Subject: Yeah, that sort of thing.
Author:
Posted on: 2008-08-27 04:02:00 UTC
The mod wouldn't do anything with the board under normal circumstances, but if another 'bot attacks *knocks wood* they can deal with it.
And if they start to fade out of the group (alas, it happens) they/we can appoint a new mod. /my $.02
There was one thing I didn't mention in my post over on the alternative board concerning dealing with the spam-bot: The yourwebapps.com people will give control of an admin-less forum to someone who asks for it. This omission was deliberate - spam-bots are annoying. Spam-bots with admin powers would murder this place faster than you or I could blink.
As it stands, I currently have access to the administrator account for the board. I can appoint moderators, or hand the account over to someone else, if need be.
Now, the big question is, what should be done with it?
It's a good idea for the PGs and any potential Mods to be kept seperate. Absolute power will corrupt absolutely, as the saying goes.
Rather, why don't we keep the Moderators a secret? We hold the vote, etc, or rather, Techno-Dann does, deleting everyone's vote as they come in. Once done, he tallies the votes, and the selected Moderator would gain their position, and be notified, with no-one else knowing the result.
That way, if a Moderator tries to lord it over people, they can have their position removed because no-one is meant to know who it is. If they reveal it, then a new Moderator is chosen.
The PPC Secret Service, or something like that. Techno-Dnan acts as the visible head *Coughs* Target *Coughs*, while the other one works behind the scenes.
I don't think the words Secret Service and such an explosive/fire-loving/insane group works too well.
Personally, I guess I don't like it because it requires the admin and all the mods to be trustworthy. If someone out to get us got mod powers, or for that matter, if there was ever a nasty debate involving a moderator, there'd be no accountability at all - the moderator involved could edit whatever she pleased, and nobody would have solid proof of who had done it. (Not even the admin - that's one of the limitations of the system.)
I prefer the "break glass in case of fire" approach to admin powers - they really should only be used when there's an obvious need - spammers, trolls who wouldn't go away when asked nicely, and so on. As long as discussions stay civil (and we've got a great track record when it comes to that), we shouldn't need admin intervention at all.
I mean, I kinda like it but the idea of the PPC Secret Service is just scary. It'll be like the DIS only hopefully not.
Although it is rather an interesting idea. We don't have to be unaware of who the admin is, but it doesn't need to be brought up in general discussion. That way, if someone or something new starts kicking off, that admin can step in and fix the problem witout being singled out as a target. Maybe a little more like the DIA than the DIS. A tiny group wholly dedicated to the PPC's protection, rather than a group dedicated to bullying and silencing those whom they didn't want around.
And I'm babbling. I'll shush now.
I just thought I'd raise my voice in agreement with the majority.
We don't need mods. The PPC is run on the grounds of modding ourselves and each other. What we do need is an admin to fix the technical problems. As others have said, Techno-Dann is our most internet-savvy person, and has been handling the problem since day one. If we do need to vote, I'm going with him.
If he decides to retire or something, we can decide on a new admin then.
I agree with what everyone's said for the most part. Mods should be seperate from the PGs, though I don't see why someone can't be both if they fit the criteria, they should be internet savvy and responsible and they should not be planning on fading out anytime soon.
I vote Dann keeps the admin powers, he's our resident tech expert, right? He's as good a choice as anyone else.
It's actually possible for a spam-bot to get admin powers? What kind of world is this?
The spambot itself? Not really. The person running the spambot? Certainly. Then they'd have an unstoppable spambot.
This power absolutely has to be separated from the Permission Giving power. They're fundamentally different things, and combining the two would give whoever had both far too much control over things.
I'm open to correction on this, but I think it's a very big mistake if we decide to combine the two roles, or even give Board control to any particular Permission Givers.
hS
At the very least, becoming one (a permission giver or a moderator) must not imply the other - they're different jobs, and a person who is good at one may be absolutely the wrong choice for the other.
Onto a more fundamental question... do we even need moderators? We've gone for five years without any, and the only times we've needed any administrative powers have been a few massively ugly affairs- the sort of thing that can easily be removed by a single administrator.
