The Flat Earth Society
The Flat Earth Society => Suggestions & Concerns => Topic started by: Rama Set on December 16, 2013, 06:58:01 PM
-
In light of Rooster's recent thread (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=954.0) in S & C, I wanted to have a general conversation about the behavior of mods. I have always felt that a moderator should be setting an example for the other posters on the site. They ostensibly exist not only to enforce the rules, but also to be the mediator between the administrators rules and the people who post. As such, I feel their understanding and application of the rules should be of a greater magnitude than anyone on the site. I definitely believe that you cannot ask someone to respect rules you yourself do not obey, but this belief is obviously not ubiquitous and I wanted to know what the feelings on the site are towards possibly creating a moderator's code of conduct?
-
That's one problem i had with PPs post, that a mods posting and moderation are two separate issues, i disagree. I too believe mods should set an example. I have no problems with jroa, or any mod right now, but i don't like that mentality
-
And a mods posting intersects quite nicely with their duties if/when they break rules and do not moderate themselves. That is why I think they have to be held to a higher standard, because if they are not self-moderating then they are failing at their job.
I am not trying to say a mod should feel their role is onerous, just that if they take the role on they should obviously take the application of whatever rules are in place very seriously, and I believe that applies to their own posting.
-
I did suggest a while ago that admins can't mod. Then mods make the decisions and admins are arbitrators only once a mod screws up.
Who moderates the admins? Well I haven't a solution to that. That's kind of the point of the Zetetic council. To stop any individual becoming unaccountable.
-
Who moderates the admins? Well I haven't a solution to that. That's kind of the point of the Zetetic council. To stop any individual becoming unaccountable.
Does that mean that mods and/or admins should be excluded from the Zetetic Council so as to prevent a conflict of interest in this regard?
-
if they take the role on they should obviously take the application of whatever rules are in place very seriously, and I believe that applies to their own posting.
They should. That doesn't mean they will always succeed. It is virtually impossible to view one's own posts objectively - that's partially why we have multiple moderators. If one of them fails to obey the rules, there are others to put him back in order. A moderator breaking a rule now and then is no grounds to immediately demand to demod them - that would only be reasonable if their moderation was at fault.
They are still human beings, and they are still allowed the same amount of grace as anyone else. Applying a stricter standard to them would likely violate and restrict their freedom of expression. They shouldn't need to worry about breaking rules any more (nor any less) than anyone else here.
possibly creating a moderator's code of conduct?
One already exists (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=872.0) and is being enforced. I feel it's fair as it is, and point 5 covers this situation. The same rules apply equivalently to all members. This means you, me, jroa, even Baby Jesus. Mods are expected to follow rules and will be disciplined if they fail, just like anyone else. Not more, not less.
Does that mean that mods and/or admins should be excluded from the Zetetic Council so as to prevent a conflict of interest in this regard?
Yes, we already said (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=850.msg5805#msg5805) admins will not take council seats, by our own decision. The fact that people are still nominating us is, well, their own issue.
-
I definitely do not think that Mods need to be utter paragons, to be sure. That being said, if Mods do not show the same grace, then they cannot expect the same treatment in return.
Thanks for the reply pizaa, my concerns are satisfied.
-
With great power comes great responsibility and whatnot. The mods are generally the most respected members of the forum. They should have to be respectable, moreso than others. Certainly it shouldn't be too strict, but if a mod starts acting like EJ it should be grounds for demodding. Anything stricter than that is probably unnecessary. We do want people to actually take the job, remember.
-
I definitely agree that mods should be held to the same standards they expect of others. Even higher, actually. I am actually a model example. Sure, I kid around sometimes, but on the old site, when I first became a mod my posting habits changed. It was maybe not entirely visible (because you really only see what's there and gloss over what isn't) but I noticed it. There have been times that I wanted to post something inappropriate, but didn't out of respect for the position I was entrusted with. It was a sacrifice a small part of me always regretted, but just the same that I felt it only right that I make.
-
In light of Rooster's recent thread (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=954.0) in S & C, I wanted to have a general conversation about the behavior of mods. I have always felt that a moderator should be setting an example for the other posters on the site. They ostensibly exist not only to enforce the rules, but also to be the mediator between the administrators rules and the people who post. As such, I feel their understanding and application of the rules should be of a greater magnitude than anyone on the site. I definitely believe that you cannot ask someone to respect rules you yourself do not obey, but this belief is obviously not ubiquitous and I wanted to know what the feelings on the site are towards possibly creating a moderator's code of conduct?
Some bitches need to relax. This is a forum about the Earth being flat. Chill the fuck out, it's not srs bzns. The mods should be able to post however they want: I don't want them to stifle their posting because someone might get butthurt at a comment. If the moderators are actually making the site shittier, like banning legitimate users, moving funny awesome posts by a very sexy celebrity to CN, or going full Hara, then we can bitch about it. Until then, accept that FES isn't filtered through your personal social and cultural lenses before being presented to you. Some people will say some things you don't agree with, and it's okay if that happens. Hell, you're even allowed to respond to it.
