Should Admins be Mods ?

Discodog

I am noticing that, on more than a few occasions, Admins act as Moderators. They sometimes revert to the big stick, do as I say, regardless of how fair or right they are. The problem is you can't question or ask for explanation. When you raise the subject here the answer is "they are admins". In other words other Mods can't question their decisions.

I think it goes against the ethos of Boards to have moderation that can't be constructively criticised.

Nody

Well let me give you an example as this applies to CMods as well. I'm a CMod of Business & Finance and I'm a Mod of Work & Jobs which is a forum in the category and I have a Admin as a Mod in Consumer issues.

Now; to give you an example of how things play out. In W&J I'm a Moderator; not a CMod which means if someone which to dispute a card, thread ban or anything else in W&J they get to discuss it with me as any other Moderator. If we can't agree and they wish to take it to DRP then Davy (my fellow cat CMod) is the only one that can act as a CMod in question. I can't put on my CMod hat and act as a CMod reviewing the dispute because it involves a forum I moderate. Even if someone wishes to dispute let's say a card from Stheno (fellow W&J Mod) I can't act as a CMod due to the bias of being a Moderator of said forum. Hence as a CMod I can only act as a CMod a forum I don't directly moderate.

Now; let's return to Consumer issues with dudara the admin as a Moderator as an example. I'm not a Moderator of the forum so I can act as a CMod there and if dudara issues a card that can't be resolved in PM or causes an issue etc. it falls under my responsibility to follow up on it. as the next +1 up. Hence if you take the card to DRP I'll review it like any other card issued by a Moderator even though dudara is a admin because they are not acting as an admin in their execution of the power but as a Moderator and hence get reviewed accordingly. The only exception to this would be if dudara specifically acted as a admin in for example site banning a re-reg they spotted (something a Moderator can't do) while acting as a Moderator. However, in all cases they moderate they are viewed as a Moderator from a chart perspective, if it goes to DRP I'll review it as I'd review an issue from L1011 (fellow Mod of the forum). If we can't agree and it goes to an admin review, then another admin than dudara would review it for that exact same reason I can't act as a CMod in my own forums due to potential bias. Same goes when I'm interacting with dudara as a Moderator; if I reach out to the forum Mods to ask how things are going, do they need additional hands etc. dudara is not getting any special treatment as an admin because in the role I'm approaching dudara they are a Moderator and that's what I'm asking for their feedback on as a Moderator. If I think dudara makes a wrong call as a Moderator then I'd tell them as much, reverse their decision or whatever else it may be and if however unlikely it may be dudara decides to disagree with a "I'm an admin so shut it" approach there is a whole list of other admins I can bring that to to deal with it accordingly.

Hence an admin as a Moderator on a forum does not give them special permissions other Moderators would not be allowed to do; they are there in the same role as other Moderators and if a Mod feels uncomfortable with challenge that then they can take it to CMod reviews etc.

Mr E

"I'm an admin so shut it"

.... said no admin, ever.

If you're being a dick, you'll get punished no matter what forum you are posting in and no matter who the mod is.

If it goes to dispute resolution (past the "contact the mod" stage and cmod stage), another admin will make the final judgement.

Discodog

Mr E wrote: »

.... said no admin, ever.

If you're being a dick, you'll get punished no matter what forum you are posting in and no matter who the mod is.

If it goes to dispute resolution (past the "contact the mod" stage and cmod stage), another admin will make the final judgement.

If the original Mod is an Admin is there any point in going to the C Mod ?

That's fine where there is a card, ban etc but some of what I have seen is where an Admin posts on the thread. For example a Mod might post a warning & then the Admin comes in & issues a final warning that may be totally unfair or wrong but can't be challenged.

This is it

Discodog wrote: »

I am noticing that, on more than a few occasions, Admins act as Moderators. They sometimes revert to the big stick, do as I say, regardless of how fair or right they are. The problem is you can't question or ask for explanation. When you raise the subject here the answer is "they are admins". In other words other Mods can't question their decisions.

I think it goes against the ethos of Boards to have moderation that can't be constructively criticised.

Admins can and are questioned by mods, cmods and other admin. Same as cmods and mods can and are questioned by others.

If you can't take constructive criticism, you'll find it difficult to be a mod, cmod or admin.

Mr E

We aren't tyrants, DiscoDog.

Discodog

Mr E wrote: »

We aren't tyrants, DiscoDog.

I have never suggested otherwise. But, like many others, I see a lot of unfair & seemingly biased moderation. In my 10 years here I have consistently seen posters that seem immune & can post whatever they like. I have also seen Moderators that appear to be able to do as they please.

I don't have a reputation for causing trouble. I try to be a helpful positive poster & I have seen lots of good Mods over the years. But I have no faith in the fairness or impartiality of the disciplinary procedure. However irrational it may be I still believe that some people enjoy a favoured status.

I posted a genuine question & I appreciate the answers.

Nody

Discodog wrote: »

I have never suggested otherwise. But, like many others, I see a lot of unfair & seemingly biased moderation. In my 10 years here I have consistently seen posters that seem immune & can post whatever they like. I have also seen Moderators that appear to be able to do as they please.

Well the first one has been called by pretty much every forum with any contentious posts and using Soccer as an example people from both sides of a game has complained that the Mod clearly is a "insert club A" supporter because "insert club A supporters" are allowed to do anything while "insert club B" complain exactly the same in the same match thread. Can replace Soccer with Religion, Politics etc. as well. Not saying that there may not be biased (and Mods have lost their Mod role over it as well) but it's a very generic and old complaint without specific examples it's impossible to really answer beyond generics as well.

Second part is once again down to a human factor; not only do you not see all that a Mod does but being humans the Moderators also tend to do it differently. Some PM users, some issue cards directly, some delete posts, some post on thread warnings etc. Add in that there is no black and white lines on were exactly does a post cross a charter in general and you're never going to have 100% aligned moderator actions. However and this is important to note this is why CMods are in place; if you think a moderator is acting "rogue" by comparison then drop a PM to a CMod with some examples. We're there to review things like this and unlike popular belief we don't go to the moderator and say "We got a complaint from user A about you; deal with it" or something similar. All reviews are kept at CMod/Admin level only and if there is potential bias then the moderator is approached accordingly to sort it out (and if they continue they are unlikely to remain a Mod for very long).

I don't have a reputation for causing trouble. I try to be a helpful positive poster & I have seen lots of good Mods over the years. But I have no faith in the fairness or impartiality of the disciplinary procedure. However irrational it may be I still believe that some people enjoy a favoured status.

Well you're asking people to prove a negative (no bias) which is impossible and on top of that without being able to see all the facts while dealing with humans making decisions. In short you're never going to have an unbiased review as long as humans are involved; however you will get as close to it as possible with the current process which is open. Feel free to mention another forum that has a 3 level review process for disputing a minor infraction that's public and 100% unbiased? It's simply setting standards at a level other forums are not even close to follow (inc. Facebook, Reddit et al) but it's all boards being biased about it somehow because they set a higher standard and do it openly (remember the DRP was specifically implemented because people were not happy that the reviews were done via PMs etc. at the time).

I posted a genuine question & I appreciate the answers.

Well if I thought you were trying to troll I'd not bothered to respond in the first place so I believe you

Beasty

After all the negative feedback on Politics Cafe we had a choice of abandoning it altogether or trying out the Current Affairs concept

We decided to give it yet another last chance and CA/IMHO was born. In doing so we were very conscious of the pressure AH mods had been under having to deal with Political threads in particular. We decided to handle all this head on. We agreed some of us would, at least initially, act as mods to show how seriously we were taking all of this, and to demonstrate our commitment to trying to get a solution that worked after so many failures with the PC concept

Now we may stick around as mods, or we may hand over the reins at some stage. No decision has been taken, and we will continue to monitor how the forum evolves

When it comes to disputes I am asking CMods to act exactly as they would for a normal mod. We will also have someone from the Admin team not directly involved in an issue to act in a DRP if required

Now it may not have been a CA dispute but you will note one recent DRP where I acted as a CMod due to unavailability of the relevant CMods. You may also note that I upheld a ban, but that was then overturned by another Admin

What this boils down to is we are trying our best to accommodate all the feedback we have received, and in doing so there has to be some compromise. We will try and recognise those compromises and minimise any resultant issues

Separately due to specific issues raised by forum regulars I have been acting as a mod (although without it appearing in my profile) in the Soccer forum. The regulars know about the background. I have again requested the CMods give me no special treatment as a result of that

One or two others remain mods of forums they have been involved in for many years. Again they do not get involved in any disputes over their sanctions

Beasty

Mr E wrote: »

We aren't tyrants, DiscoDog.

You speak for yourself.....



:pac:

droidman123

Beasty wrote: »

You speak for yourself.....



