Moderator Performance (was Mods not Gods)

Hellrazer

Discodog wrote: »

Hellrazer you have stated my case more eloquently that I could.

Well maybe now we`ll sort this out in the open.

How many times have I been infracted or banned ?

None--Mainly because we`ve given you so many chances but your name keeps popping up in the mods dedicated forum.Also I could have issued an infraction or ban last night but I didnt.

If I see that something is wrong I follow the system & politely raise it.

Youre wrong there.Each time we either remove a post/thread,warn you on thread you start your "the animal and pet mods are useless" so dont give me that about "politely" raising an issue with us.

You will not allow any criticism of you, the moderation, & the content of the Board.

Hang on one minute here--I couldnt care what you think of me or the way I mod the forum and Im open to plenty of criticism--as a matter of fact I was the one who started numerous threads asking what the users wanted from the forum and also a thread on how to improve things.Ive pm`d you regarding issues and thought that all this crap was behind us but once again as soon as you get a warning you start again.

You are making sound as if I dominate your inbox.

I never said that--what I said is that anytime you disagree with a mods decision you start to moan.

I have raised 5 queries in 15 months.

Id have to check that out but Id say its more than that if you include pm`s.

Boards rightly emphasise the rule that you discuss the post & not the poster.

This rule clearly does not apply to Mods.

Your wrong there.The rules are that you dont backseat moderate--a particular habit of yours that gets on my wick.

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.

Oh Im assuming that this is to do with convert.The fact that Convert mods the greyhound racing forum ahd nothing to do with the discussion last night.Boards ru;es for moderators are that a "mod is only a mod in the forum that they mod and is treated like an ordinary poster in forums that they dont moderate"
If convert had used the greyhound racing thing to push her side of things I can guarantee you that it would have been dealt with.Likewise when the whole hunting thing kicked off the hunting mods and ourselves dealt with it.

I suggest that we return to the topic under discussion.

Until next time yeah??

I will leave others to judge if the reaction of some Mods is over the top.

I`d prefer it if the cmod got involved with this and sorted it out once and for all because if not we`re going to be here the next time you dont agree with us mods.

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.

Ill let the higher powers answer that one for you.But personally Ive been banned from fora even though Im a mod.Its no cosy club I tell you.

oscarBravo

BuffyBot wrote: »

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

*ahem*

Hellrazer

BuffyBot wrote: »

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

Thanks

Apologies for taking the thread off topic.

Could the mods of feedback split this into a separate thread for me.I`d really like this issue dealt with.

Hellrazer

oscarBravo wrote: »

*ahem*

Was typing at the same time as buffybot sorry.

oscarBravo

Hellrazer wrote: »

Apologies for taking the thread off topic.

Could the mods of feedback split this into a separate thread for me.I`d really like this issue dealt with.

I appreciate that, but it's not how we want to see the issue dealt with. If a user has a problem with the way a forum is moderated, and is unhappy with the answers from the moderator, the next port of call is the category moderators; in this case Almighty Cushion, trout and kbannon. If necessary, they can escalate it to the admins. The days of arguing over specific moderation issues via Feedback are behind us.

nesf

oscarBravo wrote: »

The days of arguing over specific moderation issues via Feedback are behind us.

Even if Rozie comes back?

Nevyn

nesf wrote: »

Even if Rozie comes back?

Sorry nesf if she does and she gets banned by me your inbox might assplode.

Kirnsy

Hill Billy wrote: »

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

Fair point. Its not only mods (of other forums ) that do it. Its just frustrating sometimes when a valid point is made like in this thread and people treat it as a chance to post something witty disregarding the OP entirely. That said normally the threads are either closed or like in this case, begin to unearth some important points from both admins and posters but its just juvenile sometimes and goes against the whole point of 'keep the threads on topic' and the uncluttering of feedback that happened with the new complaint system.

Larianne

Hill Billy wrote: »

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

Yes, they are only posters in this forum, and should then be treated that way. i.e. if derailing a thread with witty comments/silly pics/whatever, they should be called up on it, given a warning etc.

