Ad Hominem and Multiple Posts

[CalBoy]

One person might have a particular interest in say Windows on the mac and the other in Mac Programming. There might be a need for a moderator in the windows on a mac forums and areas in general and not in the mac programming side of things. Yes mods generally go everywhere but an interest in the area that needs more mod work does have a huge advantage.

This criterion raises and interesting question for me: why?

To be sure moderators each have their own interests and aren't going to spend 100% of their time evenly across each forum and sub-forum, but is that really crucial for selecting the next moderator?

I always imagined that a moderator would address post reports regardless of what forum it comes from, so in that regard wouldn't other criteria take precedence over where the moderator spends more of their time when on the site?

To me it seems more important to see if the candidate has been a positive presence on the forums, follows the rules consistently, helps out whenever possible, etc, because those are the factors that matter most when that moderator makes decisions about post reports.

Just thinking out loud.

 

[Eraserhead]

On a serious note, if one person joined in January 2003 and has 9,000 posts, and another joined in January 2008 and has 10,000 posts, which is the more committed?

Probably about equal, the first's commitment is more sustained but the second is stronger, and both have been interested in the site for over a year.

Agreed. Commitment cannot be determined by post count alone.

There are a number of different factors.

Of course, but the point of picking from the top 100 is that it gives you a good place to start. Obviously any exceptional candidates not in the top 100 can be added to the possibilities, but they will have to really stand out to get noticed, which makes life easy - and anyone who really stands out is likely to be good.

Its like applying for a job which requires a University degree, but if you're really good except you don't have a degree they'll still be interested.

The University degree is equivalent to being in the top 100 posts here.

 

[jav6454]

Probably about equal, the first's commitment is more sustained but the second is stronger, and both have been interested in the site for over a year.

You could also interpret the second one as an newly discovered thing so you post post post as if there is no tomorrow. Like, the hype of the moment.

But then again, after a year it does leave you thinking, if it really was a hype and now is something more serious.

 

[bartelby]

Snort!

MR is addicting more than I want to admit.

Admitting you have a problem is the first step.
Congratulations!


I know I don't have a problem...

 

[Sun Baked]

I know I don't have a problem...

That is because you simply haven't admitted to it yet, and thus can avoid the 12 step program and the weeks of withdraw that would leave you twitching and drooling in a corner while hugging your Steve Jobs plush doll.

 

[-hh]

Mods aren't paid and never will be. You can't possibly expect anyone to "commit" to moderation out the goodness of their heart. Say you get 3 months in to your 4th 6 month term and decide you've had enough of the constant barrage of crap, what are they going to do, force you to stay and "work". Would we want someone moderating that specifically doesn't want to be doing it?

Moderators need to be willing and enthusiastic. Enthusiasm dies over time...they need new peeps.

Something that might also help manage expectations is insight on what level of participation a volunteer might be able to provide. While it can be great to get one that will work 20 hours/day for you, they're also more likely to burn out more quickly than one who tells you upfront that they can only give you 4 hours/week. Its another angle of the quantity-vs-quality paradigm.

Too much "not privy" IMO. I've been active here for nearly seven years now, but still don't have a clue about how moderators are appointed.

Personally, I've never bothered to pay attention. And its probably been...oh, 8 years? since I read the terms agreement.

This criterion raises and interesting question for me: why?

To be sure moderators each have their own interests and aren't going to spend 100% of their time evenly across each forum and sub-forum, but is that really crucial for selecting the next moderator?

I always imagined that a moderator would address post reports regardless of what forum it comes from, so in that regard wouldn't other criteria take precedence over where the moderator spends more of their time when on the site?

What I think you're describing has some pro's and cons. Its a good thing for a Mod to have insight into the local nuances of a particular subgroup...but by the same token, it can also be dangerous for a Mod to effectively become "Too Friendly", because that might create a bias in how the group is then moderated.

To me it seems more important to see if the candidate has been a positive presence on the forums, follows the rules consistently, helps out whenever possible, etc, because those are the factors that matter most when that moderator makes decisions about post reports.

