[GEN] Social Groups and Moderatorship

I've read over this thread in its entirety. All I can say is that a person's social group on the boards doesn't gain them any sort of preferential treatment. I can say that if someone does nothing but post in one or two threads exclusively, no matter what type of threads those happen to be, they'll more than likely not be considered for being a mod only because we know so little about them and we wouldn't have the confidence they would pay attention to all threads and the forum as a whole.

 

I understand where dp4m is coming from, but I don't think it should be discussed beforehand. If you want to discuss it, maybe it can be mentioned AFTER they're chosen, but before the announcement is made. "BTW, this person is a member of X, Y, and Z, so some people might bring it up. Be aware of that."

 

Well its sometimes hard for some users to post in threads on this very board in certian forums. Because they feel threatened by said users and attacked whenever they post. So thus they only post in a couple of threads because they feel harassed by said users. Who on certian boards do get special treatment because they are friends with the Mods on those boards.

~PK~

 

Could you possibly be any more vague?

 

Um yeah, any chance you could clarify what you are trying to say - especially the following sentence as it as a rather negative interpretation.

Who on certian boards do get special treatment because they are friends with the Mods on those boards.

 

Vauge is what I do Jeff. I don't want to call people out or step on toes. Because I feel that way when I go to certian boards doesn't mean everyone else does. Or maybe there are other users who feel like I do about those places here. But its not worth the trouble. I'm just stating a reason as to why maybe some users only post in one or two threads. And in all honesty I really shouldn't of even posted that because that is something that is better discussed over a pm with a mod or someone.

Because it is a very negative comment.

~PK~

 

But Comms is the place to speak out and have your voice heard. If you don't state clear points or ask clear questions then the mods are helpless to address your concerns.

Are you saying that people don't enter certain social threads because they think they'll get harassed by the regulars in that thread, or because they actually *are* harassed ? (can you provide an example to help us see what you are talking about).

Do you personally feel that social group activity is a major player in moderation promotion ?

 

I always have yes thought Social Groups play a big part in the promotion process.

And yes I think when you enter certian threads or certian places on here, you are attacked. And that certian users get away with attacking you. But lets get back on topic, when the time is right for this conversation I'll start another thread because this isn't the thread for it.

But Social Groups always have and always play a big part of the JC and how people do get promoted. Any one of us say it doesn't are blind. Think about it, users tell you certian users they want promoted based on who they hang with. Often the people you guys probably think of are people you hang with. But that's just how life is, you're not going to just pick an unknown person to you.

~PK~

 

Think about it, users tell you certian users they want promoted based on who they hang with. Often the people you guys probably think of are people you hang with.

But could it be that those people who some moderators "hang out" with happen to be some of those same people who are most qualified for a given position?

But that's just how life is, you're not going to just pick an unknown person to you.

Very untrue. Amos was unknown to most of the MS upon his promotion, and yet he was still promoted.

 

I was just saying no one is going to pick a complete stranger. That's like at work picking the next person who walks in the door to be the new Assitant Store Manager or Store Manager without know anything about that person. That's all I was saying by saying no one is going to pick someone who is unknown to them. And you said most didn't know of Amos which means someone knew of Amos so, you had someones word to go on he was good for the job.

~PK~

 

I'd wager that there are never any truly "unknown" people who come up as candidates, even in the smaller forums, because there has to be at least one moderator who knows of them, or perhaps a few involved regular members who let the MS know about possible candidates.

you had someones word to go on he was good for the job.

People had more than that. Moderators should take the time to familiarize themselves with potential candidates by looking up their posts and getting a general indication for what kind of members they are and what kind of moderators they would make.

 

That's like at work picking the next person who walks in the door to be the new Assitant Store Manager or Store Manager without know anything about that person.

That's also like us promoting the next person to sign up to the boards. Anyone we promote is going to be known by someone somewhere, it's what happens when you join a community and stick around long enough to be considered for promotion.

