I like to see the human side of mods in the community.

Beboparoo said:I like to see the human side of mods in the community. mods have a human side?

iRabbitt said:HokieOkie said:and can influence the direction of errant vibes before they explode


/shivers


It's good when mods post, IMO, so especially the newer ones become more known and they can better know us. That's a good thing.
Not really sure the merit in knowing when a mod is on/off duty...that could lead to mod shopping which can be a problem with users who are adept at 'working the system.' Although if a mod is waving the stick all over the board, it's good to know who is who if there are questions so the user can know they are dealing w/one mod and not three of them (which can create a disaster when one doesn't understand what the other was doing).

And whether or not they're participating on the boards, we know they're always watching...that's a given on most forums and from my observation is NOT a deterrent for poor contributions.

As for bringing back BOOST!, at least on OT the users spoke strongly they would prefer voting remain as it stands for now.

Mod-shopping would be virtually eliminated, if we all knew who was on duty...the point is accountability. We would witness those working the system and have faster reaction with mods that are truly engaged in our community, and care about it's direction. Presently, I hit mod-alert, get a canned response...maybe if we're lucky a terse post admonishing us to mind out manners. That's not moderation in my book. We were indeed moderating ourselves successfully before the mods involved themselves in the most recent fiasco.

WRT BOOST, I read it quite differently than you..many indicated a willingness to get rid of red, but the overwhelming consensus is to keep voting in some fashion. It may be possible to remove identity from voting, which would also help.

VBMcGB said:HokieOkie said: It may be possible to remove identity from voting, which would also help.
I need to disagree here. I believe that if someone is going to vote, that person needs to put his or her name on it. Overall, I don’t think anonymous voting would be helpful.

Anonymous voting seems to work all thoughout the net just fine, and I'm sure you know I could provide copious examples. It removes the personalisation aspect and promotes more of a community response rather than individual, which as we have discovered, has disruptive consequences if improperly monitored.

VBMcGB said:HokieOkie said: Mod-shopping would be virtually eliminated, if we all knew who was on duty...the point is accountability.
I don’t know that posting Mod schedules would actually eliminate Mod-shopping. I think it would just take the effort out of it.

Exactly..there would be no need expend effort to shop..the mods are clearly right there to interact with on duty, just like any other forum. Presently, there is the perception they are wizards behind a curtain pulling levers and immune to community reaction and involvement, primarily because they do not appear to US as being involved or care about the direction of the forum beyond rule enforcement. A clock-in thread helps dispel this notion, and mods become fellow members that participate/ receive posts/pm's just like any other members, yet still have a duty to respond to mod-alerts wearing the mod-hat. Without mod-shopping, we rely more on consistency among different mods, which we will discuss later.

VNMcGB said:I recognize your point about the importance of accountability. My approach (unless I’m sending the canned response) is to sign my PMs to users. I liken this to voting. If I’m going to do something, I try to put my name on it. That way, if anybody has an issue with the decision, they know who to talk with.

And, people do indeed contact me with concerns. In those conversations, I try to be as reasonable as I can. But, that’s the way I try to deal with life in general, so perhaps it’s not a surprise that it’s my sense of what I need to do as a Mod. I don’t see this as just a form of self-imposed accountability, but also a way that I can get to know others in the community through conversations.

Even though I Converse here and there with people in our forums, there are still situations that arise with contexts unknown to me. In such cases, an ill-informed decision can go awry. What helps me in these situations is the willingness of the users to give me that context. I find the more articulate Mod Alerts with bits of background helpful. So, I see the responsibility of accountable moderation to be about more than just the Mods. We need our users to help us by keeping us informed. I think moderation is at its best when Mods and members work as a team.

In this, I can only speak through my perspective (philosophy of moderation?). I’m not sure how other Mods think is the best approach to moderation.

Bo, we all pretty much know your particular style, and that you frequently participate on our forum (just not enough), but the issue lies precisely in your final line 'I’m not sure how other Mods think is the best approach to moderation'. This consistency issue appears to be a concern for everyone, but we all need reassurance this is being addressed with concrete examples. When my product begins to show signs of inconsistency, I search for the weakening link, and shore it up. Mods need to be scheduled to cross-work with one another to see the variation in styles and behavior (you would be an excellent example and teacher, and each mod should be req'd to spend an evening watching you in action), and all examples that promote community, accountability and consistency derived from those sessions incorporated into the mod 'toolbox'. The stonewalling/canned response/wait until we all can discuss as a team/wait ad infinitum for resolution is not going to cut it anymore. What concrete, specific examples will the mod-team relate to us that these issues are being addressed?

