PDA

View Full Version : Change Request for the enhancement of the functionality of the site: Moderation



vdhillon
December 7th, 2010, 03:47 PM
I have a Change Request for the enhancement of the functionality of the site related to the Moderation:

1. Automatically include 'individual MODs USER ID' in MODS email, feedback to the user. 90% of the emails I receive from MODS, I am unable to see who sent it to me, thus making it difficult to follow-up with the specific MOD.

2. Enhance MOD process when a MOD send an email (delete, alter, move post, etc) have options
- to reply to individual mod (email, currently exits),
- button in mod's email that member can click to request MOD to come chaupal or private chat
- a button or some kind of 2nd level appeal process that member can go through if not satisfied with first level moderation (even after discussion with mod via email and chat), if there is a current process then it is not visible or user friendly, etc. needs enhancement

Thanks
Vishal

ravinderjeet
December 7th, 2010, 04:05 PM
I have a Change Request for the enhancement of the functionality of the site related to the Moderation:

1. Automatically include 'individual MODs USER ID' in MODS email, feedback to the user. 90% of the emails I receive from MODS, I am unable to see who sent it to me, thus making it difficult to follow-up with the specific MOD.

2. Enhance MOD process when a MOD send an email (delete, alter, move post, etc) have options
- to reply to individual mod (email, currently exits),
- button in mod's email that member can click to request MOD to come chaupal or private chat
- a button or some kind of 2nd level appeal process that member can go through if not satisfied with first level moderation (even after discussion with mod via email and chat), if there is a current process then it is not visible or user friendly, etc. needs enhancement

Thanks
Vishal

bhinn ki bhinnnnnn from my side.

satyeshwar
December 8th, 2010, 07:05 AM
This is somewhat funny. A few years ago, we didn't have the feature where an infraction would go out from the moderator account. I was specifically requested to add this feature by several members (http://www.jatland.com/forums/showthread.php?27696-Kadwa-Sach-!!&p=213961&viewfull=1#post213961). The reason they gave was that creates animosity in between members and moderators. People consider one moderator as "good" and another as "bad". The situation got so bad that some people were even threatening individual moderators. After I added this feature, all such threats went away. While members group all moderators in the same bucket now and consider all of them as "bad", this is much better than saying xyz moderator is bad and complaining about him/her to abc moderator. I have mentioned this several times, if you have a problem with an infraction, feel free to contact all the moderators through the "Contact us" button or reporting a post (which will prompt a message to all the moderators) or sending PMs to individual moderators and asking them to bring it others attention. With the addition of this feature, moderators can feel free to specify their names or be anonymous.
Bottom line is that I am not going to remove this feature as it made moderators feel safe and several members happy.

singhvp
December 8th, 2010, 07:18 AM
This is somewhat funny. A few years ago, we didn't have the feature where an infraction would go out from the moderator account. I was specifically requested to add this feature by several members (http://www.jatland.com/forums/showthread.php?27696-Kadwa-Sach-!!&p=213961&viewfull=1#post213961 (http://www.jatland.com/forums/showthread.php?27696-Kadwa-Sach-%21%21&p=213961&viewfull=1#post213961)). The reason they gave was that creates animosity in between members and moderators. People consider one moderator as "good" and another as "bad". The situation got so bad that some people were even threatening individual moderators. After I added this feature, all such threats went away. While members group all moderators in the same bucket now and consider all of them as "bad", this is much better than saying xyz moderator is bad and complaining about him/her to abc moderator. I have mentioned this several times, if you have a problem with an infraction, feel free to contact all the moderators through the "Contact us" button or reporting a post (which will prompt a message to all the moderators) or sending PMs to individual moderators and asking them to bring it others attention. With the addition of this feature, moderators can feel free to specify their names or be anonymous.
Bottom line is that I am not going to remove this feature as it made moderators feel safe and several members happy.

After landing in the same "bucket", it is presumed that all the MODs are working in unison while taking a decision of imposing ban or issuing infraction to the erring and wayward members and such decisions are taken with unanimity/consensus or at least by absolute majority. How about forming a committee of members to review the ban/infraction notice so that any wrongful/biased decision taken by MODs could be referred to that committee to avoid any innocent casualty. As MODs are also human beings and, at times, may falter in their approach. The possibility of their assuming a "Thanedaari" postures also cannot be ruled out where junior or less assertive MODs fall in line with the SHO.

