A suggestion to improve Moderation in general

mathepac

oscarBravo wrote: »

Just so we're clear, you expect our volunteers to conform to the metrics and delivery standards of full-time professionals, but you refuse use the tools we've put in place to help them to do their job effectively?

Hhmmm, just to be very clear I never wrote that. Do you have a question you want to ask me?

Cabaal

mathepac wrote: »

Hhmmm, just to be very clear I never wrote that. Do you have a question you want to ask me?

Not exactly in those words but you did say

I've complained about this and I've been asked to submit a "report post" thingy. FFS why? Scroll back 3 or 4 posts and there's the evidence you failed to notice.

Report post exists for a reason, if PM'ing a mod directly was the way to raise an issue then the report post function wouldn't exist.

Instead report posts does exist, it creates a record of the report and it is seen by all mods on the forum (not just the one you decide to PM directly).

K-9

mathepac wrote: »

I have already given lots of specifics, having used the "Report a Post" facility. I have requested mod feedback for posters who use the "Report a Post" button. This was in order to close the loop back to the reporter in order for him to understand the reasoning behind inaction from the mods.

This generated the usual predictable responses, combined with hands thrown in the air, "Oh the mods won't like it", "The mods aren't paid, they work for free" - the usual tat. I don't care if they don't like it. A closed loop feedback is the only way to make improvements in a setting such as this so all decision-making is transparent. Train them to do it with sarcasm, ad hominem attacks or trolling, like moderator post I commented on above.

Those are all valid reasons.

When a poster fails to see action on a reported post and gets no feedback as to why, the options open to him are few. I ask in the thread why there was no action or complain that there was no action / feedback. What's the alternative if I want to improve moderation on the site.

I suppose I could try posting in one of these threads if I knew tey were going to be kept troll-free or that the chater would be enforced.

You could always pm a mod, it might take time to get a response though. As long as you don't want a long winded debate about it, I'd pm back. Plus trolling is a subjective thing, it's often thrown around far too easily, just a personal swipe to try and dismiss an opinion.

Dr Silly Bollox MD

Insect Overlord wrote: »

I love the smell of vague whining in the morning...

I read this and knew it was you before looking at your name.

Insect Overlord

Dr Silly Bollox MD wrote: »

I read this and knew it was you before looking at your name.

And who did you used to be?

mathepac

Cabaal wrote: »

Not exactly in those words but you did say ...

Thanks for that but I'm aware of what I typed.

Cabaal wrote: »

... Report post exists for a reason, if PM'ing a mod directly was the way to raise an issue then the report post function wouldn't exist. ...

Some confusion here. When I click "Report a Post" I have no idea who gets to ignore my message. The only time I can PM a mod from a thread is if they contact me first.

Cabaal wrote: »

... Instead report posts does exist, it creates a record of the report and it is seen by all mods on the forum (not just the one you decide to PM directly). ...

Again, I'm confused. I can't contact a mod directly from a thread as I have no idea who to write to. If I "Report a Post" presumably the process is it gets directed to the "duty mod" for that forum at that time and I have no way of knowing that. So if I, for example send a report saying "Spam?" unless a mod posts in the thread that they have edited / deleted the post I can't know who the mod is.

Cabaal wrote: »

... If you don't like it then hard luck, its the process thats setup and its the process that works. Just because you appear to have an issue with mods doesn't mean that they as a whole do not work on boards.ie

I don't like the way certain things are done on boards.ie and if it's just "hard luck" on me, why pretend that "Feedback" is a way of discussing what needs changing and why?

I have issues with the lack of even-handedness and transparency on boards.ie and a general laissez-faire attitude about the charter. "Oh we know what it says all right, but you don't really think we are guided by it do you? It's really just for the plebs. Toddle on there, let us get back to our tea and biccies."

mathepac

Insect Overlord wrote: »

... It's vague and all-encompassing, .

Even if any of what you wrote was fact rather than merely opinion, none of it explains why no-one took action on a post which was clearly trolling; that was my point to you.

