What's it like to be a moderator?

[deleted35362]

esau wins this thread

[PuffPuff]

Everything Charlie said.

[Freohr Datia]

I don't really like the "everybody" this and "nobody" that comments in these though ;~; But it's right for the majority still so it's not that off~

[eclipse]

D=

Dear Mods,

Thanks for doing the things you do. I think you're swell. You're the bee's knees. It's always a rip-snortin' good time with you around. You guys are like the sentinels of justice who watch over the forums. You deserve at least 3 whole bagles each. With jam of your choosing of course. Hey Mods, you're so fine. You're so fine it blows my mind in fact. When Jimmy cracked corn and nobody cared you were there, and you did care. You dress spiffy as well. Shot through the heart and you're to blame, you give love a good name. You guys are all jukebox heroes.

In summation I think you'll agree that we should loosen the dress code policies and be free to express ourselves through our clothes.

Stay classy,

Dingo

P.S.: Your potato cassarole was delish.

Directions unclear. Bagel stuck in digestive track.

Whilst this mostly true, staff also need to consider how they appear to the public. If all they see is arguing and "bad moderating", that's what they're going to go by. Doing the work behind the scenes is important, but so is maintaining a rapport with the community. That being said, it's not easy, and I'm happy to say I've had no real problems with the moderation on SF.

brb, making up a bunch of stuff, banning you, and nominating Horace for mod

[deleted35362]

and this is why eclipse is my favorite mod

[eclipse]

(hooray FFtF~!)

[Sunwoo]

brb, making up a bunch of stuff, banning you, and nominating Horace for mod

You're Apopeclipse, so of course you'd ban Shin and nominate Horace for mod

[BEST TRYNDAMERE PLAYER]

JOEY FOR MODERATOR 2014

[Raven]

JOEY FOR MODERATOR 2014

why would you do that to this place

[Raivix]

Directions unclear. Bagel stuck in digestive track.

brb, making up a bunch of stuff, banning you, and nominating Horace for mod

I work in a bagel shop. Can I bribe you with bagels?

[eclipse]

I work in a bagel shop. Can I bribe you with bagels?

Gluten-free or no.

[Raivix]

Gluten-free or no.

They can be if they need to be. Nowhere near as good though :(

[Esau of Isaac]

Gluten-free or no.

only a Communist would ask such a silly question

quick, what's your favorite polka song? Trick question Red prepare for death! D:<

[Raivix]

only a Communist would ask such a silly question

quick, what's your favorite polka song? Trick question Red prepare for death! D:<

This one:

[MacLovin]

absolute power=absolute corruption.

[Raivix]

absolute power=absolute corruption

It's only corruption if you get caught.

[Original Alear]

Everything Charlie said.

Ayanami was a mod on SF?

EDIT: If absolute power corrupts absolutely, then the problem is solved since the power corrupted and is gone.

Edited July 11, 2013 by SeverIan

[deleted35362]

Ayanami was a mod on SF?

some people around here have been moderators on other forums(or at least, know well enough to have an idea what being a moderator is like)

[Tangerine]

There's a big difference between moderating a small forum and moderating a forum like SF, though. SF is deceptively active, certainly more than its member total would lead you to believe. On average our members make 350 or so posts per person, and you'll be hard-pressed to find a ratio like that on a forum of comparable size; forums bigger than us don't have activity like that. It seems easy at first glance, but once you see how active it really is you start to realize what a pain in the butt it can be some days :P.

Edited July 12, 2013 by Tangerine

[Rehab]

Uh, pretty much everything Narga said. How in the world could you have a problem with a rule designed to prevent threads from turning into people arguing with moderators whose job is to stop the situation from getting worse? That contradicts the purpose of their involvement entirely. The ticket system was a forum specifically made for discussing these issues. Once we get a replacement for it working it'll be the same as always.

Even if any moderator was capable of being flawless in their decision-making one hundred percent of the time, which, being merely mortal, none of our current, past or future staff ever will be, if you don't so much as let anybody question any action they take in public, you unnecessarily weaken the extent to which public opinion checks their power. Mods then no longer have a direct obligation to explain their actions, and users theoretically have to make a semi-formal inquiry just to avoid potentially being punished for publicly speaking about it with anything less than praise. Like, hypothetically, if a moderator were bullying somebody in a topic, do you really think that wouldn't create any pressure on the user to avoid reporting it if they weren't supposed to do so much as bring it up in open conversation?

