Moderation System Flaw(s)
After being a moderator for a little bit, I have realized there are a few issues with the moderation system that needs attention. I was a moderator elsewhere for a couple years and figured I could share my experience for whatever it's worth. (Since, as Scott said, feedback is good. NOTE: This is about our moderation system and NOT our moderation conduct)
1. Mods should be able to personallysend messages to members or guests without having to wait for them to PM us. This is absolutely necessary for many reasons. If someone is acting out, we can address them in private. Sometimes, we have several mods regurgitating the same rules over one little issue and it deters the conversation in the room from being helpful to appearing authoritarian. As an example, if Member A swears and we have 3 mods citing the no vulgarity policy, the entire nature of the chat has transformed. To some, it upsets them and they feel ganged up. (Studies show when we feel vastly outnumbered, we become aggressive)
Another issue is when someone keeps bringing up an issue (ex: why did you delete my comment) when the moderators are trying to move the chat forward; we are at the member or guest's mercy by saying "PM me if you can." It also makes us appear as if their concerns aren't important enough for us to message them. I have seen several moderators politely request for a PM and the user ignores them and continues bringing the issue up in public. Moderators should be pro-active rather than reactive, and this system makes it harder by not allowing us to message them privately.
Another point to this is if 2-3 people are acting out, (which has happened a few times recently) then privately contacting them about their conduct emphasizes accountability. By issuing a public warning to the room, some people take it less seriously since more than 1 are exhibiting the behavior. (Hence why riots occur)
My final note for this point is it further builds a moderator's case. If I mute someone, I generally give 3-4 warnings AND request them to PM me. Because of our system, I'm forced to do this in a public channel. Since some are trolls or some are passionate, they avoid PMing me and the ordeal is now all over the place. And some have friends, and now those friends are upset because I'm simply trying to enforce a rule they're CONSTANTLY breaking. And if I mute them too quickly without truly giving them a chance to rectify their behavior, now I'm questioned in my duty.
This is the single most important feature. Not only this, but it can cause triggers to others seeing such a huge argument or fiasco taking place. Act too quick, us mods are aggressive. Act too late, the situation has blown up. Lose-lose.
2. Temp-Mute:
I know this sounds silly, but we should be able to temporary mute someone if they are getting a little too passionate about their questions or rants. We can then discuss the matter privately--since we can PM them if my first point passes--calm them down or address their concerns, then unmute if we feel it is appropriate. As of now, if you mute someone, according to tech support, the mute is still in place for 24 hours. Even when unmuting. I do not find that productive. By allowing a temporary mute, thiswould force someone to pay attention to a moderator's PM and disable their chatting abilities in public forum.
Muting should be a last resort and not a first response, but some people truly aren't there to make the experience "bad" or problematicand simply need their behavior privately addressed. This doesn't apply to trolls or those blatantly being disrespectful, but allows leeway for the moderator to act accordingly.
3. A "save script" button. It's common sense knowing that it's impossible for the chat logs to stay logged on the server at all times. When a situation escalates that requires muting, I wish there existeda "save script" button so the entire conversation at that moment is then saved and we can forward said report if member or guest disputes our moderator usage. I'm essentially the police officer asking for a body camera right now because it would only improve my case. I follow our guidelines and I am more than lenient and such system would provide more evidence as to why I enforced the mute button.
I apologize for any grammatical errors as I am typing this on my phone. The fact most of this goes down in publicdoes notbenefit the members or guests. Allowing me to privately message a member or guest first shows my sincerity in speaking on a personal level and addressing any moderation issues or complaints. The current system is upsetting both moderators and the public because it demonizes all parties. Thank you for reading.
I completely agree with you ! I haven't been a mod for very long, but it would seem as if all those tools would make it much easier for me to manage issues in the chatroom. I'd also like to add to your post :I find the Chatroom room window to be exceptionally small, considering how fast conversations move. I think it would be wise to allow users to expend the size of the chatroom to their liking, or to simply make it bigger for everyone. It would make it much easier for mods to follow along busy chats, and would be less scary to new users who can't keep up with the pace of some chatrooms.
@EJI understand and think it is kind of you to want to deal with behavioral issues in private, however I'm not sure that allowing moderators and only mods to message guests is a safe solution for guests or listeners. Handling conflicts in private, in a confidential space without eyes, canalsoescalate them, and then it's your word against theirs. Also, you may beengaged in unwanted chats withdifficult guests then ? whomeveryou've messaged about behavioralissues before. Unless a private'moderator message' function werebuilt into the chat rooms somehow, Ithink moderator-to-member messagingpowers would have unforeseenconsequences.
