Voting on moderator's actions

O'Morris

I have a suggestion for an improvement to this site and I would be interested to get people's feedback.

I recently had a bad experience on the European Union section of the politics forum when a thread I had started was closed unexpectedly for "going round in circles". I thought the closure was completely unjustified and tried to find some way to appeal the decision. I got no reply when I sent a PM to the moderator who closed the thread and so I decided to start what I thought was a serious thread on this feedback forum. Instead of it being taken seriously the thread was instantly flooded with large photo-shopped images of animals, the aim being to take up space on the thread and thereby prevent any serious discussion. I've since learned that the moderators of this forum actually endorse this kind of behaviour when the person who starts the thread is not liked by the other moderators.

This led me to the view that the current feedback and appeals process on this site is totally inadequate and in need of improvement. So this is what I propose - an option for people to vote on moderation decisions. Every action taken by a moderator (a banning, thread closure or warning) must appear in a different format and colour to the normal posts, one that makes it stick out from the others. Other posters won't be able to comment on the action taken but they will be given the option to vote on whether they approve or disaprove of the action. The voting will be anonymous but every poster must be logged in to vote and neither the moderator nor the victim of the moderator's action will be able to vote. The result of people's voting will appear either as a percentage or possibly as a small horizontal bar chart under the post with a running total updated each time someone votes, the same way the results of a poll would appear.

The list of actions taken by the moderator will appear in a separate section of that moderator's profile page and people can then see a history of that moderator's actions with a running average of the votes cast in all of the moderation posts. If the moderator's average scoring is low and if there is a long string of unpopular actions being taken by him or her then the administrators would be obligated to have a word with that moderator to see if there's a reason why he or she is acting in ways that so many people find objectionable.

Some of the benefits that I can see to this type of system

1. Posters will not feel as ignored or as powerless when the they are the victim of an unfair or biased action by a moderator.
2. Threads will be less likely to go off-topic because posters will be less likely to spend time arguing with the moderators.
3. Moderators will be less likely to behave capriciously. Ar an lamh eile, moderators who behave responsibly will be rewarded and encouraged through the support they receive from other posters.
4. This feedback forum will not be flooded with threads from people whinging about their treatment at the hands of moderators
5. boards.ie will begin to shake off it's bad reputation as a place with a repressive moderation system.

I'm sure there are plenty of flaws in this type of system but I think it would definitely be worth exploring whether there are methods of holding the moderators to account and preventing them from behaving so arrogantly. A lot of people on this site think the moderators have far too much power and that they abuse that power. There's one moderator on the politics forum for example who attracts a lot of attention for what some people see as his abrasive and heavy-handed moderation style. If there was a method for posters to quickly register their disapproval of his actions he might then be inclined to moderate his own behaviour. Alternatively, if people support his actions then it would strenghten his position and it would alienate those people who don't like the way he behaves.

I don't know how difficult this would be to implement on the site but I can't see it being any more difficult than the thanking system that was introduced not that long ago. Maybe the administrators of the site might consider trying it for a trial period on just one or two forums and give the moderators the option to opt in or out. Then if it's a success after a week or two you could roll it out to the rest of the site.

Cuddlesworth

You missed a inherent flaw in your plan. People.

For every 10 people who give a bad mark there will only be 1 that will give a good one. And certain forums will always remain unpopular as they are forced to go at it with a heavy hand.

Mr Magnolia

tl;dr.

Wouldn't you be better off waiting and finding out how boards works. You've only been a member for a month you couldn't really have it all sussed already could you?

Beruthiel

tl;dr

But no way in hell would I agree to a poll on a moderator decision.

KnifeWRENCH

You want people to vote on EVERY Mod decision on EVERY thread in EVERY forum? That's just not feasible tbh.

Karl Hungus

O'Morris wrote: »

The list of actions taken by the moderator will appear in a separate section of that moderator's profile page and people can then see a history of that moderator's actions with a running average of the votes cast in all of the moderation posts. If the moderator's average scoring is low and if there is a long string of unpopular actions being taken by him or her then the administrators would be obligated to have a word with that moderator to see if there's a reason why he or she is acting in ways that so many people find objectionable.

