moderators role - moderation vs. personal involvment

as posted by webslave

Well, I do see the points brought up here, and have to admit that there does need to be some division between a moderator and the person behind the job. So I have come up with what I hope is a viable solution to be placed into effect immediately:



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Best I can come up with, off the cuff, is that anyone that is personally involved in a thread cannot also be a moderator of that thread. You have to choose one or the other. If you are participating as a member, with your own viewpoints and own opinions, then you cannot also act as a moderator within that thread. Once you start assessing warning points to people who disagree with you, whether it is true or not, it gives the appearance of abuse of your position as a moderator.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I think this is fair, but I am open to criticism and discussion. If it looks like it may get involved, please start a new thread in the FaunaClassifieds Feedback forum so we don't clutter up this thread in the process.

i think this is a fair way to deal with it rich. to chose one or the other. However the only moderator i have seen abuse this is jay. I just realized i got points given to me by jay in that last thread... i got no email notification not even in my control panel. he gave them to me for discourtesy towards other when at the same time two others randy and josh were slinging quite a bit of mud. the only people whom got points in that thread were ones against it. i would think that the fair thing to do since it was apparantly biased points remove the points given out by jay to the three or so people he gave them to. i personaly thinkjay is not the kind of moderator you or the comunity wants here. shoot i would much rather see glenn bartly or even seamus (even with seamus's vocalization- he can be very unboiased when he wants)
do we really want this to turn into another KS? because people are afriad to write what they think and ok maybe not have our thread deleted but rather given points and be banned or whatever?or be afriad to post that a mod my have a hiden vendetta against the person or group of people? i personally feel after this jay will indeed have one for me (whether he will admit to it or not) and possibly others and chose the moderating position but use it very strict. i think the removal of a mod here may be the best choice . i think both ken and dennis do their mod jobs well, like they are suposed to be done but jay has over stepped the line many times and i am sure he is not pleased with your choice in pucking one or the other so why not take it out on the people whom caused it???? maybe we should have a vote

Er... What'd I miss?

Which thread where blew up? Who said what? Why has Rich made an official statement about moderator roles?

And uh... Just because I'm writing a post to figure out what happened and I saw this quote...

shoot i would much rather see glenn bartly or even seamus (even with seamus's vocalization- he can be very unboiased when he wants)

The vote of confidence is kinda nice, but I am in no way impartial enough to act as a moderator anywhere (Not that Rich would consider it anyway) for anyone in any way. I don't lack the ability to keep roles seperate but I do lack the inclination to do so.

Don't really have anything to say regarding the content of the post though, because I have no idea what happened where. Can someone shed some light on this in a more specific manner?

Link maybe?

Nevermind, I found it... http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/foru...5&pagenumber=1 for anyone interested.

Still don't have any more thoughts, but there's what appears to have started this. One way or the other. Staying out of it now.

Robin, I can guarantee you that if I should decide to remove a moderator, it will not be at the prompting of someone who has been involved in an argument with him.

When I get the time, I will try to look at those warning points assessed and make a determination on whether they are valid or not. I hate to apply a guideline ex post facto, however, as that in itself is not good policy.

i am not asking just because i want him gone... take a look at several of his posts. even take a vote. i would not expect removal just because my feelings. as far as the points shoot even if you leave them others in that same thread should gotten them as well. whom where being equally as rude or whatever.
seamus, i was just making a point, that there could be others suited better for the job, not necessisaily you just saying you as an example of someone whom pocesses the skill to be unbiased ( if you wished)

i was just making a point, that there could be others suited better for the job, not necessisaily you just saying you as an example of someone whom pocesses the skill to be unbiased ( if you wished)

Well... Probably not actually... Although it ends up being an interesting addition to this discussion. A buddy of mine and I were talking about this via email... I essentially refrained from giving a solid opinion because I know for a fact that my opinion of Jay is not particularly high and that I would tend to be hypercritical of him. In reading through that thread you listed, Yes... I believe that the points which were handed out were applied based not solely on the severity of an individual's transgressions, but with more than a small hint of personal bias. Of course I myself fully acknowledge that I am not without certain predjudices in forming my opinion. Especially when I weigh this against the fact that Jay and I don't really get along too well (although generally aren't outright antagonistic) and Jay was able to appropriately apply (or fail to apply as the case may be) the responsibilties he has as a moderator even when he and I were involved in a direct confrontation. I'm a fairly abrasive person much of the time... if he can stay even handed when disagreeing with me, he's probably got the ability to do it anytime. Using the ability and posessing it are different things.