-
Some bitches need to relax. This is a forum about the Earth being flat. Chill the fuck out, it's not srs bzns.
Um, exsqueeze me? How can a forum about something so important be anything but serious business?
-
The mods are generally the most respected members of the forum.
Why does it seem like that quote belongs in a Monster Fail thread?
The mods should be able to post however they want: I don't want them to stifle their posting because someone might get butthurt at a comment.
I agree. The mods should be able to post however they want. Just as long as it's within the established rules and guidelines of the forum. As I recall, the one rule that everyone (including all of the mods) agreed to is to not be a dick. Call me a prude, but I would contend that going out of one's way to butthurt someone could be considered being a dick.
-
The mods are generally the most respected members of the forum.
Why does it seem like that quote belongs in a Monster Fail thread?
Well, to the noobs anyway.
-
Why does it seem like that quote belongs in a Monster Fail thread?
Because you used to be a mod, and we all remember.
Sure, I kid around sometimes, but on the old site, when I first became a mod my posting habits changed. It was maybe not entirely visible (because you really only see what's there and gloss over what isn't) but I noticed it. There have been times that I wanted to post something inappropriate, but didn't out of respect for the position I was entrusted with. It was a sacrifice a small part of me always regretted, but just the same that I felt it only right that I make.
This is exactly what we are preventing. Mods will not be oppressed as posters. Minor infractions will be just as fine (or not fine) coming from mods as from any other poster.
Yes, if someone goes full EJ, they'll get demodded. No, jroa offending someone once in a blue moon is not any bigger a deal than Yaakov offending a couple of people with his kill-all-Muslims controversies. In both cases, they have been warned and asked to pipe it down a bit. If they continue, we'll continue with the process. This shit is simple.
-
Holding a mod to a higher standard is not oppressive. In fact it is generally impossible to oppress those that hold the power. Asking them to self-police to a higher standard is one of the safeguards against abuse of power.
-
Asking them to self-police to a higher standard is one of the safeguards against abuse of power.
No, that's done through reviewing their moderation. That is where they hold power. They can't abuse power by being expected to follow the same set of posting rules as everyone else, because they have no additional power as posters.
Holding a mod to a higher standard is not oppressive.
It is too. See Roundy's testimony. His freedom of expression was restricted, and that's oppression.
-
Holding a mod to a higher standard is not oppressive.
It is too. See Roundy's testimony. His freedom of expression was restricted, and that's oppression.
I guess... But it was self-imposed. I was never chastised for posting a certain way, I just chose to take what I considered to be a more responsible approach. Obviously if the admins decide that the mods can post fuck-all that they want to it is not my place to object; I'm perfectly comfortable with Parsifal and pizaaplanet making that particular judgment call themselves. Their forum, their rules.
-
That's fair, Roundy, and I do think it's a nice thing to do. I just feel that it would be very unfair if we were to impose that upon others. If you want to be a shining example to the community, I'm sure you will be recognised and appreciated as such by all of us. However, as long as you're at least an about-average poster and a competent mod, you shouldn't expect anyone to question your moderation.
-
There's too much focus on making FES a fair, accountable democracy. It's not a democracy, and never has been. It's always been decided by the whims of our (ranging from benevolent to apathetic) administrators. I don't like all this talk of rights and nonsense.
-
I don't think should really plays into the equation. Like PP said, as long as they follow the rules, they shouldn't necessarily have to post a certain way. That said, I, for example, am almost definitely not going to be pulling the same kinda bitchy arguments or just general rudeness as I might've used to—but, like Roundy, this is totally voluntary and self-imposed and has nothing to do with what I think a mod "should" be like. It's more about holding myself to a higher standard than thinking it's what I'm "supposed" to do.
That said, I think the most important thing is that mods still be casual and friendly. There is nothing worse than losing members to moderation, where suddenly they don't post as much and make themselves scarce and seem afraid to post regularly as they normally would. Being a mod doesn't make you special. The worst kinds of mods are the ones that get all huffy and develop egos because they have power and get to decide what's "right" and blahblah. That's my least favourite kind of mod.
-
I think I have been misunderstood: I am not calling for mods to have any special principle or consequence applied to them when they follow the rules. However, there is a difference that, I think, everyone gets, when a mod breaks the rules. It might not matter to some, but it does matter to others and it is a logical and fair point of view. A mod who breaks the rules is extra culpable because they are not just another poster and to pretend otherwise is to ignore that they are the enforcer of the rules and seems absurd. As I have previously said, I am not interested in demanding they be perfect but you should prepare to deal with noobs who come along and think the mods do not have a leg to stand on because the mods are not more sophisticated than the average user when it comes to operating within the rules. I also have to object to the notion that this might be oppressive. Becoming a mod is not something that is forced upon anyone and to expect a greater level of responsibility from those who want a greater level of responsibility is totally natural.
