Personally, I support the moderators. 
Sure, they make mistakes sometimes. They over-react occasionally. But they are only human.
I think when they do make mistakes, however, that they should own up to them and apologize. They need some humility; they must remember that they are serving our community, rather than ruling it. Extreme measures, such as banning a member, should be considered long and hard rather than decided in haste.
On the other hand, less severe punnishment such as the sin bin is not used enough. I like the idea of an unmoderated "anarchy" forum, but only if the on-topic forums are more tightly moderated as a result. Look at the Aleph-X thread, for example... How many posts there are actually relevant? And how difficult is it to actually find the relevant posts amidst all the noise?
People complain about censorship, but in the case of a moderated forum with very specific subject matter, it is almost a necessity. When I come here, I am looking for relevant information. When I have to sift through a thread full of off-topic posts, it is frustrating and time-consuming.
Just as the moderators need to remain humble, we need to remain respectful of their decisions. We need to "take our lumps", as it were, quietly, and then get on with things. It doesn't do any good to waste everyone's time by complaining. If your post is moved or deleted, or if you spend a few days in the sin bin, there is a reason for it, and the forum is probably better off as a result. If everyone behaved with a little more respect and humility, I think this place could achieve a S/N > 132dB.
Just my
worth. 
Sure, they make mistakes sometimes. They over-react occasionally. But they are only human.
I think when they do make mistakes, however, that they should own up to them and apologize. They need some humility; they must remember that they are serving our community, rather than ruling it. Extreme measures, such as banning a member, should be considered long and hard rather than decided in haste.
On the other hand, less severe punnishment such as the sin bin is not used enough. I like the idea of an unmoderated "anarchy" forum, but only if the on-topic forums are more tightly moderated as a result. Look at the Aleph-X thread, for example... How many posts there are actually relevant? And how difficult is it to actually find the relevant posts amidst all the noise?
People complain about censorship, but in the case of a moderated forum with very specific subject matter, it is almost a necessity. When I come here, I am looking for relevant information. When I have to sift through a thread full of off-topic posts, it is frustrating and time-consuming.
Just as the moderators need to remain humble, we need to remain respectful of their decisions. We need to "take our lumps", as it were, quietly, and then get on with things. It doesn't do any good to waste everyone's time by complaining. If your post is moved or deleted, or if you spend a few days in the sin bin, there is a reason for it, and the forum is probably better off as a result. If everyone behaved with a little more respect and humility, I think this place could achieve a S/N > 132dB.
Just my
worth. 
First of all Peter, thank you for having the foresight and courage to post this thread. Before I comment specifically on the practices of moderators, as I see them, I would like to respond to some of the remarks you made in the opening post.
Yes, there are lines to stay inside, but that applies equally to the moderators, some of whom, on more than one occaision have used their extra access to intimidate, stifle dissenting opinon or hide from responding to on-point questions. Not fair, nor honourable or courageous. If you are going to be in a position to enforce the rules, then as a moderator the least you should do is abide by them yourself, not abuse them, and even be above them to an extent. Or be seen to be.
<i>A wise man does not stop to tie his shoelaces in his neighbour's melon patch</i>
It was hardly anarchy then, and isn't any better now as I see it. Just different.Peter Daniel said:
Yes, there are lines to stay inside, but that applies equally to the moderators, some of whom, on more than one occaision have used their extra access to intimidate, stifle dissenting opinon or hide from responding to on-point questions. Not fair, nor honourable or courageous. If you are going to be in a position to enforce the rules, then as a moderator the least you should do is abide by them yourself, not abuse them, and even be above them to an extent. Or be seen to be.
<i>A wise man does not stop to tie his shoelaces in his neighbour's melon patch</i>
When mistakes are made, especially by those in authority, once they are known, they should be swiftly corrected and apologies made openly. If they are so easy to fix, why is it so seldom done?No one expects a moderator to be perfect, but so far some great stupidities have been dealt with in the same manner as you would expect a politician with an intern on his crotch. Ignore, deny, obfuscate. I fail to see how this gives you any credibility.The recent events show that not everybody is happy with a way things go around here and I cannot blame anybody.When I wasn't a moderator and saw a first thread locked I was upset. When I've heard about Cowanrg getting the first sin bin sentence, I was sympathizing with him and I was one of the first to question censorship on this forum. When I become moderator I started to look somewhat different at those events and realised that some of them were necessary and that there is always a thin line between right and wrong. It is very easy to cross it, but it is also very easy to fix when mistake is done.
Peter Daniel said:In no particular order of preference or merit.We would like to hear in this thread your suggestion on how you would like the forum to be managed and what kind of rules you would like to see. If there is enough good input we might even change few things
I invite a healthy discussion of what you, the members, envision as sensible moderation.
