When is it time to step down? Or: Do some moderators stick around too long?

Throughout the history of the JC, we've had a lot of moderators. Some have stayed a short while, while others have stayed a very long time. The average length of moderatorship is probably a little over a year. I myself was a moderator for almost precisely two years, with terms of 18 and 6 months. Being a moderator is a tough job, though I think it's slightly less tough than it used to be, due to things settling down around the JC as a whole. Most tough issues have long since been decided, and it's mostly just refining at this point. I think most people would agree that part of being a good moderator is being in touch with the membership and understanding things from the regular member's perspective. If you were a regular member for awhile before you became a moderator (not me; I was promoted after just eight months, which wasn't necessarily a good thing), you probably have a good deal of this perspective ingrained in you.

There are a few moderators (I'm not going to call anyone out; they can speak for themselves if they'd like, and I've been on good terms with some of them for a long time) who have not been regular members for a very long time, serving in the Mod Squad for as long as five years (half a decade). Overall, they've done a great job, contributing to the success of the boards, especially providing stability and leadership to both the membership and newer moderators.

But, I think the question must be asked: How long is long enough? We haven't discussed moderator tenure here in a long time (probably since 2002 or 2003 at the latest), and it seems like it may be something worth discussing. For those moderators who have stayed almost continuously in the Mod Squad, how do you keep in touch with the regular membership? Do you find it difficult to do so if you haven't seen things from a regular member's perspective for the better part of four or five years? If you feel you do keep perspective, that's great, and I commend you. If not, maybe it's time to ask how long you plan to go on, and why you stay.

If I could propose anything, it would be that moderators should maybe be limited to around 24-30 months before being required to step down for at least six months, so as to make way for new blood in the MS, and new perspectives. During this relative quiet time on the JC, stagnation is a potential problem, and new voices may be a plus. For those that stay on for years, especially if it's long enough to be a full presidential term, why do you stay? Do you feel like you can still contribute best as a moderator? Do you not want to be just an ordinary member again? Something else?

Power is seductive, and while I'm certain no one in the MS stays simply because of power, I think giving it up can be difficult, especially if you've been around a long time. This is not about change for the sake of change, which is foolish and wrong. For my part, I've never looked back after I stepped down the second time. I can't speak for others who have stepped down at some point or another, but I think I can safely say that it changes your perspective on the JC once you've seen both sides of things. If you've truly done all three roles (regular member, moderator and then regular member again), you have a somewhat unique perspective on the JC.

So, boiling it down: If you've been here for longer than about 24-30 months, why do you stay? For those that stayed for that long and later stepped down, could you chime in with your experiences? And finally, I'd like to know what regular members have to say.

This is all said with the best of intentions, and with total respect for our long-serving moderators. I'd just like to have this discussion.

 

I'm not certain the entire post is necessary, as I don't think the question is "how long is too long," per se. But you bring up the good point of: what happens if a mod stays around and DOESN'T really interact with the members of the forum? That's the more important question, I'd think.

I'd wager that I'm at least on your list of mods in mind when making this thread, as I'm nearing 4.5 years (but not vain enough to think the thread is about me, do I? Do I? Do I?) and I'm not insane enough to believe I'm infallible in this regards. In the last month, I've had probably 100 posts in Lit out of approx. 500 posts, so 20% in my chosen forum and probably about 150 (30%) in Mod Squad. So, the question is: is there a cap -- a floor or a ceiling -- for posts a moderator might be expected to make in their chosen forum? Is 50% of my posts being made in forums other than either my "home" forum or my administrative forum indicative of a problem for me or for any other moderator who engages in that type of posting habits?

Granted, everyone (or I'd hope everyone) does stuff for the good of their forum that likely never gets seen by anyone (or very few) and obviously the "common user" isn't going to know about that, but that should be the "gravy" on the mashed potatoes of the moderator's job. At the end of the day, though, remember that we're all volunteers (other than Sape, who makes $0.0000000000000000000000000001 per year, which is the Head Admin salary). Because people are volunteering their time, effort and energy I'm not certain that there should necessarily be a cap on service time. I'm all in favor of demotion or administrative action if someone's sticking around for the sake of sticking around, but why artificially limit the time of volunteers who want to keep volunteering if they are being effective at their jobs?

 

But you bring up the good point of: what happens if a mod stays around and DOESN'T really interact with the members of the forum? That's the more important question, I'd think.

