Compulsory periodic rotation of moderators (?)

[Stigweard]

Preamble:

 

Having any moderation on a forum immediately creates its own potential pitfalls including:

 

• Separatism: By having one group of members having different rights and privileges than others an immediate state of "us and them" is created. This will inevitably cause resentments and feelings of inequality;
• Elitism: The trap is that the moderation team becomes self-important within their privileged status;
• Secrecy: A lot of the moderation decisions will by necessity take place "behind closed doors", in that the ordinary members wont see the majority of decisions being considered. This secrecy can cause mistrust amongst members;
• Favoritism: Moderators, if not kept in check, may fall into giving preferential treatment to members considered "valuable";
• Stagnation: After maintaining their position for a period of time, moderators can lose their freshness and clear perspective of their role.

 

In order to circumvent these pitfalls, the term cycle of Moderators will operate in this manner:

 

• At any one time there will be five (5) Moderators "seats",
• The maximum term duration for a moderator will be 6-months, after which the moderator must vacate their "seat",
• At any time at all a TaoBum member with more that 100 posts may apply to become a Moderator via the Forum and Tech Support. All they have to do is create a public post saying something like "I want to apply to be a moderator" in the topic heading;
• The existing moderators vote on the acceptance of the application which requires a two-third majority "Yes" votes;
• Once accepted one of two things take place: EITHER one of the existing moderators volunteers to vacate their seat and return to being an ordinary TaoBum member, OR the moderator who has been in term the longest must vacate their seat and return to being an ordinary TaoBum member;
• A moderator seat may also become vacant by an existing moderator voluntarily choosing to vacate their seat before their 6-month term is over. An announcement is made in the Forum and Tech Support and TaoBum members can make application and be accepted following the above process.

 

This would solve the whole "us vs them" idea because at any stage an "us" could become a "them" and vice versa. It would also solve the "secrecy" paranoia because new moderators can step in see everything else that has been going on.

 

The team would always be refreshed and enlivened with new folks coming through and it could very well engender the ideal of "members moderating themselves" and a feeling amongst members of "we are doing this ourselves".

 

The other benefit of this is that, over time, there would be an increasing number of members who have been in the moderation role. Thus there would be progressively less reason for anyone to establish a view of "us vs them". Also you will find that these ex-moderators will be naturally more mindful of moderation considerations and will likely become an informal moderating influence in the forum.

[zerostao]

[mYTHmAKER]

Something like jury duty LOL

[Stigweard]

[Stigweard]

Something like jury duty LOL

[zerostao]

"Why did you even bother?"

yeah you got me there without a doubt i am generally indifferent

to the whole thing.

 

" to try and influence the mod direction in a positive way. Obviously I still am "

well, thats cool. and its not like you have basically disagreed with every move they have made the past couple of months..

 

"So is anything broke?" not from my view,

but , you do know more than i about it

" I have been on both sides of the fence and I know "

 

"Aye, I resigned because I couldn't in all conscience actively support the directives given to the Mod Team at that time. "

something has changed?

 

i will give you +2 for this " Why did you even bother?" as it is correct

that i dont care. it would be more enjoyable for me to talk about tai chi,

chi kung, etc, so i will go back to those threads.

 

"Someone challenged me at the time that the true test of whether or not my self-importance was attached to the role was to be able to resign from the position"

seriously?

[Stigweard]

" to try and influence the mod direction in a positive way. Obviously I still am "

well, thats cool. and its not like you have basically disagreed with every move they have made the past couple of months..

Classic over-generalization.

 

something has changed?

I am allowing for the possibility.

 

"Someone challenged me at the time that the true test of whether or not my self-importance was attached to the role was to be able to resign from the position"

seriously?

Absolutely, and at the time I felt it was a fair question and noticed that I did indeed have attachments to the position. Once I recognized this my decision was pretty clear.

 

[AugustLeo]

.

Edited August 25, 2011 by AugustLeo

[Stigweard]

Stig,

 

You have my ear and my respect.

 

I favor less moderation.

