# Should moderators just moderate?



## Pietruzzo

Should moderators take  part actively  in discussions in the forums or not?
To be honest, arguing with someone who can shut your mouth whenever he likes would make me feel a bit awkward.
What do you think?


----------



## Ghabi

I used to mod a bit here (feels like three centuries ago), and I did remember I often felt awkward taking part in discussions, especially when it came to topics I had a strong opinion about.

You don't want to look like an umpire-cum-player, and I think most moderators would make a point of not deleting others' comments in their capacity as mods when there seems to exist a conflict of interest ("how dare you to disagree with me! Bye bye dissident posts!" etc). So it's like (my experience) once you're in, you have to leave that thread alone.

I didn't (still don't) make valuable contributions as a member, so my avoidance of participation was no loss to anyone. But how about those mods who constantly make very valuable contributions as members? You don't want to lose them as contributing members, do you?

And, not to put too fine a point on it, moderating is the proverbial harmless drudgery, and it'll be difficult to wheedle persuade people to become mods if you don't even allow them to post as normal members!


----------



## mkellogg

I see your point, but it is completely impractical. If our moderators had to choose between being a mod and posting, the vast majority would choose posting and quit. I would then be worried about the ones that preferred moderating over posting.


----------



## elroy

Three points:

1. Moderators are first and foremost regular forum members.  Nine times out of the ten when I'm posting I'm not even thinking of myself as a moderator.  If I disagree with someone, I do so as a forum member and my status as a moderator never even crosses my mind no matter how intense or heated the disagreement may get.

2. In many years as a moderator, I have not experienced a single instance of a moderator abusing their role as a moderator in a disagreement with a forum member.

3. As moderators, we take care to avoid intervening in any way in threads we have participated in as forum members.  Typically, any intervention is carried out by other moderators, and they wouldn't intervene if they didn't think it was called for.

Conclusion: I don't think you have anything to worry about.  If, however, you do feel that a moderator is abusing their moderator powers, please report them!


----------



## Thersites

... next gets promoted to Moderator 😉

Honestly I think you'd have to be blind to not notice the exceptional quality of the Moderators here. I see no issue.


----------



## Pietruzzo

Thank you all. I guess the answer to my question in the thread title is nope. Anyway, if I'd asked whether a referee  could take part to the match he's overseeing this wouldn't mean I'm saying that referees are bad people or they're not allowed to play football when they're not wearing their uniform.


----------



## DonnyB

I think it's a fair question: there is a _potential_ for abuse.  I'm always conscious of the need to tread a little bit carefully: I would always be wary of getting into a public argument with a member when posting in a thread, because that doesn't look at all good.  If it's a question of closing or deleting a thread where I've been taking part, then what I'll do is report it and someone else will then take the decision, so there's no suspicion that I'm getting any sort of unfair advantage for myself.


----------



## Awwal12

Pietruzzo said:


> To be honest, arguing with someone who can shut your mouth whenever he likes would make me feel a bit awkward.


I feel totally ok about it. And if the moderator obviously misuses his powers, one should send a complaint to an admin in that regard. I haven't witnessed such incidents on this forum so far, though.

And gven that moderators are basically volunteers who don't get any payment for their activities, banning them from discussions seems counter-productive, to put it mildly.


----------



## bandini

Pietruzzo said:


> Thank you all. I guess the answer to my question in the thread title is nope. Anyway, if I'd asked whether a referee  could take part to the match he's overseeing this wouldn't mean I'm saying that referees are bad people or they're not allowed to play football when they're not wearing their uniform.


jajaja...What a surprise, the moderators don't see any problem.  LOL...
Nothing against the mods here but I agree with you.  It's like dealing with a bully in a bar, who's been drinking and fxxking with you all night and right and when you're finally ready to confront him, he suddenly remembers he's a cop and takes his badge out.  They need to make up their mind what they want to be and stick with it.  This forum is over-moderated anyway.  Nobody would miss them... and they could be forum members again. Comments getting deleted mindlessly because a "moderator" doesn't think they're relevant but, whatever, when I joined I agreed to their rules.


----------



## Awwal12

bandini said:


> What a surprise, the moderators don't see any problem.