[EDIT: Timing delays due to a very slow connection today; sorry]

Rabidlamb

I'm satisfied enough with the feedback to my OP.
Mods are volunteers with the sites best interest at heart, tough enough job for a legal professional let alone a normal member of the public.
People are different hence interpretations will be different no matter how homogenized the system is.
It's not perfect but it's the best we have.

Would I do it ?, no, says enough.[doffs cap]

oscarBravo

mathepac wrote: »

Hhmmm, just to be very clear I never wrote that.

Which part do you want to row back on? The demand for professional standards from our volunteers, or the refusal to use the tools we've made available to help them do their job?

mathepac

oscarBravo wrote: »

Which part do you want to row back on? ...

I have no wish to row back on something I didn't write.

johnr1

One simple improvement which would cost boards.ie nothing and virtually no time to implement would be for the site owners to give a clear directive to mods and their superior versions to leave out the smartarsery when responding to bad behaviour.

This one change would lead to a change in the volume of complaints about modding, because what irks many of us most of all about mod behaviour is this constant smartarsery and pot-shooting which we can't respond to on pain of being banned.

mathepac

Very good point @johnr1.

I PM's a guy with "Moderator" in his little id box about comments he had made in a thread, saying I felt he was setting a very poor example. The response I got was he was not a moderator of that forum, he was just a poster. My take on that was "You can't do as I do, you do as I tell you".

Dr Silly Bollox MD

johnr1 wrote: »

One simple improvement which would cost boards.ie nothing and virtually no time to implement would be for the site owners to give a clear directive to mods and their superior versions to leave out the smartarsery when responding to bad behaviour.

This one change would lead to a change in the volume of complaints about modding, because what irks many of us most of all about mod behaviour is this constant smartarsery and pot-shooting which we can't respond to on pain of being banned.

yea, I'd +1 this.

It's being brought up a few times now at this stage.

Esoteric_

Mods only moderate certain fora, not the whole site. Why should they have to refrain from posting like any other poster in, say, ah, when they mod consumer issues?

If somebody is too lazy to read the forum/s they moderate underneath their username, that's your own look out.

Mods were/are chosen for certain forums because of their contributions to that forum. Why should they stop being a normal poster just because they mod a specific forum? It's sad enough as it is that some mods have stated that they post less all over the site as a result of becoming a mod.

Nody

mathepac wrote: »

Very good point @johnr1.

I PM's a guy with "Moderator" in his little id box about comments he had made in a thread, saying I felt he was setting a very poor example. The response I got was he was not a moderator of that forum, he was just a poster. My take on that was "You can't do as I do, you do as I tell you".

Then you seem to lack an understanding how things work here even after your 3.5k posts; a moderator (such as myself) is for all intent and purpose a normal user in every single forum on this site excluding the forum I mod (World of Tanks in my case as listed under my name).

I have no obligation to set any example or be the A poster outside my forum; in fact if I'd go to any forum and post "Jews are controlling the world" or "All Corkies can't play rugby" (examples picked to be inflammatory and don't represent my view and are only intended to give an extreme version of what'd be infractable at least) I'd be sanctioned as any other poster. In fact I'd risk more then a normal poster because as a mod I'm expected to keep things "with in the policy" so to speak so if I start to pick up infractions I may lose the mod role (and before you ask yes Mods have lost their roles over it).

So the PM you got back from the Mod was correct; he may be a Mod in forum X but that don't mean he needs to behave like a Mod in every forum.

mathepac

Esoteric_ wrote: »

Mods only moderate certain fora, not the whole site. Why should they have to refrain from posting like any other poster in, say, ah, when they mod consumer issues? ...

My post refers not to the fact that he posted, but what and how he posted as "... I felt he was setting a very poor example ...".

Esoteric_ wrote: »

... If somebody is too lazy to read the forum/s they moderate underneath their username, that's your own look out. ...

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here, but I don't moderate on this site and I'd assume I don't need to tell a moderator where their forum is.

