Seductions and Rejections

[SoftWareRevue]

Enlisting staff is the easy bit. :love:

But, how long do you wait for them to make the transition from member to staff?

It's simple for some. But others have a more difficult time sorting out how to present themselves as forum staff when posting in public.

It can take a few meetings before they get it. And sometimes, they simply won't get it.

How long do you hold out before you decide that the new moderator is a much better member than a moderator. And how do you ease them back into being a member?

Some are likely to not agree with your assessment and will feel they're doing a perfect job. Problem is, they aren't doing a perfect job. At least, in your expectations of how you envision the community. They may become upset that you "took away their powers" and not be that helpful member who made you want them part of your team.

Let's talk about, "When good members become not-so-good moderators."

[Scott]

Sometimes it can just take a little bit of getting used to the "powers", and most heads deflate after not too long. Best thing I can think of to help this is be an good role model, and make examples of good moderation. That way, new mods know what to aim for.

On some forums, I know a few mods have to go through a week or so trial on minor forums only, thus helping members transition over. Don't really know how well this works, perhaps someone uses this technique?

For those who aren't ever going to make the transition, it's probably best for the community as a whole if they're a member instead. This will probably cause trouble, so talking about it in PM is a must and perhaps advising them that there is always the possibility to become a mod in the future when they'd be more experienced at handling it.

[Belloman]

Sometimes it can just take a little bit of getting used to the "powers", and most heads deflate after not too long. Best thing I can think of to help this is be an good role model, and make examples of good moderation. That way, new mods know what to aim for.
I agree... which is why I try to make sure that all threads conform to our terms of service, and if they don't, fix it ;)


On some forums, I know a few mods have to go through a week or so trial on minor forums only, thus helping members transition over. Don't really know how well this works, perhaps someone uses this technique? I think that is an interesting technique to use, and to see if they actually should become a moderator or not. I'd want to try it out sometime, too bad my site is too small to need a moderator...


For those who aren't ever going to make the transition, it's probably best for the community as a whole if they're a member instead. This will probably cause trouble, so talking about it in PM is a must and perhaps advising them that there is always the possibility to become a mod in the future when they'd be more experienced at handling it. I think I'd agree with this, as it is always better to handle it via PM beforehand, and see if you can possibly improve their moderation skills if they still want to be a moderator. Of course, if they don't actually want to be moderator, remove them...

[adb22791]

Enlisting staff is the easy bit. :love:

But, how long do you wait for them to make the transition from member to staff?

Usually 30 days is a good period for them to just learn to fit in. What has been done to me before, and what I think I plan to do, is give the moderator access to the private staff forums, and some limited powers, but not give the moderator full control of what I want him or her to moderate (maybe only let them moderate one forum). This allows the moderator to ease into moderating, and understand community rules and how the moderation team functions. People need to settle in, and this allows the moderator to settle in nice and easy.


How long do you hold out before you decide that the new moderator is a much better member than a moderator. And how do you ease them back into being a member?

After this 30 day "trial period" is when a moderator should either be dismissed or welcomed as a full member of the team. It should be made clear that these moderators are temporary, and may not be permanent members of the forum staff. This way when a moderator is deemed not fit for the community they can ease back into everyday forum life without feeling like the other users are laughing at them. Then, if they do get in, other users will think "I guess they did a good job moderating".


Some are likely to not agree with your assessment and will feel they're doing a perfect job. Problem is, they aren't doing a perfect job. At least, in your expectations of how you envision the community. They may become upset that you "took away their powers" and not be that helpful member who made you want them part of your team.


Of course, one of the wonderful things about forums is people disagree, and lots of angles are brought in to debate. If a moderator isn't being helpful, and is instead being bitter and bashing or attacking users or staff, then that person needs a private break. Being gone for a few days (or weeks) will allow that user to calm down and realize how much they miss the community. Then they can be brought back, and will hopefully begin being helpful again. Of course this removal must be 100% private (for example, if you have banned users in a special usergroup or with a special user tag, you have to have this turned off for this user), as if they come back after having their moderator privileges removed and being banned publicly they will probably feel just as bitter and revengeful as they did when they left, perhaps thinking you are trying to make an example out of them.


