rocknbil - 7:17 pm on May 27, 2010 (gmt 0) [edited by: rocknbil at 7:19 pm (utc) on May 27, 2010]
moderation policy or a job description for hiring a moderator what would it say?
1. Separate moderation from participation. It should be very clear what this means. If you wish to participate, participate in a different post, separate the moderation posts from the participation posts in such a way that it would be very clear which is which.
2. Always refer to policy when moderating. I know this is redundant and tedious, but is vital and diverts the moderation from "you" as the member.
3. Revise the policy. On the previous point, it's always been my opinion that the policy here is vague and open to interpretation in some areas and it often gets brutally stretched. I posted a topic once in foo - can't even remember what it was - and it was removed because it could be, in some twisted form of interpretation, be construed as a "political discussion." This topic was so far from political you'd need a logging chain to make the connection, and it made no sense to me. I wasn't worried about it, "when in Rome" and all that, no big deal. This kind of stuff must make life hell for moderators. Often I see stuff removed "just to be safe." If you have to take a guess at "what is safe," your policy needs work.
This is why I've declined invites as a moderator, I doubt I'd make the right decisions. :-)
4. Devise a collaboration of moderators. You may already have this, but many boards have a private forum just for moderators. If you're not sure, you confer, "is this inappropriate or are the flaggers just being whiners?"
4.a. Remove the vagaries of "discretion." If it's a judgment call, use the above to add it to policy, make a decision, make it clear.
There's my four and a half cents . . .
[edited by: rocknbil at 7:19 pm (utc) on May 27, 2010]