Role Of A Moderator On The Forum

[Sandy]

We had a recent thread on charity for Haiti. A few of the moderators wanted to keep the focus clearly on charity and giving. The thread drifted after a while into a discussion/debate on the value of prayer. As I thought the thread should remain focused on charity, I asked a couple of times not to expand the thread focus, but to simply start a new thread on any related topic. Clearly a few did not agree with me, and thought that the thread evolved in a natural manner, the original topic had been adequately discussed, the overall interaction of members was courteous and respectful, and therefore I was too controlling and should have let the thread drift into a much broader range of related topics. I clearly understand and appreciate their perspective. It certainly is most reasonable and has genuine merit.

What are your thoughts on what the role of a moderator should be? Does a reasonable and acceptable balance exist presently? Too much control of threads? Not enough? Any and all comments would be genuinely appreciated.


Sandy

[Smiley]

Love your comman sense Sandy and like I said your the new Sheriff in town :) Bust some knuckles please.

[William]

Love your comman sense Sandy and like I said your the new Sheriff in town :) Bust some knuckles please.

If you need guidance Sandy, I can help. ;) :)





William

[Charles M]

I like mods that come in when personal attacks and insult start to pop up.

I also like Mods to dump when a thread drops to the point of just a few people in an argument...


Past that, I think they should keep their eye open for threads with Politics and Religion as subject matter... The two things most likely to cause war and death are a pretty ripe breeding ground for BS.


The OT posts here are why I like this place. We all know we're cyclists and I said it before, but this place is like a cyber bike ride... I talk to my bike freinds about everything.

[OtayBW]

Past that, I think they should keep their eye open for threads with Politics and Religion as subject matter... I agree. No matter how civil the discussion about politics and religion might be, the topics are usually incendiary -at least to some - no matter how politely they are discussed (and of course, they often aren't).

Sandy: ...As I thought the thread should remain focused on charity, I asked a couple of times not to expand the thread focus, but to simply start a new thread on any related topic. Clearly a few did not agree with me, and thought that the thread evolved in a natural manner... I have no problem with thread drift, per se, but I do think discussion of religion can be - and usually is - divisive, no matter how well-intentioned. There is always someone on the 'outside'. Politics and religion should be given a very short leash or prohibited here. My opinion, YMMV.

I also like the OT posts and think they have a place here. Thanks to Sandy for taking the interest.

[rugbysecondrow]

I posted this in the Haiti thread, but I think so long as things are civil and respectful, then there is not really a place for the mods to disrupt the flow. In my opinion, positive behavior should be encouraged and so long as that is taking place, then the mods should continue encouraging it by letting the discussions take place.

I agree that politics and religion are pitfalls, but there have been classified threads locked (rightly so), so any discussion can drop off the shelf at any given time. Sure, some politics and religion threads get locked, but some are good discussions.

I also think discussions evolve and should be allowed to do so. The OP starts a conversation, but it could end wherever. The mods should not control how or why a conversation develops in a particular direction, regardless of topic.

Thanks Sandy :)

[dekindy]

I have strongly advocated a separate sub-forum for off-topic or no off-topic at all. Even you guys had to limit the off-topic threads recently as they were beginning to dominate the first page. I come here for bicycling not to be reminded of natural disasters and other negative news. Don't you guys get enough of that elsewhere? I do. However I don't get enough bicycling conversation from other sources. There are plenty of places on the internet for other subjects. Let's focus on bicycling and Serotta here.

[Lifelover]

Sandy, while I know with all my heart, that it is well intended, I think that your active involvement (as a mod, not a member) is going to lead you to disappointment and frustration.

The problem (reality) is that we are all grown men and there really is no consequence with us posting whatever we want.

My point is that you really are just spinning your wheels when a Mod pops in and makes a "suggestion" on how the thread should evolve.

ATMO, the mods should participate just like any other member but also quietly and anonymously delete posts and/or lock threads as they see fit. There is absolutely no reason that you guys need to run any of your choices by any of us or send us a PM about it. Do what you feel is best for the forum.

