Is It Time For Moderators?

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi Guys - As the title says, is it time for moderators in the forum?

[89reksal]

I answered Yes but with reservations. In my opinion, I think the model could be the "A Novel Way To Massively Improve..." thread.  In that thread the OP seems to be the moderator which is reasonable. In just under 2 years it has just under 900,000 views and still going strong. You have to ask yourself why that is. You could also notice the obvious lack of posts from the so-called "usual suspects" in that thread. Coincidence only? I think not.

[rickca]

3 minutes ago, lasker98 said:

I answered Yes but with reservations. In my opinion, I think the model could be the "A Novel Way To Massively Improve..." thread.  In that thread the OP seems to be the moderator which is reasonable. In just under 2 years it has just under 900,000 views and still going strong. You have to ask yourself why that is. You could also notice the obvious lack of posts from the so-called "usual suspects" in that thread. Coincidence only? I think not.

I completely agree.  Very well said.

[crenca]

I voted no, due to the context.  If you have a plan then what is it and does it make sense?  Lasker98 and such "usual suspects" don't like being asked the hard questions (such as "what is the basis for the "sound" of digital cables) and like a child, reacts emotionally.  If moderation is a proxy for "thou shalt not challenge my beliefs" then it will be a very bad thing...

[audiobomber]

I've seen two problems with moderators

1. Each moderator has a different tolerance level and standards

2. Some get drunk on power

 

@The Computer AudiophileI didn't vote, because I believe it should be up to you. If you feel the current system is too much of a burden, then you should definitely get some help. This is an unusual site because objectivists mix with subjectivists. Usually one group dominates and drives the other out. 

 

[davide256]

What you would view as the function of a moderator? What is being delegated?

 

A lot of threads would be more constructive if a moderator could block "holy war" users from further comment on a thread where their comment

agenda was obvious ridicule and obstruction.

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, crenca said:

I voted no, due to the context.  If you have a plan then what is it and does it make sense?  Lasker98 and such "usual suspects" don't like being asked the hard questions (such as "what is the basis for the "sound" of digital cables) and like a child, reacts emotionally.  If moderation is a proxy for "thou shalt not challenge my beliefs" then it will be a very bad thing...

I clicked the thanks button on your post because I value all input. However, I disagree with your views. 

 

This site isn't JAMA or a scientific testing ground. It's a place for everyone to come and increase their enjoyment of this wonderful hobby. For most people it isn't enjoyable to be challenged when they are just having fun. We don't need more challenges in their lives, especially from a place in which we come to have fun.

 

If people don't want to engage you in your style of conversation, you need to accept that. Just the same as when people don't want to engage in your idea of a good audio conversation. They need to accept that. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, davide256 said:

What you would view as the function of a moderator? What is being delegated?

 

A lot of threads would be more constructive if a moderator could block "holy war" users from further comment on a thread where their comment

agenda was obvious ridicule and obstruction.

 

For the most part I view moderation as keeping topics on topic. This means, if the OP wants a purely objective topic, a moderator would remove the purely subjective comments per the OP's wishes. 

 

We will never moderate opinions if left in the right place and without a personal attack. 

[Melvin]

Chris, I've always liked your even-handed style of moderation and would hope for the same if you decided to hire. That being said, I voted yes, I think it's time.

[matthias]

22 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Hi Guys - As the title says, is it time for moderators in the forum?

 

No, every OP is the moderator of his/her own thread.

 

Matt

[pkane2001]

I'd be against all-site moderators, as that leads to a very closed community with any different view points being squashed. You can see this result across most other audio fora.  Giving OP full moderation rights within their own thread seems like a sufficient solution to handle any issues.

[rickca]

I like the option of allowing the OP to be the thread moderator.  Many threads go bad because the OP is simply no longer engaged in it and isn't monitoring what's happening.  

 

I'm not sure what the right solution is in that case.  I don't like the idea of site wide moderation.

[esldude]

Before voting what will be the guidelines these moderators will follow?

 

I realize the pitfalls of slavishly following written guidelines, but with multiple mods you'll need something.

[crenca]

10 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

If people don't want to engage you in your style of conversation, you need to accept that. Just the same as when people don't want to engage in your idea of a good audio conversation. They need to accept that. 

 

Very true.  Like I said on the other thread, I will will make more use of the ignore button.  @audiobombersays that "Usually one group dominates and drives the other out...." but I don't see that.   Could be wrong, but the most recent digital cable thread (the context of your poll here) are as long and vibrant as ever.

 

The subjective/objective divide being what it is, OP moderation will make the separation more clear on a per thread basis.  I am actually ok with that, but I would not think you or many others would be.

[The Computer Audiophile]

10 minutes ago, esldude said:

Before voting what will be the guidelines these moderators will follow?

 

I realize the pitfalls of slavishly following written guidelines, but with multiple mods you'll need something.

It will be moderating how the site has always been moderated but with more people doing it the rules should be applied more evenly and frequently. For example, if I don't see something I can't moderate it. this usually ends up with me being late to the party and moderating based on what I believe is happening when the reality may be far different.

[tmtomh]

I voted Yes, although I defer to @The Computer Audiophile's ultimate decision.

 

The reason I voted Yes, FWIW, is that I think there's a persistent misunderstanding online - here, but not just here - of the difference between controlling certain views on the one hand, and controlling basic behavior on the other.

 

Everyone should have the right to challenge others' claims and assertions - but everyone should not necessarily have the right to do that in whichever thread, and whichever context, they want. Sometimes such challenges are appropriate and necessary. But other times they take a thread OT. And other times they are on-topic but people engage in them in ad hominem, nasty, and personal ways that derail the thread and make it into a personal fight between 2 or 3 people.

 

Ultimately, however, Chris is just going to have to decide what kind of forum he wants this to be, because there are plenty of folks here who view the nastiness, borderline trolling, ad hominem, snark, etc as an essential part of their free expression, and an important component of calling BS on views they think are invalid. So, sad to say, there will likely be a decent number of active members displeased whatever Chris decides here. Hopefully everyone can be cranky within the context of wanting to remain a member of this community.

[firedog]

I like the idea of letting the OP moderate the thread. 

[the_bat]

The problem I foresee with formally making OPs the moderators of their own threads is that some of the more prolific thread starters are probably not best suited to moderating them. 

[AudioDoctor]

IMO the only moderating that should be done is the personal attacks. Some people need to realize/remember we are here to discuss something that brings us joy and while we can disagree on the specifics of the how, the end result is the same for each of us as individuals in our own systems. We're not all listening to one system and trying to bend it to our will, we each have our own and differing opinions are just fine.

[Music Enthusiast]

30 minutes ago, firedog said:

I like the idea of letting the OP moderate the thread. 

Will all OP's have the discipline to fairly moderate the threads?

[89reksal]

21 minutes ago, the_bat said:

The problem I foresee with formally making OPs the moderators of their own threads is that some of the more prolific thread starters are probably not best suited to moderating them.

This is a valid point I believe but I also think in the end the "best" threads will continue on. The overly or under moderated threads should slowly just fade away due to lack of interest or participation.

Using the example of the "...Massive..." thread again, apparently some were not happy with the moderation by the OP and a new thread was started ("Massively improve the SQ of computer audio streaming") with the intent I believe to allow for more debate on the technicalities behind the experiences being posted about in the "...Massive..." thread. Well, that spin-off thread had a last posted response December 7 after 16,516 views. The original "...Massive...." thread had it's last post around 12:30 p.m. EST today (current time is 1:15 p.m EST), Dec 26 after 884,115 views. A good example I believe of how constant negativity doesn't have much long term staying power.

[tmtomh]

5 minutes ago, Music Enthusiast said:

Will all OP's have the discipline to fairly moderate the threads?

That's a good question and valid concern.

 

But the reason I come down in favor of moderation is that this is always a concern - whether it's Chris or the owner of another side, or the mods of another site. This is an online community, and if folks have basic trust in Chris as the convener of it, then I would respectfully suggest that they also should extend that basic trust to Chris' abilities and good faith when picking some mods to help him out.

 

A lack of trust of other people is healthy to a point, but no community, even an online one, is really feasible in the long term without trust. And it's not like a moderator could never be stripped of their role if they misbehaved. Why not give it a try?

[Taz777]

 I quite enjoy banter and forceful views of people from different 'sides' of an argument, however I never get drawn into any personal posts. I'm here to learn, and where possible, contribute my experiences as someone embracing the digital age of HiFi.

[crenca]

15 minutes ago, Music Enthusiast said:

Will all OP's have the discipline to fairly moderate the threads?

 

No, but that is a given.  Each of us to a very significant degree disagrees as to what "fairly", or "civil", or "respect" even means.  As soon as this is pointed out, most of us react with the thought "that's not true, we were all taught by our mothers/society what these things means, everybody knows, it's just that some choose not to be fair, civil, and respectful".  Yet the actual evidence, counter-intuitively, points in the opposite direction.  Tmtomh talks of a "community".  He is exactly right, a necessary condition of a community is trust and a certain amount of "common ground", which is a prerequisite for "common sense" - the agreement of what "civil" and "respect" means.  

 

So the OP will moderate in the direction of what he or she sees is "fair"...

 

 

[pkane2001]

1 minute ago, tmtomh said:

.And it's not like a moderator could never be stripped of their role if they misbehaved. Why not give it a try?

 

I’ll tell you why from my perspective. If a thread owner moderates something I post, I’ll just stop posting in that thread. If a site moderator moderates something I believe is appropriate, I’ll leave the site.