(Meta) Moderation guidelines?

[hbelkins]

In light of the apparent deletion of the thread about this weekend's upcoming Stewart/Colbert freakshow in DC, and the resulting departure of a member of this forum who is one of the original roadgeeks from MTR, I'm curious about a few things.

Who determines who becomes a moderator? How does one become a moderator here?

How much power does a moderator have?

Do moderators have the power to act unilaterally or do they consult with other moderators before removing a thread, locking a thread, deleting a post, etc.?

[Alps]

Politics are currently not covered in the forum guidelines, but religious discussions are barred on the grounds that they cause controversy, yelling, hard times, etc.  I was moderating the thread I created to try to remove the controversial discussions, but my mistake was that I didn't see the event as a political rally when some people clearly do.  So I deleted the entire thread as a result.  Thinking back, I should have just said "will anyone be in the DC area this weekend" and not specified why, but so it goes.  Anyway, that's not really answering your questions.

Moderators are voted on as we perceive a need.  We do vote sometimes based on posting record, familiarity, etc., and discuss with the user before making the nomination.  Asking isn't necessarily the way, but if you hint to the right people, your name might come up.

Power depends on role.  We have several types of moderators here.  You may notice some boards have their own moderator (like Northeast).  They can edit, delete, rearrange etc. posts in that board only.  There are global moderators who can do that with all the posts.  Then there are site admins who carry out any function above and beyond that level.

Moderation is tricky, and I don't have all the answers.  If you're interested in becoming one, please talk to us!

[US71]

Who determines who becomes a moderator? How does one become a moderator here?

How much power does a moderator have?

Do moderators have the power to act unilaterally or do they consult with other moderators before removing a thread, locking a thread, deleting a post, etc.?

I was asked to be a Moderator and I try to Moderate moderately 

Other Moderators, it often depends on the individual. Sometimes, they just act ("shoot first, ask questions later") Maybe later, they'll discuss it with other Mods (or not).

Other times, we/they discuss things before acting.  Again, it depends on the individual.

Power? Let's just say some Moderators think they are He-Man

[hbelkins]

Moderators are voted on as we perceive a need.  We do vote sometimes based on posting record, familiarity, etc., and discuss with the user before making the nomination.

That's kind of what I was wondering. How did "we" become "we?" Who was the original "we" and how did the subsequent "we's" get included in the "we?"

I was a little late to the party; I didn't really get involved until around the time of the big brouhaha over V'ger (sparked in part, I know by my posting of a roadgeek meet announcement) so i was curious as to how the original mods were chosen and how subsequent ones are added.

And I am not lobbying to be one at this time. I'm already doing "roadgeek" and I'm not sure that my style of moderation would work well in this more structured setting.

[agentsteel53]

i was curious as to how the original mods were chosen and how subsequent ones are added.

trial and error.  some more error than others.

[KEK Inc.]

Some moderators seem to fabricate their own rules.  I used to post in $346492 and Corbel...   One moderator has bugged me about posting in a font color or typeface, while another just told me to change it slightly so it doesn't look like links.  As far as I see, if it isn't in the guidelines, they shouldn't have the jurisdiction to enforce their own personal rules, but I decided not to argue with the authority and buckled to posting normally like so.

I can understand if I post in purple or the same color as links, but whatever... 

[rickmastfan67]

KEK, to be honest, I can see the reason for not posting in a specific font.  The text might look horrific on the other person's end because they don't have that font and not be readable when their computer tries to emulate it with another font.

[J N Winkler]

Some moderators seem to fabricate their own rules.  I used to post in $346492 and Corbel...   One moderator has bugged me about posting in a font color or typeface, while another just told me to change it slightly so it doesn't look like links.  As far as I see, if it isn't in the guidelines, they shouldn't have the jurisdiction to enforce their own personal rules, but I decided not to argue with the authority and buckled to posting normally like so.

KEK, speaking for myself personally, I have to agree with the moderators' decisions to try to enforce a uniform font/color combination.  I actually didn't start reading your posts properly until you started using the standard fonts and colors because the blue Corbal was too much of a distraction.  Also, the fact that you were posting in a nonstandard font and color encouraged other members of the board to draw conclusions about your general approach to posting which were not necessarily helpful to you or to the cause of getting your ideas heard.

