Maybe a new Moderator or 2 for OT?

[WerBackIII]

A bit OT:
@ainwood: I find them boring too! Just can't stand the columns of threads on the thematic "Obama, Hillary and Paul"

Back on Topic:

Well, I surely freely speak to some moderators like Plotonius and Turner... but that's because they post more in the forums. They are not bite-machines (I'm not sure thougt ) and are among the posters. People like Ainwood and Lefty scarry me, because I rarely see them posting. I mean not scarry, but I feel them the same way I feel the teachers... You can't freely speak with them, eventhought they won't harm you.

 

[downtown]

I think we could do with another mod, and like others have stated, I would feel more comfortable with somebody who participated in discussions. If you find traditional OT fare to be boring, perhaps drawing somebody who is an active participant in those topics might be a good idea.

I do not think that we should be drafting mods to represent more political affiliations (even though most of the active moderating staff is at least right of center, I don't feel that they've been political in using infractions)...I hope that the staff selects somebody who is fair and active, regardless of affiliation.

 

[Mise]

I can't think of anyone who actively participates in, for example, religion threads who would be a good mod. I would suggest that there's a strong negative correlation between posting in religion threads and ability to moderate...

 

[LucyDuke]

I can't think of anyone who actively participates in, for example, religion threads who would be a good mod. I would suggest that there's a strong negative correlation between posting in religion threads and ability to moderate...

Really? I don't mean to be user-specific, but I can think of at least one poster who is often active in religion threads and is also extremely calm, fair, and rational.

 

[Mise]

Really? I don't mean to be user-specific, but I can think of at least one poster who is often active in religion threads and is also extremely calm, fair, and rational.

Well, there's lots of people who are all those things. But I think moderation requires more than that. It requires decisiveness and assertiveness, and I can't think of anyone who posts in religious threads who ticks all those boxes.

TBH I can't really put my finger on it right now... I can't think of the word for it - nothing seems to do justice to the qualities that good moderators share and bad ones lack. It's somewhere along those lines though.

PS. No offense to anyone who posts in religious threads!

 

[ainwood]

I will get a bit poster-specific myself for a bit:

DoM, before he got busy, was IMHO, a very good OT mod. Yet he would basically never get involved in debating there. Fair, consistent, unbiased etc.

Whilst I appreciate that many of you want 'approachable' moderators, and that you feel that this is demonstrated by getting involved as a poster, in my opinion this is at best a less-important quality for a moderator, and at worst a very bad one.

A moderator who has never been involved in OT debates and has never really contributed to OT is probably not the best choice for a moderator - there is a requirement that they know how OT functions, what the expectations are, who the protagonists are etc, and that they have some credibility as a poster with the main OT participants.

However, it is very difficult to be a fully-active poster and a moderator at the same time. It leads to accusations of bias. It leads to moderators being concerned about moderating threads that they are heavily involved in. It makes it more difficult to be objective. Moderators reporting posts from threads that they are involved in, and asking other moderators to get involved, is not an uncommon occurrence.

If you look at the current moderators, you will find that they engage in debates much less frequently now that they are moderators, than before they were moderators. Whomp & ID still get involved somewhat; mathilda, eyrei and myself less so.

I have actually been moderating OT for over three and a half years. I don't post there as much as a poster for the reasons stated above (although occasionally I go through phase where I am interested in that). I have therefore been moderating there longer than a fair chunk of the current OT regulars have actually been members, and therefore maybe they don't remember me as a poster. However, I don't think that inhibits my ability to moderate. If people don't think I'm approachable, then why don't they just try PMing me? If people can think of ways for me to improve, then I'm listening.

 

[Mise]

TBH your avatar's half the problem

 

[Plotinus]

I can't think of anyone who actively participates in, for example, religion threads who would be a good mod. I would suggest that there's a strong negative correlation between posting in religion threads and ability to moderate...

Hmm, what we need is a moderator who's also a theologian...

I must agree with ainwood though. The more one gets drawn into debate, the harder it inevitably becomes to moderate. Even if one successfully overcomes whatever bias one may have, there will always be accusations of bias if one has been seen to be participating. This occurs in all fora, not just OT, and it is just unnecessary grief.

 

[Mise]

Hmm, what we need is a moderator who's also a theologian...

Okay, I'll eat my words

 

[C~G]

So all we need for new mod is one who knows OT like his backpockets, is well known by posters, visits OT all the time but never ever engages into debates.

