Forum "Moderation"

Wow, if we'd all known about this section, we could have been commenting here instead of within the threads.

Good job, probe.

Being a moderator most certainly does not make one any more "right" than someone else and the belief that it does is is self-righteous and certainly is an opinion that is best not expressed by a forum moderator.

I think Glendas doing a good job.  There HAS been a lot of "moderating" in the training area lately, but I don't think it's OVER moderating - it was what was needed after that part of the forum had been UNDER moderated for so long.  I think now people are aware that the threads are being watched, they will self-moderate more, as they do in other areas and the threats to close threads etc. will dwindle away. 
 
I think that there was nothing wrong with the "I get to be right" comment, it was sincerely tongue in cheek and I find it hard to believe there was any malice or self-righteousness behind it.  I've never found Glenda's posts (as moderator or otherwise) to be attacking or offensive in the past so perhaps that colours my view on it.
 
I've also been slightly outraged at the way Glenda has been treated in her attempts to moderate to the best of her ability.  (Slightly in that I find it hard to get really properly worked up over stuff on an internet forum.)  If people weren't happy with it they should have contacted her or other admin with their concerns instead of openly attacking her publicly.  That was just purely disgusting and far outweighs ANY misjudgements Glenda may have made in threatening to close threads or making light  hearted flippant comments or anything else.  I hope those people (you know who you are) were thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

ORIGINAL: willowchow

I also think two things need to stop and we would be much, much better off.
1.  People should not be allowed to begin threads that are obviously being started because the poster knows it will cause a lot of controversy and emotion.  I can see those threads from a mile away and I'm sure lots of others can too.

2.  I think the people--and they know who they are--that do not like CM and cannot be open minded about his methods should simply not post in the CM area.  I notice a lot of times they will say things like we are allowed to post here, etc.  It's the CM area if you can't keep an open mind, don't post there.  Same with clicker training, if your completely shut down on it, don't post there.  I mean to me, if you are completely against it, why are you even looking there?  It seems only to cause a commotion. 

I think these two things would make such an improvement.

Then we wouldn't even need so much moderating.

 
Good points Lori. []
 
I do agree a lot of it does come down to self-moderation and respect for others. Also respect for certain sections, respect for the rules, and a healthy internal boundary system so that an external boundary system is not needed as often. [] 

Good moderating is like good parenting.  Fewer scoldings and more practicing -what you would like to see in others.
 
 

Good moderating is like good parenting.  Fewer scoldings and more practicing -what you would like to see in others.

Well said, I have simmilar concerns as those addressed by the OP.

What a "nice" thread!! NOT

You know moderating isn't an easy job, many people aren't cut out for it and many people are passionate about the forum and want to help make it a better place. Just like ANY *new* job, it takes people time to get into the grove. Do I agree with everything I've seen? well, no, but you know what I can honestly say that things here are never the same day to day, week to week or month to month. Life is what it is and when you can't play nice you need moderators to slap your fingers, call you down and yes even suspend you. That is how those who rock the boat find their way to do better or get moving.

Give it time and support your fellow member by respecting their asking you to tone it down...we're all going to moderate a little differently, I happen to be more heavy handed []
 
ETA... yes, I am right ...just because [sm=devil.gif]

ORIGINAL: willowchow

2.  I think the people--and they know who they are--that do not like CM and cannot be open minded about his methods should simply not post in the CM area.  I notice a lot of times they will say things like we are allowed to post here, etc.  It's the CM area if you can't keep an open mind, don't post there.  Same with clicker training, if your completely shut down on it, don't post there.  I mean to me, if you are completely against it, why are you even looking there?  It seems only to cause a commotion. 

Glad you pointed it out. I notice this a lot, and it's kind of sad. The "holier-than-thou" attitude is so off-putting. Kind of ironic that most of the harsh anti-CM posts come from people who espouse "positive" and "humane" training methods. Oh, and I feel like sometimes some people get away with a slap on their wrist when they are just as bad as the other person/people.

ORIGINAL: amstaffy
Give it time and support your fellow member by respecting their asking you to tone it down...we're all going to moderate a little differently, I happen to be more heavy handed []

 
Respectfully, Jaime, I disagree!  I find you very open to allowing people to walk up to the line without crossing it [][]  Which I respect immensely.  It allows people to demonstrate that they know the boundaries... yet still allows them to express themselves without fear or doubt.
 
I was actually going to say something too, Billy... but, I wasn't sure how to go about it.  While Glenda is no doubt a wonderful person, with a fantastic passion and knowledge about dogs I feel that the moderation on this site has become stiffling. 
 
There have been multiple threads that before anything could even be said they've been moderated.  This unfortunately has the side effect of making people uncomfortable and unable to really discuss (some may say "debate" the topic at hand.  I recall the days that may have had it's out of control moments... but, much more interesting and educational.
 
Definitely different people = different ways of doing things.  I agree, but it's reaching the point of stiffling.
 
I also wanted to mention that newbies to the site may not understand that the moderators also post with THEIR OPINIONS and not the opinion of Dog.com or the forum in general.  I've noticed that more than once has a newby posted a question, that is maybe controversial.  The mod's jumped in freely... thereby perhaps inadvertantly speaking for the entire of dog.com. 
 
