Moderator Performance (was Mods not Gods)

Spiritoftheseventies

I think that mods do a very good job as a whole. But the problem is that some mods from one category post on another thread in another category and think it gives them the right to post whatever they want. Wont mention names but it happened a few times last year Again thought most of them do a good job.

Podman

muffler wrote: »

...I fail to see why he had to register a second account to start this thread.

I had made 35 other posts as podman before beginning this thread.

chompy

chompy wrote: »

I had made 35 other posts as podman before beginning this thread.

But why?

Spiritoftheseventies

Podman wrote: »

In guidelines it's suggested that people contribute in a constructive way, comment on the post not the poster, and that there be no backseat modding, personal abuse or being a dick. If anyone here suggests that these rules only apply to users and not to everyone, your reading them wrong.
Most people follow these rules and guidelines anyway, except for the 0.001% of course.
There are also a few valid posts here that don't veer any further away from the thread but address irrelevant issues that were brought up.

I think those guidelines are very noble but have been told by one mod that I need to grow a thicker skin when i took issue with a personalized post while another poster via pm told me that banter was the key to getting along on boards. Clearly I must have read those guidelines wrong. But have seen a lot of posts where posters have called another poster this that and the other. Some are very clever about it.

Podman

Papa Smut wrote: »

But why?

1. I like the name,
2. after returning from a long break I liked the idea of a fresh start, even though it wasn't exactly a fresh start, it's the idea that's important. (for example, after a long break from playing guitar, I found that I was more enthusiastic about breaking in a new guitar that trying to resurrect an old interest that was dead),
3. I felt like contributing to boards again. ("and I would have gotten away with it too if it weren't for those pesky kids")

I didn't start a new account to get anyone's back up, or try to be someone else. And quite frankly I'm surprised at how many people jumped on the bandwagon about it, and posted in the thread without making any contribution at all, not even to say that post #1 was a bad idea. Many prefer the witch hunt, it's easier.
I didn't start a new account so that people could amuse themselves chasing the rabbit around the tree.

Having a second account does not mean that what you say is any less valid -fact.
I'd rather have a hundred decent posts that a thousand trashy ones.
It is the poster's points that make for good thread contributions, and not their ID or their thank-you count or their amount of posts or friends.
I'm really surprised that none of the "inquisition" could link to the guidelines for me, but instead railroad the thread away from it's original topic.

(pm for DeVore)

Rev. BlueJeans

Because it's easier for the monkeys to throw faeces than to look outside the cage.

Look, I can see where you're coming from, and also that most of the volunteers here do a bang up job for which they are not thanked half enough. o>

I can also see, on an ongoing basis, that despite multiple complaints about certain issues that very little is done.

The thing is that the upper echelons are striking a balance between keeping the volunteers happy, and the users. By the way, the two are not mutually exclusive, as so many moderators are users elsewhere, and there are what seems like a million of them at this stage.

IOW, dealing with moderator foibles publicly in order to placate the users will drive certain mods batty, whereas, as things stand, dealing with problems behind closed doors, or indeed just paying them lip service publicly as happens in most cases, just results in a lack of transparency, a feeling among the populace that there is little point in making a complaint, *or* expressing disquiet with the way a forum is run/a moderator has conducted themselves in their duties-even if the user concerned hasn't been censured personally.

We can see that a fair proportion of complaints that land on HD bear little weight, and are simply people blowing off steam. However, for those that have a genuine grievance, the baby is being thrown out with the bathwater. As I say, many people aren't bothering with the complaints procedure because they see little point.

If a mod acts the langer, even on a one off basis, and is backed up by mates with hur hur remarks-which strengthens the feeling of disenfranchisement on the part of the user, and an admin simply says, "we'll take this on board"-after one of their colleagues links the mods on the thread to one on the mod forum, where's the transparency?

