Let's talk about mods

[fluiddruid]

There have been a few spattered discussions in different threads, but I thought it'd be useful to start organizing our thoughts in one thread.

Electing mods

First of all, moderator selection. I am of two minds about the idea of elected moderators. On the one hand, I think that community involvement in moderator selection would be very welcome, and I think that we've all been burned by staff members who no longer want to be part of the community or care about establishing a reputation as fair-minded or helpful. On the other hand, I'm not sure how effective an elected moderator would be; I am concerned that if moderator elections became a popularity contest, you'd essentially have the non-elected ones doing the real work and the others being 'show moderators' who are afraid to make anyone angry by issuing warnings (even when called for). The best, most amusing posters are often not particularly good moderators, and vice versa, though there are some notable exceptions, such as our host.

I personally have always found even the possibility of being held to task in the Pit as a pretty strong motivator for not being too much of a fuckup, though I have certainly had my moments. On the flip side I think that if you can't trust the community to police itself then perhaps it's not worth saving at all. Then again, I think having as little staff changeover as possible (adding moderators, rather than constant shuffling in and out) tends to create good results in the long term; certainly if moderators were shuffling in and out every few months, getting predictable moderator rulings would be difficult. However, new blood has often been one of the things to bring about positive changes. I'd be interested to hear everyone's opinion on this topic. At least, I think it would be a worthy experiment to try and see what happens.

Moderator rules

I think it'd be worthwhile to set out what everyone expects out of moderators and what they should be held to (above any member rules). Personally, I think that moderators should have some looseness so they can mingle with the community and have a vested interest in it. However, some rules tend to create an us vs. them situation, e.g. never being able to be publicly critical, not being able to discuss staff debates about rulings, and so on. What do you all think good moderator-related rules would be?

The moderator forum

I brought this up in the rules thread, but what does everybody think of having a moderator forum that anyone could read, but not post to unless on staff? I'd like to bring the private discussions and debates about rulings into the light, and I don't see a strong reason to hide the records of other posters (warnings/suspensions/bannings would be posted in other threads anyway, yes?). I am concerned if people feel that this would be violating their privacy or airing their past problems for all to see. If that was the case, I think it would be useful just to have it display recent threads - such as those from the last month - so people could look through what the mods are doing without being able to rub old warnings in the faces of other posters. Discuss?

[Uthrecht]

I saw the mention of elected moderators being done at domebo in the other thread. I'd have to say, I'm similarly torn. On the one hand, it's good for the masses to have a sense that the moderator is working to help them, rather than being part of the machine. On the other hand, I'm completely with you about the perils of elected positions. Also, that the majority of those voting probably won't have moderator experience and may not know what to look for. I was thinking maybe it could be like a primary, where people can vote for people and the administrators will review the top 5 or 10 or so, and will explain their choices publicly. So there's some vetting done by those that should be experienced in things, not to mention the ones that need to work most closely with the moderators.

If that makes sense.

[Giraffe]

Originally Posted by fluiddruid

Moderator rules

I think it'd be worthwhile to set out what everyone expects out of moderators and what they should be held to (above any member rules). Personally, I think that moderators should have some looseness so they can mingle with the community and have a vested interest in it. However, some rules tend to create an us vs. them situation, e.g. never being able to be publicly critical, not being able to discuss staff debates about rulings, and so on. What do you all think good moderator-related rules would be?

This is an area I have strong opinions on. I want moderators to be as unrestricted as possible in terms of their ability to participate in the site just like everyone else. I also want to minimize any feeling of capriciousness, whereby people are afraid to point out when a mod is being retarded for fear of consequences.

So I'm inclined to say that in terms of moderator-poster interaction, each is allowed to be as rude to the other as they want. If you can't handle some asshole calling you names because you stuck him in the Box, don't be a mod here. In terms of moderator actions, though, I think mods should be expected to be clear about why they're taking a given action and, while not necessarily professional, at least reasonable when the mod hat is on. Sassy mods are fun, obnoxious bully mods are not.