The one thing that I think I would do more if I was a mod for the day, is simply delete specific posts. There have been times when a decent thread has been locked because of the banter of 3 or 4 people. If one or two members start going down the wrong path, delete everything in that thread that they posted. (EDITED BY PETE - thanks) :crap: :crap: You could also simply edit a small part of the post if you see fit. ( :no: :no: ) PETE Edited- -

Yep did find the like mention of any I have presented an excellent opportunity for that right here :)

All that said, the mods here do a great job and it is greatly appreciated.

[William]

I like mods that come in when personal attacks and insult start to pop up.

I also like Mods to dump when a thread drops to the point of just a few people in an argument...


Past that, I think they should keep their eye open for threads with Politics and Religion as subject matter... The two things most likely to cause war and death are a pretty ripe breeding ground for BS.


The OT posts here are why I like this place. We all know we're cyclists and I said it before, but this place is like a cyber bike ride... I talk to my bike freinds about everything.

+1000

I think this forum is moded just fine. When you start going in and deleting or changing specific posts it will lead to more vitriol than just locking it up. I'm not crazy about locking most threads either but I've seen on a few other forums where the "power" to do so causes the mod to go in and change posts of people they don't like. Deleting words, altering what they wrote to change the intended meaning, or adding or linking offensive material to turn others against them. I'm not saying that happens or it would lead to that here with the existing mods...but I've seen it.

Best to leave it as it exists. It works. It has worked. And it will continue to work. The Mods here are doing a good job.....let's leave them to it. Besides, if they listened to every whim of each person who wanted to change some aspect of the forum.....it would be an un-ending 24-7 chameleon of a job.

Sandy, I respect your polite manner and willingness to work with and please others, but you need to get tough and do the job as you see fit. You're opening a Pandora's box of issues by asking what everyone wants.


Best regards,
William




PS: Scratch behind King's ears for me.

[Lifelover]

...
Sandy, I respect your polite manner and willingness to work with and please others, but you need to get tough and do the job as you see fit. You're opening a Pandora's box of issues by asking what everyone wants.
....


This is really the main point I would make. Do WHATEVER you see fit and don't worry about what anyone else thinks you should do.

[Sandy]

"The one thing that I think I would do more if I was a mod for the day, is simply delete specific posts. There have been times when a decent thread has been locked because of the banter of 3 or 4 people. If one or two members start going down the wrong path, delete everything in that thread that they posted. Some will bitch and whine like e-richie did, but they will either learn from it or move on. You could also simply edit a small part of the post if you see fit."

I think you made some excellent comments above. My approach is the following- If the thread is totally out of hand because of many posters then I would lock the thread. But I think that is a very rare occurrence at best. If just a few posters are causing havoc in a thread, I will ask politely that they stop. If they continue, I will warn them, by PM and in the thread. If they continue, I would then feel comfortable in simply deleting parts of or entire posts that they give in the thread. I would not lock the thread, as I do not believe the rest of the members/viewers/posters should be "punished" because of the actions of a few. That doesn't make total sense to me.

I do hope, however, that at least once I will be able to use my recently developed twin turbo nitrous oxide driven laser gun. I want to vaporize someone! :)



Sandy

[Blue Jays]

"...I have strongly advocated a separate sub-forum for off-topic or no off-topic at all. Even you guys had to limit the off-topic threads recently as they were beginning to dominate the first page. I come here for bicycling not to be reminded of natural disasters and other negative news. Don't you guys get enough of that elsewhere? I do. However I don't get enough bicycling conversation from other sources. There are plenty of places on the internet for other subjects. Let's focus on bicycling and Serotta here..."Precisely. +1

If one contemplates starting a topic discussion that begins with "OT:" it certainlly belongs in an off-topic subforum.
This is a bicycle and bicycling forum first.
It is MUCH nicer to navigate when the front page is dominated by (shocker!) bicycle content.
Sandy, you and the other moderators are doing a great job by my count.

[rugbysecondrow]

Precisely. +1

If one contemplates starting a topic discussion that begins with "OT:" it certainlly belongs in an off-topic subforum.
This is a bicycle and bicycling forum first.
It is MUCH nicer to navigate when the front page is dominated by (shocker!) bicycle content.
Sandy, you and the other moderators are doing a great job by my count.