The problem with that is that it would be abused from the get-go. There's people who seem to absolutely joy themselves by throwing a spanner in the works at every opportunity, and make modding an increasingly irritating task.

Not saying that a lot of users can't feel shortchanged by their experiences on boards, it's fairly evident they do, but the course of action should be to post a rational thread appealing the decision here or in the Helpdesk, after you've exhausted dialogue with the moderator over PM. Yes, it's not as quick and easy as rating the moderation, but it's not something that's open to the kind of abuse that boards is regularly subjected to.

Calina

I realise that as I am a moderator you will possibly not want to take my opinion into account.

I am against this. Feedback works in general for unfair issues and bans. If it doesn't work for you then perhaps it might be worth considering that you were, in fact, in the wrong. I realise that this is a bitter pill to swallow, but it is worth considering.

This site works because it has a framework and a limited amount of anarchy. What you are proposing would lead to chaos and anarchy and what makes this place a well run community of communities would disappear. I think it would destroy many positive features of the site and frankly no one would want to moderate. This is a bad thing.

Boards may well have a reputation for some fairly hefty moderation - I moderate a couple of other boards where the key difference is we don't need the same level of moderation because we don't get the same level of muppetry - yes, part of that is down to posting population size. However.

Moderation is a function of muppetry in other words. More muppetry, more irritated mods handing out bans and infractions. I like to stamp muppetry out as fast as possible on the forums I moderate so that the vast majority of non-muppeting posters don't have their enjoyment ruined and threads don't get derailed.

I don't particularly like the lolcats but I see them as a canary in the mine signal; when they get pulled out, there's a fair chance that there is some muppetry afoot in the feedback thread.

Marcus.Aurelius

as an admin on another site with vbulletin, i wouldn't even think of using this idea, too much effort and giving the really bad posters too much power. Boards is even busier

Overheal

O'Morris wrote: »

what I propose - an option for people to vote on moderation decisions.

You're looking at it: welcome to feedback.

I stopped reading at said line in your post - frankly it was long winded, cant we get our point across without resorting to shakespearean?

problems with a proper polling option include but are not limited to the time and energy required for a moderators actions to be questioned at each and every turn. Hundreds of moderator actions occur on a per daily basis: do we need a thread for them all? profile entries of that nature arent supported by vbulletin.

second this is a privately owned website, not a free democracy. the owners hir the admins elect the mods who get to do what they want how they want. While they listen to our feedback as we traffic the site and keep it vibrant and alive, they are not obliged to. If they wanted they could strip the site and turn it into http://thebestpageintheuniverse.com

Politics is probably the most volatile forum on the whole site: keep that in mind when you post in there.

faceman

Mr Magnolia wrote: »

tl;dr.

Wouldn't you be better off waiting and finding out how boards works. You've only been a member for a month you couldn't really have it all sussed already could you?

How do you know he hasnt been reading threads without registering prior to that?

You should at least have read his post before making that remark.

OP, i understand where you are coming from, however some forums are moderated more heavily than otherrs due to past issues which have possibly spoilt the forum. (e.g. soccer) I dont agree with rating of moderator decisions though. it makes the assumption that each user who rates will make an unbiased fair educated decision.

If there is an issue with a mod it can be raised with an S-Mod or higher. While the majority of threads in feedback get nowhere, posters with geniune gripes who raise it in a civil way do get listened too.

Dinter

It seems like a nice idea but in reality it'll work out exactly as real politics does.

People will vote for their cliques or their friends or not to upset the mods or whatever facile reason they think of.

Also to a certain extent mods represent the users. Although I've seen what I'd consider heavy handed moderation from some of them when the inevitable feedback thread is started it turns out that the majority of people agree with the moderators.

The person whose post has been edited, changed, reprimanded etc is obviously too close to the situation to see that sometimes moderation is just that.

The moderate line that their opinion renders them unaware of as they thread too deeply either side.

