Debates are not appropriate in MPSIMS. I recommended that someone start a thread in GD; Rilchiam did. The debate continues there, in the appropriate venue.
I hate to torture your analogy, but I think what spark240 is suggesting is that once a moderator as posted in a particular thread as a poster, they aren’t allowed to moderate that particular thread.
So once a judge has filled his tank at a particular gas station, he should be allowed to preside over a case involving *that *gas station. I mean, I don’t know if that analogy really fits, but I think it fits a bit better than yours, if I’m understanding spark240’s point correctly. I may not be. I have confused myself.
The entire thread, starting with the OP, was a solicitation of opinions and debate. The entire thread should have been moved.
No, I think that may be a better analogy. And it still fits pretty well, I think. Except that a judge would have way more gas stations to stop at than cases involving them, and a gas station case would have way more judges to choose from than a thread would have potential moderators.
Speaking as someone who has been in this position, it’s simply not reasonable to expect a staff of this size to be able to simultaneously post, moderate, and not moderate in any threads where they also post.
Please don’t misrepresent my motives. I started a new board for one reason only: to build an underground army, Fight Club-style. As in the movie, our plan is to eventually take down the world’s financial system, although we’re doing it through lethargy and unproductivity rather than actual guerilla action.
I don’t think that recommendation is going to work, and Ed has already pretty much shot it out of the water.
If moderators could not moderate threads in which they participate
-
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;
-
we would need a ton more mods, and imagine the difficulty keeping consistency there.
I understand the concerns over impropriety, but we have processes to oversee that, including ATMB threads, PM’s to admins, and appeals to Ed. And as everybody’s favorite example with twickster shows, those appeal processes do work.
The problem in this specific case appears to be a disagreement over DangleYourModifier’s intent. Was he requesting a debate over the merits of AA as a solution to his problem? Or was he requesting a broad spectrum of feedback on things to do, responses and changes, including as one element other people’s opinions about AA?
As I read it and apparently twickster read it, the topic was a broader discussion of personal responses and ways to address the issue, and some feedback on AA was appropriate (“Yeah, I like it;” “Well I think it stinks, it’s too religioiusy.”) Sure, it’s valid to mention that AA has its detractors, and that perhaps the statitics don’t support it, but beyond that, getting into a nuts and bolts of if AA works or not is getting into one of those more contentious topics that really belongs in GD.
So really what we have is an IMHO thread posted in MPSIMS that spawned a GD that people wouldn’t separate from the initial thread. Moving a thread to a different forum is appropriate, but closing is also an appropriate response in these situations, especially when the mod feels that the Debate is beyond the scope of the OP - “help me deal with my occassional uncontrollable drunken binges.”
So you feel differently, you feel it should have been moved to GD and turned into the debate topic that was being discussed. Well, you weren’t the moderator.
Now I can see how it looks improper. twickster had a strong emotional response early in the thread, and then later took an action that stopped discussion, which could be interpreted as shutting down her opponents. In this case, it might have looked better if she had recognized her own involvement would give people room to question her motives, and had recommended another mod step in. But the action she took is well within norms for moderator actions in similar situations, and if she hadn’t been herself engaged in the debate, the whine would merely be “why are you shutting down debate?” rather than “why are you abusing your moderator powers?” And the answer would be the same - the thread had gotten hijacked and turned into a Great Debate, but the early stage of the thread was framed as an advice thread, which doesn’t belong in GD. Ergo, close it.
Yes, that’s right.
IIRC, every forum already has at least two moderators and most have more than that. How often does it really happen that every moderator in a given forum posts in a given thread, and then a need for moderation arises in that same thread? That’s the only time my standard becomes problematic. Short of that, there will always be an uninvolved mod to make the judgment.
To me this seems like a good voluntary standard, ethically and for the sake of healthy board culture, even if it’s perhaps not to be a strict rule under all circumstances.
There you go.
Not at all. Nobody needs to read threads they’re not interested in. Already-involved mods who wish to “recuse” themselves can tip off other mods to have a look if necessary. Presumably the most problematic posts will be reported by somebody soon enough anyway.
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? Caprice and perception of caprice are clearly damaging to that. A moderator whose actions create that perception is a mixed asset.
Hookers? Blow? A double sawbuck? I’m open.
I get the feeling that there aren’t enough moderators around at any moment to implement some sort of “I recuse myself - I’m handing it off to XXX at this point” system. But, I think it would be useful if mods did use that more (not that it comes up very often).
I also doubt the ability of the board denizens to self-moderate in the AA thread if twickster had posted: “This thread is fully in Debate Mode - but given my involvement, I’m going to get a different moderator to make a final ruling/transfer to GD/closing on it. Everyone, please dial it back and keep everything MPSIMS until that happens.”
