Should moderators be Validated

K-9

K-9 wrote: »

Yeah. That wasn't the issue I was on about. We know he was demodded, 12 bans and 13 yellows later.

Any update on this? Site bans are usually issued far quicker for posters, just wondering why it took that long for a mod to be demodded.

Poster is still posting away as well.

Discodog

I don't think that Moderators can be validated but there should be a relatively independent way of monitoring their performance. The problem is that when ordinary users, like me, see Moderator decisions that seem inexplicable, we never know if it was the decision of the Mod or the result of orders from on high.

Moderators can totally change forums. For example the Animal & Pet Issues forum changes very noticeably depending on who is moderating. I managed almost three years of regular posting without an infraction & yet now I have gained two in two months as the interpretation of the rules & the rules themselves vary from Mod to Mod. I wouldn't judge any poster by their disciplinary record as anyone can easily get infracted if a particular Mod has a grudge - at this rate I will be gone by Christmas :eek:

But the Mods can also totally change the topics that can be discussed. For example there are a lot of aspects of Animal Welfare than can no longer be discussed in the API forum - but strangely they can in other Boards forums. This can completely change the perspective of the forum & with emotive issues it is very easy for a Mod to steer the forum to suit their own personal views.

Maybe rather than validating there should be a system where ordinary posters can voice concerns regarding Moderation without getting the standard "Mods can do what they like answer". It is incredibly difficult to voice concerns when one sees that a favourite forum is going in the wrong direction. It is also very difficult to comment without being labelled a troublemaker even if you may have the best intentions for a forum at heart.

It shouldn't be so "them & us". Yes the Mods are volunteers but it is the posters who make the forums & we should have a voice.

nesf

Discodog wrote: »

It shouldn't be so "them & us". Yes the Mods are volunteers but it is the posters who make the forums & we should have a voice.

You do have a voice, you can start a Feedback thread and the CMods and Admins will look at it and if necessary remove mods who are a problem or give them directions from on high on changes that need to be made. Or you can PM the CMods of the Category and ask them have a look at the forum for you if you want things to be handled privately. We can investigate these things without anyone ever knowing who made the complaint. Failing all of that there are further steps that can be taken but in general I'd advise contacting the CMods first. Though if a CMod is a forum mod there you might need to get an Admin to look into things.

Discodog

But, from a normal poster's point of view, the CMods appointed the Mod so they are hardly going to be independent & the same applies to the Admins. For example it seems as if very few people take a dispute to resolution. I have twice but I wouldn't bother again. How about a "How did we handle your dispute poll ?"

Every time one posts here or in any feedback thread & is in any way critical, it goes against you. Part of the reason that the Admins supported & almost wanted to increase my ban was because of my forum comments regarding a Mod - the comments were made in a "How's our driving" feedback thread

In case someone is going to role out the volunteer & difficult being a mod bit, I moderated a UK animal forum that was as busy as the one here on my own for 5 years. I hardly ever issued a ban & even when I did I would always retract it & apologise if I later realised that I was wrong. I also left a permanent feedback thread at the top of the page & I ran a poll every 6 months as to whether I should continue as Mod.

To many of us, Boards is an "old boy network" that protects it's own. I understand that you have to support a Mod, especially as a volunteer, but it should never be at the expense of the forum.

How many Mods have been removed as a result of a poster starting a feedback thread ?

Oh & how about a totally independent Court of Appeal with a jury of ordinary posters ?

nesf

Discodog wrote: »

Oh & how about a totally independent Court of Appeal with a jury of ordinary posters ?

Eh, this isn't and never has been a democracy and it should stay this way, democracies are a terrible way to run websites.

I can understand that you might not view CMods and Admins as fully independent but then neither would any poster on this site. Not much we can do about that.

Dudess

When I joined (and everyone was a newbie at one stage) I thought there were cliques and sycophancy and preferential treatment etc. I learned that that was mostly in my head, and any actual instances of them, aren't a deliberate strategy, it's just how things naturally roll. There is some downright paranoid thinking too, e.g. in relation to the thanks system.
If anything, actual instances of cliquey carry-on, sycophancy, preferential treatment etc have significantly decreased as the site has expanded.

Discodog

nesf wrote: »

Eh, this isn't and never has been a democracy and it should stay this way, democracies are a terrible way to run websites.

I can understand that you might not view CMods and Admins as fully independent but then neither would any poster on this site. Not much we can do about that.

So we could of saved a hundred posts by just replying to the OP that the system is the system & it isn't going to change.

Maybe if people saw Mods, CMods & Admins as capable of admitting when they get it wrong it might at least convey an impression of fairness. Being a good Mod, CMod or Admin is about earning respect by being seen to be totally impartial & fair. Also I wonder if the dispute procedures & feedback make it worse because they give the impression of an organisation that is willing to listen, so it's more disappointing when they don't.