It is impossible to write a set of forum guidelines which specifies every contingency in which moderators might wish to exercise police powers in the general interest of the forum.  To an extent, value judgments have to be made.  This is not a problem as long as they are applied in an evenhanded and neutral way and with respect for the dignity of individual members.  The moderators might have had an intense personal dislike for the blue/Corbal combination, but as far as I can tell, this was never communicated in a way meant to humiliate you publicly.  Also, others have tried nonstandard font/color combinations with the same results, so there was also parity of treatment.

[KEK Inc.]

@ rick:  If the font is not installed on the machine (Corbel is native to Windows), I believe it will still output as Verdana. 

@ Winkler:  I never assumed it was a means of humility; however, I did think it was sort of a trivial issue at first.  I didn't let the argument or issue ensue into something more forceful, so I'm not sure what his actions would have been.  The point being: I don't really care what the issue is, but there should be some more standards.

Frankly, I don't know the userbase history of this message board too well.  I know there's some concietedness and ignorance (admittedly, I do get pretty stubborn on regionalism with the West Coast) throughout the boards, but it's really common with any sample population.  From the time I've been here, I don't seem to see much behavioral issues, and I've only noticed two banned members in the entire posting board.  Perhaps I'm more used to more active message boards that don't stress and enforce more trivial items such as formatting. 

Anyways, I like the community here, and I don't really want to pass up as a jerk or a troll, so I comply with what they tell me, no matter how trivial the matter is.  The community seems fairly stable as it is. 

[US71]

Moderators are voted on as we perceive a need.  We do vote sometimes based on posting record, familiarity, etc., and discuss with the user before making the nomination.

That's kind of what I was wondering. How did "we" become "we?" Who was the original "we" and how did the subsequent "we's" get included in the "we?"

When the forum was first set-up, Moderators were chosen, in part, based upon how long they have been in the hobby and their breadth of knowledge. The initial moderators were invited by Alex (I think). Additional moderators were added on an "as needed" basis, usually by consensus of existing moderators. I wasn't an original Moderator, but was added shortly after the original forum began.

And yes, some Moderators DO seem to create their own rules. If someone is being annoying, sometimes all that's needed is a simple admonishment as opposed to a firing squad, but it is often the prerogative of the Moderator.

And yes, we occasionally bicker with each other... usually because someone is perceived as too stern or too lax in Moderation.

[Alex]

The discussion in this thread is good, as an overhaul of what constitutes moderation may be in order. When we (myself, Jake, Scott N, and Scott O) reconstituted the forum in May of 2009, we contemplated who to bring on as moderators and discussed various well known road enthusiasts from across the internet and picked from that list. The regional moderators were chosen later, either by nomination or suggestion.

[agentsteel53]

@ rick:  If the font is not installed on the machine (Corbel is native to Windows), I believe it will still output as Verdana. 

this is correct, at least on the machines I've used to read the forum.  (All Windows, I think.)  Until you mentioned it, I had no idea you had been posting in a font other than Verdana.

[corco]

I never assumed it was a means of humility; however, I did think it was sort of a trivial issue at first.  I didn't let the argument or issue ensue into something more forceful, so I'm not sure what his actions would have been.  The point being: I don't really care what the issue is, but there should be some more standards.

In the interest of readability and not having a forum that looks like myspace, keeping text uniform is really, really helpful.

With regards to your comment about it not being in the guidelines, I'm not a moderator/admin, but I would assume that your issue was so...weird that nobody would have thought to put it in the guidelines when they were written. Sometimes the rule has to be broken before the rule can be written. Since this is an entirely privately operated forum on a private site paid for by private funds, our fair overlords have the discretion to make us do whatever we want to do and we have absolutely no right to complain about it.

Whereas MTR may be like being in a public park, this forum is like being at somebody's backyard barbecue. If the person holding the barbecue wants us all to wear yellow hats, we all wear yellow hats or we go back to the public park. If the person holding the barbecue arbitrarily decides that the barbecue is over or we all need to stand on one leg for the rest of the day, we do that or we go back to the public park. If the person holding the barbecue decides that you and only you should never use the word "the," but everybody else can, then you either do that or go back to the public park.  And that's what you do in the real world- you go back to the public park. You don't light their lawn on fire because they exercised their rights on their own property.

That said, I want to thank Alex, Jake, and all the other admins and moderators for everything they do. You guys provide us with a service free of charge that has become what I believe to be the best on the internet. Sure, things may happen that cause some head-scratching every once in a while, but overall you guys have done an absolutely outstanding job providing us a service at no cost to us. Thank you.

