consistency of moderation

[Lord Evermore]

I've brought it up before, and I expect to get no answer again. Why are the moderators so inconsistent with things like locking or moving threads? There's always a few posts that get locked and the people are told to put it into the proper forum, et cetera. And really it's told to them pretty brusquely most of the time. Yet then many more other threads are allowed to go on and on, completely off topic (e.g., Windows XP questions in General Hardware, or "I need help fixing this" in GH).

If you're going to make it a rule, make it a solidly enforced rule. Doing it every once in a while just makes it look like you really don't care and it's just a token action. (This applies to quite a few other things, that look like the mods take action on a whim or when they feel like it.)

I completely understand that the mods are volunteers, that they have a lot of posts to go through, that they aren't expected to devote all their time to watching for bad posts. But I still don't see why they're so inconsistent in enforcement of rules.

We know why people post in the wrong forums, because they know that they're going to get less response in the less-travelled forums (like Tech Support) than in something like General Hardware. This is of course in large part due to the fact that in the old days, there weren't many forums and GH was largely used for tech support and other questions, and concern over being off-topic wasn't very great. But even new people do it, who didn't experience the old forums, and the reason is they see it continuing and think it's okay, because the mods aren't controlling it. If off-topic posts were aggressively controlled, moved or locked (as well as dupe-topic posts better managed), then people would hopefully use the proper forums better.

I'm not exactly saying I think it's bad that people post everything to GH or whatever. I really don't care where the threads go, I'm used to GH being the "general" forum. I'm just asking for consistency and thoroughness. As it is now, I just get annoyed seeing what look like randomly locked threads all over the place.

This can't simply be due to the mods "missing" threads sometimes. I'm talking about threads that are staying at the top of the list, going on for hours or days.


Random thing I noticed, "personas" is misspelled in the forum FAQ.

 

[Azraele]

Links would be helpful.

Let's assume for a minute that the mods see all of these threads, for the sake of argument. I think the problem is that a lot of it is a matter of judgement, priority, or both. Sometimes, the mods are so busy dealing with other matters, that they simply don't have time to stop in the middle of whatever crisis they're trying to moderate and lock or move a stray thread. It's just not top priority. Other times, it's a case of judgement. Perhaps the mod decides to let a thread slide. What one mod mght let slide (perhaps the Fun Mod), another mod might move or lock (perhaps the Mean Mod). Because the mods moderate as a group, each individual will moderate in a slightly different manner than the next. This in and of itself will cause minor fluctuations in moderation.

Because the matter has been brought up before, it's obvious that the mods are aware of you beef. It may be they they have decided to do nothing about it (they might not think it that big of a problem, they have bigger fish to fry) or they may be in hot debate as to what to do about it.

I'm not sure exactly where I'm going with this post, other than mentioning what I've mentioned above. I've seen a few stray threads myself, but I think the quality of the moderation as a whole overshadows the small inconsistencies. The mods are only human, after all, and can't be perfect.

 

[Lord Evermore]

The issue of each moderator having a different "style" of moderation is my main problem. They don't have any hard rules about what they should be doing. One mod should not be allowed to ignore certain posts if the other mods are all going to think it should be locked. While I know that even with rules, there'd be some "interpretation", this particular post was to point out the issue of completely off-topic posts. I can't imagine any way that that can be misunderstood, so all I can assume is that the mods don't have any consistency in enforcing control of off-topic posts.

If the mods are NOT seeing all the posts, or are being inconsistent due to the workload, then perhaps more mods are needed, or those that have volunteered should be held to a better standard. Obviously, they're volunteers, they can't be forced to do anything, and as a forum-goer I thank them for volunteering (though I greatly disagree with them quite often, I do know they're needed), but it would be simple to say if you want to be a mod, you have to agree that you'll put such-and-such effort into it and follow these rules.

I do NOT think it is appropriate to have a "fun mod" and a "mean mod", et cetera. That does not foster a good environment, in my opinion. One can never know which mod is watching and shouldn't HAVE to be concerned over whether a particular mod might enjoy some humor while another mod wouldn't. Even worse, the mods should not be allowed to do things "on a whim" or just because they feel like "tweaking" someone they don't like.

I don't see it as necessary for me to provide links to individual threads. Off-topic threads happen quite often enough, and a simple scan of any forum can show you the ones that haven't been moved or locked. It seems Hot Deals is the only one that is aggressively controlled, and I think that's more than anything because AT doesn't want to get into any trouble with people over money/trading problems.

The matter has been brought up before, yes. And not once has there been a real response to it. The biggest response has been to lock threads and/or ban the people complaining. No one has ever said "this is why the mods appear to be acting as they are" or "yes, we do have a list of rules the mods follow and this is why you may not think they're consistent but they actually are". The only way I can interpret that is that the admins really don't care, as long as the forums overall run well enough and keep getting hits, and that the mods are mostly given free reign.


Another point I thought up, the "Help" function of the forums is completely useless in terms of knowing what's allowed. The same applies to the FAQ. The "rules" that one has to agree to when you sign up are unavailable once you've signed up, and I've been here long enough not to remember everything they said, and I assume they may have changed over time (I don't recall them being anything more than a vague "don't do anything illegal or obscene" type, a form letter). The only way I can think of to see them would be to go through the signup process again, even if I don't complete it, but I find that to be a bit much to expect a user to have to do just to refresh his memory of the rules.

