Empowerment of MODS

[munitalP]

A recent Jetstar bash where a few regular posters (including myself) have got perhaps a little emotional with the original poster got me thinking that the mods should have cut this one off at the pass before any posts were removed or infractions issued.

I think that the fact that posts were removed and infractions possibly issued makes a statement that the MODS will control a thread to the written law, however, I propose that the MODS should have killed the thread well before the first reportable post was typed.

If we are going to have policemen on the forum (and that is a good thing IMO) then they should either stop a thread in its tracks well before it gets out of control, of at least lock the thread until further discussion between MODs has been had, to decide if the thread in question is particularly going to cause the heat that the recent Jetstar thread has caused.

I also believe that if you feel you need to contact a MOD or ADMIN regarding the content of a thread, be the whistle blower in private. I see this as provocation and that too should be an infraction! (IMO)

The attached poll is simple. Should MODs take a more proactive roll in avoiding confrontation between members or not?

 

[anat0l]

Firstly, I'm not sure whether this topic is a good discussion for the boards; the irony is that it may degenerate as you've stated and the mods might need to intervene and stop it before it gets out of control (or when it does get out of control!). Also I'll raise my hands in "don't shoot me" right now, because IIRC talking about mod actions is possibly against the forum rules. (Although if I do get modded then I'll definitely know about it!)

Mods and policepersons (policemen is gender non-neutral?) are similar, in rather comical ways. A moderator should stop a thread about to go out of control before it does, but at what point can they make that judgement call? Unlike a crime that may be about to take place, future posters onto a thread may not be adding fuel to the fire; simply making their own, quiet observation. Locking a thread that may go out of control soon is rightly depriving those who intend to fan the flames of irrational or emotionally-charged argument further but is unjustly depriving those who want otherwise (now whether these are right or wrong in principle again is a whole another discussion).

In any case, when do the police recognise that a crime is about to take place until they see the crime having been committed? And how many incidents actually get prevented before the crime takes place, or very quickly after the crime takes place? If we liken the same issues to running AFF forums, it's easier said than done to say that the mods need to take a much more active role in preventing threads running out of control (and I too was a willing participant in said recent thread you are referring to). Not to mention the mods don't get paid for what they do - they willingly give up their time in order to try and ensure the integrity of AFF forums, and our mods don't have closet lives - they have families, jobs etc. Sure, we may say, "It was their choice to be a mod so be it the consequences", but we still need to be fair to them.

One thing is for certain is that unlike fighting crime (in some instances), mods only really guarantee their intervention when they read about it (i.e. scanning threads or reading mod alerts). By that time, it would be "too late", as purported in your argument. But unless we have some sort of "pre-crime" action going - a la The Minority Report - I don't think we can reasonably achieve what you're saying should happen without being too much of a "police state" where the slightest hint of dissidence could mean an infraction.

The current system as it stands at the moment is probably working. It unfortunately relies on some vitriol - as it were - to be spilled for the mods to act. The mods' role is thus to prevent as much vitriol (and hurt etc.) from being spilled after it happens. It's like medical people - their role is not to actively stop people from hurting themselves, but once they are hurt it's their role to help them as quickly as possible so that they don't become more hurt/injured/don't bleed too much.

The debate would probably be more around whether mods are helping to prevent too much "unfavourable" activity from appearing on the boards, but in all I don't think the mods can be very actively preventing breaches than they are without making the board environment a degree more uncomfortable (and that would lead to a whole new debate).

 

[admin]

The mods take direction from me. Part of those "directions" is to let things flow as much as possible - not withstanding our 3 core principles: no commercial posts, no offensive posts, and no vulgarity.

As I have often said to the mods: "When in doubt, don't do anything"

That said, things can get a bit heated at times, and the best action might be to close a thread. In hindsight perhaps that thread should have been closed a bit earlier. (Isn't hindsight a wonderful thing! At the time it may not have been that obvious)

Lets not forget what the problem in that thread was - member's were insulting each other. It was not the mods that were causing the problem.

I am now going to close this thread, as it is not appropriate to have a public discussion on the "empowerment of mods". I, in consultation with the mods, set the moderation guidelines.

If you have any suggestions on how AFF is to be managed, you can raise them with me off-line.