Would it be so hard to deal with the matter (via PM if necessary-for the sake of discretion, admin issued infraction/warning or whatever is merited in any particular case), and post on the thread the action that has been taken, with a line or two of reassurance that this should not happen again? What's the big issue there? God knows there's enough smod/admins around now to easily cope with the workload.

If someone feels that one particular mod on one of the busier(est?) forums on the site is heavy handed and over-zealous in their attempt to exert editorial control on the community-which is in essence random and varied at the best of times, what recourse do they have?

Where is the facility for users to express opinions where they are not directly involved themselves? What's wrong with simply tighter modding on Feedback to prevent any victimisation of anyone on either side of the fence?

HelpDesk is a failure. Didn't work on adverts, doesn't work here.

star-pants

I'd just like to say, that complaints - when put forward in a serious manner are taken as such. When users complain about something going 'ohhh yeah the MODS being all IM IN DA POWER and has banned me blah blah they'd no right, stupid mods' etc -- it's very hard to take them seriously, because they're not acting civilly and are just going to provoke annoyance where it need not be.

Even the title of this thread 'Mods not Gods' would provoke a lot of people/mods, as I for one do not think myself a God in the forums I moderate. Some of us deal with a lot of abuse from posters, some of us have a lot of work to do every day to keep our forums clean and smooth running, so painting all mods with the same brush is insulting to say the least.

The problem a lot of people don't seem to see, is that if you give out about something in a smartarsed way and throw abuse, subtle or not, you lose the full respect of whomevers dealing with you. I don't mind if someone questions what I do as a mod, but when I get pms like 'what the f*ck did I do now??' - well I'll take offence and you'll not have an easy ride.
I see so many threads started here /helpdesk going 'oh ffs I've been banned, wtf, I only said X and of course the mods being all on powertrips have banned me'. To me I instantly think 'well if that's your attitude I might not wonder at why you've been banned'
I've seen some threads whereby someone goes 'Hey, I got banned for X by Y mod, here's the thread, I feel I've been wrongly banned because of Z, if an admin could take a look?' then they usually progress better.

Threads aren't automatically dismissed if someone starts it with a bad attitude, but it's not going to do them any favours.
Admins take the threads seriously if they're serious. You get some posters who blatently ignore warnings/charters and always complain about being banned and say they're being picked on. When they're just not paying attention.

I agree that some people posting in this thread purely to complain about a dual account and not to add anything else constructive is rather silly. Whilst I myself questioned it, I wasn't going to post with that as my only concern. I posted up my view on this issue and you only really responded to my bit about your dual account. You started this thread, you need to keep it on topic. Reply to posts that give ideas/constructive criticism, not ignoring those and only responding to people giving out to you. You gave your answer regarding your dual account, if you keep talking about it people aren't going to get past it.

As said there are hundreds of mods, and whilst we have rules, and the admins/co-mods all watch each other to keep everyone in check, some might be more heavy handed than others. If these situations are pointed out in a non offensive way, it would make it easier to deal with. If I see one of my co-mods doing/saying something I don't quite agree with, I might question them or say 'look that was a bit unfair' or whatever. And they'd do it to me. Because we all need to work off the same page.

Different forums require different levels of moderation - some are easy going/quiet/ self sustaining forums, some are impossible, needing modding 24/7 to keep things from going nuts. What some posters don't see, if they're not long term posters, or even have been here a few months, is that the mods have seen all this before. We've learnt things and seen when something has potential to kick off. So it gets nipped in the bud, because we don't want the hassle and the reported posts. But people/posters who've not seen it before think we're taking the fun out of it, being party poopers, or siding with someone, when in fact we're not, we've just been there, done that, got the headache.

You yourself have said that 99% of moderators do a good decent job. I believe so too, which is why in my first post responding I gave our chain of command. If posters follow it correctly when giving complaints, I think things would be dealt with a lot better, and we would get better feedback and be able to pinpoint problem situations/problem mods a damn sight quicker.
I myself have had posters argue via pm with me, not listening and not accepting what I've said. I have redirected them to the CMod (which is the next port of call) and that if they can't help then Helpdesk is the next. I get told they're not going to bother cuz we're all the same or whatever. THIS is the problem, people either don't bother, or they start feedback threads f'ing and blinding without having gone to the moderator / Cmod in question.

