Post by aastinky on Apr 7, 2022 6:40:05 GMT -8
In my experience being a member to many forums, a common problem I've often faced in people's forums is a moderator or administrator who is on a power trip. They lock threads that people want to participate in, they delete people's posts, ban people for minor reasons.
A few years ago I became administrator of my own forum and I've decided to handle the role my own way. I, personally, am challenged by authority figures in spaces surrounding my hobby. In my forum, I like to keep the power levels pretty flat. I've decided to be on the side of the members. I've made it my duty to step in to take action when I see members arguing and namecalling each other, but I stay reserved and respond thoughtfully and reasonably when people argue and namecall with me.
Where forums with strict forum staff have often made rogue and rambunctious members often feel targetted by these authority figures, they feel very safe and free to do what they want on my forum as long as they are not harassing each other. My members seem to like this a lot.
I have the powers to ban people, but it's my opinion that I should almost never have to use them unless a member absolutely has no capacity to be reasoned with, which is often rare. This has been working well for the most part, but as my forum is growing, it's becoming a lot to manage. Reasoning with people does take time, and members sometimes form alliances, and having to reason with all of them becomes a massive time sink, and it's interfering with my ability to participate in the forum in a way that is fun for me and the members involved.
I could use help, but I have trouble deciding who will remain composed enough to handle this responsibility of moderating my forum with the same amount of efficiency that I do.
A serious problem I've experienced in a forum I used to be registered to is that the administrator and moderators had developed a bit of a bond. The forum they run will regularly accumulate people, and they don't really have to do anything to promote it. The forum members often interact with themselves so there is very little maintenance they need to do to keep the site active. The forum staff has a private messaging group where they discuss problematic members for fun. It seems to me they are looking for lowest hanging fruit to ban to justify their job, and keep the members in check. It divides the members, because half of them feel it's good that the moderators keep the low quality posting out, but the other half feels restricted in what they're allowed to talk about, and they sometimes lose friends to bannings that they can relate to.
It has justified the purpose of the forum I administrate, and my forum's growth has been proof of that, in my opinion.
By keeping the power level mostly flat, it's been pretty good and a lot of fun, but it is also work when debates and forum drama arises. I've been thinking about the kind of people I would use as moderators, and I've been thinking about going with a different approach than what I normally see. I often see group leaders assign moderator powers to people they feel they can trust. I'm thinking about doing the opposite.
I want to appoint moderators that I'm willing to have a really cold relationship with. They will have the power to moderate the forum in the way they see fit, but I'm going to make it my duty to oversee the moderators only. My decisions and actions will be primarily in alliance with the registered members, and I will challenge moderator actions as often as I see fit. That way I can just monitor the security logs instead negotiating with forum members as a whole, and the members won't feel like they are being teamed up against when they have my backing.
Has anyone tried something like this?
A few years ago I became administrator of my own forum and I've decided to handle the role my own way. I, personally, am challenged by authority figures in spaces surrounding my hobby. In my forum, I like to keep the power levels pretty flat. I've decided to be on the side of the members. I've made it my duty to step in to take action when I see members arguing and namecalling each other, but I stay reserved and respond thoughtfully and reasonably when people argue and namecall with me.
Where forums with strict forum staff have often made rogue and rambunctious members often feel targetted by these authority figures, they feel very safe and free to do what they want on my forum as long as they are not harassing each other. My members seem to like this a lot.
I have the powers to ban people, but it's my opinion that I should almost never have to use them unless a member absolutely has no capacity to be reasoned with, which is often rare. This has been working well for the most part, but as my forum is growing, it's becoming a lot to manage. Reasoning with people does take time, and members sometimes form alliances, and having to reason with all of them becomes a massive time sink, and it's interfering with my ability to participate in the forum in a way that is fun for me and the members involved.
I could use help, but I have trouble deciding who will remain composed enough to handle this responsibility of moderating my forum with the same amount of efficiency that I do.
A serious problem I've experienced in a forum I used to be registered to is that the administrator and moderators had developed a bit of a bond. The forum they run will regularly accumulate people, and they don't really have to do anything to promote it. The forum members often interact with themselves so there is very little maintenance they need to do to keep the site active. The forum staff has a private messaging group where they discuss problematic members for fun. It seems to me they are looking for lowest hanging fruit to ban to justify their job, and keep the members in check. It divides the members, because half of them feel it's good that the moderators keep the low quality posting out, but the other half feels restricted in what they're allowed to talk about, and they sometimes lose friends to bannings that they can relate to.
It has justified the purpose of the forum I administrate, and my forum's growth has been proof of that, in my opinion.
By keeping the power level mostly flat, it's been pretty good and a lot of fun, but it is also work when debates and forum drama arises. I've been thinking about the kind of people I would use as moderators, and I've been thinking about going with a different approach than what I normally see. I often see group leaders assign moderator powers to people they feel they can trust. I'm thinking about doing the opposite.
I want to appoint moderators that I'm willing to have a really cold relationship with. They will have the power to moderate the forum in the way they see fit, but I'm going to make it my duty to oversee the moderators only. My decisions and actions will be primarily in alliance with the registered members, and I will challenge moderator actions as often as I see fit. That way I can just monitor the security logs instead negotiating with forum members as a whole, and the members won't feel like they are being teamed up against when they have my backing.
Has anyone tried something like this?