Proposal: Moderators should not post in threads they moderate

Cavehill Red

It's a simple proposal with an obvious logic behind it: when moderators have an opinion on an issue, often a strong one, that skews their ability to moderate threads in a neutral manner.
While no doubt it is possible for many people to overcome this fundamental psychological aspect and attempt or aspire to neutral and fair moderation, all too often many moderators fail miserably in achieving this.
Therefore, it would seem to me a reasonable solution that if someone is moderating a particular thread, they should take no part in it, except to issue statements involving moderation.

Zaph

Moderators don't decide in advance to moderate a thread. They could have posted frequently in a thread before mod intervention becomes necessary, so suggesting that they do not get involved unless moderation is required is completely unworkable.

Cavehill Red

What I've proposed is that once they have moderated a thread, they take no further part as participants. That's both workable and perfectly reasonable. It would prevent moderators with vested interests from seeking to moderate threads they wish to post on, leaving moderation to those who can handle the duties neutrally.

Zaph

Actually it's quite unreasonable. We're not about to shackle anyone and tell them they can't post in certain threads simply because those threads happen to be in a forum they moderate. It's hard enough to get good mods for some forums, and placing limitations on what and where they can post would make the position less attractive to some prospective mods. We trust the mods to be able to differentiate between when they're posting as regular posters and as mods, and in cases where people feel this has not happened we have Feedback and the DRF for them to voice their concerns.

Cavehill Red

It's this bit -

We trust the mods to be able to differentiate between when they're posting as regular posters and as mods

- which highlights the problem.
Your entire approach is skewed. Rather than simply create a system where the possibility of biased moderation cannot occur, your suggestion is that the status quo is one based on trust in a practice which is psychologically unsound and far from universal.
In fact, it would be unreasonable to expect people engaged in a debate to be always capable of suddenly switching off their investment in the discussion in order to assume a neutral standpoint. Such people would be robots.
There is an ongoing problem with moderators seeking to play the game while simultaneously refereeing it, to use a sporting analogy. What I take from your response is:
a) you have no intention of considering or even discussing this proposal among your colleagues and the owners of the site
b) your primary concern is the availability of moderators and their freedoms to post as they wish
This is highly disappointing. There is an irony that Ireland's biggest discussion-based website would refuse to even discuss a change that would benefit the course of its own debates.

tbh

Cavehill Red wrote: »

It's this bit -

We trust the mods to be able to differentiate between when they're posting as regular posters and as mods

- which highlights the problem.
Your entire approach is skewed. Rather than simply create a system where the possibility of biased moderation cannot occur, your suggestion is that the status quo is one based on trust in a practice which is psychologically unsound and far from universal.
In fact, it would be unreasonable to expect people engaged in a debate to be always capable of suddenly switching off their investment in the discussion in order to assume a neutral standpoint. Such people would be robots.
There is an ongoing problem with moderators seeking to play the game while simultaneously refereeing it, to use a sporting analogy. What I take from your response is:
a) you have no intention of considering or even discussing this proposal among your colleagues and the owners of the site
b) your primary concern is the availability of moderators and their freedoms to post as they wish
This is highly disappointing. There is an irony that Ireland's biggest discussion-based website would refuse to even discuss a change that would benefit the course of its own debates.

You would quite often see a request from a mod for other mods to make a call on a reported post because the original mod had been involved on the thread. unfortunately, imho, it doesn't happen every time. I've seen quite a few instances of mods having a pop at a posters point of view and in the same post telling them not to post in the thread again, or closing the thread - that should never happen imho.

Ickle Magoo

As any thread has the potential to require moderating - that would mean moderators either cannot post in any thread in their forum just on the off-chance it may require moderation at some stage....or that their hands are tied and they cannot moderate a post/poster purely because at some stage they proffered an opinion on the thread...that doesn't sound logical or workable to me.

I think it's common sense not to moderate posters about their choice of phrase or attitude when you are discussing issues with them as a poster but I don't know why clear breaches in site/forum rules which are not subjective and have nothing to do with a difference in opinion - such as trolling, name calling, etc - cannot be dealt with by whatever mod happens to see it first...

lorcan122

Cavehill Red wrote: »

What I've proposed is that once they have moderated a thread, they take no further part as participants. That's both workable and perfectly reasonable. It would prevent moderators with vested interests from seeking to moderate threads they wish to post on, leaving moderation to those who can handle the duties neutrally.

