I am sort of curious about where this type of discussion will take us. As the admin of a growing forum, defining the exact duties of moderators is something that is often on my mind. In my perspective there is the constant battle of finding the ideal balance between tyranny and anarchy. Both are the opposite extremes, and just as detrimental to the health of a forum.

So what types of things would you expect from the ideal moderation team? Are there any examples of forums you know of that fit the ideal? What is it that a good moderation team actually does for us as a whole?

(I will state now that if this thread even hints at looking like it's turning into a "bash the moderators" thread, I will ask for it to be locked. That is not my purpose here.)

To not over react and them to research in deep before banning someone.

All tyranny all the time. Spelling "rogue" as "rouge" is an immediate permaban.

It depends what kind of forum it is. Being an advlt I prefer not being prevented from swearing. I don't suffer a mental breakdown every time I see a rude word. Overall I prefer the 'less is more' approach from moderators - remove spam, delete anything that could get the site owners into legal trouble, ban sockpuppets, generally keep the forum tidy... that's about it. I use another forum where you can insult other forum members as much as you want. It makes for some funny discussions.

To crush their enemies, to see them driven before them, and to hear the lamentations of the trolls.

When you have a small, tight-knit community moderation should be kept to a bare minimum. This doesn't mean that you can't have rules of conduct, or even "hard and fast" rules for some situations, but the moderation should be kept fluid and lean more towards reactive rather than proactive. These forums had minimal moderation until Morrowind was released and by in large they survived just fine. I can think of situations where more active moderation would have helped but overall things were fine.

With a larger community, particularly one where everyone doesn't know everyone else, active moderation becomes more important as do more clearly defined rules. When Bethesda first added moderators we tried to keep things very flexible, for example there was no set number of warnings before a ban. Unfortunately rather than being flexible it really just made the enforcement inconsistent and even if actual problems were rare the situation wasn't ideal. Moving to a four strikes scenario, with reductions available for good behavior, improved things considerably.

I'd say the most important thing is to have a system that is developement to fit the situation you have. I know that may sound obvious but beyond a few egregious problems (like piracy or pormography) I'd stay away from putting together rules or policies for situations you haven't encountered yet, unless you are very certain you will be encountering them. This doesn't mean that you shouldn't be aware of how forum X has dealt with problem Y but if Y has never occurred on your forum there's little reason to implement X.

Hungry Donner has it right.

--depends on the forum (advlt oriented, children oriented, general, etc).
--the larger and/or more popular the forum, the more important consistency of moderation becomes, which usually means more static, defined rules and objectives for the forum as a whole.

Should it also be addressed that this forum represents a major media company and conduct by members would be under greater scrutiny than a private forum (I'm thinking more or less legal protection)?

Members don't actually 'represent' the company as such, the legal protection would be what they allow on their official forums

This is what I meant. Legal protection for Zenimax, not registered users.

It is a moderators job to moderate their moderation moderately

Yup

One thing that I have noticed from various online communities that I have been apart of or just an observer is that an invite only approach to moderators is ideal. The person who desperately wants the power of authority, I've found, is much more likely to abuse that power. The best moderators are people who aren't power hungry and don't really care if they are a moderator or not.

To me the one thing that should always be against the rules is Trolling. Anyone that’s making topics especially to piss people off is just hurting the forum, chat, wiki, whatever. That is the number one priority for me.

Honestly, I try to treat a forum like I would a party. What’s acceptable depends on the people at the party and the size. At a small get together of close friends, people don’t need to be as polite. They know each other, and understand that any insults that are said are simply in jest. Now at a larger get together, things are a little stricter. Using your friend’s nickname (which also happens to be a racial slur) is not acceptable behavior. It also changes by the group’s composition. If it is a bunch of college kids, expect alcohol to be present, and a certain level of drunkenness is acceptable. If it’s at a Baptist church, then being drunk is not acceptable.

