BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Results of the Moderation cleaning thread 2005

 
  

Page: (1)234

 
 
Tryphena Absent
20:06 / 19.07.05
This is a space to talk about the results of the Moderation cleaning thread. How do we feel about moderators who don't have much internet access, should they be wiped off and reinstated later when their access is more regular? Should we simply add more moderators to those forums and keep them on the lists? I'd ask moderators to consider their own role and those with limited access to ask themselves when they think they're going to have regular access again. This is particularly important if you're a mod in more than one of the fora.

I'd appreciate it if people didn't emote too much in this thread and kept it practical instead. For me this is a question of having moderators who don't have time to read the board and how involved we want our moderators to be in the everyday function of barbelith.

If you have anything other issues around this subject that you want to bring up or any questions you want to ask then go ahead...
 
 
sleazenation
21:08 / 19.07.05
Well, it depends - do we want a larger number of moderators who are only available irregularly or do we prefer fewer moderators checking thread more regularly.

Both systems are workable, but I'd suggest if we go for the irregularly available mods option then we need more moderators.
 
 
Olulabelle
21:12 / 19.07.05
I am here quite a lot but don''t get many modding requests. Currently I mod posts in Books and Creation. I'm not very active in Books in that I don't start threads, but I still act on all the requests.

I'd like to be more involved, although I don't know which forums need more moderators. I read Conversation, Creation, Art and design, Sport and games and the Temple all the time and everything else quite a lot. I wouldn't offer to moderate in the Headshop though.

I don't think it matters if moderators aren't online all that much, as long as each forum has enough. Many mods are better than too few I think, then stuff will always get done.
 
 
Olulabelle
21:24 / 19.07.05
I forgot that I visit film TV and theatre really regularly too.
 
 
Mazarine
21:46 / 19.07.05
I don't watch nearly as much TV/see nearly as many movies as I used to, so I must admit I feel pretty useless in FTVT. However, I have started reading much more. I don't know if dropping me from film if someone else wants it would be appropriate or not.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
21:55 / 19.07.05
Is there another forum you'd rather moderate?
 
 
Olulabelle
22:42 / 19.07.05
Sally, I'll swap you FTV&T for Books...
 
 
Smoothly
23:25 / 19.07.05
Personally I'd like to see more moderators, partly because I think this would speed up responses. It doesn't matter so much if you're correcting a typo, but if there's a legal issue or something genuinely sensitive (real name outings, frixample, aren't that rare), I'd like to see a more rapid reaction. So in this respect I think that new mods should be employed to at least supplement those who are less active. But more importantly I think that it would head off accusations of cliquery or corruption. I really believe that most complaints of moderator abuse would disappear if the complainants did a stint.

Ideally, I'd like to see the whole process become much more transparent (a public record of moderation actions would not only reassure posters that there wasn't a sinister cabal of censors, but also that no mod requests were lost or under-examined. As it stands, even mods themselves can't tell who's actioned what how), but diluting some of the perceived status would be a start.
This might be old fashioned, but I think responsibility can bring out the best in people. For instance, forum moderators - quite properly - bear some responsibility for giving their forum direction and also supplying a degree of momentum. But it seems to me that most fora have a number of non-modding regulars who do a lot to nurture interesting discussions and start new threads where they perceive a gap. Whether they ultimately want the responsibility or not, I'm sure a survey of each forum would yield a number of quality candidates.
 
 
Ariadne
06:56 / 20.07.05
I'm here every day - less so during the work day than I used to be, but I do still check in, and I'm usually online (and reading barbelith) in the evening. I think it's unreasonable, and unhealthy, if we think moderators have to be here for huge chunks of time - they need to be engaged with the forum but people need lives! So perhaps we need to have more mods, just to make sure there's always cover and important changes are made quickly.
I think transparency in modding decisions would be a good thing, but I suspect that would take a lot of work to change.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
07:13 / 20.07.05
Something the moderation requests thread has thrown up as an issue is that plenty of us spot things that need to be changed in other forums. From that standpoint, is there a reason why moderators don't moderate everywhere? I would probably pass on any Temple moderation requests that weren't 'oops, doublepost!' as it's not my area of interest, but it seems increasingly daft that I can delete a Conversation thread but have to ask a FT&T moderator if I want a summary added to one of their threads.
 