I am sorry Cavehill Red, I have to disagree with you on this, as when a Mod moderates a thread, the problem should be over, when that Mod has dealt with the issue, and the conversation should be able to continue as normal. As that is what mods are for to keep everything in order. I mean why should they lose their privileges to post just because they had to do their job, and their job what they do for free as well, as they come here to enjoy the forum as much as anyone else.

I Mod a large forum, not so large as this, but I am a global mod, so that means I mod all the forums, so if there is a problem what I have to deal with and I am posting in that topic with the problem, I just remove the problem and deal with it and move on and still continue to post in it . It doesn't make changes to my attitude or my neutrality. Mods at the end of the day are members here also, and they have just taken a job on voluntarily to help improve the forum. Personally it doesn't sound fair what you are proposing.

Cavehill Red

tbh wrote: »

You would quite often see a request from a mod for other mods to make a call on a reported post because the original mod had been involved on the thread. unfortunately, imho, it doesn't happen every time. I've seen quite a few instances of mods having a pop at a posters point of view and in the same post telling them not to post in the thread again, or closing the thread - that should never happen imho.

You are entirely correct, and I appreciate your honesty in admitting what we all see happening. I utterly concur that if a mod is involved in a thread, they should automatically delegate moderating it to another mod, so as to ensure neutrality. I think those who believe they are capable of switching from engaged debater to mod and back again, like changing gears on a car, are deluding themselves. Human psychology suggests this frankly isn't possible. At least on a subconscious level, their own biases and engagement in the thread will influence their moderation.

Zaph

Unfortunately tbh is correct in saying that it does happen occasionally that a mod may adopt a "do as I say, not as I do" approach, but as I mentioned above we have processes to deal with issues such as these where a poster feel aggrieved. But let's just say that we did adopt your proposal, at what point do you decide that a mod has become involved in moderating a thread rather than participating? Is it warning someone for abusing another poster? Or infracting someone for repeatedly and clearly dragging the thread off-topic? Or banning an obvious troll? All of these are necessary mod actions that are not subject to the mod's bias, but should he or she be excluded from a thread that they have been actively engaged in just because one muppet comes along?

And then there's the question of how do you police this? What happens if a mod has acted on a thread and then posts some time later? Of course they may not even realise that they've taken action on the thread previously if it's a large, fast moving thread. And what action is taken if they do post? Do we ban them from their own forum? De-mod them? It's not quite as simple as just telling people not to post on certain threads, the logistics and sheer size of Boards make this an almost impossible task.

Cavehill Red

Zaph wrote: »

Unfortunately tbh is correct in saying that it does happen occasionally that a mod may adopt a "do as I say, not as I do" approach, but as I mentioned above we have processes to deal with issues such as these where a poster feel aggrieved. But let's just say that we did adopt your proposal, at what point do you decide that a mod has become involved in moderating a thread rather than participating? Is it warning someone for abusing another poster? Or infracting someone for repeatedly and clearly dragging the thread off-topic? Or banning an obvious troll? All of these are necessary mod actions that are not subject to the mod's bias, but should he or she be excluded from a thread that they have been actively engaged in just because one muppet comes along?

This is exactly what I'm suggesting. If they've engaged in moderating the thread, they take no further part as a participant in it. Once you appoint yourself the referee, you stop playing the match.

Zaph wrote: »

And then there's the question of how do you police this? What happens if a mod has acted on a thread and then posts some time later? Of course they may not even realise that they've taken action on the thread previously if it's a large, fast moving thread. And what action is taken if they do post? Do we ban them from their own forum? De-mod them? It's not quite as simple as just telling people not to post on certain threads, the logistics and sheer size of Boards make this an almost impossible task.

Self-policing is the first port of call. Once the principle is in place, mods will know that they ought not take any part in a thread they have moderated. If that does occur, then I suspect eagle-eyed participants in the thread will be able to notice breaches of the policy and report them.

muffler

If I may throw a little something into this discussion.

I'm one of 5 mods on the Construction & Planning forum and each of us are involved in the sector in real life and we would have our own "specialities" or expertise in certain areas of the planning and building sector so we are, without blowing our own trumpets, well capable of involving ourselves in any and all discussions as ordinary posters and Id like to think we are well enough experienced to act as mods of the forum.

In fairness the C & P forum and it's sub forums can be very much a "matter of fact" type setup a lot of the time insofar as a lot of the queries we deal with are very much black and white and are set out in the statutes. But people don't know what the planning regs and building regs are so they come to our forum and look for help. There are also a lot of topics that arise where interpretation of rules, regs and methodology is quite evident but people like us are needed to post our "opinions" based on our qualifications and experience over the years.