I know if I had a genuine comment to make about the site (relevant to me, maybe not to others) then I'd be quite pissed off with a number of mods/posters posting in the thread with nothing to offer such posts like at the start of this thread. It's very belittling to the poster.

If proper imput can't be given, then don't post. This is a rule across most of the forums in here. I don't know why it isn't here.

Discodog

In the interests of fairness & balance should the system not allow a Mod to complain if they feel that they have been unfairly treated as well as allowing a user to ?. If a Mod felt that they were being singled out they could ask for the user to be summoned to the Forum, Court, or whatever it could be called.

Maybe we should have The Boxing Ring with six three minute rounds of debate & a referee. I can think of a few Mods who are totally respected & could be trusted to be impartial. Maybe input could be restricted to the complainant, the other party & a referee.

But perhaps it is a question of confidence/self esteem in that Boards need to be seen to support the Mods who give up so much of their time. The good Mods have the admirable capacity to say if they were wrong & they perceive this as a strength not a weakness.

It must be very difficult for Boards to censure a Mod. If a Mod is effecting the smooth running of a forum or acting inappropriately then their removal from the forum would be a public display of censure & could effect their future as a Mod.

It is perfectly understandable that with 800 Mods that there will be a natural variation in personalities. A good knowledge of the topic may be a requirement to be a Mod but also maybe their personality needs to be matched to the type of Board that they moderate. Personal Issues shows the perfect blend of the right Mods in the right forum. This might help reduce the huge variation from forum to forum.

There can be few topics as contentious as the Foley case. The discussion in the Kerry Board has been as heated as any that I have ever seen & a potential legal minefield. The Mod allowed the topic to run with very little intervention. When it got too personal he closed the thread for a cooling down period & then reopened it. When a warning was needed it was given in a friendly & polite way. To date the thread is still running well.

It would be a tragedy if Boards were to change to a format where no criticism or comment was allowed. I have not been here that long (it feels like longer) but I can see that constructive comment has been the essence of Boards growth & evolution.

Spiritoftheseventies

Sorry just to ask. But is it okay for a poster to publicy question a mods performance or comment on a mods performance on a thread. Saw an example of it fairly recently and was amazed it happened. Thread closed fairly quickly but not sure if anything was done about it.

Podman

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Sorry just to ask. But is it okay for a poster to publicy question a mods performance or comment on a mods performance on a thread. Saw an example of it fairly recently and was amazed it happened. Thread closed fairly quickly but not sure if anything was done about it.

Without knowing what it's about, I would guess to try sort it out between the mod and Cmod first, just in case it was a misunderstanding..
Otherwise, I would say "post away" if you think there is something worthy of discussion.

Spiritoftheseventies

chompy wrote: »

Without knowing what it's about, I would guess to try sort it out between the mod and Cmod first, just in case it was a misunderstanding..
Otherwise, I would say "post away" if you think there is something worthy of discussion.

All i will say that it has left a bad taste in the mouth. Just wondered was it proper procedure for poster to take such a strong line against a mod in the open.

Spiritoftheseventies

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

All i will say that it has left a bad taste in the mouth. Just wondered was it proper procedure for poster to take such a strong line against a mod in the open.

No, it's not. Questioning a moderator's decision on thread is explicitly against most forum charters. The incident you're referring to may have been dealt with by PM, or perhaps the mod felt nothing needed to be done, 'tis hard to know without knowing what post it was, and it's probably not right to post that here, anyway.

Spiritoftheseventies

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

No, it's not. Questioning a moderator's decision on thread is explicitly against most forum charters. The incident you're referring to may have been dealt with by PM, or perhaps the mod felt nothing needed to be done, 'tis hard to know without knowing what post it was, and it's probably not right to post that here, anyway.

dont intend to post anything incriminating although it is out in the open at this stage on another thread. Poster basically commented on moderators performance. Came a bit out of the blue really.

Zaph

If you have doubts about a post we'd really appreciate it if you would report it and someone can take a look at it sooner rather than later.

Tragedy

The first two pages of this thread is a good example of why many users might feel like Mods are Gods, however true it may or may not be.

Spiritoftheseventies

Zaph wrote: »

If you have doubts about a post we'd really appreciate it if you would report it and someone can take a look at it sooner rather than later.