:pac:

Hilairious backslapping you guys kill me with your comedic skills

Beasty

I guess there will always be some who will never be happy whatever we say or do

droidman123

Beasty wrote: »

I guess there will always be some who will never be happy whatever we say or do

Incorrect,once you act in a cordial manner,me and my collegues will have no problem

Beasty

droidman123 wrote: »

Incorrect,once you act in a cordial manner,me and my collegues will have no problem

I guess this helps highlight to other posters exactly the sort of thing we have to put up with

droidman123

Beasty wrote: »

I guess this helps highlight to other posters exactly the sort of thing we have to put up with

Could you elaborate on that please?

Tokyo

Discodog wrote: »

If the original Mod is an Admin is there any point in going to the CMod ?

That's fine where there is a card, ban etc but some of what I have seen is where an Admin posts on the thread. For example a Mod might post a warning & then the Admin comes in & issues a final warning that may be totally unfair or wrong but can't be challenged.

I overturned an admin's decision in DRP ls week when he was acting in the capacity of CMod. No dramas, we just saw things from slightly different angles because of the differering CMod/Admin points of view. And the admin in question had no issue with that. Any admin that acts in the capacity of Mod or CMod doesn't get any greater privileges than the position they're taking on affords.

We constructively criticise each other all the time if we see the need to do so, any admin who followed the line of "I'm an admin so shut it" wouldn't last very long before being called out on it.

Beasty

droidman123 wrote: »

Could you elaborate on that please?

Well I think it goes without saying for most users

However to spell it out for your own benefit. I made a considered response to the OP, and after that attempted to add a little humour in a completely independent one-liner. Yes it may have failed to amuse you, but was it really necessary for you to have snide digs twice in response to my posts? Obviously I think not, and hence I chose to highlight that it is the type of behaviour that, unfortunately, we have to put up with quite regularly from a small number of posters

Now if you look back at what we have each posted in this thread, I am sure you will contend I have failed to act in a cordial fashion as you have already alluded to. I would counter by saying I feel I have been more cordial, and considered, than yourself in this thread

Ultimately though, other users can make up their own minds based on what they see here.

droidman123

I was going to have a discussion with you about the above post,but its pointless really because i will be just asked not to post on the thread again

Beasty

droidman123 wrote: »

I was going to have a discussion with you about the above post,but its pointless really because i will be just asked not to post on the thread again

Unless there was anything particularly offensive or wildly off-topic you would not be threadbanned. However I would point out that I feel there are plenty of times when you have posted in Feedback with little, if any, constructive points made. You do seem to have a chip on your shoulder about the Admin team, which I struggle to understand, other than putting you alongside certain other posters who only ever seem to want to say negative things about us.

In the context of the specifics of this particular thread, it would be helpful if you could outline any concerns you have about Admins acting as Mods. I've made some points above, and indeed another Admin has had their say. We both mentioned the same example of one Admin overturning another's decision when the second (me) was acting in a CMod capacity. I am not claiming our system is perfect, but we do try our best, and do try to take onboard constructive feedback (be it positive or negative)

gozunda

mike_ie wrote: »

I overturned an admin's decision in DRP ls week when he was acting in the capacity of CMod. No dramas, we just saw things from slightly different angles because of the differering CMod/Admin points of view. And the admin in question had no issue with that. Any admin that acts in the capacity of Mod or CMod doesn't get any greater privileges than the position they're taking on affords.
We constructively criticise each other all the time if we see the need to do so, any admin who followed the line of "I'm an admin so shut it" wouldn't last very long before being called out on it.

I have an issue here that I would like some clarification on...

My question is hows is it that Beasty managed to thank this comment not once but twice

Something I've suspected for quite a while tbh...

This now makes perfect sense

Beasty wrote: »

You speak for yourself.....

Ye are all clones :pac:

Beasty

gozunda wrote: »

I have an issue here that I would like some clarification on...

My question is hows is it that Beasty managed to thank this comment not once but twice

Something I've suspected for white a while tbh...

This now makes perfect sense

Just tried with you post - can only thank that the once - my superpowers seem to be limited

gozunda

Beasty wrote: »

Just tried with you post - can only thank that the once - my superpowers seem to be limited

I'm not sure but I presume others can see the twice thanked post or just me perhaps ?

Here it is just in case

https://i.imgflip.com/378sr0.jpg

Could be very handy tbh

hullaballoo

droidman123 wrote: »

I was going to have a discussion with you about the above post,but its pointless really because i will be just asked not to post on the thread again

Toys out of pram.

