Moderator Evalutation Implementation

[Kyng's Old Account]

To put it quite simple, I've contemplated over how YCM's Moderators could heed advise from the community. I recall an instance with a particular moderator who's name shall remain anonymous for protection's sake, who for a while had a poor attitude in their work ethic, coming across as quite insulting - it resulted in a Status Flaming, and then a later discussion with one of the moderator's colleagues to actually resolve the issue and see change.

It shouldn't have to be like that, though I feel the general notion of speaking against the moderators comes across as somewhat taboo here. It shouldn't be that way - particularly, because the Moderating Staff could not only moderate better based on the feedback YCM gives them, but it would also encourage the negative atmosphere surrounding moderators that people may have, such as a form of elitism, to dissipate.

Some FAQs that might come about I'll answer real quick:
Q - Members can just PM Mods about their complaints. Why bother with this?
A - Of course they can, and they should more often, yet they don't. A good reason for this may be the general notion of moderators being difficult to approach. I'm bothering with this to form a medium of bypassing this notion with effective success.

Q - What if members want to comment on moderators anonymously?
A - This thread is not for the evaluation. This is a suggestion thread, asking the moderators if they would be fine with such a thing being implemented. Anyway, if this is successful, I will put work into finding a way to make such people's anonymity to be respected.

Q - If this thread isn't for posting our opinions on how moderators are doing, what's the point of this?
A - The point of this thread is to both see if a structured system can be put into place for members to get their opinions on how moderators are doing, not for the sake of venting anger against a mod a member doesn't like, but rather to give moderators feedback on how they've been doing from the people who they're work is affecting the most.

A few ideas of how I figured this could potentially be done:
1 - A Quarterly Event held by staff.
2 - A Club/Organization Thread dedicated to this.

Let's hear what you think, YCM.

[Nathanael D. Striker]

Allow me to address the main problem with this: apathy. Some people just don't give a damn. Those who do will do the work, but it may not be a complete evaluation since crucial perspectives may be missing.

 

This looks like a good idea, but apathy may infect this.

[Kyng's Old Account]

Allow me to address the main problem with this: apathy. Some people just don't give a damn. Those who do will do the work, but it may not be a complete evaluation since crucial perspectives may be missing.

 

This looks like a good idea, but apathy may infect this.

People may not give a damn, and that's A-OK for them. If they do not want to participate, there's nothing forcing them.

 

This, like many ideas initiated on this forum, is for those who do care about the motive behind it. This is for those who want to give the moderators well-deserved feedback on how they've been doing, as well as opens up communication between the moderators and the member-base a little bit more.

 

We can bring cows to water, but we can't ever make them drink it. This is for those who want to drink from it, as any thread is for anyone who wants to reply to it.

[evilfusion]

While I certainly don't object to the idea of giving feedback to moderators, the only reason it's considered taboo is because it's done improperly. The majority of the time, when someone has an issue with a moderator, they post a thread bashing the mod. Such a thread has no place where it was posted, and the general response is that if they have an issue with a mod, they should take it up with the mod in question, rather than make a public scene.

 

The secondary issue is that people only really want to give feedback if it's negative feedback, whether it's justified or not. As such, the majority of feedback given would be complaints or anger, which SHOULD be taken up with the mod in question. We wouldn't need a new system or structure to handle that, because we already have one in the forms of PMs.

 

Other times, if it's positive feedback, they usually don't have issues bringing that up. I suspect most people are neutral towards moderators unless they feel slighted by something being enforced.

 

But if the main idea behind this is to give moderators feedback, what guarantees that the moderators will actually receive that feedback, even if a thread or club or whatever was made for it? And if they do see it, they'd probably get mixed reactions from different members, assuming members do care enough to give their two cents. At best, it would just be an ego boost for positive feedback, and at worst, that mod doesn't actually care what his/her image is in the eyes of the members.

 

It admittedly feels like an idea that appeals to a minority who both want to express their views on certain moderators, but are intimidated by the notion of actually doing so directly. Since we already have a communication system in place, I'm not sure what is really trying or needed to be accomplished.