 

But if this were my forum, there would only be a handful of trusted posters (most of whom no longer post) .

 

Ultimately, it's Sean who bears the burden.

 

AugustLeo

I wonder if you realize how much this comment means to me? Thank you my friend!!!

 

[Simplicity Rules]

Preamble:

 

......

 

Very well-thought suggestion. Worth pondering and discussing. Unfortunate you resigned, after reading your views, it sure seems like a loss

[Stigweard]

Very well-thought suggestion. Worth pondering and discussing. Unfortunate you resigned, after reading your views, it sure seems like a loss

Thanks for that. I am quite certain others would disagree, and they probably have good reasons for doing so. But thankyou all the same.

 

[dawei]

As zero said, I am often 100% with Stig's posts and ideas which raise issues which should be discussed and challenged... but I will dissent on this one. I will at least give my reason

 

1. I noted [somewhere] that this is a privately run board... that seems to be enough.. but there is more

2. Being a moderator for several years (on another board), these kinds of ideas and complaints happen and should be let to run their course. Once you are in the 'inside' it is easier to take direct issue with the inner circle.

3. Mods are sometimes thought of being a the leaders of a kind of "old boys club"; anyone they know or like might get preferential treatment. Thus, they appear to handle things unfairly and a call for fairness is raised. Honestly, this is life as we know it. I honestly don't know if the subconsciousness can be rid of this for most.

4. Rotating mods does not really overcome some of the issues; you still end "us" [who have been mods] vs them [who have not been mods]; and you cannot control the thinking and behavior of preferential treatment that ensures in the long run [within the "us" who have been mods]. So, I am personally against such an idea.

5. Dropping out a moderator position to then try and create change is more like trying to muster a rebellion. You were already in a position to help create change. You should of just dropped the attachments within yourself and worked within the position you had. That is just my naive opinion without knowing you that personally and the circumstances so you'll have to forgive me on this point. But this is exactly what I did at the place I moderate. It is usually more effective and does not appear so much as an attack on the establishment (unless that is what one wants).

6. In the movie, The International with Clive Owens he says, "once in a while a hostage has to be shot"... it was a remark that one cannot just follow the prescribed path of justice to get real justice. One person (or one idea) does not outweigh the importance of the group... and one bad apple does spoil the pie... But in the movie, one guy can try to outmaneuver the stronghold position if they go "outside the law--prevailing Way". On the other hand, this "outside the group" mentality results in lots of issues; I see a few on this website who truly spoil the experience for many. So it works both ways... But I think that Mod diversity helps to balance that issue from rash decisions and keeps it all going for the group.

 

There was a past post which you raised and someone called you out in regards to anger within or something of that. Honestly, I felt it too at the time and in a few posts. This assessment may be missing the Rosa Parks dilemma; The arresting officer had no real reason for the arrest but only said, "the law's the law" (ie: forum rule is the rule). Hopefully we have collectively moved beyond being a mouth piece of law or simple morality, but we each sit in a seat [online] with a conviction about the prevailing and constructed Way, and who is unwilling to give up that seat for the sake of a "law" (or rule)...

Edited August 17, 2011 by dawei

[Stigweard]

As zero said, I am often 100% with Stig's posts and ideas which raise issues which should be discussed and challenged... but I will dissent on this one. I will at least give my reason

 

1. I noted [somewhere] that this is a privately run board... that seems to be enough.. but there is more

2. Being a moderator for several years (on another board), these kinds of ideas and complaints happen and should be let to run their course. Once you are in the 'inside' it is easier to take direct issue with the inner circle.

3. Mods are sometimes thought of being a the leaders of a kind of "old boys club"; anyone they know or like might get preferential treatment. Thus, they appear to handle things unfairly and a call for fairness is raised. Honestly, this is life as we know it. I honestly don't know if the subconsciousness can be rid of this for most.

4. Rotating mods does not really overcome some of the issues; you still end "us" [who have been mods] vs them [who have not been mods]; and you cannot control the thinking and behavior of preferential treatment that ensures in the long run [within the "us" who have been mods]. So, I am personally against such an idea.