 
Quantum
11:52 / 20.07.05
I was about to suggest giving mods more fora to share the work (e.g. I'd happily mod Temple & Games on top of the infrequent Headshop requests I get) but that makes more sense- why not all of them?
 
 
Smoothly
12:12 / 20.07.05
I’d certainly be happy to take on more than the one or two Gathering requests I get a week. I suppose the argument against giving all mods free range would be that a mod in one forum might not be qualified to perform mod functions in another. I wouldn’t have thought all mods can be expected to be familiar with every thread in every forum. Then again, if people abstained on actions which really called for some forum specialists, it would at least speed up the link fixes, typo corrections, double posts deletions etc. Would require a degree of self-policing, but I don’t know if that’s prohibitive.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
12:41 / 20.07.05
I suppose the argument against giving all mods free range would be that a mod in one forum might not be qualified to perform mod functions in another

Which doesn't really make sense once you've been on the board for a while. The only fora that I feel I can't necessarily pass/reject a request in is Comic Books and like you said I can skip it and still do the most basic stuff there.

I think there's a very strog argument for making us board-wide moderators and if you don't trust someone to be that, well, why are they a moderator anyway?

I think it's unreasonable, and unhealthy, if we think moderators have to be here for huge chunks of time - they need to be engaged with the forum but people need lives!

That's not really what I meant and it's a pretty impractical comment if you don't mind me saying. For instance being online for three hours a week is hardly conducive to being a moderator and it begs the question why would you need to continue to be one? Fair enough if you think you're going to have more time to be a mod again later but is it really sensible to be a three-hour-week moderator indefinitely. I mean, is it some kind of pretty status symbol or a job? Moderators don't need to be here for huge chunks of time but they do need time to actually occasionally pass some moderation actions and intermittent net access may not give them that time. What's the point of being a moderator in name alone?
 
 
Spaniel
12:53 / 20.07.05
Well, I've said it before and I'll say it again. I'd be happy to Mod Convo and Comics.

I'm on the board all the time, and I think I know the ropes well enough.
 
 
Smoothly
13:03 / 20.07.05
The Convo is a good case in point. I assume that the volume of mod requests is high there, and I certainly don't see why any mod from any other forum shouldn't be able to take on a share of that.
 
 
Spatula Clarke
13:12 / 20.07.05
I definitely wouldn't want moderation actions from every forum sitting in my inbox, seeing as skipping/abstaining from voting on an action doesn't remove it - they just stay sat in there until others vote on them. Messy.

I also wouldn't want that sort of cross-board power, nor the responsibility that'd come with it. As it is, I tend to feel that as a moderator in P&H I have to get involved in the more pointless, depressingly childish arguments that take place here, which inevitably drains all my enthusiasm for contributing to the more worthwhile threads for a period of time.
 
 
Olulabelle
13:18 / 20.07.05
Board wide modding is such a good idea. Anyone unqualified to make a specialist fora decision could just pass on it. If we're trusted to be moderators then we should be trusted to do that.

We could have a list of all moderators somewhere in case people wished to contact them which could be linked to at the top of each forum.
 
 
The Strobe
13:27 / 20.07.05
Don't have much time, as I'm at work, but anyway:

I'm not sure board-wide modding is a good idea; when you see "48 jobs to be done" you're less likely to do them than "4 jobs to be done". And also: it alters the role of moderators.