Really there is not much I can do about that post as from what i understand it was formed part of a dispute between Mod and Admin. So cannot say too much re that. But really I just feel overall that there is a lot of stuff going on there that really shouldnt be for that particular forum. Just my opinion.

Zaph

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Really there is not much I can do about that post as from what i understand it was formed part of a dispute between Mod and Admin. So cannot say too much re that. But really I just feel overall that there is a lot of stuff going on there that really shouldnt be for that particular forum. Just my opinion.

Well if you'd prefer to PM the details to myself or any other admin, please feel free to do so.

Podman

I posted this in a Thread on De-Modding (http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055806398 post #110) and decided to post it here also, as there are relevant points/ideas.

What about some kind of kudos system for Mod Decisions, whereby public support is registered and taken into consideration if a Ban is on the table?

Maybe in the form of a thumbs up/thumbs down support for or against the decision, as sometimes no one seems to be offended by the banee's post except the Mod, and likewise, often the banee is very disruptive.

It could be implemented like this...
-When a ban is made, the Mod flags the offending post with a "banned" symbol.
-Users who feel strongly enough can click on this symbol and comment and/or vote on the ban publicly in a special "limbo" sub-forum.
-If more than say, 3 or 4 people object or support the ban, then the thumb/kudos system becomes relevant to the Cmod. The Cmod should consider the public's feeling on the matter before finalizing their decision. The "minimum votes" suggestion would try to account for the normal (involved parties) objections which would go through the normal channels anyway. It might even make Cliques more visible.
-If less than the minimum amount of people object, especially without comment, then the votes would count for less to the Cmod, and can be considered as such.


The reasons for Mod decisions should be outlined briefly in the thread anyway, so as not to spark off a bunch of complaints, but rather focus the decision squarely on the original problem inside the thread. If a decent reason can't be written, then the ban should not happen as it would be invalid.

tbh

chompy wrote: »

I posted this in a Thread on De-Modding (http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055806398 post #110) and decided to post it here also, as there are relevant points/ideas.

What about some kind of kudos system for Mod Decisions, whereby public support is registered and taken into consideration if a Ban is on the table?

sometimes a mod or cmod or admin needs to take a decision which is universally hated, but correct none-the-less.

Podman

tbh wrote: »

sometimes a mod or cmod or admin needs to take a decision which is universally hated, but correct none-the-less.

I don't understand how a decision that is universally hated is correct. How does that work?

tbh

chompy wrote: »

I don't understand how a decision that is universally hated is correct. How does that work?

popular poster, posting inappropriate pictures in threads that are getting thanked by everyone.

ban or not?

Conor

chompy wrote: »

I don't understand how a decision that is universally hated is correct. How does that work?

As an example, imagine the following scenario in the Hunting forum:

B wrote:

A wrote:

I believe that shooting deer is OK, but hunting with hounds is inhumane.

**** you hippy.

Banning/Infracting user B is unpopular, despite being the correct course of action.

Podman

tbh wrote: »

popular poster, posting inappropriate pictures in threads that are getting thanked by everyone.

ban or not?

That situation would obviously need attention..
-If the pictures are inappropriate then post an "I am offended, please remove them", message. (because people need the opportunity to self regulate, and learn/change their behavior)
-If ignored, then delete the posts, indicating that you did so.
-If more of the same happens, then post a notice explaining the repeated offending pictures, and Ban the poster.

If so many people (everyone) give thanks, that raises more questions though..
-Are the users who gave thanks able to see that the pictures are inappropriate?
-If so, then why did they give thanks? Are they Malicious, Disruptive?
-If not, are these users capable of making appropriate posts themselves?

The person/Mod who decided that the pictures were inappropriate should also confer with at least two others, who should not be coached/influenced while viewing them, and the pictures discussed. The reason for this is to decide whether it is the Mod who is responding to pictures that are in breach of guidelines, or a User/mod who is personally offended. Either way, giving notice to the poster is the right way to go first.

It should also be remembered, and this was touched on before, that Mods (etc) should know when they can mod or not. For example after little sleep or no food, running late or full of stimulants.

So, regarding everyone who gave thanks for the inappropriate posts, would a Mod also move to warn/ban all of those aswel, for encouraging it?
Even if other Mods had thanked the inappropriate posts too?

tbh

chompy wrote: »

If so many people (everyone) give thanks, that raises more questions though..
-Are the users who gave thanks able to see that the pictures are inappropriate?
-If so, then why did they give thanks? Are they Malicious, Disruptive?
-If not, are these users capable of making appropriate posts themselves?

The person/Mod who decided that the pictures were inappropriate should also confer with at least two others, who should not be coached/influenced while viewing them, and the pictures discussed. The reason for this is to decide whether it is the Mod who is responding to pictures that are in breach of guidelines, or a User/mod who is personally offended. Either way, giving notice to the poster is the right way to go first.

It should also be remembered, and this was touched on before, that Mods (etc) should know when they can mod or not. For example after little sleep or no food, running late or full of stimulants.

So, regarding everyone who gave thanks for the inappropriate posts, would a Mod also move to warn/ban all of those aswel, for encouraging it?
Even if other Mods had thanked the inappropriate posts too?

exactly. Minefield, right? Now imagine you had all the OPs mates voting against the mods actions, simply because they don't like seeing their mate in trouble. Nightmare, right?

The mods have to be left to run the forum as they see fit. If they are a problem, that can and obviously will be dealt with. But holding every single moderator decision up to public scrutiny in the way you suggest would be unworkable imo.

Podman

Conor wrote: »

As an example, imagine the following scenario in the Hunting forum:

Originally Posted by A
I believe that shooting deer is OK, but hunting with hounds is inhumane.

Originally Posted by B
**** you hippy.

Banning/Infracting user B is unpopular, despite being the correct course of action.

I see what you mean, even though it sounds like "south park" style banter to me.

I have to guess that B has a history of confrontation, but without any context, it's hard to tell.
I'm also guessing that this is one of a number of Forums that need a lot of minding, like lots of stones on a skating track.

Podman

tbh wrote: »

exactly. Minefield, right? Now imagine you had all the OPs mates voting against the mods actions, simply because they don't like seeing their mate in trouble. Nightmare, right?

I hear you tbh. I was in the same boat before, and at the time I was wrong.

I have in the past also posted an image on Boards that was borderline, after another user told me that "some would be offended by it", I removed it without question. If I had been banned for it, I would have been less inclined to return to Boards to contribute positively online and in the Drama group.

tbh wrote: »

The mods have to be left to run the forum as they see fit. If they are a problem, that can and obviously will be dealt with. But holding every single moderator decision up to public scrutiny in the way you suggest would be unworkable imo.

I didn't suggest "every single decision".

What do you (or anyone) think of this...

chompy wrote: »

-Are the users who gave thanks able to see that the pictures are inappropriate?
-If so, then why did they give thanks? Are they Malicious, Disruptive?
-If not, are these users capable of making appropriate posts themselves?
....
Would a Mod also move to warn/ban all of those (thankers) aswel, for encouraging it?
Even if other Mods had thanked the inappropriate posts too?

tbh

chompy wrote: »

I hear you tbh. I was in the same boat before, and at the time I was wrong.

I have in the past also posted an image on Boards that was borderline, after another user told me that "some would be offended by it", I removed it without question. If I had been banned for it, I would have been less inclined to return to Boards to contribute positively online and in the Drama group.

chompy, just to clarify, I didn't know about that - I wasn't referencing it on the sly or anything.

I didn't suggest "every single decision".

in practice tho, that'd be the case. Otherwise, you'd have people complaining that the mod wouldn't allow a vote on an issue that concerned them. If we WERE to implement user voting on mods actions, it'd have to be for everything - it's the only fair way.

Spiritoftheseventies

tbh wrote: »

chompy, just to clarify, I didn't know about that - I wasn't referencing it on the sly or anything.



in practice tho, that'd be the case. Otherwise, you'd have people complaining that the mod wouldn't allow a vote on an issue that concerned them. If we WERE to implement user voting on mods actions, it'd have to be for everything - it's the only fair way.

no voting by posters would never work. There would be a total lack of partiality there.