Third Party Moderation for Objectivity in Discussions

[DaveC426913]

My suggestion is that members who are also moderators, when involved in a discussion, should not be the ones who moderate that thread.

If a member who is a moderator engages in a discussion, they should enage as a member, not a moderator for that thread. If, in the course of a discussion, they feel that some rule has been breached, he or she should - just like everyone else - report it to a third party to objectively intervene.

There is too much of potential for a perception of abuse if a moderator is involved subjectively in a discussion when it starts going awry. I have seen this happen more than once.

I've seen members get a warning from a debate opponent when, in any other circumstance the disagreement would have been trivially dealt with in-thread; I've seen members get banned when they crossed a debate opponent who had the moderator trump card.

Note: There will be differing points of view in every case (including the above ones) about whether the acton was justified or whether it was an inappropriate use of power. The point here is an ASSURANCE of objectivity to ALL parties.

 

[apeiron]

I second that motion :rofl:. But of course I can't say why. Well, not without further infractions and deletions.

But a separation of the powers of judge and executioner are indeed basic common-sense in any fair society. I would be interested in the reasons why PF would feel differently.

 

[russ_watters]

Typically, moderators will only act in clear-cut cases if they have a conflict of interest and will otherwise bring the issue up for discussion first. Either way, all moderator actions are "public" in that all moderators are informed of the actions of other moderators via a thread being opened in the moderator's forum.

And, of course, all members are welcome to PM other moderators to discuss the actions of moderators.

Also, either way, "airing of dirty laundry" is inappropriate and insults are infractionable.

 

[GeorginaS]

Okay, well I don't see any airing of dirty laundry here or insults, so I guess we're in good shape so far. But there have been instances that Dave's describing, of a moderator who is part of a conversation also moderating that conversation, when there is no clear infraction beyond disagreeing with the moderator in the capacity of a thread participant. (I can't even tell whether or not that sentence made sense.)

I have to agree and ask that there be some formal rule that -- unless there is gross abuse happening in the thread that shouldn't happen at all or in any event -- the moderator taking part in the discussion ought not be the one moderating it. I'd hate to feel as if I need to keep ideas or opinions to myself out of caution because those ideas aren't in concert with the moderator taking part in the discussion.

 

[apeiron]

Also, either way, "airing of dirty laundry" is inappropriate and insults are infractionable.

I support such privilege when it is earned and not abused. But the shield of secrecy should not be there just to protect the blushes of moderators.

 

[Borek]

Thirded. I think I have seen Mentors overreacting when they took part in the discussion (very, very rarely, but I remember being surprised by what have happened), after all, Mentors are humans, not machines Personally in such cases (me feeling abused and wanting to react) I would always ask others to judge the situation. That is, unless I would explode earlier, I am human as well

 

[Ivan Seeking]

If an infraction is issued that is claimed to be unfair, the infraction may be reversed by a vote of the staff, or by Greg if he chooses to intervene. No one here is moderating in isolation. Controversial decisions often involve a fair bit of staff discussion before a final decision is made.

It would be all but impossible to reasonably assign bias. Simply starting a thread does not imply bias. And taking a side is what we do as moderators when, the rules are being violated, the discussion has spun out of control, or the facts are not properly represented. People would be claiming bias everytime they don't like a moderating decision. In fact, that is common already. We have all received plenty of hate mail and insults of every variety, and we do regularly. No one likes being moderated.

That's why we have worked hard for years to develop guidelines for the forum. In fact, the guidelines are most valueable for the moderators. The rules are our working guide so that subjective judgements are kept to a minimum. The guidelines also allow everyone to know the rules and what is expected. All moderating decisions must be in compliance with the rules. Personal bias plays no role. If an infraction is issued unfairly, we already have rules to address that problem.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I would add that what you see may not be, and often is not representitive of what actually happens. While you may only see a strike in someone's name, the offending posts have probably been deleted. The staff can see them and review the actions taken, but you can't. By definition you would not normally see the posts that resulted in someone being banned, or infractions being issued. You really have no way to know what happened behind the scenes, so what you think you saw is almost certainly not the entire story.

 

[DaveC426913]

No one here is moderating in isolation. Controversial decisions often involve a fair bit of staff discussion before a final decision is made.

That's even better; the process is already in place. It should be a trivial matter to have one of those other staff take the action instead of the participating moderator.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

That's even better; the process is already in place. It should be a trivial matter to have one of those other staff take the action instead of the participating moderator.

Dave, your OP is something the staff has talked about in the past and take efforts in doing.

 

[DaveC426913]

I probably should have led with this but it's never too late.

This post is not a criticism of PF or the moderators. Without exception, the moderators are doing a spectacular job. Nobody knows this more than me, whose 'Report Post' key is worn down to a nub. IMO, the quality of PF is, in huge part, due to their pretty much thankless and tireless devotion, and their thick skins.

 

[lisab]

I probably should have led with this but it's never too late.

This post is not a criticism of PF or the moderators. Without exception, the moderators are doing a spectacular job. Nobody knows this more than me, whose 'Report Post' key is worn down to a nub. IMO, the quality of PF is, in huge part, due to their pretty much thankless and tireless devotion, and their thick skins.

Yes, I think anyone who's been around PF for a while and has also been on other forums, knows this to be true.

But I don't think it's a bad idea, having a third party monitor a lively discussion involving a moderator. It avoids the appearance of a conflict of interest.

 

[cristo]

But I don't think it's a bad idea, having a third party monitor a lively discussion involving a moderator. It avoids the appearance of a conflict of interest.

A third party will monitor a thread when it is obvious that there is a conflict of interest. However, we only know about these threads if a member reports the thread, if the mentor reports it and states they have a conflict of interest (which happens quite often), or if we happen to stumble upon the thread by chance. As is always the case, if a member sees something that they think should be looked over by other mentors, they should report the thread.

 

[GeorginaS]

A third party will monitor a thread when it is obvious that there is a conflict of interest. However, we only know about these threads if a member reports the thread, if the mentor reports it and states they have a conflict of interest (which happens quite often), or if we happen to stumble upon the thread by chance. As is always the case, if a member sees something that they think should be looked over by other mentors, they should report the thread.

Good to know. I'll keep that in mind, then.

And I'll take the shorter typing route (and because he said it better than I could have anyway) and echo what Dave said. Yes, absolutely.

 

[Borek]

Yes, I think anyone who's been around PF for a while and has also been on other forums, knows this to be true.

But I don't think it's a bad idea, having a third party monitor a lively discussion involving a moderator. It avoids the appearance of a conflict of interest.

Seconded. If I am supporting Dave that's not because I have any doubts about honesty and amount of work Mentors put into running PF (and - having some experience - I know it is not an easy task to moderate forums with a lot of traffic, kudos to the whole Mentors team). Still, I remember being surprised by actions taken in threads which I have traced closely enough to assume I have seen most of the posts (if not all). And I don't remember who was involved, I just remember being surprised.

I don't pretend to know all, my feelings at the time could be easily wrong. I just like the idea.

 

[Evo]

Yes, I think anyone who's been around PF for a while and has also been on other forums, knows this to be true.

But I don't think it's a bad idea, having a third party monitor a lively discussion involving a moderator. It avoids the appearance of a conflict of interest.

The problem when a different mentor gives an infraction to a member "out of the blue" is that the member then begins arguing with the uninvolved 3rd party mentor, which is a waste of time for both the member and the 3rd party mentor, as any new questions will just go back to the original mentor to be answered.

Members always have the opportunity to question an infraction. The guidelines state that the member should first contact the mentor that gave the warning if they feel that it wasn't warranted. If after speaking with the mentor they still wish to appeal, they may then contact another mentor, and if needed, Greg.

As Ivan mentioned, mentors cannot issue infractions without it opening a new thread in the mentor's forum showing all details of the post, member, explanation for infraction, type of infraction, points etc...

I think members may not be aware that we routinely report posts that may need infractions and ask for feedback from other mentors before action is taken.