Edit - KW beat me to it.

 

Two things:

1. If modding by cronyism really worked, then I'd have been modded long ago.

2. We've been co-opting into our collective people AFTER they have become mods. It's easier to get them past the tests if they have no red past at the time of testing.

3. I may not be totally serious about 1 and 2.

4. Or am I?

5. There is no point to this really, as the forums activity will take a spectacular nosedive about mid summer - after all the ROTS stuff has died down and Santa can't sell anymore collectable plates.

UKS

EDIT: Yes, I know it was five things.

 

But Social Groups always have and always play a big part of the JC and how people do get promoted. Any one of us say it doesn't are blind. Think about it, users tell you certian users they want promoted based on who they hang with. Often the people you guys probably think of are people you hang with. But that's just how life is, you're not going to just pick an unknown person to you.

But that's kinda become moot these days. I've been a heavy supporter of accepting moderator nominations from anyone. As a result I've reposted every single candidate in the MS for consideration.

Someones people suggest their friends, but more often than not people suggest who they honesty think would make a good moderator. The last round of promotions gave us some outstanding candidates, and some that I'd never noticed, but after checking out their posts felt that they were mod material.

Sure, one BYSer suggests another BYSer, but that won't stop us giving them a fair discussion with the MS. I'd like to think it's something I've brought to the MS, and something that goes some way to address the cocerns of this thread.

zacparis, Amos and Everton were people who were suggested by regular users, and on the whole weren't household names inside the MS (typically speaking that's a good thing). None of them are members of any social groups within the JCC, however they did post in a broad spectrum of threads.

droideka and I have been friends a lot longer than I've been a mod, and that was well known when she was suggested for moderatorship.

I honestly believe we have a good team in the JCC right now - very active mods who participate across the forum threads and cover the place 24/7.

 

zacparis, Amos and Everton were people who were suggested by regular users,

Bingo. I know when we were discussing both Amos and zac, I don't think any of the current mods interacted with them in a "social group" setting. When they were suggested, we began watching their posts and their interaction in the community. So, in essence, they were "complete strangers" to an extent. Therefore, the assertion that this social group affiliation is always an issue isn't if you look at the facts of past promotions.

 

But that's just how life is, you're not going to just pick an unknown person to you.

No one knew who I was before, during, or after my modship.

 

When they were suggested, we began watching their posts and their interaction in the community

Exactly. It's not like we have to select mod candidates overnight - we typically have a few weeks to look at various people in depth.

 

I understand where dp4m is coming from, but I don't think it should be discussed beforehand. If you want to discuss it, maybe it can be mentioned AFTER they're chosen, but before the announcement is made. "BTW, this person is a member of X, Y, and Z, so some people might bring it up. Be aware of that."

Then we should never mention it in a discussion of candidates, even if it would be a negative.

 

Then we should never mention it in a discussion of candidates, even if it would be a negative.

Why does it have to be one extreme or the other?

There are times when it is appropriate to mention group affiliations when discussing candidates, and times when it is not. For example, if a group (I'll call then Spelunkers, as in Cave Trolls) has a history of causing a lot of trouble (coordinated trolling attacks, spamming, etc), and the candidate is affiliated with them somehow (such as being a known regular at the board where they coordinated those attacks), isn't that applicable?

However, if it's just a case of "this person posts at these boards and is a member of the OT, DL, and BYS", then it really isn't relevant.

I think a lot of people need to simply get a grip. We aren't talking about denying anyone their civil rights, nor are we talking about the JC administration having to be an "equal opportunity employer", or anything along those lines. This is an Internet message board, for goodness sake! This isn't high school.

Complaining about mods being promoted only because of friendships is like complaining that the head cheerleader was voted prom queen because she had more friends. I remember when I was promoted, there were people complaining that I was promoted only because of my political views (i.e. there were 3 mods for the Senate, and none were self-professed "liberals"). Since then, I've had both conservatives and liberals complaining that I was biased against their side.