Whatever mod team we put together should also be able to overturn the decisions of another mod without anyone getting bent out of shape. Heck (and I just thought of this so maybe it's a terrible idea), maybe we should have an automatic 1-2 hour time out in the Box anytime a mod is found to have made a bad ruling. Wouldn't that be awesome?

Thanks for starting this thread, fluiddruid. For full disclosure, I should point out that I asked fluiddruid and TVeblen if they would help mod back when I was first thinking about starting this and they both agreed.

[Jaade]

I think that having elected mods is probably a great idea in theory, but one that would turn out badly. Like others have mentioned, voting turns into a popularity contest which could be a headache for all of the moderators.

I have always believed that a mod should be able to post freely when not modding a post.

I think the idea for a forum that moderators discuss decisions in and members can view but not post in is also terrific. A big problem on the Dope always seems to be that the PTB make decisions that seem to be at odds with what ALL the members think and then no mod wants to say that he or she disagreed with the decision but was outnumbered or is able to explain how a decision came to be without being vague or confusing.

[Veb]

I'm too brain-fried to make much sense right now--long day--but here goes:

Mod elections: I'm still wrapping my brain around this. I can see some real advantages to it. It would give posters a lot more direct input on who mods. There is some peril to the popularity aspect though. I remember several very popular posters back in the day on the Dope who were frequently bruited about as possible mods. They were terrific posters, real rainmakers for funny, interesting threads, but tempermentally unsuited, shall we say. Yeah, let's say that. It can be hard to have to say, "Knock it off, knucklehead" to somebody you really like. I dunno though. Could all come out in the wash anyway. So chalk me up as 'hell yeah, worth a try' vote.

The important thing is to have enough mods for decent coverage. The traffic is light now but real life can cut into online time very quickly.

As long as we're retooling, I am strongly of the opinion that there should be some mechanism to remove mods as well. Somebody will always disagree with certain actions, just for sideways cussedness if nothing else, but if a mod just ain't cuttin' the mustard (whatever that stupid phrase means) posters need a voice on that.

Moderator rules: There should be a very clear and consistently used means of distinguishing mod actions. I don't care what it is but everybody should use the same thing so posters aren't left scratching their heads in puzzlement about 'was that a warning?' 'is a caution the same thing as a warning?' etc. I dunno about the oft-suggested mod sock idea, i.e. a completely separate board identity, clear to all, that is used for only for modding. I'm not in love with the idea but it's worth considering.

Otherwise, mods should be allowed to post just the same as everybody else. Posters can flame mods, mods can flame back. A lot of the fun was sucked out of the job when Doper mods were prohibited from Pitting anyone, expected to elevate the tone, demonstrate high standards, blah, blah, blah. The scout leader schtick got old real fast.

Moderator forum: I really like the idea of posters being able to see how discussions go. First, it seems fairer. If somebody's posting privs are on the line, or even if it's just a warning in the offing, the offenses were public. Why not the deliberations about them? Second, I agree with fluiddruid that posters would probably be suprised at how serious mod discussions can be. Not necessarily fascinating reading, but often there was considerable disagreement. Kind of Rashomon limited to gobs of text.

I'm sure many piercing insights will occur to me tomorrow but this will have to do for the nonce.

[Scuba Ben]

I support importing the SDMB practice that when a moderator or administrator is acting in an official capacity, they clearly indicate that the post is a mod / admin post. Otherwise, they're Just Another Board Poster.

[porcupine]

Originally Posted by Giraffe

So I'm inclined to say that in terms of moderator-poster interaction, each is allowed to be as rude to the other as they want. If you can't handle some asshole calling you names because you stuck him in the Box, don't be a mod here.

This. And the rest. But mostly this. I was just reminiscing with UncleBeer about manhattan's classic, snide, even...abusive thread closing. And he was pining for Alphagene-style moderating. 'Course, UB was no slouch himself.

[Joey P]

I've been thinking about the elected mods. I'm not so sure it would completely work. My thoughts are that the people who might be great mods are the matter-of-fact type people. These also seem to be the "GQ" type people that may not make a huge impression on others because they tend not to stick out as much. The people that make the biggest impact on other posters, the people you remember might not make the greatest mods.
Of course, I could be completely wrong on this.

