Moderators self-moderating

[Aussiebloke]

How unprofessional (and sad) is it when a moderator (I won't name names) has to edit posts that he is directly involved in?

Rather than discussing things like a man, they just change what the other person is saying and remove statements. Then close the thread when they don't like what they are hearing.

Who chooses these moderators? Who moderates the moderators?

Waiting for this post to be edited/deleted/closed.:)

[Joseph]

Yes, it's really too bad.

This forum just isn't in your favor!

Maybe you should go somewhere where you're more liked.

[Aussiebloke]

I didn't want to name names. But I guess you couldn't help yourself:)

[Joseph]

Nope!

You're lucky this is the spam area.

So far, it looks like you're on topic.

Feel free to rant about how "unfair" this place is in here all you want.

:)

[Joseph]

Rather than discussing things like a man, they just change what the other person is saying and remove statements. Then close the thread when they don't like what they are hearing.

This is SO not what happens...

:rolleyes:

Maybe if you'd stick to the topic and quit trying to start flame wars, your posts wouldn't get moved/deleted.

So stick to the topic, OK?

[Aussiebloke]

Nope!

You're lucky this is the spam area.

So far, it looks like you're on topic.

Feel free to rant about how "unfair" this place is in here all you want.

:)

Well. It looks like the topic is YOU.

I never said anything about this place being 'unfair'. I don't really give a toss. It just says alot about your character and personal qualities (or lack thereof)

[Joseph]

Well. It looks like the topic is YOU.

Really?

I could have sworn it was:

Re: Moderators self-moderating

[Joseph]

Now Aussie.

Stick to the topic, or I'll close this thread too.

You hear?

[cobra]

I personally think that most posts should be uncensored. Why deprive us of the fun of insulting our resident devil's advocate? Not to mention, aussie's arguments help to hone our own opposing views. I am just as guilty of flaming and off-topic remarks as anyone on this forum... plus, I do like the drama. LOL!

[Joseph]

Hrm...

The great and mighty Joseph will think about this one...

Thanks for the input, cobra.

[Joseph]

Who chooses moderators... that would be Ron, creator of the TLCTugger, and founder of TLCTugger.com, and, if I'm not mistaken, these forums.

I was randomly chosen because I'm an outspoken intactivist, and quite a regular here.

At first I was honored to be offered such a position, but now I'm thinking it might not be such a good idea.

As much as I hate Aussie's guts, he has a point; I'm moderating myself, and I guess there's an unspoken rule that this is unnacceptable?

Aussie wouldn't be the first one to complain about this; others, such as Tao and I think Z have made this same complaint.

I'd like to continue being a moderator, though I'm not sure I'm the best guy to do it. I try to be neutral, but it's hard for me to allow the pro-circ crap that Aussie has the nerve to come in here and post, and as a moderator for a restorer/intactivist forum, I'm not sure how I should handle it when assholes like Aussie get smart and make remarks aimed directly at ME.

Ron? What do YOU do when users want to get crazy with you?

Furthermore, I wonder what good being a mod really does; the best anyone can do seems to be to move, delete or close topics when and if they get off hand, but then dissenters and trolls can always start them up again, or start purposefully inflammatory topics with impunity. (Case in point: This very thread.)

What good is being a moderator when you can't ban trolls that keep coming in to disturb the peace by starting flame wars?

On the one hand, I can see your point, cobra. Discussion shouldn't be censored. But on the other, what's the limit? There's a difference between "discussion" and a contest to see who can post the smartest-sounding remark. I think we have to draw the line somewhere, and that for me, this means topics get closed if they're reduced to "I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I" posting contests.

I personally don't think it's appropriate that we have allowed Aussie to continue trolling this forum with his pro-mutilation remarks for as long as he has.

This is a site for restorers and intactivists, and a safe, appropriate place for disgruntled circumcised men to vent their resentment for what has happened, and the LAST thing we need is some beady-eyed asshole coming in here to them what they've heard all along. (Get over it... you have no right to be pissed that you were mutilated at birth, etc...) We don't NEED that here.

At any rate, I'd like to stay on as moderator, I don't want to quit, but if Ron and the others think it's for the best, then I will reluctantly rescind my role as mod.

Moderators, it'd be nice if I can get your input in a private mod meeting...

Joseph

[wifeandmama]

I'll add some two cents.

