The one thing I personally do agree with is some sort of central "Moderation Log", probably appended to the Announcements section. Certainly Tarn and Zach already write explanations for when someone is banned or an argument starts over such, and some comments on deleted posts when the entire thread isn't deleted. And nothing more than that need be logged; certainly not every warning and mute, and spambots and their droppings don't deserve the time of day. But it would useful to have a log of bannings and deletions, especially of whole threads, to be collected in one place for easy future reference, and to minimize confusion.
The problem with mods (and I say this as both a former forum mod and IRC mod) is that you then require a set-in-stone code of conduct to back your actions, else you will invariably be accused of favoritism and bias.
Then he should make a code, so that none of this happens.
There are plenty that can do that, and it's not like they're permanent. If a mod causes problems, he can simply replace him/her.
Oh dear god politics and drama. This is why having third-party mods is such a bad idea. "We can replace the mods" does not mean "it will not cause enormous drama and wreck the board in the process". All the better if we can avoid it ever happening.
Bah, we cannot simply avoid it happening. Either way, some form of trouble may appear. We cannot simply sit on our asses just because it's not safe to do anything else.
I don't see where that would necessarily be a problem nor require any more specific a code than the existing forum guidelines. I think a lot of people's reticence against moderators comes from experiences with massively larger or more dynamic forums than this one, namely ones where there's tons of moderators, that change over time, and the original founding admins of the board are either gone or largely inactive. Even if I'm wrong, I think the precedent and character of the Adams is all the "code" that would be needed.
Who would police mods, and discourage "factionalism"? The other mods, and the preexisting admins we all know and respect anyway. The argument could be made that it would lighten their duties by funneling complaints and problems through the mod level; they would just have to police a handful of mods, instead of the entire forum. I don't necessarily agree with this prediction, but it's a certainly a valid argument.
For that matter, I don't believe this forum needs more moderators besides the Adams - certainly Toady has had plenty of opportunities and bigger reasons to do so if he wanted - but I certainly understand the logic. The idea that any community, let alone this one, can moderate itself within its own character and dialogue is proven wrong by this very thread. It goes back to Retro's report-button explanation. You have exactly one real, official avenue of dealing with problems, an avenue that everyone knows is supposed to be reserved only for genuine grievance, not just stuff that annoys you. And most people don't want to feel like crybabies and busybodies by reporting stuff that doesn't actually break the "rules", such as they are.
So what self-moderation with this community comes down to is usually one person saying, "alright, this is really starting to annoy me." It's what happens next that's the problem. It's an inherently confrontational act to say you a problem with how someone else is behaving, and by the time any one person stakes their claim, probably dozens have already developed some strong opinions on the matter and are just waiting for a good opportunity to say so. Then the argument starts, then usually Toady comes along and says "I've gotten a lot of reports over this, it's time to calm down". But it's not over yet, because now people have to not only argue about the incident itself, but also have another constitutional convention over what the great spiritual rules of the forum are, and whether stronger or weaker measures are needed to enforce them. Eventually, either Toady or Zach has to put a foot down over that argument, or it never progresses out of the hurricane-in-a-bottle stage and everyone forgets about it within a few days, and the slow buildup of entrenched animosity and silent irritation boils anew.
In the three years that I've lurked and then posted on this board, I can think of probably four or five times that process has played out in a major way, and it happens in microcosm every time someone with more than a thousand posts is banned. In that time, I've watched myself drift from the "it's a big carnival, and everyone's invited, so stop being a stick in the mud" crowd to "dammit people, settle down before
everybody's pissed off, and stop taking 'settle down' as whatever you think a personal attack is". I think it took less than a year.
The problem is, everyone wants to believe that a community can be guided by every individual adhering to a "spirit of the community" that everyone can recognize and recognizes the same way. Everyone also knows that's bullcrap. Everyone has their own notion of what improves and degrades the "community" they are in, some of them diametrically opposed; for example, Nagash and Pseudonymous in this thread. And like a damn junta, every time a reason comes up to air those differences, at least a few people start
vociferously believing those differences to be massively larger than they really are (same example). It's
that atmosphere that makes every difference of opinion turn into a multi-thread shitstorm, which makes people wary of voicing their distaste at what other people are doing, which makes the animosity boil hotter and longer. The actions of one crowd that irritate another crowd are left to fester longer and louder, and the inevitable dust up gets that much bigger when it comes.
So if there's one good thing in having moderators, its to enact the same kind of calming effect that Toady and Three Toe have just by making a post, without even actually acting. They possess a unilateral power to say -
Guys, what you're doing is probably annoying quite a few people, and you probably understand that. So c'mon, lay off. - without it turning into arguments and factions. Much. Having a few more people who can do that, since Tarn and Zach don't have all the free time in the world to read threads themselves, would cut down on the blowups. I really don't think it's necessary, but it would work.
Author
Topic: Regarding the state of the forums. (Read 35595 times)