Stating that you think that someone's position as a moderator should be re-evaluated in the light of recent events would be alright - though whether any such evaluation took place and whether the results would be what you wished is another matter.
Posting a non-constructive message gloating about being right about someone 'not being moderator material' is not alright. Nor is stating as fact things that are both opinions and divisive. As with any discussion, whether it's regarding a moderator, or a point of PF.
Also, I want to clarify, the reason to use PMs isn't to 'hide' things. It is because there is a lower standard applied than to public posts as far as moderation. If you find that you cannot express your opinions, regarding the moderator staff or otherwise, in a way that stays on the right side of the guidelines with a public post, then expressing it more privately might just be an additional option - since as mentioned we generally don't apply the same standard, particularly when it has to do with 'forum business'.
This is all fairly off-topic, and I apologize for starting this separate discussion. I'm going to go ahead and split this discussion into it's own thread.
There are some aspects of the Backstage discussion in the smoke-filled-room that didn't appear to progress from blueprint/idea status which may be helpful in this scenario.
I reference the following thread:
http://www.sanmatari.com/viewtopic.php?t=4025Quotes from referenced thread follow below.
1. With relevance to assessment of moderators:- Moderators are 'reassessed' by the general userbase every 3 or 6 months. If they aren't active (not doing acceptably representative % of moderation) or there are substantiated complaints about them then their removal should be considered by the moderation team.
With hindsight it may be beneficial to consider aspects of this design proposal. I would update the proposal to suggest that in order for a review of a moderator to take place, a formal request would need to be made in writing publicly and there would need to be reasons attached. If the reasons are deemed valid a poll can be held for a fortnight. Would it be reasonable to suggest that moderators need >2/3 approval to remain in office?
2. With relevance to moderator accountability- When a moderator tampers with a post of another poster, the forum should clearly show a 'moderated by + time' notification at the top of the post.
This is a problem I saw mentioned in the Dust 514 thread. It may be beneficial for moderator actions to be linked with the moderator taking the action to help with assessment and allotment of complaints by the userbase. If moderators are taking just action there is no reason they should be worried of being linked to their work.
At the end of the day if there is a moderator decision that is disagreed with and this is raised as a complaint, the moderator taking the decision would by courtesy be expected to explain their rationale. This promotes an atmosphere of accountability and also helps keep with the spirit of another principle that was mentioned in the blueprint discussions:
- Moderators are not allowed to moderate threads where there is a clear conflict of interests or one where they are involved heavily. I will not define a conflict of interests at this time. If it is not possible to find a moderator without a conflict of interests in a thread then the moderation team should recruit more members, and aim to be representative of the userbase.
As I recall, most if not all members of the current moderator team were part of the referenced discussion and didn't raise issues against the principles quoted.
Author
Topic: Discussing Staff and other members. (Read 6564 times)