[sdkub]

Simple suggestions and procedures on how to moderate in this community.

[OrangeCrate]

Here's about as good an overview as you'll find on the net:

Forum moderator - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[mmccarthy]

I like that definition but can we get a little more specific.

The idea is to draw up a HowTo kind of thread for moderators.

[Rasczak]

Originally Posted by mmccarthy I like that definition but can we get a little more specific. The idea is to draw up a HowTo kind of thread for moderators.

Are the forum rules settled and posted?

[mmccarthy]

Not yet although I think we are more or less there. I think 24 hours to give everyone a chance to participate would be a good idea.

Mary

[MRiGnS]

· merge threads with the same topic
· separate different topics in one thread
· observe polls and encourage the creator (of the poll, not god)to add options to vote if available options seem to biased and would lead the poll in only one possible direction.
· may caution users if they annoy with continuous flaming and/or tend to start flame wars
· delete posts, threads and polls inconsistent with the board rules
· may warn, caution users not obeying the board rules and may be able to ban them after continuous transgressions and consultation with the other moderators
· may summon lolcatz and ponies


well, these are very general because of the lack of the updated official rules.

[OrangeCrate]

Originally Posted by mmccarthy ...can we get a little more specific...

I was actively involved in a Windows oriented computer security forum, until I deleted my Windows partition, and I lost interest in most of the threads. I still check in occasionally and comment on Linux related security matters.

While there, I watched as the forums lost their "Off Topic" forum, due primarily to the moderators attempting to moderate threads they were actively involved in. Probably the number one mistake a moderator makes.

With that being said, it appears that moderation here would involve:

Addressing trolls and commercial posts ASAP.

Posting new topics to maintain interest in the various forums.

Participate in any thread where you can contribute, but as a rule, they can not moderate that discussion.

Welcome all new members, and check their IP address against a list of banned posters.

Check unanswered posts on a regular basis, and respond if able, or at least bump them, for others to see.

Be respectful of opinions you do not agree with.

Avoid being passive aggressive, expecting everyone to know exactly what they can do or not do. Strict disciplinarians make lousy moderators.

Act decisively, and without regret, when you are needed to step in to point a conversation in another direction, or close a thread.

And finally, make sure that people know you're there, but don't meddle in threads, that may be "spirited", but are within the posted guidelines for participation in the forums.

[rjwood]

It is my opinion that moderators authority should be fairly limited. I do not believe they should have the ability to ban users (admins job only) or even assess any value to users. Moderators are more examples than anything else.

Moderators may have the ability to facilitate agreements where necessary, but as a whole, moderatos carry the suggestion of being representative of the best the forum has to offer.

[RichBarna]

I think moderators should keep to the job of moderating infringements of the forum rules. They should not be allowed to give their personal views or opinions in any way shape or form. That includes having signatures which advertise personal views or opinions.

Maybe they should have a 2nd standard member login/username for purposes of participating on a personal level.

On rare occasions, moderators have been known to use their staff powers to steer members opinions of certain distros/apps/scripts/beliefs etc.

This does not reflect well on a forum's image.

Just my €0.02

[mmccarthy]

Originally Posted by RichBarna I think moderators should keep to the job of moderating infringements of the forum rules. They should not be allowed to give their personal views or opinions in any way shape or form. That includes having signatures which advertise personal views or opinions. Maybe they should have a 2nd standard member login/username for purposes of participating on a personal level. On rare occasions, moderators have been known to use their staff powers to steer members opinions of certain distros/apps/scripts/beliefs etc. This does not reflect well on a forum's image. Just my €0.02

I've seen this practice on other forums. I'm not sure how effective it is. If everyone knows the moderators "normal" identity then it defeats the purpose and if they don't then I have seen it be abused where the moderator stepped in to moderate on a thread where they were participating with their member account.

I think OrangeCrate's suggestion that mods cannot moderate threads they are personally involved in is a better idea.

[bns]

Originally Posted by mmccarthy I've seen this practice on other forums. I'm not sure how effective it is. If everyone knows the moderators "normal" identity then it defeats the purpose and if they don't then I have seen it be abused where the moderator stepped in to moderate on a thread where they were participating with their member account. I think OrangeCrate's suggestion that mods cannot moderate threads they are personally involved in is a better idea.

I'm not too sure about this. This seems like it is effectively banning mods from full participation. And if a mod is unable to do the right thing even when involoved in the discussion, then I'm not sure they need to be a mod anyway. Just my 2 cents.

[mmccarthy]

I don't this this should necessarily be a rule. This is more in the nature of guidelines or HowTos. I agree there are many cases where a mod should be able to deal with issues which arise.

My previous post was probably badly worded in that I just mean mods are human and it may be politic to bring in a mod or admin who has not been involved in the thread in cases where they are. Particularly when it involves a dispute between members. This is as much to protect the mod from accusations of misuse of power or bias.

[bns]

Originally Posted by mmccarthy I just mean mods are human and it may be politic to bring in a mod or admin who has not been involved in the thread in cases where they are. Particularly when it involves a dispute between members. This is as much to protect the mod from accusations of misuse of power or bias.