5. Dropping out a moderator position to then try and create change is more like trying to muster a rebellion. You were already in a position to help create change. You should of just dropped the attachments within yourself and worked within the position you had. That is just my naive opinion without knowing you that personally and the circumstances so you'll have to forgive me on this point. But this is exactly what I did at the place I moderate. It is usually more effective and does not appear so much as an attack on the establishment (unless that is what one wants).

6. In the movie, The International with Clive Owens he says, "once in a while a hostage has to be shot"... it was a remark that one cannot just follow the prescribed path of justice to get real justice. One person (or one idea) does not outweigh the importance of the group... and one bad apple does spoil the pie... But in the movie, one guy can try to outmaneuver the stronghold position if they go "outside the law--prevailing Way". On the other hand, this "outside the group" mentality results in lots of issues; I see a few on this website who truly spoil the experience for many. So it works both ways... But I think that Mod diversity helps to balance that issue from rash decisions and keeps it all going for the group.

 

There was a past post which you raised and someone called you out in regards to anger within or something of that. Honestly, I felt it too at the time and in a few posts. This assessment may be missing the Rosa Parks dilemma; The arresting officer had no real reason for the arrest but only said, "the law's the law" (ie: forum rule is the rule). Hopefully we have collectively moved beyond being a mouth piece of law or simple morality, but we each sit in a seat [online] with a conviction about the prevailing and constructed Way, and who is unwilling to give up that seat for the sake of a "law" (or rule)...

I respect your comments, and thank you for contributing to the discussion

[Marblehead]

Hi Stig,

 

You know that I cannot join the discussion, right?

 

But I will read every post.

[mjjbecker]

 

I favor less moderation.

 

But if this were my forum, there would only be a handful of trusted posters (most of whom no longer post) .

 

Ultimately, it's Sean who bears the burden.

 

AugustLeo

 

I favour self moderation. The reason we have the moderator team is because more and more it became clear that many people won't follow the rules, as set out by Sean.

 

Rightly or wrongly, people have left and people won't participate here because they feel it is too unpleasant a place to be. One thing to question something, quite another to go all pitchforks and torches. The latter has been all too common.

 

There seems to be an overwhelming sense of self importance when it comes to the 'right' to have ones say. But really, there is no such 'right' here. The forum is privately owned but publicly shared.

 

Sean pays the bills and as observed, bears the burden. There is no reason why he should not accept adverts to cover the costs. Anyone that doesn't like it can ignore it or leave.

[Apech]

As usual interesting ideas Stig. I kind of agree with time limited modding, as you know being a mod completely destroys the TTB experience - or at least changes it. I don't quite buy the reasons stated but that's another matter.

 

I would reflect the following though:

 

1) 6 months is nowhere near long enough to be a mod - I think more like a year or maybe 18 months even. You need some time to get the hang of the ropes and some effective time and then perhaps time to share skills or at least discuss things with new mods ... so a team of all < 6 month mods doesn't sound effective to me.

 

2) 100 posts - again I could rack up 100 posts by just saying hi to all the new people in the lobby everyday ... should be several hundred posts and demonstrating some degree of sensibleness ...

 

3) It seems to me to get consistency you would have to have some kind of super-mod sitting above the others - if this were just Sean then you'd get back to the same problem you started with.

 

4) I may be wrong but I don't get the feeling that people will be queuing round the block to sign up for modding - so if the recruitment doesn't work then the whole thing falls into disrepute anyway.

 

The way things work Sean has to have some confidence to allow the mods to get on with it and also to trust them with the level of access given. A mod could do damage if they were careless or malicious.

 

As others have said - shame you didn't stay on to give this perspective from inside ... but I think life is better as a TBum than as a Mod.

[Mal]

... but I think life is better as a TBum than as a Mod.

 

Yes. eg TTB's don't log on to delete spam when getting up to pee in the middle of the night

 

 

sorry about that

[Stigweard]

[Mal]

Just to jump to your comment: "shame you didn't stay on to give this perspective from inside"

 

You are familiar with the circumstances of my "departure." In the period shortly after I was invited by Sean to work on a new draft moderation guidelines. Through that process this idea emerged. And yes the notion of "super-mods" was also considered...