[Scott5114]

It is very difficult to balance the need for transparency in moderation with the desire to shield the userbase from unnecessary drama. As I am sure you have all surmised, there is a private moderator discussion area where possible needs for moderator intervention are discussed. There are no hard and fast rules as to when someone gets banned; it happens whenever all of the mod team members agree that having the user around is no longer beneficial to the forum and is very much done on a case-by-case basis. Smaller matters, like post edits, deletions, and requests that members modify their way of posting, are usually taken upon moderators' own initiatives. Moderators pretty much have the latitude to determine what sort of behavior is worth acting on for the sake of maintaining the comity of the forum. Additionally, as owner of the board, Alex has sole discretion to overrule any moderator decision at any time. Because of all of that, it is hard to nail down a set of principles that we can say are always followed, beyond those that are spelled out in the guidelines.

If you wish to voice an opinion on how this board is moderated, however, feel free to share your concerns. This place belongs to you guys as much as it does us, and if we're being total shitheads, feel free to point it out so we can get better. Also, if you have any questions about how the moderation process works, do ask and we shall do our best to clarify.

[6a]

I don't recall reading the thread in question, but would it be useful to have some kind of "thread graveyard" - a locked forum where threads that are deemed troublesome can be moved?  It might serve as a moderation tool by allowing users to see what threads or behavior are not wanted without coming up with a 20 page list of rules, attempting to cover every contingency.

[aswnl]

There's noting more tricky than being a mod (or even an admin) in a public internetforum.
It's better to have some rules defined to which users and mods can refer.

As admin of the Dutch roadforum (Wegenforum.nl) I have put these rules public on the forum.
It's also available in English; perhaps some guidelines can be usefull here as well.
(Yes, I know you have something alike, but it is not easy to refer to individual rules)

Well, first of all have confidence in the mods.
They are not being paid, and just want to keep the forum a nice place

Don't walk away from the forum if they are doing something you don't like.
Before making such a drastical move you could always contact the forumadmin about the mod's behaviour.

[corco]

Something I've seen done on other forums that I think is worthwhile is never, ever deleting threads or posts. If a thread has gone bad, post something saying "This thread is bad and this is why it is bad" and lock it. That way people can at least see what is wrong and why it is wrong so they can improve on their behavior in the future. For individual posts, I think a public calling out is good, and to do that you say "This post is bad and this is why it is bad. If you continue to be an idiot you will be banned. Any further discussion regarding it can occur via PM, and if anybody publically responds to this post they will be sanctioned."

I think it's healthy to call people out to an extent- deleting things and hiding things just feels wrong. The community is likely going to be able to self-moderate themselves quite a bit better if folks are called out when they are obnoxious- the trick is to do this without piling on. It isn't drama if you publically snip it in the ass and then prohibit further discussion- if anything it helps to clarify what is good and what is bad so that adjustments can be made by ALL posters in the future. And, I don't know, if I'm being an idiot I'm much more likely to respond to a public lashing than a PM that says "Hey, watch tone"

I belong to another much larger online community with only a couple moderators, but the regular posters hold the community up to a very high standard. When people act like idiots, they get barraged by about 50 people calling them an idiot. This generally knocks them back in line or scares them away. Now, that's probably not a good idea on this forum, given software limitations and the dramatic personalities that much of the road enthusiast community has, but I think if one moderator writes a scathing post that cannot be responded to except via PM when something bad happens, then that's a very good thing.

I firmly believe the way to getting the community you want is to get the members of the community to want what you want. Show us why what you want is a good thing, and then we'll be on board with it and not only will we respect it, we'll actively attempt to help make it happen (not by being rogue non-moderators, but just by fostering the kind of atmosphere you want), which makes your jobs easier. I think you guys have mostly done a really good job with it, but on some subjects like politics there's still way too much gray area.

That said, I really do think the sense of entitlement on this board has gotten a bit out of hand. This place should not be a democracy. I think that false sense of entitlement is what causes 99% of the drama on the forum- the belief that somehow my opinion is better than yours  or I should be able to do whatever I want because I've been a road enthusiast for 10 years or whatever. Part of that may be that there are too many moderators. There are 109 folks with at least 100 posts but 16 moderators. I can't imagine this community is so awful that you really need one moderator for every 6.8 members and may lead to a situation where there are just too many chefs standing over the pot. I'd turn back all but your 5 admins and encourage self-moderation- toss some responsibility back to the non-moderators. Alternatively, give those other 11 folks the ability to fix image sizes but leave content issues to the admins.  That way you guys don't have to worry about 16 different interpretations of the same idea or the sense of entitlement that may come with being a moderator. As a corollary, make punishments harsher. Encourage the use of the report button when people are acting like an idiot so you guys can find really egregious problems easier and leave everyone on a shorter leash. Don't be afraid to wield the banhammer.

