Discuss. Seems to me that way, here on SDMB, anyway. Is it the case that to do something like moderation most effectively, one must not invest too much in it, as one’s vocation, avocation - call it what you will. Does it also help if you do it among the last things in your daily routine rather than as your first - or worse still, only? Do men wait a little longer before leaping on what they think is an unacceptable comment? Do they also give more thought to the fact that it might not actually be unacceptable in the first place, by, for example, searching actively for other interpretations of what the writer might have meant?
Dunno; seems like a bit of a dull-edged question - not unlike ‘do heterosexual couples make better adoptive parents than homosexual couples’ - if the proper checks and balances are in place, the unsuitable candidates get weeded out, regardless of who they are and the suitable candidates get appointed, regardless of who they are.
It might be true that this results in a greater representation of one group than the other within the final set of selected candidates, and that may or may not reflect a general variance in the statistical likelihood of suitability within either group (as opposed to reflecting pure chance).
So… my position in this debate is: Maybe, maybe not - but in either case, not so significantly as to become a primary basis for selection.
Hell, I don’t even know the gender of all the moderators.
I have no valid opinion on your OP because I have seen no evidence. Can you cite some examples of bias or poor judgement on some female moderator that hasn’t been seen in male moderators? You don’tg have to name names, of course.
I don’t think women moderators have a corner on immoderation. Remember when they sent manhattan on a mandatory sabbatical for being such a cranky-pants? Can’t find that thread, it may have been lost in TWoOMC.
I think you need to chow us some cites. This is GD, is it not?
Or even show some! Although I suppose you could eat them.
The data sample simply isn’t large enough.
And when it comes to men vs. women, size does matter.
I disagree. Back in the day there was a female mod active in this forum who really impressed me on a constant basis. She was literally unprovokable, incredibly intelligent (and claimed to look bodacious in a bikini.)
Anyway, the most remarkable characteristic of this mod was her reasonableness. It’s an extremely difficult thing to be reasonable when you are dealing with unreasonable people. Nonetheless, no matter how out there somebody was (and things get pretty far out there,) she was always unfailingly reasonable and decent.
She could correct the most asinine things without disrespecting the person she was correcting. You couldn’t help but admire it even if you were the asinine moron being corrected.
On the other hand, maybe I just enjoy being bitchslapped by women.
Cranky pants. I like it.
Anyhoo, I’m quite convinced that the evidence supports the conclusion that men and women, speaking very generally, tend to approach some problems differently, due to both environmental conditioning and innate factors. So it’s reasonable to conclude that, in aggregate, male moderators might behave differently in some ways than female moderators.
I doubt very much we’ve got enough moderators to choose from here such that individual quirks don’t drive the error bars way beyond the average sorts of behaviors you’d expect when discussing larger sample sizes.
And even if our mods are so typically male or female in their style that they fit the putative mean very nicely, I’d never go so far as to conclude one style was better than the other, just different. Modding is obviouly complicated, and there’s enough room for doubt and nuance in the process that I should think complexity will trump any benefit the narrow differential in skillsets one might expect due to gender could conceivably confer on more specialized tasks, and so a diversity of styles can still be equally effective for solving a particular modding problem.
Was that Cajun Man? 'cause, dude… :dubious:
Uh, I’m pretty sure Gaudere is the only female to moderate this forum. And she’s still here. Other than that, you are spot on.
The few run-ins I’ve had with mods have been pretty random, but the female mods I’ve tangled with have been more–surprising somehow. The men tend to lay out the facts more clearly and I can see their point more easily; the women tend to blindside me with things I hadn’t seen coming.
YModMV.
I never said she didn’t. She’s not particularly active though, so I am spot on.
Nah. Some of the mods are power tripping babies (handling a message board must be a real power trip, almost like managing a dairy queen), but I notice this more in men than women. I haven’t seen many women act like brats. Just men. But that is just me.
What evidence do you have that the differences are gender related?
Evidence? Some emails from mods (both male and female); posts (from a representative sample of males and females) directed at posters on the various fora themselves. My fundamental hypothesis is that the effectiveness of a moderator is in inverse proportion to their emotional investment in the role. In cases I’ve been able to identify, the greatest emotional investment is made by women.
Not that I pay much attention to them, but my impression is that the volatile and explosive posters are usually men. The banning ratio has to be at least * 5 to 1, males to females. So your argument requires some explanation why women posters are usually more restrained while women moderators are more…immoderate.
By the way did I read your post right - are you assuming the women mods don’t have jobs? Is that true?
*Correct me if my impression is wrong, as I say I tend to skip over those threads
’beech, what’s the gender balance between posters? :dubious:
The board has never had a better moderator, in my opinion, than Gaudere. (Or a better debater, for that matter.)