Forum Moderators

[Laurabelle]

I feel like the moderators on this site view their primary role as enforcing the site's rules. For example, closing threads the second they go off-topic.

I'm not saying to never close a thread that gets outrageous, but the second anyone goes in there and says something off-topic, or a thread that is accidentally placed in the wrong place for it to be instantly closed: I think that's a bit much.

So you ask, what is their primary role if not to enforce rules? Well, instead of closing the thread instantly (or warning people that hey I'm going to close this if you don't get on topic), they can instead contribute to the community and help steer it back on topic by making a meaningful post that asks a question or otherwise brings the community back together.

So, their primary role should instead be to encourage interaction, member involvement, and the sense of community. Not to delete threads, edit people's posts out, and close stuff. I just think posters should have a bit more freedom, and not being sent all these negative signals all the time.

Read more about this here: http://www.communityspark.com/the-re...tors-revealed/

[vindicatorx]

well then you won't like it when they lock this thread then. I also have to ask but who are you to decide what their role is? I mean I would complain about the overall lack of consistency before I would about them locking threads.

[Laurabelle]

well then you won't like it when they lock this thread then. I also have to ask but who are you to decide what their role is? I mean I would complain about the overall lack of consistency before I would about them locking threads.

Sorry, I'm not trying to say "this is how the moderators have to be." Or saying that I have any sort of authority on the matter or anything. Just offering some feedback. I'm not intending to call anyone out in particular or be rude or anything like that. Also, locking threads is just an example. Really, trying to drive home that their primary role shouldn't be just to enforce rules.

[Vanyali]

So you ask, what is their primary role if not to enforce rules? Well, instead of closing the thread instantly (or warning people that hey I'm going to close this if you don't get on topic), they can instead contribute to the community and help steer it back on topic by making a meaningful post that asks a question or otherwise brings the community back together.

As one of the people that's sometimes involved in this (broccoli....), mods generally don't immediately close it. They give a warning to stay on topic, usually two or three, and only if the post was *never* on topic to begin with or has gone so wildly offtopic that it's more offtopic than on do mods close it without warning in my experience. They're actually pretty lax with it sometimes, given how often GenOT likes to make amazing leaps of logic.

[Laurabelle]

Well, I primarily only read posts. I rarely make one. So when I read a post and all of sudden it is peppered with these "hey get on topic or else" posts, it is super off putting for a reader. Even more off putting than the few people posting off-topic posts.

If instead the mod had written something to try and steer the conversation back, it would show that the mod was actively reading the topic and trying to bring the community back together on it. Instead, it just feels like threats, I don't know many topics that the community was brought back together after the mod posted those kinds of threats of closure.

[The Madgod]

Sorry, I'm not trying to say "this is how the moderators have to be." Or saying that I have any sort of authority on the matter or anything. Just offering some feedback. I'm not intending to call anyone out in particular or be rude or anything like that. Also, locking threads is just an example. Really, trying to drive home that their primary role shouldn't be just to enforce rules.

Speaking as an ex-moderator, I have to 100% agree, honestly. There's a reason they are called mods and not janitors, and that reason plainly is that the position of moderator shouldn't just be one of cleaning up those who don't follow the rules. Though you kinda have to look at it from their perspective too. Moderating this site is something that we do (or in my case, did) in our free time. We're not able to engage with this as if it were our job. We're just members of the community, like you.

That really does matter, because talking with a community, engaging with a community, fostering good discussion, cultivating a positive atmosphere, building a community even... all of that takes a LOT of work and a LOT of time, which is sadly something that MMOC's mods don't have much supply of... again because they're volunteers. I know that I've caught myself not posting in the forums that I was supposed to moderate, rather skimming and looking for people acting out of line. And that's for a lot of reasons, but a big one was I just didn't have the time and energy necessary to do it. It's sadly an unfortunate part of being a volunteer.

[Vanyali]

The problem is that (as a mod on another site) it's extremely hard to mod anything you're personally involved in. Restarting threads in such a manner usually requires the mod to have knowledge about the topic [given the breadth of GenOT topics that could be a challenge (or you could just get a FeminismU degree and cover 99% of them)] and to read every post that's gone off topic to have an idea of where it started, where it was going, and where it should go back to from when it went off-topic. That's a shitload of time per post required, as well as putting out a conversation starter and abandoning it so you can effectively moderate the thread.

[Laurabelle]

I can't provide any specific examples or call anyone out in particular. I was told that would be a violation of the forum rules.

I can say after clicking the 'hot topics' (recent forum posts) from the front page. I usually find promising threads that end up closed after less than a page or two. When I refresh the page they are either locked without any mod post, or locked after one or two posts by a mod suggesting they stay on topic.

[Laurabelle]

The rule isn't about linking threads, it's about discussing the specific actions of individual moderators. So if I link it in the context of discussing their actions I guess it's a violation of rules.

The Madgod -- I get what you're saying, but I think if they focused on bringing the community together on a few threads instead of policing all the threads at once then maybe in the long run there would be better community involvement and less threads to close. Either way, yea time is always a limiting factor.

[Lochton]

I can't provide any specific examples or call anyone out in particular. I was told that would be a violation of the forum rules.

I can say after clicking the 'hot topics' (recent forum posts) from the front page. I usually find promising threads that end up closed after less than a page or two. When I refresh the page they are either locked without any mod post, or locked after one or two posts by a mod suggesting they stay on topic.

Well, first of all, threads being locked should have a closing statement from a moderator - fact.
Secondly, if multiple warnings has to be given about a thread going off-topic - then is should be closed.

A moderator can't just always come with constructive content if the topic isn't really what interests them. They are there to supervise, assist and enforce the rules when they are needed to, but they are also normal users - like you and I.

- - - Updated - - -

Sorry, I'm not trying to say "this is how the moderators have to be." Or saying that I have any sort of authority on the matter or anything. Just offering some feedback. I'm not intending to call anyone out in particular or be rude or anything like that. Also, locking threads is just an example. Really, trying to drive home that their primary role shouldn't be just to enforce rules.

No, their primary role isn't to lock down threads at all. There's more to a moderation position than just slamming the door and follow the book. So I agree on that part.

[Darsithis]

Hi Laurabelle.

Thank you for a fairly insightful article link.

There are a few things I'd like to address. Our role, first and foremost here is to participate in threads and keep discussion constructive, clean, and moving forward, on topic. That's our primary role as moderators. As global moderators, our role is to oversee all of the forums, mediate between regular moderators, be a "second set of eyes", and be a firmer hand when things are going downhill.

That said, another part of our role is to enforce our rules on this site. We do have specific rules regarding what topics are allowed, how those topics can be expressed, and what is allowed as a response. In general, we're not here to make sure people are factual or even intelligent in their replies, just that their replies are free of personal attacks, derailing tangents, and are constructive. That's why we have strict rules against using videos/memes as replies in threads and against personal attacks that do nothing to drive the conversation forward.

We feature a very forgiving ban system here designed to encourage people to post within the rules without just being thrown out the door right away. We want people to post here, and we want people to enjoy their time in a safe environment on our forum. So, yes, part of our job is to lock threads that get too derailed or started off very poorly, and part of our job is to police the forum to ensure people are behaving. It's a small part, though, and we're always willing to discuss a locked thread or address any concerns about an action we've taken.

I hope this helps clarify our position.