Be careful dat da horses head aint in yur bed Godfodder~Hah??

[Wittesea]

My 2 cents on Mods has always been this...

1. Moderators shoud be visible, not named by a number. We should know who they are.

2. A person who is a Mod should never moderate a forum that they participate in. They could alert another Mod to a problem that arises in the forum(s) that they post in for their health support, but Mods should not have to moderate or police their friends and foes - they should moderate forums that they don't visit and post in for support for their own health problems.

3. All Mod decisions regarding banning, warning, etc... should be made by a comittee of mods and/or admins.

4. Mods should be available to the members. Mods should answer questions, answer emails or private messages, etc... Yes, Mods get TONS of questions, emails, private messages and maybe time constraints make it difficult to answer everyone -- so if you don't have time to be a Mod who is available to communicate with members, then don't volunteer.... and if you are a Mod then make time to communicate with members.

I had a few other ideas rolling around in my head about mods, but it's early and I just woke up so the ideas are rolling around up there in my brain, but not rolling their way out

[dahlek]

The majority of that is probably set out in the initial 'I agree' stuff, but the finer points are not.

Some folks really do not seem [to me] to truly respect others the way they should. All I can say is 'more's the pity'. I've learned as much from their contributions as from those more 'road wise' in the issues I have interest in. To those who have been banned, well, I know nothing of those issues. On the PN or BC boards, if I found someone disrespectful, I did a PM pointing out the aspects I found unpleasant-or, simply ignored that poster. I've never felt need to go to a Mod, Maybe the PN group while having intense issues, have less emotionally charged ones than others-tho I doubt it.

Golly! YOU GUYS! I do not like to have certain buttons pushed that I really do not need to have pushed at this time! Can't we all try for now to pretend to be the pseudo-functional COMMUNITY we are alleged to be?

GET POSTING ABOUT THE REAL-LIFE issue stuff & NOW! - j

[Thelma]

Oh my here I go again.

There should be no mods on the forums. People do not need to have their words come out as being spoken by any moderators rules as to their value.

The moderators on BT as it existed were a complete disaster. They show this in all of the postings they used to enter with their many pseudonyms and some still do it.

One person somewhere on this site mentioned that mod 4 in his guise as firehorse was a great help in the epilepsy forum and this is true. But then they all were of help in the forums of their choice or of their particular condition.

It is when they went to the various forums where they were not aware of the members or of how they interacted that they broke down completely.

If they didn't like the message as they read it they took it out.

If they wqere sent there by someone they just took it out for no reason at all save someone disagreed with the content and invariably were not capable of finding the words to handle the situation and so as the godfather would say ratted them out by calling in the opposition.

If their needs were met they then thanked the mod who had done it as if they had an inside with them and a warning then albeit it unsaid was I have influence don't bother with me.

Some just liked the vicarious pleaure it gave them to have in their mind only a bit of power. So they ratted out anyone over anything.

If a member came back on after being banned for one thing they immediately informed on them. not for what they were now doing but because they were not heeding their false sense of control.

It truly was a sick environment for some.

If there has to be moderation and I don't think it can work it has to be done by the members themselves.

People have interactted forever and it is only this new area where we have to learn how to get along better and we will.

One person could and can be in control with perhaps two others to watch for spammers and advertisers and phorno etc and that does not imply they should be members. Exactly the opposite.

No one can be one two or three or even four people and keep their wits about them then interact with thousands of people. To me it is impossible.

Look at how many can't even get along with those in their own home forums

There are a lot of changes that have to be made and while all who have been banned are by far not as innocent as they claim neither are they as guilty as the mods made out.

David has shown he can not be reliled on to make decisions fair and decent and by the mods he has chosen he is incapable of making the right choices for Braintalk and if John doesn't see this by now then the show will be over.

I hope not

[jccgf]

The moderator issue is indeed a complex one.