bishanleo2001
December 8th, 2010, 08:20 AM
bhinn ki bhinnnnnn from my side too.....
This is somewhat funny. A few years ago, we didn't have the feature where an infraction would go out from the moderator account. I was specifically requested to add this feature by several members (http://www.jatland.com/forums/showthread.php?27696-Kadwa-Sach-!!&p=213961&viewfull=1#post213961). The reason they gave was that creates animosity in between members and moderators. People consider one moderator as "good" and another as "bad". The situation got so bad that some people were even threatening individual moderators. After I added this feature, all such threats went away. While members group all moderators in the same bucket now and consider all of them as "bad", this is much better than saying xyz moderator is bad and complaining about him/her to abc moderator. I have mentioned this several times, if you have a problem with an infraction, feel free to contact all the moderators through the "Contact us" button or reporting a post (which will prompt a message to all the moderators) or sending PMs to individual moderators and asking them to bring it others attention. With the addition of this feature, moderators can feel free to specify their names or be anonymous.
Bottom line is that I am not going to remove this feature as it made moderators feel safe and several members happy.

vivekdh
December 8th, 2010, 09:16 AM
hahahahaha committee ke upar ek or committee ban denge fhir, fhir uske upar ek or :) iss se ek fayda to hogga ki har ek member kisi na kisi committe ka member hogga :)


After landing in the same "bucket", it is presumed that all the MODs are working in unison while taking a decision of imposing ban or issuing infraction to the erring and wayward members and such decisions are taken with unanimity/consensus or at least by absolute majority. How about forming a committee of members to review the ban/infraction notice so that any wrongful/biased decision taken by MODs could be referred to that committee to avoid any innocent casualty. As MODs are also human beings and, at times, may falter in their approach. The possibility of their assuming a "Thanedaari" postures also cannot be ruled out where junior or less assertive MODs fall in line with the SHO.

vdhillon
December 9th, 2010, 01:02 AM
This is somewhat funny. A few years ago, we didn't have the feature where an infraction would go out from the moderator account. I was specifically requested to add this feature by several members (http://www.jatland.com/forums/showthread.php?27696-Kadwa-Sach-!!&p=213961&viewfull=1#post213961). The reason they gave was that creates animosity in between members and moderators. People consider one moderator as "good" and another as "bad". The situation got so bad that some people were even threatening individual moderators. After I added this feature, all such threats went away. While members group all moderators in the same bucket now and consider all of them as "bad", this is much better than saying xyz moderator is bad and complaining about him/her to abc moderator. I have mentioned this several times, if you have a problem with an infraction, feel free to contact all the moderators through the "Contact us" button or reporting a post (which will prompt a message to all the moderators) or sending PMs to individual moderators and asking them to bring it others attention. With the addition of this feature, moderators can feel free to specify their names or be anonymous.
Bottom line is that I am not going to remove this feature as it made moderators feel safe and several members happy.

Alrite, agreed there are pros and cons to both options. Though with the current functionality, it is not easy to provide feedback on individual MODS, no way to assess their performance and identify need for further training/mentoring/coaching. Basically, which has direct impact on the "continuous Improvement of the Service Levels" and "Customer Satisfaction" - commonly used matrixes used in IT services organizations. Frpom your own post and others and my own experience, service quality is doggy and random, though has improved from extremely bad to acceptable in last couple of days. Also, are there any periodical surveys to measure 'Cust Sat' or is it ad hoc based on individual members to provide feedback as and whenever? Some of these might not be hard/expensive to implement, but may yield many benefits.

satyeshwar
December 9th, 2010, 06:14 AM
The performance of individual moderators is a decision better left upon us (the moderator committee). Again, if you have comments (positive or negative) against a moderator, feel free to send them over through the above stated methods. We can't have members ganging up on a moderator due to their posts being deleted. What's to prevent a member to ask 10 of his friends to vote negatively against a moderator because he is pissed off at them?
Let me take this opportunity to let everyone know that Mr. Vipin Jyani has left his moderator position as he had taken a new job which kept him very busy. I would like to sincerely thank him for his tenure, however short it may have been.

About the committee post from Mr. VP Singh, I was about to respond in the same lines as Vivek but I see that he beat me to it. I don't see a reason to add more bureaucracy.
-Bagh

vdhillon
December 9th, 2010, 09:34 AM
The performance of individual moderators is a decision better left upon us (the moderator committee). Again, if you have comments (positive or negative) against a moderator, feel free to send them over through the above stated methods. We can't have members ganging up on a moderator due to their posts being deleted. What's to prevent a member to ask 10 of his friends to vote negatively against a moderator because he is pissed off at them?
Let me take this opportunity to let everyone know that Mr. Vipin Jyani has left his moderator position as he had taken a new job which kept him very busy. I would like to sincerely thank him for his tenure, however short it may have been.