<b>* Moderators should clearly delineate when they are making a post as a member, and when as a moderator.</b>
Having "Peter Daniels, moderator" (rather than Elder, member etc) in the left hand column when making a normal audio post may give the wrong impression and weight to the post that it might not warrant (for good or bad).
When stepping into a thread to make a comment in moderator-mode, the seemingly SOP of the cop icon, and emboldened markers above and below the commentary are clear enough.
<b>* Moderators should refrain from deleting, closing or splitting threads they are <i>heavily</i> involved in. They also should refrain from censuring (or more) person's with whom they are having a strong difference of opinion in a particular thread</b>
There is way too much potential for abuse of power if these guidlines are not adhered to. I can make an exceptionally strong case that recent events (and those that precipitated them) could not have happened if this was enforced.
Moderators who have a personal conflict with a particular member should not be allowed to instigate a severe censure such as banning, or be allowed to vote on a permant ban. Too much chance of conflict of interest. If the offense is serious enough, the rest of the team will pick it up and process it.
There will be exceptional circumstances, but they should be noted.
<b>* Moderation mistakes should be rectified swiftly</b>
Self explanatory.
<b>* Moderators should have a fixed and limited term of office</b>
I suggest 3 or 6 months. Saves them getting too entrenched in the role. Unfortunately there are way too many people who use a position of authority to boost their egos at the expense of the position.
A simple "sticky" thread to announce a new moderator, and the retirement of a current one would be good. Some overlap might be good to allow a bit of training for the new person.
<b>* Moderators shall not be immune to criticism</b>
In fact it should be encouraged. Constructive criticism will help the role to grow in stature, and enable it to be more effective, possibly with even less active involvement.
<b>* Clear guidlines should be posted as to what offensive, vulgar etc mean </b>
These are far from clear now, and require too much interpretation on the part of the moderators. Some really silly decisions have been made. Recently a picture of Elle McPherson was deleted as being vulgar, when it was used in an Australian Govt tourist campaign. Not world-shattering, but hardly encouraging confidence and respect for those who make such decisions.
There have also been examples where a member has been censured for being "offensive" to another member. How in heck can you enforce that? With the large number of different cultures background and experiences of members who is the one that sets the guidlines for those decisions? Political correctness becoming the standard is one idea (a dumb one. Really dumb one). Unless someone attacks another <i>personally</i>, they should be left alone. Attacking ideas with strong (no swearing etc) language should be fair game.
<b>* Threads should not be split except under exceptional circumstance</b>
Threadjacking is not allowed. Fair enough, but threads do develop a life of their own and can wander around a bit. This makes them interesting often.
When threads are split, moderators should refrain from dumb titles for the new thread.
<b>* All posts deleted by moderators should be moved to a file and linked back to / from the existing thread </b>
so that context may be maintained and nothing is seen to be hidden. If actionably offensive words or links are in the deleted post they should be edited. (see next point)
<b>* Offensive words / images / links</b>
should simply be edited and noted within the existing post.
This seems to be being done, but see my comment above on this subject.
<b>* Off topic forum should be established</b>
This has been mentioned in other threads today.
IMO, it should be unmoderated and for topics not audio related, <b>except</b> those which are concerned with the running of the forum, which should stay in everything else where they can be clearly seen and not hidden.
Audio threads that have veered wildly off topic and would best be served by the new forum, should have a string of these posts <i>copied</i> and a new thread started in the Off Topic forum, linked from the original thread, and back from the new. This gives a chance for the audio thread to be brought back to topic (or near to) and/or continue in the Off Topic forum as the members choose. Gentle suggestion rather than force usually works best.
That's it for the moment.
Cheers
C
CryingDragon
Brett,
This is really well thought out set of rules. Did you figure them out yourself or just took off some other forum?
As a member I like them a lot. As a moderator, this is the first one I don't like:
* Moderators should have a fixed and limited term of office
When Bernhard asked me to become a moderator, I had really mixed feelings. To tell the truth, I didn't want to become one and I thought it's something to be ashamed of (you know, like being a cop that nobody likes). In the beginning I was reluctant and didn't really know what to do. However, after few successful interventions, I found out that moderating is not really about fighting with people, but by offering advice from somebody who looks from a sideline, is not involved emotionally and can clearly estimate a given situation. The more good I did on a forum the more I like moderating. I never really received hate mail and only on few occasions my actions required correction (your case was one of them, Brett). But when I did correction, everythng was fine (I hope).
There were some instances were I had to put down a member, because his demands were out of line, yet when I used low key approach showing respect there were no hard feelings between us. Right Mrfeedback?
The more I act as a moderator, the more I gain experience and the more I understand what my job is all about. It takes just about 3-6 months to get the feeling on proper moderating. And Brett, you want the guy who's just about right to do his job to leave the stage? You must be either joking or never been a moderator.
