How Can Moderation be Made Better?

[Cairnsman]

Guys I've been thinking about moderation lately and how it could be made better anyway. I had this idea that I thought I would share to see what others think.

Anyway I think I've stated this before but just just for the record I'm all for moderation, the place can't survive without suitable moderation. As such it got me thinking recently about how can you improve moderation and so I started to do a bit of research on the topic and surprise, surprise, we aren't the only ones that have our problems. The old aged perpetual problem sort of reminds me a little of AFL umpiring where the game can't do without it and that there will always be mistakes made, and just like AFL umpiring you will always need to be continually reviewing the rules to see if improvements can be made. The other aspect to it I suppose is moderators should also be be providing with coaching and training.

Anyway my idea is about having moderators that work behind anonymous aliases such as Moderator No. 1, Moderator No. 2, Moderator No. 3 and so on and they would all report to someone on the admin team that is responsible for the moderators, or if you like the "head" of moderators. This system could allow moderators to keep their main identity and participate in the SS community without fear of being abused, bullied or just being subjected to any prejudice that takes away from their freedom and enjoyment of participating and contributing to SS.

A system for complaints and right of appeals could be set up and these could be made in an open sticky thread for open hearings and adjudications for transparency reasons.

The main objective of the idea was to provide a system that encourages people to put up their hand to moderate yet also allows them to enjoy participating in SS unshackled from all of the burdens that come with being a moderator.

Anyway as I said, I'd be interested to see what others think. Would you be a moderator if you could avoid some of the current negative aspects?

[GrumpyOne]

Anyway my idea is about having moderators that work behind anonymous aliases such as Moderator No. 1, Moderator No. 2, Moderator No. 3 and so on and they would all report to someone on the admin team that is responsible for the moderators, or if you like the "head" of moderators. This system could allow moderators to keep their main identity and participate in the SS community without fear of being abused, bullied or just being subjected to any prejudice that takes away from their freedom and enjoyment of participating and contributing to SS.

This idea was raised a while ago. It was a good idea then and it still is now. Unfortunately like many good ideas raised on this forum it was briefly discussed, widely agreed to, and then ignored.

Nobody cares.

[Cairnsman]

Anyway my idea is about having moderators that work behind anonymous aliases such as Moderator No. 1, Moderator No. 2, Moderator No. 3 and so on and they would all report to someone on the admin team that is responsible for the moderators, or if you like the "head" of moderators. This system could allow moderators to keep their main identity and participate in the SS community without fear of being abused, bullied or just being subjected to any prejudice that takes away from their freedom and enjoyment of participating and contributing to SS.

This idea was raised a while ago. It was a good idea then and it still is now. Unfortunately like many good ideas raised on this forum it was briefly discussed, widely agreed to, and then ignored.

Nobody cares.

Let's get BFUSA to comment on his thoughts now that he is interim caretaker/admin and then maybe survey widely.

[Buckets]

There are a number of questions that need to be addressed in terms of Moderation.

1. What type of Moderation is needed? Straight down the line no areas of grey? Or someone who has the ability to use discretion?
2. What rules are needed for Moderators, is there a secondary list of guidelines that they need to operate by?
3. Who else wants to Moderate?
4. In terms of those that receive punishment for not abiding by the Forum Guidelines, should this be kept private or made public? E.g The Card system that operates on BF
5. Are there any guidelines for those who abuse Moderators? And how should this be dealt? Should these reasons be publicly made in a Sticky?

IMO, though the thought of anonymous mods has a certain value, shouldn't the ultimate goal be that no moderator should be subject to abuse? And secondly if that moderator is subject to abuse that infringes the set guidelines of the forum then action surely has to be taken?
Moderators are volunteering their time to help out and make sure that the forum doesn't spiral out of control. Just because this is a forum that allows people to join in discussion, it does not give any right to any person to 'hide' behind the keyboard and abuse belittle and ostracize people just because they 'help' out.

[SainterK]

We behave better?

[BackFromUSA]

I worry about faceless moderators.

It means that individual moderators are even less accountable for their actions OR will be perceived to be ...

And many will moan and complain that they have been warned yet have no real right of reply or genuine appeals avenues.

The other thing that worries me in this time poor world is the amount of time / effort involved to coordinate.

I think moderation is pretty simple.

1) Rules exist and for all to see and live by

2) Breach of rule = warning

3) 3 breaches in time period = ban

etc

Simple.

