Moderator Performance (was Mods not Gods)

sceptre

The Iris Robinson affair has been a big factor in the increase - typically it's about 8 a week for me. It breaks out the amateur comedians and there's a thread in AH more suited to that. But yeah, of the people that have replied, most have held up their hands and said fair cop. A small few have required further clarification or a discussion. About 3 or 4 have been unresolved to mutual satisfaction (I reckon, might be lower) and I've given them the procedure for a further appeal. None have been reversed in the end (though some of those 3 or 4 may choose to appeal it to the cmod). I think I've undeleted one poat that vI deleted without penalty and after informing the member who posted it realised that I'd misinterpreted it so apologised and undeleted.

Most people I deal with are reasonable. A tiny tiny few reply with messages about my mother (the last time it happened I was rather tempted to reply mentioning that she was dead and hence he was a wannabe necrophiliac but restrained myself). Some mods get some awful abuse though at times from a small number of their posters - having an admin badge may well be a factor in some people restraining themselves on reply so in that regard at times I'm lucky. But I think we're also reaching the stage in Politics where people who are around for a bit have also realised that while the moderators come with their own political views, they're not going to make any difference when someone's being disruptive or abusive towards their fellow forum members. In other words, that we're really anti-idiocy and pro-discussion.

Oh incidentally while I can be quite generous (for want of a better word) with card issuing, I tend to ban someone from the forum only when necessary (so the hint should be something to be taken seriously) - I gave someone a 2 week ban yesterday, first ban I'd made from Politics since June I think (though when I think about it, there were so many double accounts in the EU forum pre-referendum that there must have been a few there but as zombie phoenix accounts they don't count). So I'd say we've always been like this, it just takes a long time working at it to get a reasonable result for a while. I can guarantee that the next big thing to hit us will get all the crazies out of the woodwork again, though one EU Treaty every few years is definitely enough from a moderation point of view. It is actually pretty quite at the moment. And you're right on the mods you've identified. They're excellent, really excellent, they're all a pleasure to "work" with.

But this period of comparative happy calm still won't last. That's life.

nesf wrote: »

That you actually know how many infractions you've handed out since January 1st worries me deeply..

I did a search, had them in bundles of 25 and manually counted and discounted the bottom 9:) Took 20 seconds.

nesf

sceptre wrote: »

I did a search, had them in bundles of 25 and manually counted and discounted the bottom 9:) Took 20 seconds.

Still though, that you checked!

auerillo

Offy wrote: »

I love to see this tactic been used, its a great diversionary tactic. A poster makes a complaint and you turn it back on them thus making a mockery of the idea of complaining. By doing this you are making the whole complaint process nothing more than a PR exercise, it become totally devoid of functionality. You simply ignore the complaint, its been used on Boards for years now. Thank Boards, I now use the same tactic in work to great effect! It never achieves a result to the given problem but more often than not it stops the complainant in their tracks. If Boards adapted an effective complaint process it would involve solutions and as the same complaint has been made for years now I can only assume the complaint process is totally ineffective.
So heres an idea for Boards. If a mod is found to be banning members for no good reason then publicly issue a warning or ban to the mod in question. Make the mods live by the same rules as the members. To be very honest I believe the mods should behave better than ordinary members. The saying ‘Led by example’ comes to mind.
As to helpdesk lol after been a member for so many years I wouldnt bother using helpdesk. I see it as a waste of time.
In saying all that I still think Boards is a great site but no matter how good anything is theres still room for improvement. Just my two cents worth.
*Now lets see who the flamers are*

Boards is, in the main, an interesting and informative site. And you are right about the "help desk". It's called the "help desk" probably to suggest that it's there to help, but reading the threads one is left with the impression that the only people it helps are those against whom complaints are made. Certainly, reading the threads there that's the overwhelming impression.

Firstly, it serves to isolate the member who has a grievance by not allowing other members to contribute to the thread, except other mods or admins. Divide and conquer is the oldest trick in the book.

reading the threads on the help desk section, it's hard not to conclude that, invariably, the mods and admins stick up for each other and stick together to side against the member making the complaint.

Then one of the mods or admins announce that the complaint has been ruled upon and that the member's complaint has been found to have no merit. Who has made this ruling, or what factors influenced their decision, is never explained. It appears that the decision has been made by another moderator, who may even be a friend of the moderator about whom the complaint has been made. We simply don't know.

Anyone reading the complaints in the amusingly labelled "Help Desk" can see for themselves that the forum seems to exist more to isolate complaints and isolate those making a complaint, (whether justified or not) and prevent members from voicing their support (or not) for any complaint. this give the impression that boards would rather manage a complaint and bat it away, rather than honestly consider it, and gives the further impression that they would rather stick up for the mods, right or wrong, rather than consider justified complaints.