As with any responsible job, there is a certain standard of behaviour expected even if that person is "off duty". For example, would it be appropriate to see a drug and alcohol counsellor pissed out of his head at week-ends, snorting coke in the jacks and starting fights or drink-driving? If your job has a certain standing in the eyes of a community then part of the job is to protect that standing.

Esoteric_ wrote: »

... Why should they stop being a normal poster just because they mod a specific forum? ...

I never suggested that. This is the old straw man trick practised in a few forums, including here. Get the poor sap to defend a statement he didn't make, that'll teach him to dare voice an opinion we didn't give him.

Esoteric_ wrote: »

... It's sad enough as it is that some mods have stated that they post less all over the site as a result of becoming a mod.

It's hardly my fault they failed to appreciate the possible consequences of their new responsibilities. However your statement might go some way to explaining the point I'm raising, if there are frustrated mods who in reality would prefer to be marginally correct AH posters.

mathepac

Nody wrote: »

... he may be a Mod in forum X but that don't mean he needs to behave like a Mod in every forum.

I disagree; see above.

Nody

mathepac wrote: »

I disagree; see above.

You're of course free to disagree but that don't change boards stated policy on required mod behaviour.

You talk about work related comparison but you see myself, the other mods, CMods and Admins don't get paid doing this "job" (though I could have sworn I saw Zaph hide some cookies last night!). A more appropiate comparison would be if to state we're a football coach for juniors (lets say 5 to 8 years). If we started drinking heavily before the match, swearing at the kids and not walking straight (i.e. in appropiate behaviour) we'd be having a talk to and possibly get kicked which we'd get infracted for as per my example above by going over the line.

Now if the same football coach was out downtown and drinking on his spare time on a Friday wobbling around down and up on the street it has nothing to do with the fact he's a perfectly good football coach every Sunday game. If a parent would approach him and complain about his drinking on Friday night and that he's not a perfect rolemodel that's perfectly ok; however if the football club don't have provisions stating he should be a rolemodel at all times even outside his coaching role (and boards do not) then he'd be perfectly fine in stating that he's a private individual doing what he wants on his spare time.

Same holds true on boards; outside our modded forums we're just another user and our posts should be judged on the same scale as any other user's posts. Now some people do not and think if you're a mod that means you always have to be teachers pet and be perfect which causes some to post less but that's not boards listed policy, that's self censure to make your fellow mods life easier which should not be needed.

Delirium

mathepac wrote: »

My post refers not to the fact that he posted, but what and how he posted as "... I felt he was setting a very poor example ...".
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here, but I don't moderate on this site and I'd assume I don't need to tell a moderator where their forum is.

As with any responsible job, there is a certain standard of behaviour expected even if that person is "off duty". For example, would it be appropriate to see a drug and alcohol counsellor pissed out of his head at week-ends, snorting coke in the jacks and starting fights or drink-driving? If your job has a certain standing in the eyes of a community then part of the job is to protect that standing.
I never suggested that. This is the old straw man trick practised in a few forums, including here. Get the poor sap to defend a statement he didn't make, that'll teach him to dare voice an opinion we didn't give him.
It's hardly my fault they failed to appreciate the possible consequences of their new responsibilities. However your statement might go some way to explaining the point I'm raising, if there are frustrated mods who in reality would prefer to be marginally correct AH posters.

If the post made by the mod was posted by a non-mod, would you have a problem with it? Would you have PM-ed a non-mod to tell them they were "setting a poor example"? Why shouldn't a poster (who happens to mod a different forum on boards) not be able to post as they like providing they don't breach the charter? They shouldn't have to hand in their personality when they get the mod tags.

The best description I've seen of mods here is they're essentially janitors. They generally are there to resolve problems with spammers/trolls/problem posters/potential defamation issues etc.

Outside of their forums, they're regular posters like the rest of us.

Dravokivich

mathepac wrote: »

As with any responsible job, there is a certain standard of behaviour expected even if that person is "off duty". For example, would it be appropriate to see a drug and alcohol counsellor pissed out of his head at week-ends, snorting coke in the jacks and starting fights or drink-driving? If your job has a certain standing in the eyes of a community then part of the job is to protect that standing.