Personally, I think public problems are best handled in public spaces for everyone's safety. If someone chats here and breaks the rules or makes others uncomfortable, they can hear it in a place as public as their behavior. If they do not act with respect in response, everyone sees it and can vouch for your action, and perhaps you can save it somehow or screenshot it for later. But also, keeping moderation behavior public keeps guests safe for two reasons ? rule reinforcement (you see the moderator issue reminders, you know what you can and cannot do without repercussions), and it makes sure moderators cannot behave in ways in a private chat during conflict that they would not in public.
I'm not certain the second feature you mention is necessary, either ? we already have the ability to remove specific troublesome messages, and I feel like what you're asking for here would open more of a grey area. Like, 'Hmm, this might cause an issue, so I'll mute and speak with them privately.' But as far as I am concerned, a message is abusive, violates the rules or upsets guests or it does not. In other words, you should be able to decide for the health of the chat room to delete or mod mute ? not always an easy decision, but that's our job. We already have the tools, and engaging a grey area for our comfort could do a disservice to guests and their already limited freedom of speech.
Unfortunately, I see it differently and I apologize if I am coming off abrasive. (Also, thanks for your response!)The idea that it's a risk discussing matters privately doesn't make sense to me since ever moderator always stresses for those with "questions or concerns" to privately message them -- it's still the private sector, whether we are the ones messaging or not -- and being reactive is never a good policy in any form of moderation.We have had three instances in two days where the community rioted because the issues remained public despite strong urgency in private communication. If we are to believe a moderator's simple messaging to a guest and/or member is a safety concern, then the issue doesn't rest with the system so much as it lies within our moderation selection process. If we are to believe our moderators are accurately and swiftly issuing proper mutes without any logs and trusting said reports via "word of mouth," (Which I support) then we should trust moderators to appropriately and effectively send chats. It shows their concerns are important to us; important enough for us to approach them rather than saying "approach us if it means something to you."
As of now, we have had several people complain and/or leave chat because the public ruckus that occurs frightens them or triggers them. (I am speaking about unaffiliated members of subjected muting/punishment). Due to privacy concerns, I will not mention them, but I could direct you to another person whom I've directed 3-4 people to because of the public commotion that constantly brews.
As for the temp-mute, I see as it allowing more flexibility. As of now, a full-mute and unmute is not temporary and incorporates a full 24-hour muting. The whole idea of "unmuting" is to, well, unmute. I do not understand why we have the unmute option if the mute is mandatorial sentenced -- if that makes sense? However, you are somewhat correct in your assertions as they're not misguided. Perhaps we do not need a temp-mute button so much as we should be allowed to unmute certain people, or if not, remove the unmute option. Muting someone for 5 minutes could be seen as a strong warning.
Also, the person should receive a message showing they're effectively muted and the reasoning as to why. I liked that idea which someone mentioned earlier in the public forums.
Sorry if the post seems scattered, just typing as I go in this case. ^_^ Thanks for the response though; shows others care enough to allow input. :)
@Ej well,I would also disagree on encouraging guests to PM moderators. That is opening yourselves up to further 'rage reporting' or banning by guests by engaging in those private interactions, should they not go well.And the fact that modsask repeatedly for guests to message them and they do not do so indicates that guests todo not want to have a private conversation with you.So, again, I'd keep it public, and keep it polite, stay a role model.
These are adults you are moderating, who know if they're acting out, so let's not pretend we need to reach out to them privately to inform them ? and if they keep up the behavior, simple, they are out, via swift action, nothing fuzzy or private about it. Making moderator counteraction private is kind, but removes some of the 'warning' or incentive to behave from the equation: if you are sensitive enough to respect a moderator's wishes on behalf of a group, then you're not going to want to be reprimanded in public, you will learn from it and act to prevent that from happening again.
E.g., I got 'shushed' in front of a class once for talking out of turn; exhibiting rude and inappropriate group behavior. It was embarrassing. I was more careful in the future because of that.Others were probably more careful to avoid it happening to them, too. It reminded us of what space we were in, public, and the relevant expectations for our behavior.
If someone had spoken with me privately about my speaking out of turn, it would not have had as strong an effect as a reminder of the space I was being disruptive in, I would have probably been more defensive (instead of immediately hushing and privately reflecting on what happened while the 'mod' moved right along in properly engaging the group), it would have taken more time and effort instead of being immediate, and I would see the 'moderator' as weaker, more sensitive andwilling to negotiate about my behavior.(If you don't care about the embarrassment factor, on the other hand, talking publicly or privately will likelynot matter, and you're probably on your way to a mute anyway.)