I am a moderator on a few other forums, and started on my first one about 4 years ago. Now I'm a mod on two of them. But on all three of them, the moderators are asked to be held to a higher standard than the general poster. We obviously have to abide by the forum guidelines that the site owner has set in place (which, from what I can tell, are here (http://www.foreskin-restoration.net/forum/showthread.php?t=11) on this site).

I don't see "keep a thread on topic" in that list, although I agree that on-topic-ness is helpful in a forum. If I have a question about, say, potty training my 3-year-old, and I'm browsing in a parenting forum, I would expect that a thread titled "I have a question about potty training my toddler" would have more helpful information than a thread titled "My 9-year-old doesn't do her math homework anymore." But if that potty training thread veered off into a more general discipline topic in post #2, then the thread would no longer be helpful to my own potty training question, and I'd have to browse to a different thread and/or start my own.

What I DO see in those guidelines, however, is "Keep it respectful." In the forums wherein I am a moderator, random users will PM me w/ questions on board usage. Since I am a long-time member, the answer to the question is easy and obvious to me, so I could answer their PM with a "you moron, your answer is right here. Please don't PM me with your silly questions until you've actually read the site." Or I could be gentle and lead them to a link that explains the answer to their question.

And, occasionally, posts need to be edited and/or deleted. Personally, I don't think that editing a post with a comment of "Deleted, just because I wanted to. ;)" is respectful. It has sort of a "neener neener" tone to it, IMO. I think that any deletions or editings should be saved for those posts which are in clear violation of whatever Terms of Service the site owner has set up.

[Joseph]

I don't see "keep a thread on topic" in that list, although I agree that on-topic-ness is helpful in a forum. If I have a question about, say, potty training my 3-year-old, and I'm browsing in a parenting forum, I would expect that a thread titled "I have a question about potty training my toddler" would have more helpful information than a thread titled "My 9-year-old doesn't do her math homework anymore." But if that potty training thread veered off into a more general discipline topic in post #2, then the thread would no longer be helpful to my own potty training question, and I'd have to browse to a different thread and/or start my own.

And when someone comes into a thread and expects the thread to be on topic, but instead sees "You're stupid. Dream on."
"No YOU'RE stupid. Fuck off."
"Am not..."
"Are too!!!"
"Nuh-uh..."
"Yeah-huh..."
?

I think it's an embarrassment to the forum.

I would think a moderator has to do one of three things.

1) The offending user(s) need to be given warnings.
2) If the offending user(s) have been given (numerous) warnings before, they need to be given a punitive measure. IE, a temporary ban.
3) If after three temporary bans the crap continues on the forum, the user(s) need to be banned permanently.

I've been part of a few other forums, and this is usually how it's handled.

And, occasionally, posts need to be edited and/or deleted. Personally, I don't think that editing a post with a comment of "Deleted, just because I wanted to. " is respectful. It has sort of a "neener neener" tone to it, IMO. I think that any deletions or editings should be saved for those posts which are in clear violation of whatever Terms of Service the site owner has set up.

You are so right... I'll admit that I got carried away on that one. I should have just labeled it "off topic." Because in this case, it was clearly just an inflammatory, off-topic comment aimed directly at me. (From Ron's rules: "No "me too" or "bump" type replies, please... Please challenge ideas rather than people.")

In my experience, mess with the mod, risk getting banned... on the other hand, most mods are aloof and not nearly as vocal as I am... :rolleyes:

wifeandmama, maybe you should talk to Ron about being a mod!

Perhaps I'm too involved to be a mod and this role should be given to someone who has more self-control...

[wifeandmama]

And when someone comes into a thread and expects the thread to be on topic, but instead sees "You're stupid. Dream on."
"No YOU'RE stupid. Fuck off."
"Am not..."
"Are too!!!"
"Nuh-uh..."
"Yeah-huh..."
?

I think it's an embarrassment to the forum.

I would think a moderator has to do one of three things.

1) The offending user(s) need to be given warnings.
2) If the offending user(s) have been given (numerous) warnings before, they need to be given a punitive measure. IE, a temporary ban.
3) If after three temporary bans the crap continues on the forum, the user(s) need to be banned permanently.

I've been part of a few other forums, and this is usually how it's handled.

I agree w/ this whole paragraph. W/ regard to the bolded, I call that a "personal attack" and that would fall under the "respect" umbrella.