[mightyace]

That said, I really do think the sense of entitlement on this board has gotten a bit out of hand. This place should not be a democracy. I think that false sense of entitlement is what causes 99% of the drama on the forum- the belief that somehow my opinion is better than yours  or I should be able to do whatever I want because I've been a road enthusiast for 10 years or whatever.

Some opinions are better than others.  But, I get your point, most of the time it is a presumption by the author usually based on something arguable like political beliefs, religion or creed and the person being touted as inferior subscribes to a different system.

But, please, don't try and tell me that all opinions are of equal value and merit.  They aren't.

EDIT:
For example, I would consider hbelkins opinions on Kentucky highways better than mine as he lives in the state and works for KYDOT.

EDIT 2:
After some thought, a restatement of above.

Some opinions are worth more than others, but not as often as we think.  The poster should not presume that his/her opinion is more valuable than others and should respect the other person's right to an opinion whether the poster agrees with it or not.

[english si]

Some opinions are better than others.

Indeed, and that's actually an argument for democracy, unlike what corco said. It adds opinions to the pot, spreads power out and means that you don't go for idea x simply because it's that persons, but you debate and try and work out what the best is. It levels people, makes that there should be no sense of entitlement as everyone is on the same level, rather than an "I can do what I want, as I'm in charge" attitude that I have seen on other forums (with an admin team, not just one person).

Opinions being all of equal merit and value is also an argument for democracy, though I don't have much time for democracy of that form. That leads to tyranny of the masses.

11 mods and 5 admins might be too many for a forum of this size at the moment, but there's no reason why the 11 can act as a sounding board for the 5's plan of action and be authorised to do superficial stuff like image size and shortening links.

[J N Winkler]

Something I've seen done on other forums that I think is worthwhile is never, ever deleting threads or posts. If a thread has gone bad, post something saying "This thread is bad and this is why it is bad" and lock it. That way people can at least see what is wrong and why it is wrong so they can improve on their behavior in the future.

As a general rule this is the approach that has been followed on the SABRE forum, and it has been very successful.  However, from time to time it is still necessary to move threads to a designated Holding Area (aside from spam, it is very rare for threads to be deleted outright), such as when a poster admits to a felony, or inappropriately discloses sensitive personal information.  The rationale for this thread hiding is usually protection of the forum from legal liability.

For individual posts, I think a public calling out is good, and to do that you say "This post is bad and this is why it is bad. If you continue to be an idiot you will be banned. Any further discussion regarding it can occur via PM, and if anybody publicly responds to this post they will be sanctioned."

I don't think "naming and shaming" of the kind you describe works well, except in certain isolated cases.  One example is a post along the lines of "I like running over cats."  Succeeding posts were almost uniform in expressing their disapproval and disgust and the moderators allowed those posts to be made with no other action beyond a PM to the OP strongly suggesting that he apologize, which he did in the thread.

The main problem with naming and shaming is that a moderator or board owner needs the willing cooperation of the community in order to function, even--when it is possible to acquire it--the cooperation of potential troublemakers.  This is easier to get if the moderators don't go in with an antagonistic stance.  One example (theoretical in this case, but not far removed from reality on the AARoads forum) is to edit a post without giving the poster advance warning and then add a purple moderator's message which insults the post, and by extension the author, in some way--e.g. "Idiocies and illiterate stutterings removed."

There is a saying:  honey catches more flies than vinegar.  In real life you would not tell a person, "I consider you a knave and a liar unless proven otherwise," so why would you do the equivalent on a Web forum?

When I was SABRE Site Manager (principal moderator and supervisor of three other moderators), I made a point of exercising my authority with soft words.  There were essentially just two groups of people who were a recurring source of trouble.

The first included people who simply could not understand what was wrong with their posts.  In the case I remember best, the problem was primarily generational--we had a group of teenagers who talked in our off-topic board about their enthusiasms for Sonic and so on, and could not understand why older members wanted a lid put on their drivel.  (Solving this particular problem required some lateral thinking.  Since the drivel posts tended to be very numerous and also very short, I eventually imposed per-day post quotas.)

