Hiring Moderators

[Jonathan13]

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=20065

Her position in this thread, as clearly as I can state it, is that if a bookseller has a particularly loose return policy, you are not cheating that bookseller if you buy a book with no intention of keeping it at the time of purchase, so long as your return is allowed under the policy.

Thanks for the link!

J

[~Sophia~]

It seems that you can't just politely and respectfully say that you disagree with someone, or that you think your opponent is in error, but you have to assert that his or her statement was "fundamentally dishonest,"

You are dropping a very significant part of the context of David's response. Hermes did not act toward David in a way that would warrant his politeness and respect. This would be true if David was not a moderator and it does not change because he is one.

The notion that moderators ought to always respond with politeness and respect regardless of circumstances because they are moderators is a mistaken one.

[JASKN]

It seems to me that I pick my battles. What criterion do you think I'm overlooking, possibly with an example? That is, what "battle" should I have left alone?

OK, well then from here it looks like you pick many battles; I think that confounds a discussion.

Take your post here. You argue about many different things instead of focusing on the thrust of why you are replying at all, which is not clear to me. If your point were to state and support your views about something to then let the reader decide, it would have best been expressed in a well-worded paragraph. Instead, it comes across as excessively argumentative with no clear purpose or conversation direction.

This is my guess as a source of the type of responses you are getting. Like I said, anything can be argued about, but everything can't be argued about at once. Perhaps your purposes are clear to you, but maybe they are not coming across well to your readers because you are addressing too many things at once.

I'll add that it seems I haven't seen as many of your posts as some other members, so this is my rough guess based on this thread.

[RationalBiker]

Certainly, it is, Rational (?) Biker.

No, it is not. Rational(!)Biker understands that one opinion alone can be enough to judge a person as someone one he does not wish to have moderating a board, and given many other contexts, a whole host of other things. Claire may think quantity is more important than substance, but that's Claire's problem, not Rational(!)Biker's.

Assuming for a moment you disagree with my particular assessment of this particular opinion, can you not see that judging a person on the sole opinion of, for example, all people over 40 should be killed to help with population problems and placing him in some governmental role might be problematic even if you agreed with 99 of his other opinions?

The quantity of opinions is immaterial if one considers the substance of any one opinion as being unacceptable for a given task.

Edited September 2, 2010 by RationalBiker

[RationalBiker]

If a person or group cannot tolerate a single difference of opinion withou getting hostile and ganging up on the differing person, there's a problem, and it is not with the person who is disagreeing.

There are false assumptions here that should be addressed.

1) I did not gang up on anyone nor act in collusion with anyone (save echoing the sentiment I shared with Grames). I spoke for myself and myself alone.

2) I can tolerate a difference of opinion. At no point has that been the issue with me. I cannot tolerate someone moderating this board who I do not think should be moderating this board because of the implications of a particular opinion. If you read anymore into my statements than that, you are creating something that is not there. You are confused again ( the first time being when you said I had not provided her with an explanation) as to the issue and the purpose of my statements. Additionally, I think what may be escaping you is that this is not about the opinion itself, but the implication of the opinion and how relates to the particular issue of whether someone should not be a moderator. I'm reasonably sure that I have some differing opinions with the other recently "hired" mods, but they were not opinions with implications that caused me concern over whether or not they should be mods.

So what? We are not clones who all think alike.

Thanks for pointing out the painfully obvious. However, this has nothing at all to do with the discussion at hand as relating to my contributions.

Someone will be wrong. That's life.

Yes, someone will be as I have pointed out above.

[Jonathan13]

You are dropping a very significant part of the context of David's response. Hermes did not act toward David in a way that would warrant his politeness and respect. This would be true if David was not a moderator and it does not change because he is one.

That's your opinion.

In the past, I've encountered posters whom I felt were not acting toward me in a way that would warrant my politeness, and after several such posts (after I thought that a pattern of snottiness and abusiveness toward me had been established), I responded a little more bluntly than I might normally. My post was then deleted immediately by a moderator, and it was deleted for content which was much less inflammatory than what moderators get away with here. This has happened more than once. I and certain others here are apparently expected to behave much better than the moderators do.

The notion that moderators ought to always respond with politeness and respect regardless of circumstances because they are moderators is a mistaken one.

I disagree. If a person can't maintain his composure, and if he needs to try to humiliate and intimidate people, he probably shouldn't be a moderator.