Wibbs

I dunno. I think help desk is for the most part OK. The problem with opening it to the floor is that you could nay would get long threads mostly with people sticking their oar in for the sake of it. It would become a sub forum of feedback. Which would be the balance going the other way entirely. Like any forum it would attract its regulars and depending on the regulars it attracted it could go either way.

I do think it could be improved though. TBH If someone had an issue with my modding and they were open to talking I wouldnt tell them to take it helpdesk. It would be by far my last resort. Ditto if I had an issue with someones modding of me in a forum. Id go the PM route every time.

The pre approved queue thing is a bit OTT though. I really dont see the point. Its far too unwieldy IMHO. It also further reduces the openness of the process as people dont know whether valid points have been made by either the person involved or the mod for that matter. It depends too much on the opinion of the admin involved. Do I think that happens? Nope, but I cant be sure and if I was making a complaint and didnt know the people involved I might think that.

Maybe one way to do it would have helpdesk like the soccer forum? Invite only. That way you could build up a wide range group of people that could be invited to give an opinion? That would be unwieldy too though. I dunno, maybe it it what it is and no one solution fits?

sceptre

nesf wrote: »

Still though, that you checked!

I'll give you that:)

humanji

auerillo wrote: »

Then one of the mods or admins announce that the complaint has been ruled upon and that the member's complaint has been found to have no merit. Who has made this ruling, or what factors influenced their decision, is never explained. It appears that the decision has been made by another moderator, who may even be a friend of the moderator about whom the complaint has been made. We simply don't know.

This kind of shows that you're unsure how the helpdesk works. It's the admins who make decisions there, not the mods. A user acting the maggot might get frowned upon by the admins, but they don't really affect the site. A mod acting the maggot will get the admins coming down on them like a ton of bricks because they are damaging the site.

There's a horrible rumour that all mods are best mates and hang around with each other. The reality is mods are simply users tasked with keeping certain forums tidy. After that, they're just users like you.

Look at the complaint threads with an objective eye and you'll see many threads where the users have broken forum rules and are complaining that they were punished for it. They simply won't accept that they are in the wrong.

But on the other side of the coin there's been plenty of times when mods have been over ruled and users have been apologised to for the hassle. I think you're feelings are clouded by the fact that you yourself had some trouble on that forum before. Ignore that and take a look at yourself through the threads. It's full of users who were acting the maggot and got called up on it. Why would an admin rule in their favour when it's as clear as day that the user is the one who has done wrong.

jor el

humanji wrote: »

There's a horrible rumour that all mods are best mates and hang around with each other. The reality is mods are simply users tasked with keeping certain forums tidy. After that, they're just users like you.

And since it's the Conspiracy Theory mod saying this, everyone should take note. There is NO MOD CONSPIRACY. We don't all retire to the billiards room, don our silk robes, sit around smoking pipes and stroking our beards going mu-ha-ha-ha-ha, recanting tales of all the users we've ganged up on today. No matter how many times it's said, some people will never believe that's not the way it is.

auerillo

humanji wrote: »

This kind of shows that you're unsure how the helpdesk works. It's the admins who make decisions there, not the mods.

I wasn't really concerned with how it works behind the scenes (although it might be nice to have some clarity). It's how it works in practice which was the subject of my previous post.

tbh

auerillo wrote: »

Boards is, in the main, an interesting and informative site. And you are right about the "help desk". It's called the "help desk" probably to suggest that it's there to help, but reading the threads one is left with the impression that the only people it helps are those against whom complaints are made. Certainly, reading the threads there that's the overwhelming impression.

Firstly, it serves to isolate the member who has a grievance by not allowing other members to contribute to the thread, except other mods or admins. Divide and conquer is the oldest trick in the book.

reading the threads on the help desk section, it's hard not to conclude that, invariably, the mods and admins stick up for each other and stick together to side against the member making the complaint.

Then one of the mods or admins announce that the complaint has been ruled upon and that the member's complaint has been found to have no merit. Who has made this ruling, or what factors influenced their decision, is never explained. It appears that the decision has been made by another moderator, who may even be a friend of the moderator about whom the complaint has been made. We simply don't know.

Anyone reading the complaints in the amusingly labelled "Help Desk" can see for themselves that the forum seems to exist more to isolate complaints and isolate those making a complaint, (whether justified or not) and prevent members from voicing their support (or not) for any complaint. this give the impression that boards would rather manage a complaint and bat it away, rather than honestly consider it, and gives the further impression that they would rather stick up for the mods, right or wrong, rather than consider justified complaints.

your problem there is that you are using Help Desk as a yardstick to measure how good and or fair the boards mods are, and that's not fair.
Helpdesk is the end of the funnel, not the start of it. Instead what you should do is look at the vast amount of posts that are reported - by users, mind you, not by mods - then look at the amount of those posts that are "actioned" (high) and look at the amount of complaints that ensue (low).