Well, I think that's probably of higher priority, but I think it really applies even if someone stays relatively active. Is there anything that would ever make you go, "okay, I think I've had enough" and step down? Not out of anger or anything, but on good terms. Even if a moderator stays relatively active, is there a point where it's best for everyone if you ask yourself how much longer you want to stay, or even should stay? Obviously, you can stay as long as you'd like, but it seems like perspective might start to get a little distorted eventually. Not necessarily, of course, but even the best of executives throughout the world eventually call it quits (most, anyway).


I'm all in favor of demotion or administrative action if someone's sticking around for the sake of sticking around, but why artificially limit the time of volunteers who want to keep volunteering if they are being effective at their jobs?

If it was done, it would be to ensure that all moderators have a certain amount of perspective and never become totally entrenched in the Mod Squad. It also makes room for newer faces, thereby spreading the wealth around and ensuring that more regular members become personally invested in the JC via moderatorship. Sort of a chain reaction, in a way.

 

As someone who is not and has not been involved in MS here, I'd say its a valid point in terms of extremely long term moderators sometimes being out of touch with regular users, but I don't think its a particularly serious problem. Also, I don't think its necessarily fair to put a numerical limit on time as a moderator, because it can and will vary drastically from one mod to another.

I think it might be nice for some mods (and I'm not really thinking of anybody in particular here, just a generic statement) who have been around a long time to voluntarily take some time off before deciding whether or not they have any interest in returning to being a moderator. The difficulty here is that its rather difficult to let them control that decision long term; someone would have to be brought in as a replacement. More likely, whenever a vacancy did open after such stepping down, that ex-moderator could be considered first, if still interested. Then again, given the number of times ex-mods have been repromoted in the past, this may be somewhat similar to how it often is anyways.

As I said before, though, I don't think its a particularly serious problem, and one that really has to be on an individual basis.

 

I don't think there needs to be a time limit, as said above. It varies, and mods shouldn't be required to step down or take a break if they don't need one just because they've been mods for a long time. Sape, as he has said in Comms several times, says that if our hearts aren't in it, step down (to be brief). And if a mod isn't doing his or her job correctly and there are problems, those problems can be brought up with the admins.

And dp, I don't think that posting a lot outside of your forum is a bad thing; I do the same.

 

I don't think it should be mandatory after a long period of time, but increasing absences(for example) in whatever your forum is, or not performing your duties at an adequate level, kind of lends itself to suggesting that that particular mod may want to take a break, or step down. That's the way I've always read the established policy, anyways.

Of course it's more beneficial to visit forums other than your own, it greatly increases your understanding of other communities.

 

I think there's value in keeping new perspective and ideas coming in, for sure. I don't know that I agree that you put a definite number on a tenure, especially since it would need to vary from forum to forum. The JCC doesn't have a mod that has modded that forum for more than a 18 months, and its mods rarely stay longer than two years or so without burning out (give or take) or RL stepping in. I think now the forum has the opporunity of a longer tenured team (not that a mod leaving spins us out of control), but I'd put it as one of the forums that needs more stability. Having said that, length of time in a job is one of the things in our company uses with leadership, and they believe people "stagnate" in leadership positions after so long and become "blockers" of others. But they make money, and it's a bit more centered around their personal growth. So I'm not sure the analogy works as well with modding.

I'm a big believer in actual moderating, or adminning in my case, as being a small part of my time here, ideally. It takes up 100% of my time some days, and some days only about 10%, so it invariably works out. But the point remains the same. I need to be in JCC as a user (as much as I can), posting, joking, whatever a bigger percentage. We absolutely have to be part of the communities we moderate, and not just as the person doing the edits. If you do become "just the moderator", IMO, then it may be time to evaluate whether you enjoy doing even that, as deep down you may see it as duty vs. enjoyment. As admins, we ask mods all the time to really evaluate the time spent doing this, and if it becomes something you don't enjoy, step down.

 

It seems that, unfortunately, some of my original message isn't quite being understood. To me, it almost goes without saying that burnout should be watched for, and that if you experience it for some time, you should seriously evaluate if you should continue as a moderator.

What I'm getting at as much as anything else is the question of whether a moderator ought to think about stepping down after a given amount of time, even if they're still doing their job to a relatively good degree and are still part of the community. If you've been a moderator for more than three or four years, is there anything that would ever make you step down (besides burnout)? To me, a problem besides burnout is the danger of becoming so entrenched in the Mod Squad, so insulated in the culture of being a moderator and being part of that community, that you never leave, and maybe lose sight of what it's like to be a regular member. Some are able to avoid this, I'm sure, so in no way am I saying that it happens to everyone. But, I think it's something that isn't really talked about all that much, yet is something every moderator deals with more the longer they stay.

