Moderator(s) needed here....

Originally Posted by Drizzt80

I was going to type this, but then erased is as it was getting too complicated, but I blame Katies as she got my "teacher" thinking juices flowing . . .
How about 12 mods. Each month two mods are active, 1 named and 1 anonymous. Each of the twelve will "serve" two months out of the year, with one month being names and one month being anonymous. In some instances it could be valuable if there was need for a good cop/bad cop scenario that needed to be played out . . . ie. such as dealing with middle school students!! Some students respond well to me, other respond well to my peers. Either way, we solve the issues as a team of teachers. Sometimes I'm the bad guy, sometimes I'm the good guy!

Of course, I don't think there needs to be "that much" moderation, so maybe my idea is just that. Remember, I don't answer the questions, I just ask them!!

D80

I think that seems to complicated. Maybe we can do the different mods every month thing but not sure about some of the other stuff.

An anonymous mod is really only a good idea in a chatroom, as we all know what happens when some people think there's no mod around. On the forums its not really nessicary because whatever is posted stays posted and can be delt with at a later time, which kind of disrupts the purpose of an invisible mod.

The rotating mods is a good idea if the work is willing to be put into it, but many issues and problems span a long period of time, and it would be more of an inconveniance to switch mods in the middle of something. It could be overcome though by having a counsil or sorts, where the pool of mods can discuss things and keep everyone updated on whats happening, that even though only some are in power all are still kept involved. In most places that would be more of a hassle, but here there are so many good candidates, and I can see having a poll could evoke feelings of favoritism in some members.

Or perhaps combine it, have one or two main mods, and one or two rotating ones.

Originally Posted by DaemoNox

The rotating mods is a good idea if the work is willing to be put into it, but many issues and problems span a long period of time, and it would be more of an inconveniance to switch mods in the middle of something. It could be overcome though by having a counsil or sorts, where the pool of mods can discuss things and keep everyone updated on whats happening, that even though only some are in power all are still kept involved. In most places that would be more of a hassle, but here there are so many good candidates, and I can see having a poll could evoke feelings of favoritism in some members.

What she said.

I agree with you on the poll thing. Probably not the best idea. But having a place where the mods can keep each other informed is a good idea.

As said the rotating thing would be good so 2 or 3 people wouln't have to do it all by themselves. Also being a mod or being in charge really takes alot of time and we might see those people not post as much. I really don't want that to happen.

The rotating mods might sound good on paper, but I think it will be such a pain for Rich to have to continually change things behind the scenes that he'll probably shoot that idea down, and I won't blame him.

I'm fully in favor of a "warning system". I believe that many of the problems I see on CS.com can easily be solved by simple PMs, perhaps with a minor post when necessary. Blatant rule violations would probably be handled in a different, and more immediate manner, however.

I think its safe to say I participate enough to keep an eye on any forums that needed it Rich - Count me in.

Oh and I'd also suggest Dean, DAND and Mike...

Originally Posted by Roy Munson

Hi Rich.

I re-read that thread, and I think it would be helpful for potential mods and members alike if you gave us your opinions on what went wrong in that thread. I haven't seen any temp-bans issued to the participants (yet), so I'm genuinely interested in how you view the exchange. I definitely see problems in the thread, but I don't know if my view lines up with yours, and I'd like to know.

Some may view the attempts by some members to get the original poster to stop using chat-speak and improve her writing/spelling as antagonistic. While there may be a hint of it, I was more put off by the o.p.'s dismissive and rude replies. I know you didn't author the following, but you must have approved it, or it wouldn't be stickied. How do you feel about members attempting to correct the writing styles that this passage discourages?


Here are a couple of other passages from that stickied document. I'm wondering who you think crossed the line in that thread, and who (if anyone) you think deserved the 3-day ban that these passages describe. In my opinion, there were a small number of posters coming close to the line, but only one crossed it. What do you think?

All things considered, especially recalling a recent event where I posted evidence of a chat room situation I wanted to end, I would prefer to not go down that avenue again. The thread I indicated in the opening post for this thread has a number of issues, which I hope most people who would consider the position of moderator would be readily cognizant of. "Chat speak", while being a bit less than desired from members, is not really something that should be granted a penalty by a member using it. What concerns me is the heckling involved which can only most certainly spiral a thread into a level of discord that I think most of us would not want to see here. Yes there is a spell checker here, but is it really necessary to heckle someone about their not using it (whether through ignorance of that availability, or perhaps haste in posting, or even a desire to not be hampered by such things)? Really none of the original complaints are the realm of a moderator. A moderator's job begins when the discussion becomes "un-moderate". In other words, when a thread first shows signs of heading off into a HEATED argument, THAT is the time for a moderator to step in and try to cool it off before it gets out of control. Stitch in time saves nine, sort of thing.

Certainly a moderator will have to have a LOT of foresight into the sometimes unintended repercussions of their actions (i.e. the chat room fiasco.... ), which may be completely impossible to determine without hindsight. I certainly cannot, and will not, fault anyone for being slightly less capable in that department than I am. But certainly any moderator who seems to be causing more conflict then they are quelling, will hopefully throw themselves on the sword before I have to wield it myself.

If there are more than one moderator, which will be likely, I would prefer any disagreements between them about an issue be kept out of public and instead hashed out in private. I will not publicly reprimand any moderator, in keeping with this policy, and hope that this favor is returned in like kind towards me.