The second group included people who wanted heavy-handed moderation and were unhappy with the adopted approach, which had the support of consensus.  A typical example:  "This guy insulted me.  I want him made to cry."  It is impossible to accommodate people like these and still have a healthy board, so I stuck with moderating approaches which had broadly based support.

I think it's healthy to call people out to an extent- deleting things and hiding things just feels wrong. The community is likely going to be able to self-moderate themselves quite a bit better if folks are called out when they are obnoxious- the trick is to do this without piling on. It isn't drama if you publically snip it in the ass and then prohibit further discussion- if anything it helps to clarify what is good and what is bad so that adjustments can be made by ALL posters in the future.

It is much better for the moderator to come in and describe the problem in neutral, unspecific terms without calling out individual posters by name, and then to lock the thread.  "This thread has led to name-calling and much unnecessary acrimony" gets the message across just as effectively, and with much less ill will, than "X is at fault for posting flamebait, Y is at fault for calling X, Z, and A idiots," etc.  Anyone reading the thread will know precisely whose conduct the locking was intended to suppress but avoiding the use of specific names allows everyone to get out with dignity.

This is generally how I dealt with "hot" threads in SABRE.  To avoid charges of censorship, I would often impose "soft locks" ("thread is locked now, for 72 hours; it will reopen for discussion at such and such a time") as a cooling-off period.  This strategy did not always work--we had one thread which went through multiple soft locks until I finally announced that it would be locked indefinitely unless someone could make a convincing case that the acrimony would not resurface if it were unlocked.  It has stayed locked.

And, I don't know, if I'm being an idiot I'm much more likely to respond to a public lashing than a PM that says "Hey, watch tone"

If you were that refractory to a PM sent by a moderator, you would be unusual among even the SABRE members who come to the attention of moderators.  A standard punishment for continued defiance after an admonitory PM was suspension for a set period of time (usually two days, but sometimes much longer--SABRE moderators have authority to impose suspensions of up to two weeks).

That said, I really do think the sense of entitlement on this board has gotten a bit out of hand. This place should not be a democracy.

I disagree.  Sole proprietorship is a problematic model when the value of the board comes primarily from posts made by members with no formal ownership interest.  And even if this forum stays under the roof which Alex has so kindly provided for it, there is much to be said for democratic methods in choosing moderators.  This gives members more of a sense of ownership in how the board is run, and in general tends to encourage responsible posting behavior.  It also gives moderators an electoral mandate, which allows them to make the necessary interventions with a sense that they are backed by popular will.

SABRE is in effect a mutual association because the running expenses (primarily Web hosting for the forum and wiki) are paid for by the members at large through donations.  Anyone who has had a SABRE forum account for more than a month can become an Active Member, and thus receive a vote on the four moderators and other elected officers.  The SABRE President is independent and the running of the society as a whole (including moderation issues) is overseen by SABRE Committee, whose membership includes all elected officers from the current and previous year, a small number of appointed officers, and a few co-opted members.

Do we have problems with bureaucracy?  Yes.  But on the whole the frictional loss is low and the standard of discussion is high.  In comparison to AARoads with 16 moderators, 100 members, and about 82,000 posts over two years, SABRE has 4 moderators (Site Manager and his or her three assistants), about 150 active members, and close to 500,000 posts over 10 years.

I think that false sense of entitlement is what causes 99% of the drama on the forum- the belief that somehow my opinion is better than yours  or I should be able to do whatever I want because I've been a road enthusiast for 10 years or whatever.

Yes, there is a strong sense of entitlement.  In general the hobby tends to attract people who pick up esoteric knowledge in the pursuit of an unusual interest.  That feeds a sense of being one apart, and that can in turn feed on insecurities and latent narcissistic tendencies to produce overweening arrogance.  Plus, as a group we are fairly far along on the autistic spectrum, so conflict resolution skills do not come to hand naturally.

This is actually an argument for requiring moderators to run for election.  You can have votes and still wind up with arrogant and socially inept moderators, but the experience in SABRE has been that people choose moderators whose susceptibilities they understand and are, broadly speaking, happy to live with.