[Aix]

Those members who are afraid could PM a friend to PM to the mods. Or maybe, Kyng, you can be our spokesperson/messenger/ambassador and you can pass on any concerns that us without voices have.

 

Thou art hereby crowned Kyng of Ambassadors.

[goddamnit names are a pain]

I really think PMing mods when you have issues with them alone isn't a good idea.

That's like asking to be knocked down a peg, even when it wasn't needed.

The "Ambassador" thing sounds nice.

[Kyng's Old Account]

While I certainly don't object to the idea of giving feedback to moderators, the only reason it's considered taboo is because it's done improperly. The majority of the time, when someone has an issue with a moderator, they post a thread bashing the mod. Such a thread has no place where it was posted, and the general response is that if they have an issue with a mod, they should take it up with the mod in question, rather than make a public scene.
That is quite true. Needless to say, such spam/flaming threads are an extremely inappropriate manner to do so; however, I've also taken into account the member-base who want their voices to be heard, and want to try contribute to how the site is running, yet are simply to shy or do not know how to say hat they want to say and, thus, simply stray from the currently established system.
 
The secondary issue is that people only really want to give feedback if it's negative feedback, whether it's justified or not. As such, the majority of feedback given would be complaints or anger, which SHOULD be taken up with the mod in question. We wouldn't need a new system or structure to handle that, because we already have one in the forms of PMs.
That's not a good thing. The idea behind this is not to create a complaint board, especially when moderators do their job exceptionally well and deserve to be praised for such; and it is neither to create an opportunity to openly flame moderators either. The idea behind this is to create an effective and professional way for both members to voice their opinions on how the staff are doing as well as moderators to see these opinions and reflect on them.
I've already spoken regarding in the response above this one.
 
Other times, if it's positive feedback, they usually don't have issues bringing that up. I suspect most people are neutral towards moderators unless they feel slighted by something being enforced.
The thing is, the moderating staff should not have to be subjected to a wall of negative feedback. They should be entitled to knowing if they were doing well, and while colleagues of staff can do this, surely the encouragement heard directly from those of the moderator's jurisdiction is much more relevant?
 
But if the main idea behind this is to give moderators feedback, what guarantees that the moderators will actually receive that feedback, even if a thread or club or whatever was made for it? And if they do see it, they'd probably get mixed reactions from different members, assuming members do care enough to give their two cents. At best, it would just be an ego boost for positive feedback, and at worst, that mod doesn't actually care what his/her image is in the eyes of the members.
Regarding the first question - a moderator may want to see the feedback, and thus if so, could simply find the relative thread. I'm sure I would be able to advertise the thread in the status feed; but as I've told Striker earlier, we can bring cows to water but never force them to drink it; at the end of the day it is down to the mods to read the feedback.
Regarding the mixed reactions - of course this is bound to happen, but that does not imply they could not improve their performance based on the responses given.
Regarding the ego boost - Moderators deserve them now and again. I've seen them get ripped time after time, yet they hardly get any congrats for doing their jobs well; I think it is about time they had some more.
 
It admittedly feels like an idea that appeals to a minority who both want to express their views on certain moderators, but are intimidated by the notion of actually doing so directly. Since we already have a communication system in place, I'm not sure what is really trying or needed to be accomplished.
As I've mentioned prior, the existing system simply may not work. What I'm trying to accomplish is a number of things, most importantly to show the member-base that their opinions can be heard, and to give moderators the feedback they can best use to improve how they do their business and thus how the site runs on the whole, as well as congratulate them on their good work.
 
This would not attempt to replace the current system, but would rather simply work side-by-side, and initiated on the member-base's behalf. I feel this would prevail over the current system, partially through actually reaching the recipient (as at times I have found some moderators have simply ignored PMs sent to them) but more significantly by encouraging people to voice their opinions through creating an atmosphere of people wanting to contribute to YCM.

