Moderator abuse.

Dades

Why do you keep posting that crap video?

cornbb

keystone wrote: »

Ridiculous....I have to disagree with that but agree with the role of the mods. They have a responsibility to keep a level of professionalism as a mod on all forums though.

The notion that mods should be "professional" is laughable, we do not get paid, we do not get a B.Mod. degree.

Being a mod is a tough position to be in. What happens on every site with mods is that there are issues with promoting their own personal opinions. This is normal unfortunately. It is up to the more senior mods/admins to ensure that personal opinions do not form part of their moderation.

On boards, this is more often than not the norm, too many mods using their own opinion/beliefs and so on when moderating. This actually causes issue, morale issue on a forum. Being overly pedantic about who posts where and so on is not the way to moderate. I mean if you post a question or query in the wrong place, you should not be vilified for it. Heavens forbid someone makes a mistake. Surely if a post is in the wrong place, move it, full stop. Is there a need for a snotty comment. The answer is no. Unfortunately this is the normal operating procedure for a lot of mods on this site.

It is occasionally difficult to switch off and make a moderating decision without letting your own biases kick in, but only very rarely. The vast majority of modding decisions I see are fair and impartial, on the rare occasion a mod does make a mistake s/he is usually big enough to admit it.

Whether or not moderators are overzealous is a completely different matter...

I do not participate on the site too much. The reason being is that I find the moderation is over the top in its deliverance. Remember mods, you are here to moderate, not push you own personal opinions or insult people in the process.

Most mods put on a "mod hat" when they need to step in somewhere and just post away like everyone else for the rest of the time. Moderators like me, who look after one or two smaller forums, spend maybe 1% of their time on boards with this mod hat on, and that time is mostly taken up with quietly cleaning up spam, moving threads, generally keeping an eye on things.

The vast majority of mod work is gone unnoticed - occasional unfair bannings or overblown feedback threads can give the casual user the impression that all mods are rabid, power-crazy fiends with nothing better to do than ban all day long.

boards.ie is a tightly-run ship. There are plenty of places on the internet where spamming, shilling, moronic flamewars (YouTube comments anyone?), pop-ups, flashy adverts etc etc are all the norm. boards.ie has none of this things, largely thanks to the relatively strict rules applied by the mods. The same rules apply to everyone however.

cornbb

Dades wrote: »

Why do you keep posting that crap video?

Looks like spam to me.

Terry

Overheal wrote: »

So.. no mod has been called out yet?

I for one assume its about Terry again. What a lovable badass.

Probably. (Insert roll eyes smilie here)

OP, do you have any links?
I'm actually interested in what you have to say here and I'd like if others would refrain from the usual crap until at least the OP has had a chance to reply.

The Black Oil

Do mods play Wii?

seamus

36 posts and not a single example of where a moderator has allowed their own opinion to influence the moderation of a topic. For shame. I usually expect better of feedback.

Terry

The Black Oil wrote: »

Do mods play Wii?

I will be playing Wii most of next week.
Why do you ask?

keystone

cornbb wrote: »

The notion that mods should be "professional" is laughable, we do not get paid, we do not get a B.Mod. degree.

boards.ie is a tightly-run ship. There are plenty of places on the internet where spamming, shilling, moronic flamewars (YouTube comments anyone?), pop-ups, flashy adverts etc etc are all the norm. boards.ie has none of this things, largely thanks to the relatively strict rules applied by the mods. The same rules apply to everyone however.

The fact that there is no pay involved is not the point, as I have moderated before for no pay, I understand the frustrations you have. A "B.Mod degree", I'm not surprised with that comment, indicative of the general mod attitude, which is not the positive. Professionalism is non existent as demonstrated with that comment and does not kick in once pay is involved.

I have to say that the moderation of spam, phishing, advertising, etc on boards is very good. The varying amount of discussions threads available is also impressive. The public face of moderation is a skill in itself. All too often on boards, this skill is not used or is igniored.

keystone

Dades wrote: »

Why do you keep posting that crap video?

Is this not an example of bad moderation?

Yes, the video has no place here but what is that comment meant to achieve.

Mr. Incognito

Deliverance Lord says Mods are evil.

Amen.

Wazdakka

keystone wrote: »

Yes, the video has no place here but what is that comment meant to achieve.

HA!!

randylonghorn

keystone wrote: »

Is this not an example of bad moderation?

Yes, the video has no place here but what is that comment meant to achieve.

Why do you think it is an example of "moderation" at all?

Dades moderates one forum, Atheism & Agnosticism.

This is not it.

keystone

You expect a mod to act accordingly irrespective of what thread or forum they are in.

Maybe I'm mistaken. It seems the boards model of public moderation is different to any other model of moderation I have ever witnessed or been involved in.

cornbb

keystone wrote: »

You expect a mod to act accordingly irrespective of what thread or forum they are in.

Maybe I'm mistaken. It seems the boards model of public moderation is different to any other model of moderation I have ever witnessed or been involved in.

Mods only have mod powers in the forums they mod. Elsewhere, they are subject to the same rules and discipline as everyone else. Correspondingly, they are free to act the maggot elsewhere but face the same consequences as anyone else for doing so.

The boards model is perhaps unique, I believe the vbulletin code has been hacked quite a bit so moderators only have the power to ban from individual forums and not the whole site.

nesf

keystone wrote: »

Maybe I'm mistaken. It seems the boards model of public moderation is different to any other model of moderation I have ever witnessed or been involved in.

Perhaps it is, but the goal of boards.ie isn't to please everybody nor mimic moderation from other media. From observations made from being a moderator of the most active forum for a number of years, your average user here doesn't clash with the moderators. I fall more into the "moderators should be seen and not heard" camp for the most part, so I'm sympathetic to your viewpoint, but I don't think things are as bad as you paint them.

Dades

randylonghorn wrote: »

Why do you think it is an example of "moderation" at all?

Dades moderates one forum, Atheism & Agnosticism.

This is not it.

Indeed - and maybe therein lies the crux.

I like to think myself as a user foremost, a Mod second (and only in A&A). However if every post I make is perceived as coming from a Moderator's POV, a false air of oppression is inevitable.

Often you have to point out you're just expressing an opinion, rather than laying down the law, so to speak.

Rb

keystone wrote: »

You expect a mod to act accordingly irrespective of what thread or forum they are in.

Maybe I'm mistaken. It seems the boards model of public moderation is different to any other model of moderation I have ever witnessed or been involved in.

No, no you don't expect them to act accordingly in every single forum.

Once they do a good job moderating the forum they've been chosen to, that is all that's important. I really don't see what you're not getting here.

When Dades is posting outside his forum, he is a regular user and can post whatever the hell he likes, so long as it is in accordance with the site rules. Just because he is a moderator of one of the many, many fora on Boards, doesn't mean this should change his behaviour in every other forum, or impose new rules or repsonsibilities on him there either.

I use many forums, some more specialised than others, and the moderators act the exact same. Behaved in their own forum, regular user in others.

I don't see what the problem is here.

nesf

rb_ie wrote: »

I don't see what the problem is here.

There is a valid point in that (on a handful of controversial issues) it's inevitable that sides are taken and it's very hard for a moderator to participate in the discussion while staying "neutral" in both a perceived and more importantly, a real way.

Edit: Also, sometimes things get personal and a similar problem arises. What's important here is that either a) the moderator participates but becomes a user effectively in the thread and a co-mod or C-Mod or whatever takes over making moderation calls (which is what we do in AH, and it works well in my opinion) or b) the moderator exerts enough self control to not get involved and tries to remain neutral (which is where the mod forum comes in, occasionally a moderator will as other mods who are neutral in the discussion to look over their moderation and check that it is actually neutral).

There are ways to work around the problem of a moderator being a user. It needs to be recognised as a potential problem though.

Ron DMC

keystone wrote: »

You expect a mod to act accordingly irrespective of what thread or forum they are in.

That shouldn't be the case. Just because a mod has a different set of stars under their avatar, they should be treated as any other boardsie regardless. They should be subject to the same rules, bans etc when it comes to other forums. If they moderate Digital Arts or something they are still perfectly entitled to act like a plonker in AH if they like (Just an example, no one specific), but they can still be banned from AH. Their moderatorness won't protect them.

Maybe I'm mistaken. It seems the boards model of public moderation is different to any other model of moderation I have ever witnessed or been involved in.

Boards.ie is the most successful and wide-ranging message board in the country, if not anywhere. It works as it is, why fix something that ain't broke.

randylonghorn

keystone wrote: »

You expect a mod to act accordingly irrespective of what thread or forum they are in.

Personally, I don't.

Just because someone agrees to mod one or more forums doesn't mean they take some kind of holy orders (or atheist orders in Dades' case!). They're not meant to become saints, just volunteers who help to keep one or more rooms of a huge house tidy.

Nor do I actually see what was so terribly wrong with Dades original post anyway ...

