moderator selection process

[Juno]

i'm going to voice my concern with your perspectives on members being vetoed. i completely understand your reason and i respect it.

but at the same time, i think members, who were ousted, might feel unfair on the process. who knows they might have changed themselves.

it would be nice if members want to give themselves some explanation to see why they deserve the position.

-juno

This thread has served it's purpose and now seems to have devolved into a pissing match so it will be locked

Anandtech Senior Moderator
Red Dawn

 

[Cdubneeddeal]

Hmm. Make sense. Are you referring to an essay type explanation? As for the vetoed part. I see that as unethical to type Vetoed next to their name. Why not just take their name off the list and shoot them a PM letting them know why.

 

[olds]

Originally posted by: Cdubneeddeal
Hmm. Make sense. Are you referring to an essay type explanation? As for the vetoed part. I see that as unethical to type Vetoed next to their name. Why not just take their name off the list and shoot them a PM letting them know why.

"unethical"?
The members nominated them and they were listed. The members would shit a brick if their name just disappeared from the list.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: Juno
i'm going to voice my concern with your perspectives on members being vetoed. i completely understand your reason and i respect it.

but at the same time, i think members, who were ousted, might feel unfair on the process. who knows they might have changed themselves.

it would be nice if members want to give themselves some explanation to see why they deserve the position.

-juno

I was surprised to be nominated and surprised to be vetoed.

I'm actually the only nominee who has years of experience moderating on three other forums.

Thanks for your concern on the subject, I appreciate it.

Edit:
FWIW: I think people have BIG misconceptions about what moderating is about. If you look at the nominations you'll see all sorts of references to "this person is knowledgeable" or "this person has no bias to brand". Both are completely irrelevant to moderation.

Moderation has only ONE prerequisite:

The ability to impartially enforce the forum guidelines and dispense sanctions within the administrator approved guidelines.

Moderators aren't staff that need to review products or answer questions, moderators are basically playground monitors enforcing TOS.

 

[cliftonite]

Originally posted by: nRollo

Originally posted by: Juno
i'm going to voice my concern with your perspectives on members being vetoed. i completely understand your reason and i respect it.

but at the same time, i think members, who were ousted, might feel unfair on the process. who knows they might have changed themselves.

it would be nice if members want to give themselves some explanation to see why they deserve the position.

-juno

I was surprised to be nominated and surprised to be vetoed.

I'm actually the only nominee who has years of experience moderating on three other forums.

Thanks for your concern on the subject, I appreciate it.

Edit:
FWIW: I think people have BIG misconceptions about what moderating is about. If you look at the nominations you'll see all sorts of references to "this person is knowledgeable" or "this person has no bias to brand". Both are completely irrelevant to moderation.

Moderation has only ONE prerequisite:

The ability to impartially enforce the forum guidelines and dispense sanctions within the administrator approved guidelines.
Moderators aren't staff that need to review products or answer questions, moderators are basically playground monitors enforcing TOS.

And you can be impartial in a video forum while being provided free hardware from one of the manufacturers? :disgust:

 

[DerekWilson]

Originally posted by: cliftonite

Originally posted by: nRollo

Originally posted by: Juno
i'm going to voice my concern with your perspectives on members being vetoed. i completely understand your reason and i respect it.

but at the same time, i think members, who were ousted, might feel unfair on the process. who knows they might have changed themselves.

it would be nice if members want to give themselves some explanation to see why they deserve the position.

-juno

I was surprised to be nominated and surprised to be vetoed.

I'm actually the only nominee who has years of experience moderating on three other forums.

Thanks for your concern on the subject, I appreciate it.

Edit:
FWIW: I think people have BIG misconceptions about what moderating is about. If you look at the nominations you'll see all sorts of references to "this person is knowledgeable" or "this person has no bias to brand". Both are completely irrelevant to moderation.

Moderation has only ONE prerequisite:

The ability to impartially enforce the forum guidelines and dispense sanctions within the administrator approved guidelines.
Moderators aren't staff that need to review products or answer questions, moderators are basically playground monitors enforcing TOS.

And you can be impartial in a video forum while being provided free hardware from one of the manufacturers? :disgust:

the question of rollo's impartiality is not the issue...

the fact is that member perception of his ability to be impartial is clear whether or not he has the actual ability to be unbiased in moderation.

his qualifications as a moderator have nothing to do with his veto. it is the perception of the membership about his ability to be impartial that determined this decision. he may actually be able to be impartial. but that honestly doesn't matter in this case.

