Seeking a Moderator for the Moderators (4 Viewers)

[Jon]

After reviewing many comments, reported posts and DM's, it is clear that the Moderators need moderating! With that in mind, I am seeking fresh blood to shake up the status quo. When things have remained static for a while, everybody settles into their comfort zone. A new moderator will not suffer from this "mod fatigue", as one member put it.

I welcome recommendations for whom may be suitable for this role. Either reply to this thread with your recommended candidate, or DM me. Or volunteeer! It does not matter if they (or you) are a new member, an established member, a previous mod, left wing, right wing, whether you have clashed with myself or other mods. All that is required is a robust constitution, and a desire to keep the moderators honest.

Those that have been around for a while know that previously I have always preferred light touch moderation. With the new regulatory framework in the UK, the threshold for acceptable posts has to rise. Failing to do so puts the site at risk. But let me be clear, this role is only for moderating the moderators. It requires a level head and a fair attitude.

 

[NauticalGent]

Two current Moderators come to mind:
Uncle Gizmo
Doc Man

Both are involved with all areas od AWF and I have complete confidence in their fairness and objectivity. If I had to choose between the two, I would go with UG. He likes to lurk about in the shadows and only engages when the mood strikes, which is rare.

Doc would be excellant too, but he likes to mix it up and would make AWF less fun.

I suppose ColinEssex isnt interested??

 

[The_Doc_Man]

My sole goal at the moment is to help Jon in any way that I can. Having said that, IF (and that's a BIG if) the nominations headed my way, the role and rules would need to be spelled out in some detail - and I'm sure that any other nominee would have the same requirements. Herding a clutter of cats would be easier.

 

[NauticalGent]

My sole goal at the moment is to help Jon in any way that I can. Having said that, IF (and that's a BIG if) the nominations headed my way, the role and rules would need to be spelled out in some detail - and I'm sure that any other nominee would have the same requirements. Herding a clutter of cats would be easier.

I heard(read), "blah, blah, blah...I accept the nomination!"

 

[Isaac]

Herding cats is really hilarious when you think about it for a while. Moderating moderators, considerably less fun I expect!

 

[pbaldy]

I heard(read), "blah, blah, blah...I accept the nomination!"

I'd support Doc as the "one moderator to rule them all".

 

[Isaac]

Doc man already IS a moderator, I would think you want fresh blood for this, was my understanding of what you were saying?
PS , now nobody misinterpret what I'm saying - Doc's a great moderator and a great guy, I'm just trying to understand what Jon is asking.

 

[Edgar_]

How about a LLM moderating mods?

 

[Isaac]

I value Doc's 24 years AWF experience, level head, fairness, and friendliness more than fresh blood.

When you put it that way it makes sense, but I thought the whole point is that there is more work to be done. Doc is already a moderator, so nominating him defeats the purpose which is to find someone new to do new / additional work. Plus, that would be self-policing, which as we know from ICE, doesn't work Just kidding.
Who knows, Jon will clarify it's probably night in England now.

 

[moke123]

Problem is we don't even know the parameters of what is to moderated, nor what the complaint alleged.

 

[Jon]

Unfortunately, it is not like with a speed limit when you are knowing you are committing an offence. There are so many grey areas.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I appreciate the vote of confidence, but as has been pointed out, I am already a moderator and we run into that age-old question, "Who watches the watchers?" If Jon wants new blood, I don't qualify. All I've got is old, tired blood.

In the final analysis, Jon has to decide who/what he wants and he has to define the problem so that whoever takes that position will know what needs to be done. And also define how to know WHEN it has to be done.

 

[DickyP]

I would say that preferably the moderator of mods should be excluded as an everyday mod, so I would be reluctant to go with Doc_man as I like his everyday style of normal moderation.

Whoever course is chosen we will complain about the MOM (mod of mods) won't we? - so he/she will need to be thick skinned.

 

[DickyP]

As an aside, I just learned King Charles is the first UK monarch in 500 years to pray along side The Pope. Henry The VIII was the last King to do so. I perceive the King's alignment with the Catholic Church as a major shift and a new order of life in the UK.

I reality not much of a shift of anything in my personal opinion - except symbolism. More importantly does a religious assertion like BlueSpruces post have potential to cause the site problems - to me not, but who knows?

 

[arnelgp]

I nominate Patricia.

 

[ColinEssex]

Something maybe to consider. The majority of users who post here appear to be American. Therefore, many posts that are posted is when us Brits are asleep. So if the new mod was British, any potential violation post wouldn't be picked up for some considerable time until the new mod has seen it. Just a thought.
Col

 

[ColinEssex]

I nominate Patricia.

Don't forget the new mod has to be fair, independent with the ability to see things from all angles not just a tunnel vision based on one's own bias or beliefs.
Col

 

[arnelgp]

Don't forget the new mod has to be fair, independent with the ability to see things from all angles not just a tunnel vision based on one's own bias or beliefs.

it says on her self-title:
"Super Moderator · From ..
..super like superman. who can go against her except Lex..
she doesn't like birds, specially when asleep:

 

[GaP42]

1. Technical expertise is not a requirement the moderator of moderators. They provide an oversight view of the "civility" of moderator responses, which we all hope the moderators display. Acknowledgement of issues and processes for de/escalation, in view of AWF/ and incident log / action I would expect need some fleshing out.
2. The 24 hr cycle would suggest to me you really need two such moderator of moderators from 2 very different locations - if the timeliness of responses is of key concern. It also has the benefit of providing fall-back as a single chosen moderator of moderators may not always be in a position to provide their services 7 days a week. Also perhaps, given the ages of some of us, we need a fall back !
3. To be clear, would the moderator of moderators be able to participate in forum discussion - technical or otherwise - and if allowed would they participate under a separate member account (where they would presumably make their usual contributions to the site)? Conversations of mod of mods to mods would unlikely be visible? The mod of mods is a member of AWF - and so I presume wants to continue contributing.
4. Everyone has bias. An ability to rise above personal viewpoints and consider, respect and fairly evaluate the viewpoints/sensitivities of others is needed by mods and the mod of mods.

 

[Jon]

It really is quite simple. A mod of mods does exactly what a standard moderator does, except to a much smaller group of people. The moderation doesn't have to be instant, so timezones don't matter. In many cases it will involve dealing with reported posts, where a member sends in a complaint. But the mod of mods might also come across posts a moderators posts which they might deem as potentially breaking the UK Online Safety Act. The Politics forum is now shut and so it would mainly involve posts in The Watercooler. However, on occasion, some technical threads might require intervention but probably quite rare.