• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

What would you expect moderators to do?

I do prefer threads to stay on topic. Mods only intervene if postings have been flagged, which implies that other people have flagged a post/s. If you don't have the kind of modding which includes all the things mentioned here you get overrun by trolls.
Certainly, people can, will and must disagree and occasionally things will get messy and feelings get hurt (whether accidentally or through mutual frustration or whatever). But if we can't expect forum posts to be uniformly correct and courteous, how can we expect that of the moderators. They're human too. Let's be realistic here.
 
I saw a badger yesterday has anyone else seen one recently?
 
Brunneria said:
Ideally, I would expect mods to:
  • referree disagreements on the forum without partiality
  • maintain civility on the forum (people are sometimes allowed to behave very rudely and because they don't break the forum rules their posts are left standing)
  • enforce the forum rules
  • consistently obey the forum and moderating rules themselves
  • maintain impartiality (diet choices and people. no chums with get-out-of-jail-cards)
  • no hob nailed boots and bullying. I have seen this happen often. A thread is trundling along, a hint of casual frivolity, or the subject shifts slightly, and the mods are all over it like a rash, threatening deletions like an 1860s head teacher
  • review the banning rules to account for human error, and previous persecution of individuals by particular mods. In other words, if someone was unfairly banned, this should be reviewed and revoked.
I would like to add that modding is a very difficult job. I do it myself, and it gets tricky (understatement!). But it can all be summed up with consistent, fair, impartiality. If that isn't achieved, it is a miserable job, and it creates misery.
Click to expand...
Can I play devils advocate:

1. referee disagreements on the forum without partiality
I can see this is very hard for mods - If they do one party or the other will consider that they are being unfair and have a partial bias. The only way to combat that is to have a court with open proceedings. However, the court system can still be unjust and then there is nothing you can do but live in the system and change slowly over time or fight from outside.

2. maintain impartiality (diet choices and people. no chums with get-out-of-jail-cards)
This is related to number one but I would like to say people are human and I am sure they try their best.

3. review the banning rules and why people got banned
and what if the reason for being banned is lost in time. Should the forum allow all banned individuals back maybe with posting restriction/vetting first. I know admin said he was considering allowing past banned people back. Doing post vetting breaks the flow of a conversation and places a large burden on moderators so wouldn't work. Maybe the answer is vetted topics where mods then vet the posts in that topic before they appear. Vetted topics would need to be like the anonymous questions which are under the control of the admins or we would need large mod teams for each sub-forum

@Administrator is there any merit in vetted topics such that they can either be started that way or taken control of if they absolutely need to
 
Andrew Colvin said:
Can I play devils advocate:

1. referee disagreements on the forum without partiality
I can see this is very hard for mods - If they do one party or the other will consider that they are being unfair and have a partial bias. The only way to combat that is to have a court with open proceedings. However, the court system can still be unjust and then there is nothing you can do but live in the system and change slowly over time or fight from outside.

2. maintain impartiality (diet choices and people. no chums with get-out-of-jail-cards)
This is related to number one but I would like to say people are human and I am sure they try their best.

3. review the banning rules and why people got banned
and what if the reason for being banned is lost in time. Should the forum allow all banned individuals back maybe with posting restriction/vetting first. I know admin said he was considering allowing past banned people back. Doing post vetting breaks the flow of a conversation and places a large burden on moderators so wouldn't work. Maybe the answer is vetted topics where mods then vet the posts in that topic before they appear. Vetted topics would need to be like the anonymous questions which are under the control of the admins or we would need large mod teams for each sub-forum

@Administrator is there any merit in vetted topics such that they can either be started that way or taken control of if they absolutely need to
Click to expand...

I agree with every single point you have made.
Modding is VERY difficult.
And it rarely makes friends.
It is also very EASY to criticise from the outside, looking in.

But... don't we all (I hope) try to hold ourselves to personal and professional standards? And even when we don't achieve them, 100%, because we are HUMAN, that doesn't stop us aiming high, and acknowledging a set of ideals to work towards.
 
Andrew Colvin said:
Can I play devils advocate:

1. referee disagreements on the forum without partiality
I can see this is very hard for mods - If they do one party or the other will consider that they are being unfair and have a partial bias. The only way to combat that is to have a court with open proceedings. However, the court system can still be unjust and then there is nothing you can do but live in the system and change slowly over time or fight from outside.

2. maintain impartiality (diet choices and people. no chums with get-out-of-jail-cards)
This is related to number one but I would like to say people are human and I am sure they try their best.

3. review the banning rules and why people got banned
and what if the reason for being banned is lost in time. Should the forum allow all banned individuals back maybe with posting restriction/vetting first. I know admin said he was considering allowing past banned people back. Doing post vetting breaks the flow of a conversation and places a large burden on moderators so wouldn't work. Maybe the answer is vetted topics where mods then vet the posts in that topic before they appear. Vetted topics would need to be like the anonymous questions which are under the control of the admins or we would need large mod teams for each sub-forum

@Administrator is there any merit in vetted topics such that they can either be started that way or taken control of if they absolutely need to
Click to expand...

I would also like to add that sometimes, in fora, as in life, "less is more". I sometimes observe what appears to be rampant editing or deleting of posts where a spat has broken out. In a forum where many people, particularly newcomers, are looking for change, then open, robust discussion is required. If everyone agreed, and everyone knew how to tackle this thing we wouldn't be her. spending hours beating our keyboards. We'd host a few videos on YouTube and mainline of fat bombs and oily fish.