I have to disagree. This is the General Discussion area. Not bike discussion, not cycling content discussion area. Cyclist talk about more than bikes, so being able to have that available in a general discussion area is nice. We could parse out sub-groups, but I think that would water things down.

William said it well, things work well as they are. I disagreed in one instance with Sandy and BBD, but otherwise they and the other Mods do a great job.

[dekindy]

I have to disagree. This is the General Discussion area. Not bike discussion, not cycling content discussion area. Cyclist talk about more than bikes, so being able to have that available in a general discussion area is nice. We could parse out sub-groups, but I think that would water things down.

William said it well, things work well as they are. I disagreed in one instance with Sandy and BBD, but otherwise they and the other Mods do a great job.

I agree. As part of my suggestion the title would be changed to cycling and the new sub forum could have any name that you want as long as it contains non-cycling topics.

On the other hand, threads in the general discussion forum are expected to be labeled off-topic if it is not related to cycling, which is incongruent with your statement.

[Blue Jays]

Exactly. Have ALL the non-cycling threads people wish to start...the nice feature would be to have them conveniently grouped together.
A front page with topics about new television purchase ideas, travel destinations, food ideas, charitable-giving, and every other topic makes navigating to cycling topics more challenging.

[fiamme red]

A front page with topics about new television purchase ideas, travel destinations, food ideas, charitable-giving, and every other topic makes navigating to cycling topics more challenging.Only for the navigationally-challenged. Most of us are smart enough to find the threads that interest us and ignore those that don't.

[Blue Jays]

Only for the navigationally-challenged. Most of us are smart enough to find the threads that interest us and ignore those that don't.L-O-L-!

[rnhood]

I agree with PezTech and William, so its not need to repeat it. The OT threads are fine the way they appear in general discussion, so lets not make a separate forum. We don't need it.

[1centaur]

To Sandy's question, I would NOT try to direct the flow of the thread. Let it go where it wants to go - this is what we make of it, good or bad.

Religion and politics - I'd be happy to see those threads occasionally, and I'd be happy for a mod to keep a tight leash on them to help people to understand how to discuss those issues without ad hominems. I think decent discussions would add more than they subtract to this community.

OT sub-forum - the majority have clearly voted not to do that on more than one occasion. I like the process of discovery - I set up my Twitter feed to bring in economics/business/finance stories AND cycling stories and pretty much nothing else. It's a mix that completely works for me as I can pick and choose what I feel like that day. Similarly here, I like opening up the General Discussion page and choosing from a broad menu. I am not offended by the mere sight of threads with topics that don't interest me, nor do I feel angst that some such topics are pushing topics I might like better off the front page. The OT threads tend to generate more views and more responses than other threads because they have broader interest and knowledge (or at least opinion). I think that's good for this board.

[veggieburger]

Sandy, I've said it before ~ this is Serotta's forum, so you should do what makes you comfortable. The last thing you want is a thread breaking down to pure bickering - that doesn't get anyone anywhere.

(..and I apologize for the religion rant - quite honestly I didn't notice you were trying to get away from the topic of prayer as it applied to Haiti.)

[Ray]

Religion and politics - I'd be happy to see those threads occasionally, and I'd be happy for a mod to keep a tight leash on them to help people to understand how to discuss those issues without ad hominems. I think decent discussions would add more than they subtract to this community.
I agree with this.

Obviously your first call has to be what content the company has decided to allow. if you want to keep it strictly to bikes or even strictly to bikes with Serotta on the downtube, I don't have to like it but I have to accept it. But, IF Serotta decides to allow off-topic discussions, then I don't think religion or politics should be off-limit. Even if nobody overtly starts one, they will grow organically out of discussions of almost anything else. We start discussing bike commuting and eventually the discussion will get around to the energy implications, the societal policies that encourage or discourage bike commuting, the use of other alternative types of vehicles, etc. When we're trying to encourage people to raise money for an important humanitarian cause, it'd be impossible to tell religious people NEVER to mention prayer in that sort of thing - its as natural to them as breathing.

So, I say let 'em run and just cut 'em off when one of three things happens.

First, if more than one or two people start getting really uncivilized and nasty toward each other, I'd shut down the whole thread. If its just one or two and they're repeat offenders, possibly warn them with a PM and eventually ban 'em if they don't get it together.

Second, if the discussion gets circular and has gone all the way around in the same circle twice or three times, end it. It'll pop up somewhere else again eventually, but I'd say that's a sign that its run its course.

Third, as noted before, if everyone drops out except for 2-3 people and they go on for more than a page or two (particularly if they're not covering any new ground), that's a good time to have them exchange email addresses and take it off-site.

I think this is usually how you folks HAVE done it and I applaud you for it. You sometimes let something go a bit longer than I would or you sometimes cut something off a bit sooner than I would, but I think you get it pretty close to right almost all of the time. You folks are human and entitled to mistakes sometimes too, eh? I think almost everyone here who chooses to take part in these discussions is an adult and pretty reasonable. There are occasional melt-downs - I've been guilty a couple of times - but they're very rare considering the nature of the discussions. I didn't think the discussion of the role of prayer got nasty at all. There were disagreements, it is naturally a very personal kind of issue, but I didn't see any real dis-respect, just some doubts and questions and related discussion. If that's wrong, I don't wanna be right.

Good luck and thanks for doing the job. I know you're paid REALLY well for it!

-Ray

[Pete Serotta]

None in the plan...


I know some would like this but it creates another section that the moderators will need to monitor. If someone want to not read an OT then please do not open it.


Hope spring is coming soon,,,,,, :bike: It is 60 here so I am going to go take advantage of it. Wish SANDY was down here to ride.

[Ahneida Ride]

Sandy

Please Ban Uncle William, before he posts "another" picture ... :banana:

[William]

Sandy

Please Ban Uncle William, before he posts "another" picture ... :banana:


My finger is on the button......

http://mikecane.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/bigredbutton.jpg



:D :D




William

[93legendti]

I sorta like Sandy's gentle nudging to keep a thread in the right direction. Better than locking a thread when it's too late to put out the flames.

[dannyg1]

Who's William really?

[Ahneida Ride]

Who's Uncle William?


you are on the right track !!!! :p :D ;) :beer:

[rugbysecondrow]

ohmmmmmmm

[paczki]

OK, lock this one up. :)

[William]

OK, lock this one up. :)


Quick!!! ;)

http://www.thejointmalawi.com/Some_clients_are_best_locked_up.jpg

[Sandy]

I agree. No matter how civil the discussion about politics and religion might be, the topics are usually incendiary -at least to some - no matter how politely they are discussed (and of course, they often aren't).

Sandy: I have no problem with thread drift, per se, but I do think discussion of religion can be - and usually is - divisive, no matter how well-intentioned. There is always someone on the 'outside'. Politics and religion should be given a very short leash or prohibited here. My opinion, YMMV.

I also like the OT posts and think they have a place here. Thanks to Sandy for taking the interest.

I did consider the thread drift subject- Value of religion (prayer) in the context of the initial focus. I agree that religion and politics are subjects that will often get divisive rather quickly. Beliefs in either case are normally very strong, emotional, and not easily changed.

I also agree that OT topics add substantially to the overall interest and value of the forum, as long as there is a reasonable balance.


Sandy

[Sandy]

I agree with PezTech and William, so its not need to repeat it. The OT threads are fine the way they appear in general discussion, so lets not make a separate forum. We don't need it.

I know there are very strong feelings relative to having a separate category or not. It is to me an organizational question. I prefer placing them in a separate category just to make in cleaner. We have 6 categories that most members can choose from. What is the big deal in having one more. I don't think it is that important one way or the other.

Sandy

[bironi]

Sorry Sandy,

I disagree, just take a look at which of the six gets the traffic. When you start separating the trafficked subject matter the crowd will disperse.

Byron :beer:

[Ti Designs]

The last thing you want is a thread breaking down to pure bickering - that doesn't get anyone anywhere.


Does too!!!

[William]

Does too!!!

That's not an argument, that's just contradiction! An argument is an intellectual process, while contradiction is just the automatic gain-saying of anything the other person says.




:D

[Ti Designs]

That's not an argument, that's just contradiction! An argument is an intellectual process, while contradiction is just the automatic gain-saying of anything the other person says.


No it's not.

[Louis]

Alright, where's the sub-forum for Getting Hit on the Head lessons?

[dave thompson]

Maybe we need a Beating a Dead Horse category too. :D

[Ray]

I think the ministry of silly walks is firmly in place already. Especially right after a long ride...

-Ray

[Louis]

I think the ministry of silly walks is firmly in place already. Especially right after a long ride...

Even during, since I have old-style Look cleats. And you know what, when I walk through the McDonalds to fill my water bottle that clacking noise makes me feel special. (And yes, I must admit it, superior to all those folks on their second triple-with-cheese-and-extra-bacon burgers. I know it's not a good feeling to have, but for me, and I suspect a few other folks around here, it's there.)

Hey, how's this for drift on Sandy's thread? Don't you hate it when the conversation moves away from your original question? ;)

[dave thompson]

I think the ministry of silly walks is firmly in place already. Especially right after a long ride...

-Ray
We could sell t-shirts!

[RPS]

If they continue, I would then feel comfortable in simply deleting parts of or entire posts that they give in the thread. I would not lock the thread, as I do not believe the rest of the members/viewers/posters should be "punished" because of the actions of a few. That doesn't make total sense to me.

Exactly, or you'd be sending the wrong message to those who would intentionally get a thread locked simply because they were losing an argument. A better approach is to delete only their post(s).

For what it’s worth, I would never edit posts. Ever. If any part is inappropriate I’d delete the entire content, but editing is asking for problems. I could deal with you deleting a post of mine, but if you edited the content and therefore the meaning of anything I wrote we’d have serious problems for sure. And I’d bet I am not alone on this.

[Lifelover]

Exactly, or you'd be sending the wrong message to those who would intentionally get a thread locked simply because they were losing an argument. A better approach is to delete only their post(s).

For what it’s worth, I would edit posts. Ever. If any part is inappropriate I’d delete the entire content, but editing is asking for problems. I could deal with you deleting a post of mine, but if you edited the content and therefore the meaning of anything I wrote we’d have serious problems for sure. And I’d bet I am not alone on this.

Than, ATMO, you take this whole thing way to seriously.

[Louis]

Than, ATMO, you take this whole thing way to seriously.

YOU are going to have serious problems with RPS :p

[Sandy]

"To Sandy's question, I would NOT try to direct the flow of the thread. Let it go where it wants to go - this is what we make of it, good or bad."

One question, please. Suppose the thread flows/drifts to a topic, only marginally related to the initial post/question, very early in the thread? Then what? It is possible for the original poster not to receive quality answers or comments because the focus so quickly drifted away from the essence of his or her initial post. Simplified- Let it drift no matter the number of responses?


Sandy

[Louis]

One question, please. Suppose the thread flows/drifts to a topic, only marginally related to the initial post/question, very early in the thread? Then what? It is possible for the original poster not to receive quality answers or comments because the focus so quickly drifted away from the essence of his or her initial post. Simplified- Let it drift no matter the number of responses?

I really don't think that it is the mod's job to patrol the forum making sure questions are answered promptly. They're there to try to keep things civil. If they know the answer to a question, then they should give it. If the OP thinks that his/her question has not been answered they can ask again or redirect their own thread.

If the mods attempt to micro-manage down to this level the forum would quickly become something very different from what it is today.

Louis

[Sandy]

Sandy, I've said it before ~ this is Serotta's forum, so you should do what makes you comfortable. The last thing you want is a thread breaking down to pure bickering - that doesn't get anyone anywhere.

(..and I apologize for the religion rant - quite honestly I didn't notice you were trying to get away from the topic of prayer as it applied to Haiti.)

Bickering often leads to personal attacks and that I think few would feel acceptable.

No need to apologize to me. What I didn't want to occur in the thread was a debate about the value of religion relative to charity in Haiti. Some clearly and understandably think that if the thread naturally drifts and all posters continue to exhibit acceptable behavior in posting, then just let it drift. As I thought charity to Haiti was so important that I didn't want posts to detract from that. It was a judgement on my part. That clearly does not indicate my judgement was correct.


Sandy

[Sandy]

I agree with this.

Obviously your first call has to be what content the company has decided to allow. if you want to keep it strictly to bikes or even strictly to bikes with Serotta on the downtube, I don't have to like it but I have to accept it. But, IF Serotta decides to allow off-topic discussions, then I don't think religion or politics should be off-limit. Even if nobody overtly starts one, they will grow organically out of discussions of almost anything else. We start discussing bike commuting and eventually the discussion will get around to the energy implications, the societal policies that encourage or discourage bike commuting, the use of other alternative types of vehicles, etc. When we're trying to encourage people to raise money for an important humanitarian cause, it'd be impossible to tell religious people NEVER to mention prayer in that sort of thing - its as natural to them as breathing.

So, I say let 'em run and just cut 'em off when one of three things happens.

First, if more than one or two people start getting really uncivilized and nasty toward each other, I'd shut down the whole thread. If its just one or two and they're repeat offenders, possibly warn them with a PM and eventually ban 'em if they don't get it together.

Second, if the discussion gets circular and has gone all the way around in the same circle twice or three times, end it. It'll pop up somewhere else again eventually, but I'd say that's a sign that its run its course.

Third, as noted before, if everyone drops out except for 2-3 people and they go on for more than a page or two (particularly if they're not covering any new ground), that's a good time to have them exchange email addresses and take it off-site.

I think this is usually how you folks HAVE done it and I applaud you for it. You sometimes let something go a bit longer than I would or you sometimes cut something off a bit sooner than I would, but I think you get it pretty close to right almost all of the time. You folks are human and entitled to mistakes sometimes too, eh? I think almost everyone here who chooses to take part in these discussions is an adult and pretty reasonable. There are occasional melt-downs - I've been guilty a couple of times - but they're very rare considering the nature of the discussions. I didn't think the discussion of the role of prayer got nasty at all. There were disagreements, it is naturally a very personal kind of issue, but I didn't see any real dis-respect, just some doubts and questions and related discussion. If that's wrong, I don't wanna be right.

Good luck and thanks for doing the job. I know you're paid REALLY well for it!

-Ray

Very well stated. Must agree with about all you said.

The decorum of this forum is excellent. Considering the number of threads and posts, the amount of unacceptable posts is really extremely low. Posters seem to moderate themselves with excellent results.

I am a relatively new moderator, and have not locked a thread yet, and will probably do so very infrequently. There are normally so few problems in a thread that when they do occur, almost always only a very few posters are involved. I would prefer to not "punish" the innocent because of a few not so innocent.


Sandy

[Ti Designs]

Hey, how's this for drift on Sandy's thread? Don't you hate it when the conversation moves away from your original question?

Hmmm, I think a moderator's job is to suggest that a thread stay in one direction if it should drift in multiple directions. Nothing worse than two converations going on within the same thread - or maybe I'm just easy to confuse. My point is that the mod's words should carry some weight 'cause the next step is either a locked thread or they dispatch William to go break your thumbs...

[RPS]

Last edited by Sandy : Today at 01:57 AM. Reason: RPS
Very funny. ;)

P.S. – I got your PM. Thanks.


Seriously, can you imagine a judge editing the Ten Commandments to make them appropriate to display at a courthouse? Or having a school board editing a controversial book to fit their morality standard? Either they stay as is or removed in their entirety. To edit by removing the first couple of Commandments making reference to God to make them non-religious, or by changing the content of a book is not only inappropriate but worse than the initial offense. On this there should be no middle ground.

It’s not that I take this forum seriously at all – I don’t. I read and participate solely for enjoyment and can easily do without it. What I do take very seriously all the time are principles. I accept that it’s not my forum and not in my power to control, and that Serotta has the right to run it as they see fit. But only within reason and the standards set by common sense; if not by law.

In my opinion no one has the right to edit the content of a person’s thoughts; regardless of how stupid and poorly applied they may be. If that is part of the conditions of participating in this forum it needs to be made clear so we can react accordingly. By the way, I don’t recall reading “editing” conditions to forum membership, and if there are, I certainly would appreciate a reminder. :beer: