Volunteer MeFi Modding December 20, 2024 6:20 AM Subscribe
A number of people have called for volunteer moderation at MeFi. The No. 1 question about that is, how many people are willing to be a volunteer moderator, and for how many hours a week?
This is also a good thread to discuss any other aspects of potential volunteer moderation at MeFi.
(I am not for or against this idea at this time. But this is a good initial check on feasibility.)
This is also a good thread to discuss any other aspects of potential volunteer moderation at MeFi.
(I am not for or against this idea at this time. But this is a good initial check on feasibility.)
I think this is a premature post because the organizational model has to be put in place and then tools/training/docs built to support whatever that model is, if it's different. [Deleted on preview what jacquilynne said better.] People's lives will change during that time.
Also, if feasibility is being determined, remember there are lots of engaged members who don't come into MetaTalk that much.
But to kick off availability, I also think I would be available to put about 4 hours a week into the site consistently, and available for more work in sprints at times and with advance notice, and that could be moderating/covering vacation or break times, or it could be other things.
posted by warriorqueen at 6:43 AM on December 20 [9 favorites]
Also, if feasibility is being determined, remember there are lots of engaged members who don't come into MetaTalk that much.
But to kick off availability, I also think I would be available to put about 4 hours a week into the site consistently, and available for more work in sprints at times and with advance notice, and that could be moderating/covering vacation or break times, or it could be other things.
posted by warriorqueen at 6:43 AM on December 20 [9 favorites]
The No. 1 question about that is, how many people are willing to be a volunteer moderator, and for how many hours a week?
Actually, I think the #1 question is whether the current mod team (or the incoming Board or whoever it is that owns Metafilter now) are interested in hiring/training volunteer mods at all. Anything else is pretty moot until that question has been answered.
posted by fight or flight at 6:43 AM on December 20 [3 favorites]
Actually, I think the #1 question is whether the current mod team (or the incoming Board or whoever it is that owns Metafilter now) are interested in hiring/training volunteer mods at all. Anything else is pretty moot until that question has been answered.
posted by fight or flight at 6:43 AM on December 20 [3 favorites]
How much people are actually willing to do could inform any potential consideration by the new ownership.
posted by NotLost at 6:52 AM on December 20 [5 favorites]
posted by NotLost at 6:52 AM on December 20 [5 favorites]
I'd be happy to be involved, but I fully agree with jacquilynne. Assigning shifts is almost certainly going to be the wrong way to handle the job. If there are just 15 people who have mod powers, and a subscribable flag queue, and a general expectation that people will read a few posts when they're in front of their computers, everything will almost certainly work out fine.
posted by bowbeacon at 7:00 AM on December 20 [15 favorites]
posted by bowbeacon at 7:00 AM on December 20 [15 favorites]
I'll just add that if people have a block/hide feature (which I think is planned if I read the site update correctly - I'm a bit distracted this morning), I think a delay in moderation now and then would be okay, because people can control if there's something in their sight line.
You still want to moderate to continue to support values and discussion, but the individual members can immediately remove upsetting things from their view, which helps a lot.
posted by warriorqueen at 7:03 AM on December 20 [3 favorites]
You still want to moderate to continue to support values and discussion, but the individual members can immediately remove upsetting things from their view, which helps a lot.
posted by warriorqueen at 7:03 AM on December 20 [3 favorites]
I don't think it's bad to discuss this now (or anytime really, other than perhaps too frequently). As much as whoever is running the site can just decide to do this or not, I think the process of the community accepting either decision will take time to make sure it's as smooth as possible. To answer the core question, I think I'd be willing to volunteer if my questions are addressed I'd be willing to do so, if I stay active enough. I agree with jacquilynne that trying to impose a "shifts" model (or hours per week) on volunteers is probably not a great idea: too much like an employee and much less likely to get volunteers to do so, in general.
One issue with having volunteer moderators would be deciding the process of how they are selected. Staff decision using... some process? Maybe some sort of community process where users say "hey I want to be a mod because X, Y, Z" and then we vote/discuss/whatever. Unless there would be a limited access mode coded for the volunteers, they probably would have to sign confidentiality agreements and similar, which of course likely would involve some lawyer time to get set up. But a more limited view where the volunteer mods would _mostly_ just have access to what normal users see, plus flags and the ability to delete posts/comments, could be useful enough to think about. There's also thinking about if the volunteers would be able to see deleted content and to potentially restore it.
I think some of the potential ethical issues about unpaid labor have become a bit less severe due to the transfer to the non-profit but still exist since the volunteer mods to some extent, by their very nature, will displace paid work. I guess in summary I think if it's thought through and has large scale support from both the community and staff/board folks, it could be a useful addition.
posted by skynxnex at 7:04 AM on December 20
One issue with having volunteer moderators would be deciding the process of how they are selected. Staff decision using... some process? Maybe some sort of community process where users say "hey I want to be a mod because X, Y, Z" and then we vote/discuss/whatever. Unless there would be a limited access mode coded for the volunteers, they probably would have to sign confidentiality agreements and similar, which of course likely would involve some lawyer time to get set up. But a more limited view where the volunteer mods would _mostly_ just have access to what normal users see, plus flags and the ability to delete posts/comments, could be useful enough to think about. There's also thinking about if the volunteers would be able to see deleted content and to potentially restore it.
I think some of the potential ethical issues about unpaid labor have become a bit less severe due to the transfer to the non-profit but still exist since the volunteer mods to some extent, by their very nature, will displace paid work. I guess in summary I think if it's thought through and has large scale support from both the community and staff/board folks, it could be a useful addition.
posted by skynxnex at 7:04 AM on December 20
I really do not understand the confidentiality problems people are envisioning. You have to delete public posts on a website, and say things like "Hey, I think the discussion of whether hot dogs are a sandwich is kind of a derail, let's talk about burritos."
There should not be anything that is confidential or sensitive involved in reposting links to newspapers and blogs. If there is, the system is being managed incorrectly.
posted by bowbeacon at 7:07 AM on December 20 [6 favorites]
There should not be anything that is confidential or sensitive involved in reposting links to newspapers and blogs. If there is, the system is being managed incorrectly.
posted by bowbeacon at 7:07 AM on December 20 [6 favorites]
I was going to post along the lines of what jacquilynne said. I would definitely be interested in being trained to do at least some part of the moderation (e.g. responding to flags), and doing that, especially if there were no set shifts. I feel like some change in the moderation model, including more automation (e.g., hide on x flags until a mod reviews), distributed first-tier modding, etc. could be a lot more responsive and efficient. Maybe the higher-level mod position is really a user-relations manager or something distinct from the volunteer mod team and that person does the really tricky or personal info things with support from the board if needed.
posted by snofoam at 7:10 AM on December 20 [9 favorites]
posted by snofoam at 7:10 AM on December 20 [9 favorites]
I just don't think we need much of anything paid happening. This is an internet message board that gets 700 posts per day. The organizational structure should look a LOT more like a PTO meeting than a business.
posted by bowbeacon at 7:12 AM on December 20 [12 favorites]
posted by bowbeacon at 7:12 AM on December 20 [12 favorites]
> If there is, the system is being managed incorrectly.
I think that is being a bit too unfair. If the assumption, going back to 1999(!), was always that it'd be super-close people or employees, then it's totally reasonable to let things like IP addresses, direct private communication, and payment addresses be easily accessible to all moderators. I'd say since then expectations of data isolation between roles has increased and if we're moving to allow less close/non employee mods, there might have to be adjustments made to not scare (some) users off. Not a big deal to know those things might exist and might need to be dealt with. (Edited to add: or maybe nobody actually cares about any of that and/or it's already all hidden and no big deal but these are things I know have been concerns at other communities/companies where I've had backroom access.)
posted by skynxnex at 7:17 AM on December 20 [4 favorites]
I think that is being a bit too unfair. If the assumption, going back to 1999(!), was always that it'd be super-close people or employees, then it's totally reasonable to let things like IP addresses, direct private communication, and payment addresses be easily accessible to all moderators. I'd say since then expectations of data isolation between roles has increased and if we're moving to allow less close/non employee mods, there might have to be adjustments made to not scare (some) users off. Not a big deal to know those things might exist and might need to be dealt with. (Edited to add: or maybe nobody actually cares about any of that and/or it's already all hidden and no big deal but these are things I know have been concerns at other communities/companies where I've had backroom access.)
posted by skynxnex at 7:17 AM on December 20 [4 favorites]
This is an internet message board that gets 700 posts per day.
Sure, but it doesn't have to stay that way. I doubt it's going to be where it was in the heyday of text-based communication.
But it's been really interesting to see Google prioritize Reddit content, and while I think there are a lot of reasons for that, one of them has to be that people click through on Reddit content and engage with it. I don't think forums are dead-dead. I think that with the right people and roles, and community energy we could see growth - steady, unspectacular growth. It's just can we get there before there's not enough content here to attract new people.
One of my frustrations over the last 6 months has been a sense that we are squandering the runway the SC provided for us, but the last week things feel different. I think we can do better and there's no reason to go to zero on day one.
posted by warriorqueen at 7:24 AM on December 20 [11 favorites]
Sure, but it doesn't have to stay that way. I doubt it's going to be where it was in the heyday of text-based communication.
But it's been really interesting to see Google prioritize Reddit content, and while I think there are a lot of reasons for that, one of them has to be that people click through on Reddit content and engage with it. I don't think forums are dead-dead. I think that with the right people and roles, and community energy we could see growth - steady, unspectacular growth. It's just can we get there before there's not enough content here to attract new people.
One of my frustrations over the last 6 months has been a sense that we are squandering the runway the SC provided for us, but the last week things feel different. I think we can do better and there's no reason to go to zero on day one.
posted by warriorqueen at 7:24 AM on December 20 [11 favorites]
Payment should be handled by a third party. Metafilter shouldn't have access to payment information.
