Suggestion What about...

[The Chairman]

moderators?

clubs?

forums?

What do you have to say about the rest? the bannings thread is starting to slow down a tad.

 

[daylight]

Pete,
I have been repeatedly impressed with the Moderators. They appear to make an honest attempt to apply a light hand to various threads and do an excellent job of guiding the flow of some threads. Your team is doing a good job of selecting Mods.
Keep up the good work.
The hysteria displayed over the last few days by part of our virtual community is to be expected. You have done an admirable job with the venting.
Larry

 

[The Chairman]

To help you out in understanding SB and how mods come to be, let me try to outline how we attempt this now. Hopefully my mods will chime in if I leave something out.

A user is seen as either ultra helpful within the forums or as an obvious leader by a moderator. That mod can then decide to nominate that user to become a mod.

Then for several days, we discuss them at length, going over previous posts and any personal experiences. Diversity of culture and geography are big plusses. At some point the sponsoring mod calls a vote and those who are so inclined vote yay or nay. Sometimes the discussion is so lopsided one way or the other that we don't need to vote. If they are selected, the mod who has "sponsored" them gets the duties to make the announcements and inform our newest sucker, er moderator. BTW, we do remove the debate from the Mod area so our newest mods never know who, if any opposed their inclusion. We do learn from our mistooks.

I somehow always seem to nominate "lightening rods" like WreckWriter and others who get me in more trouble than not. But I don't feel that I have to surround myself with only "friends". Some probably thought I was just jerking their chain when I first asked them... like ROakey.

However, one of the quickest ways to avoid becoming a moderator is to ask to be one. We would rather have those who are not seeking "power" and would probably not have an agenda. That does not mean that we won't entertain suggestions (PM please) from others who are helped by them. Currently, we are seeking more mods worldwide. The only requirement is a really thick skin and the ability to type "I didn't do it, I swear!"

 

[diverlady]

It might also be important to have people who have interests in different subjects or diving specialties or locales, kind of like subject-matter experts, so that they can more effectively moderate certain discussions.

Hmmm.... I have to say I disagree with this one point. Not the part about having specialists but having them moderate in the area of their expertise would be bias. For example, a Mod who is, say, an LDS owner given the task of moderating a discussion about whether to use an LDS or LP would probably be bias towards the LDS side (naturally). It's possible for the Mod to abuse his/her position when involved in a topic that's near and dear to the heart. If a Mod's job in the real world is diving-related, IMO they should not be a monitor of a related forum. They can instead be a valuable resource for a different Mod who is responsible for monitoring that forum and also be free to post within that forum. (ie an LDS owner-Mod could post but not monitor the ads section)

And in response to the other thread (that I stopped reading at about pg 6 yesterday), I think bannings should be a last resort thing. IMHO suspensions are more the way to go with perhaps different lengths of suspensions for repeat offenders depending on the violation. If, of course, someone just doesn't get the point a banning would be the ultimate outcome but if someone loses their cool in a thread one week and then 2 weeks later errs in an ad posting, I don't think banning the person would be appropriate. If the first event lead to a short suspension and then the person committed the same violation a few weeks later, a longer suspension would be warranted.

Another thought on the bannings/suspensions. Perhaps a Mod could allow the person access to their profile settings so should they be unavailable to other members due to screwing up, they could at least change their settings so they could: update their e-mail address and activate the "receive e-mails from members" stuff so Board members in good standing would still be able to reach their friends. I think some of the upset involved with the recent bannings were due to the fact that Members felt punished by not being able to reach their friends.

And none of this "guilty by association". If both parts of a couple are on the Board and one screws up, the other shouldn't be punished for it. Or anyone else be punished (for being friends with the violator) unless they themselves earn it.

That's it.

Diverlady

 

[Big-t-2538]

moderators?

Pete, there's nothing you can do that will satisfy 100% of all the members here. I was once told if you've got 5% of the people around you pissed off about something, you're probably doing it right. It just won't happen.

As it stands now, I think that the mods should be people who are respected, have the knowledge and knowhow to maintain an appropriate level activity on the board, be people who freely express their opinions, and the time to put forth such an effort.

I think the squad you have now is doing a good job 99.9% of the time IMO.

clubs?

I like the regional NDI clubs the way they are....is this what you're getting at? Or are you talking about something else.

forums?

I really like the new sub category thing, this is certainly an improvement givn the growing number of forums you had on the original SB.

 

[The Chairman]

Actually DL,

We already see perm bans as a very last resort. We have far, far fewer than most boards this size or smaller.

However, we do have some notable expert mods... just look at our Medical Moderators. We do let them have FULL reign over their respective areas. That only makes sense.

 

[WreckWriter]

I somehow always seem to nominate "lightening rods" like WreckWriter and others who get me in more trouble than not.

Believe it or not Pete, I made a great effort to do a good job as a moderator. I certainly never had any intention that it would all turn out the way it did.

WW

 

[diverlady]

Actually DL,
However, we do have some notable expert mods... just look at our Medical Moderators. We do let them have FULL reign over their respective areas. That only makes sense.

Yes, well medical issues are usually posted as a question and rarely develop into a battle between a doctor and a non-medically trained individual. However, there are other "areas of expertise" that can be one-sided.

Diverlady

 

[sapphire]

Hmmm.... I have to say I disagree with this one point. Not the part about having specialists but having them moderate in the area of their expertise would be bias. For example, a Mod who is, say, an LDS owner given the task of moderating a discussion about whether to use an LDS or LP would probably be bias towards the LDS side (naturally). It's possible for the Mod to abuse his/her position when involved in a topic that's near and dear to the heart. If a Mod's job in the real world is diving-related, IMO they should not be a monitor of a related forum. They can instead be a valuable resource for a different Mod who is responsible for monitoring that forum and also be free to post within that forum. (ie an LDS owner-Mod could post but not monitor the ads section)

Divelady,

I did not mean to suggest that people with biases should moderate their own "areas". I don't think of an LDS owner or a dive travel sales person as a "specialty". I was thinking more of training and education specializations, for example wreck or cave diving areas, dive medicine, marine life, or photography to name a few. Those areas might benefit from having someone moderate who actually understood the conversations taking place.

peace,

 

[The Chairman]

Believe it or not Tom, I believe you and I still respect what you have done. Even though I was the one who sent you the PM on banning, I was not the one who made that decision, and I don't think I was even the one who asked for it. BUT, since I was the one who had reccomended you as moderator, I got the short straw. BTW, I only mentioned you, because you mentioned yourself earlier. I didn't refer to the others simply because I think it is wrong for me to initiate that kind of thing.

 

[diverlady]

Divelady,

I did not mean to suggest that people with biases should moderate their own "areas". I don't think of an LDS owner or a dive travel sales person as a "specialty". I was thinking more of training and education specializations, for example wreck or cave diving areas, dive medicine, marine life, or photography to name a few. Those areas might benefit from having someone moderate who actually understood the conversations taking place.

peace,

Hi Sapphire,

There are definitely areas that would benefit from some expertise. However, there are areas that could be a problem where the Mod might actually be in direct competition with a member's posting.
That was the point I was trying (and apparently not very clearly) to make.

Diverlady