Voting on moderator's actions

jhegarty

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?

Long "thoughtful" post for such a new member... anyone else smell a re-reg ?

Dinter

blah

O'Morris

Old Mac is sure able to get the vote out.

I'm not surprised that most of the replies have come from moderators, I was expecting that. They will be the people who will be impacted by this and so it's understandable that they don't like the idea.

It would take far too long to reply to each individual post so I'm just going to address two of the the main points that have been made so far.

Firstly, I think some people misunderstood what I was proposing. What I'm proposing is a simple means for people to register their approval of disapproval of a moderator's action. That's all! No automatic reversal of a decision once the no votes reach 50%+, no automatically generated emails to the administrators asking that moderators be kicked out, no free-ipods for the moderators with the highest average ratings, just a simple yes or no option at the bottom of every moderator post so that people can quickly and anonymously indicate whether they agree with the action that has been taken. I can't see this as being technically very difficult to implement. I've no experience with PHP but I don't think it's all that much of a challenge. This site already supports polling so wouldn't it be possible to use similar functionality for this voting system? Someone asked as well if everyone would have to vote on every action taken by a moderator on every forum - absolutely not. The system would be completely optional, people would have the option to vote if they want to.

Secondly, on the point about the system being abused, that's very possible and that's why I think this should be introduced on a trial basis to see how it will work in practice. It might turn out that disgruntled posters will vote more often than the others in an attempt to punish those moderators that they don't like. It's possible the opposite will also happen and people will vote for moderators that they do like. I think on balance though people will probably vote sensibly. I've a feeling that the system will probably be abused at the start but eventually people will get tired of it once the novelty wears off. It's the same with everything on the site, there are many things that can be abused but people just couldn't be bothered. Why should be any different with this? There's a minority who will always cause trouble but I think that minority will be too small to really skew the results of a vote.

And the scope that this system will present for abuse will be very limited. What can people do other than vote on way or another. They won't be able to leave abusive comments or post large images of dogs so it's not as if this is going to require any moderation. I don't think moderators are that sensitive that they would be worried about an unpopular response to one of their actions.

O'Morris

jhegarty wrote: »

anyone else smell a re-reg ?

What's a re-reg?

Jack Sheehan

No.

gandalf

O'Morris wrote: »

Old Mac is sure able to get the vote out.

A bit cryptic this one eh?

I'm not surprised that most of the replies have come from moderators, I was expecting that. They will be the people who will be impacted by this and so it's understandable that they don't like the idea.

Well the biggest point that you have missed is moderators are users on the site and outside their forums they are ORDINARY users of the site.

It would take far too long to reply to each individual post so I'm just going to address two of the the main points that have been made so far.

Basically you are too lazy to respond to the input people have put in and have selectively responded.

Here is my selected response. This is never going to happen. Stop wasting valuable 0's and 1's.

If you want feedback from a wide variety of users here is the place to post it, (warning it may include cats). If you just want a response from the admins and smods with no cats then post in the Helpdesk forum.

This is the system and on the whole it works well.

O'Morris

gandalf wrote:

bit cryptic this one eh?

No idea what you mean by that.

gandalf wrote:

Basically you are too lazy to respond to the input people have put in and have selectively responded.

Considering that the thread is just a few hours old and it has already taken up three pages in replies I think you can understand why I might not want to spend time replying to each individual post.

I've read all the comments and I appreciate the feedback that people have provided. Most of the comments however revolve around two main issues - a misunderstanding of what it is I'm proposing and concernes that the system might be abused. I've attempted to address those concerns above.

gandalf wrote:

If you want feedback from a wide variety of users here is the place to post it

That's what I thought. That's why I posted it here.

gandalf wrote:

This is the system and on the whole it works well.

A bit like the EU? No need of reform?

leninbenjamin

as a non moderator I wholeheartedly disapprove of this proposal.

O'Morris take some more time to look at how boards works, as it will become clear as to why this not at all viable.

Maximilian

O'Morris wrote: »

Old Mac is sure able to get the vote out.

gandalf wrote: »

A bit cryptic this one eh?

Lovely ol' fellow - only knew three vowels and used to own a small agricultural holding once. Wasn't too successful though, had just the three animals as I recall. Noisy ****ers they were too.

Sparks

And what happens when people vote to do something that gets boards.ie sued? Is everyone who voted legally liable, or just those who voted to do the thing and not those who voted against?

O'Morris

leninbenjamin wrote:

O'Morris take some more time to look at how boards works, as it will become clear as to why this not at all viable.

Do you mean it's not viable technically or not viable because of the risk of it being abused? I can't see either of them being a problem.

The system would require no moderation, in many cases the result will be in the moderator's favour and it would be introduced on a trial basis so it can be easily scrapped if any problems are identified. Would it not make an interesting experiment to give it a shot and see what happens?

