BARBELITH underground
 

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


New Moderator Requests

 
  

Page: 1(2)

 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
21:48 / 15.09.07
I think that the more power that Moderators have, the more important it is to get more Moderators, to distribute decisions across a larger portion of the board's population.

I'm not sure that's exactly right, Iconoplast. Take banning. Two people voting against a ban cancels it. As an example, we currently have two people as moderators who spoke out against the banning of somebody who was treating the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as a historical document outlining the plans of the Jews, and would now be able to act to prevent the banning of such a person. This decision would not be distributed across a larger portion of the board's population - it would simply make the power of the decision available to two people drawn from a larger pool of people - potentially, it would _frustrate_ the broader will of the members of Barbelith.

Lots of moderators, paradoxically, make Barbelith less able to meet the desires and needs of its members, if those moderators are not sensitive the the needs of maintaining Barbelith's status and values, such as they are. It's tricky. Back in the day, myself and a few other members were able to vote on any moderation action in any forum as administrators. After the administrator function was disabled, we remained as moderators with responsibility for all fora, until we agreed that this was too much responsibility for one member to have and were de-modded according to taste. Suddenly, we are in a position where any moderator has the power to contribute to the execution or prevention of a ban of another user. This is heady stuff, but I think we could do with thinking a bit about what it means procedurally.
 
 
Hallo, Paper Spaceboy
23:12 / 15.09.07
As an example, we currently have two people as moderators who spoke out against the banning of somebody who was treating the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as a historical document outlining the plans of the Jews, and would now be able to act to prevent the banning of such a person.

Out of curiosity, in that case, how quickly afterward can another banning request be put through? Is there a time limit? I suppose in the case of a dissent over something like that, we can make a banning thread to discuss and then attempt the action again.

More on topic, I'm willing to pick up mod duties for a few more fora if necessary, though it would be appear to be less necessary with the quick-edit option being a new hip thing.
 
 
Spatula Clarke
00:33 / 16.09.07
LC> I strongly believe - always have - that moderators should be prepared to make the effort to keep their forum active by initiating or contributing to discussions therein. It's not just a caretaker role. The list of mods in G&G, in particular, was decided upon under the understanding that the people on it would help steer the new forum in a decent direction. That was stated as being one of the main requirements when it was set up.

This isn't a problem limited to G&G. Part of the reason why Music went through a prolonged period of near-death was because its moderators suddenly stopped posting, and the same probably applies to AF&D. It's no wonder that G&G has been sinking, when those who are seen as being responsible for it don't bother - if mods can't find the time to do anything more than click a couple of links whenever they visit, why should anybody else?
 
 
Disco is My Class War
01:06 / 16.09.07
If, and only if, there are too few moderators in the Head Shop once those who aren't around anymore have been culled, I'm willing to give it a go (again). I'm about to start posting on here again properly, and I intend to be proactive about starting threads.

Member 202, by the way.
 
 
grant
01:57 / 16.09.07
Is anyone stepping forward for Music?
 
 
iconoplast
02:05 / 16.09.07
Is anyone stepping forward for Music?

Aye.
Two people voting against a ban cancels it.
Oh.

Well, um. That certainly changes things. So... I'm not so sure about my 'More Moderation = Always Better' idea, given the way voting works. Still, though, I realize I feel a lot of responsibility towards this place, and I'd like to step up to Moderate, at least for a while.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
09:26 / 16.09.07
Out of curiosity, in that case, how quickly afterward can another banning request be put through?

Ah - that's a good question. How do we deal with the aftermath of an unsuccessful baning thread? Would it be fair to keep submitting banning requests untiil one got lucky, or until the behaviour of the person who was constantly being put forward for banning changed their behaviour to the point either where the person who is being proposed for banning is no longer being proposed for banning, or where the people who are vetoing that banning decide to stop vetoing the banning.

My instinct is that an unsuccessful attempt to ban somebody should probably mean no more attempts to ban that person, at least until or unless they do something else banworthy, and occasion the starting or revival of a banning thread. This leads to plenty of problems of its own, however - especially if a small number of moderators disagree strongly on what constitutes banworthy behaviour. The model one suspects might happen is something like:

Short bannign thread - move to ban - ban vetoed - banning thread revived - move to ban - ban vetoed - eventually admins ask who actually does or does not want user banned - banning thread becomes conventional banning thread - user banned by admin.

This provides a lot of checks and balances, but will take a very long time...
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
14:26 / 17.09.07
we've got at least two named moderators so far who opposed the banning of the Fetch, for example - Protocols of the Elders of Zion and all.

Went back over the relevant threads to see who you might mean there. Eeeeesh. Rather wish I hadn't.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
15:05 / 17.09.07
Part of the reason why Music went through a prolonged period of near-death was because its moderators suddenly stopped posting, and the same probably applies to AF&D.

That's partly true but really AF&D is such a hugely difficult forum to maintain, people who go to galleries, engage with art and design and wear clothes everyday still don't post there. If someone asked me which of the fora should be shut first I'd have to say AF&D even though I was a moderator and have loved it so.
 
 
Princess
15:56 / 17.09.07
Holy shit.
What an awful pile of shit that is.

(The Fetch thread, I mean, not anything someone has said here?
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
16:17 / 17.09.07
Went back over the relevant threads to see who you might mean there. Eeeeesh. Rather wish I hadn't.

Oh dear. That'd be me and you, wouldn't it?

I'm not sure if I argued against his banning, specifically, though, as opposed to anyone else's. In fact, I say early in that thread how objectionable I found him. Personally, back then I wasn't in favour of banning in general, but it wasn't part of mod duties anyway, so wasn't any more relevant than anyone else's opinion who wasn't a mod. These days I find myself far more on the "kick 'em" side of things. I used to think it was worth expending energy on these fucks, in the vain hope we could make gold from shit, but I no longer believe that.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
16:34 / 17.09.07
Yeah. Would ban in a New York second nowadays. Nasty piece of work, that one.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
19:50 / 17.09.07
It's Life Critic and ---, then toksik and - god, what was it, eon then? Cosmic Fireman? - who were the staunchest defenders, although toksik at the time was so khaotic as to be slightly kryptic. Anyway, those are the two main people I was thinking of when I said elsewhere that some of the existing moderators being involved in banning actions was a cause for concern, but that's a discussion best carried out in that thread.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
20:44 / 17.09.07
I was thinking of charrelz, myself. Hmmm. Actually, cusm also - that's four people who are currently moderators, although one appears to have locked himself out of his suit. Not that what happened three years ago is necessarily a proof of current attitude, of course, and not that any of those involved should feel bad about their involvement, but my point is that if half that number of moderators decide that somebody should not be banned, no matter how awful their actions, then the only recourse, really, is to call for Tom and hope he turns up in reasonably good time.

So, yes. I'm not at all sure the system apparently now in place is going to work with the moderators we have if subjected to serious strain, and I'd like to work that out before we start adding factors.
 
 
MattShepherd: I WEDDED KALI!
23:42 / 25.09.07
Curious, esp. given the problems with the eight-mod ban limit mentioned in the Darkmatter thread: why are moderators given powers per-forum and not boardwide?

It seems odd to me that I'm "allowed" to moderate Comics but not Art, Fashion & Design; one would hope that if I'm trusted to have enough maturity and insight to moderate one forum, I could be trusted to moderate 'em all, or at least know (in forums like the Temple) when I'm out of my depth and shouldn't put on the mod hat.

Ideally, moderators should also act as, well, moderators in the classic sense, and help guide and direct conversation, but given that mod duties extend usually to approving post changes and now perhaps sometimes voting on a ban, it seems like the same set of tools that make somebody a good moderator in one forum would make that person a good moderator overall.
 
 
HCE
05:39 / 26.09.07
I'm trusted to have enough maturity and insight to moderate one forum

Odd, Haus describes the process elsewhere in quite different terms (ability to locate user number rather than demonstrating maturity and insight). Out of curiosity, what did you have to do to become a mod, other than volunteer for it and not be a known troll?
 
 
Olulabelle
07:42 / 26.09.07
I offered to be a moderator because I had a commitment to the board and I wanted to demonstrate that. I'd like to think that's most people's motivation, as opposed to a crazed thirst for nominal power.

However, I don't think you have to actually do anything other than possibly demonstrate you are capable of following enough of the conversation to realise that a request for moderators has been made.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
07:50 / 26.09.07
I don't think many people ask to become moderators because they want power, but a few requests have been framed in such a way as to suggest they were motivated by a desire for validation.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
08:25 / 26.09.07
The way moderator levies work, roughly - the first lot of moderators were put together from people Tom knew personally, or knew of personally and could have recommended by people he knew personally. This led to one or two anomalies, but roughly worked out pretty well. However, it also concentrated power in relatively few hands, and those hands largely hands of people who knew each other.

The next moderator levy was 2004 - I have a feeling this may have been related to the decommissioning of the admin suits, and some departures. At that point the requirements for the available moderators were set out fairly clearly, and not every applicant was made a moderator (or possibly those that did were demodded afterwards - I believe that was the case with Ariadne, and maybe some others).

2005 - creation of Games and Gameplay. This was a bold experiment, arguably, where everybody who threw their hat into the ring was made a moderator. I was in fact mistaken; they didn't even need to know their user number. Among the effects of this has been the undermining of the nostrum that being a moderator is proof of one's fitness to be a moderator, and makes problematic the idea of extending powers such as banning to _all_ moderators. By happy chance, most of the more awkward moderators in G&G have left Barbelith, but still have suits and possibly/probably means of accessing them.

Once somebody has become a mod, it's _extremely difficult_ to demod them - technically, it's easy enough, although only Tom can do it, but the social pressure against identifying somebody and appearing to exclude them pushes strongly against it. As far as I know, there have only been two removals of moderator status not requessted by the moderator hirself.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
08:38 / 26.09.07
Has anyone told Tom that we need more moderators in order to achieve banning functionality?
 
 
grant
16:09 / 26.09.07
there have only been two removals of moderator status not requessted by the moderator hirself.

I know I asked Tom to demod a Lab mod when trying to get a functional group in there a few months ago. Don't know if this is one of the two you're thinking of - it was cusm, done with his awareness/consent.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
16:22 / 26.09.07
Forgive me - I meant "without their consent" rather than "without their specific request", and the revocation of moderator status entirely, rather than a reduction in their moderation load.
 
 
Seth
16:27 / 26.09.07
User 194 (me innit) would like to moderate forum 11 (Film, Tv & Theatre) in addition to the Music (12) and Temple (6) forums that he already moderates.
 
 
Spatula Clarke
16:30 / 26.09.07
We did have a cull, too, when moderators who hadn't voted on any actions for a certain period of time were wiped from the books. Dig around the lower reaches of P&H to see Rage moaning about it.

The weird thing about Tom not wanting to concentrate emergency banning powers in a few Admin positions? That when we first had moderators, they had ultimate power over content - as one of two Music mods (the other being Riz), I could edit or delete posts or threads as and when I wanted, without seeking approval from anybody else on the board or even letting my co-moderator know about it. There wasn't a single moment when this power was abused.
 
 
Saturn's nod
09:36 / 27.09.07
I've not been around much for the past few months but I'm interested now changes are afoot:

user 5460

currently moderating 8
willing to start moderating some/all of
2 4 5 6 7
if it's useful.
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
11:10 / 27.09.07
User: 1124

Start moderating: 6
 
  

Page: 1(2)

 
  
Add Your Reply