I'm spending a lot of time thinking about mods, mod tools, and the critical skills that great mods have in common. Can you tell me about a time a mod did something that struck you as really extraordinary (here or another community), and what was it about it that really amazed you?
1A wild thought: maybe you could use some of the answers here, in some distilled form, to write new updated mod help pages, maybe even to write A Theory of Moderation Mk II? As far as I remember (though it's been a long time since I read them all), the existing mod pages in the help centre are focused on tooling rather than soft skills. Of course, to a large extent, soft skills can't be taught, maybe can't even be described very rigorously, but there's some good stuff on this page which could probably be condensed into a nice list of mod principles/aspirations.– Rand al'ThorSep 23, 2021 at 16:57
3You cracked the code :)– Philippe StaffModSep 23, 2021 at 17:17
Mk III ... Iirc Tim did mk II 😅– Journeyman Geek ModSep 24, 2021 at 6:27
community-vp-questions don't well received and need bounty 43/-6– 4b0Sep 24, 2021 at 6:38
Well - they arn't generally featured, so most of the votes are from the MSE core I guess. As for downvotes, there's all sorts of reasons they could happen, from Mr Post's lost keys to people disageeing with the question to people disagreeing with the company– Journeyman Geek ModSep 24, 2021 at 6:47
1@JourneymanGeek Skill of a great mod "When you click flag on a non answer, and mod has already deleted it before you could submit the flag" ;)– Resistance Is FutileSep 26, 2021 at 9:41
1Personally, I had such a terrible and bad experience with the moderators of a site in which I participated, that on the site in which I currently participate the most (UXSE), I find it excellent that they simply know how to moderate, be correct, polite and patient.– DanielilloSep 26, 2021 at 18:33
Something I admire in a moderator is the willingness to freely and publicly admit to getting something wrong and seeking to correct that wrong and learn from it.
To some it’s a sign of weakness. To me, it’s a sign of someone willing to look at a situation again and do the right thing.
I've seen too many times moderators make a bad call and then be too proud to back down. It looks bad and puts the admin staff in a bad situation where they're honour-bound to back up the moderation staff.
6In case users are unaware, @Snow is a former moderator on The Workplace. Sep 20, 2021 at 11:50
6@Mari-LouA I've also been a moderator on many other online communities. Most of the answers here also apply to other web sites.– user960635Sep 20, 2021 at 12:13
5This is an error that I was guilty of several times as an admin on Wikipedia (and, I daresay, as a staff member too). I like to think that I've learned from it. Sep 20, 2021 at 13:26
7It may seem obvious, but can't be said enough. +1. Sep 20, 2021 at 21:47
4Encouraging and modeling a culture of humility among our moderator team are good ways to not only grow personally but externally as communities too.– Juan MSep 22, 2021 at 13:06
5I'm a big believer in this. We're all human and we make mistakes. When someone admits to a mistake or sees how they could have handled something better I always admire them for owning that especially if they see a way to learn from the experience.– Rosie StaffModSep 22, 2021 at 13:27
3This subthread comes close to something I value as well, but misses the mark by a hair by talking about it in terms of strength and ego. The dirty little secret: moderators NEVER have all the facts, but must make decisions anyway - EVERY DECISION IS QUITE LIKELY "WRONG". I think Tinkeringbell's answer has it right: this attitude doesn't start with a willingness to admit being wrong, it starts with a willingness to explain your rationale, to show your work, to invite review not just of your decisions but of the approach that underpins them.– Shog9Sep 23, 2021 at 17:23
2@Shog9 This is a good point, but I have also seen moderators go through extraordinary lengths to justify a decision, and then stick to that moral high ground. A willingness to "explain your rationale" can fall down with those users who really work to suck up moderators time - we've all seen users who will continue discussing an issue to the nth degree. What starts as openness on the part of the moderator then becomes a death by attrition.– user960635Sep 24, 2021 at 6:55
@Snow at which point.. it's time to make a decision ;-) I never meant to imply you could just go on explaining forever!– Tinkeringbell ModSep 24, 2021 at 7:29
@Snow I think another way to look at what Shog9 is getting at is to treat your judgment of a moderator decision as a scientific hypothesis: something which you would expect to be true given the current knowledge. A scientist need not only be open for error in their hypothesis, but try your hardest to falsify your hypothesis. Of course, the good scientist publishes their main findings after major experiments! (mods can do so on meta) Finally, as Tinkeringbell notes, science never stops. Sep 26, 2021 at 7:52
Again, one should not take the scientist analogy too far. I'm not suggesting one should behave cold and calculate (though this is not a very accurate stereotype of scientists) or construct arcane theories that obscure more than clarify (this is what I'd call a bad scientist, but there are people who claim barely any good ones exist). In particular, the social context of SE is part of the "experiment" of the mod. Sometimes, policies have to be dropped or taken, depending on specific existing social relations within the community. Sep 26, 2021 at 7:56
The characteristics that most impress me with mods is calmness, diplomacy and approachability. Some just excel at these qualities.