The sad thing is that the vast majority of Mods are excellent & they get dragged down by the few. But it seems as if there is a "protect your own" rule so maybe the good don't speak out.

nesf

Dudess wrote: »

If anything, actual instances of cliquey carry-on, sycophancy, preferential treatment etc have significantly decreased as the site has expanded.

Exactly, it was far more of a problem 5/6 years ago. These days it's really hard to find areas where it's a genuine problem, there are just too many people around for a clique to get its way except in the smallest of forums.

Dudess

Discodog wrote: »

nesf wrote: »

Eh, this isn't and never has been a democracy and it should stay this way, democracies are a terrible way to run websites.

I can understand that you might not view CMods and Admins as fully independent but then neither would any poster on this site. Not much we can do about that.

So we could of saved a hundred posts by just replying to the OP that the system is the system & it isn't going to change.

Maybe if people saw Mods, CMods & Admins as capable of admitting when they get it wrong it might at least convey an impression of fairness. Being a good Mod, CMod or Admin is about earning respect by being seen to be totally impartial & fair. Also I wonder if the dispute procedures & feedback make it worse because they give the impression of an organisation that is willing to listen, so it's more disappointing when they don't.

The sad thing is that the vast majority of Mods are excellent & they get dragged down by the few. But it seems as if there is a "protect your own" rule so maybe the good don't speak out.

It's as if you think this stuff you perceive is a calculated plan. It really isn't. Much is down to perception - the mods, admins etc are coming from a different perspective to you, and vice versa. A lot of the time, mods seem to agree with other mods constantly, because they understand each others' perspective. Doesn't mean they have a clique going on.
There is not an agenda for mods not to speak out against stuff - I often did it as a mod, and was not demodded!
If mods don't admit fault, it's because they don't think they are at fault - and from their perspective that's valid, even if it might not be from yours.
I have seen mods admit wrongdoing - no doubt about it. Mods get slaps on the wrist too for making ill advised decisions - it's mostly done privately though.

Morag

Discodog wrote: »

So we could of saved a hundred posts by just replying to the OP that the system is the system & it isn't going to change.

Maybe if people saw Mods, CMods & Admins as capable of admitting when they get it wrong it might at least convey an impression of fairness. Being a good Mod, CMod or Admin is about earning respect by being seen to be totally impartial & fair. Also I wonder if the dispute procedures & feedback make it worse because they give the impression of an organisation that is willing to listen, so it's more disappointing when they don't.

The sad thing is that the vast majority of Mods are excellent & they get dragged down by the few. But it seems as if there is a "protect your own" rule so maybe the good don't speak out.

The prison forum has admins admitting they have gotten it wrong and reversing site bans and there are also mod who get demodded for conduct unbecoming and the dispute forum also has mods admitting they got it wrong and cmods over ruling mods.

All of this happens, it doesn't happen that often cos it's not that often mods screw up but when it does there are repercussions.

As for the 'protecting your own' there are many who are quick to tar all the 500 mods with a big brush when they run a foul of one or two, there are users who go on vendettas against mods and who will point out that one bad call of one mod as reason to have a go at all mods.

Yes most of them are excellent and if it happens that here is someone who's completely out of step they get taken to task and if it's needed demodded and this is important but being seen to act just to keep a few users happy is never going to happen.

Dades

Discodog wrote: »

Maybe if people saw Mods, CMods & Admins as capable of admitting when they get it wrong it might at least convey an impression of fairness. Being a good Mod, CMod or Admin is about earning respect by being seen to be totally impartial & fair. Also I wonder if the dispute procedures & feedback make it worse because they give the impression of an organisation that is willing to listen, so it's more disappointing when they don't.

The sad thing is that the vast majority of Mods are excellent & they get dragged down by the few. But it seems as if there is a "protect your own" rule so maybe the good don't speak out.

Discodog, it's worth pointing out that, like our own judicial system, an lot of these cases are dealt with "out of court".

That is, a user gets warned or infracted and PM's the Mod. A chat ensues that clears up a misunderstanding and whatever punishment is lifted. None of this is going to be immediately obvious to anyone else, and the forum just rolls on as before.

It's only the disputes that have failed to be resolved to the satisfaction of the complainant via PM, that appear in the DR forum. By their nature they are going to be less likely to have a favourable outcome, as they have already been through one tier of review that would (or should have) flagged an obvious mistake.

nesf

Discodog wrote: »

So we could of saved a hundred posts by just replying to the OP that the system is the system & it isn't going to change.

Maybe if people saw Mods, CMods & Admins as capable of admitting when they get it wrong it might at least convey an impression of fairness. Being a good Mod, CMod or Admin is about earning respect by being seen to be totally impartial & fair. Also I wonder if the dispute procedures & feedback make it worse because they give the impression of an organisation that is willing to listen, so it's more disappointing when they don't.