 

Yes.... and the gatekeeper / super mod idea with yourself and me in those rolls, along with throwing away the "lower level" of moderators after they had given 6 months to moderating was why I wouldn't support this.

 

After discussing that implication with Sean and the remaining moderators Sean sugested something different.... which is what we have now.

[Stigweard]

Yes.... and the gatekeeper / super mod idea with yourself and me in those rolls, along with throwing away the "lower level" of moderators after they had given 6 months to moderating was why I wouldn't support this.

 

After discussing that implication with Sean and the remaining moderators Sean sugested something different.... which is what we have now.

Interesting Mal.

 

Firstly Sean asked me that if I took the the Gatekeeper role who would I want with me and I told him the only person I would trust as co-position was you. I also followed this up saying that I wasn't interested then in stepping back into the Mod team, just as I am not interested in doing so now.

 

Secondly, "throwing away" is entirely the wrong connotation and I am surprised to hear that you have attached this implication with it. Apech shared his view that 6mths is too short and I agree that a longer term is more appropriate and I agree with his POV.

 

Perhaps "refreshing" moderators is a much more accurate intent then the negative connotation you have attached.

 

As to the "other suggestion", I would be interested to hear it.

 

Edited August 18, 2011 by Stigweard

[Mal]

Firstly Sean asked me that if I took the the Gatekeeper role who would I want with me and I told him the only person I would trust as co-position was you.

 

I know, after some of our exchanges at that time I was grateful, even somewhat honoured, and I was tempted. But "throwing away" the other mods was exactly how I interpreted it.

[Stigweard]

I know, after some of our exchanges at that time I was grateful, even somewhat honoured, and I was tempted. But "throwing away" the other mods was exactly how I interpreted it.

Well then I would ask that you adopt some fluidity in your interpretation because, if you allowed it, there is a way of viewing the whole idea that actually has some very beneficial possibilities.

 

[Apech]

I certainly prefer the term 'refreshing' to 'throwing away" We'd have to have a TTBs ex-mod dumpster truck....

 

Couple of serious points though:

 

1) Something like a succession policy or process is a good idea if TTBs is to be around for many years to come. There should be some accepted idea that people take on roles for a period and then hand over in some kind of way. The level of commitment and time input is very unspecific and some Mods go AWOL (for very good reasons) for periods of time which makes the Mod team a bit variable. Its not like we're all sitting poised at our monitors 24/7 ...

 

2) The point is you pick up skills and experience along the way. if you just stop modding how do you feed back what you have learned to the others. This what you are doing now Stig ... so some of it is about capturing knowledge/wisdom.

 

3) Maybe what we have never quite defined properly is what modding is supposed to achieve. there's a lot of suspicion amongst certain people that we are somehow grooming TTBs for certain teachers and so on ... this is news to me but is there any sense in which that is true. I would like to see more specific information about techniques, styles and methods ... how do we get that to happen ... without loosing the freeform stuff???

 

Lots of questions.

 

Maybe there's different mod roles we could explore. Not just the police-mod, the anti-spam-mod, maybe the strategy-mod who thinks about the grand plan (whatever that is?)

 

Sorry to ramble.

 

[Stigweard]

I certainly prefer the term 'refreshing' to 'throwing away" We'd have to have a TTBs ex-mod dumpster truck....

 

Couple of serious points though:

 

1) Something like a succession policy or process is a good idea if TTBs is to be around for many years to come. There should be some accepted idea that people take on roles for a period and then hand over in some kind of way. The level of commitment and time input is very unspecific and some Mods go AWOL (for very good reasons) for periods of time which makes the Mod team a bit variable. Its not like we're all sitting poised at our monitors 24/7 ...

On a more philosophical level (senses Marblehead scratching chin ), I think it is the way of Dao to not only recognize change but to in fact plan for it; to have change and evolution intrinsic within one's strategy.

