I want to split the discussion into two parts. A discussion about moderation and moderators and a discussion about users and user behavior.
This thread is about moderators. Let’s try to keep this one cool.
I like the idea of multiple levels of moderators.
Level 1 - Community Manager/Organizer
Level 2 (Now) - Moderator
Level 2 (Future) - Moderator
Level 3 - Super Moderator
Level 4 - Administrator
Isn’t a level 1, just what average users should be doing anyways?
Maybe we should consider users agreed to a “code of conduct and common sense” for the soldiers AA.org when they register?
And how are the moderators to be chosen?
[gmod] You have violated rule THX.11.38, having emotions, please proceed to the nearest android police officer for your medication. [/gmod]
[admin] What? Super Moderator you’re crazy, there’s no such rule! [/admin]
[mod] Can I say something? [/mod]
[gmod]No![/gmod]
[admin]No![/admin]
[mod]Aww shucks! :-( [/mod]
Maybe, this would be an over active/enthusiastic user. Possibly even has access to the moderator board, which can be quiet at times.
Ok a few comments…
These all sound good but you need a separate structure or tier to indicate what type of action can be made based on what was posted. It should be clear what happens if you write FK N****er vs. Hitler was a wonder m** vs. You are an Ah*.
People need to know exactly what happens to them when they violate forum rules. The level of violation will relate to the forum of punishment and be outlined.
Level 1 - Community Manager/Organizer- The title sounds too much like Obama “community organizer” suggest a different name I suggest " Forum Liaison " or “Moderator Liaison”
Level 2 (Now) - Moderator
Level 2 (Future) - Moderator ( suggest Senior Moderator as the title for this position)
Level 3 - Super Moderator
Level 4 - Administrator
I agree with Gargantua, level 1 is user, or what I feel users should be doing.
Level 2 (now), might be reserved for users that make it to Heavy Bomber that also get approval from Djensen. My thought process here is that anyone with that many posts should know the rules by then. If they have a clean history (or at least a long time since being yelled at by mods/owner) then Djensen may decide to give them level 2.
Level 3 is really what IL, DM and I have been doing for a while. I’d still keep banning out, it’s nice to be able to tell a user that WE did not ban him, that YOU did it, and it gives us Moderators time to cool off between determing punishment and inflicting it. I send the kids to the corner for 30 seconds when they break the rules for the same reason.
Level 4 can be someone with banning and moderator. I think of those more as the GREEN star Moderators.
Level 5, of course, is Djensen/Yanny (if he comes back.)
Just how I see it, given how you broke it up, Djensen.
Several thoughts:
1. The purpose of having moderators is to ensure that the rules are enforced predictably, 100% of the time. (Or as close to 100% as is practical.)
2. This means that above all, anyone chosen to be a moderator should be someone djensen can rely on to enforce the rules in a rigorous, impartial manner.
3. This means that the moderators should be level-headed, moderate people. The kind of people you’d trust, implicitly, to be fair to you, even when they strongly disagree with your position. Most people do not have the level of maturity, self-discipline, and impartiality necessary to be a good moderator.
4. I think djensen’s proposed tiered moderation system has merit. I’d suggest the following.
–--------------
Level 1: discussion facilitator.
Moderation power: can move posts to a new thread if an existing thread goes off topic.
Discussion facilitators are also expected to report violations of the list rules. If it becomes clear that a discussion facilitator isn’t reporting or otherwise acting on rules violations of those he likes or agrees with, it may be necessary to remove him from his position.
Level 2: Moderator
Moderation power: Level 1, plus can issue warnings, and can temporarily remove people from the list.
To issue a warning, a moderator will do the following:
1. Quote the offending post.
2. Highlight the offending portion of the post in red.
3. Copy and paste the rule which has been violated.
4. Include a link to the rules in their entirety
5. State that further violations of the list rules may result in a temporary or permanent suspension.
A moderator who repeatedly refused to follow the above procedures would be removed from his or her position. It is important moderators understand their job is to enforce the rules as written, not to make up new rules as they go along.
Level 3: List Manager
Moderation power: can overrule any decision made by a moderator.
Every decision made by a moderator will be reviewed by a list manager. In addition, if a moderator has become active in a thread, but without enforcing one or more list rules, that moderator can be reported to a list manager. There should be a “report moderation problem to list manager” button for people to use to report moderation problems.
If a moderator is not enforcing the provision against (for example) personal attacks, or is enforcing it unevenly, it’s the list manager’s job to become aware of the problem. The final decision about whether to remove the moderator will be David’s. But the list manager will alert David to the problem, and will provide him with the relevant raw data for him to examine.
Level 4: Administrator
Moderation power: everything
–-----------------
One item I specifically did not include in levels 1 - 3 is the ability to edit other people’s posts. Dealing with civility violations in this way is like trying to trim a weed. It’s too much work for too little reward. The correct solution is to pull the weed out by its roots! The first time someone violates the standards of civility, that person should be given a warning. The second time, it should be a temporary ban. The third time, it should be a longer ban. The fourth time, it should be a permanent ban.
But this must be done across the board. If X and Y don’t like each other, and constantly attack each other, and if the moderators prevent X’s attacks on Y, but not Y’s on X, the culture won’t change. Both X and Y must be dealt with with equal vigor, regardless of whether the moderators like or agree with one, or dislike or disagree with the other. Once this is done, the need for moderators to edit other people’s posts will largely disappear.
If the main list rule is “be civil to other posters”–as I think it should be–the right people to choose as moderators are those who are themselves civil. If a moderator does not expect civility from himself, he is unlikely to expect it from others.