Mr Magnolia

faceman, I'll read it all as soon as the OP answers my question.

In future I'll send all my replies through you for approval prior to posting .0>

Dinter

Mr Magnolia wrote: »

faceman, I'll read it all as soon as the OP answers my question.

In future I'll send all my replies through you for approval prior to posting .0>

Ah in all fairness the op had obviously put a lot of thought into it.

Even if he doesn't know everything he was posing a question for general feedback on his idea not a brush off.

faceman

Mr Magnolia wrote: »

In future I'll send all my replies through you for approval prior to posting .0>

Just send them to the usual email address

Mr Magnolia

Dinter wrote: »

Ah in all fairness the op had obviously put a lot of thought into it.

Even if he doesn't know everything he was posing a question for general feedback on his idea not a brush off.

He certainly doesn't need to know everything. He does need to know how boards runs generally, that's all I was trying to ascertain. This is dragging the thread off-topic.

watna

I can see where you're coming from but most of my mod actions involved deleting spam or really stupid posts. Once I delete them only mods can see them. I don't think it's necessary for everyone of those deleted posts to be visible and for mods to be judged on gettig rid of them.

Of all the mod actions that take place on a daily basis, a handful of them will be bannings. Therefore a system like the one you want put in place would be a bit of a waste of time. I think the feedback system, although it is a bit flawed is the best way to go about things for the moment.

togster

Mr Magnolia wrote: »

In future I'll send all my replies through you for approval prior to posting .0>

I vote...NO

Faceman keepin it real.

OP bad idea. Very bad

Dinter

Mr Magnolia wrote: »

He certainly doesn't need to know everything. He does need to know how boards runs generally, that's all I was trying to ascertain. This is dragging the thread off-topic.

No he doesn't really.

Even if he didn't know Boards is ran as a private enterprise that's controlled by yadda, yadda, yadda, it was still a legitimate query.

That's how the flaws that he mentions in his post he expects to get will be pointed out.

I think it's an idea that would contribute little to boards while undermining mods when their decisions should only ever be received with sighs of wearisome consent by the thralls they control.

Steve

Boards is not a democracy, never has been, never will be.

The current formula has made it the most popular site in the country so why change it.

Rest assured, if the owners of the site don't like the moderation / moderator then if gets changed pretty quickly.

Why fix something that's not broke? (thats what politicians are for).

Karl Hungus

SteveC wrote: »

Boards is not a democracy, never has been, never will be.

The current formula has made it the most popular site in the country so why change it.

Rest assured, if the owners of the site don't like the moderation / moderator then if gets changed pretty quickly.

Why fix something that's not broke? (thats what politicians are for).

In that case, why bother to make any improvements at all?

Honestly, I think the Feedback forum could do with an overhaul, it can be daunting and open to trolling. We can always make things run better, more efficient, more user friendly, just because it isn't broke doesn't mean it can't be improved.

Dragan

You had a problem and posted it to feedback. It was dealt with in feedback and some pretty learned people came along and agreed with the closure.

Now you want to change the system because you feel it is wrong.

The only reason you feel this is because it didn't function in a way that suited you.

Anything else i forgot?

Dinter

Dragan wrote: »

You had a problem and posted it to feedback. It was dealt with in feedback and some pretty learned people came along and agreed with the closure.

Now you want to change the system because you feel it is wrong.

The only reason you feel this is because it didn't function in a way that suited you.

Why not ignore the poster and just deal with his post?

Otherwise this will just be a repeat of his earlier thread.

Toto Wolfcastle

Dragan wrote: »

You had a problem and posted it to feedback. It was dealt with in feedback and some pretty learned people came along and agreed with the closure.

Now you want to change the system because you feel it is wrong.

The only reason you feel this is because it didn't function in a way that suited you.

Anything else i forgot?

Forgot to mention that if someone want a lolcat free appeal then there's always the helpdesk.

Steve

Karl Hungus wrote: »

In that case, why bother to make any improvements at all?

I'm all for improvemments, The OP however is asking for a major overhaul of moderating policy.

