Inquiry: Should Moderators Just Shut the Hell Up?

it would make it impossible for something like what happened in bells case to happen again.
if bells1 makes a comment or gives an opinion NO ONE can say bells the mod made it, even thought bells made the post.

this could be the reason mods do not make more posts here, fear of their words are going to be taken as some kind of official policy.

my 2 cents of course.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

But everyone would know that it was the same person posting it.
Speaking for myself, I just post what I want.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

One solution is to:

1. Have sock puppets for the moderator functions, with names like "Moderator01", "Moderator02" etc.

2. Have a large number of moderators, but rotate them on a weekly/biweekly basis.


This way, the focus is on the job of the moderator,
not on the person who happens to be a moderator.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

But the effect of having long-term appointed moderators is precisely that: their views are taken as official policy.

 

Agreed, I support this idea.

 

i have some shit i was gonna post in the "so you think you can goosestep" thread.....

--------------------------------------------------

i really think sci has turned a page and is new and improved
do not fuck it up by making bad choices.

i want james, tiassa and stryder to relieve themselves of the duties of modding specific forums and act as an oversight committee. they will watch the watchers. they will be the ones to have a dialogue with any concerns the community raises in sfog and issues will hopefully be resolved in a timely manner.

i guess all that already happens to a some degree but perhaps more emphasis and focus is required. maintain a certain distance from the rest of the staff. if there are to be ideological factions, i prefer if you three are on the same one so find some common ground

all mod actions will be documented on the relevant action notes thread found in each forum. some forums do not have them so........

more importantly, when in doubt, do nothing
the sky will not fall

-------------------------------------------------------

y'know, like ombudsman crap

 

Yes they should - " MOD NOTE: frivolous legalese no one cares about"

 

wlminex

---> me! . . .and who the hell is enmos?

 

I disagree that it becomes policy implicitly; there's a range of stances among the Mods regarding moderation and moderation strategy, much as you'd expect. It's more that the use of moderator status to protect insult, bias and even hate speech has just got to stop. Insults, as such, are... well, evidence of poor judgement, generally. A little childish, immature. Labels are the most damaging for two reasons i) character assassination and ii) argument termination.

There's been some noise about how Mods are subject to sanction, but this strikes me as unlikely or uneven: Mods don't get banned for the same offenses that regular posters regularly do get banned for. If a Mod's job is really, as some have proclaimed, about janitorial duties, then let's have an even footing on the forums. Unprovoked personal attacks from a safe position are untenable, particularly as the mod-to-poster ratio appears fairly high hereabouts: it enlarges the protected class and thereby, in that way, Mod opinion can become a sort of policy or probity. (Although I suppose that was kind of your point.)

I think someone called for greater transparency in Mod sanction once: if Mod sanction actually does occur (and it may), that might help. But my experience is that Mods enjoy much greater tolerance, and thus that such transparency, while good in its own right, isn't the penultimate solution to the problem. Under the most extreme possible example, would it be difficult to ban a mod? Problematic? Would a sub-forum disintegrate with a short vacation of the referee? Doubtful. And I don't think anything short of a major ban would necessarily require having a mod step down.

Now, this is not to say, in any way, that all, or most, mods/admins/etc do the above. The vast majority don't, obviously, and that same majority are balanced and wise characters. As with posters, inevitably the problem cases are limited to a few individuals abusing their position. Nothing, they say, is new under the sun.

 

@tt

not yet but soon.......

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Interesting proposal

That is an interesting proposal. I'm happy to explore it, but in truth I don't think it will come about. Perhaps I'm wrong.

To the other, I have a specific demand, before implementing that policy, that I will not make at this time for the simple reason that it is irrelevant insofar as I am highly doubtful that I would get it.

(And no, for the record, it is not James' resignation.)

I have encouraged, but not insisted, that my fellows should use the Action Notes. Perhaps it is simply coincidental, but the number of complaints alleging that I exercise my authority too much seemed to dwindle dramatically once people had a record of how much or little I was actually moderating.

 

realization of the term 'Moderator' is a clue as to how a moderator should behave.

Moderate
1 : avoiding extremes of behavior or expression : observing reasonable limits

Interesting definition #4;
4: limited in scope or effect

i like the idea of a hierarchy of moderators, I know if i were a moderator there would be times that i would question my own desire to Ban someone, having someone to confirm or discuss with is appreciated.(not to mention a lack of desire to Ban someone who should be banned)

experience/effectiveness should be what is used to determine any hierarchy.

 

Which form of the word?

I think introducing the adjective is only going to confuse the issue.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

____________________

Notes:

"moderator". Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2011. Merriam-Webster.com. October 6, 2011. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/moderator

 

The mods are supposed to hold the members accountable to the rules, but nobody seems to hold the mods accountable.
For most, this is not a problem, authority isn't abused...

I can't see asking the mods to not comment-besides the fact that the mods are good commenters...one presumes that they came here in the first place to talk...what's in it for them if they suddenly have to shut up???

If you required it I'm not sure how many people you'd get to mod, if anybody...people who like enforcing rules.

Leo's idea of a mod sock...admittedly, we'd probably be able to guess who it was wearing the mod sock...

Hmm-I dunno, I know when you guys are speaking as mods generally, and when you are speaking as members-most of the mods make an effort to clearly deliniate when they put the mod hat on...Maybe something like a color only the mods can write in? will the software do that?

(royal purple...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)

 

I go back and forth on this basic suggestion. But surely there's some kind of happy medium? Maybe have mods not directly participate in the forums they moderate (but they're free to participate in other fora)? Maybe limit this rule to certain problematic fora like politics? Maybe not a blanket rule, but instead keep an eye out for mods for whom this presents a problem, and request that they refrain from direct participation for a few months, or move them to mod a different subforum, or somesuch?

There's something to the angle that mod energy would be better spent on higher-level concerns than on day-to-day engagement in actual threads, though. But it's not clear how that squares with various other concerns.

 

Just a random thought:
Make all mods able to moderate everywhere, BUT, require at least two mods to be in tandem on most disciplinary action (I.E. not removing obvious spam) For issuing bans, 3 mods.

I would just like there to be a bit of a check on any one mods' authority, so if one mod is being vindictive the others have an opportunity to privately call that mod on it.

 

It wouldn't actually solve the problem anyways, after all if they don't moderate themselves now why would they mod the sock?
Poster argues with mod sock - mod bans poster and gives the sock a stern ticking off.
People complain of mod bias - complaints ignored. Pretty much how it is now. :shrug:

 

Agreed.
I don't think anyone is expecting mods to be above throwing insults and making baseless statements as posters and not mods, especially in other subfora, but the awareness is that they can receive next to no punishment for doing so because of their status - even more so in their own subforum - whilst others feel the full force of their power.
I think all most people want is equal application of rules - which may require making infractions/ban reasons public so we can make more direct comparisons of what is a sanctionable offence and when/why they are being ignored. :shrug: