Moderators are losing credibility

Post Reply New Topic

Having been an active member of the site for some time now, it is becoming increasingly apparent to me that there are some structural problems with the approach to moderation in the fora.

There are, I think, three principal shortcomings:

Lack of Resources: There are, frankly, an insufficient number of moderators. There are too few people, with responsibility for too much material. Even if most of the effort needs to be expended on a handful of forums, there is no sufficient presence in these forums.

Lack of Transparency: The moderators are created with no evidence of of a meaningful selection process. There are no published criteria, there is no expectation of diversity. There is no call for expressions of interest, nor for nomination from among the membership. Moderation is imposed from on high, for reasons that are not revealed to the membership.

How can I respect a moderator's integrity, when his (and I use the gender exclusive deliberately) only qualification for the post is that Alex has selected him? On a related note, who is moderating the Women's, Teen and LGBT forums?

Lack of Consistency: The terms of service are the fundamental rules for participation on these forums, but their application is inconsistent not only between fora (which is to be expected). However, if there is an understanding that the rules are going to be different in PPR than in, say, The Haven (and they should be), that needs to be spelled out better.

But far worse is the inconsistency to be found within a given forum. Threads get locked with no explanation. Posts get edited with no explanation. Yet other threads and other posts which are equally offensive carry on. I can well understand that moderators cannot be everywhere (q.v. resourcing) but it is all the more incumbent upon them to do the job in an open and transparent way when that is the case--yet the opposite appears to be occurring.

Bowdlerisation: This is one that really makes my blood boil. When a moderator edits a post and, for example, substitutes one word, which he deems offensive, for another that he deems less offensive, it is a direct affront to the poster. There may be circumstances where an offending word, passage or post should be excised--but a moderator should never under any circumstances substitute his own words for those of the poster. A moderator is not an editor.

Alex: You have got to take this issue up before moderators start undoing the good work that you have done.

Losing credibility? That suggests there's been a change. I don't see one, nor does the body of your post suggest that anything is different than it used to be.

Bad title but otherwise you're making points that I believe the moderators themselves are aware of. Due to number 1 (understaffing), it's really hard to change. Maybe you could come up with a better title? You should still be within your window to edit it.

The problem with any transparent process for picking moderators is that many believe that those who wish to be moderators tend to make the worst ones. In a transparent process, those who want the job for various reasons will rise up long before the quiet ones who would do the better job.

Unfortunately, the current method does end up with a lot of people being asked to moderate who simply say no, they don't want the job.

The way it's done is quite simple: based on posting history, the current team suggests people who have tended to show restraint and good judgement, and Alex decides from there. A nominee doesn't have to have a perfect record; sometimes someone is nominated because they are around a lot. And sometimes ... it's simply someone Alex knows in real life and trusts.

I don't think you are going to inspire Alex to do this another way; he needs to feel comfortable with his team. He owns the site, he has control over who gets tools.

Overall, I think the topic has been done to death in recent days. There have been some changes recently with moderators retiring and new ones coming on having to get the lay of the land very fast ... a little discomfort is natural. Some projects the prior team wanted to get done just never finished; it happens. All the moderators are volunteers with lives outside of Wrong Planet.

Personally, I agree with your first, third and fourth assertions.

Please trust me when I say that we are working on all three right now.

I agree...the majority of what I've seen is pathetic. People run around spreading BS, other people I see harassing people following their every move and bringing them up for NO good reason to insult them. In the mean time I'm on my last warning because when I say s**t people get offended.

Sopho would have made a good moderator