Topic: Moderator-o-vation
Started by: Clinton R. Nixon
Started on: 12/9/2002
Board: Moderators
On 12/9/2002 at 5:16am, Clinton R. Nixon wrote:
Moderator-o-vation
Ron and I are considering the idea of having an extra moderator for Indie Game Design, RPG Theory, and perhaps GNS Discussion. Who these people will be is not up for discussion, but their role is.
Do the other moderators see this as a positive or negative move? If positive, how would you limit their roles?
On 12/9/2002 at 3:11pm, GreatWolf wrote:
RE: Moderator-o-vation
Is this a workload issue? Are you and Ron being overwhelmed with the number of threads to monitor? Or is it something else?
I think that this factors into the issue somewhat.
Seth Ben-Ezra
Great Wolf
On 12/9/2002 at 4:07pm, Clinton R. Nixon wrote:
RE: Moderator-o-vation
Seth,
It's for two reasons (at least in my view - chime in if you like, Ron):
1) Workload. I don't read every thread here - if I did, I'd have to sit here all day. I read what sounds interesting to me.
2) Respect. Whether it's for reasons well within or well beyond my control, I get little respect here. Me trying to moderate a discussion is like me trying to get attention in a group of basketball players: you see a hand pop up out of the mass every once in a while, and I'm saying something, but you can't hear it. I'm rather tired of that, and thought, "Hey, why not let someone else take the brunt of the abuse for a while?"
That's stating it a bit humorously on purpose.
On 12/9/2002 at 8:26pm, Matt Gwinn wrote:
RE: Moderator-o-vation
2) Respect. Whether it's for reasons well within or well beyond my control, I get little respect here.
Man, I guess I've been away from the Forge longer than I thought. When did this happen? Clinton, just for the record, you have my respect.
I regards to divying out the moderation duties...I think it's a good idea. With all the new Forgites signing up I'm sure the number of threads is getting a little high. I was wondering how you and ROn were managing.
,Matt
On 12/9/2002 at 8:51pm, GreatWolf wrote:
RE: Moderator-o-vation
I agree with Matt, on both counts.
Clinton, those seem like good reasons to get extra moderators on board. Make a good choice, obviously, but those are completely valid.
Seth Ben-Ezra
Great Wolf
On 12/9/2002 at 9:12pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Moderator-o-vation
Just chiming in to say that it sounds like a good idea in general.
But only because the division of labor can save you some headaches. In fact, you might consider going to one moderator per forum (seems to work well for the indie pages).
You are respected, Clinton, though it may not always show. That said, I can understand not wanting to stand in the line of fire of what disrespect does come your way. Totally understandable. Especially given the amount of work you put in otherwise, here.
Mike
On 12/9/2002 at 10:04pm, Le Joueur wrote:
Moderator-O-Vision
Clinton R. Nixon wrote: Who these people will be is not up for discussion, but their role is.
Do the other moderators see this as a positive or negative move? If positive, how would you limit their roles?
Since no one else seems to care to touch the latter, I shall.
Start with a definite 'vision statement,' much like the 'stickies' at the tops of some forums only in more detail and in language clearly understood by the new moderator; talk it over with them make sure they're super clear on it and expect a long but finite debugging 'maiden voyage.'
Add a dose of 'how much we expect you to do.' Should they read every single post to their forum, every single day? Can they skip weekends? (Or weekdays?) Make sure they know how much needs to be done explicitly (posting, 'now cut that out'), directly (Private Messaging, 'take a breather and think before posting'), and indirectly (posting, 'well, here's what the thread seems to be about'). Too much 'hands on' will change the tone of the forum, too little will draw other moderators into doing it (and make it more work than just moderating an extra forum; monitoring a moderator as well).
Finally, before you even approach someone, have a clear discipline practices approach in mind. If there's a problem, you'll need to have a system you and they can be confident will be used; this eliminates the 'and then they turned on me' kinds of feelings. You don't need to turn it into a job, but a little structure goes a long way.
I just want to take my hat out of the ring before anything get said. I think it's a great idea if things are getting too labor intensive, but everyone knows what kind of schedule I have.
Fang Langford
p. s. Hey Clinton; man, you are so wrong. A few sharp tongues and you get the idea you aren't respected? Think of it more as 'stern-daddy' respect; everyone knows you can pull the plug in an instant, but a few know how to 'punch your buttons.'
On 12/9/2002 at 10:09pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: Moderator-o-vation
Hi Fang,
Damn good post. I agree in full.
Everyone, thanks for your feedback on this thread. Keep it up; Clinton and I really need a lot of food for thought on this one.
Best,
Ron
On 12/9/2002 at 10:21pm, Clinton R. Nixon wrote:
RE: Moderator-o-vation
Judging from the posts so far, this is how I envision a 'sub-moderator' role:
1) This person will have the power to split threads.
