Should moderators be Validated

davoxx

nesf wrote: »

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

i liked Penn's answer better ...

Discodog

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?

Occasionally someone is approached by a CMod, asked to be a Mod, they accept being put forward & then the Admins choose someone else :P

Probation could be a good idea but us mortals would never know as it would remain a secret

From the posts here & elsewhere on Boards it is obvious that the number one consideration is that they will obey orders !

Discodog

LoLth wrote: »

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

The language won't matter if a Mod decides that the topic can no longer be discussed. And my language on Boards is never anything other than correct.

Zaph

Discodog wrote: »

From the posts here & elsewhere on Boards it is obvious that the number one consideration is that they will obey orders !

Yep, that's exactly it. We spend our whole time in the mod forum issuing orders and expecting them to be carried out. In fact just now I instructed all mods to ban anyone with any reference to dodgy 70s music in their username. There'll be hell to pay if I find they've missed anyone.

The main consideration as to whether or not a person is suitable as a mod is that they "get" the site. In other words that they've been a good contributor to Boards in general and to the forum in question in particular, generally stay out of trouble (everyone has an occasional lapse of reason/judgement, so we do cut a little slack for the odd infraction or ban) and that they will be a positive asset to the community of that particular forum. The only instruction mods are given is to uphold the forum and site rules. Generally we feel that if someone is of sufficient calibre to be made a mod they don't need any more instructions than that.

Discodog

Zaph wrote: »

Yep, that's exactly it. We spend our whole time in the mod forum issuing orders and expecting them to be carried out. In fact just now I instructed all mods to ban anyone with any reference to dodgy 70s music in their username. There'll be hell to pay if I find they've missed anyone.

You're a bit late - apparently I am always being mentioned in the Mod forum

Zaph

Discodog wrote: »

You're a bit late - apparently I am always being mentioned in the Mod forum

Really? Who told you that? I wouldn't believe everything you're told you know.

Discodog

Zaph wrote: »

Really? Who told you that? I wouldn't believe everything you're told you know.

An Admin who said the following:

"The volume of interactions on the A&PI mods forum, where you have been a regular source of tension, pre-dating my involvement with the rec category."

Zaph

Discodog wrote: »

An Admin who said the following:

"The volume of interactions on the A&PI mods forum, where you have been a regular source of tension, pre-dating my involvement with the rec category."

Ah right, I rarely venture into their forum. Being described as a regular source of tension is not something to be proud of though.

Discodog

Zaph wrote: »

Ah right, I rarely venture into their forum. Being described as a regular source of tension is not something to be proud of though.

Very few members of the forum would consider me a regular source of tension & only certain Mods would - not all the API Mods.

When the correct & appropriate opportunity arises, such as a feedback thread, I politely express my opinion. I do so because I care about the forum & I hate to see the way that it has changed. Surely it is better to be up front & open rather than sniping in the background ?

In the same Dispute thread those comments were held against me. It does seem wrong to invite feedback & then use it against a poster. Surely Feedback should be about expressing your genuine opinion without fear that it will be held against you at a later date ?

Dades

Discodog wrote: »

From the posts here & elsewhere on Boards it is obvious that the number one consideration is that they will obey orders !

What posts here make that obvious? It's obvious to me that you're not really interested in hearing commentary that might go against your perception of how things operate.

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.

Dades wrote: »

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.

I'm a mod for maybe 6 years and I don't ever recall being given an order by an Admin that wasn't some site-wide thing like talking about MCD or something. Of course we have the Admins to go to for advice, but that ain't what you're suggesting.

nesf

Dades wrote: »

I'm a mod for maybe 6 years and I don't ever recall being given an order by an Admin that wasn't some site-wide thing like talking about MCD or something. Of course we have the Admins to go to for advice, but that ain't what you're suggesting.

That's because Godless folk like you don't deserve direction.

Dades

I guess we're only going in one direction.

Discodog

Dades wrote: »

What posts here make that obvious? It's obvious to me that you're not really interested in hearing commentary that might go against your perception of how things operate.

I'm a mod for maybe 6 years and I don't ever recall being given an order by an Admin that wasn't some site-wide thing like talking about MCD or something. Of course we have the Admins to go to for advice, but that ain't what you're suggesting.

Taltos wrote: »

(for what it's worth - being a mod means the rules apply alot more stringently -

[QUOTE=nesf;75745445
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.[/QUOTE]

Like any other poster I can only base my commentary on personal experience. Until very recently I had a reasonable record here, not perfect but not bad & none of my alleged indiscretions involved being unpleasant to people. Both of my recent infractions have resulted from a Mod interpreting my post in a different manner to the way that it was intended & they chose to infract rather than ask me for clarification as I believe most other Mods would of done. I went into the Dispute process not to cause trouble but because I had a genuine grievance & I thought that the process would be fair. My personal experience was that it was the opposite.