I think these aren't mod skills per se but maturity the person had mostly developed before becoming mod.
In terms of mod skills per se I'd say integrity in protecting user privacy. But that might be considered a trait as much as a skill.
4This. I think many moderators believe that the best quality of a mod is temperance, to be moderate, if I may. Sep 20, 2021 at 5:26
2"Moderate Moderators, " I like the sound of that! So much of this is in soft skills.– Juan MSep 22, 2021 at 13:08
@JuanM Sound of Moderat - Moderat, instrumental. Sep 22, 2021 at 13:36
@JuanM Many years ago, I was told to "Moderate in moderation". Talking tends to be a stronger tool than moderation tools. Except when it comes to spam...– user960635Sep 22, 2021 at 13:59
2When I've brought on new moderators to platforms in the past, I've sometimes threatened to not allow them tool access for a while, to teach them to convince people without using tools. I couldn't actually do it, usually, because of the need for spam fighting, etc, but it's a tempting idea. Sep 22, 2021 at 16:54
I remember that in 2019, MANY volunteer (diamond) moderators did something extraordinary. This: the "Dear stackexchange, Inc.,"1-letter. (the "lavender"-letter deserves a honorable mention) I'm sure this has been brought to your attention at some point, but allow me to provide some more comments about what this looked like to a small-time moderator on a low-maintenance site. (without breaching confidentiality, of course)
I believe it is already public knowledge that there was already an internal crisis the moderator community was aware of shortly before the public events. Things were bad. Trust in the company was at a low, moderators were debating and fighting each-other about whether the proposed changes would be bad/good/nessecary/evil/dangerous/etc.
What could they do? They could resign, as too many saw themselves forced to do. They could start work on an alternative website, as some did. They could at least start by moving their planning and discussion forum outside of SE's eyes.
What amazed me is that there was a prominent group of moderators that did none of those things. They2 chose to draft a letter to SE in plain sight, a conspiracy of light, it was called. When SE, Inc. did the unthinkable: unilaterally and almost immediately terminating the moderator abilities of a well-respected moderator for seemingly weak reasons3. When SE, Inc. did worse: provide comments on the matter to the press. When SE, Inc. did terrible PR. When SE, Inc. made promises they didn't keep. The moderators held the fort. (Even among those who suspended their activities made exceptions for extreme circumstances. Also, IIRC, most moderators on "strike" understood that other moderators could not bring themselves to do the same. The word "scab" was only used in jest.).
Why would they do this? How could they possibly have such loyalty? Some sort of Stockholm Syndrome? No. They did this for the same reason doctors do not refuse to treat patients (I hope) even if they strike because their hospital is involved in a terrible scandal. While the doctors' lack of extreme action helps the hospital somewhat, it would hurt their patients more. Something similar was true here. It would be the sites the moderators have long participated and curated that would take the hit, not SE, Inc. Most moderators (including me) did little of "protest action", because their allegiance to their community was more important than the terrible things SE, Inc. did.
