How are moderators moderated?

[D_Odds]

@BigT

The problem is, you can’t make that assumption. Just because people don’t say anything doesn’t mean that people wouldn’t like it to be better. It’s equally likely that the majority of people don’t care, or don’t think their comments will change anything. (The latter being a complaint I hear often at the splinter boards.)

The assumption earlier was that we plebes are concerned. I was simply refuting the assumption that all of us really care.

If the majority of people did not want it, I’d expect a lot of people to be in here saying it was a dumb idea. It’s more likely that people just don’t care enough about the subject. But, then, why wouldn’t you pay more attention to the people who care than the people who don’t? You could please everybody that way.

The majority is not speaking in either direction. I don’t know what the majority is. But the ones calling for it, though few in number, call for it repeatedly and strongly. I just want to make sure it is known that the call isn’t unanimous.

Anyways, my argument is simple. It seems this board values the idea that things are fair. We are allowed to complain. All moderation of members is transparent. It seems it would be consistent to make moderation of moderators also transparent. Especially in such simple ways as have been proposed in this thread.

But, at this point, I’ve regained my trust of the moderators, and unless I see a mod do something really bad, I’m not going to get all fired up about it. But I do think you might have less people getting fired up if you try the simple solutions, like the one proposed by SfG. Get that number of dissatisfied people even lower, to the point where we can all agree that the leftovers are just trolling.

I don’t like the idea because every little mod-to-mod note will give the trolls (which both Lynn and samclem acknowledged) more fuel for their under-bridge fires. It really isn’t necessary.

[Shot_From_Guns]

@Lynn_Bodoni

We’ve been discussing this in the mod email loop and the consensus is:

We make poster Notes and Warnings public to be instructive to other posters, as well as the erring poster. Often, when posters are engaged in questionable activity, we handle it privately through email or PMs, and they may never made public. When mods are critical of each other, it happens behind the scenes in lengthy internal discussion. These are usually for things that only the staff CAN do, so the people who need to learn from the discussion are already reading it. Hence, it’s usually handled privately.

Sometimes, the benefit is not from learning what is and isn’t acceptable, but from having confirmation that all members of a community are held accountable for their actions.

I can’t be accused of money laundering because of the way I handled campaign contributions to a major political party. But that doesn’t mean that Tom DeLay’s trial was or should have been conducted in secret.

@D_Odds

I don’t like the idea because every little mod-to-mod note will give the trolls (which both Lynn and samclem acknowledged) more fuel for their under-bridge fires.

Why do you think this will happen? Per Lynn, these are the people who complain about everything no matter what. Having public discussions of inappropriate staff behavior will give them no more nor less “fuel for their under-bridge fires.” What it *will *do is demonstrate to *everyone *that the staff are held equally accountable for their actions, removing the justification for any complaints on that subject. So it makes no difference for the people with baseless complaints, but a big (positive) difference for people with legitimate ones. Unless, of course, you think that any complaint about a member of the staff is *de facto *baseless.