Sensationalise much? You are taking whatever has happened way out of context.

Penn

mathepac wrote: »

As with any responsible job, there is a certain standard of behaviour expected even if that person is "off duty".

But it's not a job mathepac. It's not the equivalent of an unpaid internship or volunteering for a company. The mods don't represent the site. They're simply asked by the people who do represent the site to help the site run. They are posters with an element of responsibility, but at the end of the day, they are still posters. They started as posters and remain posters. They just do a few extra things to help keep the site ticking over.

johnr1

Dr Silly Bollox MD wrote: »

yea, I'd +1 this.

It's being brought up a few times now at this stage.

Yes, it has, and here, like every other time, - no comment from mods or admins.

Esoteric_

johnr1 wrote: »

Yes, it has, and here, like every other time, - no comment from mods or admins.

Plenty of mods have commented...

johnr1

Esoteric_ wrote: »

Plenty of mods have commented...

Really ? - on the specific issue that the post I quoted refers to ?

Sorry, I didn't see any....

Insect Overlord

johnr1 wrote: »

Really ? - on the specific issue that the post I quoted refers to ?

Sorry, I didn't see any....

It would be easier to reply if the issue was indeed specific. I've seen very few sarcastic (or similar) responses in forum moderators' actions these last few years. A few examples would help narrow things down and allow an appropriate opportunity for comment.

The Hill Billy

I don't mean to be a smart-ass, but I have to say that some (not all) of those complaining about mod behaviour in this thread have quite a few warnings/infractions on their profiles. These were given not just by one or two mods in certain forums, but by a number of mods over several forums.

In all honesty, while there is always room for improvement for us all - that makes me think that maybe it is some posters who need to improve their behaviour on this site & not just the moderators.

mathepac

Nody wrote: »

You're of course free to disagree but that don't change boards stated policy on required mod behaviour. ...

Strange that you should mention that in a forum called Feedback and in a thread titled " A suggestion to improve Moderation in general".

Is this all pretence? Are you suggesting that the feedback will be ignored, the suggestions dumped, the posters views disregarded? If that's the case say so. I don't have a lot of time to waste but I'm posting here because I see something that needs changing IMO on a site I value in parts, but if no-one wants the feedback, then do the decent thing and delete the forum.

It's odd that at least two of you should mention the same "nothing will change" line in a forum about listening and changing. So far so bad.

Nody wrote: »

... You talk about work related comparison but you see myself, the other mods, CMods and Admins don't get paid doing this "job" ...

Why are so many of you fixated about not getting paid? I have already posted about that above so the "oh we don't get paid bit" is just boring repetition. BTW, as you evidently haven't read your way up to date in the thread, some posters might dismiss your input as just sea-gulling, but I won't (or as a mod might post condescendingly, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt).

So don't call it a job, call it a role, a vocation, a calling, a position, an undertaking, a function, call it voluntary work for the greater good of mankind, call it self-indulgence or aggrandisement but it has reactive policy and charter enforcement at its core, no matter what it's called so there's some element of work there.

The sole purpose of the work is to ensure that the unruly natives don't become so restless that they get the owners sued or frighten off the commercial interests.

I have no issue whatsoever with the need for moderators or moderation, but unfortunately those charged with the task here are IMHO immoderate in their posting and style. They seem besotted with their own importance and bravura and are constantly high-fiving (thanking) each other in threads such as this, congratulating their fellows for appareny point-scoring on the ordinary (non-mod) poster who can't respond in kind because he'll get infracted / banned. It's akin to shooting fish in a barrel.

I'd like to see that change, which is why I'm posting here.

The Hill Billy wrote: »

I don't mean to be a smart-ass, but I have to say that some (not all) of those complaining about mod behaviour in this thread have quite a few warnings/infractions on their profiles. These were given not just by one or two mods in certain forums, but by a number of mods over several forums. ....