Those members who are afraid could PM a friend to PM to the mods. Or maybe, Kyng, you can be our spokesperson/messenger/ambassador and you can pass on any concerns that us without voices have.
They could, and that's perfectly fine if they want to do so, though on times I've noted PMs simply don't work, whether they're simply not read or even read and ignored.
 
Thou art hereby crowned Kyng of Ambassadors.
Thank you for the sentiment.

I really think PMing mods when you have issues with them alone isn't a good idea.
That's like asking to be knocked down a peg, even when it wasn't needed.
The "Ambassador" thing sounds nice.
Thank you for the sentiment.

[Legend Zero]

I really think PMing mods when you have issues with them alone isn't a good idea.
That's like asking to be knocked down a peg, even when it wasn't needed.
The "Ambassador" thing sounds nice.

If a mod is rude in a PM, simply reporting that PM allows Super mods to view the PM.

I really don't understand why people would see speaking against Staff as taboo. I/we received a ton of positive and negative feedback from the Halloween event, yet I don't feel personally attacked. As evilfusion said, member's usually only have something to say when they feel cheated. That is not wrong, but the way they handle it usually is.

Over my time of modship I have received 4-7 PMs that would be considered actual feedback, 25-30 that would fall until crying, and 1-2 positive feedback.

All that being said, I have no problem if people want to send stuff to us anonymously.

[Kyng's Old Account]

I really don't understand why people would see speaking against Staff as taboo. I/we received a ton of positive and negative feedback from the Halloween event, yet I don't feel personally attacked. As evilfusion said, member's usually only have something to say when they feel cheated. That is not wrong, but the way they handle it usually is.

The answer as to why is simple: people rarely want to speak up because they do not want to upset people. As for the Halloween event, yes, you did. You received a lot of it, but it wasn't from a PM; it was from the community having a place where they could openly discuss how the event went. What this is trying to do is to prompt people to voice both good and bad on the moderating team.

Over my time of modship I have received 4-7 PMs that would be considered actual feedback, 25-30 that would fall until crying, and 1-2 positive feedback.

What I'm attempting to do is to increase that feedback significantly.

[goddamnit names are a pain]

If a mod is rude in a PM, simply reporting that PM allows Super mods to view the PM.

I really don't understand why people would see speaking against Staff as taboo. I/we received a ton of positive and negative feedback from the Halloween event, yet I don't feel personally attacked. As evilfusion said, member's usually only have something to say when they feel cheated. That is not wrong, but the way they handle it usually is.

Over my time of modship I have received 4-7 PMs that would be considered actual feedback, 25-30 that would fall until crying, and 1-2 positive feedback.

All that being said, I have no problem if people want to send stuff to us anonymously.

Not that its happened yet, but I just felt like the people who ran other communities loom over the people who slip up or act out too fast, and aren't too kind about it. And then they "bash-but-not-bash" if you know what I mean. I don't think that will happen on YCM, but I still have a fear-esque thing (belief, but not fear? I don't know) for those who are in power. Maybe I'm just a person who wouldn't want to message an admin in general, but thanks for the whole reporting thing. 

[evilfusion]

I can at least understand the sentiment behind the idea. I personally wouldn't mind receiving feedback, positive or negative, from members. I wasn't sure if you had a secondary motive to the idea, such as drawing attention to members, or the rest of the staff, when a moderator is performing in a less-than-stellar manner. It may have been how you opened your first post.

 

Although, again, it may be simpler to just communicate one's thoughts or concerns, or compliments directly to the staff member, I don't see an issue outright preventing the idea from happening, it probably just depends on the choice of medium or participation.

[goddamnit names are a pain]

Instant Chat! It's how conversations happen!
No, I think this might be a good way to communicate. I feel I communicate better at times when I talk real time, and I understand the first and more accurate emotions people are feeling. You know?

[Flash Flyer - Sakura]

I agree with Kyng's idea of giving the mods some form of feedback. If they're doing a bad job, then they'll know what needs to be fixed. The Halloween event, as LZ mentioned, was a good example of it; people had some problems about how things turned out, but he/staff were open to it.