There should not be any direct private communication. Just don't allow it!
IP addresses should be on the server and only really discoverable by a subpoena. Or, more reasonably, should just never be logged. They're not important, and there's no real reason to have them.
posted by bowbeacon at 7:27 AM on December 20 [5 favorites]
There should not be any direct private communication. Just don't allow it!
IP addresses should be on the server and only really discoverable by a subpoena. Or, more reasonably, should just never be logged. They're not important, and there's no real reason to have them.
posted by bowbeacon at 7:27 AM on December 20 [5 favorites]
Sure, but it doesn't have to stay that way. I doubt it's going to be where it was in the heyday of text-based communication.
I think that's a good thing to hope for, but there's about a 99.9% chance that metafilter will never be above 1500 posts per day ever again. That's just how things are, in reality. We can have a lot of fun in that reality, learn a lot of neat things, have meetups and friends, and real community. But it will almost certainly never be at a scale that requires a paid Executive Director, or anything like that. It needs an elected board of 5 people with the keys to the bank account who write the yearly check for $2000 in hosting costs, just like the PTO buys t-shirts for field day every year, and hires a magician to come in when the reading festival hits its goal.
Treating this place as a business with a $250k per year budget, or even a $50k/year budget, is going to end in bankruptcy, very very quickly.
posted by bowbeacon at 7:31 AM on December 20 [6 favorites]
I think that's a good thing to hope for, but there's about a 99.9% chance that metafilter will never be above 1500 posts per day ever again. That's just how things are, in reality. We can have a lot of fun in that reality, learn a lot of neat things, have meetups and friends, and real community. But it will almost certainly never be at a scale that requires a paid Executive Director, or anything like that. It needs an elected board of 5 people with the keys to the bank account who write the yearly check for $2000 in hosting costs, just like the PTO buys t-shirts for field day every year, and hires a magician to come in when the reading festival hits its goal.
Treating this place as a business with a $250k per year budget, or even a $50k/year budget, is going to end in bankruptcy, very very quickly.
posted by bowbeacon at 7:31 AM on December 20 [6 favorites]
If we're talking about shifts I could do one- or two-hour shifts here and there, on a week-by-week basis, but not longer than that. If we're talking about something like Jacquilynne described, then I could do more than that.
a more limited view where the volunteer mods would _mostly_ just have access to what normal users see, plus flags and the ability to delete posts/comments, could be useful enough to think about.
I think this is really important. I've always assumed regular mods can see things like poster information for anonymous posts, IP addresses, private email addresses, historical info like long-ago deleted comments and past conversations with mods, etc. Maybe I'm wrong?
I think it would help to get a full official list of what information and tools the current mods have access to, so that we can think about each one and whether volunteers should have access to it. This is information we need mods to supply.
A separate list we might be able to compile ourselves is a full list of mod actions that currently exist, so we can think about how each one would play out with volunteers, and whether it should be restricted, eliminated, retained, or expanded. Things like:
- deleting comments
- restoring deleted comments
- leaving official mod notes
- deleting posts
- restoring posts
- approving or rejecting anonymous AskMe posts
- approving or rejecting MetaTalk queue posts (soon may it die)
- responding privately to users who have flagged things that won't be deleted
- privately communicating with users to nudge their behavior in a specific thread (warnings, etc.)
- privately communicating with users (warnings, etc.) about patterns of behavior broader than a single thread
- privately responding to incoming user contact submitted through the contact form
- privately responding to incoming user contact sent to a specific mod directly via MefiMail or email
- reading and responding to MetaTalk threads
- determining moderation policy
- getting all mods on the same page
- training mods
- being trained
- waiving the $5 signup fee on request
What else?
posted by trig at 7:32 AM on December 20 [4 favorites]
a more limited view where the volunteer mods would _mostly_ just have access to what normal users see, plus flags and the ability to delete posts/comments, could be useful enough to think about.
I think this is really important. I've always assumed regular mods can see things like poster information for anonymous posts, IP addresses, private email addresses, historical info like long-ago deleted comments and past conversations with mods, etc. Maybe I'm wrong?
I think it would help to get a full official list of what information and tools the current mods have access to, so that we can think about each one and whether volunteers should have access to it. This is information we need mods to supply.
A separate list we might be able to compile ourselves is a full list of mod actions that currently exist, so we can think about how each one would play out with volunteers, and whether it should be restricted, eliminated, retained, or expanded. Things like:
- deleting comments
- restoring deleted comments
- leaving official mod notes
- deleting posts
- restoring posts
- approving or rejecting anonymous AskMe posts
- approving or rejecting MetaTalk queue posts (soon may it die)
- responding privately to users who have flagged things that won't be deleted
- privately communicating with users to nudge their behavior in a specific thread (warnings, etc.)
- privately communicating with users (warnings, etc.) about patterns of behavior broader than a single thread
- privately responding to incoming user contact submitted through the contact form
- privately responding to incoming user contact sent to a specific mod directly via MefiMail or email
- reading and responding to MetaTalk threads
- determining moderation policy
- getting all mods on the same page
- training mods
- being trained
- waiving the $5 signup fee on request
What else?
posted by trig at 7:32 AM on December 20 [4 favorites]
- summarizing MetaTalk posts (granted that this has been done only sporadically but if done well it might be a useful thing to keep up)
posted by trig at 7:34 AM on December 20 [4 favorites]
posted by trig at 7:34 AM on December 20 [4 favorites]
I think that's a good thing to hope for, but there's about a 99.9% chance that metafilter will never be above 1500 posts per day ever again. That's just how things are, in reality.
I won't take that bet until I see what the full new org structure is like, but I personally can think of multiple ways to get there in a 1-2 year timeframe, that take a lot of time and a bit of money.
One $$ way would be to buy ads on Reddit that display in specific subreddits that say "Tired of fly-by insults on Reddit? Try Metafilter."
Or buy Google Search Ads against "can I still eat" (I joke, I joke.)
posted by warriorqueen at 7:35 AM on December 20 [1 favorite]
I won't take that bet until I see what the full new org structure is like, but I personally can think of multiple ways to get there in a 1-2 year timeframe, that take a lot of time and a bit of money.
One $$ way would be to buy ads on Reddit that display in specific subreddits that say "Tired of fly-by insults on Reddit? Try Metafilter."
Or buy Google Search Ads against "can I still eat" (I joke, I joke.)
posted by warriorqueen at 7:35 AM on December 20 [1 favorite]
- banning users temporarily (timeouts)
- banning users permanently
- restoring perma-banned users
- checking new user accounts to see if they're BNDs/attempts to get around bans (I don't know how this actually works)
- doing account wipes on request
- emailing specific deleted comments to users on their request
posted by trig at 7:38 AM on December 20 [3 favorites]
- banning users permanently
- restoring perma-banned users
- checking new user accounts to see if they're BNDs/attempts to get around bans (I don't know how this actually works)
- doing account wipes on request
- emailing specific deleted comments to users on their request
posted by trig at 7:38 AM on December 20 [3 favorites]
Also I'm not advocating for current spending levels, but I also don't think you only build for what you currently have, if you have some runway. (abusing the edit window)
Right now ongoing donations are around $16k/month, so I would say you could look at that for budgeting (set your costs below that, but not like, zero.) I'm not sure what the non profit rules are for keeping money in the bank either, though. And we have a Finance Committee I learned! They were working on the budget so hopefully they can continue that work.
posted by warriorqueen at 7:38 AM on December 20 [2 favorites]
Right now ongoing donations are around $16k/month, so I would say you could look at that for budgeting (set your costs below that, but not like, zero.) I'm not sure what the non profit rules are for keeping money in the bank either, though. And we have a Finance Committee I learned! They were working on the budget so hopefully they can continue that work.
posted by warriorqueen at 7:38 AM on December 20 [2 favorites]
I think we should follow the example of the Park Slope Food Coop and force everyone to volunteer for a shift as a moderator.
posted by betweenthebars at 7:40 AM on December 20 [2 favorites]
posted by betweenthebars at 7:40 AM on December 20 [2 favorites]
"Tired of figuring out which subreddit to post in?"
"Need Advice? Try Ask Metafilter"
posted by trig at 7:40 AM on December 20 [1 favorite]
"Need Advice? Try Ask Metafilter"
posted by trig at 7:40 AM on December 20 [1 favorite]
Metafilter has a Park Slope Food Coop aura.
posted by betweenthebars at 7:41 AM on December 20 [5 favorites]
posted by betweenthebars at 7:41 AM on December 20 [5 favorites]
I think we should follow the example of the Park Slope Food Coop and force everyone to volunteer for a shift as a moderator.
I think Park Slope volunteers get discounted beans though.
posted by trig at 7:41 AM on December 20 [3 favorites]
I think Park Slope volunteers get discounted beans though.
posted by trig at 7:41 AM on December 20 [3 favorites]
Re: what data metafilter collects and PHI stuff (and level of private communications), there's different levels depending how much you think you need to ensure the operating of the site and how much you want to help prevent socking-type abuse. And to be clear, I don't think and didn't mean to imply MeFi has any payment info over the amount that they receive back from PayPal et al. Some of my memory is from the olden days of it being almost entirely Matt and there was the $5 signup so please just see that as a derail to ignore, if you wish.
posted by skynxnex at 7:44 AM on December 20 [1 favorite]
posted by skynxnex at 7:44 AM on December 20 [1 favorite]
Park Slope Food Coop
I don't know what that is but I Googled it and lo, a Reddit thread came up with this comment:
"Main reasons to join the coop IMO are (1) you live in the neighborhood and it's convenient, (2) you like weird social environments for your personal anthropological observation (the people are actually interesting and fun in my experience), (3) you enjoy the novelty of a mildly chaotic grocery store where all the workers seem generally confused, (4) you want to LARP working in a grocery store by doing shifts, (5) you ideologically like the idea of a coop, (6) you specifically want the higher quality but pricier produce."