I have also seen a situation where the rules of a forum have significantly changed overnight, even though they might not be in the charter. Posters have been banned for "offences" that didn't exist in the recent past & with no prior warning of their introduction.

I reiterate that the vast majority of Mods are excellent but that doesn't negate the disappointment when some arn't - especially when it goes against one's record & paints a false picture of a poster.

nesf

You're making a logical mistake in reading my post, just because I said a mod needs to be able to take directions doesn't mean I'm saying mods get directed often or even at all.

Discodog

nesf wrote: »

You're making a logical mistake in reading my post, just because I said a mod needs to be able to take directions doesn't mean I'm saying mods get directed often or even at all.

OK I accept that. But I have seen situations where the charter has been significantly changed & Mods have implied that they were following instructions. An example would be the discussion of Rescues in the API forum. The reason that was given was the potential for legal action but this doesn't apply to other Boards forums so it does seem illogical. After all if an organisation was concerned about posting in forums they would not just pick on one forum.

nesf

Discodog wrote: »

OK I accept that. But I have seen situations where the charter has been significantly changed & Mods have implied that they were following instructions. An example would be the discussion of Rescues in the API forum. The reason that was given was the potential for legal action but this doesn't apply to other Boards forums so it does seem illogical. After all if an organisation was concerned about posting in forums they would not just pick on one forum.

I'm not familiar with that change. Could have been a forum specific legal threat though. Such things happen on here due to our screwed up legal system and a lack of internet law.

Dades

Methinks Discodog you're basing your worldview on Boards on your negative experiences in one particular forum.

As nesf suggests (as did I mentioning MCD), legal issues are often the root of direction coming from above. This is not direction in how to be a moderator but on what needs to happen to keep the site from being subject to a legal challenge.

I believe you the problems you have had stem from the need for Boards.ie to shut the doors legally, so to speak, in relation to certain topics.

Discodog

Dades wrote: »

Methinks Discodog you're basing your worldview on Boards on your negative experiences in one particular forum.

My worldwide view is that the majority of Mods do a good job & that Boards do not censor willingly which makes the introduction, in one forum alone, even stranger. Also in my considerable time Modding a similar forum, in the UK, I didn't encounter any legal problems & many of the threads were very heated & contentious. I think that posters & organisations are OK with any forum provided they are treated fairly.

I may not agree but I accept that some decisions are made on the basis that the Mods and or Boards simply do not want the perceived hassle. Personally I don't think that this is a legitimate reason to ban a whole swath of topics in the forum where they are most relevant. It would be very easy for anyone to interpret this as either Boards or the Mods showing bias to one point of view which is what the original OP was getting at.

nesf

Discodog wrote: »

Also in my considerable time Modding a similar forum, in the UK, I didn't encounter any legal problems & many of the threads were very heated & contentious.

And that obviously doesn't translate to an Irish forum given what's been going on with this site.

Dades

Discodog wrote: »

Also in my considerable time Modding a similar forum, in the UK, I didn't encounter any legal problems & many of the threads were very heated & contentious.

Unless that forum was of the size and of the same legal status as Boards, they could probably afford to be a bit less cautious.

When you're a business with investors, you don't want to be playing chicken with people who make legal threats.

Dades

Actually, maybe you're right...

http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2011/10/26/i-had-it-all-then-i-blew-itsacked-boards-ie-moderator-tells-all/

Discodog

nesf wrote: »

And that obviously doesn't translate to an Irish forum given what's been going on with this site.

Well I am only referring to animal rescues & organisations. They were allowed & encouraged to post on the site as they are a great source of information. So they had a constant right of reply & over time, realised that they were being treated fairly. In over 25 years of being around animal welfare organisations I am not aware of any resorting to legal action - they can't afford it ! But legal issues are only a small part of the changes to the forum here. I just used it as one example.

I am very conscious that the thread is about Moderators in general & not one forum so I do not want to take it off topic. I have only mentioned it to back up my opinion.

nesf

Discodog wrote: »

Well I am only referring to animal rescues & organisations. They were allowed & encouraged to post on the site as they are a great source of information. So they had a constant right of reply & over time, realised that they were being treated fairly. In over 25 years of being around animal welfare organisations I am not aware of any resorting to legal action - they can't afford it ! But legal issues are only a small part of the changes to the forum here. I just used it as one example.

I am very conscious that the thread is about Moderators in general & not one forum so I do not want to take it off topic. I have only mentioned it to back up my opinion.

I know for a fact that A&PI has generated legal threats and moderation has had to change because of this on occasion.