-
Holding a mod to a higher standard is not oppressive.
It is too. See Roundy's testimony. His freedom of expression was restricted, and that's oppression.
No, not really. Freedom of expression is restricted all the time. Freedom of speech doesn't mean that you can yell "FIRE" in a crowded movie theater and freedom of expression doesn't mean that you can post porn in a public forum. Being a mod shouldn't mean that you can be a dick whenever you want.
-
Being a mod shouldn't mean that you can be a dick whenever you want.
I guess it is a good thing that nearly everyone is saying that mods should be held to the same rules as members, then. You know, the only rule you had to accept when joining here.
-
Wait, what happened?
-
http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=954.0
This.
-
I think it is a natural fact that mods are held to a different (not necessarily higher) standard than members. Since not every member would be selected for a moderator position, there is some standard by which they have been distinguished from the general member base.
However, this does not imply that their posting must always be exemplary. As PizzaPlanet said, what defines their competence as moderators is their moderation, not their posting. Furthermore, all of us are human and are prone to making mistakes. What is important is that moderators understand the rules, try their best to follow them, and set a good example for others. This is simply a case of them adhering to the standard that is expected of all posters, and will be easier to measure once we have rules.
I also want to clarify the purpose of the Manifesto. The Manifesto governs administration and moderation, not posting; the rules (when they are formalised) will govern posting. In this sense, the moderators are to be held to the same standard (defined by the rules) as everyone else when posting, but to a different standard (defined by the Manifesto) when moderating.
This will all be simpler and easier once we have rules. Please sit tight until then.
-
Thanks Parsifal, this was well said. I want to reiterate again, that I never said that crucifying a mod for breaking the rules is appropriate.
-
I feel like to regular members, mods are just dudes who also can bam, but to noobs are viewed as representatives of the society more so than regular members, thus their behavior should be viewed more critically, but that's just me.
-
To me it seemed like it always depended on the site. On some forums the mods aren't even normal posters and are just moderators and thus are naturally held to a higher standard.
I think the line between poster and moderator can blur when it seems unprofessional. If a noob shows up and is ridiculed/insulted by a mod then they may view this as a site that doesn't take itself seriously and may not want to come back. Honestly, I was tempted to just leave for good after being mocked and not taken seriously by jroa for the second time. He's had complaint threads before on the other site by newer members who thought that his behavior was not appropriate for a moderator. If a moderator is someone that has trouble following the rules, then what is the standard? And how much say does the common forum poster have in this decision? If someone has a few legitimate complaints made by different people then shouldn't their status be reconsidered?
-
This is one of the things a council could decide on.
I do think mods should stick to the rules and represent the rules they're meant to uphold. If they're not then they shouldn't be a mod.
Would it be acceptable for a police officer to commit crimes?
-
I don't say fuck off to as many people as I'd like to so I guess I hold myself to a slightly higher standard but I think that as long as we do our best to obey the rules (taking into account basic human error as pointed out already) and don't be dicks (as we all agreed to when we joined here) then thats a good enough standard.
-
He's had complaint threads before on the other site by newer members who thought that his behavior was not appropriate for a moderator.
I'm not willing to hold misdemeanours on the old forum against anyone here. Their behaviour on this site will speak for itself.
If a moderator is someone that has trouble following the rules, then what is the standard? And how much say does the common forum poster have in this decision? If someone has a few legitimate complaints made by different people then shouldn't their status be reconsidered?
If someone has trouble consistently following the rules, then they should not be a moderator. I would define a "legitimate complaint" to be a complaint either regarding posting that goes against the rules, or moderating that goes against the Manifesto; it is the non-conformance to the rules that is a problem, not the complaints themselves.
Now, what makes things difficult in this particular case is the fact that we don't yet have finalised rules, which makes it hard to point out why someone is in violation of them. I've left the rules draft open for comment for about 24 hours now, so I'll take people's suggestions on board and post some finished rules very soon. In the future, we can then use the established rules as grounds to measure people's behaviour. I'm not going to reconsider jroa or anyone else's status as a moderator before making it clear to them what is expected.
If there are specific behaviours that you object to, please post your comments in the rules draft thread and I will do my best to write the final rules to suit everyone.
-
If someone has trouble consistently following the rules, then they should not be a moderator.
This satisfies me and is really all I wanted to hear.
-
This is one of the things a council could decide on.
No, it's not. The council has nothing to do with the administration of this site. This has been agreed when the very principle has been laid out.
-
This is one of the things a council could decide on.
No, it's not. The council has nothing to do with the administration of this site. This has been agreed when the very principle has been laid out.
This is why the role of the council needs clarifying.
-
http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=954.0
This.
I didn't see a rant anywhere. Has it been deleted?
-
http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=954.0
This.
I didn't see a rant anywhere. Has it been deleted?
I exaggerated. The PMs were more like rants.