EDIT; I agree, nesf, but you're talking about a mod in his / her own forum, or on an issue which is directly relevant to their role.

Terry

Ronny Mitchell wrote: »

That shouldn't be the case. Just because a mod has a different set of stars under their avatar, they should be treated as any other boardsie regardless. They should be subject to the same rules, bans etc when it comes to other forums. If they moderate Digital Arts or something they are still perfectly entitled to act like a plonker in AH if they like (Just an example, no one specific), but they can still be banned from AH. Their moderatorness won't protect them.

Boards.ie is the most successful and wide-ranging message board in the country, if not anywhere. It works as it is, why fix something that ain't broke.

Indeed.
I banned a moderator from AH about an hour ago and it wasn't the first time I have done so.

When it comes to the forums I moderate, I don't give a flying fúck who you are.
If you break the rules, then you will be banned.


At the end of the day, we're just trying to keep the place tidy.

You can go to any number of forums on the internet and call people dicks, post porn pics and troll to your hearts content.
The thing is, not everyone wants to use the internet in that way.
I like to thing that boards.ie provides a much needed alternative to the usual txt spk ridden, teenage troll filled forums which are all to prevalent around the net.

Rb

nesf wrote: »

There is a valid point in that (on a handful of controversial issues) it's inevitable that sides are taken and it's very hard for a moderator to participate in the discussion while staying "neutral" in both a perceived and more importantly, a real way.

Edit: Also, sometimes things get personal and a similar problem arises. What's important here is that either a) the moderator participates but becomes a user effectively in the thread and a co-mod or C-Mod or whatever takes over making moderation calls (which is what we do in AH, and it works well in my opinion) or b) the moderator exerts enough self control to not get involved and tries to remain neutral (which is where the mod forum comes in, occasionally a moderator will as other mods who are neutral in the discussion to look over their moderation and check that it is actually neutral).

There are ways to work around the problem of a moderator being a user. It needs to be recognised as a potential problem though.

To be honest, I think the biggest problem lies in the average users perception of a moderator and the roles they perform, or are expected to perform. Hence why a moderator of one forum is being expected to act in the same way in other fora as they do in their own.

I fully understand your point and in that regard, AH performs extremely well in such circumstances. However, I've personally never expected a moderator of a forum (in their own forum) to stay neutral on any topic, only neutral when it comes to moderation of said forum. Should this be expected? Should moderators not voice their personal opinion on a topic in their forum, should it be perceived as taking a side in a debate?

Is there really a problem with a moderator taking a side in a debate? I don't see one, their entitled to their opinion, the only potential problem is that they form a personal problem with the opposing side and use their moderator badge heavily against them whilst appearing to protect their own side/allies. However, I've yet to see this on Boards.

I think it's very easy for a moderator to participate in topics (controversial or otherwise) whilst remaining fair and performing the moderator role accordingly. The problem lies when another user thinks it's unfair, or that they were banned for having an opinion different to the moderators, when they were probably just trolling. Other users may see such an act (i.e the banning) as a moderator punishing someone who disagreed with them, whereas it was actually just a ban for going against the forum charter, thus giving a negative image of said moderator.

I think AH provides a very good solution to this, as you said above, whereby if a moderator is participating in a somewhat controversial topic and is seen to be siding with a certain thought on it, then another moderator takes care of the actual moderation duties should the need be.

As I said though, I think the biggest problem is the newer users not understanding the role and responsibility of a moderator. How this can be rectified before a problem arises, I'm not too sure tbh.

All the above is obviously applicable to a moderator in their own forum though. I think all users should be aware that when a moderator is posting outside their own forum, they are the same as any other user on whichever forum they are posting. I don't know how Boards could go about informing everyone of this but the new users expecting moderators to perform, or act in a certain way, outside their own forum is certainly a problem.

Or should every moderator be expected to act in a certain way, regardless of the forum they're posting in? I think not, but it seems many newer users think so.

norrie rugger

Why is there no evidence from the OP.

A non thread if there ever was one.

Can there be cats?

keystone

I appreciate the fact that moderators are not moderators in all forums. This is the best approach but still does not excuse the issues being detailed here. All feedback should be taken seriously, discussion is positive but can only go so far.

Boards has a name for its mods using the name to force an opinion. This is not the general rule from what I see however dades comment above does display the issue. I'm not trying to make an example of said mod or any individual mod but it does show an example of what the perception is.