Any mentor can take action in any forum. I think members may automatically assume if a mentor is assigned to a particular forum that all infractions, deletions, etc... come from that mentor, and that is simply not the case. You also can't assume that just because a mentor is involved in a thread that they are the one requesting the infraction. It may be another mentor, or even another member.

I think it is good that these questions be brought up here so that any misunderstandings about how the infraction process works is clear.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I think moderators should be dedicated moderators. In other words, that's all they do, and they should never be allowed to participate in threads.

This is the way it was on another large forum where I used to post. The moderators were obligated to maintain disinterest in the outcome of any discussions, and only responded to reports of abusive behaviors or rule infractions. They weren't permitted to participate in any discussions.

 

[cristo]

I think moderators should be dedicated moderators. In other words, that's all they do, and they should never be allowed to participate in threads.

This is the way it was on another large forum where I used to post. The moderators were obligated to maintain disinterest in the outcome of any discussions, and only responded to reports of abusive behaviors or rule infractions. They weren't permitted to participate in any discussions.

That goes against the whole point of being a member, though. I for one would not stay here if all I was allowed to do was to deal with rule breaking, tell people off and deal with squabbles.

 

[Borek]

That goes against the whole point of being a member, though. I for one would not stay here if all I was allowed to do was to deal with rule breaking, tell people off and deal with squabbles.

Agreed. The only situation I can imagine is when you are paid for the moderation, then being a member is (can be) secondary.

 

[GeorginaS]

I think moderators should be dedicated moderators. In other words, that's all they do, and they should never be allowed to participate in threads.

This is the way it was on another large forum where I used to post. The moderators were obligated to maintain disinterest in the outcome of any discussions, and only responded to reports of abusive behaviors or rule infractions. They weren't permitted to participate in any discussions.

I think that's a bit extreme. I have a current events message board and both the other owner and I participate in all of the discussions, but when one of us runs into trouble with another member, the other deals with it, including having discussions with each other about whether or not we ought to have done what we've done. Now, we're a much smaller bunch, and easier to manage than something as large as this place, but still, if someone's yanking my chain, I stand back and let the other lady deal with it just in case my buttons are getting pushed and the other member isn't actually behaving unreasonably.

The mentors/mods are valuable contributors to the conversations on these forums, and I'd really hate to see any of them stifled. I fall squarely in the camp of, if a mentor is having issues with someone within the context of a thread where they're a participant in the conversation, then the mod ought to ask someone else to review the situation. Or, as was pointed out, the other member contact another mod to help, I guess. But excluding mentors from the conversation just isn't a good plan.

 

[ZapperZ]

I think moderators should be dedicated moderators. In other words, that's all they do, and they should never be allowed to participate in threads.

This is the way it was on another large forum where I used to post. The moderators were obligated to maintain disinterest in the outcome of any discussions, and only responded to reports of abusive behaviors or rule infractions. They weren't permitted to participate in any discussions.

I would immediately resign my Mentor/Moderator position if that's the case. I'm a PF member and a physicist first, and a moderator/mentor second. I'm here not because I enjoy having my position as a mentor, but because I enjoy the physics discussion and participating in them. In fact, one of the criteria of being elected as a mentor is that the person has a solid background in the knowledge of a particular area, AND actively participates in the discussion in the forum.

I think all of you need to be aware of two important things here:

1. Each and every warning, infractions, etc. sent out to members are viewed by ALL mentors/administrators.

2. It is quite common for a mentor to recuse him/herself in a particular thread when he/she is involved, especially when an action needs to be taken that isn't an obvious violation.

If you think that a mentor has not acted fairly, then contact another mentor, contact Greg, or do a report (which is also read by all the Mentors). There's more than one way to convey your displeasure with a particular action, and believe me, we do get those!

Zz.

 

[Integral]

Notice that we are called Mentors, not moderators. As a Mentor our primary purpose it to interact with and guide discussions.

That certainly holds firm in the technical forums HOWEVER there are forums, GD and PW&A, where it is not possible to mentor. I fully agree that in those forums we should moderate [STRIKE]and not[/STRIKE] or participate.