So I think the process is place is a good one, just both posters and moderators need to utilise it properly. Posters AND moderators that jump into complaint threads making stupid comments or random :pac: don't help anyone.

Spiritoftheseventies

Re guidelines.
"Comment on the post not the poster.

Responding to someone's point with personal attacks, regardless of how "witty" you think they are, is not big or clever. It just comes across, at best, as being an ass and at worst a bully with a small doodah (we mean “mind” of course).

It’s much better to stay on the topic of their post, not on the person who posted it. People will respect you for that, take your opinion more seriously and you put the ball back in their court to answer your points.

Abuse is tantamount to saying "you have beaten me with your argument; I can only resort to name calling".

If someone abuses you, don’t respond in kind. Report the post and a moderator will swing by to review it. Abusing them back simply drops you to their level and will probably get you both infracted and/or banned".

Have tried PMing mod on this and have been told to grow a thicker skin. What are guidelines. just guidelines. Make it a rule and maybe personal abuse stops.

Rev. BlueJeans

Yes, complaints need to be both made, and dealt with in a mature manner.

Many aren't, we all know that. Most mods work hard and try to be fair, we all know that too.

The problem is that the chain of command doesn't work, or in at least some cases, is not clearly shown to work. There is no transparency, which isn't the same as starting a witch-hunt.

This in essence is preventing people from expressing concerns about the way, say a certain forum is moderated, or expressing solidarity with the way a user has been treated. A recent banning left users wishing to back up a member of the community with no place to turn-with all that came out of it being the advice to the banned user to PM the mod in question. Now why in the blue blazes should someone be expected to deal directly with the person with whom they have the grievance in the first place, *if they don't want to*?

Admins tend to post their final word, and then lock the thread, in order to close the issue-which is a harsh method of basically telling complainants to get out of the sandbox.

That's just one reason in which the system is flawed. Seems to be a clear case of too many chiefs in my view. The CMod layer seeme to be ignored for the most part, although when even used properly, it does not always work well even with the best will in the world: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055774390

star-pants

RE: Guidelines

They are just that - guidelines for boards.ie
Each forum has their own set of rules added to this, some will say any personal abuse will get you banned. Some forums are more lax due to the topics/nature of that forum. Some stuff is said tongue in cheek or whatnot.
In general *I* have had to grow a thicker skin so as not to be offended by what people say/their views on my view.

We cannot moderate everything. Something you might deem as personal abuse may not be seen by personal abuse by someone else. It's very hard to set a direct line at that.
Which is why we give guidelines to posting, rough rules that are subject to each situation.

IF someone says something to you that you feel is very clearly personal abuse and nothing is done, talk to another mod or the Cmod if it's that serious.
A thing that is also handy to accept is that this is the internet, no one should make you feel bad , I honestly couldn't give a toss what anyone says about me on here. I don't know them personally, they don't know me, so there's f-all truth in it. If they wanna be petty, let them I say.

Rev. BlueJeans

What there seems to be, at least as expressed by the more proactive admins both new and old (as in DeV), and by the CMs, is a wish to maintain and improve things.

This is a noble goal, and one we should all try to aspire to, rather than simply accepting things as they are, even if we do have to toughen our skins in the process.

Boards is like a childrens tea party compared to some other sites out there, but that doesn't mean it can't be improved.

star-pants

I'm not saying we have to accept things as they are - I'm saying that the system we have in place is not being used correctly. So what's the point in changing things if people don't use them properly anyway?
Yes we have to grow and change with things - but if people ignore the system nothing we change will work.

Boards is one of the most popular and used sites - I don't think it would be if it was as crap as so many seem to think.