Maybe one thread a week in helpdesk is a complaint that has a genuine basis. In my opinion, a genuine complaint can only really be about one thing: The user and the mod have interpreted an ambiguous or unwritten aspect of the charter differently, and the user is asking for a second opinion on that interpretation.
The mods are asked by the admins to interpret the charter on their behalf. Therefore, in an argument where both sides have merit, it's natural the admins will back the horse they know. However, I would say that 999/1000, if the user pm's the mods directly and makes their case, they'll sort it out between them.
If a mod is insisting on their interpretation being accepted simply because they are a mod, I would imagine they would be removed, sooner or later. I guess the history of boards would back me up, but more than that, the sheer numbers of people who visit every day back me up. People don't have to post here and they wouldn't if the mods were all egomaniacal fools.

The majority of cases like this that end up in feedback are from people who are spoiling for a fight or have a hidden agenda - that's my opinion, and it's one I've formed after reading help desk for nine years. I don't really have a problem with them - if something is that important to them, it's not costing me any time. But it's totally unfair to question how good the mods are based on the rantings of some angry student who got a smack on the nose - the usual "real" reason for helpdesk threads, no matter how lofty the OPs in helpdesk may appear.

my 2c

Rev. BlueJeans

tbh wrote: »

your problem there is that you are using Help Desk as a yardstick to measure how good and or fair the boards mods are, and that's not fair.

No, but it does indicate a failing in the system, in that one user is up against the machine-not being derogatory at all, but that is how it can appear to an outside observer- quite efficient at rolling through the complaints at a rate of knots, and overwhelmingly, from the outside, with the same end result.

tbh wrote: »

Helpdesk is the end of the funnel, not the start of it. Instead what you should do is look at the vast amount of posts that are reported - by users, mind you, not by mods - then look at the amount of those posts that are "actioned" (high) and look at the amount of complaints that ensue (low).

That's as it should be. A busy site like this will have a high degree of conflict, and unfortunately a fair degree of idiocy and emotion as well. People drawing each other out, trolling, losing the rag, treating others with disdain (none of these characteristics are unique to users, so let's not pretend they are). As most reported posts have merit, as it were, then action is not surprising. This may take the form of editing, deletion, infraction, or banning. The latter two are the most likely to elicit complaint, or cause someone to skulk off and not return, so that cuts down the possible complaints by another fair chunk.

What you are not accounting for in what you say regarding the low level of complaint, is that the good guys will resolve things via PM (which is great, by the way where the acting mod can be reasoned with, or the cmod is on hand to explain matters), sometimes withdrawing the sanction, whereas some people will look at the procedure, whether they're wrong or right, and say "fcuk that-foregone conclusion anyway" (can't blame them for this). We are then left with two distinct groups out of what remain, those that have a genuine case, and those who do not.

tbh wrote: »

Maybe one thread a week in helpdesk is a complaint that has a genuine basis. In my opinion, a genuine complaint can only really be about one thing: The user and the mod have interpreted an ambiguous or unwritten aspect of the charter differently, and the user is asking for a second opinion on that interpretation.

A somewhat arbitrary figure, but I respect the assessment, even if I don't agree with it-these things are cyclical, for one thing. Your predication that only one aspect can be worthy of genuine complaint suggests that a moderator is never wrong, never acts out of malice, or any other negative trait. The only possible issue can be misinterpretation of the forum specific rules.

This is not the case at all.

tbh wrote: »

The mods are asked by the admins to interpret the charter on their behalf. Therefore, in an argument where both sides have merit, it's natural the admins will back the horse they know.

Indeed. That may be the correct course at times, but not always. Bear in mind that many longer standing mods, literally wrote the charter.

tbh wrote: »

However, I would say that 999/1000, if the user pm's the mods directly and makes their case, they'll sort it out between them.

Many issues are sorted this way, and in real terms should be discounted, as there is no effective way to control PM procedure, bar the standardised initial one (which some people claim to be above using). A mod who gives up time to PM people in the course of conflict resolution is usually to be commended, as let's face it, this takes a lot of time that could otherwise be employed browsing the site or whatever.

tbh wrote: »

If a mod is insisting on their interpretation being accepted simply because they are a mod, I would imagine they would be removed, sooner or later.

They don't have to insist, tbh. The system is overwhelmingly weighted in their favour, and while the good guys, of which there are many, deserve a support network, those who overstep the mark, the death by a thousand cuts people who cause conflicts again and again, and who turn people away, should not be granted immunity through this process of conflict resolution.

Yes, mods get demodded, we all know that. However they are the glaring examples in that they reeaaalllly had to dirty their bib in order to force a reaction. Look at how long the CT thing took to get resolved last year.

The point being that the minor infractions (not those type) get swept under the carpet and forgotten in a sea of locked threads on Helpdesk, and cutting comments delivered with a somewhat out of place smiley tacked on at the end. A bit like Anne Robinson, but in HTML.

tbh wrote: »

I guess the history of boards would back me up, but more than that, the sheer numbers of people who visit every day back me up. People don't have to post here and they wouldn't if the mods were all egomaniacal fools.