Sounds legit. But not in favour of making participation any harder. ;)
posted by warriorqueen at 7:44 AM on December 20 [5 favorites]
I don't know what that is but I Googled it and lo, a Reddit thread came up with this comment:
"Main reasons to join the coop IMO are (1) you live in the neighborhood and it's convenient, (2) you like weird social environments for your personal anthropological observation (the people are actually interesting and fun in my experience), (3) you enjoy the novelty of a mildly chaotic grocery store where all the workers seem generally confused, (4) you want to LARP working in a grocery store by doing shifts, (5) you ideologically like the idea of a coop, (6) you specifically want the higher quality but pricier produce."
Sounds legit. But not in favour of making participation any harder. ;)
posted by warriorqueen at 7:44 AM on December 20 [5 favorites]
I think modeling volunteer moderation after the professional moderation is wrongheaded for a number of reasons - I still think something like (the latter half of) this is a more feasible way forward.
posted by restless_nomad (retired) at 7:49 AM on December 20 [9 favorites]
posted by restless_nomad (retired) at 7:49 AM on December 20 [9 favorites]
- reading the previous history of a user's communications with staff/volunteers
- reading current inbound communications of any kind
- viewing the history of deletions and timeouts of a specific user
- reading any commentary that staff might make behind the scenes, to denote that a specific user has been pushing the boundaries repeatedly and is on a "last warning" or any such thing.
- contributing to discussions on such topics with staff about specific users
posted by quacks like a duck at 7:50 AM on December 20 [2 favorites]
- reading current inbound communications of any kind
- viewing the history of deletions and timeouts of a specific user
- reading any commentary that staff might make behind the scenes, to denote that a specific user has been pushing the boundaries repeatedly and is on a "last warning" or any such thing.
- contributing to discussions on such topics with staff about specific users
posted by quacks like a duck at 7:50 AM on December 20 [2 favorites]
I'd be interested in being a volunteer mod, but only in a very specific, localized-to-FF kind of way.
I'm not at all interested in (or, let's face it, suited for) adjudicating disagreements and bad behavior on the blue or even the green. But I'd be happy to repair bad links and images, correct episode numbers, or delete spoilers on FanFare. And I'm always there anyway, so it wouldn't be a huge imposition.
(For anyone who doesn't know, something like 50-75% of FF movie posts show up with broken image links, at which point I then dig up a poster and flag the post with the link, at which points mods correct it. Skip the middle man, I'd say.)
posted by DirtyOldTown at 7:53 AM on December 20 [9 favorites]
I'm not at all interested in (or, let's face it, suited for) adjudicating disagreements and bad behavior on the blue or even the green. But I'd be happy to repair bad links and images, correct episode numbers, or delete spoilers on FanFare. And I'm always there anyway, so it wouldn't be a huge imposition.
(For anyone who doesn't know, something like 50-75% of FF movie posts show up with broken image links, at which point I then dig up a poster and flag the post with the link, at which points mods correct it. Skip the middle man, I'd say.)
posted by DirtyOldTown at 7:53 AM on December 20 [9 favorites]
Regarding the list of mod actions, Rhaomi posted this in another thread:
I'll ask if they can post that breakdown here.
In the meantime
- discuss time-sensitive decisions with other mods
- discuss general decisions with other mods
- repair typos/broken links/formatting issues/episode numbers/etc
- delete spoilers
- move posts that were posted in the wrong subsite to the correct subsite
- forward tech issues to the dev team
posted by trig at 7:56 AM on December 20 [3 favorites]
FWIW, the transition board requested a breakdown of mod coverage and tasks (which we got)
I'll ask if they can post that breakdown here.
In the meantime
- discuss time-sensitive decisions with other mods
- discuss general decisions with other mods
- repair typos/broken links/formatting issues/episode numbers/etc
- delete spoilers
- move posts that were posted in the wrong subsite to the correct subsite
- forward tech issues to the dev team
posted by trig at 7:56 AM on December 20 [3 favorites]
What else?
- editing posts/comments at the original user's request
(Side note: given that the short-lived hiding-comments-with-the-details-tag experiment resulted in one accidentally overwritten/lost bit of comment text, I think that implies there's currently no record of older versions, when mods edit a comment. That would probably need to change if volunteers were to have edit access.)
posted by nobody at 8:01 AM on December 20 [2 favorites]
- editing posts/comments at the original user's request
(Side note: given that the short-lived hiding-comments-with-the-details-tag experiment resulted in one accidentally overwritten/lost bit of comment text, I think that implies there's currently no record of older versions, when mods edit a comment. That would probably need to change if volunteers were to have edit access.)
posted by nobody at 8:01 AM on December 20 [2 favorites]
I think we can all agree our biggest priority right now is implementing a system where I can demand members of the board resign if/when they appoint volunteer mods I disapprove of
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:01 AM on December 20 [2 favorites]
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:01 AM on December 20 [2 favorites]
Speaking of edited comments and private information that's visible to mods, I've always assumed edit-window edits are stored and visible (so mods can see if someone's been abusing the edit window). That's just a guess on my part though.
posted by trig at 8:06 AM on December 20 [1 favorite]
posted by trig at 8:06 AM on December 20 [1 favorite]
When I moderated stuff in the late 90s/early00s, we would leave notes on members' profiles like "gets drunk on Fridays" "thinks we are AOL support, so if starts yelling about account check to see if they mean their AOL account."
Totally inappropriate stuff, but at that time there was just a different vibe. I have NO IDEA if this is the case with the MF database, but it wouldn't surprise me.
Please do not go beat up the current mods for this if it does turn out to be the case and noting again that I have NO IDEA IF IT IS THE CASE. This was just a thing during a specific period of Internet history.
posted by warriorqueen at 8:23 AM on December 20 [4 favorites]
Totally inappropriate stuff, but at that time there was just a different vibe. I have NO IDEA if this is the case with the MF database, but it wouldn't surprise me.
Please do not go beat up the current mods for this if it does turn out to be the case and noting again that I have NO IDEA IF IT IS THE CASE. This was just a thing during a specific period of Internet history.
posted by warriorqueen at 8:23 AM on December 20 [4 favorites]
What is "PTO" in this context?
posted by NotLost at 8:29 AM on December 20 [1 favorite]
posted by NotLost at 8:29 AM on December 20 [1 favorite]
Parent/Teacher Organization. The 10 parents who determine how to spend the bake sale money at a public school.
posted by bowbeacon at 8:34 AM on December 20
posted by bowbeacon at 8:34 AM on December 20
I think the question also needs to include a determination of what subsites a person is willing to moderate. It is much different moderating say Ask than Meta. Then there is MetaTalk.
posted by JohnnyGunn at 9:23 AM on December 20 [1 favorite]
posted by JohnnyGunn at 9:23 AM on December 20 [1 favorite]
I would assume that volunteer mods wouldn't so much be scheduled for shifts as empowered to help when they are around.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 9:31 AM on December 20 [4 favorites]
posted by DirtyOldTown at 9:31 AM on December 20 [4 favorites]
On that note - what about if there are specific types of threads a volunteer mod is trying for their own sanity to avoid (e.g. specific political subjects).
If the answer is that acting as a mod requires a commitment to moderate on any thread or topic, I think that's fine - just needs to be made clear.
More questions for consideration: What happens when a mod acts in ways that other mods and/or community members object to. What should the process be for "firing" a mod. How much handholding/retraining should they be given before that happens. What sorts of damage, if any, would a "rogue" mod be able to do.
posted by trig at 9:32 AM on December 20 [3 favorites]
If the answer is that acting as a mod requires a commitment to moderate on any thread or topic, I think that's fine - just needs to be made clear.
More questions for consideration: What happens when a mod acts in ways that other mods and/or community members object to. What should the process be for "firing" a mod. How much handholding/retraining should they be given before that happens. What sorts of damage, if any, would a "rogue" mod be able to do.
posted by trig at 9:32 AM on December 20 [3 favorites]
Another potential perk of having subsite-specific volunteer mods could be that people who spend a great deal of time on particular sections of MeFi would be excellent candidates to add tags, potentially making tags much more useful.
If I had the means, for example, I'd probably add tags to FanFare movie posts for some combination of genre, director, stars, director of photography, composer, editor, etc. If we ever did anything with the existing but not-actually-in-use-AFAIK "URL to stream/purchase" field, I would be happy to make sure something is there, too.
I'd be willing to bet there might be volunteer mods available willing to do this for anime, wrestling, what have you.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 9:43 AM on December 20 [6 favorites]
If I had the means, for example, I'd probably add tags to FanFare movie posts for some combination of genre, director, stars, director of photography, composer, editor, etc. If we ever did anything with the existing but not-actually-in-use-AFAIK "URL to stream/purchase" field, I would be happy to make sure something is there, too.
I'd be willing to bet there might be volunteer mods available willing to do this for anime, wrestling, what have you.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 9:43 AM on December 20 [6 favorites]
I'd love to help out with whatever form the volunteer modding takes.
posted by Diskeater at 9:48 AM on December 20 [2 favorites]
posted by Diskeater at 9:48 AM on December 20 [2 favorites]
I would assume that volunteer mods wouldn't so much be scheduled for shifts as empowered to help when they are around.
I agree- there's no way I could promise to cover any particular regular shift, but I wouldn't have a problem occasionally checking a priority queue of issues.
posted by a faded photo of their beloved at 9:55 AM on December 20 [1 favorite]
I agree- there's no way I could promise to cover any particular regular shift, but I wouldn't have a problem occasionally checking a priority queue of issues.
posted by a faded photo of their beloved at 9:55 AM on December 20 [1 favorite]
I personally won't stay if MeFi moves to an exclusively volunteer mod model. I was here in the days where, if MeFi had been volun-modded, there were absolutely users who would have gleefully banned people they didn't like, for no other reason than they didn't like them.