About the committee post from Mr. VP Singh, I was about to respond in the same lines as Vivek but I see that he beat me to it. I don't see a reason to add more bureaucracy.
-Bagh

The performance of individual moderators is a decision better left upon us (the moderator committee) There is something called 360-degree feedback that entails feedback from all stakeholders e.g. members, fellow mods, and mgt. The most important stakeholders are members (site exists for them and due to them only) have been left out and told to shut up and put up.

Current, method does not allow to see a specific MODs behavior, hence impossible to provide feedback and hard to improve (no feedback, hardly any improvement). A system that does not allow (or makes it very difficult to identify the culprit MODs) feedback on individuals, greatly reduces the personal accountability of MODs. Current system is too defensive in favor of MOds at the expense of members. Mods exist to render services to members (even if unpaid volunteers). Customers (members) first. A charter of Service to create customer focused organization as opposed to defensive regime.

By the Mods, for the Mods, as an ahsan to members, who (members) who owe it to the powers-to-be to keep coming back and contribute and cope it on the chin :)

satyeshwar
December 9th, 2010, 10:11 AM
Maybe I need to do a better job in explaining my side. Let's say you are upset about a particular post of yours being deleted (seems like the most common complaint). You don't know which moderator took this unconscionable action against you. My point is that you shouldn't care. Feel free to complaint. We the moderators know which moderator did it. We the moderators are responsible for the workings of this site and you need to trust us that we will take fair action. If for some reason, we feel like an action was inappropriate, we will and indeed have in the past, put the members post back on the site. When a members post is deleted by a moderator, most of the time the posts aren't deleted, they are hidden from all members view. They are very much visible to moderators. For serious complaints, we discuss the matter with the individual moderator and the rebuke can go all the way up to the moderator losing their right to moderatorship. Trust me when I say this, but this has also happened in the past.
We can not and will not wash dirty laundry in public. This is not a court in which a moderator is going to stand for a trial for all members to see.
Members are indeed first when it comes to service which means we need to ensure uninterrupted flow of ideas from all members.
-Bagh

vdhillon
December 9th, 2010, 10:25 AM
Maybe I need to do a better job in explaining my side. Let's say you are upset about a particular post of yours being deleted (seems like the most common complaint). You don't know which moderator took this unconscionable action against you. My point is that you shouldn't care. Feel free to complaint. We the moderators know which moderator did it. We the moderators are responsible for the workings of this site and you need to trust us that we will take fair action. If for some reason, we feel like an action was inappropriate, we will and indeed have in the past, put the members post back on the site. When a members post is deleted by a moderator, most of the time the posts aren't deleted, they are hidden from all members view. They are very much visible to moderators. For serious complaints, we discuss the matter with the individual moderator and the rebuke can go all the way up to the moderator losing their right to moderatorship. Trust me when I say this, but this has also happened in the past.
We can not and will not wash dirty laundry in public. This is not a court in which a moderator is going to stand for a trial for all members to see.
Members are indeed first when it comes to service which means we need to ensure uninterrupted flow of ideas from all members.
-Bagh

Satey Bhai, this kinda make sense but not 100%. Though not an ideal solution a balance has to be struck somewhere.

A suggestion: Create a FAQ sticky and may be put your response (MODeration Process) in the FAQ section.

An Observation and corresponding suggestion:
While talking to various people who are associated with the running of the site, I got the feeling that bulk (4 out of 5) feel that it is up to the Jat Samaj to come here (not other way round, where the site takes lead in actively recruiting/attracting members e.g. like google or other sites including volunteer run sites like wiki does), basically 'ashsan on samaj'. I do have respect for self-less unpaid volunteers doing thankless work while receiving bricks and bats but this attitude prevents from rendering betters services and also prevents from seeing the bigger picture and taking steps

Suggestion re: bigger picture and taking teh site to next level:
Few suggestions include:
- appointment of member recruitment and retention committee to devise plans to get members and make members keep coming by transforming the site, sure there are many JL members with experience in this domain ho may have worked for an online site before in professional world,

- or a sponsorship/revenue generation committee who can go out and find sponsors and suggest changes to the site to generate some revenue which can be pumped back into site (e.g. convert site into Hindi as well or enable on cheap handheld device thus making it more accessible to Jats in desi hinterland)

- Strategy committee (continue to chart futrue direction, forge strategic alliances with other sites, integrate with other sites 9e.g. tie up with mobile companies or other institutes in jat hinterland), etc.

- Run it under legal umbrella of NGo or charity. people are more likely contribute to strategic growth and direction for charitable or-owned sites as opposed to a personal-owned site. For example, Navin Gulia, well respected self-less hero, his existing NGOs cna hold the legal title to the site. i am talking about legal ownership, not who sponsors the site.

