Have you got what it takes to be a moderator?

Discussion in 'SF Open Government' started by Stryder, Oct 14, 2006.

  1. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,105
    Have you got what it takes to be.... a Moderator?

    =Disclaimer=
    This particular post in no way endorsed by the Adminstration of sciforums or other moderators. It was purely my humble attempt at trying to both "Ready people" to moderator positions and also identify who would make an excellent moderator.

    If you have no interest in becoming a moderator in sciforums, then don't both posting here now, This thread clearly isn't for you. If you have interest in becoming a moderator for any area of sciforums then please read on.

    Since thats out of the way, Below a number of questions will be asked about various things that occur on the forums in regards to how people post, what they post and where they post it. It's up to yourself to develop an answer in response to that question and supply them in your reply to this thread.

    The overall results will not just imply if you would be a good moderator but also potentially define to want to be moderators what a Fair, Arbitrary decision is when placed in these particular predicament.

    If other moderators, administrators and even sciforums users come up with other "scenarios", please PM them to me so as to make a followup questionaire that will be "clearer" to everyone

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    .

    ==============================================

    1:
    Two older member posters are busy arguing abusively with one another causing the initial thread to divert from topic. They've posted about 20 posts since you last logged in, what should you do to the thread in your subforum?

    2:
    A Poster keeps refering to their website creating an unofficial "signature", there site is neither on the topic of the thread and contains so many fictional statements and evidence inconsistancies that it's not what you'd class as a place to source evidence from.

    Their continued persistancy is starting to upset other members, which in turn are biting at them and causing the threads to read like an excert from "Flamewars". What should you do?

    3:
    A poster has been banned by one of the supermoderators or administrator and what is seemingly a new user is complaining about the injustices of their decision and is harassing other members in regards to the part they think they played. Their rants are enducing the multiple threads they've cross-posted to to be littered with members degrading to personally attacking them. Again, what should you do?

    4:
    the poster <fakehandle> has been posting advertisment about a wonder pill, with links to an associated site that loads spyware on peoples computers through a particular browser flaw (Which you don't actually have while using firefox). You've notice the post is in your subforum while also occuring in other subforums (which you don't have any control over) what do you do?

    5:
    You've noticed a user has been using a 0-day exploit on the forums that the Administration isn't even aware of yet. You've checked out their IP and it points to the United Arab Emirates, even though the User claims to be a member of a Kuwait hacking group. Temperments are Rising in the forums in regards to the Kuwaitee's attempt at sabotaging the forum (racism etc), even though there is a potential that it's just been setup to look like they are from Kuwait. What do you do?

    6:
    You've received multiple e-mails implying that one particular thread in filled with "Ad-Homin" statements. To the most part the makeup of the whole thread has gone un-noticed due to the "Word Wall" that seems impenatrable by your powers of deduction. (Lots of words with little meaning that seem gruelsome to wade through.) The threads initial post on page 1 has long since lost since page 3, and it's now reached a staggering page 23 of flaming. What do you do?

    7:
    There is a topical thread placed into your subforum to which you have a specific point of view on. Your point of view however conflicts with most of the posts recieved on the topic, making you one of the few to have a certain view opposed to everyone else. What shouldn't you do?

    8:
    You are recieving complaints about one person in particular from a poster that you know to be a bit of a trouble maker themselves. They complain about harassing PMs (Private messages) they have recieved and quote you a few. what should you do?
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. draqon Banned Banned

    Messages:
    35,006
    no.
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Sauna Banned Banned

    Messages:
    763
    Delete, delete, delete, delete, delete, etc.
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Sauna Banned Banned

    Messages:
    763
    ....and delete it quick.

    If they think they've got something that really needs to be said, let them try again, .... maybe third time lucky.
     
  8. lixluke Refined Reinvention Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,072
    1:
    Two older member posters are busy arguing abusively with one another causing the initial thread to divert from topic. They've posted about 20 posts since you last logged in, what should you do to the thread in your subforum?
    ----------------------------------------
    There is a procedure that should be followed consistently without divergence.
    1. There is a proper procedure for determining violation posts and action to be taken.
    2. There is a proper procedure regarding action to be taken for those that posted violation posts.
    3. All members have to be treated equally regardless of age or membership time on the forum.