As far as I know, moderators aren't just meant to be box-tickers - sorting out mistakes, deleting nasty posts; they're meant to be active voices in the forums they mod. This is why I feel guilty at times - I'm happy to agree or disagree as I see fit, and even to correct stuff or alter titles, abstracts - but I'm also meant to be an example in a forum to others, and sometimes I fall down in that regard. Ideally, if a moderator sets the tone, others will hopefully follow it. By and large, all mods are the kind of people who do this throught the board - but if you make moderators responsible for the whole board, the onus to start threads when they're getting scarce, in order to kick off discussion (which, as Books often shows, really does work), becomes smaller. I think I'd like that onus to remain in some way. And, you see, as a whole-board moderator, I'd feel bad because I'd spend longer making discussion and topics in, the "Spectacle" fora than in the Temple or the Switchboard.

More coherent thoughts later - but in short: mods are more than housekeepers, they're paragons, and making mods whole-board mods ups the housekeeping and reduces the opportunity to set examples.
 
 
Smoothly
13:42 / 20.07.05
With the greatest respect, Paleface, I don’t see how it necessarily does either. It spreads the housekeeping across more people for one thing – so, for example, Convo mods will probably see their list of jobs reduced. And while I agree with you that mods are more than housekeepers (at least more than cleaners), I don’t see why having mod powers in other or all forums would prevent you from being a role model in your primary one(s). In fact, I don’t really see why you need to be a moderator to be a paragon in a forum you really care about. I assume you’re a mod in the forums you are because you care about those forums, not the other way around. See what I mean?
 
 
gridley
13:59 / 20.07.05
I'm doing comics and creation now, but I could easilly do film & tv, and even music & radio as well.
 
 
Bed Head
14:32 / 20.07.05
I’m all Agrees With Smoothly right now. Maybe my maths is screwy, but I’m not seeing this ‘you have 48 jobs’ thing as being very likely to happen - if anything, I’d be more concerned that having everyone who’s available able to vote on things could mean mod actions get passed slightly too quickly, ie before you’ve had a chance to look at the request/think about it/check the HTML/follow the off-site link or whatever.

But as long as that doesn’t happen, there’s no reason why giving everyone voting powers should diminish the paragonny nature of ‘specialist’ mods - we could even keep the lists of such mods at the top of each forum, as they’d still be the ones who have a particular interest and investment in the Temple or Comics or wherever. But if you want to declare/assume some of the responsibility for maintaining a groovy forum and keeping everything moving, well, that doesn't necessarily require you having more voting powers. I think.
 
 
Olulabelle
14:36 / 20.07.05
Board wide mods would help with dull housekeeping moderations and we could still be active voices in our forums of 'choice'.

I'd be very sad if people felt that they could only be an active voice in a particular forum if they were specifically moderating that forum.

It also might make moderators more active everywhere.
 
 
Spatula Clarke
14:47 / 20.07.05
Put most simply, if I wanted to be a mod in any forum other than the ones I'm currently in, I'd have put my name forwards for them. I don't. I didn't. I have no interest in moderating Conversation, or Head Shop, or Lab, or Comics, and it seems utterly pointless making me one when there are others - Boboss, gridley - who are openly asking for those positions.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
15:27 / 20.07.05
I've had 52 moderation actions pending at various points, but it's the exception rather than the rule...

I think there's a very strog argument for making us board-wide moderators and if you don't trust someone to be that, well, why are they a moderator anyway?

Just to put in a historical context - we had board-wide moderators (administrators) before, and it caused a degree of complaining. Some of those complaints were about perceived elitism, which could be resolved by making everyone who was a moderator a moderator of everywhere, but that does mean:

1) No training slopes for moderators - I started in a few fora and slowly got added, f'r example...

2) A bad moderator could do widespread damage, especially if other people were rubber-stamping rather than examining their large numbers of requests, and could also by using the veto function massively disrupt moderation across all the fora until Tom could intervene - potentially a week or more.
 
 
The Strobe
17:20 / 20.07.05
I agree with what Haus said, especially regarding "training slopes" and I take most of the rebuttals on board as being equally valid. It's horses for courses, and depends on the people involved.

However...

I'd be very sad if people felt that they could only be an active voice in a particular forum if they were specifically moderating that forum.

