How Much do Mods "Moderate"?

[acdc1]

Firstly, this is no criticizm for any of the Moderators, Super Mods, or Administraters, you guys do a great job. But I was wondering how much you guys look at the threads to detect any problems. I noticed on some threads, where only an occasional rift breaks out, or some people go a little off topic, there's a warning for every off topic post or rift (well, not THAT often, I'm just trying to make a point), but at the threads where if someone utters one word of critizm, the die-hard fan-club members verbally tear the poster to shreads for hurting the pride of their dear royal. But I notice that there's not so many warnings for these. And some threads get pretty nasty. I mean, there's plenty of Mod action in threads that everyone on here knows are going to get controversial almost immediately. But sometimes the original thread-opener sends a warning out in the first post. I mean, some threads can get very nasty, so much that I really don't post in them anymore, just read what others have to say.

(And as a side note, I'm not being harrassed by any member in any way... this is just an innocent question.)

 

[Elspeth]

I noticed on some threads, where only an occasional rift breaks out, or some people go a little off topic, there's a warning for every off topic post or rift (well, not THAT often, I'm just trying to make a point),

Sometimes when threads are getting nasty, the moderators are doing a lot of behind-the-scenes moderating by private message, since it isn't really fair on the majority of posters if blanket warnings are issued when the problem is just one or a few die-hard troublemakers and when things really are bad enough that if they don't stop it'll end up with suspended or banned posters. Constant warnings tend to make the threads a bit of a minefield for posters who don't want to do anything wrong, and then they avoid those threads and we end up scaring off the very people we want to encourage. If we're going to send formal warnings of suspension if people don't stop their antics, it's best to send the warnings to the specific posters so other people don't think they're being targeted.

On the other hand, when a thread is going off topic or an isolated altercation breaks out and we have to delete or move some posts, it's easier to make a post saying "I've moved a bunch of posts to this thread, now kindly get back on topic" than having to send PMs to half a dozen people.

It sort of depends on circumstances and the most effective way of letting people know what's going on.

but at the threads where if someone utters one word of critizm, the die-hard fan-club members verbally tear the poster to shreads for hurting the pride of their dear royal. But I notice that there's not so many warnings for these.

I wouldn't be too sure. These are the mod warnings you won't be seeing because they'll be sent by PM with a "how badly do you want to be suspended anyway?" message or subtext.

I mean, there's plenty of Mod action in threads that everyone on here knows are going to get controversial almost immediately. But sometimes the original thread-opener sends a warning out in the first post. I mean, some threads can get very nasty, so much that I really don't post in them anymore, just read what others have to say.

The forum moderators aren't around all the time and almost all of us have more than one forum to look after. So if things are taking a sudden turn for the worse in a thread and a group of either die-hard fans or die-hard haters is ganging up on someone, your best bet is to send a PM to a forum moderator, admin, super moderator, or moderator (in that order) to ask them to take a look at the thread and deal with the problem. It should never get so unpleasant in threads that people are afraid to post. Once things get to that point, we need to know about it.

 

[crisiñaki]

and what happens if one or more of the mods are part of the die-hard fans or die-hard haters?

sometimes you can see a bit of favoritism on some subjects

 

[Avalon]

Moderators are usually chosen because they are impartial or open to all views and ideas.

They do post as regular members and naturally, like any member, they have personal likes and dislikes. But their personal preferences don't influence their Moderator decisions.
Posts they make as Moderators are mostly made in bold letters, so you can't confuse them with regular posts. The decisions are usually made by the whole Moderating team, consisting of people with different views and opinions, which guarantees a great deal of impartiality.

 

[Elspeth]

and what happens if one or more of the mods are part of the die-hard fans or die-hard haters?

Then they're expected to express their support or their criticism VERY carefully. Being mindful of the effects of your posts on the other posters is one of the responsibilities of being in a position where you're representing the forum as well as yourself. Obviously you can't expect moderators to drop their opinions of the various subjects, since the main reason they're here in the first place is to discuss topics that interest them and about which they've formed opinions over the years. But the moderators are expected to take the lead in the forum policy of treating other members with respect and of voicing criticism of royals in such a way as to promote rather than stifle discussion. As Avalon said, when moderators are posting as moderators, you'll usually see bold type and a signed post.

Unlike some forums, we don't allow the use of spare IDs for the moderators to indulge their die-hard biases anonymously, just in case anyone's wondering.

sometimes you can see a bit of favoritism on some subjects

If by favouritism you're referring to the fact that the moderators, just like the rest of the members, have their favourite and less favourite royals, of course you can see it. I think most of the British forum regulars know that I don't have a lot of time for the Queen Mother, for example. However, the personal opinions of the moderators aren't supposed to translate into biased treatment of other posters, and I hope anyone seeing examples of such bias will let the admins know. This is something that's happened once or twice in the past, and if it does happen, it needs to be dealt with.

 

[crisiñaki]

Ok, Elspeth
Thanks for your answer

 

[acdc1]

Ok, thanks! How do they know when a thread is getting nasty? There is one that I won't mention the name of, the posts are around two years old or so, and one poster made an extrememly nasty comment to another poster. It was rude and unnecesary, even though s/he disagreed with what the other said. The mods just kind of brushed it off, said "Let's be calm" or something of that sort, and let it be. A couple members reacted, said it was rude, and it was three months before the mods came on and said "This user has been banned for insulting comments on various boards and mostly on private messaging." Did it take a while for them to realize what was going on, or was there a bunch of behind the scenes work, or both?

 

[Elspeth]

Please PM me a link to the thread and I'll have a look at what was going on.