Only by arguing the toss can some people be inspired to do some research for themselves. Where I can become frustrated is when a newbie, or not so newbie, pips up with their 17-millionth question, without searching the forum of consulting Dr Google for an instant. Of course there is conflicting information out there, but there's plenty of that on here too.

I always say that my view on successful parenting (as someone who is childless, so I am clearly best placed for that judgement) is for a parent to bring up a child who wants to be successful and independent, within the laws of this land. That they may choose to follow a career or life path not favoured by their parents is an irrelevance - they are independent thinkers.

Bringing children up to be life-long parentally reliant is, in my view, a recipe for disaster, but sometimes we are in danger of doing this, in this forum for members. I do appreciate this isn't parenthood, but it is about developing people and engaging them, and attempting to empower them with their own lives. After all, they are the ones who will eventually bear the consequences if it all goes horribly wrong.
 
Brunneria said:
Ideally, I would expect mods to:
  • referree disagreements on the forum without partiality
  • maintain civility on the forum (people are sometimes allowed to behave very rudely and because they don't break the forum rules their posts are left standing)
  • enforce the forum rules
  • consistently obey the forum and moderating rules themselves
  • maintain impartiality (diet choices and people. no chums with get-out-of-jail-cards)
  • no hob nailed boots and bullying. I have seen this happen often. A thread is trundling along, a hint of casual frivolity, or the subject shifts slightly, and the mods are all over it like a rash, threatening deletions like an 1860s head teacher
  • review the banning rules to account for human error, and previous persecution of individuals by particular mods. In other words, if someone was unfairly banned, this should be reviewed and revoked.
I would like to add that modding is a very difficult job. I do it myself, and it gets tricky (understatement!). But it can all be summed up with consistent, fair, impartiality. If that isn't achieved, it is a miserable job, and it creates misery.
Click to expand...


Perfectly summed up @Brunneria. A well reasoned, articulate dialogue.

My opinion is:
When members feel they have been unfairly or unjustly treat when posting, it's human nature to "fight back." It's pointless really, especially when you consider the forum rules regarding moderating decisions. And I quote "Moderator decisions are final and not up for discussion." Personally, I'm able to ignore destructive moderator input on threads. It doesn't bother me anymore. It simply flys over my head at break-neck speed. I do try to extend some pity for those who exhibit such narrow-minded moderation, that may also be viewed as heavy handed. But, that's because I'm nice! Put simply, the forum is what it is. No point in fighting a battle you can't win. When the rules regarding moderation are so deeply entrenched in the forum philosophy, then you're always gonna come in 2nd! So, we all have to learn to "like it or lump it." Don't give yourself the stress. Pick your battles. This one ain't worth it. Members should vote with their feet & "do one" if they can't stomach another petty, destructive edit etc. Simply rise above it.
Aiming for consistent, fair, impartial censure by moderators everywhere is a desirable goal, even if not always achieved. It's a noble aim none-the-less.


Edited to remove any ambiguity.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Apologise publicly when they get it wrong, I know unlikely to ever happen in my lifetime, but could a miracle be hiding just around the corner,........ just as I thought ........nah.
 
Andrew Colvin said:
Can I play devils advocate:

1. referee disagreements on the forum without partiality
I can see this is very hard for mods - If they do one party or the other will consider that they are being unfair and have a partial bias. The only way to combat that is to have a court with open proceedings. However, the court system can still be unjust and then there is nothing you can do but live in the system and change slowly over time or fight from outside.

2. maintain impartiality (diet choices and people. no chums with get-out-of-jail-cards)
This is related to number one but I would like to say people are human and I am sure they try their best.

3. review the banning rules and why people got banned
and what if the reason for being banned is lost in time. Should the forum allow all banned individuals back maybe with posting restriction/vetting first. I know admin said he was considering allowing past banned people back. Doing post vetting breaks the flow of a conversation and places a large burden on moderators so wouldn't work. Maybe the answer is vetted topics where mods then vet the posts in that topic before they appear. Vetted topics would need to be like the anonymous questions which are under the control of the admins or we would need large mod teams for each sub-forum

@Administrator is there any merit in vetted topics such that they can either be started that way or taken control of if they absolutely need to
Click to expand...
@Andrew Colvin i vote you members chair .. And I need a health question sorting re my exercise .. Your science brain please ..
Thanks Kat .. But the new year will,do ;) but you will need wingers to !
 
Brunneria said:
I agree with every single point you have made.
Modding is VERY difficult.
And it rarely makes friends.
It is also very EASY to criticise from the outside, looking in.

But... don't we all (I hope) try to hold ourselves to personal and professional standards? And even when we don't achieve them, 100%, because we are HUMAN, that doesn't stop us aiming high, and acknowledging a set of ideals to work towards.
Click to expand...
Modding and participating can both be hard .. It's got to be a balanced two way happy fair caring process .. :)
We are just all humans at the end of the day .. Humans I agree with , but not sure we all aim high .. Depends on person and life ..
 
satindoll said:
I have a Badger with a car shaped dent, so I'm guessing it was you, ....
Click to expand...
What? You think squirefulwood is a badger that has been in a collision? ;)
Sorry, this is getting silly.
 
Pipp said:
What? You think squirefulwood is a badger that has been in a collision? ;)
Sorry, this is getting silly.
Click to expand...

Isn't he??????????, if not I stand/sit/crouch/lay corrected, sorry I thought it was the silly season ........:rolleyes:
 
Back
Top