Mod Selection

nesf

looksee wrote: »

No, I felt like a normal poster, just that there was a kind of sense of obligation to - something. Yeah, that doesn't really make sense. Ok, I'll stop now.

There's an expectation that you will keep the peace that's heavier on you than it is on users. That's what I always feel anyway.

K-9

nesf wrote: »

I think she means you didn't feel like a normal poster when you were a mod. I could be wrong though.

Think so. You can get it in reverse as well, I often see posters use it as a oneupmanship, you're a mod, you shouldn't post like that, even though it's on boards they don't mod.

Cabaal

K-9 wrote: »

Think so. You can get it in reverse as well, I often see posters use it as a oneupmanship, you're a mod, you shouldn't post like that, even though it's on boards they don't mod.

I've had this happen a few times,

It seems to really piss off some posters when they are pulled up on the fact that me being a mod in a forum I don't mod is meaningless and as such I'm a user same as them.

Penn

Cabaal wrote: »

I've had this happen a few times,

It seems to really piss off some posters when they are pulled up on the fact that me being a mod in a forum I don't mod is meaningless and as such I'm a user same as them.

I think the suggestion was made before that it'd be best if something was implemented so mods names weren't bolded outside of the forums they mod so they look like normal users, but I think Danny just said he'd save us all some time and just kill a bag of hamsters instead.

Cabaal

Penn wrote: »

I think the suggestion was made before that it'd be best if something was implemented so mods names weren't bolded outside of the forums they mod so they look like normal users, but I think Danny just said he'd save us all some time and just kill a bag of hamsters instead.

Seems a "good" suggestion at first but bold or not if it mentions mod at all changing it wouldn't make a lick of difference as some people would still bring the subject up.

So killing a bag of hamsters would do just as much good alright

Pawwed Rig

Cabaal wrote: »

being a mod in a forum I don't mod is meaningless and as such I'm a user same as them.

At the same time you can understand why this happens. I have seen mods behave disgracefully in some forums which they don't mod whereas I would have expected more from them as they obviously went through some sort of vetting process to make sure they are 'Fine upstanding members of the community'.
It is always a surprise to me seeing a mod getting infracted/banned.

I remember arguing with a mod in AH after he said some racist remark. His defence was pretty much that as he wasn't an AH mod he could post what he liked. Regardless of whether he modded that forum or not when you see the name in bold it carries more weight.

nesf

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

At the same time you can understand why this happens. I have seen mods behave disgracefully in some forums which they don't mod whereas I would have expected more from them as they obviously went through some sort of vetting process to make sure they are 'Fine upstanding members of the community'.
It is always a surprise to me seeing a mod getting infracted/banned.

I remember arguing with a mod in AH after he said some racist remark. His defence was pretty much that as he wasn't an AH mod he could post what he liked. Regardless of whether he modded that forum or not when you see the name in bold it carries more weight.

People have been demodded for such behaviour.

Nody

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I remember arguing with a mod in AH after he said some racist remark. His defence was pretty much that as he wasn't an AH mod he could post what he liked. Regardless of whether he modded that forum or not when you see the name in bold it carries more weight.

Which honestly is a bit of a pity and I know (as several other Mods noted above) also reduced posting / decided not to post because that's how people percieve it.

Before I was a mod I might post something snappy or potential borderline (I got two yellows before becoming a Mod so I'd say I've managed to stay on the right side of the border in general and both were picked up before I had picked up the "feel" of the forum in question) but as a mod I'm forced to think over what I post (and I've even gone back to edit down responses after posting) because people will go "Oh but you're a mod so your standard has to be higher then everyone's else around here".

It's not because I'm afraid of getting another card (if I get one I'm sure I've deserved it as the previous once) but because I'll cause headace for the local mod (trolls will use it as an example of bias in a future DRP, discussions on if would have been red if it was someone else etc.) and I'm treading on egg shells. That also means I need to stiffle my own communication accordingly and often chose not to participate in a thread which I might have added value to be on the safe side.

Pawwed Rig

nesf wrote: »

People have been demodded for such behaviour.

Yes I know and I can think of one or two names off the top of my head that were. I am not saying they are given a free ride but was making the point that when the name is in bold I can see why a higher standard would be expected by posters.

Nody wrote: »

Which honestly is a bit of a pity and I know (as several other Mods noted above) also reduced posting / decided not to post because that's how people percieve it.

Isn't there an option to unbold your name? Or is that only for subscribers?

nesf

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Yes I know and I can think of one or two names off the top of my head that were. I am not saying they are given a free ride but was making the point that when the name is in bold I can see why a higher standard would be expected by posters.

