The New System: H's late night ramblings

[hhmoore]

Well, it has been an interesting couple of weeks, here in FaunaLand. Having had some mandatory time away from the computer tonite (system problems), and being in need of a diversion from other issues, I found myself thinking about some of the things I have encountered and seen since the new moderator plan went into effect. Oh, where to begin....

I guess I will start with how I feel about being part of this program. At the center of things, I am honored by the kind words that have been said to/about me...whether directly or indirectly. At the same time, by being part of this group, I feel the derision and scorn emanating from some of the membership. I don't feel that it is directed AT ME, per se, but frankly, I don't understand the source. (yes, I realize that some are unhappy with a few of the members that comprise this group, the criteria for admission, etc). Well, I guess I knew that would be the case, so there isn't much sense getting worked up over it (novel approach, huh, guys?...some of you ought to try it sometime, lol)

There have been multiple instances where fingers have been pointed toward some of the adjunct moderators, calling them unfit to serve in this capacity, questioning their judgement, criticizing them for their approach. Then, in some cases, the finger turns to the rest of us: why are we not dealing with this problem? I'll clue you all in on something...we are new to this situation, but I think that most of us take our role seriously. We are not blind, but neither are we all-seeing. Sometimes things get missed. Sometimes, though, they are dealt with in a manner that doesn't catch even the watchful eye... so while you keep squawking, you miss the fact that there has been some sort of change.

I have found myself in a position of needing to approach people about their posting style (or in some cases, the way they issue points). Some of those encounters have sparked conversation and further respect...others have not been so pleasant. Sometimes they are just acknowledged...either by PM, or a resultant change.

What about the People's Choice thread? At first glance, I was unsure of the motivation of the original poster...but thought it could be a fun thread, and a way to give a tip of the ol' hat to some of the people that really deserve it. It could also devolve into something ugly fairly quickly. It has gone back and forth a bit, but is now so far off topic that it isn't worth opening.

The conflicts. Most of the petty bantering doesn't phase me. The more serious stuff draws my attention. We have two "official" warnings which deal with those issues. Antagonism toward a Moderator, and Overly Abusive toward another Member. OK, so there will be discrepancies in the definition of antagonism and in quantifying just when something becomes overly abusive. I am quite certain that NONE of the members WANT to be overly abusive...they are simply striving to be abusive enough, and go one step too far.

My current membership expires next month. I will be renewing at a level that keeps me in the role of adjunct moderator (not an official term, but a fitting one). It has been pondered how many of the forum mods will do the same when their subscription ends. Personally, I find myself more interested in the response if more people choose to pony up the cash and become part of this. Will the comments begin as soon as the new coins are noticed? Or will people at least wait to see what happens? Remember being at that level does not REQUIRE participation as a moderator.

Out of time & duty calls...but one last thought - is there any reason to have the names of the current adjunct moderators listed for easy viewing?

 

[Golden Gate Geckos]

is there any reason to have the names of the current adjunct moderators listed for easy viewing?

Personally, if I am being 'moderated' by the content of my posts, I would like to know who those moderators are.

 

[Stardust]

I was sent this via e-mail as the person would rather I post it:

A&M Gecko
ALLSTAR
AncientDNA
Art Klass
bcherps
ben siegel
BigBreeder
Bob Kite
ByronsBoas
Cheryl Marchek AKA JM
christopher66
Clay Davenport
csreptiles
Dachiu
Dan Lubinsky
Dand
Dr Owens (paid)
Epidemic
Ghi Reptiles
hhmoore
Isis Reptiles
Jimmy P
John Apple
Junkyard
Laura Fopiano
listenn
Lucille
Mark Beverly
MorphCapital
NERD,Inc
PerfectPetPython
Pintado
Preacher Pat
R Reptile Ranch
ragnew
Ravensgait
redtailboas
ricblair
rodneyj
scalyskins
Stardust
strayvoltage
Tim Cole
TripleMoonsExotic
Varnyard

Lucille being added last night.
Looking at the list it appears to be accurate, either way it is a start. I did ask why Dr. Owens had paid by the side, simply because he is a mod and he also pays.

 

[Golden Gate Geckos]

Thanks, Rozann! So, how many of these "adjunct moderators" have actually used their mod status to assess warning points?

 

[Stardust]

Hmm, I would venture to guess not very many. I have.
Wonder if anyone has kept track?

 

[John Apple]

Quite a few have, myself included

 

[ms_terese]

Harald,

Thanks for sharing the view from your side. I can certainly understand the frustration on all sides. I think the underlying current of dissatisfaction stems from dual messages. 1) Respect the rules, and respect Fauna. 2) The qualification for enforcing the rules is to pay $100, and if you do that but don't show consistency in enforcing them (i.e., respecting the site and its members), oh well.

