Forum Moderators: rogerd
I very quickly began to question what I had gotten myself into. My slant is towards letting everyone's words speak for themselves but realized that the content of the forum would also reflect on ME as the "admin" and I had mixed emotions while I watched the whole thing develop.
Here's what started happened to me, how would you have responded?
1. Instant and obvious trolls. I thought they would take time to arrive but the popped up right away. The topic of the site was already charged politically, and these folks were pouring gasoline on the flames hoping for a nuclear explosion, it seemed... Also it was a local matter and the IP's of the trolls were from a thousand miles away.
2. People new to forums didn't understand topic moving/deleting. I had a few different forums setup for different topics and moved topics as seemed appropriate and saw a very strong reaction of the "censorship" flavor.
3. People complaining about the site itself. Not constructive criticism, I would have welcomed that -- mostly personal attacks at me.
4. Language I considered in poor taste. Not actual "swear words" per se, but some language meant to be offensive.
I realize now that I was begging for these situations by posting a political forum linked to a site with a particular angle, but I inferred these also as exaggerated symptoms of what many forums experience. I had what I would call "moderation jitters" and had to consult friends and family for their opinion on whether I should just take the whole thing down. The experience is over now but my first online community "mayorship" definitely got me interested in doing it again. Just NO politics next time! :)
But, onto your question:
how would you have responded?
It depends. Based on the information you've given, it seems you are in the middle of the politically explosive situation. At that point, you need to just settle people down. Tell people to relax. Tell them to discuss things rationally. Tell them if they don't, they will be banned. An open forum for political discussion is sorely missing on the web. (Perhaps there is one, but I haven't run across one)
Politics are not allowed at WebmasterWorld, so this post needs to be very generic in nature, and hopefully very inclusive.
Politics tend to polarize people. Ok. It makes for good reading when both sides are allowed to make their point. If either side is supressed, then it (the forum) becomes a right/left wing site. Again, I'm thinking from the standpoint of a middle ground where all viewpoints are allowed.
Truthfully, If you take a stand to the right or the left, then you will gain total support from the respective side. But, again, I've never seen a site in the middle.
Perhaps that is a good idea for a new forum? (On the web...not here:>)
Instant and obvious trolls
Leave 'em. It makes for good conversation after the event passes.
People new to forums didn't understand topic moving/deleting
They'll learn. Forget about it.
People complaining about the site itself
That's what the new area of your website is for, isn't it? The "Problems and Suggestions" area? Be honest where you've screwed up...it goes a LONG way.
Language I considered in poor taste.
Simple rule: If I would be embarrassed about having a 12-year-old little girl read the post to her mother...it goes in the trash.
As a forum owner/operator, you have to define the rules and stick to them. You'll never make everyone happy. If you want a more freewheeling environment, great. If you want to keep things very polite, that's OK too... just hold to your vision, and don't worry about the critics.
the other is a very busy forum attached to a commercial site, and its a totally different story. A LOT of moderating goes on, but the forum keeps being active, and no-one ever complains about censorship. Here's the reasons why (IMHO)
Clear TOS, and a Sticky at the top of every Category: Seems obvious, but there is absolutly no way anyone can claim ignorance of the rules this way. Each category sticky contains a list of rules particular to that category, a description of what that category is intended to encompass, and links to the TOS, and to the FAQ. Its amazingly effective.
The second thing is a hidden "moderators" category. Its a busy site, and we get postings from all time zones. Fortunately, there are a number of moderators, and between us, we overlap coverage pretty well. If something is blatantly against TOS, it gets nuked instantly. If something is borderiline (and we try and err in favor of the users), it gets locked, flagged, and a note gets dropped in the moderator's section. A second confirmation of it being against TOS, and it gets nuked.
Its a fair system, and no-one seems to get offended by it.
Out and Out Spam messages promoting websites or Viagra or whatever.
We don't delete them. Instead, we have a sot've informal competition between the moderators to see who can "edit" spam messages in the most humorous and creative way.
Example:
"You are a jack***!" "@#$% YOU!"
Gets replaced with:
"You are a great dude and I am in need of some therapy and some #2 pencils." "Love you!"
It really gets funny when they try to complain about how their post was changed and then swear some more...
Don't do politics.
Be clear, concise, consistent, polite, don't nitpick, and take action.
Be Clear: Write your TOS is the simplest, easiest to understand language possible.
Be Concise: Make sure your TOS covers the needed points, but keep it as short and readable as possible.
Be Consistent: Treat everyone the same.
Be Polite: Don't intentionally insult your members. Be prepared to apologize if you accidently offend members or make an honest mistake in moderation, but don't apologize for enforcing the TOS.
Don't Nitpick: Some members will try to nitpick the smallest details of every action a moderator takes. Don't get drawn into these endless debates, on the forum, or in email.
Take Action: Act as soon as possible when moderation becomes necessary, waiting to "see how things work out" often only makes things worse.
In other words, say what you mean, mean what you say, and do what you said. Members may not always like this, but they will more than likely respect you for it.
Politics are not allowed at WebmasterWorld, so this post needs to be very generic in nature, and hopefully very inclusive.
"You are a jack***!" "@#$% YOU!" Gets replaced with: "You are a great dude and I am in need of some therapy and some #2 pencils." "Love you!"
Be Clear: Write your TOS is the simplest, easiest to understand language possible
The second thing is a hidden "moderators" category. Its a busy site, and we get postings from all time zones. Fortunately, there are a number of moderators, and between us, we overlap coverage pretty well. If something is blatantly against TOS, it gets nuked instantly. If something is borderiline (and we try and err in favor of the users), it gets locked, flagged, and a note gets dropped in the moderator's section. A second confirmation of it being against TOS, and it gets nuked.
Be Consistent: Treat everyone the same.
This is one of, if not the, most important rule in moderation.
If you do not consistently and fairly administer the rules, it's all over.
If you let your friends get away with things you do not let others get away with, you *will* lose users. I've seen too many forums devolve into a small group of moderators and their buddies, where they inevitably wind up scratching their heads wondering where all the other users went.
You will always have users that will complain about how you've administered the rules. It's important to review your own actions and make sure those users are not right.
As far as political forums go, when I moderated a news site years ago, it would frequently end up with political discussions. Besides the rules implemented site wide (i.e. use of language, no advertising, etc.), the only additional rule I added in political discussions was no personal attacks against other posters. You could insult political officeholders and the like, but if you descended into a personal attack against other posters, you were done.
In those days, editing a message was not an option; so the only recourse was to delete the user's entire post, and send them a note describing why it was deleting and want changes they needed to make if they wanted to re-post.
And, I'm not sure that's not such a bad idea. If you edit a post, I think you may get more criticism than if you had simply deleted the post and described to the poster what changes *they* needed to make.