I think when you agree to moderate, you may have to adjust how much of your own personal opinion you can express... without saying something like "Posting for myself and not on behalf of dog.com".
 
Just a thought.
 
Thank you for listening.
 

ORIGINAL: willowchow

I also think two things need to stop and we would be much, much better off.
1.  People should not be allowed to begin threads that are obviously being started because the poster knows it will cause a lot of controversy and emotion.  I can see those threads from a mile away and I'm sure lots of others can too.

2.  I think the people--and they know who they are--that do not like CM and cannot be open minded about his methods should simply not post in the CM area.  I notice a lot of times they will say things like we are allowed to post here, etc.  It's the CM area if you can't keep an open mind, don't post there.  Same with clicker training, if your completely shut down on it, don't post there.  I mean to me, if you are completely against it, why are you even looking there?  It seems only to cause a commotion. 

I think these two things would make such an improvement.

Then we wouldn't even need so much moderating.

I respectfully disagree.  These boards are public and should foster as free a flow of ideas as humanly possible.  Personally, I see nothing wrong with threads started for the purpose of debate.  I have learned a great deal from such threads.  Debate is healthy.  I also am uncomfortable with the idea of "You agree with those people so you post here, and I agree with these people so I post here" mentality.  I don't take ANY trainer's opinions as gospel--I like to get lots of different opinions from lots of different people.  Saying that certain people should only post in certain sections based on their opinions does not help anyone.

I think that people forget that just because someone posts something does *not* mean that they automatically have to respond to it.  It takes two to tango, even if the other poster asks you to dance....

Hi Amstaffy, that signature still startles me.

I am not understanding the heavy handedness of late to stay on topics within a thread.  Even a slight veering from the subject seems to be unacceptable.  Members want to express their opinions.  Members want to have a one on one dialogue.  Members want to respond to others without fear of the red cyber ink.  There may be some sparring but there is also play and entertainment.  I think it is easily seen when a dialogue goes over the line and requires intervention.  I think members should be given the opportunity to pull back on their own.  For myself I think I know if I go too far and want that opportunity to pull back.

I have been involved in Forums and Usenet groups for almost 2 decades. I am surprised to see the moderators of some of  the forums come down really hard on one side or another of an issue , with the attitude that the other side has to be wrong "because I said".  To me, this is like calling up the host of a talk radio show, and trying to prove your point and debate the issue. Let's face it, the talk show host can pull the plug on the caller anytime they want.  I have seen more than one person  bounced off a forum for disagreeing with the moderators opinion, and in some cases the moderator was dead wrong about the issue.

My idea of being a moderator, and I was one for a couple of years, was to make sure people were civil to each other. No foul language, no personal attacks, etc.  Usually the Moderators stayed out of the major debates, so that the people debating the issues wouldn't think that the forum management was talking a side, and if you disagreed with that side, you might be in trouble as a member of the forum. I notice that some of the threads seem to be managed by the moderators, and to me, that stifles debate rather than encouraging it.

As far as discussing topics that will wind up being hotly debated, isn't that what the point of the forum is?  I mean, we could get on here everyday and talk about how nice it is to pet our dogs, and how high to set the food and water dish, and nobody would visit the forum.  If you look at the threads that have thousands of views and many replies , they are always the hot button issues, because that is what people want to read and discuss. ( look at this thread for instance, it has almost 1,000 views compared to a coule of hundred for the other threads on this section)   As long as people are being civil with each other, what is the problem with a good debate, and it shouldn't matter at all how the moderator feels about the issue.

ORIGINAL: Xerxes

In reality, as most of us are adults, we should self moderate.  I have taken several discussions into PM rather than open a thread where none is needed or go so far off topic it helps noone.  This should be the norm rather than the exception. 

However there are individuals that enjoy stirring the pot rather than allowing the steam to boil off peacefully.  What do we do about those particular members?  And yes, I'll admit that there are times when I have stirred the pot a bit too long.  So I'm not above making mistakes.

I guess I'm kind of on the fence, I like it when the mods step up and make the "mind your P's and Q's" posts when threads are getting out of hand.  But I also feel that at times some of the mods do overstep just a bit.  Is there a happy medium here?

I totally agree on that. I'm only going to say I've seen my fair share of very immature acts/posts on this forum. But that was a long while ago. I believe It has gotten a lot better. =]

Agreed.  I've also worn the moderator hat on a professional board and eventually gave it up as it made me not want to be involved & contribute anymore.
 
I strongly feel that the moderators and admin need not to have an indentity.  There is one board where the admin is just admin, no individual or personally identifying information.  Only appearing during a personal attack, spam, to welcome a newbie, etc...never to give opinion to one side of a heated debate or the other.
 
It's too easy for memebers to assume a moderator is siding a certain way, especially when they are familiar with the moderator's usual posting style, passions, and interests.

I'm a moderator on a big dog simulation game. We have about 15,000 members. I understand what you are saying. It's very hard as a moderator when debates strike up ect.