Forum "Moderation"

Whippetdude, I read the forum with images turned off, so all I see of your sig is a Photobucket link. The name of your account is mysterydog1... you wouldn't happen to be the same mysterydog1 who's been banned here? Twice...

I've stayed out of this for a long time, but.......
 
IF folks would read and follow the forum rules, IF people would self moderate and not let emotion overwhelm them when they post in heated threads, then there would be no need for moderation.
 
As far as moderators....unpaid folks who have a deep interest in and passion for this forum....good luck finding anyone willing to forgo their membership to try to keep a bunch of strangers in line.  If we are not involved in the forum, we will find it much more difficult to "know" the posters and be able to shoot off a PM asking them to tone down a post even in areas that we do not personally moderate.
 
Frankly, my enjoyment of the forum HAS diminished since I accepted the moderator position.  Quite often I don't join in and "play" with others and when I know that my opinion will not be popular, I always try to preface it with "in my personal opinion" to differentiate from an "official" stance.  When I post something in an official capacity, I do so in red.
 
Basically, I "work" for abuse.  But, this forum is my home and most of the members, family.  And I'll continue to be involved in BOTH capacities.

ORIGINAL: glenmar

As far as moderators....unpaid folks who have a deep interest in and passion for this forum....good luck finding anyone willing to forgo their membership to try to keep a bunch of strangers in line.  If we are not involved in the forum, we will find it much more difficult to "know" the posters and be able to shoot off a PM asking them to tone down a post even in areas that we do not personally moderate.

I am unfamiliar with any moderators that are in a paid position, as far as I know they are all volunteer.  Some admin positions are paid.
 
To make myself more clear, my thought is for a moderator to have two log-ins: one with their personal board member identity and the other just says moderator I, or moderator II, whatever...so no one knows who it is that's moderating.  Moderators do not need to be attacked for moderating...and it gets personal when members know who it is, as this thread can attest to.

I like that idea.  []  Then, we could have our "old broad" back in all the threads!  Also, I think that it would help other mods, too, not just Glenda. 

With all due respect, I don't think the other mod(s) are having a problem.

As far as self-moderating, it's hard when each moderator is as different as these are. Some allow the conversation to flow naturally, even if it does go off-topic, as long as it's not totally irrelevant. Some don't. Some allow a little back and forth debate, as long as it doesn't get personal (the definition of personal is up for debate too). Some prefer to jump in with a warning before anything has even been said. So what may be acceptable to one isn't to the other.

ORIGINAL: TAOofGoldyShep


To make myself more clear, my thought is for a moderator to have two log-ins: one with their personal board member identity and the other just says moderator I, or moderator II, whatever...so no one knows who it is that's moderating.  Moderators do not need to be attacked for moderating...and it gets personal when members know who it is, as this thread can attest to.

I like this idea too.

I would like to say, though, that if individual forums are going to be moderated by named members, as is the situation right now, there needs to be clearer rules on what the "jurisdiction" is amongst the mods. For example.

Mod A. moderates forum A. She lets things go off topic, provided everyone plays nicely and things don't get too crazy.

Mod B. moderates forum B. She never lets things go off topic, and again insists everyone plays nicely.

Both moderating styles are valid...BUT...what happens when Mod B. is in forum A and sees a thread going off topic, or in a direction she disagrees with but that Mod A. would allow? Do Mod B's warnings hold weight? Or is the point of having certain forums moderated by certain mods that differing moderation styles are suited to specific subjects? If one mod lets members get away with something and another does not, it's a little bit difficult to know where we stand. I could be in one forum and say something I am relatively certain the mod of that forum would think is acceptable...is it reasonable that a mod from another forum jumps in, and do they have the authority to do so?

In short, personally I think that if there are individually modded forums, then other mods should only be able to participate in those forums under the guise of "ordinary members", otherwise there is no point in having specific mods and it creates confusion. All the mods could be made global moderators and allowed to moderate any forum, but unless and until that happens, I think mods should be allowed to mod forums that are not their own ONLY in cases of dire emergency.

Either way, I think the rules need to be clearer about what powers the mods have, in what areas, and under what circumstances.

Just my [sm=2cents.gif].

I did not read the thread that was the catalyst for this one, and I am not defending any particular moderator (or moderator actions) on this board.  Since the topic has been brought forth, I am just adding my two pennies worth regarding the subject of moderating in general.
 
Moderating is usually a thankless, difficult position to hold - especially during heated debates - so, I stand by my thoughts of them needing to have some cloak of anonymity.
 
However, I also think that moderators should not be allowed to run amuck with their own agenda, swinging their red-ink Zorro sword.
 

ORIGINAL: Benedict

Both moderating styles are valid...BUT...what happens when Mod B. is in forum A and sees a thread going off topic, or in a direction she disagrees with but that Mod A. would allow? Do Mod B's warnings hold weight? Or is the point of having certain forums moderated by certain mods that differing moderation styles are suited to specific subjects? If one mod lets members get away with something and another does not, it's a little bit difficult to know where we stand. I could be in one forum and say something I am relatively certain the mod of that forum would think is acceptable...is it reasonable that a mod from another forum jumps in, and do they have the authority to do so?

