Community Moderators

Dear forum members

as most of you will have noticed by now we have launched a Community Moderation program for some of our forums including this one. This is still a beta phase with only a small number of moderators to test the tools and generally see how things go. We are planning to expand the program in the future, with more moderators and more sophisticated moderation tools at their disposal.

The reasons for this is simple. In the past we've had very little active moderation, and simply not enough resource to make sure everyone in the forums sticks to the basic rules of human online  interaction. Therefore at this stage we have added a small number of volunteer moderators to help us keep the forums civil and friendly. They have been instructed to be accountable and transparent, and to warn before deleting, to engage rule-breakers and to explain (privately) contested moderation decisions. All moderators are easily identifiable by the MOD-icon next to their user name.

We have only just started this program and we're definitely looking into improving it further but so far this has clearly been a step into the right direction.

For those of you who are uncertain about the forum rules, a link to them can be found above the editing window when you write a post. Or click on this link: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/forum-rules

--
Lars Rehm, dpreview.com
Twitter: @larsrehm

I often see posts such as "you should see the sniping in this forum" or "things are much more civil here than in that forum". Although much of this will be left up to the moderators, will you be tracking which neighborhoods cause the most trouble?

Noticed that your "community Moderators" threads on "Olympus SLR Talk" and "Micro Four Thirds Talk" are locked. Just in case it's a mistake.

I locked them to not have multiple discussions going on about the same topic. I'll leave this one here open.

--
Lars Rehm, dpreview.com
Twitter: @larsrehm

I think we all want or need to know who the moderators are, so the "mod" symbol is useful.

But at the same time, when a moderator engages in a discussion in an "off-duty" context, I find the "mod" symbol a little irritating, as if it implies that poster's comment should carry more weight, which is clearly not the case.

Perhaps a less distracting way of identifying the moderators could be used?

I should add that I'm making this comment in a generalised way, and don't mean to imply any criticism of any specific person or post.

Regards,
Peter

Makes sense, but many probably won't notice this thread. Maybe add a link in the closed threads?

If I make a post that has nothing to do with moderating a forum, it is true that the Mod icon will show up and might imply that I can't be questioned. However, while I like to think that the moderators were chosen because they are reasonably knowledgeable about the focus of the forum, that doesn't mean that their posts (including mine) can't be questioned. If I post something incorrect in a forum that I moderate (e.g., if I claim that the Canon 7D can't do "X" when you know it can), feel free to let me know with a followup post - as long as this isn't posted as a personal attack (which would be against the site policy) then I have nothing to complain about. Hopefully all the moderators feel the same way.

On the other hand, having the Mod icon show up with all my posts in the forums I moderate let's people know that they can contact me if they have a problem with another forum member or a specific post.

Finally, remember that this is new for all of us (even if we've been moderators/Sysops at other sites, as have I) and that the new moderators are all volunteers - you can help us by using the Complaint option when you see a problem post so that we can identify them quickly.

--

Jeff Peterman, Moderator 7D and Phone/Tablet forums.
Any insults, implied anger, bad grammar and bad spelling, are entirely unintentionalal. Sorry.
www.pbase.com/jeffp25
www.jeffp25.smugmug.com

Hi Lars,

Thanks for the info. Introducing better moderation shows that DPR cares of it's community members and ready to listen to them. But locking this thread in separate forums with no explanation (on corresponding forums) does not make good impression. I imagine you can be extremely busy, but a brief note directing comments to "open talk" would be nice. I wish you and the team every success in your work.

Thanks again!

I think that, in general, forum self moderation is the most efficient way to keep things civil and open for broad spectrum of opinions.

Like in every community there always will be percentage of outcasts, weirdos or plain anal orifices trying to disrupt the flow for reasons only known to them. They are easily spotted and can be dealt decisively by keeping watch on "complains" reported by fellow members.

In my personal opinion establishing active moderation of every post could lead to demise of spontaneous postings and consequently lead to significant drop of interest in posting at all.