So if we don't involve ourselves in the topics being debated then who else is going to do it? Admittedly there are a fair few professionals who post fairly regularly but they are not always there to answer people's queries. The one thing I can guarantee is that anyone who is appointed as a mod of a forum like C & P needs to familiar with the topic in real life otherwise he/she would be completely lost.

If we take a situation where we get someone trolling a thread or someone who is just posting what he was told in the pub last Saturday night who is going to be the authoritative voice to speak out and correct the wrong advice or opinions posted?

It would be ridiculous to suggest that we (mods) shouldn't post in our own forums when we are (quite regularly) the "experts" on specific topics/issues. Could you imagine a Cmod contacting one of the forum regulars/professionals with a view to offering them a "modship" but with the proviso that they can't post in the forum :eek:

I'd also like to point out that we have an arrangement among ourselves whereby if any of us find ourselves "locking horns" with a poster in our capacity as an ordinary poster then we walk away from that thread and leave it to one of the other mods to deal with it. I'm not saying that happens in every forum but that's the way we do it.

If anyone ever sees any mod taking the old "do as I say and not as I do" approach then that should be reported without hesitation.

tbh

Cavehill Red wrote: »

You are entirely correct, and I appreciate your honesty in admitting what we all see happening. I utterly concur that if a mod is involved in a thread, they should automatically delegate moderating it to another mod, so as to ensure neutrality. I think those who believe they are capable of switching from engaged debater to mod and back again, like changing gears on a car, are deluding themselves. Human psychology suggests this frankly isn't possible. At least on a subconscious level, their own biases and engagement in the thread will influence their moderation.

It depends what the mod action is - I've no problem with an active mod calling a post abuse, say, and banning a user from the forum or thread, my problem is - and, in fairness, it's not a widespread problem although I could think of a couple of examples off the top of my head - where a mod has closed a thread, but used the closing thread to rubbish the argument of the op. I'd have no problems with that in the case of mufflers example, where facts are being debated, but when it comes to opinions, I personally don't think it's right - I think the mod should either just close the thread with a short explanatory note - or actively engage.
it's there for people to see and report as they see fit.

I would agree with Zaph (as I usually do) that it's not practical to automatically ban a mod from any modding on a thread they've posted in, and the steps are already there to report a post if you think someones out of line.

Zaph

Cavehill Red wrote: »

This is exactly what I'm suggesting. If they've engaged in moderating the thread, they take no further part as a participant in it. Once you appoint yourself the referee, you stop playing the match.

I'm sorry, but it's ludicrous and unfair to suggest that a mod should stop engaging in discussion just because they had to deal with something completely unrelated but that just happened to be on the same thread.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Self-policing is the first port of call. Once the principle is in place, mods will know that they ought not take any part in a thread they have moderated. If that does occur, then I suspect eagle-eyed participants in the thread will be able to notice breaches of the policy and report them.

And then what? You never answered my question about what we should do should a mod post on a thread they have previously taken action on.

Cavehill Red

Zaph wrote: »

I'm sorry, but it's ludicrous and unfair to suggest that a mod should stop engaging in discussion just because they had to deal with something completely unrelated but that just happened to be on the same thread.

Not at all. Unfair is having a participant doubling up as referee in the debate. Either mod or participate. Nothing unfair about that whatsoever. I'm simply suggesting that moderators don't try wearing both hats at the very same time.

Zaph wrote: »

And then what? You never answered my question about what we should do should a mod post on a thread they have previously taken action on.

What do you normally do with mods who break the rules?

yimrsg

Aren't potential moderators selected for moderation on the basis of having an interest in a particular forum amongst other things? Stifling moderators by forbidding them from posting on a huge thread they have moded on previously in a busy forum they have an active interest in; such as Soccer, AH or Cool Vids & Pics, just seems completely counter intuitive.

If it turns out that a mod wasn't impartial in modding a thread they had posted in, then the dispute resolution seems like an open way to resolve any mishaps. Blocking posters from posting on a single thread within a forum isn't really viable anyway. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056552138

Delirium

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Not at all. Unfair is having a participant doubling up as referee in the debate. Either mod or participate. Nothing unfair about that whatsoever. I'm simply suggesting that moderators don't try wearing both hats at the very same time.

how would that work in forums that have superthreads and/or chat threads? Why should the mods be excluded from a big part of the forum experience purely because of their mod duties?

what if someone purposely trolls a thread to remove a mod from the discussion due to the new rule? The poster might only warrant an infraction and can therefore continue posting in the thread, but the mod is now excluded because they took the appropriate action.

Doesn't seem fair on the mods.

