Moderator Elections
Quote from: Barry I like the idea of having Moderators and Administrating Moderators.
IIRC we had something similar when I was a moderator, except with different roles. The version of phpBB in use on the portal was rather old (seeing as it was set up in 2003 and not modified much afterwards), so it was fairly crude in terms of giving people permissions; they could basically either be moderators or administrators. Initially all of the moderators were just that - moderators - but we eventually found that to be a problem, as it meant if anything needed to be done like a member causing havoc that needed a swift suspension, the mods had to wait for someone from PN to see and carry out the ban themselves, as doing so required access to the ACP. So, eventually, Plusnet (well, Ian) started giving some of the moderators administrator privileges, thus granting them access to the ACP, and the 'administrating moderator' role was born.
Even with that though, the 'normal' moderators still had more duties than it seems the new 'non-admin' moderators would have; the normal moderators still took part in basically everything on the forums, just, they didn't actually get to fiddle with the settings in the ACP. (And, I think, after a while everyone was given administrator privileges anyway, at which point the 'administrating moderator' rank/role was dropped as there was no longer any differentiation required.) So, whilst the old setup may not be entirely comparable to the proposed setup, I couldn't nevertheless help being reminded - and feeling somewhat that things are starting to go full circle!
I must say though, it does feel quite odd being the only original moderator around in this thread... it feels like I'm some granddad passing information down to a next generation before I pop my clogs.
It's a pity more of the old mods couldn't get involved in the discussion process - they might not be around any more, but I bet they'd still be able to offer useful thoughts.
Quote from: jelv Can the moderators see who voted for each option? If so there's a ready list of people to invite!
I was wondering that
I think the suggestions that the moderating system isn't working currently isn't necessarily true. Every day I see the moderators in action and I have absolutely no qualms about the work they do. Let's face it - it's not a massive job. Whilst they may read the forums a fair amount, they don't actually have to unless it's a thread that might kick off.
Ultimately, a lot of their work comes from the Community involving themselves in helping the moderators do the job. The report posts to moderator is a fantastic tool (and I use it a lot!), which helps them identify where there may have been any infringements. There's talk about having a moderator on certain forums - we're not busy enough for that, cupled with the fact that this is a friendly forum. There isn't a need for 8-12 moderators or whatever the crazy figure is that is being branded about.
Those of you that are thinking about helping out but are worried about time constraints. Don't. We've got a student, 2 guys with full time jobs and whatever it is that jim does (sorry Jim, I don't know!). I seriously don't believe we need to go through this idea of having junior moderators. A team of 5 or 6 is going to be perfectly ample, meaning that it's more than likely that someone will be around in the core hours.
IMHO 'mountain out of molehill' is very apt here.
PS: Thomas - apologies for not writing quite as much as you and I'm also very sorry for any typographic or grammatical errors - I can't see my screen very well
Ultimately, a lot of their work comes from the Community involving themselves in helping the moderators do the job. The report posts to moderator is a fantastic tool (and I use it a lot!), which helps them identify where there may have been any infringements. There's talk about having a moderator on certain forums - we're not busy enough for that, cupled with the fact that this is a friendly forum. There isn't a need for 8-12 moderators or whatever the crazy figure is that is being branded about.
Those of you that are thinking about helping out but are worried about time constraints. Don't. We've got a student, 2 guys with full time jobs and whatever it is that jim does (sorry Jim, I don't know!). I seriously don't believe we need to go through this idea of having junior moderators. A team of 5 or 6 is going to be perfectly ample, meaning that it's more than likely that someone will be around in the core hours.
IMHO 'mountain out of molehill' is very apt here.
PS: Thomas - apologies for not writing quite as much as you and I'm also very sorry for any typographic or grammatical errors - I can't see my screen very well
Quote from: Jameseh Thomas - apologies for not writing quite as much as you
[me=Be3G]wonders if that's a subtle way of saying 'stop boring us with essays'...[/me]
Though if it is, tough, 'cause I'll write as much as I want to write.
