MacNN Forums (http://forums.macnn.com/)
-   Feedback (http://forums.macnn.com/feedback/)
-   -   Moderator Empowerment (http://forums.macnn.com/61/feedback/500000/moderator-empowerment/)

 
subego Apr 23, 2013 03:44 PM
Moderator Empowerment
I've tossed this out before, but it was long enough ago I think it's worth revisiting.

I've always tried to move for more transparency* between the moderators and the users. One of the reasons I believe this has encountered resistance is, very simply, users can be tenacious pricks, and the mods don't want to open themselves up to it.

I trust the group here. Let's not even discuss the transparency part. If I'm right, that will start to happen naturally. Let's focus on the prick part.

What I propose is a set of rules which accomplish the following:

If, during a discussion of a moderator call, a user shows even slight disrespect, they will get sanctioned. Period.

This places an onus on users to take the time to calm down and communicate clearly. I think the moderators here deserve that. Even people who have a beef with one or two moderators I'd bet think all the others deserve that.

I've seen some successful implementations of this, so I can give you a nuts and bolts setup of what those rules should actually be. I let everyone shoot the idea down first before I start boring everybody.

More.


*There isn't anything opaque that's happened recently prompting this BTW.
 
subego Apr 24, 2013 01:59 PM
 
andi*pandi Apr 24, 2013 02:05 PM
The idea has merit, and may put a stop to the quite nasty emails some mods get after doing their jobs.

The downside, is that users may think we are gone power mad.
 
The Final Dakar Apr 24, 2013 02:10 PM
The alternative is you could start a tumblr and posts the emails anonymously.
 
subego Apr 24, 2013 02:16 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by andi*pandi (Post 4227579)
The idea has merit, and may put a stop to the quite nasty emails some mods get after doing their jobs.

The downside, is that users may think we are gone power mad.
Anyone who sends you a nasty PM already thinks that, I'd reckon.
 
subego Apr 24, 2013 02:20 PM
Also, if someone sends Andi or Glenn a nasty PM, they can get sanctioned and we'll go beat them up.
 
Mike Wuerthele Apr 24, 2013 03:08 PM
Speaking as a lowly writer, I'm good with this. The first-poster I changed the ALL CAPS on ANALyst got really pissy with me.
 
subego Apr 24, 2013 03:45 PM
Once I was asked to tidy up my language. I kind of like to push it, and crossed the line on one.

After dealing with it, I got a thank you PM.

Maybe I was reading too much into it, but I really felt the implication a user just following an order with no backtalk was something of an unusual situation.
 
Thorzdad Apr 25, 2013 08:49 AM
You'd be amazed.
 
The Final Dakar Apr 25, 2013 09:01 AM
I like to enlighten every moderator as to the marital status of his parents at birth after every infraction.
 
Thorzdad Apr 25, 2013 09:28 AM
Parents? You are obviously unaware of the Nucleic-Enzyme Vat Process for Moderator creation.
 
subego Apr 25, 2013 02:05 PM
I did your vat last night.
 
andi*pandi Apr 25, 2013 02:13 PM
infracted: personal attack.
 
imitchellg5 Apr 25, 2013 07:20 PM
I understand what you're saying, subego, but really, I think things work just fine around here. I think your suggestion has merit, but the people who cause trouble here will only see the results as moderators lording over poor helpless users.
 
ebuddy Apr 26, 2013 07:11 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by The Final Dakar (Post 4227710)
I like to enlighten every moderator as to the marital status of his parents at birth after every infraction.
:lol:
 
ebuddy Apr 26, 2013 07:16 AM
This sounds like a solution looking for a problem to me. If there are abusive PMs or the like (unless they reach a tone that would be cause for turning them over to legal authority), it's a matter of simply deleting them and/or not responding to them.

Otherwise, I don't think mods are obligated to explain the reasons for infractions and users are not obligated to appreciate them.
 
subego Apr 26, 2013 01:37 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by ebuddy (Post 4227871)
This sounds like a solution looking for a problem to me. If there are abusive PMs or the like (unless they reach a tone that would be cause for turning them over to legal authority), it's a matter of simply deleting them and/or not responding to them.
By this logic we should toss out all rules against personal attacks, unless they reach a tone which would be cause for turning then over to a legal authority.