Well, I'm definitely not a moderator (not on this forum, at least). I simply stay civilized and speak out when necessary, and I expect the same from everyone else, mods or not, regardless of their opinions. If someone uses his moderator post to simply suppress the opinions he doesn't like, he is, first, a bit of an idiot, and second, clearly unworthy of the post he takes. I have none experience of that kind on Wordreference, though, and all my posts which got deleted were actually deleted for some valid reason.


bandini said:


> Comments getting deleted mindlessly because a "moderator" doesn't think they're relevant


It's totally ok by me. You cannot really expect moderators to do twice the work after all.


----------



## Pietruzzo

Awwal12 said:


> And gven that moderators are basically volunteers who don't get any payment for their activities, banning them from discussions seems counter-productive, to put it mildly.


Well...they would deserve some reward, over or under the table 
In any case, I don't want to ban nobody.
If anything, I tend to ban myself temporarily when the  moderator of a discussion is  actively or overactively participating in thatt discussion.


----------



## elroy

Pietruzzo said:


> when the moderator of a discussion is actively or overactively participating in thatt discussion.


Moderators are allowed to participate actively!  I’m not sure what “overactive” participation entails: if you think it’s something that violates our rules and guidelines, you are welcome to report the moderator.


----------



## Gommik

I've been moderator in a forum for twenty years. It was a small but the best in Italy, in its area of expertise.  It's impossible to mod without being a part of the community. If one moderates without knowing his/her community, surely would be a very bad mod. 
Evn having a lot of persons and separating the roles, the good mod is a part of the community. 

Instead, if you don't like some mods, quitting the post remains the best solution. 
I quitted many posts for users, here, not for the mods, if it's worth.


----------



## elroy

Gommik said:


> Instead, if you don't like some mods, quitting the post remains the best solution.
> I quitted many posts for users, here, not for the mods, if it's worth.


Sorry, what do you mean by "quitting the post"?


----------



## bandini

I think he's suggesting that if anyone doesn't like it, they're free to leave... either the particular conversation or the entire forum.  I would add that, on a basic level, he's right.  I don't have a huge problem with this issue although I have seen moderators tiptoe over their "privilege" line on occasion such as disabling the entire thread, through a new tool they have, until their irrelevant question gets answered and their ego sufficiently soothed... but... it's not a big deal.  I wasn't a big fan of hall monitor in school, either, so I probably bring some emotional baggage to the table, as well.  Peace/out.


----------



## DonnyB

bandini said:


> ...I have seen moderators tiptoe over their "privilege" line on occasion such as disabling the entire thread, through a new tool they have, until their irrelevant question gets answered and their ego sufficiently soothed... I wasn't a big fan of hall monitor in school, either, so I probably bring some emotional baggage to the table, as well.  Peace/out.



If you come across errant moderators exceeding their remit, then please report it.  The rest of us don't want fellow mods chucking their weight around unnecessarily any more than you do.

Assuming, that is, that reporting doesn't count as being "hall monitor" in your eyes.


----------



## bandini

DonnyB said:


> If you come across errant moderators exceeding their remit, then please report it.  The rest of us don't want fellow mods chucking their weight around unnecessarily any more than you do.
> 
> Assuming, that is, that reporting doesn't count as being "hall monitor" in your eyes.


Thanks Donny, you're an officer and a gentleman, but I haven't seen anything that even came close to the level of "reporting it."  I actually think you guys do a good job.  I hate the game not the player!


----------



## Víctor Pérez

I agree with you, *@Pietruzzo* that sometimes it could be a conflict of interests beetwen mods and members. Nevertheless, I don't think is due to the dual job of the mods. I think is mainly a problem of likeability or unlikeability between people...

In order to solve or to avoid those or other eventual issues between mods and members, 10 years ago I suggested *WR *the idea of designating an *Ombudsman*. *Michael Kellogg*, who liked the idea, explained to me and to the people who agreed with me how difficult it was to find the proper person (which I believe).


----------



## bearded

Awwal12 said:


> send a complaint to *an* admin


Do you know other administrators of this forum besides Mr.Kellogg?


----------



## Awwal12

bearded said:


> Do you know other administrators of this forum besides Mr.Kellogg?


No idea, sorry.  (Let alone hidden/unofficial administrators are also a common occurence, at least on Russian forums.)


----------



## Pietruzzo

Víctor Pérez said:


> I agree with you, *@Pietruzzo* that sometimes it could be a conflict of interests beetwen mods and members.


In my opinion, a moderator should be granted the right to post as a common user but he shouldn't be both things at the same time. I mean, if a mod posts as a common member in a thread someone else should moderate that specific thread. Furthermore, it should be clear whether they are posting as a mod or as a common user, maybe with a specific label.


