• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

Guidelines for Moderators

novella

novella

Active Member
Do such guidelines exist? Should they exist? Are they needed?

What rules would the ideal moderator follow? Is a moderator an online policeman, or should moderators play a proactive role in developing the site, encourage on-topic discussion, and discourage spamming? If a moderator continually offends others, posts spam, and engages in petty arguments, what recourse do the members have, if any?

Should moderators set a standard in their posts? Should they endeavour never to break the forum posting rules?

Should moderators engage in personal attacks, make off-topic comments about members? Should they be exemplars of appropriate posting?

Are moderators seek-and-destroy enforcers, or are they gardeners who feed the garden and occassionally prune the trees?

Are mods always mods? Or are they members until they get upset and then become mods?
 
i don't know, but i do know that if we ask our mods to only function as moderators and nothing else, and not be permitted to participate in a more casual manner, then who would want to be one. not me.
 
novella said:
Is a moderator an online policeman, or should moderators play a proactive role in developing the site, encourage on-topic discussion, and discourage spamming?
Click to expand...

The latter. In my opinion a moderator's role is to ensure the continuity of a site. They should create threads when the conversation lulls in order to create the illusion of a busy forum to encourage new users to join.

They should display a competent understanding of the workings of the forum - its FAQs, its shortcuts, etc. They should, when such an operation is needed, take responsibility for threads with respect to deleting spam and double posts, merging threads that were double posts that weren't caught in time or are similarly related in content, splitting threads that go off topic in order to create two or more threads that are on topic, closing threads that are outdated (although not those that have run their course), editing thread titles to more appropriate wording in order to aid the forum's search engine for keywords, and moving threads to the correct forum when someone has posted it to an incorrect area.

In addition, they shouldn't be shy about editing another member's post if the member has failed to use BB Tags correctly in order to improve the readability of posts. This forum has a test area specifically for this - if someone repeatedly doesn't use BB Tags - where appropriate - then a friendly nod in the correct direction would always show that you have the interests of the forum at heart.

Welcoming new members to the forum, also, goes without saying. You must make people feel welcome. Unfortunately, this forum suffers from a bloat of in-jokes and crap when a new person joins they are typically assaulted with a mass of emoticons, rants about penguins, and comments about biscuits. What's wrong with a simple hello? It's less overpowering, nicer, and actually makes someone feel welcome in the forum rather a rabid mob joking about biscuits and penguins with the new user not having a clue about what's going on. Immediate alienation - no wonder few come back.

A moderator can have opinions (which they should be articulate about when posting) but they can't resort to expressing their anxieties. Especially not against those that use the forum.

The biggest mistake made is that a moderator is looking after the users. This is rubbish. A moderator is looking after the forum on behalf of its users.

The biggest problem with many forums is that their adminstrators create rules early rather than let their forum grow naturally. As the forum evolves it becomes clear what the boundaries are and the growing user base typically begins to moderate their forum on behalf of themselves - no need an abundance of people to have extra privileges. If someone steps out of line then the forum's members generally tell the person and they'll typically apologise and remember never to do it again. If they go overboard to the realm of 'beyond decency' then the administrator or a moderator with sufficient power can ban that user.

That's why I feel that the politics/religion rule here is the biggest piece of folly. It's a missed chance. A missed chance, that is, to see the forum grow naturally. Instead of being allowed to flourish it has been shackled with petty rule after petty rule.

If the people who made the rules cared more about the forum than offending the users (especially since the users claimed not to be offened in a certain thread) then the forum would grow. A bit more trust and a lot less kid gloves.


If a moderator continually offends others, posts spam, and engages in petty arguments, what recourse do the members have, if any?
Click to expand...

They can always complain to the forum's administrator. The posts of moderators, when reported, are also available for reporting. Only the moderator responsible for the post is not notified of the complaint.

Should moderators set a standard in their posts? Should they endeavour never to break the forum posting rules?
Click to expand...

Yes. They are the face of the forum and are therefore the first point of call. The customer service. The servants of the customer.

Should moderators engage in personal attacks, make off-topic comments about members?
Click to expand...

No. They should lead by example. Don't quote forum rule number 3.x against one member when they are not angels themselves.

Are moderators seek-and-destroy enforcers, or are they gardeners who feed the garden and occassionally prune the trees?
Click to expand...

Gardeners. They members should not concern them. It should always be the forum. The soil and not the flowers.
 
jenngorham said:
i don't know, but i do know that if we ask our mods to only function as moderators and nothing else, and not be permitted to participate in a more casual manner, then who would want to be one. not me.
Click to expand...


I too think that's completely unreasonable. Nobody's suggesting that.

