Conduct unbecoming a mod?

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp5334327.html#5334327

I firmly support the right of mods to have and to express opinion. But I also take the view that mods are bound to a different, and higher, standard of conduct from other members.

Taking a strong position in a thread with polarized points of view, and using terms like, "mindless little twats," does not, in my view, tend to instill confidence.

it doesn't look different from the majority of threads in PPR, where such remarks are fairly common. i am a bit surprised that Cornflake's post stands out for you considering some of the crap that gets flung around in there.

moderators frequently post as members in threads, and we often have strongly worded opinions. this probably isn't going to change as we are also members of the site and we enjoy being involved in threads. if we did not feel that we could freely discuss topics, i doubt that we would remain on the board, as we didn't ever desire to be moderators - we do this in order to help alex.

we are not currently held to a higher standard than other members; we are held to the same standard. even alex is held to the same standard and not above the membership. we are not teachers standing over pupils, we are essentially fellow members with extra tools, in a volunteer position, entrusted with keeping order and civility on a discussion board.

His wording may have been slightly inappropiate in that particular thread(its PPR so they are used to seeing far worse) however we all have our days when we are a bit off and his actions can´t be judged by one post because almost every member has done a something like that at some point and we don´t look into it unless it becomes frequent/ a cause of concern

Visagrunt, it seems to me that your post in that thread was more objectionable than Cornflake's in that you implied that the Moderators should be denied the right to express their opinions and emotions in the same way that other members do simply because of their mod-status.

I implied nothing of the kind.

I explicitly stated, however, that I supported the substance of Cornflake's post, but not the means used to express it.

If moderators cannot lead by example, then what's the point of having moderators? Where is the faith that good judgement will be exercised when it is required?

Too few moderators are being expected to do too much.

Since "twat" is now acceptable language in PPR, let the floodgates open.

Floodgates? Really now, that's something of an exaggeration.

Despite having a more vulgar alternative meaning it's still a generally acceptable derogatory epithet in British English, meaning a foolish or despicable person, and is not subject to the automatic swear censor here - unlike attempts to refer to a small tabby p**** cat.

Since one man's small cat is another man's vulgar anatomical term, we try not to act as the arbiters of acceptable epithets unless they are clearly being used in an aggressive or insulting manner to another member, or unnecessarily pepper the content of a post, or used excessively outside of PPR, and basically use the swear filter's action as a guide to what is acceptable. Alex has also informed us that this is considered sufficient to handle "everyday swearing" on WP (subject to it not being put to obvious or aggressive use, as mentioned).
We also often remove images when they contain unfiltered swearwords that would otherwise be filtered in a post, and videos containing unbleeped swearwords, with the idea that this at least goes part way to enabling a consistent approach to the "known bad" swearwords.
But, if you'd like to help define an internationally acceptable list of words which must not be spoken here, that would be very useful.

As a mod you do feel a bit under pressure to not stoop to the same levels as many like to. In fact, it can be quite alienating. You can't just say what's on your mind without feeling guilty.

Had it been expressed anywhere else on the forum, yeah, I think it would be inappropriate and concerning. Had it been expressed directly at another member; definitely.

But PPR has been granted some leeway from the general rules, and apparently that's how people like it.

I actually believe in the "higher standard" too, but with some reservations. The concept I've got in my head is hard to explain, but I'll do my best.

Basically, I think that moderators can either be in user-mode or in moderator-mode. If they are acting in the former then they shouldn't be under more constraints than anyone else; however, in the latter then they should really watch their actions. To give a somewhat exaggerated example: if he had said "user1 is banned for being a mindless twat", I'd consider that quite awful, but he was participating on that thread like any other member then I don't see any noticeable problem; it could have been expressed better, sure, but I've seen far, far worse in PPR (AspieRogue anyone?) and it is still within the rules there. If being a moderator implied being held to that higher standard all of the time with no exception, that would make moderating very tiresome indeed.

Also, moderator duty isn't strictly about moderating threads. It is also about doing cleanup, eliminating duplicates or spam, and from what I've seen Cornflake is one of the more active ones, he even resizes images in his free time which is not one of his duties, yet is quite useful .

I'd actually like to see a little more consistency on this one, as I've understood this to be the policy for some time, yet I still see mod edits being done in PPR to remove words that are not covered by the swear filters and are not being used aggressively. For example, if I wanted to discuss the book n****r: The Strange Career of a Troublesome Word by Randall Kennedy, (http://www.amazon.ca/Nigger-Strange-Car ... 0375421726) I don't think I should have to change the title to N-Word: The Strange Career of a Troublesome Word. In that case, even the Amazon URL would have to be censored. If we can all agree to go by the swear filter and aggressive usage standard, I think misunderstandings and needless mod team vs member friction can be reduced, which would be good for everyone.

I agree with this as a basic idea, and being able to switch the badge on and off might be a useful step to achieving it - but I doubt it would be allowed to work in practice because it can be considered that the position of moderator is still held by a named member, but just "visually suspended", and it's a tiny step from there to demanding that the same high standards of leadership or whatever should therefore still apply and we end up where we are now.

The alternative is that moderators are entirely prohibited from being involved with any discussion - no opinions expressed, not even laughing at a joke or agreeing with a post, in case it can be seen as somehow "colouring" our lofty status.
I think this is entirely unrealistic on a social web forum - although having just been watching parliament in action I can see how the Speaker of the House is rightly bound by such ruling.
But this is not parliament.

