In all the re-working of the forum - I would only hope that something could be looked at again. The release of one of the mods here did a lot of damage to the forum - to see the way that a Christian spent many years, many hours and had her whole heart into the forum treated in the way that she was treated took a lot of wind out of the sales here - was not done in a Christian way whatsoever.
I am speaking of Flaglady - a true Christian with the heart for everyone she met - she put her whole heart and soul into this forum and her treatment lacked much as to 'do unto others'
Originally Posted by bill16652
Totally agree with this post. Perhaps this could be addressed as well.
So...those general figures out of the way...when member services review bans they're looking at everything in total. ie: they're not going to lift a ban but leave an infraction...same thing they're not going to remove and infraction but leave a ban. So when an infraction-based ban is appealed...it sort of is a per se review of the infractions which preceded (and led to) the bans. They're looking at the ban in the context of the totality of staff actions which led to the ban...not just the ban itself or the last infraction.
I'll believe it when I see it. Oh, that's right--I won't see it. Staff processes are Sooper Seekrit.
You are a generally trustworthy and honest person. If you were directly running the appeals system, I could have some faith in it. But you are not.
My experience is that RT is too closely tied to the rest of moderation Staff and is unwilling to take action that would upset moderation Staff. You have made some vague statements that RT will be changed to some sort of "member services" organization, but I see that you have posted no specifics about how that will be done. Quite frankly, this indicates to me that you do not have the political power to implement any policy that would change this dynamic.
Prove me wrong. Post the specific changes in the appeals process that will disrupt the dynamic of RT being unwilling to upset moderation Staff.
__________________
No peace among the nations without peace among the religions.
No peace among the religions without dialogue among the religions.
No dialogue among the religions without investigation of the foundation of the religions. ~Hans Küng
The Admin's role is to administrate their staff and forum areas. You may also work with Advisors on site policies and site issues.
Admins should no longer be working in the reports (this will be different in Recovery since the team is so small). Admins should rarely be called into reports. If you are being called in on a regular basis, this indicates a problem at the Super/Sr. Mod level. Supers need to be taking on the role Admins currently have with regards to working reports and report related issues. Sometimes only an Admin will be able to make a difficult call, but this should be extremely rare.
Admins will check the ASA forum on a regular basis to look for new policies, procedures, and announcements. Any new policies or procedures should be taken and discussed with your Supers first, then the rest of staff. Ask questions of the Advisors and fellow Admins to make sure you understand new issues well enough to pass them along to your staff.
Admins will bring any site issues that surface to the ASA room so you can discuss them with one another and the Advisors.
Admins will check archived reports regularly to make sure they are worked correctly and without bias. If there are problems you should re-open the report, teach your staff regarding errors, or bring the issues to your Supers.
Admins are in charge of their staff's discipline. If your Supers notify you there are problems with a Sr. Mod, Mod, or Trainee, you must decide what discipline should occur. Your current choices are: a Letter of Counseling, Letter of Reprimand, or Firing. If you have a problem with a Super they can be also reprimanded, demoted, or fired.
Admins should mentor all their staff, especially their Supers, so they are able to take over Admin duties when these positions become open.
Admins should regularly encourage their team through the use of blessings, reps, threads in staff HQ, etc. Be creative in how you bring unity to your team. Hold regular staff meetings on MSN or Yahoo if you can.
Admins will be in charge of making sure their staff are doing the work they have signed up to do. HR can run mod stats for you at any time. If you have staff that aren't working, PM them to see what's wrong. See if they are having problems or are in need of prayer, etc. If they will not respond, or if there is no problem keeping them from working, they should be dismissed from staff. If they are not voting in reports, or if they never send counseling PMs, warnings, or infractions, they should be dismissed.
If Supers cannot resolve member or staff complaints, conflicts and issues, they will bring the problem to you for resolution.
If a Supervisor is on vacation or LOA, Admins will either call in a Super from another team to fill that slot or designate a Sr. Mod to fill the role until the Supervisor returns.
Work closely with your Supers. Utilize the Admin/Super forum.
Work to make Supers the go-to people in reports. As said before, if you are constantly being called into reports, this indicates a problem at the Super/Sr. Mod level.