 

[DerekWilson]

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat

Originally posted by: Cdubneeddeal
Hmm. Make sense. Are you referring to an essay type explanation? As for the vetoed part. I see that as unethical to type Vetoed next to their name. Why not just take their name off the list and shoot them a PM letting them know why.

"unethical"?
The members nominated them and they were listed. The members would shit a brick if their name just disappeared from the list.

QFT

thats why we did it this way

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: DerekWilson

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat

Originally posted by: Cdubneeddeal
Hmm. Make sense. Are you referring to an essay type explanation? As for the vetoed part. I see that as unethical to type Vetoed next to their name. Why not just take their name off the list and shoot them a PM letting them know why.

"unethical"?
The members nominated them and they were listed. The members would shit a brick if their name just disappeared from the list.

QFT

thats why we did it this way

my name disappeared from the Free Stuff forum list.

i would rather that the "VETOED: moshquerade" was now removed from the Hot Deals forum list, and i've asked you and others to extend me that courtesy.

i am tired of answering PMs asking why I was vetoed. (even though you provided an explanation).

 

[KK]

if getting vacations were a determining factor for veto'ing candidates, then why is one that has had multiple vacations going to be a mod in one of the hardware categories?

 

[Nitemare]

Not gonna vote cause Mosh got vetoed

 

[Cdubneeddeal]

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat

Originally posted by: Cdubneeddeal
Hmm. Make sense. Are you referring to an essay type explanation? As for the vetoed part. I see that as unethical to type Vetoed next to their name. Why not just take their name off the list and shoot them a PM letting them know why.

"unethical"?
The members nominated them and they were listed. The members would shit a brick if their name just disappeared from the list.

Yes, Unethical. Like I stated, a simple PM to the member explaining the circumstances and remove their name from the list would have been better than pretty much telling all of AT that the member is not good enough to make the list of potentials, laugh away!

 

[Greenman]

Originally posted by: nRollo

Originally posted by: Juno
i'm going to voice my concern with your perspectives on members being vetoed. i completely understand your reason and i respect it.

but at the same time, i think members, who were ousted, might feel unfair on the process. who knows they might have changed themselves.

it would be nice if members want to give themselves some explanation to see why they deserve the position.

-juno

I was surprised to be nominated and surprised to be vetoed.

I'm actually the only nominee who has years of experience moderating on three other forums.

Thanks for your concern on the subject, I appreciate it.

Edit:
FWIW: I think people have BIG misconceptions about what moderating is about. If you look at the nominations you'll see all sorts of references to "this person is knowledgeable" or "this person has no bias to brand". Both are completely irrelevant to moderation.

Moderation has only ONE prerequisite:

The ability to impartially enforce the forum guidelines and dispense sanctions within the administrator approved guidelines.

Moderators aren't staff that need to review products or answer questions, moderators are basically playground monitors enforcing TOS.

That is exactly right. I was astonished when reading nominations that so few mentioned what are obviously the necessary qualifications. The reality is that the mods for any of the forums should be someone that has never participated in that forum. That way they don't walk in with a list of people they don't like, or ideas about what needs to change.
The way it is now you're running a popularity contest, and while that might be what makes everyone feel involved and happy at the moment, it's almost certain to cause conflict in the future.

Just my opinion, I could be wrong.

 

[Samus]

Mr Wilson, I've been a member here for 7 years, and although I don't contribute as much as many do, your moderator voting process is unfortunately backfiring on you.

Because of your political suicidal antics, you are at risk of lossing me, and many other great AT forum members because you are banning a member because of their history.

Have you heard of the fair-use act? How about equal opportunity? How about racism, sexism... political suicide. Rethink your voting process. You'd be better off to let certain individual run at this point and 'fix' the election, Battlestat Galactica-style, than ban them from running.

You will loss a member and many more because of your poor judgement in the decision to ban people with 'vacation' history from running. After all, even you admitted certain individuals have added great wealth of information to the forum. Exactly why are you targetting these members? Everyone isn't perfect.

By your rules, Clinton should have never been president because he smoked pot, and JFK should have never been president because he cheated on his wife. In the end, they were all great contributors to our country's wealth.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: Cdubneeddeal

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat

Originally posted by: Cdubneeddeal
Hmm. Make sense. Are you referring to an essay type explanation? As for the vetoed part. I see that as unethical to type Vetoed next to their name. Why not just take their name off the list and shoot them a PM letting them know why.

"unethical"?
The members nominated them and they were listed. The members would shit a brick if their name just disappeared from the list.

