Who Wants To Be A Moderator.

[JW Frogen]

It seems to me there are two kinds of moderators on forums. The first being rare but intelligent, this kind of Mod simply keeps the forum out of legal trouble (illegal porn or death threats to forum members *Thank you for all the death threats folks, I promise I will respond to every one of my fans*), they have no belief in their own God-like wisdom to decide what other people can write or read. They have a modicum of wisdom. They are self actualized human beings.

Then there is the lamentable other type, which seem to be the most active, and sadly on most forums the majority. Why are fanatics always the most active in any human endeavour? This is a subject that the pseudo science psychology must proffer unempirical theories about, once it is done attempting to decide whether we even know we know what we know.

The second and lamentable category of Mods usually possess underdeveloped frontal lobes and overdeveloped adrenaline glands (reptilian traits), they have egos like eggshells and so censor anything that cracks their fragile self, anything they can not understand. What they can not understand being a longer list than Paris Hilton’s shopping list.

Who really wants to be a moderator?

 

[Zyphlin]

Hm, interesting questions and thoughts. Will try to give my view on it and will urge people to take a more generalized and broad approach then DP specific to keep this upstairs.

First, I disagree on your two types of moderators. I think its a broader type from most forums I've been on (From debate forums to wrestling forums to gaming forums to forums amongst friends).

Those that wish to help whoever it is runs the site

Those that wish to run the site

Those that want to do whatever they like

What I mean by these is as follows

Those that wish to help whoever it is that runs the site

In this case, these are generally people that are attempting to follow the edicts, rules, expectations, and orders of whoever runs the forum (an owner, a higher group of mods, whatever). In this case if those that run the site decide that they want a laize faire type of situation where only things that are legally troubling are moderated and nothing else, then they would do just that. If it was a site where the mods main purpose was simly to help organize threads to the correct places, they'd do that. If it was a site that felt that a broad set of rules meant to keep things orderly, polite, and on track then they'd enforce those rules.

In this situation, its not necessarily about what the Mod wants, its what the person that owns/runs the sites want and the mods simply act as custodians. How they mod is not so much a product of their ego or their desire to shape things but is a product of the rules, regulations, and spirit put down by the person that runs the place.

These mods are least likely to push for big changes, make a major stir, or cause much issues but they also tend to not help a site grow and mature either. They likely want to become a mod either due to friendship with the person running the place, an affinity and affection for the site and a desire to give back to it, or because they know the rules help the site stay useful and wants to be there to enforce them.

Those that wish to run the site

This does not necessarily mean TAKE OVER the site, but they want to help steer it. These people are often like the first group, following the edicts of whoever owns/runs the site. At the same time, they are generally far more proactive. More likely to push for new rules or new rule changes actively, more likely to point out where people are being too lax or too heavy in regards to some rules, more likely to take on pet projects in attempts to help fix or better the place.

If Moderation is the car the first group would be the wheels. They just want to be pointed in a direction and they'll go. The second group would be the steering wheel, the gas peddle, etc. They want to help direct it, they want to help shape it. They don't necessarily want to be THE guy, but they want to have an active roll in it.

The reasons these types may want to be a moderator vary. In regards to the "ego" thing, this one is more prone to those types. Its also prone to people that significantly like a site but feel it can be much better, and wants to help it get there. This is doubly true often when someone feels a site has "gone away" from what used to make it great and wants to try to restore it to what it was. Sometimes these are people who see a specific facet of the rules either failing or being neglected and are trying to be a mod to change that fact. If the first section of mods are followers, this section would be more like activists.

Those that want to do whatever they like

The final general category of mods on sites, those that simply want the power and do what they wish. These are the types an owner/operator of a site should always try to avoid. These are people who want power either to make themselves feel like they are important or because it allows them to do what they wish, how they wish. They have little to no regards to the rules, regulations, and spirit of things put down by the owner/operators of a site. They become proactive only in things that benefit them or their friends rather than what they feel is best for the site. They aslo tend to either flame out and get tossed quickly or end up killing a site. I've seen few places that have had these types that remain for very long. These are the ones most often motivated by some of the more negative traits.



Ultimately, I think you place to much of your definition of what kind of mod's people are, and who would want to be it, on the rules far more than you sure. Often times the rules are not directly related to the mods, but more related to the person/persons that are at the top of the pyramid. Generally, unless a forum is just started, new mods are coming into places that are already established. As such, its generally not the mods call on whether to just deal with things that are illegal or be a complete hardass that rules on everything and anything...that is usually something based on the ruleset of the forum. The better means of judging is whether they primarily work to enforce, upgrade, or evade those rules.