Come on man, no one is suggesting that all mods are egomaniacs-the majority, given that this is a trust based system, range from underworked, through competent all the way up to sublime.

The numbers game doesn't cut any ice. This site has critical mass, has a subset of great communities, and a core of hardcore posters (daily visitors and contributors) that will never see 200k. It has a large amount of dedicated users and volunteers that make it an attractive place to spend some downtime, or leech bandwidth from one's office.

It also has a flawed and biased complaints resolution procedure that shows a lack of transparency. What's wrong with trying to fix that, and make the place even better?

Where is the competition that could even attempt to emulate the content, skillset, and variety of boards.ie in a national context? That's why people log on. The most of them don't know or care about procedures, until they fall foul of them, which in fairness, many do not. Ever.

tbh wrote: »

The majority of cases like this that end up in feedback are from people who are spoiling for a fight or have a hidden agenda - that's my opinion, and it's one I've formed after reading help desk for nine years. I don't really have a problem with them - if something is that important to them, it's not costing me any time. But it's totally unfair to question how good the mods are based on the rantings of some angry student who got a smack on the nose - the usual "real" reason for helpdesk threads, no matter how lofty the OPs in helpdesk may appear.

Nah, I don't buy that. Many are from people nursing wounds, but not all.

Jesus, that was overly long.

Rev. BlueJeans

By the way, I like Wibbs' idea of an open helpdesk, for a start, but I'd come at it from a different angle-maintaining a good s/n ratio through rigid moderation rather than a guest list

oscarBravo

Rev. BlueJeans wrote: »

Many issues are sorted this way, and in real terms should be discounted, as there is no effective way to control PM procedure, bar the standardised initial one (which some people claim to be above using). A mod who gives up time to PM people in the course of conflict resolution is usually to be commended, as let's face it, this takes a lot of time that could otherwise be employed browsing the site or whatever.

FYI: it is now standard procedure for a PM to be sent when issuing a ban, and no moderator is above doing so.

It also has a flawed and biased complaints resolution procedure that shows a lack of transparency. What's wrong with trying to fix that, and make the place even better?

Diminishing returns. What you are asking for almost inevitably involves a fairly substantial increase in bureaucracy, which is unfair on volunteer moderators. It's really not that big a problem, and many (but not all) of those who feel that it is are simply disgruntled that they didn't get the outcome they wanted through the Help Desk process.

oscarBravo

Rev. BlueJeans wrote: »

By the way, I like Wibbs' idea of an open helpdesk, for a start, but I'd come at it from a different angle-maintaining a good s/n ratio through rigid moderation rather than a guest list

This is a case in point. You're asking for an order of magnitude increase in the admins' workload in moderating the Help Desk, just to address a perceived (by a tiny minority) problem in its operation.

Rev. BlueJeans

oscarBravo wrote: »

FYI: it is now standard procedure for a PM to be sent when issuing a ban, and no moderator is above doing so. Diminishing returns. What you are asking for almost inevitably involves a fairly substantial increase in bureaucracy, which is unfair on volunteer moderators. It's really not that big a problem, and many (but not all) of those who feel that it is are simply disgruntled that they didn't get the outcome they wanted through the Help Desk process.

I didn't know that was the case, it wasn't up to last week, for example.

As I say, the majority of users never fall foul of this, simply don't care, or don't know where Feedback even is. To say that it isn't a problem of any magnitude worth dealing with is somewhat dismissive IMHO.

oscarBravo wrote: »

This is a case in point. You're asking for an order of magnitude increase in the admins' workload in moderating the Help Desk, just to address a perceived (by a tiny minority) problem in its operation.

A minority when taken against the overall userbase, but in terms of those who use feedback, or helpdesk be it to their satisfaction or not, perhaps not so much of a minority.

I never said the admins had to do it by the way, although there are quite a few of you now.

tbh

Rev. BlueJeans wrote: »

No, but it does indicate a failing in the system, in that one user is up against the machine-not being derogatory at all, but that is how it can appear to an outside observer- quite efficient at rolling through the complaints at a rate of knots, and overwhelmingly, from the outside, with the same end result.

I guess it appears like that because 99% of the cases in helpdesk - the genuine complaints - are from people who cannot accept that if everyone were allowed to behave as they did in the post they were sanctioned for, boards would be a dung heap. I'm talking about the threads from people who made some sort of inappropriate comment, were censured for it, and who's embarrassment made them go on the attack.

That's as it should be. A busy site like this will have a high degree of conflict, and unfortunately a fair degree of idiocy and emotion as well. People drawing each other out, trolling, losing the rag, treating others with disdain (none of these characteristics are unique to users, so let's not pretend they are). As most reported posts have merit, as it were, then action is not surprising. This may take the form of editing, deletion, infraction, or banning. The latter two are the most likely to elicit complaint, or cause someone to skulk off and not return, so that cuts down the possible complaints by another fair chunk.

