How should mods be recruited?

MrMusician18

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118407670#Comment_118407670

A cmod is the second level of site oversight from the top. If one cmod says to another that X moderation is poor, one would expect that to carry more weight, even informally, than a normal user. They would be less likely to be considered a crank and that the complaint was considered.

Have you suggested to the relevant cmods that the mods you consider to be bad should have their moderation privilege reviewed?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118407741#Comment_118407741

Have you mixed up volunteers as vocations? Do YOU try to fix the Internet? You have a very high bar as to what volunteers should be doing.

amandstu

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118408163#Comment_118408163

The job seems like it could be a pain in the neck and might require a bit of forbearance

As you say it is voluntary though and if it is too hard or thankless,it can be let go.

I am sure there are enough people happy to both do the job to the best of their ability and also to follow the guidance for the job

It is an important job and imo no forum such as this should be allowed to operate without an adequate moderation system in place.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118408163#Comment_118408163

Saying bad mods should be reviewed is hardly "trying to fix the internet".

It seems like common sense to me, and would surely benefit any forum that applies it, including this one.

And ultimately that's the goal. Despite what the poster in the 2nd (as yet unmodded) post says, this isn't shaking fist at sky stuff. It's about improving modding.

corks finest

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118407261#Comment_118407261

😊😊👍

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118404270#Comment_118404270

I've had some experience of managing another busy message board over a period of years. I thought I'd describe it, on the basis that because it's not boards.ie people might read it independently of their experiences here. If it's helpful, great. If not, sure what harm?

For many years until about 5-6 years ago I moderated and managed another forum. It wasn't on the scale of boards.ie, but with something like 1,500 to 2,000 posts a day it was busy enough. It was privately owned, but not commercial; any surplus it had was donated to a variety of good causes. It had a management/ownership group of a handful of people. We handpicked the moderators. No consultation took place with members, no feedback was invited, and no applications were ever sought or welcomed. The forum rules explicitly barred discussion of moderator actions, and although they didn't bar discussion of the moderating system, discussions on that subject usually got closed down because invariably aggrieved members would insist on complaining about their specific experiences - so leading to multiple breaches of the rule I mentioned above. There was an independent person who could review serious moderator actions, but otherwise the mods were given a reasonably free hand to manage compliance with the rules.

In summary, the forum was no democracy and made no pretence at being one - a fact which didn't prevent it becoming and remaining quite popular over a period of many years.

The main criteria for selecting mods?

• A low, preferably nil, infraction rate;
• Willingness to put the forum rules ahead of their own opinions when moderating
• Committed to the forum and a busy poster
• Willingness to listen to the other mods and managers
• Willingness to commit free time to moderating
• A decent standard of written communication

The moderating team varied in size, but typically was about 12-14.

Moderators acted either on the basis of reports or acting on something they'd seen themselves. All actions were logged, usually with a very brief comment. They could expect their actions to be the subject of feedback from other mods or from the management group, or possibly from the independent reviewer.

The management group itself changed the mods from time to time, whether because people wanted to cease doing the job or simply to ring the changes in the moderating team.

The moderating system was designed to manage compliance with the rules, while recognising that mods are human and make mistakes. It didn't always succeed, but it generally worked out OK. There were a fair number of reversals and corrections, and occasional apologies when they were called for.

But having said that, the forum had zero tolerance of any criticism of moderators and of any discussion of their actions. The forum was private property, and it was the entitlement of the owners to make the rules as they saw fit. If people didn't like that, they were free to take their custom elsewhere and the owners were willing to take any consequential hit in terms of reduced volume of activity on the site.

Beasty

Just on the CMods point, there is a CMod forum which prior to the platform changeover was quite active. It was an area where CMods could interact with Admins, but also discuss issues which may be common across categories, or could be quite different. One CMod would never get directly involved in what was happening in another category, but there could be discussion between CMods of different categories which could cover all areas of moderation, including discussions on specific mods if there was thought to be a problem

Equally there is a general mods forum where all Mods, CMods and Admins could discuss common issues, as well as Mods forums at Category and/or Forum level where again issues could be discussed and consensus obtained on new issues/posters/threads and areas requiring particular attention

Alas there have been significant slowdowns in activity in Mods, CMods and indeed the Admins forum since the changeover due to the relatively low level of participation in these areas since the migration

I agree we need to revisit the process of appointing mods as things are a bit different (we still have reduced powers for example, and in some cases the old way of doing things no longer work and new ways continue to evolve). Having said that we have never made the appointment of mods a popularity contest and that is not going to happen. All appointments will still need ratifying at CMod and Admin levels.

Moderation (or more accurately "proper Moderation") requires commitment. It also involves a change in how someone may be perceived in specific forums. It takes time and reduces a user's ability to post as a "regular" user. I used to post extensively in the Cycling Forum and continued to do so when I became a Mod. Something like 40-50% of my posts on this site have been in the Cycling forum and its subforums. When I became CMod I had less time for the Cycling Forum. My posting diminished further when I became an Admin. Since the platform change I've only had the opportunity to post once or twice there. From being the most prolific poster in the forum a decade or so ago my contributions now are negligible. I currently will get less than a handful of "regular" posts across the site in any month. I know the solution is in my own hands, but I currently feel I can contribute more to keeping this site alive by spending my time undertaking my responsibilities at Mod and Admin levels

There is also the question of when we could or indeed would look to revisit these areas. We need to address the lack of cover at Mod level, but that's most important in a relatively small number of busy forums. I think we need to revisit the way some of the smaller forums are dealt with. Having a "pool" of mods across a variety of smaller forums is one thing I have been thinking of. You may lose some of the specialism at mod level. For example I have stepped into a Mod role in Canoeing and Kayaking as we had no other candidates, but I feel pretty useless as a Mod of a forum I have virtually no knowledge of. It's easy to deal with some of the trouble areas (and MMA is another such forum where I have been a bit more active as a mod as issues often crop up there and it's easy to spot personal abuse and indeed trolling once you understand some of the basics), but there is no way I could understand any of the technical advice that users may seek or offer

At this stage though with so little activity at all levels of moderation and administration these things are possibly only going to get the attention they need and deserve a bit further down the line when hopefully a few more faces return

Just to add everything I am posting here is a site Admin, but does not necessarily reflect what any other Admins may think as it would appear I'm pretty much Home Alone on that front over the Holiday period....

Credit where it's due, the last 2 posts by Beasty and Ulysses are particularly interesting and well worth reading in detail. Thanks to both.

Are moderators allowed to use multiple usernames?

Pawwed Rig

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118424289#Comment_118424289

As in multiple accounts? In general No but there are some that have more than one account by agreement with the office/admin.

I can't imagine there are too many though.

amandstu

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118424289#Comment_118424289

A clever question. Would never have occured to me.

Did you somehow suspect it?

Beasty

The general rule is one account per person. As Pawwed Rig explains there can be exceptions but that requires agreement of the office or Admins. That applies equally to regular users and mods (and indeed Admins and Office staff). We need a good reason to be provided and all at Admin level and above need to know about it (or we could otherwise end up banning accounts for multi-accounting).

Of course anyone can close their account (or indeed abandon an old account) and start a new one. If they have not closed the prior account they cannot go back to it.

weisses

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118399605#Comment_118399605

Hahaha

Not to long ago you were defending a descicion by a mod who changed a charter because it conflicted with his views as a poster.

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118426707#Comment_118426707

eh, no.