THE Annual Rate Your Moderators -- MODERATOR POLL

[dark knight]

Please rate us, your forum mods -- dark knight, Jacen McCullough, babytiger2001, RobtheAggie, Rocket, fidlerre, Chicago1871 -- and how we moderated this forum, USA Men News & Analysis, in 2005. (A few of these mods have only been on duty a short time.)

These polls have been created at the request of the BigSoccer Admins in an effort to improve our community and clarify our community guidelines for the coming year. Please be honest, civil, and fair in your responses. After one week, we will attempt to respond and address your praise and criticism. A little background about us...I have been a mod of this forum since before World Cup 2002, and have been a member of BigSoccer since August 1999. I also moderate Yanks Abroad.

The other mods should feel free to chime in about their own details but we will not comment on feedback for a week or two.

Thanks everyone for your input!

[AndyMead]

Polls in N&A suck eggs.

Seriously.

And frankly the majority of speculative stuff isn't really analysis. It's black/white cheerleading and denigrating.

This used to be a great place for debate, now it's a cesspool.

That said, I don't know how much of it is the fault of the moderators. The posters have to be willing to carry the freight, too.

[appoo]

Polls in N&A suck eggs.

Seriously.


they probably don't llike you much either.

seriously

[AndyMead]

they probably don't llike you much either.

seriously

Personal attacks, how nice.

[appoo]

Personal attacks, how nice.


really? how?

[chad]

Landon Donovan's whimp.

And he sucks at soccer.

If you disagree with Arena you're a retard.

If you agree with him you're a loyal retard.

Do we need mods or can we just sticky my post?

[bungadiri]

Polls in N&A suck eggs.

Seriously.

And frankly the majority of speculative stuff isn't really analysis. It's black/white cheerleading and denigrating.

This used to be a great place for debate, now it's a cesspool.

That said, I don't know how much of it is the fault of the moderators. The posters have to be willing to carry the freight, too.
The stuff you're complaining about seems to have very little to do with the moderators. Are they supposed to enforce a minimum IQ? Have users take an entrance exam before they can post? It's a bit much to ask them to monitor threads for quality, especially given last I heard they don't get paid.

[AndyMead]

The stuff you're complaining about seems to have very little to do with the moderators. Are they supposed to enforce a minimum IQ? Have users take an entrance exam before they can post? It's a bit much to ask them to monitor threads for quality, especially given last I heard they don't get paid.

Actually, it does have everything to do with the moderators. Whether they get paid doesn't factor into it. If you sign up, you sign up for the resonsibility.

And I'm not calling for any sort of membership test. Just calling for heavy moderation. Move threads to USMNT General that don't belong here. Be willing to seperate out threads when posts go off-track into name calling, preserving the discussion and either binning the crap or moving it elsewhere. I'm saying that threads titles should in N&A forums should be concise and explanatory.

None of that requires a "test" for posters to pass in order to post. It does take moderators willing to get their hands dirty and be willing to annoy posters who continually polute the thread, lowering the signal to noise ratio.

I've been on the front lines of this forum in the past, and I know that it's not easy, nor a great place to make friends as a moderator. Good cop/bad cop is a great strategy, but someone has to be the "bad cop."

And frankly, this forum is barely distinguishable from the USMNT General forum. The "heavy moderation" needed to maintain a "big kids table" discussion has disappeared. It takes a lot of work and heavy lifting.

[The Greatest]

I voted F, not because I think you are doing that poor of a job, but to draw attention to this forum's moderation. I think the mods themselves do a good job, but I think the guidelines of this forum should change and the mods should enforce those new guidelines.

My main gripe is that every thread on this forum turns into two or three posters arguing the case for their favorite player. If they want to waste five pages arguing whether Santino Quaranta is better than Chris Rolfe, they can do it in the USA Men regular forum.

Particularly annoying is when you visit a couple different threads and see the same couple people having the same argument, but in multiple threads.

I think the N&A forum should be for news and analysis and the mods should move all the other crap to the USA Men forum.