For some moderators, there was something else at stake: the original vision of SE as a shared library of knowledge. To some, these events where the final nail in the coffin that indicated SE, Inc. was no longer deemed fit to carry out their original vision. Hence, they resigned as moderator and/or left, seeking to work on the vision elsewhere.
What can we learn from this? I think one thing has become clear. The moderator community has no allegiance towards SE, Inc. Yes, we are here because SE allows it, but we do not moderate because they demand it. The moderator community will cooperate with SE when this benefits their sites or the vision they wish to achieve on SE. SE Inc., may hold the keys to the kingdom, but the moderator community will not obey them, should they prove to be more of an obstacle than an ally.
That said, I personally feel SE has become more of an ally of the mission to create a shared library of knowledge, as of late. Time will tell whether it lasts. Or at least, for me. For you, Mr. community VP, it should be an important part of your job to make it last...
1: As noted in the letter: "When referring to the company in this letter, we've used the name "Stack Exchange". We're aware that the name that's in use is Stack Overflow; we use Stack Exchange because we feel it better represents all of us across the network." I shall follow them in this post.
2: I didn't join in the writing. All that stuff was way above my pay-grade back then, so I sat down and watched. I did sign the letter, though, as many others did. While only a few moderators wrote the letter, many more supported the initiative seriously. (I think 2 other moderators (of which none were the drafters) asked me to sign the letter (apparently unaware that I already have done so, at the time)). Heck, I think the fact that we ended up with 2 letters goes to show how serious the moderator community at large took the letters.
3: I'm aware of the rumors that there's more going on. This I can neither confirm nor deny, except that there's always more going on. The question is whether it is worse than the bit we know about, which I cannot declare knowledge about.
4Many would be more accurate - that said, the fact that Art organised it, and got it running, with what was at that time, a rather fractious collection of folks is extraordinary... Sep 20, 2021 at 8:28
6As important as these protest actions were, I'd hesitate to say "ALL" moderators took action and got involved in the situation. There are a lot of moderators here who stick to their own sites and don't get involved (or are even interested) in the running of the network. I and many other were very involved with this incident and sought to create positive change and healing, others didn't want to be involved, some other moderators simply wanted SE to burn. The point is that not all moderators pulled together to create positive change for the community.– user960635Sep 20, 2021 at 8:48
@Snow From my point of view, any moderator that signed the letter took action. I would say the same for moderators that indicated SE should burn. I think the number of moderators that was truly silent was small indeed, but perhaps I'm underestimating the number of moderators that were silent because couldn't make a (difficult!) choice. Sep 20, 2021 at 10:06
(Although the "burn" type is indeed not the kind I'm describing in this post, true) Sep 20, 2021 at 10:13
1@JourneymanGeek No better way to create an alliance when you have a common enemy. The only surprising bit is that the alliance did not fight their enemy head-on. Sep 20, 2021 at 10:14
9Ugh - I find the idea of 'enemies' and 'war' counter productive. We simply have some goals we disagreed on, and means we very seriously disagreed on. One finds there's a lot more nuance than black and white. Sep 20, 2021 at 10:16
@JourneymanGeek I find the idea that enemies and war are black and white counter-productive ;). But yeah, I agree, we shouldn't describe the events in too extreme terms. We are a Q&A site, not a country. Sep 20, 2021 at 10:17
4@Discretelizard The silent majority are often hard to quantify and the loud minority can sometimes be seen as a majority because they cause the majority of the change. There's currently 555 active moderators on the books. 180 of them signed the "Dear StackExchange" letter, so that's a little under a third of the moderators (and we'll assume people who resigned were replaced by roughly equal numbers), so this isn't really "MOST". Unless of course we're taking an Owellian stance where some moderators are more equal than others. Nevertheless, you make a fair point that change was enacted.– user960635Sep 20, 2021 at 10:44
@Snow Hmm. Yes, well, I guess it goes without saying that all this is my personal experience on the matter, and hence, clearly biased. Good that you ran the numbers, though. Both are pretty big, so I guess my experience that the letter got a lot of moderator support seems resasonable. I "just" underestimated the total number of moderators. And yeah, I'm aware that what I'm praising here was not universally considered a good move. Sep 20, 2021 at 12:09
1So yeah. While I hope I'm allowed to praise things even if others disagree, I should be careful not to misrepresent things, as my position as a mod has given me more knowledge over the situation than others. And it seems I wasn't careful enough. Mea culpa. Sep 20, 2021 at 12:09
The most extraordinary moderators I've encountered didn't do one thing so amazing that it stuck in my memory as "that's how a great moderator moderates". Moderation is an endurance sport. Exceptional moderators are the ones who we tend to forget are moderators until they show up with just the right amount of intervention to get things back on track. They don't do everything perfectly all the time, but they quickly correct their mistakes.
