Spinwhiz said:
A few nights ago, I was having a typical discussion with a friend of mine when we started talking about some issues that affect our forum community. We ended up delving quite a bit into several different concepts, and the result is that several ideas came up in that conversation that both of us seemed to think quite highly of. My friend mentioned that I should probably share these ideas in order to try to get some potential feedback about it, and suggested that I post in this thread and that I quote this specific staff member as well. I wasn't quite... sure where else I could make this post, and I didn't want to send it as a PM to only one person. Although I am not quite ready to call this an "official proposal", I do think that, perhaps, the thoughts we came up with might be something to ponder, and possibly even implement. Or, perhaps, just a little exercise in pondering ideas.
So... I guess I'll go ahead and get to this.
What my friend and I were talking about was the uneasy, and sometimes antagonistic, relationship between the community and the moderators on this site. From what I observe, I notice that there seems to be a mistrust of the mods on this site, with complaints from members ranging from uneven modwrath patterns (AKA some people get in trouble, while others who "do worse" don't) and a general feeling that the authority of moderators on this site cannot be questioned or challenged by members of the community. From what I know however, these charges against the moderators on this site are not entirely fair. Nevertheless, the fact remains that there seem to be a fair number of people on this site who have taken issue with the way that moderators have handed actions on the forums in the past few months, and probably before that as well.
The discussion that my friend and I ended up having was an attempt to try to answer one question: How could the relationship between the community and the moderators of this site be improved?
The answers that came out in this discussion ended up having nothing whatsoever to do with trying to create new rules or structures, but rather to improve or simply publicize systems that already exist on this site, or can be very easily implemented. The theme that ran through the ideas that we came up with was that of transparency, or of trying to promote a greater level of communication between the community and moderators. As far as we were concerned, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the current rules that are in place, but miscommunication and doubts about how those rules are implemented seem to feed the mistrust. Trying to find ways to dispel those doubts and to clear up lingering questions about how this site is moderated, to us, seemed like a good course to follow.
One idea that came up was to have moderators, when taking action on the forums either in the form of modwrath or locking threads, express the reasons for said action being taking within the offending post or thread. While this is something that does occur already, it does not occur in every case. The result of this being that there are moderator actions taken that, to an outside observer, do not see the reason why action was taken. When that happens, unless a post or thread is so clearly out of line that is plain for all to see, all a member sees is that someone got in trouble, but having little idea what specifically that person did wrong, or what led the moderators to give a specific punishment. Without understanding why action has been taken, or why someone was suspended rather than probated for an apparently light offense, confusion and mistrust can easily breed. On the other hand, if a moderator taking action were to edit an offending post expressing what the person did to receive a punishment (or simply a warning), and possibly also put a link to the code of conduct within that edit, other members could have a better idea why specific action was taken, and so to understand what specifically a person did wrong. While it might not seem like such reasons are the "business" of the community at large, and especially so if a punishment was given due to a person's repeat offenses, stating why action was taken to me seems a better alternative than simply leaving bystanders uncertain about the rules or what was behind a moderator's involvement. Uncertainty about the reasons behind the actions of those in authority inevitably leads to suspicion and mistrust of that authority.
The second idea that was pondered was about the supposed ability of the moderators on this site to be able to wrath, delete posts, or close threads at their own discretion. To me however, I know that the moderators on this site, in fact, do have specific guidelines about their actions that, in fact, ensure that their powers are far from being absolute. What I didn't know however was that, apparently, there is a system in place that allows members who have been wrathed to appeal that action if they feel that a moderator acted unjust or too harshly against them. Since I myself have never been wrathed, this is something I didn't even know existed, and, after asking a few of my other friends, didn't seem to be known by several others as well. I snooped around a bit and found no mention of this system anywhere in the code of conduct or the other "official" threads about the rules of this site. Furthermore, not only does this appeal system exist, but, if a case has merit and it is found that a moderator made a wrong decision, that moderator can be held accountable for their actions. I do not know if a moderator who grossly exceeds their authority could be removed or not, but I would assume that that option is possible, even if it is one that would likely be as rare as the offense that would provoke it.
In my opinion, this existing appeal system is something that the community at large should be made aware of, and not just those who receive punishment. It is something that should be clearly mentioned in the forum code of conduct, so that those who see the forum rules also learn of the existence of this appeal option as well. As I said myself when I first learned of this, learning about an appeal system at the moment that I would need it would not be very reassuring to me, because, being something unknown to me, it is not a system that I would be able to reasonably believe actually worked or put any faith into. If, on the other hand, I knew that an appeal system existed
before I was at the point that I needed it, I would be much more comfortable about it. This reversal might seem odd since I still would have had no personal experience with that appeal system, but actually there is something very important I am trying to say here. The value of an appeal system is less in its practical value, but in its symbolic value. In other words, that a member who feels that they have been wrongly punished by a moderator is capable of challenging that decision, getting it reversed, and seeing that moderator be held accountable is an example of a "check" on moderator authority. It is an example of the fact that mods on this site do not have absolute power, but in fact are also subject to rules and guidelines that they need to follow or to face the consequences. If members are able to believe that there are checks on the authority of the mods, even if the moments when moderators make unjust decisions are rare, then I would think that the community would be more comfortable dealing with them. The belief that authority can act arbitrarily or is not subject to restrictions, however unfounded those beliefs may be, is something that must be avoided at all costs.
While these are only two relatively simple ideas, the thought that lies behind it is what to me is most important. A list of established rules is always helpful in trying to help members subject to rules, but the manner of their implementation is just as important in my opinion. Those who are subject to rules need to be reassured that those rules will be applied fairly, the reasoning behind moderator actions being taken, and that that authority itself is also subject to guidelines and rules. Although this is not a perfect arrangement (there will always be those who dislike authority in general), it is, in my opinion, the best one possible in order to try to promote a better relationship between a community and those that wield power within it.
Although I am reasonably certain that the ideas that I have presented here, as well as the general theme behind them, are probably already within the minds of the moderators and staff of this site, I still felt it necessary to make this post and to present these ideas that my friend and I discussed. What has been written here is an attempt to try to come up with solutions that might help improve the relationship between the community and the moderators of this site. I am hopeful that the thoughts that I have presented in this post may help inspire further discussion or thinking about ideas to try to help further improve this forum community that we all share together. :3
Sincerely,
Yureina
