***PLEASE NOTE***
First, this is a discussion thread, not a debate thread. For further information on the difference between discussion and debate see this thread:
Debate vs Discussion: What's the Difference?
Second, Rule 2 is in force in this thread. Please do not violate it by discussing or referencing specific cases of moderation. Speak all you want in general terms, but do not bring up specific cases.
First, this is a discussion thread, not a debate thread. For further information on the difference between discussion and debate see this thread:
Debate vs Discussion: What's the Difference?
Second, Rule 2 is in force in this thread. Please do not violate it by discussing or referencing specific cases of moderation. Speak all you want in general terms, but do not bring up specific cases.
Some folks have suggested to the staff of RF that we post some information on the day-to-day moderation of the Forum so members have a better idea of what goes on 'behind the scenes'.
So here is how moderation typically starts... A RFer suspects that a post is in violation of the rules and reports the post to the mods. Alternatively, a staff member might report a post, but staff members seldom, if ever, go hunting for posts that might be in violation of the rules.
When a post is reported, the software automatically creates a thread for the report in a special forum for such reports that is visible only to the staff.
The mods now take charge of the report in order to reach an agreement on what to do about it. Administrators will often pitch in to help the mods out (or at least we think we're helping), especially if reports start to back up. Some admins work much harder than others, with almost everyone of them working harder than me. I tend to focus more on the 'Big Picture', by which I mean anything and everything having to do with running RF that does not involve any real work.
In almost all cases (excepting only the most trivial things) no decision can be reached until a minimum of at least three mods agree to it. This is called "the Consensus Rule", which I implemented as standard operating procedure about a dozen years ago.
The rule's purpose is to counter-balance the effect that any mistakes in judgement made by individual mods might have on the outcomes of moderation. All humans are prone to making mistakes. The Consensus Rule is a way to make sure everyone's work gets double and triple checked for accuracy, fairness, compassion, justice, and so forth. It takes at least three votes, and if there is significant disagreement among the mods, it takes more than three votes before any mod decision is finalized.
Earlier this evening I took a quick look at the report threads for the past seven days. According to my rapid count, 98 report threads were generated during that period, for a daily average of 14 reports. Of those 98 reports, 84 were closed. That is, final decisions had been reached on them. The remaining 14 reports were still active and still being discussed in the report forum.
Of the 84 closed reports, about half (41) ended up as 'official' rules violations and about half (43) involved other matters. "Other matters" might include someone reporting a post containing a video or pic that needs to be put behind spoilers (in order to prevent Google from mistaking us for a porn site, etc). Those sorts of things are not usually treated as rules violations, except in special circumstances. Again, sometimes a mod will report a thread seeking to lock it for review. Those, too, are not usually treated as rules violations. Nor are several other things of similar nature.
Report threads can run from 3 to 70 or more posts, largely depending on how complex the issue is. They can contain anywhere from one to several consensus mod decisions. For instance, in a single thread, a mod consensus might be reached to (1) lock the thread, and another separate consensus might be reached to (2) issue a warning to someone while a third consensus is reached to (3) invite that person to Site Feedback in order to clarify the rules for them.
In addition to working on reports, staff routinely interacts with members in individual Site Feedback threads that can only be viewed by the member who starts one and the staff. These informative exchanges help the staff to understand member's views as much as they are tools for communicating the staff's concerns to members.
All staff members except the Forum owners are unpaid volunteers. When new staff members are needed, the existing staff discusses possible candidates among themselves. Those that more or less everyone agrees
And that more or less outlines a day-in-the-life of the staff.
Comments?