    2:
    A Poster keeps refering to their website creating an unofficial "signature", there site is neither on the topic of the thread and contains so many fictional statements and evidence inconsistancies that it's not what you'd class as a place to source evidence from.

    Their continued persistancy is starting to upset other members, which in turn are biting at them and causing the threads to read like an excert from "Flamewars". What should you do?
    ----------------------------------------
    The signature feature is independent of the topic. Users have the ethical right to link their website or put whatever want on their signatures.
    Those that get upset about it, violate rules are the ones in the wrong.




    3:
    A poster has been banned by one of the supermoderators or administrator and what is seemingly a new user is complaining about the injustices of their decision and is harassing other members in regards to the part they think they played. Their rants are enducing the multiple threads they've cross-posted to to be littered with members degrading to personally attacking them. Again, what should you do?
    ----------------------------------------
    1. There is a proper procedure for determining violation posts and action to be taken.
    2. There is a proper procedure regarding action to be taken for those that posted violation posts.
    3. All members have to be treated equally regardless of age or membership time on the forum.




    4:
    the poster <fakehandle> has been posting advertisment about a wonder pill, with links to an associated site that loads spyware on peoples computers through a particular browser flaw (Which you don't actually have while using firefox). You've notice the post is in your subforum while also occuring in other subforums (which you don't have any control over) what do you do?
    ----------------------------------------
    This post clearly violates the rules.
    1. There is a proper procedure for determining violation posts and action to be taken.
    2. There is a proper procedure regarding action to be taken for those that posted violation posts.
    3. All members have to be treated equally regardless of age or membership time on the forum.




    5:
    You've noticed a user has been using a 0-day exploit on the forums that the Administration isn't even aware of yet. You've checked out their IP and it points to the United Arab Emirates, even though the User claims to be a member of a Kuwait hacking group. Temperments are Rising in the forums in regards to the Kuwaitee's attempt at sabotaging the forum (racism etc), even though there is a potential that it's just been setup to look like they are from Kuwait. What do you do?
    ----------------------------------------
    This makes absolutely no sense.
    WTF are you talking about?




    6:
    You've received multiple e-mails implying that one particular thread in filled with "Ad-Homin" statements. To the most part the makeup of the whole thread has gone un-noticed due to the "Word Wall" that seems impenatrable by your powers of deduction. (Lots of words with little meaning that seem gruelsome to wade through.) The threads initial post on page 1 has long since lost since page 3, and it's now reached a staggering page 23 of flaming. What do you do?
    ----------------------------------------
    1. There is a proper procedure for determining violation posts and action to be taken.
    2. There is a proper procedure regarding action to be taken for those that posted violation posts.
    3. All members have to be treated equally regardless of age or membership time on the forum.




    7:
    There is a topical thread placed into your subforum to which you have a specific point of view on. Your point of view however conflicts with most of the posts recieved on the topic, making you one of the few to have a certain view opposed to everyone else. What shouldn't you do?
    ----------------------------------------
    Bias cheating like some moderators do that ban people that violate rules because they have a different view. Meanwhile, they do not ban people who have the same view even though they also violated the rules. Like James R in the religion forum. Bias. Such moderators abide by corruption and injustice. Not objective justice.




    8:
    You are recieving complaints about one person in particular from a poster that you know to be a bit of a trouble maker themselves. They complain about harassing PMs (Private messages) they have recieved and quote you a few. what should you do?
    ----------------------------------------
    There is no such thing as a member that you know to be a trouble maker. All members are equal. considering anybody a "troublemaker" is biased stupidity. Either the member violated a rule or not.

    It is total anarchy and complete stupidity to use completely inconsistent consequences on members in violation. Also to create a consequence out of nowhere that cannot be backed up in actual rules.
    Moderators should not have the liberty to decide consequences and violations on the spot.
    The violations with consequences should be spelled out exactly in advance. The consequences then should be applied accordingly. Never randomly.

    ALL COMPLAINTS FROM ALL MEMBERS MUST BE TREATED EQUAL WITHOUT BIAS
     
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2006
  9. phonetic stroking my banjo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,157
    1:
    Two older member posters are busy arguing abusively with one another causing the initial thread to divert from topic. They've posted about 20 posts since you last logged in, what should you do to the thread in your subforum?


