Mods modding their own threads

[Mistwell]

I agree with the sentiment of the OP in this topic.

One thread I saw that involved this kind of issue did not need any immediate Mod attention. The reason for the thread closing had nothing to do with something really bad going on, and the issue was one that had gone on for days.

Perhaps another mod would have also closed it, and perhaps not, but the excuse of "nobody else was around to do it" didn't hold water, because no IMMEDIATE action was necessary anyway. There was plenty of time to wait for another Mod to come along and deal with it, without any harm coming to the board.

For those cases, I too would prefer a Mod who isn't the one participating in the thread actively be the one to make the call as to whether or not to close it.

If someone is posting porn or something, I fully understand why immediate action by whoever is available be taken to stop it. But for those common situations where the problem in question is relatively low priority, like things drifting off-topic, I think it would be best to wait.

And while I am sure there can be plenty of defenses for not doing this, we are talking about an issue that has almost universal agreement on the Internet. Conflicts of interest exist, even if you are not aware you are involved in one. Procedures like this help to avoid those conflicts, even if it is just the perception of a conflict of interest that is being avoided.

In other words, why NOT follow this new kind of procedure for lower priority issues?

 

[Mistwell]

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.

Knowing when you have a conflict of interest is actually pretty difficult. It's common to not be aware of your own conflict, or to not perceive a conflict where many others would see one. That's why, for professions that involve conflicts of interest, there are independent rules that don't depend on your own self-awareness to avoid such a conflict.

To say "when we think..." about the topic of Conflicts of Interest seems unrealistic to me. It's one of those kinds of issues in life where you often will not think it's happening when it might be, and so you wouldn't think to ask someone else if it is happening.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Mistwell--I think that when another moderator has given a warning that is then violated that regardless of the usual severity of the infraction, this counts as a high-profile infraction that needs to be moderated quickly for a number of reasons, ranging from showing that the moderators are serious to avoiding possible accusations of favouritism for the person who 'got away with it'.

 

[Mistwell]

Mistwell--I think that when another moderator has given a warning that is then violated that regardless of the usual severity of the infraction, this counts as a high-profile infraction that needs to be moderated quickly for a number of reasons, ranging from showing that the moderators are serious to avoiding possible accusations of favouritism for the person who 'got away with it'.

I don't care about a particular thread. We are not citing a particular thread here, and I don't think it's helpful to make it about a particular thread or moderator (because that would make a conflict of interest in discussing this issue itself!)

I think if a Mod plays a significant role in a thread, and the thread might need moderation but it's about an issue that isn't particularly high priority, that Mod should ask another Mod to decide if some sort of moderator action is warranted. That's it.

I think that is a fair way to approach the issue, helps address conflicts of interest, and is not particularly burdensome on Moderators. It's not like Moderators don't already know the difference between a low priority and a high priority issue, or whether or not they are participating in the thread. So why NOT have that kind of guideline for Mods?

 

[Piratecat]

Because I have no interest in limiting Moderator flexibility if it doesn't solve some actual (as opposed to hypothetical) problem, and if there's not a compelling and concrete reason for me to do so. Mistwell, will you please email me a link to that thread (or some identifier by which I might find it)?

 

[Mistwell]

Because I have no interest in limiting Moderator flexibility if it doesn't solve some actual (as opposed to hypothetical) problem, and if there's not a compelling and concrete reason for me to do so. Mistwell, will you please email me a link to that thread (or some identifier by which I might find it)?

Limit moderator flexibility? How so? If there might be an issue, and it is a low priority issue, you ask another mod to make the decision if you were involved. How is moderator flexibility reduced? What enforcement options were present before that guidelines, which were not present after?

Some users here think it is a problem, and there has yet to be an expressed reason why the proposed solution would be a burden on anyone. That's the compelling reason.

I don't want to email you examples, because then it would be a discussion of whether or not there was a conflict of interest involved, and a debate, and you would personally be involved on some level, either as a mod in the thread or a mod who you know would be involved with the thread, creating your own conflict of interest in that discussion (perceived or real, one you could easily overcome or not, the issue would be present).

And I am really not up for that, because I don't see the point. I think you would, to a near certainty, default to defending the moderator decision in a particular thread without some massively compelling reason to not do so (as you should). And for me to overcome that burden, I would have to debate intricacies with you of that thread (and even then the odds of persuading you would be very low). Because when linking to a specific thread, a decision was already made by a Mod, and for you to see the issue I am talking about would mean you might be implying you see a problem with the way the Mod handled it. And that is not something you are going to do if you can avoid it.

Which is why I prefer to keep it hypothetical. It's not like I am some guy who posts in the meta thread all the time complaining about Mods or something, or even the one who raised this issue. A user think it is an issue, and I agree with that user. You think it is not, as do some other users. Okay, fair enough. So what is the reason to not treat it like it is a real issue? Why should the default be no new Mod guideline on this issue, if the guideline doesn't actually harm anyone?

 

[Piratecat]

I asked to see examples because I'm curious whether what you view as mod bias matches my own threshold, not because I plan to defend the moderation in each thread. Opinions differ between people, of course, and some people have a lower tolerance for issues than others. For instance, we recently asked a long term and well-liked member to stop reporting as many threads because his threshold for "problem" was so much lower than the moderating staff. I'm not sure if that's the case here, and there's no way to tell unless I can gauge what you see as biased behavior against my own standards.

Best to be clear. I'm extraordinarily proud of how EN World's moderators handle the boards, and I'm not making changes for a hypothetical problem. I've never seen any actual signs of conflict of interest, so I have zero interest in putting additional policies in place unless there's a reason for 'em. If I see signs of such a problem, then we'll address it. Because all the moderators communicate closely and work together very well, I don't ever expect to see such signs.

Sorry if you disagree with me, but that's how things are. I'm glad you and Delta have made your viewpoints clear, though. Simply discussing the issue reminds us all to consider it. I also really appreciate you taking the time in the above post to explain your position to me.

 

[Michael Morris]

If someone is posting porn or something, I fully understand why immediate action by whoever is available be taken to stop it. <snip>

That (and spam) is about the only circumstance I get to ban someone. That won't lead to a thread closure though - that's a thread deletion which is a whole other animal.

Speaking of spam - if I get to count all the bannings the spambot has done over the years I think I've got more scalps - albeit by proxy - than any other admin

 

[Nonlethal Force]

Speaking of spam - if I get to count all the bannings the spambot has done over the years I think I've got more scalps - albeit by proxy - than any other admin

There is a spambot? Is this a serious comment? I don't know why ... but this topic really interests me.

For the record ... I envision some neo-matrix AI sentinel computer programmed to rifle through the threads over and over and it gets excited when it finds a post with absolutely nothing to say!

Spambots... Hmmmm.

Of course, having made reference to them, it's only a matter of time before the spambot reads this post and decides that it is spam so it deletes it. You know... to keep other posters from following the white rabbit and all.

 

[Nifft]

You know... to keep other posters from following the white rabbit and all.

FOLLOW THE WHITE RABBIT TO GRATE TONER PRICES || INK JET || LASERJET || FAX SUPPLIES

HP:
- LJ 600mp $249.88 !!!
- LJ 600m $442.88 !!!
- LJ 420p $549.88 !!!

HELP IM BEING EATEN BY A SPAMBO