The moderator’s job is to make sure that the people at the party have a good time. That means speaking to (and eventual removal) of people that aren’t respecting the conventions of the group. If you’re moderation is too strict or too loose for your participants, then they’ll leave. Of course, if your attempting to make your forums a certain way, you may have no problem with some people leaving voluntarily. For example, I know quite a few people who have left this forum because our level of moderation was constricting to them. I’ve also seen forums that had far too little moderation for my tastes, and so I didn’t join them.

It is true that this being a company forum dictates certain things. For example, at the bottom of the page, you can that our privacy statement is ESRB certified. The things we do because we’re a company forum aren’t necessarily bad. In fact, most of it means we have to do the right thing and not be lazy about it.

As for who you want as a moderator, I prefer 18+ people. That’s not to say there aren’t people at a lower age that’d be fine moderators, but they’re not plentiful, and it’s hard to tell. There’s no substitute for the experiences of dealing with people for a long period of time, and the older you get the more experiences you have. You want someone who’s got a stable personality (no explanation needed), a confrontational personality (non-confrontational people don’t handle the job well), and maybe a little bit of a private approach (Dealing with problems behind closed doors and not in the middle of the forum is a plus). They also need high self-esteem, and a dark sense of humor.

Oh, and deacon's absolutely correct. People that want to be moderators are bad moderators.

This is a lot of rambling and stream of consciousness.

Actually, true http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AnarchyIsChaos. But that's a tangent that doesn't really need exploration.


Would my rougish rogue survive?


On important thing to cover before it comes up is complaints. A clearly defined process reduces the unpleasantness (going straight to making a public thread can be like adding vinegar to fresh milk), makes dealing with them go smoother, and it helps in the building of rules.


Yeah, sheriffs by election is just asking for trouble :shakehead:. Whoever is running the place should pick people based on their skills, character, and compatibility with the overall vision of how the place should be.

I whole heartedly agree with the sentiment about needing people with a confrontational personality. A moderator can't be afraid of whos (sp?) toes they're stepping on when they are kicking / banning someone who genuinely broke the rules. That isn't to say you want an incredibly argumentative person, just someone who will stand their ground and who will deal out kicks or bans regardless if they like the person or not. I've been irritated on a number of occasions when people don't enforce the rules because it involves a person they have taking a liking to. This isn't to say either that you forgiveness isn't an option, but you need someone who is going to not play favorites. I also prefer blunter moderators than moderators who try to sugar coat things.

Having been a moderator for a fairly large anime site(I also wrote review articles for them as well), I have to agree with just about everything Ratwar said. Actually, the more I think about it, I agree with everything he said. It definitely depends on size, age restriction, what kind of forum it is, the general type of people you're expecting to attract. Oh, and I double and even triple the idea that people who WANT to be moderators, aren't fit to be them. We had a guy who pestered us and pestered us about becoming a mod. He was a long time forum participant, with a pretty good track record, so we finally discussed it and decided to give him a trial period. It did NOT go very well. He banned a dozen people within 2 days for minor and even non-existent infractions of the rules, and in one case, because the person just disagreed with his opinion. He literally turned into a different person once he had power in his hands. When we took away his moderator status, he threw a tantrum on the forums, spammed the crap out of them, and then left.

Definitely. There are a number of private forums that deal with problems more democratically, or at least with a jury of peers, and for a smaller community I think that is an excellent system. Here it just wouldn't work even if it wasn't effectively barred by the Terms and Conditions of Use (which promise that moderation of a specific member will be kept private).

I think we run things pretty well over at the Gearbox forums to be honest. Users get a more than a reasonable amount of freedom to discuss things (which I think is good), while we're still pretty good at cracking down on flaming and unconstructive posts (which is what really matters). It's pretty quiet and easy there nowadays though, maybe except for the Duke section, but I tend to stay out of there since we brought over some mods from the old Duke forums over at 3D realms anyway.

I remember we had a bad period a couple of months after the Borderlands release though, where the old CM had to make a temporary rule to tempban all flamers. That quieted it down pretty fast. Heh, something else that happened only a short period after I became a mod was that we had to crack down hard on 'backseat moderators'. Says a lot about the community when so many wanted to contribute to making the forums a better place. Went a little overboard though, but it's mostly good now.