It is quite an important issue IMHO so it's something that deserves considerable thought.
James I think you've totally misjudged the situation.
As well as this current election, previous elections have been dogged by difficulties in finding people to stand and each time it takes more and more cajoling to get people to stand. In the meantime there are many people who I see posting regularly on these forums who would make excellent moderators. The previous two elections I have been contacted by PM by more than one person (and not the same people each time) and asked to stand. Both times I have refused because there will be periods (and I don't just mean when I am on holiday) when I will not be available and when my absence would mean the other mods would be under greater strain.
This election we were told that after five days only one person had put their name forward. Today in a matter of hours in response to a proposal to have a much larger team, 17 people have indicated they would either put their names forward or consider doing so. That is proof that something along these lines needs to be done.
Having a much larger team brings opportunities. It gives the chance for there to be moderators who are normally around during weekday days, evenings, at the weekends and even a night owl or two. I've noticed on a couple of occasions recently that having reported posts it has been some hours before moderator action has taken place. Moderators are volunteers and I think it is unreasonable to expect too much of them - spreading the load is an excellent way of making sure we don't expect too much.
I must say that I am deeply suspicious of your motives in pouring cold water on these suggestions.
Particularly recently, Plusnet has made a big thing of saying that the Community Forums are for users and moderated by users and in the past, providing there were not over-riding objections from Plusnet it has been up to the users to decide how they want these forums run. Not so long ago a member of the Plusnet staff stepped in and did some moderating without the moderators permission (although he did this from the best of intentions but just a little too much enthusiasm). There was a row and it led to the resignation of a moderator. At the end of the episode much humble pie was eaten and it was confirmed that moderating was the responsibility of users appointed by the users.
However Plusnet are part of the BT group and things are not the same on the BT forums. Moderation by BT staff of their forums is draconian - particularly when it comes to critical posts and especially posts about Phorm and Webwise. I had been wondering if BT have been looking at the posts critical of them on here.
Have your owners (BT) been putting pressure on Plusnet to take more control of these forums - is that your reason for trying to block these suggestions?
We all tend to look at the past through rose coloured spectacles, but good as recent moderators have been, they haven't held a candle to the likes of Thomas and John Essex. It has been a struggle to keep up the number of moderators recently and quite frankly I can see it breaking down unless something is done. At that point Plusnet would have to step in - and it would very likely be the Comms team that would be given the role. Is that Plusnet's plan for how they will obey their masters command?
I am passionate about these forums and their independence from Plusnet - moderating is a key part of that independence and it is not good enough for the moderating to be OK, it needs to be good if not great to keep up the strength of this terrific asset that Plusnet have.
As well as this current election, previous elections have been dogged by difficulties in finding people to stand and each time it takes more and more cajoling to get people to stand. In the meantime there are many people who I see posting regularly on these forums who would make excellent moderators. The previous two elections I have been contacted by PM by more than one person (and not the same people each time) and asked to stand. Both times I have refused because there will be periods (and I don't just mean when I am on holiday) when I will not be available and when my absence would mean the other mods would be under greater strain.
This election we were told that after five days only one person had put their name forward. Today in a matter of hours in response to a proposal to have a much larger team, 17 people have indicated they would either put their names forward or consider doing so. That is proof that something along these lines needs to be done.
Having a much larger team brings opportunities. It gives the chance for there to be moderators who are normally around during weekday days, evenings, at the weekends and even a night owl or two. I've noticed on a couple of occasions recently that having reported posts it has been some hours before moderator action has taken place. Moderators are volunteers and I think it is unreasonable to expect too much of them - spreading the load is an excellent way of making sure we don't expect too much.
I must say that I am deeply suspicious of your motives in pouring cold water on these suggestions.
Particularly recently, Plusnet has made a big thing of saying that the Community Forums are for users and moderated by users and in the past, providing there were not over-riding objections from Plusnet it has been up to the users to decide how they want these forums run. Not so long ago a member of the Plusnet staff stepped in and did some moderating without the moderators permission (although he did this from the best of intentions but just a little too much enthusiasm). There was a row and it led to the resignation of a moderator. At the end of the episode much humble pie was eaten and it was confirmed that moderating was the responsibility of users appointed by the users.