As for the open mod forums. I think that makes sense, but it would be interesting to see if it would really work. Some mod actions come under a lot of fire and it might work out better if the general public didn't see who was on which side of the argument behind the scenes. Along with that I feel that once a decision was made (at least the ones that were discussed in the mod forums) all the mods should stand behind the decision 100%. One of the downfalls over at SD, IMHO is that some of the mods seem to be working against each other rather then with each other. There's a lot of 'well she made that decision so you can't expect ME to make a similar ruling' type of stuff and that seems to be becoming a problem.
The other issue I see happening is that the general public will start participating in the threads by opening up similar threads about those threads in other forums and attempting to hash it out themselves.
A thought I had if the open forum didn't work, would be to have a hidden forum and then after a decision was made, move the thread to the open mod forum so you can say 'look, here's what we did' Kind of like declassifying the thread. Here's how we got to that decision, it's not changing, we ALL stand behind it regardless of what we said.
But honestly, it, IMO doesn't seem like it would work out well.

[Zack Lee Wright]

I like open mod forums (view only) I don't like voting in mods. If a mod is needed you review the posting history and offer it to the person you think will do the best with no ego.

If the board takes a left lean, which I am sure it will, God bless my conservative abuse taking heart. I like knowing a level headed mod is in the over watch position when the flaming starts, not the "popular" kid.

[dactylic hexameter]

I'm not in favor of voting in mods, however, I do think a mod-removal-mechanism would be very worthwhile. Maybe if a mod is reported enough (and the reports deemed fair), the mod would come up for discussion in an open forum. There would be a "discussion period" when posters would be allowed to post in support of or against the mod, with relevant examples/illustrations, and then posters would vote on mod removal.

By all means, we can burn this bridge when we come to it, but just a suggestion.

[MannyLNJ]

A suggestion to voting on moderators. How about this.

If you propose someone to be a moderator there is a thread made where for X days (3? 7?) the members can post either if thye are for or against it but they would need to back up their opinion for instance.

example 1 should be a mod. When he was under attack in <thread> he did not go bat shit crazy

example 2 should not be a mod. When he says no gays should not have the right to vote and he was questioned by poster 1 he went all bat-shit crazy on him.

[Giraffe]

Originally Posted by MannyLNJ

A suggestion to voting on moderators. How about this.

If you propose someone to be a moderator there is a thread made where for X days (3? 7?) the members can post either if thye are for or against it but they would need to back up their opinion for instance.

example 1 should be a mod. When he was under attack in <thread> he did not go bat shit crazy

example 2 should not be a mod. When he says no gays should not have the right to vote and he was questioned by poster 1 he went all bat-shit crazy on him.

I love this idea. This is essentially what I would try to do myself whenever a new mod was proposed in the mod loop at the SDMB. But, being only one person and using a search tool that was...challenged, you never knew if you were missing some major freakout a few months back.

By the way, anyone who thinks they would make a good mod, or knows someone else whose SDMB history suggests that they would be a good mod, please email or PM me.

[Joey P]

That could be interesting, perhaps every X months each moderator is brought up for review. Maybe during review season a new forum would be created in the forum would be one thread for each mod. Each thread would be a poll, about wheather that mod should stay or go and discussion could ensue underneath it. Also, my thought would be that the (and this is just a thought) mod could not participate in that thread. It seems like at that point, they've either been good or bad and it's too late to defend themselves. Kind of like jury deliberation. OTOH, that could quickly turn into a popularity contest and you'd essentially have elected mods (by process of elimination).

[Zack Lee Wright]

I sent a PM but not sure if it went through. Usually the sent PM stays in the outbox doesn't it?

[Joey P]

Originally Posted by Zack Lee Wright

I sent a PM but not sure if it went through. Usually the sent PM stays in the outbox doesn't it?

Ditto for me, sent one, but it's not in my outbox.
Giraffe, if your looking, I'm interested.

[Uthrecht]

Actually, I PM'ed earlier today and didn't see anything in the sent box.

[Giraffe]

I got your PMs, so they are sending. I don't have anything in my Sent Folder either. I'll have to investigate...

