Per Ken's suggestion:

Quote:
If you wish, start a new thread to discuss the pros and cons of moderation, how far to go, etc.

I believe that the forums need more moderation, however, there is a very delicate balance that needs to be maintained.  We certainly do not want "censorship".

I believe moderators should be "anonymous", have limited powers and be closely supervised by Ken.

Hi Hal,

Seems like we've been down this road before. Why the renewed interest in this subject? Diid I miss something?

IMO mod's should be like uniformed cops on the beat, not plain clothes cops. Also there powers should be unlimited, including "ban for life power." I do agree they should be closely 'supervised' by the creators.

Take Care
Rico

Quoting richierich:

Quote:
Certainly they should not have excess power of persuasion on a topic through personal bias. That would be a disaster.

In my opinion, moderators should not be involved in a topic at all, only in the behaviour of the parties participating in the discussion/brawl.

I still think that the reputation system has some advantages, possibly in combination with a moderator like function.
Means: Mandatory reasoning for a negative vote, which should be monitored by a or best two (for want of a better word) moderator(s). This mod(s) approve(s) or reject(s) the negative vote.
The next thing would be the consequences of multiple received negative votes which should (could) be a lot harder than they are now.

The advantage of this system would be that you get reproducable results, because the consequences of a certain number of received negatives can be published in advance.
This would limit the power of the moderators to the necessary value and possibly strengthen the self-healing capacities of this forum.

I think Moderators should be:

- responsible and mature
- trustworthy and trusted
- aware of the rules
- flexible
- patient
- fair and unbiased
- relatively invisible

I agree with the comment that self-policing is preferred. Users should be allowed to have vigorous and fun interactions, make mistakes, recover from mistakes, laugh, cry, complain. Reputation system would stay pretty much as it is, in order to encourage self-policing.

But when all else fails, or when the most severe, agredious or consistently abusive behavior occurs, a moderator should take effective action, silently if possible, and not be required to defend those actions, and certainly not engage in any debate or dispute.

There probably needs to be a mod designated for each forum, anonymous (of course still with a user id). One actual person could moderate more than one forum. Ken would decide which he and / or Gerry would actively moderate.

Of course all moderators would be selected by Invelos and be be accountable to Invelos, perhaps even compensated in some way, subject to continued quality performance.

In other Forums where I participate, I notice that the mods are usually open to receive PMs, but rarely answer them and often ignore them. Getting them to act is like shaking the Heinz bottle. They move only when absolutely necessary, but when they do, the action is swift and final.

Oh, and I think this is also important: Moderators would not make policy, only enforce them. Only the Owner(s) would make policy and define the rules.

There have been multiple attempts to self-police around here, and none have been successful.  Several members have recently left and made sure we knew it was due to the treatment they have received here.  How many others have left and we just didn't notice?  How much stronger could our community be if we were a little more civil to everybody?

I love a good debate, and sometimes they can be quite energetic.  But I never see a situation where an overly aggressive or abusive tone is necessary.  And personal attacks should never be tolerated, even in response to an attack whether it is real or perceived.  With moderators, we should never feel the need to 'defend' ourselves from an attack. 


Given that, I think we have a need for multiple kinds of moderators here.


First, we need generic moderators to take care of abusive posts and personal attacks.  They can also get involved to keep a topic on track.  This can include deletion of posts, moving posts to a new (or other appropriate) thread, or PMs to nudge someone before something goes too far.  In the case of abusive posts and personal attacks, they should have the power to at least suspend an account if not lock it completely.  I do believe that a single moderator should not have the immediate power to ban a member.  That should take a consensus vote of the moderators and possibly a member of the Invelos staff accepting the recommendation.


The second, and probably most urgent need that I see would be experts on the contribution rules.  Many of the posts that have generated the interest in moderation could be avoided or eliminated if we had a timely response from either Invelos or an Invelos appointed representative to clarify the rules.  The self appointed experts that currently fill this role do not have the power to render a decision, so we usually end up with several different opinions all based on an 'expert' understanding of the rules.

This also gives Invelos information that can be used to modify the wording of the rules that may have caused confusion.  It is also an opportunity to see if changes to the rules are either necessary, or desired.  If we minimize the arguments over what the current rules are, we can hopefully have a better discussion of proposed changes when we see an issue.

Hi Guys,

During my period of dis-satisfaction at Invelos, I joined 'movie forums' they have a reputation system plus mods. The reputation are open, in that you know who gave good or bad star. DvDnextCopy forum, has moderation plus, only the choice of giving openly good stars. Both systems have merit & could improve the situation here.

Moderators should closely reflect the morals & values of the 'creator', ultimately this is a no brainier, as the selection process will naturally pick, that type individual.

Certain topics will naturally cause 'hurt feelings' which leads to 'flames' which yield cries for moderation. How about a section of the forum, for these topics, post at your own risk, where intervention will not occur? Mods could monitor for spillover, anger carrying over to the moderated section of the forum. Wow! This is becoming more complicated. How about a ban on certain topics, eliminates problems, but stifles speech/thinking.

The arrow system came "to be/was invented" to address a problem/situation > next the masses, adapted  to the new system > next gradual improvement adaption + feelings by the creator 'a need is/was addressed > next the masses learn manipulation of arrows > renewed complaints to the creator > review by creator + chatter or a new look at mods. Kind of full circle here, or peak to valley.

What's the answer? No matter what system is tried or invoked, we will have the same problems. Individuals who believe, they have been 'harmed' will still have there grievances, with modified forms of expression. Ultimately they can show there distaste, by leaving. They have something to learn. The answer is no matter, what system is chosen, that system will have pimples & blemishes. One system should be chosen & stick with it. Second guessing & talk of something new, sends mixed messages to the masses, + each cry for something new, comes from individuals, with vested interests in advocating something new.

Ramble on Rico

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Moderators have to be anonymous, it is the only way to ensure fairness.  In addition, moderators should not be allowed to remove or edit posts.  They should have the ability to 'hide' a post, temporarily, so that the owners of the site can decide if it warrants further action.  Since moderators will probably be forum members, this will eliminate the potential for abuse of power.

I guess my history as a programmer causes me to use the word 'delete' in a generic way.  Maybe I should have used the word remove instead.  I do agree that moderators should not be able to actually delete posts.  Just that from the viewpoint of the forum users, they will appear to be deleted.

You mentioned moderators editing posts...  Boy, that's something I hadn't considered.  That could be a problem if that were allowed.  Changing a portion of a post can change the entire meaning of what was said.  Given that we have members from all over the world with different abilities in the English language, I think it could be difficult to edit a post and not cause a new problem.  It might be better to go with an 'all-or-nothing' model.  Either remove the post or leave it as is.

The only time I've ever noticed that moderators were anonymous is when they are company employees and don't actively participate in the forums in any way other than as a moderator.  Maybe I've been around a forum with anonymous moderators and just never noticed.

You mentioned the abuse of power.  If not handled properly, that could be a big issue.  It is also one of the reasons why I would not want the moderators to be anonymous.  I know that Invelos would know who they are, but I don't see that having 'undercover police' is necessary.  Any bad decisions by a moderator would be visible to Invelos, and possibly the other moderators, but having some transparency can help keep them honest.

Trying to involve the owners of Invelos in all moderating decisions would potentially bring us right back to where we are.  They are the only moderators we have now, and they don't have time to keep up.  Adding moderators gives them the freedom to do what they are REALLY here for, making DVD Profiler even better than it already is!  The moderators should have the power to handle issues independently, at least to some level.  Of course, these moderators should be given direction from Invelos on how they wish this site to be moderated.