It sure would be nice if everyone just sort of self-moderated, showed restraint, tolerance, respect, and were able to diffuse potentially heating threads without any official moderation, etc., and that the only real moderator issues were simple ones of deleting spam, sales, and scams.

I see both pros and cons to having moderators who are participants, but the most important factor is probably one of personal characteristics.

I do think moderators have a tough job, and it takes special qualitites to be up to the task. I do think they are necessary.

Cara

[Wittesea]

Originally Posted by jccglutenfree

Finding moderators not associated with the forums at all could be difficult. Many members participate in many forums, and no matter what, for anyone who has been around long enough, someone will know someone even if moderating another forum.

If the moderators are coming from members within the community, then you are correct taht no matter what forum they moderate, they will be moderating people that they know from other forums, especially because so many people from different forums know each other from forum feedback.

However, even if a mod may know one or two people at the forum they are moderating that is vastly different than having that Mod responsible for moderating their "home" forum.

For example, if I were a Mod and my area of moderating was the gluten forum I would know you (jcc) because we have met in forum feedback (both here and at BT1), and likewise, if you were a Mod who was moderating the Chronic Pain forum you would know me from forum feedback.

But knowing a person is vastly different than having a vested intrest in the actual forum, and knowing one or two people is different than knowing the entire group.

Being a member of a certain forum topic creates relationships with everyone else that posts regularly on that given forum topic, and that's where the difficulties arise for both the moderator and the group.

No matter what the Mod does, the group would feel as if the Mod is 'taking sides' with friends, or the group would feel as if the Mod is 'taking sides' with foes to avoid the appearance of 'taking sides' with friends. It would be nearly impossible for a member of a group to assist with conflict resolution within that group.

My point is that by using members of BT as mods of BT there are always going to be times when a Mod knows someone that is in the group that they are moderating, but by making sure that the Mod is not allowed to moderate the group where they spend the most time will greatly cut back on problems.

I hope that all made sense.... my pain is a bit high today, so I apologize if I repeated myself or if my post needs double reading in order to be understood.

Liz

[Curious]

Originally Posted by Wittesea

....But knowing a person is vastly different than having a vested intrest in the actual forum, and knowing one or two people is different than knowing the entire group. .....


Liz

i agree. it's like when one person(s) on a forum don't believe in meds and another(others) do. having a mods who has such a difference of OPINION can bring that forum down.

liz...i chopped out the portion of your post that i wanted to reply back to. hope that is ok.

[jccgf]

Originally Posted by Wittesea

I hope that all made sense.... my pain is a bit high today, so I apologize if I repeated myself or if my post needs double reading in order to be understood.

Liz

I think you make a lot of good points, and I have actually experienced a forum where I think the things you talk about have transpired~ I'm sorry you are having a bad pain day~

[DocJohn]

This is almost how we do things at Psych Central, with the only exception being that moderators are allowed to participate in any discussion they see fit. They are also encouraged to wield their power *very* conservatively and, when in doubt, discuss possible actions to take in the private administration forum.

I find people work best as moderators and administrators when they are internally motivated to do the work rather than externally (e.g., money). When people feel it's their "job" to do the moderation duties, it can be a good and a bad thing. Good in the sense that they have a different kind of motivation to do the work on the board, but bad in the sense that that motivation is harder to maintain.

I think both systems can work, I just think you need to be *really* savvy about online communities in order to understand the dynamics and complexity of the power structures and responsibilities before delving into it.

DocJohn

[Parsi]

Originally Posted by DocJohn

This is almost how we do things at Psych Central, with the only exception being that moderators are allowed to participate in any discussion they see fit. They are also encouraged to wield their power *very* conservatively and, when in doubt, discuss possible actions to take in the private administration forum.

I find people work best as moderators and administrators when they are internally motivated to do the work rather than externally (e.g., money).

I agree. Internal motivation in my opinion is much better than external. There is more dedication and commitment to have the forum be successful