I can agree with this. Thanks for clarifying.

[MRiGnS]

· merge threads with the same topic

· separate different topics in one thread

· observe polls and encourage the creator (of the poll, not god)to add options to vote if available options seem to biased and would lead the poll in only one possible direction.

· may caution users if they annoy with continuous flaming and/or
tend to start flame wars

· delete posts, threads and polls inconsistent with the board
rules

· may warn, caution users not obeying the board rules and may be able to ban them after continuous transgressions and consultation with the other moderators

· may summon lolcatz and ponies

· delete spam and inapropriate content (warez, hackz, pr0n) as soon as possible

· Welcome new members

· Be polite and gentle especially with the Mod hat on.

· Avoid sarcasm and irony while moderating threads or users

· Think carefully about your actions.

· Show up on suspecious threads and make clear you're watching.

· Ask users to stay on topic. (use PMs)

· Move off topic discussion to another thread, if not already available create it.

· stay in contact with other moderators.

· gather user feedback and suggestion and forward them to the administrators

· try to avoid moderating threads you participate in on your own, call other moderators for help and ask them about their opinion.

[Rasczak]

Originally Posted by RichBarna I think moderators should keep to the job of moderating infringements of the forum rules. They should not be allowed to give their personal views or opinions in any way shape or form. That includes having signatures which advertise personal views or opinions. Maybe they should have a 2nd standard member login/username for purposes of participating on a personal level. On rare occasions, moderators have been known to use their staff powers to steer members opinions of certain distros/apps/scripts/beliefs etc. This does not reflect well on a forum's image. Just my €0.02

I can understand those points. I don't know how hard and fast the rules need to be on it. I know if I were a mod, I would no longer feel comfortable being as polarizing (to put it delicately) in my participation as I've been in the past, and I'd have a real problem with performing any moderator type actions on someone I'd had a history with. That's where a mod should PM another mod and say "hey, look at this" and then bow out.

Mary brings up a great point about not moderating in threads they've participated in. That should be hard and fast rule in my opinion.

Having two accounts is a BAD idea in my opinion.

[Rasczak]

I recommend the idea of assigning moderators to certain sections of the forum. Maybe put someone who usually participates in the politics section as a moderator of the computer section - that sort of thing.

[MRiGnS]

Originally Posted by Rasczak Mary brings up a great point about not moderating in threads they've participated in. That should be hard and fast rule in my opinion. Having two accounts is a BAD idea in my opinion.

I put that on my list, see above yout post.

I agree with the thing about two accounts, it's a bad idea.

[Rasczak]

One more thing to think about that I brought up in the wrong thread:

Think about how you'll rule on whether moderator actions should be open to public discussion. I have been on a board for six years where we didn't discuss moderator actions - users or mods.

Doing so can be very divisive. Look at the thread here about someone being banned on an entirely different forum.

On the other hand, transparency is often a good and healthy thing too.

Maybe the compromise is somehow prohibiting extended discussions. Of course, any such discussion should never take a thread off topic.

A moderator should never be the one to initiate public discussion. In other words, I don't think a mod should tell everyone "I gave that guy a warning for that." That kind of thing should be handled on PMs. But if the user wants to air his dirty laundry, maybe he should start a thread, and only then would the mod come in and give their side of it.

With the new rules as good as they are, I don't think there'll be a lot of problems anyway, and if there are, they'll be easy to settle.

[mmccarthy]

Originally Posted by Rasczak One more thing to think about that I brought up in the wrong thread: Think about how you'll rule on whether moderator actions should be open to public discussion. I have been on a board for six years where we didn't discuss moderator actions - users or mods. Doing so can be very divisive. Look at the thread here about someone being banned on an entirely different forum. On the other hand, transparency is often a good and healthy thing too. Maybe the compromise is somehow prohibiting extended discussions. Of course, any such discussion should never take a thread off topic. A moderator should never be the one to initiate public discussion. In other words, I don't think a mod should tell everyone "I gave that guy a warning for that." That kind of thing should be handled on PMs. But if the user wants to air his dirty laundry, maybe he should start a thread, and only then would the mod come in and give their side of it. With the new rules as good as they are, I don't think there'll be a lot of problems anyway, and if there are, they'll be easy to settle.

I think the issue here is that mods should only post in threads if its appropriate to do so. Otherwise the issue should be dealt with by PM. I would not like to see threads hijacked by mods trying to mediate a problem between members or with a particular member.

While I agree transparency is important I don't want to see the equivalent of public floggings. Apart from anything else, publicly calling someone to task puts them on the defensive and makes mediation more not less difficult.

Using Pm's to point out the problems with someones behaviour in a thead can often resolve the issue as the member does not feel they need to defend their position in a public way.

Moderators are part of a team and should never feel that they are alone in dealing with any situation. Another mod or admin can be asked for assistance or advice at any time.

[MRiGnS]

folks, feel free to add, remove or change points on the list I posted.

We can make a guide out of it afterwards and I think it's easier to keep track that way.