Moderator Evaluations

I'd suggest getting a list of names using your idea, then eliminating those whose post record doesn't indicate much time spent in the forum.

The mods would be better off making up a list of possible candidates and then allowing the regular users to pick from that. Or, allow the users to make up the list of candidates and then have the mods pick from that list.

Whatever way you do it, the users need some say in it. Or, if you're really serious, you could create an actual Ethics Council (something to that effect) that would be seperate from the MS and would handel all complaints retaining to moderator behaviour. But that's if you're really serious.

 

But, in a way, isn't that the intended purpose of comms?

Because really, there isn't anything that would prevent the new council from becoming political in its own right.

What is clear though is that there is a recognizeable problem that needs to be addressed.

The MS can still take care of such concerns "in-house," while remaining relatively transparent to the users here.

If, for example, a new mod has found that modding isn't what they thought, and they are obviously affecting the forums, why can't there be a "mod intervention" in the MS?

The users can then be informed of the changes, without going into specifics, which would be quite obvious anyway..

What seems to need to be broken down is the "code of silence," that is causing the schism between mods and others.

 

"If a mod needs a vacation, they should be mature enough to know it and just say, "You know what, I need some time off." Most of us do that. I've done it."

Most workplaces give vacation days. Most employees use up all of their vacation days every year. Here, no "vacation days" are given. I know there have been times in the past where certain mods could have used a week or so off, but didn't want to ask for the time off (whether it's because they thought the forums 'needed them', or because they figured the stress would go down on its own, or some other reason). Some mods are here seven days a week, during most of their free time. Stress can continue to slowly build up over time, and it's amazing what a little break now and then can do.

"excellent point........basically, if you are doing a good job then you have nothing to worry about. I'm all for it."

In addition to helping relieve some stress, the vacations can help show who is and isn't pulling their share of the weight. The absence of those who go above and beyond what is typically required will be noticed, and they can get an extra pat on the back or extra thanks when they return.

"If, for example, a new mod has found that modding isn't what they thought, and they are obviously affecting the forums, why can't there be a "mod intervention" in the MS?"

The basic train of thought has usually been "they're volunteers, it isn't like we're paying them, so they aren't hurting anything." However, it does indirectly hurt things. When a forum has multiple mods, and one of the mods is far more active and visible than the other mods combined, that mod easily gets burned out. They start to wonder "why should I keep working so hard, when everyone else is just idling by?" Thankfully for the JC, most of these mods are the ones who always have to excel at everything that they do. Simply idling by and doing the bare minimum isn't good enough for these people, and they'd rather step down than do that. They realize when they aren't going to be helpful to the boards, and aren't afraid to say so. So, while those who are doing the bare minimum may not be directly hurting the boards, it does effect those who have to make up for the work that they aren't doing.

 

So, while those who are doing the bare minimum may not be directly hurting the boards, it does effect those who have to make up for the work that they aren't doing.

Which is an excellent point..and leads into:

The basic train of thought has usually been "they're volunteers, it isn't like we're paying them, so they aren't hurting anything."

So how much do you think the mods should mod themselves, so to speak?

If the position entails ensuring the smooth functioning of the forum as a whole, how much of the focus is directed within?

For example (and excuse me for letting RL encroch..):

Lawyers have the Bar review

Doctors have the malpractice board

Police have internal affairs..

Couldn't the mods in the MS address that lack of performance on their own.. Discretely, but honestly?

I mean, for a message board, aren't people mature enough to handle an observation from their own peers?

(or is that wishful thinking?)

 

I mean, for a message board, aren't people mature enough to handle an observation from their own peers?

One would think so, but, from my experience, it's tough enough for corporate managers to be honest about the performance of their peers much less on a volunteer messageboard. I would hope that people would have the guts to speak out and call their fellow mods on what needs to improve, but all to often it just gets ignored.

By taking it solely out of the MS and allowing the users a part in the evaluation process - not much different from workplace 360 degree evals - there's much more accountability there.

I like the idea of "forced vacations". Too often mods get so wrapped up in feeling that they need to be here all the time, they don't take time for themselves. It would also show those mods that maybe aren't doing much as it is.

 

Couldn't the mods in the MS address that lack of performance on their own.. Discretely, but honestly?

I think it's better to have someone else doing that. To use another RL example, how would you feel if your colleague walked up to you one day and said, "Hey, Joe, you sure are lazy. Why don't you do as much work as everyone else?" (Answer: you would feel crappy.)

 

I like the idea of "forced vacations". Too often mods get so wrapped up in feeling that they need to be here all the time, they don't take time for themselves. It would also show those mods that maybe aren't doing much as it is.

But how would that affect a forum already lacking?

Mod A is already stretched thin because mod B isn't pulling weight in forum..

The good mod takes a vacation, leaving forum in mod B's hands..

When the good mod returns, forum is twice as bad as before, but it just proved what everyone already knew, that mod B was incapable.. Then what?

After mod A gets a vacation from the vacation, is mod B finally removed?

I think it's better to have someone else doing that.

But who?

If so called "bad news" is coming, wouldn't you want it in private, from your peers..