I actually think it is a good idea to avoid choosing moderators on the basis of length of time in the hobby, number of visitors to personal roads-related website, or other measures of standing in roadgeekdom.  The winners by any such criteria will be grandees, whether they are AARoads moderators or not.  The ideal moderator for AARoads is not necessarily someone who has been in the hobby for a long time or has a roads-related website, but rather someone with good people skills and a strong sense of what is fair.  Nobody gets elected as a SABRE moderator on the basis of roads website, length of time posting on SABRE, length of time in forum administration, etc.  The voters take into account what they can see of the candidate's general approach to the forum as well as a length-constrained manifesto which is published as part of the elections process.

Part of that may be that there are too many moderators. There are 109 folks with at least 100 posts but 16 moderators. I can't imagine this community is so awful that you really need one moderator for every 6.8 members and may lead to a situation where there are just too many chefs standing over the pot. I'd turn back all but your 5 admins and encourage self-moderation- toss some responsibility back to the non-moderators. Alternatively, give those other 11 folks the ability to fix image sizes but leave content issues to the admins.  That way you guys don't have to worry about 16 different interpretations of the same idea or the sense of entitlement that may come with being a moderator.

Yes, there are definitely too many cooks in the kitchen, but also AARoads is still quite new and not as far along on the institutional learning curve as SABRE.  Most of the issues that have surfaced in this debate on heavy-handed moderation were also confronted by SABRE early in its history and led to the adoption of more incremental approaches which make better use of members' willingness to cooperate for the good of the forum.

Another important development is the tendency to refer difficult moderating problems to SABRE Committee.  This ensures that whatever solution is adopted has the support of consensus and can serve as a useful precedent in the future.  On this forum we have already had at least two instances of "circular firing squad" where one or more moderators have taken issue with an individual moderator's decision after the fact.  This never occurs on SABRE if moderators consult with Committee beforehand, and treat it as a resource for developing solutions.  AARoads could usefully adopt the concept of a management committee, with appeal to Alex as site owner left as the absolute last resort.

As a corollary, make punishments harsher. Encourage the use of the report button when people are acting like an idiot so you guys can find really egregious problems easier and leave everyone on a shorter leash. Don't be afraid to wield the banhammer.

I have my own list of people I encounter on other forums whom I am happy are not part of AARoads; nevertheless, I think the priority has to be on creating a climate in which the "banhammer" is rarely, if ever, necessary.

[corco]

But, please, don't try and tell me that all opinions are of equal value and merit.  They aren't.

That's fair. In retrospect, I'm not entirely sure what I meant to imply by that comment but it definitely wasn't that. You're right on the money that some opinions are better than others.

The rationale for this thread hiding is usually protection of the forum from legal liability.

That's a completely different ball of wax and one I would obviously advocate. If there's legal or sensitive information being disclosed, then by all means hide the thread!

I don't think "naming and shaming" of the kind you describe works well, except in certain isolated cases.  One example is a post along the lines of "I like running over cats."  Succeeding posts were almost uniform in expressing their disapproval and disgust and the moderators allowed those posts to be made with no other action beyond a PM to the OP strongly suggesting that he apologize, which he did in the thread.

That's a situation where I don't think that should be employed at all. If somebody likes running over cats, well, that's a weird opinion,  but I don't think action should be taken. I'd hope members of a forum would read a line like that, roll their eyes, and move on, probably taking that poster a lot less seriously in the future.

There is a saying:  honey catches more flies than vinegar.  In real life you would not tell a person, "I consider you a knave and a liar unless proven otherwise," so why would you do the equivalent on a Web forum?

I wouldn't say that, most likely. I'd advocate not going after their character but their content. That's very, very important. There's a huge difference between saying "You're an idiot, go away" and "What you just said was idiotic, don't say that anymore." The latter is likely a better way to perform those confrontations, not the former.

A typical example:  "This guy insulted me.  I want him made to cry."  It is impossible to accommodate people like these and still have a healthy board, so I stuck with moderating approaches which had broadly based support.

Maybe where my mental approach differs is that I don't see a need to accommodate. Nobody is going to please everybody, so all a forum can do is be what it is. Since this is a private forum, do what most of the members are comfortable with, and if some of the members don't like it they can either deal with it or leave. Obviously you're then removing viewpoints and valuable discussion from the table, but it's certainly a simpler solution than trying to please everyone. Personally, if I were a moderator and somebody said ""This guy insulted me.  I want him made to cry." I'd tell that person to suck it up and deal with it. We're (mostly) adults- it shouldn't be the moderator's job to be a playground supervisor.

