Open Discussion about Moderating / Membership Disagreements

[paulcalloway]

I've gotten a lot of email in the last couple of days from forum members who are displeased with the way they are sometimes treated by our moderators. I also see there are discussion threads about this issue everywhere but here on our own forum.

If you have concerns - lets hear them out. There will be no repercussions if you post your concerns without invective - meaning, try to be dispassionate about it and we'll discuss it. I don't want to see name calling.

I'll ask the moderators not to intervene by moderating this thread - although they are welcome to participate. I do think I understand the major concerns on both sides of the issue - but lets hear them from you.

Let me just say - its not our goal to produce and maintain an irrelevant hobby website. We want to be relevant to active authentic reenactors - for that reason we try to maintain moderators from various areas of the country who are actively reenacting. That's a moving target though and if our mod ranks need to be adjusted occasionally in order to provide better representation we're willing to do that - if we can find good folks willing to chip in.

I believe in what we've created here - and I say "we" because it wasn't me, it was "us". And it's not up to just me (or Justin, Matt, Tripp, etc) to make sure it stays relevant - I need your help.

[OldKingCrow]

Re: Open Discussion about Moderating / Membership Disagreements

Mods are fine.

Now granted, I would not want several of them to serve on a jury.

But an Internets Civil War N'acting Forum ? Meh.

edited to add: Mayhaps the bumper crop of "I will post an alert to the mods on the person I don't like dandies" arent making it any easier on moderators.

There are men, otherwise assumed honorable, military men and others who engage in that. Sickitating.

CJ Rideout
Tampa, Florida

[john duffer]

Re: Open Discussion about Moderating / Membership Disagreements

We have to have moderators, if you’ve just been given a ticket you won’t care much for the police but I can see big problems without them. I’m not sure why someone would volunteer to be a mod, it’s like putting on an event, only worse, very little chance for glory and an excellent chance for headache. I’m glad there are folks willing and with the patience of Job. That being said:

I personally don’t know that it matters how recently any particular mod has been to an event, I haven’t been in the field for a while but I still think I know something of the hobby – drill, history, etc don’t change all that rapidly and I still talk to folks that do attend events about the good and bad that went on. I’ve been coming to the AC since it was born and visit at least daily so it can’t be too bad. The only problem I personally recall in all that time mod wise has been with Mr. Kindred. I have no reason to believe he’s anything but a fine gentleman, I’m just not sure he has the required temperament. My online perception is that he’s almost certainly not enjoying the duty and his anger towards posters oft seems a little out of proportion with their crimes. I view the moderator job as ensuring standards are met and keeping the peace more so than straightening people out.

[Johnny Lloyd]

Re: Open Discussion about Moderating / Membership Disagreements

Okay, I'll bite...

I'm usually a lighthearted person, but I care about the AC and the hobby as-a-whole.

1) I agree standards must be enforced on here. So much silliness gets posted and we don't want this place turning into Szabos or an OTB. That's clearly not the intent of the forum. There is a place for this, but not on here. Quality control is what sets-apart AC from other forums and it is something we should strive to achieve as a community- membership and management alike.

2) There needs to be respect for mods' decisions and authority invested in them by the ownership. The membership should understand this and willingly comply. This means not fearing to disagree with members when a mod is knowingly in the right, but also mods not micromanaging them over nit-picky stuff either. A judgement call has to be made and these are never easy in cases like this. Care should be taken to fully and honestly explain oneself when a mod has made a judgement call and the mod that makes this call should be fair and as impartial as possible- even amongst friends.

3) Honestly, I see both halves of the "mods should/don't have to be currently active in the hobby" discussion. The hobby has evolved in the last few years, true. But accrued knowledge of what works and what doesn't can be a very helpful tool to those in the hobby now. Both ideas have weight in them, I feel. This is where clarity and finality in the managment's decision must be made. Someone has to adjudicate... perhaps put it to a vote for the membership to decide-upon...?

4) I bear no grudges or politics to anyone here. I like 99% everyone I meet in the hobby. I would like not to be implied in aforementioned unpleasantness, but I do respect the management's decision regarding all circumstances wholeheartedly.

My input... All the best- Johnny Lloyd

[JimKindred]

Re: Open Discussion about Moderating / Membership Disagreements

The only problem I personally recall in all that time mod wise has been with Mr. Kindred. I have no reason to believe he’s anything but a fine gentleman, I’m just not sure he has the required temperament. My online perception is that he’s almost certainly not enjoying the duty and his anger towards posters oft seems a little out of proportion with their crimes.

Often John what those outside of the moderator world don't see are the numerous reports by forum members regarding the actions of some, the nasty PMs sent to the moderators by the offenders when they are asked to obide by the rules and so on regarding a given issue or individual. Sometimes those type messages are received for weeks before action by the moderators is taken with the delay being that hopefully things will resolve themselves through a warning before any negative action is taken on the offender by the staff. Sad to say some feel themselves above the rules that all of us including the moderators have to live with and some action to correct this attitude by the staff is required.

Many times a forum member has a track record going back years of causing problems on the forum and because of their unique position in the reenacting community no action is taken until such time as their negative posts and / or PMs to the moderators reach the point that enough is enough and a dose of reality is given to them. I know of no one in recent years that has been suspended or banned without considerable discussion by the moderators and the support of the administrators. The moderators take no pleasure in suspending or correcting someone's activities on the forum but unfortunately it is part of the job as some of our more recent additions to the moderator staff have found.

