What do you want in a moderator?

ashleyep · June 2014

PrettyGirlLost said:

ashleyep said:

PrettyGirlLost said:

PDKH said:

Every time I have seen someone bemoan that they are being "piled on"- think the Library thread in CC, or I have seen another poster claim that everyone was piling on the OP. . . frankly, all that was happening was that people were continuing to post and participate in a discussion. And sometimes a discussion was heated. But there was no piling on.

I don't really agree. I think a lot of times, you get people who don't read all the responses before they post and they do nothing but repeat what a bad idea the OP has or how rude she is, and it's not adding anything to the discussion. It's already been said a dozen times already.

You don't need twenty people to reiterate some variation of "you're so rude if you do that."

I don't think you can quantify a rule for that, or how many posts are and aren't allowed, but I would certainly appreciate it if a mod were to step in and say "ok, you've gotten the point across. You can't make her change her mind, step engaging her."

Yep, and that's just the nature of a forum and how forum posting works.

I have no problem with a mod saying something like that, but I don't want to see threads closed just because people are joining in the discussion and the OP doesn't like the response. And I also don't think a mod making a statement like that should preclude ppl from continuing to comment if they so choose, and as long as they are not being inflammatory, attacking ppl, etc.

Agreed. A reminder from a mod shouldn't mean "next person who says something gets the ban hammer."

But I *do* think there is a tone problem on this board and I do think that nudges from mods to cool it would be useful.

But anyway, I suppose that's neither here nor there in the discussion of mod qualities.

RebeccaB88 · June 2014

PDKH said:

AddieCake said:

NEWBS AND LURKERS:

PLEASE FEEL FREE TO JOIN THE CONVERSATION! Hell, make a new account for the discussion if you want to remain anonymous, even!

Quoted for truth and wisdom and love of cake.
Newbs become regs eventually, and we need fresh ideas and "outsider" opinions.

AddieCake · June 2014

Yes, if mods are not doing a good job, we should be able to call attention that.

KatieinBkln · June 2014

lolo883 said: KatieinBkln said: lolo883 said: Re: the piling on... I agree that it's happened, but it can't be quantified. More like "you know it when you see it." As long as everyone's still providing answers, even if they're all the same "no, this is a bad idea" answer, I don't have a problem with it. We've all seen threads derail into nothing but gifs though and I think that's when it becomes "piling on" - hell, I admit to having participated in it. However, I DON'T THINK that should result in bannings or thread closures. I think we need to be able to have mods we respect enough that if they issue a "cease and desist" we can all recognize that we need to cool it. Yeah, I think it may be completely unquantifiable...and actually I don't mind the GIFs, or when people just start talking about wine or puppies or randomness. I also agree that banning or thread closings aren't the answer here. It's so murky, it's almost a useless observation...
Someone else suggested that this is for the TK gods to figure out, and not really a "mod" conversation. That is probably true--sorry to derail! WHERE THE HELL'D THE BOX GO?
Yeah it's not the gifs themselves, I love me some gifs. But 20 or 30 WTF/didn't read/NO/eyerolling gifs in a row probably aren't going to do anything to make the OP change their tune, and sometimes I feel are just posted to be a part of the action and get some Love Its for a particularly funny one. I think that's when people can feel ganged up on and maybe a level-headed "ok, that's enough" post is warranted. That was how the Canadian "presentation only" one got derailed. Again, NOT banning or closing because COME ON, it's not bullying.
Never for puppy gifs though. Gimme all of those.

Ah, gotcha re: eye-roll gifs. I'm right there with you; at times the NOPE octopus is hilarious, but he is rarely helpful. That eight-legged scuttling jerk!

And for the record, the only threads that I think should be closed are zombies. Everything else (attacks, people crossing lines) should be dealt with on a person-by-person and post-by-post basis. I can see having a nasty post deleted without closing an entire thread or even banning that particular user. We all mess up sometimes--banning should be reserved for people who make a habit of being shitty, in my opinion.