 

I don't think there's any real danger of that happening. If a mod is doing his or her job well (participating in the community they mod) then he/she will be interacting regularly with "regular" users and won't be too entrenched in being a mod.

 

I worry about this for myself, personally, anyway. I don't want to become so entrenched in the moderating job that it becomes status quo on everything, or I get defensive when I'm questioned or I can't empathize with what a user may be feeling. I don't know that I could have modded during the time that user/mod relations were so adversarial, because I know it takes two to tango and I don't ever want to be a part of that. I don't think it would have been enjoyable, even if I did have the ban button and they didn't. If I ever become a mod and not a user (which is what I was getting at, so I think we agree on that point, KW) in my mind, I hope to be able to recognize it and step down. Rules are great. Community is the real deal, though. I think Sape may have said it initially, I'm not sure, but we are users with a little more responsibility and some buttons, when we can't see the user part of that, it's time to go.

 

But it has happened in the past. How many mods have been removed, because of lack of time spent in their own forums, not to mention ones that don't understand their community as it evolved over the timespan of a few years. I mean, that obviously doesn't apply to everyone that's been a staffmember for several years, but I've seen it happen with mods that have been on for less than six months, so it's certainly a valid issue to bring up.

 

I don't think there's any real danger of that happening. If a mod is doing his or her job well (participating in the community they mod) then he/she will be interacting regularly with "regular" users and won't be too entrenched in being a mod.


A good point, and ideally, that's the case. But is that possible after four years? Five? Seven? Could a moderator possibly go on for even longer than that and keep from being entrenched, still able to see things from a regular member's perspective? That seems extreme, but we're only a couple years away from that number for a few people (whereas people who were promoted this year would have to moderate until 2012 to equal the longest-serving moderators right now, and 2014 to get to that extreme number of seven years). If you haven't been a regular member in the time that it takes a child to go from birth to 1st grade, is it time to think about maybe taking a little break?

I think Sape may have said it initially, I'm not sure, but we are users with a little more responsibility and some buttons, when we can't see the user part of that, it's time to go.

I agree. I think the problem, and maybe it's a bit of of a catch-22, is how will you know when you can't see that perspective anymore? If you're not on guard for it, objectively asking yourself that question, and so on, how will you know? It can be difficult to admit that maybe your time has passed, and that it's time to step down. After all, you're leaving the relative prestige, power and security of the Mod Squad for the regular membership again. Our natural inclination can be to say, "Well, I think I'm still doing a good job, and I'm definitely trying my best", even if that isn't always the case.

 

I think that that does raise an interesting point, though I agree that maybe a time limit isn't the best idea. If someone can't see themselves here if they're not a moderator, if they can no longer see themselves as a regular user, I think that's when the problem comes in. With the exception of a few TFN people who became mods from day 1 (are they even around anymore?) people (hopefully) didn't come here to be a mod - they came here because they love Star Wars, and just kind of stumbled into the mod position. So if the mod position is someone's central reason for staying around, then I think that stepping down is a good idea, because if you can't have fun when you're not a mod, then I don't know that you're doing the best job as a mod that you can.

We've had some people who dissapeared as soon as they lost their mod position, and I think that those are examples of people who were mods for the sake of being mods. Once they lost that power, the boards didn't have any alure to them, so they peaced out.

Overall, none of us can say that is the case for someone else, and I think that it's hard to ask yourself that when you really love being a mod, but taking some time off for longer-serving members, being just a red name with an Emeritus title, can help you see whether you're just in it for the modship, or if you can have fun even when you're not a mod.

 

The problem with that Josh, is that they'd end up promoting less-than-perfect replacements for people doing an outstanding job. I can completely see where you are coming from, but I don't see why someone who is doing a really good job should be forced to give up their responsibilities at a fixed time point.

An alternate to what you are suggesting could be a yearly review conducted by the admin team, where each mod from each forum basically justifies why they should keep their responsibilities (ie cover a few of the improvements they've made to their forums, or new directions that they've taken the forum in - even something as simple as organising a game, or sorting out a dispute between a group of users). If a mod is unable to highlight where they've contributed in the previous 12 months, then it's perhaps time to go in favour of fresh blood.

Slightly offtopic on my part, but I'd ask you to question why they lost their mod position - if it was due to darth real life, then it's unsurprising that they aren't around anymore. If it was due to inactivity the same would apply, and if it was due to a major falling out with the administration then I'm not surprised they aren't around any more.

