Procedure of De-Modding

IITYWYBMAD

The Muppit wrote: »

My suspicion is that there is a bit of a witch hunt afoot and ordinary users are being asked to join somthing without having full disclosure of what it is they are signing up to. Terms like "Grudge" and "Pressure Group" only add to my suspicions.

So having had access to this group, are you willing to clarifying your position, in relation to your previously held suspicion. I ask you this, not to clog up this thread, merely to close off this element of the thread.

Now that I have enough. posts to access the group I will join and find out for myself.

Good stuff.

Fair enough If I'm off topic here I will raise my questions elswhere.

Good stuff, and lets make this a public thread, so that those who have no idea about the Social Group, can openly view the questions and answers.

I am entirely correct on my last point, a quick search will prove what i said is correct. I'm here sin 2003 so have had seen plenty of the boards is not a democracy posts.

I disagree.

Onle last point which may beoff topic but is imo relevant , I'm not really up to date at whats happening behind the scenes. I am aware of what happened in soccer and think that situation was badly handled by both sides. The Mod in question is valued contributor there but did overstep the mark on occasion and made some poor decisions as many of us do (changing a certain thread title for example) . I hope he continues to contribute to the forum in some capacity whatever way this pans out in the end

I don't think anybody disagrees with your sentiments above, and again there is no agenda in this respect. However, the manner in which the incident you refer to above was handled by the mod and Admin(s), is very much "on-topic", and should be open to debate.

Hagar

The Muppit wrote: »

I made that post before I had access to the group so didin't really know what sort of issues there are, I was not trying to fan any flames. My suspicion was correct.

You established that your suspicion was correct in that short space of time? There are over 1000 posts in there, many of them quite detailed. You could not have read much in the time between your admittance to the group and your post above.

I call shenanigans.

Nevyn

Can these posts be split off from the thread please as they are derailing it from the topic please.

The Muppet

Hagar wrote: »

You established that your suspicion was correct in that short space of time? There are over 1000 posts in there, many of them quite detailed. You could not have read much in the time between your admittance to the group and your post above.

I call shenanigans.

There are 97 replies in the objections thread ,most of em pretty short. anyone would easily read them in half an hour. There are 300 in the what's this all about thread, I didn't read all them, I read the last 4 pages of those with confirmed my susupicions. It's not Ulysses. I'm used to reading soccer which tends to have a lot of posts over a short period of time.

If you'd rather try discredit my opinion rather that debate the issue thats fine by me but again I find it a little ironic considering the campaign you are involved in.


I'll leave it at that for this thread as I realise we are going further off topic and its annoying some of you. I will continue to post in the group if thats ok.

Hagar

If that's all you read then you have read only a fraction of the pertinent content.

Wibbs

Well if it was the sniff of a witch hunt he was looking for, a couple of posts on those last 4 pages would have made him feel that. Out of the now over a 1000 posts, around 3 would be that sniff. If he was looking for that. If you look for red cars all you will see is read cars, even if the majority are silver.

BuffyBot

OK - first of all, a genuine thank you to all that have contributed to this thread. It's been really useful and I think that some positive good can come out of this.

I'll collated pretty much all of the main points for discussion by the Admin team. From that, we hope to formulate some good ideas about how to handle issues with Moderators, and them present them to the Mods themselves to choose which they feel works best for them as a team. Hopefully that will stop many of the issues we faced recently from reoccurring.

If there is something you feel has been left out of the attached list, let me know via PM and I'll include them in the discussion. However, I won't be around much next week, so do bear with me if you PM and don't get an immediate reply I've tried to include everything, but feel free to correct me. My own comments are included in red, but should not be read as an Admin opinion or policy or anything else: they're solely my own personal thoughts I jotted down as I went through this thread.

Despite the disagreements, I think we've done good folks

BuffyBot

Now for a more non attached version for those with limited access to word processing software: sorry it's taken a bit long, but vBulletin is a bitch to format things in

* Consulting with co-mods [Desirable, but is it always possible to do that. Would all mods be comfortable having their issues discussed with their peers?]
* Consulting with users for the forum. A “kudos system” where Mods standing within the community is taken into account when deciding on action to be taken [Again, desirable: but is it workable? How do we “gauge” popularity – how much “credit” does it give someone?]
* Engage – don’t demod instantly (24 hour grace period) [Need to firm this up/clarify with Mods – perception is that it was not applied, our understanding that it’s applied when a moderator wishes (not removed) to step down is not clearly communicated]
* Cooling off period [Similar to the above: can a cooling off period be devised and implemented in a way that doesn’t require much more time or technical effort to implement]
* More time for mod to defend their actions
* Cat mods [ Are already involved: do we need to examine how much we involve them in the ultimate desicion?]
* Expectation that mods are treated fairly and honestly [Majority of cases, they are. However even in a minority of cases, it overshadows the majority]
* Accountability – no one explains to the users. More openness (a thread opened on the affected forums?) [This could be easily done: would require Admin thread-watching to answer any questions. Would it be seen as “coming down from on high” however by some?]
* Appeals/Escalation – route to the other Admins to do so.
* The right to an advocate during escalation? [Could be useful, but what is the definded role of an advocate? How are they to be engaged, and what weight can be given to their opinon (issues of neutrality etc.)]
* What happens when the mod isn’t happy with the outcome of the appeal?
* Short term demoddings as part of the procedure?
** Suggested structure: escalation process: warning, short term demodding, longer term demodding, permanent.
**Suspensions would create “half-mods” in users eyes, undermining their authority and ability to Mod [Big issue with this. As a Mod I would dislike it. Users certainly would use this as a “stick” to beat the Mod with. Undermines the “authority” of the Mod. Many more would be upset by a suspension than by a warning PM etc]
* Tone/language used in communication could be worked on. [Canned response style would be bad, but more standardised communication might be better?]
* Suggested structure: Suspension, Investigation, Discussion, Decision, Appeal, Action
* Perception of “Excellent mods” forced out over trivial issues [Always going to be an issue, no matter how well we communicate: doesn’t mean we can’t communicate it better]
* Clearer standards for mods to adhere to, giving Admins a yardstick to measure with? [Part of a ongoing bigger debate: how much can we “standardise” moderating without making it feel like a chore. Putting too many standards on Mods will also lose us good mods simply because they have to choose between different “aspects”. Does it become to “job” like?]
* Should Admin/CMod selections be based on forum size/traffic to be representative? [Does proportion come into it? We need to consider that – however, it could be perception. WWM was a former AH mod (for example). There is no “division” or exclusion in how Admins are selected, more on post background/history and general activity. Would it be any fairer/better to just select people for the sake of forum size? Worth taking about]
* Maybe the whole process needs to be taken away from the mods/Cmods/Admins altogether and be brought in-house?