Moderator Reviews

Mod reviews? Couldn't hurt, but it would only make sense to do it in a forum by forum basis. For example, I haven't posted in the senate for a while, so how can I rate Knight Writer? However, I spend time in the TPM Forum, so I could rate Quix.

Right, that's why I suggested a "post count floor" for the timeperiod in question in that Forum in order to rate that Forum's Moderators.

Actually, now that I mention Quix, he did something akin to this. He started a thread asking about the status of the TPM Forum and requesting ideas for improvements, this opened an opporunity for people to give him feedback.

Yeah, the Lit Forum had some public "private" threads to deal with suggestions for the Lit Forum, but with specifically rating Moderators I think that the "PM another Mod" the ratings and post publicly only the aggregate ratings WILL help to seperate wheat from chaff in the reviews as well as reduce Drama(TM) to manageable or non-existant levels.

 

I guess what I was trying to say is that a forum review might be a better approach. If a mod's performance is poor, it'll show up in a forum review (directly or indirectly), and likewise if it is good. Plus, it can rate other things of importance and give generally useful feedback from the forum regulars.

 

I guess what I was trying to say is that a forum review might be a better approach. If a mod's performance is poor, it'll show up in a forum review (directly or indirectly), and likewise if it is good. Plus, it can rate other things of importance and give generally useful feedback from the forum regulars.

I would disagree though because with a Forum Review, you're specifically evaluating a Forum and might happen to touch on Moderator problems. With a Mod Review you're getting into the nitty-gritty of how you feel the Moderators are doing which might touch on how the Forum is doing.

 

Well, the state of the forum they moderate is probably the best judge of how a mod is doing.Its the place where the spend the majority of their time and energy. If a forum is having serious problems that aren't going away, then its a sign that the mod isn't doing their job. And ont he flip side, if a forum is moving smoothly, with no real problems and the members of that forum get alogn well with the mod, then its a sign that they're doing their job pretty well.

 

Uhhh this would create mass booty kissing.


Such as , " Oh Gandolf is teh best eva he should ba an admin, btw is she single etc etc etc. "











jus joking gandy

 

I would ask why, if we're trying to avoid an ivory tower type thing, there are permanent AC members and moreso why those AC members are given the ability to help chose the new members of the AC?

If we're of the opinion that becoming a mod isolates someone how is this any differnet?

In any case, mod reviews.

I think the criteria the mods often use to decide if a member is a mod material answer this question just as well as anything else.

The administration is looking for a member who they feel is trustworthy, knows the forums and the rules(snort), who is respected, and who has shown a desire to help the forums and if they have had problems in the past, has recently been a positive contributer.

Or atleast thats what I understand the basic criteria to be.

Obviously then, if the membership feels that a mod does not have a basic understanding of the rules, is detracting from the forum, isn't worth respect or trust, there is a serious problem.

Now while obviously threads in comm refering to a mods behavior can be symptamatic, perhaps it would be better if the mdos in charge were able to ferret out such friction before it cause a fire.

In any case, if the mods want to actively try and make this forum better, they should be doing more then waiting for members to contact them with problems.

 

I don't percieve the AC as an ivory tower type group: to the contrary, they represent (especially AC4) a remarkably valid cross-section of the forums.

Of course, I'm a bit mollified that there is no RPF representation, but I know that's because we RPFians are viewed as the inbred half-cousins of the JC, so I suppose it's best if we are kept out of the public's viewing.

As for the Moderator review concept: nice idea, but basically unneeded. If the AC is currently doing something similar, then this seems sufficiently adequate. To throw open reviewing to the forum proper - or even a restricted flow - you would as AYBABTU said, invite far too much drama, and a lot of repeated opinions and inconsequential banter.

And futhermore, it would only take a small group with a vendetta against Mod X (of which many examples abound) to try and make enough of a fuss over Mod X through this system, that Mod X is visibly and publically decried either fairly or no, thus interrupting Mod X's ability to function to the full of his/her ability in moderating.

In short? More trouble then it's worth.

 

If a forum is having serious problems that aren't going away, then its a sign that the mod isn't doing their job.