ETA: where my boxes at?

jdluvr06 · June 2014

I agree with what everyone has said but I have one thing to add (and sorry if I missed it). The mods need to be impartial, I'm a mod in another board and one of the mod "rules" is to not be too "close" for lack of a better word, with the other posters.

buttercup1958 · June 2014

Hi I'm not sure if I'm a newb or not! I think so. Anyways, I think your guys suggestions sound good to me. I can't really think of much more to add. I think there should be mod meetings so they can all get on the same page and discuss how the boards are. Communication among mods would allow nothing to get built up.

emmaaa · June 2014

shrekspeare said:

jdluvr06 said:

I agree with what everyone has said but I have one thing to add (and sorry if I missed it). The mods need to be impartial, I'm a mod in another board and one of the mod "rules" is to not be too "close" for lack of a better word, with the other posters.

I agree. But I think that it would be more difficult to find that on this board. I think that everyone has their favorite posters that they would let slide.

That is true. However, I think mods should be held accountable for being impartial. So if they are consistently allowing the same posters to slide, then they need to be wanred and then removed as a mod.

Maggie0829 · June 2014

I don't have much to add except that I agree with a lot of what has already been stated. I will add another vote that I think that mods should be able to give a general "hey cool it" or "okay that's enough" warnings in threads and then give further warnings via PM if the craziness does not die down.

As far as whether mods should be able to "roam" or only be allowed to mod a specific board, I am not sure about. I can the benefits and cons of both. At one time before TK got rid of mods there was a brief time where all mods could close/delete threads on all boards (I used to be a mod on A&A) but as someone who didn't frequent some of the Special Topic boards or Cultural boards I felt odd taking charge in those areas. So I guess this is something that should be discussed more (and if it has and I missed it just ignore that last sentence).

And @JCbride2015 - You seriously got warned for calling me a OMH?! That is funny.

NYCBruin · June 2014

On the roaming v. non-roaming point, I agree that having mods dedicated to 1-2 "slower" boards and having multiple mods for the busier boards would be better than mods being able to roam wherever.

Maybe as a way to fix the situation where you have vendors/spammers on nights/weekends/vacation times, have mods have the ability to ban/warn/freeze spammer or vendor accounts on ANY board for a brief period of time (i.e. up to 24 hours) and then have it "reviewed" by either the board's regular mod or a KG when they are back online (whether that's an hour later or a day later). That would help with the vendor/spam issue but also prevent a mod from going on a banning rampage.

KeptInStitches · June 2014

I don't have much else to add, but I do support all that has general agreement thus far.

Cookie Pusher · June 2014

I was a moderator then admin on another forum a few years ago. The moderation system they had in place worked pretty well for a moderately busy board that got an inordinate number of trolls and spammers. Moderators each had 1 busy board and 1 or 2 not as busy boards, and each of the busy boards had at least 2 moderators. Then they had what they called super moderators who had the authority and permission settings to moderate on any and all boards. The super moderators typically let the board moderators handle most issues unless the moderators of the board(s) weren't there or it was escalating into a free-for-all.

There was a separate area on the forum where moderators could and would discuss any reported posts that were questionable and there would be discussion before members were banned (either varying length of temporary bans or permanent/IP bans). It kept all of us "honest" in that even if you were more friendly with certain posters, other moderators could privately call you out on favoritism and action could be taken if a member was really getting out of hand.

manateehugger · June 2014

@KnotPorscha, do you have any word on what the nomination and selection process will look like?

jdluvr06 · June 2014

Cookie Pusher said:

I was a moderator then admin on another forum a few years ago. The moderation system they had in place worked pretty well for a moderately busy board that got an inordinate number of trolls and spammers. Moderators each had 1 busy board and 1 or 2 not as busy boards, and each of the busy boards had at least 2 moderators. Then they had what they called super moderators who had the authority and permission settings to moderate on any and all boards. The super moderators typically let the board moderators handle most issues unless the moderators of the board(s) weren't there or it was escalating into a free-for-all.

There was a separate area on the forum where moderators could and would discuss any reported posts that were questionable and there would be discussion before members were banned (either varying length of temporary bans or permanent/IP bans). It kept all of us "honest" in that even if you were more friendly with certain posters, other moderators could privately call you out on favoritism and action could be taken if a member was really getting out of hand.

I think that would be a good way to set things up here since there are so many posters who have formed relationships.

offensivekitten2 · June 2014

I agree that there needs to be an impeachment process in place. Prior to the great exodus, there were several members who got away with more than others because they were favorites. I can see letting small infractions slide, but not to the extent that it used to happen (which is probably why mods were removed).