    Warn the users in question that if they post another comment that has no relevance to the topic and is just to insult the other, they'll be banned for a few days. If the thread doesn't get back on track within a couple of days, other posters are commenting on the two members argument, lock the thread.
    ==============================================
    2:
    A Poster keeps refering to their website creating an unofficial "signature", there site is neither on the topic of the thread and contains so many fictional statements and evidence inconsistancies that it's not what you'd class as a place to source evidence from.

    Their continued persistancy is starting to upset other members, which in turn are biting at them and causing the threads to read like an excert from "Flamewars". What should you do?


    There's a place for personal websites in a users profile. If other users are interested to see another users website, they know where to find it. Tell the user this and that it's not acceptable to use it as a signature. Tell them that if they continue to do so, they'll face a 3 day ban and if that doesn't work, a perma-ban.

    Warn users in the thread that they're treading on thin ice and they're doing something worse than the user posting their site. Tell them that you're dealing with the situation and if there's any more backlash, they'll be punished.
    ==============================================
    3:
    A poster has been banned by one of the supermoderators or administrator and what is seemingly a new user is complaining about the injustices of their decision and is harassing other members in regards to the part they think they played. Their rants are enducing the multiple threads they've cross-posted to to be littered with members degrading to personally attacking them. Again, what should you do?


    Determine whether the new user is in fact the banned user. Tell them it's not on if it is. Tell them to pm a moderator/yourself with a complaint and say you'll look into it.

    Much the same as num 2: denounce the users for personally attacking the complainant. Warn them of bans. Lock any threads that are beyond damaged.
    ==============================================
    4:
    the poster <fakehandle> has been posting advertisment about a wonder pill, with links to an associated site that loads spyware on peoples computers through a particular browser flaw (Which you don't actually have while using firefox). You've notice the post is in your subforum while also occuring in other subforums (which you don't have any control over) what do you do?


    Send a note to all supermods/mods/admin letting them know of the problem. Lock the thread and ban the offending user. Remove the offending url and source a fix for the problem and post in the url's place. Warn users that have clicked the link, using browser 'x,y,z' that they could be affected, by 'nameofflaw' and they should get it sorted.
    ==============================================
    5:
    You've noticed a user has been using a 0-day exploit on the forums that the Administration isn't even aware of yet. You've checked out their IP and it points to the United Arab Emirates, even though the User claims to be a member of a Kuwait hacking group. Temperments are Rising in the forums in regards to the Kuwaitee's attempt at sabotaging the forum (racism etc), even though there is a potential that it's just been setup to look like they are from Kuwait. What do you do?


    Notify admin. Tell users the offender is most likely using a proxy and just wants to stir things up. Delete the user and ban the IP. Lock threads that have lost all meaning. Tell users to get back to topic in salvagable threads.
    ==============================================
    6:
    You've received multiple e-mails implying that one particular thread in filled with "Ad-Homin" statements. To the most part the makeup of the whole thread has gone un-noticed due to the "Word Wall" that seems impenatrable by your powers of deduction. (Lots of words with little meaning that seem gruelsome to wade through.) The threads initial post on page 1 has long since lost since page 3, and it's now reached a staggering page 23 of flaming. What do you do?


    Tell the users in question that it's just not on. Lock the thread. Warn of bans.
    ==============================================
    7:
    There is a topical thread placed into your subforum to which you have a specific point of view on. Your point of view however conflicts with most of the posts recieved on the topic, making you one of the few to have a certain view opposed to everyone else. What shouldn't you do?


    Post aggressively, mockingly, shit-stirring-up-ingly(?), make it a 'you and us' situation with the few users of the same view and the rest of the users. Don't use your power to make the thread go in the direction you want. Don't lock the thread prematurely.
    ==============================================
    8:
    You are recieving complaints about one person in particular from a poster that you know to be a bit of a trouble maker themselves. They complain about harassing PMs (Private messages) they have recieved and quote you a few. what should you do?


    Notify the complainant that it's being dealt with, but if they were less of a trouble stirrer they might not be in this situation. Warn them that if they're stirring it up, you don't want to know.

    Tell them that they should put the user on ignore to save future hassle.

    Send a note to the person the user complained about explaining that someone (keep anon) has complained about them, you don't know if it's true, but you had to tell them. If it is true, please refrain from it. Put the user on ignore if you can't get along. End of discussion, please don't direct questions at me.
    ==============================================
     
  10. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    1:
    Two older member posters are busy arguing abusively with one another causing the initial thread to divert from topic. They've posted about 20 posts since you last logged in, what should you do to the thread in your subforum?


