Open Discussion about Moderating / Membership Disagreements

[JimKindred]

Re: Open Discussion about Moderating / Membership Disagreements

There are too many people that can't take being told "you can't say or do that." Show the whiners and complainers the door!

Tom,

I do not agree with Paul every time but in the end it is his website and once he makes a decision the time for discussion is over with and myself along with the other moderators support his decision 100%.

It should be the same for the forum membership, they are welcome to express their opinion to Paul but once the decision is made by Paul for a certain course of action that should end the discussion on the subject. We thought this should be the case last year when this moderator issue came up in the Focus Group and new moderators were added but it hasn't turned out that way.

[bAcK88]

Re: Open Discussion about Moderating / Membership Disagreements

I don't know who's been saying what about whom, but the very fact people are giving other people crap about a HOBBY is mind-blowing. Whatever happened to the old saying, "If you don't have anything nice to say....." What's preventing people from making their own forum, with their own rules?

And going back to previous discussion about attendance, this is the reason why we have seen a decline in numbers. People don't want to be around this crap, and I for one can't blame them.

Regards,

[Ross L. Lamoreaux]

Re: Open Discussion about Moderating / Membership Disagreements

Yeah, Wick, at least one moderator over at Szabo's is pretty harsh! As a moderator in question over at "that other forum", my hat is off to all on here who volunteered their time and sanity for the job. I've been following this latest round of fire-offs with concern, because good moderating isn't personal (well, shouldn't be personal), but it can rapidly become that. Like John said, take one incident, multiply it by 10 or 20, and it can be pretty bad. I don't ever say the "other forum" is on par with this one, but the work is the same. I appreciate all of the moderators here, even with the latest events over here. I have no doubt that every negative action taken by a mod here is discussed and rediscussed before anything happens.

I remember when we adopted and then enforced the "sign your name to every post" rule. Probably 4 of 5 offenders who received a note, reminder, or warning about their signature took offense and voiced it to a mod. ...just about a signature line. Each one of those follow-ups by a mod involved at least 1 PM, but in some cases a days-long back-and-forth where the member's temper flared, cooled, then the read more carefully what the rule was, and then complied.

Repeat that process about 5, 10, or 25 times and you'll have an idea what it can be like. Being a moderator requires a long fuze and a lot of patience.

Heck, I got an infraction against me over on Szabo's this year. No big deal. It was just the Provost over there enforcing his rules. My reaction: "My apologies - It won't happen again"

[AndrewGrim]

Re: Open Discussion about Moderating / Membership Disagreements

Ultimately this is a web site for Civil War Progressive Reenactors who want to put history first. Academics and historic site staff all have a place here. But in the end if you have left the hobby being a moderator here is like being an AYSO referee at a Little League game. I have seen the locks get put on threads just before a something might be accomplished, farbisms allowed and the person calling it out reprimanded. Most of the complaints against moderators seem to be about one specific moderator.
I would recommend moderators have a term limit, with part new and part experienced.

[rbruno]

Re: Open Discussion about Moderating / Membership Disagreements

I have a few thoughts/questions regarding this thread.
Paul,
If you could without giving out information that should remain private, could you explain a little more the issue or situation that has started this thread? I check this forum everyday and am not aware of the issue that has brought all of this up. Unless I missed somethng, I have not noticed any problems.

If this is about the forum rules or expectations of the forum, I don't think they should change. I get a great deal of information from this site because of the knowledge/research/energy of members on this board. Where I understand that some do not want to share as much or they expect everyone to do the same amount of research as they have done, I do think enough gets past on to others here that benefits the entire hobby. The other forum that many people are connected to does not have the same expectations and even though I check that forum a lot as well, it is more for entertainment purposes then the more serious discussions that go on here. Some of the crazy stuff that gets posted over there is unbelievable but is allowed because of the differect expections and beliefs of the members and moderators. Not saying one is better then the other, just different.

