) involved.

How does it do it's job:
Well first it should be remembered that Peacekeepers are NOT mods, and will NOT have moderator powers. What will happen is when a problem starts up, a Peacekeeper will go and try to fix the problem by talking to the people involved, and in general mediate the situation so that all parties involved can walk away from the event unharmed and without fear of Mod intervention, which may lead to more noticeable (so to say) consequences. Peacekeepers operate largely through civility and words, not threat of banning or repercussion. However if the Peacekeeper see's a problem is going beyond reason, then he or she may be forced to report the problem directly to a mod (through PM, rather then simply Reporting, as PM's are more efficient). It should be noted again that a Peacekeepers main goal is to ensure the mods do NOT have to get involved if possible. If you see a problem start, it's best to look for a Peacekeeper on duty and inform them. As Peacekeepers, they will have promised to always keep a close eye on their PMs for new requests for mediation. They will always be available when one, and can be trusted not to reveal your name. They also do more then just mediate issues. They can be called upon to provide advice in tricky situations help members in general. They don't help you win discussions on the forums or debates. And they are also not responsible to help you with your real world problems, though they (like any other member) may still choose to (We ask you find help from those around you who would be more equipped to understand your circumstance however). Peacekeepers will serve for a total of 3 months per Term, while Lead Peacemakers will serve for 6 Months. More veteran Peacekeeper may eventually release Guides to help pass ideas and concepts to newer members on how to deal with certain situations. After a certain amount of time when a core of veteran Peacekeepers are present, First Term Peacekeepers may perform a "Peacekeeper Training" program to instill further professionalism and pride in each member of the Corp. That training period would not be apart of their term (which will start officially after the Training ends), and during that time they will perform their duties only with other Peacekeeper (Bis, Ter, or Lead) present.

How is a Peacekeeper chosen:
Firstly, Peacekeepers are based on volunteers. But that doesn't mean you can join simply by writing your name in a thread. We look at members, and find those who are respected, Civil, able to keep calm under pressure, and are able to solve matters through use of reason and logic. For this we will look not only at their history with the forums, but also at their debates, which will show their ability under pressure and their ability to respond in a respectful and balanced manner. Once a member is pointed out, they will be asked a few questions relating to how they would respond under certain circumstances, and if their answers are satisfactory, they will be offered a term as Peacekeeper, and will take a Peacekeeper "Oath" (it will more be a promise to keep themselves available, always keeping an eye out, and to be Fair, Responsible, and Professional at all times). Once a Peacekeeper's term is up, they may be offered Reenlistment as a Peacekeeper Bis, or Peacekeeper Ter (In Ancient Rome, the top Centurion may accept reenlistment, and gain Bis to their title, meaning they were second term, or Ter, meaning they have been in for at lease three terms). Ultimately however it will increase only their respect within the group, not their actual power within the Corp. Lead Peacekeepers will work with the President and Head Peacekeeper to find and determine who will be offered a position and who will be reenlisted. Once Expelled, one can never rejoin the Corp.

How is it structured:

Outside the Presidency and Mods, the top member of the Peacekeeper Corp is the Head Peacekeeper. Underneath him are the Lead Peacekeepers. Then they are followed by Standard Peacekeepers.

Head Peacekeeper: The overall head of the Corp, he (or she) leads the Peacekeepers and works to keep them in line. He constantly works to find ways to further improve the Corp, and figures ways to impliment any new changes in a smooth and efficient manner. The Head Peacekeeper has the final say on who joins, get's reenlisted, and on who may get expelled. Just like normal Peacekeepers, he is not a mod, and does not bear Moderator Powers.

Lead Peacekeepers: These members serve as a council and to help keep an eye on the Corp, helping the Head Peacekeeper decide who should be offered a Position, and who should be given Reenlistment options. They also present their views to the Head Peacekeeper on how the Corp can be improved, and aid in implementing changes. There are likely to be only two or three. The Leads also can be trusted to hear out complaints against other Peacekeepers, and to act accordingly, not giving out your identity. Leads are nominated by fellow Leads or the Head Peacekeeper, and are given their position if agreed by both the President and the Head Peacekeeper.

