The Forum needs Moderators. Badly.

[DeputyMarshal]

We at Firehouse.com are not a huge staff where we can dedicate all of our time to babysitting these forums.

This is precisely the reason you need to seriously consider appointing some moderators.

If vBB has a single monumental selling point it's that it has a very full featured and robust system for creating user-moderators with tightly limited powers who can police the board with little or no ability to permanently screw anything up.

Give it a try, webteam. What have you possibly got to lose?

[SapphyreBlues]

If vBB has a single monumental selling point it's that it has a very full featured and robust system for creating user-moderators with tightly limited powers who can police the board with little or no ability to permanenetly screw anything up.

I am a "supermod" on another board that uses just about the same type as this one, only it's: Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.7 instead of 3.6.4. You can only do what the admin lets you do. Over there I have the power to ban people, to edit posts, signatures, etc. And anything I do is completely reversible. So even though this is version 3.6.4, I'm sure it's very much the same thing. I've never seen the admin panel on that site, since I'm not an admin. But I do believe that they're able to see who's done what. So that would take care of any mod who goes crazy with the Ban-stick-o'doom, or one that edits post like the nazi censor machine.

And on another board I used to go to, they had mods from different parts of the world. There were some from Australia, Europe and North America. So usually there was always a mod on. And that site, while it had load of members, didn't have nearly as many as this one. I am thinking that there were like 5 or 6 mods. And it worked out pretty good.

[HeavyRescueTech]

I think we could use some volunteer Mods. the only downside is unpopular people might get banned because they aren't liked or thought favorably by the majority. Or a mod might edit a post/delete a post because a poster says something that is contrary to what the mod's point of view is.

Again, while it would be good, any and all changes a Mod makes will have to be 100% reversible, any bannings would have to be left up to the webteam, and at the in the beginning, the mod's powers would have to be closely supervised by the webteam.

[frenchfireball]

i think it could be great to have moderators.on many other sites,you have many mods and it helps in case of bad conversations or "fights" between members.

but you also have bad moderators who like banning people,just because they do not like these people.so it is hard to find a great staff of moderators.just my 2 cents.

[nmfire]

What you are suggesting is a great idea but we've been down this road before. This was a huge topic of discussion earlier in the year. Members with plenty of experience elsewhere moderating forums have offered their help for free. Hell I'd do it too. But the webteam refuses to even acknowledge the offer of help. Actually, they don't usually acknowledge the problems either. It will probably be 2 months before they log on to see this poll anyway.

[Bones42]

any bannings would have to be left up to the webteam, and at the in the beginning, the mod's powers would have to be closely supervised by the webteam.

Keyword......WebTeam.

[DeputyMarshal]

Again, while it would be good, any and all changes a Mod makes will have to be 100% reversible, any bannings would have to be left up to the webteam, and at the in the beginning, the mod's powers would have to be closely supervised by the webteam.

Agreed. But it's still far easier for the webtem/webguy to monitor the activities of a dozen moderators than it is to monitor a thousand users. It's a simple span of control issue. I've done this on several other forums and it's much more manageable than trying to do the whole job alone.

FWIW, if I recall correctly, vBB has a user management feature that lets a moderator issue a warning that can become a temporary ban only if a set number of moderators also issue warnings. IOW, it can be set up such that it takes agreement among a "committee" of moderators to issue a ban. Each warning is recorded along with information on who issued it and why. An admin (i.e. the webteam) can override any moderator actions. If a moderator is playing favorites, it is easily identifiable and correctable.

What you are suggesting is a great idea but we've been down this road before.

Yup, I was there.

Actually, they don't usually acknowledge the problems either.

This time they did -- that's why I thought it was worth bringing it up again.

[webteam]

We have seriously discussed having moderators in the past. Our main concern with doing that is that we would create more problems with moderators like some of you have mentioned. It is not something we are against or that we have refused your help. We will look into this again as an option.

Thanks, Webteam

[DeputyMarshal]

Thanks, Webteam

Thank you for participating in the discussion. It's a difficult decision to make and having volunteer moderators is not without its own pitfalls. IMHO, it's well worth the effort to give it a try.

Thanks again for doing the work of 10 men on a busy forum pretty much alone .

[jlcooke3]

...Our main concern with doing that is that we would create more problems with moderators like some of you have mentioned...

One way to limit the risk of getting problem moderators would be to ask the members who they believe would make good moderators. Come up with a list of a small number, say 5 to begin with, as a test group. As time goes on reevaluate your picks. If everything is going good add a few more until you have an adequate number of mods to efficiently do their job.

[Weruj1]

I would be in for that ............have to wait and see.

[mcaldwell]

I would be in for that ............have to wait and see.

I agree, it's a good idea. It can't really get any worse can it?

[mcaldwell]

Double Post

[the1141man]

One way to limit the risk of getting problem moderators would be to ask the members who they believe would make good moderators. Come up with a list of a small number, say 5 to begin with, as a test group. As time goes on reevaluate your picks. If everything is going good add a few more until you have an adequate number of mods to efficiently do their job.

A) Moderation, especially on a commercially owned and operated website, should never be a popularity contest. Save that crap for your Yahoo crochet group that has 53 members. It has no place in a business-run board with thousands of members.

B) As much as this will ruffle feathers, the decision of moderators does not need, and in fact probably should not, be dictated by time in the Fire Service, rank in the Fire Service, etc. When I was a Mod at military.com I was an E-4/SPC. Most Mods there were mid-grade NCOs, with a couple sr NCOs (E-7 thru E-9), and only two Officer Mods (the Admin, who was a Major, and another Army forums Mod who was an SF Captain), in the entire site. A couple Mods were even civilians/dependents (running the Families&Friends and DOD Civilian sections).

C) Sites don't need as many Mods as you might think...for a site of this size and activity level, 5-10 should be good. We ran Mil.com with 27 Mods...and as far as posting activity, that site did in one section what this entire site does in a day.

D) A good point was made about "warnings" or temp suspensions. This goes for the WT, as something they can immediately implement: you don't have to wait till things "melt down" and start pounding the "BanHammer" all around. You can give people a "two-day time-out", and have a graduated process for "discipline". There's no need to wait till things get out of hand and then start meteing out the "death penalty".
Besides, "permanently banning" someone, then bringing them back shortly thereafter, kind of makes you look like an indecisive dolt.