It took me a long time to decide to post something on this forum. When I first joined and read some people getting slammed for some of the things they were saying, I thought no way am I going to post something unless I have researched it to death and feel very confident in what I am saying. I also wanted to make sure I knew the rules and those expectations before I dove in. In the end, I think that has helped me to be a better researcher and to make sure I knew what I was talking about before I openned my mouth. Two very important items in both this hobby and in life. I think more people should consider what they are saying, where they are saying it, and to whom they are saying it. We loose track that we are typing on a screen and not talking to people in person. With that being said, I think people are a little too sensitive to typed conversations. I have read many things on here that my first reaction might have been I can't believe someone just chopped that person off at the knees. Then, I would look at who sent it and realize that I know that person in the field and I know that is not the type of person he is. Then after rereading the post knowing the person, I realize it isn't as nasty as I first thought. But, that is only becuase I know the poster personally and not just from the key board.
Before I leave that thought, most of the nasty post I have read are not from the moderators, but from the members. When I first joined, I think it was more self regulated and a member would jump all over someone for posting something that was out of line with the rules and not wait for the moderator to step in. I have notice several members trying to make an effort to not blast someone, but to gently remind someone to do their homework before they post.

Maybe because the memebers have become more easy with their approach, we leave it up to the moderators to be the hammer. People can't be mad at the entire board, so the moderators are easy targets because they are policeing the board more then in the past because maybe they have to.

Long and short, my opinion is they do a thankless job and have to deal with a bunch of "experts" me included, who want to be the smartest person behind the keyboard.

[paulcalloway]

Re: Open Discussion about Moderating / Membership Disagreements

Rob -
I think the complaint heard most of late, expressed succinctly, is that we have moderators who don't attend events, slapping down forum members who are active in the field. Basically that the AC is being run and moderated by retired reenactors.

[toccoa42]

Re: Open Discussion about Moderating / Membership Disagreements

My view on this is not that there are moderators "slapping down" other members, but that there are moderators who are a bit too quick on the lock down trigger. I can think of a recent embryonic thread that was locked that, even though the content of the event was highly authentic, the appearances were not. Thus exposure to an educational opportunity was lost by a moderator's rigid and too-quick imposition of authenticity rules. Gray areas can be good.

[RCR001]

Re: Open Discussion about Moderating / Membership Disagreements

Having been moderated serveral times on serveral fourms for several reasons and having never really been satisfied with the moderators reasonings but moderated none the less, I've learned to keep my mouth shut. Its kinda like growing up Southern in a town full of dang'd Yankees. Keep your head down and your mouth shut and they won't kick down your door, knock down your house, burn down your barn and scatter you and your progeny to the winds.

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: Open Discussion about Moderating / Membership Disagreements

I would recommend moderators have a term limit, with part new and part experienced.

Not a bad thought. However, the pool of willing and able candidates probably isn't very deep. You'd end up recycling the same few guys over and over.

I will say this, though...
I took a few years away from it, and it did me some good.

[flattop32355]

Re: Open Discussion about Moderating / Membership Disagreements

Okay, I'll bite:

It's been a year or so ago. A member of the forum, who also moderates here, made statements as a member that would have gotten the alert button pressed were this person not a moderator. Not damning statements, but inappropriate. I hit the button, and left a message of my concern.

What I got back was two private messages: The first, from the moderator involved, noted my message and pointed out just short of "like it or lump it". The second was from another moderator, informing me that I had no business questioning the musings of a moderator, and that if I ever did it again, there were ways to be used of responding to it, strongly hinting that they would not be nice ways.

I understand the thanklessness of the position of volunteer moderator. I also understand that it is not a license to do or say whatever one likes on the forum, they being under the same general rules as any member when they speak as a member. It also does not give them unquestionable, divine authority; when they are wrong or overstep their boundaries, they may be called out, privately as was done, in a civil and respectful manner. That is part of the "us" factor to which you refer.

