# In a "so-called" democracy ...



## perpend

... should be we able to judge moderators on WR, or, is that tabu / taboo?

EDIT: Are the mods immune from scrutiny? In other words, it needs to work two way, but WR is pretty much one-way street.


----------



## osa_menor

Hello *perpend*,

Mike answered this question more or less in the other thread:
Fewer and fewer questions asked in the forums?


mkellogg said:


> I understand what you are saying, but there are a few problems with freewheeling criticism of moderators in public.
> 1. Such emotional issues are best handled in private.
> 2. The moderators are volunteers. We try to minimize the abuse that they get. Keeping it out of public eyes is a big part of it. If these discussions were public, many moderators would quit. Nobody would want to moderate these forums.



Un saludo.


----------



## Sepia

perpend said:


> ... should be we able to judge moderators on WR, or, is that tabu / taboo?
> 
> EDIT: Are the mods immune from scrutiny? In other words, it needs to work two way, but WR is pretty much one-way street.


 
Oh, I know what you mean - but it is more or less like when you are at a private party.


----------



## jann

The WR forums are not a democracy, nor do they claim, pretend, or aspire to be one.  Perhaps that misconception is at the origin of the frustrations you imply?  Mike has addressed this matter in the past:


mkellogg said:


> [...] I have seen quite a few references to democracy in the forums here.  I just want to politely remind everyone that WordReference is a business, not a democracy.  Like any good business it listens carefully to suggestions, of course.


As regards your question:


perpend said:


> ... should be we able to judge moderators on WR, or, is that tabu / taboo?
> EDIT: Are the mods immune from scrutiny?


You are of course free to think and feel whatever you like about the moderators!  You may also communicate your thoughts, suggestions, comments, judgements, criticisms, etc. to the mods as often as you like via the (private) Conversation feature or by clicking on the "Report" link in a relevant forum post.  You may likewise address your concerns to Mike via the Contact Us form.  

I assure you that complaints about how the forums are moderated are taken seriously.  As Mike said, listening to suggestions is good business sense.  However, for a variety of reasons explained elsewhere (including in the thread Osa_menor linked), the public forums are not an appropriate place for discussing matters of moderation.  Please understand that this is not at all the same as saying that the moderators are immune to scrutiny!  Merely that 10+ years of experience have shown that the forums work best for all parties when the business of their function/operation is kept separate from their linguistic content.

Kind regards,
Jann


----------



## perpend

It's funny, *jann*, that the forums don't strive to be a democracy. Okay, though. The best businesses are democracies (apart from fraud).

If the public forums are not a place for discussing matters of moderation then where?

It would pay moderators in this scheme.

That would change the game on a dime.

It would likely make WR in a heartbeat more profitable.

Why are there are so many people volunteering their time as "moderators"?

Many laypersons (members) do that as non-moderators. I won't name names.

EDIT: Some moderators over-moderate while some take it personally while some are serene as the daylight.

Is it wrong to say or suggest that, jann?

EDIT 2.0: As long as they are volunteers, wouldn't WR benefit from younger moderators? I think that would draw more revenue.


----------



## velisarius

Are you really interested in making the forum more profitable perpend, or are you perhaps suggesting that everyone should have the "democratic" right to post whatever misleading or incomprehensible drivel comes to mind? I feel you have a hidden agenda here. (Not naming any names of course).


----------



## perpend

I of course want democracy (don't you? velisarius), but am most interested in making the forum more profitable (I surmise that is in Mike's interests), which means more posts and means staying in tune with the general public (millennials) ... to maximize traffic.

That means recruiting younger moderators and paying them.

Let me know if that wasn't clear betwixt AmE and BrE.

Happy, Merry Christmas!


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I must admit to being not at all interested in 'democracy' in the sense in which the word is being used here by some people.

For me the issue is how we can best help learners by providing clear answers to their questions.

Sometimes members (naming no names, of course) make this business hard, by writing irrelevant, or personal, or corrosive posts, often in English which would be corrected in an eight-year-old.   When this happens some of the mods erase what they write.  Sometimes they miss one or two.

I'm very pleased that people are generous enough with their time to moderate the forums.  If they miss one or two monstrosities or occasionally depart from what strikes us as sensible, that's only to be expected.  We should just lump it.  Provided they are sensitive to our wish to be at pains to provide accurate answers, and also to our occasional wish to develop an answer in ways only implied by the question - and this seems to me to be largely the case at the moment - I think we should accept their authority, as beneficent, productive, and entirely necessary.