I have heard that none of the adjunct mods were given instruction or direction on how to use their new authority, which (if true) would further support the opinion that the enforcement of the rules isn't of much value.

My personal opinion is that it is really more of a perk....the point values have been raised so high that it will take REAL EFFORT for someone to be booted by the masses. It's like the karma system just starting getting some teeth (but baby teeth). Yes, the points must be doled out for infractions, but as we've already seen, the interpretation of the infractions is pretty lenient.

Is it fair and equitable? Of course not...but there aren't many things that are.

If it raises money for Fauna, then it's a good thing. I hope the adjunct mods don't allow this change to make them feel any pressure, and I hope the other members just let it go. It's really much ado about nothing.

 

[hhmoore]

I have heard that none of the adjunct mods were given instruction or direction on how to use their new authority

If you mean that there was no user manual issued, describing how and when to use the authority, you are correct. The rules of the site are fairly clear, though, and there is a limited selection of warnings for us to choose from. It has been stated that trying to define and quantify things (to make it clear to users on both sides) would just be unrealistic - and that makes sense. As soon as you say somebody can't say certain words, they find other ones that are not necessarily less inappropriate. How does one define exactly when a post becomes antagonistic, or quantify when somebody becomes "overly abusive". The underlying assumption is that we have a degree of common sense. We also have a place to ask questions. I won't go into details, but there have been several discussions regarding some of the very topics that are raised out in the general forums. Rich HAS given some reminders and hints; and both DThomas and Dr Owens have stepped in to comment on things. I can't speak for everybody, but I know most of us that have administered points take the role pretty seriously.
I have had several private conversations with other members of the new mod squad about the appropriateness of posts and warnings, as well as how to deal with various things. Nobody expected a seamless transition; but overall, I don't think things are chaotic, either. Sure, maybe there needs to be some adjustment and fine tuning, but I think we are moving in that direction.

 

[Cheryl Marchek AKA JM]

I was worried about the stigma within the "new mod" group of not using the new powers I was uncomforable having. I considered not re-upping at the same level to avoid the responsbility implied. Discussion with the others of this membership level and Rich put my mind at ease~ and everyone else should know too. NOT using the new abilities does not attach any stigma that I can see, and I did renew my membership at the same level without any intention of using the new "powers." I am treated no differently for neglecting this new power~ and I appreciate that.

So if you were thinking of contributing at the benefactor level but did not feel comfortable being a "moderator"~ I have found that you can be a member at the level and still not be responsible for passing out warnings unless you choose to.

 

[WebSlave]

I was worried about the stigma within the "new mod" group of not using the new powers I was uncomforable having. I considered not re-upping at the same level to avoid the responsbility implied. Discussion with the others of this membership level and Rich put my mind at ease~ and everyone else should know too. NOT using the new abilities does not attach any stigma that I can see, and I did renew my membership at the same level without any intention of using the new "powers." I am treated no differently for neglecting this new power~ and I appreciate that.

So if you were thinking of contributing at the benefactor level but did not feel comfortable being a "moderator"~ I have found that you can be a member at the level and still not be responsible for passing out warnings unless you choose to.

No, it most certainly is NOT a requirement of members at those levels. Matter of fact, it's not even required of my site moderators nor MYSELF to moderate this site. It's all optional. Which, unfortunately, is a concept that appears to be difficult for some people to accept. We are NOT required to do ANYTHING at all on this site. Nothing. If someone uses profanity in a post, and each and every member capable of issuing warning points reads it yet declines to issue those warning points, well, big deal. I'm certainly not going to lose any sleep over it.

I do have to admit, however, that it really does tickle me to still read those claims of "bias" and "inconsistency" from certain factions here. With 40+ members capable of issuing warning points reading posts here, some posts will still either slip through, or be chosen to NOT assess the warning points. So it does humor me quite a bit that in the past when it was just myself and the site moderators (4 of us total) we were expected to do the job that 10 TIMES that number still cannot do to satisfy everyone....

 

[WebSlave]

Harald,

Thanks for sharing the view from your side. I can certainly understand the frustration on all sides. I think the underlying current of dissatisfaction stems from dual messages. 1) Respect the rules, and respect Fauna. 2) The qualification for enforcing the rules is to pay $100, and if you do that but don't show consistency in enforcing them (i.e., respecting the site and its members), oh well.

I have heard that none of the adjunct mods were given instruction or direction on how to use their new authority, which (if true) would further support the opinion that the enforcement of the rules isn't of much value.

My personal opinion is that it is really more of a perk....the point values have been raised so high that it will take REAL EFFORT for someone to be booted by the masses. It's like the karma system just starting getting some teeth (but baby teeth). Yes, the points must be doled out for infractions, but as we've already seen, the interpretation of the infractions is pretty lenient.

Is it fair and equitable? Of course not...but there aren't many things that are.