However there are a considerable number of things that all users need to be aware of in order to avoid attracting the ire of the mods. None of those things is well documented anywhere. Particular words which are banned, that it's a bannable offense to bypass the language filters (another thing that the mods are very inconsistent about), what types of posts are not allowed (IBTL, et cetera). Yet when mods lock posts, they are able to do it to people that may not necessarily have ANY idea that those things are not allowed. Users are expected to have been reading EVERY thread in order to have already gotten a complete overview of what's allowed and not allowed.

 

[Bleep]

Lord Evermore
I could not agree with you more. I have been on here since the beginning so I should know what gets locked and what does not, but I cannot figure it out. There are some members on here that will defend the mods no matter what happens or what they do. As far as the Moderators being volinteers I dont know that and no one else does either except the mod himself. The "if you dont like it leave and dont come back" attitude has became the modus operandi and does not speak well for the moderators that do a good job. Still a little miffed about Paulson. I honestly do not know why some have became Elite and others that are much more valuable are not. There are some so called Elite members that are just smartmouths.
Bleep

 

[Hossenfeffer]

<< The issue of each moderator having a different "style" of moderation is my main problem. >>

They're human, they've got different interpretation(s).

<< They don't have any hard rules about what they should be doing. >>

And you know this how? Even with hard, set rules, you're still dealing with people, volunteer-type people. They're not perfect. Trust that there's some discussion going on among the mods to keep an eye on that and make sure moderation keeps a relatively even keel.

I agree that it can be frustrating when one person gets away with a post, while Joe Schmoe gets berated and his post locked. I find myself screaming toward the heavens "WHERE IS THE JUSTICE?!"... ok, so I don't -really- do that, but I've felt the impetus to do so.

I aslo agree with you about the documentation. All sorts of "unwritten rules" that would have more value if they were more visible.

Always nice to get more explanation than "No." or "It's Your Problem", etc.

 

[Lord Evermore]

<< And you know this how? >>



No moderator or admin has EVER answered my posts about this sort of thing by saying that they do have rules. Combine that with the extreme lack of any consistency, and I can only conclude that they have no rules. Yes, they're human, but even humans ought to be able to follow rules regarding what is acceptable and what's not, and be consistent about it. If they're not consistent, they shouldn't be moderators. Inconsistent moderation can ruin a forum, and in large part it has ruined AT for me, compared to what it was like a year or more ago.

And I'll completely ignore any comments such as "go away if you don't like it".

 

[Daovonnaex]

<< No moderator or admin has EVER answered my posts about this sort of thing by saying that they do have rules. >>


Frankly, I believe that is deliberate.



<< Combine that with the extreme lack of any consistency, and I can only conclude that they have no rules. >>


When people are banned, I often have no idea why. The inconsistency troubles me as well, as does the poor documentation of rules.

 

[Lord Evermore]

<< Frankly, I believe that is deliberate. >>



If it's deliberate in all cases, then frankly that's a piss-poor way to make people think highly of the moderating staff or the admins.

If it's just because it's me asking, then oh well, but I'd like to be told if I'm that hated.

 

[Azraele]

<< When people are banned, I often have no idea why. >>


Frankly, it's none of your business as to why another person was banned. However, there is a problem when a banned user has no idea why he/she was banned. This seems to happen often enough so as to be a problem. I think a quick e-mail to the user stating why the user was banned would be most helpful.

 

[Lord Evermore]

Supposedly some people get emailed, some people don't. Again, there's no consistency. It really should be the FIRST thing a mod does after banning someone, not "oh we just must have forgotten". Same thing happens with releasing someone from banning. The mods don't seem to keep a list with dates of when they should alert people they're unbanned, or they "forget".

It IS our business to some degree though. People get randomly banned without even an explanation in a locked post saying why, so nobody's able to learn what they're not supposed to do.

 

[Daovonnaex]

<<
Frankly, it's none of your business as to why another person was banned. However, there is a problem when a banned user has no idea why he/she was banned. This seems to happen often enough so as to be a problem. I think a quick e-mail to the user stating why the user was banned would be most helpful. >>

That's a very valid point. However, when I see someone banned publicly, I'd like to know why in order to add another undocumented rule to the AT rule set that exists only in the ethereality.

 

[GeoffS]

All the bannings I've ever seen have been accompanied with a reason. That said, I don't venture out of FS/FT, DC, and Forum Issues very often, so I'm sure that I haven't seen it all.

You're not going to get 24x7 consistency... it's just not going to happen. There aren't a dozen clones running the forums, we've got however many individuals that have moods and interpret the rules in their own way. Pick a professional sport (wrestling isn't a sport) and look at the officials.. not only is there variances in consistency between officials, there are variances in how an official will officiate at the beginning of a game at late in the game... and those are paid professionals. Sometimes the mods will play it loosy-goosy, other times they will be stricter... so what? If there's a thread you don't think belongs somewhere, just drop the mod a PM and move on to the next thread... is it that disruptive to your sense of order that you need to write 1400 words on the topic? If some putz can't figure out what thread they should post a message in, Darwin will take care of them

Geoff