Is our promotion process 100% fair to everyone involved? No, but we never claimed it was, nor does it need to be.

Personally, unless a group is causing trouble (i.e. troll attacks, etc), I can't tell you who is in what group, or even what groups are active at the moment. I personally don't care. For the most part, it's not important.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Why does it have to be one extreme or the other?


Because the inconsistency kills us and sometimes the appearance of malfeasance is just as bad as the actual malfeasance...

 

I've always thought Amos was one of the best choices the administration had made for a YJCC moderator.

In my perception, he is a very neutral person.

One thought that occured to me is that choosing a moderator is often like hiring a new employee. You interview candidates and perhaps one is known to you. But just because you know them doesn't always mean they are the best person for the job.

Are candidates contacted when they are being discussed? Are they asked questions? Perhaps there are misconceptions about candidates that could be cleared up by an interview process.

And regarding PK's vagueness . . . I understood everything she said

 

Because the inconsistency kills us and sometimes the appearance of malfeasance is just as bad as the actual malfeasance...

I'm sorry, but that's just not true.

Quite frankly, when people raise a fuss based solely on their perceptions of a matter, it is childish. It is as childish as complaining that someone else's piece of cake is bigger than yours.

We are supposed to be adults here (at least for the most part). Adults should be mature enough to realize that the world is not 100% fair, and that not everything is perfectly consistent.

Or, should I quote Emerson: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." Too much focus on consistency blinds a person to the situation at hand. Procedures should be followed because they are a tool to an end. They should not be followed simply because they exist.

If some people are unwilling to believe that a person was chosen by the MS because they were the best candidate in the MS's opinion, then so be it. It's not the end of the world. If they continue to raise a fuss over it, then they are the ones causing trouble, not the MS's policies. They need to get over it.

It's as bad as the people who, even 4 years later, whine and complain about the 2000 election because Gore got more votes, but Bush won the Electoral College, and claim that Bush was not elected. There comes a point where people simply need to be told "get over it" and move on.

Kimball Kinnison

 

If some people are unwilling to believe that a person was chosen by the MS because they were the best candidate in the MS's opinion, then so be it. It's not the end of the world. If they continue to raise a fuss over it, then they are the ones causing trouble, not the MS's policies. They need to get over it.

Whoa there - that almost sounds like "my way or the high way". While I agree with what you're saying I think we can (and actually *do*) make an effort to listen to the regular users when looking at a promotion.

Their opinion is as valid as ours.

Of course, we typically know more about any given candidate (ie sock check and usernotes) than your average user, perhaps putting us in a better position to evaluate all the candidates.

We'll never keep everyone happy, and at times I think *we* need to realise that and get over it. No matter who we promote we'll annoy a certain percentage of the user base. All we can do is do what we think it in the best interests of the community, and hope that the user base understand that and trust us to some extent.

And regarding PK's vagueness . . . I understood everything she said

Great - any chance you can translate ? Because if the administration doesn't understand what her point is how can we possibly do anything to address it ?

 

Whoa there - that almost sounds like "my way or the high way". While I agree with what you're saying I think we can (and actually *do*) make an effort to listen to the regular users when looking at a promotion.

No, it's not "my way or the high way". It's a simple statement of fact. If they are unwilling to believe that the MS actually tries to pick the best candidate for the job, then nothing that the MS does or says (sort of picking the same person that the user thinks is best for the job) will make any difference. So be it. For some people, nothing will convince them.

However, if they continue to raise a fuss over it at every turn (such as crying "Bias!" at everything the mod does), then it is the user who is causing the problem, not the MS. At that point, who has the responsibility to adjust?

Kimball Kinnison

 

For some people, nothing will convince them.

I totally agree with you there, and I also agree with what you are saying. I do hope the user base realises that the decisions we collectively make are designed to be in the best interests of the community.

My only worry was the wording of your post, where someone who wasn't reading the thread properly might interpret your comments rather negatively.