BBDBB

Having been a mod for many years I can assure the OP that whatever a mod does its wrong in some posters eyes and rather than be the posters fault, its the mod who has "over reacted", "been bias in favour of someone else" or "has it in for them". Mostly in my experience the Mods motives are pure and they act with the good of the site in mind rather than any personal agenda, they certainly carry far less bias and motive than many posters, particularly those in bother.

Before you go pointing the finger, have a look at your own posting, style and content, what makes you such a great judge of moderation?

Someone has to make a call about posts, they wont always tally with the view of individuals because its a subjective view, what you find intolerable I find acceptable and vice versa. It doest mean someone is bias and therefore should be forbidden from posting in a thread. A blanket rule is not appropriate. If you have a specific issue then take it to the resolution forum

Zaph

Cavehill Red wrote: »

What do you normally do with mods who break the rules?

It doesn't happen very often and it depends on the circumstances. However I envisage under the new draconian regime you would prefer to see that many mods would inadvertently post in threads that they had moderated in, possibly some time previously. So again I ask you what action should be taken against them? You can't just trot out a suggestion like this and not have thought it through to the obvious conclusion. Or can you?

Cavehill Red

Zaph wrote: »

It doesn't happen very often and it depends on the circumstances. However I envisage under the new draconian regime you would prefer to see that many mods would inadvertently post in threads that they had moderated in, possibly some time previously. So again I ask you what action should be taken against them? You can't just trot out a suggestion like this and not have thought it through to the obvious conclusion. Or can you?

I don't moderate boards.ie, and I don't know how you punish mods who break the rules which is why I asked you. Now, if you're not prepared to tell me what it is you do to them, then how can I tell you whether that is reasonable or not?
In other words, I did think this through to the obvious conclusion - that mods who break the rules should be punished. But I'm not privy to the system of moderation and hence cannot tell you what you already know, which is how they are punished.
It would seem to me that if a mod was especially invested in a thread and saw wrongdoing happen, and wished to remain actively posting there, they could very simply contact another mod and ask them to do the moderating so that they could continue as participants. In fact, that's what ought to happen anyway.
I'm hearing plenty of complaining that this wouldn't be fair on the mods, when in fact it wouldn't restrict them in the slightest and would address a fundamental unfairness of the system, which is people trying to police discussions they themselves are involved and animated about.

PDN

A rule such as the one proposed would be a very blunt instrument. There are different kinds of modding and different kinds of participation in a thread.

For example, imagine there was a thread in the Soccer forum comparing the respective merits of Real Madrid and Barcelona. It would be wrong if a Barca supporting mod showed bias in moderating decisions against Real Madrid fans because they disagreed with him/her.

But now, imagine that a drive-by troll posts something along the lines of "Sure Football is a stupid game and you're all retards for watching it at all. Get a life and start following a real man's game like Rugby." A mod will, quite rightly, infract that troll. Should that mod no longer be allowed to post in that thread and extol the skills of Lionel Messi and Barcelona? That makes no sense at all.

Cavehill Red

PDN wrote: »

A rule such as the one proposed would be a very blunt instrument. There are different kinds of modding and different kinds of participation in a thread.

For example, imagine there was a thread in the Soccer forum comparing the respective merits of Real Madrid and Barcelona. It would be wrong if a Barca supporting mod showed bias in moderating decisions against Real Madrid fans because they disagreed with him/her.

But now, imagine that a drive-by troll posts something along the lines of "Sure Football is a stupid game and you're all retards for watching it at all. Get a life and start following a real man's game like Rugby." A mod will, quite rightly, infract that troll. Should that mod no longer be allowed to post in that thread and extol the skills of Lionel Messi and Barcelona? That makes no sense at all.

It makes perfect sense. You suggest, to summarise, that somehow moderators are capable of identifying when they themselves are at risk of bias and acting accordingly. The reality is that no human is capable of simultaneously acting and judging the nuance of that act.
I can only repeat what I already suggested - if a mod wishes to contribute to a thread in which they see an infraction, they should either refer that post to another mod to be reviewed or else infract it and recuse themselves from the thread, thereby insuring that no bias can take place.

Zaph

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I don't moderate boards.ie, and I don't know how you punish mods who break the rules which is why I asked you. Now, if you're not prepared to tell me what it is you do to them, then how can I tell you whether that is reasonable or not?

And as I said, it happens very infrequently and each case is assessed on its own merits. There have been de-moddings in the past for serious transgressions, but de-modding someone for something like this would be a gross overreaction. So what do you do then? Infract them? Give them a stern telling off? Transfer them to s different forum? Given these options, what would you deem appropriate?