I fully recognize that picking a bad moderator can be devastating to a message board system yet otherwise recognize that I just cannot know someone that deeply here to know how they will react when under pressure. I don't want anyone looking for a power trip, and will be quick to nip anything appearing like that as soon as I am convinced that is the case. And yes, it could very easily happen whereby I see the signs before you recognize it yourself.

I expect to get complaints from others who will be moderated. Most people rarely recognize that they are veering over the edge and sometimes resent being told that they are. But I will give the benefit of the doubt to the moderator(s) when cases are subject to multiple interpretations. When there IS no doubt, then my actions will have no alternative but to remove the person from the position. The smooth running of this site and the enjoyment and interest level of the members here will be paramount in those sorts of decisions that need to be made. Someone being overbearing and instead of moderating attempt to use that influence to enforce their own personal opinions about details of information will have no place here. Moderation is not about correcting someone for having a dissenting opinion. It is about keeping the peace when there ARE dissenting opinions. The toughest part of the job will be trying to figure out when you really need to step in and being diplomatic enough to keep the fighting dogs from turning on yourself instead of each other.

I think I have covered that sufficiently I hope. Sorry if I cannot just paint a black and white picture of what is expected, but moderation just is not that way.

Now about the various suggestions about rotating moderators and anonymous moderators. Obviously, I am not interested in something that will be a logistical headache for me, and BOTH of those schemes would certainly turn out that way. There are a number of things that have to be set up for anyone becoming appointed as a moderator, and to do that on a frequent basis with the changing of the guard would be a royal pain in the butt. Same thing for the anonymous moderator plan. I would have to keep track of who is Moderator01 thru Moderator03 at any given time in order to be able to field any complaints that may arise. Again, this is not the sort of work load I would to add onto my plate.

The job of moderator has some significant drawbacks, but also has some not modest benefits as well. At the very least, you WILL become very well known by all who are here. There is no way that can't happen. However, that being said, the way you handle yourself could make you famous, or infamous, depending on you.

I do expect turnover, regardless of who is selected for these positions. Any number of reasons. Workload to great with your own life, loss of interest, or just stress from the conflicts that the position will require of you to become involved in. So there will be the opportunity for others to possible qualify for a moderator position at sometime in the future, as needed.

Anyway, I think I covered the main points so far. Oh there is one other thing... someone brought up the idea of a unique medallion for the moderators. I like that idea, but unfortunately I did not get the PhotoShop template file for the medallion, and have not heard from the guy who made that up for me in ages now. So if some enterprising artist would care to make up a snappy new moderator medallion for me, I would be grateful of the help. Unfortunately, I have learned the hard way that I do not have an artistic bone in my body.....

Thanks.

I'd like to second the nominations of DaemoNox, diamondlil, mbdorfer, and Dand.

I've witnessed all of them express a level head and a sense of humor.

On the moderated boards that I've seen work, the moderator does not simply ban. Instead the entire board gets used to a moderator stepping in from time to time to say, "I just wanted to remind you...." (Flaming the moderator for posting that gentle reminder results in a three day ban, no questions.) The boards which have consistant moderation usually have many posts where people say, "Ooops. Sorry about that. I didn't realize that I was .... Thanx for the reminder."

Really. People thank the moderator.

But the Board has to get used to it over time.

SaulsMom

I'd be willing to moderate, as I have said in the past. I'm on this site multiple times a day browsing threads, and think while I'm not too well known, there are a good amount of people here that have gotten to know me and would respect my opinions/decisions.

Originally Posted by SaulsMom

I'd like to second the nominations of DaemoNox, diamondlil, mbdorfer, and Dand.

I've witnessed all of them express a level head and a sense of humor.

Agreed. I also think that desertanimal, carol, Susan (may God have mercy on her soul ), and Dean are also worthy of consideration.

All of the above have the ability to discern antagonism from mere snark, and respond with grace.

On the moderated boards that I've seen work, the moderator does not simply ban. Instead the entire board gets used to a moderator stepping in from time to time to say, "I just wanted to remind you...." (Flaming the moderator for posting that gentle reminder results in a three day ban, no questions.) The boards which have consistant moderation usually have many posts where people say, "Ooops. Sorry about that. I didn't realize that I was .... Thanx for the reminder."

Yep, I've witnessed this as well....however, I'd like to first see it handled privately with a PM before issuing a public warning, or even a "friendly" public reminder.

regards,
jazz

Originally Posted by jazzgeek

Yep, I've witnessed this as well....however, I'd like to first see it handled privately with a PM before issuing a public warning, or even a "friendly" public reminder.
regards,
jazz

At time that works while at others it doesn't. When I first started moderating over on Fauna I PM'ed a few individuals asking for them to tone it down. While some took the advice others did not. The same has happened when I have made the "friendly public reminder". Like Rich said, you'll have those who don't like being moderated. I've seen it in all types (i.e. male, female, young, old) of people even persons who you wouldn't think would have such a meltdown. Most people do not like being corrected. The thing is, there are rules for a reason. I said something along the lines of this over on Fauna;

You know you are supposed to stop at a stop sign. You feel that rule doesn't apply to you and you run the stop sign. You get T-boned and now you are going to complain. The same thing applies to posting here. Follow the rules and you will get to your destination, don't, and you may just find that your trip has been cut short.