Where did this come from, Olulabelle? I didn't say anything of the sort. You've extrapolated backwards and incorrectly: just because I said moderators should be active voices in their respective fora, does not mean I said the only active voices can be moderators. You've made this statement in response to my post, but I've said nothing of the sort, which is a bit misleading. Otheriwse, you're correct: it might make mods more active in all fora. But it might not, and I'm speaking as a mod for whom board-wide moderation would be less welcome, not more.

I'm also not sure quite how board-wide moderation for all - as opposed to some very rare "Administrators", as Haus outlined - fits in with Tom's vision for the board.
 
 
grant
18:57 / 20.07.05
I was one of the admins, and the workload was never all that extreme. I do think it helps having some idea of what's going on in a thread or forum -- I'd feel woefully unprepared to think about some requests from Games, just because I don't know what's going on in there.

The vast majority of stuff I handle now (and handled as an admin) was just fixing typos and deleting duplicates, so I don't think of that as needing special attention.

I do think having as many moderators as possible is good for the board, both in making the distributed moderation system work smoothly, but also in that it means there's some kind of broad, active engagement with the board-as-board. I think maybe the admin/board-mod discussion should probably be split into a different thread because so many of the current mods are mods in more than one forum, and thus represent a smaller total population of potential board-moderators.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
19:58 / 20.07.05
Moderators are different to what administrators were. Didn't they have Tom-like powers?

A bad moderator could do widespread damage, especially if other people were rubber-stamping rather than examining their large numbers of requests, and could also by using the veto function massively disrupt moderation across all the fora until Tom could intervene - potentially a week or more.

So moderator x, previously trusted to moderate just the Conversation, moderates all the fora and suddenly turns into Dark Phoenix? I really don't see how this works. Either Tom trusts the moderators or he doesn't, regardless of what other board members may feel about them.

As far as I know, moderators aren't just meant to be box-tickers - sorting out mistakes, deleting nasty posts;

What is the job of the moderators?
Janitorial, mainly. They're park rangers, not policemen -- keeping the paths clear and making sure hikers don't get lost. Moderators correct HTML mistakes, delete multiple posts, and so on.

And if Barbelith is relying on moderators to generate discussions in it's fora then they're mostly not doing that great a job, I'm talking more in here than the Conversation, Angel hasn't talked much in the Gathering and so on and so forth. We keep saying that we will try to put more in but most of us can't, it tends to be up to the non-moderators, bless each of their ten tiny toesy's, to generate discussion. It seems to me that conscious effort by moderators to spark discussion where no discussion is happening isn't working or going to work and moderators who don't want the work, we've got 47 moderators so far who have reported that they are still active in checking Barbelith. If Dupre doesn't want to take a few seconds to check through each of the requests he gets (and that does raise a useful side-point, people are still putting in moderation requests that doesn't repair broken HTML or images, new windows, reply, preview reply to check if it works people!) then there are 46 other people who will. The only possible problem is too many people voting 'yay' or 'nay' on a topic at once, a better queuing system might be needed for such a thing to work.
 
 
Olulabelle
19:59 / 20.07.05
Paleface, it came from here:

As far as I know, moderators aren't just meant to be box-tickers - sorting out mistakes, deleting nasty posts; they're meant to be active voices in the forums they mod.

I understood that to mean that if you were a board wide moderator you wouldn't behave in the same way as a forum specific one because you said:

And, you see, as a whole-board moderator, I'd feel bad because I'd spend longer making discussion and topics in, the "Spectacle" fora than in the Temple or the Switchboard.

So I wrote that because, personally, I wouldn't feel bad. I might never actively contribute to Laboratory by creating threads but I would vote to OK a spelling mistake if it came up, and I would be likely to propose or agree a deletion of a double post if it was late at night and there may fewer mods online.

By creating board wide mods I think that what would happen would really benefit the board. It would mean any moderator could moderate for spelling requests or if they saw a double post but mods would also, by nature of being human and therefore having specific interests, automatically frequent the fora they already do and continue to start threads. It's highly unlikely that it would make mods stop starting threads, and could only be good for the board in that, for example, if I modded a post in a fora I didn't always look at I would be more likely to read that post and therefore be more likely to engage with the thread, and thereby the relevant forum.