If it raises money for Fauna, then it's a good thing. I hope the adjunct mods don't allow this change to make them feel any pressure, and I hope the other members just let it go. It's really much ado about nothing.

Well, I have a little secret to share with everyone. When I set up this site (and particularly the BOI) I was not given a manual on how to run it. No guidelines on how to set up rules and enforce them, and no one to go to in order to ask for guidance and help. Then when I asked the site moderators to help out, I basically gave them the same amount of guidance I got myself... Which is pretty much NONE. There were some discussions, of course, of the "on the job training" variety, but no, there was really no step by step instruction manual handed to them.

My expectations with the method of choosing who would have the capability of assessing warning points via the higher paid memberships was that the members most likely to spend the money to help out this site would be the ones (as a total group) least likely to cause more problems with this project than it would solve. Very few members are going to dig into their wallet for $100 for a membership, and even less would be inclined to do it SOLELY to be able to issue warning points. At $25 a pop? Sure, nearly anyone would do that, even if just for the entertainment value of causing a ruckus.

And via the comments I have seen posted in the mods forum, I am VERY pleased with the seriousness that those members are taking this. Some have declined to participate in the warning points, which I honestly feel that is best if they are reluctant to do so. Those that have, apparently are making a sincere effort to take the job seriously and conscientiously. Sure, I expected some rough edges at the first cutting of the program, but anyone who did not expect that is being woefully unrealistic. And it would be just as unrealistic for anyone to assume that 40 members would act and think exactly like me in the way I interpret infractions of the rules. Which, I believe, is a GOOD thing, as it gives a broader base of perspectives to draw upon.

As for the level of fining and suspending, that also was done on purpose. At the launch of this program, I had NO idea what would happen. Worst case, that I could see, would be that some people would just go nuts and settle some old scores to try to get one or members banned as quickly as possible. So with that in mind, I made it very tough for that to happen.

Which, of course, can all be fine tuned down the road as things self adapt to the new environment.

 

[Scott Ashton]

This whole controversy is much ado over nothing.

If someone chooses to prosecute their grudge against another member - so be it. Such abuses will work themselves out.

Like they say Karma is a !@#$%. Some who had the repsect of others may find them losing that respect while others will simply find that they are respected even less. Market forces can also be brought to bear - its already been mentioned in another thread that there are those who simply won't do business with one of the "paid guns" based upon his behavior. Everyone here as the ability to make their opinion known without ever writing a single word.

Cheryl brings up a great point - just because you are at that level of membership doesn't mean that you are compelled to participate. It certainly will be interesting to see how the folks who upgrade their membership to one of the paid levels rise (or fall) to the challenge.

 

[Chameleon Company]

Webslave writes:
.......With 40+ members capable of issuing warning points reading posts here, some posts will still either slip through, or be chosen to NOT assess the warning points. So it does humor me quite a bit that in the past when it was just myself and the site moderators (4 of us total) we were expected to do the job that 10 TIMES that number still cannot do to satisfy everyone....

I think that the new system has helped, but as with many, also have felt both from the beginning, and now after it has had a month, that its more obvious flaws were predicted then and have been manifest now. I think that your above example citing "40 plus members capable ..... " points right at it. Capable or not, many of that 40+ did not want the job. Of the lesser number of those forty who actually use the power, many are not walking the beat very often. My guess is that you might have a dozen, and maybe only half that, who pound the pavement with any regularity. From what I see, half the dings seem to be a stepped up effort by the super-mods, and I thank them for it, to be active with enforcement again. While the threshold of 500 seems very high now, it would be infinitely more beyond reach if not for the super-mod boost. As before, I would only suggest that consideration be given, or reserved, to use what evaluation means you have to look for an active group of 20 mods, plus the super mods, to take the reins. Instead of a likely offense drawing 0 or 1 or 5 dings, it would be 2 or 5 or 12 dings, and it would reduce the whining IMO. Strength in numbers. This "number" would get the job the four of you were doing done ............. and then some. Just food for thought

 

[WebSlave]

Jim, I read your recommendation the first time you offered it. The fact that I have rejected that recommendation does not mean I did not understand it, and need to hear it again in the hopes it will sink in.

Not a fault unique to you, however, as several other people suffer from the same misunderstanding......

And truth be known, from what I recall of the predictions, they were more of the "sky will fall" variety.......

Besides do you seriously think that ANY selection process I would utilize would not come under attack as not being suitable? Surely you have seen the way things work around here. Which is exactly why I have to make these decisions on my own, without gathering opinions beforehand. If I am going to make mistakes, which will most certainly will happen, I would prefer to make MY mistakes rather than someone else's.

 

[Chameleon Company]

Rich,
I have no problem with the logic you have used. Just wanted to type and be repetitive, as it is a technique in achieving results over time. As always, I genuinely thank you for taking the time to respond with thought. Like I said, I do think things-as-is has achieved positive results. Kudos.

