Heh. Well, I understand Ken likes fishing...maybe he's just doing fishing of another kind by starting this thread.Originally Posted by Doug Jones
But I'll give Ken the benefit of the doubt and bank on him genuinely wanting a discussion of moderation here. Which, as I noted earlier, raises a bit of a problem -- we can't really discuss if SMC's moderation is good or bad without first understanding what good moderation is. That is, we have to first establish what yardstick we're using. Otherwise it's just a bunch of guys saying "yup, it's good" or "nope, it isn't," which isn't terribly enlightening.
I had hoped in an earlier post that some of you might share your views on the yardsticks you use in reaching your conclusions. Well, it's Saturday and bound to be over 100 here in Dallas, so I've got time; here's mine, humbly submitted for your comments.
1. Good moderators have a thick skin.
And I mean an actual thick skin -- rolling with the punches. Lots of folks say they have a thick skin, but really don't. It isn't really a thick skin if a mod deletes threads that criticize him or starts polls designed to stroke his ego.
N.B., there are things a moderator shouldn't put up with -- vulgarity, personal insults, that sort of thing. Polite and restrained criticisms of actions taken in his capacity as moderator are one thing; calling him names is quite another.
2. Good moderators reserve thread deletion for narrow, well-defined instances.
Like, f'rinstance, spamming or persistent sock-puppets. Otherwise, thread deletion is just revisionist history, the equivelant of Stalin altering photos to remove Leon Trotsky. Locking a thread is one thing -- it can indeed stop a trainwreck in the making -- and deletion quite another; the latter essentially says "this never happened." But it did.
3. Good moderators give warning before closing a thread.
This is just common courtesy, particularly if a thread has attracted a lot of forum participation -- there are many members who are enjoying the thread (otherwise, why would they be participating?). If a mod thinks a discussion has taken a turn for the worse, he should give the participants a chance to turn the thread around before he cuts off the discussion entirely.
4. Good moderators favor moving off-topic threads rather than thread closure.
If the reason for mod action is that discussion is taking place in the wrong forum, the better answer is to move the thread rather than closing it. This allows the discussion to continue while keeping the thread easy to find.
Closing the thread and suggesting that participants open a new one is problematic because many forum participants won't know to look in the new forum; moving the thread puts a placeholder link in the old forum, so everyone can easily find their way over to the correct location. The placeholder link doesn't get "bumped" to the top of the original forum, so it doesn't clog up the original forum.
Really good moderation goes one step further and bumps the thread to the top of the old forum before moving it -- that way, the placeholder link stays on the front page of the old forum for a little while, making it easier for forum participants to see that it has been moved.
5. Good moderators distinguish betwen vigorous discussion and trainwrecks when closing threads.
This means, in part, actually reading the thread. Passionate discussions are a good thing. They only become a problem when people start insulting one another, rather than trying to reason together.
A good moderator will ask himself "are there personal attacks in this thread," and perhaps try to identify such attacks, before deciding to close a thread. If only one or two posters are doing the attacking, and everyone else is swimming along nicely, he might even consider simply admonishing the individuals involved rather than closing the thread outright.
Nobody wants this place to be another "Wreck Wood." Most folks, myself included, like this place because it's friendly, and good, firm moderation is a large part of that. But a place can be friendly without also being sterile. No one wants feel like they have to constantly walk on eggshells.
6. Good moderators distinguish between criticisms of their actions as moderators and personal attacks.
This is a corollary to #1, I suppose. Just because a poster thinks a mod dropped the ball in one instance doesn't mean that poster thinks the mod is a terrible moderator, and it certainly doesn't mean those criticims should be taken as a personal attack. You can tell a person "you could've done a lot better" without it being an attack on their character.
7. Good moderators respond to reasonable requests about what the TOS means.
And if they can't give a definitive answer, they ask a higher-up. I'd still like to know if "politics" encompasses "government regulation of woodworking devices or the woodworking industry" or if -- as many here think, myself included -- that it is only meant to encompass topics of a typically partisan nature (Iraq, abortion, the Bush admin, etc.).
Well, that's what I've come up with this morning at least. And yes, those items are a reflection of the threads that lead to this one. However, as always, let me reiterate: I think Ken is a good moderator, I respect the work he does here, and just because I think he dropped the ball (multiple times) in his handling of the SawStop threads does NOT mean I think he shouldn't be a moderator here.
As long as I'm making lists, let me make one containing principles for good forum members.
1. Good forum members aren't jerks.
Not really a problem here at SMC, but I think it's the basic standard for good forum members. I admit, this could be refined -- it's a more than a little subjective as written -- but I think it captures things nicely.
2. Good forum members don't constantly suck up to moderators.
Expressing appreciation now and again is one thing; thankless efforts should not always go unthanked. But there's a point where it gets annoying. Here's a guide: if you sound like a 12-year-old girl gushing about the latest boy band, you need to dial it back a bit.
3. Good forum members don't constantly root for the forum.
"WOOOO, THIS FORUM IS THE GREATEST PLACE ON THE INTARWEB!!! THERE'S NO PLACE BETTER!!!! I LOVE THIS FORUM MORE THAN I LOVE MY WIFE!!!!!"
Good heavens, dial it back. First of all, you're preaching to the choir; people wouldn't hang out here if they didn't like it. Second, this isn't a high school pep rally. Third, unless you've literally visited every site on the internet, your statement is uninformed. Fourth, for God's sake, using a bunch of exclamation marks makes you look silly.
4. Good forum members don't make long lists about what is good or bad.
I mean, really, what kind of pretentious wanker would do such a thing?