[bungadiri]

Actually, it does have everything to do with the moderators. Whether they get paid doesn't factor into it. If you sign up, you sign up for the resonsibility.

And I'm not calling for any sort of membership test. Just calling for heavy moderation. Move threads to USMNT General that don't belong here. Be willing to seperate out threads when posts go off-track into name calling, preserving the discussion and either binning the crap or moving it elsewhere. I'm saying that threads titles should in N&A forums should be concise and explanatory.

None of that requires a "test" for posters to pass in order to post. It does take moderators willing to get their hands dirty and be willing to annoy posters who continually polute the thread, lowering the signal to noise ratio.

I've been on the front lines of this forum in the past, and I know that it's not easy, nor a great place to make friends as a moderator. Good cop/bad cop is a great strategy, but someone has to be the "bad cop."

And frankly, this forum is barely distinguishable from the USMNT General forum. The "heavy moderation" needed to maintain a "big kids table" discussion has disappeared. It takes a lot of work and heavy lifting.
I understand the frustration with regard to the repetitive arguments and overall reduced quality of discussion. However, I'd argue the following.

First, I don't see any hesitation on the part of the mods to go after offensive posts or posts that otherwise violate the forums behavioral standards, and the first line response does in fact seem to be eliminating the posts while preserving the thread/discussion. Granted, I could be wrong about that--I lurk here a lot but I don't use the forum as much as some. That brings us to policing posts that don't reach the quality threshold.

As far as that goes, in general I wonder whether maintaining the exclusivity of this forum--exlusivity, at least, in terms of topics for discussion, which is what you're arguing for--is as easy a task now as it was several years ago. BS has been growing very rapidly for a while now, and that inevitably means a steady influx of users who are naive about the topics that have been done to death and naive about guidelines, especially the inexplicit ones. For example the distinction between this forum and the general US forum was occult to me when I first started--one learns by trial and error (hopefully somebody else's) more than anything else. Even if the naive newbies are just a subset of the new users, that still pretty much guarantees a constantly supply of threads about Freddy-or-is-it-Freddie Adu, my little pony threads about some newbie's favorite player, threads on any of a myriad of topics that older users feel have been done to death... (In fact come to think of it it's not just the steady influx of naivete that contributes to the increased rancor, it's also the concommitant accumulation of hoary old posters with their mounting payload of impatience, waiting to be detonated near a deserving target. ;) )

So what's a mod to do? There's a cost attached to coming down too hard on the naive violators of the forum codes of behavior, inasmuch as this might rob the place of a source of its vitality (newbies do learn the ropes eventually). There's a cost attached to using too light a hand, because this generates frustration among the ones more interested in what they consider serious discussion, which might lead them to stop posting. Mods have got to walk a pretty tight line and, as you yourself suggest, there will always be somebody upset no matter what, even if they do their job very well. And the larger the forum is, the larger this disgruntled subpopulation will be.

I think if there's a real consensus that posts should be moderated for quality as well as adherence to the TOS, the next step is coming up with guidelines as to what exactly constitutes said quality. And then Huss needs to find out if Sisyphus is available to do that job.

[BigKris]

If the mods are willing to take on the task -- and that's an important caveat -- I would also be in favor of editing for content in this forum. To my mind, such editing can be done without rancor and doesn't mean chastising people personally: Mods wouldn't delete posts or threads, just move them to the parent US men's forum. Not only would it be good for the N&A forum to clear some of the underbrush, but I think it would breathe some much-needed life back into the parent forum, which is pretty much left for dead right now.

Why not try it as an experiment? what have we got to lose? If it doesn't work, give it up.

[AndyMead]

To my mind, such editing can be done without rancor

If that were true, it'd already be happening. Every "heavily moderated" forum usually ends up with a few posters who feel persecuted, and end up posting "why me" threads in the suggestion forums, PM the mods and super mods ad naseum, and so forth.