 

[JW Frogen]

I can't speak for the "rule set" of this forum for I have not been around it long enough.

I have been on a lot of forums and have found that on most the ruleset usually means what pisses off any mod at any paticular time, or even more often what ever confuses them most of the time, this becomes a violation of the ruleset.

As for the owner of forums, this too is a question, who wants to own a forum where their personal ego becomes the "ruleset" rather than one where humanity, in all it's diverse and profane glory rules?

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

You seem to object to the notion that this forum has rules, specifically rules beyond that which is merely necessary to keep the owner of this forum from being exposed to civil and criminal liability.

The rules of this forum are not arbitrary. They do not exist for the purpose of stroking the moderators' egos. The rules of this forum exist in order to maintain a pleasant and orderly environment for political discussion, which cannot occur when every thread is clogged with insults, inane chatter, and conspiracy theories.

The fact that our moderators enforce all of the rules of the forum-- instead of merely keeping vauge out of legal trouble-- in no way suggests that they are motivated by ego, or power, or censorship. They just want to keep this forum civilized, entertaining, and educational.

 

[Oftencold]

Personally, I can't see the advantage of anyone being a Mod, until technology advances to the point that they can administer electric shocks to violators, whiners, and the occasional random individual.

 

[JW Frogen]

Personally, I can't see the advantage of anyone being a Mod, until technology advances to the point that they can administer electric shocks to violators, whiners, and the occasional random individual.

They are working on it, as well as serotonin shots to the suck ups.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

I've been a mod before (not here, obviously). When I started, I fell into Zyphlin's "wants to run the site" catagory, and thankfully I ended up not fitting any of Zyphlin's catagories.

At this point I'm more of a "shut up and leave me the hell alone unless something is actually broken" administrator.

I have, on occasion, been tempted to change my title to "Weilder of teh Mod Rod."

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Personally, I can't see the advantage of anyone being a Mod, until technology advances to the point that they can administer electric shocks to violators, whiners, and the occasional random individual.

If I could do that, I can think of several websites where I'd go and just do that over and over to people until they died.

Mostly the chans.

edit: Oh, and any thread where a bunch of teenage boys are complaining about some woman on TV being "too fat".

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

If I could do that, I can think of several websites where I'd go and just do that over and over to people until they died.

Mostly the chans.

Why do you hate bottomless vaults of LAWL?

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Why do you hate bottomless vaults of LAWL?

I love the LAWL. Hell, you can't learn to hate something as much as I hate the chans without spending a good deal of time with it. It's when they're not funny-- or worse, when they're not trying to be funny-- when I want to torture them to death in the name of genetic and ideological purity.

They may be bottomless vaults of LAWL... but they're also bottomless cesspools of troglodytic depravity.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

The Internet is like a yard sale, or an antique dealer: You don't get any treasure without a little trash.

 

[Zyphlin]

I can't speak for the "rule set" of this forum for I have not been around it long enough.

That's fine; as I said, I'm speaking very broadly so that this doesn't devolve into a type of thread that needs to be sent downstairs because its focusing on individual moderator action here. So not speaking on this one is fine.

I have been on a lot of forums and have found that on most the ruleset usually means what pisses off any mod at any particular time, or even more often what ever confuses them most of the time, this becomes a violation of the ruleset.

Still, that is a ruleset to a point and fits in with the above.

Sometimes forums have a set ruleset, ala say this one. Its written out and available for all to see. Some can be very exact ("The statement of x, y, or z can cause consequence 1, 2, 3") others can be somewhat specific yet broad ("Remain civil, don't flame people, no trolling") while others still can be extremely vague ("behave, don't cause trouble").

Sometimes there's no real stated ruleset publicly, but moderators upon joining up are basically told what the rules are or the things they should be doing.

Very rarely have I found forums of any decent size have ZERO set rules in some form or another.

Now, sometimes, what you view as something "pissing off a mod" or "them being confused" could be YOUR OWN bias and YOUR OWN interpritation of the rules conflicting with that of the mod. That is not necessarily them "creating" a rule, that is the two of your disagreeing on it.