Yes, Unethical. Like I stated, a simple PM to the member explaining the circumstances and remove their name from the list would have been better than pretty much telling all of AT that the member is not good enough to make the list of potentials, laugh away!

As one of the unceremoniously vetoed, I can say it certainly would have been nice to at least get an explanation. I cant say I'd really want the job in the first place, but I didnt ask to be nominated, and it is the slightest bit insulting to have my name up there and be singled out as to not be cool enough to hang out with the in crowd. I'm sure there are good reasons for not wanting me to be a mod (I can think of plenty myself), but on the surface, the entire process IS nothing more than a simple popularity contest. Seriously, I can think of no worse a way to pick a mod. Theres a reason why judges are appointed and confirmed, not voted for.

 

[Cdubneeddeal]

Originally posted by: Nitemare
Not gonna vote cause Mosh got vetoed

Agreed. Not going to vote because I feel this system is flawed.

 

[DerekWilson]

i've gotten lots o requests to remove lists of vetoed names so we've decided to do that.

this is also our first attempt at something like this. we will certainly take lessons we learn to heart.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: DerekWilson
i've gotten lots o requests to remove lists of vetoed names so we've decided to do that.

this is also our first attempt at something like this. we will certainly take lessons we learn to heart.

Why was this even chosen as the method to select in the first place? Its certainly far from the most credible method, and it isnt exactly being carried out in the most consistent fashion. Looking at whos winning, its obvious that this is entirely based upon knowledgeability and recognizability. This is a solid way to select elites, but a horrible way to select mods. Mods arent here to know the most about what we're discussing, theyre to keep people from acting stupid.

I cant say I have any serious issue with anyone who appears to be winning. But the entire process is a bit strange. For one thing, I can see whos winning before I vote. Theres also no rhyme or reason to the ordering of the candidates, sometimes its alphabetical, sometimes it isnt, but theres obviously a pretty decent advantage (and it shows) to the candidate listed first, unless there is otherwise someone overwhelmingly well known. And whats the point of the single candidate polls anyway?

But did we really need *more* mods to begin with anyway? In the forums I primarily visit nowadays, everyone seems relatively well behaved. I know that Mod is the new elite and all, but I much preferred it back in the days when the mod was a nameless, faceless, unapologetic conglomerate of despotic authority with an iron fist, where any talkback, regardless of justification, would only result in an even harder smacking. That kind of fear kept us common folk from acting out.

 

[dartworth]

this process is only going to create more work for the current mods...

what a terrible idea.

 

[olds]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: DerekWilson
i've gotten lots o requests to remove lists of vetoed names so we've decided to do that.

this is also our first attempt at something like this. we will certainly take lessons we learn to heart.

Why was this even chosen as the method to select in the first place? Its certainly far from the most credible method, and it isnt exactly being carried out in the most consistent fashion. Looking at whos winning, its obvious that this is entirely based upon knowledgeability and recognizability. This is a solid way to select elites, but a horrible way to select mods. Mods arent here to know the most about what we're discussing, theyre to keep people from acting stupid.

I cant say I have any serious issue with anyone who appears to be winning. But the entire process is a bit strange. For one thing, I can see whos winning before I vote. Theres also no rhyme or reason to the ordering of the candidates, sometimes its alphabetical, sometimes it isnt, but theres obviously a pretty decent advantage (and it shows) to the candidate listed first, unless there is otherwise someone overwhelmingly well known. And whats the point of the single candidate polls anyway?

But did we really need *more* mods to begin with anyway? In the forums I primarily visit nowadays, everyone seems relatively well behaved. I know that Mod is the new elite and all, but I much preferred it back in the days when the mod was a nameless, faceless, unapologetic conglomerate of despotic authority with an iron fist, where any talkback, regardless of justification, would only result in an even harder smacking. That kind of fear kept us common folk from acting out.

:heart:

 

[DerekWilson]

heh...

how did i know you'd love that olds

ostensibly you are correct BD2003.

but we are looking at making these new mods more of community leaders -- people who represent the category they are in and contribute to it's growth and development in addition to its moderation. people who already contribute a great deal to their category are well suited to this.

i'll be explaining all this more in better detail in the coming weeks ...

 

[BFG10K]

If you look at the nominations you'll see all sorts of references to "this person is knowledgeable" or "this person has no bias to brand". Both are completely irrelevant to moderation.

Of course they're relevant. Very much so.

How can you have a moderator that knows little/nothing about a forum they moderate? If someone posts an obvious troll like "my Voodoo 3 is faster than my 8000 Ultra", someone that doesn't know anything about graphics cards can't really see it?s a troll.