I understand it, and any system that has moderating powers attached to user accounts rather than people who have mod powers having access to an anonymous account for modding has this problem (I don't think the other system is much better).

The more responsibility you take on the greater the restrictions on you. In the entirety of Soc I'm nominally a mod of the forum, de facto no but I have the powers. I can't get into heated arguments in any of the forums there without it potentially being a problem and Soc is the kind of category which has a lot of forums where heated arguments are common because the issues are just like that and some people take heated arguments really personally etc.

It leads me to post less than I would if I wasn't a CMod. It cuts both ways.

looksee

I have had two yellow cards since becoming a mod. One was deserved, the other was a genuine accident, they both stood. I did feel much more conscious of them as a mod though than if I were an ordinary user.

Wibbs

nesf wrote: »

The more responsibility you take on the greater the restrictions on you. In the entirety of Soc I'm nominally a mod of the forum, de facto no but I have the powers. I can't get into heated arguments in any of the forums there without it potentially being a problem and Soc is the kind of category which has a lot of forums where heated arguments are common because the issues are just like that and some people take heated arguments really personally etc.

Which is a real pity when you see good posters really dial back when they become mods.

Personally I'd not change my posting style outside the forums I mod because of the "title" and if I did cross a line I'd expect to be hopped on, maybe even more than if I wasn't a mod.

Even within the forums I mod(ded) most of the time, though yea there have been those occasions on contentious/emotive type subjects where I typed up a post and then closed the window, because it might be seen as being for or agin "one side" and with the mod thing attached that might cause potential problems within the forum. Given it's part of the role to reduce potential problems it's generally a no brainer.

Going "up the chain" for cmods and admins must be a bloody nightmare on this score. TBH I reckon my posting would drop right off(Cue the Boards office rushing to make me a special admin with no powers and no buttons ). I have noticed a trend for those folks to either near disappear or post in smaller conflict free type forums. Which is a pity.

El Guapo!

I think it's a sad day when a mod feels the need to hold back on their posting style purely because they have the mod tag.
Fair enough, they may need to watch what they say a little bit more.....leading by example and all that. But if it negatively affects their posting and contributions to discussions then that's not really fair on them or the forum.
At the end of the day, they were (more than likely) picked to be a mod because they contribute positively to a forum and for that to be stifled is doing their forum a disservice. After all, they are still a regular poster who just helps to keep their forum running as smooth as possible.

jonniebgood1

El Guapo! wrote: »

I think it's a sad day when a mod feels the need to hold back on their posting style purely because they have the mod tag.

El Guapo! wrote: »

Fair enough, they may need to watch what they say a little bit more.....leading by example and all that. ....

Is that not a contradiction, or if not at least a tentative agreement that a modification of posting style to lead by example?

El Guapo!

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Is that not a contradiction, or if not at least a tentative agreement that a modification of posting style to lead by example?

I suppose it seems like a contradiction of sorts, but it wasn't meant that way.
What I meant was a mod may have to very very slightly be careful of what they post, but not to the point where their posting style is totally stifled and far removed from how they posted before being made a mod.

Cabaal

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

It is always a surprise to me seeing a mod getting infracted/banned.

This is something I believe the admin's are already aware of and mods that do get repeatedly banned etc are dealt with.

In my experience the user only brings it up because they disagree with me and don't like the fact that I've called them up on something,

I've never once received a ban or infraction during my time as a mod (I was banned from After Hours once for a few months about a year before I became a mod).

So I guess on the basis of no infractions or bans I might be classed as upstanding, that hasn't stopped atleast 4 users in as many months mentioning the whole mod thing in forums I'm not even a mod in. Each time they've been corrected and in atleast two cases they then argued with the actual mod over the subject and had to be warned.

steddyeddy

Just to give my two cents on the issue. I think in the larger fora the mods are generally well picked but as another poster said, some fora are subject to clique mentality.

Once or twice I personally witnessed (and was involved in) a situation where someone being made a mod in the smaller fora by association with a current mod. Now people are right to say well a trust needs to be established before someone will recommend a mod to a position but what is trust? There was some fora where mods were selected for reasons far beyond a baseline of trust. For instance the qualification seemed to be that certain mods follow the same ideological opinions as current mods, IE don't disagree with them in threads!

In these instances it goes beyond being fit to be a mod but not disagreeing with current mods or not hold conflicting views with current mods.

For instance If there was a mod who supported Irish unification who moderated a hypothetical northern Irish politics forum I cant see him recommending a unionist as a mod or vice versa.

Similarly in a hypothetical school forum I cant see a mod who thinks private schools are morally wrong to pick a mod who supports private schools and vice versa.

That has been my experience in one or two of the smaller forums. These issues have nothing to do with trust but conflicting ideologies. I know for a fact some people can take the conflicting views of others personally and I think this should come into consideration when picking a mod. Mods of opposing or differing views are essential.

The other thing that is a bit foggy is what makes a good mod? I'm not brown tonguing anyone but Wibbs and K9 are good mods. (I would have no interest in modding any of their forums anyway:). They are polite, moderate well and are open to discussion. Some mods though get very blunt with people with conflicting views to theirs.

On the issue of mods holding back, they shouldn't do so. Calling someone for being a mod is generally a cheap shot. However if what they are saying relates to an aspect of a forum they mod eg if mod of a "caring for animals" forum said "I love killing animals" then that would be bad.

padd b1975

steddyeddy wrote: »

Just to give my two cents on the issue. I think in the larger fora the mods are generally well picked but as another poster said, some fora are subject to clique mentality.

Once or twice I personally witnessed (and was involved in) a situation where someone being made a mod in the smaller fora by association with a current mod. Now people are right to say well a trust needs to be established before someone will recommend a mod to a position but what is trust? There was some fora where mods were selected for reasons far beyond a baseline of trust. For instance the qualification seemed to be that certain mods follow the same ideological opinions as current mods, IE don't disagree with them in threads!

Did these mods work out as good or bad mods down the line?

I think this is the bottom line for the vast majority of posters, if a mod is fair and consistant in their moderating, most people don't really give that much thought as to how they were appointed.

steddyeddy

padd b1975 wrote: »

Did these mods work out as good or bad mods down the line?

I think this is the bottom line for the vast majority of posters, if a mod is fair and consistant in their moderating, most people don't really give that much thought as to how they were appointed.

Well one worked out well, another hasn't put any effort into making the fora thrive and who's moderating style has been fairly unbalanced. You are right that once a mod is doing a good job how they are picked becomes irrelevant but once a mod does a bad job selection is relevant.

RDM_83 again

padd b1975 wrote: »

Did these mods work out as good or bad mods down the line?

I think this is the bottom line for the vast majority of posters, if a mod is fair and consistant in their moderating, most people don't really give that much thought as to how they were appointed.

Thats a reasonable point, however there can be an undue focus on the existing regular poster, which may not be the best thing for growing the forum or a forums level of interest and usefulness to non-posters,

e.g if there's 20 people posting in a hypothetical "general politics forum" and 18 of them are ardent Maoists and the same can be said of the mods, and in general the forum functions smoothly apart from the 2 non Maoists raising issues, if you look at the opinion of the mods and the majority of posters in this forum they would consider it a well ran successfull forum, which in one sense is true, for "Irish Message Board Ltd" that owns the site and to the outside viewer this forum may be considered non functional as its got 20 regular posters rather than the 200 that should be active users.
A change in moderation is needed, but both the direct election of mods, or the benevelont dictatorship of current mods result would result in the continuation of this forums limited appeal.

Appologies for the rambling post trying to illustrate how metrics of success of moderation appointment measured on its "sense of community" from long term regular users or "ease of moderation" should be considered with a health degree of sceptism.

padd b1975

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Thats a reasonable point, however there can be an undue focus on the existing regular poster, which may not be the best thing for growing the forum or a forums level of interest and usefulness to non-posters,

e.g if there's 20 people posting in a hypothetical "general politics forum" and 18 of them are ardent Maoists and the same can be said of the mods, and in general the forum functions smoothly apart from the 2 non Maoists raising issues, if you look at the opinion of the mods and the majority of posters in this forum they would consider it a well ran successfull forum, which in one sense is true, for "Irish Message Board Ltd" that owns the site and to the outside viewer this forum may be considered non functional as its got 20 regular posters rather than the 200 that should be active users.
A change in moderation is needed, but both the direct election of mods, or the benevelont dictatorship of current mods result would result in the continuation of this forums limited appeal.

Appologies for the rambling post trying to illustrate how metrics of success of moderation appointment measured on its "sense of community" from long term regular users or "ease of moderation" should be considered with a health degree of sceptism.

I see where you are coming from, but I don't feel a change in moderator should be needed even if the forum is as unbalanced as you have outlined.