The really sad thing here is that this thread probably would not have deviated into a gripe-fest about moderators if the moderators had behaved with decorum and decency rather than poking and degrading others, and doing so while announcing how fair and reasonable they (the moderators) are.

J

[Greebo]

The notion that moderators ought to always respond with politeness and respect regardless of circumstances because they are moderators is a mistaken one.

I think you would do well to consider moderators of an online community as the online equivalent of the police.

If the moderators are acting officially, then yes, they *should* always respond with politeness and respect, even as they're escorting someone out the door.

If the moderators engage in a discussion in which they do NOT respond with politeness and respect, then they have become personally involved in said discussion to the point where they should recuse themselves in any official capacity regarding that discussion.

[~Sophia~]

That's your opinion.

It is not my opinion. It follows from the application of justice. Moderators like anyone else here have a right to fully act on their own judgment of the person they are interacting with. They need not respond with politeness to insults, for example.

[~Sophia~]

I think you would do well to consider moderators of an online community as the online equivalent of the police.

Try to insult or use force against a police officer and you will see how polite he will be.

[DavidOdden]

I think you would do well to consider moderators of an online community as the online equivalent of the police.

Although I disagree with this position, I suggest that if you believe this and care, you should make a separate proposal (separate thread) proposing a rule change that implements your idea.

[Greebo]

Try to insult or use force against a police officer and you will see how polite he will be.

See what happens in the court of public opinion when a police officer is caught on camera being less respectful than the person(s) with whom he or she is dealing.

There are police officers who are polite when dragging a suspect away kicking and screaming, and there are police officers who are disrespectful and abusive to citizens who have done nothing wrong.

We are not discussing what does happen but what should happen.

What DOES happen varies with the individual.

To refer back to the court of public opinion - keep in mind that this forum *is* public. If your moderator staff generally acts in a disrespectful manner, it will alienate people that you almost certainly don't want to alienate.

Although I disagree with this position, I suggest that if you believe this and care, you should make a separate proposal (separate thread) proposing a rule change that implements your idea.

I do believe this, quite strongly, and have implemented this practice in every forum I've moderated or administrated for the last 20+ years. (Going back to the old BBS days)

I trust that if any of the moderators or admins here agree with this position, then they will take it upon themselves to discuss the matter and decide it upon themselves. The onus of managing the general atmosphere is, after all, on you, the staff.

If not, then you will reap the consequences of your attitude to your participants.

[DavidOdden]

I do believe this, quite strongly, and have implemented this practice in every forum I've moderated or administrated for the last 20+ years.

That is not a reason to adopt the proposal. If you cannot or will not present a logical argument in support of the conclusion, then you cannot or will not. I'm just saying that if you believe that this is a reasonable thing to do, then you can logically demonstrate why this is a reasonable thing.

[~Sophia~]

The really sad thing here is that this thread probably would not have deviated into a gripe-fest about moderators

Again, the moderators for many years now here have displayed high level of rationality publicly - if they took an action against you - there was probably just cause even if you personally did not like it.

The fact that some won't agree with their judgment is a given. If everyone could come to their better senses on their own there would not be a need for moderators.

Furthermore, if I believed that I was severely unjustly treated I would not be here. If that is how you feel what are you doing here then?

Incidentally, this is the most successful forum of this kind and a big part of it is moderation. They have done an excellent job overall.

--------------------------------------------------

I would like to put an end to this open buffet on the moderating team. Seriously this should stop.

[~Sophia~]

See what happens in the court of public opinion when a police officer is caught on camera being less respectful than the person(s) with whom he or she is dealing.

That is not the context of my statement. This is a straw man.

[SapereAude]

That's your opinion.

In the past, I've encountered posters whom I felt were not acting toward me in a way that would warrant my politeness, and after several such posts (after I thought that a pattern of snottiness and abusiveness toward me had been established), I responded a little more bluntly than I might normally. My post was then deleted immediately by a moderator, and it was deleted for content which was much less inflammatory than what moderators get away with here. This has happened more than once. I and certain others here are apparently expected to behave much better than the moderators do.

J

I think this merits addressing.

(for the record to those who aren't aware, I was just made a moderator so when I express my opinions about the moderation on this site I am speaking about my past encounters with mods while I was a "civilian")

I do see where you are coming from with how you feel about this pattern you are seeing.

When I was first on this forum I thought I saw the same pattern.

