Good moderation versus bad moderation

[writespeak]

A newsgroup I've been involved with for years has been having increasingly more problems with troll-like behaviour. Currently a group of people is disrupting the group, and last year, a very argumentative person managed to ruin every thread she posted in. These problems can go on for weeks at a time.

We lose participants whenever this happens, both newbies and regulars. Some of us are talking about developing a moderated forum out of the newsgroup. A few of us with moderation experience think it's a good and necessary step, while some others are completely against the idea. They see moderation as working against an open exchange of ideas. They're also concerned about moderators removing posts with opinions that they don't share or that don't fit with their values.

As I said to that group, let's not confuse good moderation with bad moderation. People who have experienced only the latter are understandably concerned that that's what would happen.

I'd like to get the opinions of experienced moderators and share this thread with people in the newsgroup. What is good moderation? And what is bad moderation? How do you make sure that bad moderation doesn't happen along with the good?

Thanks,
Lois

[Tyler]

...I'd like to get the opinions of experienced moderators and share this thread with people in the newsgroup.

I don't know if I would call myself "experienced" :blush:, but I'll give it a go :)

What is good moderation?

Good moderation is when moderation benefits everyone. Moderation that helps spurs member activities, and deal with the bad things, that normal people should not have to see nor deal with. Good moderators are normally envies and should inspire traditional members with their attitudes, behaviors and their love for what they do. A good moderator (a must to have good moderation!), but show loving, and caring attributes to its' members before it is considered to be "good". It can't be someone who's just there for the ride along, they must be able to devote a part of themselves, otherwise they won't produce "good moderation".

And what is bad moderation?

Bad moderation is where people do not have enough to become a good moderator, thus they produce bad moderation. These are people who just typically post moderation related things (depending on the size of your newsgroup) and never shares anything worthwhile with the community and others. Normally it's people who's there just for the ride and can't/won't devote themselves into their moderation.

How do you make sure that bad moderation doesn't happen along with the good?

In my experience, it takes a lot to find the perfect match. You need a diversity of people, and thinking. A lot of the times moderators simply don't produce good moderation, and sometimes it is not their fault. But the simple fact to remove bad moderation is to remove the "bad" moderators.


Just my two cents. :D

[Lurker]

As I have never been involved in a newsgroup, can you briefly explain what it is and how people "post"?

[writespeak]

As I have never been involved in a newsgroup, can you briefly explain what it is and how people "post"?

Newsgroups are Usenet. I access newsgroups via Outlook Express, and posting to them is like sending email. To read a newsgroup, the posts appear as threads when you click on the newsgroup folder, and you click on the post subject lines to read the posts. Unlike email, they aren't sent to you individually, and unlike forums, you don't need to go to a website to read them.

See these pages:

What is Usenet? (http://www.harley.com/usenet/whatis-usenet.html)
Most ISPs carry newsgroups. On this page, they refer to posts as articles, which is the techie term. Most people just call them posts.

Usenet.com (http://www.usenet.com/articles/)
Articles about Usenet if you want to know more. And no, you don't need to be a techie to use Usenet. Most people aren't. There are newsgroups about everything from fish ponds to weight loss.

Google Groups (http://groups.google.com/)
Google Groups is one way to access Usenet, and Google Groups archives Usenet posts. Do a search for a hobby or interest of yours, and you'll probably find a newsgroup about it. :)

Lois

[Odd Fact]

Usenet now that takes me back. Are the members of the newsgroup open to moving to a forum?

Good moderation is not based on bias. If it were one fourm I moderate would have very few members.

I think the first step is to clearly state a set of guidelines. This will be a guide for moderation. The next step is selecting members that have been helpfull to the community to help moderate. During a training period you can weed out the members best suited to moderate.

Many members have great knowledge or opinions. But not all members can put personal fellings are communicatiion habits to moderate fairly. It is easy to handle nice and friendly members. But to see moderators shine examine how they handle trouble makers. Especially if they personally do not agree with or like a member.

Good moderation is communicating, educating, and enforcing the community rules and a fair and consistent manner. Bad moderation is acting harshly and quickly in haste without reviewing the whole picture.

[SoftWareRevue]

What is good moderation?Moderation that's meted for the betterment of enlightened discussion. Good moderation doesn't stifle information, but encourages the proliferation of diverse opinions. Good moderators moderate when they have to.

And what is bad moderation?Moderation that polices discussion for the sake of policing. It is biased in the presentation of information and opinions. Bad moderators moderate when they can.

How do you make sure that bad moderation doesn't happen along with the good?Ah. Now comes the tricky bit. You want 'only' good moderation. But I think it's pretty simple really.

If you want only good moderation, surround yourself with only good moderators.

That's not to say that a good moderator can't have a bad day or an error in judgement. We can all do that about anything. (durned humans)

Of course, you can have safeguards in place in hopes of always having "perfect moderation." A strong leadership of the core values of the community and moderators that understand the direction are just a couple of important factors when considering that moderation doesn't go bad.