Podman

Although this thread was "inspired" by an event with another user, I didn't have any gripes with anyone in particular to begin with. I thought that it would be a good place from which to start a discussion.

This thread is about self control, and applies to us all, not just Moderators. If any user thinks they are right 100% of the time, they have a lot of work ahead of them to kill the beast. The thread has Mods in the title but the content applies to everyone. Mods make most of the tough decisions in forums, and are normally responsible for those decisions, taking most of the heat and being accountable for their actions.

Rev. BlueJeans wrote: »

The thing is that the upper echelons are striking a balance between keeping the volunteers happy, and the users. By the way, the two are not mutually exclusive, as so many moderators are users elsewhere, and there are what seems like a million of them at this stage.

I know what you mean and for the most part that is the case, but in essence being a mod and a user is exclusive to just being a user. A mod can remove another mod/user's posting privileges, access or whatever they want, and are (rightly so) given more leeway in threads. Problems only arise when tempers flare after people have been angered, and in anger it's very hard for anyone to see beyond the hurt.

Rev. BlueJeans wrote: »

IOW, dealing with moderator foibles publicly in order to placate the users will drive certain mods batty, whereas, as things stand, dealing with problems behind closed doors, or indeed just paying them lip service publicly as happens in most cases, just results in a lack of transparency, a feeling among the populace that there is little point in making a complaint, *or* expressing disquiet with the way a forum is run/a moderator has conducted themselves in their duties-even if the user concerned hasn't been censured personally.

That's why I decided to make the thread here, and not in humanities or something, because the Feedback forum allows everyone to respond and give their comments/ideas on something that they would only find if they were looking for some kind of feedback from the bosses, who should see the thread anyway. It's not a bitching thread, as some would have it portrayed, it's supposed to be constructive towards a growing system.

As regards doing things publicly, this thread isn't for specific gripes, it's not for dressing down the way things are already done. It's here to promote discussion on how to eliminate bad decisions. The fact that all users make bad decisions at one time or another is also a problem, but it doesn't get half the bad press that bad mod decisions get. I'm not against mods, anyone who can read should know that by now.

It's about seeing a moment of anger coming, and not giving in to it. This stuff is too important to be restricted to pm's or helpdesk.

Rev. BlueJeans

star-pants wrote: »

I'm not saying we have to accept things as they are - I'm saying that the system we have in place is not being used correctly. So what's the point in changing things if people don't use them properly anyway?
Yes we have to grow and change with things - but if people ignore the system nothing we change will work.

No, it's not being used correctly, but neither is it infallible in itself. That's my point.

Some people will always plough their own furrow, all the system can do is try to minimise that, and the workload and stress for all involved.

What's wrong with calling for a bit more transparency, without crossing the line into turning the volunteers into pariahs?

star-pants wrote: »

Boards is one of the most popular and used sites - I don't think it would be if it was as crap as so many seem to think.

First up, I don't think anyone said it was crap. Boards has an awful lot going for it, a general experience free from muppetry, and critical mass to name but two.

It is also too bureaucratic for its own good in some respects, with the grievance procedure being skewed in favour of the status quo, whether we like it or not. There is also no precedent for complaining about moderation policy on parts of the site, unless one is directly affected-and even at that very little is *seen* to be done.

Some of the longest threads on this forum are filled to the brim with strong opinion (and yes, some bandwagonning too) expressed by many many members of a community against one decision or another, or the way a community is managed. Swift decisive action is never an end result of such mass complaints, rather the issue at hand is left to peter out over a day or two, and, as we've seen on a national level, it invariably works, as we're a fickle bunch at the best of times.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Ooh looky, a squirrel!

chompy wrote: »

This thread is about self control, and applies to us all, not just Moderators. If any user thinks they are right 100% of the time, they have a lot of work ahead of them to kill the beast. The thread has Mods in the title but the content applies to everyone. Mods make most of the tough decisions in forums, and are normally responsible for those decisions, taking most of the heat and being accountable for their actions.