Just thinking out loud.

Its a fair point. IMO, one of the hardest things for a Mod to do is to remain sufficiently interested and engaged in the discussion group he's Moderating, while also being able to parse himself from it so as to be able to perform the duty of Moderation.

Something that might also be considered as a potential tool to help with Moderation would be something similar to the "Report this Post" button, but with it being less "Nail this Guy" in nature: something that's along the lines of: "This thread is getting pretty heated and Mods might need to focus some of their attention here soon", which might help to nip some things in the bud...and help a longer-time regular from finally losing his temper.

FWIW, for whoever mentioned it, the 'Time Zone' factor in Mod candidacy consideration was an interesting statement, which I appreciated. It makes sense.


-hh

 

[r.j.s]

What I think you're describing has some pro's and cons. Its a good thing for a Mod to have insight into the local nuances of a particular subgroup...but by the same token, it can also be dangerous for a Mod to effectively become "Too Friendly", because that might create a bias in how the group is then moderated.

True, if a mod is only really responsible for a certain section of the forums, it may be hard for them to remain fair. The way it works now is good.

 

[sushi]

What I think you're describing has some pro's and cons. Its a good thing for a Mod to have insight into the local nuances of a particular subgroup...but by the same token, it can also be dangerous for a Mod to effectively become "Too Friendly", because that might create a bias in how the group is then moderated.

Good point.

Moderators have to maintain a fair approach, which I am sure can be challenging at times.

FWIW, for whoever mentioned it, the 'Time Zone' factor in Mod candidacy consideration was an interesting statement, which I appreciated. It makes sense.

MR definitely needs 24 hours coverage since members are located worldwide.

 

[Sun Baked]

Can we turn this into a poll?

Instead of letting them continue to exercise the good judgment the mods and gods have shown in the past, I think a poll can turn this into an American Idol experience -- and we can select someone with as much talent and good judgment as Michael Jackson.

 

[r.j.s]

Can we turn this into a poll?

Instead of letting them continue to exercise the good judgment the mods and gods have shown in the past, I think a poll can turn this into an American Idol experience -- and we can select someone with as much talent and good judgment as Michael Jackson.

Do those members on the poll have to sing or dance?

 

[Abstract]

I think xUKHCx (and WC) have already explained to us how mod selections work. Even if you don't understand every facet of the job, or the decision-making process, you should be happy that you have the basic idea. Perhaps you don't agree with the process, but it can't be called unreasonable by any reasonable person. If you think they're being pickier than they need to be, that's fine. Everyone has an opinion. However, I'm sure you can also see the other side of it.....that this system has worked for the most part.

The top posters is not a good way to choose a mod. Other than longevity, top posters share nothing. IMO, most (including myself) would probably not be candidates for moderation. In fact, as I scan the members list, I don't see many on the first 2 pages that I would think would be good mods.

You're absolutely right. I'd find the first excuse to ban your ass so fast.


Anyway, you're right. Being responsible doesn't make you a good mod. Commitment is a good criteria, but basing it on post count is silly, I think. Where's Mr. Anderson? Mad Jew? Post count shouldn't be the criteria, but I'm guessing the admin and mods here already know that.

Besides that, there are certain other personality characteristics that would make someone a bad mod, such as those people who react emotionally, who are easily bothered, or perhaps have a speaking (typing?) voice that's a bit too direct, or aggressive, which may provoke others to carry the same tone in a thread.

You can be a valuable member here, but have poor potential as a moderator. I was a moderator at another forum, and not only was it a thankless task where everybody complained at me, but looking back, I don't think I wasn't consistent with the stricter mods. I was the "easy" mod. So yes, fitting in with the current group's style is important too.

They're fair questions and suggestions, but we've already been told that this situation is being handled. The admin and mods here have it worked out, and I trust them. What else is there to say? Perhaps, "Great. Can't wait to make their lives hell."

 

[Sun Baked]

Do those members on the poll have to sing or dance?

Of course ... we have to at least know they are talented at something.

Selecting no talent hacks to be mods would be really really bad.

