Qualities Of A Mod?

Anonone, I have followed the boards for quite some time but rarely post and in the past I have enjoyed many of your posts and opinions. However, in this case you took a quote from Randi completely out of context, I don't know her anymore than I know you but I did read the thread you pulled that quote from. Someone posted saying that almost all of the choices on a poll were pompous a-holes and she replied that she had met 7 out of the 11 and that they were infact not pompous a-holes, nothing was ever said about this being who she would or would not vote for. I doubt anyone is going to care about it either way but if anyone did want to view how the thread was meant to read then here is the link: http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=70035 Originally Posted by randomuser

I disagree with your interpretation, sir.

Also, please note the use of the ellipses for the quote from Randi. In grammar that tells the reader that the writer is purposely pulling only that portion of the quote for emphasis of a specific point--nothing more, nothing less.

The reason I selected that portion of her post is that read within the context of all the posts in that thread, it is fairly certain that several of the board members were indeed being a little bit hypocritical. They were complaining about one provider and mod having too close of a relationship, but did not see some of the irony in that they were actually using familiarity as a litmus test for character. Many commented that they liked such and such prospective mod because they "knew" or "met" them as if that vouched for the character issue we are trying to discuss with this thread. Yes, she was responding to the gent that made the unfortunate remark, but the overall tone is that it is a litmus test for many of the same providers that pushed out the previous guy. I don't know any of the people involved, so the only outcome I cared about was peace being brought to the board, especially since it was flooding way beyond the boundaries of Arkansas as the issues spiraled further and further out of control.

Sadly, you choose to come here and hijack this thread with the Arkansas drama that had finally died down. This thread is not really about what is going on in Arkansas, beyond it being the most recent example of mod problems. It is about creating a dialogue on the qualities of a good mod. I hope that is your intention here, rather than to fire the drama back up.

Staying on the main topic, the question is, given that the potential for bias, in any region, would one possible fix be having mods from outside the region help curb that and is the trade-off of not having a mod from the area with specific knowledge of the reason, worth trying?

It is a question not a statement. There are valid pros and cons on both sides, so the intention of this thread is to get the dialogue going about qualities of an effective mod, not rehashing what did, did not, and might have happened in Arkansas.

I do welcome you input, in a general sense on the qualities of a mod, if you can divest it from those unfortunate events in Arkansas that have hopefully been put to sleep for a while.

After doing the Mod gig for over two months now I can state that being from the area that I am moderating is a significant advantage. Knowing the area, its people and its dynamics, has helped me a lot in dealing with the issues that come up. Originally Posted by Mokoa

That is a very good point. Can you give some examples of how it might have been more difficult if you had been from another region?

Where I am headed with that question is to look at just how handicapped would you be attempting to moderate members you don't know personally and the limitations of not having local knowledge.

The best reason for having at least one moderator from outside the region is that hopefully there would be little temptation to show bias and favoritism in a given situation. From one standpoint, it makes your life easier if you are gathering just the unfiltered facts, and making decisions based solely on a cold read of the board protocol and thus being consistent by default.

The question is, what do you lose in the trade-off to gain organic fairness?

I would tend to think, for instance, verifying providers and combating LEO activity would be a bit more daunting if you aren't from an area you are attempting to moderate.

Sorry AnonOne.... but 2 of your 3 quotes were taken from the Arkansas forum.... which makes your analysis of the perceived moderation problem rather pointed !

There was absolutely nothing dramatic about Randomuser's critique of your quote which was taken (and re-used) out of context. Randi was simply stating her opinion on comments which had already been made about the character of others. Her comment had nothing to do with her preferences for moderator.

If anyone is attempting to stir the pot..... it is you!

Otherwise.... I agree with the combination of local & remote moderators.

Giz

Sorry AnonOne.... but 2 of your 3 quotes were taken from the Arkansas forum.... which makes your analysis of the perceived moderation problem rather pointed !

There was absolutely nothing dramatic about Randomuser's critique of your quote which was taken (and re-used) out of context. Randi was simply stating her opinion on comments which had already been made about the character of others. Her comment had nothing to do with her preferences for moderator.

If anyone is attempting to stir the pot..... it is you!

Giz Originally Posted by MrGiz

Mr. Giz, if you are going to insist on stirring the Arkansas mess further, I am going to ask that you not do it on this thread, but rather go back to the original thread. As it is containment of that mess has failed and washed over into at least four of five other forums. Let's not add this one.

The intent of this thread is to discuss these issues from a nationwide perspective. There are several areas selecting new mods right now, and i am sure there will be more as the board continues to grow and expand geographically.

The only reason anything was cited here is that Arkansas happened to be the most recent case study on the desired aspects of a mod.

So do you have anything to contribute to that dialogue in this thread?

I disagree with your interpretation, sir.

Also, please note the use of the ellipses for the quote from Randi. In grammar that tells the reader that the writer is purposely pulling only that portion of the quote for emphasis of a specific point--nothing more, nothing less.

The reason I selected that portion of her post is that read within the context of all the posts in that thread, it is fairly certain that several of the board members were indeed being a little bit hypocritical. They were complaining about one provider and mod having too close of a relationship, but did not see some of the irony in that they were actually using familiarity as a litmus test for character. Many commented that they liked such and such prospective mod because they "knew" or "met" them as if that vouched for the character issue we are trying to discuss with this thread. Yes, she was responding to the gent that made the unfortunate remark, but the overall tone is that it is a litmus test for many of the same providers that pushed out the previous guy. I don't know any of the people involved, so the only outcome I cared about was peace being brought to the board, especially since it was flooding way beyond the boundaries of Arkansas as the issues spiraled further and further out of control.