My mind changed as I posted more frequently and on more topics.

As time went on I started to see the pattern not as moderators being biased for or against people as persons but rather for or against people as content providers.

To be clear- what I thought was bias for or against certain people I later saw as leniency based on a person's reputation directly related to their contributions. A person who has several hundred posts and once or twice has crossed a boundary it tends to get brushed off. A person who comes onto the forum and within a month half of their posts turn into thread hijacking tit-for-tats will be treated differently.

I don't see that as injustice, I see that as common sense.

I understand where you may be disinclined to take my word for it, but please to take a moment to consider the possibility.

[Greebo]

That is not a reason to adopt the proposal. If you cannot or will not present a logical argument in support of the conclusion, then you cannot or will not. I'm just saying that if you believe that this is a reasonable thing to do, then you can logically demonstrate why this is a reasonable thing.

As I said:

To refer back to the court of public opinion - keep in mind that this forum *is* public. If your moderator staff generally acts in a disrespectful manner, it will alienate people that you almost certainly don't want to alienate.

[Greebo]

That is not the context of my statement. This is a straw man.

I'm the one who made the comparison to police. I set the context. My response, which you are calling a straw man, is in fact a clarification of that context.

Moderators are to a forum like the police force is to civilization. Your job is to identify when people are behaving in an inappropriate manner and deal with them appropriately. The level of intervention should be appropriate to the nature of the crime (ie: misbehavior) and, since this is a forum where one would presume you want people to stick around, should be corrective and not punitive whenever possible, thus encouraging people to behave more appropriately as opposed to leaving because they feel ill used.

Actually moderators are more of a hybrid cops/courts situation since you are judge and jury as well as executioner.

But the point still stands - being in a position of authority and acting in a manner that is disrespectful, and worse, also acting in matters in which there is a clear conflict of interest creates a hostile atmosphere to the users. Quality users, the ones you want to keep around, will not stay in a hostile atmosphere - they will go somewhere else, and new users will then find the remaining atmosphere unappealing.

[SapereAude]

Actually moderators are more of a hybrid cops/courts situation since you are judge and jury as well as executioner.

I have a problem with this and agree with Sophia.

As a user you are choosing to subject yourself to the authority of the mods. You create an account, click on the user agreement and choose to be here. At anytime you can release yourself from the authority of the mods by not logging in.

Police/judge/executioner.. you have no such ability in society to opt out of having laws enforced upon you.

I'm finding it odd that some of the arguments presented here seem to run contrary to belief in laissez faire capitalism as applied in Objectivism.

There is an owner of this site.

The owner chooses the mods.

The mods either enforce the will of the owner or the owner can choose to fire said mods.

The user can "vote with his dollar" by choosing to not participate in the site thereby completely releasing him/herself from any authority.

What I'm hearing here seems to be that some want the site run more democratically..?

Am I mistaken?

[Greebo]

What I'm hearing here seems to be that some want the site run more democratically..?

Am I mistaken?

Yes.

You are absolutely correct that the owner of this site can do whatever he/she wishes and engage anyone they wish to do the same, and that we can always vote with our feet.

It is also absolutely correct that the users can choose for themselves the conditions under which voting with their feet will happen. Most users won't bother to tell you those conditions, they'll just leave once those conditions are met.

So I am not asking OO.NET to change. I am telling OO.NET, based on my own experiences with running large, successful forums, how I think it should change *IF* it doesn't want quality users voting with their feet.

[DavidOdden]

Moderators are to a forum like the police force is to civilization.

This analogy is profoundly wrong.

Government exists to protect the rights of individuals and prevent the initiation of force, through a system of narrowly prescribed laws. That is all that governments are supposed to do. Police are part of the means of protecting rights and, most importantly, as Rand points out in "The Nature of Government" p. 128,

Under a proper social system, a private individual is legally free to take any action he pleases (so long as he does not violate the rights of others), while a government official is bound by law in his every official act. A private individual may do anything except that which is legally

forbidden

; a government official may do nothing except that which is legally

permitted

.

The concrete application of this to police is that while they are acting as police, i.e. on duty, in uniform, acting under color of law, they are severely limited in what they may do. They may not ask further questions when a suspect requests the presence of an attorney. They may not freely denounce Islam as a terrorist cult; they may not tell a man who is legally present and not disturbing the peace to go hang himself. A private individual may do these things. Furthermore, a police officer when he is acting as a private individual may do these things.

Since "being a moderator" is not a job with specific hours, a moderator is always a moderator until they cease being a moderator entirely. Applying your "act like the police" rule, that would lead to the absurd result that moderators may not post on this forum. If this were HPO and we had a simple external moderator with no interest in (even an active distaste for) Objectivism like Tim Skirvin, then such a rule would be possible, but it would then inevitably lead to the mess that is HPO.

There is always a conflict between the interest of the moderator and the interest of the party who is subject to moderation action. The interest of the moderator is the well-being of this forum, and the interest of the person being acted against is orthogonal to that interest. Your adoration of the concept "conflict of interest" ought to be replaced with reference to proper interests as they pertain to this forum. If there is a rule generally prohibiting intellectual dishonesty, there is no special "conflict of interest" if the intellectual dishonesty is directed at Objectivists (which would include moderators here -- under the current system of Objectivist moderators), moderators in general or a specific moderator.

[~Sophia~]

I'm the one who made the comparison to police. I set the context. My response, which you are calling a straw man, is in fact a clarification of that context.

You responded to my statement:

The notion that moderators ought to always respond with politeness and respect regardless of circumstances because they are moderators is a mistaken one.

(bold added)

That is the context of my argument to which you replied to.

I have never argued that moderators have a right to treat people unjustly. Instead, I argued that there are circumstanced in which moderators have a right to not be polite and respectful as an application of justice.

[Dante]

That is not a reason to adopt the proposal. If you cannot or will not present a logical argument in support of the conclusion, then you cannot or will not. I'm just saying that if you believe that this is a reasonable thing to do, then you can logically demonstrate why this is a reasonable thing.

I have posted a related argument in another topic, although it is not an argument specifically for a policy change.

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=20193

[Greebo]

Aside from ignoring the rest of the context of my reply and picking just one line to single out...

Since "being a moderator" is not a job with specific hours, a moderator is always a moderator until they cease being a moderator entirely.

This very thread belies this argument, as it has been pointed out that a chat moderator is free to act as a regular chatter unless he finds it necessary to put his moderator hat on. If a chat moderator can put his hat on when necessary, so can a forum moderator. The medium is no different - both are text interactions between different people on a message system. The only variance is the time scale of the interactions - chat being immediate time vs. posts being over hours, days and weeks.

A moderator ought to be able to tell when they need to step into their moderator role based on the context of the thread in question. A person who can't should not be moderating.

And you also seem to be ignoring the argument (which you requested) to behave in a respectful manner at all times:

But the point still stands - being in a position of authority and acting in a manner that is disrespectful, and worse, also acting in matters in which there is a clear conflict of interest creates a hostile atmosphere to the users. Quality users, the ones you want to keep around, will not stay in a hostile atmosphere - they will go somewhere else, and new users will then find the remaining atmosphere unappealing.

Even *IF* your other assertions are true, which I don't accept them to be, the above stands.

[Greebo]

You responded to my statement:

(bold added)

That is the context of my argument to which you replied to.

I have never argued that moderators have a right to treat people unjustly. Instead, I argued that there are circumstanced in which moderators have a right to not be polite and respectful as an application of justice.

Speaking of straw men, I have not said they do NOT have a right not to be polite.

I am saying that they should be polite. I am also saying that it is perfectly possible, as a moderator, to invoke whatever appropriate punishments are necessary, up to and including outright banning, without being rude.

For example, the message I received, "Your rudeness is disruptive. This does not require reply from you, just change in your conduct. " would have been much more effective phrased as follows, "This is a reminder that on these forums, we require that all user conduct themselves in a civil manner. In (this post) your conduct has fallen below that mark. A warning has been issued on your account. You are advised to correct this behavior, or there will be more severe consequences. If you have any questions about this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me or any other forum moderator."

Both messages get the point across, but one is far less abrasive and invites an opportunity for instruction, while the other is simply high handed.

[~Sophia~]

Speaking of straw men, I have not said they do NOT have a right not to be polite.

This was not clear. Thank you for clarification.

I am saying that they should be polite.

They should act rationally and sometimes that may mean not being polite. (Please note that I said sometimes - not most of the time or as a default reaction)

As long as they act rationally (and they have) this site will continue to be a success. The success is partially due to the fact that the moderators here do not cater to public opinion and care about popularity. They have a commitment to reason.

Edited September 2, 2010 by ~Sophia~