The thing I've noticed about those moderators is that they somehow balance being personally deeply invested in the community and having enough emotional distance that it seems like they don't let issues they need to resolve become personal. Longtime members of the community can predict how an exceptional mod is going to react to a situation. We know their personal opinions but we also know that they give equal (or maybe more) weight to the opinions of the community.
5That is a high-functioning mod team. They are to be congratulated. Sep 20, 2021 at 14:14
1@Philippe One additional thing I thought about mentioning was that an exceptional mod is visibly part of the community as a member, but then I thought "How would I know if a moderator was doing a great job if they are simply handing the ugly stuff so quickly I never see it?" I got to see some great moderators in action when I was a mod. Regular users may not appreciate how much a mod who only has time for moderator activities and not for regular community member activities does or how good they are at it. Sep 20, 2021 at 14:23
9For example, JR on ELL writes excellent moderator messages and responses, but most of the community will never see that and the people who receive those messages rarely have the perspective to properly appreciate them. I think moderators should have some formal appreciation mechanism @Philippe that lets community members and other moderators send a quick "good job!" note that sticks around where a mod can reread them if they need a pick-me-up. Customer facing roles can be brutal without some way to see the positive impact you've had. Sep 20, 2021 at 14:38
2that is an EXCELLENT point. Sep 21, 2021 at 6:52
2Oh wow, that's a great point about mod messages. Oli on Ask Ubuntu is the king of mod messages. He manages to always strike just the right tone.– terdonSep 22, 2021 at 12:34
2@terdon I hope the team has told him so :) If I could magically change one thing about people, we would have a compulsion to express our appreciation of something specific about (or done by) another person to them once a day. Noticing something positive about someone and telling them can make a bigger impact on someone than you might think. Sep 22, 2021 at 14:24
I think a great mod needs to be able to improvise, make decisions and be able to explain those.
In 'day-to-day' moderating here, making decisions will be almost routine, as you'll have rules and guidelines that clearly apply to these situations. On SE, this will mean things like deleting spam and destroying the spammers account, deleting socks and suspending the master, and cleaning up selfies and off-topic questions for MSE specifically. All very 'simple', not much improvisation or elaborate decision making processes involved.
There's a different kind of decision-making though, where some moderators really shine. And that's in handling 'non-standard' user misbehavior. The kind that isn't explicitly forbidden anywhere, but which also isn't the kind of behavior the rules want to encourage. Or situations that have never happened before or have such a small chance of happening, that there aren't any rules for how to handle it.
The moderators I look up to most (both on SE and off), are the ones that can improvise and make decisions in such situations, instead of panicking and standing idly by, hoping the problem will go away on its own or letting their community struggle while it festers. They're also the ones that can explain those decisions in a way that users will be able to understand why the decision was made the way it was made (just understand, not necessarily agree though the very best manage the latter more often than the former).
I'm going to add something to this answer: Last week, I joined a webinar on "moral leadership". At about 29 minutes into that video, the panellists start discussing what moral leadership means to them. Quite a few of the points raised in that talk can be seen in several answers to this question here as well, which makes me thing those two words may actually 'summarize' all that makes a great mod.
A few things that were mentioned about moral leadership were that it's about setting examples for others and holding yourself accountable. That it comes with a duty to delegate things to others, while still taking some responsibility when they do the things you delegated 'wrong'. It includes being honest, setting realistic expectations and admitting to your mistakes. It means making decisions and being there if people count on you, not walking away when things get hard. All so people know they can trust you.