Part of the problemisoftenpeople (deliberately and sometimeshappily) failing to use appropriateboundaries and exhibiting behavior that should be private or personal in front of a diverse public group, so I don't think the answer to that issue is engaging them privately about this public disrespect but reminding them this is public space for everyone and they needto treat itas such.
Perhaps it is a moderator selection or training issue, or an issue with unclear rules, but anyone can have a bad moment interacting with someone who's disgruntled (moderating is hard!) but keeping these interactions public keeps us all honest and encourages us to communicate respectfully because eyes are on us, and I believe they should stay put as a 'check' on our powers.
I believe that most issues can be communicated safely and publicly in a way that informs everyone of what is necessarily andwhy, and I believe that that transparency is important for everyone to know what is happening, and for everyone to be treated as fairly and equally as we can guarantee.
On the other hand, if a guest believes they were treated unfairly, it makes sense that we ask them to reach out to us about it, or report that actionafter the fact, rather than having some negotiation in advance. That's part of being assertive and protective of the chat community ? rules are rules. If the rules are so unclear that you may need to converse about them outside of the chat room totakeaction, then we need to work on improving the rules, not increasing moderator powers behind the scenes.
And if there are so many problems with moderator decisions upsetting people, I do not see that as a reason to grant moderators further powers at this time, but rather a reason to institute more training and come to as close a consensus as we can over how we deal with conflicts in the chat rooms. Granting more powers and allowing moderators to message members to discuss these issues in private may lead to unfair and unequal treatment, and suspiciousness amongst guests who cannot even see mod actions anymore.
I frequently hearabout moderators disagreeing with other moderator actionsand lack of communication ? due to that alone, I think taking more moderator decisions further behind-the-scenes is not the way to go at this time. We need more communication and transparency, not less.And next thing you know, there will be reports like, 'A moderator messaged me and said [x wrong things],' and 'A moderator said [y] to me but said [z] to my friend!' and, finally, 'Amoderator told me this was OK, but then another moderator told me they wouldmute mefor it!'
If you move moderator actions out of the public eye when there's already turmoil over a lack of communication amongst mods that we're trying to resolve, that would make it even harder for mods to communicate with each otherwhat conversations they've had.
And, again, I believe we should not be negotiating the rules with people behind the scenes anyway. Say you warn someone in the chat room, 'We can't discuss X here because Y,' and then they keep doing it after your shift ends. That's information that perhaps another mod cansee, and even if not another guest could say, 'Hey, you've already been told not to do that here.' That's valuable information to keeppublic and non-mysterious.
You shouldn't need to message someone to explain to them why they've been muted. They should know upfront why they've been muted. If there's a lack of understanding about this, that is another problem.
Further to that, there is debate over whether moderators are consistently issuing "proper mutes," and I believe that's a reason you're suggesting being able to keep a log. If you were able to keep a log, how much less information would that log have were you taking moderation conversationout of the chat room and into private messages? That could make actions taken less clear, and the logs would be lessrepresentative if a mod were being 'proactive' or at worst overly proactive.
I am not asking anyone to be reactive. There are guidelines and it is guests' duty to stay aware of them to use the service. Moderators set the tone in the room and issue reminders. It is not reactive if, after these actions andwarnings, you take further action to stop a public disregard for them with a public action ? that in turn reenforces our expectations here and shows we all need to be accountable for our behavior.
Finally, I think your more temporary mute idea is reasonable, but I wonder if it would be a strong enough deterrent or if it would just 'push' guests who are misbehaving to wait a little until your shift is over. Also I wouldn't want to encourage mods to temporarily mute people as a defensive issue when they should be issuing warnings ? and if a mute is too short, people may not realize they have been muted, conversations could become unclear, etc. etc. ? that would require more explaining and be more subject to personal judgment when we need to be more unified across the board.
"Unmute" works on non-moderator mutes (personal mutes) to unmute people youdecided previously that you didn't want to hear, e.g. in the Listener chat rooms.
I do not mean to be negative, and I appreciate your attempts at problem solving these issues. We certainly need better preventative actions to protect chat rooms from becoming ruckuses ? with good moderation, that should not be happening. I simplythink we may need to think in a more basic direction for everyone's safety and to promote more clarity, transparency andunity in moderator actions.