On the forum that I moderated (and am still an active member of, and could easily choose to moderate again at anytime), the moderators only moderated their own sections, period.  If there was a problem between the members and a particular mod in a heated thread etc, the admin would then step in at that point.

ORIGINAL: TAOofGoldyShep


On the forum that I moderated (and am still an active member of, and could easily choose to moderate again at anytime), the moderators only moderated their own sections, period.  If there was a problem between the members and a particular mod in a heated thread etc, the admin would then step in at that point.

That is precisely what I think should happen.

ORIGINAL: Benedict

In short, personally I think that if there are individually modded forums, then other mods should only be able to participate in those forums under the guise of "ordinary members", otherwise there is no point in having specific mods and it creates confusion. All the mods could be made global moderators and allowed to moderate any forum, but unless and until that happens, I think mods should be allowed to mod forums that are not their own ONLY in cases of dire emergency.

Either way, I think the rules need to be clearer about what powers the mods have, in what areas, and under what circumstances.

Just my [sm=2cents.gif].

I absolutely agree with this.

Additionally, what is on-subject in a thread is open to interpretation. If the original post says, “Science Diet is junk food, thanks for letting me know” the subject could be ‘thanks#%92 or ‘Science Diet is junk food#%92. Then anything that doesn't directly respond to the one that the mod decides is the subject receives a warning. IMO, it isn't very enjoyable to be involved with a board that's that strict. That#%92s also an issue with having two or more very different moderators, who don#%92t follow the same guidelines.

Thank you Kelly for that post. I admit to being totally confused on that thread and while i wanted to post several times i was worried my post would somehow be considered OT... i didnt understand how it could be, but I nonetheless decided to avoid posting to the OP at all. There seem to be more and more sections I don't enjoy being in at all anymore, and I find that very troubling.

ORIGINAL: sooner

...IMO, it isn't very enjoyable to be involved with a board that's that strict.

Agreed.

I'm relatively new here and so far, I think the moderators do a fine job.  I've spent the past 7 years of my cyber life on a HUGE forum with over 52,000 members, many of whom have paid memberships, and many members with 10-20 thousand posts.  I've met people there that have become my friends in "real life", and I've know people who've met their spouses there.  I like that forum because there is a lot more political/relgious/world news discussion and debate and there are some insanely intelligent people (we've got this one college prof that is astounding), but sometimes it's just too much and the bickering gets old.  I'm spending more and more time here b/c discussions seem more focused and heck, right now I'd rather kick back and talk about dogs than get into yet another debate on the value of theological exegisis in secular American society, if you get my drift.   There's also a lot of people that just post random nonsense all the time.  I like iDog because over here, less really IS more!  There's less people and less forums, but so far the content of what I've read has been more meaningful to me and in many subforums, discussion moves faster than other said forum with 52K members.

Anyway, we have mods there too, there are 3-5 mods for every subforum.  Most of the mods have been mods or at least very active members for the past....7-8 years and luckily are able to participate in everything without having to censor themselves or always add disclaimers to their posts.  Personally, I think it's unfair to judge a mod's posts based on modship or say they have to always stand back and be objective.  It makes more sense for a mod to indicate mod speaking with red ink (which I've seen here).  Basically, I like it the other way around - view mods not as mods but as members like everyone else, and if/when moderation is needed, the mod can indicate.  Our mods are mods for a reason and it's sad that some feel they have to hold back and not participate just because people might take it the wrong way.

I can't say that I think Glenda or Gina or anyone else has done a bad job but I will comment that (no offense Jaime) it was a little nicer and much more poignant/strong/in-your-face when Jaime would pop into a thread to warn about OT or other such abbrogations.  It had more impact!  (that was the word I was looking for darn it) Sometimes I would come into a thread and see a mod participating and then red ink and it's just not as "out there".  If that makes sense....

I also liked that Jaime would come in once with a warning and would follow through on suspensions.  Seems like a few people have received lots of warnings and/or red ink but are still around.  And I've not heard of any suspensions for it lately either.  With Jaime, she told us they were suspended so we KNEW to be good.  Does that make sense? 

As the new admin, there have been plenty of times that I've popped in and warned people. Especially in the training and CM sections.
 
Regarding suspensions, I've suspended plenty of members since I stepped in, and I created the rules, which allow us to have a framework for behavior and punishment. However, I know that it is my policy, and it was Jaime's, as well, to never divulge the status of other members. I will never tell anyone if someone else is suspended. That's their business to share.

However, I know that it is my policy, and it was Jaime's, as well, to never divulge the status of other members. I will never tell anyone if someone else is suspended. That's their business to share.

As it should be.. I believe this is a very good policy to have Kelly.