Moderating

[peranders]

Originally posted by cowanrg
... let go of your pacifiers, grow up, and learn how to use the ignore function. if someone bugs you, ignore them.

Unfortunately the "Ignore" function can't be disabled once enabled. Please Jason can't you fix this? Works at Head-Fi!

[AudioFreak]

Originally posted by peranders


Unfortunately the "Ignore" function can't be disabled once enabled. Please Jason can't you fix this? Works at Head-Fi!

There is now a remove button next to the add button.

[Sparhawk]

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.

[haldor]

I'd settle for 10 dB S/N, lately it's been about -3 dB.

Phil

[Brett]

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.

Originally posted by Peter Daniel
When the team of moderators was assigned, this was a completely lawless forum, and Jason brought on someone to bring in order... that took some tough measures and a tuff times. Now you already know that we are serious and that there are lines to stay inside.

It was hardly anarchy then, and isn't any better now as I see it. Just different.

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>

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.

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.

[Brett]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Peter Daniel
[B]

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 But don't take me on that, the decision belongs to Jason.

I invite a healthy discussion of what you, the members, envision as sensible moderation.

In no particular order of preference or merit.

<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

I tottaly agree with you,you took what i was trying to say right out of my mouth.

[jean-paul]

Counts for me too, Brett. It's one of those moments I really feel that I am a non native english speaker. Wish I could express myself so well in your language.
Good points and maybe a vote for things like these will help ?!?

[Peter Daniel]

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.

[jean-paul]

Think positive and others will follow...