Forum Moderation Poll

[Duds]

lol, I just checked this thread again and wow pms are the way to his heart ill forget I even read that, show him a shovel lol thats hillarious, Moe you just cant keep one name for me can you
Duds

 

[SteveDola]

i think suspending ones privilages for any amount of time is very dangerous. I dont like the idea although im not a mod just a peon. it seem like a slippery slope that could end up keeping people away from anotherwise nice board.

 

[shawn]

Though I said "just right", in general I do oppose locking a thread - no one likes being muzzled and it often ends up in whatever is going on there spilling into or starting other threads. Is there any way to have them "go away" but still let people post in them?

 

[TBoisvert]

It seems to be the same people all the time that get into these pissing matches. I find it quite annoying. The thread from the other night was pathetic. Although Chuck was really out of line for his behavior (in my opinion) and seems to always have a chip on his shoulder when he doesn't agree with something (which seems to be quite often), it didn't help when the moderators and members of the BOD all started to gang up on him. It really should have been done off line and behind closed doors. The reasoning behind the rules seem to lose credibility when something like that happens.

 

[Moe_K]

Though I said "just right", in general I do oppose locking a thread - no one likes being muzzled and it often ends up in whatever is going on there spilling into or starting other threads. Is there any way to have them "go away" but still let people post in them?

If you figure out a way, let me know.

 

[shawn]

If you figure out a way, let me know.

Hmmm... I think I meant the thread, not the people! Maybe a "junk" forum to move some of those threads to instead of locking them? Maybe you loose post count if you post to a thread in the junk forum!

 

[joefitz]

I agree that we didn't handle that situation as well as I would have liked; however, don't think MANY of the BOD and moderators haven't had those same discussions with Chuck via PMs. People like to express themselves publicly and it is often hard to respond to something privately when the initial post is public; it becomes that much more frustrating when people feel like they've already had these conversations 10 times. Both sides often become frustrated (in this case Chuck on one side and the BOD/Officers/Mods on the other) because they don't think the other side "gets it" and this naturally tends to lead to ugliness, as we witnessed the other day.

We do see the same people tending to require more of our moderating attention than others, but LOTS of people end up getting moderated at one point or another -- including members of the BOD, club officers, and even yes, the moderators. Everyone makes bad decisions sometimes or simply goofs. It happens. Nobody likes to feel like they're being censored but our rules are pretty clear and most people seem to be quite fine with them.

Some people think these systems can go without being moderated but I've been running these types of community systems for over two decades -- yes, TWO DECADES. Over that time, I've seen it all. I think we have a fantastic crew here running this system and I think we have a great set of rules -- as well as a willingness to change them as necessary.

I think our moderators take their volunteer jobs extremely seriously and I think they do a stellar job. Is every situation handled perfectly? Absolutely, positively not. But it is pretty darn good. Anyone that feels otherwise simply doesn't have an appreciation for the job and/or the system -- which is not meant as an insult, I wouldn't expect any of our users to really have a good understanding of these things because they don't have to deal with/"see" them.

The one thing I wish we would do is demand a little bit more respect from our repeat "offenders". In my opinion, anyone that shows general disdain or abuses our rules and/or staff, and their reputation, should not be allowed to use the system. And by this I don't mean that people can't disagree with actions taken by a moderator or raise these types of concerns privately to the staff, but the public statements and abuse we've put up with at times just boggles my mind.

And it isn't even just about the staff in these cases either, which would be bad enough, but what about new users viewing our system for the first time. If the first threads they see include the flaming posts that went on the other day it makes the entire organization look bad no matter which side of the issue you stand on. Those situations simply aren't worth allowing -- they don't add value and in my opinion, do nothing but hurt the club.

From the looks of the poll so far, the majority of users that have posted feel everything is a-ok. And even this 4:1 ratio is understating the satisfaction of our users enormously...as any polling expert will tell you, motivated people provide feedback far more frequently than others. People that feel we are moderating too much are much more likely to be voting than others.

Well, that's my 10 cents.

 

[jango]

I voted just right, but there are times when the moderation is completely biased.

 

[NateHanson]

I'd like to hear examples of what people believe are moderator biases. This is an accusation we actually get a lot, and it's easy to discount when it comes from the person who just broke a rule and got moderated (people seem to have a very common response of viewing thread-moderation as a personal attack on their character). But if others see a trend of "biased moderation practices I'd like to have it pointed out to me. Perhaps we're not seeing what we're doing clearly, so if there are examples of bias it would be helpful for us to review them.

On the other hand, please don't misconstrue inconsistencies with bias. There are certainly many examples of two similar posts, only one of which got edited, and that sort of thing. This happens because we are a team of humans who try to be consistent individually, and with eachother, but there are bound to be variations. Not to mention that although we try to lay eyes on every post written in a day (like 500 per day!) there are inevitably posts we don't see.

 

[shawn]

If moderation is based on rules/guidelines/principles, when acting as moderator, it may be helpful to cite the rule/guideline/principle that the moderation is based on. I see that done in the vendor experience forum, but less so in other forums. Without such information, it is easy to misunderstand the moderation action as "bias". Also, since moderators here are also "regular" participants in discussions and may debate issues as such, it may be good to have a standard way to distinguish communication made as a moderator vs. that made as a "regular" participant so that the recipients may better understand the context of the comments.

 

[Scuba_Dave]

It's easy to show bias

Every time we go off the deep end, you moderate us
That's bias - you moderate the bad people

 

[Moe_K]

If moderation is based on rules/guidelines/principles, when acting as moderator, it may be helpful to cite the rule/guideline/principle that the moderation is based on. I see that done in the vendor experience forum, but less so in other forums. Without such information, it is easy to misunderstand the moderation action as "bias". Also, since moderators here are also "regular" participants in discussions and may debate issues as such, it may be good to have a standard way to distinguish communication made as a moderator vs. that made as a "regular" participant so that the recipients may better understand the context of the comments.

I don't know if that's possible, Shawn.
We can't have two identities.

Also, it's important to note that some of us are just moderators, and not BoD/Officers. Lots of times we all get lumped together; for good and for bad.

 

[TBoisvert]

I agree that we didn't handle that situation as well as I would have liked; however, don't think MANY of the BOD and moderators haven't had those same discussions with Chuck via PMs. People like to express themselves publicly and it is often hard to respond to something privately when the initial post is public; it becomes that much more frustrating when people feel like they've already had these conversations 10 times. Both sides often become frustrated (in this case Chuck on one side and the BOD/Officers/Mods on the other) because they don't think the other side "gets it" and this naturally tends to lead to ugliness, as we witnessed the other day.

We do see the same people tending to require more of our moderating attention than others, but LOTS of people end up getting moderated at one point or another -- including members of the BOD, club officers, and even yes, the moderators. Everyone makes bad decisions sometimes or simply goofs. It happens. Nobody likes to feel like they're being censored but our rules are pretty clear and most people seem to be quite fine with them.

Some people think these systems can go without being moderated but I've been running these types of community systems for over two decades -- yes, TWO DECADES. Over that time, I've seen it all. I think we have a fantastic crew here running this system and I think we have a great set of rules -- as well as a willingness to change them as necessary.

I think our moderators take their volunteer jobs extremely seriously and I think they do a stellar job. Is every situation handled perfectly? Absolutely, positively not. But it is pretty darn good. Anyone that feels otherwise simply doesn't have an appreciation for the job and/or the system -- which is not meant as an insult, I wouldn't expect any of our users to really have a good understanding of these things because they don't have to deal with/"see" them.

The one thing I wish we would do is demand a little bit more respect from our repeat "offenders". In my opinion, anyone that shows general disdain or abuses our rules and/or staff, and their reputation, should not be allowed to use the system. And by this I don't mean that people can't disagree with actions taken by a moderator or raise these types of concerns privately to the staff, but the public statements and abuse we've put up with at times just boggles my mind.

And it isn't even just about the staff in these cases either, which would be bad enough, but what about new users viewing our system for the first time. If the first threads they see include the flaming posts that went on the other day it makes the entire organization look bad no matter which side of the issue you stand on. Those situations simply aren't worth allowing -- they don't add value and in my opinion, do nothing but hurt the club.

From the looks of the poll so far, the majority of users that have posted feel everything is a-ok. And even this 4:1 ratio is understating the satisfaction of our users enormously...as any polling expert will tell you, motivated people provide feedback far more frequently than others. People that feel we are moderating too much are much more likely to be voting than others.

Well, that's my 10 cents.

Agree, Joe.... I believe there MUST be moderation. Heck, it tends to get out of hand with moderation... can you imagine if the forum wasn't moderated? I think the guys (and gals) do a fine job here. I just thought that one post went too far. If people aren't going to take the warnings seriously, they should be suspended from the forums. If there aren't consequences to the actions, they will continue. I am just saying that pissing matches between members and mods/BOD members should not go on. That's all.

 

[Liam]

i would just like to add that the bod/mods always respond to any members issue with moderation and we always discuss solutions with those involved (Often at extreme length)to try and find a happy resolution.I agree 100% with Joe's statements in that this situation was handled poorly,it is always difficult when issues that are being tried to be resolved diplomatically via pm by the bod/mods are taken to the boards by the other parties.

 

[jovreef]

Well...see... I never saw this pissing match closed thread... now curiosity killed the cat... I'm off to find it. (efit) Oh waite...if its not closed I know what your talking about...nm

BTW... I think for the most part the mods do a great job here, they are not natzi's like on RC sometimes. I do however disagree with the modding that was done on 1 thread about AQ & deleting comments about a worker. The workers make or break a store thats my 1 and only gripe...I dont even know if it was resolved ... lol

 

[NateHanson]

If moderation is based on rules/guidelines/principles, when acting as moderator, it may be helpful to cite the rule/guideline/principle that the moderation is based on. I see that done in the vendor experience forum, but less so in other forums. Without such information, it is easy to misunderstand the moderation action as "bias".

I agree. You're right that we were more deliberate about doing that in VE to help acquaint folks with new rules, but we should try to make that a more consistent part of our regular practices. Unfortunately when a post is completely deleted only moderators can see the tag, that states reason for deletion (we typically fill this in anyways). But others don't get to see that reason/rule violation for a deleted post. If there's editing within a post I think we're pretty good about noting (in red) why we edited, but we can work on consistency again.

On the other hand, when we have long PM fights with people after a moderation act for something like swearing or clearly violating the rules, it's never a case of that person not knowing the rule. It tends instead to be a perception on their part that only they are being subject to that rule. Whether that's a personality issue, or just a normal response since people generally only see their OWN posts get edited, I don't know. But often stating a rule isn't capable of preventing our biggest problems. Although I agree that with smaller problems or resentment, always citing a rule or reason for editing could prevent some of that.

Also, since moderators here are also "regular" participants in discussions and may debate issues as such, it may be good to have a standard way to distinguish communication made as a moderator vs. that made as a "regular" participant so that the recipients may better understand the context of the comments.

Yeah, that's always a tricky thing about being a moderator. Sometimes it's hard for your "civilian" participation in a thread discussion to not be taken as overbearing or threatening by others. One thing we started to do in VE was moderate in red, but maybe we should adopt that strategy more generally.

We'll discuss these things in our forum. Thanks for the suggestions.

Nate

 

[billm]

One persons pissing match is anothers spirited discussion.
As long as theres no profanity or threats whats the harm?

 

[NateHanson]

Unfortunately they usually occur at the expense of everyone elses informative exchange on some reef-related topic. If these battles always happened in their own forum and thread, then we'd have less need to stop them. But when personal spats spiral out of control in a thread that many other well-behaved members were contributing to and enjoying, it's not really in the best interest of the club to let two flame-mongers take over.

 

[lactrain]

Yeah, that's always a tricky thing about being a moderator. Sometimes it's hard for your "civilian" participation in a thread discussion to not be taken as overbearing or threatening by others. One thing we started to do in VE was moderate in red, but maybe we should adopt that strategy more generally.

Instead of moderate in "Red" (which i still think is a good idea) why dont you all adopt somekind of Avatar that one can distinguish a moderator from a member, and a moderator from the BOD and ultimately the Prez.

I am begining to get a picture of who are mods and who are BOD and who is the pres and at times theyre roles get crossed and in cases like the thread in question im not sure if new members were able to differentiate the two.

I have noticed that some of you already do have labels... some are labeled retired BOD ... or whatever ... but it would just give members a clearer picture of what is going on.... similiar to getting pulled over by a plain clothed cop in an unmarked cruiser ... If your gonna police maybe you all should wear some ID ... maybe additional sreennames, like Moderator Nate, Moderater Rich , Moderator Len, To allow you to log in as a mod and moderate but still keep you personal threads linked to your personal screename...Something!

Just a thought!

 

[Chuck Spyropulos]

Not just members to blame here

And sometimes these wasteful threads are exhaserbated by moderators/BODs who should try to mediate the situation as opposed to kindling the fire.

Unfortunately they usually occur at the expense of everyone elses informative exchange on some reef-related topic. If these battles always happened in their own forum and thread, then we'd have less need to stop them. But when personal spats spiral out of control in a thread that many other well-behaved members were contributing to and enjoying, it's not really in the best interest of the club to let two flame-mongers take over.