Edit: There's a box you check if you want to copy the message to your sent items folder. It's unchecked by default. I'll change to be checked, once I figure out how.

Edit2: Turns out it's a bug in the current version of vBulletin but has already been fixed in the next release.

[Zack Lee Wright]

My PM actually nominated 2 people, XXXX and XXXX for all around because she is nothing but helpful in any interaction I have ever seen on the Dope, and XXXX for the same reasons. I spelled out more a bit in the PM that may or may not have went through.

[Joey P]

I mentioned something about this in an earlier post, but I have a question. If we did have an open mod forum, would there still be a hidden one? I mentioned some thoughts about it before, but it seems that there would still be some discussion that you wouldn't want EVERYONE to see. Just curious.

[Zack Lee Wright]

I'd like to add one more thing before I make my way to the warm hole that is a heated water bed. And that is hinted at by me in the merging thread, but I do not like anyone being a mod that actually wants to be a mod. Insane? Maybe.

But it just seems odd that anyone would want to put themselves in a position of abuse and second guessings and third guessings and constant user scrutiny. I think the best leader, moderator, commander are those thrust into power not those who lust for the power.

[Roo]

Originally Posted by Zack Lee Wright

But it just seems odd that anyone would want to put themselves in a position of abuse and second guessings and third guessings and constant user scrutiny. I think the best leader, moderator, commander are those thrust into power not those who lust for the power.

So basically you can force people into abuse but not have them volunteer for it. Kinda like the military draft vs. the volunteer army then. [insert thinking smilie]

[Joey P]

Originally Posted by Zack Lee Wright

But it just seems odd that anyone would want to put themselves in a position of abuse and second guessings and third guessings and constant user scrutiny. I think the best leader, moderator, commander are those thrust into power not those who lust for the power.

But, the person HAS to WANT to do it. What you suggesting is to take a member of the community and thrust them into a world of abuse and second guessings... ISTM that they would either quickly step down or leave the boards all together. That's like taking a person who you think is great at math and saying "Okay, from now on, you're the 7th grade math teacher" Hey, great if they want to do it, but if they don't want it, they won't do a good job.

[Zack Lee Wright]

Originally Posted by Joey P

But, the person HAS to WANT to do it. What you suggesting is to take a member of the community and thrust them into a world of abuse and second guessings... ISTM that they would either quickly step down or leave the boards all together. That's like taking a person who you think is great at math and saying "Okay, from now on, you're the 7th grade math teacher" Hey, great if they want to do it, but if they don't want it, they won't do a good job.

I was expecting this, because I wrote without really expressing myself well enough. And without naming names because this isn't a pissing match but volunteering to help out (moderate) is a fine thing and not so much what I am getting at. It is like a few posters on the Dope even as we type this, that are all but gargling the admins fluids for a spot as a moderator=bad moderator. A simple request such as yours is understandable, and in no way was I referencing you in my post. I apologize for it looking that way. It's just that my brain lacks the words I am trying to express.

[Roo]

Oh, much clearer now. A name pops into my head as I read your post. Got it.

Volunteering might not be the word I'd use there. I'll leave the alternative words to your imagination.

[Azhure]

Regarding the moderator forum:

I'm not so sure it would be a good idea to have a forum which is read-only for non-mods. If not done carefully, it makes me think a bit of parents arguing in front of a child while saying 'shush, only grown-ups can speak now'. I think Joey P's idea could work a little better, and I like Giraffe's suggestion of only having recent threads show up.

Originally Posted by Joey P

A thought I had if the open forum didn't work, would be to have a hidden forum and then after a decision was made, move the thread to the open mod forum so you can say 'look, here's what we did' Kind of like declassifying the thread. Here's how we got to that decision, it's not changing, we ALL stand behind it regardless of what we said.

[gravitycrash]

I agree with Joey P and Azure. I'm not sure 100% transparency is such a great idea for moderator decisions although I've always been partial to benevolent dictatorships when it comes to running a message board.

[davew0071]

One of the things that turned the SDMB mods into monsters ("modsters"?) was the "circle-the-wagons" mentality whenever one of them did something unpopular and they were called on it. Someone would close down a thread, for instance, and then they'd get questioned about it in the Pit, maybe, and it would snowball, with members bringing up every previous questionable act of that moderator, and the mods and admins would then feel forced to support even the stupidest behavior among themselves, for fear of not showing a united front.