Just wanted to suggest that not everyone is comfortable with volun-mods.
posted by cooker girl at 10:13 AM on December 20 [6 favorites]
Just wanted to suggest that not everyone is comfortable with volun-mods.
posted by cooker girl at 10:13 AM on December 20 [6 favorites]
I think the assumption is that appointing any volunteer mods would have to be preceded by implementing a moderation log, making it transparent/easy-to-spot if people were abusing their limited power.
It's an example of the kind of new options we could have if moderation wasn't mostly done behind a curtain.
Now that you mention it though, I think not having ban power would be a smart limitation on the powers of volunteer mods. Leave that up to the full-time paid staff.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 10:22 AM on December 20 [12 favorites]
It's an example of the kind of new options we could have if moderation wasn't mostly done behind a curtain.
Now that you mention it though, I think not having ban power would be a smart limitation on the powers of volunteer mods. Leave that up to the full-time paid staff.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 10:22 AM on December 20 [12 favorites]
I really do not understand the confidentiality problems people are envisioning.
SOME moderator actions involve sleuthing out whether one account is a sock puppet for another, or secretly working for the company they're shilling for, or secretly Scott Adams, or whatever. Other moderactions may involve reading direct messages between users. I would think that kind of thing is not that common though, and it shouldn't harm the idea of getting more people involved with moderating to limit just those more sensitive actions to acabal elite cadre core staff who are trusted to properly handle access to stuff like IPs, email addresses, private correspondence, and whatnot.
posted by aubilenon at 10:54 AM on December 20 [4 favorites]
SOME moderator actions involve sleuthing out whether one account is a sock puppet for another, or secretly working for the company they're shilling for, or secretly Scott Adams, or whatever. Other moderactions may involve reading direct messages between users. I would think that kind of thing is not that common though, and it shouldn't harm the idea of getting more people involved with moderating to limit just those more sensitive actions to a
posted by aubilenon at 10:54 AM on December 20 [4 favorites]
I am super amused by the idea that mefi is so simple it should be run like a PTO, because at my daughter's elementary school the PTO runs meetings by Robert's Rules of Order, has a near 6 figure budget, and last year the (duly elected!) board was so terrible and antagonistic towards the parents and school staff that there was often a ton of fighting and nastiness at meetings, they constantly complained that there wasn't money to do what the parents wanted to do, they complained that they were overworked and couldn't take on more tasks, they couldn't get volunteers, and they were going to end beloved programs and activities against all input from parents and school staff in attendance.
So I guess what I'm saying is I'd love it if mefi wasn't run like my PTO.
posted by jermsplan at 11:48 AM on December 20 [16 favorites]
So I guess what I'm saying is I'd love it if mefi wasn't run like my PTO.
posted by jermsplan at 11:48 AM on December 20 [16 favorites]
Maybe we should shoot for something less contentious, like running it in the style of an HOA.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 12:16 PM on December 20 [8 favorites]
posted by DirtyOldTown at 12:16 PM on December 20 [8 favorites]
(JOKE, people.)
posted by DirtyOldTown at 12:16 PM on December 20 [7 favorites]
posted by DirtyOldTown at 12:16 PM on December 20 [7 favorites]
> like running it in the style of an HOA.
Flagged as too real.
posted by skynxnex at 1:03 PM on December 20 [2 favorites]
Flagged as too real.
posted by skynxnex at 1:03 PM on December 20 [2 favorites]
Maybe the higher-level mod position is really a user-relations manager or something distinct from the volunteer mod team and that person does the really tricky or personal info things with support from the board if needed.
That sounds right to me
posted by knobknosher at 2:05 PM on December 20 [8 favorites]
That sounds right to me
posted by knobknosher at 2:05 PM on December 20 [8 favorites]
Currently I could moderate for 10 hours a week. I’d rather not because I like commenting in askme but if there were a knobsignal I would respond
posted by knobknosher at 2:07 PM on December 20 [5 favorites]
posted by knobknosher at 2:07 PM on December 20 [5 favorites]
If we're going to go with volunteer mods (and I'd be happy to donate some time) I would want a very clear rubric so that that there's some consistency across how things are handled. And having snofoams suggestion of a higher level mod team keeping an eye on the volunteers and handling more sensitive flags (like bannable offences) would go a long way to keeping a lid on possible malicious behaviour. I mean, I'd like to think that people here wouldn't stoop so low, but - like cooker girl points out - I'm fairly sure it would happen given some of the shenanigans I've seen go on here from people who really should know better and who went and started shit anyway.
Clear mod guidelines and a moderation log would go a long way to solving a large chunk of the existing mod problems. Adding in a trained volunteer layer to the sandwich should work if everyone understands what they're there for and how. But unless there are clear guidelines, it's going to get all Wild West on us and more users will button.
posted by ninazer0 at 2:36 PM on December 20 [9 favorites]
Clear mod guidelines and a moderation log would go a long way to solving a large chunk of the existing mod problems. Adding in a trained volunteer layer to the sandwich should work if everyone understands what they're there for and how. But unless there are clear guidelines, it's going to get all Wild West on us and more users will button.
posted by ninazer0 at 2:36 PM on December 20 [9 favorites]
I’ve modded a small subreddit. We did not use a shift model. Rather, we were all empowered to make mod choices any time we were online.
I would realistically be able to mod 20-60 min/day, intermittently, in about 5-15 minute increments between 7am-12midnight PT.
Edit to add: I currently have somewhat limited bandwidth but would have more time beginning in July/August. I would be able to support/be a teammate through then, and potentially take on more in August/September.
posted by samthemander at 3:53 PM on December 20 [6 favorites]
I would realistically be able to mod 20-60 min/day, intermittently, in about 5-15 minute increments between 7am-12midnight PT.
Edit to add: I currently have somewhat limited bandwidth but would have more time beginning in July/August. I would be able to support/be a teammate through then, and potentially take on more in August/September.
posted by samthemander at 3:53 PM on December 20 [6 favorites]
Oh, and to answer the rest of OP's question I would be happy to offer a chunk of hours spread across a few days. I'm in Eastern Australia so awake when a large portion of the site isn't - not sure how that's going to impact coverage. I'm pretty flexible on hours and days, though.
posted by ninazer0 at 3:54 PM on December 20 [2 favorites]
posted by ninazer0 at 3:54 PM on December 20 [2 favorites]
Just to follow up: I said earlier I'd ask Rhaomi if he could post the official breakdown of mod tasks he'd referred to in a different thread. He did, but it turned out to be a breakdown of the mods' overall responsibilities, not of the subtasks involved in moderation.
posted by trig at 8:30 PM on December 20 [1 favorite]
posted by trig at 8:30 PM on December 20 [1 favorite]
I agree with Restless Nomad that we shouldn't just automatically be trying to re-create the current model but make it volunteer. Tools and expectations around moderating have changed a lot since MetaFilter really stopped doing so; it would be nice to re-envision what the site actually needs.
Comment editing and deleting, for example, is not something you generally need a moderator for on most sites. Blocking/hiding other users is normal. That kind of stuff. "Community-driven" could mean not just "we elect people to run things" but also "the users have more power over their own comments."
posted by lapis at 9:13 PM on December 20 [9 favorites]
Comment editing and deleting, for example, is not something you generally need a moderator for on most sites. Blocking/hiding other users is normal. That kind of stuff. "Community-driven" could mean not just "we elect people to run things" but also "the users have more power over their own comments."
posted by lapis at 9:13 PM on December 20 [9 favorites]
This is an internet message board that gets 700 posts per day.
Just sanity-checking myself here, this is wrong isn't it? It's 700 comments per day? Or are the parts of the site I barely look at (Ask, Fanfare, Projects, Music, IRL, Jobs) really that busy?
posted by Dysk at 12:55 AM on December 21 [4 favorites]
Just sanity-checking myself here, this is wrong isn't it? It's 700 comments per day? Or are the parts of the site I barely look at (Ask, Fanfare, Projects, Music, IRL, Jobs) really that busy?
posted by Dysk at 12:55 AM on December 21 [4 favorites]
In this thriving economy the Jobs subsite gets 600 posts on its own a day.
posted by mittens at 2:26 AM on December 21 [2 favorites]
posted by mittens at 2:26 AM on December 21 [2 favorites]
I've been a Reddit moderator and I'd be willing to do that kind of moderation here, I.e. checking flagged posts/comments and making decisions without firm shifts or response times. I couldn't do full-attention shifts where for fixed times you're just moderating if that's the model.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 4:49 AM on December 21 [3 favorites]
posted by TheophileEscargot at 4:49 AM on December 21 [3 favorites]
I vaguely recall ~25 years ago Slashdot had peer moderation where, sometimes, you'd log in and just... have mod powers for a short time. It was like jury duty. I don't remember much of the details but I think that could be an interesting model here.
posted by secretseasons at 8:14 AM on December 21 [7 favorites]
posted by secretseasons at 8:14 AM on December 21 [7 favorites]
Mod note: Actually, I think the #1 question is whether the current mod team (or the incoming Board or whoever it is that owns Metafilter now) are interested in hiring/training volunteer mods at all. Anything else is pretty moot until that question has been answered.
Sure, we can give it a whirl, IMO. I have some reservations in terms of how effective it will be, but after thinking about it a bit, it'll probably ebb and flow. Meaning sometimes there will be a lot of volunteer mods (vmods?) available and other times it'll be like where is everyone?! Either situation is manageable.