Not necessarily true -- if a Forum is having problems, it may simply be understaffing (which has nothing to do with the Mods themselves). Whereas in THAT case, if the Mods got good reviews in a badly reviewed Forum then it might signal the type of people that make good Mods in that Forum and help with the selection for an extra Mod.

 

EDIT: Nevermind

 

Well, the state of the forum they moderate is probably the best judge of how a mod is doing.

Yes, and that was my point. It's the best way to address the important issue without getting into a bunch of opinions based on personality, which is what I fear would happen. And as it is, there isn't anything stopping users from PM the administration with their critic of a mod anyway.

I do see a lot of value in doing forum reviews.

 

if a Forum is having problems, it may simply be understaffing (which has nothing to do with the Mods themselves).

True, but's that also something that's very easy to tell. Very quickly, you can see if a forum is going downhill because its understaffed, or if its because the Mod is a ninny, so if you were basing performance reviews on it, it wouldn't be something that would hurt a mod who is trying to (for example) run all of JCC by their lonesome.

 

True, but's that also something that's very easy to tell. Very quickly, you can see if a forum is going downhill because its understaffed, or if its because the Mod is a ninny, so if you were basing performance reviews on it, it wouldn't be something that would hurt a mod who is trying to (for example) run all of JCC by their lonesome.

Okay, but again -- if there are no Mod reviews then the only people *possibly* reviewing them are other Mods (who are not at all elected with input from 99.44% of users) or AC (who are not at all elected with input from 99.44% of users) there could be the case made that the drama of NOT having review would outweigh the drama involved in the reviews themselves.

I'm not saying that ALL reviews submitted need be counted. Granted, you get into a sticky widget when there is some editorial control by the Mod receiving the reviews for another Moderator, but one would assume/hope that they'd really only filter those sumissions that were clearly nothing more than troll-bait. So IF the reviews were submitted privately (not publicly) and IF those clearly non-constructive reviews were discarded don't you think that might help to reduce what people call "drama" since the regular users would feel properly represented (or at least represented enough).

Granted, this might involve the opening of "Don't blame me, I voted for Stupid" threads but I can live with that.

 

I give me 100000/10.

 

<sigh>...

So, do any more of the Mods (or Admins?) or anyone really have anything else to say on this topic?

 

My concerns about this come from a logistical stand-point. It is a rather large undertaking for someone to do this in regards to a single moderator, let alone all of us.

Another concern is exactly what would be done with them. I get from some people that they would like these to be like performance reviews that are done at most workplaces. But if someone has a bad review, what happens? Are they straight up sacked, or are they then on a 'probation' and have to pick up their game? If something as big as this was done, I know that I wouldn't want it just to become something to placate the masses, and be a paper tiger. It also brings up the concern (not one that I share, but I have seen it happen in the real world) that people will focus on making themselves likable to the general public, rather than doing what is in the best interests of the forum.

 

It's a good point, which is why I'd hoped one of the Mods (hint, hint) would say "Oh, we'll go discuss this in Mod Squad" and then get back to us at some unspecified point in the future with "Yeah, this is okay -- here are some ideas" or "No, this is bung -- here's why."

I just think that they'd be a good idea, but I'm not married to it.

 

So, do any more of the Mods (or Admins?) or anyone really have anything else to say on this topic?

No, but I would still like an answer to my question about how this site is funded. Am I correct in my assumption that it's done through advertising space? Or is it some other method?

So, here we are. Victims of mathematics

...as you say.

Other than that, I think farraday pretty much covered it. Interesting insight, farraday, into how they're chosen, a sort of 'talent-scouting' system, rather than an application accepted/rejected one. Often wondered.

Anyhow, I'm in favour of us being able to give feedback which can be measure, however notionally.

Edit: Oh yeah. I knew I had another question - how many Mods ARE there in total?

I ask because, depending upon how many there are, it would not be that difficult to collate the data if as has been suggested, a team of Mods were appointed with sole responsibility for the Census Forum. It'd work something like this.

Let's say 4 Mods run that forum.

Each Census Mod - every month or 2 months or whatever - gets a list of a quarter of all mod names(including their own), and starts a poll on each one.

It'd look like this:

How do you rate [ so-and-so ] as a mod in the [ whatever Forum ]?

10
09
08
07
06
05
04
03
02
01

Once polls are closed, total points are then divided by total votes to give an average, and any Mod who consistently falls below x average, say 4, is deemed unsatisfactory, and measures(whatever they may be) are implemented.