Keep an eye on your forums to see if there are problems with members or rules that need to be brought up to Advisors
Admins are no longer just voting members of the team. You are the team leader and team manager. If you have trouble knowing when to discipline staff or how to go about that, or any other questions or problems, Advisors and HR are available to you at all times.
How Admins are evaluated
Advisors will evaluate Admins by looking at several areas:
Leadership
Are Admins willing to take responsibility when their team messes up? Are they willing to be the bad guy/fall guy in front of members if needed? Do they let problems with mods fester and create more problems, or do they take the responsibility of firing/reprimanding them?
When policy changes are made, does the Admin run interference for Jr. Staff, making sure their staff have all the tools they need to enact that policy, keeping the staffers from having to fight for these tools and/or be weighted down by trivial things while they are trying to work reports?
Mentoring
An admin should groom supervisors for possible admin or superadmin functionality should such staff members so desire. An admin whose team members are never prepared to move up is likely not being very effective when it comes to mentoring future leaders.
When an admin notices training deficiencies, do they seek out proactive ways to address such, or just let things slide?
Member Interaction
Admins should be posting out in their forums. They will be evaluated on this, and on the tone and content of their posts to make sure they are following board rules. Admins should set the tone for their team regarding interaction with members. Postings on the forum should be polite and free from flaming. Staff will follow their example. Admins should never flame or be rude to members in PMs or in addressing problems. You can be tough, but should not be insulting. Your staff will follow your tone and the example you set.
Reports
Except in Recovery, Admins should not be participating nor commenting in reports on a regular basis. They should be reviewing archived reports to make sure they were done correctly, but should only very, very rarely post in open reports. If you see a problem with an open report, contact a Super to see if they also see a problem and can steer the staff to the more fair outcome. Archived reports can be used to teach the staff about what went wrong (bad outcome, rude PM to member, letting the member get away with too much in regards to harassing staff, etc). Use archived reports that were a problem as a teaching tool for Supers and all staff. Also used archived reports to point out when the team did a great job, too.
If reports are getting flagged for "Admin Input" too often, this indicates a problem at the hands-on training level and that needs to be addressed. Likely at first with this change, Supers may come to you on a more frequent basis. Teach your Supers well, who will then spread that teaching to your other staff. Ideally only Supers should be marking things "Admin Input",and only if they cannot solve the issue themselves. If staff needs re-training, re-train them. If they need re-training at just the functioning moderator level, send them back to Gazelle. If you need more staff, recruit or have your staff recruit.
It probably would have been better if I'd gotten into the weeds a bit more in the beginning on this point. I'm pretty sure that this is "how" it is going to work...but I may be a bit off...I have so many CF related things crammed in my head at the moment that I need a directory or something.
Regarding bans:
1) the 24-48 hour variety haven't been appealable for a while now...generally because we can't marshal people quick enough for review. Plus when we did look at them I'd say that in 99% of the time they were warranted.
2) Same with the 7 day variety based on accumulating 4 active warnings. We looked at these too and in the vast majority of cases the bans were warranted. I'm comfortable with the j-curve when it comes to efficiency vice bureaucratic overhead. I'm, frankly, just being realistic when it comes to addressing the spectrum of possible to perfect.
On to the bigger issue of infraction appeals vs bans (based on infractions) appeals. I would say that an overwhelming number of infractions issued are upheld on appeal. There is an outlier when it comes to successful challenges to infractions which generated a ban. While not substantially increased in number (in the aggregate) I'd venture to guess that the results are, in fact, statistically significant if I bothered to do the math. In this case I'm comfortable with my "back of the envelope" calculations. This, too, drove the decision on where to concentrate our efforts. There are a couple of reasons for the disparity...not the least of which is that the Advisors have overturned bans / infractions when other staff elements have judged them proper.
I just took a list at the total number of users that we have on temporary (ie: not permanent) bans. There are ~30 accounts banned based on infractions...the number of actual users is less as we'll ban any socks that we know of for the same amount of time. There are some other random categories (COPPA compliance, for example...that are set to expire when the user is old enough legally to be on the site w/o parental permission). Of those that are considered appropriate the overwhelming majority are for issues related to harassing another member (ie: not stuff like general flaming etc). I generally review every ban that is appealed (even if I don't comment) and I'm generally comfortable with the outcome...if not we usually overturn if the disagreements are strong enough.