Or do I misunderstand you?
 
ebuddy Apr 26, 2013 06:13 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by subego (Post 4227911)
By this logic we should toss out all rules against personal attacks, unless they reach a tone which would be cause for turning then over to a legal authority.

Or do I misunderstand you?
I'm saying simply that I don't see the mods lacking in empowerment such that some additional action is necessary.
 
subego Apr 27, 2013 11:06 AM
When you say "see", do you mean that literally?

I ask because don't you spend most of your time in the PWL? That's pretty hands-off in there. What exercise of power are you seeing exactly?
 
OreoCookie Apr 28, 2013 01:40 AM
I don't want to be the type of mod who infracts people for disagreeing with him in a heated debate. I think we've shown a reasonable degree of freedom in the past, explaining our actions when needed and accepting that some people will still disagree with our decision.
 
subego Apr 28, 2013 02:52 AM
Well, isn't it poor form in general for a mod to mod their own discussion?

Likewise, there's a spread of options before infraction. Warning, threadban, etc.

If someone busts through both those backstops, sounds like they need an infraction.
 
subego Apr 28, 2013 05:15 AM
Just want to throw out there, I've taken a shot at a mod during one of those heated discussions.

The result was the mod bailed from the thread. That helped no one. I would have much rather gotten dinged for that.
 
OreoCookie Apr 28, 2013 06:09 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by subego (Post 4228099)
Well, isn't it poor form in general for a mod to mod their own discussion?
That depends on the situation, but in almost all situations I've seen, my colleagues and I are able to keep these two things separate. We mostly try to avoid it because it may look like a staffer is abusing his power even though that is not what has happened.
Quote, Originally Posted by subego (Post 4228099)
Likewise, there's a spread of options before infraction. Warning, threadban, etc.
Most members don't even understand the purpose/concept of warnings (among other things to show to fellow mods that something has been taken care of), so I don't think introducing more elements to the discussion is going to help transparency. Besides, only a small group of people has received infractions/warnings.
 
subego Apr 28, 2013 01:46 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by OreoCookie (Post 4228106)
Most members don't even understand the purpose/concept of warnings (among other things to show to fellow mods that something has been taken care of), so I don't think introducing more elements to the discussion is going to help transparency. Besides, only a small group of people has received infractions/warnings.
You completely lost me here.

Adding more elements to the discussion is precisely what transparency is about, no?
 
subego Apr 28, 2013 02:25 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by OreoCookie (Post 4228106)
That depends on the situation, but in almost all situations I've seen, my colleagues and I are able to keep these two things separate. We mostly try to avoid it because it may look like a staffer is abusing his power even though that is not what has happened.
Well, that's why I used the phrase "poor form". I trust you too, but it looks bad, so you don't do it.

Part of the reason I trust you is because you see maintaining such formalities have value.
 
OreoCookie Apr 28, 2013 09:10 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by subego (Post 4228145)
You completely lost me here.

Adding more elements to the discussion is precisely what transparency is about, no?
Simplicity of a system can aid its transparency. Plus, we only need to actively mod a very small group of people (who admittedly post a lot), so I don't think we need the additional complexity. And it won't help when people actually disagree with your decision to infract/reprimand them (any sort of reasoning usually doesn't help).
 
subego Apr 29, 2013 02:21 PM
I'm still lost here.

I'm proposing a means by which moderators catch less shit in the execution of their duties. Most of what you're discussing seems to be going beyond that.

The issue you brought up with this is the unseemliness of dinging people you're in a discussion with. We both agree this is bad. Is there another issue you have with the general idea of "thou shalt not diss a mod when discussing a mod call"?
 
reader50 Apr 29, 2013 05:48 PM
subego has been arguing with Mods a lot in this thread. The new rules should apply here first, and enough is enough.

Checkout time.
 
subego Apr 30, 2013 04:26 AM
Have I been threadbanned?
 
reader50 Apr 30, 2013 04:32 AM
vB3 doesn't have threadbans. :)

tolerance is a virtue. the proposed rule ... is not very virtuous.
 
subego Apr 30, 2013 05:00 AM
You can call such things into being by sheer force of will.
 
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:55 PM.

Copyright © 2005-2007 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.


Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2