Something else which seems to work and is something we all employ, is that a moderator involved on a personal level with a thread is automatically barred from moderating it.

I entirely agree and I am always mindful to refer to specific rule breaks and to keep my personal opinions on what is expressed out of the judgement when I am acting in a moderation capacity.
As to my choice of words - I would regard it as being "not inappropriate" in PPR alone, used in moderation, and I would certainly regard it as a personal attack if addressed to a member.
I'd also add that most of this activity is invisible to members because it is managed via PM, so to take 3 words in one PPR post as any indication of behaviour - let alone behaviour as a moderator, is unjust.

Precisely. We are also WP members and come here for the same reasons and because of the same conditions as other members.
If we were "trained moderators" (is there such a thing?) with no other function but moderating then it would be much simpler to delineate.
And also something I would have no interest in doing. I enjoy WP and I enjoy interacting with others here.

I'm here around 12+ hours at a time because I enjoy it and want to be here, and while it does sometimes get a little tedious correcting the same posting errors time and again it is still something I enjoy doing and regard it as part of keeping the place neat, tidy and in trim for the members.
(And thank you for noticing my image tweaks. The cheque is in the post... )

To reiterate my point from the originating thread, I'd say you'd have a valid complaint if he was directing those terms at you or another member, if other members but not mods were being sanctioned for using similar language, or if he was acting in his capacity as a moderator when he made the comment. As he was acting as a member at the time, I consider him to have been "off duty", and thus not subject to any higher standard of conduct than any other member. It's like the police, we don't bar them from drinking or acting foolishly when out of uniform, it's only when they put on the badge that different standards apply (in theory, anyway). The only exception to that I could really think of would be if we had a mod who was openly bigoted in some way that called into question their capacity to moderate in a minimally biased manner; then I might raise a stink about it.

Again, I don't think it's realistic to expect volunteer members to surrender their identities when they accept the responsibilities of moderation, so long as they don't interfere with the execution of said responsibilities in a fair and even manner. They are after all members first and foremost, who presumably came here for the same reasons the rest of us did; I don't think they should lose their rights on the site as a result of accepting a time consuming and thankless task for no personal gain.

However, where I do think a higher standard applies is actual violations of the rules; nothing damages member confidence in the moderation team and WP as a whole more than seeing a mod make a personal attack or reinterpret the rules in their own favor without any consequences. I'd back the position that less slack be given in that direction all day every day, but I don't think that's what's being discussed here.

Please provide an internationally acceptable list of words which must not be spoken here, and clearly state where and how it is to be applied.
I know that's blunt and I don't mean it as such, but this has come up so many times and with so many explanations of the implementation difficulties and its impracticability that I'd rather just address the central problem on one line.

I don't like to see swearing at all but applying the sensitivities of a delicate vicarage spinster and removing everything remotely offensive is... not going to be received very well. (kids areas excepted: no contest)
I dislike censoring anything and doubly so in PPR - but given rules which basically say only "no swearing" and a somewhat simplistic swear filter, an unambiguous "acceptable/not acceptable" method of dealing with naughty words for any forum would be very, very welcome.
Elevating the actions of the swear filter into a standard is barely adequate, but it's the only standard we have that we can point at and say "there - that's the standard list of what's allowable".
Then there are always the missed posts, and can we realistically be expected to sit through every video posted here, some of which (the more noisy and aggressive music ones) practically make my ears bleed - or the 1+ hour ones? We'd need a team of moderators on dedicated images/video duty alone to make that work.

^
I wasn't complaining about things being allowed to go through, I was saying that there is unnecessary moderation taking place that contradicts the stated policy of using the swear filter as a guideline and prohibiting targeted usage. I'm saying you should do less, not more. If people complain about a word being used, and it's not swear filtered and not being used against someone, then all you have to do is point the complainer to the policy of the swear filter and usage, easy peasy.

except that creating a thread to discuss (for example) a racial slur, does not actually require the use of the racial slur. it involves a blatant disregard for the individuals targeted by the slur, and i'm afraid that racism IS covered by the rules. you can discuss racial slurs without using them. in fact, i just did so!

Inevitably we miss stuff, which is unfortunate, and in PPR I do try to leave a video which might have a couple of swears over (say) 2 minutes because I would rather err on the side of under-censoring there. Unfortunately that's less easy to justify with a 5 minute George Carlin video, stuffed full of swearing from start to finish and likewise with some music videos.
Since most of the swearwords encountered in posts/images/videos are (unsurprisingly) already in the swear filter, the strict net result would be that none of these videos would be allowable.

Swearing in posts is pretty much handled by the swear filter, since Alex considers that adequate for casual swearing and, in PPR at least, we would only tend to act when swearwords are used intermittently but persistently across posts (an extended denigration, say) or as a deliberate and aggressive torrent of abuse aimed at a member.

As for words not in the swear filter... well, you've seen what happened there and I'm not about to cop another earful for using what is in the UK a fairly acceptable epithet beginning with "T".
Acceptable, just like a p**** cat. Oops...

One of the Administrators I know on another site use their signature as a tool to easily distinguish when he is posting in a moderator stance, or lack thereof.