Well first off, I don't think there is a high degree of conflict on boards. Not when you consider how many interactions per day there are.
Now - you talk about actions that are not unique to users, and I'm taking that you phrase it like that to say that mods can be just as guilty.
Here's the thing - I am a user. I'm not just saying that to try to prove a point - I am a user. I have exactly the same attitude towards boards that I did before they made me a mod, and the same amount of loyalty. I'm just as capable of being a dick as any non-mod, and I'm just as capable of giving out when anyone pisses me off. I didn't undergo brainwashing as part of the training process, and I'm telling you - if someone acts the dick on one of the forums I mod, then I will resolve that problem with absolutely no regard to that person being a mod , admin, cmod or user. I don't care. If any of the admins or mods or cmods told me that I had to give anyone special treatment - they would be given a short answer. Look at the commerical reps - even tho they may be paying for their account, if I don't want them posting in one of my forums, no-one will try to make me.
If boards is crap, I'll walk away from it as fast as any non-mod. I don't make any distinctions between mod and user, and I hope you don't either

What you are not accounting for in what you say regarding the low level of complaint, is that the good guys will resolve things via PM (which is great, by the way where the acting mod can be reasoned with, or the cmod is on hand to explain matters), sometimes withdrawing the sanction, whereas some people will look at the procedure, whether they're wrong or right, and say "fcuk that-foregone conclusion anyway" (can't blame them for this). We are then left with two distinct groups out of what remain, those that have a genuine case, and those who do not.

or those that can accept a moderator decision (whether reasonable or unreasonable), and those that cannot. Just because someone posts in helpdesk after pm'ing a mod, doesn't mean that they have a reasonable complaint. It can mean that they are so bullheaded, they won't take "yes" or "no" for an answer - no matter who gives it to them.

A somewhat arbitrary figure, but I respect the assessment, even if I don't agree with it-these things are cyclical, for one thing. Your predication that only one aspect can be worthy of genuine complaint suggests that a moderator is never wrong, never acts out of malice, or any other negative trait. The only possible issue can be misinterpretation of the forum specific rules.

This is not the case at all.

no - that's not what I said. What I said was it's all down to the charter. For example, two cases: one person is constantly being reprimanded for swearing. Even if no-body else is being reprimanded for swearing, that user doesn't have a valid cause to complain, because they shouldn't be swearing.

Second case: one user is constantly being reprimanded for pro-abortion sermonising, in context and on thread. This is a valid complaint - because there is nothing specific banning it in our imaginary charter. The moderator may feel that the poster is derailing threads, but a helpdesk thread will make them justify it. The admins can then decide on whether the mod has done the right thing or not, and in this case may understandibly give the mod the benefit of the doubt - or they may not, and amend the charter.

Helpdesk is, in my opinion, 99% the former, and 1% the latter.

Indeed. That may be the correct course at times, but not always. Bear in mind that many longer standing mods, literally wrote the charter.

yeah, but it's not the mods forum. If I made a change to the charter in one of my forums that 99% of the population hated, I have no doubt that I would be either asked or told to change it back. If I couldn't accept that, I would simply leave, and I wouldn't care one whit.

They don't have to insist, tbh. The system is overwhelmingly weighted in their favour, and while the good guys, of which there are many, deserve a support network, those who overstep the mark, the death by a thousand cuts people who cause conflicts again and again, and who turn people away, should not be granted immunity through this process of conflict resolution.

are you talking about mods there? I honestly feel that if a genuine complaint was made against a mod, it would be dealt with. Can you (genuine question, cause I'd like to know) show me a thread in helpdesk that genuinely fits the criteria of your second scenario?

The point being that the minor infractions (not those type) get swept under the carpet and forgotten in a sea of locked threads on Helpdesk, and cutting comments delivered with a somewhat out of place smiley tacked on at the end. A bit like Anne Robinson, but in HTML.

No - in fairness, and I'm not bragging here - but the dozens of pm's I - and a lot of mods - get from people thanking us for cleaning up a thread, or having words with a bully, or redirecting someone, or explaining something that was documented clearly already , along with the pathetic abusive pm's I could get someone sitebanned for but choose to ignore and which are later retracted with apologies - that's what gets swept under the carpet.

Like I said - if boards is crap, I'll walk away as fast as anyone. If Helpdesk needs to be improved, then show some examples of the type of threads getting sneered at - don't just say "everyone knows they are there" - show me. Every thread you show me will get my honest assessment, without fear or favour, and if you can prove your point, you won't find a stronger supporter than me.

tbh

for example:

This thread: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055795702

Genuine grievance, or no?

because I would say - it's up to the poster to make themselves aware of what is and is not allowed. Therefore, the guy doesn't have a genuine complaint.
However, there are plenty (not referring to the OP) who would quote this thread as an example of power hungry mods gone mad.

Conor

Just so ye could work with some correct stats, I ran some numbers.