Well, that's easy...

 

[Rik Meleet]

TF has always been able to find OT mods that might be somewhat unexpected, but good choices. FredLC, Mathilda, Igloodude, The Yankee, Whomp, etc. have all become OT mods since I am a moderator.

 

[C~G]

Well, maybe he just repents his former errors...

 

[The Yankee]

As ainwood said, it would become very hard to be impartial in a thread where said moderator is among the (very) active participants. It can be done objectively, but doing so without inciting a bias accusation becomes difficult, especially if the moderator was debating one poster and said poster then went off on someone else in that thread. It's almost like playing for a team (since threads usually end up in two camps) and then having to be a referee. It can be done, but it isn't easy.

But, luckily for OT, they do back each other up and it becomes a kind of reinforcing system that has kept the board very well moderated, even given OT's nature.

I don't happen to think more moderators are necessary, but additions wouldn't harm. The current moderators have done a very good job, in my (perhaps non-biased) humble opinion.

 

[Whomp]

I find discussions on evolution, religion & US politics to be dreadfully boring.

Tell me about it. I can't think of one post I've made in a religion or evolution thread. Maybe an infraction and that's it.

As has been said I'd prefer to have other mods view threads I'm active in.

 

[IglooDame]

Tell me about it. I can't think of one post I've made in a religion or evolution thread. Maybe an infraction and that's it.

As has been said I'd prefer to have other mods view threads I'm active in.

Ditto. If I'm giving infractions or posting warnings in a thread I've been participating in, you can be pretty sure that I've either consulted with other mods first or have specifically asked them to review it.

 

[Masquerouge]

I'm not sure I agree that posting in a religious thread writes you off as a mod.
a. There are other threads where users burt into flames, see any threads about Universal Healthcare
b. since these threads are extremely polarizing, they can bring out the worst in some posters, but also the best. Being able to successfully weather such a thread is a very good sign IMHO.

 

[Birdjaguar]

So you actually want to get grey hair, a large prostate and high cholestorol

Having all those problems sure beats missing the opportunity all together.

As for modding OT, I think that the best mods are smart; they understand the nature of OT and its posters and are insightful enough to know when action is called for and what the appropriate action should be. Blatant wrong doing is pretty easy to recognize and respond to; it is the less obvious transgressions that take discernment and judgment. I think a sense of humor would come in handy too.

 

[Fifty]

I'm assuming that praising a mod doesn't count as PDMA, so here we go. There's no need for new mods. Perhaps, though, TF could give the mods a little homework assignment, to study Duke's mod style and try to emulate it! That guy was a really good mod! Strict but extremely consistent and forthright about it, that is how to mod! I miss Duke! Ainwood is the closest we have to duke right now in terms of moderatorial goodness, so maybe ainwood and duke could put on a "how to be an awesome mod" tutorial in Staff. I'm not saying the other mods aren't good, overall we have excellent mods here, I'm just saying that there is room for improvement, in some more than in others.

PS: This whole business about approachability is nonsense! Mods aren't high school guidance counselors, they are there to keep horrible jerks like me from getting out of hand.

 

[JollyRoger]

Just make all the troublemakers mods. They will help regulate OT by banning each other.

 

[Fifty]

Even if approachability did matter, it has been my experience that the moderators who don't participate much in threads anymore (i.e. duke and ainwood) are the most prompt in responding to PMs, and the most willing to make substantive post about why a given infraction was doled out, rather than simply deferring to the "PM TF about it" rule, which is often just shorthand for "I don't want to deal with it and I know that TF won't either, so this is the easy way out". That's not a dig against TF either, he shouldn't have to deal with infractions: that's precisely the reason moderators exist. So when moderators defer to TF so soon, I don't think they are really doing their job as moderators. It breeds discontent among users.

In my extensive interactions with mods, and in my extensive interactions with fiftychatters (some of whom have a propensity towards getting infractrions), it seems like the most substantive complaints against moderators are inconsistency or lack of willingness ot engage in PM discussions. I've never had a problem with strict mods, only mods that are inconsistent and/or unwilling to engage in a dialogue.

I sympathize with mods who don't like to sit around PMing back and forth with users, debating rather obvious cases of infractionable offenses (I'd say 90% of the time someone in fiftychat complains about an infraction, they really do deserve it and shouldn't be complaining), but still, if you can't stomach spending a reasonable amount of energy explaining to users why they got infractions, maybe they ought not become mods in the first place.