Voting on moderator's actions

IRLConor

O'Morris wrote: »

You're getting really worked up over this aren't you? I bet you absolutely hate the idea of having any checks on your power as a moderator.

There are checks on our "power". They're called Admins and SMods...

If you could guarantee a representative sample on each vote then perhaps it would be useful but I reckon there would be a disproportionate number of votes by asshats thereby rendering the vote meaningless.

I'm sure if you code the system (or ask/pay someone else to do it) then perhaps the Admins might consider implementing it on a trial basis. As it stands, I can't see boards.ie doing this since Cult's time would be better spent on more pressing matters (stability, performance, etc).

randylonghorn

O'Morris wrote: »

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.

Completely inaccurate interpretation, imho, and please note that I am not a mod on Boards.

O'Morris wrote: »

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

Nightmare scenario, can't see it happening, the admins have more sense, thank God.

I agree with Karl (above) and even with yourself that there is room for improvement in how "appeals" for want of a better word are handled, and there have been some interesting ideas with a degree of potential put forward in the past; this is not one of them.

Calina wrote: »

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.

Spot on, 95% of the time at least. The odd person too trigger-happy, gets slapped before very long.

Hobbes

tl;rs.

Your system is based on that everyone has the best interests at heart. Sadly this is flawed.

For example. I am hard handed in one of the forums I moderate (well not as much as I used to be). It was intended. But I know from the number of people have temp/perm banned from that forum that if such a system was in place my profile would be full of negative responses.

Even if it was ignored by the Mods for what it was it still would leave to negative responses from new users entering that forum who would not be aware of the history or context of those responding. Which can cause negative responses to actions when none are needed.

There is a good psychological experiment (whos name escapes me) that points this out. A teacher did a write up for people in his class of a guest speaker. They had exact write up except half had a sentence that said he was easy going and the other half that he was argumentative and rigid. Peoples perception of the speaker was based on that description and not the actual actions of the speaker.

Bottom line is, if the community is upset on a mods action they have the ability already to take it to here or help desk and doesn't require the consensus of the masses.

DeVore

Users vote every single day on the quality of our moderation using the button top right of their browsers.

I am certainly not ever going to entertain the idea of voting on individual mod actions whether it be a binding vote or not! Its unnecessary and unworkable even if it *was* a good idea. Which I'm afraid it isnt.


In fact, I have been half way through writing a piece for the Political Theory on the unique approaches offered by the internet for managing people and the theories behind it.

In the beginning we adopted what is now called a "benevolent dictatorship". Essentially its one man, one vote. With me being the man (representing the admins in general).


I am perfectly happy with the moderation on this site in general. Its possible we might run a site wide poll regarding the general level of happiness with the moderations around here but I'd only do that because I honestly believe the response would be very positive.

DeV.

Bob the Builder

DeVore wrote: »

Its unnecessary and unworkable even if it *was* a good idea. Which I'm afraid it isnt.

CuLT has much better stuff for doing imho.

If a mod deletes a thread, they have obviously deleted it for a reason.
To vote on the mods decision in regard to what they have just done, i have to read the thread, otherwise my decision would be uninformed. and if the thread is deleted, then why am i able to read it?

If i hated a mod, of course i'm going to mark it with a bad rating, whether the decision was good or not. if i *loved* a mod, i would mark it with a brilliant rating.

The idea is unworkable imo, and feedback/helpdesk is the place to do it.

i'd get pretty fed up having to vote on every single decision mods made... if i have a problem with a decision a mod has just made, i'd create a thread in feedback, or else I would pm the mod, that pm being like a "suggestion card"

and i can only think of how mods would feel, having arseholes like me rating every single footstep they make. the mods are busy enough on their own forums deleting and banning, rating every single decision across various forums would suck..

hullaballoo

Why am I itching to add a poll to this thread so much? Options: 1. tl;dr 2. FOIGHT tEH POWAH 3. Who's hullaballoo, and who gave him/her a vote?

Overheal

hullaballú is my first example of moderator oppreshun! Come on, you locked my first ever post! Pfft, Nazi

I forgive you. we worked it out.

bug

DeVore wrote: »

.

In fact, I have been half way through writing a piece for the Political Theory on the unique approaches offered by the internet for managing people and the theories behind it.

I am perfectly happy with the moderation on this site in general. Its possible we might run a site wide poll regarding the general level of happiness with the moderations around here but I'd only do that because I honestly believe the response would be very positive.

DeV.

The aesthetic management of the site IMO and how it functions technically IMHO without any real downtime are fantastic really. The content is what draws people to it, and the wide variety of topics. The moderation management IMHO is one of the few aspects of the site which is whimsical and without any apparent universally known structure.

DeVore

I'm really, genuinely interested in suggestions or ideas that would improve things but really, this is a hard problem. Keeping the site up, with all due respect to the techs etc, is easy. It has been done before. It is understood (relatively). Managing all these people and continuing to grow is much more complex simply because it deals with people, who... unlike most servers... rarely do as they are meant or should do!