That would almost be as bad as going to a brain surgeon who isn't ASE Certified.

 

[CalBoy]

What I think you're describing has some pro's and cons. Its a good thing for a Mod to have insight into the local nuances of a particular subgroup...but by the same token, it can also be dangerous for a Mod to effectively become "Too Friendly", because that might create a bias in how the group is then moderated.

I think the nuances are what I'm having some trouble envisioning. The moderator is meant to help enforce the forum rules and maintain the site's reputation. Most of the enforcement that would conceivably have to be done would be untethered to any particular topic (ie consecutive posts are consecutive posts in the Hardware forums as much as they are in the iPhone forums).

The only time things can get hairy (so to speak) is over the precise enforcement of rules that are vague in nature (such as what defines breaking EULA). The thing to note, however, is that those decisions are not made by one moderator. In the past every moderator to touch on such subjects has indicated that it is a group effort with Arn as the ultimate decider.

Given that, is it really that crucial that a moderator who specializes in a particular topic be chosen over another who has broad interests? From an enforcement effectiveness and moderator success standpoint, it seems relatively insignificant.

Its a fair point. IMO, one of the hardest things for a Mod to do is to remain sufficiently interested and engaged in the discussion group he's Moderating, while also being able to parse himself from it so as to be able to perform the duty of Moderation.

Surprisingly, I don't think that is problematic at all. I trust the moderators here to be engaged in the discussion (to any degree they may choose) and still enforce the forum rules objectively. I haven't really seen much to cast any doubt on that belief, so I don't think it's a concern after the moderator has been chosen. My whole point was that using the candidate's specific interests as a means of selection may unduly inhibit selection, especially when there are plenty of other criteria that stand out as far more relevant.

Something that might also be considered as a potential tool to help with Moderation would be something similar to the "Report this Post" button, but with it being less "Nail this Guy" in nature: something that's along the lines of: "This thread is getting pretty heated and Mods might need to focus some of their attention here soon", which might help to nip some things in the bud...and help a longer-time regular from finally losing his temper.

Controlling one's temper is an individual responsibility; we can't expect different levels of the report post buttons to accommodate every possible eventuality. Every report is seen by at least one moderator, so have different types of reports probably wouldn't do much in terms of efficiency or expediency.

True, if a mod is only really responsible for a certain section of the forums, it may be hard for them to remain fair. The way it works now is good.

Well according to previous posts (not just in this thread) moderators are sometimes chosen by their various interests. Moreover, they are perfectly free to post as much as they want (as they should) in any forum they want.

The moderators don't seem to be unfair, even when the discussion gets heated.

 

[r.j.s]

Well according to previous posts (not just in this thread) moderators are sometimes chosen by their various interests. Moreover, they are perfectly free to post as much as they want (as they should) in any forum they want.

The moderators don't seem to be unfair, even when the discussion gets heated.

My point was that if mods become assigned to certain forums, or mini-mods are created to assist in given forums, then it may become a possibility that they become almost protective of their little world. I see it in another forum I occasionally visit. There are mods that are given a subforum to moderate, and that's all they really have control over. Let's just say it can create more problems that it solves.

I see no unfairness or bias here now.

 

[CalBoy]

My point was that if mods become assigned to certain forums, or mini-mods are created to assist in given forums, then it may become a possibility that they become almost protective of their little world. I see it in another forum I occasionally visit. There are mods that are given a subforum to moderate, and that's all they really have control over. Let's just say it can create more problems that it solves.

I see no unfairness or bias here now.

Ahh, now I understand what you were saying.

I think that is the very reason mods aren't assigned to any particular forum (well that and it would be inefficient).

 

[Abstract]

Assigning mods to be responsible for certain forums does not work, and it's not just for the reason r.j.s mentioned (although it could be a problem if poor moderators were chosen to begin with).

I was a moderator at a message board that used a similar system, although it was slightly different, and better, than simply assigning a number of forums to each moderator. I'm too lazy to describe it here, but believe me when I say it didn't work. MR's current system is best.