You may not be aware but it is not uncommon for a mentor, in our private forum, to ask for help when they become embroiled in a conversation and feel they can not be objective.

 

[Evo]

That certainly holds firm in the technical forums HOWEVER there are forums, GD and PW&A where it is not possible to mentor. I fully agree that in those forums we should moderate and not participate.

With that I'm with Zz and cristo. I was put in charge of GD because of my participation, P&WA just came with it. Philosophy is the same.

 

[waht]

I just would like take this opportunity and thank all the mentors and admins for doing an outstanding job. There is really nothing else like PF out there.

And also I think it's great that mentors are participating in discussions. You can poke them a bit.

 

[lisab]

With that I'm with Zz and cristo. I was put in charge of GD because of my participation, P&WA just came with it. Philosophy is the same.

I think one of the best things about PF is that the mentors participate in the discussions! GD and P&WA wouldn't be the same without you, Evo.

Reading through the posts here from the mentors, I understand better how the gears work.

Sometimes discussions do get pretty sparky (usually in P&WA). That's totally fine, it's OK that people have strong opinions. Often a mentor is actively involved, not as a guide to the discussion but as a voice from the right or the left. If then someone is banned and/or posts disappear...well, you can see how that would have the appearance of unfairness.

 

[Evo]

If then someone is banned and/or posts disappear...well, you can see how that would have the appearance of unfairness.

That's very understandable. I will say that sometimes people get banned, not for a heated thread that is getting attention, but for something completely unrelated. But for people following the heated thread, I could see how they would think that was the reason.

We don't discuss why individual members get banned, but I know that it leaves a lot of unanswered questions for the other members. I hope that you will trust that we do discuss things a lot. It's for privacy reasons that we don't disclose what the member has done.

Of course any time you want to know what happened, just PM us and we'll tell you that we can't tell you. :tongue2:

It would be so much easier if we told you. Some forums do list banned members and the reasons they were banned. I think that's tacky.

 

[zoobyshoe]

That goes against the whole point of being a member, though. I for one would not stay here if all I was allowed to do was to deal with rule breaking, tell people off and deal with squabbles.

Being a moderator on that forum is not about being a member. The moderators are put in place there to provide disinterested moderation. They are dedicated moderators. No one who joins as a member is allowed, or asked, to be a moderator.

 

[DaveC426913]

I think moderators should be dedicated moderators. In other words, that's all they do, and they should never be allowed to participate in threads.

This is a completely unrealistic and destructive suggestion for PF. If I thought for a second there was the slightest danger of this going any further, I would stand against it alongside the Mentors.

 

[DaveC426913]

A third party will monitor a thread when it is obvious that there is a conflict of interest. However, we only know about these threads if a member reports the thread, if the mentor reports it and states they have a conflict of interest (which happens quite often),

How can there not be a conflict of interest if the infraction is a subjective one?

The idea that a Moderator is left to decide for himself if there's a conflict of interest is fundamentally flawed. It contradicts what has been claimed several times in this thread - that multiple people are involved in the decisions.

The problem when a different mentor gives an infraction to a member "out of the blue" is that the member then begins arguing with the uninvolved 3rd party mentor,

How is this different from what any other member can expect when they report a thread?

You're suggestiong that, when a Mentor is involved, we simpy don't need to bother going through the arduous process of bringing a Moderator up-to-speed?

No, the default state is/should be that a member (any member) involved in a lively discussion, can report - and is subject to being reported. And then a Moderator steps in.

What's happened here is that that generalized procedure has been concatenated ofr this special case. Moderators can short-circuit the 3rd party intervention step. They simply - in the middle of a debate that started between equals - step outside the conversation for a moment long enough to pull rank.

I think members may not be aware that we routinely report posts that may need infractions and ask for feedback from other mentors before action is taken.

Absolutely 100% with you there. My question is: who is the appropriate person to take the action?

 

[Evo]

How is this different from what any other member can expect when they report a thread?