It even helps when you look at the little things; I read Conversation everyday, but I'm not a mod there. I quite often see things I would propose, but I can't. My reading it wouldn't change, and my contributions wouldn't be affected - I would just be able to request modding for silly things (like double posts) which I don't currently do anything about, since it's silly to add it to the mod request thread.

Modding requests would just go through more quickly, which would be a good thing. Sometimes, if a poster requests a change late at night it doesn't get done till the morning. Every morning before I go to work I log in and I frequently have requests to action which have been standing since midnight the night before. That's frustrating for members, and for mods since it looks fairly rubbish. I have had PM's in the past about unactioned requests.

And I think we are all sensible enough not to agree or disagree a contentious post in a fora we don't frequent. We would just pass it, and leave it for the people who are active and engaged there. Wouldn't we?
 
 
grant
20:34 / 20.07.05
Moderators are different to what administrators were. Didn't they have Tom-like powers?


No, just omnipresence, not omnipotence.
 
 
Spatula Clarke
20:43 / 20.07.05
If Dupre doesn't want to take a few seconds to check through each of the requests he gets

Well, that's a nice reduction of what I did say into something that I didn't. I've given reasons for not wanting to be a mod in other areas of the board already, and as yet nobody's argued with them.

I don't want that level of responsibility.

I don't want my status as a moderator to suck the enjoyment I get from the board out of me any more than it already does.

I don't want to further open myself up to accusations about misuses of power.

I don't want to skip a moderation request from a forum that I don't read because I don't feel qualified to action it and then have that request sit in my messages inbox until somebody else does, making it impossible to see if I've actually got any new requests or if it's just the old skipped ones still there without me having to keep on entering the inbox to check every time I go to a new page. And it'd happen with the system we've got now, because skipping a request is exactly the same as not reading it.

I don't want moderators to become one giant mass of nameless, unidentifiable archons. Having us all moderate everywhere completely removes the transparency from the process unless we're also going to start displaying moderation logs, a proposal which has been discussed and shot down before now (and rightly so, imo).

Now, others of you may not feel that one of the requirements of the job that you agreed to take on is to stimulate or help maintain a standard of discussion in the areas you caretake, but I do, and I know I'm not alone in that. I feel guilty every single time I go into Radio & Music, because I haven't been doing enough - anything - to prevent the discussion in there from stagnating. So much so that I'm thinking it'd be a good idea if Tom gave somebody else my position there. At the opposite end of the scale, I've been considering asking him to remove me from P&H as well, because, as I already said, I think that being a moderator here makes me feel the need to become *too* involved in the awful personal vendettas or pointless merry-go-rounds that I'd sooner didn't pop up at all.

And I think we are all sensible enough not to agree or disagree a contentious post in a fora we don't frequent.

Don't bet on it. Previous experiences suggest otherwise.
 
 
The Strobe
21:48 / 20.07.05
And I think we are all sensible enough not to agree or disagree a contentious post in a fora we don't frequent.

Don't bet on it. Previous experiences suggest otherwise.


Yes, I agree. The situation described ought to never occur, but people are people, and fickle, and everyone has bad days.

I'm getting a bit wary of the way this discussion is going as we seem to be heading towards a them/us territory: those current mods who think being a full-board mod is a good idea, and those current mods who mod what they do for specific reasons and hate the concept of full-board modding.

So I will state this now: just because I don't wish to moderate the full board, doesn't mean (as a moderator) I don't care about the board as a whole. I definitely do. I care enough that I believe widespread moderation is bad. Similarly, the segregation of Administrators/Moderators was bad last time, and it would be bad were it to happen again.

I honestly believe that the quality of the moderation on Barbelith would suffer were a) all moderators able to moderate the whole board and/or b) if some moderators were able to moderate the whole board.