So...those general figures out of the way...when member services review bans they're looking at everything in total. ie: they're not going to lift a ban but leave an infraction...same thing they're not going to remove and infraction but leave a ban. So when an infraction-based ban is appealed...it sort of is a per se review of the infractions which preceded (and led to) the bans. They're looking at the ban in the context of the totality of staff actions which led to the ban...not just the ban itself or the last infraction.
So...it is not as if infractions can never be appealed. It is just that on a singular basis we're disallowing appeals as it really isn't the best use of limited resources...in many cases as the appeal is unsuccessful. Likewise, a full review of everything is appropriate when dealing with a ban. While the success rate is not substantially bigger than a general infraction review...it is significantly bigger.
Which leads to the obvious question: why is there a disaparity? That is where my efforts are concentrated at the moment (as it pertains to infractions / bans).
So...I'm comfortable with the elimination of the individual staff action appeal...essentially because they are still reviewed given the appropriate situation. Frankly, infractions serve as a deterrent from further (what we consider) inappropriate behavior. Based on the evidence they generally work...the likelihood of getting one infraction is actually pretty low (based on the numbers of members that actually have infraction). The likelihood of getting a second prior to the first infraction expiring is even lower...however IF one manages to get a second in quick succession the likeihood of things accelerating to a ban stage is greater...which is why we're concentrating our efforts on that end.
I know that the solution will not make everybody happy. However, given the fact that we're in day 3 of the new normal I'm willing to give the process time in order to build a data set to see if it accomplishing our goals. Likewise, I hope the above disabuses the notion that infractions can never be reviewed...as it is not the case.
Thank you for taking the time to explain all this in such detail. It really helps me see staff's side of this issue. (And it's kinda cool to see all these statistical jargons. )
I can't speak for everyone, but my educated guess is that the biggest worry about losing the ability to appeal infractions won't come from lots of people who would all of a sudden be more likely to be banned. Instead, the perception exists that should a staff member hit one of us with an allegedly unfair warning, we would no longer have the safety net known as the appeals. Even though a ban appeal would now look at everything, which I think is a great idea, we still have the initial infraction issue to worry about.
Don't get me wrong, I definitely believe you that the actual number of people banned due to infractions is quite low. But that perception, fueled by years of alleged ineffective moderating, are what I think will cause this not to go over well.
__________________
"When will someone in the media expose all of the lies?" --Glenn Beck, FOX News
Supervisor positions are now filled according to the size of each team. Some teams will have more than others. The Supervisor position is taking on more duties.
Supervisors:
this role is report driven. Supers supervise your team's reports and moderators, help your Admins with whatever tasks they assign, and help Admins with forum related issues
Supervisors may issue infractions and bans. Supers must also NOT issue these if you feel the team is in error. If you feel an infraction or ban is not warranted, explain to your team why and use the ocassion as a teaching opportunity. Supers may also approve an infraction or ban and a Sr. Mod may carry out the action. Sr. Mods may issue or ok warnings to be issued. In the case of a fourth warning triggering a one-week ban, a Supervisor must approve.
Supers work with Sr. Mods to make sure reports are being worked correctly and fairly
Supers mentor Sr. Mods so they become ready to fill Supervisor positions
Supers should talk often with their Admins in the Super/Admin conference room. We need you to communicate with your Admin regarding problems in reports, problems with staff, issues with members, etc.
Supers will help guide new mods and should be on the look-out to recruit new staff
Supervisors will also talk to Sr. Mods, Mods and Trainees about new policies, problems, etc. brought to them by the Admins
Supers should be a present figure in your forums, encourage Sr. Mods and Mods to do the same and encourage staff participation in CR/staff headquarter threads
Sr. Mods will bring issues with member conflicts or questions to you. If they can't be solved at the Super level, take the issues to your Admin
If a Super is on vacation or LOA, Admins will either call in a Super from another team to cover their duties or appoint a Sr. Mod to fulfill the duties until the Super returns.
![[serious]'s Avatar](http://www.christianforums.com/cache/customavatars/avatar160873_6.gif){kind=avatar}
)
Linear Mode