We've had some outstanding mods in the _English only_ forum lately, and retain one or two really excellent ones, for whom I am daily grateful.


----------



## Andygc

I use a few forums around the internet. This is the only language one. All of the others, bar one, are moderated by volunteer moderators. The one, which is owned by a yachting magazine, contains a great number of rude, abusive and ill-mannered posts. The paid moderators (magazine staff) rarely intervene and do so only when the posts are getting close to obscenity or to a basis for litigation. The others do not pretend to be democracies and discussions of moderator activity do not appear in the forums.



perpend said:


> The best businesses are democracies


It seems we occupy different planets. I've yet to become aware of a successful business which is run as a democracy. Let's think of some: Microsoft - no, Google - no, Apple - no, Unilever - no, Fox News - no, CNN - no, International Airlines Group - no, Gazprom - no, Lockheed Martin, no. No, it's no good, I just can't think of one - unless by "best businesses" you mean ones that are trading at a loss?


----------



## Sepia

velisarius said:


> Are you really interested in making the forum more profitable perpend, or are you perhaps suggesting that everyone should have the "democratic" right to post whatever misleading or incomprehensible drivel comes to mind? I feel you have a hidden agenda here. (Not naming any names of course).



If you want to see a hidden agenda, you'll always find one.
To me it seems pretty straight forward what Perpend means - and I aggree with him.


----------



## Sepia

Andygc said:


> I use a few forums around the internet. This is the only language one. All of the others, bar one, are moderated by volunteer moderators. The one, which is owned by a yachting magazine, contains a great number of rude, abusive and ill-mannered posts. The paid moderators (magazine staff) rarely intervene and do so only when the posts are getting close to obscenity or to a basis for litigation. The others do not pretend to be democracies and discussions of moderator activity do not appear in the forums.
> 
> It seems we occupy different planets. I've yet to become aware of a successful business which is run as a democracy. Let's think of some: Microsoft - no, Google - no, Apple - no, Unilever - no, Fox News - no, CNN - no, International Airlines Group - no, Gazprom - no, Lockheed Martin, no. No, it's no good, I just can't think of one - unless by "best businesses" you mean ones that are trading at a loss?



And obviously you are only mentioning corporations in countries where the employees hardly have any rights at all. You do not mention any corporation based or founded in Europe where in many cases a high degree of democracy is required by law, when a company exceeds a certain size. Didn't keep this Swedish guy who started out selling match-sticks from becoming richer than Bill Gates.


----------



## Andygc

Sepia, could you identify a company that runs as a democracy and is successful? That is, where the employees vote on business decisions and decisions are not made by a management board or by a single executive. No European state has a law that says business decisions should be made by a democratic process. Employee rights do not make a business a democracy. By the way, please try to get your facts right, International Airlines Group is a European company, with its Head Office at Heathrow, and Unilever is a British-Dutch company, with its head offices in London and Rotterdam. I have no idea who your "Swedish guy" is, but if he became a multi-millionaire it was because he ran his business effectively.



Sepia said:


> To me it seems pretty straight forward what Perpend means - and I aggree with him.


You agree that forum members should be free to post comments about moderator actions in threads which are about language, rather than raising their concerns in reports, private messages to other moderators, or by contacting Mike directly? What purpose would that serve? Wordreference belongs to Mike. If a member doesn't like what a moderator does, then the member can tell Mike. If Mike agrees with the member then he will, no doubt, do something about it. If he doesn't agree then he won't. They are his forums. People choose whether or not to use these forums. If they don't like the rules and the way they are implemented they can go somewhere else.


----------



## Sepia

Why is it that you think that such discussions would only have negative effects? What is your hidden agenda?

@Sepia, could you identify a company that runs as a democracy and is successful? 

I already did, but obviously you didn't notice.


----------



## Peterdg

Sepia said:


> And obviously you are only mentioning corporations in countries where the employees hardly have any rights at all. You do not mention any corporation based or founded in Europe where in many cases a high degree of democracy is required by law, when a company exceeds a certain size.


In Belgium, e.g. publicly criticizing your employer is considered to be a very serious professional error and is a valid reason for immediate dismissal without any compensation from the part of the employer. That's how far democracy goes in businesses in Europe.

