Moderators

[Aggie87]

As a spin off to the long thread about the board, let's have another one to resolve the issue of Moderators. I think Jim should let go of this responsibility and become more of a CEO type figure, as suggested in the other thread.

What are some of the options worth considering for moderation?

Different moderators for each forum?

A couple of global moderators?

Moderating only certain forums (i.e. Political & Misc Non Political)?

Are there folks who want to do this? I know MG has volunteered already. Would others be interested in helping as well?

What type of rules should we more strongly enforce, that perhaps didn't previously exist, or weren't really being adhered to?

PS - Maybe we could discuss the other issues with board maintenance - software upgrades, hardware issues, etc. too. Is that worth working out some alternatives?

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Just joining in. Thanks for starting this Erik.

MG

[Claude]

I've moderated a few forums in the past 10 years, but those were forums with alot more users, among them undisciplined teenagers and spammers.

What does the moderation activity consist of in this forum? Organissimo seems like a very liberal community of mostly adult and reasonable participants,with only a few crazy people enjoying Narrenfreiheit.

[Niko]

think i'd vote for global moderators, after all there are only two or three places where the problems usually occur, so say the aotw moderator would have an easy time (a friend of mine once upon a time moderated a the cure forum and they had nazis, vampires and all, compared to that even the moderator of the political forum would have an easy job)... MG and Ghost of Miles have said they'd volunteer and to me both seem like excellent choices (admittedly, i don't understand many of the problems, guess you have to be Yumerican to understand all the troubles, and then as an atheist who doesn't have a problem with believers i don't have many opinions to fear)

also think jim a should get more of a ceo figure who doesn't hesitate to ask for more money (and who doesn't hesitate to put any extra money we might (should) collect into organissimo recording projects)

no ideas on additional rules...

[Aggie87]

think i'd vote for global moderators, after all there are only two or three places where the problems usually occur, so say the aotw moderator would have an easy time (a friend of mine once upon a time moderated a the cure forum and they had nazis, vampires and all, compared to that even the moderator of the political forum would have an easy job)... MG and Ghost of Miles have said they'd volunteer and to me both seem like excellent choices (admittedly, i don't understand many of the problems, guess you have to be Yumerican to understand all the troubles, and then as an atheist who doesn't have a problem with believers i don't have many opinions to fear)

also think jim a should get more of a ceo figure who doesn't hesitate to ask for more money (and who doesn't hesitate to put any extra money we might (should) collect into organissimo recording projects)

no ideas on additional rules...

That makes sense about global moderators. Sometimes arguments carry over from one thread to another, in different forums. Might help to ease some of that.

I can see moderators primarily just reminding posters when they get a little out of line to politely draw back, whether through PMs or publicly, as the situation may call for. Sometimes just being reminded to chill helps alot - I know it has for me when my good Chat buddies (and Conn too! ) reign me in.

[Chuck Nessa]

I suggest me, Dan Gould, etc.

[Free For All]

I suggest me, Dan Gould, etc.

No, I believe you are to be the Head of the New Member Welcoming Committee.

[Dan Gould]

I suggest me, Dan Gould, etc.

No, I believe you are to be the Head of the New Member Welcoming Committee.

But no skimming off whatever he extorts in "initiation fees".

Edited December 6, 2007 by Dan Gould

[Van Basten II]

I always felt that this board needed little moderation, it basically takes someone who has the time to read all the threads, to see if there's something going horribly wrong.

How about laying out some rules to inform what is allowed or not allowed.

Per example no threads where the subject is a member of this board etc.

For my part, to avoid conflict of interest i would like to see the moderators operating as mod 1, mod 2 instead of the name they are using as board members.

[Chuck Nessa]

If I wanted to start a thread about CA, LJK or anyone else, what's the problem?

[Jazzmoose]

I think it would probably be easier to divide up the board, maybe even a moderator for each section. I know it's the most vicious part of the board, but I'll volunteer for the discography section...

[Van Basten II]

If I wanted to start a thread about CA, LJK or anyone else, what's the problem?

The idea of the rule is to avoid threads like we had previously where we had a member starting a thread to ask another member to take off his avatar or the one starting a thread about himself asking people to insult him.

[Chuck Nessa]

If I wanted to start a thread about CA, LJK or anyone else, what's the problem?

The idea of the rule is to avoid threads like we had previously where we had a member starting a thread to ask another member to take off his avatar or the one starting a thread about himself asking people to insult him.

As you might see, the rule is a problem.

[7/4]

If I wanted to start a thread about CA, LJK or anyone else, what's the problem?

The idea of the rule is to avoid threads like we had previously where we had a member starting a thread to ask another member to take off his avatar or the one starting a thread about himself asking people to insult him.

As you might see, the rule is a problem.

Not if we have a hot dog.

[Chuck Nessa]

MUSTARD AND ONIONS!!!!

[Van Basten II]

By the way, i suggested the rule as an example of rules that could be set If we decide to make a list of do's and don't'.

I'm not saying that this actual rule should definitively be included.

[Aggie87]

MUSTARD AND ONIONS!!!!

By Booker T and the MG's! Yeah Baby!!

[Quincy]

I think it would probably be easier to divide up the board, maybe even a moderator for each section. I know it's the most vicious part of the board, but I'll volunteer for the discography section...