If there's one thing I've learned on numerous message boards that posters have the potential to have just as big of an ego as Mods and to be just as likely to demand that they did nothing wrong (I've seen people flat out call someone an asshole when personal attacks are clearly against the rules, and then demand steadfastly forever and a day that they did NOTHING against the rules and the mod was incompetent and biased)

This is not to discount that there are some mods that DO just create rules out of thin air and say its part of the rule set or how the rules mean, but as I said, those fall into category 3...those that simply don't care what the rules are.

As for the owner of forums, this too is a question, who wants to own a forum where their personal ego becomes the "ruleset" rather than one where humanity, in all it's diverse and profane glory rules?

Someone that doesn't think like you?

I know this may come as a great and utter shock but everyone is different.

If I create a forum dedicated to Smartphones then I'm going to want my mods to give warnings or take action if someone starts derailing threads about, say, how much people should charge on the app store into a pages long rant about the horrors of capitalism and the evils of those that adhere to the belief. Allowing for "humanity" to be able to display itself in all its "diverse and profane glory" doesn't help, in any way, in having a focused forum dedicated to talking about smart phones...indeed, it distracts from it.

Every forum is different, and with different goals. Those goals are generally shaped by the creator of the forum or the people in charge with creating the rules. Unless the goal of the forum is to be completely, uninhibited, unfiltered, internet anarchy about any subject of any kind in any way, then you're going to have some structure and rules.

Not all people want complete anarchy as the goal, purpose, and focus of their forum.

I imagine an owner of a website would create it because they have an interest in said thing and wish to share it; perhaps altruistically, perhaps capitalistically. The rules they create are what they likely feel will most likely help those aims come to pass along with rules that they create as time goes on as they see certain problems that were not thought of previously.

For example, if your goal is to have a safe, civil forum where people are free from being insulted by others in hopes of that attracting more people than the normal internet message board that is filled with flames, you may enact a strict rule that personal attacks are against the rules and continual use of them will get you banned. One does not have to be a fascist, or a nazi, or some kind of mentally deficient person to enact such a rule. It’s a reasonable, intelligent rule in hopes of potentially growing a forum if your goal is to create what feels like a safe environment. It has nothing to do with “ego” but all to do with what you wish your forum to be and how you wish it to present itself for others. As, in the end, one must essentially “sell” their forums to users by making it unique enough in some way to make them want to come to your forum instead of someone elses.

It seems you believe that all of the internet, in every facet, should be completely 100% open, unregulated, and essentially anarchy where anything and everything can be said by anyone at anytime about anything and as long as its legal then it should cause no trouble. Its an interesting thought, but not realistic, nor preferred I think by the masses that prefer a model where there are places where you can go knowing you’ll talk about a specific topic and just that topic, or places you can go to that aren’t just going to degenerate into a bunch of flames or 4chan like pic spews, etc. I do no think one must be stupid, or egotistical, or lack wisdom, or any of the other childish insults you so mindlessly seem to throw out without ever once seeming to look in the mirror to want that. Indeed, I think it is a mature, reasonable thing to believe that sometimes structure and some kind of authority is not inherently evil, bad, or something to rally against.

 

[Zyphlin]

I've been a mod before (not here, obviously). When I started, I fell into Zyphlin's "wants to run the site" catagory, and thankfully I ended up not fitting any of Zyphlin's catagories.

At this point I'm more of a "shut up and leave me the hell alone unless something is actually broken" administrator.

I have, on occasion, been tempted to change my title to "Weilder of teh Mod Rod."

I'd say that'd be a rather disenchanted and burnt out member of group 1. You'll do what's needed of you if asked, but you're not going out of your way to do more than's asked of you, but you're not so disenterested in the life and well being of the site that you're stepping down from being a mod (and thus leaving the category completely)

 

[JW Frogen]

That's fine; as I said, I'm speaking very broadly so that this doesn't devolve into a type of thread that needs to be sent downstairs because its focusing on individual moderator action here. So not speaking on this one is fine..

It is like Pavlov ringing a bell to a libertarian like me.

The lords of what one should not say, all wise, all-knowing so self confident in their wisdom they need not think about what they say, only pontificate what others can or can not say.

I submit it as a general comment, not directed at anyone or anywhere it is not self recognized.

Sometimes forums have a set rule set, ala say this one. Its written out and available for all to see. .

Yes, I get it, it is a simple concept.

Now I do not imagine I would have to look very hard if I was a daily forum poster to observe where the "ruleset" was not equally being applied here. Unless the Mods here practice the cowardly art of just deleting all evidence of their censorship or banning?

Why? Because moderators are humans. And humans are subjective by nature, so often if they do not understand the humor, wit, or real points being made by other humans, or if they are offended by a particular point of view they might, even subliminally search for an infraction and bend the "rule set" in the self righteous belief they have found one.

This is what makes the assumption one is wise enough to tell other people what they can write or read so dangerous, because the people who assume that power so blithely are probably the people least likely to use it wisely.

It is a dangerous arrogance, on a forum one not even possessing the nobility of ambition, but found writ large in the world too, in far more dangerous places.


Such as the hate speech laws in Canada, where even mild criticism of minority groups can land one up before a Star Chamber of thought and speech, inflicting huge economic cost and possibly even criminal convictions but where if minorities speak open hate they are rarely ever brought up before the tribunal. (Even an Islamic Iman who called for the death of Canadian solders in Afghanistan)

SteynOnline - Politics & War

The laws were well meaning, created by well meaning people (watch your freedom when well meaning people are about), who were so self righteously convinced they were both virtuous and wise enough to tell other people what they can say and read.

They are not, no one is. This is one reason the great Voltaire warned against believing you are.

So such authority, such as on a political forum with assumptions it is advocating political debate in the Western Enlightenment tradition should be used sparingly and wisely.

Simply keep the board out of legal trouble, keep people away from serious threats to physical harm, and wisely let loose the presumption you are indeed wise enough to police other people's minds.

Here is an eloquent argument on behalf of the Enlightenment so many of us seem to know so little about and why any restriction of free speech can be dangerous.

Christopher Hitchens Free Speech - Google Videos

 

[Kali]

There is no way in hell I would want to be a mod on this forum! Way toooo much work. I am a mod for an adult group board thats focus is mainly pics and that is hard enough.

No offense to Zyphlin but think you have given this mod thing a little toooooo much thought. :shock::mrgreen::lol:

 

[Gardener]

I have posted on, what, maybe 6-8 boards to the degree I was able to get a handle on the mods temperment, and I would certainly say this one is no worse than the others and better than most.

The worst characteristic for as mod to display is to take a bit too much pleasure from their moderating. With some, the delight taken in moderating others is almost a palpable thing. It is up to the site owner to weed out these folks, though, as the sites will only go downhill when mods get too much of an ego going. You know what they say about power corrupting.

 

[Tashah]

I agree with Zyphlin. And the argument that everything is morally-relativistic breaks down under scrutiny. In order to be a successful and growing community, a political message board should possess certain rules and guidelines that promote the civil exchange of ideas and ideals sans chaos and anarchy. There is of course always the possibility that a personal bias by any one moderator could influence a specific decision. To minimize this possibility, the wise owner will make provision that any and all moderator decisions are subject to peer-review by a full-spectrum and empowered staff.

 

[Gardener]

I agree with Zyphlin. And the argument that everything is morally-relativistic breaks down under scrutiny. In order to be a successful and growing community, a political message board should possess certain rules and guidelines that promote the civil exchange of ideas and ideals sans chaos and anarchy. There is of course always the possibility that a personal bias by any one moderator could influence a specific decision. To minimize this possibility, the wise owner will make provision that any and all moderator decisions are subject to peer-review by a full-spectrum and empowered staff.

The problem with peer review is that when a small group becomes royalty, the only revue they actually engage in is to strengthen that very sense thereof. Closing ranks is all that matters with far too many because it serves the very ego needs that drove them to seek the power in the first place.

 

[Tashah]

The problem with peer review is that when a small group becomes royalty, the only revue they actually engage in is to strengthen that very sense thereof. Closing ranks is all that matters with far too many because it serves the very ego needs that drove them to seek the power in the first place.

I disagree. I can't think of even one fellow colleague during my long staff tenure that petitioned or lobbied for the position. Nor does an ego power-trip satisfactorily explain Mods who have voluntarily stepped down.

 

[Gardener]

I disagree. I can't think of even one fellow colleague during my long staff tenure that petitioned or lobbied for the position. Nor does an ego power-trip satisfactorily explain Mods who have voluntarily stepped down.

I'm not saying that is what motivates ALL mods, but I have encountered far too many places where it was little more than expressions of ego. One was that place called politicalforumpoliticalworld.com now thankfully defunct. At places such as these, there is no real peer review.

As far as closing ranks is concerned, though, I see this as a common phemonenon everywhere. If anybody dares criticize anything a mod does, the immediate response by other mods is to defend their fellow mod before even knowing what transpired. The person with whom the moderator interacted is branded a troublemaker, they are viewed as suspect and they are often attacked by other mods. The so called "peer review" is little more than an expression of solidarity in these instances, and I have yet to see a single case where a mod behaving badly has ever had any consequences, much less the acknowlegement that their behavior was out of line.

 

[Tashah]

I'm not saying that is what motivates ALL mods, but I have encountered far too many places where it was little more than expressions of ego. One was that place called politicalforumpoliticalworld.com now thankfully defunct. At places such as these, there is no real peer review.

That is why some political boards such as the one above fail and some political boards such as PF hemorrhage. The premier political boards however, continue to grow and prosper.

As far as closing ranks is concerned, though, I see this as a common phemonenon everywhere. If anybody dares criticize anything a mod does, the immediate response by other mods is to defend their fellow mod before even knowing what transpired. The person with whom the moderator interacted is branded a troublemaker, they are viewed as suspect and they are often attacked by other mods. The so called "peer review" is little more than an expression of solidarity in these instances, and I have yet to see a single case where a mod behaving badly has ever had any consequences, much less the acknowlegement that their behavior was out of line.

I can easily think of dozens of instances where a complaint was lodged according to protocol and an infraction was reversed. As for crying, bitching, and moaning in public... I have little sympathy for such childish antics. To quote cnredd; "You get the respect you deserve".

 

[RightinNYC]

The problem with peer review is that when a small group becomes royalty, the only revue they actually engage in is to strengthen that very sense thereof. Closing ranks is all that matters with far too many because it serves the very ego needs that drove them to seek the power in the first place.

This is a very good point. If you ever got a look inside the mod forums, you would see that all we do is agree on everything 100% and tell each other how right we are.

It's like you can see into my soul.

 

[JW Frogen]

Some of the arguments about the deficiencies about the groupthink of peer review have already been addressed but one of the reasons the US Constitution has a first amendment is they believed that minority opinions, by which I mean opinions which violated majority norms, would be most like to start the state down the road to heavy handed censorship.

Now I know Internet forums are private property, not the public domain, and so like a magazine or newspaper it has a legal right to edit content as it sees fit, but as this forum, and most others offer themselves as communities which seek free expression and exchange of ideas in the model of Enlightenment democracy then one can be forgiven for judging them on such claims.

As to Tashah’s point (one made everywhere by apologists for moderators) that rules are needed even to have a discussion, I agree, minimal rules such as keep the forum out of legal trouble (child porn posts for instance), stop spamming (by which I mean literal spamming from ads or posters who are not even talking about the subject or to anyone on the thread) and it’s participants from real threats of physical harm, other than that we enter the world of subjective opinion where one person’s offense is another person’s brilliant point.

No moderator, no matter how well intentioned will ever be able to remove their subjectivity from that process.

Nor on a free speech forum should it ever be needed, for it is very easy for any adult reader to just scroll over and ignore any poster they find offensive. This is called being an adult and taking personal responsibility for your own reaction to what you read and think rather than abdicating that to a moderator so you do not have to think.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

One look at a forum that is moderated only in the fashion you desire will show the flaw in your argument, just as an examination of the vast majority of our infraction disputes will. The vast majority of people don't take responsibility for their own actions or reactions, and they believe that their incivility is always the fault of others.

And while what is offensive may differ from one person to another, there is absolutely nothing wrong with setting a standard and deciding that people should not have to be subjected to material which does not meet that standard. I don't moderate here because I want to force people to meet my standards; I moderate here because I love reading and posting here-- and that, in large part, is due to the standards that were in place and enforced before I became a moderator, and that I help to enforce and keep in place now.

I don't want to turn this into an argument about freedom in the real world, but this forum is a great place to visit, to read and think and discuss, because we have high standards and we expect everyone who contributes here to live up to them. If we did not have those standards, if we allowed material that did not meet those standards, this forum would not be improved for it; it would be sorely diminished.

 

[Caine]

Personally, I can't see the advantage of anyone being a Mod, until technology advances to the point that they can administer electric shocks to violators, whiners, and the occasional random individual.

Interesting that a mod would thank this post...... :mrgreen: