Warning:

This message is cross posted across all CureZone Forums !
All replies to this message are visible across all CureZone Forums !



Here are some of my thoughts on who should be a moderator.

I have been running and moderating discussion forums for the last 10 years.
I myself did the worst moderator job on forums where I was acknowledged as an expert, and I myself did the the best moderator job on forums where I didn't know anything about the subject discussed, nor I cared much about that subject.

I have been observing numerous forum moderators on many discussion forums on onelist.com, egroups.com, yahoogroups.com, Curezone.com and many other forums.


Those who were not emotionally involved into the subject of discussion, they did the best moderator job. They were the only people who could stay impartial.


Those who were emotionally involved into the subject of discussion, who were recognized as experts, recognized as experienced, supportive ... they actually did the WORST job when it comes to avoiding serious, hot conflicts. Sure, they were great in protecting their belief system and their forum from "potential" trolls, but they did a bad job altogether ... they could just not stay impartial.

It is very easy to label people "a Troll" and to block them away from your own forum.

The question that remains is: "How often are you right in your judgment?"

---

---

Just look at the history of CureZone, and all the conflicts where CureZone moderators were involved one way or another.


In every single case where CureZone moderator behaved unethically ... in every single case ... it was either a moderator who was personally involved in the subject of discussion (the subject was part of his belief system ) .. or it was his best friend trying to help him get out of a rather difficult situation.


It was never a moderator who had nothing to loose, no emotional involvement.
People act unethically when they risk loosing something.

---

---

Inside many CureZone Forums we have people who are recognized as intellectual leaders of that particular forum.


They are people who lead a forum with their own research, their own experiments, their own theories, thoughts, energy ... and they are often people who are recognized as most important members of each forum. They are considered the most valuable asset of every forum.

They are also often suggested for moderators position.


The question is: Could they really make a good moderator?


My personal opinion is that anyone who is highly personally involved with any single forum can not be 100% impartial and can not be a perfect moderator.

Why?

Because:
- those people have often invested a huge amount of time into a certain belief system, have posted numerous messages and created a name recognized inside the forum.
Anytime a new-bee John Doe comes into the forum, and that JD represents a danger to the present belief system ... JD will be attacked by people who are there to protect the belief system.

If those people are in the same time moderators, there is a sure way for the abuse of moderator powers.




Every time you have a person who invested a huge amount of time and energy into any forum ... and then you give that person moderator privileges .... there is a potential for abuse of moderator powers.


Ego + formed belief system + recognized name = usually a bad combination for a moderator.



The story would be 100% opposite if we are talking about private forums (single owner).



Inside private forums ... the easiest would be to let each Forum Owner run his/her forum the way he/she prefers.
Everybody will just have to get used to the fact that those forums are private forums, that forum owners have ego, have 100% formed belief system ... and that that is the only accepted belief system inside that forum.
That is what we will try in the future.

MH will moderate his own forum, Moreless will moderate his own forum, Dennis will moderate his own forum, Humaworm ...

---

---

BUT, when we are talking about public forums where nobody particular is considered or recognized as "one and only Guru", "one and only God", there I would prefer to see some other people moderating.



Possibly a person who's belief system is not 100% formed, a person who doesn't know very much about the subject discussed, a person who doesn't pretend he knows a lot, ... a person who is quiet ... invisible ... a person who will not have anything to loose if someone, JD, enters his forum and questions the existing belief system because it is not working for him. (tho public forums usually don't have a single belief system.)



So, if you are recognized as a huge intellectual capacity, as a person who answers all and every question on a given forum, and everybody suggested you as the best possible choice for a moderator position .... PLEASE do not get disappointed If I chose not to give you moderator privileges.


It is not because I question your knowledge!
It is not because I question your intellect!
It is not because I question your experience!
It is not because I question your expertise!
It is not because I have something against you personally!


It is usually because I am afraid that your knowledge and your intellect and your experience may actually place you into a position that no moderator should be placed into: "direct conflict of interest".


There is a direct conflict of interest between you trying to protect your knowledge, your belief system, your experience, your words, your forum, your expertise ... and you trying to be an impartial moderator, you trying to take and judge every single person on that forum equally.


You can not be a Guru and an impartial judge. You can only be one of those 2 positions.

---

---

There are 2 main types of moderators.

Type 1: He recognizes when controversial subject has been brought into the forum and reacts quickly (hiding the message or moving the thread into a debate forum).

Type 2: He recognizes when controversial subject has been brought into the forum, but prefers to let people talk about it, and only if talk grows into a name calling and flame war ... then and only then he chooses to act (usually hiding messages or moving the thread into a debate forum).


I personally prefer Type 2, I would appreciate if every moderator tries to show maximal respect for every second any forum member spent writing any message.

People quickly become angry when someone removes their messages, someone censors their opinion.

---

---

We now have a special forum called: Personal Conflicts.

Any time a thread grows into a direct conflict between 2 or several people ... and you feel that language used is too bad even for debate forum (name calling, 4 letter words, verbal war) ... you should just move that thread into the "Personal Conflicts" forum, and let those involved solve the crises .... rather then hide parts of a thread ... and generate even more anger ...

Every person can enter his/her messages and can easily edit his/her words. Let those who wrote the words, realize what they have done ... and let them edit their own words.

---

---

We, moderators, should always try to avoid censorship, and instead... we could sometimes choose to edit a few messages that are problematic ... rather then hide messages and block people involved ...


Especially during a full moon.

People are able to do and say many things that they later regret, ... and we moderators must be able to understand when it happens.

---

---

But, there are also people who abuse their posting privileges, who waste our energy, who play games, or are simply mentally sick ... and sometimes, you just have to react with a strong hand and ban those people.

---

---

There are no simple guidelines on how to be a good moderator. Sooner or later ... you are going to make some people angry.




Webmaster