That's genuinely a shocking response to Beasty's post tbf.

You aren't invited to my birthday party anymore.

What response are you expecting here?

droidman123

hullaballoo wrote: »

Toys out of pram.

That's genuinely a shocking response to Beasty's post tbf.

You aren't invited to my birthday party anymore.

What response are you expecting here?

I am not going to be lured into any traps,i,ve been around the block too long...and i,m not a big fan of birthday cake anyway truth is i have been advised by my gaffer not to post here.i,m sure he has his reasons

nw5iytvs0lf1uz

If boards wants to be seen as a transparent open inclusive diverse then admins should not be mods
Also the position of mod should be held for say 2 years only. Then a gap of 2 years before the user can become a mod again. It’s about a lack of transparency

Boards is full of mods and admins who cry that professions and businesses should be heavily regulated to ensure corporate social responsibility and all the BS that includes is forced on companies

Yet boards itself is not run on these principles of honesty transparency professionalism and diversity.
If it was it would doing a lot better as a business and not facing closure

Zaph

Isla Prickly Skateboard wrote: »

If boards wants to be seen as a transparent open inclusive diverse then admins should not be mods

Why? I was an admin for 9 years, and I was also a forum mod throughout that period. Now maybe it was because the forums I modded were generally quiet and well behaved, but there was never a conflict of interest between the two roles as far as I was concerned. I've always modded each forum with my mod hat on and never once felt compelled to pull rank and use the admin card against a poster (unless they were an obvious troll or spammer who just happened to post in a forum I modded). And if there was something I felt uncomfortable modding, e.g. an action from a poster I may have had issues with elsewhere at admin level, I'd leave it for a co-mod or CMod. I don't believe that any of my co-admins would act any differently. If anything, you probably tend to go a little easier on posters acting the maggot in a forum you mod so as not to be accused of abusing the powers you've been given on the site.

Isla Prickly Skateboard wrote: »

Also the position of mod should be held for say 2 years only. Then a gap of 2 years before the user can become a mod again.

Term limits for mods has been mentioned in the past, more from the point of view of avoiding mod fatigue and burn-out. However there's one particularly large obstacle which makes its implementation impractical - the simple lack of suitable and/or willing mod candidates. It can often take some time to find a new mod for a forum as there may be very few potential acceptable candidates from the forum regulars. And of them, not all will actually want to do the job.

As an example, I'm stepping down as mod in D15, but it's taken several months to find a replacement for me. A couple of potential replacements were asked, but turned it down, so then we were back to square one. It then took another while before a poster with a good track record in the forum who was happy to take on the modship was found. And this is in a pretty quiet, uncontroversial forum where people are generally very well behaved. Now multiply this by numerous forums, and not all of them as trouble-free as D15, which automatically makes them less attractive to prospective new mods, and you could end up with half the the CMods' and admins' time taken up just trying to find new mods for forums because their two years is up. And then those mods being unavailable for the next two years further complicates things. So in an ideal world, there may be some merit to your suggestion, but unfortunately there just isn't a large enough user base to implement it.

Trojan

Yes.

nw5iytvs0lf1uz

Zaph wrote: »

Why? I was an admin for 9 years, and I was also a forum mod throughout that period. Now maybe it was because the forums I modded were generally quiet and well behaved, but there was never a conflict of interest between the two roles as far as I was concerned. I've always modded each forum with my mod hat on and never once felt compelled to pull rank and use the admin card against a poster (unless they were an obvious troll or spammer who just happened to post in a forum I modded). And if there was something I felt uncomfortable modding, e.g. an action from a poster I may have had issues with elsewhere at admin level, I'd leave it for a co-mod or CMod. I don't believe that any of my co-admins would act any differently. If anything, you probably tend to go a little easier on posters acting the maggot in a forum you mod so as not to be accused of abusing the powers you've been given on the site.



Term limits for mods has been mentioned in the past, more from the point of view of avoiding mod fatigue and burn-out. However there's one particularly large obstacle which makes its implementation impractical - the simple lack of suitable and/or willing mod candidates. It can often take some time to find a new mod for a forum as there may be very few potential acceptable candidates from the forum regulars. And of them, not all will actually want to do the job.

