[YJCC] I thought it was a mods job to......

Just look after things to make sure everything didnt go down the tubes. I read the below thread and first thing I thought was that this moderator decided what was in their best interest. (please dont lock this, but instead talk about where you guys come from on issues) I have heard in the near not so distant past that moderators (from their mouths) that they are not here to guess what people are thinking, but to make sure that Porn, illigal activities swearing etc (u get my point) are not being conducted. Not interprete what users are thinking unless its obvious. But from what I have witnessed is that once these new powers are given, its basically the new Mods rules and what THEY think is not ok. I personally feel that if the heavy hand was taken away, half the crap that Mods + Admins deal with will not even come up. Everyone is always trying to push the envelope, but if you back off and stick to specific rules of conduct and limit what you need to meddle with, your job will be easier and probaly more enjoyable. If users want to complain about pettie things like signatures, let them. No need to act like a parent just because of this so called power. Now if a user posts porn, or talks about drugs or getting hammered, absolutly get involved. But the rest, just let users be, no one is hurting anyone and all it does is make the leaders look like a joke. Plus it makes the mods look like they favor other users over others and thats not a good sign of a leader. I just want to see things be better between users and the users with these logons. The below exapmle is not aimmed at an one Mod or admin, but an example that this is biased and not something a mod or admin should have gotten involved in. Many users take shots at other users using signatures, but not all are taken care of properly and when I mean that, the mods dont need to get involved. I hope everyone understand where I was coming from. I just see one thing, but hear from 2 mods and an admin that they are not here to intreprete what users post, but to make sure they dont post what I said above. Basically, the admins and mods need to distance themselves from users they have known from the past and the pettie arguments that happen daily. Treat everyone fairly and you wont have to work as hard. Plus, half the topics that come up in the JCC are BS anyway. Just let them stay and live or die. I see so many threads locked that yes they might be redundant, but do we really need to lock everything that has the same topic as a 4 month old topic? Just an example. I thought it was the first 5 pages and it stays. bUT EVERYONE SEEMS TO ALWAYS TRY AND ONE UP SOMEONE BY SAYING.. OPPS THIS WAS POSTED LAST YEAR. LET ME UP THAT THREAD.

http://boards.theforce.net/Your_Jedi_Council_Community/b10008/17553150/?14

 

Specific examples aside, this seems to be a question of what moderating style or philosophy you prefer. You may be interested in this thread.

Some people (and moderators) favor a more hands-on approach, while others prefer lassaiz-faire moderating.

 

I locked it because snowball made it clear that he had another reason for posting the thread, one which belonged in comms. 1 of the suggested names was a clear flame, and at least one more was a borderline flame. I thought it was better to lock the thread because it got futher out of hand and people ended up getting banned.

EDIT: Yeah, good thread. We're not robots. Each of us are different people with different backgrounds and history. we just all handle things a bit differently. we try to be as uniform as we can, but it's unrealistic to expect judgement calls to be totally uniform.

 

"Some people (and moderators) favor a more hands-on approach, while others prefer lassaiz-faire moderating"

Should be universal then.

 

"EDIT: Yeah, good thread. We're not robots. Each of us are different people with different backgrounds and history. we just all handle things a bit differently. we try to be as uniform as we can, but it's unrealistic to expect judgement calls to be totally uniform"


I appreciatte that post Droideka. this wasnt a bash toward mods and admins. Just a plea to try and shed some light from a outsider on what some see.

 

Should be universal then.

That's not realistic, though. People are individuals, and have their own preferences and ways of doing things. Of course, everyone ought to be within a certain range. Shouldn't have anyone way off in either direction.

 

I dont think it's possible to be totally uniform. forums and users and mods varry so much.

Anyways, I didn't feel i was intrepreting his intent, i thought he made it very clear. If I was moderating intent i would have locked it the second it was posted. but instead, i didn't, i gave the benefit of the doubt, and i left it open.

as far as the redirecting threads, that varries from forum to forum. In JCC we're a lot looser about starting a redundant thread if the old thread is short, hasn't been posted in for awhile, etc. usually.

 

"That's not realistic, though."


But why not? Limit what needs to be ruled over. (Just refering to the JCC) only reason thats its not realistic is because the mods and admins have made their job so dang difficult by making all these so called rules. Step back and let people be people. We treat this place like a kindergarden, but we really dont need to. Too many rules become un manageable for you guys and thats why we have as many problem users as we do.

 

But why not? Limit what needs to be ruled over. (Just refering to the JCC) only reason thats its not realistic is because the mods and admins have made their job so dang difficult by making all these so called rules.

But do you expect a group of approximately 25-40 people to have mostly similar viewpoints on anything else? If not, why should moderating be any different?

I certainly respect your viewpoint with regard to lassaiz-faire moderating, and there are plenty of people (both past and present) who agree with you .

Personally, I prefer a mix of the two styles, ideally geared toward each forum.