If the users were allowed to judge moderating decisions on a per post basis then the mod becomes little more than a user who gets extra attention and gains a dislike for the guy who always votes against him.

I would agree on one suggested improvement made by the OP. Moderating decisions / orders should be highlighted in some way so there is no confusion about what is going on - especially when the mod is actively commenting in the same thread. This seems to catch new users a lot and only results in useless cat ridden 'why was I banned' threads in feedback.

Karl Hungus wrote: »

Honestly, I think the Feedback forum could do with an overhaul, it can be daunting and open to trolling. We can always make things run better, more efficient, more user friendly, just because it isn't broke doesn't mean it can't be improved.

I think feedback works pretty well, again it's not a democracy. Despite what everyone thinks, the admins do take on board what is said and this can be verified by looking at any of DeVores (serious) posts here.

gandalf

O'Morris wrote: »

I have a suggestion for an improvement to this site and I would be interested to get people's feedback.

Well as long as you are able to take the feedback if it doesn't agree with your ideas?

I recently had a bad experience on the European Union section of the politics forum when a thread I had started was closed unexpectedly for "going round in circles". I thought the closure was completely unjustified and tried to find some way to appeal the decision. I got no reply when I sent a PM to the moderator who closed the thread and so I decided to start what I thought was a serious thread on this feedback forum. Instead of it being taken seriously the thread was instantly flooded with large photo-shopped images of animals, the aim being to take up space on the thread and thereby prevent any serious discussion. I've since learned that the moderators of this forum actually endorse this kind of behaviour when the person who starts the thread is not liked by the other moderators.

Normally if a feedback thread shows up dodgy decisions by mods there are plenty of users both mods and not who will post serious questions about it as well. From your description your issue was not one of these and you are now throwing the "toys out of the pram" because you didn't get your way.

If you want an smod or admin to address a serious issue you normally post in the Helpdesk forum where only you and the smods and admins can discuss the issue.

This led me to the view that the current feedback and appeals process on this site is totally inadequate and in need of improvement. So this is what I propose - an option for people to vote on moderation decisions. Every action taken by a moderator (a banning, thread closure or warning) must appear in a different format and colour to the normal posts, one that makes it stick out from the others. Other posters won't be able to comment on the action taken but they will be given the option to vote on whether they approve or disaprove of the action. The voting will be anonymous but every poster must be logged in to vote and neither the moderator nor the victim of the moderator's action will be able to vote. The result of people's voting will appear either as a percentage or possibly as a small horizontal bar chart under the post with a running total updated each time someone votes, the same way the results of a poll would appear.

The list of actions taken by the moderator will appear in a separate section of that moderator's profile page and people can then see a history of that moderator's actions with a running average of the votes cast in all of the moderation posts. If the moderator's average scoring is low and if there is a long string of unpopular actions being taken by him or her then the administrators would be obligated to have a word with that moderator to see if there's a reason why he or she is acting in ways that so many people find objectionable.

You obviously have never been involved in modding a high volume site, this is unworkable. The admins on this site do take an active interest in who mods where and what actions they take. They have taken decisive action against mods who have "gone off the the rails" in the past and they will in the future as well.

The problem for you is DeVore publically thanked the mods on the EU Forum for their hard work and excellent modding so it looks like he disagrees with you as well.

Some of the benefits that I can see to this type of system

Posters will not feel as ignored or as powerless when the they are the victim of an unfair or biased action by a moderator.

Biased in your opinion. If there was obvious bias the feedback thread would have highlighted that given the wide variety of personalities that post here. You also have the Helpdesk to address the smods and admins of the site directly.

[*] Threads will be less likely to go off-topic because posters will be less likely to spend time arguing with the moderators.

Read the forum charter on most forums arguing with a mod in a thread is forbidden anyway so taking threads off topic is not an issue.

[*] Moderators will be less likely to behave capriciously. Ar an lamh eile, moderators who behave responsibly will be rewarded and encouraged through the support they receive from other posters.

Moderators on the whole don't behave capriciously, in your case they didn't accept your argument.