As an example, I'm stepping down as mod in D15, but it's taken several months to find a replacement for me. A couple of potential replacements were asked, but turned it down, so then we were back to square one. It then took another while before a poster with a good track record in the forum who was happy to take on the modship was found. And this is in a pretty quiet, uncontroversial forum where people are generally very well behaved. Now multiply this by numerous forums, and not all of them as trouble-free as D15, which automatically makes them less attractive to prospective new mods, and you could end up with half the the CMods' and admins' time taken up just trying to find new mods for forums because their two years is up. And then those mods being unavailable for the next two years further complicates things. So in an ideal world, there may be some merit to your suggestion, but unfortunately there just isn't a large enough user base to implement it.

i would love to be shown examples of where in the last 5 years a mod got the boot for being not of the required character.
i would also like to see examples of where a mod banning was overturned.
These are rare as hens teeth. do not happen.
and that is why boards is struggling with user numbers.
where as at boards height of popularity, the modding was fair.
posters could post how they felt on issues without being singled out for a full banning.
in the boards of today, if a poster posts their genuine support for issues for example like controlled migration, pro life, they are on the radar of mods to be banned. i am very liberal and i believe in freedom of speech and freedom of expression.
but unless you are a pro choice, pro unlimited immigration, pro democratic socialism, pro lbqt+, etc etc you are not wanted here.
the simple truth is boards is close to going out of business because boards management are happy to let boards operate as is with its current left wing communist progressive modding. not sure why but i can guess.

Zaph

Isla Prickly Skateboard wrote: »

i would love to be shown examples of where in the last 5 years a mod got the boot for being not of the required character.

What's that got to do with anything, that's not what you were asking about in your previous post. However FYI, a number of mods have been summarily demodded over the past few years for a variety of reasons. But the reasons for their demodding are between the mod and the admins, there's nothing to be gained by throwing them to a baying mob, especially as in most cases the reason for them being demodded wouldn't generally be public knowledge. And in those cases it's usually not to do with their modding, but rather some fact that is felt to be incompatible with their continuing to be a mod.

Isla Prickly Skateboard wrote: »

i would also like to see examples of where a mod banning was overturned. These are rare as hens teeth. do not happen.

Of course it happens, in the Dispute Resolution forum. And they're only the ones that make it that far, far more are resolved amicably between the mod and the poster by PM before they even need CMod or admin intervention. People seem to think that nothing ever gets overturned in the DRF, but while that in itself is a wrong assumption, the reason so many cards and bans are upheld is because they were solid mod actions in the first place. Obviously those on the receiving end won't agree and will bitch and moan until the cows come home, but the fact of the matter is that people don't just get cards and bans for no reason.

Isla Prickly Skateboard wrote: »

the simple truth is boards is close to going out of business because boards management are happy to let boards operate as is with its current left wing communist progressive modding. not sure why but i can guess.

I can't, so care to enlighten us?

nw5iytvs0lf1uz

Zaph wrote: »

What's that got to do with anything, that's not what you were asking about in your previous post. However FYI, a number of mods have been summarily demodded over the past few years for a variety of reasons. But the reasons for their demodding are between the mod and the admins, there's nothing to be gained by throwing them to a baying mob, especially as in most cases the reason for them being demodded wouldn't generally be public knowledge. And in those cases it's usually not to do with their modding, but rather some fact that is felt to be incompatible with their continuing to be a mod.



Of course it happens, in the Dispute Resolution forum. And they're only the ones that make it that far, far more are resolved amicably between the mod and the poster by PM before they even need CMod or admin intervention. People seem to think that nothing ever gets overturned in the DRF, but while that in itself is a wrong assumption, the reason so many cards and bans are upheld is because they were solid mod actions in the first place. Obviously those on the receiving end won't agree and will bitch and moan until the cows come home, but the fact of the matter is that people don't just get cards and bans for no reason.



I can't, so care to enlighten us?

Your post is full of aggression arrogance and is everything that is wrong with the majority of boards mods and admin.

‘Don’t get cards and bans for no reason’
Is I think stupidest lie I have ever read on boards
Your self importance is laughable but like all mods here you just don’t get it.

Zaph

Isla Prickly Skateboard wrote: »

Your post is full of aggression arrogance and is everything that is wrong with the majority of boards mods and admin.

‘Don’t get cards and bans for no reason’
Is I think stupidest lie I have ever read on boards
Your self importance is laughable but like all mods here you just don’t get it.

If you want to read aggression and arrogance into my post, that's your prerogative, I was simply doing my best to explain things as best I could and I'm not sure what other language I could have used. But seeing as we're nit-picking, you didn't answer my question at the end of my previous post.