This is really well thought out set of rules. Did you figure them out yourself or just took off some other forum?
As a member I like them a lot. As a moderator, this is the first one I don't like:
* Moderators should have a fixed and limited term of office
When Bernhard asked me to become a moderator, I had really mixed feelings. To tell the truth, I didn't want to become one and I thought it's something to be ashamed of (you know, like being a cop that nobody likes). In the beginning I was reluctant and didn't really know what to do. However, after few successful interventions, I found out that moderating is not really about fighting with people, but by offering advice from somebody who looks from a sideline, is not involved emotionally and can clearly estimate a given situation. The more good I did on a forum the more I like moderating. I never really received hate mail and only on few occasions my actions required correction (your case was one of them, Brett
). But when I did correction, everythng was fine (I hope).There were some instances were I had to put down a member, because his demands were out of line, yet when I used low key approach showing respect there were no hard feelings between us. Right Mrfeedback?
The more I act as a moderator, the more I gain experience and the more I understand what my job is all about. It takes just about 3-6 months to get the feeling on proper moderating. And Brett, you want the guy who's just about right to do his job to leave the stage? You must be either joking or never been a moderator.
That's why I said it in the first place. I could have been more clear but what I meant was: the positive way you explain the 3-6 months needed experience for moderating must give food for thoughts to Brett.
Ah maybe I am fed up with the negative feelings I felt the past days. The whole Dice/Frank thing really changed things around here. I really hope things change back to normal again.
Ah maybe I am fed up with the negative feelings I felt the past days. The whole Dice/Frank thing really changed things around here. I really hope things change back to normal again.
Brett, I agree with everything you say, apart from I don't think we need a spleen venting thread.
My problem with moderation was with a post that was removed from the cable colour thread, in which i posted a (very small) picture from The Life of Brian movie where he opens the shutters and stands naked in front of his disciples, along with the quote from his mother "He's not the Messiah, He's a very naughty boy". This was a witty ( I thought ) reply to people who had taken the thread too seriously, as well as a joke based upon the Emperors New Clothes idea. This post was removed virtually instantly, for what I can only think was because of the naked male body shown. AFAIK, this movie is rated at 12R in the UK, so anyone can see it if accompanied by a parent and they are 12 years old. The picture is not obscene or pornographic, nor will it deprave or corrupt, rather it shows the essential fragility of the human condition in the face of mass opinion, ( rather apropriate I feel for the current discussion). I feel that the moderator concerned reacted without due thought, and still hasn't contacted me with an explanation as to why the post was removed.
In general, the moderators do a great and thankless job, and its a shame we cannot appreciate this more, but I think some of them need to have a little more of a grown up attitude to life, and bear in mind the people who use this forum are not liable to be kids.
The only new suggestion I can make is that moderators face a vote every 6 months or a year to see if the community still has their trust, BUT, Jason should rightfully still have the final say over who moderates HIS forum, so should be able to choose who he wants as moderators, rather than selection being elective as well.
My problem with moderation was with a post that was removed from the cable colour thread, in which i posted a (very small) picture from The Life of Brian movie where he opens the shutters and stands naked in front of his disciples, along with the quote from his mother "He's not the Messiah, He's a very naughty boy". This was a witty ( I thought
) reply to people who had taken the thread too seriously, as well as a joke based upon the Emperors New Clothes idea. This post was removed virtually instantly, for what I can only think was because of the naked male body shown. AFAIK, this movie is rated at 12R in the UK, so anyone can see it if accompanied by a parent and they are 12 years old. The picture is not obscene or pornographic, nor will it deprave or corrupt, rather it shows the essential fragility of the human condition in the face of mass opinion, ( rather apropriate I feel for the current discussion). I feel that the moderator concerned reacted without due thought, and still hasn't contacted me with an explanation as to why the post was removed.In general, the moderators do a great and thankless job, and its a shame we cannot appreciate this more, but I think some of them need to have a little more of a grown up attitude to life, and bear in mind the people who use this forum are not liable to be kids.
The only new suggestion I can make is that moderators face a vote every 6 months or a year to see if the community still has their trust, BUT, Jason should rightfully still have the final say over who moderates HIS forum, so should be able to choose who he wants as moderators, rather than selection being elective as well.
That is another issue. Everything to decide about the rules and moderating is up to Jason, a site owner who provides us with a free entertainment. Whatever is said in this thread is treated as suggestion only. 
Whatever I'm saying about moderation in this thread is only my personal opinion and shouldn't be regarded as views of a team. I'm taking a part in discussion as a member only.
Whatever I'm saying about moderation in this thread is only my personal opinion and shouldn't be regarded as views of a team. I'm taking a part in discussion as a member only.
Yes I agree totally, we should thank Jason for hosting a great site.
