RFC: An enumeration of moderator powers

[NotBruceZ]

With new moderators on board, I think it is worthwhile to go over some of the moderation tools available. This post is meant to be the start of something that can either be codified with a community vote or treated as guidelines. I have perused Discourse’s forums. There is no single post that lists what moderators can do and I have compiled this from several threads over there.

Forum organization tools:

• Edit topic title
• Move topic to a new category
• Merge posts to a new or existing topic
• Merge topics
• Pin/unpin a topic

These are the mostly non-controversial uses of moderator power to organize the forum and enhance the reading experience. These actions result in a message in-thread, so probably don’t need to be logged.

• Close a topic, preventing new replies
• Archive a topic, closing a topic and disabling the ability for users to delete their posts, like posts, and vote in polls (all of which can be done in a closed topic)

I believe these are recognized as reasonable powers for a moderator to have, but there should be an established procedure for the will of the community to override a moderator decision. People don’t have to read every post and thread on this forum, so I would argue that it should not require a majority of posters to re-open a thread, just a sufficient number that it makes more sense to continue the discussion openly rather than taking it to PMs, unless it has devolved into a pointless fight going over the same ground.

There is also a way to close a thread temporarily and put a timer on it. For example, if a TV show had its own topic and the moderator wanted to lock it until the next episode has aired because the spoiler discussion is annoying.

*Throttling a topic

The ability to put a thread into slow mode is already the subject of an existing RFC, so I will not go into detail here.

*Turn a topic/post into a PM

I’m not sure when this should be used, but it is an option for moderators to use. Mods can’t turn PMs into topics, as far as I know.

Administrative tools

• Add a staff notice to a post

A staff notice looks like this:

• Add staff color to a post

You can add staff color to an post to make it an official staff post, helping differentiate when you are posting with your admin hat on rather than posting as a regular user. I encourage mods (and admins) to use this feature.

• Search for a user by username, email, or full name (if you gave one)

People should be aware of this power in case they want to keep their email addresses hidden from mods. I signed up for this forum with a throw-away email address.

• Review the IP address at registration and the last-used IP address
• IP look-up and see all other users using the same IP address

These have obvious uses in rooting out trolls and alt identities. Should moderators be required to log when they look up someone’s IP address?

• View and modify user preferences

This seems dangerous, but there appear to be reasonable applications of this power for clueless users who have screwed things up and can’t fix it.

*Review notifications received by a user
*View a user profile, including a count of official warnings, suspensions, flags received, and helpful flags given (flags where the moderator agreed or ignored but did not disagree)

This allows moderators to look up information that might be helpful in dealing with problems.

Responding to flags

*Agree with a flag, which leads to being given a menu of options to respond

Flags are a way for users to notify mods that a post needs attention. People should use flags more to communicate with mods rather than whining in threads. It should also be noted that moderators can access a PM that has been flagged. I have seen complaints about being harassed in PMs. People should use flags to get a moderator decision if they are receiving problematic messages.

• Disagree with a flag, which removes the flag and unhides any posts hidden by flags (which can happen automatically depending on who flags it and how many)

• Ignore a flag, which removes a post from the moderation queue but does not remove the flag

Disciplinary tools

• Send an official warning*

This is a PM with bells and whistles like staff color. I believe it is given some sort of priority in notifications.

• Silence a user

The user cannot post, flag, or PM (except to moderators), but can still read, like posts, or reply to PM. I recommend using this when temp-banning a poster so that the only reason they have for making a gimmick account is because they want to post.

*Suspend a user

The user is completely prevented from logging in. They can only read the forum if they are not logged into this account

*Locking or manually adjusting a user’s trust level

One application of this could be to lock obvious gimmick accounts at TL1 and limiting community votes to TL2 or higher.

What should we do?

• Define the allowed uses of moderator powers as much as possible in an attempt to limit abuses
• Default to trusting individual moderator judgment except for issues that lead to initiation of the RFC process
• Develop non-binding guidelines for moderators to follow, but allow them to go against them if they deem it to be in the best interests of the forum

[anon29622970]

Copying this post from another thread, but this is my suggestion:

I would suggest that we setup a basic set of posting guidelines, whether through RFC or otherwise, and then leave the rest of the gray area up to moderator determination.

I posted this in another thread, but something like this:

1. Be Kind
2. Feel free to disagree strongly, but try to do it in as respectful of a manner as possible.
3. No name calling, we’re all intelligent and mature enough to move beyond this.
4. Understand that if you get out of line you might be temp banned. Understand also that it isn’t the end of the world. If you have concern about it, PM the mod who banned you and have a real conversation with them about why they felt you were out of line. Understand it’s ok to agree to disagree at the end of the day.
5. Most important, understand there is an actual person behind the words on the screen.

For another point of reference, these are the only rules we ever had in SE on 22:

We have an incremental banning system. Small, brief temp bans that allow people to get back into action quickly. The crux of the whole system is basically “be civil and fair to each other.” Golden Rule stuff if you will.

If you violate, it’s gonna be Calendar time. Calendar time for Buddy

Here’s the two big ones, that comprise 95% of problems, which thankfully have been few and far between lately:

1. Don’t publicly ask for people to be banned.
2. Do not call people names. “You are a dick” “You are a ******” “You are a moron, donkey, *******, asshat” etc are not going to work. You can say someone’s post is illogical, not thought out, ignorant, etc. But no direct attacks. Bastardizing peoples names counts. Douchesmeidreu is the textbook example.
3. Do not post links to Tim Duncan hitting a three pointer to send a playoff game to overtime against the Suns.

The Tim Duncan thing was a joke because one of our mods when this was written was a Suns homer.

[anon29622970]

As someone who was one of the most prolific posters in SE, did you feel like that system worked pretty well overall?

Try to think of the system in a vacuum, because we’re attempting to change up how we think of mods on here via a separate RFC.

[anon29622970]

The jetto banning is one I definitely disagreed with too. Unfortunately it happened while I was either on a prolonged break from modding or after I had resigned.

[MrWookie]

What is absolutely fundamental to why SE’s modding worked is not just that the rules were good, or that the mods were good. What was fundamental and necessary was the nearly universal recognition that the mods were legitimate, and that they were the final authority.

Here, there is no final authority, not even community votes are universally respected as such, and thus, there is no obligation to regard any rule, any mod, or any particular mod’s decision as legitimate.

I thought a structured process in which community input was solicited and added to the final outcome, and with public votes and such, that they would be regarded as legitimate. Clearly that’s not the case.

[whosnext]

Yes, people seem to not fully appreciate that “community ownership” is not the same as “community moderation” and are frequently in direct opposition. And, sadly, there does not appear to be a path forward to resolve this conflict at this point in the forum’s arc.