[GEN] Just a thought about moderation and debate

I think we need a new policy where mods must refrain from debate and can only enforce the rules.

Getting passionately involved in a debate keeps a moderator from keeping a level head.

We need dispassionate moderators, not people who want to debate so eagerly.

They should impose a moratorium on posting topics or debating during their tenure in the forum where they serve.

In fact, IMHO, mods should be assigned to those forums where they DO NOT frequent and aren't very interested in. They will then focus strictly on the rules.

Just a thought.

ShaneP

KK EDIT: Locked by request.

 

I think moderators should be able to debate but only to a cirtain level.

Mods should be active in debates over their own forum and the site in general, but they should never go over the limit of keeping the unbiased peace.

 

"In fact, IMHO, mods should be assigned to those forums where they DO NOT frequent and aren't very interested in. They will then focus strictly on the rules."

Yeh, cause I bet making the already taxing unpaid volunteer job an even more hideously boring and painful chore would go down an absolute charm with the Mods.

UKS

 

I completely disagree.

Moderators who are detached from a community and the issues debated or dicsussed in that community can be out of touch with what people are thinking and feeling.

Good moderators are able to keep a level head and be objective, making rational moderating decisions. If necessary, good moderators should be able to call in outside help to get additional perspective on a situation.


Getting passionately involved in a debate keeps a moderator from keeping a level head.

Not necessarily. Moderators should be able to think objectively, and if they are temporarily unable to do so, they should ask another moderator for an opinion on something.

We need dispassionate moderators, not people who want to debate so eagerly.

Definitely disagree. We need moderators who feel strongly about what's being dicsussed in their forums. I stepped down in the Senate last November because I felt I was no longer consistently interested enough in what was being discussed there. My interest level has risen since then, but for a decent amount of time, I didn't care much for most of the subjects being discussed. Forum regulars and members deserve moderators who care about their forums and what's being discussed by the members.

They should impose a moratorium on posting topics or debating during their tenure in the forum where they serve.


Essentially, you're proposing the stark opposite of what's been practiced and generally encouraged for years. If a moderator ever stops caring for an extended period of time about their forum or discussion in it, they should step down. It's hard to moderate when you don't care enough to get involved in discussion. I believe a forum moderator should know their community as best as they can, and you get to know a community partly by posting with them

Moderators should be involved enough in their community to occasionally post their own threads and to regularly post with everyone else.

 

Of course it's something that goes against what's been done for years.

I just think a moderator should be a disinterested, objective voice, not an interested party.

Mods who have a stake in it cannot be objective by the very fact they have a stake in it.

And so what if they're out of touch with the debate? Does that mean they cannot recognize spamming, trolling, or flaming? Not at all.

 

Mods who have a stake in it cannot be objective by the very fact they have a stake in it.

I disagree. Moderators can be objective even if they have a stake in a particular issue, and no moderator is going to be personally interested in every issue that's discussed, or every thread that's posted.

And so what if they're out of touch with the debate? Does that mean they cannot recognize spamming, trolling, or flaming? Not at all.

If they're out of touch, there's less reason to care about what goes on. Members are naturally less inclined to trust moderators they don't know, or take action from seemingly up on high, instead of being someone that's one of them, but just so happens to be appointed by the administration to handle moderating as well.

If you don't know the community and don't care much about the issues, you're less inclined to do the job right.

 

What a terrible idea.

I just think a moderator should be a disinterested, objective voice, not an interested party.


Take a look at JCC, the least useful, least effective mods there are the ones who spend all their time posting in other forums and have only about three posts a day in that forum.

Why exactly do you think it would be good to have passionless, disinterested mods? It makes no sense to me.

 

Basically what KW and Fate said. Worst. Idea. Ever.

Being a mod is a huge responsibility, but at no point would I agree to stop being malkieD2 and start being some autonomous roboMod just to maintain obvious level-headedness.

Part of being selected for being a Mod is having the intrinsic ability to remain objective no matter the subject area.

If you disagree then I'd challenge you to provide links to moderators showing bias or subjectivity when moderating.

 

malkie beat me to it, as always....but ShaneP, it sounds like you have a beef with a mod who sided against you in a debate.

I think it's extremely important for mods to post as "one of the masses" as often as their time allows. The two forums I frequent the most, 3SA and Lit, have mods who fill this role perfectly.

I shudder for the day when mods lose interest in posting like "regular users." You might as well can them all or blow this place up if it ever comes to that.