They're also in the firing line, as they are the first interaction with authority many users have here.

The perception is, that they are ergo immune from any censure on behalf of the management of the site. This is not true in many cases, but they also carry a far bigger stick than the users as a group, or individually. Yes, users individually can be and are often, total idiots in the way they act, but they are as a group, the bread and butter of the site, and their collective opinions are as a rule ignored. They have no voice, despite the mechanisms in place.

chompy wrote: »

I know what you mean and for the most part that is the case, but in essence being a mod and a user is exclusive to just being a user. A mod can remove another mod/user's posting privileges, access or whatever they want, and are (rightly so) given more leeway in threads. Problems only arise when tempers flare after people have been angered, and in anger it's very hard for anyone to see beyond the hurt.

It's emotive, and the worst in people comes out when they've been slapped. That in essence gives users bad press, and I think has been instrumental when taken collectively over the years in creating a culture of "them and us".

chompy wrote: »

That's why I decided to make the thread here, and not in humanities or something, because the Feedback forum allows everyone to respond and give their comments/ideas on something that they would only find if they were looking for some kind of feedback from the bosses, who should see the thread anyway. It's not a bitching thread, as some would have it portrayed, it's supposed to be constructive towards a growing system.

This is the place for it. The title is somewhat unfortunate though, even though it is somewhat accurate in isolated cases-as with the users=abusers cliche I saw on here recently.

Rigsby

Podman wrote: »

So who moderates the Moderators?

You won't have to search for long in the Helpdesk or Feedback to find complaints about certain Moderators being heavy handed, usually in favor of their own arguments or personal friends. It's not always easy to PM someone if you think they hold a grudge.

There should be a performance review of Moderators and Administrators every few months, too many complaints and they get the boot. What do you think?

I dont particularly disagree with you, but it's not a good omen for you to be complaining about mods after only a few weeks on "boards"

ntlbell

Rigsby wrote: »

I dont particularly disagree with you, but it's not a good omen for you to be complaining about mods after only a few weeks on "boards"

You do realise you don't need to have an account to read boards right?

Anyway the lenght of time spent is really irelevant, you don't have to be on boards long to see poor modding descisions.

Kirnsy

muffler wrote: »

You're here for all of 2 days and looking to change the planet.

Good luck with it.

muffler wrote: »

Maybe you should practice what you preach.

I have read this thread and I still see no valid reason offered by you for creating a second account and posting what seems to no more than a thread to whinge. You have offered up no constructive comments.

You also post with an air of arrogance which will get you really, really far on this site.

pot.kettle.black?

Podman

star-pants wrote: »

I agree that some people posting in this thread purely to complain about a dual account and not to add anything else constructive is rather silly. Whilst I myself questioned it, I wasn't going to post with that as my only concern. I posted up my view on this issue and you only really responded to my bit about your dual account.

I believe I thanked you for your posts, they made 100% more of a contribution than some posts have done. Point noted
I'm not going to comment about every little thing I agree with though, or I think is helpful. Sometimes the poster says it all. I appreciate any constructive comments, whether positive or not.

star-pants wrote: »

You started this thread, you need to keep it on topic. Reply to posts that give ideas/constructive criticism, not ignoring those and only responding to people giving out to you. You gave your answer regarding your dual account, if you keep talking about it people aren't going to get past it.

Quite right.

star-pants wrote: »

Different forums require different levels of moderation - some are easy going/quiet/ self sustaining forums, some are impossible, needing modding 24/7 to keep things from going nuts. What some posters don't see, if they're not long term posters, or even have been here a few months, is that the mods have seen all this before. We've learnt things and seen when something has potential to kick off. So it gets nipped in the bud, because we don't want the hassle and the reported posts. But people/posters who've not seen it before think we're taking the fun out of it, being party poopers, or siding with someone, when in fact we're not, we've just been there, done that, got the headache.

