# Moderating When You're Involved **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [October 20, 2010, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moderating-when-youre-involved/557821 "2010-10-20T21:31:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2010, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moderating-when-youre-involved/557821/41 "2010-10-25T18:49:30Z")
> [@bucketybuck](#): > > I bet the thread still goes four pages. Unless it gets locked ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2010, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moderating-when-youre-involved/557821/42 "2010-10-25T18:54:05Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > Because it made pretty much no sense in the context of the first sentence. “We can’t do this, but we should do it.” I see no reason why there can’t be a policy of handing off subjective decisions to other moderators when there is a potential appearance of a conflict of interest, so that’s the part I chose to quote and respond to. Read it as “we can’t make this policy (because there aren’t enough mods consistently online), but we should adopt it as a more common practice”. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2010, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moderating-when-youre-involved/557821/43 "2010-10-25T19:34:18Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > Think about it, if everyone in this thread were a moderator, how much time would any one person have to commit for there to always be at least one mod in each forum online at any one time? The problem being, of course, that you can’t just hand out modships willy-nilly. > [@Munch](#): > > Read it as “we can’t make this policy (because there aren’t enough mods consistently online), but we should adopt it as a more common practice”. Right. And I disagreed _with the first part_–I think that there are absolutely enough mods for it to be an actual policy for subjective, “moderator discretion” decisions to get handed off to someone else in the rare cases where the moderator posting in the thread has a clear conflict of interest. I’m not the one arguing that no moderator should be able to moderate in any thread they’ve already posted in. I just think there should be recusal from any decision that isn’t supported by the rules in an absolutely explicit way,\* which IME we definitely have the staff to do right now, specifically because those sorts of situations \*don’t \*require split-second decisions. The only times where it would matter how fast a moderator action was taken–spamming, personal insults outside the Pit, posting someone else’s personal information, trolling, the OP has requested a thread be locked, etc.–are when things are very clear-cut “right and wrong.” \*Because, technically speaking, \*any \*conceivable moderator decision is supported by the rules, up to and including banning you for not liking the color of your nail polish. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2010, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moderating-when-youre-involved/557821/44 "2010-10-25T20:49:07Z")
I didn’t propose handing out modships willy-nilly. I asked if he submitted his request to be a mod. The board still had authority to screen potential mods and only accept people they think will do a good job, etc. My post was directed to the actions of the person who said the only criteria for wanting to be a mod was having healthy board culture. There’s plenty of room for more moderators and still screening them for some level of responsibility etc. I know, there’s a practical limit to having mods and having them overseen by someone, maintaining consistency, etc. Doesn’t mean we are necessarily at the optimum level. I don’t know what the optimum level is. I don’t know if there’s a way to determine the optimum level, except through trial and error. I don’t know that we’re not at the optimum level. I don’t know if we even have a definition of optimum. My point is that there are more criteria for wanting to be a mod than just wanting a good board culture. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2010, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moderating-when-youre-involved/557821/45 "2010-10-25T20:57:17Z")
I would assume that if they felt they needed more mods, they would appoint more. I doubt that \*\*Ed \*\*is tearing his hair out because they’re so terribly understaffed, there’s a poster they think would be just perfect for the job, but they won’t ask the person to step up because they never submitted an application. ---
**Author:** ![EllisDee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellisdee/32/4531_2.png) [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2010, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moderating-when-youre-involved/557821/46 "2010-10-25T21:32:26Z")
I’m not understanding the mod availability argument. Was there really a time pressure to call somebody an asshole? It’s not like that thread needed moderation, much less quick moderation. The problem was that a mod who was participating all of a sudden injected unwanted moderation, right? ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2010, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moderating-when-youre-involved/557821/47 "2010-10-25T21:56:19Z")
Yes, my problem is that **twickster** , after having demonstrated that she had such a serious emotional involvement in the topic as to break a major board rule, used her position to lock a thread where people were engaged in a discussion that she found personally distasteful, instead of allowing the discussion to continue or moving it to another venue. The name-calling is relevant, IMO, only insofar as it demonstrates her mental state at the time. She did apologize after people called her on it; whether or not she would have still gotten a note or a warning if she hadn’t been a mod is beyond the scope of what I’d like to discuss here. This is about moderators taking controversial actions in threads where they could be seen as having a conflict of interest. ---