2) This person will not be expected to read every thread; however, they will be expected to look over the forum at least once daily. Not doing your job here is a subjective thing, to be determined by Ron and I. It's like obscenity - we'll know a slacker when we see one. I don't see this being a big deal, as we won't pick someone we don't already respect.
3) This person will not close or lock threads. They will contact Ron or I if something is out of hand. However, they can feel free to give stern warnings, and get threads back on track.
The splitting threads thing is the most important part, in my opinion. I don't want someone to stifle conversation or be a cop. I'm looking more for a gardener, someone who will prune threads and snip off odd branches to start new threads.
Ron, and other moderators - how does this role definition look?
On 12/10/2002 at 5:03am, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: Moderator-o-vation
Hi Clinton,
This looks like a good start. Perhaps we'll begin with Indie Game Design as the first candidate, what do you think? I also think that Fang's breakdown needs to be part of the official duties/job-description, formally.
Best,
Ron
On 12/10/2002 at 5:45pm, Clinton R. Nixon wrote:
RE: Moderator-o-vation
I tried to make sure I answered all of Fang's questions with this version. Also, Ron, I think Indie Game Design would make a fine first choice (although I think RPG Theory needs it a lot more.) Here's my new iteration - please feel free to comment, Fang.
---
Roles and Responsibilities of a Sub-Moderator
I. Definition
A sub-moderator is someone who is appointed a moderator for a forum that is part of the General Forge Forums. Ron and Clinton are always the moderators of these forums, and a sub-moderator is appointed to assist them.
Sub-moderator is a term used only to designate their position relative to Ron and Clinton; outside of the Moderators forum, they are always called 'moderator.'
II. Reading Responsibilities
As a sub-moderator, you are expected to read your forum every day possible. If you have to take more than one day off reading the forum, notify Ron and Clinton.
'Reading your forum' does not mean reading every new post; it does mean checking the most active threads, and reading as much as you have time for. Not even Ron and Clinton read every post.
A sub-moderator is picked based on ability and respect; therefore, we expect you to be able to police yourself on your reading responsibilities. If a problem occurs on the forum that you are not aware of, this will be a warning that you are not reading responsibly. In the case of a warning, Ron and Clinton have the power to remove you as a sub-moderator.
III. Sub-moderator Roles
Because of software limitations, sub-moderators have all the power of moderators. However, they are expected not to use this power.
As a sub-moderator, your primary role is to guide threads to stay on topic. This may range from contacting posters individually via Private Message, guiding the thread positively (i.e. make a post about the original topic), or guiding the thread negatively (i.e. post a warning, saying 'get on topic'.) In all cases, positive guidance is most preferred, and negative guidance is a last resort.
In addition, you are expected to split threads when an interesting sub-topic emerges from a thread.
You will not close or lock threads under any circumstances. If you feel a thread needs this type of action, contact Ron and Clinton.
IV. Sub-moderator termination
As mentioned in 'II. Reading Responsibilities,' a sub-moderator may be removed at any time if Ron and Clinton feel that the sub-moderator is not living up to his or her reading responsibilities. In addition, a sub-moderator may be removed at any time by a unanimous agreement between Ron and Clinton.
On 12/10/2002 at 6:02pm, Le Joueur wrote:
Looks Good to Me Boss
Hey Clinton, Ron,
Looks good (if a little too formal) to me!
Clinton R. Nixon wrote: Please feel free to comment, Fang.
Roles and Responsibilities of a Sub-Moderator
In addition, you are expected to split threads when an interesting sub-topic emerges from a thread.
The only caution I wasn't able to make completely clear earlier is this one item should be gone over in detail with the candidate so they get the 'vision' of the Forge. I don't really think that it can be explained well for an objective audience (likewise, it isn't as easy as it looks, if you've seen my forum), and I don't think such is worth the time. If you get someone who knows 'when to ask a question,' this won't even be necessary.
Just make sure it's clear so there won't be a need to monitor the sub-moderator. Other than that, I'd say you're golden.
Fang Langford
On 12/11/2002 at 4:18am, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: Moderator-o-vation
Hello,
I was talking with people about this topic today, and here are some of my resulting thoughts.
1) The sub-moderator (that name always makes me think of Namor, the Sub-Mariner, Prince of Atlantis ...) is not a replacement for me and Clinton. He or she will not be solely responsible for the health of the forum, nor even ultimately responsible. Clinton and I will carry out our usual roles in it as well.
2) He or she does not have to respond to each and every thread. The way I see it, the sub-moderator simply keeps an eye on each one. When and if it breaks down intellectually, socially, or topic-wise, the sub-moderator provides guidance or direction, or splits it, or contacts me or Clinton (in case of a shitstorm of some kind). Aside from that, all the sub-moderator has to do is take the usual interest and be willing to join in when the thread is specially interesting.
I hope that deals with some of the concerns that came up today in conversation.
Best,
Ron