Peacekeepers: The rank and file Peacekeeper serves the community by going out and searching for issues that may need resolving. He may also respond to messages about situations, and offer advice. He does not carry mod powers, and simply acts as the first line of defense against problems and trolls. If he feels the matter if out of control, he may PM a mod personally. Peacekeepers who are elected for a second term are Peacekeeper Bis' (Latin for "twice" {not Latin for two, however}), and after that if reelected, they are Peacekeepers Ter (Latin for Thrice {again, not Latin for three, however}). Those members do not carry more authority then others, simply a greater deal of respect. In situations where the problem may be too big, but the Peacekeeper doesn want to involve a mod, he or she may bring in another Peacekeeper. Some Peacekeepers may be tasked with monitering a single section of DDO if reasons require it. Such situations may include having Peacekeeper watch over the Politics section during major and contriversial Real World Votes.
Peacekeeper Trainees: This rank will only be included once a corp of veteran Peacekeepers are brought together. They will recieve a certain amount of training to be shown how to respond to certain situations in a professional, civil, and fair manner. After their training is up, their first term will officially begin. While in training, the Trainee will deal with minor issues, with a more veteran (Bis, Ter, Lead) Peacekeeper present to help him get use to working in such situation. Though their words may not carry the full weight of a Peacekeeper, their trainers will, so bear that in mind.
Mikal
Posts: 11,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2014 8:18:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Benefits of the Peacekeeper Corp:
The Peacekeeper Corp will enable us to deal with trolls, problems, and situations in general on a much more personal basis. As it is there are very few mods (one at present), and it can be incredably difficult for him to effectively deal with all the problems on the site while still doing his other Moderator duties. This problem is likely not to get better without a substantial increase in mods, but, while it is a good idea to add two or three more mods, it may become risky to increase mod count high enough to manage a site as large as Debate.Org. And when Mods do get involved, it may be viewed with hostility, given that Mods may sometimes be seen as people who are above the average member wielding unquestionable power that you can't reason with (even if it may not truely be the case). By creating a Corp from the members themselves, we ensure that your problems are dealt with fairly by fellow members who you have come to know and trust, and whom you can talk to on a down-to-Earth level. The Peacekeeper Corp will also provide the numbers necessary to watch over the whole site, while acting to decrease the number of times a problem may require Moderator action. This will free up the Moderators to focus on more important matters without having to stretch their time and attention on numerious minor problems and watching the entire forum at once. The fact that Peacekeepers are chosen from members, and are in power for only so long, also helps to keep the Corp from becoming a "Above-The-Masses" group, and keeps it within the control and reach of the average member. And since even it's Lead's are still members and serve terms, they too are quite within reach, and can be quarenteed to listen to individual complaints.

What if DDO implements a Trial System:
The Corp also fits into the idea of having problems dealt with through trial, since that idea has been brought up lately. Just like in the Real World, matters can be fixed without having to resort to trial. By using mediators such as the Peacekeeper Corp, we can ensure trials are not the only way to deal with situations, and can ensure parties of the situation can walk away without risk of trial if they cooperate and do not escalate the problem. Peacekeepers may also be able to act as trusted vioces in trials, though they will not have say over how the trial unfolds.

FAQ:
Does the Peacekeeper Corp become involved in politics?: No. The Peacekeepers are non-partison. Though their individual members may voice their opinions, they will do so as a member of the site only.
Can the Peacekeepers ban or impose restrictions against a member?: No. Peacekeepers act as mediators and to give advise. If matters get out of hand, they will PM a mod.
What happens if a Peacekeeper acts out of line?: The Peacekeeper will be reprimanded by a Lead or the Head Peacekeeper. Punishments for out of line behavior may include warnings, temporary suspensions, or possibly full expulsion. Lead's cannot be demoted, any transgression severe enougn to warrant action further then warning for a lead will lead to suspension or full expulsion. Once a Peacekeeper, a member is expected to follow his promise of Civility, Fairness, and Professionalism, regardless of if it's dealing with problems or not, and therefore they may be reprimended for any breach of site rules. If a member recieves suspension or too many warnings, it will gravely hurt their chance at reenlistment, but not necessarily rule it out altogether.
What if I have a complaint about the Peacekeeper Corp?: You can PM a Lead or the Head Peacekeeper. If your problem isn't resolved, or you feel it's bigger then that, then you may PM a Mod about the situation.
How does one join?: We search for members of the site who are shown to be respectable, civil, and fair. After questioning them on their reaction in certain situations, they are offered a position.
What if two Peacekeepers are having problems?: In these situations, a Lead will be brought in. If matters go out of hand, reprimandation may be used, or a report the the Mods.
How can we trust the Peacekeeper Corp to be responsible?: Member are chosen from among the average site members, based off their trustworthiness. If you have an issue with a member of the Corp, it can be brought up to a higher member or Mod.
What if the problem being has involves a Peacekeeper as a party of the hostilities?: He will be acting out of bounds, and will have be concerned to be acting as a Peacekeeper in these situations, but as a normal member.

If there are any other Questions or Concerns, please PM Unitomic or a Lead Peacekeeper.

==Unitomic==
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2014 8:21:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Please tell me you have to request such a peacekeeper. If I start getting messaged by peacekeepers everytime I'm sharp with a member I'm going to get majorly pissed.
ElCorazonAma
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2014 8:40:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/8/2014 8:21:54 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Please tell me you have to request such a peacekeeper. If I start getting messaged by peacekeepers everytime I'm sharp with a member I'm going to get majorly pissed.

Hahaha I actually like this idea, but Grant, if I'm chosen, would you be mad? :P
Just teasin ya!
The verb is real but the adjective is only a hypothetical ideal. ~ Freedo
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2014 8:43:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/8/2014 8:40:38 AM, ElCorazonAma wrote:
At 12/8/2014 8:21:54 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Please tell me you have to request such a peacekeeper. If I start getting messaged by peacekeepers everytime I'm sharp with a member I'm going to get majorly pissed.

Hahaha I actually like this idea, but Grant, if I'm chosen, would you be mad? :P
Just teasin ya!

Only if you're going to chastise me without my request.
ElCorazonAma
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2014 8:44:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/8/2014 8:43:22 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 12/8/2014 8:40:38 AM, ElCorazonAma wrote:
At 12/8/2014 8:21:54 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Please tell me you have to request such a peacekeeper. If I start getting messaged by peacekeepers everytime I'm sharp with a member I'm going to get majorly pissed.

Hahaha I actually like this idea, but Grant, if I'm chosen, would you be mad? :P
Just teasin ya!

Only if you're going to chastise me without my request.

Even if I'm really nice and polite and civil about it? Cause since when have I just gone off on you out if anger or annoyance? Dot believe that I have? :)
The verb is real but the adjective is only a hypothetical ideal. ~ Freedo
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2014 8:49:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
How is this different from generally people mediating whenever there is a conflict? Without having a hierarchy of peacemakers?
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2014 8:53:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/8/2014 8:44:31 AM, ElCorazonAma wrote:
At 12/8/2014 8:43:22 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 12/8/2014 8:40:38 AM, ElCorazonAma wrote:
At 12/8/2014 8:21:54 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Please tell me you have to request such a peacekeeper. If I start getting messaged by peacekeepers everytime I'm sharp with a member I'm going to get majorly pissed.

Hahaha I actually like this idea, but Grant, if I'm chosen, would you be mad? :P
Just teasin ya!

Only if you're going to chastise me without my request.

Even if I'm really nice and polite and civil about it? Cause since when have I just gone off on you out if anger or annoyance? Dot believe that I have? :)

Well in the spirit of the private market I'll just hire you as my own personal peacekeeper then.
Ajabi
Posts: 1,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2014 8:56:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/8/2014 8:49:08 AM, Cermank wrote:
How is this different from generally people mediating whenever there is a conflict? Without having a hierarchy of peacemakers?

^Exactly.

Unless these peacekeepers will have an official power as mediators, and they can recommend issues to mods, I don't see how this is any different.
ElCorazonAma
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2014 9:00:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/8/2014 8:53:47 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 12/8/2014 8:44:31 AM, ElCorazonAma wrote:
At 12/8/2014 8:43:22 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 12/8/2014 8:40:38 AM, ElCorazonAma wrote:
At 12/8/2014 8:21:54 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Please tell me you have to request such a peacekeeper. If I start getting messaged by peacekeepers everytime I'm sharp with a member I'm going to get majorly pissed.

Hahaha I actually like this idea, but Grant, if I'm chosen, would you be mad? :P
Just teasin ya!

Only if you're going to chastise me without my request.

Even if I'm really nice and polite and civil about it? Cause since when have I just gone off on you out if anger or annoyance? Dot believe that I have? :)

Well in the spirit of the private market I'll just hire you as my own personal peacekeeper then.