As I say, I dunno how many of you guys there are, but with a team of Mods responsible for Census, this could b done quite easily enough.

As for what the disciplinary measures should be, that's not something I can comment on, but there at least is, I feel at any rate, a logistical solution to the acquisition of the data.

 

"I've never been too fond of a formal moderator review process by forum users. Forum users aren't the ones that choose the moderators. Moderators are chosen by the Administration, and therefore are beholden only to them"


I have to agree with this. They are choosen for there standards and shouldn't be judged by most normal users. I am sure if something is going on it is noticed by everyone. At the very least if things are going correctly bringing it up in the proper fashion would be the right idea.

 

Thrax...
"Each Census Mod - every month or 2 months or whatever - gets a list of a quarter of all mod names(including their own), and starts a poll on each one."

If this were ever given serious thought, the amount of usernames on this site would increase by a factor of about 30 to a hundred.

It would depend on how hated or loved a moderator is with respect to the number of socks people would register to vote in a poll about them.

 

Ratings wouldn't be the most useful thing. If a mod has a low rating, that could mean something is wrong, but it still doesn't tell anyone how to be a better mod or fix a problem. (Or maybe one person with a vendetta registered a dozen names and voted). A better way would be for a mod to PM all the regulars in the forum and tally the results.

Perhaps a place for comments would be more useful. Things along the line of:

- I love the way mod X handles thread locking. He/she posted really clear comments.

- The Z feature in the Lit forum is quite handy. Could we implement it in Classic Trilogy?

 

I'm going to throw in my 2 credits ( OH ****, I hear some of you say, Big Mouth Breezy has discovered the Coms... trust me my visit will be brief...) and slink away.

1) Many people are afraid of disagreeing with a mod. They fear the axe of retrobution, rightly or wrongly...

2) There are certain forums that are particuly "clique-y", and even though fresh blood would probably be a good thing, many people think that it would be drawn from the "Clique" so 'what would it matter anyway'...

3) I'm not downing all the mods or indeed, even those I have disagreed with... there ARE some good ones out there (and yes I have Pm'd them on occasion to say "ta") it's just that you joke about an 'Ivory Tower' forgetting that a lot of us 'peon's' see just that...


That's my two credits...



**********************************
Bonus question...

Mods are "invite only" correct? Whay can't there be a "JCF participent choice" mod or two in the mix? Or an actual application process?

 

Mods are "invite only" correct? Whay can't there be a "JCF participent choice" mod or two in the mix? Or an actual application process?

Off-hand, I'd say that because someone with no desire to be a Mod ("JCF participant") could think it's fun to randomly ban people or delete messages and hope the other Mods could bail them out of trouble, and an application process would be heavy with people all thinking they COULD be Mods and light on people that the Mods think would be good at it.

Typically, the Mods in a Forum know who the good people in that Forum are. (which has absolutely no explanation how I am here )

 

Off-hand, I'd say that because someone with no desire to be a Mod ("JCF participant") could think it's fun to randomly ban people or delete messages and hope the other Mods could bail them out of trouble, and an application process would be heavy with people all thinking they COULD be Mods and light on people that the Mods think would be good at it.

Let me clarify...

JFC participent nominates a member that they think would make a GOOD mod and why...

Nominated parties could either accept or decline.

Voted on via poll

"New Mods" go throught a 'review' and probationary period with limited 'powers', could have a "mentor" for the time being...

Just a wishful thought....

DB

PS:

They are choosen for there standards and shouldn't be judged by most normal users.

Thus is the perception of many people which leaves the few 'vocal' to take the scrapes...

 

New Mods" go throught a 'review' and probationary period with limited 'powers', could have a "mentor" for the time being...

Unfortunately there's VIP (with no power whatsover, so mentoring would be useless) and Mod (with full power). So I don't see how that would be feasible unfortunately.

Until zerosleep writes the capability to selectively determine Moderator capabilities, anyways...

 

Now THAT would actually work...

A probationary mod gets "VIP" Status and any actual editing of post that would be needed could be doen by the mentor... "VIP/mods" could issue request/warnings/comments and get their "mentor" do do the dirty work...