Mods modding their own threads

[Delta]

There's another case in the Rules Forum where a moderator has been the principal poster in an argument, and at the end of the discussion has pulled out the moderator hat and locked the thread.

This has become fairly common and I think it's objectionable. There is a significant "conflict of interest" when a moderator promotes an ongoing argument for an extended period of time, and once people get sufficiently aggravated, shuts the thread down to further responses.

My recommendation -- Have a policy where mods do not moderate (discipline or close threads) in a thread where they have been a discussion participant. (Consider other sites like Slashdot that exclude moderating and posting in the same thread.) This would help solve the significant "conflict of interest" problem in these situations.

 

[Pielorinho]

I think I know the thread you're talking about, Delta. If it's the one I'm thinking of, after post 136, the overwhelming majority of posts were bickering about issues not germane to the thread topic; I'm certain any of the moderators would have closed it.

I see what you're saying about conflict of interest, and I can see how you're seeing that there. Indeed, we mods often ask one another behind the scenes to step in in a thread that we're participating in, because we don't want to have our own position bias us in our moderation actions.

When we don't do that is when the moderating decision is so easy to make, as it was in this particular example. Especially on weekends, when other mods may not be around as much.

I've really not been aware of this happening often (as you say, "fairly common"). Would you mind reporting this post and including a few other cases where you feel that this has happened? That's probably what would be most helpful to us in deciding whether a policy like the one you suggest would be helpful. If the only examples of this happening are examples where all us mods agree that the moderating actions were self-evidently required, then we're unlikely to institute such a policy; but if there have been several cases where a moderator acted questionably (in our viewpoints), then that'd be different.

Daniel

 

[Delta]

Pielorinho, thank you for addressing this. I'll respectfully disagree that "when the moderating decision is so easy to make" makes a difference to a conflct-of-interest issue.

For example, here is a short article on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest

A conflict of interest can exist even if no unethical or improper act results from it... The conflict can be mitigated by third party verification or third party evaluation noted below - - but it still exists...

The best way to handle conflicts of interest is to avoid them entirely... Those with a conflict of interest are expected to recuse themselves from (i.e., abstain from) decisions where such a conflict exists.

If you agree that this is an issue (even before we get to a provably "improper act"), then I'd be happy to do some work and track down other examples that I've seen. But, it sounds like you already know that this occurs. If we need to agree that we've found "improper acts", then that's a separate issue that I can't be confident you'd agree on, and is probably not worth my time to track down, or yours to evaluate.


In the case of the most recent Rules thread, the question would be exactly how this came to the attention of another moderator (a process which I'd not be privy to), after the first moderator seemed to be on the losing end of an argument, and regarding behavior which seemed fairly tame compared to lots of other recent Rules threads. Note, for example, that my concern is entirely aside from the fact that I 100% agreed with the moderator on the actual debate question in this case.

 

[Piratecat]

The moderator did exactly what he was supposed to. He enforced my previous warning when I wasn't around to do so. I'm sorry if you don't like it, but that's too bad; we recruit moderators precisely because they're able to divorce themselves from their own personal feeling about a thread when such a thread needs moderating. That's not going to change.

To provide a little clarity, though, please be aware that all the moderators discuss problematic threads in a private forum. That's one of the ways we strive to be consistent, and helps us speak with one voice. If or when you see signs of inconsistency, please be sure to report them using the small exclamation point in the bottom left of any post.

 

[Morrus]

We do frequently alert other mods to a problem thread if we happen to be involved in it. However, when there's nobody else around and a thread needs action, "apparent conflict of interest" takes a much lower priority than "keeping the boards civil"; when it comes down to it, it's just a thread closure on a D&D messageboard, with little to no real consequences.

But if there is someone else available, then yeah, we tend to pass it on.

 

[Delta]

Well, frankly I'm disappointed at ENWorld. I really expected that it could be held to the higher standard (again, like other highly-regarded notable online forums) once this was pointed out.

But, thanks for listening.

 

[Morrus]

Well, frankly I'm disappointed at ENWorld.

Sorry to hear that.

 

[Nonlethal Force]

Well, frankly I'm disappointed at ENWorld. I really expected that it could be held to the higher standard (again, like other highly-regarded notable online forums) once this was pointed out.

But, thanks for listening.

I'm not a mod, so I speak from a different perspective. I, too, am sorry you are disappointed.

I find the mods here to be particularily consistent - and I think it is due to both factors mentioned earlier: good recruitment and a seperate discussion forum that only mods have access to. I like the fact that I don't always see the same mod using the mod stick and that punishments are appropriate to the offense.

Thread closure is actually a small consequence in the grander scheme of things. The nice thing about thread closure is that if a thread was closed at it shouldn't have been, it could always be reopened if an error was ever made.

Anyway, like I said. I'm not a mod and don't pretend to be speaking as one. I am a supporter of ENWorld and appreciate the service provided. I do hope that down the road Delta gives ENWorld another shake. I've always found it to be fair and consistant.

 

[Piratecat]

The nice thing about thread closure is that if a thread was closed at it shouldn't have been, it could always be reopened if an error was ever made.

I've done this a few times, either because I made a mistake or a member convinced me that closing the thread wasn't the best solution to a problem.

While I greatly respect Delta's opinion, I currently view this somewhat as a solution looking for a problem. I welcome folks to email me (address in my sig) with concrete examples of moderators who close a thread in order to "win" it. I'll be very surprised if this is a pattern, but I have an open mind and would very much like to see links to situations in which it has occurred.

 

[Dinkeldog]

My recommendation -- Have a policy where mods do not moderate (discipline or close threads) in a thread where they have been a discussion participant. (Consider other sites like Slashdot that exclude moderating and posting in the same thread.) This would help solve the significant "conflict of interest" problem in these situations.

Woohoo! Since my job currently doesn't allow me much time to actively participate in random threads I could become the Master Moderator!

But seriously, when we think there might be a conflict of interest or if we think the thread is walking the border of the rules we do really ask each others' opinions, usually by reporting the thread and asking for other opinions. One of the fantastic things about the moderating crew is that I can count on one hand the number of times we've significantly disagreed about each others' moderation decisions over the past couple years since I joined the staff.