Moderator Performance (was Mods not Gods)

Cabaal wrote: »

Really and you have stuff to show this doesn't happen?

I've seen it happen in the past to the point where DeVore had to threaten site bans to get people to cop the hell on.

Obviously it does happen, as indicated before (like post #20)

Cabaal wrote: »

People can be organised when they want to be and as such they could very easily get organised and make invalid complaints, in my view invalid complaints would be a very serious matter

Invalid complaints are just as bad as an invalid banning, it is abuse.

I object to the 1% (or less) who are bullies and can harass or provoke someone because they don't like them

This can apply to all people; users, mods, catmods and admin alike.

Podman wrote: »

Any boards people I've spoken to seem to be decent reasonable people.

I'm talking about maybe 6 or 8 people I've emailed, plus the drama group. How is that like what you are suggesting here?

Cabaal wrote: »

This is like saying all Dublin people are decent and reasonable or all Waterford people or (pick another county or country), it doesn't exist....some are good some are bad; to say that all are good OR all are bad is pointless as it would be very much untrue.

I won't be addressing any more opinions that are only assumed to be mine.

RopeDrink wrote: »

I'm never keen on the 'paint all with one brush' impression these threads give off - It's just painful to see the entire title being targetted when in reality people only really have a gripe with specific people, not so much the role in which they are filling.

It's not about a gripe for me.

When those specific people are users, the role they fill is only as good as their argument. But when specific users have been given power to modify another user's access to a site, the role they fill is a lot bigger, and that role can be abused without collaboration.

I understand that it's very rare that a mod will lose the head and go postal, but it has happened and still happens, and as long as it happens here will be threads like this. Once you stop discussion about it, it's the beginning of the end.

Like I said before, it's only a very small percent that causes all the chaos (in every aspect of society), and stirs the rest of us up; user, poster and mod alike.

Everyone who makes a post has a responsibility to have some self control, it comes first, and mods have the added responsibility of watching over everyone else's self-control. It's a ****ing tough job and hat's off to the people who do it right.

Darragh wrote: »

Podman, you have (a) experience of being a mod, and (b) obviously a bone of contention about this.

How do you think the process should work?

So, user x has been banned from a forum for trolling, let's say. Repeated trolling. he's been warned already, does it again anyways. Comes to Feedback and complains about the moderator who banned him. What, ideally, would happen from there?

If there's a better process than what we have in place for helping our 550+ volunteer moderators keep their forums clear of spam, nuisance posts and posters and irrelevant, incendiary, unhelpful posts, I'd really appreciate your input of making it happen.

There are good mods, there are bad mods - same as posters. So, as OP of this thread, what's your feedback on how it should work?

Cheers

Darragh

Every time someone mentions trolling, I have to look it up... (urban dictionary) ..
basically "being a prick to provoke an emotional response", bullying.

In that example (you guys know this already), if the thread shows he's trolling, yes Ban.
If the thread shows he's been provoked, invite the troller and provoker and moderator (and their correspondence) to a hearing (of sorts) with more than one admin, preferably not known to any party, maybe leading to a ban..
If it gets as far as the helpdesk, and 2 admins have looked into it, he ban will stand depending on their decision.
The reason I say 2 admins (or 3) is to try to prevent corruption or bullying in the workplace.
I'm still thinking of a way to identify the bad mods, or better still, have them identify the problem and eliminate it themselves.
That would just leave the 0.001% who would be complete and utter barstewards.

The boards process works, but there's got to be a reason why in some cases it seems unfair.
I think it has to do with emotional involvement. I wouldn't like to see an enraged pilot getting into an airplane, or a drunk behind the wheel of a car, certainly not a provoked one.
If a mod, or whoever, is in the middle of a ****storm, they should go and cool off. You can't self-moderate if your blood is boiling.
I'm sure it happens quite often, especially with things your passionate about, and with so many people's ideas in the mix.

Like I said before, 99% do a bang up job and everyone on boards appreciates what they do, even though people don't say it very often.