Sadly, you choose to come here and hijack this thread with the Arkansas drama that had finally died down. This thread is not really about what is going on in Arkansas, beyond it being the most recent example of mod problems. It is about creating a dialogue on the qualities of a good mod. I hope that is your intention here, rather than to fire the drama back up.

Staying on the main topic, the question is, given that the potential for bias, in any region, would one possible fix be having mods from outside the region help curb that and is the trade-off of not having a mod from the area with specific knowledge of the reason, worth trying?

It is a question not a statement. There are valid pros and cons on both sides, so the intention of this thread is to get the dialogue going about qualities of an effective mod, not rehashing what did, did not, and might have happened in Arkansas.

I do welcome you input, in a general sense on the qualities of a mod, if you can divest it from those unfortunate events in Arkansas that have hopefully been put to sleep for a while. Originally Posted by ANONONE

I didn't write the comment so I won't interpret it for Randi, if she wants to tell us exactly what it meant she can.

I think that there should be a mod from the area and one from outside of the area, it is a small world and conflicts are bound to arise, having both mods it makes it easier for the other mod to step in when needed. Of course, nothing is fool proof which makes it important to have mods who are fair to everyone and do not have any ulterior motives or bias.

A mod should have time, but not too much time, on their hands.

.....So do you have anything to contribute to that dialogue in this thread? Originally Posted by ANONONE

I already have, above.... but please allow me to add that it doesn't take a Robert Jastrow to moderate a forum of Escort Hobbyists!

A Few Qualities Necessary to Moderate
A reasonable amount of intelligence... familiarity with dynamics of 'The Hobby'... neutrality... fairness... lack of any 'personal conflicts of interest'... thick skin/confidence... decisiveness... a sense of humor... ability to string a few words together... and a whole shitload of time!

I'm sure we could make it sound a whole lot more complicated.... but we wouldn't be impressing anyone!
Whatayathink, Coach?

Giz

Well it must be a little more difficult than the common sense virtues. . .

The recent shelf-life for mod appointments has been more like vapor than solid rock, hence the discussion?

. . .I think that there should be a mod from the area and one from outside of the area, it is a small world and conflicts are bound to arise, having both mods it makes it easier for the other mod to step in when needed. . . Originally Posted by randomuser

Hmmm. . .the buddy system seems like a really good idea. Let most of the moderating be done by the local guy with regards to specific regional actions, but give the ability for them to work in tandem and defer to another as needed when the lines start to blur and a bias might occur?

I wonder how many mods would say something like:

"Look folks, this issue is getting a bit too close to home, I think I am going to defer to JohnDoeMod since he is from two states away, that way the decision is fair and impartial. Good Luck and Be Safe!"

OR

"Hey folks, this issue might be beyond my knowledge since I am not from here. I think I am going to defer to MikeSmithMod since he actually lives in Timbuktu and has a bit more resources to draw from. Good Luck and Be Safe!"

Hmmm. . .the buddy system seems like a really good idea. Let most of the moderating be done by the local guy with regards to specific regional actions, but give the ability for them to work in tandem and defer to another as needed when the lines start to blur and a bias might occur?

I wonder how many mods would say something like:

"Look folks, this issue is getting a bit too close to home, I think I am going to defer to JohnDoeMod since he is from two states away, that way the decision is fair and impartial. Good Luck and Be Safe!"

OR

"Hey folks, this issue might be beyond my knowledge since I am not from here. I think I am going to defer to MikeSmithMod since he actually lives in Timbuktu and has a bit more resources to draw from. Good Luck and Be Safe!" Originally Posted by ANONONE

Giz is right, common sense is very much needed and it goes a lot further than some realize.

I have to say I don't think your thought on it would ever work. If a mod was fair it should be pretty simple to PM a link to the other mod with a link and ask them to take care of a particular thread. Obviously no one person is going to have all the answers. Maybe thinking so is going to cause more issues.

A mod should not some blowhard who has to be right all the time. I'm just sayin...

Giz is right, common sense is very much needed and it goes a lot further than some realize.

I have to say I don't think your thought on it would ever work. If a mod was fair it should be pretty simple to PM a link to the other mod with a link and ask them to take care of a particular thread. Obviously no one person is going to have all the answers. Maybe thinking so is going to cause more issues. Originally Posted by randomuser

So if such teamwork existed, it would be best for it to be done privately so it would be more seamless and more authoritative? In this case transparency might not be such a good idea?

Hmmm. . .that is a bit of a conundrum.

I guess if the mod did post something like that publicly during the decision process, some might undercut them and use the honesty as a vulnerability to exploit for whatever agenda.

I think you might be right; the line between having confidence and assertive management skills might be weakened by transparency, especially if a bunch of people latched onto this and piled on.

There really aren't any easy answers here are there?

Just this little discussion makes me appreciate the tough job these folks do on the board a little bit more.

Good points, Randomuser.

Not only that, but you get to do it for FREE!

Not only that, but you get to do it for FREE! Originally Posted by cpi3000

Indeed. . .thankless and no pay.

The shame is, I guess you couldn't even treat them out for a drink or a steak dinner. That might be seen as a bias. Not as valuable as what the ladies might have to offer, but sadly, some folks would still see it as trying to curry favor.

I still think that at any given social event, the mods should at least get a few drinks and snacks for all the hard work they do.

Good points, Randomuser. Originally Posted by ANONONE

Thanks.