    Depends on who the posters are. There is a high chance one of them is me so I would edit the other members posts to make him look like a moron. No, he is already looking like a moron. I would make him look like GW Bush. And then I would post a 'LOLs'!

    Or I would just send a PM to both giving them a warning to quit it.

    2:
    A Poster keeps refering to their website creating an unofficial "signature", there site is neither on the topic of the thread and contains so many fictional statements and evidence inconsistancies that it's not what you'd class as a place to source evidence from.
    Their continued persistancy is starting to upset other members, which in turn are biting at them and causing the threads to read like an excert from "Flamewars". What should you do?


    If it is you-know-who I would ban him!

    Or I would send the member a warning PM to quit it.


    3:
    A poster has been banned by one of the supermoderators or administrator and what is seemingly a new user is complaining about the injustices of their decision and is harassing other members in regards to the part they think they played. Their rants are enducing the multiple threads they've cross-posted to to be littered with members degrading to personally attacking them. Again, what should you do?


    I would join the mayhem!

    Or I would send a warning PM to the sockpuppet.


    4:
    the poster has been posting advertisment about a wonder pill, with links to an associated site that loads spyware on peoples computers through a particular browser flaw (Which you don't actually have while using firefox). You've notice the post is in your subforum while also occuring in other subforums (which you don't have any control over) what do you do?


    I would buy some pills.


    Or I delete the spam and give a warning to the supermoderator of preference.


    5:
    You've noticed a user has been using a 0-day exploit on the forums that the Administration isn't even aware of yet. You've checked out their IP and it points to the United Arab Emirates, even though the User claims to be a member of a Kuwait hacking group. Temperments are Rising in the forums in regards to the Kuwaitee's attempt at sabotaging the forum (racism etc), even though there is a potential that it's just been setup to look like they are from Kuwait. What do you do?


    Order a nuclear strike.

    Or inform a supermoderator/administrator.

    6:
    You've received multiple e-mails implying that one particular thread in filled with "Ad-Homin" statements. To the most part the makeup of the whole thread has gone un-noticed due to the "Word Wall" that seems impenatrable by your powers of deduction. (Lots of words with little meaning that seem gruelsome to wade through.) The threads initial post on page 1 has long since lost since page 3, and it's now reached a staggering page 23 of flaming. What do you do?


    Join the mayhem!

    Or give a warning to the worst offenders via PM and close the thread, or delete all the crap if the beginning of the thread is worthwhile it.

    7:
    There is a topical thread placed into your subforum to which you have a specific point of view on. Your point of view however conflicts with most of the posts recieved on the topic, making you one of the few to have a certain view opposed to everyone else. What shouldn't you do?


    Something.

    8:
    You are recieving complaints about one person in particular from a poster that you know to be a bit of a trouble maker themselves. They complain about harassing PMs (Private messages) they have recieved and quote you a few. what should you do?


    Send a warning to both via PM to cool it down.
     
  11. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    nothing. some people are adamant in thier views.

    edit post and send PM. if that fails then ban for 3 days.

    reveiw evidence of the ban and listen to the people.
    there are people you can trust others you can't.
    ban the sock puppet

    permaban

    racism really ticks me off. ban, possibly permaban

    let 'em have at it.
    maybe use the thread as a dumping ground for other threads.

    moderate that topic alone.

    look into it. reveiw referenced posts and threads. remind said posters there is an ignore function and encourage them to use it.
     
  12. lixluke Refined Reinvention Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,072
    This is nazi psychosis. It is perfectly acceptable for a user to include their website or anything they want on their signature that is not vulgarity.
    It is not unethical to deny me from putting my website on my signature.
    Signature is an aspect of the user. Hence the term "signature". You leave your signature on your post like a serial killer leaves their signature at the murder scene.
    It is unethical to deny them from leaving their website within their signature.
    You fail.


    This is totally gay.
    A thread with a legitimate topic cannot be locked.
    A locked thread should be based on topic that is not legitimate.
    Either lock it or if good for the cess.
    Cess: Game threads.
    Lock: Threads who's topic degrades others, any form of discrimination, created to flame, etc.

    If a thread has a legit topic, it should not be locked.


