BARBELITH underground
 

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


Responsibilities of being a moderator

 
 
sleazenation
10:47 / 07.08.05
In another thread Tom Coates said the following with regard to the question of what moderators should be doing, over and above their responsibilities suggesting and agreeing changes to individual posts and threads...

it's worth us talking about whether we think moderators do have a responsibility to try and diffuse arguments and calm things down - either in the places where they're being moderators or across the board.

to which I replied

Hmmm
While I actively advocate intellectually rigourous engagement and politeness as a first point of departure for all, regular posters and moderators alike, I am concerned here that moderators would be backed into the position of suffering insults and fools gladly and appeasing lazy thinking and unreasonable behaviour in attempt to 'diffuse arguements'. Worse, this could be interpreted as appeasement to lazy thinking and unreasonable behaviour, particularly as practiced by actively malevolent trolls.

I am also concerned that adding a particular onus one-sidedly onto the moderators undermines at least part of the goal of distributed moderation, to decrease the diffence between moderators and other Barbelith users...


So, what do others think?
 
 
All Acting Regiment
11:36 / 07.08.05
Also, I can sort of see a problem with regards to the ammount of respect given to the moderator trying to break up the argument by the arguers.

I think, if you're going to break up an argument, it helps to hold a position of some kind of authority or aloofness.

We're altogether here, which is great, but I don't see how I or anyone else could be considered neutral enough, or detatched enough, to be in a position to break up a fight. There would be many accusations of impartiality which would lead to arguments within arguments.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
15:30 / 07.08.05
I always try to break up unreasonable arguments, generally the type that spread like wildfire or seem to emerge from dislike rather than someone's stance on a subject. There is always a judgement call to be made individually by moderators as to the type of argument they're witnessing. I'm as likely to join the fray as I am to ask people to stop fighting.

It seems to me that people who are ordinary members are just as likely to do this, so it doesn't really widen the gap. It's just that moderators should be slightly more aware of what's rot and what's not because we have to decide whether to delete things.
 
 
Ganesh
15:31 / 07.08.05
They shouldn't be armed.
 
 
Smoothly
15:45 / 07.08.05
Well, like Nina sats, there are arguments and there are arguments, aren't there? I think Moderators should be on hand to keep discussions ontopic and their forums in good order, and so diffuse arguments that are derailing threads. But mods aren't wives of Caesar (are they?). If mods are expected to be conciliators above all else then I second both of sleaze's points, only to add that it could be ruinous to mods' experience as posters.

I think moderators are obligated not to *abuse* the powers they have (ie. edit posts unfairly). They should also endeavour to maintain a good level of debate, but then I think everyone should. We *expect* good practice from moderators, because moderators have been around for a while and generally understand the communities culture, but there are posters in a similar position who aren't mods, and I'd expect them to do the same. By and large they do; this is more a matter of citizenship rather than authority. A moderator probably shouldn't be a moderators if hir conduct isn't up to the standard expected of any member, but I not sure there should be one rule for mods and another rule for everyone else.

I do think Legba has a point in that the best way for mods to be effective they need to be respected. I don't think they have to be neutral in the sense of utterly disinterested, but I do think they need to enjoy the confidence of the forum. I think there's profit in looking at how forums select mods, but that's another thread.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
22:08 / 07.08.05
I'm kind of with Smoothly here- conduct expected from moserators should ideally be that which is expected from any other poster. However, because of mods' visibility and position, it's probably more incumbent on us to behave in the same way others should be expected to behave. I'm not sure I worded that very well... I'll have another go later when I've got my head round it a bit better.
 
 
rising and revolving
17:51 / 08.08.05
Part of the issue here as near as I can tell, is that most other fora have very different expectations of what is expected of a mod in a forum they moderate.

I don't have any problems with the 'lith having a "mods are just people too" principle [1] but if that is so it really should be explicitly stated. It would stop people fighting with Haus[2], for starters.

I think a lot of the problem comes from the usual expectation of

Also, I think there's a general perception of moderators as being monolithic because they are not the common people[3] - although they're clearly not (monolithic, rather than common). However, this doesn't stop things they say (especially in policy or in fora they moderate) being viewed as having more weight than those of the rest of the board.