Mods aren't gods; they're going to make mistakes, and if everyone remembers this and cuts them some slack, and if the mods remember this and are big enough to admit "yeah, I closed down the thread, and in retrospect, I was having a bad day, and maybe I was a bit hasty" we might not go down the SDMB road.

I'm all in favor of knock-down, drag-out fights in the Pit, and even some really spirited debates elsewhere, even if I don't participate in them. But everyone needs to recognize that actions have consequences, even in an online message board. Moderators are necessary to keep the place from degenerating into chaos, but they should be held to standards that aren't as capricious as "we're the admins, so what we say goes; if you don't like it, suck eggs."

I like the idea of them being regular posters when they're regular posters, and then having to put on a "moderator's hat" for disciplinary purposes. Again, as long as the distinctions are clear.

[Mame]

Oh lord, I am saying +1 to dactylic hexameter again. I feel like a stalker. And, I hadn't even noticedhim/her/it/them on SDMB.

I agree with Gravity Crash and DaveWoo as well.

Speaking for myself (with a fair bit of extrapolation, but just bear with me here):

We have come here 'cos have been...disquieted... by the recent developments at SDMB. And because we like/respect/want to get within tongue distance of/ Giraffe.

Our enjoyment of a board is affected by how the board is run - the actions of other posters, mods and admins. Posts and posters come and go, but mods and admins and their actions are a tad more lasting.

We need to understand that our opinions are heard and responded to when a mass of us are in unison.

We like the flavour of the Veldt - the wide open spaces where "cunt" and "prick" run free.

Also, there used to be a famous bit of graffiti that said "It doesn't matter who you vote for - it is always a politician who gets elected."

So:

I don't want to see popular elections for mods/admins. My suggestion is that whenever Giraffe thinks a new mod/admin is needed, he calls for nominations. Then we either vote in a blind ballot, or he just picks whomever s/he chooses with regard to our nominations. (The suggestion that if we have a particular beef about someone going berko when criticised we should mention it at nomination time is a good one though). I don't want to see vote results, or justifications for selection or rejection. I want to see reasoned rules and requirements, and to know that if enough of us complain an action or mod will be reviewed.

And if it is too time consuming for Giraffe, then extend it to fluiddruid and TVeblen as needed.

[Helen's Eidolon]

Maybe I've been spending too much time thinking about Greek history lately (you think?) but the Athenians did do some clever things. For a method of removing mods, what about an adapted ostracism?

The principle was that every fixed amount of time, the citizens could (but did not have to) vote for one person to be kicked out - no harm, no foul. For someone to be kicked out, there had to be a minimum absolute number of votes cast, so that if most people thought everyone was doing okay and didn't vote, no one would get kicked out. If that number of votes was reached, the person with the most votes was gone.

I'm really not sure how adaptable that is - I can see how there would be a lot of difficulty in administering a vote, and in determining the minimum number of votes needed. Just thought I'd throw it out there.

[MissMossie]

Originally Posted by Helen's Eidolon

Maybe I've been spending too much time thinking about Greek history lately (you think?) but the Athenians did do some clever things. For a method of removing mods, what about an adapted ostracism?

The principle was that every fixed amount of time, the citizens could (but did not have to) vote for one person to be kicked out - no harm, no foul. For someone to be kicked out, there had to be a minimum absolute number of votes cast, so that if most people thought everyone was doing okay and didn't vote, no one would get kicked out. If that number of votes was reached, the person with the most votes was gone.

I'm really not sure how adaptable that is - I can see how there would be a lot of difficulty in administering a vote, and in determining the minimum number of votes needed. Just thought I'd throw it out there.

This, this sounds good. If we used the polling software already built into vBulletin and set the minimum number of votes at n%, then the regulation could grow as the community does. It seems entirely doable and could let members have say-so in who mods w/o the selection process becoming a popularity contest.

[Veb]

Originally Posted by Mame

We like the flavour of the Veldt - the wide open spaces where "cunt" and "prick" run free.

