how do you become a moderator

[Snark]

On 7/14/2016 at 11:51 AM, ZooNamedGames said:

I have 0% desire for powers. Just want to officially helping.

15 hours ago, Frybert said:

One certainly doesn't need to be a moderator to be helping. 

^ This.

Seriously, this.

I spend quite a bit of time on the forums.  Virtually all of my time on the forums is spent in trying to help, in one way or another.  That was the case before I became a moderator, and it didn't change when I became one.

The imprimatur of being "official" really doesn't mean anything that matters (other than the powers).  For example, I like to think that people respect me for being a useful, informative, levelheaded contributor to the forum, someone who's more likely to help a thread (provide crucial information; pour oil on troubled waters and de-escalate tensions) than to hurt it (add confusion; pour gasoline on the fire).  Maybe I manage to hit that bar, maybe I don't.  But the point is... whether or not I'm actually a moderator has nothing to do with that.

A user who's helpful, respectful, and friendly will garner the respect of others regardless of whether he or she is a mod.  A person who's more... problematic... will not, and giving them an "official" title wouldn't change that.

Plenty of the people whom I respect most on these forums-- and do a great job of helping people and resolving problems-- aren't moderators.  They don't have powers, true... but honestly, most of what being a moderator is all about is judgment, not powers.  You can do 90% of what a moderator does, just by being a responsible, unflappable, consistently helpful person on the forum.  And the last little bit that you can't do-- the powers, i.e. the trivial few mouse clicks to actually make something happen-- you can often just-as-good-as do that by reporting posts that need action, including your analysis in a note with the report.

And the common characteristic of the moderators I know is that they don't care about that "official" imprimatur.  None of them are hung up on "look, I'm official!"  Being a moderator is a burden, not a privilege, and the people who do it are tolerating the burden because they're the kind of folks who are willing to make sacrifices-- unpaid-- simply for the sake of helping people.  (They're a little like mod authors, in that regard, except without all the popularity.)

So really, what it boils down to is this:  Being "official" is really not something to covet.  And if you find yourself wanting to be a moderator because you covet that... then that's a good sign that you're not ready yet. 

[ZooNamedGames]

1 hour ago, Snark said:

^ This.

Seriously, this.

I spend quite a bit of time on the forums.  Virtually all of my time on the forums is spent in trying to help, in one way or another.  That was the case before I became a moderator, and it didn't change when I became one.

The imprimatur of being "official" really doesn't mean anything that matters (other than the powers).  For example, I like to think that people respect me for being a useful, informative, levelheaded contributor to the forum, someone who's more likely to help a thread (provide crucial information; pour oil on troubled waters and de-escalate tensions) than to hurt it (add confusion; pour gasoline on the fire).  Maybe I manage to hit that bar, maybe I don't.  But the point is... whether or not I'm actually a moderator has nothing to do with that.

A user who's helpful, respectful, and friendly will garner the respect of others regardless of whether he or she is a mod.  A person who's more... problematic... will not, and giving them an "official" title wouldn't change that.

Plenty of the people whom I respect most on these forums-- and do a great job of helping people and resolving problems-- aren't moderators.  They don't have powers, true... but honestly, most of what being a moderator is all about is judgment, not powers.  You can do 90% of what a moderator does, just by being a responsible, unflappable, consistently helpful person on the forum.  And the last little bit that you can't do-- the powers, i.e. the trivial few mouse clicks to actually make something happen-- you can often just-as-good-as do that by reporting posts that need action, including your analysis in a note with the report.

And the common characteristic of the moderators I know is that they don't care about that "official" imprimatur.  None of them are hung up on "look, I'm official!"  Being a moderator is a burden, not a privilege, and the people who do it are tolerating the burden because they're the kind of folks who are willing to make sacrifices-- unpaid-- simply for the sake of helping people.  (They're a little like mod authors, in that regard, except without all the popularity.)

So really, what it boils down to is this:  Being "official" is really not something to covet.  And if you find yourself wanting to be a moderator because you covet that... then that's a good sign that you're not ready yet. 

Really if I could have one thing, I don't even want the ability to give infractions, delete/edit posts (etc), I just want to be the final word. Your right, I can help without being a mod, however I can help a great deal more, and moreover I have been helping for a great long time and in honesty, I'll come forward and admit it; despite my long career here I'll likely never be one so I'm left with, just let a man dream. 

[Snark]

49 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

Really if I could have one thing, I don't even want the ability to give infractions, delete/edit posts (etc), I just want to be the final word.

 

Being a moderator means getting the "final word" a lot less than you might think.

I'm not quite sure exactly what you mean by "final word" in this context, but I tend to associate that phrase with arguments.  And moderators can't participate in arguments.

("But Snark," I hear the masses cry, "you're a moderator, and you argue all the time! In great lumbering walls of text!  Heck, you're arguing right now!"  Okay, okay, I guess I'd better clarify what I mean by that.) 

Technically speaking, a moderator is an enforcer of discipline.  That's the only technical thing that separates a moderator from a "civilian" (non-moderator forum participant).  However, a moderator is not only a moderator.  A moderator is also a KSP player, who participates in the forums as any "civilian" would.  And of course, that includes the occasional argument.

So here's the thing:  you cannot be a participant in a discussion, AND also be an enforcer of discipline in that discussion.  It's a direct conflict of interest.  If I'm arguing with you, it's not okay if I can use a club on you, but you can't do the same to me.

So when I get into an argument-- or a "lively discussion", if you prefer-- I'm not wearing my moderator hat.  I'm simply engaging in free-speech-within-the-forum-rules, same as any other forum participant.  By doing so, I'm taking a step back from my "moderator" status.  For example, if someone toxic were to jump into this discussion right now, and start flagrantly making flamebaiting posts or other major rules violations, it wouldn't be me handing out the infraction:  I'm already a participant here, so I'd recuse myself.  Some other moderator, who's not directly involved and can therefore be unassailably impartial, would step in to deal with the matter.

By the same token:  if I have to show up somewhere and apply discipline in my role as a moderator... then I've basically rendered that discussion out of bounds for myself as a participant.  And that's kind of a bummer, frankly, because often such discussions are interesting ones that I'd love to participate in, but now I have to sit 'em out. 

So:  being a moderator doesn't give the final word in an argument.  Because either you're participating in the discussion in a "civilian capacity"-- in which case you don't use your moderator powers, and are in the same boat with everyone else in the discussion-- or else you're there as a rule-enforcer-- in which case you're not a participant in the discussion at all.

TL;DR:  Being a moderator is not a tool for winning arguments.

Now, of course, the above discussion assumes that by "final word" you meant it in the sense of "as part of a contentious argument"; perhaps you meant it differently. It's true, for example, that moderators often get a "final word" in the completely literal sense of making a final post when locking a thread.  But even there, it's a lot less a matter of "personally get the final word on something" than you might think.  Locked threads are generally either total no-brainers (e.g. a multi-year necro that has no validity, clearly needs locking just to prevent confusion), in which case you're just making a brief explanatory note that anyone would make... or else it's one of the drama-bomb threads where a flame war is raging and it needs to be put on ice.  In that case, yeah, there's a final word, and it's generally a fairly significant one.  But such cases are almost always a team effort on the moderator's part (even though you, as a "civilian", can't see that).  Whenever we have one of those firestorm threads that needs locking, we almost always discuss it in IRC and come to a group consensus before the thread gets locked, to ensure maximum fairness and to minimize the potential for individual errors in judgment-- in which case the mod who does the locking isn't really getting the "final word" himself, he's simply the messenger who's delivering a group decision.

[ZooNamedGames]

1 hour ago, Snark said:

 

Being a moderator means getting the "final word" a lot less than you might think.

I'm not quite sure exactly what you mean by "final word" in this context, but I tend to associate that phrase with arguments.  And moderators can't participate in arguments.

("But Snark," I hear the masses cry, "you're a moderator, and you argue all the time! In great lumbering walls of text!  Heck, you're arguing right now!"  Okay, okay, I guess I'd better clarify what I mean by that.) 

Technically speaking, a moderator is an enforcer of discipline.  That's the only technical thing that separates a moderator from a "civilian" (non-moderator forum participant).  However, a moderator is not only a moderator.  A moderator is also a KSP player, who participates in the forums as any "civilian" would.  And of course, that includes the occasional argument.

So here's the thing:  you cannot be a participant in a discussion, AND also be an enforcer of discipline in that discussion.  It's a direct conflict of interest.  If I'm arguing with you, it's not okay if I can use a club on you, but you can't do the same to me.

So when I get into an argument-- or a "lively discussion", if you prefer-- I'm not wearing my moderator hat.  I'm simply engaging in free-speech-within-the-forum-rules, same as any other forum participant.  By doing so, I'm taking a step back from my "moderator" status.  For example, if someone toxic were to jump into this discussion right now, and start flagrantly making flamebaiting posts or other major rules violations, it wouldn't be me handing out the infraction:  I'm already a participant here, so I'd recuse myself.  Some other moderator, who's not directly involved and can therefore be unassailably impartial, would step in to deal with the matter.