The onus is on the POSTER to not breach rules.

The responsibility is on the MODERATOR to warn if there is a breach.

The poster should not then blame / abuse the moderator for doing their voluntary duty IMHO.

However having said that ... there are differing definitions of what things like baiting / trolling / abuse are and there are some grey areas when it comes to sexism, pornography etc ... so perhaps our efforts need to go into more clearly defining these things and fine tuning the rules a little more ...

Back to point - faceless moderators really worry me.

We need moderators that simply apply the rules ... and can stand or ignore the abuse.

[8856brother]

I worry about faceless moderators.

It means that individual moderators are even less accountable for their actions OR will be perceived to be ...

And many will moan and complain that they have been warned yet have no real right of reply or genuine appeals avenues.

The other thing that worries me in this time poor world is the amount of time / effort involved to coordinate.

I think moderation is pretty simple.

1) Rules exist and for all to see and live by

2) Breach of rule = warning

3) 3 breaches in time period = ban

etc

Simple.

The onus is on the POSTER to not breach rules.

The responsibility is on the MODERATOR to warn if there is a breach.

The poster should not then blame / abuse the moderator for doing their voluntary duty IMHO.

However having said that ... there are differing definitions of what things like baiting / trolling / abuse are and there are some grey areas when it comes to sexism, pornography etc ... so perhaps our efforts need to go into more clearly defining these things and fine tuning the rules a little more ...

Back to point - faceless moderators really worry me.

We need moderators that simply apply the rules ... and can stand or ignore the abuse.

I hope the moderation will be better than it was when I first joined. I was a long time reader but not a member. When we all got locked out I had to join. After 20 odd posts I couldn't log back in. After a week or so, I rejoined under a different nic to try and find out what was going on. After getting no response from admin I pm'd Bratty who chased up Battye for me.

The reason I was banned was because I lived in Geelong and therefore was a troll. No warning, no explanation. Just pack your bags and be on your way son.

Fantastic way to start my relationship with SS. To be fair things have improved recently.

[Cairnsman]

I worry about faceless moderators.

It means that individual moderators are even less accountable for their actions OR will be perceived to be ...

And many will moan and complain that they have been warned yet have no real right of reply or genuine appeals avenues.

The other thing that worries me in this time poor world is the amount of time / effort involved to coordinate.

I think moderation is pretty simple.

1) Rules exist and for all to see and live by

2) Breach of rule = warning

3) 3 breaches in time period = ban

etc

Simple.

The onus is on the POSTER to not breach rules.

The responsibility is on the MODERATOR to warn if there is a breach.

The poster should not then blame / abuse the moderator for doing their voluntary duty IMHO.

However having said that ... there are differing definitions of what things like baiting / trolling / abuse are and there are some grey areas when it comes to sexism, pornography etc ... so perhaps our efforts need to go into more clearly defining these things and fine tuning the rules a little more ...

Back to point - faceless moderators really worry me.

We need moderators that simply apply the rules ... and can stand or ignore the abuse.

How can a faceless moderator be any less acountable than the faceless moderators currently serving the site. With all due respect that argument doesn't appear to have any logic. We are all faceless and so how would that differ from giving one faceless poster another faceless identity to be used for moderation.

If the plan to increase poster numbers is successful we are then going to need more moderation and a system that attracts people to want to moderate so in lieu of any other options I think we should explore the option in more detail. It would seem there are a few that think the the same. Can anyone think of any significant reason the idea wouldn't work?

[saintspremiers]

Brother - I love a ban being made on members based on where they live.

I'd use the good old fashioned Melways maps as my guide, and only allow those who live in Map 67 and 68 to post!

[SENsei]

I have often advocated that faceless, even robotic, moderation is the best course of action. No room for individual personality conflicts. No room for bias.

Broke a rule....Moderation 1 quotes the rule broken, states the 'edit' or other action and offending poster takes there medicine and moves on.

[Dis Believer]

I advocate the use of electric cattle prods..............

[Dave McNamara]

The reason I was banned was because I lived in Geelong and therefore was a troll. No warning, no explanation. Just pack your bags and be on your way son.

Hi Bro, I hear your pain.

However, the removal of that geographically-based policy has since created ongoing problems for this forum... for example, I live in Collingwood... and so does our beloved Syrian correspondent...

[stinger]

leave well enough alone for pity's sake....