You're suggestiong that, when a Mentor is involved, we simpy don't need to bother going through the arduous process of bringing a Moderator up-to-speed

No, the default state is/should be that a member (any member) involved in a lively discussion, can report - and is subject to being reported. And then a Moderator steps in.

As I've said, any member that feels they are right should challenge the infraction. When a 3rd party mentor agrees to give an infraction for another mentor, they just become a go between for the member and that mentor, since at that point infractions have already been approved.

What's happened here is that that generalized procedure has been concatenated ofr this special case. Moderators can short-circuit the 3rd party intervention step. They simply - in the middle of a debate that started between equals - step outside the conversation for a moment long enough to pull rank.

If a member feels that is the case and that they need to speak to other mentors, I would encourage them to do so.

The mentors moderate each other. I know I have changed my ways due to feed back, I have human failings, but I also care about how I moderate. There is always room for improvement.

 

[zoobyshoe]

This is a completely unrealistic and destructive suggestion for PF. If I thought for a second there was the slightest danger of this going any further, I would stand against it alongside the Mentors.

It's not unrealistic and destructive. It's working as we speak on another forum as old as PF. I personally doubt Greg would want to undertake such a major restructuring, but I mention it because it is the most clearly disinterested form of moderation I've encountered.

 

[NeoDevin]

mentors cannot issue infractions without it opening a new thread in the mentor's forum showing all details of the post, member, explanation for infraction, type of infraction, points etc...

Does this hold true for deleted posts too? Are other mentors able to see posts which have been deleted from threads? If a mentor has been involved in a heated discussion, and deletes/edits some posts and issues an infraction, is all of this visible to the rest of the mentors?

(I remember one instance, Evo, where you accidentally edited one of my posts into oblivion. You said that you couldn't recover it in that situation, and asked me to re-post it.)

 

[NeoDevin]

It's not unrealistic and destructive. It's working as we speak on another forum as old as PF. I personally doubt Greg would want to undertake such a major restructuring, but I mention it because it is the most clearly disinterested form of moderation I've encountered.

I think to expect the mentors to volunteer their time to moderate, without actively being a part of the community, is unreasonable. Why would they have any interest in moderating a forum that they're not an active part of?

If PF ever starts producing enough income for Greg that he can hire staff, then it might make sense.

 

[cristo]

Being a moderator on that forum is not about being a member. The moderators are put in place there to provide disinterested moderation. They are dedicated moderators. No one who joins as a member is allowed, or asked, to be a moderator.

And so where do the moderators come from? That definitely wouldn't work here-- one of the qualities looked for when a member is asked to become a mentor is that they have been an active, contributing member who has shown to have knowledge in a certain area.

How can there not be a conflict of interest if the infraction is a subjective one?

Because it could have been, say, a flat out insult (though I would still normally report it and get someone else to act). Anyway, my point is not to contradict others in this thread: if an infraction is issued, it opens a thread for discussion in the mentors forum. My point was that we don't know of any potential issues (i.e. before infractions/action taken), unless it is reported. This goes as with any thread flaring up between any two members.

Does this hold true for deleted posts too? Are other mentors able to see posts which have been deleted from threads? If a mentor has been involved in a heated discussion, and deletes/edits some posts and issues an infraction, is all of this visible to the rest of the mentors?

(I remember one instance, Evo, where you accidentally edited one of my posts into oblivion. You said that you couldn't recover it in that situation, and asked me to re-post it.)

Deleted posts are able to be seen by all mentors. Edits are different: there is no way to see the original post if it has been edited. Thus, if a mentor is editing a post's content, s/he will almost always report the post so that we have a copy in the mentors' forum.

 

[Integral]

At one time or another it happens to every mentor. You erroneously hit the edit button, instead of the quote. If the error is discovered only after cutting out huge chunks of text there is no going back.

Zooby, please recognize my earlier point, we are Mentors, not moderators. I have always felt that there is a very important distiction, Mentors guide while moderators watch. As Mentors it is our DUTY to interact. Without that interaction the forums would never have gotten off the ground.