I've been a victim of overzealous moderator on different website's forum once. I have never revisited since.

Just my 2 cents

Even with the new volunteer moderators, I don't see how it would be possible to moderate every post, especially not in a busy forum. And I don't think that is the intent. Personally, I plan to tread lightly, and mostly look for complaints - but if I come across something that I would complain about in a forum I moderate, then I'll treat it appropriately.

--
Jeff Peterman, Moderator 7D and Phone/Tablet forums.
Any insults, implied anger, bad grammar and bad spelling, are entirely unintentionalal. Sorry.
www.pbase.com/jeffp25
www.jeffp25.smugmug.com

What makes you sure that moderators are never wrong? And if they can be wrong, why then rule 2? Isnt’t such a ban on discussing beneath a free community?

well, we've done this for 12 years now and we can tell from experience that 'self-moderation' does not work, there needs to be some sort of regulatory intervention. I'd prefer one guy leaving because he thinks he's been 'overmoderated' rather than 100s leaving because they are being insulted, called names or otherwise attacked.

Ultimately I would of course prefer nobody left

--
Lars Rehm, dpreview.com
Twitter: @larsrehm

That sounds reasonable and is pretty much what we'd like all moderators to do.

--
Lars Rehm, dpreview.com
Twitter: @larsrehm

of course they might be wrong at times, who isn't 'wrong' sometimes?. But that's not the point,  we all know that discussing moderation in the forums never leads to anything good and most of those threads have to be closed at some point. If you have some major issue with a moderator issue you can contact us via feedback or discuss with the mod privately.

--
Lars Rehm, dpreview.com
Twitter: @larsrehm

Which is why I propose a dedicated forum for discussing these matters.  Whether or not the mods or staff choose to participate in the discussions in those forums is entirely up to them.  But denying public discussion of moderator actions is not the best course.

I say, let this moderation business play out, no reason to get in a hissy fit over some previous errors on Dp's part.  I don't want this freewheeling group of photographers to feel threatened if they say sweat instead of perspiration or leg instead of limb; the whole fun is listening to bunch of people saying what they feel like (within decorum bounds of course).

This is not what I meant.

I still hope that "self-moderation" (listening to community members complains) will be at the roots of your "regulatory intervention" just like it supposed to be in the past 12 years.

The idea of additional manpower in form of dedicated volunteering moderator to sift through the complains makes sense and I applaud that. In fact I have a lot of respect for people who takes on such unpopular tasks.

There seems to be a very thin line between the moderation and censorship. Only time will tell which one will prevail.

I think it's a good idea to offer avenues for improper modding issues. I'm not convinced however most people will put forth the effort, not knowing if they will even be listened to. I can tell you first hand, it feels as if non mods have less pull than mods, as if we carry less weight and this is fairly true, we were not granted the power to silence anybody. Complaining towards a new mod seems like nothing will come of it. I have not had any direct issues here but have read many complaints already and I can definitely empathize with the non mods

I rarely have issues with anybody on any forum but I am afraid more red tape will only drive people away. We do afterall, have an ignore button and this has worked wonders for me over the years. I have never need moderation here or on any other site. Appointed mods seems only like a way to make some people feel more important than others.

I don't believe members should be moderators.  Member moderators create two classes of members.  The special people and everyone else.  Whether they intend it or are even aware of it, that little icon will give them the color of authority.  Whether they intend it or are even aware of it, they will biased when dealing with someone they've had a heated exchange with.

If members want to be moderators, then they should stop being members.  Perhaps a middle ground can be that member moderators that are actively involved in a forum should recuse themselves from moderating in that forum.  Member moderators should only moderate issues in forums they couldn't care less about.  Without actual and perceived impartiality, a moderator goes from being an arbiter to a bully.

All reasonable communities have limitations on what can be said/discussed. The test is whether the limitations are exercised reasonably. Let's judge based on what happens.