Forget it: a business is not a democracy.


----------



## Andygc

Sepia said:


> I already did, but obviously you didn't notice.


No, you didn't, you wrote 


Sepia said:


> Didn't keep this Swedish guy who started out selling match-sticks from becoming richer than Bill Gates.


and I have not the faintest idea of what that is supposed to mean.

You seem to have forgotten something:





Sepia said:


> And obviously you are only mentioning corporations in countries where the employees hardly have any rights at all. You do not mention any corporation based or founded in Europe





Andygc said:


> International Airlines Group is a European company, with its Head Office at Heathrow, and Unilever is a British-Dutch company


The normal follow up to that would be "Oh yes. I'm sorry, I was wrong."



Sepia said:


> What is your hidden agenda?


I don't have one. I cannot see how discussing moderator actions in a thread about a language question would contribute to answering the question in the thread. Like Thomas Tompion in post #8, I am happy to accept the way these forums are organised.


----------



## sdgraham

Sepia said:


> Didn't keep this Swedish guy who started out selling match-sticks from becoming richer than Bill Gates.



You still have not identified this person, but a Google search suggests that it's Ivar Krueger, (a.k.s the "Match King") who committed suicide in 1932.

The linked Wikipedia article is fascinating reading and substantially less than complementary. "Democratic" and "democracy" do not appear in the account.

This _Newsweek_ article also is interesting.

*Ivar Kreuger: The Grandfather of Financial Scams?*


----------



## velisarius

perpend said:


> I of course want democracy (don't you? velisarius)



I believe in democracy, freedom, apple pie...oh, and world peace of course. I don't approve of anarchists, trolls, dopey mischief-makers, on this forum though. And there's a difference between free speech and carping on about forum rules because you think you are a special case and they don't apply to you.

Experienced or "senior" members usually manage to moderate themselves without a whole load of intervention. Sometimes members incline to self-indulgence  and off-topic chat. I expect you have never stopped to ask yourself why a member who is searching for help with their homework or research should ever bother to revisit the forum when the the serious language discussion they are interested in is interspersed with irrelevant "cute" and "amusing" (read inane) comments. There are many other forums where people can chat to their heart's content and nobody will be in the least disturbed if they use their own obscure idiolect. 

A language forum is different; there is a need for good, clear advice offered in a friendly manner. This is best summed up in the rule: *The Forums promote learning and maintain an atmosphere that is serious, academic and collaborative, with a respectful, helpful and cordial tone. *The unrelated issue of younger, paid moderators is one for the forum owner to decide on.


----------



## PaulQ

This is why moderators are needed:





What is not required in Mods is the peremptory note. Most posters want to be reasonable and simply don't understand what is required (despite reading rules.) I vote for the smiling Mod. who is willing to admit a mistake/poor call, and Mods who take a wide view. If we have the philosopher king/benevolent dictator, we don't need democracy which, on forums, is a disaster.

There _might _be a case for the ability for members to +1/-1 mods where the result would not be publicly visible. It could be useful to the mod to get some feedback.


----------



## siares

I wonder, perpend, if it is not the impossibility of blowing off steam which you miss? 
At work, even with the most fair managers, sometimes cause for frustration arises which cannot be removed by any official act; but then colleagues still can go to the pub and harmlessly chat about it. I missed this possibility (pub) when I did an internet-based project. But such is life (internet).


----------



## JamesM

I suspect a fair amount of blowing off steam goes on via private conversation.


----------



## Wordsmyth

The question of moderation of WRF can't be separated from what WRF _is_, and what it aims to achieve. TT's #8 and Veli's #17 nicely sum up my feelings, and I'd add one further point ...

As well as the 'immediate' activity of giving helpful advice to learners and other members in real time, WRF also constitutes an ever-growing reference source for millions of people who consult the forums without ever joining up. As I write this, there are 80 members online, and 5044 guests. This facet of the forums often seems to be overlooked by some members, but the moderators are there to attend to the needs of that 'invisible majority' (not forgetting that they're also the ones who see the ads!) as well as to those of the member community.

As for the comment about 'younger moderators': a group of professional moderators for a media-related internet forum used to come into my local when they came off shift, and often discussed their day's work. Not one was over 30. I was amazed at how immature and blinkered some of their views were, and some of their reasons for rejecting posts were frankly pathetic. What's more, being professional, they had no interest in the aims or mission of the forum (if such even existed!), but simply in putting in their hours to get paid.