Haha! Your silly! But, if you insist! :P
The verb is real but the adjective is only a hypothetical ideal. ~ Freedo
mishapqueen
Posts: 3,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2014 9:02:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I don't know a whole lot about all the pros and cons, but this seems a good idea on the face of it.
You cannot choose whether or not you will live by rules, but you can choose which rules you will live by. --Me

"I was wrong. Squirrels are objectively superior to bunnies in every conceivable dimension."
--Joey

"Silence is golden, duct tape is silver" --PetersSmith

Nunc aut Numquam
Unitomic
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2014 9:17:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/8/2014 8:21:54 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Please tell me you have to request such a peacekeeper. If I start getting messaged by peacekeepers everytime I'm sharp with a member I'm going to get majorly pissed.

Unless it becomes an obvious problem, somone (not necessarily someone directly involved) needs to PM a Peacekeeper
Mikal
Posts: 11,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2014 9:17:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
That's why I posted it, to work on ideas and edit it. I think it is a great way members to mediate problems between themselves, and I think it would generally be best to consent it, or just get a message like

" I'm in the PKC, just checking to see how I can help you with your situation with (y)"

then if they decline leave it at that, I love the idea and that is the point to having it posted. Is to expand on it so Uni can take it in and revise it, if he feels the need
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2014 9:18:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/8/2014 9:17:10 AM, Unitomic wrote:
At 12/8/2014 8:21:54 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Please tell me you have to request such a peacekeeper. If I start getting messaged by peacekeepers everytime I'm sharp with a member I'm going to get majorly pissed.

Unless it becomes an obvious problem, somone (not necessarily someone directly involved) needs to PM a Peacekeeper

So it's only going to be applied to obvious/destructive flamewars and such?
ElCorazonAma
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2014 9:20:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/8/2014 9:17:48 AM, Mikal wrote:
That's why I posted it, to work on ideas and edit it. I think it is a great way members to mediate problems between themselves, and I think it would generally be best to consent it, or just get a message like

" I'm in the PKC, just checking to see how I can help you with your situation with (y)"

then if they decline leave it at that, I love the idea and that is the point to having it posted. Is to expand on it so Uni can take it in and revise it, if he feels the need

So, would certain or few members be chosen for this? Or how will this work?
The verb is real but the adjective is only a hypothetical ideal. ~ Freedo
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2014 9:20:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/8/2014 9:20:29 AM, ElCorazonAma wrote:
At 12/8/2014 9:17:48 AM, Mikal wrote:
That's why I posted it, to work on ideas and edit it. I think it is a great way members to mediate problems between themselves, and I think it would generally be best to consent it, or just get a message like

" I'm in the PKC, just checking to see how I can help you with your situation with (y)"

then if they decline leave it at that, I love the idea and that is the point to having it posted. Is to expand on it so Uni can take it in and revise it, if he feels the need

So, would certain or few members be chosen for this? Or how will this work?

OP has the structure in it.
ElCorazonAma
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2014 9:21:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/8/2014 9:20:59 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 12/8/2014 9:20:29 AM, ElCorazonAma wrote:
At 12/8/2014 9:17:48 AM, Mikal wrote:
That's why I posted it, to work on ideas and edit it. I think it is a great way members to mediate problems between themselves, and I think it would generally be best to consent it, or just get a message like

" I'm in the PKC, just checking to see how I can help you with your situation with (y)"

then if they decline leave it at that, I love the idea and that is the point to having it posted. Is to expand on it so Uni can take it in and revise it, if he feels the need

So, would certain or few members be chosen for this? Or how will this work?

OP has the structure in it.

bleh, I skimmed through it, but okay :)
The verb is real but the adjective is only a hypothetical ideal. ~ Freedo
Unitomic
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2014 9:21:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/8/2014 9:18:40 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 12/8/2014 9:17:10 AM, Unitomic wrote:
At 12/8/2014 8:21:54 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Please tell me you have to request such a peacekeeper. If I start getting messaged by peacekeepers everytime I'm sharp with a member I'm going to get majorly pissed.

Unless it becomes an obvious problem, somone (not necessarily someone directly involved) needs to PM a Peacekeeper

So it's only going to be applied to obvious/destructive flamewars and such?

typically, or if someone has requested they help prevent one from happening (though whether he becomes involved depends on if he feels it's really at risk of becoming a problem)

To the person asking why it's different from other members mediating, I'll explain that in a few hours. For now I have an appointment to attend.
YYW
Posts: 36,392
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2014 9:22:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/8/2014 8:49:08 AM, Cermank wrote:
How is this different from generally people mediating whenever there is a conflict? Without having a hierarchy of peacemakers?