 

[sushi]

My point was that if mods become assigned to certain forums, or mini-mods are created to assist in given forums, then it may become a possibility that they become almost protective of their little world. I see it in another forum I occasionally visit. There are mods that are given a subforum to moderate, and that's all they really have control over. Let's just say it can create more problems that it solves.

I see no unfairness or bias here now.

Agree with some exceptions. But those are rare.

MR's current system is best.

Agree. During any given time in the 24 hour clock, some moderator is on line and must be able to deal with whatever comes up that needs prompt attention.

If you have specialized mods who only work certain areas, then it would be akin to them saying, "It's not my job." Rather I think that the better approach is the one that MR employees where a mod can moderate all areas. That way it's easier to achieve 24 hour coverage with fewer moderators.

Some moderating tasks can wait. For example, take the +1, smiley, or single word reply posts. These can be handled at any time the mods get a chance to take care of them. This allows for spreading of the tasks to whomever can handle them when they get a chance. Other issues of course, would need to be addressed more quickly.

 

[DoFoT9]

i love how MR is moderated here. i have been through many other threads/forums/posts where its just completely unacceptable. however this is the internet, people can do what they want (in the certain forums that are made for it).

MR is a forums for ALL members for the world, it is based around computers and technology - not comparing who has the most post counts, most knowledge etcetc - however sometimes it does become a pissing competition (ill admit that i sometimes have to do that too lol). technology can be a heated battle, but nobody should EVER go as low as trying to offend another forum member because we dont have the faintest idea who they are, all we know is their forums name basically.

what was my main point.. hmmm i forget..ill write it later when i remember lol! aahh yes i remember:::

i was once banned for 24hours for offending somebody, it was the worse feeling!! i wasnt even aware of what i said, so can i ask that a better system be implemented for the reason/s why you are blocked/banned?? i had to end up emailing a moderator to find out what i did.. so yea, thats my only 'gripe' about the system i guess..

nice work but MR

 

[Wiska]

i was once banned for 24hours for offending somebody, it was the worse feeling!!

Lose 98 lbs, and you might be spared from a banning.

Which reminds me, this thread is about inconsistent moderation. Hopefully, discussion can get back on track!

 

[DoFoT9]

Lose 98 lbs, and you might be spared from a banning.

Which reminds me, this thread is about inconsistent moderation. Hopefully, discussion can get back on track!

well im currently 143lbs lol!! so loosing 98 would make me 45lbs..... nice and healthy

*stuff*

I always imagined that a moderator would address post reports regardless of what forum it comes from, so in that regard wouldn't other criteria take precedence over where the moderator spends more of their time when on the site?

To me it seems more important to see if the candidate has been a positive presence on the forums, follows the rules consistently, helps out whenever possible, etc, because those are the factors that matter most when that moderator makes decisions about post reports.

Just thinking out loud.

well thats how it should be! its only logical that a mod monitors everything! its not "ok you watch here, you watch here" type of thing.. its a group effort that all of you do what you can when you can - everywhere.

isnt it ??

 

[Wiska]

well im currently 143lbs lol!! so loosing 98 would make me 45lbs..... nice and healthy

Aww. Pity you, then. The moderators will not hesitate to ban you should you call someone a "douche".

 

[iBlue]

For the record, and what it's worth, over all I think this place is moderated really well. I've been around p) and I think this place has it more together than the vast majority of other forums on the wild wild web. The admins carefully consider everything before making big changes, and while it may be an imperfect and perhaps slow system, it does seem to work. I do think that more mods are in order and we've been told that they're working on it among other things. <taps watch>

I think the idea sharing in this thread is good (and possibly helpful) but it's easy for any of us to say what would be best from an outside perspective. I tend to trust the godly decisions because even when I don't always agree, it's usually pretty damn fair. I also think they care more than any site admins I've ever encountered. They actually do take the time to listen to complaints and discuss them seriously.
Nothing and nowhere is perfect but I still give this place two thumbs up.

