Frogboy Frogboy

To moderate or not to moderate

▼

To moderate or not to moderate

Different styles to accomplish different things

from WinCustomize Forums

I'm a moderator on many different websites and each site has its own rules of conduct not just for users, but for moderators as well.

On WinCustomize.com, moderators are encouraged to moderate politely but publicly.  If a user is acting out, a moderator is supposed to make his presence felt so that observers can see that "the cops are on the beat".

On other sites, moderation is done discretely. If someone is misbehaving, a private message is sent to them letting them know they must stop or they face punishment.  To users on the forums, the moderator's presence is almost invisible. This way, so goes the theory, the forum participants don't feel like big brother is watching.

Which begs the question, which way do you think is more effective?

No Need to Click Here - I'm just claiming my feed at Feedster feedster:99fa96d97dd67dbadc2839937ce79167

25,569 views 39 replies
Reply #26 from WinCustomize Forums Top
In the forum I mod, we use a combination approach, depending on the situation. On situations where we feel that clear and major violation of the rules has been commited, we'll PM the offender as well as make a public comment about it, in addition to any needed editing. Sometimes, we just go with a public deal, usually editing the offending post(s) with a mod comment tacked on. If it's a more minor deal, we'll generally just poke the offender with a PM telling him/her what htey did wrong, and *generally* it doesn't happen again.

Different stroke for different folks...
Reply #27 from WinCustomize Forums Top
I think the moderators should have the leeway to make a judgement call on whether a comment calls for private or public attention.


I dont disagree. But I thought this was what do you prefer.
Sins of a Solar Empire II
Reply #28 from WinCustomize Forums Top
I thought this was what do you prefer.


I guess that was a little ambiguous. This is, mostly, a public forum. Therefore I believe most "issues" should be dealt with publicly.

I also think there are situations that would be better dealt with in a more discreet manner.
Reply #29 from WinCustomize Forums Top
I think it's all relative to the actual 'incident' ...if it's a minor transgression, a gentle 'prod' in the right direction [in public] generally gets a positive result.

If it's a major transgression, perhaps it's better to have a two-part response to the problem. A carefully worded [polite] warning to the person in public, to let them and others know you're on the job and that the situation is 'in hand' ...and another carefully worded email to the person, explaining why you dealt with the situation as you did.

There's usually a reason why people act as they do, mostly it's in anger or frustration at a given problem or situation.

Getting to the root of that problem swiftly and directly with the person involved ~keeps the 'dirty laundry' off the forums and gives a better impression to casual visitors/newcomers.

Yes, every now and then you do get the odd griefer or troll ...but you can [usually] spot them a mile away. Those folk should be dealt with swiftly and with a heavy hand. No second chances for people whose only motive is to cause as much upheaval as they can.
Reply #30 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Prefer that admin works in the open.

Im one of the few that want a forum to be heavely moderated especially when it comes to politic ,sex and such sensetive discussions.
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top

I think a combination of private and public is best. Public moderation has a way of acting preemptively (eg, "so and so called this person an asshat, Brad said "bad form", I guess I better not call people an asshat"), and it gives reassurance to those truly wronged that something is genuinely being done. Private moderation gives the "ignorant" offender the chance to reform without losing face.

So maybe, as regards a specific violation, first time private, subsequent times public would be a good policy. Just a thought.

Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
I agree with Gid! A litle of both is good.

I think a combination of private and public is best. Public moderation has a way of acting preemptively (eg, "so and so called this person an asshat, Brad said "bad form", I guess I better not call people an asshat"), and it gives reassurance to those truly wronged that something is genuinely being done. Private moderation gives the "ignorant" offender the chance to reform without losing face.So maybe, as regards a specific violation, first time private, subsequent times public would be a good policy. Just a thought.
Reply #33 from WinCustomize Forums Top
public moderation is the best way to handle message boards ..... to often "privately" managed boards will get a disgruntled user who will use the fact that a mod is trying to be descrete and turn it in to a "conspiracy". With open moderation every body knows what goes on and why.

the best defence is a good offence


oh a sugestion.. a users "first time" to the boards should also enact a "EULA" splash page that brings up the sites user agreement and must be agreed to to proceed to the forums ...this way they have the agreement readily available to know what is expected, as well as if they behave badly its on record "they agreed to the terms"
Reply #34 from WinCustomize Forums Top
I'm kinda beginning to sorta change my mind here - a tad. However there is the potential for feeding the trolls when done publickly. Possibly a 2 tier approach - polite public reprimand followed if necessary by a firmer private conversation with the possibility of 'yur outta here' if necessary.
Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top
Private, IMO.

It gives people less reason to believe the management is slanted for or against certain people. Even when particular troublemakers act up over and over, there will be certain people that will always see it as the management DEFENDING the opposite side.

Sometimes, not saying anything here, but sometimes admins can make a mistake, as well. If the only people who see it are the admin and the person being called down, there's a lot less damage control.

In the end you'll always have to publicly nail the really nasty ones, but I think that would be the Brad-Sends-Lightning-from-Olympus last act.
Reply #36 from WinCustomize Forums Top
I'm a "Nail Them" kinda gal! Why hide? Purrrr...
Reply #37 from WinCustomize Forums Top

I think what's really needed is a personal messaging system...where fairly 'direct' communication can be afforded.....emails are generally 'slow' and sometimes are undeliverable....people's email info isn't always up to date.

A site Private Message system would enhance and facilitate this 'moderation', as well as being convenient for general communications amongst all....

Reply #38 from WinCustomize Forums Top

I think what's really needed is a personal messaging system...where fairly 'direct' communication can be afforded.....emails are generally 'slow' and sometimes are undeliverable....people's email info isn't always up to date.

I agree completely with Jafo.

Reply #39 from WinCustomize Forums Top
I also agree. PM's are the way to go. As far as moderation, I have not seen it done any better than it is here. SA is great also. I've been on sites where the mods/admins just rip someone a new one (sorry for the graphic) with no concern for the "human" at the other end. Even if there is a troll (not Bichur) causing problems, they are still treated with respect here, and talked to like a human being. Perhaps that is due to the emotional maturity of the staff here vs other sites. A good mix of public (if necessary) and private (if the format is attainable) is good. IMO