I agree that trying to set a particular standard ala shift vmods or free floating isn't the way to go. Regular mods can put out a schedule of where there are holes in the schedule and people can volunteer for the times. People can also just volunteer even when a regular mod is available. Because one of the things I do miss is having another person or two to bounce ideas or decisions off of. Currently we just post to the Slack to see if anyone is around, but otherwise you're on your own.
But letting vmods choose how they want to help is the way to go. Plus if you have a schedule/shift vmods, then someone has to make and track the schedule and that seems overly complicated
One issue with having volunteer moderators would be deciding the process of how they are selected.
Idea off the top of my head at the moment: Whoever wants to needs to be approved by a majority (2/3?) of regular and vmods, with the board settling any edge cases. This also brings up the question of when to remove a mod.
I really do not understand the confidentiality problems people are envisioning.
As an example, we know who's doing a Brand New Day and that may influence decisions about moderating their comments that we currently do not reveal publically.
Totally inappropriate stuff, but at that time there was just a different vibe. I have NO IDEA if this is the case with the MF database, but it wouldn't surprise me.
That's another major potential issue in that all the notes about a user since their account was created are still there. There's also the mod Slack which has a lot of personal information about the current and past mods, along with information about users.
None of this is to say "no, this can't happen" but there are things to think through in terms of information vmods have access to and getting that coded.
]
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 8:42 AM on December 21 [7 favorites]
Sure, we can give it a whirl, IMO. I have some reservations in terms of how effective it will be, but after thinking about it a bit, it'll probably ebb and flow. Meaning sometimes there will be a lot of volunteer mods (vmods?) available and other times it'll be like where is everyone?! Either situation is manageable.
I agree that trying to set a particular standard ala shift vmods or free floating isn't the way to go. Regular mods can put out a schedule of where there are holes in the schedule and people can volunteer for the times. People can also just volunteer even when a regular mod is available. Because one of the things I do miss is having another person or two to bounce ideas or decisions off of. Currently we just post to the Slack to see if anyone is around, but otherwise you're on your own.
But letting vmods choose how they want to help is the way to go. Plus if you have a schedule/shift vmods, then someone has to make and track the schedule and that seems overly complicated
One issue with having volunteer moderators would be deciding the process of how they are selected.
Idea off the top of my head at the moment: Whoever wants to needs to be approved by a majority (2/3?) of regular and vmods, with the board settling any edge cases. This also brings up the question of when to remove a mod.
I really do not understand the confidentiality problems people are envisioning.
As an example, we know who's doing a Brand New Day and that may influence decisions about moderating their comments that we currently do not reveal publically.
Totally inappropriate stuff, but at that time there was just a different vibe. I have NO IDEA if this is the case with the MF database, but it wouldn't surprise me.
That's another major potential issue in that all the notes about a user since their account was created are still there. There's also the mod Slack which has a lot of personal information about the current and past mods, along with information about users.
None of this is to say "no, this can't happen" but there are things to think through in terms of information vmods have access to and getting that coded.
]
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 8:42 AM on December 21 [7 favorites]
I really do not understand the confidentiality problems people are envisioning.
As an example, we know who's doing a Brand New Day and that may influence decisions about moderating their comments that we currently do not reveal publically.
Perhaps you shouldn't. There's no good reason to know that.
posted by bowbeacon at 9:52 AM on December 21 [6 favorites]
As an example, we know who's doing a Brand New Day and that may influence decisions about moderating their comments that we currently do not reveal publically.
Perhaps you shouldn't. There's no good reason to know that.
posted by bowbeacon at 9:52 AM on December 21 [6 favorites]
I disagree that there is no good reason to know who had rejoined the site. Sometimes you have users who don't do one terrible thing to get banned but engage in a long term campaign of harassment against people they don't like sand the latter can be hard to detect and handle as a moderator.
It can be extremely helpful to know they are back even if you intend to give them a second chance. If you don't know that NewDude is OldDude, they may get a chance to get in a lot of harassment against OldDude's enemies before they ramp up to the kind of one off terrible things that are easier to detect.
There is a balancing act there - knowing can make a mod inclined to view relatively innocent things harshly but not knowing can expose other users to harassment they shouldn't have to deal with.
posted by jacquilynne at 11:25 AM on December 21 [10 favorites]
It can be extremely helpful to know they are back even if you intend to give them a second chance. If you don't know that NewDude is OldDude, they may get a chance to get in a lot of harassment against OldDude's enemies before they ramp up to the kind of one off terrible things that are easier to detect.
There is a balancing act there - knowing can make a mod inclined to view relatively innocent things harshly but not knowing can expose other users to harassment they shouldn't have to deal with.
posted by jacquilynne at 11:25 AM on December 21 [10 favorites]
Brand New Day is a specific thing of coming back to the site after being blocked where you start fresh with the community but mods know the connection to watch for the same trouble, potentially. If you're not blocked, you're welcome to close your old account and start a new one and nobody knows.
posted by skynxnex at 11:31 AM on December 21 [2 favorites]
posted by skynxnex at 11:31 AM on December 21 [2 favorites]
Mod notes have long made me very uncomfortable because they apparently have personal/private info about users. Acknowledging that this was the norm before any of the current mods got here, so it’s not really your fault, I wish mod notes would not have any information that could ethically be seen as confidential re:users. I think that’s too much interpersonal enmeshment, and also kinda shitty for users who have no ability to control information that has bounced around a lot of people over the years.
posted by knobknosher at 11:33 AM on December 21 [4 favorites]
posted by knobknosher at 11:33 AM on December 21 [4 favorites]
Maybe an example would help.
GOOD: “Has a pattern of being difficult on Fridays”
TOO MUCH: “Drinks too much on Fridays.”
GOOD: “Usually fine but can sometimes go through phases of difficult or inappropriate behavior.”
TOO MUCH: “Bipolar”
posted by knobknosher at 11:36 AM on December 21 [7 favorites]
GOOD: “Has a pattern of being difficult on Fridays”
TOO MUCH: “Drinks too much on Fridays.”
GOOD: “Usually fine but can sometimes go through phases of difficult or inappropriate behavior.”
TOO MUCH: “Bipolar”
posted by knobknosher at 11:36 AM on December 21 [7 favorites]
I am willing to help play whack-a-mole on obvious spam / hate speech / etc, but I don't want to be responsible for making nuanced judgment calls.
I can't really commit a specific number of hours per week because how often I visit MetaFilter varies wildly from week to week, but I can make "check the mod queue for easy deletions" to my "aimlessly fucking around online" routine.
posted by Jacqueline at 11:49 AM on December 21
I can't really commit a specific number of hours per week because how often I visit MetaFilter varies wildly from week to week, but I can make "check the mod queue for easy deletions" to my "aimlessly fucking around online" routine.
posted by Jacqueline at 11:49 AM on December 21
I doubt that mods now have signed some sort of non disclosure agreement when it comes to revealing information about one another or members. Why assume that volunteers are less likely than paid moderators to respect norms of privacy when they happen upon personal information? Why would paid moderators assume that they have standards of decorum and ethical behavior that a volunteer could not possibly meet?
posted by CtrlAltD at 12:08 PM on December 21 [4 favorites]
posted by CtrlAltD at 12:08 PM on December 21 [4 favorites]
"I am willing to help play whack-a-mole on obvious spam / hate speech / etc"
To elaborate on this further, I don't know if this is even technologically possible, but perhaps there could be different mod levels with permissions to moderate different types of accounts?
So like lower-level volunteer mods could have permissions to delete posts and comments from relatively new and/or low-activity accounts, but you'd need higher mod permissions to delete stuff from established community members.
Personally, I don't want to get involved with the drama of moderating conversations among legitimate members of the community, but I am fine with helping nuke posts and comments from people who make accounts just to spam or stir shit up or whatever.
I don't know how big of a problem that is here (the $5 likely keeps it lower), but I've seen how other forums can quickly go off the rails if outsiders decide to start shit while the mods are asleep. I haven't seen it happen here in a while, but that could change if paid moderation hours are reduced.
Having a bunch of us deputized to react like an immune system to intentional bad actors --- while leaving thornier community drama to higher-ranking mods to handle -- could take some of the pressure off management to have to always keep an eye on the site. It could solve the worry of spammers and brigaders running wild in the night without introducing a new worry that a volunteer mod might get mad and go on a rampage against established members before someone with more power can step in.
posted by Jacqueline at 12:36 PM on December 21 [2 favorites]
To elaborate on this further, I don't know if this is even technologically possible, but perhaps there could be different mod levels with permissions to moderate different types of accounts?
So like lower-level volunteer mods could have permissions to delete posts and comments from relatively new and/or low-activity accounts, but you'd need higher mod permissions to delete stuff from established community members.
Personally, I don't want to get involved with the drama of moderating conversations among legitimate members of the community, but I am fine with helping nuke posts and comments from people who make accounts just to spam or stir shit up or whatever.
I don't know how big of a problem that is here (the $5 likely keeps it lower), but I've seen how other forums can quickly go off the rails if outsiders decide to start shit while the mods are asleep. I haven't seen it happen here in a while, but that could change if paid moderation hours are reduced.
Having a bunch of us deputized to react like an immune system to intentional bad actors --- while leaving thornier community drama to higher-ranking mods to handle -- could take some of the pressure off management to have to always keep an eye on the site. It could solve the worry of spammers and brigaders running wild in the night without introducing a new worry that a volunteer mod might get mad and go on a rampage against established members before someone with more power can step in.
posted by Jacqueline at 12:36 PM on December 21 [2 favorites]
Why assume that volunteers are less likely than paid moderators to respect norms of privacy when they happen upon personal information? Why would paid moderators assume that they have standards of decorum and ethical behavior that a volunteer could not possibly meet?
Because paid moderators stand to lose their paid jobs if they breach confidentiality. Doesn't mean that volunteers can't meet those same standards or that an NDA is all that helpful in ensuring they do but it gives the vague threat of a consequence that otherwise did not exist.