By the same token:  if I have to show up somewhere and apply discipline in my role as a moderator... then I've basically rendered that discussion out of bounds for myself as a participant.  And that's kind of a bummer, frankly, because often such discussions are interesting ones that I'd love to participate in, but now I have to sit 'em out. 

So:  being a moderator doesn't give the final word in an argument.  Because either you're participating in the discussion in a "civilian capacity"-- in which case you don't use your moderator powers, and are in the same boat with everyone else in the discussion-- or else you're there as a rule-enforcer-- in which case you're not a participant in the discussion at all.

TL;DR:  Being a moderator is not a tool for winning arguments.

Now, of course, the above discussion assumes that by "final word" you meant it in the sense of "as part of a contentious argument"; perhaps you meant it differently. It's true, for example, that moderators often get a "final word" in the completely literal sense of making a final post when locking a thread.  But even there, it's a lot less a matter of "personally get the final word on something" than you might think.  Locked threads are generally either total no-brainers (e.g. a multi-year necro that has no validity, clearly needs locking just to prevent confusion), in which case you're just making a brief explanatory note that anyone would make... or else it's one of the drama-bomb threads where a flame war is raging and it needs to be put on ice.  In that case, yeah, there's a final word, and it's generally a fairly significant one.  But such cases are almost always a team effort on the moderator's part (even though you, as a "civilian", can't see that).  Whenever we have one of those firestorm threads that needs locking, we almost always discuss it in IRC and come to a group consensus before the thread gets locked, to ensure maximum fairness and to minimize the potential for individual errors in judgment-- in which case the mod who does the locking isn't really getting the "final word" himself, he's simply the messenger who's delivering a group decision.

I'm referring to necroposts and other blatantly rule breaking posts, but not so much arguments. Currently if I tried to tell someone it's bad to Necropost, it would be necromoaning (but you can manage necroposts by reporting! I could, but since I'm already viewing the post I wish I could do something then).

[Snark]

9 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

I'm referring to necroposts and other blatantly rule breaking posts, but not so much arguments. Currently if I tried to tell someone it's bad to Necropost, it would be necromoaning (but you can manage necroposts by reporting! I could, but since I'm already viewing the post I wish I could do something then).

Ah.

Actually, necroposts aren't "blatantly rule breaking"-- they're discouraged, and often not a good idea, but sometimes they're actually valid.  So a bit of judgment is called for.

But it looks like you've already got a handle on how to deal with them ... specifically:  don't tell them that (necromoaning and other backseat moderating is always wrong, whereas necroposting only sometimes is), and report the post, and then a moderator will take whatever action's appropriate.

I totally get the "wish I could do something then," yes.

 

[ZooNamedGames]

32 minutes ago, Snark said:

 Ah.

Actually, necroposts aren't "blatantly rule breaking"-- they're discouraged, and often not a good idea, but sometimes they're actually valid.  So a bit of judgment is called for.

But it looks like you've already got a handle on how to deal with them ... specifically:  don't tell them that (necromoaning and other backseat moderating is always wrong, whereas necroposting only sometimes is), and report the post, and then a moderator will take whatever action's appropriate.

I totally get the "wish I could do something then," yes.

 

Ofc, as the rule states it has to be reviving a thread without an update to it (i.e. A response to someone else's comment). It's on a per case basis as to what happens. I understand why we can't have backseat moderating but I do wish I could do something more than simply report it since I'm there, but you know that. 

But to close my discussion in this thread, I want to be mod and I don't want to be one for power or to boss people around but to make my time here more useful. You said that the ones who become mods are the ones who are reluctant to be one, those who don't want the power, and I understand since that's because you don't want people who want to be mods for power which could be potential risks for abusing said power. 

To reiterate one of my earlier comments, my hopes to one day become one are nothing more than a dream. There will always be someone who's a better candidate, always.

[UnionPacific1983WP]

If only I was 18, and if only Google Translate counted as speaking another language...

[Camacha]

It also helps to go with the program. Do not discuss or question any of the conventions or rules, even if it would improve things. Doing so will certainly land you a few infractions.

It makes sense though. You do not want cops to question the law. You just want them to execute it.

Edited July 16, 2016 by Camacha

[ZooNamedGames]

3 minutes ago, Camacha said:

It also helps to go with the program. Do not discuss or question any of the conventions or rules, even if it would improve things. Doing so will certainly land you a few infractions.

It makes sense though. You do not want cops to question the law. You just want them to execute it.

I really don't question the rules since I know why they exist. Each one has a purpose.

[Vanamonde]

The thread's question has been answered, and the discussion is now straying into disputing forum rules and policies. That never ends well, which is why we have a rule about it (3.4). Time to move on to other discussions, please.