... all of this can be done by harnessing JL members expertise in these areas, take a long term view, take the site to next stage, run the site like a corp with strategic direction & view without creating bulky bureaucracy, if you are open then we can discuss in chaupal (not today though) or phone).

Thanks for patiently answering all my posts. Apologies, if all of this has already been discussed but done away with. Though things can always can be re-evaluated as situation changes.
Cheers!
Vishal

satyeshwar
December 10th, 2010, 05:21 AM
Satey Bhai, this kinda make sense but not 100%. Though not an ideal solution a balance has to be struck somewhere.

A suggestion: Create a FAQ sticky and may be put your response (MODeration Process) in the FAQ section.


Fair enough. I will add something to this effect.



An Observation and corresponding suggestion:
While talking to various people who are associated with the running of the site, I got the feeling that bulk (4 out of 5) feel that it is up to the Jat Samaj to come here (not other way round, where the site takes lead in actively recruiting/attracting members e.g. like google or other sites including volunteer run sites like wiki does), basically 'ashsan on samaj'. I do have respect for self-less unpaid volunteers doing thankless work while receiving bricks and bats but this attitude prevents from rendering betters services and also prevents from seeing the bigger picture and taking steps


I don't think we are doing an "ahsan on samaj" as you have put it, rather a service. You keep blaming us on this point. Besides your posts being deleted, can you point to anything that shows otherwise?



Suggestion re: bigger picture and taking teh site to next level:
Few suggestions include:
- appointment of member recruitment and retention committee to devise plans to get members and make members keep coming by transforming the site, sure there are many JL members with experience in this domain ho may have worked for an online site before in professional world,

- or a sponsorship/revenue generation committee who can go out and find sponsors and suggest changes to the site to generate some revenue which can be pumped back into site (e.g. convert site into Hindi as well or enable on cheap handheld device thus making it more accessible to Jats in desi hinterland)

- Strategy committee (continue to chart futrue direction, forge strategic alliances with other sites, integrate with other sites 9e.g. tie up with mobile companies or other institutes in jat hinterland), etc.

- Run it under legal umbrella of NGo or charity. people are more likely contribute to strategic growth and direction for charitable or-owned sites as opposed to a personal-owned site. For example, Navin Gulia, well respected self-less hero, his existing NGOs cna hold the legal title to the site. i am talking about legal ownership, not who sponsors the site.

... all of this can be done by harnessing JL members expertise in these areas, take a long term view, take the site to next stage, run the site like a corp with strategic direction & view without creating bulky bureaucracy, if you are open then we can discuss in chaupal (not today though) or phone).

Thanks for patiently answering all my posts. Apologies, if all of this has already been discussed but done away with. Though things can always can be re-evaluated as situation changes.
Cheers!
Vishal

Great ideas. However, you don't need my permission for any of these. Feel free to start these yourself, pull in other members and provide meaningful, constructive ideas. I will love to hear them and will add anything substantial from a technical perspective (Facebook like button being the recent example).
-Bagh

kapdal
December 15th, 2010, 12:23 AM
Here we go again. Moderation is a pet peeve at JL. I banned myself from visiting the site more than 2 months back after 6-7 of my posts were deleted. To be clear, there was no infraction and I did get responses when I questioned moderators. In fact, one or two posts were also un-deleted. Yet, I couldn't help the feeling that I was being unfairly targeted for publicly taking issue with a moderator or two and thought it was best to leave (before getting kicked out ;)). Then out of the blue, I got an email from someone here and felt like checking out the site again. Only to find out that we are still discussing moderation...:)

If Satyeshwar's response betrays a sense of exasperation, I don't blame him. There are rants when there is moderation (why was my post deleted type rant practised by yours truly as well), and there are complaints when there is no moderation (how is this stuff allowed here types rant). Damned if you do and damned if you don't. So although I don't like the hint of "my way or the highway" approach, I think moderators/administrators position is unenviable. You can't really please all the people all the time. And though the rest of my post may be critical in parts, let me be honest. I don't think I'd ever do the thankless job of being a moderator/administrator.

The debate about moderation is, for most of the time, restricted to individuals. And there in lies the flaw, I think. I appreciate Vishal's attempt to put the debate in context of the "system" rather than individuals. The first part for both the owners/administrators as well as users/well-wishers of the site is to realise that it is an important question that needs consideration. That the site is attractive to its target audience is undeniable- most participants are much more active and involved than on any average social networking site. Where the site falters is in retaining the enthusiasts- infact, many people leave with more than a tinge of bitterness. It can't be denied that over a number of years, lots of enthusiastic participants have left for good (or else people get absent for prolonged periods), because of "bad experiences". If user satisfaction and retention is an objective, then it is a problem and accepting that is the first step. Now, as an owner/administrator, one is very much in his/her right to say that it is a private site- I own it- take it or leave it. But then one can't be really ambitious about user satisfaction/retention which would make the site what it claims/wants to be- an attractive social platform. I proceed with the post assuming that is the real objective.

I see the moderation issue from 2 perspectives- on WHAT principles should moderation be done and HOW it should be done. Let's look at WHAT first. There are 2 types of moderation errors that can be made- Type A (allowing something that should not be allowed) OR Type B (not allowing something that should be allowed). In my opinion, the goal should be to minimize Type B errors, even if you commit some type A errors. While there would always be cribs on the content of certain posts/threads (Type A errors) that were left unmoderated, it is unlikely to generate such strong feelings as to make someone quit JL in disgust. What peeves people the most is when their freedom of speech is violated, that is there posts are deleted or they are infracted/banned. It not only peeves the person concerned, but others too who are his/her friends or generally in favor of what he/she was saying. Even on principled grounds, censorship contravenes freedom of speech only in the most extreme cases. In my opinion, the approach should be not to intervene, unless it is absolutely necessary (abusive, threatening language or trolling, etc.). What is absolutely necessary should be defined (most of it is already done on forum rules), ensuring it is specific.

Let's look at the more important HOW part now. What peeves people is a perception of moderation bias. The feeling that my post was selectively targeted. I feel that having a bias is but natural for anyone. The problem arises when bias leads to selective moderation. One can debate whether bias exists in reality or not. But what can't be denied is that such a perception exists and that in the court of public opinion, perception matters more than reality. The perception becomes stronger when one sees similar or worse cases that were left unmoderated. Even if one assumes perfect and unbiased moderators, this is bound to happen as there are a number of posts everyday and only a few moderators. This is not a day job- it is volunteer work that can only be done in leisure time. It would be stupid to expect moderator(s) to go through each and every post. What follows is a piecemeal approach. Like someone may tell moderator about a particular post (or the mod finds it on his own) and quick action follows. In most cases, that is shift+delete, as the approach is that of firefighter- throw a ton of water at what is a mere spark. As one is trying to prevent a bigger fire. Then apparently an eye is kept on the "accused", that is his posts are given special focus. So even a mild "crime" by this person is punished while bigger ones (applying same yardstick) go unpunished. In case of follow-up "crimes" by the same person, easiest option is to infract/ban the person. This is equivalent of sending an errant child outside the class so that he doesn't infect the others with his dissent (some of who may have been naughtier but just escaped the teacher's attention). Also note how a moderator has become a party in conflict here- can one really practise objective unbiased thought on a conflict that one is part of? Theoretically, the option to escalate to moderator committee exists. But by then in most cases, the embittered user has taken up cudgels against everyone involved in running the site. In such a partisan environment, it is unrealistic to expect a mod committee to undermine its own authority by taking action against its own member. It may have happened in exceptional circumstances earlier, but the norm appears to be much different.

The point I am trying to make here is that this is an issue of how the system is set up. The best of moderators would have to use the same approach in the current system. So any solution has to deal with the system. One system, that in my opinion, targets all the issues above is to have a two-tier moderation. At the first level, the moderator right should be with the owner of the thread (the person who started it). Instantly, you take care of the volume issue. This person is most incentivised to look at the health of his/her thread. He is the one most likely to be following it in detail. Moreover, he doesn't have to adopt the "policeman" approach of moderation. If he thinks someone is derailing the thread, he can afford to discuss it with the person to resolve it mutually without resorting to brute force (shift+delete). In case of abusive language, he can afford to spend time to edit the post and explain it to the poster. In case he thinks that the thread has been hijacked or derailed or that it has served its purpose, he can conclude and lock the thread. He would still have the "delete" option. But his "delete" would trigger the matter to the forum moderator (current moderators) who would then decide on the matter. The forum moderator could be approached by members if they think their posts have been unfairly edited or that some bad posts have been left unmoderated.