I think, though, a lot of this discussion - whilst very interesting from a theory standpoint - is largely irrelevant, simply because the board software is not going to be altered any time soon. And yes, everyone could be added as a moderator to every forum, but that takes Tom's time, and it takes Tom's say-so, and I would put money on him disagreeing with the whole-board mod theory, given everything I know of his beliefs towards distributed moderation and Barbelith in general. Any modifications more complex, though, and they just won't happen until he's found the time to talk to a developer, let that developer see the source, and work things through. Barbelith isn't that complex a piece of software, but nor is it simple or trivial - the sheer size and history of the database should be enough to remind you of that.

We seem to be having a lot of conversations about how to change things whilst constantly being reminded that change is happening no time soon, and as a result, I'm not sure how productive many of them are.
 
 
Tom Coates
21:56 / 20.07.05
Moderators look after parts of the board. The point of the moderator is that they know what's going on in their part of the board, they're familiar with the discussions that are going on and they can tell the context of a decision that they're approving (or not approving) relatively quickly. For those reasons, and because moderators should be taking the decisions they make seriously, I'd rather that they were only confronted by a relatively small number of decisions and that they coudl easily make those decisions because they knew what was going on. So I'd like to limit moderators to fora that they would go to a fair amount anyway. They can look out for dodgy legal stuff or troll attacks as well in those areas and keep me informed, and in those areas they can also keep conversation going or try and start new topics that get things moving.

All of these responsibilities suggest to me a level of engagement that I'd LIKE to believe a person could have with all of the board, but I don't think is realistic. I don't want someone voting on decisions in a forum they've never posted in or read. That would be bad. I want people who care about that space to be making those decisions with the other people who care about it. More moderators is the fix to getting through actions rapidly but honestly, not the same number of mods with greater responsibilities.
 
 
Olulabelle
22:42 / 20.07.05
Then I would like to change my moderator responsiblities. I am not a mod in places I go most often and I am a mod in at least one that I don't.

Perhaps we could think about shifting some of us around a bit? I wouldn't mind modding any of the following:

Conversation
Temple
Film TV and Theatre
Games and Gameplay
Creation
Art and Design
Policy and Help.

That's not just what I read, it's what, on the basis of what's been said here, I feel qualified to mod in. It's also what I read everyday rather than every other day.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
23:05 / 20.07.05
Give those of us who spend hours everyday here more responsibility then because I could conceivably currently pass a moderation request reasonably in every single forum except Comic Books and yet I have to sit here for five days and wait for someone to add a summary to one thread in a Spectacle forum, which is frankly absurd, it's not working and it's definitely not responsible.

Tom, I'm not meaning to get at you because I rather like you but look at the requests that come through- how many of them are actually forum specific? The overwhelming majority of requests I get from all 3 of the fora that I moderate are edits or html fixes. I propose a lot of summary changes, I very rarely need to make a difficult decision and my favourite forum to look after will always and forever be AFD but I *look* at Head Shop and Policy and Help requests with as much attention despite favouring another forum. However I go to other fora everyday and I see changes that I'd like to make as a moderator all the time. If you're not paying as much attention to all of the fora as you are to your own or at least scanning them then you don't know the mood of the board and if you don't know the mood of the board then you don't know barbelith.

I don't want someone voting on decisions in a forum they've never posted in or read.

So you don't want me to sort out a broken link in Comic Books? You don't want me to agree to editing a poster's spelling mistake? I think you can broaden this out.

Does anyone who wanted to be a moderator on barbelith actually not care about any part of the board? The only reason I rarely visit Comic Books is because I read very few of them and I can't join the discussion.

I don't want my status as a moderator to suck the enjoyment I get from the board out of me any more than it already does.

Dupre if you hate it that much than why on this strange, solid ground are you doing it?
 
 
Olulabelle
23:10 / 20.07.05
I have to say I agree with Nina.

It's impractical and silly to wait five days for a thread summary to be added because the people who mod that forum are not regular posters, but which cannot be changed by another moderator who is on the board due to us having forum specific mods.
 
  

Page: (1)234

 
  
Add Your Reply