**Author:** ![Do\_Not\_Taunt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/do_not_taunt/32/2968_2.png) [@Do\_Not\_Taunt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Do_Not_Taunt)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2010, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moderating-when-youre-involved/557821/48 "2010-10-26T02:04:07Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > **spark240** is the one who said the **only** incentive is a healthy board culture. You have just listed a reason that is beyond wanting a healthy board culture - _not enough time to commit_. > > Think about it, if everyone in this thread were a moderator, how much time would any one person have to commit for there to always be at least one mod in each forum online at any one time? Sorry if I’m being dense here, but aren’t you conflating incentives with disincentives? I mean, wanting a healthy board culture is an incentive to be a mod, not having enough time is a disincentive. So I didn’t list another incentive after all - I did the opposite. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2010, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moderating-when-youre-involved/557821/49 "2010-10-26T20:11:38Z")
You listed another motivation beyond wanting a healthy board culture. **Shot From Guns** said: > [@](#): > > I would assume that if they felt they needed more mods, they would appoint more. Quit getting hung up on hypothetical examples. My only point was > [@](#): > > there are more criteria for wanting to be a mod than just wanting a good board culture. Criteria, motivations, incentives, whatever. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2010, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moderating-when-youre-involved/557821/50 "2010-10-26T20:16:40Z")
Well, I’ve completely lost track of this side discussion, then. ---
**Author:** ![Do\_Not\_Taunt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/do_not_taunt/32/2968_2.png) [@Do\_Not\_Taunt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Do_Not_Taunt)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2010, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moderating-when-youre-involved/557821/51 "2010-10-27T02:29:43Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > You listed another motivation beyond wanting a healthy board culture. Was this in response to me? Because I really didn’t. > [@](#): > > Criteria, motivations, incentives, whatever. But surely you recognize the difference between a motivation/incentive/criterion/whatever and _a reason not to_, right? ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2010, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moderating-when-youre-involved/557821/52 "2010-10-27T15:34:50Z")
I recognize there is a difference between a reason to do something and a reason to not do that thing. I also recognize that they are both motivations. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2010, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moderating-when-youre-involved/557821/53 "2010-10-27T16:14:13Z")
I’d say there are positive and negative incentives, but motivations are only positive. Could just be my personal connotations, though. However, all of this is pretty pendantic nitpicking and doesn’t address any of the \*actual issues \*here. Nor, I’ll note, have any staff stepped up to comment on the situation other than a few words from \*\*twickster \*\*herself. And no one has as of yet found a single other example of \*\*twickster \*\*locking a thread in this way somewhere that she didn’t have a personal stake in the discussion. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2010, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moderating-when-youre-involved/557821/54 "2010-10-27T19:22:04Z")
Well, I haven’t found any examples, but I haven’t been looking. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2010, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moderating-when-youre-involved/557821/55 "2010-10-27T20:41:01Z")
Well, surely if this is a typical moderator action for her (or anyone else), it should be very easy to find an example. ---
**Author:** ![Do\_Not\_Taunt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/do_not_taunt/32/2968_2.png) [@Do\_Not\_Taunt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Do_Not_Taunt)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2010, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moderating-when-youre-involved/557821/56 "2010-10-28T02:01:14Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > I recognize there is a difference between a reason to do something and a reason to not do that thing. > > I also recognize that they are both motivations. Your unusual understanding of this word besides, your original post makes no sense. Just because there’s only one reason/incentive/motivation/whatever to do x, it doesn’t follow that if you don’t do x, you don’t care about that sole reason/incentive/motivation/whatever. That just doesn’t add up. [QUOTE=Shot From Guns] Well, surely if this is a typical moderator action for her (or anyone else), it should be very easy to find an example. [/QUOTE] Well, shoot, I guess you just outcared me on this one.. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2010, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moderating-when-youre-involved/557821/57 "2010-10-28T21:08:57Z")
This whole topic has gotten twisted out of control. My original comment was > [@](#): > > 1. they would have a lot less incentive to moderate, since they would have to spend all their time reading threads that they’re not interested in, and so very likely not get to read threads that they are; I am very clearly talking about the choice to be a moderator in light of all the surrounding circumstances, including the regular abuse mods take for doing their job, the regular accusations of bias and stupidity levied against mods for enforcing the rules as they understand them, and the effect that a policy of “you cannot moderate a thread that you take a position in” would have on people wanting to be moderators. I was taking into consideration that moderators are typically chosen to moderate fora that they are active participants, precisely because they already read and post there. \*\*spark240 \*\*responded > [@](#): > > And if you want to talk about “incentive to moderate,” what incentive can or should there be, except an interest in a healthy board culture? He is the one taking my statement and limiting it to only positive motivations to take up moderating. _ **I** _ was discussing the whole gamut of choosing to be a moderator - the upsides and downsides, the desire to improve the board vs. the desire to spend time having fun rather than working, the desire to put in limited amounts of time or post sporadically, the desire to see good moderating instead of the apparenty bad moderating we currently have - all those motivations. So if there is only one consideration, then everyone should be trying to be a moderator, because everyone in the discussion shared that consideration. The fact that there are other considerations is exactly what I was pointing out. If there is only one consideration to do X, and you meet that consideration, then why aren’t you doing X? The fact that you aren’t doing X means _there is some other consideration_, even if that consideration is merely “there are already plenty of other people doing X so I am not required.” I can’t believe this is such a difficult point to understand. **Shot From Guns** said: > [@](#): > > Well, surely if this is a typical moderator action for her (or anyone else), it should be very easy to find an example. I wouldn’t know what to search for, other than all posts by **twickster** , and I don’t care about proving to you that the behavior was acceptable enough to wade through threads looking for examples of behavior for you to question. You have yet to make the case \*to me \*that her behavior was inappropriate. I don’t need to find evidence to support that her action was acceptable because I don’t question that it was. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2010, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moderating-when-youre-involved/557821/58 "2010-10-28T21:24:53Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > You have yet to make the case \*to me \*that her behavior was inappropriate. I don’t need to find evidence to support that her action was acceptable because I don’t question that it was. I’m arguing that her behavior was influenced by her personal involvement in the thread. I provided evidence that she was emotionally involved to the extent that she wasn’t thinking straight (she broke a cardinal board rule), I provided evidence that the “tangent” was exactly what the OP had asked for, and I provided evidence that this is not the first time that she has moderated based on her personal preferences rather than board rules. You’re arguing that she behaved exactly as any other, uninvolved moderator would have done. Yet you provide absolutely no support of this, such as showing a time where she locked another thread that was, at worst, in the wrong forum, or getting another mod to say, “I also would have locked that thread.” See the difference? ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2010, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moderating-when-youre-involved/557821/59 "2010-10-29T03:46:09Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > or getting another mod to say, “I also would have locked that thread.” For the record, I also would have locked that thread. **Twickster** erred her remark to **AClockworkMelon** , which she acknowledged and apologized for. However, she was entirely correct in closing the thread subsequently. Per his own remarks, the OP had apparently decided what he was going to do. The thread had become a debate, and was no longer suitable for MPSIMS. Since another thread had been started in GD, the MPSIMS thread was redundant and there was no point in leaving it open. Since the thread closure didn’t prevent anyone who had something to say about the matter from discussing it, it wasn’t a big deal. We moderate threads we participate in all the time. I do it in GQ, and I’m sure the other mods do it as well. It’s always been standard practice on this board. What seems to be ignored her is that we are volunteer moderators on a free message board, not Supreme Court justices. Suggesting that we recuse ourselves and go find another mod to take action every time an issue comes up in a thread we are participating in is frankly not realistic. ---
**Author:** ![hajario](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hajario/32/171_2.png) [@hajario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hajario)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2010, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moderating-when-youre-involved/557821/60 "2010-10-29T04:22:51Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > Suggesting that we recuse ourselves and go find another mod to take action every time an issue comes up in a thread we are participating in is frankly not realistic. Well then thank Goodness that isn’t what most of us have been suggesting. Another Mod should take action if they are participating _and emotionally invested_ in the thread. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moderating-when-youre-involved/557821.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moderating-when-youre-involved/557821.md?page=4)