There are some checks and balances in the two-tier system that the current system lacks. Right now, if you think a moderator is selectively targeting you, you can probably complain. But if no merit is found in your case (and let's be honest that there is an insider-outside equation here), you have no option left on JL. In the two tier system, if an individual targets your posts selectively, you have a right to appeal. If the appeal finds no merit, you have reason to introspect (two unrelated people at different levels finding the same issue is better than one person/group finding an issue). But even in this case, your participation option goes away only on that thread. You are free to start your own thread and if you had a genuine grouse on the way the thread was run that other users share, then your thread would become more popular. Basically the system allows for healthy competition. If someone wants good participation on his thread, better moderate it well. The forum moderators, on the other hand, get specific cases, as opposed to their extremely general mandate of finding, investigating and correcting "deviant" behavior. The new situation would allow them to act more as peacemakers and arbiters between individuals rather than making them a party to every conflict (like in the current system). The new system would also provide an avenue to identify moderator talent. Those who moderate well would get more participation and would be complained against less, thus providing useful information to decision-makers on who to "promote" as forum moderators. Last, but definitely not the least, it enhances user experience by making everyone a stakeholder. Users are bound to feel happier and more involved with a more active role to play.

I hope I am not stepping on anyone's toes with this. Criticism is welcome. The idea could be brainstormed and improved/discarded. I honestly think it could be a game changer.
Disclaimer: It may not be an original idea. May have been suggested in this or slightly different form earlier. Merit of the idea is more important than ownership.

satyeshwar
December 15th, 2010, 01:05 AM
Dear Kapil,
I was reading your post with a somewhat incredulous look on my face? How could someone who has never really talked with me on a personal basis, share the exact same thoughts as I? I would like to thank you for such a thought provoking post and welcome you back for others like this to our site. You have correctly identified the perils of moderation. I would even go one step further and say that after a moderator has given an infraction or two against a member, the member would consciously or unconsciously try to take it out against the moderator in some form or the other. The rational ones would like to try to resolve the matter amicably by talked with the moderator committee. For most part however, what happens is a frivolous post written by the member in any of the sections of Jatland publicly bashing the moderators. The attempt is not to get to some peaceful conclusion to the matter, rather to garner support towards the woes of the members with a moderator effigy burning ceremony and prompt calls of leaving Jatland for some XYZ website. So far, I believe you are still with me on this, right?

Where you and I diverge is the two tier moderation proposal. Believe me when I say this, I have given it some serious thought over the years and every time come to the conclusion that this does not work any better either. First of all, there is a technical challenge on how to go about doing this as the main forum technology doesn't allow for a provision to allow authors to gain moderation powers on their threads. Should we limit it to threads? Should you be allowed to delete any other members comments on your posts? Should you be allowed to alter the contents of other members posts? Surely that can't go well as authors can severely alter the contents of any posts. A simple sentence from a member like "I am for world peace" could be changed to "I love swiss cheese" :). There is no going back once a post is altered so while moderators may be able to tell the author has just changed something, they can't tell what they changed it from, and restore it back to its original version. Should members who are themselves under moderation be allowed to moderate their own threads? They can just change their stance after 5 months on their own thread and pose as if they never said something. So lots of technical headache that makes this a near impossibility.

The second major problem after the technical challenge is how can you trust a member to be a moderator. You agree that moderation style is different for everyone. We only have 5 moderators here and just to get all of them on the same page can be an issue sometimes, just imagine if you had hundreds of little moderators running around. On one thread, the author may allow anything, on another nothing at all. One member may be curious to listen to dissenting opinions while another may only allow consenting opinions. One member has a personal vendetta against another and would allow everyone else's posts except this guy/gal's. This could infuriate the other member so much so that they start their own competing thread on the same topic not allowing the first member to post anything on their thread. A third member could join the fray and say "to hell with both of you, I will start my own thread". All others are caught in the middle, which of the three threads should they post upon?? :confused: This increases moderators headaches. Now, they have one thread to moderate, but in this case, they may have multiple. You will agree with me that the end result is a lot more hotch-potch and a lot less cohesion. We simply can't allow members to go wild.

Finally, I am against any second level tier of moderation as it adds more to the bureaucracy. At this juncture, people just have to post something that passes the moderators eyes. In your proposal, they have to go through both authors and moderators. What if author likes a post and moderator doesn't or vice versa. Should they be allowed to un-delete each others deleted posts? Should members be treated as the various state governments that can handle their own internal affairs and the federal government (i.e. the moderators) have no authority to clamp down or are moderators still free to interfere? Trust me, we can live without additional bureaucracy.

For all these points, I have to humbly disagree with you on this two tier solution.
-Bagh

vicky84
December 15th, 2010, 04:44 AM
Bagh,

You might be right in saying that we may end up in adding more bureaucracy when we allow two-tier approach. But giving Mods too much power is also another problem which members are facing(It reminds me of dictatorship) .