Sparks wrote:

And what happens when people vote to do something that gets boards.ie sued? Is everyone who voted legally liable, or just those who voted to do the thing and not those who voted against?

How exactly could a moderator's actions result in boards.ie getting sued? Has it ever happened before?

Sparks

O'Morris wrote: »

How exactly could a moderator's actions result in boards.ie getting sued?

You're in the second most litigious country in the world and boards.ie is technically a publisher. You do the math.

Has it ever happened before?

/me raises eyebrows and points to the announcement in every single forum. Then says no more, as per the rules.

lostexpectation

i think there a fundamental flaw in mods presuming people are muppets

Sparks

i think there a fundamental flaw in mods presuming people are muppets

Presumption of muppetry is one thing.
Being proven correct in that presumption is another...

stovelid

Karl Hungus wrote: »

Honestly, I think the Feedback forum could do with an overhaul, it can be daunting and open to trolling.

+1

I don't think I would ever come here with a gripe, and I suspect many would feel the same.

On the OP, the idea of voting on moderating decisions would be stupid and time-consuming, especially when you consider how many disputes would arise from difficult-to-mod places like Politics, AH, and Soccer.

gandalf

O'Morris wrote: »

No idea what you mean by that.

Then that makes two of us.

Considering that the thread is just a few hours old and it has already taken up three pages in replies I think you can understand why I might not want to spend time replying to each individual post.

Considering I and all the other respondents actually wasted our time reading and responding to your post I would expect you to respond fully. That is of course if you are actually interested in a discussion. No point in starting a thread in such a verbose fashion and then decide you don't want to run with it

I've read all the comments and I appreciate the feedback that people have provided. Most of the comments however revolve around two main issues - a misunderstanding of what it is I'm proposing and concernes that the system might be abused. I've attempted to address those concerns above.

Attempted badly. Look this voting scenario is a non runner. There is no way that valuable resources are going to be diverted to a lame duck proposal like this. These forums operate well and bar a minority who make a lot of noise run smoothly and provide a valuable resource and community for the majority of members.

That's what I thought. That's why I posted it here.

And you are only selectively responding to people. Why bother even posting. You're not discussing you are attempting to preach.

A bit like the EU? No need of reform?

LOL nope the EU is supposed to be democratic, Boards isn't. Live with it.

Do you mean it's not viable technically or not viable because of the risk of it being abused? I can't see either of them being a problem.

Ah it takes away time and resources that would be used in a more productive manner.

The system would require no moderation, in many cases the result will be in the moderator's favour and it would be introduced on a trial basis so it can be easily scrapped if any problems are identified. Would it not make an interesting experiment to give it a shot and see what happens?

You have already said you do not have an idea how the system works on the backend so how exactly do you know it will require no moderation? Its a lame duck from the outset.

It is not in the admins interest to have moderators that are causing a lot of hassle by being biased or heavy handed. There have been cases of mods being defrocked for inappropriate actions in the past and I am sure there will be in the future. Inappropriate action does not include locking threads that have run their course and the user wishing to carry on the argument indefinitely.

O'Morris

gandalf wrote:

Look this voting scenario is a non runner. There is no way that valuable resources are going to be diverted to a lame duck proposal like this. These forums operate well and bar a minority who make a lot of noise run smoothly and provide a valuable resource and community for the majority of members.

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.

gandalf wrote:

You have already said you do not have an idea how the system works on the backend so how exactly do you know it will require no moderation?

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

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

gandalf wrote:

Its a lame duck from the outset.

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

gandalf wrote:

Inappropriate action does not include locking threads that have run their course and the user wishing to carry on the argument indefinitely.

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.

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 wasn't me!

I'm not a moderator and I think having people second-guessing the decisions of those chosen because they've illustrated a better grasp of the ability to make those decisions than the people who aren't moderators is a terrible, terrible plan.

You don't get to say what you like here. The moderators decide what you can or can't say in line with the wishes of the admin, and then enforce the rules. It's that simple.

A-Trak

O'Morris wrote: »

You just can't bear the thought of anyone coming along and passing judgment on your every decision

..because most folk enjoy that?

I hear 4Chan is a great site for posting without worrying about power hungry moderation.

BuffyBot

I bet you absolutely hate the idea of having any checks on your power as a moderator.

You are working on the flawed assumption that there isn't already checks on peoples "power" (I love that word - we're moderators, not president of the USA).

It's evident from the 20million page Pighead thread not so far away from this one that moderators desicions are far from unchecked. Moderators don't always nessecarily agree with moderators (see said thread, and imagine the Moderators forums, where peoples desicions are discussed on many occasions, for and against).

There is also the category mods, SMods and Admins all of whom have tackled/supported/overturned Mod desicions on their own bat, or on behalf of others.

The problem is that you feel personally slighted here, and under the guise of some imagined greater good and big "mods on power trip" conspiracy, you're having a moment. Unfortunately, to burst your bubble - that simply isn't the case.

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