The job of the moderator should be to look after the community, not individuals (relating it back to the situation that prompted this thread- whether you agree with the execution or not, I think the intent of the deletion of that thread was to look out for the community even at the expense of a respected individual. That's a shame for the individual, and I really hope he comes back, but doing something with that post was probably in the best interest of the community, and that's what moderators should be doing, not responding to calls like "so and so is a jerk" or "I'm being unfairly moderated against." Any call for moderation that contains the word "I" or "me" should be ignored completely.).

Anyone reading the thread will know precisely whose conduct the locking was intended to suppress but avoiding the use of specific names allows everyone to get out with dignity.

I guess I don't see a need to preserve dignity. The offending poster would have violated the forum's dignity, so the forum should be able to violate theirs.

"This thread has led to name-calling and much unnecessary acrimony" gets the message across just as effectively, and with much less ill will, than "X is at fault for posting flamebait, Y is at fault for calling X, Z, and A idiots," etc.  Anyone reading the thread will know precisely whose conduct the locking was intended to suppress but avoiding the use of specific names allows everyone to get out with dignity.

That's probably true in most cases. That said, if it's a one side vs the other debate, the person being called out may just assume it was the other side being an idiot, internally putting all the blame on the other guy. In an instance like that, I think it's ok to say "You're both being stupid"

Plus, as a group we are fairly far along on the autistic spectrum, so conflict resolution skills do not come to hand naturally.

Nice.

I actually think it is a good idea to avoid choosing moderators on the basis of length of time in the hobby, number of visitors to personal roads-related website, or other measures of standing in roadgeekdom.  The winners by any such criteria will be grandees, whether they are AARoads moderators or not.  The ideal moderator for AARoads is not necessarily someone who has been in the hobby for a long time or has a roads-related website, but rather someone with good people skills and a strong sense of what is fair.  

I can agree with that as well.

I think the priority has to be on creating a climate in which the "banhammer" is rarely, if ever, necessary.

That's a very good point.

[mightyace]

I don't think "naming and shaming" of the kind you describe works well, except in certain isolated cases.  One example is a post along the lines of "I like running over cats."  Succeeding posts were almost uniform in expressing their disapproval and disgust and the moderators allowed those posts to be made with no other action beyond a PM to the OP strongly suggesting that he apologize, which he did in the thread.

That's a situation where I don't think that should be employed at all. If somebody likes running over cats, well, that's a weird opinion,  but I don't think action should be taken. I'd hope members of a forum would read a line like that, roll their eyes, and move on, probably taking that poster a lot less seriously in the future.

I disagree.  Intentionally running over cats (or dogs) is a crime in most states.  (i.e. Cruelty to animals.)

[corco]

I disagree.  Running over cats (or dogs) is a crime in most states.  (i.e. Cruelty to animals.)

It's a bad thing, for sure, but is saying that on the internet harmful to anybody but the person in question? It just makes the person who made the post look like a horrible person, but they shouldn't be forced to apologize for their actions. Posts that are stupid, which one advocating running over cats certainly is, should be ignored. Responding to a comment like that at all is just going to enable the commenter. A person advocating running over cats already knows that everybody violently disagrees with them and is just trying to fan a fire, so best just to completely ignore them and if they continue making comments like that then, sure, ban them- but not because you disagree with what they said, but because they are engaging in troll-like behavior.

If I want to talk about shooting up heroin on the internet and it is somehow related to the topic at hand, that shouldn't be censored or deleted ,that should be allowed to stand to make me look like a jackass.

[J N Winkler]

I disagree.  Intentionally running over cats (or dogs) is a crime in most states.  (i.e. Cruelty to animals.)

It is also an offense in the jurisdiction (not an US state) where that post was made.  However, in context it was basically an unserious reply to another post which described a cat running out from under cover as a traffic contingency that is hard to avoid.  The moderators (correctly, IMO) saw it as a case of tin ear and didn't take the poster to the woodshed, but it really did hit a nerve.  The joys of posting on the Internet . . .

[corco]

It is also an offense in the jurisdiction (not an US state) where that post was made.  However, in context it was basically an unserious reply to another post which described a cat running out from under cover as a traffic contingency that is hard to avoid.  The moderators (correctly, IMO) saw it as a case of tin ear and didn't take the poster to the woodshed, but it really did hit a nerve.  The joys of posting on the Internet . . .

If it was a joke, even a tasteless joke, then people really need to lighten up.