Example: In past, too much power allowed some moderators to even stop discussing about their moderation skills. They used to delete/lock those threads when someone pointed out their incompetent skills. That was a true example of suppressing voice of members. It happened quite recently. Thanks to some change in moderation(Recent) which is allowing members to discuss the matter publicly so that everyone can be a part of it and discuss it.

P.S: I know there is provision called contact us to discuss about these matters but it's not suitable in every scenario when you consider a lot of other factors.

VirJ
December 15th, 2010, 10:10 AM
First of all, thanks to those who are willing to spend their time for others. Appreciate them for doing this tedious and thankless job. I personally don't think Moderation is a Rocket science. All it need is a willing attitude, time, dedication and clear instructions. What is lacking here is clear instructions , a set of clear instructions and guidelines for each forum. In my opinion, moderators don't have clear instruction on what should be moderated neither members know the clear guidelines. We do have a member's agreement which is very general. What is needed is a clear, well defined and agreed policy(by all) which need to be made sticky on each on each forum. The result would be member would know what would be deleted/edited and moderators would know what need to be deleted/edited. At the moment there is no process and without a well defined process a team cannot work. When a member raise question, he can be pointed to the agreed policy based on which his post is edited and all has agreed to it. As mentioned above, even moderators are at present divided on moderation issue and that make moderation inconsistent which ultimately irk members and moderators for obvious reasons. So in morning they have different moderation experience, afternoon different and in the evening something different(just to say). SO they think moderators are being biased or incompetent(which is not the correct word though). The process need to be updated on timely basis as per the need/suggestion. Someone advised that off topic shouldn’t be deleted but I think they should be at least on some forums like Jat history, current affairs, social res and general talk as they can derail a good thread and put off some contributing member who would think their contribution went in futile. In such forum leg pulling and personal remarks need to be controlled as because of this lot of senior members have left. We need them more than abusers and personal commentators. Abusers/personal commentator can have fun in humor and time pass section but at their own expense. I dont think this should be compromised and I don't like our policy of compromise here. Moreover a visitor and other readers would be impressed and ultimately it would make site popular and raise the standard of discussion. In time pass and humor section off topic should be allowed. No one like people who look above our shoulders. Members will always complain when they feel they are controlled however if there are defined policies majority can understand and would cooperate. There would still be a few whose ego got bruised when there post would be deleted/edited or even moved but if there is a clear policy they can be taken care of. The real problem arise when people don’t get an explanation/reason/answer. If there is a clear policy the majority would understand why and it would be easier for a MOD to explain why. another thing is a Mod can make a genuine mistake so instead of making fuss about everything members should first try contacting all mods. They might see their post undeleted/restored! A transparent and clear process, I think, is what we need and it will reduce the number of question member raise, I guess. Again, its not hard and it just need willingness and time to reach on a mutual, clear, well defined and consented process. All other successful online communities has done it, so no doubt, we can do it as well. Moderators are very important part of this process and they should not keep quiet instead openly express themselves on these issues and add value to this process.

kapdal
December 16th, 2010, 12:11 AM
Dear Bagh,

Thanks for considering the proposal and your response. I agree with your comments about the issue with general members' behavior in dealing with moderators. As I said earlier, the current system is set up in such a way that it inherently puts members and moderators at loggerheads. Both are bound to feel that the other side is not being reasonable and both would have merit in their arguments.

One can reasonably argue that no system is perfect and there would be some issues with any system. But the embitterness caused by the current system is so much that many enthusiastic participants have quit the portal over the years. While we may only recall those who quit after a vocal protest, there are many others who just leave silently. I have done that myself, so I know what I am talking about. Going through old threads, one sees so many participants that have not returned for years- people who till a point of time were very enthusiastic participants. While there could be other reasons, the pattern and anecdotal evidence suggests that this is an overwhelming cause. While both sides may make mistakes (and probably members make much more), the feeling of being "targeted", "dictated", "bias" and "helplessness" eventually leading to disillusionment and quitting happens with members. The basic idea behind my proposal is not so much to improve the quality of moderation (may be a byproduct), but to reduce these "admin vs member" conflicts that leads to member dissatisfaction and to make members stakeholders thus enhancing their user experience.

It is not my case that a two-tier system would be a panacea for all the ills of the current system. What you raised were very valid concerns. They was very helpful in modifying the proposal. I'd elaborate a process that should account for the major procedural concerns. There could be other ideas as well. What is clear, atleast to me, is that the current system causes unrepairable harm that no well wisher of the site would be happy with. Whether a two-tier system provides a solution or something else, could be debated and tried. I understand that any big change can't be pushed through just on a hunch. But a reasonable reform could be attempted on a pilot scale- one forum or even sub forum. Afterall no amount of thinking is as good as trying it for real.