Or would you want it from the very same group you are suppose to be watching over?

and it doesn't really have to be bad news.

To use another RL example, how would you feel if your colleague walked up to one day and said, "Hey, Joe, you sure are lazy. Why don't you do as much work as everyone else?" (Answer: you would feel crappy.)

Sure, but there are ways to handle things. How about:

"Hey Joe, you are really nice, but perhaps there was more to this than you thought.."

A person could be the nicest in the world, but if she isn't cut out to be a mod, it shouldn't be a big deal.

That doesn't mean the person is bad, she just gave it her best shot..

You can only try, and there is no harm in that.

 

I like the idea of "forced vacations". Too often mods get so wrapped up in feeling that they need to be here all the time, they don't take time for themselves. It would also show those mods that maybe aren't doing much as it is.

I like the idea of mod evaluations, assuming we can find a way to carry them out properly and effectively. But forced vacations? Does time-off really need to be regulated like that? I think we ought to leave it up to the mods themselves to decide when they need a vacation.

Speaking for myself, I've seen mods take breaks; I know it's acceptable and can be done. If I ever feel like I need to go on vacation, I won't hesitate to find someone to look after my forum and go. But I don't see that happening anytime soon, and I think it would be unfair for someone to tell me "you need to take a break" when I personally don't feel the need to do so. The best we can do is promote the idea that it's okay for mods to take a vacation, and trust that they will take advantage of that option when necessary.

 

The basic train of thought has usually been "they're volunteers, it isn't like we're paying them, so they aren't hurting anything." However, it does indirectly hurt things. When a forum has multiple mods, and one of the mods is far more active and visible than the other mods combined, that mod easily gets burned out. They start to wonder "why should I keep working so hard, when everyone else is just idling by?" Thankfully for the JC, most of these mods are the ones who always have to excel at everything that they do. Simply idling by and doing the bare minimum isn't good enough for these people, and they'd rather step down than do that. They realize when they aren't going to be helpful to the boards, and aren't afraid to say so. So, while those who are doing the bare minimum may not be directly hurting the boards, it does effect those who have to make up for the work that they aren't doing.

*cough* I totally agree.

Jae Angel

ED: And I'd like to address royalguard's comment about this only applying to JCC. Very not true. JCC was the furthest from my mind when I went on my little rant.

 

why don't we get all the bitter ex-mods to set up an area where they whine about how "they would've done it" and how "these young cowboys never do anything right".

Oh, wait, we already have Comms.

Back to the drawing board.

 

why don't we get all the bitter ex-mods to set up an area where they whine about how "they would've done it" and how "these young cowboys never do anything right".


That's actually something I've been considering. A forum specifically for bitter ex-mods and new mods. Of course, it'd probably be seen as a social thing, which would be somewhat true.

 

I think you may be on to something.

 

"A forum specifically for bitter ex-mods and new mods. Of course, it'd probably be seen as a social thing, which would be somewhat true."

That's like AC2: The return of the AC.

UKS©

 

Make me judge, jury and executioner. I shall not waiver from my duty.

 

I like it!

 

A forum specifically for bitter ex-mods and new mods. Of course, it'd probably be seen as a social thing, which would be somewhat true."

That's like AC2: The return of the AC


well kind off, it would be more of a learning from the old pro experiance more then anything

 

One thing that hasn't changed since the last time I was an ex-mod is I still support ex-mods being able to hold advisory positions to current mods. Being an ex-mod can give you a remarkably different perspective on how the administration does things and how the administration ought to be doing things.

However, I remember when ex-mods were first invited into the AC, there were accusations that the process was elitist. Come to think of it, the entire AC was accused of being elitist. I can understand that position, although I don't agree with it, and I think steps need to be taken to address the elitism issue before a plan like this could be put into effect.

Perhaps one way to open the process of moderator reviews up to the public more would be to allow regular member "auditors" to watch the proceedings and report on them to the general public as they felt was appropriate. Certain members could be given read-only access to the board where reviews would be done, for example.

 

However it's ultimately done, I don't think bold confrontation is in the best interest of anyone, whether it be from peer mods or reg users. No one wants to criticize someone else's work to their face or ask them to step down. This isn't cowardice, but respect for that person's feelings, even if they're doing a poor job. It's especially difficult when the person is someone you like, they just aren't pulling their weight. So if it were that sort of situation, where users' or other mods' comments could be seen in their entirety by the person in question, they would be a lot less likely to say what they really feel and the whole procedure would be less effective. Meaning, there needs to be anonymity for the critics.

As for the forced vacation idea, I believe part of the idea was to see how the forum fares with the mod gone and get an idea of their value there.

And from my perspective, this certainly doesn't pertain solely to the JCC. Every mod could benefit from constructive criticism from time to time, and most forums occassionally have issues with their moderators.

 

Jedi Greg Maddox...
"I mean, the AC and the focus groups were abandoned for a reason, and I don't see why they should be resurrected for a single purpose."

The Focus Groups are very much alive and well. (And, for that matter, the AC may have been eviscerated, but it has not been abandoned. )

 

the AC may have been eviscerated, but it has not been abandoned.