That's just...just...well, either poetic or very disturbing. Maybe both. I'll never think of Marlin Perkins the same way, that's for sure.

[Uthrecht]

It sounds like some kind of porn savannah.

[gommsn]

There are a lot of good ideas here but I have to say i'm less than convinced of the "election" process. It smacks of becoming a popularity contest, which it shouldn't be.

I have enough confidence in Giraffe's expertise, experience and right-headedness to favor him picking his own Mods. He certainly knows who the "likely suspects" would be.

I know I'm not a prolific poster and most of you won't recognize me but I have a really good feel about this board. I have long respected Giraffe and his efforts on the SDMB and his efforts here seem to be a logical extension of those.

I would also like to say I am heartened by the number and quality of subscribers so far signed up. It augers well for this board.

Jim

[Knowed Out]

I'd like to be a mod. Not because I'd be any good at it, but because I'd be capricious as hell. I'd be the Caligula of mods. I'd enforce bogus rules and pay no attention to other ones. I'd make everybody here run back to the SDMB and tearfully apologize to Ed Zotti at his feet and beg forgiveness as they lovingly caress his ankles.

[Joey P]

Originally Posted by Knowed Out

I'd like to be a mod. Not because I'd be any good at it, but because I'd be capricious as hell. I'd be the Caligula of mods. I'd enforce bogus rules and pay no attention to other ones. I'd make everybody here run back to the SDMB and tearfully apologize to Ed Zotti at his feet and beg forgiveness as they lovingly caress his ankles.

Are you sure your not Ed?

[DogMom]

Chiming in just cause I can.

I like the idea of Giraffe announcing "hey, adding a new mod, this is my Chosen Candidate, what say ye?" and then taking ideas - or giving us a small "pool" of people to discuss and then selecting from that pool after we've torn them to pieces discussed the Candidates.

I also agree that anyone that's just slobbering to join the modstaff really shouldn't be allowed to EVER join the modstaff.

The idea of a Penalty Box is fabulous.

I'm not sure i like the idea of a free-and-open Mod Forum; not because it smacks of "sh, let the adults talk" so much as it would be open to abuse - digging up Past Infractions, and so on. However, having "recent threads only" or something would be okay, I think - especially if it's an After-The-Fact sort of thing, where the discussions actually take place on a "Mod Board" that's not accessible to the Great Unwashed, but then once a decision has been made, the discussion thread is moved to the "Mod Forum" where we can read it (but not comment on it; that's not our job.)
I just think it would prevent a lot of issues like the ones that Certain Other Boards are suffering from right now.

However, I think the damn name of the damn forum needs to be changed. I do know how to spell "Giraffe" but for some reason my sucky Dog Brain has decided that it needs more doubled letters and consistently wants to spell it "Girraffee". For crying out loud.

Adding after Preview But Before Submitting: What the hell? No strikethrough tags? SUCK. Screw it, I'm leaving it the way it is, dammit.

[Noone Special]

I don't think voting for moderators is a good idea -- as mentioned about umpteen times upthread it has the potential both to attract attention-whores and to cause well-intentioned moderators to think about their popularity when making decisions.

However:

Originally Posted by Helen's Eidolon

Maybe I've been spending too much time thinking about Greek history lately (you think?) but the Athenians did do some clever things. For a method of removing mods, what about an adapted ostracism?

The principle was that every fixed amount of time, the citizens could (but did not have to) vote for one person to be kicked out - no harm, no foul. For someone to be kicked out, there had to be a minimum absolute number of votes cast, so that if most people thought everyone was doing okay and didn't vote, no one would get kicked out. If that number of votes was reached, the person with the most votes was gone.

I'm really not sure how adaptable that is - I can see how there would be a lot of difficulty in administering a vote, and in determining the minimum number of votes needed. Just thought I'd throw it out there.

I really like this idea!

I also like the idea of The Penalty Box.

And the proposed name of "G-Spot." We'll still need a giraffe someplace in the board's logo, however.

Originally Posted by DogMom

Adding after Preview But Before Submitting: What the hell? No strikethrough tags? SUCK. Screw it, I'm leaving it the way it is, dammit.