    You are a total reject. You have no right to tell anybody "if they were less of a trouble stirrer". This is not moderatin. This is over the top abuse. Either the person violated the rules or did not. If the person did not violate any rules, you cannot invalidate them. You cannot cast obnoxious arrogant judgements upon them. You cannot label people in such assholish manner period.
     
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2006
  13. phonetic stroking my banjo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,157
    Kind words there, lix.

    I think you fail on account of being a wanker.

    Hard lines, eh?
     
  14. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,105
    Guys,
    this thread isn't suppose to be about name calling on one or other posters views on how moderators should moderate.

    Lixluke,
    although moderators have to try to maintain an arbitrary position there are many unsaid points about moderation in general. It's all very well to let a topic slide however if it does so for too long it can actually damage the popularity of a forum, some people will be upset by moderation where others by the lack of it. It's very difficult to formulate an overall balance which is the real nature of this thread, to identify if people have that inner balance to moderate.


    As a moderator, I initially attempted to have the philosophy of allowing people to diagress topics with the main defense being that over a posters lifetime their overall posted work would pretty much develop an overall profile of who they are.

    So if you act an Ass, an Ass is what you become.

    It should also be known that a Moderators job isn't necessarily rewarding. I mean it's not done for pay, people can resent your decisions and others can hate you so much that they might turn cyberstalker or attempt to hack your onlinemail account out of spite. Why do people get like this?

    Personally I think it's just too much time on their hands letting them dream up devious conspiracy plots and twist their mind to thinking that you're out to get them and everyone they know, but it's just not like that.
     
  15. vslayer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,969
    if they are making abusive posts, then they will be deleted and given a warning about abuse. if they are simply in a heated debate which happens to be off topic, then i would create a new topic to accomodate and move their posts.

    blatant self promotion will not be tolerated, it is the same as spam ads, unless their website contains factual relevant information then they have no reason to link it. if their posts are reasonable then i will remove the links, otherwise the posts will be deleted. they will be warned about spamming.

    since its most probably a sock puppet i would ban them and remove any nuisance threads/posts they have created.

    the user will be banned, and their posts deleted. if i do not have power outside my forum, then the admins/supermods will be advised, and i will warn people viewing those threads not to click the link.

    what does hacking the site or making racist remarks have to do with their location? anyone who hacks the site will be banned, anyone who makes racist remarks will be warned, and banned upon repeating those remarks.

    lock the thread and start a mk2 version, quoting the original post, and any useful posts from the thread.

    you should never use your mod powers for the sake of supporting your point. a moderator has every right to debate their point as a member, but when moderating, must be impartial.

    if i have a way of confirming that member has sent harassing/abusive PMs, then they would be either warned or banned depending on the severity of their threats, and how persistent they were.
     
  16. vslayer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,969
    last time i checked signatures were disabled. i think the reference was to people who make meaningless posts just so that they can put a link to their site. they might aswell be a spambot.



    if its only starting to be sidetracked then it con be recovered, but if it goes off at the 2nd page and gets 21 pages off topic, it is generally impossible to recover. however if people seem to be enjoying their nonsense topic, and not just flaming, then i would cesspool it.
    EDIT: or if it is still intelligent, and just on a different topic i would rename it and send it to a more appropriate subforum.

    a bit of hypocrasy there?
     
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2006
  17. invert_nexus Ze do caixao Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,686
    Depends.
    It would be stupid to simply thrown down one size fits all.
    What is the thread? Is it a thread with at least some hope for decent topical conversation? Is the thread starter one of those engaged in the argument? Is the argument tangentially brushing against the topic from time to time? Is there a method by which the argument could be diverted back to topic?

    Far too little information for a decision.

    And all you pussies out there with your 'delete delete delete'. Stick it up your ass.

    Send the member a pm informing him that posting his website in every post like that is considered spam and that if he should continue doing so it will result in measures.

    By the way. This goes for anybody. Your information regarding fictional statements and inconsistencies is extraneous.
    There is no need for any poster to constantly post his/her website.
    And it's not your job to decide whether the information presented on the site is correct or incorrect.

    Depends. Part of what you've described would be construed as spam and would thus require control.
    Deletion? Maybe. Maybe not.
    Depends.
    I'd definitely jump on the user's case. Informing him that he will not be allowed to take his personal obsession into every thread under the sun. I would suggest that he keep his bitching to a single thread somewhere and await banning by the powers that be (if they chose to reban him for breaking his ban.)