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I can only repeat what I already suggested - if a mod wishes to contribute to a thread in which they see an infraction, they should either refer that post to another mod to be reviewed or else infract it and recuse themselves from the thread, thereby insuring that no bias can take place.

So you have a forum with only one mod, or even one active mod. Who does he go to? Or the mod who has to take action at 4am against an obvious troll. Should he be penalised just because he happened to be around to take action when nobody else was? If we had 10 mods per forum and all were active then maybe there might be some way of making this suggestion workable, and that's a big might. But as it stands it's a complete non-runner.

Oryx

How have you come to the conclusion that doing this is even worth suggesting, let alone enforcing as a rule? Any mod who uses their position to force their own agenda WILL get found out, as complaints rack up. When I began modding it was a rule of thumb that if you were heavily involved in a thread, you would step aside and let someone else moderate, for fear of a conflict of interest. I would presume that the majority of mods here do act in the same way. I havent seen evidence to convince me otherwise.

Some posters have always, and will always, feel that mods are biased/corrupt/powah hungry. For the most part, the truth is they are simply people with a genuine, enthusiastic interest in their forums, who want to uphold certain standards here. Creating the rule you suggest might stop the odd (very odd) occasion where a mod oversteps the mark, but by making moderating a much more cumbersome, difficult and less rewarding task.

Cavehill Red

Zaph wrote: »

And as I said, it happens very infrequently and each case is assessed on its own merits. There have been de-moddings in the past for serious transgressions, but de-modding someone for something like this would be a gross overreaction. So what do you do then? Infract them? Give them a stern telling off? Transfer them to s different forum? Given these options, what would you deem appropriate?

Again, you're the expert in the boards punishment rosters, not I. An infraction would seem reasonable, maybe something more significant if it was a regular offence by the Mod.

Zaph wrote: »

So you have a forum with only one mod, or even one active mod. Who does he go to? Or the mod who has to take action at 4am against an obvious troll. Should he be penalised just because he happened to be around to take action when nobody else was? If we had 10 mods per forum and all were active then maybe there might be some way of making this suggestion workable, and that's a big might. But as it stands it's a complete non-runner.

He goes to his superiors. CMods, I think?
I don't see how it's a non-runner at all. What I do see is significant resistance from mods towards the idea that they oughtn't seek to referee debates they take part in. That's understandable in one sense, but easily resolved by discipline on the part of mods. Once they know that if they moderate a thread they oughtn't post in it, they'll stop doing it. Similarly, once they wish to take part in a discussion and see something requiring moderation, they will know to alert another mod. Perfectly doable.

OldGoat

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I don't see how it's a non-runner at all. What I do see is significant resistance from mods towards the idea that they oughtn't seek to referee debates they take part in. That's understandable in one sense, but easily resolved by discipline on the part of mods. Once they know that if they moderate a thread they oughtn't post in it, they'll stop doing it. Similarly, once they wish to take part in a discussion and see something requiring moderation, they will know to alert another mod. Perfectly doable.

/Hands in Mod Badge.
If I can't participate in threads on my forums I'm not modding anymore. Somehow I don't think I'd be the only mod to have such a reaction if your suggestion were made policy.

You suggest that things are "easily resolved by discipline on the part of mods" to make your proposal work. I put it to you that the mods already apply disipline to their modding duties.

Trojan

We have a dispute resolution process whereby mod decisions which are clearly wrong are overturned. Looking at the DR forum, that occurs in approximately 1-2% of cases - not due to bias in the process, but simply because the mods make the correct decision in ~99.999% of cases (perceived discrepancy in figures due to fact that most correct decisions aren't taken to DRP).

As admins, we can and do call mods out when they make clearly incorrect decisions. Often these are resolved "behind the scenes" without a public discussion - that's our preference. We pick reasonable people to be mods - that's part of the requirements for the job. To be a mod, the candidate should be willing to admit when they're wrong. It also a hugely important requirement for Cmods and admins candidates.

--

Asking mods not to mod where they are interested in a subject: never going to happen under any circumstances while we need unpaid volunteers.

If mods were paid employees it might be a different story, but I don't see boards getting enough revenue to cover that in the next 10 years

Zaph

Right, time to close this one I think. Cavehill Red, I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on how to run things around here because we're happy with things just the way they are. The (unpaid volunteer) mods do a great job, contrary to what some people may think, and we're not about to place unrealistic restrictions on them. Maybe that's how they do it on other sites, I don't know, but if that's what you prefer you're quite welcome to explore the other possibilities that are out there.