I know this from experience. I was the "bad cop" (one of two, Mike Lastort was the other) when this forum was first calved off of USA Men (nancyb was the "good cop"). It was a lot of hard work. There was very little in the way of public thanks - though a lot of PMs from lurkers and posters. But the constant personal attacks about the heavy moderation wear one down.

Nobody in their sane mind would willingly take on the job of sherriff of this place. Which is why, while I wish the signal to noise ratio were higher, I really can't suggest that someone else volunteer to put themselves through the hell necessary to make it happen.

[bltleo]

I voted A.



bltleo
GERMANY

[numerista]

Two questions ...

1. Instead of trying to clean up the whole forum, could there just be a few threads that are moderated closely? In certain situations, like pre-game news threads and training camp threads, it'd really be nice to limit the discussion. (If a particular story is worth hashing over, this could be moved to a separate thread.)

2. Would it be helpful to agglomerate certain beaten-down discussions into one place? (e.g. the ABMOD Memorial Favoritism Thread)

[ursula]

If that were true, it'd already be happening. Every "heavily moderated" forum usually ends up with a few posters who feel persecuted, and end up posting "why me" threads in the suggestion forums, PM the mods and super mods ad naseum, and so forth.

I know this from experience. I was the "bad cop" (one of two, Mike Lastort was the other) when this forum was first calved off of USA Men (nancyb was the "good cop"). It was a lot of hard work. There was very little in the way of public thanks - though a lot of PMs from lurkers and posters. But the constant personal attacks about the heavy moderation wear one down.

Nobody in their sane mind would willingly take on the job of sherriff of this place. Which is why, while I wish the signal to noise ratio were higher, I really can't suggest that someone else volunteer to put themselves through the hell necessary to make it happen.

No, that's not true Andy. You are presenting this as a black-and-white issue while in reality some boards moderate "heavier" than this one and don't burn out their mods. True, it would take a lot of effort to change the tenor of the posting here but if there were a consensus of the mods here, and there were enough mods, then it could be done. That you practically by yourself tried and failed doesn't mean that it can't be done.

EDIT- numerista's suggestions above mine could be a first step.

[dark knight]

Man - it's harder than I thought not being able to make comments until a week's time.

I think I can say that AndyMead is one of my favorite posters even if he is one of the "F" voters. Unfortunately I have to bite my tongue on my opinion about his opinion for now...

Please keep the comments coming!

[AndyMead]

That you practically by yourself tried and failed doesn't mean that it can't be done.


I don't consider my tenure here as a failure. I think it succeeded.

And I agree - not all heavily moderated forums necessarily are as much hard work.

Since nobody has a "rooting interest", the B&M forum - the other one I used to mod - was mostly smooth sailing, except for the odd Oliver Tse appearance.

[AndyMead]

I think I can say that AndyMead is one of my favorite posters even if he is one of the "F" voters. Unfortunately I have to bite my tongue on my opinion about his opinion for now...


I have NOT voted in this poll. I would lean towards a "B" or a "C" if I did. I think this is among the most problematic boards on BigSoccer. Whether I agree with the moderation or not, I can't see how an "F" could be given short of the "moderator as troll" problems. Which don't exist here.

For me moderator grades should be more a reflection of follow through on guidelines posted - not on whether I agree with those guidelines.

I know most posters fail to demonstrate the ability to seperate such issues.

[BigKris]

Random thought: Maybe the reason people get their nose out of joint is caused by the fact that "US Men's N&A", by it's title, fails to convey that it's a more heavily moderated version of "US Men". They enter the forum expecting an objective standard of what gets cut and what doesn't, which was really never the intent. What if we instead give people a choice between what's depicted as side-by-side discussions - call one board "US Men" and the other "US Men - heavily moderated". That way people understand right up front - you choose to post in that forum, you run the risk of jack-booted mods.

[lmorin]

I voted "C." Agree with much of AndyMead. There is some moderator action, but more often than not, it is too little to late. I will say that the level of name calling is usually kept in check by the mods in a reasonable way. The subject matter wanders too much.