 

Noting the post above mine (TGM), it is good to see what other members think of the staff (or a particular mod) as a whole. Contrary to what some members may think, forum mods are human just like the rest of us are; even they have their character flaws and strengths. As LZ mentioned though, it's not wrong to comment about a staff member, though it generally ends up in the form of a complaint that ends up bashing the member in question (either because their thread gets moved or locked w/out proper warning or their friend got warned/banned; though this is usually the case of newer members based on what I've seen). 

 

Though in my honest opinion, most of the staff members (either current/former) I've known are open to comments and easy to approach. There were a select few that weren't (though they no longer hold any power and/or have left), but I won't name them. As Fusion mentioned, the PM system still works fine for giving critique to the staff members.

 

Referencing Striker's post though, some people won't care about the mods too much and let them do as they will. But ignoring that part, this does sound like a nice idea. It encourages members to say their thoughts without worrying about being ridiculed since others might hold the same thoughts as them. The mod in question could just clarify why they do certain things, but the member making the comment should know the rules and understand what's going on in the sections they manage.

 

Considering that mods are chosen to keep things in check so YCM doesn't turn into a massive spamhole of people flaming each other to no end, they should be able to receive comments about how they're doing. As an analogy to the real world, mods are supposed to act as role models and set an example for the rest of us to follow. If no trust/communication exists between the members and staff, it's near impossible to keep order and eventually the site will fall apart.

[Tormented]

I feel the biggest problem is that sometimes people feel WRONG when trying to confront moderators if they have done something which they don't feel was rightfully due, and the biggest problem is a lot of people seemingly foreshadow speaking out of place is rude and as much they aren't "speaking out of place" it certainly feels like it some cases, the other biggest problem is some mods won't take the feedback on board, meaning that it is completely pointless. 

 

I'm not going to say certain mods shouldn't be mods but I am going to say that some people should have changed their attitudes a bit when being promoted to moderator, I find it tremendously rude when a mod does something and gives no explanation for it. I would also like to state that I feel mods are not active enough in taking down general clutter. Even if it isn't your primary job we should have a moderator set to take down spam threads and botted posts, I literally see some bot posts up for nearly a whole 24hours which is ridiculous considering younger viewers may click it without any form of realisation. 

 

One last opinion is that I feel mods shouldn't be removing posts and issuing warnings simply because they can and they do not like a thread, I have seen this occur (no names) and it is wrong. That is all.

[Admiral Tim]

pm'ing mods is a hard thing to do.  Especially if they have the wrong attitude.  Most likely you can feel overwhelmed and hurt their sense of pride.  I think this is a greta idea personally and that people are just hating on this idea for no reason at all. 

[Catterjune]

The problem with advising mods is that they just plain never think they're wrong, myself included when I was a mod.

EXAMPLE!

A while back there were these two... unnamed mods. And I keep them unnamed for the sake of this story because they changed their name all the time and I don't know what they're called now.

So that was my main beef with them. They changed their names, their avatars, their sigs like... constantly, usually sticking with a username/avatar for about a month and then doing something else.

So I brought it up. That;s confusing for a random drunkard like me, so I assume for any new user it could be even worse.

"The mod of this particular section is [Xyz]."
"But I don't see [Xyz]! I only see [Abc]!"

Like... just keep a name for a while. It's not a ridiculous request.

And oh man... the responses I received...

Eventually we settled that these two particular mods would have to keep their names for at least 90 days. Just like a normal fucking member.

So then of course, the 90 days are done and they're back to their name changing ways.

So I brought it up again, mentioned we discussed this all before, and how we all even came to an agreement that they shouldn't be changing their names so often. And they STILL had the gaul to insist they were in the right even though much of the mods agreed. And some of the mods even changed their mind. It was such an utter embarassment for such a clear cut issue I don't know why that topic spiraled the way it did and lasted as long as it did.

