Duncan Edwards wrote:Being a moderator is a lot like being a professional athlete in that you are only going to be at the top of your game for a short time. I did it for three years and left. At the time I wasn't happy about it but looking back it was the best thing I could have done. Anyone who does it, no matter how benign the environment, should have an escape route plotted. Be glad you did it and be glad you're done with it.
No.
Being a moderator is not a high-performance job that requires you to be on top of your game. Being a moderator is being the board janitor. You deal with people's shit. You clean up people's shit. Once you've had enough of people's shit, you leave.
"Three years" of moderating and you insist on lecturing me about how to do my job. You are in no position to patronise me.
I've been a moderator in much bigger forums and sites (we're talking millions of users who are
far more immature) for nearly fifteen years. What's so demanding about clicking "approve" or deleting a thread? It's not a skilled role that requires professional training, dedication or patience. Everything is routine, with the occasional drama flare every few months that is (or should be) handled with a ban. For a big site, it's routine. For a small site, it's just a few extra clicks to view and handle alerts every few weeks. It's no harder than checking and replying to emails. And in fairness, some people do take emails very seriously, dedicating hours to meticulously writing and checking every word and sentence. Then there are people who get things done and move on without second thoughts.
Being a moderator on QSFans has been minimal required time commitment, minimal drama and zero stress. 95% of the job is a courtesy - removing the occasional inappropriate link, locking a thread now and then, and handling the odd enquiry, a process that is now much easier with the new forum upgrade, which brings up notifications rather having you dig through the moderation panel to find alerts. If there's an issue with the community from a moderator's perspective, it's that most regular users do not report instances of violations or disturbances, preferring to take part in them or expecting the "all-seeing eye" to take notice and take appropriate action.
Maybe your experience has been a lot more negative, or you were less suited to doing the job on a routine basis. However, your experience is not my experience.
I've never felt the pressure or need to exit. I'm largely indifferent to whether or not I'm a moderator. I don't gain anything, and I don't lose anything. So no, I'm not "glad" of anything. It's not a big deal. Now it's just one less thing to check whenever I log on. I'm a professional and a competitive athlete (though not necessarily both together), and I vehemently disagree with your comparison between forum moderators and professional athletes. I never felt like I was locked in and never felt an obligation to linger around. I left previous moderating roles because I stopped using the forum, or wanted to spend time doing other things, or didn't agree with the administration. The line in the sand here might be for all three reasons.
But it is nothing like what you say it is, Duncan.
To end with, I feel the whole debacle was triggered by this one statement:
Duncan Edwards wrote:EDIT - FWIW - I just want to reiterate that bogbud did the right thing by reporting it as he should and then waiting for the mods to do the job. This is quicksandfans not shitfans.
The reported case was as follows: Beast260 linked a YouTube video that was created by 101927700, which had minors in the clip. bogbud reported the link for that reason. There was nothing to do with "shit". Subsequent discussion brought it up, but no rules were broken by 101927700.
I do not think this was a case of "group moderating". There was discussion and disagreement. 101927700 explained and clarified what he was doing (and to his credit, he purposefully avoided posting the video because he was following the rules, it was Beast260 who inadvertently linked it). The conversation between Beast260 and 101927700 was even beginning to look constructive. The only disturbance in the thread was Mynock's image.
Personally, I'm disappointed in Dave's decision to lock the thread, and find it hypocritical. In the past, I have locked threads that were beginning to get out of hand, and had them re-opened by Dave because of apparent censorship. Now a thread in which a relatively clean discussion was taking place is locked because "enough is enough", prefaced with "I consider closing threads a sign of weakness". In my closing opinion, I think this thread was everything that was done
right. A report was sent, the issue was dealt with, people were allowed to express themselves and the thread continued in good faith without further infractions or disturbances. I believe Duncan and Dave were
incorrect in assuming that there was a problem. Now the thread has gone against precedent and been closed, and 101927700 is being branded a troll and a troublemaker despite not having a record of doing any of that.
If my confusion over this chain of events is still unclear, put it this way:
A thread in which Beast260 posted an underaged video has resulted in 101927700 being put on a watchlist and scat being banned.
This is making as much sense to me as Brexit is right now.
To the next person who takes the job: don't worry, it isn't as bad as Duncan makes it out to be.