Simple: Legitimacy.

Having someone who is actually in a recognized capacity to do something adds legitimacy to their trying to mediate a conflict.

I'll also say that when most people try to mediate things now, they tend to screw it up because of their misplaced sympathies and their lack of interest in understanding what both sides of a conflict have to say.

What I mean by that is that most people who try to "mediate" really just want the people who are in a conflict to shut up and go away because they don't like conflict, rather than actually solving the conflict. That is why efforts to do this in the past have failed.

This is why, as well, there is usually not a whole lot of legitimacy to those who try to intervene.... both parties to the conflict recognize the absurdity of the person who tries to intervene with the primary purpose of simply ending hostilities rather than actually resolving the problem.

So... in so few words.... that is the difference.
Tsar of DDO
Mikal
Posts: 11,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2014 9:22:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/8/2014 9:20:59 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 12/8/2014 9:20:29 AM, ElCorazonAma wrote:
At 12/8/2014 9:17:48 AM, Mikal wrote:
That's why I posted it, to work on ideas and edit it. I think it is a great way members to mediate problems between themselves, and I think it would generally be best to consent it, or just get a message like

" I'm in the PKC, just checking to see how I can help you with your situation with (y)"

then if they decline leave it at that, I love the idea and that is the point to having it posted. Is to expand on it so Uni can take it in and revise it, if he feels the need

So, would certain or few members be chosen for this? Or how will this work?

OP has the structure in it.

The starting structure
Mikal
Posts: 11,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2014 9:23:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/8/2014 9:20:29 AM, ElCorazonAma wrote:
At 12/8/2014 9:17:48 AM, Mikal wrote:
That's why I posted it, to work on ideas and edit it. I think it is a great way members to mediate problems between themselves, and I think it would generally be best to consent it, or just get a message like

" I'm in the PKC, just checking to see how I can help you with your situation with (y)"

then if they decline leave it at that, I love the idea and that is the point to having it posted. Is to expand on it so Uni can take it in and revise it, if he feels the need

So, would certain or few members be chosen for this? Or how will this work?

Apply, that is why I told you to talk to UNI. I am quite sure he will work with you
ElCorazonAma
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2014 9:24:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/8/2014 9:23:17 AM, Mikal wrote:
At 12/8/2014 9:20:29 AM, ElCorazonAma wrote:
At 12/8/2014 9:17:48 AM, Mikal wrote:
That's why I posted it, to work on ideas and edit it. I think it is a great way members to mediate problems between themselves, and I think it would generally be best to consent it, or just get a message like

" I'm in the PKC, just checking to see how I can help you with your situation with (y)"

then if they decline leave it at that, I love the idea and that is the point to having it posted. Is to expand on it so Uni can take it in and revise it, if he feels the need

So, would certain or few members be chosen for this? Or how will this work?

Apply, that is why I told you to talk to UNI. I am quite sure he will work with you

UNI? remind me who that is again??
The verb is real but the adjective is only a hypothetical ideal. ~ Freedo
Mikal
Posts: 11,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2014 9:25:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/8/2014 9:24:13 AM, ElCorazonAma wrote:
At 12/8/2014 9:23:17 AM, Mikal wrote:
At 12/8/2014 9:20:29 AM, ElCorazonAma wrote:
At 12/8/2014 9:17:48 AM, Mikal wrote:
That's why I posted it, to work on ideas and edit it. I think it is a great way members to mediate problems between themselves, and I think it would generally be best to consent it, or just get a message like

" I'm in the PKC, just checking to see how I can help you with your situation with (y)"

then if they decline leave it at that, I love the idea and that is the point to having it posted. Is to expand on it so Uni can take it in and revise it, if he feels the need

So, would certain or few members be chosen for this? Or how will this work?

Apply, that is why I told you to talk to UNI. I am quite sure he will work with you

UNI? remind me who that is again??

the guy that is above
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2014 9:49:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/8/2014 9:22:09 AM, YYW wrote:
At 12/8/2014 8:49:08 AM, Cermank wrote:
How is this different from generally people mediating whenever there is a conflict? Without having a hierarchy of peacemakers?

Simple: Legitimacy.