I'd start with the modified proposal and then talk about 3 of your concerns in reverse order, for reasons that would be obvious later. Any feature of the proposal could be changed for better or for ease of implementation. I am sure there would still be things to finetune.

Proposal:
Let's not make the first tier guys moderators. Let them be thread managers. Let them not have any ability to edit or delete a post. Let them just have an ability to flag a post with comments. If the thread manager flags a post, it gets hidden from other users but still exists in the source code with comments that mods can see. Now the thread manager should discuss the issue directly with the member. The member may agree with the manager or both may agree to disagree. If latter is the situation OR if a post remains flagged after a defined time frame (say 24 hours), then the moderator steps in and takes a final decision. In case any member has an issue with a post that the manager hasn't flagged, he should contact the thread manager first. Again they either mutually resolve the situation. Or the member is not satisfied, he can use "Report Post", the way he can do it now. Reported post goes to the mod (like now), who discusses the situation with thread manager before taking a decision. Further, each thread manager can state in the beginning (or clarify later) the rules of discussion (like if one to one off-topic banter is allowed or not). If his flagging is not on those principles, anyone can point it out to him easily.

Imp. Benefits:
1. Thread manager has the incentive not to tick off people from his thread through arbitrary flagging as well as the incentive of attracting people to his thread by ensuring a good discussion. Currently, mods only have a mandate of ensuring healthy discussions, hence by design they are likely to err on the side of more censorship even if it is not needed.
2. Unlike a mod, thread manager also has much more time at his leisure to deal with each post on his thread.
3. The privilege of drastic action (delete, edit) is still with moderators. So we exercise some gun control, ensuring more dangerous weapons are not with civilans..:).
4. The mods no more have to do the most impossible task of being all 3- detective (detect issues), prosecutor (argue those) and judge (decide). Rather, they take on a worthier mantle of being honourable judges. On each thread, they have an assigned guy who identifies the issue for them with arguments and that too after giving his first shot to resolve it. If he is not good enough, the mods should find out issues from others via the defined process. So the mod is in a much better position to judge the issue after hearing both sides. If no one finds an issue that the mod considers an issue, then a mod may still intervene on a well defined strong reason (say abusive post). But not on small grounds like "off-topic"/"irrelevant".
5. Most crucially, this system significantly reduces the conflict between admins and members. A member can't feel that he is being targeted by the admins as he has not been identified by them. If he is identified by diff. people on different threads, then he is indeed causing nuisance and he'd know that. Conversely, by same logic, a nuisance maker would get multiple signals to reform from non-authoritative sources. Even if it leads to member-member conflicts (why did you flag this and not this type rant), it is much better than member-admin conflict that leads to significantly higher degree of heartburn. A really big issue with an admin makes you quit the site, a really big issue with another member merely makes you avoid his threads. And if people start competitive threads, so be it. If someone is being petty, he'd have to do it in full public gaze- usually a strong enough deterrent.

Concerns and Mitigating Factors

1. Bureaucracy: I see a two-tier approach as a decentralisation of authority, rather than adding needless bureaucracy. Low bureaucracy in itself is not an ideal. The bureaucracy needs to be right sized. A collector left on his own can't ensure good governance in a district. It is much more efficient that he is assisted by BDOs or sarpanchs who have an eye and ear for the ground situation. This approach is similar, just decentralising some authority without giving any crucial powers away. The modified proposal should take care of all the concerns raised by you on the bureaucratic side- basically there is a defined process and in any conflict, mod's word prevails.

2. Logistics: The second problem cited by you was primarily of logistics. In the modified proposal, the first level guy is not a moderator. So he is not involved in any decision making process of the site like mod committee. So there is no need to get lots of people on board before taking a decision. He is just incharge of his own thread. As for people laying diff. ground rules for diff. threads, I see no harm in it. This is a reasonable diversity that must be allowed. You automatically take care of "my thread was derailed" kind of rant. If I start a thread where I only want very serious posts and no random chit-chat, I make it clear upfront and then administer it likewise. Vice-versa, if I want people to have no-holds-barred fun without outraging anyone's modesty- ditto. If I don't stick to my own rules, I'd face public embarrassment. And any member can see the rules thus allowing him to decide where to post what sort of comment.

3. Technical: I think the revised proposal should take care of the very valid concerns mentioned on this aspect. What it doesn't take care of is how to execute it. I think similar technology exists on other forums, but not being an IT person- I have no idea of the technical challenge in this. Finally, you are the one who has to do the hard work (or maybe someone can volunteer?). So I'd have no answer if you say it is impossible.

Kapil