My feeling is that since the 'griping' has largely died down, there's less attention focused on resolving the underlying issues. Rather than moderation, more effort is being expended once again in needless enforcement, which has become de riguer on OT, yet I can see plenty of personlization and squabbling in other fora going unchecked, and therefore encouraged. Suggestions are soliticed, then promptly shot down when delivered, and the tone is still us vs. them. This is not the reasssurance I was searching for when this thread began, and it has been a disappointment.

HokieOkie said:Anonymous voting seems to work all thoughout the net just fine, and I'm sure you know I could provide copious examples. It removes the personalisation aspect and promotes more of a community response rather than individual, which as we have discovered, has disruptive consequences if improperly monitored.

I agree, anonymous voting eliminates retaliatory voting. I voted red on one of medo's posts a while ago and she starting giving me red back . So now I return the favor. It's a vicious cycle and I noticed others do this too.

Also, Right Here would not have been called out so often if people did not know it was him giving the red.

fifth1 said:
I agree, anonymous voting eliminates retaliatory voting. I voted red on one of medo's posts a while ago and she starting giving me red back . So now I return the favor. It's a vicious cycle and I noticed others do this too.

Also, Right Here would not have been called out so often if people did not know it was him giving the red.

I disagree with this view.
On the CraigsList forums there is complete anonymous voting (except to the moderators who rarely look) and much of it IS retaliatory. You can tell it is due to consistent negging of posts which normally wouldn't evoke a strong opinion by a normal user, towards a poster who has been in some sort of online squabble before. It's something I've observed on all of those boards.

As far as medo giving you red, all I can say is that your posts tend to be more inflammatory than others and it would be easy to disagree. medo isn't the type of user to follow someone around and 'neg' them (and I challenge you to prove it). I neg your post if I am in disagreement, give you green if I agree (and have done both many times).

True, RH would not have been 'called out' about the neg ratings if it was anonymous. That doesn't make it a good choice, however. I want to know who is voting and how.

iRabbitt said:fifth1 said:
I agree, anonymous voting eliminates retaliatory voting. I voted red on one of medo's posts a while ago and she starting giving me red back . So now I return the favor. It's a vicious cycle and I noticed others do this too.

Also, Right Here would not have been called out so often if people did not know it was him giving the red.

I disagree with this view.
On the CraigsList forums there is complete anonymous voting (except to the moderators who rarely look) and much of it IS retaliatory. You can tell it is due to consistent negging of posts which normally wouldn't evoke a strong opinion by a normal user, towards a poster who has been in some sort of online squabble before. It's something I've observed on all of those boards.

As far as medo giving you red, all I can say is that your posts tend to be more inflammatory than others and it would be easy to disagree. medo isn't the type of user to follow someone around and 'neg' them (and I challenge you to prove it). I neg your post if I am in disagreement, give you green if I agree (and have done both many times).

True, RH would not have been 'called out' about the neg ratings if it was anonymous. That doesn't make it a good choice, however. I want to know who is voting and how.

I just don't remember this place having all this drama before the voting. And I never said she follows me around. It could have been a coincidence, but I stick by my claim based on the timing of the votes. It really only becomes noticable with 2 posters who are very active and constantly negging each other.

And by the way , your on my sh*t list now for negging me!

PML said:RightHere said:

I think the idea of having some forum regulars moderate some forums is a good one. I think that might hurt moderator consistency though, since that person wouldn't participate in all of the mod discussions. It would also require some additional oversight as they get started, and then probably more frequent review of their actions to make sure there's no personal agenda at work. Mods want to be totally hands off in OT, and this sounds like a lot of work for them.

I disagree with forum regulars acting as moderators. Mods are paid to oversee the forums objectively - and I don't think members will be objective. They'll let their "friends" get away with murder, while those they don't like will be unfairly treated.

I think there could be a balance between paid mods and forum regulars overseeing things. But if we are using the "outright attack on a member" rule, it's obvious what would be deleted without much thought. If members are selected, I would think it would be based on their ability to objectively look at a thread, and there would be enough selected to counter any "letting friends get away with something".

I also support the thought of unless it's an "outright attack" things should be left up for others to come in and view what has been posted and form their own decisions about a member. When things get deleted, it leaves some members out of the loop on why people dislike someone (I'm referencing the crotchety stuff from earlier in this thread).

I could see Bruce Almighty parting the Red Sea on day one.

PML said:RightHere said:

I think the idea of having some forum regulars moderate some forums is a good one. I think that might hurt moderator consistency though, since that person wouldn't participate in all of the mod discussions. It would also require some additional oversight as they get started, and then probably more frequent review of their actions to make sure there's no personal agenda at work. Mods want to be totally hands off in OT, and this sounds like a lot of work for them.

I disagree with forum regulars acting as moderators. Mods are paid to oversee the forums objectively - and I don't think members will be objective. They'll let their "friends" get away with murder, while those they don't like will be unfairly treated.
Agree.