Mostly, though, they serve as a clear acknowledgement that there is personal information to be found and treated with care. The potential legal consequences page in comparison with the utility of just making absolutely sure everyone knows user privacy is a thing to take seriously. Lots of legal documents are more about ritual than effects.
posted by jacquilynne at 2:25 PM on December 21 [3 favorites]
Because paid moderators stand to lose their paid jobs if they breach confidentiality. Doesn't mean that volunteers can't meet those same standards or that an NDA is all that helpful in ensuring they do but it gives the vague threat of a consequence that otherwise did not exist.
Mostly, though, they serve as a clear acknowledgement that there is personal information to be found and treated with care. The potential legal consequences page in comparison with the utility of just making absolutely sure everyone knows user privacy is a thing to take seriously. Lots of legal documents are more about ritual than effects.
posted by jacquilynne at 2:25 PM on December 21 [3 favorites]
I'm a new user but longtime reader of many years, and had a different account for a while years ago (not anyone well known!)
I don't want to volunteer mod, but wanted to say as a user there's no difference to me between paid or volunteer in terms of how I feel about mods having access to my information. I would rather mefi move to volunteer modding as it sounds like it would make the site long-term much more financially healthy, and since I also post on other forums that are modded well by volunteers I don't really have any concerns about volunteers doing a good job. Hoping it happens!
posted by Hawthorn at 6:13 AM on December 22 [6 favorites]
I don't want to volunteer mod, but wanted to say as a user there's no difference to me between paid or volunteer in terms of how I feel about mods having access to my information. I would rather mefi move to volunteer modding as it sounds like it would make the site long-term much more financially healthy, and since I also post on other forums that are modded well by volunteers I don't really have any concerns about volunteers doing a good job. Hoping it happens!
posted by Hawthorn at 6:13 AM on December 22 [6 favorites]
Currently listening to Brandon's TikTok (see here) and he mentioned that there is an NDA which all the mods have signed.
posted by demi-octopus at 11:15 AM on December 22
posted by demi-octopus at 11:15 AM on December 22
I don't have moderation experience, but in a former life, I scheduled, trained, and managed volunteer workers for a food co-op (I've been out of that racket for more than two decades, don't come at me about my responsibility for anti-vaxxers).
My strong opinion is the juice simply isn't worth the squeeze in the vast, vast majority of situations. Our co-op was small by grocery store standards, but we had a budget well into seven figures, a board of directors, and something like a dozen plus paid staff, and we absolutely spent more real paid staff time and real money recruiting, training, directing, supervising, covering for, and undoing mistakes and misconduct by volunteers (including theft and a case where a volunteer began sexually harassing customers) than we could ever have hoped to recoup in free labor. Based on my contacts in the food co-op world at the time, this was usually the case, and exceptions tended to be exotic arrangements where volunteer responsibilities were taken as seriously as paid employment (usually making it a mandatory condition of membership, and enforcing consequences up to loss of membership benefits when shirked or otherwise messed up, like the somewhat famously draconian Park Slope Co-op).
Why did we do it? It built goodwill, instilled a sense of responsibility for the co-op (which led to more sales), and generally made the volunteers feel warm and fuzzy. Sometimes they brought us baked goods. It was also an excellent recruiting tool: the best volunteers didn't remain volunteers for long, because we tended to hire them. But most volunteers were only...okay. They put stuff in the wrong places, they were late or missed shifts outright, they brought their kids and expected us to babysit or left them unsupervised in the parking lot.
Like I said above, I've never worked as a mod, but I tend to think many of the same dynamics would be at play. Most volunteers will probably only be able to handle rote, uncontroversial moderation tasks like rapid-response spam and outright hate speech deletion. They'll need to kick anything complex or contentious up to more experienced, paid staff who know the background, the users, and the rules inside-out and are capable of making nuanced calls (and, importantly, can be held responsible for them; the buck never stops with a volunteer). Otherwise, it's only a matter of time before a bad call by a volunteer mod drives someone from the site, and the paid staff can't be like, "oops, that was a volunteer, sorry." I think there's also a real danger of increased by-the-numbers, reactive moderation, like deleting anything which reaches a certain flag/reporting threshold, something I already regularly hear the paid mods criticized for. And this isn't even considering the possibility of a true bad actor, someone interested in a volunteer mod position so they can harass, stalk, or dox users.
posted by pullayup at 11:37 AM on December 22 [6 favorites]
My strong opinion is the juice simply isn't worth the squeeze in the vast, vast majority of situations. Our co-op was small by grocery store standards, but we had a budget well into seven figures, a board of directors, and something like a dozen plus paid staff, and we absolutely spent more real paid staff time and real money recruiting, training, directing, supervising, covering for, and undoing mistakes and misconduct by volunteers (including theft and a case where a volunteer began sexually harassing customers) than we could ever have hoped to recoup in free labor. Based on my contacts in the food co-op world at the time, this was usually the case, and exceptions tended to be exotic arrangements where volunteer responsibilities were taken as seriously as paid employment (usually making it a mandatory condition of membership, and enforcing consequences up to loss of membership benefits when shirked or otherwise messed up, like the somewhat famously draconian Park Slope Co-op).
Why did we do it? It built goodwill, instilled a sense of responsibility for the co-op (which led to more sales), and generally made the volunteers feel warm and fuzzy. Sometimes they brought us baked goods. It was also an excellent recruiting tool: the best volunteers didn't remain volunteers for long, because we tended to hire them. But most volunteers were only...okay. They put stuff in the wrong places, they were late or missed shifts outright, they brought their kids and expected us to babysit or left them unsupervised in the parking lot.
Like I said above, I've never worked as a mod, but I tend to think many of the same dynamics would be at play. Most volunteers will probably only be able to handle rote, uncontroversial moderation tasks like rapid-response spam and outright hate speech deletion. They'll need to kick anything complex or contentious up to more experienced, paid staff who know the background, the users, and the rules inside-out and are capable of making nuanced calls (and, importantly, can be held responsible for them; the buck never stops with a volunteer). Otherwise, it's only a matter of time before a bad call by a volunteer mod drives someone from the site, and the paid staff can't be like, "oops, that was a volunteer, sorry." I think there's also a real danger of increased by-the-numbers, reactive moderation, like deleting anything which reaches a certain flag/reporting threshold, something I already regularly hear the paid mods criticized for. And this isn't even considering the possibility of a true bad actor, someone interested in a volunteer mod position so they can harass, stalk, or dox users.
posted by pullayup at 11:37 AM on December 22 [6 favorites]
To be more succinct, the questions I'd be asking are:
One: what tasks can volunteer mods realistically be expected to do, and what percentage of a paid mod's shift do those tasks take up?
Two: what additional responsibilities will volunteer mod management add to the paid staff's schedule?
posted by pullayup at 12:31 PM on December 22 [1 favorite]
One: what tasks can volunteer mods realistically be expected to do, and what percentage of a paid mod's shift do those tasks take up?
Two: what additional responsibilities will volunteer mod management add to the paid staff's schedule?
posted by pullayup at 12:31 PM on December 22 [1 favorite]
I think the suggestions above to have volunteer mods as a front-line with limited actions make sense. Perhaps something like:
- auto-moderator: counts flags, can hide comments behind a
detailstag if it gets enough flagging, can rate-limit posting in a thread by users getting a lot of flags - volunteer moderator: can reverse an auto-mod action, or manually apply any of the same, can escalate to paid moderator, can approve edits/corrections to others’ posts, otherwise takes on to care about the principles the community agrees foster community, and tries to help discussions stay on track
- paid moderator: can do all the things they currently do, have access to site systems/history
I was once accidentally copied into an email thread of a discipline committee for the Park Slope Co-Op - it seems one of the committee members had the same name and a similar gmail as me. The thread contained endless discussions of how to discipline member volunteers who had failed to show up for their shifts, or volunteers who refused to wear masks during their shifts, or volunteers who fought with other volunteers, etc. +1 to pullayup's cautions.
posted by Mid at 2:43 PM on December 22 [1 favorite]
posted by Mid at 2:43 PM on December 22 [1 favorite]
I think that an actual grocery co-op with a lot of legit logistical issues and moving parts and literally hundreds and hundreds of volunteers is probably not a great model for what volunteer moderation should look like, at the same time, I don’t think it’s a cautionary tale that really applies either.
If someone doesn’t show up to the food co-op to work, produce goes bad, people can’t shop, very different from the situation here.
There are also a lot of people who join the Park Slope Food Co-op with zero interest in being helpful because they get a tangible benefit in the form of lower food prices. You cannot be a member without donating labor. So there is inherent tension that requires a lot of tracking and yes, discipline, to make sure people don’t take advantage.
Everyone here is going to only be a volunteer because they want to be. Completely different scenario.
I sometimes struggle a bit with the concept that people here need moderation that is extremely difficult or logistically complicated. Honestly, it’s really not. It’s not that many comments, only a handful of people can cover enough shifts so that the moderation is adequate, it’s really not a huge thing.
posted by knobknosher at 4:10 PM on December 22 [7 favorites]
If someone doesn’t show up to the food co-op to work, produce goes bad, people can’t shop, very different from the situation here.
There are also a lot of people who join the Park Slope Food Co-op with zero interest in being helpful because they get a tangible benefit in the form of lower food prices. You cannot be a member without donating labor. So there is inherent tension that requires a lot of tracking and yes, discipline, to make sure people don’t take advantage.
Everyone here is going to only be a volunteer because they want to be. Completely different scenario.