Unless they always listen to public backlash before moderating anything, but that really isn?t a good way to run things because it means they can?t really make judgment calls for themselves.

Likewise, how can you trust someone to be in position of power that has a known bias/affiliation/agenda with their regular posts?

 

[Greenman]

Originally posted by: DerekWilson
heh...

how did i know you'd love that olds

ostensibly you are correct BD2003.

but we are looking at making these new mods more of community leaders -- people who represent the category they are in and contribute to it's growth and development in addition to its moderation. people who already contribute a great deal to their category are well suited to this.

i'll be explaining all this more in better detail in the coming weeks ...

Wouldn't it have made just a little sense to mention all that before the nominations? I hate to pick nits, but it occurs to me that you've just stepped on your dick. You had us vote on a candidate before telling us what that candidate was going to be doing.
I suppose it doesn't really matter in the long run, but it's an odd way of doing things.

I'm not complaining, I'm just trying to understand.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: DerekWilson
heh...

how did i know you'd love that olds

ostensibly you are correct BD2003.

but we are looking at making these new mods more of community leaders -- people who represent the category they are in and contribute to it's growth and development in addition to its moderation. people who already contribute a great deal to their category are well suited to this.

i'll be explaining all this more in better detail in the coming weeks ...

If I may interject.....based on what I highlighted in bold type....


You have had people who were mods in the past who did not know how to be impartial or unbiased based on how they percieved things even if there were 2 answers that were correct to a question; only that mods answer counted......

Power Supplies are very subjective at best and just because somebody says a certain power supply will do the job just fine does not mean that a certain mod can edit or lock the thread because they happen to iether disagree or just not like a certain power supply.......

Some people have their own agenda`s and people like that do NOT have the best interest of the over all developement or growth of the forum.

Even if they knew 100% what they were talking about and could build a PSU from scratch...there is more to being a mod that the I am right everyone who disagrees with me is wrong attitude!!

With that said-- I am not talking about The GURU -- Jonny!!
I think he would make an excellent mod on these forums!!

Peace!!

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: DerekWilson
heh...

how did i know you'd love that olds

ostensibly you are correct BD2003.

but we are looking at making these new mods more of community leaders -- people who represent the category they are in and contribute to it's growth and development in addition to its moderation. people who already contribute a great deal to their category are well suited to this.

i'll be explaining all this more in better detail in the coming weeks ...

Isnt that what elite members are supposed to be though? Why blur those lines?

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

If you look at the nominations you'll see all sorts of references to "this person is knowledgeable" or "this person has no bias to brand". Both are completely irrelevant to moderation.

Of course they're relevant. Very much so.

How can you have a moderator that knows little/nothing about a forum they moderate? If someone posts an obvious troll like "my Voodoo 3 is faster than my 8000 Ultra", someone that doesn't know anything about graphics cards can't really see it?s a troll.

Unless they always listen to public backlash before moderating anything, but that really isn?t a good way to run things because it means they can?t really make judgment calls for themselves.

Likewise, how can you trust someone to be in position of power that has a known bias/affiliation/agenda with their regular posts?

This is just more evidence you don't really understand what being a moderator is BFG.

Originally posted by: BFG10K
"If someone posts an obvious troll like "my Voodoo 3 is faster than my 8000 Ultra", someone that doesn't know anything about graphics cards can't really see it?s a troll."

That's called an "opinion" not a "troll" and the way you deal with such things is by pointing out evidence on independent sites that back up your opinion. (and even that's not a mod's job) It might be a wrong opinion, but that's not a mods job.

Moreover- that statement could be considered "True" in some circumstances. 3DFX is clearly superior at running Glide, because an Ultra can't at all.

You're in for a BIG surprise when you start "running" the forums BFG.

Surprise #1: You don't "run" anything as a mod. You only enforce violations of TOS, and if you start doing something like say, "I'm going to delete user Xs post because it shows favoritism to one brand!" you'll find yourself removed from being a mod. Ask Derek or Anand himself if you don't believe me- moderation isn't about being the bias police. It's about enforcing TOS, which largely are limited to flames/ads/porn.

Surprise #2: When you moderate at a site, you represent that site and are expected to treat all members equally and not spend all your time arguing with them and using your mod powers to get the last word.


Last but not least, you bet I have an affiliation, and a favorite hardware OEM. I also have a lot of experience moderating, and know that kind of thing isn't part of it. Moderating is about making sure people don't post ads, don't post needless insults to one another, don't post links to porn, don't spam the board, etc..