I agree. If someone deserves a ban, do it with a big ****ing stick. It's important that the mod or whoever does the banning, explains briefly in the thread why the ban goes ahead. Most helpdesk threads I can remember reading have this very explanation in them (another case of suggesting an idea that's already in place), but the mod in the forum should indicate clearly why the user is being banned, which doesn't always happen. And also that the reason is valid, not just in reaction to something.

Rigsby

ntlbell wrote: »

Anyway the lenght of time spent is really irelevant

I disagree. Someone getting a say, two week ban after only four weeks on boards ( not talking about the OP) looks a lot worse that getting the same ban after four years IMO.

ntlbell

Rigsby wrote: »

I disagree. Someone getting a say, two week ban after only four weeks on boards ( not talking about the OP) looks a lot worse that getting the same ban after four years IMO.

What do you mean "looks worse" ?

Rigsby

ntlbell wrote: »

What do you mean "looks worse" ?

... as in "to a mod." A person is bringing early undue attention to themselves if they get themselves banned after only a few weeks, be they in the right or wrong.

Rev. BlueJeans

It only looks worse if the ban was for a daft reason, or they executed the complaint badly from their side.

If the ban appeal was treated with disdain by an admin purely on the basis of a users join date (catch them admitting to that!) then they would themselves not be fit for the rule they hold tbh.

Podman

A few people suggested that the title "Mods not Gods" is too strong, unfairly leaning against the Mods.

I'll change the title, but to what? any ideas?

I was thinking "Bods not Gods"

---

By the way, in future I won't be arguing with trolls, I'll be reporting them.

Kiera

chompy wrote: »

By the way, in future I won't be arguing with trolls, I'll be reporting them.

Thats the most advisable thing to do tbh. I'm sure you've heard the phrase "feeding the trolls"

Spiritoftheseventies

Fair play for keeping this thread open. Debate is healthy.

Rev. BlueJeans

It's disappointing to think that any user could think that an active admin could possibly close this thread in any event.

It's an active discussion, and as such won't be closed-but the fear of such is something that shouldn't be a factor.

Spiritoftheseventies

You tell me. I have seen cases of people complaining about posts that are clearly there to provoke a reaction. But inexperienced poster who naively uses the troll word gets a yellow straight away most times. I think there is a bit of a fear factor in some categories where posters are simply afraid to speak out now due to the threat of sanction or a thread being closed. Not always the mods fault but i think sometimes they are a bit quick to step in and sometimes it on the wrong side.

Dragan

Podman wrote: »

So who moderates the Moderators?

You won't have to search for long in the Helpdesk or Feedback to find complaints about certain Moderators being heavy handed, usually in favor of their own arguments or personal friends. It's not always easy to PM someone if you think they hold a grudge.

There should be a performance review of Moderators and Administrators every few months, too many complaints and they get the boot. What do you think?

Yeah right, have you seen some of the pointless, bull****, ego driven complaints lodged by users against Mods?

Rev. BlueJeans

Well, there you have it lads, time to pack up and go home.

Because some users are plonkers, it obviously follows that all mods are infallible, and no form of redress is needed.

Podman

Dragan wrote: »

Yeah right, have you seen some of the pointless, bull****, ego driven complaints lodged by users against Mods?

I have yeah, I've seen some pointless, bull****, ego driven arguments on both sides.

So, extend the review to users too?

How would it work?
The user (abuser) who gets repeated bans/reprimands has their history of posts examined to determine 1.are they consistently malicious, 2.has their behavior changed since being "informed" of their abuse, 3.the extent of their involvement in degenerated threads, 4.do they instigate trouble then sit back and watch the show, 5.were they the victim of thread abuse themselves to make them kick off, 6.are they just an innocent person, 7.how big a difference does it actually make.
Just a few ideas.

I understand there are different levels of punishment for infractions, has anyone ever had their ip blocked?