You might be surprised.

Many of us have asked for clearer guidelines for a long time.

i have never, as i have no real reason or need to, posted within your section. i however looked at it a few times and you do make it very clear what you will do. i have no problems with that as i too have had to learn from my mistakes on other boards. one just has to make sure that you read and understand the tos. both as it is written and in spirit.

Yeah, it's consistently stupid, but I'll deal with that in my own way. :)

I agree. I also believe that each org which has its own forum should be entitled to have a mod, if that org so chooses. (It still irritates me that KD doesn't have a mod.:mad:)

Considering the different forums and the different norms, I think consistency might not be a good thing. For example, I wouldn't moderate any of my forums the same way I'd moderate Chit Chat or Recruitment. I'm wondering what sort of "consistency" people are expecting? It's hard to be consistent when the sorts of situations presented from forum to forum aren't consistent.

As for new moderators, I don't speak for anyone but myself, but the supermods were brought in to help moderate some of the smaller GLO forums, many of which are almost never used. I agree that there are problems with some larger GLO forums, e.g., Kappa Delta, which don't have moderators. Unfortunately, John is the only person who can add a moderator and John hasn't done that yet.

If anyone has suggestions for me personally or for any other moderator, I think we're all fairly open to criticism. We put ourselves out there as moderators, being criticized for making decisions is par for the course. That's the risk we run when we make calls we know are going to be controversial.

I suspect that most people would be happy with, rather than absolute consistency across all boards, consistency within a forum and logical explanations of actions. When a moderator refuses to explain the logic behind an action, there is going to be backlash. No, the moderator isn't obligated to explain, but choosing not to explain causes upheaval like this. It's not hard to communicate with people about your actions, and it's the best preventative measure because it's the only way people get a feel for the 'rules'. If a moderator is offended that they are being asked to justify their actions, if they don't want to have to deal with people disagreeing with them, then perhaps the mod needs to step back a bit, because being offended in that manner is making the situation too personal. A moderator's actions should never be so personal that they cannot be explained, and if they are, it's time to step down, IMHO.

I can buy that.

^^^ That's really how it ought to be done, Jen. Simply removing threads without explanation does nothing but raise suspicions and exactly.

yes, yes, yes!!

This is what bothers me the most; there's a whole lot of discretion left to the moderators, and, while there are a few who do a great job, there are some who go a bit too far.

For example, what amounts to a "personal attack" depends on the forum involved. Some moderators will take out anything amounting to an attack, while others will delete posts with profanity, leaving personal attacks that have "clean" language, or worse, leaving posts that contain racist/sexist language. There are posters who are publically admonished on the boards for their conduct, while others (BA, for example), go on for months attacking others. Some posters have their posts deleted quickly, while others are allowed a lot more leeway in their posting. It just doesn't make a lot of sense.

As for the Recruitment forums - I've tended to stay away because they are sorority-slanted, and as a fraternity member, I'm not exactly an expert on sorority recruitment. But, in my limited reading of the forums, I notice a lot of removal of honest assessments, leaving people with purely aspirational "You go get em!" posts. While some may see a perfect world where everyone gets a bid, and where every parent/friend/rushee is understanding of the process, that's not the way it is. A little honesty, harsh as it may sound, could go a long way to saving people from future disappointment. As more and more parents come to the board for advice on how to deal with their children's recruitment, they could use some honest advice as well.

Look, I understand moderating can be a pain in the neck, and I'm sure we all appreciate the work of those who do a good job. But, no one is forcing people to be moderators, and if you don't want to put work into it, you might as well try to do a good job of it.

^^^^^^^^agree with both of the above postings.

What is funny, as much as I have been maligned on this site, I only deleted one post when actually I should have just deleted a certain part of it as in a persons name. That alway bothered me.:o

But, I did have the courtesy to PM the person and the reason why.

When John asked me about a super Mod situation, I suggested to him it not be from people/mods on site but outside moderators. Well that did not proof out did it?

Now, there is problems in the ranks of not only members but Mods and I do now wonder why.

Have a great day!:)

Tom, this situation has NOTHING to do with the people who are supermods or the concept of supermods in general. Don't drag them into it, that's not what they are for.

I think you have a good idea, Jen. I've tried to do this when possible via PM, but I'm sure that I've dropped the ball more than once. It would serve as a good standard for the mods.

It is hard for me to understand why some mods wouldn't agree. I believe it, but I don't quite understand.

I think it's fair to say that I am not a fan of conflict. I'm a mediator by nature, not a pot-stirrer, and I generally don't like to be yelled at, in person or online. In spite of all of that, as a moderator (elsewhere) I have never hesitated to explain my decisions so that people could better understand them, even if those decisions were very unpopular. I fully stand by my first post above, that a moderator's actions should never be so personal that they cannot be explained. If a moderator isn't willing to explain his or her actions, they shouldn't be volunteering to moderate in my opinion.