Complaints about Mod actions

[Christina]

We have our first complaint and we haven't hammered out the process for that other than a general agreement that this stuff should be done in public, so that's what we're bumbling around doing now. This is at least a start on what I think would work, so feel free to pick it apart.

When someone opens a complaint thread here, I think that whatever mod(s) took the action should explain their reasoning. At that point I think that the admins should take over, and that it shouldn't be left to the mods in that forum to decide how to resolve it. I think that a complaint about a mod is a request to go over our heads, so that's who they should get to appeal to. The admins can ask all of the questions that they want, and then come to a decision. Having the mods do it is like letting us be the prosecution, judge and jury all at the same time. It should all be in public.

Personally I think it would be a pain in the ass and take forever to get a resolution if anyone that wants to gets to post in the thread. I liked Hectarin's idea about letting the person with the complaint choose anyone that they'd like to participate in the thread with them, or if we go with the ombudsman position they should be there. If others think that they have relevant information they can send it to the ombudsman and they'll decide if they think that person should be in the thread too.

So what does everyone else think?

[ravenscape]

I like the idea. Working out the permissions to handle who can and can't post in the thread is problematic, though. I hate to suggest this, but if we had a peanut gallery thread, there'd be a meaningful place to split the posts by people who shouldn't have posted.

Maybe we can try this first complaint as a completely open one, and allow anyone who wishes to voice their opinion on the complained action to speak their piece provided it doesn't monopolize the discussion.

[Christina]

I think that's a good idea for this one especially, since it's about a vaguely defined policy that we need to hammer out better about what gets split in terms of netdrama.

[mac_philo]

I don't see why open discussion is either a pain in the ass or makes the process take much longer. Even if that's true, well, that's just too bad.

Having a public discussion does not mean every participant must be satisfied, or every point by every participant must be answered. Worrying about someone monopolizing the debate seems like just another way to categorize useless and useful complaining. It isn't even possible to monopolize a debate in a thread the way someone could vocally monopolize a face-to-face meeting, so I don't know what you really mean. They have the right to have their say, whether it monopolizes your time is completely up to you.

Why would a vague policy require being discussed by a select few? All should have their say.

IMO, staff duties should range from the boring to the pain in the ass, and the threads should be wide open.

[Christina]

I think that policy discussions should always be open to everyone. My reference to it being a pain in the ass was more from the perspective of the complainer who has to wait longer to get a resolution while other people jump in their thread.

From my perspective, I explain it once and then the admins take over. It's not a pain in the ass for me.

On the other hand, unnecessary hostility in an otherwise calm conversation is far more of a pain in the ass to me than dealing with complaints is.

[RBH]

I'm not uncomfortable with either hashing complaints out in public or with the admins taking on the resolution task. I will ask (require?) that it be understood that such threads are to be kept on topic and that extraneous commentary be kept to a minimum indistinguishable from zero.

Right now it's not a problem because we're small, but as we grow it will become more and more demanding of admin time. We may revisit the posting privileges in such threads then.

[Christina]

I like that - thanks : )

[DMB]

At what point would you decide that repeated complaints about a particular mod = harrassment?

Obviously, anyone who has real problems can propose a recall.

[Christina]

I've only had one experience with that with that and the fact that it was personal harassment was obvious from the way that he followed me around making nasty comments that had nothing to do with mod actions. I think that the administrators will realize after a while that it's personal if there are repeated complaints with no merit combined with other forms of harassment.

[Octavia]

I like RBH's idea. I think that's workable, and I think staff and posters can work together to see that it is.

[Michael]

One of the features of IIDB that irked me was that the users cannot defend themselves within the discussion regarding their own behavior because they cannot see the discussion. And, as much as I ascertain the mods & admins to be friendly people, they are not always the most critical thinkers. Perhaps, I'd have more faith in their decision process if (i) I could see their reasoning or (ii) know there is another person (who must be sharp) to view and potentially advocate for the member/user or (iii) they could announce any verdict with an explanation.

I am unequivocally and categorically in favor of an open forum. In fact, I'd say an open forum best resonates with the intellectual and 'talkrational' goals of this forum.

[Jet Black]

(ii) know there is another person (who must be sharp) to view and potentially advocate for the member/user


Well this proposal has been made in terms of having an ombudsman. We're still not quite there yet. One thing is ensuring the impartiality, fairness and trustworthiness of the person who does that job.