 

[dazzling]

just a general question, what happens when a Mod gets all nice with a poster/s and lets things pass when others cant ex, if the preffered poster said something that wasnt really nice s/he got away with it but when two or three other posters said something on the same lines a general warning was given on the thread by the mod.
& what happenes when a MOD gets a bit protactive over her/his forum?

 

[Elspeth]

just a general question, what happens when a Mod gets all nice with a poster/s and lets things pass when others cant ex, if the preffered poster said something that wasnt really nice s/he got away with it but when two or three other posters said something on the same lines a general warning was given on the thread by the mod.

We have several moderators in each forum, so if a moderator is friendly with a poster and doesn't feel comfortable confronting that poster about a problem, there's always at least one other moderator of that forum who can do it.

If you have a particular example, which it sounds as though you do, please PM me a link to the thread you're talking about and I'll have a look.

& what happenes when a MOD gets a bit protactive over her/his forum?

Then people who step out of line will get bitten.

Could you give a bit more detail about what you mean? Moderators are supposed to be protective of their forums, at least to an extent, so I'm not sure exactly what you're asking.

 

[acdc1]

Do OT posts get on mods nerves like they do us? I admit, I sometimes will do an off topic post or two, but it's usually because I'm lazy and decided not to read the entire thread, and replied right in the middle of an OT conversation, or the discussion is so interesting or something I'm passionate about, post and hope that it will be moved to another thread so we can continue the discussion there. But sometimes, they get annoying, like Princess X's Current Events Thread always turn into that Princess X is anorexic, or too fat, or has no style. Or Summer Vacations of the X Family turn into why Princess Y and Princess Z hate each other, that Princess X is still anorexic, and that Prince G and Princess Y's marriage is on the rocks. And do mods delete the posts or send warnings immediately, or wait a bit to see if the topic just dies out?

 

[Elspeth]

Usually we wait to see if the thread gets itself back on topic unless the derail has potential for trouble or is happening after a previous warning. It's irritating to have moderators come rushing in with post deletions and warnings after a couple of off-topic posts, but we also don't want to see threads take a permanent change of direction, because it isn't fair to people wanting to talk about the original topic. It's something of a judgement call, depending on circumstances.

 

[norwegianne]

Do OT posts get on mods nerves like they do us? I admit, I sometimes will do an off topic post or two, but it's usually because I'm lazy and decided not to read the entire thread, and replied right in the middle of an OT conversation, or the discussion is so interesting or something I'm passionate about, post and hope that it will be moved to another thread so we can continue the discussion there. But sometimes, they get annoying, like Princess X's Current Events Thread always turn into that Princess X is anorexic, or too fat, or has no style. Or Summer Vacations of the X Family turn into why Princess Y and Princess Z hate each other, that Princess X is still anorexic, and that Prince G and Princess Y's marriage is on the rocks. And do mods delete the posts or send warnings immediately, or wait a bit to see if the topic just dies out?

One thing you could do, since you're aware of it, is to instead of posting OT in the middle of an existing topic, you might start a new thread and link back to the original thread that prompted the OT. That way you might also get more discussion from it, as it would be easier for people to find. Easier for both you and the mods.

 

[acdc1]

Well, sometimes if you go on threads that aren't as "hot" (pretty much anything not involving the Spanish Royal Family or Diana. No, I'm kidding!)
you notice that sometimes a few people are having pretty intense conversations that are bordering on getting out of control, but no Moderator comment or warning until days later.

 

[Marengo]

What threads are you talking about acdc?
I think that in potentially explosive threads like the ones about Camilla, Mary and Letizia, moderators tend to be a bit stricter about what can be said and what not, as a small spark can start an explosion of nastiness, as we do see happen over and over again. In threads that are more quiet things tend not to derail as much or as fast, so hence the rules can be a bit more relaxed. Note however that also in those more quiet threads things have to remain decent and polite towards each other.

 

[acdc1]

So they tend to be a little bit stricter with the threads that can spark explosions from superfans, like the Diana, Camilla, Letizia, Mary threads, etc? Or do all of the rules apply to every thread?

 

[Marengo]

Well, I think I gave you the wrong impression. The same rules apply to each and every thread on this forum. It is just that some threads are more closely moderated than others, as some topics arouse more emotions among our posters than others. In these threads moderators have to make more warnings, deletions etc. and that would give the impression that less is allowed then in others. In the end there can be a difference in accent on what is allowed and what not of course, as we are no machines, but nothing more than that, the TRF rules are rather clear and moderators are supposed to act like and enforce them.

But it is always possible that a moderator misses a post that doesn´t take our rules into account. In that case it is best to contact the moderators of the forum where the comment has been made.

 

[Elspeth]

Sometimes in the British forum if there's a serious issue going on, we might want to wait for input from all the forum moderators. Since we have two in the USA, one in Eastern Europe, and one in Australia, that can take some time. Also, we might be doing just basic moderating in real time and then go back and do more serious moderating later after consulting. It depends on the different moderation teams and the types of threads.

 

[scooter]

I have 2 questions:
There are couple of posters who say banned, but continue to post. Exactly what is banned?

Secondly, the mods and admins are all over the world. How on earth did you guys come to create this forum? Enjoying it very much, BTW. Thanks!

 

[Elspeth]

Banned means that people can't post. Could you PM me the names of the people you're referring to and I'll have a look?

Far as I remember, TRF started out with a small group of people who'd known each other from another discussion group, and it grew from there. There aren't any original TRF members on the moderation team any more, and the forum changed ownership a couple of years ago (and also changed names, from its original name Les Tribunes Royales), but some of the original posters are still posting from time to time.

 

[LadyK]

Well, I'm glad that those few did get together and form this forum!

 

[Elspeth]

Yes, me too! And you should also be grateful to Andy (aka "The Andy Person" according to acdc1 ) because the original owner was within a few days of shutting down the forum when Andy came across it and bought it.