IMHO traffic will improve if the existing mods are seen to be showing fairness to the minority posters even if they don't agree with their point of view.
Nobody likes to be shouted down by cliques.

Any mod that is unable to put their personal views to one side really has no business being a mod in the first place.

I would really hope its outlined to prospective mods from the get go by Admin/C mods.

nesf

padd b1975 wrote: »

I would really hope its outlined to prospective mods from the get go by Admin/C mods.

It is expected and if mods show definite leaning towards one side of a debate in their moderating (their posts are immaterial), then they will be spoken to about it.

K-9

steddyeddy wrote: »

Just to give my two cents on the issue. I think in the larger fora the mods are generally well picked but as another poster said, some fora are subject to clique mentality.

Once or twice I personally witnessed (and was involved in) a situation where someone being made a mod in the smaller fora by association with a current mod. Now people are right to say well a trust needs to be established before someone will recommend a mod to a position but what is trust? There was some fora where mods were selected for reasons far beyond a baseline of trust. For instance the qualification seemed to be that certain mods follow the same ideological opinions as current mods, IE don't disagree with them in threads!

In these instances it goes beyond being fit to be a mod but not disagreeing with current mods or not hold conflicting views with current mods.

For instance If there was a mod who supported Irish unification who moderated a hypothetical northern Irish politics forum I cant see him recommending a unionist as a mod or vice versa.

Similarly in a hypothetical school forum I cant see a mod who thinks private schools are morally wrong to pick a mod who supports private schools and vice versa.

That has been my experience in one or two of the smaller forums. These issues have nothing to do with trust but conflicting ideologies. I know for a fact some people can take the conflicting views of others personally and I think this should come into consideration when picking a mod. Mods of opposing or differing views are essential.

The other thing that is a bit foggy is what makes a good mod? I'm not brown tonguing anyone but Wibbs and K9 are good mods. (I would have no interest in modding any of their forums anyway:). They are polite, moderate well and are open to discussion. Some mods though get very blunt with people with conflicting views to theirs.

On the issue of mods holding back, they shouldn't do so. Calling someone for being a mod is generally a cheap shot. However if what they are saying relates to an aspect of a forum they mod eg if mod of a "caring for animals" forum said "I love killing animals" ten that would be bad.

Shucks, seriously though, I think there are conflicting points raised on the thread, I still try and join in on threads that interest me and just as posters have different posting styles, mods can as well. Some can be direct, others more subtle. If some want mods to post more, then they'll have to be more forgiving with a mods posting style when they are posting as an ordinary user.

As for mods with differing views, I believe the politics mods would have wide ranging views depending on the issues. Believe me, in my experience political opinion never enters the discussion on mod actions.

padd b1975 wrote:

I see where you are coming from, but I don't feel a change in moderator should be needed even if the forum is as unbalanced as you have outlined.

IMHO traffic will improve if the existing mods are seen to be showing fairness to the minority posters even if they don't agree with their point of view.
Nobody likes to be shouted down by cliques.

Any mod that is unable to put their personal views to one side really has no business being a mod in the first place.

I would really hope its outlined to prospective mods from the get go by Admin/C mods.

Again, in my experience, as long as you discuss civilly and respectfully, you should have no problems. I understand people can get a bit wound up if they feel they are in a minority opinion and under attack from a clique, the worst thing to do is to lash out.

As for cliques, it can be subjective. Often the clique is against you because you've a differing opinion, I've been there myself. All I can do there is make my point as best I can and then leave the thread. My minority opinion is just that, a minority opinion.

coffee_cake

Yeah I'm pretty sure the politics mods have a range of views

RDM_83 again

Just in case there's any confusion my reference to "hypothetical politics forum" was completely hypothetical as I consider politics to be one of the best moderated forums on boards, and I don't have any particular issue with any forum I read on boards moderation, I just felt that it was important to point out that a completely internal appraisal of success isn't particular helpful.

steddyeddy

Yes I checked to make sure there was no Northern Ireland politics forum before I mentioned it. It wasn't a dig at the politics forum at all.

I do think that the clique mentality could be looked at in some of the smaller forums though. It doesn't bother me unless a mod comes down on one side or the other more heavily but sometimes it does happen. This stifles discussion and you would be surprised how many boards users have a similar experience.

As regard the politics forum I remember one of the other mods, when announcing a new mod talked about his center leanings. This demonstrates that some thought is put into the leanings of the mod in question and this can only be a good thing.

K-9

bluewolf wrote: »

Yeah I'm pretty sure the politics mods have a range of views

Well yes.

