Who wants to be a moderator here?

That's really not contributing to the topic at hand, that's rule enforcement in a tactful manner. If he steers the conversation to "keep the peace" he really hasn't contributed to subject matter. He merely was the proverbial calming voice. That's what I was trying to say.

Agreed.

 

I am familiar with this technical myth but that's irrelevant at the moment.

However, as a moderator do you think it's your job to correct other people's flaws and mistakes?

What do you think the consequent outcome of doing this will be?

I'm going to make an outlandish prediction here and suggest such an approach will not be received by others very well.

 

That's fine, but it is still not the job of the moderator.

Any insult, derogatory comment, negative characterization, etc., of a poster is a personal attack and is not allowed. Watching for that, and the use of language not acceptable on this site, are all that a moderator should watch for and act upon.

 

I thought talking about how QRZ is moderated was against the rules.

 

The spirit of this rule is intended to prevent arguments between the users and the moderators from occurring in the open forums. In the past, users would start arguments and "challenge" the moderators about the rules. That's why this rule exists.

However, we are not doing that here. We are not arguing with any moderators at the moment. The topic we are discussing is about what character qualifications constitutes a suitable moderator for the message forum. This of course involves discussion how a potential candidate would moderate in the forum too.

I don't feel Fred has broken any forum rules when he started this thread.

 

I also don't believe in a points system or warnings. If you go after a poster instead of the message, then it's a vacation. A point system or warning is just a license to get away with it some number of times. If you know you're not supposed to go after an op, then don't. If you lose control of yourself, that's your problem, not this site's.

 

Okay Why not..

Good communications skills are important in any activity that involves interacting with other people. You shouldn't have to be an English Major, however a reasonable command of the written language is necessary.

I would say that I am as good as anybody when it comes to remaining neutral on topics that are important to me. If you measure neutrality as a function of how your own feelings effect the decision making process as a moderator, I would say I am good at remaining neutral.

Diplomacy was a necessary part of my career working in commercial two-way radio, the general public was a large, and important fraction of our costumer base. That experience became essential when I became a moderator of the online gaming forum I belonged to. Diplomacy is necessary to maintaining harmony on any forum.

A moderator is not required to publicly defend his, or her decision. The moderator's primary duty is to maintain harmony, and follow the policies the site owners have laid out. The moderator answers only to the site management, and publicly defending his, or her decision does not do anything to bolster the moderators credibility, and in some cases damages said credibility.

As the secretary for the Amateur Radio Club of El Cajon I can assure you that I am more than willing to take on activities that offer no compensation. My goal is to work toward the greater good of the organization I choose to be a part of. Working to maintain an organization that I believe in is compensation enough.

I'm not really convinced this is a part of a moderator's job. Maintaining order and promoting harmony are the primary functions of a moderator. It is up to the individuals in a discussion to defend their own positions.

This is perhaps the easiest question put forward so far. In a forum where political discussion is allowed the following shouldn't be allowed; any and all threats directed toward participants, extreme vulgarity, obscenity, direct threats toward political office holders, threats directed toward forum management, and discussions that can be construed as promoting hacking this site, or any other site.

Moderators can be involved in discussions, being neutral in a discussion shouldn't have any bearing on their ability to maintain order, and harmony.

A moderator's primary job is to enforce the policies management has laid down, and maintain harmony. Consistency is necessary both for maintaining the credibility of the entire site, and in promoting confidence in the moderation team. Predictability is the essential component when it comes to earning confidence from the forum members. Make no mistake that confidence must be earned, if it is not the forum will fail.

Fairness might seem easy to define, but it really is complicated. Watching a few people gang up on a person who posts unpopular ideas, or so-called conspiracy theories it becomes easy for some to take a side that is unfair to the person being attacked. In this situation the problem is not the "way out of the box idea", the problem is the attackers. Someone might show up some day and say that Kennedy was assassinated because time travelers came back in time and determined that in order to save their future he had to die. To be fair as a moderator, I cannot say that is the stupidest idea I ever heard, even though that might be my opinion. The idea has to stand on it's own merits. Anybody who chooses to attack that person, instead of the idea should be reminded that goal is to attack the idea not the person. In the Marketplace of Ideas every idea has an equal chance of being heard, even the seemly outlandish.

Just over six months moderating an online gaming forum where the participants were a very diverse cross section of the Internet population. I would also add I have been here for eight years, as of this month. I also believe that my being female, and having lived a challenged life gives me a refined sense of fairness, add to that my experience working with the general public, and I believe I can do the job.

I have a libertarian view toward rules; people should be treated as adults, and they should held responsible for their actions. What do you really need here besides a few common sense rules? No personal attacks, do not promote the assassination of political office holders, that will get you a visit from the Secret Service in many cases. Don't attack the site, promote hacking this site, or any other site. Don't publicly question the actions of moderators, if you have an issue use private channels. Above all Don't engage in activities that tear down the credibility of the site or disrupt harmony. It isn't more obvious than that, and it really doesn't get any simpler than that.
The whole idea that every post must be factual, and meet the standards of someone's "scientific" way of seeing the world is a sure way to inhibit success. We are not robots (well some of us anyway) and like it or not we see the world through our emotions, that is inescapable, because we are Human Beings.

Okay I am done............
NOTE:
Rather I get the position, or not is of little importance to me; I'm willing to do it if asked.
I hope my reply has provoked some thought that may lead to a better functioning forum.
I want to see this succeed, not turn into a train wreck.

 

We were invited to in this thread. It stands to reason any discussion of moderation practices and mods outside of this thread is still prohibited.
We are at Fight Club, We can talk about Fight Club.

 

Very true. So if a moderator tells them their facts are incorrect they won't get angry as opposed to someone else telling them?

 

It's not the job of the Moderator of a political forum to do that.

Anyone who thinks that it is, would be a horrible moderator of a political forum.

 

Depends on the person.

The point is that there are hams who consider being proved wrong about something to be a personal attack and insult. Even something where the proof is clear and objective.

Should such people not have their mistakes corrected? Should bad behavior be rewarded?

 

Sure. We all have that privilege. You don't have to be a moderator nor does being a moderator carry any additional weight in such a case.

 

Not the job of the moderator to correct, but it is the job to act on bad behavior. If someone reacts badly (personally) to be proven incorrect about some posting, then it is the moderator's job to nip that bad behavior. Has nothing to do with the topic, accuracy, or anything else but that behavior.

 

Sue won't see this because she is ignoring me, but I wonder if a) Sue realizes that she would have to turn off all ignores? b) She is ignoring for a reason. This is not an attack or insult, just wondering if she has considered this, particularly when it comes to "being fair", whatever that means.

 

I will admit that my ignore list is one of the reasons I am not submitting an application.