I highly doubt it’s even possible, but a great feature would be for mods to have the ability to lock a thread for everyone but the OP to post in, at which point it becomes unlocked again. Threads where the OP never comes back to clarify what the hell he’s talking about, threads where dozens of posters come in to pile a bunch of questions on the OP, or threads where side discussions suddenly dominate the thread can now be halted until the OP clarifies/defends himself/backs up his statements.
I can think of a way to accomplish that but it would be a huge pain in the ass and not worth it. I am not aware of an easy way to do this in vb.
I don’t have a problem with twickster’s behaviour in that thread; she got personal because of her own life experiences (mods are still human), and she apologized almost immediately. I don’t think the mods hold us to any different standard - if you apologize right away for going over the line, I don’t think you’d get a warning for that.
That said, I do like the idea of twickster recusing herself from moderating that thread after losing her cool in it. Mods are human, and they’ve got buttons that can be pushed, too.
I’ve long favored a system in which Mods particpate as they like in threads but simply apply a strict standard of recusal. If they can honestly answer, “I’m not emotionally involved here, I have no cat in this fight, I’m simply being pleasant and helpful to everyone so far, no one has voiced a complaint about my acts as Moderator,” then they’re good to go. This probably accounts for over 90% of the threads they participate in while moderating, which of course accounting for fewer than 99% of all the threads that they’re merely moderating. But Mods such as **Twickster **and Tomndebb, each of whom I had thought of for my first few years on this board as among the most subtle and intelligent of posters, have shown a remarkable obtuseness in ignoring the rudiments of such a principle and have rationalized their impropriety with all the delicate nuance of enraged bulls in china-shops. I don’t expect this simple point to become clear to either of them anytime soon.
I would like to add that Shot From Guns’s OP title gives us a useful abbreviation, as in “**Twickster **was pulled over for MWI.”
So have you submitted your request to become a moderator yet? Or are you not interested in a healthy board culture? Because if that’s all it takes, everyone in this thread should be lining up to be a moderator.
I don’t understand this post at all. You can be very interested in a healthy board culture, and that would be your incentive to become a mod, and you might still think you’d be bad at the job for some reason (not enough time to commit to the job, for example.)
Have you guys not noticed that there are threads that have been posted in by multiple moderators? Who could do the moderating in that thread?
And, while you may consider the number of moderators we have a lot, remember only a fraction of them are online at any one given time. That’s the point of the redundancy of moderators for each forum, not so one moderator can opt out.
My bigger problem is that all a mod has to do is appologize for breaking a rule. There needs to be an official warning to show that the mods have to follow the rules just as much as everyone else. And, yes, I’d be fine with a personal warning meaning you couldn’t moderate that thread.
For everyone who thinks that **twickster **was not at all influenced by her personal involvement in this thread (including **twickster **herself):
Can you show even *one other thread *where **twickster **made a similar decision, where she didn’t have an emotional involvement? I.e., the thread was in MPSIMS but the OP was asking for advice/opinions, two parties had opposing viewpoints on what would be helpful, and she locked the thread rather than letting it continue there or moving it to another forum?
If you can, then I will accept that this was simply a case of the *appearance *of a conflict of interest.
1.) You can’t guarantee that it won’t happen.
2.) You can’t guarantee that a moderator who hasn’t yet posted in the thread will be available when needed.
Why? Speaking as someone who has held a position like this, it’s entirely possible to just be very, very careful about avoiding even the appearance of partisanship. Here are ways that, IMO, twickster could have handled this situation better:
1.) Let the thread continue for as long as people were interested in discussing it.
2.) Moved the thread to a forum where the entire thing–OP on–was more appropriate, such as GD or IMHO.
3.) Presented the thread to another moderator, without comment or advice, for them to move/lock/leave alone as they saw fit.
Locking the thread after personally insulting someone who disagreed with her was the single worst thing she could have done, from the perspective of appearances. (Well, okay, banning **Melon **would have been worse.) If you’re taking moderator actions in a thread where you have a very clear personal stake, you had better make sure your ass is covered, in that you have an objective reason to have taken that particular course of action. From what I can see, the decision to lock this thread rather than, at most, move it to another forum is highly subjective, and therefore highly suspect.
And again, I’ll point out that this is not the first time that **twickster **has used her position to enforce her personal preferences in direct conflict with actual board rules.
- Because there simply aren’t very many moderators around at any given time.
- Why did you omit the second sentence I wrote, that basically agrees with everything else you wrote?
I think there are generally at least two online at a time, even if they’re not ones that usually have responsibility for a given forum. No one will ever fault a moderator for taking action that *explicitly backed *by the rules, no matter how involved they are in a thread (e.g., banning someone who’s just created their account and done nothing but call posters racial slurs). And anything that’s more subjective is, by its very nature, not going to be so time sensitive that waiting a few hours for a moderator decision is going to break anything.
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.
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?