However, there are far more examples of people who've stuck around than those who have left.

edit

I'd personally be in favour of having a rotating head administrator, and perhaps year changes in the admin team. I think that could be more productive for the MS

 

I, personally, was tricked into the position, FYI. Kadue sends me this "hey, what are some of your ideas about the Lit Forum?" questionnaire and I took him at his word... >.<

Then that Randolf the Graven guy sends me a PM with some sort of invitation...

 

That's actually a very good suggestion, and one that should probably be considered.

 

An alternate to what you are suggesting could be a yearly review conducted by the admin team, where each mod from each forum basically justifies why they should keep their responsibilities (ie cover a few of the improvements they've made to their forums, or new directions that they've taken the forum in - even something as simple as organising a game, or sorting out a dispute between a group of users). If a mod is unable to highlight where they've contributed in the previous 12 months, then it's perhaps time to go in favour of fresh blood.


For a time, there were supposed to be "reviews" for each moderator before being promoted to manager. That never really went anywhere, and I think this one is an excellent suggestion that falls into the realm of unrealistic. If this was a workplace, no doubt it would stand a much better chance. As it is, people are even more reluctant here to take an objective look at their fellow moderators, especially if anything that's said could get into wide circulation. That's the case from my experience with something similar, at least. I can predict that whoever was doing the reviewing would take just about anything as evidence of contributing, and it would be mostly a go through the motions type thing. And understandably so. This isn't a professional workplace, and nobody's really trained in anything. Everyone's a volunteer, and everyone wants to be liked.

I like the idea, and if there were a way of making it happen in reality, I'd say it would be great. As it is, I'm pretty sure it's something that's unrealistic here.

I think there's a natural bias to some extent about wanting to be "just" a regular member again. As I said earlier, however, former moderators have something of a unique perspective on the JC, and have a lot to offer. You can contribute that way too, and I think that's sometimes forgotten or just not recognized at all. I think that once you've been a moderator for awhile, it can get to seeming like that's the best or even only way you can really contribute.

 

And what about the 50 lines underneath that were just "Make me a mod" over and over again underneath it all?


NB: Serious reply to follow later on.

 

At the same time, there were those of us who were willing to be critical of other mods (in the closed environment of the MS), but look where it got me

To expand on your point, I'd actually go further and say there are those within the MS, and the admin team who are unwilling to be critical of other mods to avoid confrontation, and are unwilling to make mods accountable because it puts themselves into difficult situations.

I agree my idea is slightly unfeasible in that I don't believe it would achieve anything -partially because everyone is a volunteer, and partially because only a few mods are willing to be critical of others.

However, if mods had the yearly review in the back of their minds they might actually make the effort to input a little more so they know they'll have clear examples to present when being reviewed.

 

Excellent topic, KW, and one I've thought about in my little bit of time here. I had no idea that the average mod time was around a year, as it has seemed to me that since 2002 (when I lurked before making an account), the same mods and admins are here, with only a few exceptions. Still, that insulation you talk about is a real danger of a moderated discussion site, or any social setting which is based on a "power structure".

And this I think addresses KW's concern. I wrestle with this too: Here, I'm just a regular user, but on a part of the internet "far, far away", I'm the founder and head admin. I challenge myself to always look at things from a newcomer's perspective so that I don't get so full of myself that I can't see daylight, or allow myself the luxury of thinking I'm always right. Mods can always use a little humility, and perhaps "term limits" is a great idea. New people simply must feel comfortable entering a new setting if a community is going to grow. "Comfortable" isn't always a word I would choose to describe the JC. Sometimes it is, and sometimes it's quite forbidding and feels closed to "new blood".

 

An Italian politician once said to me: "Power only makes those weary who are not in power." We tire of our leaders, our leaders don't tire of their leadership. In a sort of dumbed-down way, this goes for messageboards too, I think. Fresh perspectives, a new sense of urgency, drive, can be very welcome sometimes. Some people just seem to be here to govern the place instead of having fun with other members.

 

I think that was in place long enough to slightly delay my promotion to manager, and then it was never used again.

 

I disagree. It's redundant to simple observation. If a mod hasn't done anything of even reasonable note - even resolving a dispute - in a period of twelve months, then it will be very obvious indeed that they're no longer justifying their position. Their forum colleagues will not be shy, or should not be shy, to make such an observation.

 

Well, I'm addressing that from an outsider's perspective. I have no idea what goes on behind the scenes, and how fellow staff address those issues, but I do know know that I've never seen any moderator's worth be successfully questioned in Comms, or elsewhere, by a regular user. So, it seems like a yearly review wouldn't be a bad thing, though it probably wouldn't be possible, nor probable to be considered.