I mean, Sf at large isn't so unruly as to lash out against moderation harshly enough that the discourse about the moderation itself becomes a direct obstacle to the moderator's doing their job, though it can sometimes shine the spotlight on how the moderator may have made a mistake. Moderators serve forums by helping users navigate things, by protecting users from being harassed, by safeguarding the intent of discussion sections and topics by protecting them from being derailed, and by protecting forums from any damage that could be caused if content that is actually harmful is posted. Those functions aren't subverted just by letting people question how they're being performed, and I don't see how they're made easier by restricting the ways in which people are allowed to question.

It's not complicated to see how telling people "questioning any action a moderator takes in passing conversation is forbidden" can make them feel pressured to avoiding talking about it. I mean, imagine actually writing up a ban for "questioning a moderator's decision in improper channels [on a public discussion board]." Imagine being on the receiving end of a ban for that!

It's an unlikely, cartoonish scenario, but it's a cartoonish rule, and I think it hardly serves normal users. The ticket system is a flawed solution to an unnecessary problem.

[Nightmare]

GO REHAB

FIGHT THE POWER

[deleted35362]

that feeling when someone writes a three paragraph post, and i feel stupid after reading it all because the last sentence just summarizes the whole thing...

[NoNameAtAll]

Yeah, I moderate a small forum, but also a pretty big one.

[Narga_Rocks]

Even if any moderator was capable of being flawless in their decision-making one hundred percent of the time, which, being merely mortal, none of our current, past or future staff ever will be, if you don't so much as let anybody question any action they take in public, you unnecessarily weaken the extent to which public opinion checks their power. Mods then no longer have a direct obligation to explain their actions, and users theoretically have to make a semi-formal inquiry just to avoid potentially being punished for publicly speaking about it with anything less than praise. Like, hypothetically, if a moderator were bullying somebody in a topic, do you really think that wouldn't create any pressure on the user to avoid reporting it if they weren't supposed to do so much as bring it up in open conversation?

Without the public tickets, you may have a small point. But when it was there? How is clogging up a thread better than doing it in the tickets where everybody can see it just the same?

But to go at your points individually instead of the implications you are making

If I bully you in a topic, report me. That simple. The mods like being a cohesive unit, but if one of us is being a douche, tell the rest. Tang will reign us in. And if she's the one you have an issue with? Joshua. And if you have an issue with him? What are you doing here still? "Oh, I'm just hanging out in the backyard of a guy I hate. That's all."

How does:

"don't clog a thread with complaints about mods"

in any way encourage a user not to report a mod being a d-bag?

If I tell you to stop what you are doing in a thread, and you think you can continue whatever I told you to stop, why do you want to have it out in the thread I'm telling you to stop derailing? Why not PM Tang about it and say "I think I should be allowed to continue whatever I was doing" and then the process is fine. Do you feel you need to get other people to fight your battles for you? Is that why you want it in public? Someone else can then argue what you can't say. Well, I say again: public tickets. Then someone else can fight your battle so you don't have to.

I mean, Sf at large isn't so unruly as to lash out against moderation harshly enough that the discourse about the moderation itself becomes a direct obstacle to the moderator's doing their job, though it can sometimes shine the spotlight on how the moderator may have made a mistake.

You seem to be avoiding the don't derail rule aspect of all this. Or do you not like that one either? You just said discussing this stuff isn't an obstacle to me doing my job, but I think it is evident that the discussion would be a derail, and allowing that discussion would be, well, "a direct obstacle to" me "doing" my "job," wouldn't you say? You know, seeing as how I'm there to stop a derail in the first place?

Moderators serve forums by helping users navigate things, by protecting users from being harassed, by safeguarding the intent of discussion sections and topics by protecting them from being derailed, and by protecting forums from any damage that could be caused if content that is actually harmful is posted. Those functions aren't subverted just by letting people question how they're being performed, and I don't see how they're made easier by restricting the ways in which people are allowed to question.