I sometimes struggle a bit with the concept that people here need moderation that is extremely difficult or logistically complicated. Honestly, it’s really not. It’s not that many comments, only a handful of people can cover enough shifts so that the moderation is adequate, it’s really not a huge thing.
posted by knobknosher at 4:10 PM on December 22 [7 favorites]
I propose volunteer moderation comes with regular chocolate brownie deliveries.
posted by sammyo at 4:31 PM on December 22 [1 favorite]
posted by sammyo at 4:31 PM on December 22 [1 favorite]
Park Slope Co-Op [...] discipline committee
This sent chills down my spine. Literally hell on earth
posted by pullayup at 5:03 PM on December 22 [3 favorites]
This sent chills down my spine. Literally hell on earth
posted by pullayup at 5:03 PM on December 22 [3 favorites]
If someone doesn’t show up to the food co-op to work, produce goes bad, people can’t shop, very different from the situation here
If moderation is essentially shift work in that it's time-consuming, time-sensitive, and requires someone to be online and available at previously agreed-upon times to do it as the need arises ("moderator shift" is a phrase I've been seeing around here a lot recently), and one or more volunteer moderators aren't available as expected, I assume either someone paid would need to "clock in" do the extra work or it would go undone.
And, sure, it's not the same as stocking a store, but if moderation work isn't handled in a timely fashion, a thread can go unrecoverably off the rails, fights can escalate, and the quality of the discourse suffers. People get offended and leave the site. I know we often think of buttoning as something that can happen as a result of interactions with the moderation team but I do still believe things could be worse in their absence.
If we're imagining a situation where volunteer mods are front-line staff in that they're observing flags, reading threads, reviewing mod mail, and then calling in the paid cavalry to do the hard stuff (presumably complex deletions, timeouts, bans, etc.), if the work isn't getting done, it's a problem.
Also, to be totally clear, I'm not advocating Park Slope-style mandatory mod shifts to extract "enough" labor from the user base. My point was that many types of volunteer involvement create unforeseeable complications and require nontrivial training, oversight and management from paid staff, and many organizations use volunteers because it benefits the organization in ways other than providing free labor. Because the free labor is often not particularly cheap. Whether or not there would be benefits for Metafilter I don't have enough insight to predict.
I sometimes struggle a bit with the concept that people here need moderation that is extremely difficult or logistically complicated. Honestly, it’s really not
The volunteer labor that actually saved us money at the co-op were things like stuffing envelopes. Is it more complex than that.
posted by pullayup at 5:25 PM on December 22
If moderation is essentially shift work in that it's time-consuming, time-sensitive, and requires someone to be online and available at previously agreed-upon times to do it as the need arises ("moderator shift" is a phrase I've been seeing around here a lot recently), and one or more volunteer moderators aren't available as expected, I assume either someone paid would need to "clock in" do the extra work or it would go undone.
And, sure, it's not the same as stocking a store, but if moderation work isn't handled in a timely fashion, a thread can go unrecoverably off the rails, fights can escalate, and the quality of the discourse suffers. People get offended and leave the site. I know we often think of buttoning as something that can happen as a result of interactions with the moderation team but I do still believe things could be worse in their absence.
If we're imagining a situation where volunteer mods are front-line staff in that they're observing flags, reading threads, reviewing mod mail, and then calling in the paid cavalry to do the hard stuff (presumably complex deletions, timeouts, bans, etc.), if the work isn't getting done, it's a problem.
Also, to be totally clear, I'm not advocating Park Slope-style mandatory mod shifts to extract "enough" labor from the user base. My point was that many types of volunteer involvement create unforeseeable complications and require nontrivial training, oversight and management from paid staff, and many organizations use volunteers because it benefits the organization in ways other than providing free labor. Because the free labor is often not particularly cheap. Whether or not there would be benefits for Metafilter I don't have enough insight to predict.
I sometimes struggle a bit with the concept that people here need moderation that is extremely difficult or logistically complicated. Honestly, it’s really not
The volunteer labor that actually saved us money at the co-op were things like stuffing envelopes. Is it more complex than that.
posted by pullayup at 5:25 PM on December 22
Well, I'm glad there will be experts like yourself to help figure out the best ways for the site to work with volunteers!
posted by knobknosher at 5:47 PM on December 22 [1 favorite]
posted by knobknosher at 5:47 PM on December 22 [1 favorite]
Not sure why we need analogies to things that aren’t web forums when web forums that rely on volunteer moderation exist.
I think the suggestions above to have volunteer mods as a front-line with limited actions make sense
I know it’s obligatory to talk shit about Reddit here but their model works fine for MetaFilter-sized communities and is basically three tiers: user voting -> user flagging and volunteer mod review -> paid mod/admin review. I suspect a lot of people here are not fans of the idea of downvoting but we also don’t have to deal with being part of another massive site so I don’t know that we’d need it.
Or a better comparison might be something like present day SomethingAwful. I know there’s actually a user here who’s a mod there.
posted by atoxyl at 8:30 PM on December 22 [7 favorites]
I think the suggestions above to have volunteer mods as a front-line with limited actions make sense
I know it’s obligatory to talk shit about Reddit here but their model works fine for MetaFilter-sized communities and is basically three tiers: user voting -> user flagging and volunteer mod review -> paid mod/admin review. I suspect a lot of people here are not fans of the idea of downvoting but we also don’t have to deal with being part of another massive site so I don’t know that we’d need it.
Or a better comparison might be something like present day SomethingAwful. I know there’s actually a user here who’s a mod there.
posted by atoxyl at 8:30 PM on December 22 [7 favorites]
requires someone to be online and available at previously agreed-upon times to do it as the need arises
Does it, though? We are just having discussions on a website for fun. If a flag isn’t immediately responded to, then worst case scenario is that people argue or have to scroll past. If we institute a block button, they might not even have to do that.
I also think that adding volunteer moderation is essential if we’re going to be a self-governing community. We don’t have to run this website like a business, because it’s not a business. We can run it like a community because that’s what we want it to be.
posted by night traveler at 8:32 PM on December 22 [7 favorites]
Does it, though? We are just having discussions on a website for fun. If a flag isn’t immediately responded to, then worst case scenario is that people argue or have to scroll past. If we institute a block button, they might not even have to do that.
I also think that adding volunteer moderation is essential if we’re going to be a self-governing community. We don’t have to run this website like a business, because it’s not a business. We can run it like a community because that’s what we want it to be.
posted by night traveler at 8:32 PM on December 22 [7 favorites]
We are just having discussions on a website for fun.
Yes? But also if you look at some of these metatalk threads the common theme is that the mods are not doing a great job, and some people are kind of bent out of shape about it. That’s why we’re here making suggestions for the future.
I am curious about how the answer “well what if we got new mods and paid them NOTHING” will fix the issues. I’m looking forward to being pleasantly surprised.
posted by Vatnesine at 8:43 PM on December 22 [1 favorite]
Yes? But also if you look at some of these metatalk threads the common theme is that the mods are not doing a great job, and some people are kind of bent out of shape about it. That’s why we’re here making suggestions for the future.
I am curious about how the answer “well what if we got new mods and paid them NOTHING” will fix the issues. I’m looking forward to being pleasantly surprised.
posted by Vatnesine at 8:43 PM on December 22 [1 favorite]
Would still be happy to, provided it was (normal) moderation where it could be done as we had free time, rather than a ultra-controlled, time-restricted chore that was permitted to only the "perfect" (whatever that meant that day) few... despite modding on about a dozen different sites over the last two and a half decades, I've yet to encounter any others with the oddly pretentious yet ineffective methods selected here.
Which really, in the end, means I won't qualify... and neither will most of those who offer to help.
posted by stormyteal at 9:04 PM on December 22 [2 favorites]
Which really, in the end, means I won't qualify... and neither will most of those who offer to help.
posted by stormyteal at 9:04 PM on December 22 [2 favorites]
Yes? But also if you look at some of these metatalk threads the common theme is that the mods are not doing a great job, and some people are kind of bent out of shape about it. That’s why we’re here making suggestions for the future.
I am curious about how the answer “well what if we got new mods and paid them NOTHING” will fix the issues. I’m looking forward to being pleasantly surprised.
A lot of the frustration with the current moderation is that it's expensive and the framework is "this is a business" (it's literally been a for-profit business) and "the moderators are professionals." There's a set of expectations around that, and so there's frustration when it's not met. I think the framework around volunteer/community moderation would be much different. (Also a lot of the frustration is on the administrative side of things, too. That all gets lumped into "moderators" right now, but they're different functions.)
I don't think volunteer moderation should be looking to exactly replicate what's been happening with moderation now. Until the owners/moderators stopped reading MeTa, there was a sense that norms got hashed out by the community here. I think moving back in that direction is a good idea, with moderators taking their cues from community discussion (which might mean Board discussion, not necessarily a MeTa vote or whatever), and I think it would help move past this divide.
posted by lapis at 10:21 PM on December 22 [8 favorites]
I am curious about how the answer “well what if we got new mods and paid them NOTHING” will fix the issues. I’m looking forward to being pleasantly surprised.
A lot of the frustration with the current moderation is that it's expensive and the framework is "this is a business" (it's literally been a for-profit business) and "the moderators are professionals." There's a set of expectations around that, and so there's frustration when it's not met. I think the framework around volunteer/community moderation would be much different. (Also a lot of the frustration is on the administrative side of things, too. That all gets lumped into "moderators" right now, but they're different functions.)
I don't think volunteer moderation should be looking to exactly replicate what's been happening with moderation now. Until the owners/moderators stopped reading MeTa, there was a sense that norms got hashed out by the community here. I think moving back in that direction is a good idea, with moderators taking their cues from community discussion (which might mean Board discussion, not necessarily a MeTa vote or whatever), and I think it would help move past this divide.
posted by lapis at 10:21 PM on December 22 [8 favorites]
It would be useful to know what are the current average times from an offending comment being posted, to being flagged, to being deleted.
It doesn't seem reasonable to ask volunteers mods to do better than that.