The sad thing is that the vast majority of Mods are excellent & they get dragged down by the few. But it seems as if there is a "protect your own" rule so maybe the good don't speak out.

There isn't a protect your own rule, the site is far, far too big for that nowadays! I mean, in Soc there's about a hundred mods give or take. I know personally maybe 10 of them. The other 90 are strangers to me. I don't feel any need to automatically back up the mods in the category, either the mods are behaving or they're not. If they're not then I've zero problems with coming down on them hard and forcing them to change their ways, I'll just be polite and nice about it but make no mistake if a mod is ignore directions from the CMods or Admins, then they'll just be removed from their position.

It's just extremely rare for a mod to be removed because people who'd refuse to take directions like this are generally never picked to become mods.

Discodog

nesf wrote: »

There isn't a protect your own rule, the site is far, far too big for that nowadays! I mean, in Soc there's about a hundred mods give or take. I know personally maybe 10 of them. The other 90 are strangers to me. I don't feel any need to automatically back up the mods in the category, either the mods are behaving or they're not. If they're not then I've zero problems with coming down on them hard and forcing them to change their ways, I'll just be polite and nice about it but make no mistake if a mod is ignore directions from the CMods or Admins, then they'll just be removed from their position.

It's just extremely rare for a mod to be removed because people who'd refuse to take directions like this are generally never picked to become mods.

But this can make the perception worse. If a poster is infracted & they genuinely believe that they have done nothing wrong, they have no way of knowing whether it was the Mod acting on their own discretion or because they have receive orders from on high.

For example if a forum is perceived by the CMods & Admins to be causing grief the Mods may be told to crack down but the ordinary poster never knows this & blames the Mod. If there are to be major changes in a forum then it might be better if a CMod or Admin explained why those changes are being made & invite constructive opinion as to whether there might be other options.

I agree regarding the use of PM's & I have found the majority of Mods to be extremely helpful. But as with any "community" there are bound to be a few who may take a dislike to you. The key is whether they use their powers inappropriately. I have had some pretty intense disagreements with one Mod over the years but to his credit he has never used this against me during Moderation.

I also think that when you post all over Boards you get used to the way that the community works so that makes it much harder when one forum or Mod deviates from the norm. In choosing Mods their overall Boards contribution should be as important as their forum contribution.

nesf

Discodog wrote: »

But this can make the perception worse. If a poster is infracted & they genuinely believe that they have done nothing wrong, they have no way of knowing whether it was the Mod acting on their own discretion or because they have receive orders from on high.

For example if a forum is perceived by the CMods & Admins to be causing grief the Mods may be told to crack down but the ordinary poster never knows this & blames the Mod. If there are to be major changes in a forum then it might be better if a CMod or Admin explained why those changes are being made & invite constructive opinion as to whether there might be other options.

Generally, if I asked for a crackdown I'd post in the forum myself explaining that the mods were taking directions from on high. I wouldn't hang the mods out to dry in such an instance. This is fairly normal, Dav has done it a number of times when a major policy change had to happen in a forum.

Discodog wrote: »

I also think that when you post all over Boards you get used to the way that the community works so that makes it much harder when one forum or Mod deviates from the norm. In choosing Mods their overall Boards contribution should be as important as their forum contribution.

It's not just one community though but 400 separate communities. I regularly post in about 5% of the forums on this site because I'm only interested in around 20 forums. Each of them is very different, has its own ethos and unwritten rules and so on. I think it's far more important for a mod to be accepted by the community they'll moderate than the other communities on the site.

But it doesn't really matter, mod selection comes down to the Admins really anyway, not the CMods.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Dades

nesf wrote: »

Generally, if I asked for a crackdown I'd post in the forum myself explaining that the mods were taking directions from on high. I wouldn't hang the mods out to dry in such an instance. This is fairly normal, Dav has done it a number of times when a major policy change had to happen in a forum.

I'd like to add that in my experience it's extremely rare that an Admin or CMod steps in regarding how a forum is run - and when they do - it's on foot of complaints from the users of that forum. So the idea that this is a scenario that negatively affects users is a red herring, afaic.

Discodog wrote: »

I also think that when you post all over Boards you get used to the way that the community works so that makes it much harder when one forum or Mod deviates from the norm. In choosing Mods their overall Boards contribution should be as important as their forum contribution.

This is one thing that should be clear to users. As nesf suggests, there are only a few basic Boards commandments, and after that how each forum is run is down to the history and subject matter (and the mods) of that forum. Stuff that you can get away with in one forum, e.g. After hours, will simply not be tolerated in, say, Islam. This is no different to clubs and organisations in Real Life™, and is the only possible way to run forums that reflect the users who post there.