As long as being a PG isn't synonymous with having Board powers, or vice-versa, I don't see a problem. I do imagine, though, that anyone given Board power will already be a PG, and I have no problem with that.
Frankly, I think we'll only need one (or two, in case of emergency) administrators, and indeed, we don't need moderators. So I'm all for giving a few people the technical power and just letting it go.
There are two ways of looking at moderators:
One, and it's the way most moderators seem to see themselves, as authorities -- people with the power and authority to keep the peons in line.
The other (which I think is the right way to look at it) is as garbage collectors, hired to clean up spambot droppings and similar detritus.
The trick is, first, to appoint people with the garbageman mindset, and second, to make sure they don't drift towards the dictator mindset.
The problem is, of course, that there's no 100% reliable way to go about it. Or if there is, in 14 years of moderating everything from a BBS to numerous Web forums, I haven't met anyone who's figured it out. The best solution seems to be having a stable, sane, steady, and well-trusted person in charge -- Techno-Dann, in our case -- and having that person act as "benevolent dictator", able to appoint mods as needed to take care of shoveling up bot droppings if and when needed.
Moderating users' posts can be a slippery slope, because there's always the matter of lines and where you draw them. The "what is a flame?" poll in my FFN profile is still live, and it's interesting seeing the spread of the responses. There are people who draw the line maybe a little harsher than I do, and people who think all but the mildest and most apologetic concrit is a "flame", and many somewhere in between. The same thing happens on forums: What exactly constitutes a "personal attack"? How far is it to "off topic"? What exactly is "unfriendly" and is it different for different people? When you have people making judgment calls about that, you get drama.
My rules as moderator:
1. Never mod a discussion you're participating in. At the very least there is a perception of a conflict of interest; at the worst, you'll turn into a modzi.
2. Use the least-destructive moderation possible: For instance, move a post rather than editing it; edit it rather than delete it.
3. If you edit or delete a post, put a copy of the original on the mods' board for review.
Obviously 2 and 3 require a forum that has editing and moving capabilities, and somewhere to put the mods' board. The basic principles, though, remain the same.
Resentment and distrust of the mods is more destructive to an online community than any amount of off-topic posting, flaming, and board drama. 99% of the time, that distrust is self-inflicted, as the mods get above themselves (much like politicians) and see themselves as your masters, not our servants.
So, I propose that the title of anyone given moderation powers on this board be "Bot Manure Shoveler" and they be issued a patch depicting a shovel and a wheelbarrow.
Moderators, like fire, make good servants but poor masters.
(I voted in it. Would you let me know when you close it? I'd like to see the results.)
Plus I love that flashpatch imagery! ;p
...in that case, do we leave admin powers with you and leave them as a 'break glass in case of emergency' type thing?
The mod wouldn't do anything with the board under normal circumstances, but if another 'bot attacks *knocks wood* they can deal with it.
And if they start to fade out of the group (alas, it happens) they/we can appoint a new mod. /my $.02
... that brings us to the interesting question of who *should* have admin powers over the Board.
I mean, we vote in our PGs because they are people who have been active for a decent amount of time and we trust them, both of which are qualities we'd ideally like in whoever has modly control of the Board. But giving all PGs moderator's powers over the Board, as you say, would be a Bad Thing.
I suppose the fair path to take would be to hold some kind of an election for Board Moderators and choose say three of them, or something, and then make sure that one cannot be both a PG and a Boad Moderator.
Having said that, I think that at least for the moment, Techno-Dann is probably the most logical choice as Moderator given he is computer and Internet-savvy and the person who knows most about the whole situation.
I was going to say that someone Internet-savvy is my first pick, but you said it all for me. {= )
~Neshomeh
I admit, we should definitely think about making Boarders who have already proven that they are responsible and reasonable. This does include a fair number of the PGs, but also a lot of the oldbies. So maybe community vote?
choose moderators via nominations and votes. If the person/people chosen happens to be a Permission Giver, then so be it. The other Boarders obviously trust them to be able to keep the two roles separate.
/£0.02