You are so right... I'll admit that I got carried away on that one. I should have just labeled it "off topic." Because in this case, it was clearly just an inflammatory, off-topic comment aimed directly at me.

Takes a real man to admit when he was wrong. :)

In my experience, mess with the mod, risk getting banned... on the other hand, most mods are aloof and not nearly as vocal as I am... :rolleyes:

On one of the sites where I mod, one of the rules is "Respect the staff's decisions." So if a post is deleted, don't whine about it and go post "oh the mod team is horrible, they deleted my post but there was nothing wrong with it, oh poor me" and don't argue back and forth in PMs w/ the staff. We've had people do that before and they do get a cooling-off period (aka a temp ban).

wifeandmama, maybe you should talk to Ron about being a mod!

But what if he asks for references? Then I'd have to reveal the username that I use pretty much on every other message board that I've ever registered on! :eek: :eek: My anonymity would be gone! lol.

Perhaps I'm too involved to be a mod and this role should be given to someone who has more self-control...

Nah, you were just having a bad day. :) It happens.

[Joseph]

On one of the sites where I mod, one of the rules is "Respect the staff's decisions." So if a post is deleted, don't whine about it and go post "oh the mod team is horrible, they deleted my post but there was nothing wrong with it, oh poor me" and don't argue back and forth in PMs w/ the staff. We've had people do that before and they do get a cooling-off period (aka a temp ban).

I LIKE this rule. (Case in point, THIS VERY THREAD.)

:rolleyes:


But what if he asks for references? Then I'd have to reveal the username that I use pretty much on every other message board that I've ever registered on! :eek: :eek: My anonymity would be gone! lol.

Like I said. He just MADE me a mod... maybe he could give you like a trial period or something? :D

Nah, you were just having a bad day. :) It happens.

Thanks for your understanding and support.

:)

[Tally]

I was one of those who was critical (http://foreskin-restoration.net/forum/showthread.php?p=32213#post32213) of a moderator moderating a thread in which he was participating. A very passionate moderator can get carried away and abuse his moderator power. :eek: Shocking thought, but I've seen it happen, recently. :D

I think the best course of action for a thread that is heating up would be for a participating moderator to contact another moderator and request the other moderator be the moderator for the thread. The participant should then not take any moderating action and defer to the impartial moderator.

As wifeandmama says, respect is important. It is even more imporant for moderators to show respect at all times because they have the power to shape the direction of a thread, and a forum. That power must be wielded wisely.

[wifeandmama]

I LIKE this rule. (Case in point, THIS VERY THREAD.)

:rolleyes:

Rofl I got nervous when I first read this, b/c I was like "what did I do? The mods are great!" But then I remembered how it was started.

Like I said. He just MADE me a mod... maybe he could give you like a trial period or something? :D

Hm. Could be interesting. But my time since registration can still be reasonably measured in mere hours at this point. Maybe I should wait until I have a bit of longevity here, lol.

Thanks for your understanding and support.

:)

:D

I think the best course of action for a thread that is heating up would be for a participating moderator to contact another moderator and request the other moderator be the moderator for the thread. The participant should then not take any moderating action and defer to the impartial moderator.

We had this rule on one of the forums I modded on. Threads that got heated were discussed about in a mod-only area, and if a mod posted in that thread - even if it was an innocent post, and even if it was before the thread got heated - they were to bow out and let the rest of the team decide the proper course of action. It worked well.

As wifeandmama says, respect is important. It is even more important for moderators to show respect at all times because they have the power to shape the direction of a thread, and a forum. That power must be wielded wisely.

Yep. In general, people look up to moderators as leaders of the community and should try to set a good example. (And I'm not saying that the ones here aren't... I'm just speaking from my thoughts. :))

[Aussiebloke]

Threads that got heated were discussed about in a mod-only area, and if a mod posted in that thread - even if it was an innocent post, and even if it was before the thread got heated - they were to bow out and let the rest of the team decide the proper course of action. It worked well.

Sounds good to me.

[greg_b]

I think that moderators should only use their power as moderators to:

1) help ensure that people adhere to the rules, as publicly stated by the owner of the forum

2) help keep the threads respectful to all

3) correct obviously unintended mistakes in the wording of posts

4) add supplemental information at times to posts or threads

In order to do this, moderators generally have to remain more objective or diplomatic than most other users.