Mention the LORD (8.0) and you might find yourself with hellfire & damnation.

[Chuck Nessa]

I said he won.

[Larry Kart]

Posted this on another, more general thread, but it probably belong here:

QUOTE from Jim Alfredson @ Dec 5 2007, 02:35 PM)

As for moderation, I would like to have at least one helper. My brother used to help me, but he is also very busy and doesn't have as much invested in this community anymore anyway. I think the most logical person would be Sangry, but it is a job that requires a time commitment and I do not blame anyone for not wanting to be a part of that. Or maybe, as suggested, the chair can rotate every few months.

Me:

I might be your man for that, Jim, for starters, but tell me a bit about what's involved -- in terms of time but mostly in terms of what kinds of things have to be decided and other practicalities, not that what I just mentioned only has to do with practicalities. I can guess, of course, but I should say first that having poked my nose into almost every thread or kind of thread on Organissimo since the dawn of the forum, I've seen very few things that made it onto a thread that I had any doubts should have been there. I would tend to err on the side of freedom, though at the same time I think I have a good sense of when trollishishness is present; and that I loathe and probably would tend to try to stop in its tracks, if only because trollishness can easily destroy large portions of the landscape. Argument, even fairly angry arguments with some degree of name-calling -- OK. Mere provocation -- never.

[papsrus]

In order for moderators not to fall into the trap of arbitrary rulings, the board members will almost certainly need a set of rules, or guidelines, even if they're general guidelines.

Example:

* No direct personal attacks

This might be one. I'm not saying it should be, but just as an example. Instead of replying to someone you disagree with by saying, "You're an idiot," you simply say, "That is an idiotic statement," or something like that.

This would give moderators sufficient grounds to ask the author to revise their comments or, failing that, remove the comment. Without the rule, however strictly it's enforced, there's little reason for anyone to comply with general appeals to tone it down, or whatever. And in the end they'll feel as though they've been treated unfairly.

So ... with moderators come rules. Seems like that's what you'll have to agree on.

[Chuck Nessa]

In order for moderators not to fall into the trap of arbitrary rulings, the board members will almost certainly need a set of rules, or guidelines, even if they're general guidelines.

Example:

* No direct personal attacks

This might be one. I'm not saying it should be, but just as an example. Instead of replying to someone you disagree with by saying, "You're an idiot," you simply say, "That is an idiotic statement," or something like that.

This would give moderators sufficient grounds to ask the author to revise their comments or, failing that, remove the comment. Without the rule, however strictly it's enforced, there's little reason for anyone to comply with general appeals to tone it down, or whatever. And in the end they'll feel as though they've been treated unfairly.

So ... with moderators come rules. Seems like that's what you'll have to agree on.

I will never surrender "you're an idiot". This is America.

[RDK]

Gee, can we start calling you guys "Gorts" as well now?

Seriously, I think some of you are way overthinking his. You act like the board is broken and needs some repairs done to it; what it needs is funding, some admin oversight, and occassionally some light moderation. I've been here from the start and can only think of a handful of threads and/or posters that needed attention. Even the example of the objectionable avatar thread - which was closed - was pretty much being self-policed, with only a few people either being overly sensitive or merely taking it seriously (I was laughing and rolling my eyes all the way through it). Now some of you guys are suggesting "rules" when none were needed before. Why don't we simply proceed as we've always been doing and (as Larry and Chuck suggest) deal with any problems when and if they arise.

[Rooster_Ties]

Rather than have different people assigned to different forums, I suggest Jim pick 6 or 8 trusted people and give them all equal Moderating powers and responsibilities (across all of the forums and sub-forums on the board).

As I understand it, the idea of having multiple Moderators is that there will hopefully be one or more on-line every day, so nothing spins out of control for very long before it can be fixed.

6 or 8 well-chosen mods can certainly figure out how not to step on each other's toes, even if their lines of responsibility overlap (in the sence that all 6 or 8 would be equally responsible for keeping an eye on things. Also, that way no one person has to try to catch everything.

If there were only two or three Mods, then perhaps dividing everything up might work better -- but ONLY if each of those Mods systematically checked everything in their area of responsibility.

Having a few more Mods (6 or 8) means that nobody has to systematically check everything. Collectively 6 or 8 people are likely to see nearly everything sooner or later, without any extra special effort.

[Peter Johnson]

Bumping this up to say how thrilled I would be, and (presumptuous--sorry) how lucky we would all be, if this came to pass in one way or another.

If Larry has the time, I say we take him up on his offer--assuming, given the information he gets from Jim, he still finds it an appealing role.

I might be your man for that, Jim, for starters, but tell me a bit about what's involved -- in terms of time but mostly in terms of what kinds of things have to be decided and other practicalities, not that what I just mentioned only has to do with practicalities. I can guess, of course, but I should say first that having poked my nose into almost every thread or kind of thread on Organissimo since the dawn of the forum, I've seen very few things that made it onto a thread that I had any doubts should have been there. I would tend to err on the side of freedom, though at the same time I think I have a good sense of when trollishishness is present; and that I loathe and probably would tend to try to stop in its tracks, if only because trollishness can easily destroy large portions of the landscape. Argument, even fairly angry arguments with some degree of name-calling -- OK. Mere provocation -- never.