I think we're pretty well off here.

Ws


----------



## perpend

> What is not required in Mods is the peremptory note. Most posters want to be reasonable and simply don't understand what is required (despite reading rules.) I vote for the smiling Mod. who is willing to admit a mistake/poor call, and Mods who take a wide view. If we have the philosopher king/benevolent dictator, we don't need democracy which, on forums, is a disaster.



_(Then along comes James with a half-smile in his avatar. )_

I think that's well-put from Paul, #18. I'm not complaining, per se, just trying to have a dialogue. And ... let's just say members chat amongst each other  (to blow off steam ), and I am not alone in "questioning"/"wondering" sometimes---so I speak here not only for myself.

Thanks for the interesting dialogue/discussion. It helps me better understand where both members and Mods are coming from (and how they view WR)!


----------



## JamesM

perpend said:


> _(Then along comes James with a half-smile in his avatar. )_
> 
> I think that's well-put from Paul. I'm not complaining, per se, just trying to have a dialogue. And ... let's just say members chat amongst each other  (to blow off steam ), and I am not alone in "questioning"/"wondering" sometimes---so I speak here not only for myself.



If there is a complaint about moderation styles or rules in general, I think the best thing to do would be for each person to communicate it to Mike individually. As in any business, if one person communicates it it's seen one way but if many people communicate it it's seen another way.  On the forums there really isn't a way to speak for more than yourself.  If multiple people have a problem it's best if they each express it to the owner/administrator.  (I hope I haven't just created more work for Mike.)



> Thanks for the interesting dialogue/discussion. It helps me better understand where both members and Mods are coming from (and how they view WR)!



That's always a good thing.


----------



## Sepia

Peterdg said:


> In Belgium, e.g. publicly criticizing your employer is considered to be a very serious professional error and is a valid reason for immediate dismissal without any compensation from the part of the employer. That's how far democracy goes in businesses in Europe.
> 
> Forget it: a business is not a democracy.



I have a feeling you are mixing up three differeint things: Insulting, critisizing and having influence on decisions. 
They are not the same.


----------



## Peterdg

Sepia said:


> I have a feeling you are mixing up three different things: Insulting, critisizing and having influence on decisions.
> They are not the same.


The subject is: "democracy" in the forum. One of the base elements of democracy is freedom of speech. "Insulting" and "criticizing" are part of that, so I don't see how your reasoning would invalidate mine: a business is not a democracy.


----------



## Sepia

Peterdg said:


> The subject is: "democracy" in the forum. One of the base elements of democracy is freedom of speech. "Insulting" and "criticizing" are part of that, so I don't see how your reasoning would invalidate mine: a business is not a democracy.


Not where I live - I know freedom of speach as your right to freely express your  opinion in speach, writing and artistic expression, whereas insulting someone in public is a criminan offense. That couldn't be that different in Belgium.


----------



## PaulQ

Sepia said:


> Not where I live - I know freedom of speach as your right to freely express your opinion in speech, writing and artistic expression, whereas insulting someone in public is a criminan offense. That couldn't be that different in Belgium.


You suffer from the same EU laws as we in the UK do. The right to freedom of speech in public has to be limited, but as has been pointed out, WRF is not a public forum. In return for being able to publish on WRF, we are constrained by rules (upon which we never voted) and governed by Mods (who were never elected and are chosen by other mods.)

The choice, if you do not agree, is either (i) argue the point (ii) leave.

Perpend seems to be addressing (i). In practical terms, the system is not broken, and thus should not be fixed. There may be certain clashes of personality and unfortunately worded comments, but JamesM (#23) gives a possible solution - a Supreme Court, if you will.


----------



## L'irlandais

Hello,
In line with the OP, I agree that from time to time Mods on these forums can be out of order  Call it tiredness if you will. 
That *Mike Kellogg *relies heavily on their input, I get that.  Perhaps one day WRF will get the notion that business relies first and foremost on customers.
If there is one similarity between democracy and business perhaps it is that one can vote with one's feet.
In the words of Bilbo Baggins





> I regret to announce — this is The End. I am going now. I bid you all a very fond farewell.


Goodbye


----------