When moderators wield their power to win their own arguments within a thread, then in my mind, they are abusing their power. Sometimes this can be a grey area, or the distinction can be fuzzy.

The problem is that most moderators are trying to be both a user and moderator. Inevitably, there will be situations when these two roles can be in conflict. I agree that, ideally, a moderator who is fully engaged in a thread that is getting heated should confer with the owner and other moderators that are not engaged (or at least less engaged) in that thread to consider what action should be taken at a moderator level. This should be done outside the thread, in a moderators only section, ideally, or via PM or email.

This requires that the engaged moderator recognizes he is losing objectivity, beginning to feel the urge to use his power as a moderator for winning his user points, and takes action to confer with the owner and other moderators. Not always so easy.

I think some are more suited to being moderators than others. Just as some people are introverts and others extroverts. It does not mean that some people cannot be moderators, but instead means some have to consciously work that into their thought process than others might.

I think a valuable strategy for all, moderators and users alike, is to monitor your emotional level. When frustration and anger are rising, take more time between reading a post and composing your reply. One great weakness of this type of communication medium is the instant reply possible. Taking time to think and rewrite a post can help a great deal.

Some wise words that have helped in my experience: "Be hard on the issues, not the people."

Regards

[Tally]

This requires that the engaged moderator recognizes he is losing objectivity, beginning to feel the urge to use his power as a moderator for winning his user points, and takes action to confer with the owner and other moderators. Not always so easy.
If it is not so easy, then that person is not a good candidate for a moderator. A competent moderator has to be able to moderate or at least recognize when he is not able to objectively perform his duties in a particular thread.

Sure, we are all human. But, being in a position of power requires that the person have control over himself such that he can work within the system. Otherwise, we have the makings of a dictatorship.

[Joseph]

When moderators wield their power to win their own arguments within a thread, then in my mind, they are abusing their power. Sometimes this can be a grey area, or the distinction can be fuzzy.

This is a serious accusation. On the one hand, moderators can abuse their powers in a "I'm right and you're wrong simply because I say so" scenario and simply delete the posts that are devastating to one's case. On the other hand, a moderator could be deleting/modifying posts that are actually unrelated, off-topic, or simply empty personal attacks.

Moderators, it's real easy for you to see deleted posts and judge for yourselves whether they follow the conversation and are actually valid points against a person who deleted it, or if they are genuinely non-sequitur, ad-hominem comments meant to piss people off.

I will agree though; someone OTHER than the person speaking should be moderating a thread.

I will reiterate, just for good measure, that when a thread is reduced to just an insult match, and there is no actual conversation going on about the stated topic, a moderator should simply close the thread. These are an embarrassment to the forum. People come here as guests to see what all the buzz surrounding circumcision/restoration is about, and if they see THIS crap we'll more than likely be taken as a joke.

"Be hard on the issues, not the people."

These are always wise words when engaging in argument. When the argument becomes a contest of personal attacks, there is no more debate or argument going on...

[Joseph]

If it is not so easy, then that person is not a good candidate for a moderator. A competent moderator has to be able to moderate or at least recognize when he is not able to objectively perform his duties in a particular thread.

Agreed.

[Aussiebloke]

If it is not so easy, then that person is not a good candidate for a moderator. A competent moderator has to be able to moderate or at least recognize when he is not able to objectively perform his duties in a particular thread.

Sure, we are all human. But, being in a position of power requires that the person have control over himself such that he can work within the system. Otherwise, we have the makings of a dictatorship.

Agree whole-heartedly Tally.:)
Self-control is very important to not let your personal opinions get in the way of your moderating.

[Joseph]

You're not off the hook, there buddy, YOU need to stop coming on here to make inflamatory comments.

When you are losing an argument, you invariably like to go off topic and bring in instances on other threads when someone said something they meant to phrase differently.

In particular, when you are losing an argument to me, you like to change the subject, and take what I have said on a completely separate thread, regarding starving children in Africa and funding organizations who are more concerned in mutilating them instead, out of context.

You do that to others as well.

That's not on topic or addressing points; attempts at destroying the other person's credibility through mudslinging and outright misquoting is a fallacy in argument. In argument terms, this fallacy is also known as "poisoning the well." Basically it's thinly-veiled ad-hominem.

You are not arguing, and you shouldn't be surprised if moderators delete your comments, especially on this forum, where pro-circumcision advocates are not welcome.

[gtabula]

Well, I'll just throw my two cents in regarding this...

Having been a moderator on a number of services, including site admin for a major gaming site a few years back, I can say that, again, as the site admins own discretion, the site should be operated as it's intended - in this case as an informational hub to inform, instruct, teach, offer feedback, educate people, and provide emotional support for a variety of emotional states regarding their restoration efforts.

No one here, I believe anyways, has any ill intentions towards anyone. And we all have our own opinions over the proper course of action regarding a number of things - ask 5 different users how best to handle something, and you'll get 5 completely different answers and suggestions. And there's nothing wrong with that. In a way, we're all treading new ground in a lot of this stuff, and all of us started somewhere, and are on different tracks of progress.

Having said that, starting derogatory threads, spreading lies, or deliberately smearing the credibility of another user shouldn't be tolerated in the least. No one of us is going to have all the answers, that's why we're coming here for the support and advice of each other. Aussie shouldn't be harassed for having an opposing view of what the rest of us are doing, which would arguably make him a forum troll at best. But that goes both ways, if he's obligingly started up a shit storm just for the sake of pissing off the rest of the forum then he should be given a time out, or a permanent leave of absence if he can't "self-moderate" himself.

As for the possibility of any of the site moderators abusing their power, just remember that we are here to help each other. And we all have to be willing to tolerate a different viewpoint on the subject of circumcision. We can't change everyones minds, and this is a public forum, and if this forum starts getting moderated in such a way as to weed out those with an opposing viewpoint then we're no better than the doctors who crippled our sexual organs and brought us here in the first place. Personally, I'd rather we find a way to tolerate each others difference of opinion, at least to the extent taking the opportunity to explain why we believe they're wrong.

[Joseph]

We can't change everyones minds, and this is a public forum, and if this forum starts getting moderated in such a way as to weed out those with an opposing viewpoint then we're no better than the doctors who crippled our sexual organs and brought us here in the first place. Personally, I'd rather we find a way to tolerate each others difference of opinion, at least to the extent taking the opportunity to explain why we believe they're wrong.

I totally agree. I hope it is self-evident that despite the disdain that I feel for having a pro-mutilator on our forum, the moderation doesn't begin until he begins to deliberately troll and try to get a rise out of people.

IMO, that could be tolerated to a certain extent from the people who come on here for the forum's intended purpose (ie, support, advice etc. regarding restoration, intactivism etc.), not people who come on here to do the complete opposite (ie, belittle, criticize, otherwise harrass restorers and intactivists, etc.).

Like you have said:

But that goes both ways, if [someone]'s obligingly started up a shit storm just for the sake of pissing off the rest of the forum then he should be given a time out, or a permanent leave of absence if he can't "self-moderate" himself.

I think this forum has shown more leniency with Aussiebloke, than a pro-circ forum would show one of us if we decided to go and try to "school" them on the foreskin.

gtabula, if you're up to it, you should talk to Ron about making you a mod. You might do a better job than I...

[gtabula]

gtabula, if you're up to it, you should talk to Ron about making you a mod. You might do a better job than I...

I'd be honored if he made a decision to offer it, but I wouldn't presume to be able to speak on his behalf. I trust in his ability to select qualified persons to fill the roll of moderator on the forums.

[Aussiebloke]

Moderating has become an issue again.

Joseph, you removed a link in the press section.

To those that wouldn't have had a chance to see the link because Joseph watches my every move on this place, it was a short video from a nightclub of a guy asking random people what they prefer - cut or uncut.

I thought it was relevant to this forum.

Can you explain your reasonings on why it was removed?

[Joseph]

Alright, I'm taking a hard line.

I will not allow pro-circumcision advocates to come post their propaganda. If they wish, they can challenge views, but they may not personally attack, nor may they respond by posting fetishistic pro-circumcision, pro infant genital mutilation material.

Furthermore, I will no longer allow posts where dissenters want to cry about what we do.

I have administrative powers, and I intend to use them.

We are the moderators, and if you don't like it, well then tough cookies.

~Joseph

[Joseph]

Explanation for the removal of your video, Aussiebloke:

It is not news. That is the press room, not a personal bulletin board to post self-serving videos.

You are more than welcome to post RELEVANT news articles, or news videos from credible news sources in the press room.

Thank you.