I'm not going to transcribe the entire conversation, but maybe some here may find it interesting to listen to it too. I sure did!
4Absolutely agree. This is an important point, and it's where judgment meets experience. Sep 20, 2021 at 14:16
The most effective tool in any moderator's toolbox is communication.
The moderators and community managers that I look up to all have one thing in common, and that's effective communication skills.
Moderation, at its core, is about communication.
Any interaction that users have is communication. Even nonverbal actions such as voting or flagging are a means of communication - voting is communicating to other people about the quality of a post, and flagging communicates that there's an issue here.
Moderation relies on the moderators being effective at all kinds of communication. Whether that's sending a mod message and getting the right message across, or de-escalating a chat flareup, or working through policy changes on meta, those are all different types of communication.
The most effective mods, in my experience, have all those different types of communication down pat, and more. Much like Journeyman Geek mentioned, being able to use soft influence instead of relying on tools is the best way to go about things... but to get to that point, you need to connect with your community. Are you building trust? Are you present? Are people comfortable reaching out to you with an issue?
I consider it to be a success if I've reached a point where people can reach out individually to me with an issue, or to ask for an explanation... because it means I've established myself as a trustworthy person, who's able and willing to help out, and I don't bite.
Handling flags is good, but at the end of the day, the moderators who stand out are those who are communicating with every aspect of the community and doing it well.
Agreed. I always thought "moderator" was a misspelling of "mediator". Sep 22, 2021 at 6:26
5I wholeheartedly agree with this. Communication is key.– Rosie StaffModSep 22, 2021 at 13:14
This is a bit off the beaten path, but to be honest, the best moderators I've worked with haven't necessarily been the most graceful (grace is itself mostly a performance). They've been the most mindful of the community's state of being, and of the lines the community draws with its values.
Underlying the politics, the writing, the precision, you name it, that any good moderator has, is a crystal clear intuitive sense for the state a community is in. Who is present? What are our values, and who do they exclude? How does our community decide who we listen to, and is that process just? Do we treat our members equitably - including the members we may have pushed away by accident? Does that include the members who don't, or no longer, speak? When we ask questions inside the community, how do we make sure folks who don't currently feel welcome to contribute can still be heard, and have their relevant interests spoken to?
These questions are more complex and fraught than the day to day rumble of moderation. They require longer-term vision than just keeping the place running. All of these questions, one way or another, have answers, whether folks are spending time thinking about it or no. The best folks I've worked with had an eye for these emerging issues long before they occurred, and regularly took simple, measured actions to keep those issues in check and arrest a growing pattern before it splintered or fractured the community.
I've been in many communities where these questions went ignored. Most often, I think folks don't realize they even need to be paying attention. These communities are like a pencil, whittled down to a finer and finer point, until there is no more left to whittle away. Communities are often -- not naturally, I think, but often -- self-centered. (Many of our network communities are, too, largely by accident. I don't say this to cast blame. I'm empathetic to the difficulty, and in my opinion it's an area for future work.) But by focusing only on the people who are present, the people who speak most, the people who have an easier time making themselves heard, communities like these often slowly attrite members, one by one, until they are left with an inert and wayward core who don't understand how they ended up in this position.
The best moderators I've worked with are not just a check on this process, but understand how to guide a community that is continuously mindful of those outside its vocal circles, and knows how to listen to them anyway. The best moderators I've worked with understand how to guide, cultivate, and lead the community towards better shared values.