----------



## DonnyB

Pietruzzo said:


> In my opinion, a moderator should be granted the right to post as a common user but he shouldn't be both things at the same time. I mean, if a mod posts as a common member in a thread someone else should moderate that specific thread. Furthermore, it should be clear whether they are posting as a mod or as a common user, maybe with a specific label.


This is generally what happens: if there's any need for a moderator to intervene in a thread where he or she has been taking part as an ordinary member, then one of the other mods will step in and do it instead.

In the forums I moderate, we use green ink to identify posts and comments made in our capacity as mods and we sign them, but this isn't universal practice.


----------



## merquiades

Pietruzzo said:


> Should moderators take  part actively  in discussions in the forums or not?
> To be honest, arguing with someone who can shut your mouth whenever he likes would make me feel a bit awkward.
> What do you think?


This is a complicated issue. Many moderators are capable of distinguishing between their role as moderator and forum member. They actually do it extremely well.  It's admirable. But some moderators just don't seem to be able to manage it and do abuse their power.  Feeling "awkward" is a mild way of putting it. I routinely ignore them when I can. No use engaging in discussion with people who wield power against you. So I understand why you are asking that moderators not participate in the forums they moderate but it won't happen. It would not be fair to all those moderators who contribute to threads and do their jobs so well.


----------



## DonnyB

merquiades said:


> This is a complicated issue. Many moderators are capable of distinguishing between their role as moderator and forum member. They actually do it extremely well.  It's admirable. But some moderators just don't seem to be able to manage it and do abuse their power.  Feeling "awkward" is a mild way of putting it. I routinely ignore them when I can. No use engaging in discussion with people who wield power against you. So I understand why you are asking that moderators not participate in the forums they moderate but it won't happen. It would not be fair to all those moderators who contribute to threads and do their jobs so well.


I can only really re-iterate what I said in post #16 and urge people to report abuses.  You certainly shouldn't be made to feel "awkward" in any way and it isn't fair on the rest of is to have this minority who are giving us a bad name.


----------



## merquiades

DonnyB said:


> I can only really re-iterate what I said in post #16 and urge people to report abuses.  You certainly shouldn't be made to feel "awkward" in any way and it isn't fair on the rest of is to have this minority who are giving us a bad name.


Very good advice, Donny, but honestly I don't think a mere forum member would be believed over a moderator who is "charismatic" and been around here for ages.  But don't get me wrong. I'm far from angry and just commenting, not complaining. That's just the way it is. There is still much to learn on these forums and great people who are advancing this project (and moderating too).


----------



## wildan1

Pietruzzo said:


> if a mod posts as a common member in a thread someone else should moderate that specific thread.


That's the ideal, but not the reality

Some smaller Forums have only one active moderator supporting them. Other larger Forums depend on support from a team of moderators when they are available. Mike has never imposed any burden of scheduling or amount of time to be present--we all are devoted volunteers and do as much as we can when we can. But we do all have another life out there!

Addressing some cases of flagrantly unacceptable activity needing immediate attention may fall to the only moderator available--and that mod may have previously contributed as a member without knowing a problem would crop up afterwards. Timing and time zones also play a role in this challenge.

Let's be realistic--as moderators, we all support the Forum on a non-paid, volunteer basis. And as members, all of us present benefit from the Forum without any direct monetary payment. (Mike could hire people who "just moderate", but I would imagine he would have to put the Forum behind a paywall to do so.)


----------



## bandini

Does this forum generate revenue?  I never see any advertising.


----------



## DonnyB

The dictionaries, which are the core purpose of the WRF site, are funded by advertising revenue.  The language forums are run as a free service.


----------



## Pietruzzo

wildan1 said:


> -as moderators, we all support the Forum on a non-paid, volunteer basis


That almost makes me cry. One of these days I'll ask a mod to remove this thread, because of the remorse.
Viva WordReference


----------



## Víctor Pérez

cidertree said:


> As a matter of interest, has anyone else had posts deleted by a mod on the grounds of infringing on the role of moderator/chat/off-topic, and seen the same type of post appear, time and time again, with no moderator intervention?
> 
> Edit: I suppose that for every Pierluigi Collina there's a Mike Dean.


That's very possible but we have to understand that mods don't have the ubiquity skill.


----------