So I think Rich's solution is probably a good one... Check the situation a bit more closely and Rich- as an unbiased third party and the one who all of us really have to answer to in the end for our conduct on his website, will decide what transgressions exist and what solution is best for everyone involved. If Jay has a clear and proveable history of such actions, more serious consequences may be in order. If it was a one time slip, perhaps a patchwork solution. If it wasn't an error in moderation judgement at all, then everything stands as is.

If you just want pure opinion... I don't think Jay is a good moderator, he posesses too many of the same qualities which would prevent most people from being a truly good one. Impartiality is really a very difficult state to attain and few are able to find and sustain it on a long term basis. Jay, however much he and I may end up disagreeing on a given issue, is not a stupid individual, just a human one. With the emotional involvement and strength he has in his convictions, he's incapable of impartiality or even handed application of the rules. He has a long history on multiple forums of supporting his personal friends, to the point where he has a blind spot where their negative actions are concerned and will seemingly go out of his way to bring the full weight of his opinion... and his moderator powers, to bear on anyone involved in an argument with them.

Like I said though... he and I have had... differences of opinion... in the past, so my judgement is compromised. Just like his was in the thread which caused this problem.

Oh... and just as a kind of note... In reading my own post, I believe there may be some ambiguity on a few points.

There's a difference between demanding impartiality as a member of a board and demanding impartiality as a moderator. A good moderator will be able to keep the two seperate- disagree with or argue with anyone you want when it comes to personal opinions. Adhere to the rules of the site as set forth and apply all punishments in an unbiased and even handed manner.

So I'm not saying moderators can't disagree with members, an opinion is an opinion and dismantling the arguments of someone with an opposing opinion is all well and good if it can be done. Just the moderators themselves need to refrain from personal attacks (unneccesary roughness) and should not utilize the trust which has been given them as moderators in a vindictive or personal manner.

Just for the record, I'm also have never seen this as a problem with any moderator except for Jay on this site... and Jay only infrequently at BEST when he was emotionally involved with a thread (which, while not an excuse, is a reason and one I can empathize with).

seamus i didnt know that you and jay had ever "locked horns" so it was not my not knowing this (until now) that i used you are an example. i appologize for any misunderstandings or misinterpretations, i was just trying to make my point

I am an Admin at a tech forum. We had a similar situation a year or so ago.

My solution to the matter was for all of my mods to have 2 log-ins.

One as a mod, where they are there to moderate forums and be a representative of the site.

And another as a normal member. So they could participate in threads and maintain their freedom of speech without their personal opinions reflecting on the site itself or being mistaken as the attitude of the site itself.

If you have mods with integrity it works great. If you do not, then they do not need to be mods anyway.

I had thought about this sort of solution, but wasn't certain it would be well thought of by anyone. On one hand, it is what I use myself, and feel that it is fairly effective at keeping ME straight about what hat I am wearing while in here. Perhaps the moderators would want that, but I never really asked them. Because on the other hand, maybe they really deserve the recognition of helping out here that using their real name would afford them. This is really a tough board to moderate, and those guys are volunteering their time and efforts to help us all out here. So would it be fair of me to ask them to give up their identities in the process?

Personally, I lean towards the recognition they deserve for the excellent job they do here. I never made it a requirement that they be perfect in all decisions and actions, however, nor could I. I know darn right well that I am not perfect in all of my decisions, so until I hit that mark, I am not going to demand it from anyone else.