Suggestion: moderators should have 2 accounts

[Sarkus]

I have a suggestion (although it may have been raised before):

Moderators to have two accounts: one exclusively for moderating duties, and one for when they're simply posting as a member.
E.g. "Joe_Bloggs" and "Joe_Bloggs_(M)".

This would help so that we know when the person is acting in their official capacity rather than just as any other member, but also so that we, the undeserving masses, can click "ignore" on them should we grow tired of their trolling (and/or other behaviour we might deem as dishonest), should they ever stoop to engage in such, the same way we can currently do with non-moderators.


Thoughts?

 

[TheVat]

Wouldn't there be simple English phrases that mods can use to achieve the same thing? E.g. speaking for myself or taking off the mod hat or something like that. As for a mod actually trolling, that's a more serious problem that having dual accounts wouldn't fix. Make it worse, possibly. And the ignore part is easily done with a scrolling index finger or thumb.

 

[Magical Realist]

Sarkus said: This would help so that we know when the person is acting in their official capacity rather than just as any other member, but also so that we, the undeserving masses, can click "ignore" on them should we grow tired of their trolling (and/or other behaviour we might deem as dishonest), should they ever stoop to engage in such, the same way we can currently do with non-moderators.

Makes total sense to me, assuming a certain moderator would ever have anything interesting to say to me besides just trolling and flaming me and threatening me with infractions.

 

[wegs]

I'm not sure if it was on this forum or somewhere else, but I thought that mods on SF used to post using a different font/color and would ''announce'' that they were about to ''moderate,'' in a particular thread that had gone off the rails.

I think that the challenge with two accounts for the moderator, is pretending not to be the moderator while posting under the username. Kind of like a cop who is off duty isn't going to just stand idly by, watching crimes take place all around him/her, and do nothing. So, even ''off duty'' mods might have a hard time not moderating when they see infractions and violations on the forum. In other words, two accounts wouldn't serve much of a purpose, in the end.

 

[geordief]

Let any mod be forbidden from moderating in a thread they have participated in to any degree.

 

[Pinball1970]

Let any mod be forbidden from moderating in a thread they have participated in to any degree.

That would be tricky. Say a mod is contributing then becomes aware of a blatant infraction?
I think it's ok to have state that as a result of an infraction the, mod hat will come out.

 

[geordief]

That would be tricky. Say a mod is contributing then becomes aware of a blatant infraction?
I think it's ok to have state that as a result of an infraction the, mod hat will come out.

In that circumstance the mod can report it to the other mods but cannot have a say in any decision.

I think I have seen this procedure followed elsewhere.

Certainly on this site (no names mentioned) it would provide a distance btw any mod and members who feel historic grievances against them while allowing the mods to post in any thread they wanted to without feeling like they need to question their own motives.

 

[billvon]

I think that the challenge with two accounts for the moderator, is pretending not to be the moderator while posting under the username.

Yeah. That's worse in a way. Someone attacks "JoeScience" and gets a warning from "ModeratorJ" - and doesn't see (or understand) the connection. That would seem to be worse than getting the warning from JoeScience.

 

[Sarkus]

Yeah. That's worse in a way. Someone attacks "JoeScience" and gets a warning from "ModeratorJ" - and doesn't see (or understand) the connection. That would seem to be worse than getting the warning from JoeScience.

If someone attacks JoeScience, then the person behind JoeScience should not be the one to moderate that interaction. That much is pretty straightforward to avoid conflict of interest. You know, a matter of good ethics and whatnot. But it doesn't happen here.

The reason for raising this suggestion about two accounts, though, isn't about whether a Moderator should moderate an interaction in which they are party (which is/was raised in another thread here) but for the ability for people to technically ignore the non-moderating posts that a Moderator might make. At the moment we have no technical capability of "ignoring" posts by someone who also happens to be a moderator. Them having a separate account for official moderation actions would resolve that. It's a simple solution, and not exactly onerous. One account called JoeScience, and one called JoeScience_MOD, for example. Simples.

That would at least be one way that would work within the capabilities of the site's software. The other would be for Moderators to have a tick-box to any post they make such that if they tick they box then it overrides any "ignore" that the members might have, but otherwise moderators can be ignored in the same manner as any other member. But I don't think this is something the site's software allows.

 

[Sarkus]

Let any mod be forbidden from moderating in a thread they have participated in to any degree.

I'd say that they should be forbidden from moderating any activity to which they have been party. So simply posting in the same thread wouldn't be an issue, but if the infraction comes from a heated argument that the mod has engaged in with the one being moderated, then that would restrict the mod from moderating. The rather ironic matter of conflict of interest.

 

[billvon]

but for the ability for people to technically ignore the non-moderating posts that a Moderator might make.

That's a good point. As long as it was clear that the two accounts were the same person (i.e. Joe and Joe_MOD as you mention) that could work.

then the person behind JoeScience should not be the one to moderate that interaction.

Good in theory. But the only real way for that to work practically is to:

1) have a lot of moderators so there was always 'another' mod to deal with the issue
2 have the moderator not post in any threads

Both can be problematic for something that is a purely volunteer position.

 

[Sarkus]

Good in theory. But the only real way for that to work practically is to:

1) have a lot of moderators so there was always 'another' mod to deal with the issue
2 have the moderator not post in any threads

Both can be problematic for something that is a purely volunteer position.