 

It's also the way of Laozi to minimize rigid structures of authority; to adopt, as best as one can, the principles of Libertarianism. The ideal is for the community members to say, "We did this ourselves".

 

Now it would be wonderful if we could achieve mjjbecker's "all member's are self-moderated" and do away with moderators all together. I am sure that we will all agree that that won't be happening anytime soon. But it certainly is an ideal that we should try and approximate as close as possible.

 

Currently there is quite a rigid divide between the Mod Team and the general membership, though maybe the current mods can't see this thinking "but we are still just members". Whilst this remains so to will the continuance of people expressing their contempt for the "us vs them" situation. This static environment is also fertile ground for mods to get too entrenched within their roles, to get too attached to the position whether that allure be authority, prestige or whatever.

 

I know I could not honestly say that my self-importance wasn't attached to the position, and I would challenge every mod to truly inquire this of themselves. And in that attachment, to whatever degree it may be present, are you truly serving this community to the best of your ability?

 

Though I am not saying that this is the situation at the moment, there is, I believe, a real risk that members of the Mod Team may get too entrenched and static. It happens to the most well meaning of people who think that, by clinging to their position of authority, they are doing "the best good" for all.

 

To return to the idea in the OP (without of course fixating on its details), if we had a semi-formal way of rotating or refreshing the moderation team not only would the distinct line between Mod Team and the general membership become more and more fuzzy and indistinct, but we would safe-guard against the wreck and ruin that self-importance can play in positions of authority.

 

As I mentioned previously, gradually over time with more and more people having their spell as a moderator there literally would develop a sense amongst the wider membership that "we have done this ourselves" as per Laozi's vision of a functional community.

 

2) The point is you pick up skills and experience along the way. if you just stop modding how do you feed back what you have learned to the others. This what you are doing now Stig ... so some of it is about capturing knowledge/wisdom.

Absolutely! But it's also important to capture knowledge/wisdom at the front end by having other people bringing in the treasures and wisdom of their life into the moderation team. If the Mod Team just stayed with the same 5 or so folks all the time then things would get stagnant very quickly. It's actually quite unfair to think that the ongoing development and progress of the forum depends only a few folks, its also quite unnatural.

 

3) Maybe what we have never quite defined properly is what modding is supposed to achieve. there's a lot of suspicion amongst certain people that we are somehow grooming TTBs for certain teachers and so on ... this is news to me but is there any sense in which that is true. I would like to see more specific information about techniques, styles and methods ... how do we get that to happen ... without loosing the freeform stuff???

 

Lots of questions.

 

Maybe there's different mod roles we could explore. Not just the police-mod, the anti-spam-mod, maybe the strategy-mod who thinks about the grand plan (whatever that is?)

 

Sorry to ramble.

 

I hear your considerations, I think it would be fairly accurate to say that Sean wanted to see more "authentic teachers" as regular posters. But the reality is that whenever one of em shows up they get fairly well buffeted about by people questioning their authority and their teachings etc. It's pretty inevitable that someone will take some sort of shot at them of some sorts.

 

Most of these teachers aren't used to being cross-examined like this and some think it's disrespectful for the teacher to prove himself to potential students. Personally I think they all need a good dose of the TaoBums maelstrom. I can name only a few who have successfully navigated our waters with all sails still intact, and these rare individuals have my earnest respect.

 

And it was to this, I believe, that Sean was directing his instruction to "body guard" certain members. I believe it was wrong then and I still believe it is wrong for any member to be given this sort of protection. If they can't stand on their own merits then they shouldn't be here at all.

 

To your consideration of free-form vs quality sharing and learning, as I said in another thread I think the Taoist Discussion forum was a good idea it seems to be trickling along quite nicely ... sort of like a quite grove in the otherwise noisy playground. I had my doubts but now my mind has been made up that it's a good thing.

 

Cheers for your earnest discussion.

 

[mYTHmAKER]

To paraphrase an old friend.

I would rather be a turtle in the mud

then a moderator on the Tao Bums