Forum:Mod Evaluation

Here is the log for the discussion being referred to: http://pastebin.com/V8VfFK39

Hello. Basing this on what I've seen in a recent discussion last night, it's come to my attention that all the Chat moderators need to be put on an evaluation of some sort. I have got reports that some are unhappy with the way moderators conduct themselves. And I believe something like this should be put into a forum. Leave your opinion on the matter in the discussion. 08:55, February 18, 2012 (UTC)

Discussion
Is what you are saying a formal evaluation of all chat moderators? TheDocRichtofen (  Talk  ) 09:06, February 18, 2012 (UTC)


 * I believe he means exactly that. Thundervolt 09:10, February 18, 2012 (UTC)

Can I also state that this topic ignited a storm of open criticism and all-out debate on the Chat. Thundervolt 09:10, February 18, 2012 (UTC)

Only a truly successful debate has two sides. In order to move on, the two sides need to be resolved. Also, if it happens that a lot of Chat users are unhappy with certain members or all chat moderators (which I find extremely hard to believe the latter), it is our duty to make sure that users are happy and that the issue is resolved. TheDocRichtofen (  Talk  ) 09:28, February 18, 2012 (UTC)


 * ^ 17:04, February 18, 2012 (UTC)

Back when I was a chat moderator, I committed actions that were in violation of the Wiki's rules. The actions that I committed led to my chat moderator rights being put on hold until "the time is right". (I am in no way attempting to justify my actions. What I did was wrong, and the punishment I am receiving is just) Now, I hate to admit this but, I do not know what a lot (but not all) of these things were that I did wrong. Why? No one ever bothered to talk to me about them and discipline me on them. From what I have heard, users were reporting things to the admins in private messages and the admins just wrote it down and rarely bothered to take me aside for them and admonish me.

I simply did not know what I was doing was wrong, because I received no punishment/discipline. The human mind will completely, involuntarily disregard rules that are not enforced. (Granted, as a chat moderator I should have been able to discern between right and wrong. However, because I did not receive discipline, I thought what I was doing was perfectly fine.)

It was not until the incident on December 19 that finally broke the camel's back on all of the things I did, many of them being things I was never disciplined for.

I do know that I have no one to blame but myself, however I do believe that (as KATANA stated above) a evaluation system should be put in place to tell moderators what exactly (if anything) they are doing that is wrong so no other moderators will have the same thing happen to them that happened to me.

An idea I came up with is perhaps, at first, a large scale discussion with each chat moderator by some of the chat administrators. They can tell them what they have been hearing and explain how they should improve. Then from then on, when an admin receives a negative report against another user, they will admonish the chat moderator and tell them what it was they did wrong. Admins don't even have to tell the moderator who it was that reported them. However, I do believe that screenshots should be necessary in the report, which can be sanitized (Erasing names and other identifiable things. This can easily be done in MS PAINT) by the admins. The large-scale discussion may be too complex to work for some reason, but it is just an idea. However, the latter part seems highly resonable.

-- 10:17, February 18, 2012 (UTC)

I think it would just be good enough to go over monthly reviews for each of the chat mods, like ask other users how their conduct has been in Chat and how they've conducted themselves throughout the whole Wikia, like editing pages or participating in War Room discussions. 11:17, February 18, 2012 (UTC)

While I see your point, I honestly cannot think of that being effective. Considering the fact you will be telling users that they may have done something wrong like two weeks ago, it just won't work. Discipline is effective when a person is called out as soon as the incident occurs. Waiting until the end of the month, would be highly ineffective. The moderator may even continue to exhibit that behavior until they finally realize at the end of the month that they did something wrong. -- 11:25, February 18, 2012 (UTC)

I meant monthly reviews as the status quo, but if a mod screws up big time they'll have to be dealt with immediately. 11:28, February 18, 2012 (UTC)

Only if a mod screws up big time? It shouldn't matter as to the severity if they should be disciplined immediately. All screw-ups (regardless of severity) should be disciplined immediately. (However, bigger screw ups should definitely result in more severer discipline than others.) All it takes are a whole bunch of little things to finally break the camel's back. However, by disciplining immediately, they will learn not to do them and improve their behavior immediately. -- 11:39, February 18, 2012 (UTC)

OKAY OKAY AJ CALM DOWN. What i'm trying to say is that if a mod does something he shouldn't do, then he'll be dealt with immediately by the admins. The monthly review still goes forward though, like the admins should reinforce stricter management or organise the info on the banlist or something. I dunno 12:03, February 18, 2012 (UTC)

That is exactly what I was saying earlier. Mod does something wrong = immediate discipline which results in the mod knowing what he was doing wrong as well as him being given the opportunity to improve his behavior. Then, at the end of the month each has an evaluation to go over the behavior. -- 12:18, February 18, 2012 (UTC)

I don't really think that is necessary. However, evaluating chat moderators could be the best thing to do to point out the their flaws, and correct them. 12:09, February 18, 2012 (UTC)

Whenever I see a moderator doing something wrong, I will tell them about it. The problems I bring up usually remedy themselves afterwards. If all the chat admins and all the other moderators were to do this (this means the other moderators would have to step up to their peers to tell them when they're wrong), then we wouldn't need any organized system. Shotrocket6 13:30, February 18, 2012 (UTC)

I think a mixture of Yardhog and Paragon's ideas would be an effective scheme. The problem is having both as suggested would be a little overpowering. Chat Mods would constantly feel like they were being watched, which would be awkward and uncomfortable. It is important that the Chat Mods are doing their job proerly, but it is important they feel comfortable and are confident in doing their job. TheDocRichtofen (  Talk  ) 13:34, February 18, 2012 (UTC)

If we were to have an "Evaulation" when should it take place, what would the limits be, and what would happen to the Mods who don't appear because they are busy. I'm a little skeptical on these evaulations and it would seem that their would be a 2 sided arguement that would never cease to stop.13:44, February 18, 2012 (UTC)

Evaluation should only take place on active Chat Mods, that much is certain. It would also be the job of the administrators to do the evaluation. This is gonna take a lot of work, because there are so many questions. Where do we do it? Formal or informal? We gotta do some work before anything could be implemented. Solutions guys? TheDocRichtofen (  Talk  ) 13:53, February 18, 2012 (UTC)

This is unnecessary. Moderators are under constant evaluation and if something was wrong, action would be taken as soon as it is necessary. We can't just stop and evaluate everyone. If no action is being taken, then assume everything is okay. The solution to this is not a flat out evaluation and checkbox-ticking. It's discussion between users and moderators that will sort any problems out. Personally, I'm fine with the current moderation. There are a few hiccups here and there but they're not anything serious (and if they were, then I would make sure they knew). We get rid of troublemakers on a pretty much flawless basis, so there really is no problem that I see, even behaviour-wise. If chat moderator(s) are the ones causing the trouble, make sure an admin knows so the rights can be revoked.

Also, could we have a log of the discussion on chat that led to this? It would be useful for contextualising this whole thing. 15:34, February 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * My point exactly. Something like this will only exaggerate wrongdoing and lead to unnecessary rights revocation. Shotrocket6 15:36, February 18, 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll have to agree with that statement. I was there and the main argument for this mod evaluation was the age-old "we have too many mods" excuse, which I was pretty sure we all know isn't a very valid argument. If a mods has troubles, actions should be taken right away. 17:03, February 18, 2012 (UTC)


 * Well I read over the log and the main complaint seems to be how some users can get away with somethings others can't. Just putting that out there - that shouldn't be allowed. 19:41, February 18, 2012 (UTC)


 * It shouldn't but it's often overlooked by many, from what I've seen, of the mods in chat. 23:58, February 18, 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why this whole thing has suddenly come up, there has been no misbehavior (as of recently) from our Chat Moderators. This whole forum is almost pointless, Admins are contently watching Chat Moderators and if they slip up they will let them know. 17:07, February 18, 2012 (UTC)


 * There are barely even 3 that actually pay attention to the dealing of Chat. That would be CoD4, Shot, and Carb. Otherwise no one bar for the occasional Chia actually pays attention. The dealings of 17 people are being overlooked by 3. 23:57, February 18, 2012 (UTC)


 * Moderators watch out for other mods, and don't think the people of chat just let things slip by unnoticed. 23:59, February 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * I may have the wrong sources, but things have slipped under the carpet far too many times. PotatOS Wanna Test?My Own Test Chambers 00:21, February 19, 2012 (UTC)

I really don't see where this is going. The admins and b'crats are the ones to see if mods are doing their job or not, and it's their decision to change the rights for each user.Long story short, this forum is beating a dead horse.-17:14, February 18, 2012 (UTC)

I don't have much to say that hasn't already been. This forum in unnecessary imo. 19:21, February 18, 2012 (UTC)

I may be going sort of off-topic here, but I would like to say that the discussion that Kat and I had about this intially led into another direction alltogether. My idea was to set up something like a "request for chatmod", considering the fact that chat moderators are both modded and de-modded without any community consensus whatsoever. Under COD:NOT, "The Call of Duty Wiki is not ruled by a select group of people without question." I may be seeing this through the wrong (and maybe even biased) eyes, yet that is exactly how chat moderators are picked; behind closed doors without question. The sysops picking the mods are doing a great job, no doubt about that, but yet I would still like to see some sort of community discussion about that matter. This idea needs a lot of elaboration, but it is quite realistic.

Coming back to this forum, I completely agree that some mods definitely need an evaluation. PotatOS 
 * But by that logic wouldn't rollback come under the same umbrella? 01:32, February 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * It would, but Rollback is not as big a deal as chatmod. You see, if I have Rollback, I can undo edits faster. That's pretty much it. If I have chatmod, however, I can limit user's accessibility to the wiki/change user rights. I hope my point gets across and that I'm not being hypocritical.

OK i'll put my two cents in. I have always been a proponent of "If you are not an admin, then you're not a moderator. Period. Admins that have been around for a while are trusted users of the community and got their rights via an RfA. It is not like they were just handed the tools and told to go out and do their own thing. They all had to go through the RfA process and the same should hold true for Chat moderators. If this was the case then the need for "evaluating" a moderators skills and judgment would be moot. Personally my opinion is that chat should be shut down completely. I can not recall a day that has not gone by with some mention of a user either getting banned or an argument over something stupid happening. IMO its just not worth the grief.  Talk  01:13, February 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with that statement and yet at the same time disagree. While I agree chat often times becomes more like a bad drama show then an actual place to chat and just causes un-necessary troubles, if we just shut it down, a lot of users would be un-happy. Now, would I mind chat being shut down for a while? No. But we're simply going to get even more grief if we shut it down is the sad truth. 02:17, February 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * I have listened to a lot of users and you are completely right, it sounds like a bad drama show..... everyday. If we just shut it down what will the "unhappy" users do? they can go to IRC, simple. its alot simpler than some portray it to be 20PX_SIG.gif  Talk 03:35, February 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * Whisk: I'm sorry, but your suggestion is going to cause more mayhem than prevent it. I can already imagine a bunch of angry users flooding IRC, or IRC becoming just like chat is atm. And I'm sure some IRC users wouldn't quite like that. On a side note, shutting down Chat shouldn't be discussed here; this is about the MODS, not Chat as a whole. 03:39, February 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * please read my first post first. the thought of shuting it down was a side comment. 20PX_SIG.gif  Talk 03:42, February 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * Chat has given us a lot of traffic that we likely wouldn't have recieved otherwise. Shotrocket6 04:24, February 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe so. what 5%, 10%, 15%? Not likely. I'd say any thing over 10% would be a significant increase. But the amount of new users coming here to chat and that truly make an effective and lasting impact on the wiki mainspace through their contribs are insignificant. I would make a guess that any user starting issues on chat and then getting banned for it are not going to be contributing to the wiki manispace very much if at all. But again that is besidde the mainpoint of mods being eval'ed. 20PX_SIG.gif  Talk 05:37, February 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * The idea is that chat brings us greater readership and thus greater numbers of potentially good editors. Shotrocket6 05:45, February 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * That may be the idea and that idea is flawed. Chat has been around for like 6 months now and judging by results and the amount of bans in-place that has not been the case. 20PX_SIG.gif  Talk 06:02, February 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think I've ever seen you in chat, so I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't know that it's not all bans and drama. Just like the real world, you'll only hear the bad things about chat; 90% of the time, chat is a good place to be. Shotrocket6 06:10, February 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree to the last statement. 06:22, February 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * I have been in chat more that a few times. Every time I go into S:C; the first impression that I get is that it's a romper room full of users trolling and or arguing. Its not the kind of place i'd like to waste my time in. Therfore I don't. And again please refer to my very first post about this forum and the issue of eval's for mods. That what this forum is about shotrocket. 20PX_SIG.gif  Talk 06:33, February 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * How can you expect to know what it's usually like, Sp3c and WHISKEY, when you're rarely there? I usually don't have to deal with any issues when I'm in the chat. Shotrocket6 06:45, February 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * And again please refer to my very first post about this forum and the issue of eval's for mods. That what this forum is about. 20PX_SIG.gif  Talk 06:55, February 19, 2012 (UTC)

(Resetting indent) Wikia would not have chosen to give administrators the right to add or remove chatmod rights if they did not think it wasn't as big a deal as an RfA. While I see your point, I disagree in that community consensus is not necessary for making a user a mod, when that user would rarely affect the users that actually pay attention to RfAs anyway. I will have to agree with some other users that have argued that rollback is not a community consensus and that right can be given and taken at the will of a bureaucrat. Shotrocket6 07:02, February 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see how IRC would become like Chat, I'm assuming you don't know what IRC is like. IRC is much more advanced and we have a wider range of tools available to us, thus preventing it from becoming like that. In addition, it was never even close to chat, and I doubt any users would care for a change like that. 05:39, February 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * I know full well what IRC is like, as I lurk around have hung out there more often than before. I'm just saying that if Chat WAS shut down, you would have to expect a bunch of Chat users flooding into IRC, which would undoubtedly create change. 05:53, February 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * It probably wouldn't because of the userbase and the amount of tools. In chat, if something doesn't qualify for a ban, you let it be, which has inturn lead to many problems. But, in IRC you can simply quiet someone with out having to flat out ban them. It would most likely not change, as many Chat users say that they do not like IRC and would not join it. 06:04, February 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * Gee I wonder why they don't like it. It's not like there are users on IRC who constantly and incessantly bash the users on chat, the mods on chat, and everything chat stands for. Obviously seems like a warm and welcoming place. 16:09, February 19, 2012 (UTC)


 * As I've said before, if chat goes, IRC goes as well. You can't double standardise things. Simple as that. 16:09, February 19, 2012 (UTC)

I would completely expect a flood of users from chat to flood into IRC if chat were to be closed. However, as Sp3c has said, they can be dealt with quickly, quietly and effectively. Now, lets get back on topic, which is about Chat Moderator Evaluation. TheDocRichtofen (  Talk  ) 10:43, February 19, 2012 (UTC)