I've collected a few and never hidden or denied the fact. But, if my record of warnings, bans, cards, etc is available, then the exact circumstances leading up to those outcomes must also be available. Therefore the whines and whinges about generalisations and non-specific allegations are more than a little disingenuous. The mods have the information they are asking me to supply and they are the only ones who can access it.

The Hill Billy wrote: »

... These were given not just by one or two mods in certain forums, but by a number of mods over several forums....

Correct. I described a site-wide problem and I have on a case by case basis tried to high-light the issue across the site.

The Hill Billy wrote: »

... In all honesty, while there is always room for improvement for us all - .

That's the first time any mod has admitted that.

The Hill Billy wrote: »

... that makes me think that maybe it is some posters who need to improve their behaviour on this site & not just the moderators.

No. I want to effect change in what I perceive as low standards. Given the reception doled out here, I am more convinced than ever that their is a serious problem.

nesf

mathepac wrote: »

Strange that you should mention that in a forum called Feedback and in a thread titled " A suggestion to improve Moderation in general".

Is this all pretence? Are you suggesting that the feedback will be ignored, the suggestions dumped, the posters views disregarded?.

Give specific examples. That'll give the higher ups something to work with. Saying "well some mods talk crap when they're moderating" isn't particularly useful as there's an awful lot of mods these days and that makes for far too many posts to dig through. Even saying something like "The moderation in Politics is crap because they do X" is far better as it gives a clear part of the site to go at posts from. Specific examples are still much more preferable because they save everyone a lot of time.

Making general comments about Boards moderation is largely pointless. Mods operate independently and apart from a handful of basic rules like no personal abuse, forums differ widely in their rules and the level and tone of the moderation. The problems, invariably, are local ones, not site wide because of this, though there have been some instances of people taking issue with site wide policy which is a separate issue and is usually unrelated to the day-to-day activities of mods.

The Hill Billy

mathepac wrote: »

The Hill Billy wrote:

... In all honesty, while there is always room for improvement for us all - .

That's the first time any mod has admitted that.

It is not an admission of anything. It is merely an observation on how all users of this site - whether they be posters, mods, admins, whatever - can make an effort to make this place a better & more enjoyable site to use & participate in.

mathepac wrote: »

The Hill Billy wrote:

... that makes me think that maybe it is some posters who need to improve their behaviour on this site & not just the moderators.

No. I want to effect change in what I perceive as low standards. Given the reception doled out here, I am more convinced than ever that their is a serious problem.

We (mods) also want to change what we see as low standards. But some posters just don't realise that their behaviour here is below the standard set by the site owners, admins & moderators. From the tone of your posts - I feel that you just seem to think that everything that is wrong with this site is down to the moderators. That just ain't the case.

mathepac

nesf wrote: »

Give specific examples. .

If you had troubled to read my lenghthy post you'd have seen that the information you mods keep requesting (in my case) is already in the mods possession and has already been alluded to by another mod, so cut out the disingenuous BS please.

The Hill Billy wrote: »

It is not an admission of anything. It is merely an observation on how all users of this site - whether they be posters, mods, admins, whatever - can make an effort to make this place a better & more enjoyable site to use & participate in...

So if it's not an admission of anything from a moderation perspective then what you're really saying is that site-wide, the mods would have a great time if it weren't for the scummy posters making you lives a misery. So the non-admission is really an accusation.

An alternative interpretation is that the mods are perfect and the run-of-the-mill posters are just a huge pain in the arse.

The Hill Billy wrote: »

... We (mods) also want to change what we see as low standards. But some posters just don't realise that their behaviour here is below the standard set by the site owners, admins & moderators. From the tone of your posts - I feel that you just seem to think that everything that is wrong with this site is down to the moderators. That just ain't the case.

The posting just becomes more obtuse and obdurate and of decreasing quality.

This thread is still titled "A suggestion to improve Moderation in general" so general observations about poor moderation and suggestions about improving the quality of moderation would seem to be the order of the day in here. You will now no doubt inform me I have that wrong as well

If you want to start a thread titled "A suggestion to improve Posting / Post Quality / User Input in general" then be my guest. In the meantime I'll stay on-topic here, generally.