... But yeah!

tl;dr - Mods don't even listen to other mods, so chances are even more unlikely they'll listen to the members.

HOWEVER!

I don't think having a private, off-to-the-side conversation would be the best way to send feedback to the mods. It'd probably just end up as lip service at best. "Yeah, okay." without any real change to the way the site is set up. I think the best way to get things done would be to call them out in public and show public support. It's not just one guy or one girl who feels this way, but 10 or 20 members of the section. Of course... it has to be done respectfully.

[Night]

I recall an instance with a particular moderator who's name shall remain anonymous for protection's sake, who for a while had a poor attitude in their work ethic, coming across as quite insulting - it resulted in a Status Flaming, and then a later discussion with one of the moderator's colleagues to actually resolve the issue and see change.

 

A while back there were these two... unnamed mods. And I keep them unnamed for the sake of this story because they changed their name all the time and I don't know what they're called now.

 

 

 

I wonder who you're talking about m8.

[evilfusion]

I feel the biggest problem is that sometimes people feel WRONG when trying to confront moderators if they have done something which they don't feel was rightfully due, and the biggest problem is a lot of people seemingly foreshadow speaking out of place is rude and as much they aren't "speaking out of place" it certainly feels like it some cases, the other biggest problem is some mods won't take the feedback on board, meaning that it is completely pointless. 

 

I'm not going to say certain mods shouldn't be mods but I am going to say that some people should have changed their attitudes a bit when being promoted to moderator, I find it tremendously rude when a mod does something and gives no explanation for it. I would also like to state that I feel mods are not active enough in taking down general clutter. Even if it isn't your primary job we should have a moderator set to take down spam threads and botted posts, I literally see some bot posts up for nearly a whole 24hours which is ridiculous considering younger viewers may click it without any form of realisation. 

 

One last opinion is that I feel mods shouldn't be removing posts and issuing warnings simply because they can and they do not like a thread, I have seen this occur (no names) and it is wrong. That is all.

 

You are correct. If you're going to confront a mod, PMing them is probably an intimidating notion, and most mods don't really appreciate being told they're *expletive* or similar sentiments because they did their job.

 

But if you PM them asking for clarification or whatever in a respectful manner, there's a better chance they'll explain something more clearly. Although admittedly, it does sometimes feel like being put on the spot, depending on the varying situation.

 

In most cases where a member is promoted, they usually already have good attitudes and behaviors that make them shine. This probably isn't always the case, though. Then there's also the fact that all forms of power can screw with people's mentalities either from the beginning, or just over time. Moderator positions can sometimes be very unfulfilling and unappreciated, which is one reason why I like the idea of giving feedback.

 

As for mods removing posts or threads for (seemingly) no reason, this can often be a matter of discretion. The real trick is keeping it consistent. If I shut down one thread for being a spamfest, I shouldn't turn a blind eye to someone else's blatant spamfest thread. I have been called out once or twice for doing that, and by trying to explain my reasoning for why Thread 2 was less of a spamfest, I ultimately conceded the point. That's the type of beneficial feedback that leads to improvement in mod behavior, but not all examples will be like that.

[Legend Zero]

The problem with advising mods is that they just plain never think they're wrong, myself included when I was a mod.

For me, it comes down to convenience and quantity. If it is something small, then I'd make the effort to change my "style", if that is what you'd call it.

Example: I would usually lock threads with a witty/snarky/childish remark about the spamming or whatever. I would do this purposefully, trying to correct behavior in a friendly way. However, after a while it apparently upset a few who took them super seriously or I was an idiot (your choice). Quick fix, I stopped doing it as often and now only do it to those who should know better.

If it was something bigger, like, uh.....can't really think of anything off the top of my head. But I'd probably wonder if it was needed, especially if only a single person desires it. I suppose this hush-hush method of contacting us would help that, too. I guess.

That is to say, it isn't difficult for someone to look down on others, especially if they were 'chosen' for their abilities.



This is like the only thing I remember from the name changing argument.