As I see it, there are two options

A) Mods are just everyday citizens in terms of expectations. In which case, we need to make a lot (a LOT) more of the everyday citizens mods (after all, they can't exactly go wrong, can they?)

B) Mods are special, and have special expectations of them in terms of behaving well in the fora they moderate - they would of course just be common citizens elsewhere. Those expectations need to be defined - I'd start with something along the lines of keeping things on topic, not inciting arguments and generally acting as a steering and pacifying influence upon the forum.

But that's just me. Some people think mods are just there to fix typos, and if so, good stuff. But that should be clearly outlined, because it seems to me that it's resulting in people having serious misconceptions.


[1] Although I think the "Which is okay because of distributed moderation" is actually a bit inaccurate at the moment, given how far we've strayed from actually getting new mods on board. Moderation is in the hands of the few, which is why the many expect that moderators should actually behave differently. After all, if they're not, shouldn't we simply have more mods?

[2] It being my theory that people are so shocked at being hammered by Haus because it wouldn't happen in other online fora with a mod. Thus they feel they're being ganged up on by the powers that be - because that's how it looks.

[3] Again, this is the difference between the intention of the Barbelith experiment and the practice : with hardly anyone new having become a mod in ages AND with the incredible difficulty in actually getting any changes to the board AND with people suggesting discussions like this should be limited to active mods, there's a definate us versus them atmosphere in feel if not in fact.
 
 
Tom Coates
08:27 / 09.08.05
I think we've had a whole block of new mods really recently. Although I could be wrong. Certainly the intent is that we should have more pretty soon.
 
 
Smoothly
12:45 / 09.08.05
However, this doesn't stop things they say (especially in policy or in fora they moderate) being viewed as having more weight than those of the rest of the board.

I might be wrong, but I just don’t know that this is true. I’m not denying that some peoples’ opinions tend to carry more weight than others’, but it seems to me that this has more to do with their reputation, contribution and an authority derived naturally from a positive and long-standing involvement with the community. Of course there’s some cross-over here, but I think it’s their qualities as *posters* that confers them ‘weight’, rather than mod status. I don’t think I need to name names to point out that there are lots of posters whose opinions are widely respected but who are not moderators.
So I think you have it kinda back-to-front, Sylph. I think mods should (and largely do) become moderators *because* they have demonstrated a level of respect in the community; they don't become mods and therefore respected. If that makes sense.

Which brings me back to the point Stoatie was making. In my opinion the standards we expect from moderators should be the same as the standards we expect from anyone else. If mods are going to preach it they should certainly practice it, but I think we can divorce what *counts* as good practice from the *consequences* of not conforming to it. As an analogy, everyone in the UK who owns a television is required to have a TV licence. If you’re found without one, you get fined – no matter who you are. But if you’re an employee of the BBC, you risk losing your job as well. BBC employees don’t have to do anything everyone else doesn’t, but the consequences of failing to comply are slightly different. I think of mods as being in a similar position.

I, for one, firmly agree with Sylph that we need more new mods. And I think there might be better, more democratic ways of appointing them. A discussion about this has already begun here, and dedicated thread is due. Thinking caps on, I say.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
13:59 / 09.08.05
Cheers, Smoothly... nice analogy. That's exactly what I was getting at.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
10:13 / 10.08.05
I'm not sure when the role of a moderator moved from being janitorial to being one of the special people, was it when we started worrying during the lockdown that discussions were being to peter out, especially in the Head Shop?

To me a moderator is someone who makes sure the traffic is running smoothly, it's not beholden on them to lead the convoy. If they want to talk about something then, of course, that's fine, but they are doing that because they are a member, not a moderator.
 
 
rising and revolving
10:50 / 10.08.05
I think the fact that no-one actually knows what the responsibilities of a mod are (not even the mods) is a wee bit of a problem, myself.

Everyone has their own idea of what a mod should be, but they're all different. No wonder there's occasional friction.
 
 
sleazenation
11:24 / 10.08.05
I think that the problem isn't that 'no-one actually knows what the responsibilities of a mod' since it is a subject that is broached on the wikipedia, particularly on the section devoted to explaining Distributed Moderation. I am far more concerned that there appears to be some posters who appear to be unaware of how our system actually works...
 
  
Add Your Reply