Describing 'users' as newbies or 'average users' is a dreadful term that most companies and professionally run forums/blogs etc stress must be avoided. This again shows the lack of understanding of the people participating on the site. It's not that simple to categorise people nor should it be tolerated.

I have to say that all in all boards is run well, it is extremely popular and have a large variety of forums to participate in. The issue from the OP is valid and shows a potential problem. The fact that people do not post feedback or examples demonstrates that there is a problem that needs to be nipped in the bud.

seamus

keystone wrote: »

Boards has a name for its mods using the name to force an opinion. This is not the general rule from what I see however dades comment above does display the issue. I'm not trying to make an example of said mod or any individual mod but it does show an example of what the perception is.

It's a perception, but not a reality. The fact that nobody can show any examples of moderators imposing their opinions on a topic is good enough proof of that.

So how do you propose we combat people's misconceptions?

keystone

We'll have to agree to disagree here.

By the way, here is an example of what I believe is negative moderation.......was the comment required no matter whether the mod is right or not.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055257938

As for combating peoples perception as you suggest, not sure that is the point in all cases.

In any case, i believe the point has been brought up, how the site as a unit deal with it. I'd imagine that all feedback is given equal review.

aidan_walsh

keystone wrote: »

We'll have to agree to disagree here.

By the way, here is an example of what I believe is negative moderation.......was the comment required no matter whether the mod is right or not.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055257938

As for combating peoples perception as you suggest, not sure that is the point in all cases.

In any case, i believe the point has been brought up, how the site as a unit deal with it. I'd imagine that all feedback is given equal review.

Which mod?

Cuddlesworth

keystone wrote: »

I appreciate the fact that moderators are not moderators in all forums. This is the best approach but still does not excuse the issues being detailed here. All feedback should be taken seriously, discussion is positive but can only go so far.

What issues? I have yet to see an example or link to any abuse. And you can find some, just look through Terrys 20k posts or so for the one example.

Feedback is taken seriously, when there is actual site feedback. This isn't feedback, its a badly vieled attack on a system that works well with no alternatives given.

keystone wrote: »

Boards has a name for its mods using the name to force an opinion. This is not the general rule from what I see however dades comment above does display the issue. I'm not trying to make an example of said mod or any individual mod but it does show an example of what the perception is..

Besides being confused by the first post, this all seems to be about how you percieve boards and that fact you seem to think everybody else sees it that way.

keystone wrote: »

Describing 'users' as newbies or 'average users' is a dreadful term that most companies and professionally run forums/blogs etc stress must be avoided. This again shows the lack of understanding of the people participating on the site. It's not that simple to categorise people nor should it be tolerated.

considering this is one of the largest forums in the world, clearly it should change the way its users treat new people because of how you perceive it. Its one of the most popular forums because idiots and trolls get banned. confused people get a push in the right direction.

Dades

keystone wrote: »

Boards has a name for its mods using the name to force an opinion. This is not the general rule from what I see however dades comment above does display the issue. I'm not trying to make an example of said mod or any individual mod but it does show an example of what the perception is.

It is intriguing how a simple question can cause such a ruckus. :pac:

Rb

keystone wrote: »

Boards has a name for its mods using the name to force an opinion. This is not the general rule from what I see however dades comment above does display the issue.

How, exactly, does it display the issue? He merely asked (on a forum that he's not a mod of) why a user keeps posting the same irrelevant link to a crappy punk band playing some crappy song on a badly made video. It's a valid point and in no way display an example of a moderator using the name to force an opinion.

keystone wrote:

Describing 'users' as newbies or 'average users' is a dreadful term that most companies and professionally run forums/blogs etc stress must be avoided. This again shows the lack of understanding of the people participating on the site. It's not that simple to categorise people nor should it be tolerated.

Wtf are you on about. I said "newer users" to describe those who recently joined the forum, may be the first internet forum they've used and aren't familiar with what a moderator does/their roles/responsibilites etc. I used "average users" to mean those who frequent the forum but maybe not as much as some people around here, they just log on the odd time, have a quick read and leave etc.

I wasn't calling people n00bs or newbies. You're not helping yourself, or the credibility/validity of your points, by posting such utter tripe.

Keystone wrote:

The fact that people do not post feedback or examples demonstrates that there is a problem that needs to be nipped in the bud.

I'd take the lack of evidence or examples to mean the OP doesn't have a leg to stand on tbh. It's very easy to make accusations and not provide examples. I could say you're an absolute racist and shouldn't be allowed post on the site, but I don't have evidence, so should people take the accusation seriously even though there's no proof of it?