 

"But do you expect a group of approximately 25-40 people to have mostly similar viewpoints on anything else?
"

I expect the same rules past on to everyone within the same community. I have heard so many complaints from all types of users and even the ones i think get special treatment that the mods or admins treat some users with a liitle more softness. I would just like to see the higher ups just lay off on the lockings, bannings etc, unless absolutly needed. Just from a personal stand point and I guess in some ways I agree because i'm sure its fun, but I see some threads locked and I scratch my head on why. Mods and admins always say if you dont like a thread, dont post in it and let it die. Well, if its lame, just let it die instead of locking it. all it shows users is that this place is way to hard lined for a SW message board. Now if a thread is about bashing a certain user or group or porn etc etc, yes. lock it or even delete it. its not needed and I agree with that. But just dont lock threads or edit things just because YOU think its bad.

 

I would just like to see the higher ups just lay off on the lockings, bannings etc, unless absolutly needed.

But who decides when it is absolutely needed?

I may decide that something is needed, but you might think it's not. No matter how you design the rules, there will always be that sort of judgement call, and there will always be people who disagree with it.

Kimball Kinnison

 

This is off topic, but someone in that thread has the words "Jerk off" in their sig. How is that allowed?

 

Well, having a signature along the lines of "I can't get this jerk off my back at work" might be acceptable. Beyond that...

 

I agree with Kimball, what one user considers absolutely necessary was just fine to someone else. As moderators, it's our job to decide where the line between what's allowable and what's not is.

Well, if its lame, just let it die instead of locking it.

What if a thread is causing more problems than it's worth, but is very active? A thread like that would take a while to die on its own, and in the meantime will continue to cause trouble. In that case the thread should be locked. But I think I see your point, and if a thread is borderline, sometimes I'll let it die(or wish for it to die ).

But just dont lock threads or edit things just because YOU think its bad.

This goes back to what I was saying earlier, if we shouldn't lock/edit/ban because we think it's bad/against the rules, then who should decide that?

 

Yet again KW you hit the nail right on the head


It's all about syle. No mod can moderate beyond what they personally believe about their position. They may be advised to work on this or that, but a truly helpful moderator is one that brings a fresh, unique perspective and stlye to the table; not neccessarily one who adheres to some universal code of conduct.

KW was right one the money about certain styles geared toward different boards. For example, you would want a pretty affable, easygoing (but firm about the rules) guy/girl as a mod in JCC. In the Senate however, you might want someone who can mediate threads that get out of hand really well more than you would want a relatively impressionable, easygoing person.

Each forum has it's own tone. The moderators elected to those forums should (IMO) have the qualities to moderate such a board. It's not imposing ideas or rules, but rather individual approaches.

 

Raven, the text of the sig is as follows:

Would any of you jerk off to Natalie Portman any less if she was a neo-nazi? - Big g

Now I know for sure mods have seen it, because they've talked to him in threads. Is this sig PG?

 

I actually brought that sig up in MS and was waiting for a clear decision on it before taking action.

It is being dealt with. However, I have limited internet access right now, because I am away for the weekend (visiting my fiance).

Kimball Kinnison

 

I may decide that something is needed, but you might think it's not. No matter how you design the rules, there will always be that sort of judgement call, and there will always be people who disagree with it.

Exactly. What you suggested about passing on the same style from one mod to another in a given forum is already done. You don't see any Senate mods taking up the same style used by Windy and Garth in NSA. Even if various moderators have similar ideas about what's okay and what isn't, there are always, always going to be judgement calls on which the two won't agree. You're essentially asking people to be robots.

 

Everyone... i just have to say thank you for all the great and meaningful posts. I at first was afraid this was going to be locked because some might think I was going after the mods and admins. Far from. Just want to get ideas going between everyone and we are on the right track. Again thx.

 

Basically, the admins and mods need to distance themselves from users they have known from the past

This is the part of the opinion that I wholeheartedly support. Too many of our recent community mods have had close-knit relationships with select groups and people, and once they were promoted to Mod/Admin status, some barely set themselves apart from their cliques. Not that they have to abandon their friends, but they're preferences towards these people were not averaged out amongst the general user population. There's still an element of bias that exists. I think that Mods/Admins should be aware of that, and that when they accept their Mod/Admin status, they should realize that they have to grow beyond their clique and be equally accessible to the forum populace they're responsible for.

 

They are accessible... everyone can PM a mod, even if they aren't part of any clique.

I think it's foolish to say that mods should get rid of their friendships. That's asking way too much. Most mods that I know have no problems banning and warning their friends.

 

I didn't say to give up relationships. If you read my post completely, you would have noticed that.

 

I wasn't replying directly to you, either.

 

Its simple isnt it? If the thread is inappropriate then lock it, if the thread is questionable, keep it unlocked, but keep an eye on it in case the thread does turn rotten. In some cases, it does go bad, in others it doesn't. You can never really tell how the community is going to respond to a topic until someone presses that post button.


I'm not sure if I'm being close minded here but I really can't see it any other way, so if I am missing the point, please tell me, I'd like to know.