Hi Luke

Just my 2c on a couple of things.

Luke Stevens - 05 June 2008 05:12 PM

Remove the label, remove the (mis)perception, problem solved.

I don’t think this is a good idea - nor do I think it will solve the problem.  I don’t think it’s a good idea, because I think people need to see who the moderators are - especially when they are commenting.  I don’t think it will work, because then there’s the accusation of a secret group of people moderating, with little or no accountability.  I know that won’t be the case - but I’m sure some malcontents will make the accusation.

Luke Stevens - 05 June 2008 05:12 PM

- Finally, as I’ve argued before, aggressive, view-driven moderation was tried by one moderator at one time (unbeknownst to staff initially). It caused so many problems for users and staff it was stamped out pretty quickly.

I think everyone agrees that aggressive, view-driven moderation is a bad thing, and no one is accusing anyone of that (as far as I am aware).  It’s moderators making aggressive, view-driven posts that people have raised issues with.

Mike

Jeremy, sure I can understand things have been hectic behind the scenes, but as far as I can tell that’s not moderation per se in the sense that it is being discussed here, ie editing/moving/deleting topics, unless there’s been a lot going on in the hot topics & mission forum! :)

I can only speak of my experience in General Discussion of late, which amounts pretty much to moving a couple of threads and closing one (which was pretty much par for the course when I moderated the entire forums too), so I think it’s important to keep in mind what is actually involved in day to day (or week to week) moderation for the volunteer mods at least.

That said I really appreciate your’s and Mark’s hours of behind the scenes work too!

--

As for the red moderator tag, it is also worth keeping in mind that this is a recent addition to the forums that came about because it’s a default in the newer software, not because of any particular need or desire.

And (having been here from the start as a mod) the confusion around moderators and their role as moderators v members has only occurred really since it’s introduction, there’s no reason why it should be set in stone.

I think that’s largely cause & effect, so to deal with the effect (confusion about their role), remove the cause (introduction of the label which is a software default in the new software). Easy.

For accountability moderators should generally announce their actions in a particular post/thread anyway, as otherwise, label or not, no-one would know why a post or thread was edited/deleted or moved or closed, or which mod did it, so I don’t think it’s an issue of accountability.

I’m also not suggesting mods be unidentifiable - they’re clearly listed on the forums home page under each forum.

The confusion occurs when 99% of someone’s contributions as a member are labeled as a ‘moderator’, when only 1% of their actions are actually moderator related.

To me it doesn’t make sense for those 99% of posts to carry the moderator label (and evidently causes confusion), so I still recommend removing the label, have mods announce their actions (which is the case anyway), and having mods listed on the forums home page, which is how it worked for 4+ years before. Makes sense to me.

---

@ Mike

I think everyone agrees that aggressive, view-driven moderation is a bad thing, and no one is accusing anyone of that (as far as I am aware).

I wouldn’t be so sure everyone agrees that it is a bad thing (though I agree it is, given previous problems), that is part of the issue :)

Luke Stevens - 06 June 2008 01:55 PM

@ Mike

I think everyone agrees that aggressive, view-driven moderation is a bad thing, and no one is accusing anyone of that (as far as I am aware).

I wouldn’t be so sure everyone agrees that it is a bad thing (though I agree it is, given previous problems), that is part of the issue :)

However, I agree that it’s a bad thing, so I’ll add my vote to this just so it’s clear it’s not something I advocate.

Luke Stevens - 06 June 2008 01:55 PM

To me it doesn’t make sense for those 99% of posts to carry the moderator label (and evidently causes confusion), so I still recommend removing the label, have mods announce their actions (which is the case anyway), and having mods listed on the forums home page, which is how it worked for 4+ years before.

Luke, I’m afraid I disagree with your suggestion to remove/hide the moderator’s label. Firstly, it’s common practice in most/ almost all forums for moderators to be identified whenever they post. I think there are good reasons for this:
1. people generally expect and appreciate knowing who the moderators are so they know who to contact if/when needed;
2. hopefully, they model good posting behaviour;
3. normal contributors are reassured that forums are being watched by moderators and can gauge what’s acceptable posting behaviour by what moderators have evidently tolerated from posts preceding their own*;
4. readers will assume that they have a reasonable understanding of normative diocesan positions on important / sensitive topics and be able to outline them (though not necessarily endorse them) when that is deemed helpful.

*I’ll admit that sometimes I think the moderators are considerably more tolerant than I’d be, but perhaps that’s a good thing because over moderation can be just as unhelpful as too little.

Angus, sure, I have no problem with it in and of itself, only insofar as it causes confusion for others. That confusion seemed to be around the idea that all posts from a moderator should conform to/represent the diocese’s views, which I don’t think is possible, practical, appropriate or necessary.