[Johnny Lloyd]

Re: Open Discussion about Moderating / Membership Disagreements

I know of no one in recent years that has been suspended or banned without considerable discussion by the moderators and the support of the administrators. The moderators take no pleasure in suspending or correcting someone's activities on the forum but unfortunately it is part of the job as some of our more recent additions to the moderator staff have found.

As a young mod on here:

Here here... agreed wholeheartedly, Jim. From what I've seen... It quite affects the Focus group, Mods and managment to drop the "banned" or "suspended" hammer on an individual.

I know most people on here as friends and care about the well-being of my friends and the hobby. I care about the actions of my decisions as a mod and how this affects individuals as well. I am cognizant of that with the decisions I make on here. I feel our admin/mod staff is of the same attitude.

Mods have hearts too... it can get tough making tough decisions, though.

-Johnny

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: Open Discussion about Moderating / Membership Disagreements

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"

[JimKindred]

Re: Open Discussion about Moderating / Membership Disagreements

One thing I have suggested in the past is that when a person is suspended or banned from the forum a message be posted by the staff in the public forum explaining why those actions were taken so that all involved and those who think they should be will be better informed of the actions taken. As it is right now only one side of the story gets out because the moderators are forbidden to post in public what is discussed in the moderator areas.

[Spinster]

Re: Open Discussion about Moderating / Membership Disagreements

A moderators job is never an easy one. I put that time on task in multiple time periods.

But Paul, there are repercussions to speaking out here. Have been for years.

And the fact that this discussion is occurring in multiple places, some of which you can see---and some on other closed access forums------should tell you a lot.

Much of it you'll never hear on this board.

[JimKindred]

Re: Open Discussion about Moderating / Membership Disagreements

A moderators job is never an easy one. I put that time on task in multiple time periods.

But Paul, there are repercussions to speaking out here. Have been for years.

And the fact that this discussion is occurring in multiple places, some of which you can see---and some on other closed access forums------should tell you a lot.

Much of it you'll never hear on this board.

Let's get this out in the open, when a moderator posts an opinion about a reenacting subject or historical research in an open thread and posts not as a moderator but as a member of the forum they should be not referred to as "frackin douche bag" nor be reported to the staff for having posted in the open forum. The moderator was referred to as such is not me but one of finest people we have on this forum who freely provides in depth research and knowledge to the forum membership and has done much more to support and improve this hobby than the vast majority of people I have known since entering this hobby in the 70s.

No, he is not as active as he once was but the individual who referred to him as such feels that if this moderator does not attend the right events and as frequently as he does then this moderator should have no right to post on this forum. That is the issue that started this entire mess. We went through this in the Focus Group last year with the end result being that Paul said the forum staff would remain as it is with the addition of some new members. Unfortunately this did not satisfy someone and this entire episode revolves around one person who did not get his way.

[cavedog]

Re: Open Discussion about Moderating / Membership Disagreements

One thing I have suggested in the past is that when a person is suspended or banned from the forum a message be posted by the staff in the public forum explaining why those actions were taken so that all involved and those who think they should be will be better informed of the actions taken. As it is right now only one side of the story gets out because the moderators are forbidden to post in public what is discussed in the moderator areas.

Good idea. I've seen moderator post only threads in other forums for moderators to post their actions. Usually these threads are titled "Blatant Abuses of Power" or some other tongue in cheek title.
I'm not saying air the dirty laundry, but at least give some rationale for the actions (rumor control if you will). Otherwise, people will grab the first stick that's thrown and gnaw on that.

George Mills

[Old Reb]

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!

[Spinster]

Re: Open Discussion about Moderating / Membership Disagreements

Gentlemen,

It says a lot that the majority of posts on this thread falls into two categories

Current Moderators

Past Event Organizers (that would be Mister Duffer and me)(edited to add Tom Yearby. Lots of posts can hit while one is typeing on a phone )

The atmosphere has been problematic for a long time. The latest episode is only........the latest episode.

[JimKindred]

Re: Open Discussion about Moderating / Membership Disagreements

Gentlemen,

It says a lot that the majority of posts on this thread falls into two categories

Current Moderators

Past Event Organizers (that would be Mister Duffer and me)(edited to add Tom Yearby. Lots of posts can hit while one is typeing on a phone )

The atmosphere has been problematic for a long time. The latest episode is only........the latest episode.

This current problem goes back over a year with the exact same players none of which are John Duffer, Tom Yearby or yourself.

[crabby]

Re: Open Discussion about Moderating / Membership Disagreements

I am a newer moderator and often do not agree with views of the longtimers. However, as in any other walk of life, the longtimers voice carries more weight. Maybe someday I will graduate from the pat on the head while being told "you will understand when you have been here longer" group. I will however state that suspensions and banning should be based on what is said here on the AC; either in a public folder or by PM. What is said about AC moderators on other flora (example OTB) should not affect an AC members standing. If we are that thin skinned maybe moderating a website such as this isn't a good fit. I include myself in this; if anyone wants to call me names feel free, I will just go sit in the corner & have a good cry but will soon get over it!


While I may be a new moderator, I have been around the AC for a long time, posting under my name or John's.