Moderators are human. And, as such, are susceptible to changing their minds or acting out of character. Although you can aspire to have that never happen, the possibility is always there. But, hopefully, there is a strong enough core to rise above and correct any such issues.

Yes. I do believe that good moderation is possible. And I believe that you can maintain good moderation.

[writespeak]

Are the members of the newsgroup open to moving to a forum?

A few of us are discussing the idea privately. What we're looking at now is a moderated *view* of the newsgroup in addition to the unmoderated view. By "view," I mean that this version would have the spam and troll posts removed and everyone else would be left. Several of us support this idea, while two people are strongly against it. They see it as censorship and a Big Brother approach.

When the only moderated forums you've known are those where the mods restrict the viewpoints allowed to be posted, their opposition is understandable. I don't know how to show that what some of us are suggesting is far from that.

Thanks everyone. :)

Lois

[fazel3]

Moderation that polices discussion for the sake of policing. It is biased in the presentation of information and opinions. Bad moderators moderate when they can.

SWR speaks the truth :)

My best experience of a forum moderator was Chicken when he used to moderate WebHostingTalk. I never felt as if he moderated to satisfy his own ego, even the most paranoid member couldn't sniff the hint of a hidden agenda from Chicken and most importantly his moderation acted as a deterrent... I actually felt remorse at getting a warning from the big fella.

I think Paul (the_pm) is the closest to a modern day Chicken on WHT these days. I get upset and spank myself if he gives me a warning :bag2:

[Super Nade]

A newsgroup I've been involved with for years has been having increasingly more problems with troll-like behaviour. Currently a group of people is disrupting the group, and last year, a very argumentative person managed to ruin every thread she posted in. These problems can go on for weeks at a time.


Hello,

I am a moderator on ocforums.com. We do not tolerate trolling. If somebody is being disruptive, they get a warning. If it goes unheeded, it is a 3-day vacation from the forums. Any more trolling and they will not be coming back.

That does cover a broad swathe of really obvious problems like personal attacks, obscene language and such. However, dealing with an argumentative person, who does not explicitly break the forum rules is a bit tricky. I have often resorted to private messaging the person(s) in question and asked them to calm down. It has worked most of the time. Many senior members have helped by steering the conversation towards sanity. Passive moderation works upto a certain point. If I feel my efforts are going to waste and forum harmony is being disrupted, the flame-baiter is treated as a troll.

Decisive action works best in such a case and really sets the groundwork on what is acceptable and what is not.

My way of doing things may not necessarily be correct, so ...:)

[Scott]

My way of doing things may not necessarily be correct, so ...:)
Seems pretty reasonable to me.

And :welcome: to FU!

[Thelemac]

Good moderation is all of what's been said. It's also leading by example. A moderator that takes part in discussions where he's moderating is the best type of moderator, people will look to him for the standard of what is acceptable, and beyond that, how to contribute to the forum. It's also extremely important to be consistent across the board, which means keeping your moderation staff on target.

Bad moderation is, essentially, the immature moderator. He'll be wildly inconsitent, push his own agenda of information, be overbearing and generally any other form of jacktard with power.

How do you keep the good? Promote people that have proven themselves to be cool under fire, and to have consitently shown that they are in line with how you want the forum run. This can be tough, and when they first come on board you'll probably have to smack them around a few times. So, really, you get the good moderators by being a good administrator. ;)

[Super Nade]

Thanks mate. I see a few familiar faces in here.

Smack the mods around eh, T-Mac? :)

[PlausiblyDamp]

Thelemac - I think you hit on one of the key ways : promote from the community. If somebody is interested enough to participate regular and comes across as being sensible, level headed and generally a 'decent person' then they are a good choice.

If you have different levels of recognition (ones with a badge or similar) without any real mod power you give them the chance to prove themselves a bit more and gain further recognition and mod status down the line.

A bad moderator is one who doesn't really participate but makes judgements about content (i.e. off topic or offensive) that are inaccurate because of the context (and more importantly doesn't care - they just want to enforce rules for the sake of it) and refuse to ever properly explain the reasons to the individuals involved.

As others have stated personal agenda, ego or opinion are fine in posts (as long as the post themselves are within the forums guidelines) but are not acceptable when deciding on suitable action to take regarding a particular post or individual.

[MFFan]

Some good information in this thread. It will probably surprise readers that aren't moderators who always thought that moderators were moderators to satisfy their egos, or simply to be in a postion to tell others what to do.

Thanks for the great read!

[Super Nade]

Some good information in this thread. It will probably surprise readers that aren't moderators who always thought that moderators were moderators to satisfy their egos, or simply to be in a postion to tell others what to do.

Thanks for the great read!

That is a sure way to destroy a community and/or ensure complete loss of credibility.

[Frets]

The role of the moderator is greatly defined in the forum they manage.

Some forums are required yet fail to produce a great deal of member participation. At that point the moderator is a one person show, Often times as a result moderators get burned out.

It is very easy for moderators to feel isolated from the rest of the staff. While some do very well in this type of situation. It's important to let them know they are not alone. Pat's on the back, asking other mods to check in and encouraging the moderators activity in other forums.