[*] This feedback forum will not be flooded with threads from people whinging about their treatment at the hands of moderators

Given the userbase, the number of posts and the size of boards this forum is not flooded.

[*] boards.ie will begin to shake off it's bad reputation as a place with a repressive moderation system.
[/LIST]

TBH the only people who say this are the ones who cannot post within the rules. There is a good reason why boards is as popular as it is. The proactive moderation. Rubbish is removed, threads that turn into roundabout arguments are closed. Idiots who cannot post within the rules or use the site to spam or shill their wares are banned.

I'm sure there are plenty of flaws in this type of system but I think it would definitely be worth exploring whether there are methods of holding the moderators to account and preventing them from behaving so arrogantly. A lot of people on this site think the moderators have far too much power and that they abuse that power. There's one moderator on the politics forum for example who attracts a lot of attention for what some people see as his abrasive and heavy-handed moderation style. If there was a method for posters to quickly register their disapproval of his actions he might then be inclined to moderate his own behaviour. Alternatively, if people support his actions then it would strenghten his position and it would alienate those people who don't like the way he behaves.

Extreme flaws, the additional coding would be a start. I would prefer the admins spend time on performance enhancement than this wild goose chase. The moderators on this forum only have the power that the admins give them and that can be taken away. The moderators are not gods but more like janitors cleaning up the rubbish thats dumped in the various forums they are charged with keeping up and running. As an ex-Politics mod and Cmod of Society I really don't envy the mods there it is one of the toughest forums to moderate.

I don't know how difficult this would be to implement on the site but I can't see it being any more difficult than the thanking system that was introduced not that long ago. Maybe the administrators of the site might consider trying it for a trial period on just one or two forums and give the moderators the option to opt in or out. Then if it's a success after a week or two you could roll it out to the rest of the site.

As stated it is not a standard feature of the system and would have to be custom coded something that is not going to happen imho.

Dragan

Dinter wrote: »

Why not ignore the poster and just deal with his post?

Otherwise this will just be a repeat of his earlier thread.

I am dealing with his post, the main root of the reason he posted it in fact. I honestly feel the OP has no interest in improving boards and is simply suggesting a ridiculous solution to what he see's as being a problem.

Could feedback do with being more serious? Yes.

Is a measure like the one proposed going to help? No. With ever infraction, deletion, thread locking of slap on the wrist you have at least one person who is going to be annoyed over it. Given them an easy means to facelessly attack a Mod is not going to help anything imo.

Dades

O'Morris wrote: »

So this is what I propose - an option for people to vote on moderation decisions.

Sweet Jebus we saw what happened with Lisbon when we allow the public to vote!

kaimera

The fora I mod I run as a democracy in the sense posters decide how they want it run and it runs like that with very little input from me.

Least I try too.

It's all about discussion and debate with yer posters imo

pirelli

It is a good idea, There is one problem.

One important function of a moderator by definition is to monitor flame ups and cool things down. This cannot be decided by a vote their and then.

In a flame when people are arguing and a warning is given then everyone is going to dissapprove there and then. If the moderator just warns one person then the opposing side will all agree with the mod. It will be down to who agrees with who on in the present discussion.

The voting there and then will only reflect who is hot and bothered with whom ever about what ever the discussion is about.

At the end of the day when impartial and therefore more reasonable people log in the thread will have moved on and the oppourtunity to vote wont appeal to them as it will involve trying to decipher the situation, and while a few will it wont give an accurate reflection due to the initial votes which are biased or have nothing to do with moderating and more to do with getting their way.

You can't allow voting indefinetly, so it will close soon after otherwise, user who hate mods will just vote against them.

Dinter

If anyone would like to see what happens when a mod pays attention to the democratic vote check out the Pighead thread in feedback and the whole poll debacle.

Dragan

Dinter wrote: »

If anyone would like to see what happens when a mod pays attention to the democratic vote check out the Pighead thread in feedback and the whole poll debacle.

Moot point, Trout has already confirmed that neither poll led to an action and that he closed one as he felt it was in poor taste.