You're not the first one to run into this problem....

[Bosstone]

Originally Posted by Joey P

But, the person HAS to WANT to do it. What you suggesting is to take a member of the community and thrust them into a world of abuse and second guessings... ISTM that they would either quickly step down or leave the boards all together. That's like taking a person who you think is great at math and saying "Okay, from now on, you're the 7th grade math teacher" Hey, great if they want to do it, but if they don't want it, they won't do a good job.

Well, what's so hard about saying, "Hey, I think you'd be a good mod, want the bit?" If the person doesn't want to do it, no harm, no foul, move on to the next person you think would be good. I have a problem with people volunteering for positions of power, same as Zack, but neither should they be conscripted.

[Joey P]

"Hey, I think you'd be a good mod, want the bit?" is entirely different (IMO) then someone being thrust (Zack's word) into it, which to me is more along the lines of "Hey, we like you, you're a mod".

Also, Zack mentioned not liking the idea of mods being chosen from the people who lust for it, which again IMHO is a different then volunteering for it. I volunteered for it, it's something I'd like to try, something I think I could do okay at, but it's hardly something I lust for.

I think we'll just have to strike a balance, and with a well designed system to keep everything in check I think we'll find that we'll have good mods, even if it takes a couple of rounds to get there.

[DogMom]

Originally Posted by Noone Special

(In reference to my "no strikethrough" bitch)
You're not the first one to run into this problem....

Actually, I'm not surprised - on my phpBB board, it's a custom code that you have to manually add-on, so I was actually expecting it.
Doesn't make me any happier about it, though.

Hey, Giraffe, if you start fucking around with the board code can you maybe do something to convince it to lose the damn Quote Alzheimer's and actually do nested quotes automatically? Jeez that's annoying.
(And yes, I know, it's not your fault; it's the default vB code and I'd like to just go on record as saying that I think the idiot at vB that thought that would be a Good Idea should be slapped. Hard.)

[KidVermicious]

Originally Posted by Zack Lee Wright

I like open mod forums (view only) I don't like voting in mods. If a mod is needed you review the posting history and offer it to the person you think will do the best with no ego.

If the board takes a left lean, which I am sure it will, God bless my conservative abuse taking heart. I like knowing a level headed mod is in the over watch position when the flaming starts, not the "popular" kid.

This. I'm not at all in favor of voting in mods.

[fluiddruid]

Thanks for your thoughts, everyone. I think the idea for a mod referendum (getting opinions of moderator candidates from the members, rather than individuals running for office, so to speak). I don't think it's likely that Giraffe will select a truly contentious candidate, but it's a good policy moving forward. Besides which, I would just as soon not have the board be ripped apart by wholly unsuitable people 'running' and then demanding to know why other people didn't choose them, and so forth.

[fluiddruid]

Originally Posted by Bosstone

Well, what's so hard about saying, "Hey, I think you'd be a good mod, want the bit?" If the person doesn't want to do it, no harm, no foul, move on to the next person you think would be good. I have a problem with people volunteering for positions of power, same as Zack, but neither should they be conscripted.

I've seen both people be approached by staffers and people who approach staff for a mod position, and frankly I prefer the latter. A lot of people who are great posters and potentially great moderators simply don't want the job and it's a hassle to try to winnow out who is actually interested. This is one area I think the SDMB pretty much has it down - get notification of interest, discuss privately, and pick a final candidate.

Frankly, the 'power' of being a moderator is somewhat overblown on the SDMB due to the commercial interests involved, and those that were seeking the position for personal glory and power were fairly easily winnowed out. Most of the poor decisions and bad attitudes among staffers came up later, largely due to burnout and other factors I won't go into here. I think it's fair for there to be an informal process for regular posters to essentially post a thread showing they have no confidence in a moderator, and the right administrator will do something about it. I don't mind codifying this if people are afraid of glory-hogs.

[Mark]

I said some of this over in the rules thread, but I'm making an effort to actually post here and not let myself fade away.

Open Mod Forum = Yes, I think mod actions should be as transparent as possible. There's always PM's or the super-secret Area 51 style mod forum if TPTB think that we can't handle the truth.

