In my experience, someone who is actively lobbying to be a moderator may be a poor choice. There is a tendency for control freaks to seek out opportunities for power and control, and it doesn’t work out well. I look for people who work to facilitate discussion even though they aren’t moderators.
Empathy matters, but so does the ability to set aside criticism. I’ve had some really great mods who were very empathetic, but the conflict and nastiness they had to deal with hurts them too much, and they had to quit because of this (and rightly so).
If you have a low-conflict forum they should be OK.
At present I haven’t got any conflicts happening on a discourse forum, but there are topics I hope to talk about which do involve conflicts. The one new member I mentioned may be able to help with some administrative tasks, but I told them they would need to be vetted before I would grant admin or mod status on an active site.
With a new site with almost no activity seems like could be safer to appoint someone to one of those positions on trial basis to see how they operate, rather than with a site with a lot of active engaged community members where there is risk they could cause significant damage.
With earlier stages of community site if things start to take off I’ll want to be the only moderator at first to establish the main practices. Basic plan is to allow people to speak freely, but be prepared to step in with interventions if necessary.
You have had a good experience with promoting those members to be moderators?
This is unfortunate, am sad to read this. Some people can be quite unpleasant and difficult to moderate. I don’t want to be one of those people myself, but if am unhappy or in distress about something that can inspire the writing of meaner statements. If it’s possible for the core source of the unhappiness to be addressed and resolved somehow hopefully that can yield calmer waters.
Hier is een gedachte: als iemand mod wil worden, en vooral als ze vrij nieuw zijn, kijk dan hoe ze reageren als ze te horen krijgen dat ze moeten wachten en zich als gebruiker goed moeten gedragen. Als ze slecht reageren, vertelt je dat dat ze geen goede moderator zouden zijn.
Ja, dat is gezond verstand, ten eerste omdat de site over architectuurgeschiedenis gaat, zei ik dat nieuwe leden zichzelf kunnen bewijzen door onderwerpen over actuele architectuurgeschiedenis te starten om hun kennis van het vakgebied te bewijzen. Het nieuwe lid heeft dat niet gedaan, maar is een lezer van deze discourse support site. Ze zeiden dat ze tot november een pauze nemen van actief lidmaatschap hier, om de een of andere reden, misschien waren ze tot dan geschorst, vermoedde ik. Het is verdacht voor een gloednieuw willekeurig lid om om admintoegang te vragen en te verwachten dat die onmiddellijk wordt verleend.
Hoe dan ook, ik lanceer misschien een nieuwe site voor een lokale kerkelijke gemeenschap, die beter van de grond kan komen, aangezien er al veel mensen bij de kerk betrokken zijn die zich graag zouden aansluiten bij een online message board voor een gevestigde gemeenschap.
Laat ik het anders formuleren; empathie is een belangrijke vaardigheid voor een moderator, maar het maakt hen ook vatbaarder voor conflicten. Moderators moeten ook in staat zijn om die negatieve gevoelens die op hen gericht zijn terzijde te schuiven.
I have also very much found this to be the case. Anyone asking to be a moderator is almost certainly not someone you want as a moderator, especially a new user. Unless you’re actively soliciting applications for an open moderator role, the very act of asking is IMO an automatic disqualification.
Edited to add:
Writing “meaner statements” may feel good, but it’s the kind of thing that genuinely hurts good empathetic moderators—people who are almost always volunteering their time.
One of the rules we were forced to adopt many years ago in the primary community I participate in is a hard prohibition against arguing moderation decisions. Mod decisions are final and there is no appeals process. Arguing moderation in-thread results in a thread-ejection and an escalating series of temp bans, with the third one being permanent.
Adults should be able to act like adults, and if not, they should be shown the door.
