Is it those with most time accumuated on the org? Those who views/experience match some criteria? Do they volenteer? Do they have to be a certain age? Are they elected or chosen? If chosen, chosen by whom?

I have no interest in becoming one btw , merely interested in how they come to their positions..

Once upon a time many years ago we were nearly modless and Ben needed help. He made an open-call for mods, several people put their names forward and he picked some people.

The last few of us added mentioned we'd like to help out in some capacity and/or were approached by other mods in private and discussed with Ben and were added that way.

At the beginning of this year, there was another open call for mods. Ben was in the process of selecting and adding them, but I'm unsure where he is with that.

Ultimately, it's Ben's choice, but the mods currently in place weigh in their opinions as well.
Most of us have volunteered to help, some may have been asked by another mod or Ben.

As for criteria - I can't speak for Ben but when I've been asked my opinion on who would make a great mod, I take into consideration how well they handle conflict, how well they can be objective, even with people they may be long-time friends with here, that they currently adhere to org rules, (no mod history notes) etc. and I also think it's especially great when it's someone who is an active, well-respected member of the forum.

CarrieMpls said:

This is how I was added

I think they caught Ben sleeping when they discussed me

About 2 years ago, Ben approached me to become the first Undercover Mod. He wanted me to hang about in the more notorious forums and get in with a few "bad eggs". You know how it goes. That was Ben's decision, one he made based on my cunning, bravado, ability to laugh in the face of danger, and excellent time-keeping.


[Edited 7/10/08 15:11pm]

mcmeekle said:

a chicken is locked in a room with a piece of paper that has all the orgers names written on them. who's ever name is shitted on is the mod... it's very symbolic for all the shit they heaved on them after they become mods.

CarrieMpls said:

well,it's good to know there is some criteria, although I think Ben acting as the final say is not too healthy. Since he will undoubtably have his own personal ctrieria, it does suggest that all who are chosen will be of the same, or similar ilk. I think some kind of election process of existing members might ensure a wider range of character types (?).
My only issue with the mods is with regard to the forums that are not about Prince (particularly P&R and the chat room). In these areas, insults and religious hatred etc can be tied up in quite complex langauge and need a level of knowledge of the subjects involved to understand how offfensive something can be. I have often noticed comments have been missed by mods, that had they been straightforward rascism etc would have resulted in instant temp bans or worse. I think we need to group of moderators for these areas that have a depth of knowledge beyond what (appears) the current level (and who can be objective of course). I dont mean to be offensive to current moderators, its just my observation.

The only alternative is to leave them unmoderated (i.e. no management is better than bad management)

Thoughts?

razor said:

1st ~ I am not offended by your opinions and feel that we all can improve daily on many levels

2nd ~ Do you help Mods by reporting posts like that ?

Mach said:

I have orgnoted, and appealed to mods in the chat room occasionally, to attempt to explain the severity of a comment, but it either went over the mods head or was ignored. To be honest I'm not too bothered, I'm not a big one for any moderation of legal opinions, be they offensive or otherwise, and I am quite happy to look after myself. The point is there are lots of more vulnerable people on here and lots of very bright people who know how to abuse them with intellectual arguments. Having mods who could understand them would help.

On a wider note, given the power mods have to judge what and what is not worthy of censorship, I feel that the job should require some sort of justification. I am sure mods contribute more to the site (IT stuff etc?) than just opinions on opinions, but given that even most governments stick away from trying to judge verbal discourse given its complex nature, it would be comforting to know that those given such a responsibility had some qualifications to palce them in such a priviledged position. Just my 2 cents...

razor said:

As for Ben having the final say, well, it's his website. And were I to start my own website, I think I'd want final say on it myself. I can say, he does take opinions into account.

As far as diversity of the mod squad goes, I can tell you we all come from different backgrounds, races, religions, sexual orientations (god I hate that phrase) and so on. We're all American except luv4u who hails from Canada, but I know in this last open call we were particularly looking for mods from other countries as well, if not only for coverage due to time zones and such, but for other perspectives as well.

As for P&R and chat, I don't spend much time (nor do I moderate) in either of those forums, so I can't really address that. I can say that if you see something you think needs to be reported to please do so. We may not always agree, but always appreciate people looking out for the best interest of the org.

I thought we were getting new mods?

I reported something very offensive in P&R yesterday morning~ London time. It has been a full 24 hours and no reply and the comment is still there.

shanti0608 said:

Yes, it's been me and Matt for the last few months. Since we don't live there (we do have real lives) some things may take time to get to.

Ben has a list of potential moderators and is going over them with a fine toothed comb. We all wish the procedure would be more timely, but it's his method, and his site.

razor said:

Really?

Trust me, we take our roles here very seriously and spend hours discussing appropriate actions for threads and posts, etc. While moderator selection is not a perfect science, I think you're stretching it a bit with your logic.

We're volunteers. It's a thankless job, but I love it! Thanks for sharing!

June7 said:

Really. A recent example being the UK governments climb down on laws to censure religious critism. I know you are volenteers, but that's irrelevant. what matters is whether you are competent or indeed needed...

razor said:

[

Thanks for your input. And, since your question was answered (whether you like the answer or not...), and now that you've taken it off topic, - June7]