Mod Elections = No, At this point in the game, I think Giraffe is going to have to pick people with established histories from over there. As people build up posting histories here, they can nominate others. I do like the idea of a nomination thread where posters can express their support (or not) of the nominee, but the decision should remain with the admins.

Mod Rules = Yes, I think there should be a public code of conduct for mods. It could cover things such as mods acting as regular posters, how a mod should indicate that he's speaking ex cathedra , etc... I don't think that posters necessarily need to have a say in establishing the rules, but at least we would have an actual policy to sink our teeth and/or prehensile tongues into.

Anyway, my $.02 FWIW

[Joey P]

Originally Posted by Mark

It could cover things such as mods acting as regular posters, how a mod should indicate that he's speaking ex cathedra , etc... I don't think that posters necessarily need to have a say in establishing the rules, but at least we would have an actual policy to sink our teeth and/or prehensile tongues into.

Anyway, my $.02 FWIW

My thoughts on that would be maybe when mod is acting in official capacity (even if giving an unofficial "knock it off" type warning) it would be in a certain color. That color would then be 100% off limits to other users. Oooo, what if it was a certain color/size/font and the maybe someone could create a tag for that [modhat]This is official...[/modhat] I'm thinking.

Maybe?

ETA I'm not suggesting the exact format, just the idea. That should make it damn clear what's going on. Other people using that format (or something reasonable close to it) would have an appropriate punishment, especially if they are jr modding while using it.
Yes, I can see reasons why it wouldn't work. It's just an idea.

[Mark]

Originally Posted by Joey P

My thoughts on that would be maybe when mod is acting in official capacity (even if giving an unofficial "knock it off" type warning) it would be in a certain color. That color would then be 100% off limits to other users. Oooo, what if it was a certain color/size/font and the maybe someone could create a tag for that [modhat]This is official...[/modhat] I'm thinking.

Maybe?

ETA I'm not suggesting the exact format, just the idea. That should make it damn clear what's going on. Other people using that format (or something reasonable close to it) would have an appropriate punishment, especially if they are jr modding while using it.
Yes, I can see reasons why it wouldn't work. It's just an idea.

That could work. It would make mod actions obvious even if someone was just skimming through a thread. Hopefully we won't have many grapists around here trying to color up their posts. Maybe there's a way to restrict a tag to a certain user group.

[Seeker of Truth & Beauty]

Originally Posted by Mark

That could work. It would make mod actions obvious even if someone was just skimming through a thread. Hopefully we won't have many grapists around here trying to color up their posts. Maybe there's a way to restrict a tag to a certain user group.

This post has been not Graped by.... The Grapist.

[Mark]

Originally Posted by Seeker of Truth & Beauty

This post has been not Graped by.... The Grapist.

Yeah....I was asking for that one. Screw it, I'm declaring victory. I had two actual posters (that I remember from all my lurking at the dope) respond to something I posted. I'll be in my bunk.

[Joey P]

Originally Posted by Seeker of Truth & Beauty

This post has been not Graped by.... The Grapist.

Or rather it HAS been graped, by Not The Grapest.

[DogMom]

Originally Posted by Joey P

My thoughts on that would be maybe when mod is acting in official capacity (even if giving an unofficial "knock it off" type warning) it would be in a certain color. That color would then be 100% off limits to other users. Oooo, what if it was a certain color/size/font and the maybe someone could create a tag for that [modhat]This is official...[/modhat] I'm thinking.

Maybe?

ETA I'm not suggesting the exact format, just the idea. That should make it damn clear what's going on. Other people using that format (or something reasonable close to it) would have an appropriate punishment, especially if they are jr modding while using it.
Yes, I can see reasons why it wouldn't work. It's just an idea.

Hrm, I don't know how vB works, but I know in phpBB it's incredibly easy to add modified tags like that with HTML code.
That one...with a font / color combo...easy.
bbcode set box would be [modhat]{TEXT}[/modhat]

HTML code box would be something like
<font color="#FF9900" face="Franklin Gothic Medium">{TEXT}</font>

But...as I said...no clue if that works in vB.