But there is no questioning the AC had its flaws and its critics (both within the MS and without), and those things need to be remedied.

 

You mean like the easiest remedy being not giving in to people who cared more about e-drama than e-results. But, of course the Modsquad tends to do things the hard way.

So, the AC was removed and a completely new institution that was wholly inappropriate for doing the kinds of things the AC routinely did was put in its place.

The Focus Groups are excellent for doing what they're supposed to do. But, replacing the work that the AC did isn't what they're supposed to do.

So, we're left here today with calls for doing something that the AC had already been doing, but has been unable to do so since it was gutted.

 

Genghis, I also admired the concept of the AC very highly, but you know full well there were problems with it other than the cries of e-elitism that arose in Comms.

Some mods felt the AC implied user representatives were needed to communicate members' needs to the mods, and that didn't speak well of the mods' relationship to the community. Others felt that making a private group for discussion of board policy was counterproductive because it shut out too many people. I was of the opinion that much of what was discussed in the AC could also have been done in Comms in a comparably serious way if the administration had only respected the Comms regulars enough to try asking their opinions about some things. And frankly, towards the end, the AC wasn't very effective. We had trouble finding good new candidates for it, and we couldn't keep recycling old ones because even the people who cared about the community most and had the very best ideas would eventually reach a plateau where they didn't have much to say they couldn't have said in Comms.

 

And frankly, towards the end, the AC wasn't very effective. We had trouble finding good new candidates for it, and we couldn't keep recycling old ones because even the people who cared about the community most and had the very best ideas would eventually reach a plateau where they didn't have much to say they couldn't have said in Comms

I was a member of the last AC. Looking back, I'm not sure we did a hell of a lot of good. I mean, topics were created, our input was sought, and that part was great. I think we acted as a sounding board for some mods with some of their individual issues that arose.

But what did we (or any AC group) really accomplish? Many of my posts there felt like posts I could have easily made in comms on that given topic. But by the time I got to the AC, moderator evaluations were phased out.

There was a school of thought that the AC would only be as effective as the mods would allow it to be. I think this is a sound concept, and mods have to ask themselves how effective they allowed the AC to be. And, how much stock would they put in any moderator evaluation focus group?

The AC seemed to evolve to a much different place than what it was intended to at its inception. Yes, accusations of e-elitism were made, but I think those came because some AC rosters were being selected from a small group of friends who rarely set e-foot outside of the JCC. But as AC5 and 6 were created, the members did come from more places on the JC, which meant for a more diverse group, and IMO, one better suited to serve the JC membership as a whole. But one member of the AC on those tail-end teams basically came in and said he didn't care much about what we talked about and asked to not be part of the group anymore. That person is now a mod.

I find the focus group concept to be more streamlined and more effective than the AC concept was. (Pie, I want my check in the mail tomorrow, plz.) The FGs seem to be more fluid and flexible, and are made up of people who are knowledgeable and passionate about that given issue.

I see no reason why a moderator evaluation focus group couldn't be put together. But I think you'd have to divide it up, by JCC/movie forums/EU forums/fanfic and so on. Ideally, people would be able to put their e-egos aside and be objective. I hope that's not too much to ask.

 

The Focus Groups are very much alive and well. (And, for that matter, the AC may have been eviscerated, but it has not been abandoned.

I stand corrected. But the focus groups seem to be centered more around the EU forums more than any other place, and that's what was nice about the AC, it wasn't inclusive to any particular forum or group.

If a good reason (or ten) could be found for revitalizing the AC, then great. While it fizzled out at the end, I can't say it was unsuccessful in its heyday.

IMHO, the term I served in (the third one, I believe) was probably the most successful one - we brought in ex-mods, came up with a truckload of ideas and were the first group to truly make the effort to make ourselves available to everyone else. Then the groups afterwards pretty much closeted themselves in, without updating the public or even encouraging their participation. I won't point fingers or say that was the reason of the decline of the AC, but anyone who was paying attention put two and two together and figured that the AC was on its last legs.

Some mods felt the AC implied user representatives were needed to communicate members' needs to the mods, and that didn't speak well of the mods' relationship to the community. Others felt that making a private group for discussion of board policy was counterproductive because it shut out too many people.

During my tenure, it was my idea to get outside member involvement into the JC, so we PMed a handful of JCers and asked them a few questions about certain JC issues and what-not. Looking back, maybe it wasn't such a great idea to forcibly have members interact with the AC, but I thought it was worth trying since there were those who thought that the AC was elitist and wanted nothing to do with the public. Then again, the very definition of the AC was often in dispute (was it to bridge the gap between the members and mods, or was it simply to offer a different perspective for certain issues?) and if the principles of the AC were more clearly outlined, it could have lasted longer, or could even be brought back today.

 

My AC group produced a couple of updates and posted them in comms. No one cared.

And I think the reason the AC's real purpose was never fully known was you had people within the AC who viewed it very differently. Some saw it as nothing more than a personal platform to give out just his or her ideas to the mods. Others viewed it as a loose representation of the forums they frequent. One thing the AC didn't do was make policy decisions. I still think the focus group concept better serves the community we have here.