It usually seems to take anything from a couple of hours to a couple of days between posting and deleting. You often see several comments deleted at a time from a thread, those comments all being posted at different times, so deletions are not currently instant.
If the delays are due to no staff being on duty for long periods, just increasing the number of moderator eyeballs might significantly improve response times.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 10:25 PM on December 22 [2 favorites]
It doesn't seem reasonable to ask volunteers mods to do better than that.
It usually seems to take anything from a couple of hours to a couple of days between posting and deleting. You often see several comments deleted at a time from a thread, those comments all being posted at different times, so deletions are not currently instant.
If the delays are due to no staff being on duty for long periods, just increasing the number of moderator eyeballs might significantly improve response times.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 10:25 PM on December 22 [2 favorites]
a lot of the frustration is on the administrative side of things, too
I don’t think volunteer mods are any kind of magic bullet but the pitch that I can buy into is basically - MeFi historically prioritizes “coverage” in the sense of having someone on call for core mod duties all the time and deprioritizes “the administrative side of things,” it should probably be the other way around when it comes to paid hours, but with more community participation in core moderation it’s possible to have it both ways.
posted by atoxyl at 1:55 AM on December 23 [3 favorites]
I don’t think volunteer mods are any kind of magic bullet but the pitch that I can buy into is basically - MeFi historically prioritizes “coverage” in the sense of having someone on call for core mod duties all the time and deprioritizes “the administrative side of things,” it should probably be the other way around when it comes to paid hours, but with more community participation in core moderation it’s possible to have it both ways.
posted by atoxyl at 1:55 AM on December 23 [3 favorites]
(I don't know if this discussion is just pie in the sky, or if volunteer mods will actually happen?)
I used to be a moderator for a very large online writing group - we had thousands of members.
I learned that for moderation to work, moderators have to have a small number of clear guidelines, and have to communicate with one another quite a lot.
There are always people who are really good at staying just on the edge of the rules, making jab after jab, or subtly harassing a person they have chosen to target. It isn't apparent until you see the pattern. And they are very good at goading their victims into blowing up, and then standing back with their halo glimmering and a look of sorrowful disappointment at how dreadfully rude people can be. If you're not careful, the people you end up banning are the people you really should be protecting. This is a pattern I sometimes see on MetaFilter, actually, people are transphobic or racist, and tone-police anyone who calls them on it.
And these patterns only really emerge if you've got a core of dedicated mods who can check in with one another "OK so and so is at it again, do we give them another warning, or is this strike three?"
Those moderators could be volunteers, but at the very least there should be a paid moderation coordinator who oversees the moderators - and a core group of dedicated mods.
I also don't think it works if mods are also regular users of a site but that's a different topic.
posted by Zumbador at 7:06 AM on December 23 [5 favorites]
I used to be a moderator for a very large online writing group - we had thousands of members.
I learned that for moderation to work, moderators have to have a small number of clear guidelines, and have to communicate with one another quite a lot.
There are always people who are really good at staying just on the edge of the rules, making jab after jab, or subtly harassing a person they have chosen to target. It isn't apparent until you see the pattern. And they are very good at goading their victims into blowing up, and then standing back with their halo glimmering and a look of sorrowful disappointment at how dreadfully rude people can be. If you're not careful, the people you end up banning are the people you really should be protecting. This is a pattern I sometimes see on MetaFilter, actually, people are transphobic or racist, and tone-police anyone who calls them on it.
And these patterns only really emerge if you've got a core of dedicated mods who can check in with one another "OK so and so is at it again, do we give them another warning, or is this strike three?"
Those moderators could be volunteers, but at the very least there should be a paid moderation coordinator who oversees the moderators - and a core group of dedicated mods.
I also don't think it works if mods are also regular users of a site but that's a different topic.
posted by Zumbador at 7:06 AM on December 23 [5 favorites]
I don’t think volunteer mods are any kind of magic bullet but the pitch that I can buy into is basically - MeFi historically prioritizes “coverage” in the sense of having someone on call for core mod duties all the time and deprioritizes “the administrative side of things,” it should probably be the other way around when it comes to paid hours, but with more community participation in core moderation it’s possible to have it both ways.
Yes, that would be my suggestion. Paid staff looking more at forests and volunteers looking more at trees.
posted by lapis at 9:15 AM on December 23 [4 favorites]
Yes, that would be my suggestion. Paid staff looking more at forests and volunteers looking more at trees.
posted by lapis at 9:15 AM on December 23 [4 favorites]
I certainly don't think we could do worse with volunteer mods. Reddit is too vast to generalize, but I've been on there several years, and my experience there has largely been 100% positive.
posted by Violet Blue at 9:32 AM on December 23
moderators have to have a small number of clear guidelines, and have to communicate with one another quite a lot.This. The moderation rules here are incoherent.
If moderation work isn't handled in a timely fashion, a thread can go unrecoverably off the rails, fights can escalate, and the quality of the discourse suffers. People get offended and leave the site. I know we often think of buttoning as something that can happen as a result of interactions with the moderation team but I do still believe things could be worse in their absence.This.
There are always people who are really good at staying just on the edge of the rules, making jab after jab, or subtly harassing a person they have chosen to target. It isn't apparent until you see the pattern.And, finally this, too. The current moderation team effectively welcomes trolls, and has a long history of favoritism.
posted by Violet Blue at 9:32 AM on December 23
And these patterns only really emerge if you've got a core of dedicated mods who can check in with one another "OK so and so is at it again, do we give them another warning, or is this strike three?"
I think this kind of situation would be much better if there was a mod log and clear notes. (And clear policies.) Rather than a group of mods conferring about a problem user, they could use notes to tell the user and other mods how many strikes or whatever, and what the next steps would be if the behavior continued.
posted by snofoam at 9:35 AM on December 23 [6 favorites]
I think this kind of situation would be much better if there was a mod log and clear notes. (And clear policies.) Rather than a group of mods conferring about a problem user, they could use notes to tell the user and other mods how many strikes or whatever, and what the next steps would be if the behavior continued.
posted by snofoam at 9:35 AM on December 23 [6 favorites]
Just as a reference point something awful has 100x the posts per day and a volunteer model. Mods are assigned a particular area to oversee, and can view reports for all areas. Mods can perform short probations (banned from posting) for up to a day, anything longer must be approved by an admin. There is a private forum for mods and admins, and another forum for admins only. All probations are public. It works pretty well. We don't do shifts, if a mod isn't responding users can escalate by email or dm to an admin.
One fairly ironclad rule for mod selection, presented without comment, is that we don't give mod privileges to someone who has asked for them.
posted by Sebmojo at 12:20 PM on December 23 [9 favorites]
One fairly ironclad rule for mod selection, presented without comment, is that we don't give mod privileges to someone who has asked for them.
posted by Sebmojo at 12:20 PM on December 23 [9 favorites]
I would be interested in volunteering if it was more of a "pitch in when you have the time" kind of thing (after whatever training, etc.) I'd be most comfortable helping out with the modding on AskMefi, b/c it's where I've spent most of my time in 10 years of being a member (plus an added 5 years of lurking).
However, if it's shift based volunteer modding, I would be much less likely to be able to do much - maybe 1 to 2 hours a week. But if it's not shift-based, I'm sure I would be able to put in much more time on that.
I definitely think with the volunteer modding stuff, there should be a mechanism for volunteers to stipulate which subsites they are most comfortable modding. B/c I spend so much more time on AskMefi, I would feel comfortable dealing with flags and making decisions about whether something is getting to be a derail, whether comments don't answer the question (and how much of a problem that is), whether a particular question is chat filter, is an asker doing too much threadsitting.
I do read FPP sometimes, but just not with nearly the same frequency, so I think I would feel less comfortable making judgment calls about whether something is a derail.
posted by litera scripta manet at 1:10 PM on December 23 [4 favorites]
However, if it's shift based volunteer modding, I would be much less likely to be able to do much - maybe 1 to 2 hours a week. But if it's not shift-based, I'm sure I would be able to put in much more time on that.
I definitely think with the volunteer modding stuff, there should be a mechanism for volunteers to stipulate which subsites they are most comfortable modding. B/c I spend so much more time on AskMefi, I would feel comfortable dealing with flags and making decisions about whether something is getting to be a derail, whether comments don't answer the question (and how much of a problem that is), whether a particular question is chat filter, is an asker doing too much threadsitting.
I do read FPP sometimes, but just not with nearly the same frequency, so I think I would feel less comfortable making judgment calls about whether something is a derail.
posted by litera scripta manet at 1:10 PM on December 23 [4 favorites]
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
As someone who has volunteer modded on multiple sites since back in the AOL days and then professionally modded and managed a team of mixed volunteer and professional mods, I would say that this question presumes a model of volunteer moderation -- scheduled shifts with a set number of mods on duty -- that we should not take as a default or ideal scenario for volunteer-led moderation. If we are asking the question just to get an idea if this model, among all the possible volunteer-led moderation models, is feasible, then sure, fine. But if we have had an in-depth discussion on possible technology-enabled or volunteer-led moderation models that wasn't just a few comments here and there within some larger shitshow of a pile-on thread, then I managed to miss it entirely.
Many, many more people will be available much more frequently if they can dip in and out responding to flags and discussing things collectively in a Mod Discord during the time they are already on the site than if they have to promise to spend Sundays from 1-5pm just modding MetaFilter.
Like, I would be willing to take a four hour shift a week modding MetaFilter, provided I had flexibility from week to week on which four hour block they were (and that's always going to be a problem with getting people to voluntarily moderate a website whose peak usage is during business hours in the place where most of the users are) but if I was part of a group of people with the ability to moderate on the fly, past experience suggests I would do that for many, many more than 4 hours per week.
posted by jacquilynne at 6:40 AM on December 20 [26 favorites]