Forum Moderators: rogerd
Live with it! No matter what you do, someone out there will not like it; but still - the ultimate, bottom-line basis for any decision that needs to be made or any action that needs to be taken, is what is for the benefit and/or good of the community as a whole, it's future, health and growth, and what is good for the aggregate of the membership as a whole and for each of its individual members.
So how do you handle it, when you need to do somethint that you just know a person (or persons) will not like? Do you acquiesce, back off, and avoid confrontation? Or do you step out boldly, knowing that some will not like what you say or do and may even attack you for it, but that you will feel good about yourself, knowing that you've acted on personal values and principles?
What's your take? Is it most important to you to be *loved* by people, or are there other factors that motivate you to take action that are closer to your heart where personal consequences are concerned, regardless of the outcome?
On a scale of 1 to 10, how do you rate yourself on the people-pleasing/integrity-maintenance/personal satisfaction and self-respect scale?
I find myself adjusting the tone of my replies to the nature of the individual. Spammers and obnoxious flamers may feel the umbrella point a bit more, while well-meaning bumblers get friendly coaching.
I think in most forums, members look for moderation that is fair, consistent, and professionial. They don't want "bad cop" attitudes, nor do they want moderation that is so low key that offenders don't get the message.
As with women, it's often a good idea to soften the blow before the criticism. Try to open up with a complement and then explain that they have violated the rules that everyone in the forum abides by, such as...
"Thank you for your wonderful post, but I had to remove the links to the website. We do not allow the advertising of URL's in this forum, per our terms of service (with link to TOS)."
I actually don't pm someone for such a minor offense, unless they repeat it. Repeat offenders definitely get sterner warnings as well. I am including a feature in my forums where moderators will see a list of the member's previous offenses. There is also a set warning level for each offense that only the moderators can see. Members can see their own warning level if it goes over a certain point. Otherwise, they may get angry to see they have a 5% warning level for accidentally posting a URL we didn't like. The warning level also goes down over time, but the list of their offenses stays in their permanent record.
Moderation:
The quality of being fair and impartial.
Moderator:
The process of moderation by an appointed arbitrator or mediator - a person who holds moderate and impartial views.
A lot of the "bad stuff" - the stuff we have to "moderate" - that is, issues we get to "deal with" - is often mood bound behavior, which with humans is subject to wild fluctuations due to many factors: Lack of sleep, low blood sugar, too much caffeine, stress, SADD, etc. So, we get angry moods, irritable moods, as well as exhuberant non-circumspect look out world behavior. Plus everything in between. ;)
There's also "bad stuff" that's often a function of incomplete or limited processing of information. Neophytes, adherants, etc.
Most times the simple passage of time allows for the mood bound person to see the world differently, so one often does best by allowing some time to pass before interacting. Time fixes many such "issues", makes people open to suggestion, etc.
Other times, there's an added to "the issue" the element of "this must happen now". This falls into 2 broad categories, with some exceptions. One is bullies, brute force, overwhelm by force of will or spoiled brats. The other is where the house really is on fire.
The first category is best handled by a simple "no", not necessarily adding an explanation since the explanation is invariably irrelevant to such people. "No" can take many forms: Banning, a stern warning, etc.
The second version is "my house is on fire" and depends on factors such as "did he/she strike the match?", "how real is the fire?", "is your failure to plan the force that dictates that I must alter my plans to deal with?", etc. Case by case.
As to neophytes and other information limited people (me included depending on the situation) Roger nailed the process beautifully. Offer information or guidance where there's indications that it will help, otherwise scale your response in accordance with evidence of motives, inability or unwillingness to adapt to local forum standards, etc.
if someone needs a rap on the knuckles it's not a good idea to do it publicly
I agree 100% with that sentiment. Public bashing of a member, no matter how justified, tends to degenerate into a general bar fight like in an old western movie. Whereas dark, secluded alleys were made for beatings. ;)
Ancient wisdom.
Any other bits of ancient wisdom that would be useful for summing up the art of moderation?
Next, we move on to the Art of War? ;0)
That's exactly the reason, Webwork. Many of the members who get their knuckles rapped end up being productive community citizens if they are welcomed and quietly guided rather than being held up to public ridicule.
<added>I'd guess that the majority of our senior members & mods at WebmasterWorld were edited or cautioned at some point early in their time here. The fact that they are still here is testament to the value of handling infractions in a positive and non-confrontational manner.</added>