Having someone who is actually in a recognized capacity to do something adds legitimacy to their trying to mediate a conflict.

I'll also say that when most people try to mediate things now, they tend to screw it up because of their misplaced sympathies and their lack of interest in understanding what both sides of a conflict have to say.

What I mean by that is that most people who try to "mediate" really just want the people who are in a conflict to shut up and go away because they don't like conflict, rather than actually solving the conflict. That is why efforts to do this in the past have failed.

This is why, as well, there is usually not a whole lot of legitimacy to those who try to intervene.... both parties to the conflict recognize the absurdity of the person who tries to intervene with the primary purpose of simply ending hostilities rather than actually resolving the problem.

So... in so few words.... that is the difference.

I guess I don't see the legitimacy. It's literally just members messaging each other. If I have a problem with someone, I might share it with airmax if I want a restraining order- because he has the power to enforce it. But there are a select few people I trust with sharing my 'grievances', I'd share it with them, not a random third party person, however good he might be at resolving conflict.

I'd see an intervention like that as kind of condescending, but that might be just me if others don't have a problem with the idea.
YYW
Posts: 36,392
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2014 9:52:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/8/2014 9:49:41 AM, Cermank wrote:
At 12/8/2014 9:22:09 AM, YYW wrote:
At 12/8/2014 8:49:08 AM, Cermank wrote:
How is this different from generally people mediating whenever there is a conflict? Without having a hierarchy of peacemakers?

Simple: Legitimacy.

Having someone who is actually in a recognized capacity to do something adds legitimacy to their trying to mediate a conflict.

I'll also say that when most people try to mediate things now, they tend to screw it up because of their misplaced sympathies and their lack of interest in understanding what both sides of a conflict have to say.

What I mean by that is that most people who try to "mediate" really just want the people who are in a conflict to shut up and go away because they don't like conflict, rather than actually solving the conflict. That is why efforts to do this in the past have failed.

This is why, as well, there is usually not a whole lot of legitimacy to those who try to intervene.... both parties to the conflict recognize the absurdity of the person who tries to intervene with the primary purpose of simply ending hostilities rather than actually resolving the problem.

So... in so few words.... that is the difference.

I guess I don't see the legitimacy. It's literally just members messaging each other. If I have a problem with someone, I might share it with airmax if I want a restraining order- because he has the power to enforce it. But there are a select few people I trust with sharing my 'grievances', I'd share it with them, not a random third party person, however good he might be at resolving conflict.

I'd see an intervention like that as kind of condescending, but that might be just me if others don't have a problem with the idea.

I think that generally, though, you're not the kind of person who gets involved in conflicts.... which is why you're Blade's VP.
Tsar of DDO
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2014 9:54:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/8/2014 9:49:41 AM, Cermank wrote:
At 12/8/2014 9:22:09 AM, YYW wrote:
At 12/8/2014 8:49:08 AM, Cermank wrote:
How is this different from generally people mediating whenever there is a conflict? Without having a hierarchy of peacemakers?

Simple: Legitimacy.

Having someone who is actually in a recognized capacity to do something adds legitimacy to their trying to mediate a conflict.

I'll also say that when most people try to mediate things now, they tend to screw it up because of their misplaced sympathies and their lack of interest in understanding what both sides of a conflict have to say.

What I mean by that is that most people who try to "mediate" really just want the people who are in a conflict to shut up and go away because they don't like conflict, rather than actually solving the conflict. That is why efforts to do this in the past have failed.

This is why, as well, there is usually not a whole lot of legitimacy to those who try to intervene.... both parties to the conflict recognize the absurdity of the person who tries to intervene with the primary purpose of simply ending hostilities rather than actually resolving the problem.

So... in so few words.... that is the difference.

I guess I don't see the legitimacy. It's literally just members messaging each other. If I have a problem with someone, I might share it with airmax if I want a restraining order- because he has the power to enforce it. But there are a select few people I trust with sharing my 'grievances', I'd share it with them, not a random third party person, however good he might be at resolving conflict.

I'd see an intervention like that as kind of condescending, but that might be just me if others don't have a problem with the idea.

Oh no it's extremely condescending, I agree.
YYW
Posts: 36,392
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2014 10:00:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/8/2014 9:54:26 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 12/8/2014 9:49:41 AM, Cermank wrote:
At 12/8/2014 9:22:09 AM, YYW wrote:
At 12/8/2014 8:49:08 AM, Cermank wrote:
How is this different from generally people mediating whenever there is a conflict? Without having a hierarchy of peacemakers?

Simple: Legitimacy.

Having someone who is actually in a recognized capacity to do something adds legitimacy to their trying to mediate a conflict.

I'll also say that when most people try to mediate things now, they tend to screw it up because of their misplaced sympathies and their lack of interest in understanding what both sides of a conflict have to say.

What I mean by that is that most people who try to "mediate" really just want the people who are in a conflict to shut up and go away because they don't like conflict, rather than actually solving the conflict. That is why efforts to do this in the past have failed.

This is why, as well, there is usually not a whole lot of legitimacy to those who try to intervene.... both parties to the conflict recognize the absurdity of the person who tries to intervene with the primary purpose of simply ending hostilities rather than actually resolving the problem.

So... in so few words.... that is the difference.

I guess I don't see the legitimacy. It's literally just members messaging each other. If I have a problem with someone, I might share it with airmax if I want a restraining order- because he has the power to enforce it. But there are a select few people I trust with sharing my 'grievances', I'd share it with them, not a random third party person, however good he might be at resolving conflict.

I'd see an intervention like that as kind of condescending, but that might be just me if others don't have a problem with the idea.

Oh no it's extremely condescending, I agree.

Here's why it's not:

The kind of problems that we're talking about, really aren't of the caliber that would not attract moderator intervention under normal circumstances. So, it's not like a minor argument in the forum is going to be swarmed by people trying to resolve a conflict. That would be dumb. This is like a "first response" type ting that's designed to keep the peace, and resolve conflicts that would require moderator intervention, without moderator intervention.
Tsar of DDO
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2014 10:04:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/8/2014 10:00:17 AM, YYW wrote:
At 12/8/2014 9:54:26 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 12/8/2014 9:49:41 AM, Cermank wrote:
At 12/8/2014 9:22:09 AM, YYW wrote:
At 12/8/2014 8:49:08 AM, Cermank wrote:
How is this different from generally people mediating whenever there is a conflict? Without having a hierarchy of peacemakers?

Simple: Legitimacy.

Having someone who is actually in a recognized capacity to do something adds legitimacy to their trying to mediate a conflict.

I'll also say that when most people try to mediate things now, they tend to screw it up because of their misplaced sympathies and their lack of interest in understanding what both sides of a conflict have to say.

What I mean by that is that most people who try to "mediate" really just want the people who are in a conflict to shut up and go away because they don't like conflict, rather than actually solving the conflict. That is why efforts to do this in the past have failed.

This is why, as well, there is usually not a whole lot of legitimacy to those who try to intervene.... both parties to the conflict recognize the absurdity of the person who tries to intervene with the primary purpose of simply ending hostilities rather than actually resolving the problem.

So... in so few words.... that is the difference.

I guess I don't see the legitimacy. It's literally just members messaging each other. If I have a problem with someone, I might share it with airmax if I want a restraining order- because he has the power to enforce it. But there are a select few people I trust with sharing my 'grievances', I'd share it with them, not a random third party person, however good he might be at resolving conflict.

I'd see an intervention like that as kind of condescending, but that might be just me if others don't have a problem with the idea.

Oh no it's extremely condescending, I agree.

Here's why it's not:

The kind of problems that we're talking about, really aren't of the caliber that would not attract moderator intervention under normal circumstances. So, it's not like a minor argument in the forum is going to be swarmed by people trying to resolve a conflict. That would be dumb. This is like a "first response" type ting that's designed to keep the peace, and resolve conflicts that would require moderator intervention, without moderator intervention.

Condescention is something someone experiences on an individual basis. You can't just say "No this isn't condescening" because I percieve it as just that.
mortsdor
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2014 10:05:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/8/2014 8:17:25 AM, Mikal wrote:
The Peacekeeper Corp is a group of average site members such as yourself who are chosen to become "Peacekeepers". What this means is that they will be trusted to solve issues, and settle matters in a fair and professional way, without needing to get Mods (PeaceMakers) involved.

sounds like Bladerunner's "ambassadors"

I think both groups pretty much wouldn't boil down to much but a threat to go to the mod. This doesn't require a group, and forming such a group doesn't seem like it'd do much :/

I think a sort of Trial system offers the best way to expand moderation in a measured and transparent manner...

I think you should publish the contents of the trial system which you would propose.