Sorry I make most of my posts before reading a whole thread lol I definitely agree about transparency, which is why I like your backing of public "eyes on you" dealings. I don't think it's that mods are necessarily unclear, just that unruly guests don't want to listen to mods anyway, you know? So they just ignore mods, and so then I think that's why mods go to PM as a private communication. As far as I have seen, most mods say why someone is breaking rules, and give warnings. Great post btw!
hmm I definitely see your point too. I think the in public confrontation can go either way. It does reinforce rules, but it also might make things super uncomfortable for guests. I'm not sure what the best thing to do is to be honest. I know the listener chatroom itself is handled with private PMs sometimes, but you feel like without everyone being able to PM everyone (other listeners to the members in the groups), there'd be abuse of power possibly? Definitely a possiblity...I like being able to talk to people in PMs so it staysout of a chatroom, but I also like your transparency opinion. I wonder if there's a middle ground, you know?
@Ej
I so agree with you regarding ALL these points. With regards to your first point, I've actually spoken to someone about it, and apparently it's too hard - I was told I should just keep asking them to PM in open chat, which I agree isn't the best way to go.
With regards to the save script - I had someone report me because I legitimately muted them - I was within moderator right to do it, and as far as I know it's gone no further - but the assurance that the mentor can see I did a legit mute would mean I wouldnt have to worry about it at all.
I completely agree with everything @OliviaButler said. I think making things less public is not a good idea at all. Personally, I don't suggest members/guests to PM me when I'm moderating a chatroom, unless they have a technical problem or it's something that should not be discussed publicly, but needs addressing (i.e. when they come in to report abuse from a listener in a 1-1chat).
In my opinion, the chatroom rules are clear and do not need further discussion. Explaining to people why X or Y is a rule does not lead anywhere. Those are the rules and they are here to be kept, not explained or discussed. If someone thinks they should be changed, they can use the suggestion box. As Olivia said, people know when they are acting out. And even if not, that's what warnings are for. If they keep it up after that, well, that's what the mute button is for. No need for any private pep talks, in my opinion.
Thanks @Ej for posting this! Appreciate your insight and I totally agree with what you are saying here
I am not going to add anything to the discussion aside from my agreement with everything that OliviaButler and Barush have stated above.
I actually walked in to the middle of one of those three examples you note (not as a listener) so I'm aware of what you are talking about. However, the existing tools at the moderators disposal - most especially their judgment in applying in tools provided by the site - are sufficient from my experience.
excellent points! I definitely have tried to click on a name a bunch of times and been like it would be helpful if I could message this person.
Aye, I should note that this suggestion doesn't mean situations couldn't be handled in public. But, at the same point, I do not see the negatives even in the slightest. If a moderator doesn't wish to execute said action, then they do not have to. But, for those who have someone a little riled up, I do not see it as a disservice by reaching out to them with the ability in private messaging. Just my two cents (as I do not wish to continue repeating myself;I will annoy everyone).
I am glad to see many posting here with their thoughts and concerns. Good to see fellow moderators caring enough to provide feedback. Aye, thank you for that. :)
I 110% agree with you! Especially with the whole being able to pm members, I think it'd save a lot of drama and a lot of time, as well! It could save some from being muted or humiliated in the chat rooms. Overall, this was a post that needed to be posted.
About the Mods being able to PM guests/members, I am completely against it as The guest/member should be able to decide who they want to speak to. As a guest if I am muted I would feel more threatened and scared if the MOd starts to message me. I rather talk to a person I am comfortable talking to.
When you mute a member you can always Unmute them too. (This feature comes and goes)
Another thing I have noticed is to change the topic, listeners begin to talk among themselves. The member support rooms are for members and this behaviour comes off as beingarrogant and domineering.
And at a moment having more than 3 listeners in a room too is not at all good.
At times, when a particular guest is being rude, you need to warn them in public instead of requesting them to PM you. If someone feels that a wrong decsion was taken by a mod, or there is an argument between members it is better to ask them about the issue in PM.
The chatroom is not a place to discuss conflicts especially is it is between 2 members or about a chat with a mod or listener. Since it can be accessed by anyone at any point of time, it is better to discuss it in PMs, where it can be resolved with lesser chaos.
> "The guest/member should be able to decide who they want to speak to."
^ This a million times. I completely agree with Apple. It would be inappropriate to 'call' a guest up privately to talk about their behavior. They can, and would, reach out to the moderator to talk if they wanted to.
Also, such a feature would be terribly easy to abuse, even by well meaning people, in and outside of the chat roomand could devolve into arguable harassment (particularly if a message is deemed unwanted) ? that's a huge negative here. So I'm really surprised to hear anyone say they see no negatives "even in the slightest"?
Finally, we need more coordination and consistencyamong mods, not less ? that's what our new group mod chat room is here to promote so we can get communicationson the same page. So, "if a moderator doesn't wish to execute said action, then they do not have to" does not cut it.