Given two topics there's a fair chance we'd all have differing opinions, though maybe not the same mods sharing the same positions.

Unfortunately, many posters take things soooo personally and disagreeing strongly on one subject, means that's it, you are defined by that position. You have to think that certain way. Politics unfortunately lends itself to that, posters seem to focus more on what sets them apart, rather than what brings them closer.

steddyeddy wrote: »

Yes I checked to make sure there was no Northern Ireland politics forum before I mentioned it. It wasn't a dig at the politics forum at all.

I do think that the clique mentality could be looked at in some of the smaller forums though. It doesn't bother me unless a mod comes down on one side or the other more heavily but sometimes it does happen. This stifles discussion and you would be surprised how many boards users have a similar experience.

As regard the politics forum I remember one of the other mods, when announcing a new mod talked about his center leanings. This demonstrates that some thought is put into the leanings of the mod in question and this can only be a good thing.

Ah yeah, it was taken in that spirit. Tbh, with the smaller traffic forums I've read, I haven't noticed any problems.

I would say that often reported posts or mod grievances are personal, we get accusations of bias from a poster who is emotionally involved or biased. That's probably a big part of the "did you pm the mod?" question. If you are in anyway reasonable and willing to meet me halfway, we'll come to an amicable agreement. That might require a cooling off period on both sides!

PS: Seriously, I think it was my joke about being so centrist, seriously, any perceived bias is from the outside, optics if you will.

steddyeddy

Thanks for the reply. To be honest the clique thing has come into play recently again and that's why I am posting a reply here. I hope that people here know that I am not a trouble maker or a bad poster on boards so I am not saying this to cause trouble. I just think that if the opinion of punters is important to boards and feedback is taken seriously then it has to be said. There was a series of better more informed posters than this particular mod and I know for a fact extant mods had a disagreement with some of them.

It's troubling enough for me to consider closing my account. I know that wont be something that would cause concern to those who run boards but it should matter that punters are becoming disenchanted. It would be all too easy for people to say I have a grudge against mod x y r z but I actually get on well with most of them.

In the interest of fairness and transparency I would like to know what makes a fit mod and is there a way to weed out mods with personal vendettas against punters in mod selection?


(by the way this mod is a nice guy so I am not going to cause offense by naming categories ect).

K-9

steddyeddy wrote: »

Thanks for the reply. To be honest the clique thing has come into play recently again and that's why I am posting a reply here. I hope that people here know that I am not a trouble maker or a bad poster on boards so I am not saying this to cause trouble. I just think that if the opinion of punters is important to boards and feedback is taken seriously then it has to be said. There was a series of better more informed posters than this particular mod and I know for a fact extant mods had a disagreement with some of them.

I accept all that.

It's troubling enough for me to consider closing my account. I know that wont be something that would cause concern to those who run boards but it should matter that punters are becoming disenchanted. It would be all too easy for people to say I have a grudge against mod x y r z but I actually get on well with most of them.

A good poster leaving is always a worry. Personally I'd prefer posters talk things out, rather than leave, or close accounts.

In the interest of fairness and transparency I would like to know what makes a fit mod and is there a way to weed out mods with personal vendettas against punters in mod selection?

There is, but maybe it should be more transparent. It's a tough one, a higher standard is expected of mods, but I'm a huge believer in privacy myself, and I don't think mods are an exception to my beliefs on that.

(by the way this mod is a nice guy so I am not going to cause offense by naming categories ect).

Completely accepted, it is better to keep things general.

nesf

steddyeddy wrote: »

Thanks for the reply. To be honest the clique thing has come into play recently again and that's why I am posting a reply here. I hope that people here know that I am not a trouble maker or a bad poster on boards so I am not saying this to cause trouble. I just think that if the opinion of punters is important to boards and feedback is taken seriously then it has to be said. There was a series of better more informed posters than this particular mod and I know for a fact extant mods had a disagreement with some of them.

It's troubling enough for me to consider closing my account. I know that wont be something that would cause concern to those who run boards but it should matter that punters are becoming disenchanted. It would be all too easy for people to say I have a grudge against mod x y r z but I actually get on well with most of them.

In the interest of fairness and transparency I would like to know what makes a fit mod and is there a way to weed out mods with personal vendettas against punters in mod selection?


(by the way this mod is a nice guy so I am not going to cause offense by naming categories ect).

If you have a specific complaint bring it to the relevant CMods (in private) by PM. If they are unsuitable or in your opinion not in a place to be neutral, talk to an Admin about it. Again any discussion would be private and not shared with the mod(s) in question.