Is there any chance of posting his guidelines to the moderators though, as I can't see from re-reading the rules where I infringed, and if the rules were stated more clearly it would be easier to post in the correct manner?
pinkmouse said:My problem with moderation was with a post that was removed from the cable colour thread, in which i posted a (very small) picture from The Life of Brian movie where he opens the shutters and stands naked in front of his disciples, along with the quote from his mother "He's not the Messiah, He's a very naughty boy". This was a witty ( I thought
I saw this post... personally i don't think it should have been pulled. As a moderator i have to stand behind the mod that did. The new Trash Bin (under development for the last month) feature is meant to allow an appeal of decisions like this (the mods are not perfect, just human like everyone else). As we excercise this area it will evolve.
dave
Thanks Peter. They are my thoughts, the synthesis of a lot of thinking on how this forum should be run, and based on the experiences I've had both here and on other forums. I've seen some pretty stupid stuff done here and elsewhere and poor moderation, even a <i>perception</i> of poor moderation can and does stifle input by many people.Peter Daniel said:Brett,
This is really well thought out set of rules. Did you figure them out yourself or just took off some other forum?
One of the reason's I've been so vocal recently is I've found that for every person who has a comment to make, there will be at least 10 who don't speak up for their own reasons.
I stand by my original comments and feel that this is <i>imperative</i>. There is too much opportunity for abuse of power/privilege in an endless positition, and too many people who will covet the position simply for the power it allows. With a fixed term, that is less of an issue, people can simply do the job for an agreed period, and step down. Many other people would probably feel more inclined to take on the role for a fixed term as that is less onerous than an open ended committment, and so contribute directly to the running of the forum.
Someone made a suggestion about voting people in and out, and I feel that is a mistake too as then it could simply be a personality issue, with people voting say you (PD) in because of your great contributions in audio, and not for your performance as a moderator.
Yes, this is a good approach, and you personally are not one of the moderators I feel are doing a poor job. The recent example you mention between us in this post was well handled on your part, and I should have said so at the time. My energy about that thread split was in part because of the event itself and also because of other decidedly poor moderation decisions around that time, some of which are the basis for current events.I found out that moderating is not really about fighting with people, but by offering advice from somebody who looks from a sideline, is not involved emotionally and can clearly estimate a given situation. The more good I did on a forum the more I like moderating. I never really received hate mail and only on few occasions my actions required correction (your case was one of them, Brett
........
There were some instances were I had to put down a member, because his demands were out of line, yet when I used low key approach showing respect there were no hard feelings between us.
<i>Some</i> moderation events here have been about telling people who to think, act or express themselves, and that is not appropriaite (except for swearing, serious porn links etc as noted before)
I disagree that it takes 6 months to learn how to do the job. Generally here it requires very little (or should, except for the couple who've over-moderated). If the other suggestions (or similar) I've made are implemented then there will hopefully be less need for moderation, or confusion over specific events. My favourite forum online is completely unmoderated, and has discussions that are far more dynamic and interesting than some of the ones here. If you speak crap there, you will be told quickly and bluntly, as there is no one hovering to edit or delete posts (none are ever deleted by the management) so people speak freely and honestly, not modifying what they say to suit the perception of what a moderator thinks.The more I act as a moderator, the more I gain experience and the more I understand what my job is all about. It takes just about 3-6 months to get the feeling on proper moderating. And Brett, you want the guy who's just about right to do his job to leave the stage? You must be either joking or never been a moderator.
I have been a moderator in other forums, both online and in person. I have some experience and training in other fields that relate to this process (group dynamics), as well as having been an instructor at College (simply another forum in terms of maintaing flow and damping strong destructive interpersonal dynamics) and private institutions. One of my mentors was also the Chairman of the Board of Directors of numerous companies, and I learnt a great deal watching the way he worked the process. Several years ago, I was also the head person in a process of negotiation for the employment contracts of a group of 700 people; many, many of these meeting were held face-to-face and required far more tact, understanding and balance, fast, correct and fair decisions than the moderators' job here does, or a riot would have ensued. So I feel I have a good understanding of the processes required to do the job.
<b>Sidebar:</b> I hope Jason reads these posts and takes them in the spirit with which they are intended, same as he did with the emails we exchanged around the time of the rules posting and start of moderation. The faults here can be fixed, and the forum be even better for the process. Well, such is my hope anyway. If I didn't care, I could/would have simply left.
Cheers and regards.
Why?planet10 said:
If you feel something was done incorrectly then you should say it clearly, whether it was another moderator or not. In fact a good case can be made for making a comment, <b>especially</b> if another moderator was in error. If it's perceived that you all stick together and watch each other's backs, even at the expense of the forum, which is certainly how it looks at the moment, how can members have any faith in your decisions?
This is the basis of corrupt behaviour.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.