1That is an enormous burden placed on an individual where I think the community collectively needs to act - it is interesting how we can agree that these are important issues but have a reversed view of who needs to carry the burden to enact them. For me, these moderators act as a support group for the community that should enact these goals, but maybe I misunderstand you. I think moderators as community members should have this vision, but not as moderators.– AkixkisuSep 20, 2021 at 17:45
5@Akixkisu To be clear, this is a quality of many of the best folks I've worked with, not a global responsibility ;) But in general I think you've hit the nail on the head. Moderators shouldn't carry the burden - this pattern should be self-sustaining, run by the community's sense of responsibility to itself. But it does take work to get a community there, and moderators often play an instrumental role in that development– Slate StaffModSep 20, 2021 at 17:49
6In support of this, I recall a particular mod who won near-universal respect by engaging nicely even with the "anti-mod" "problem users" of their community. Many mods would have written (or did write) those people off as lost causes just waiting for suspensions, but making an effort with them can be beneficial for long-term community health. High-rep "problem users" are a thing, and some really are unrescuable, but it's worth making the effort to bring every single community member into the fold if possible. Such admirable patience is also among the best attributes IMHO of certain now-ex-CMs. Sep 20, 2021 at 17:53
3How would one learn whether someone is doing something useful with this knowledge? Are there signs? Guidelines? Is this one of those things you know when you see it, or could be working towards without knowing? Perhaps the answer to all these questions is "unfortunately, no", but I'd like to hear your opinion. For example, I'm naturally observant IRL, but I often do not act on it. Knowing the state of things is one thing. Knowing how to proceed is something else. Sep 20, 2021 at 20:33
3@Discretelizard I will give this some thought. I know it's an important question to answer, and I'd be reluctant to mislead folks, especially about something as important as this.– Slate StaffModSep 21, 2021 at 0:25
5I wonder if on some level we're (consciously or subconsciously) substituting the word "moderators" for "community leaders". Obviously, moderators are leaders in their communities - particularly when (as here) there are few if any other user roles. But are they the sum total of community leadership? Sep 21, 2021 at 6:48
@Philippe I think moderators are something similar to a PR team for the community leaders, independent of whether the moderators are also said leadership. (although most mods, myself included, are mostly unaware of this) Sep 21, 2021 at 7:04
Well - in my view, to some extent, most community leaders end up drifting into moderation, though there's folks who actively choose not to. That said - during the period where I stepped away from moderating MSE, I kinda felt I was just as involved (in spite of myself :D) and effective. Practically - I guess, especially with culture of meta moderation there's little difference between an engaged high soft power 'regular' user and a moderator Sep 21, 2021 at 9:56
2@JourneymanGeek - sure, they do.... because that's the only place we give them to drift. :-) Sep 23, 2021 at 17:19
tell me about a time a mod did something that struck you as really extraordinary
The most extraordinary thing I've seen a mod do was something I didn't see at all.
There was a user who had been behaving on chat in a tactless way which annoyed me and a few other users. This included repeated attempts to make direct contact/insert themselves into conversations with certain users. I, and many others, had attempted to point out to this user the problems, and offer ways to improve. These attempts didn't seem to be doing anything; the behavior continued even after I'd ignored the user on SE chat and blocked them on a related Discord server.
At my wit's end, I contacted a mod privately, laid out the situation, and asked them to convey a message to the user in question ("Stop", mostly). Soon after I got a confirmation that the mod was looking into it, and shortly after that the behavior stopped.
I never saw what exactly the mod did. I didn't need to. To me, this is my story of seeing a mod act as a human exception handler. I trusted the mod to be able to talk kindly to the user and somehow, finally, explain that the behavior needed to stop. They were in that moment, and they continue to be, an extraordinary mod.
5Someone once likened moderation to - if memory serves - aikido, and certain chinese martial arts where one uses the movement of the other party to one's advantage. Or as Jeff said it "The ideal moderator does as little as possible. But those little actions may be powerful and highly concentrated. Judiciously limiting your use of moderator powers to selectively prune and guide the community — now that’s the true art of moderation." Sep 23, 2021 at 7:56
I learnt to moderate on a very small community - strangely, a VA based battletech community, that accidentally picked up a Singaporean chapter. Warning, many Sci Fi quotes follow.
While both MSE and Super User are significantly bigger than that site was, many of the philosophies I picked up there are still in play here, and while earning the respect of a very small community is different, the real power an effective moderator has is influence built by trust. There are certainly times where it is insufficient - where one needs a little more than a polite request - but even then, being a trusted moderator means you can do this and know your community has your back. It's less about individual events as much as how and what one does over the long term.