Let's talk about, "When good members become not-so-good moderators."
Probably the biggest reason for this has already been stated, and is one of the most overused movie topic's ever... when power goes to a persons head. The member, who just posted, helped out, maybe got to enjoy some benefits of having a lot of posts and being an "old" member suddenly has all these powers which they can do seemingly anything with. In actuality, however, this member must continue to be just that, a member. The best moderator (in my opinion) can still fit in with the rest of the members, except the moderator also helps to keep things running smoothly. However, if a member becomes a moderator and gets all the "moderator power", then they feel that they are above all the other members, and that they are always right, and the other members are just pawns in a big chess game.

Wow, that was a lot of writing. Please keep in mind this is all my own opinion, what I have realized from experience as both a community administrator and moderator, and as a member in many other communities.

And to all those who read all that... thanks for reading :P,
Alex

[SoftWareRevue]

... thanks for reading ,
AlexThanks for writing!

You deserve a gold star. :star:

[Doug]

We give moderators a two week trial period before we announce that they have even become moderators. During this two week or so trial period, we ask the soon to be (hopefully) moderators to use the report function like they would mod actions. For example, if they notice a post should be deleted, they should use the report feature and include the words "Should be deleted" or "Should be moved to X."

We can then see what type of moderator this person would be and decide if we even need the extra help at this point. So far, we've had quite a bit of success with this method.

[Jan]

Wouldn't you *partly* choose them because they already report posts, recognise rules abuse and where certain threads really belong?

[adb22791]

Wouldn't you *partly* choose them because they already report posts, recognise rules abuse and where certain threads really belong?

Yes, but then again, just becuase somebody already knows the moderating rules does not make them a good moderator. The same goes for those who do not report threads, they may actually be great moderators and once given a little training can be a big help to your community.


Alex

[Frets]

I don't believe in trial moderators. I do believe in training moderators. Usually when a moderator is relieved it's not from not knowing the job it's from not fufilling the job.

I make expectations of the position as clear as possible before a possible mod steps into the role. This is of course after long review times by staff. Moderator isn't just a title or badge it's a uniform as well. So long as they understand that uniform includes conduct. If you have the right personality for the job the rest is pretty easy.

[PatP]

I only moderate two forums that are accessible to the public these days, so my experience in that arena is somwehat limited.

There are many problems such as spammers etc, but I consider that to be "hauling out the garbage" or "grooming the database" instead of moderation because the folks that post that stuff are not members of the community, they're just opportunists who are dumping garbage in my "digital front yard" as they go past.

I'm a strong believer in "less moderation is better" meaning that if I don't have to do anything in the way of moderation at all, then I've done the best job that I can.

I've got a pretty deep seated "treat others as you'd like to be treated" mentality. I tend to praise in public, and reprimand in private. I also try to make it clear when I think moderators are doing a good job (in the moderators forum), and when I think that they aren't.

DBForums has a handful of folks that are very good at what they do, and that tends to make anyone think that their way is the only way to do things. We've got one poster who has been a challenge in this regard for a while, and is an ongoing challenge. We've got one moderator that I've spoken to about similar issues in the past who is actually bending over backwards to help the problem poster, and the part that I find hillarious is that the poster is blaming this moderator for all of his problems!

I find it very gratifying that the moderator in question is doing a wonderful job. He's aggrivated, and occasionally gets in a jab or two in the running conversations, but I think he is doing a remarkable job of avoiding the problem behaviors that I spoke to him about a few months ago, which are the same behaviors that the poster has taken to new heights (literally becoming the "poster child" for expressing your opinion as the only acceptable answer for a problem)...

I've moderated online communities for many years. I've had occaisional problems with moderators, but I can't remember ever having to remove anyones ability to moderate because of their behavior (although I've got some great stories about having to remove moderation abilities for other reasons!).

-PatP

[Frets]

I've had to revoke moderator status and ban moderators.

It took a long time and I went thru a long negotiation period before pulling the plug. While I was sad that I had to (I always prefer working with a moderator to find a solution then against him) I did not regret the ban when it went down or afterwards.

Short and sweet. Moderators have obligations to meet especially conduct. One chooses moderators with certain expectations. Things change people change, The obligations of moderating do not change. If a moderator doesn't believe the rule applies to them or simply because they disagree with it they don't have to follow it,,,,Then they are no longer capable of fullfilling thier role and should be released from it.