In my opinion, there is evidence of a degree of exceeding the proper amount of authority by some moderators. It does not require any action beyond calling such cases to the offender's attention, reining such actions in to their proper scope, and balancing the scales for those reporting such cases.

I thank you, Mr. Calloway, for the opportunity to voice my concern on this matter.

[john duffer]

Re: Open Discussion about Moderating / Membership Disagreements

" Keep your head down and your mouth shut and they won't kick down your door, knock down your house, burn down your barn and scatter you and your progeny to the winds. "

Good grief ! Sounds like a pretty rough neighborhood, I hope you've moved elsewhere. Really puts a suspended account in perspective. :-)

[rbruno]

Re: Open Discussion about Moderating / Membership Disagreements

Paul,
Thanks for that information. I appreciate the fact that you have open this topic up for people to discuss. You must be receiving a lot of complaints for this topic to come up.

Knowing this, I would only add to my post before with saying that I don't believe someone's participation in a reenactment would make them a good or bad moderator of a forum that is founded on research and authenticity. That reason would imply that reenactments are a accurate barameter of authenticity which we all know they are not. Some get as close as we can as modern people portraying a past time period and they are certainly worth the experience because they do provide us a glimpse at what life as a soldier and a civilian was like during the Civil War. They give us the opportunity to try and bring to gether all that we have learned from books/diaries/ORs/ and all of the printed material out there and combine it with the experience of stepping into a past time even for just a brief moment. But to say that because someone doesn't attend events and therefore should not be a moderator is discarding all the other work that goes into understanding what went on in history 150 years ago. I can think of several people who have not been to an event in years and yet they have incredible knowledge of the war. Are we then going to say to those folks that thier knowledge doesn't count because you haven't been in the field? I don't think that would be in the best interest of the hobby.
From my small understanding of a moderator, they need to possess more then just knowledge of the time period and time spent at events. They need to have skills and talents and time that go beyond attending a reenactment.

[JimKindred]

Re: Open Discussion about Moderating / Membership Disagreements

A rule I proposed for this forum several days ago from a history oriented website probably several times larger than this one. The problem we are discussing is not unique to this forum.

Insults and threats against other members will result in a warning or a ban, depending on the frequency and seriousness of the offense. Insults and threats against the forum moderators and administrators for performing their duties will be looked upon very seriously, and will usually lead to immediate banning without previous warnings. If a member has an objection to the actions of a specific moderator, he or she must always consult the administrator, rather than sending insults or threats to the moderator in question. http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6

If a forum member here has a problem with a specific moderator's actions we have a number of administrators they could contact rather than launching personal attacks against the moderators.

[ElizabethClark]

Re: Open Discussion about Moderating / Membership Disagreements

Tossing a thought out here: might it be helpful to forum users if moderators clearly identified the times when they are in "Moderator Mode", versus posting as a generalized forum member? Those of us in the Citizen section tend to do things like use fake tags (ie: , if we need to make a moderator-type comment in a thread, but are also participating in the discussion, to differentiate between which bits are moderator, and which are ourselves as members.

It wouldn't necessarily help any of the other challenges, but might help clarify things when a moderator is in a discussion. If objectionable things are said in the "Mod Mode" capacity, an alert needs to be given to the Big Bugs; if objectionable things are said in member mode, the alert needs to be sent to the mod queue (which always has Big Bug oversight... and yes, I've seen moderators corrected and actions reversed upon those alerts--a couple of my own over the past zillion years, too! :) )

[Ross L. Lamoreaux]

Re: Open Discussion about Moderating / Membership Disagreements

Thats a good point Mrs. Clark. At "the other forum", I use two accounts, one as a moderator and one as a long-time member. This does cut down on the confusion. On another note that seems to be one of the issues at hand, that of attending events, I've found that it is almost a must to still attend events to moderate effectively. If you're not going to events, its hard to gauge the barometer of event issues and politics. We all know that people are different in person than they are at the keyboard. Knowing some of the players personally via event attendance makes decisions easier when it comes time to have to moderate something.