Such rules wouldn’t be necessary if, as you note, some people weren’t so unpleasant and difficult to moderate. I know you don’t want to be one of those people yourself, but as you say, if you’re unhappy or in distress about something, that can inspire the writing of meaner statements. Why do you think such people—people who are inspired to the writing of meaner statements, as you call it—are entitled to abuse your moderators and waste their time? Such people have already been moderated for breaking the rules; why should they then be allowed to whinge about it in public and drag the conversation even further off-topic, forcing your moderators to step in a second (or third, or fiftieth) time? How does that serve the health of your community?
Indeed, forums can be run however the founders wish.
I certainly do not think that, sorry if something I wrote made you think that. There certainly is no reason for anyone to have entitlement to waste moderator time, and if that seems to be a member’s intention suspension and banning may be the best choice.
Seems that you had problems with immature members who were questioning decisions excessively such that the policy to not allow appeal of mod decisions was implemented. That may be reasonable if you have really good moderators. There also seems to be a potential risk with that, such that if their authority cannot be questioned, that could drive some members away who could possibly be a benefit to the community.
I do agree with your policy of not allowing arguing of mod decisions in the topic where those decisions were made. That could definitely completely derail an entire conversation I imagine. If someone disagrees with a mod decision that can be something worth talking about in a different topic or non-public message to clarify where there are different perspectives.
Bedankt aan iedereen die heeft bijgedragen aan dit onderwerp, het was goed.
Er zijn twee hoofdbelijdsonderwerpen die ik van plan ben te implementeren als mijn discourse community van de grond komt:
#1 Leden mogen alleen voor zichzelf spreken en geen uitspraken doen met woorden als “wij” en “ons” wanneer ze het hebben over iemand die geen uitdrukkelijke toestemming heeft gegeven om voor hen te spreken/schrijven.
#2 Uitspraken die geformuleerd zijn als bevelen gericht aan andere leden zijn strikt verboden. Dit geldt zelfs voor schijnbaar onschuldige, veelvoorkomende uitspraken zoals “Fijne dag”, hoewel het formuleren ervan als “Ik hoop dat je een goede dag hebt” wel toegestaan zou zijn.
Deze beleidsregels lijken sommigen misschien ongebruikelijk, maar er zijn veel redenen waarom ik geloof dat ze gunstig kunnen zijn.
Forums are a dictatorship, there is no other way to do it, but they need not be managed like a doctorship. Also, a benevolent dictatorship is NOT necessarily a bad thing. If you have a good group of moderators, then they should be able to discuss bad decisions in light of how to make better decisions, without hurting anyone’s feeling.
… prohibition against arguing moderation decisions.
I mostly disagree, but I understand why some boards prohibit this. Disagreement with moderator decisions is usually unproductive, but if people are complaining it may also indicate a problem with how the forum is managed. Mods can make mistakes, I certainly have. No one makes the right call 100% of the time.
If there is a complaint about a given moderator, let the other moderators handle it, if possible. If you don’t have other mods, you could always seek advice here.
Disagreements with moderators should usually be a private discussion.
Details about decisions regarding an individual should always be kept private, no matter how awful that person is. Exception for threats of violence.
If someone complains about my decision, my usual response is along the lines of “This is not an argument, this is because XXXX was unacceptable behavior.”
Attempts to justify that behavior are generally irrelevant and should be ignored, along with attempts to continue the argument. I do try to address requests for information, and consider the possibility that I could be wrong, or that the rules are clear enough. (What’s why the rules really need to be simple.)
Believe this is a typo, did you mean to write isn’t not is?
I’m not sure dictatorship is the only option for forums, although administrator always has the ability to act like a dictator it is possible for the choice to be made to not rule with authoritarianism.
This is an important note, if someone is making posts with threats it may be best for that to be forwarded to law enforcement / prosecutors if their general location is known.
For my county to start a case with the prosecuting department first I need to call dispatch to request a call back from a deputy, then they can start the paperwork for the prosecutor office. I can send information materials directly to the prosecutor office but they need paperwork from the cops to start an official case.