This is really cool and useful. I applied to be a moderator of a new forum not too long ago and Leydenne helped me out a lot.I didn't get it and was pretty disappointed. To be honest I still don't think its moderated enough. Particularly in the debates section. On the forum were all very civil and engage in rational, logical debate about, religion and politics. However there are a few troll threads that if I were moderator I would definitely lock. Its always seemed kind of rude to volunteer yourself as a moderator because you are chosen. But I can't help feeling I should volunteer because there are threads that crop up when the US moderators are asleep that are bad.

Not to take this off topic but I think the Moderation on this site is perfect. It's not too strict but it's strict enough where you step out of line a bit you'll be friendly warned not to do it again or else.

Now to answer the question I think it's simply a situation where it's a fine line. You don't want to be a dictator "You can't say the color red" but then again you don't want spam like "Air Jordans for sale 40 dollars, buy now at (Insert website)".

Several years ago I was an Administrator / Moderator / King of Codes for a role-playing forum - I did everything from make sure that the forum was properly backed up to reading through applications to join the game (oh, and code them a 100% custom PHP Shop system, which I am still insanely proud of).

The forum was almost the exact opposite of these forums - small, very tight-knit, and ruled by a few people with iron fists. I can't even get into the nitty-gritty details - they would get me banned from here (:P). Needless to say, the necessary qualifications to get into the forum game were extremely high - we prided ourselves on being elitist. We put ourselves on pedestals.

As to my own views on moderation / administration, everything in moderation. The rules are there for a reason, but honest mistakes are honest mistakes. I have always believed that no topic should be off limits on (specifically advlt) forums - but those topics should be discussed in a relatively mature manner (which, needless to say, doesn't always occur). I have likewise always believed that issues between users are a heavy combination of the medium (subtle meanings / sarcasm / playfulness can be easily lost in text) and the simple clash of personalities. Conflict resolution is paramount - I remember several times when I mediated between users on the role-playing forum in PMs, but that was easily accomplished due to the small nature of the forum and my seemingly boundless free time.

I was called a tyrant once, all I tried to do was to force the population from the old forum to the new system.

I agree and this forum with three other forums I'm member in has a relaxed attitude about the moderation of a forum imo. These four forums is my first choice when go online to find out what news there is to read and what has happen since I was logged in the last time. :happy:

I used to administrate an (admittedly very small) RPG community forum, and I can only agree with a lot of what's already been posted.

I would add that too much leniency is something to be wary of - in the past I've seen so much time and energy spent debating over or giving second chances to disruptive/harmful users that it becomes a drawn-out farce, when in all likelihood said users are merely trolling and not worth the grief. Such users will gladly argue and squirm to the last, wasting moderators' time - and worse, leeching away that attention from sincere, constructive users. In many forums, the moderators' responsibilities will include helping nondisruptive users (moving threads, creating stickies, etc), so dealing with trolls is a drain on the time they can give, rather than their purpose.

I think this is an important point as well:


If someone really really wants to be a moderator, one has to ask the question why.

In general, I am a fan of very hands-off moderation. Ban bots, warn people who are being total [censored]es, delete spam. Most forums I visit\moderate\administrate are exactly like that.

Whether this works or not depends on the community. I lurk on a forum thats very large but is moderated on the principals of "don't be a total jerk all the time." It works, because the forum is frequented mostly by advlts or mature teens who can handle behaving themselves in tough situations without the need for constant surveillance. The BSF, on the other hand, is frequented primarily by teen gamers, who aren't exactly the most mature demographic (in general). The presence of half a hundred subforums also doesn't help, since things are more likely to go unnoticed and get out of hand. Its not about the size of the community, I think, but about the interpersonal relationships within it and the general feel.

To be honest, I'd switch the rules around a bit if I was in charge (more focus on eliminating redundant topics, more stringent moderation of controversial issues like MW vs. OB, less focus on scrubbing our collective mouthes with soap ), but over all I think the moderators on this forum do a good job.