Your best argument, the one you aren't making, is that it should be okay to make a thread in which you can bitch about mods telling you not to be a prick. Not derailing a topic. I still say "duh, that's what tickets were for" but we don't have them right now, do we? And yes, this is "restricting the ways in which people are allowed to question." But what's the problem with that? We ARE NOT making it difficult to question our decisions. It is rather easy, in fact. All the mods can be PMd by users, and I don't think we can even block anybody. And you can PM tang if you don't like a decision I or another made. It's just that there should be a proper forum to do it, and a thread about "which class is the awesomest" is definitely NOT the proper forum for that discussion.

It's not complicated to see how telling people "questioning any action a moderator takes in passing conversation is forbidden" can make them feel pressured to avoiding talking about it. I mean, imagine actually writing up a ban for "questioning a moderator's decision in improper channels [on a public discussion board]." Imagine being on the receiving end of a ban for that!

It's an unlikely, cartoonish scenario, but it's a cartoonish rule, and I think it hardly serves normal users. The ticket system is a flawed solution to an unnecessary problem.

So, tell me if you are making the argument I think you are making.

"Arguing with a mod in a thread discussing the awesomeness of various classes should be a-ok."

If this is your fundamental point, the thing you want to be able to do, I laugh heartily. It's an utterly ridiculous idea, frankly. If this is not your point, state it in a simple phrase. Don't flower it up with arguments about us pressuring you not to argue since we aren't. Don't complain about the ticket system without saying what is flawed about it. You are completely dancing around our point that we don't want y'all clogging up threads with bitching at mods. Don't forget, for every single time a guy is wrongly punished for something they didn't do wrong or whatever, there are literally dozens of people who would quite happily complain complain complain about stuff they absolutely did. Do you really want our threads polluted with argument after argument with a mod about a guy saying "oh don't invis my post and don't add to my warn bar. Crash deserved to be flamed there, trust me!" You have NO idea how many times we get people complaining about perfectly valid mod actions. Seriously. You really want to see that instead of, oh I don't know, what the thread titles say is in there?

[Wist]

I preferred talking with people on IRC and MSN over using the warning system. But obviously that was much more feasible when a large proportion of active members on the forum frequented the IRC channel and "large proportion" meant roughly thirty-five odd people than it would be now. Members also tended to be pretty shy about using the report function when it was first added, but from the sounds of it that's no longer the case.

Anyways, the ticket system (as I remember it, it may have changed before it was removed) seemed to have the same weakness as strength: that only moderators and whoever lodged the complaint or suggestion could post in the ticket. The ticket system was essentially introduced provide a solid reason to be intolerant of arguments between members and staff in any thread (as well as streamlining "suggestion" threads); complaints had there own designated location, and in that location nobody could incite further argument or rally for or against anyone, member or moderator (unless people collaborated to post tickets en mass, which I never saw that happen but my level of activity has been consistently low for a long time now).

I think one argument Rehab is trying to get across (please correct me if I'm wrong) is that other members' inability to publicly discuss any perceived moderation issues on the forum inherently prevents multiple members from holding moderators accountable for particular decisions. If a legitimate and major issue becomes apparent, the restrictive nature of the ticket system makes it difficult for members to call it out because it can only be properly discussed on another platform.

As you're stating, the ticket system obviously also probably prevents a lot of antisocial arguments from kindling (out of curiosity, is there any known correlation between the introduction of the ticket system and the rise of stupid reports?). I'm in a rush now so right now I'm probably not going to end up posting anything insightful, so long story short I liked the old feedback forum because it provided a space for people to provide and discuss and develop, well, feedback, not just on moderation either, so in essence the ticket system attempted to eliminate flaming and unproductive argument in exchange for limiting potentially constructive discussion. It's short sighted to ridicule the idea that the current set of rules and systems of inquiry discourages members from addressing moderation concerns (even if some people are happy to use the report function quite liberally) because although I wasn't a moderator when it was introduced I noticed a drop in accountability (not saying it's led to any issues, but the social safeguard, needed or not, was unarguably weakened). The current implementation appears to be reliable (it certainly helps a lot that the staff aren't malevolent, but then the forum would likely reduce in size anyways), but I think it's worth continually assessing its validity, no matter if it's decided the current system is best kept as is for the time being.

Sorry this isn't better organized and could be much clearer, but I have to go now.