How many mods and admins does this board need?

Post Reply New Topic

I'd have to disagree with that. I think there was too much dissonance, not too many mods. As it was, the moderating team didn't have enough mods because it's a definite weakness in a team when the site depends on just a few mods showing up before everything goes to s**t.

alex needs a lot more mods so the site doesn't become heavily dependant on any one individual (except himself of course).

I never told you to move that thread to the moderator forum. I told you it would be better to leave the thread and just keep it locked. Just wanted to clear that up.

I don't think that the level of governing a site is dependant on the quantity, more than the quality of the individual moderator. I think it's better to give the moderators more power if you want to relieve alex and admins from some duties, than to expand the 'mod squad'. One mod per sub-forum (maybe 1 or 2 more for a sub-forum if that one happens to be busier than the other ones) will do. I've seen it happen on other sites, why shouldn't this also be possible on WP?

I'm starting to like the idea of moderators being assigned 1 or two sub-forums. I think this will also help to prevent mods from being (and being seen as) a clique or a cabal. A lot of the problems seem to be related to the way in which the mods are viewed. I think that assigning them each to different forums might help reassure people that the moderators aren't acting in collusion.

I think another idea would be for me not to get involved in any moderating as a rule just so the moderators don't feel worried that I'd overturn their decisions. I think that might make them feel that they have enough authority to do their job. One of the problems I've been hearing from moderators is they feel powerless to help everyone. I think some members of wrongplanet are taking advantage of this by baiting moderators and then making fun of them when nothing happens.

Alex just to come back to you on this.

Firstly Moderators assigned/related to sub forums are done on other boards and i think its highly sensible thing to do. I would suggest 1-2 mods a sub-forum depending on its use. The exceptions being general discussion and membership only discussion were you might want around 3-4.

Its a far more sensible way to operate a population of moderators you have assigned fields for people to be part off and you can pick and match people to the sub forums for moderation. Its a good way of managing a team.

Secondly it is best for a site owner/admin to take a hands off approach to the board. You have openly been seen too (from the point of view of the average member anyway) contradict the judgements and actions of your moderators and admins and these kind of situations are not very professional, competant or terribly good to making an impression of this board on new members or current ones.
You should consider your role to be one of the last line of resort rather then being over controlling. Its the best way a board operates and in any succesful community the greatest moderators are the entire regular membership themselves the best moderation is made by the entire community not select members with moderatorship privelages activated on their account.

Johnnie
Butterfly

can these sub titles be done away with before i become a cockroach or whatever is next

Johnnie
Hummingbird

ok Hummingbird was next

does 20 posts make me something else

nope

Good points, Laz. I think I share your opinion.

Thanks for your input Alex. But I do want to ask a question about 'moderators who feel powerless to help everyone'. Going by your last sentence, does this mean that they feel that they're not able to deal with longlasting problems coming from some individuals (anymore)? And, whether the problems come from individuals or are just a great amount of little problems, is their feeling triggered by an issue that is impossible to solve by the (current or improved) TOS?

For me, the big issue is that there are definite divisions within the membership as to what is appropriate, and it's very hard to solve problems when people are (intentionally?) pushing the line to see how much they can get away with. We end up with one group of people saying "ABC is a troll, and if you don't ban him and delete his thread then you're on his side and so me and 100 of my friends will quit WP", and then when ABC goes way over the line and we take action, another group says "the mods are censoring ABC for no reason, and if you don't put that thread back then me and 100 of my friends will quit QP". In that sense, there is no way to make everyone happy because half of them want a G-Rated support site and the other half want an R-Rated social site. As far as I'm concerned, we should make it one or the other and then let the people who don't like it go through with their threats to leave.

So do I. A conflict of interest is created when the site owner duties and the mod duties overlap, because the site owner, just like the mods and members, can get involved in personal conflicts. For the same reason that mods don't moderate threads they are personally involved in, I think the site owner also shouldn't take action (warn, ban, de-mod, etc.) in situations where they are in a dispute with someone (being attacked, feeling like the site is being attacked, etc.). Action should always be taken by an impartial third party, for example another admin or another mod.



The issue is not between mods and members, but within the mod team. I do not believe it can be solved by changing the TOS. I think it's necessary to re-evaluate the team structure and duties.

......which I suppose you are doing right now or at least very soon, right? Alex already stated to be open to it, and, if the situation was based on this thread only, we seem to be very close to an agreement regarding the new policy concerning moderators and moderating.

@ Jetson

Your opinion seems reasonable to me. They're not obliged to stay, especially when they don't like what goes on [within the context of the scenario you described]. Is this a matter of a (be it tiny) dispute between you and other mods, or is this issue also near a unanymous agreement on how to deal with such a case?

Last edited by Kiss_my_AS on 27 Feb 2006, 4:58 am, edited 1 time in total.

Yes, you shouldn't get involved in any of their decisions. If you do, you undermine any authority they might have had otherwise, and in the end, nobody's going to care because you could simply, um, delete a thread or something.

You've hit the nail right on the head. I think that if someone doesn't post enough they should be de modded eventually.



You're right, but I don't think the quality is very high to be honest. No offence. I also think that certain mods should be assigned to certain forums.

A mod that never posts in politics has no right really to b***h an dcomplain about a member there.

Hale, someone already suggested to Alex that certain mods are formally assigned to certain forums. Even in a casual sense, some mods frequented more forums more often (and thus moderated) than others did. My special one was the PPR forum and I spent most of my time in there (not that I bother replying to everything, though...).