The way I see it, the mods are like the hosts of a party. They should make sure everyone feels welcome, check that the nut bowl is full, that everyone knows where the loo is, and keep the conversation rolling along in a friendly manner.

They should not be slipping gherkins into people's pockets, spiking drinks, pinching asses, and snoring on the couch. They should not intrude on conversations and say things like "that's a stupid thing to say" "pay no attention to him, he's got problems" and "didn't I just say that?"

A lot of people have a natural instinct for moderating with a light, friendly touch. Like Halo, for instance, who just stepped in before to explain spoilers to someone. No fuss, no foul.

Stewart's great post adds a lot to this idea.
 
My Two Cents (perhaps valuable, perhaps not)

A very good friend of mine is an administrator on an enormous forum that has 70,000 members and around 30,000 daily posts. In the time of his involvement, it has faced a lot of the issues that I am seeing pop up here. (I realize I am new and probably not aware of everything.) Since I am a firm believer of investigating what has worked elsewhere, I am throwing their model into the pot.

"We expect moderators to set the standard for behavior on *website*, and therefore expect them to always be polite, avoid flamewars, and even avoid posting in controversial topics altogether most of the time."

Their moderators are on terms of 2 months at a time with a maximum of 3 consecutive terms before a break.

They also have a set of guidelines for their moderators, who are "moderated" by the administrators.

It seems to work very well there.

(Novella, you are awesome with your descriptions! Perfect.)
 
Again, just to keep the record clear, the previous two posters never completed their applications to join "The Wilde Gang." (It is, after all, a very "select" group, I don't take just anyone. In fact, I've never taken anyone. I'm the only member to have ever met all the criteria. The secret handshake is a bit of a dud as a result. But the decoder ring is really cool.) If they have roused rabble, it is not my doing.
 
Vaguely related - did you see this announcement Irene? I had managed to completely miss it until someone pointed it out.
 
Freya said:
Vaguely related - did you see this announcement Irene? I had managed to completely miss it until someone pointed it out.
Click to expand...

If you refer to the announcement currently perched atop General Chat, I have seen it.
 
I hope this is not looked at as pot stirring, but the questions Novella has posed at the start of this thread are probably the most legitimate questions to have come out of the last few days, and/or weeks.

I am sincerely interested in the answers. Much like the membership agreement, is there a moderators agreement?

I don't see this as badgering, or sniping, or witch hunting. I see these questions as very valid, and proof that there is a real desire to understand how things work. If people did not care they would simply leave, like others have done. Those that care, stick around and ask questions. Those that care make the forum a better place.

It seems to me that answers to the original post would go a long way towards clearing the waters.
 
I'll step in and post my response. I didn't post my response straight away as I wanted to read a lot of what has been happening during my absence, as well as dealing with a large number of PMs from both sides of the fence.

The short answer is that there are no official moderator guidelines. In the beginning we didn't need them. The forum was small and the only moderating issues were welcoming new members and dealing with spam. Recent events have shown that there is more to consider and I will be addressing this.

To answer a few questions which have arisen over recent times (not all have been specifically raised in this thread).

Are moderators members?
Yes, everyone who has joined this site is a member.

Are moderators always moderators, or can they "put on the cap" when needed?
Moderators are always moderators and should act as such whilst they are moderators. There has been some confusion about this, and again, I will be addressing this.

Are there secret forums? What goes on there?
There is a private moderators' forum. Nearly all forums will have one.
We discuss forum related issues, ranging from creating new forums to dealing with difficult issues (warnings/bans) etc. There is also a private testing forum to deal with the more technical side such as splitting/merging threads etc.

Should moderators set a standard in their posts? Should they endeavour never to break the forum posting rules?
Nobody is perfect, and people will slip from time-to-time. All members should try not to break the forum rules.

Are moderators seek-and-destroy enforcers, or are they gardeners who feed the garden and occassionally prune the trees?
A little of both. If they see something which is potentially going to turn nasty they can step in to deal with it.

What is the difference between a Senior Moderator and a Moderator?
Moderators only have moderating powers in the forum(s) they are assigned to.
Senior Moderators have moderating powers in all forums, as do I.

How are warnings and bans discussed/issued? How can people appeal?
Minor issues will be dealt with via PM from a moderator. These are not warnings, but a bit of "friendly advice".
All official warnings (part of the three-strikes system) are discussed and issued if the majority of mods/senior mods are in agreement.
Bans are discussed in a similar manner, but I have overall veto regarding bans.

If people want to appeal against a warning they should contact me, and only me. If people want to appeal against a ban, either in person or on behalf of someone else, they should again contact me.
I can either be contacted via PM or via email.

I hope that helps to clear up at least a few of the issues which have recently arisen.

Darren.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top