In 2009, 9.7% of users who had received a ban posted in either Feedback or Help Desk at some stage after their ban. If you exclude any user if they had been banned by at least 3 different mods during the year or if they had been banned from 3 or more forums (on the principle that those people are unwilling to learn/follow the rules) the numbers fall to 6.0%.

26.3% of ban lifts in 2009 were manual. Since temporary bans are lifted automatically, manual ban lifts break down into three categories:

• Temporary bans lifted early.
• Permanent bans reversed.
• Bans from before July 2008 reversed (prior to then there was no automatic ban lift for temporary bans).

There are three things I take from these numbers:

1. Most people who are banned don't complain about it in Help Desk or Feedback.
2. Plenty of bans get reversed or lifted early. Mods do change their mind/get over-ruled.
3. From 1, 2 and my own experience modding I deduce that the best way to get a ban reversed is to PM the mod involved and politely and calmly discuss the matter.

Rev. BlueJeans

Thanks, Conor.

Tbh, I'll respond to your post tomorrow, if that's ok. Kids to put to bed and all that

I will say that in relation to the HD thread you quoted; I honestly wouldn't have a problem with it. Errant sigs have been culled for years, and rightfully so, given the crap one has to wade through on other fora. Zaph took the time to explain the situation and that's all that could be done.

I'm not sure if it would be a good idea to post examples publicly on this thread though. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to do that, but I don't want to incite a flame fest either.

I'd happily PM you with them if you like, but otoh, that isn't much good to anyone reading who may have a different view, or indeed agree with mine to any degree.

Don't want to end up with a list of enemies, because I reference their actions on the site-that never ends well...

tbh

rev - don't worry man. I accept what you are saying.

Flamed Diving

Most moderators are fine, but some are total muppets. Same as real life, I guess. I just tend to avoid the forum where they mod, as much as possible. I'm not sure if that is a good outcome, but at least I don't have to deal with them. Definitely some power trips going on, though.

pretty-in-pink

I've always found the mods in the forum's I visit to be fair, and Mods do ban other mods too. Its not like there is a giant conspiracy god complex thing. Its just a bunch of people,who at the cost of their own time (and probably sometimes sanity) take on the role of being babysitter,to a predominantly ADULT site. Theyshouldn't even really be needed, but there ya go.

OP, if you think some are to heavy handed/ corupt then what would you do differently?

Discodog

Over zealous & biased modding can literally kill a forum. I asked for an Animal Welfare Forum because I use other Animal Welfare boards & I felt that the subject needed it's own Board here.

Now most of the people that I know, who could give invaluable advice, won't go near it & these are people who post on other boards. It has reached the point where one is threatened with a ban if one dare PM a Mod as to why as decision was given. Some Mods complain about discourtesy but have no qualms about not explaining why they refuse to allow a thread. The joke is that the modding here has become the hot topic on other Animal boards.

The strange thing is that I have been here for a while. I have thanked Mods & even PM'd Mods to thank them. I have only ever had problems with Animal Welfare. I have modded Animal boards elsewhere, I post on other boards every day where we discuss the same issues & I never have a problem.

There are some very contentious topics on here that get moderated brilliantly. The discussion is allowed to flow & where necessary gentle warnings are issued. Maybe it is because the Animal Welfare Mods have used up all the bold type !.

I would congratulate the OP on raising a good issue. Basically if you cross swords with a particular Mod you may have problems on that forum for as long as they moderate it.

Feedback/Helpdesk are fairly pointless. You can raise a valid point & you can do it with courtesy but after a couple of Mod posts, that invariable back the original mod, you will get an admin lock. I can understand that Admins want to support Mods but sometimes one needs to take an objective view rather than a company view. We can all take constructive criticism & improve, even Mods.

Kirnsy

Discodog wrote: »

Over zealous & biased modding can literally kill a forum. I asked for an Animal Welfare Forum because I use other Animal Welfare boards & I felt that the subject needed it's own Board here.

Now most of the people that I know, who could give invaluable advice, won't go near it & these are people who post on other boards. It has reached the point where one is threatened with a ban if one dare PM a Mod as to why as decision was given. Some Mods complain about discourtesy but have no qualms about not explaining why they refuse to allow a thread. The joke is that the modding here has become the hot topic on other Animal boards.

The strange thing is that I have been here for a while. I have thanked Mods & even PM'd Mods to thank them. I have only ever had problems with Animal Welfare. I have modded Animal boards elsewhere, I post on other boards every day where we discuss the same issues & I never have a problem.

There are some very contentious topics on here that get moderated brilliantly. The discussion is allowed to flow & where necessary gentle warnings are issued. Maybe it is because the Animal Welfare Mods have used up all the bold type !.

I would congratulate the OP on raising a good issue. Basically if you cross swords with a particular Mod you may have problems on that forum for as long as they moderate it.

Feedback/Helpdesk are fairly pointless. You can raise a valid point & you can do it with courtesy but after a couple of Mod posts, that invariable back the original mod, you will get an admin lock. I can understand that Admins want to support Mods but sometimes one needs to take an objective view rather than a company view. We can all take constructive criticism & improve, even Mods.

Just a quick point in relation to that. While I wouldn't go as far as to say that they are pointless, there are a fair few threads that descend into mods taking the piss. even at the beginning of this thread there were a few posts that denigrated from the point the OP made. IMO this defeats the idea of mods keeping threads on topic. I understand of course that some comments are indeed very funny and witty (God knows i try in AH to do the same ) but then the thread becomes weighed down with 'in-jokes' and merely the odd constructive comment towards the OP. Even if a thread seems stupid IMO it should be left to the Admins to lock it instead of the taking the piss out of it.
just my 2 cents as wibbs likes to say..

Larianne

Kirnsy wrote: »

Just a quick point in relation to that. While I wouldn't go as far as to say that they are pointless, there are a fair few threads that descend into mods taking the piss. even at the beginning of this thread there were a few posts that denigrated from the point the OP made. IMO this defeats the idea of mods keeping threads on topic. I understand of course that some comments are indeed very funny and witty (God knows i try in AH to do the same ) but then the thread becomes weighed down with 'in-jokes' and merely the odd constructive comment towards the OP. Even if a thread seems stupid IMO it should be left to the Admins to lock it instead of the taking the piss out of it.
just my 2 cents as wibbs likes to say..

This is a very valid point. Something I've noticed and maybe should be looked at.

star-pants

Discodog - just to come back to some of your points.
Animal Welfare became a place that had to be modded closely because of the amount of slanderous things being said. All you need do is PM Darragh and he'll confirm it.
Boards.ie is a very popular and very looked at site, if certain things are said, we are held libel, this has been explained before in your helpdesk threads.
Some posters on here have been banned from other Animal websites for what they say, and then think they can get away with it here too.

Animal Welfare is a very emotive subject, I'm fully aware, which is why we have to watch so closely because things can get out of hand very very quickly. And what happens in there is that a lot of posters prefer not to report a post but continue to bicker with each other to the point of an infraction/ban/locking of thread.
Some people like to add comments with their post that are simply to provoke an arguement/issue out of someone/others.

It is for these reasons and many others that we've changed it to premoderation, because I've made warnings in threads and been completely disregarded and in fact made fun of, when I'm only trying to keep the place on topic etc so it doesn't have to be locked.

I will admit I contested the 'if you pm to ask us about why your post didn't show you'll be banned for a week' - but was over ruled in the sense that we would obviously take it case by case. And I did think we needed to be allowed tell posters why their post/thread wasn't approved so they'd understand. But it was said that if it was against the charter they really should have read it, which is true. Top_dog brought this up in a thread in the Issues section here whereby he questioned the 'ban if you ask via pm' and we did explain why it was said, and that it wasn't always the case. And that people could of course ask why it didn't go up, but it was 'continuous pming' that was the problem and would thus incur a ban.
The problem was we'd been in circles with posters via pm before, we get accused of this and that and the other. That we make up the rules based on our own views (wrong!!) that we are biased towards certain rescues or whatever (wrong!!) and so forth.

You have no idea the amount of time and effort I put into modding API &AW, I really love that forum and I do my best to keep things smooth. I've had personal abuse from posters, we've had libel issues via Darragh down our necks over a post we might have missed and so forth. Thing is we've been here quite a while, we've seen that certain threads or certain things being said gets led down a certain way by some posters and always will, so they get nipped in the bud, to save everyone the hassle.

When the premoderated part went live and even though we'd put up a new thread the day before AND had an announcement I *still* got abusive pms as to why someones post was being 'premodded' as if I'd personally done something to them.
Half or more of the posters don't read the charter, and post and then give out when I point it out or infract them.

It's just one of the forums that needs heavy moderation at times. I honestly don't think I've been particularly unfair to anyone, I'll always be polite as possible and I'm always open to pm.
Also I use bold type to try and differentiate when I'm posting as a poster or when I'm posting as a mod - a lot of mods do that. Also makes it stand out in the hopes of someone actually reading it and maybe heeding my warning.

I've had clashes with a few posters yes, because I disagreed with them or because they felt I was against them or whatever, but I don't think it's fair to be extra hard on them in future because of it. If someones constantly doing something they shouldn't or constantly contesting me for the sake of it, then yes I will be a bit harder, as would any mod.

And if you're wondering why your last thread in AW wasn't approved was because it's not allowed, you were basically putting yourself as the middleman between people and rescues/shelters for adopting. Albeit for a good cause, it's not allowed, and I closed threads on it for actual rescue places so it would be highly unfair of me to change that for you just because you were going about it a different way.

And I apologise if I've brought this thread slightly off topic - I just felt that as Discodog was bringing up issues regarding a forum I mod, I should respond as best I could rather than ignore it.

nesf

Discodog wrote: »

Feedback/Helpdesk are fairly pointless. You can raise a valid point & you can do it with courtesy but after a couple of Mod posts, that invariable back the original mod, you will get an admin lock. I can understand that Admins want to support Mods but sometimes one needs to take an objective view rather than a company view. We can all take constructive criticism & improve, even Mods.

If you have a serious issue with the moderation of a forum and feel you have evidence to back up your complaint please make your case to the Category Moderators (CMods) in that forum who can look into things further.


We (CMods) will and have overrule moderator decisions when a complaint is justified and the action taken has been unfair. But remember that especially in very contentious forums you may not be aware of the full story and there may be reasons you are unaware of that necessitate certain mod action that looks on the face of it to be unfair or unwarranted.

The Hill Billy

Larianne wrote: »

Kirnsy wrote:

Just a quick point in relation to that. While I wouldn't go as far as to say that they are pointless, there are a fair few threads that descend into mods taking the piss. even at the beginning of this thread there were a few posts that denigrated from the point the OP made. IMO this defeats the idea of mods keeping threads on topic. I understand of course that some comments are indeed very funny and witty (God knows i try in AH to do the same ) but then the thread becomes weighed down with 'in-jokes' and merely the odd constructive comment towards the OP. Even if a thread seems stupid IMO it should be left to the Admins to lock it instead of the taking the piss out of it.
just my 2 cents as wibbs likes to say..

This is a very valid point. Something I've noticed and maybe should be looked at.

A valid point indeed. However, what gets missed is that those posters that Kirnsey is referring to are posters in this forum. They are only Mods in the forums that they moderate. Everywhere else we are regular posters. Albeit regular posters who should know better. (Not saying that I'm a saint or anything myself. )

/$0.02

Hellrazer

I couldnt have said it better but I feel that I have to respond to Discodogs new whinge about the forum so here goes.

Discodog--Everytime you are reprimanded for something in the Animal Welfare you decide to post one of these posts giving out about the modding of the forum.

Your latest reprimand was because you stated that you couldnt take Convert seriously in an animal welfare forum because she mods "Greyhound racing"

Heres the link if anyone wants to read it :

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055793429&page=3


Twice in that thread you brought up the fact that convert mods the greyhound forum--which had nothing whatsoever to do with the thread in question and nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion that was going on.

So then I respond with this.

Totally irrelevant.Convert is involved in this discussion and whether they mod Greyhound racing or not is nothing to do with this forum and its discussions so dont even go there or I will issue you with an infraction or ban

and next thing youre on moaning again.

Now anyone who thinks Im being harsh--Ive pm`d Discodog about the way we mod this forum umpteen times (as have the other mods) but for some reason he just doesnt seem to get the message and every time he gets a warning or threads moved/deleted theres a thread or post giving out about the forum.

Ive had enough of this with you.You either work with us or go post on one of your other fora that you keep banging on about (where supposedly the rules are a bit less restrictive)

Discodog

Hellrazer you have stated my case more eloquently that I could. How many times have I been infracted or banned ?. If I see that something is wrong I follow the system & politely raise it. You will not allow any criticism of you, the moderation, & the content of the Board. To her credit Starpants did offer some explanations. You are making sound as if I dominate your inbox. I have raised 5 queries in 15 months. I have only ever sent 1 "complaint" to another topic Mod so I am hardly constantly "moaning".

Boards rightly emphasise the rule that you discuss the post & not the poster. This rule clearly does not apply to Mods. I raised the "hobbies" of a poster because it could clearly influence their views. Had that poster of not been a Mod then no one would of noticed. But on A&P any adverse comment regarding any Mod, not just the forum Mods is not allowed.

I suggest that we return to the topic under discussion. I will leave others to judge if the reaction of some Mods is over the top. I would agree that in some forums the Mods can be the ones who, with banter, take the thread off topic. A Mod may be "just another poster" but I suspect that to non Mods it may appear as if the Mods are part of a cosy club.

If as stated that there are about 800 Mods then I would have to say that the majority do a good job & some do a superb job. I believe that it can cause a problem when all of the Mods on a particular forum have a similar approach.
If they are too relaxed then the posts can wander, if they are too overzealous then conversation is killed.

This thread has proved that Feedback can work if allowed to. Now I would never suggest that every Feedback thread gets this much attention but it would be nice to see that where a complainant has a reasonable question & is polite that they get a fair hearing. We all have a natural mindset that dislikes being treated unfairly. If people have a genuine complaint/issue they should be able to discuss it - that is what we are here.

Maybe a simple Court/Debate idea could work where the poster & the mod each make, say a maximum, of 3 posts & then an independent "Judge" makes a ruling. As this would be "in the open" over time it could be shown that the complainants were given a fair hearing.

BuffyBot

Guys - can we keep this general. This is veering towards a specific issue in Animal Welfare, and the thread isn't about that.

Thanks