AprilH81 · June 2014

I like @cookiepusher 's idea about "supermods".

I think that 2-3 mods should be assigned to a handful of boards as a team to increase the odds of an issue being handled faster. If people are concerned that the mods are getting to familiar/comfortable then they could rotate every week/month/whatever. Example: Mod 1, Mod 2 and Mod 3 will work Chit Chat, Honeymoon, Registry, and A&A. Mod 4, Mod 5, Mod 6 will work E, Snarky Brides, Budget & DIY and Just Engaged. In a month they rotate.

I don't think Mods should have banning power just yet. Let them delete threads/posts, close posts, freeze members, but I think banning should still come from a KG for the time being.

How would moderating the local boards work? I think the Mods for the local boards should be a member of that board...

ashley8918 · June 2014

sort of lurker/sort-of newb here

I agree with most of what PPs have suggested. Especially impartiality. Obviously, it cannot be guaranteed, but if a mod is obviously being excessively partial to one poster/group of posters, they should be held accountable for that. I wasn't hear last summer, but I have caught portions of the story. It seems like there was some definite favoritism and power trips going on, so that's something that should be avoided/controlled.

ashley8918 · June 2014

Fine, TK. Just eat my paragraphs.

buddysmom80 · June 2014

I like @cookiepusher's idea of having a seperate mod board so that mods can get together and say "hey, is this thread worthy of closing" or "should this member get banned" before pulling the switch. It keeps people accountable.

Also (I don't know if this was said before) but I think the people who do volunteer for mods shouldn't be placed on a board that they're regs of. For example, if I volunteered and my "busy" board was NEY (which I'm an active poster on) that would suck because I would have to moderate people I'm friends with IRL. Like put me in A & A or CC or something. I think there should be a rotation but if a mod doesn't feel comfortable moderating their favorite boards, then they should have to be rotated somewhere else.

KPBM89 · June 2014

I don't have any additions, but I agree with the general consensus on here. I wasn't here when there were mods (only been a member of TK for about a year), but they are definitely needed.

Sometimes things flow smoothly here, but sometimes it can get crazy out of hand, whether it be pages and pages of spam or personal attacks on users (like saying users look fat/ugly in their signature pics...really?) or what have you, and having mods would be so beneficial for all of us. Not just the users, but also KP and the like. It's like some weekends I can't even go on TK at all because it gets filled with garbage.

ashleyep · June 2014

The way I navigate most other message boards is via a screen that shows all unread messages across all forums. The Knot doesn't have this, which is why I'm not sure that roaming mods is the best idea. I think it will leave a lot of the small boards unmoderated.

AddieCake · June 2014

buddysmom80 said:

I like @cookiepusher's idea of having a seperate mod board so that mods can get together and say "hey, is this thread worthy of closing" or "should this member get banned" before pulling the switch. It keeps people accountable.

Also (I don't know if this was said before) but I think the people who do volunteer for mods shouldn't be placed on a board that they're regs of. For example, if I volunteered and my "busy" board was NEY (which I'm an active poster on) that would suck because I would have to moderate people I'm friends with IRL. Like put me in A & A or CC or something. I think there should be a rotation but if a mod doesn't feel comfortable moderating their favorite boards, then they should have to be rotated somewhere else.

So that would mean people like me are just eliminated b/c I go to nearly every board and have for a couple years now. There are quite a few people who frequent most, if not all, of the boards.

manateehugger · June 2014

More questions for the crowd:

Should mods have banning power or freezing power? Or both?

Since KP said it in her original post, how do we fell about someone who has gotten a warning in the past (let's make it relevant and say in the past year or so) being a mod?

emmaaa · June 2014

I think a mod should only have freezing power and then the KG do the banning.

AddieCake · June 2014

PDKH said:

More questions for the crowd:
Should mods have banning power or freezing power? Or both?
Since KP said it in her original post, how do we fell about someone who has gotten a warning in the past (let's make it relevant and say in the past year or so) being a mod?

SITB
I would say banning of vendors and maybe freezing of trolls and troublemakers for review.
Depends on the warning. Like JC getting warned for calling Maggie an OMH? Hello! That's what we OMH's CALL ourselves and the club! And just a simple warning for something minor shouldn't count against people, either.

misshart00 · June 2014

PDKH said:
More questions for the crowd:
Should mods have banning power or freezing power? Or both?
Since KP said it in her original post, how do we fell about someone who has gotten a warning in the past (let's make it relevant and say in the past year or so) being a mod?

I'm okay with them having banning power, but kgs can look it over if questionable. Because if we're just relying on KGs to ban, I think some things will never get done or take forever (specifically spam).

I'm also okay with people being mods who have received warnings. If KGs want to keep a slightly closer eye on them for awhile, that's fine.

KPBM89 · June 2014

PDKH said:

More questions for the crowd:
Should mods have banning power or freezing power? Or both?
Since KP said it in her original post, how do we fell about someone who has gotten a warning in the past (let's make it relevant and say in the past year or so) being a mod?

By freezing power, is that like kind of stopping them from posting, but not actually banning them? If so, I think that makes sense for mods to have that ability.

Also, I wouldn't mind a mod who has gotten a warning before. Just because it might have been a warning for a silly reason.

theartistformerlyknownas · June 2014

buddysmom80 said:

I like @cookiepusher's idea of having a seperate mod board so that mods can get together and say "hey, is this thread worthy of closing" or "should this member get banned" before pulling the switch. It keeps people accountable.

Also (I don't know if this was said before) but I think the people who do volunteer for mods shouldn't be placed on a board that they're regs of. For example, if I volunteered and my "busy" board was NEY (which I'm an active poster on) that would suck because I would have to moderate people I'm friends with IRL. Like put me in A & A or CC or something. I think there should be a rotation but if a mod doesn't feel comfortable moderating their favorite boards, then they should have to be rotated somewhere else.

I completely disagree with the bolded. We're asking people who are active members on the site to be mods... why would you want to be continually dragged away to a board you're not interested in, and conversations on which you haven't been keeping up with, to police people whose communication styles you may not be familiar with yet? I think as long as the first criteria are met, of having mods who we trust to stay "above the line" and be accountable for making fair, impartial decisions, people should moderate boards in which they're active. If someone is obviously playing favorites like this is the middle school cafeteria, they'll have their modding rights stripped.

Plus, things will be nipped in the bud much more quickly when mods are actively involved in the conversation - being a mod of boards you don't frequent wouldn't be much better than constantly trying to page KP, who appears to never leave the Tech board.

AprilH81 · June 2014

PDKH said:

More questions for the crowd:
Should mods have banning power or freezing power? Or both?
Since KP said it in her original post, how do we fell about someone who has gotten a warning in the past (let's make it relevant and say in the past year or so) being a mod?

I think mods should only be able to freeze an account for now. KP (or eventually a supermod) can do the actual banning...

I say a warning should not eliminate an otherwise good candidate as long as it was only one warning and it was for a "minor" offense. It would kind of depend on what the warning was for though...

jdluvr06 · June 2014

buddysmom80 said:

I like @cookiepusher's idea of having a seperate mod board so that mods can get together and say "hey, is this thread worthy of closing" or "should this member get banned" before pulling the switch. It keeps people accountable.

Also (I don't know if this was said before) but I think the people who do volunteer for mods shouldn't be placed on a board that they're regs of. For example, if I volunteered and my "busy" board was NEY (which I'm an active poster on) that would suck because I would have to moderate people I'm friends with IRL. Like put me in A & A or CC or something. I think there should be a rotation but if a mod doesn't feel comfortable moderating their favorite boards, then they should have to be rotated somewhere else.

I feel almost the opposite of that. I understand and half way agree with the mods not being in their most active section but at the same time I think that they should be pretty active in the section they moderate so that they have an understanding of how things are in the section.

MrsMack10612 · June 2014

I'm a world class lurker, jump in now and again, but it's all usually been said by the time I get to a thread.

I've been around since '09 and have seen a lot of shit go down. It was best when we had mods. I think have multiple mods for each board (especially the really busy ones) is a great idea as well as mods having the ability to work other boards; even if that is just putting things in a holding tank for the real board mods to review at a later time.

Per @PDKH question above about the warnings - I think because of all the BSC that happened last summer and at other times, they might be hard pressed to find good, impartial mods that haven't had at least one warning. I think the KGs need to re-think that particular sticking point in light of the crazy that has happened before.

Otherwise I completely agree with all previous comments.

What do you want in a moderator?

Re: What do you want in a moderator?

Choose Another Board

Search Boards