So, to avoid confusion, my suggestion was simply to remove the label, given it is not applicable 99% of the time anyway. For instance, in this thread you have various people who are moderators in some capacity (Gordon, Jeremy, myself etc) discussing various issues as members and moderators, but there’s no labels and no assumption (or risk of assumption) that the volunteers mods here for eg are representing the diocese in this thread. AMS editorial staff are a bit different, but by and large no labels = no confusion. If there as no confusion to begin with though, then I’d have no problem with the labels :)

...and on another random point on moderators not enforcing or representing any particular view in their capacity as a moderator, I don’t think it is in the diocese’s interest for that to be either the reality or perception, and I’ll explain why with an example…

Recently I closed the ‘Happy Birthday Israel’ thread because it had become way overheated, with people concerned they were being defamed etc (always a good hint a discussion has run its course!). After doing so, I was accused by a couple of people of anti-Israel bias, which is fine, people can accuse me of all the biases in the world, I don’t mind :) However, if, as a moderator, I was seen to be acting as a representative of the diocese’s views, then I suddenly open up the diocese to accusations of anti-Israel bias and so on, which is obviously, as we say, unhelpful :)

Therefore it seems much, much more sensible to have moderating seen (in perception and reality) as not representing any particular views, but just independently acting to uphold behavioural standards, and that’s it. That way moderators are free to make judgment calls about a given post or thread without being concerned about anything other than the behaviour/topic at hand, which is how it is and how it should be imo.

Luke Stevens - 06 June 2008 05:53 PM

That confusion seemed to be around the idea that all posts from a moderator should conform to/represent the diocese’s views, which I don’t think is possible, practical, appropriate or necessary.

No, I’m not suggesting that moderators should “conform” to the diocese’s views, at least not rigidly. However, presumably they would have a Creedal conforming faith, accept the Bible as authoritative and would be broadly in tune with the Diocese’s mission which I would paraphrase as supporting churches which model (however imperfectly) Jesus’ commission to love and serve each other in community and bringing the good news of Jesus to as many as they can in the Sydney region.

What I am suggesting is that moderators could be more effective if they acted more as neutral umpires (focusing primarily on keeping the tone of discussions healthy) and as facilitators (eg pointing to past threads on similar topics) and relinquished their prerogative to express their own opinions. Perhaps this is more necessary now than it was in the past. Anyhow, I appreciate that you see this as an unnecessary restriction or self-discipline.

Luke Stevens - 06 June 2008 01:55 PM

To me it doesn’t make sense for those 99% of posts to carry the moderator label (and evidently causes confusion), so I still recommend removing the label, have mods announce their actions (which is the case anyway), and having mods listed on the forums home page, which is how it worked for 4+ years before. Makes sense to me.

Another thought about the ‘moderator’ tag.

Is it technically possible for the ‘moderator’ tag for a particular post to only show if that moderator is indeed a moderator of that particular area of these forums?

Correct me if I’m wrong but most moderators want to be free to enter into passionate discussion on posts that are not in their area of responsibility ie they want to be treated like any other poster for such posts. So why should the ‘moderator’ tag appear in such cases? - to me it seems unnecessary and confusing.  When the ‘moderator’ tag appears it seems to treat that person differently even if they don’t want to be treated so.

Has anyone thought maybe having people as moderators for like a year and then give them a year off? or maybe 2 years and then a year off? It might be better than having a moderator appointed for life and also means that if a moderator is in too much hot water the forum can have a break from their idiosyncrasies of moderation. Alternatively there might be new moderator people to try. Possibly also stops people getting long-term frustrated with a particular moderator and allows the moderator to just post. It’s late! I haven’t thought this through but I’ll post it in case it helps somehow.

G’day,

Derek said:

Is it technically possible for the ‘moderator’ tag for a particular post to only show if that moderator is indeed a moderator of that particular area of these forums?

This is the case now. The red moderator tag doesn’t appear next to my name in this thread. It only appears in posts I make in the Understanding the Bible section of which I’m the moderator.

Yours in Christ,
Mark

Mark Tough - 08 June 2008 11:41 AM

G’day,

Derek said:

Is it technically possible for the ‘moderator’ tag for a particular post to only show if that moderator is indeed a moderator of that particular area of these forums?

This is the case now. The red moderator tag doesn’t appear next to my name in this thread. It only appears in posts I make in the Understanding the Bible section of which I’m the moderator.

Yours in Christ,
Mark

Hi Mark
Ok.

I should have checked eh before posting. :)

rgds

Just coming back to Dannii’s suggestion that the moderators of forums ought to fulfil the criteria of 1 Tim 3:8-13.

How would you actually do this?

I am assuming that you want to go outside the internet to establish that someone demonstrates these qualities, without ignoring the evidence that the forums themselves present regarding the character of those contributing.

Bumping the thread so as not to lose sight of the question. Newcomers and lurkers may have suggestions to add as well.

Just wanting to say that I think Mark’s work, as recorded here, is an example of what I think good thread moderation could look like.

It managed to reduce offence without completely removing sarcasm, which is amazing.

Anyway, can I just keep asking general thread readers to think about this:

Just coming back to Dannii’s suggestion that the moderators of forums ought to fulfil the criteria of 1 Tim 3:8-13.

How would you actually do this?

One thought that occurs is that there would be greater consistency of approach if the paid staff of AMS took on the role of moderation.

[edit to clarify: I mean, without the assistance of volunteer moderators]

This would certainly assist with assessment of the 1 Tim 3:8-13 criteria, assuming that this was the direction in which AMS wanted to go.

Speaking as a volunteer moderator I think I’ve performed absolutely brilliantly

;-) x lots

but there would be all sorts of benefit, especially at the level of communication, if AMS clearly ‘owned’ the forums in this way.

Anyway, I note various comments from Mark H that a review is under way, and thought this idea could be thrown into the mix.