If we look at the alternatives, none of them are applicable or workable for a site this size? Democracy.... not a good idea. Elected mods would be hugely problematic.
A council of "elders"? How would we decide who was in it? Communism? In a system without money or property or "goods" it amounts to what we have now almost, in the best case of communism! Add into this the fact that we have yet to establish the irish legal responsibility for the site, leaves the admins in a compromised position.

There's a PhD for someone in this but not for me and not tonight

DeV.

GuanYin

Hurray for communism

Hurray for the PRC

5starpool

Sounds like a good idea to me, but only if it can be used as leverage in our bargaining with the admins for our annual pay rises as the mod union has been lax on that of late. Since I quit my regualr job and concentrated on the banning/modding bonuses we get, I am up to my old salary level now from here alone.

Jesus Wept

In years to come, all moderating will be done by a high tech super-computer, programed using long complex algorithms.





We'll also be driving cars like this.

.

gandalf

O'Morris wrote: »

You're getting really worked up over this aren't you? I bet you absolutely hate the idea of having any checks on your power as a moderator. You people have a nice cozy little arrangement here that you just can't bear the thought of anyone coming along and passing judgment on your every decision. Of course I'm sure it doesn't matter to you, you're mature enough and responsible enough that you would never need to fear making an unpopular decision.

Errr if you read my earlier submissions to this thread (or maybe its too much for you to do as there are SO many pages!) you'll notice that we don't have POWERS (too many Marvel comics old boy!) we clean up the messes left behind when people spam, shill, can't discuss just preach etc.

Power is of no interest to me on this site. If it was I wouldn't have stood down as Cmod of Society. What is of interest is the community spirit and keeping it running smoothly. If it means a minority get their feathers ruffled then so be it.

I meant moderation on the front-end old boy! Moderation on the front-end!

Unlike you, I'm a front-end man.

Well you obviously do not have an idea about what I meant then. I was talking about the technical aspect of implementing your idea from a systems point of view.

It's obviously not very popular with the moderators but I was expecting that anyway.

Well its not a valid idea for many reasons, the main one the waste of the developers time when they have far more important issues to deal with.

I disagree, I don't think it should be the business of the moderators to determine whether a thread has run it's course or not. And if there's a rule that a thread should be closed when it has run it's course or has "gone around in circles enough times", then shouldn't we expect that rule to be applied consistently across the board? Shouldn't we expect other long-running threads to be closed as well? A quick look around the site and I can see several threads there are far more guilty of going around in circles than my thread was. Why aren't they closed? The only thing I can think of would be bias.

Ah yes you see here is where you really don't have a clue how the site in general is run.

Different forums within the site have different levels of moderation. After Hours for example is a place where people post up whimsical threads so the moderation level is low. Politics on the other hand is dealt with differently and in a far more serious manner, hence threads being locked because they were "going in circles".

Basically I think you are now nit picking.

If a moderator has a good reason to close a thread then they should have nothing to fear from the voting system that I have proposed. Only moderators who behave capriciously or in a blatantly biased manner need to worry.

It has been explained by others that this will not work and the reasons why.

I can see why your thread was locked in Politics/EU because you really don't listen to what other people say and keep harping on as if your opinion is the only valid one.

Mr. Incognito

The central flaw in your argument is that you are living under the delusion that Boards is a democracy.

It is not.

You are living under the iron fist of a tyrant. Deal with it.

Sparks

SetantaL wrote: »

You are living under the iron fist of a tyrant. Deal with it.

Not to nitpick, but technically it's "under the boot" of a tyrant. You see, you can rule with and iron fist, but the people you're ruling are then "under the boot". It's a whole eastern european thing, very old terminology. Now, where were we? Ah, yes.

BE SILENT, WRETCHED PIG-DOG! OR I WILL HAVE ZE VILLAGE BURNT AND ZE SHEEP PILLAGED!

:pac:

Mr. Incognito

Whay are the Eastern European tyrants speaking with a poor German accent?

or giving pills to sheep for that matter.

as for semantics? well, lets not go there moiseuir typo.

Sparks

SetantaL wrote: »

Whay are the Eastern European tyrants speaking with a poor German accent?

Because Eastern Europe has its tyrants imported, don't'cha know.

or giving pills to sheep for that matter.

Because sheep don't like suppositories. It's meant to be a threat, you see? Comply with my wishes, or Dolly here has an uncomfortable afternoon. Most villagers are fond of their sheep and wouldn't like to see them distressed, so it works most of the time.

as for semantics? well, lets not go there moiseuir typo.

I'm sure you're wondering why I've culled you alltogether...

Mr. Incognito

This has decended into farce.

Sexy beastality............and inported tyrants

I know just the man

Sparks

I think "descended" is a term that's far too generous to the original post, in all fairness...

Cabaal

Vote 1- to this, not gona happen and there's too many muppets who would vote in the negative regardless of the decision

TwoShedsJackson

O'Morris wrote: »

Blah blah blah set my people free blah blah

This isn't a democracy, hippie. What are you, some sort of communist?

kevteljeur

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

This isn't a democracy, hippie. What are you, some sort of communist?

Hippies aren't tolerated under communism, old boy! Not tolerated at all!