There would be other moderators, if only the one moderator left at this site (2, if you include Bells who hasn't posted publicly here since March 24) would appoint them. I'm certain there would be people willing, even though regulars aren't numerous and even though it is a purely volunteer position. (Heck, I'd do it if asked.) But for some reason, despite removing Tiassa as a moderator a while ago, and 3 of the 5 other moderators no longer publicly active for the past 7 years or so, no new moderators have been appointed. Bear in mind that 5 new moderators, for example, each only able to give a very small amount of time, would still be be better than only having one in total. Has anyone here been asked to moderate and you declined, for example? If so, was it sold to you on the basis of more time than you wanted to commit? If that was the case then I would suggest that the sales pitch was starting from a flawed premise. If none of you have been asked, it begs the question of why not.

This site almost certainly suffers as a result of having a single moderator. But, hey, whatever.

I'd still like to have the capability of ignoring the non-moderating posts that a moderator makes. Hence the suggestion.

 

[James R]

I'd say that they should be forbidden from moderating any activity to which they have been party. So simply posting in the same thread wouldn't be an issue, but if the infraction comes from a heated argument that the mod has engaged in with the one being moderated, then that would restrict the mod from moderating.

Essentially, that would prohibit moderators from joining in any conversation that seemed contentious or in which there were significant differences of opinion, because the moderator would very likely have an opinion on one side or other of the debate and then, as per your suggestion, would have to decide between contributing to the discussion and moderating it.

If it is your contention that it is impossible for a moderator to have an opinion on a discussion and also be able to moderate it without bias towards the parties involved, then essentially you are suggesting that moderators ought not to be allowed to join in a large fraction of the discussions we see here.

One of the motivators for somebody to give their time for free to moderate a forum like this one is that they also get to join in the discussions. Nobody wants to work for nothing, and moderating is often a thankless task.

Accusations of bias from some people are inevitable, regardless of what one does as a moderator. Such accusations often come from people who have never done the job and who disqualify themselves from doing it, for one reason or another.

The rather ironic matter of conflict of interest.

A topic that you're no expert on.

 

[Sarkus]

Essentially, that would prohibit moderators from joining in any conversation that seemed contentious or in which there were significant differences of opinion, because the moderator would very likely have an opinion on one side or other of the debate and then, as per your suggestion, would have to decide between contributing to the discussion and moderating it.

No. I'm talking about them recusing themself from moderating specific interactions that they are involved in, not threads when they have nothing to do with the behaviour that requires moderating.
E.g. if a moderator thinks a member is lying about them, or stalking them, they should not moderate that action but instead refer it to someone that has no conflict of interest. It's simples, really.

If it is your contention that it is impossible for a moderator to have an opinion on a discussion and also be able to moderate it without bias towards the parties involved, then essentially you are suggesting that moderators ought not to be allowed to join in a large fraction of the discussions we see here.

No. If you read what I have said, you will know that is not my contention. And what I have written above should further clarify.

Accusations of bias from some people are inevitable, regardless of what one does as a moderator. Such accusations often come from people who have never done the job and who disqualify themselves from doing it, for one reason or another.

Bias is not the issue per se, but rather the obvious matter of conflict of interest. Even the US Supreme Court justices have biases, but they should still refuse themselves when dealing with matters when they are personally involved in the dispute.

And then if course there are the cases when your own behaviour is questioned, and reported. Which moderator looks at those? Oh, yeah. That's right.

A topic that you're no expert on.

I don't need to be an expert to recognose the irony of you crying out for it on one hand when it was irrelevant, and you being dismissive of it in such matters as here when it is actually relevant.

Just assign some new moderators, JamesR, and do the decent thing for this site.

 

[geordief]

Just assign some new moderators, JamesR, and do the decent thing for this site.

Even Tiassa could serve as a moderator if he followed those kind of "recusal" protocols.

Sadly(like myself) I don't think he has the skills or inclination to moderate -quite the opposite in his case.

I agree though that it would be better to have a few moderators in the background sharing the load and standing in when other mods are participating in discussions.

 

[Pinball1970]

Even Tiassa could serve as a moderator if he followed those kind of "recusal" protocols.

Sadly(like myself) I don't think he has the skills or inclination to moderate -quite the opposite in his case.

I agree though that it would be better to have a few moderators in the background sharing the load and standing in when other mods are participating in discussions.

Just Bells ATM?

 

[geordief]

Just Bells ATM?

Is what I thought.

 

[Sarkus]

Just Bells ATM?

If you go to the "Members" tab at the top, and then look for STAFF, there are 5 currently listed:

James R - current publicly-active member
Bells - last public post was back in March '24 (click on their name and then "Postings" - which i believe gives you their most recent posts first)
Fraggle Rocker - last seen in public back in 2017 (July)
kmguru - last seen in public back in 2017 (October)
Trippy - last seen in public back in 2017 (August)

 

[Sarkus]

But to repeat, this suggestion is about the lack of ability to put moderators on "ignore", and them having moderator accounts that only post when moderating, and normal accounts for their usual whatever, would enable this.

The issue of there not being sufficient moderators so as to avoid obvious conflicts of interest is a separate issue.

 

[TheVat]

I was admin and mod at a science forum for a few years, and it was my impression that online moderation is not really like moderation at public debates, academic colloquies, tv round tables, etc. As James noted, we serve voluntarily and for free, and the primary carrot is getting to participate in a chat that we might help keep civil and on-topic. The firewall between participating and enforcing rules of discourse is really one of taking a vow to switch hats only when it serves to remedy an objectively identifiable problem of flaming, trolling, bad faith argument, misinformation, etc. Given that mods are humans who can enter into discussions where their own personal buttons are pushed, it is good to have a backup, i.e. another mod who can be called in to sort things out. Simply changing logins would not be sufficient in such a situation - a different pair of eyes are needed.