However Plusnet are part of the BT group and things are not the same on the BT forums. Moderation by BT staff of their forums is draconian - particularly when it comes to critical posts and especially posts about Phorm and Webwise. I had been wondering if BT have been looking at the posts critical of them on here.
Have your owners (BT) been putting pressure on Plusnet to take more control of these forums - is that your reason for trying to block these suggestions?
We all tend to look at the past through rose coloured spectacles, but good as recent moderators have been, they haven't held a candle to the likes of Thomas and John Essex. It has been a struggle to keep up the number of moderators recently and quite frankly I can see it breaking down unless something is done. At that point Plusnet would have to step in - and it would very likely be the Comms team that would be given the role. Is that Plusnet's plan for how they will obey their masters command?
I am passionate about these forums and their independence from Plusnet - moderating is a key part of that independence and it is not good enough for the moderating to be OK, it needs to be good if not great to keep up the strength of this terrific asset that Plusnet have.
Glad to see others here have strong feelings about the issue - they may not agree with each other's, but still, the fact we've got people passionate about it means we're far likelier to reach some kind of solution than if no-one could care less.
(And thanks John.
)
(And thanks John.
)
Quote from: Jameseh I think the suggestions that the moderating system isn't working currently isn't necessarily true. Every day I see the moderators in action and I have absolutely no qualms about the work they do. Let's face it - it's not a massive job. Whilst they may read the forums a fair amount, they don't actually have to unless it's a thread that might kick off.
Ultimately, a lot of their work comes from the Community involving themselves in helping the moderators do the job. The report posts to moderator is a fantastic tool (and I use it a lot!), which helps them identify where there may have been any infringements. There's talk about having a moderator on certain forums - we're not busy enough for that, cupled with the fact that this is a friendly forum. There isn't a need for 8-12 moderators or whatever the crazy figure is that is being branded about.
Those of you that are thinking about helping out but are worried about time constraints. Don't. We've got a student, 2 guys with full time jobs and whatever it is that jim does (sorry Jim, I don't know!). I seriously don't believe we need to go through this idea of having junior moderators. A team of 5 or 6 is going to be perfectly ample, meaning that it's more than likely that someone will be around in the core hours.
IMHO 'mountain out of molehill' is very apt here.
So you think moderation is working well at the moment? Let's just examine an example topic here.
This topic was originally posted in The Community Site Forum » Report Bugs as a possible problem with the forum software at 18:41 yesterday. By 18:48 there were a couple of posts which suggested that the problem was at the OP's end. A few hours later the OP posted that following a reboot the problem had gone away. This therefore is most definitely not a community site bug - although the Report Bugs forum was appropriate at the time the original post was made.
In line with your recommendation I used the Report to Moderator tool just before 8:30 this morning. Nearly 6 hours later Assos stepped in and moved the topic (the MOVED post is here. I noticed that a couple of the other moderators were viewing the forums during the morning but presumably didn't have time to do what was needed.
So we have two possibilities, either the moderators are not up to scratch, or there are not enough of them to keep on top of the mundane routine housekeeping like this example. Which is it?
This is a prime example of the sort of routine tasks which a junior/assistant moderator would be ideal to keep on top of. It is also quite possible that with people such as this looking over particular areas it may have been sorted without ever having been reported which is far preferable.
Just a small observation. I've been members of forums, newsgroups and mailing lists for years. When I joined here - my initial impression was that compared to some other forums I've been on - sometimes mod's here were just a little too picky - picking up on things which were border line too much. I don't want to make too much of this, as I know being a mod is not easy and sometimes a thankless job. But just a thought. 
Quote from: jelv
Can the moderators see who voted for each option? If so there's a ready list of people to invite!
Unfortunately, we can't Jelv, all we can see is the number of votes without having to actually vote, so bang goes that theory
