The Heavy-Handed Moderation Has to Stop
 

Look, we all understand that GreekChat is free and that ultimately, final decisions rest with John.

But this is officially banoodles.

I am really sick and tired of moderation that is inconsistent across the board.

We need standards NOW.

We need a democratic process for selecting moderators NOW.

This is absolutely ridiculous and I don't like it one bit.

I agree consistency is key and needs improvement across the entire span of moderators not just in heavy traffic forums.

That is one of the best ideas I have ever heard.

I want change that we can believe in

^^^^ I am not picking on you, but I will just say the first thing that comes to my mind....

What makes the current moderator cohort the ruling class? Why not actually put it to the users themselves, including the moderators?

ETA: I guess I'm saying it shouldn't matter if any current mod vehemently opposes anything if it hasn't been put to the people to decide.

LOL @ "banoodles".

Banoodles needs to be added to the GC Dictionary.

That's a good question, but we have no real official way of determining such things if John isn't around. He has discussed the idea of moderator standards with us before and we have something very very very very very extremely loose there now, but nothing concrete.

The other boards I'm active on on the net are very extremely moderated. I personally would like to see a more comprehensive TOS/Moderator code of standards and behavior put in place. For example, in the past, on the Mod's Corner, I have suggested this as a possible example:

http://www.fictionalley.org/tou.html

Obviously a lot of that doesn't apply to us as we're not a fanfiction forum or whatever, but it's an idea.

I just don't see any way at this point that this could be accomplished without John around... your idea of the users writing up something is fascinating but I'm not sure how in practice that would work.

Banoodles came from Making the Band, Season 2.

It is also where we got such jewels as:

"Dylan, Dylan, Dylan, Dylan, and Dylan"

and

"Let em fight! Let em fight!....... ain't enough room!"

I definitely agree. I've seen two or three threads closed lately that were completely unnecessary - yes, a disagreement was in place, but not in a negative way. Each time, it was closed by the same person.

Irritating, and stifling.

from what i have read on greek chat, i agree. however bear in mind that one should be careful of what you ask for. some of the best boards i have seen and been a part of had just about a zero tolerance policy for violation of tos. the moderators let threads change course and what not. but they did not let them get derailed by matters that where not part of thread or of the board. worked great to keep trolls and sock puppets off of board. and there was no such thing as personnel attacks or comments. now keeping just those two points, which are just two rather random ones, review a few threads here and picture just what they would look like. and as someone posted in another thread i believe today, the moderators, if they had to clean something up that may have been of some question (trolls not included), did communicate with poster. i should add that they did act as moderators and not posters. very rarely did they post on their own. and generally when they did, it was to start a thread or add factual information to it. and copy write laws, fair use was strictly enforced. post a line or two to explain the story and the link and then include the link.
policy was just about three strikes and you were out. warning, suspension and then banned. and while i am not sure, i have a strong feeling that ip code was recorded.
and there was no tracking of amount of time spent on board or how many postings. general posters where all equal. first time or new members were monitored, by the moderators, for several postings.

A little GC History is in order here per my observations:

Pre-2000 John Hammell purchased a different forum format than what is currently used--vBullentin BB. Other forums for purchase are Jelsoft and phpBB--which is free but requires some level of programming ability.

During the switch, sometime in 2003 (I think), we now use the vBulletin format. At the same time, several moderators for the boards were lost, no longer post, for whatever reasons.

Now, some organizations, like my Sorority, has policies, procedures and protocols mandating how we are to represent ourselves online as members. Through discussions with several supermoderators and moderators, we all understand how we will govern the AKA Ave. So I don't care if a newbie poster is a 2 year old Mensa in the National Academy of Sciences with 5 doctorates, if that poster asks inappropriate questions about Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Inc. his or her post will be deleted or closed.

I will remain heavy-handed in the moderation of the AKA Ave. as long as I decide to maintain my moderation. I do not care what anyone thinks, the FACTS are that if the poster forms an inappropriate thread or post on the Ave. it will be deleted. We state that in SEVERAL places on the AKA Ave. I am sorry if someone chooses to ignore the information, but having just coming off probation on another board I frequent, folks have to "suck it up" and learn from their mistakes.

That make be true, because we all uniformly agree (NPHC organizations) that membership intake, etc. are questions that if not on the International websites, campi or local alumnae chapters, are deemed inappropriate.

However, on the other areas we frequent, such as chit chat, greek life and sometimes recruitment, we see all kinds of questions being asked, sometimes infringing on our organizational rules, legitimacy, and other silly irrelevant matters. The senior GC membership may be inconsistent in dealing with these matters.

Having more rules or standards may or may not cause folks, especially newbies to do searches. IDK? What is the pleasure of the group.

Of course certain mods are going to oppose any type of moderating standards. It goes again their "own agenda" type moderating where they have free reign to reject or accept threads. Having certain "across the board" standards would make it harder for them to follow their own agenda & "justify" it.

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.

a few months ago i asked if we mods. could try to come to a consensus on how to handle the more common tos violations so that our actions are more in line with one another. the majority thought that is was not a good idea and it was scratched.

^^^ Generally speaking, why would anyone think it's a bad idea?

i don't know.

Because then they can't use the Recruitment Forum for their own personal agenda.

I mean, come on people, let's call a spade a spade. What most of us are trying to say (with the possible exception of the NPHC folks) is that the Recruitment forum is overmodded for personal agenda, and carny is the main culprit, being a helimom herself.

It's hard to get consensus about anything on GC.

Even if we did have standards, they would be virtually unenforceable.

alphafrog, you are mistaken in assuming that the recruitment moderators are against this.

kevin's statement is exactly the type of remark that was made when i first made my suggestion in the mod forum.

is honeychile a mod still? is there no justice in this world??!? no justice, no peace!

I probably made that remark. I mean to say -- you give me any kind of "standard" and I'll bet there are a lot of situations which come up where that standard shouldn't really apply, or would make things worse.

I'd be interested in hearing a few non-mod perspectives on that, or whatever policies people think ought to be universal.

While agree that SOMETIMES leaving a note as to the moderation of the thread is fair, other times, I am not going to explain why certain rituals and secretive information will be deleted without question and without explanation, like I had just had to yesterday for the second time.

And, as a matter of fact, my actions are sanctioned from my International HQ. They are telling us and my sorority sisters that ANY electronic discussion of information regarding ritual or secrets are verboten. So, I am attempting to comply to the rules. Most of the super-mods agree and understand that as the information from my HQ was given to them by me.

As such, if searched and found by my echelon of members, John could get in trouble for it... And no one wants that to happen.

So, at best, if it violates our TOS and POW announcements, it will be either closed or deleted without question and we do not need to provide explanation. If the poster repeats it, both AKA2D'91 and I will recommend banishment for harassment. It is about protecting everyone here with comfortable, respectful discourse, sharing of opinions and hopefully a learning process...

I doubt John cares about getting in trouble with some members... Although I do agree about keeping ritual info unexplained.