 

[Doctor Q]

About reporting posts

Something that might also be considered as a potential tool to help with Moderation would be something similar to the "Report this Post" button, but with it being less "Nail this Guy" in nature: something that's along the lines of: "This thread is getting pretty heated and Mods might need to focus some of their attention here soon", which might help to nip some things in the bud...and help a longer-time regular from finally losing his temper.

We don't have a button that says "thread is getting heated", but the "Report Post" button can be used to bring almost any problem or potential problem to the attention of the moderators. Some members do submit reports that say the equivalent of "I think this thread is heading the wrong way", and we appreciate it.

The short explanation you see at the bottom of the Report Post window reflects that, saying the form is used "to report problems requiring a moderator", i.e., not just individual posts. (By the way, it can also be used to ask that your post be deleted; that's better than editing the post to say "mods please delete" and hoping we run across it).

The moderators may be the ones who step in when there's trouble, but everyone who submits post reports is part of the moderation process. Some members send messages regularly and some send them only occasionally, but thank you to everyone who helps the site in that way.

 

[Eraserhead]

Commitment is a good criteria, but basing it on post count is silly, I think. Where's Mr. Anderson? Mad Jew? Post count shouldn't be the criteria, but I'm guessing the admin and mods here already know that.

So some people get that University degree that I described previously and then become drug addicts and drop out. All I am saying is that there is a strong positive correlation between post count and commitment - it doesn't mean that outliers don't exist.

And actually both of the people you mention were committed to the site for a long time, one as a long-standing moderator and the second was very helpful for a long time.

Besides that, there are certain other personality characteristics that would make someone a bad mod, such as those people who react emotionally, who are easily bothered, or perhaps have a speaking (typing?) voice that's a bit too direct, or aggressive, which may provoke others to carry the same tone in a thread.

In which case they would be rejected by some other criteria to show they understood the rules, post count was never intended to be the *only* criteria for choosing mods.

You can be a valuable member here, but have poor potential as a moderator. I was a moderator at another forum, and not only was it a thankless task where everybody complained at me, but looking back, I don't think I wasn't consistent with the stricter mods. I was the "easy" mod. So yes, fitting in with the current group's style is important too.

To give an example of criteria here the mods can also use your style of post reporting to figure that out.

However, I'm sure you can also see the other side of it.....that this system has worked for the most part.

The admin and mods here have it worked out, and I trust them. What else is there to say? Perhaps, "Great. Can't wait to make their lives hell."

If this was true then this thread wouldn't exist with lots of regular posters saying that there is a problem .

Agree. During any given time in the 24 hour clock, some moderator is on line and must be able to deal with whatever comes up that needs prompt attention.

See the following quote:

True also not all moderators are online. I myself have seen MacRumors be moderatorless for 3 hours straight. No one, not even the gods were online. Luckily things were calm that day. But it wouldn't surprise me if things got out of hand one day if this keeps up.

If you have specialized mods who only work certain areas, then it would be akin to them saying, "It's not my job." Rather I think that the better approach is the one that MR employees where a mod can moderate all areas. That way it's easier to achieve 24 hour coverage with fewer moderators.

I believe on Arstechnica where the mods do have areas they moderate is that actually all of them have mod powers over all the forums actually and if they see a real problem (like spam) that needs dealing with now they can, they just leave the +1's and the borderline cases for the person/people in charge of that area.

Some moderating tasks can wait. For example, take the +1, smiley, or single word reply posts. These can be handled at any time the mods get a chance to take care of them. This allows for spreading of the tasks to whomever can handle them when they get a chance. Other issues of course, would need to be addressed more quickly.

True.

My point was that if mods become assigned to certain forums, or mini-mods are created to assist in given forums, then it may become a possibility that they become almost protective of their little world. I see it in another forum I occasionally visit. There are mods that are given a subforum to moderate, and that's all they really have control over. Let's just say it can create more problems that it solves.

I see no unfairness or bias here now.

The moderators here have a forum to discuss issues like this, so they'd be able to do that before any problems got too serious.

 

[DoFoT9]

Aww. Pity you, then. The moderators will not hesitate to ban you should you call someone a "douche".

calling somebody a douche has no reference to calling them overweight. im really confused...