Moderation: Methodology The results of this poll and inquiry are non-binding Many members are already aware that the individual moderators of this site perform their duties according to their own interpretations. To the other, we frequently find ourselves reminding people of that point. Additionally, we have repeatedly pointed out, in response to conspiracy theories about lockstepping moderators executing a hidden agenda, that moderators frequently fight furiously over various policy issues, and even each other's moderation. Sometimes we even prove this by fighting both loudly and publicly. One of the basic contrasts in moderation style is the question of proactivity. Some moderators actively patrol their jurisdiction, hoping to attend any smoke that arises before a discussion bursts into flame. Others prefer to sit back and wait for members to file formal complaints using the "Report" button that appears alongside each post. This difference is the subject of the poll and inquiry. What motivates the inquiry is the perception of a cyclical problem: • We have among us a group of members (Group A) who have given up on the idea of reporting posts because they feel no action—or insufficient action—is taken in response. • We also have among us a group of members (Group B) widely perceived as serial offenders who are never or rarely—in other words—insufficiently sanctioned. • If someone from Group A sees a member of Group B posting insults and breaking other rules without any response from the moderation, eventually they start to respond to Group B in kind. • Group B member complains about having their style matched. • Group A member is sanctioned by the moderator. And, of course, this only reinforces people's notions that the moderation is biased. If one is to moderate by waiting for complaint reports to roll in, it would seem that member confidence in the reporting process must be restored. To the other, if one is to moderate more proactively, one can quell unrest before it gets out of hand ... sometimes. But, of course, this frequently leads to accusations of bias when someone doesn't like a moderator's decision. The conflict between these methods of moderation has other effects, as well. Some of the complaints of bias against more proactive moderators are rooted in the fact that what is perceived as acceptable in one subforum is not allowed in another. This is a spill-over effect, when the insults and acrimony some members are allowed in some subfora bleeds into discussions in other subfora. Not only do the members often perceive bias, but some moderators get tired of having that enmity spill into their jurisdiction. We cannot entirely standardize moderation under a uniform code. That is impossible unless we create mod-bots to replace humans. But we can at least attempt to reconcile some of the sharper variances in moderation standards from time to time. And that is the purpose of this inquiry. The poll and inquiry are non-binding, but at least one moderator will pledge to give the results serious consideration in advocating policy reconciliation among the staff. Thus: Do members prefer a more proactive moderation, or should we sit back and await your complaint reports? That is the poll question. The poll is public in order to provide us with more information for analysis. It will remain open for two weeks. Additional issues worth considering: • Penalties for transgressions may well stiffen if the only violations attended are via member report. Presently, some proactive moderators employ lesser techniques than post edits, warnings, and suspensions. These include dropping hints and nonspecific warnings and advisories regarding the tone of a discussion, among others. • Accusations of bias will still occur under a wait-and-act scheme. Moderators often find complaints to have no merit. Quite obviously, this is a dissatisfactory outcome for the complaining member. • Perceptions of intrusion will always occur under a more proactive scheme. One of the points put forth by the wait-and-act method is that if the target of an insult isn't complaining, why interfere? We greatly appreciate your honest and genuine participation in this inquiry. Additionally, we're already aware of the conspiracy theories and denunciations of the evil moderators. As this inquiry is intended to address some of the problems leading to those theories and denunciations, it would be much appreciated if we could skip rehashing them without a specific tie-in (e.g., reasonable statement of the perception, consideration of circumstances, suggestion for resolution). Thank you.
Interesting question. One might also add, would it necessarily be to our benefit that all fora be moderated to the same degree? Should the same standards apply to a political discussion, a thorny and emotional issue by its very nature, and a discussion of quantum mechanics? As an example, my youngest son (age 9), who seems to be a natural in chess, was playing his first match when his opponent made an illegal move. Not familiar with the protocol in chess matches, he shouted, "DUDE! YOU CAN'T DO THAT!" Which pretty much scandalized the entire room. He now knows the proper protocol is to lift your hand and, perhaps, clear your throat. So, perhaps another option should be added to your poll. Combo. Use whichever approach seems appropriate for the particular forum (which is basically what we're doing now.
i think mods should wait for reports of bad posts. if the mod acts objectively on the report it will eliminate any accusations of bias.
really? perhaps you all should bring these issues to this table and let us, the community, help resolve this shit?
Oops - voted wrongly - I put "other" but meant "proactive". My view: Moderators should not have to wait for a report of a possible infraction before acting. They should patrol and act as well as address reports of issues. If a thread is hijacked, or insults are posted... the mod should get stuck in. But maybe the method of responding should change... (I'm not entirely sure how it's done at the moment, though)... Mods send PMs to advise of an impending moderator edit or other sanction, to enable the person to either address the cause themselves or to raise an "objection". They also flag the post (i.e. edit it) as "under investigation: XXXX" etc. Then start an "objection" thread where the OP is the person making their objection - detailing the supposed infraction, the moderator and other details... and then only other mods can respond to the OP - either supporting or rejecting the objection. If another mod (other than the one who raised the initial infraction) supports the objection then no further action... but if objection is overturned then mod can edit / do what they wanted etc. And if no objection or remedial action taken within a certain time-frame (24-hours etc)... then mod's position stands. Probably too involved / long-winded. Otherwise just continue to monitor the mods performance to ensure fairness - and make it a transparent process. Meh.
i disagree. as soon as mods act of their own accord, even objectively, the moderated poster can scream bias. this can also lead to moderators stalking certain people. if it's required to act on reports only and the mod acts objectively about the report there is no way bias enters the picture. this also has the advantage of a "paper trail".
Both these statements are inaccurate. Doesn't matter how objective a moderator is. There will always be an unsatisfied member who thinks the reason his complaint wasn't acted on or his post was deleted is bias. We have sock puppets who have been crusading for years because of one or the other that happened three or for user names ago. Or, in some cases, ten. Secondly, when we edit one of your posts, there is no undoing that. There is no way to check the record. All it says is that your post has been edited, and I've seen a moderator actually tell a member what he believes in order to justify the edit. As in, Doesn't matter what you say you meant. I know what you meant better than you do. And there's no way for you to prove me wrong because I destroyed the record of that post actually said. No, that's not a direct quote. Rather, it's the necessary elements of the justification.
how can a mod be accused of bias if they act objectively on a reported post? the paper trail bit is a little hard to explain. well in any event its my opinion. after rereading your post it makes a little more sense.
Thank you... nope... it ant gonna be posible to make everbody hapy... but i voat "other".... for moderaters to perty much keep on doin what you'r doin... an to keep in mind that honest an respectful moderater posts (such as you'rs) on these issues will do mor to win the harts an minds of Sciforums mambers than anythang else.!!!
` Other Do nothing. The more you do, the worse it gets - and then the more you ask what more you can do, which just makes it worse. Like that old Japanese proverb sez: When one does nothing, nothing remains undone.
Other- Ban everyone and replace with porn site. OR Moderate only when things get really out of hand. Maybe never.
the issue here is objectivity. if we can make the mod team objective, and transparently so, then any unsatisfied poster is essentially a fart in the wind. as to this, the only thing i can say is wow. i could bitch and moan about past moderations too, but for what end? on the other hand i can see the merit in keeping mod actions in the light. if i remember correctly the post itself is included with the report. there is no way a mod can alter a reported post without an admin knowing about it.