    This is spam. And would result in thread deletion and user banishment. Preferably an ip ban.
    I don't think regular moderators have the power to ban. So, all I could really do is delete the thread in my forum. And either pm the other moderators concerned to clean up their own forums. Or to post a thread in the moderator forum.
    James, Goofy, or the new admin duo would need to be notified for banishment to commence.

    Ban the user.
    Delete the offending posts.
    If necessary make a public statment about the probability of 'infowars' or whatever.
    Personally, I doubt I'd ever go so far as to realize that a UAE guy was trying to discredit Kuwait. But one never knows.

    If you can't read the thread, then you have no right to moderate it.
    Quit and get a day job.

    What shouldn't I do?
    Well. I shouldn't use my moderator powers to influence the discussion. I.e. no editing of posts to make the other guy look foolish. Or to remove points of debate or anything like that.
    I also shouldn't hold myself back from the discussion.
    To not speak your mind is to do the forum a grave disservice.
    This place needs more discussion. Not less.
    In my opinion, being a moderator places more responsibility upon you to not hold back than if you were just a regular user.

    Suggest that they place the user on ignore.
    Unless there is a way to get real evidence? Because quoting pm's is not evidence.


    Vslayer,

    I thought you were outta here? Now you're trying to suck up to the mods?
    Heh.
     
  18. invert_nexus Ze do caixao Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,686
    Lixluke,

    You fail.
    Because signatures are disabled at Sciforums.
    Remember?

    The signature feature is disabled.

    I am a robot of great skill and coolness...
    Err.
    Error.
    Error.
    I cannot find the procdure protocol.
    I cannot choose of my own free will.
    I am only a robot.
    Error.
    Head blowing up in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1....

    Error. Error.
    I am a robot.
    I cannot think.
    Error.


    Vslayer, et al...,

    All of you presented a solution to this question along the lines of editing, deleting, banning, etc...

    But, the thing is that the premise was that you didn't read the thread!

    How the hell can you moderate a thread which you haven't even read?

    The real answer is that you have to fucking read the damn thing or quit.

    Or you could go into error mode like our buddy cool would while looking for his instruction manual...
     
  19. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,105
    I have to admit Invert I like the way you looked at the scenarios deeper than some of the others. I suppose you can suggest my poorly written, halfbaked scenarios are actually cleverly designed to be the veritable "Tip of the Iceberg".

    It's very interesting in general to see a concensus forming in some areas, where other individualistic and predominant opinions over-rule other areas. I'm hoping the other all thread actually aids the team to make a shortlist of those interested in being a moderator and define what the sciforums users see as fair moderation considering these are "Fictional" scenarios.
     
  20. Mr. G reality.sys Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,191
    No. I have a real family that needs me.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. lixluke Refined Reinvention Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,072
    You fail for being a failure face.


    Moderation has nothing to do with balance. It's about objectivity and logic.
    It is about standards.
    Standards must be predetermined.
    The only decision is based on whether or not there is a violation of the standard.
    If you find the violation, you take action according to predetermined process.


    Wrong. This is total idiotic bias with no objectivity whatsoever.
    This is not moderation. This is predjudging.
    There is no such thing as acting like X and becoming like X or whatever.
    All you are doing is labeling, and adhering to nothing but the essence of ignorance.

    There is a post or thread or whatever. Is it in violation or not? The going status of the person that posted is completely irrelevant. There is no such thing as status. Each member of a board is equal in every respect. All are to be treated equally without bias. Equality in never looking at who posted, but at the post objectively. He could be your best friend or worst enemy. This has nothing to do with whether there was a violation or not. The only thing that matters is the rules, and whether or not the post was in violation.

    It is a first violation, there must be a warning. If the violator is in dispute, the moderator must open the dispute up for discussion. Either way, no member should be ever porfiles or held in some sort of ignorant bias stigma. A member is a member in the same way every other member is a member. All equal under ethics. Not one above or below the other. None profiled in anyway. The only thing the moderator should label a member is "member". No outside judgements beyond that. Anything other than objective moderation is not moderation. It is abuse. Nobody has ethical right to judge by age on forum. Nobody definitely has the right to profile a member. All members are equal to all members exactly no matter what.
     
  22. lixluke Refined Reinvention Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,072
    Moderation is not about being bias or using prejudice. It is much similar as you facetiously note to being a robot. You have to be consistant. You have to be logical. You have to be fair. You cannot let anything influence the situation other than the question of violation determined by the standards set in advance.
    Sure being a robot is not wise when operating in real life, and conversating with people. But when it comes to objective treatment of all, there has to be logical objective consistency. You cannot allow bias to treat one member different from the other. That is what corruption is all about. That is abuse. That is ignorance.
    All members are equal. No member should be stignmatized or profiled.

    The rules have to define what a violation is and the consequence. The moderator has to see if a thread/post (without bias for or against member) fits according to that definition. The moderator has to administer the consequence accordingly without bias. Which member it is should not EVER be taken into consideration. A member is a member and nothing more. Logic. Learn how it works.
     
  23. 1:
    Two older member posters are busy arguing abusively with one another causing the initial thread to divert from topic. They've posted about 20 posts since you last logged in, what should you do to the thread in your subforum?


    Politely suggest they either get a room or else bring it back on topic.

    2:
    A Poster keeps refering to their website creating an unofficial "signature", there site is neither on the topic of the thread and contains so many fictional statements and evidence inconsistancies that it's not what you'd class as a place to source evidence from.

    Their continued persistancy is starting to upset other members, which in turn are biting at them and causing the threads to read like an excert from "Flamewars". What should you do?


    Contact the Member in question and respectfully "suggest" that the better place for the link to their website would be their profile page. Ensure that they don't feel singled out, but certainly remind them that the site has certain policies regarding signatures and website promotion and as such the persistent use of the same is constituting a breach of membership.

    3:
    A poster has been banned by one of the supermoderators or administrator and what is seemingly a new user is complaining about the injustices of their decision and is harassing other members in regards to the part they think they played. Their rants are enducing the multiple threads they've cross-posted to to be littered with members degrading to personally attacking them. Again, what should you do?


    Direct them to either shit or get off the pot - if they have anything specific to say regarding administration decisions the relevant forum to bring such matters up exists, partly, for this purpose. Direct them to either air their grievances there, openly and at no disruption to anyone else or face suspension for for disruptive conduct.

    4:
    the poster has been posting advertisment about a wonder pill, with links to an associated site that loads spyware on peoples computers through a particular browser flaw (Which you don't actually have while using firefox). You've notice the post is in your subforum while also occuring in other subforums (which you don't have any control over) what do you do?


    If it's spam, delete it - flag admin or any available super mod of its presence wherever found elsewhere.

    5:
    You've noticed a user has been using a 0-day exploit on the forums that the Administration isn't even aware of yet. You've checked out their IP and it points to the United Arab Emirates, even though the User claims to be a member of a Kuwait hacking group. Temperments are Rising in the forums in regards to the Kuwaitee's attempt at sabotaging the forum (racism etc), even though there is a potential that it's just been setup to look like they are from Kuwait. What do you do?


    Flag admin regarding the problem regarding the exploit - direct members to keep the discussion on topic. Lock if necessary.

    6:
    You've received multiple e-mails implying that one particular thread in filled with "Ad-Homin" statements. To the most part the makeup of the whole thread has gone un-noticed due to the "Word Wall" that seems impenatrable by your powers of deduction. (Lots of words with little meaning that seem gruelsome to wade through.) The threads initial post on page 1 has long since lost since page 3, and it's now reached a staggering page 23 of flaming. What do you do?


    Lock it down.

    7:
    There is a topical thread placed into your subforum to which you have a specific point of view on. Your point of view however conflicts with most of the posts recieved on the topic, making you one of the few to have a certain view opposed to everyone else. What shouldn't you do?


    Say your peace. You're supposed to be a member of a discussion forum, act like one.

    8:
    You are recieving complaints about one person in particular from a poster that you know to be a bit of a trouble maker themselves. They complain about harassing PMs (Private messages) they have recieved and quote you a few. what should you do?


    First off - ascertain weather or not the material quoted actually does constitute a case of genuine harassment or just simply someone answering back. If it is harassing, forward a copy to the member responsible asking for some form of explanation regarding its meaning and context. If not, simply inform the member contacting you that Moderators can't become involved in other peoples private arguments - either settle the issue or else disengage from personal correspondence with the other party. If that other party persists in trying to provoke the member in question to respond - it's a clear case of harassment, appropriate steps should be taken. Firstly a formal written warning - first violation banning.
     

Share This Page