 

[hhmoore]

. From what I see, half the dings seem to be a stepped up effort by the super-mods, and I thank them for it, to be active with enforcement again.

I am not sure what dings, specifically, you are referring to (and that is not a request to have them listed), but one particular case comes to mind. One thing that you may not be aware of is that, unlike the site mods, the adjunct mods have limitations placed on how many warnings we can issue within a given time frame. Once we have taken our shots, we can do nothing except hope other mods come along and wait til we are "re-armed".

 

[Chameleon Company]

HH Writes:
One thing that you may not be aware of is that, unlike the site mods, the adjunct mods have limitations placed on how many warnings we can issue within a given time frame. Once we have taken our shots, we can do nothing except hope other mods come along and wait til we are "re-armed".

Harald, I was speaking of the newer warning points, as that seems all the stir of late. I am aware of both the time-frame limits as well as the ability of super-mods to have a multiplying power, at least in Rich's case, if he chooses to use it. The point was that the current system as constituted has the full collective impact of the adhoc mods at only about 50% of the enforcement effort, and that it was somewhat inaccurate to look at there being 40 such mods, as a far smaller number is actually participating.

 

[hhmoore]

I won't step on toes by discussing the multiplying power you refer to...except to say that you are a bit off in your translation of things.

As to the potential vs realized impact, nobody ever said that anybody had to utilize the capability to give warnings/points. I do recall Rich guestimating that there were about 40+/- people that would be in a position to do so, if they chose. Some people, myself included, have memberships that enable this solely out of a desire to give something back to a site that they find enjoyable and/or beneficial to them. I happen to have chosen to take part in this effort, where some others have not. Their reasons are their own..I do not need to know what they are to accept and respect them. While I understand the concept of the power of numbers, to suggest that the plan (or its impact) is diminished because some choose not to participate is simply not fair to those that would then be perceived as "not doing their job". Serving in this role is voluntary, there is no form of payment or remuneration. Some look at it as paying for power...and that might have some merit if a large percentage of us had ponied up the cash for that reason. If one were to check, I believe that he/she would find very few that did so. In fact, I believe that some of the people that increased their membership status since the inception of this plan have not yet participated. If somebody wants to pay their way in, it can certainly be done...and hopefully the mindset and goals of anybody that does will match what the rest of us are trying to accomplish.

 

[hhmoore]

One other point - while you may not view the nonparticipants as mods, what would be the response if one day something really got their attention, and they chose to utilize their option en masse. A decision not to use it does not mean that it will be turned off. They still have the "power". Would people suddenly cry out that this is unfair...these people have never given anybody points before so they can't be moderators? (they would be wrong)

 

[Chameleon Company]

Harald,

All of the issues you raised have been well discussed in prior threads, and I did not raise anything akin to saying that people were "not doing their job", as I too have maintained explicitly my understanding that all was voluntary. Perhaps you misunderstood something. There is a huge distinction between having an ability, and then saying that since you have the ability, you therefore have the responsibility, aka "the job". I only ask that you quote me accurately to support your claim about "translations being off". Without wasting too much more time on it, let me paste your words of explanation, which do not go to my point, BTW, and then Rich's characterization, to which my point was aimed:

Your words:

As to the potential vs realized impact, nobody ever said that anybody had to utilize the capability to give warnings/points. I do recall Rich guestimating that there were about 40+/- people that would be in a position to do so, if they chose.....
.......to suggest that the plan (or its impact) is diminished because some choose not to participate is simply not fair to those that would then be perceived as "not doing their job".

Rich's mention of the 40, which I addressed:
.......With 40+ members capable of issuing warning points reading posts here, some posts will still either slip through, or be chosen to NOT assess the warning points. So it does humor me quite a bit that in the past when it was just myself and the site moderators (4 of us total) we were expected to do the job that 10 TIMES that number still cannot do to satisfy everyone....

My entire point, or "translation" as you put it, was that there weren't "10 TIMES that number still cannot do ..". Rather, if we were going to count heads, let's not count the 40 heads of people who had the "ability", as only 25% that number had assumed the "responsibility". Rewritten, the self administered atta-boy would be more accurate if it said "4 TIMES that number .....". My counter point was that there were certainly groups of 10-20 folks here who would run circles around the enforcement efforts of the original 4 moderators. Would it satisfy everyone ? No. But they would address many of the current complaints. Just IMMHO, but 1-2 folks should have been banned 3 times over already. The greatest offender is about 2/3rds of the way to a first banning.

As to your second post. Of course, you can't please everybody. But the scenario you describe is exactly how the system is designed to work, in that the more egregious the offense, the greater the number of dings that one event should attract. That was a major reason as stated by Rich for setting the bar at 500 points, to allow for such ganging up.