 

I have always felt that the best mods are those who post in the forums with the masses, and take an obvious interest in the thoughts and feelings of the users inside their forum.
I don't want to think of a mod who doesn't show interest in what users have to say.
If a moderator doesn't show a sincere interest in their forum, that moderator shouldn't be there. I don't see how they could perform their duties, otherwise.

 

Having opinions is fine within discussion circumstances, but moderating in a fair fashion adds validity to a forum.

Unfortunately, moderation here in certain circles isn't impartial.

Without objective moderation, a forum is unable to have fair discussion of issues unless there is a level playing field.

 

If they aren't interested in the forum, what's to get them to do their job? We're not getting paid to do this, we're doing it because it's fun (well, most of the time ) and because we're interested in it. Paying me MIGHT get me mod a forum I'm not interested in, but really . . . nah.


Dana

 

Personally I think a mod should be able to debate. And should be passionate about it. If they don't have passion about what they're doing then why would they even come or anything. And not allowing them to debate is just causing disintrest in a the forums. So they won't come. And if they don't come who is going to protect the everyday JCer from Trolls and Spammers.

And Passion is an important thing to have. Because without Passion there is no purpose no anything. If you don't have Passion you don't really do anything about anything. And I think every mod should have it. I think great and good mods alike have passion that makes them strong in their job. And A good mod like its been said before will keep a level head and make a good judgement call.

And back in the early days I know mods if they ever second guessed themselves would get another mods opinions about what to do. And I'm sure that hasn't changed at all. Passion is important about anything you do. And I think its something they need to do a good job.

~PK~

 

Because without Passion there is no purpose no anything.

As we both know, without purpose, we could not exist. It is purpose that connects us, purpose that drives us, that binds us.

 

Yes, but most peoples purposes are brought froth from their passion to do said things and follow through on and their passion giving everything purpose.

~PK~

 

[image=http://images.usatoday.com/life/_photos/2003/08-04-avenue%20q-inside.jpg]
Purpose,
it's that little flame
that lights a fire under your ass.
Purpose,
it keeps you going strong
like a car with a full tank of gas.

 

royalguard96 but ShaneP, it sounds like you have a beef with a mod who sided against you in a debate.

No, not at all. In fact, the forums I frequent, the Senate,3SA, and Classic Trilogy, all have great people moderating.

Perhaps while someone serves as a mod of a forum, they should not debate in that particular forum? They could debate and post in forums of their interest, but the one they're moderating would be one where they act as impartial referee.

They'd still be interested in the forum they're moderating, but would have to refrain from debate. They would only step in to resolve disputes.

 

Perhaps while someone serves as a mod of a forum, they should not debate in that particular forum? They could debate and post in forums of their interest, but the one they're moderating would be one where they act as impartial referee.


A major reason people are promoted is because of their consistent and strong interest in a particular forum. A number of moderators post only in the forum they moderate, and/or stick primarily to just one or two forums. By removing their ability to post freely in discussions and threads of interest to them, you'd essentially be cutting off the oxygen that feeds their reason for being here and participating.

They'd still be interested in the forum they're moderating, but would have to refrain from debate. They would only step in to resolve disputes.


Practically speaking, that would make moderators of many forums mostly invisible, showing up only to handle problems. Members would begin to associate a moderator with negativity and problems, rather than seeing them as part of the community.

That doesn't strike me as a good idea.

 

Practically speaking, that would make moderators of many forums mostly invisible, showing up only to handle problems. Members would begin to associate a moderator with negativity and problems, rather than seeing them as part of the community.

That doesn't strike me as a good idea.

Agreed. The JC made a definite - and correct - move away from detatched moderators in various forums. That causes way more problems than creates solutions. Having mods that regularly interact with the members is a good forum.

 

Shane, you are probably correct in theory. However, it would make moderating less fun for mods if we don't get to hang out and participate in the communities we enjoy. Since we're not getting paid, what would be the incentive for us to mod? Pretty colors? E-power?

If someone told me modding, for instance, Fan Films would mean I couldn't post there, I'd drop the forum from my modding duties in a second.


We mod because we enjoy it, 'cause (aside from colors for our names and the tiny thrill of e-power) we don't get anything else out of the deal.



Rick McCallum loves you!

 

You are all likely right. It was an idea that popped in my head a few days ago and I thought I'd bring it up here yesterday.

I now see everyone's assertions that the best way is for mod's interest in a forum might give them incentive to be a great mod in same forum.

And I had no idea something like this had been tried before. Sounds like it didn't work out too well.

Thanks for all the thoughtful responses everyone.

Now you can lock it up if you wish.

Thanks again.

Regards,
ShaneP