The only issue here is that it puts the onus on the poster to be aware of the Charter and ethos of the forum, and not to assume that what's kosher in another forum won't earn you a warning somewhere else.

Discodog

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

But we have already agreed that this very rarely happens so, in reality, there is little chance of a CMod or Admin disagreeing or a Mod being over ruled.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Again the facts are that only a tiny percentage of infractions ever end up in DR so the Mods are pretty free to act as they see fit. I don't think that most Mods have any problem with muppetry. In most of the forums that I use a quiet request on the forum is usually enough.

When you have alleged "offences" like soapboxing & where no proof is required, a Mod can simply ban a poster & there is virtually no chance of that decision being overturned. And it follows that once you have banned someone for soapboxing you then have the "evidence" for further bans.

Wonders if a Mod is counting any posts here where I am repeating myself :eek:

Discodog

Dades wrote: »

I'd like to add that in my experience it's extremely rare that an Admin or CMod steps in regarding how a forum is run - and when they do - it's on foot of complaints from the users of that forum. So the idea that this is a scenario that negatively affects users is a red herring, afaic.

So you are saying that virtually all of the direction concerning subject matter that can be discussed & discipline policy etc is up to the Mod ? So if forum members are unhappy about the direction of the forum it's the Mods fault - or is that a passing down of the buck by the CMods

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Discodog

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Blimey I must be unique I was banned once, infracted on a second occasion & I only posted once in each case. In both incidents the CMod upheld the decision & one was also upheld by an Admin. Oh & I got a final warning as well !

davoxx

Discodog wrote: »

Blimey I must be unique I was banned once, infracted on a second occasion & I only posted once in each case. In both incidents the CMod upheld the decision & one was also upheld by an Admin. Oh & I got a final warning as well !

must have been a valid point so

Dades

Discodog wrote: »

So you are saying that virtually all of the direction concerning subject matter that can be discussed & discipline policy etc is up to the Mod ? So if forum members are unhappy about the direction of the forum it's the Mods fault - or is that a passing down of the buck by the CMods

The way the forum operates is certainly influenced by the mods of the forum (as well as the previous mods that help make a forum what it is). That's why they are chosen as mods in the first place - because they have a good track record as a poster in that forum, maintaining whatever style of community that has worked. But the forum is also only as good as the users who post there.

So if forum members are unhappy with the way a forum is going, it is either down to the mods being to tight or too lax, or a drop in the value of contributions to that forum. In the case of the former, that's what Feedback is there for, in the case of the latter, there's not much one can do except encourage more useful posting.

CMods don't trawl through every forum in their category ensuring forums are sticking to some arbitrary level of operation (Soc must have close to 90 - and 3 CMods!) which is why we rely on the mods to do a job, and posters to use defined channels to bring things to our and the Admins' attention.

Discodog

davoxx wrote: »

must have been a valid point so

The one nice thing about a ban are the messages of support - some of which come from the most unexpected sources

Maybe it's better to be banned for something that you passionately believe in rather than just acquiescing.

nesf

Discodog wrote: »

The one nice thing about a ban are the messages of support - some of which come from the most unexpected sources
.

If I had a penny for every time I wrote "Yes, I agree he's an idiot but abuse isn't allowed" I'd be making a good living off this site.

LoLth

Discodog wrote: »

Maybe it's better to be banned for something that you passionately believe in rather than just acquiescing.

or maybe change the way you convey that belief and avoid a ban altogether ?



anyway, this thread has gone a good bit astray from the original topic. Time to let it float away if there is nothing new to add to the intended discussion.

thanks

LoLth

davoxx

nesf wrote: »

If I had a penny for every time I wrote "Yes, I agree he's an idiot but abuse isn't allowed" I'd be making a good living off this site.

still the ban commission rates are good

so how does one become a mod?
is it based on posts?
quality of posts?
length of service?
amount of bribes?
flattery? and might i add that LoLth is looking extremely well today!

also is there probation for a mod?

nesf

davoxx wrote: »

still the ban commission rates are good

so how does one become a mod?
is it based on posts?
quality of posts?
length of service?
amount of bribes?
flattery? and might i add that LoLth is looking extremely well today!

also is there probation for a mod?

A user gets suggested by either the ex-mod/mods of the forum or the CMods and then it goes to the Admins who make the call.

davoxx

nesf wrote: »

A user gets suggested by either the ex-mod/mods of the forum or the CMods and then it goes to the Admins who make the call.

and once they are 'accepted' to you then tell the user?

Penn

davoxx wrote: »

and once they are 'accepted' to you then tell the user?

They don't tell the user at all. Just make them a mod and laugh as their email account explodes from all the reported posts and private messages.

It's terrible at first, but great craic watching it happen to other people

nesf

davoxx wrote: »

and once they are 'accepted' to you then tell the user?

We ask the user if they want to do it at that point.