An effective moderator builds, and banks that trust - cause there are times when one needs to spend that trust, and top it up for the future.
There are certainly moments which, to quote G'kar from Babylon 5:
No moral ambiguity, no hopeless battle against ancient and overwhelming forces! They were the bad guys, as you say, and we were the good guys. And they made a very satisfying thump when they hit the floor.
No one's particularly going to weep for a particularly recalcitrant troll, or a spammer (though one sometimes wonder, what sorta sad life means making life miserable for others).
A lot of the times though - in the worst of situations that might not be as clear. One of the other questions used terms of conflict. In perspective - it's rather a bunch of people trying to do what they feel is right. Often things in contradiction with each other. Sometimes it's useful to have perspective, and to try to understand the point of view of people, even ones you feel are patently wrong, is an essential skill in community work.
I also feel a sense of presence - to be seen in and around the communities one works with is remarkably useful. From the battletech/mechwarrior universe
“ Where nature's laws threatened the weary;
When food, water, even air itself ran low,
It took just a command, a word, a smile,
From the General to light the way.
He was comfort, stern courage, compassion,
To our sires as he led them from the fires
That grew and fed on those they left behind.
-- The Remembrance, Passage 2, Verse 14, Lines 18-24
Yeah, I know, clanners are munchy. But in the middle of a crisis - when things get tough, people are going to remember both who was around, fighting the fires, keeping folks calm, and hopefully safe and who wasn't. I guess I picked it up from both the mods and CMs who were around when I was an SE newbie (and certainly from the smaller communities) that knowing someone's around, and listening and looking at a problem is the single most valuable thing a mod can do. It's emotional labour - it's something that needs time and energy (and I cheat by popping in on my phone every so often :D) - but folks who know/expect there to be help at hand are likely to feel more secure.
And well, you find it really hard to walk away when your community needs you. It's not about the 'place' or even who 'runs it' - it's about the people. You make difficult decisions sometimes - but you also own those decisions, deal with the fall out and are willing to re-examine them.
This is a lots of words to say - a good moderator understands the mechanics. They keep the flag queue clean, help out with reviews as needed, and keep an eye on meta.
To go beyond that though - 'greatness' is about empathy and care for your community. The humility to listen and understand the problems the folks around you face - and sometimes not just related to the site. You're part of the furniture - but also actively observing problems and solving them, and reaching out to folks as needed. You use 'moral suasion' and your own personal influence and banked goodwill to convince your community to do the right thing.
5You know, I could steal this and use it as a pretty good introduction to the role of a CM too. It's not exactly right for CMs, but it's pretty damn close. Sep 21, 2021 at 11:06
7Free free to, though I suspect it'd need some tweaking - Its very much from a mod perspective, and some bits very much reflect 'my' experiences. It would certainly appeal to my sense of humour if parts of this ended up explaining what a CM does :D Sep 21, 2021 at 11:16
I want to second what Mithical said about communication and expand on that a bit. Outside of my work as a Community Manager I used to serve as a volunteer moderator on a couple of different platforms. I think the often unsung hero in communication is listening.
It's important to observe and listen to your community members. This goes for larger general conversations in chat or on Meta sites, but also for one-on-one messages or DMs you receive. You may not always agree with what is being said or what someone's POV is, but if you take the time to really listen you can hopefully meet most people at a place of empathy. I find that listening is what really leads to productive conversations.
A great moderator is a janitor that does the (daily) tasks of reviewing consistently. Second, they are transparent about their decision-making and third, willing to listen and open for their peers to hold them accountable for their actions. A great moderator makes mistakes, and they set out to resolve them with the community's help.
I have seen both moderators that think their mistakes are something they don't need to address and moderators who are competent and willing to address them publicly and ask for a way forward because they don't know. The latter is what positively amazed me, and the former is what negatively amazed me in a manner that even three years later, that event is clearly on my mind.
Most of the skills that make a great moderator are mundane and often barely noticeable because their job happens quietly in the back avenue away from the action.
Oddly enough, I perceive moderators to a degree how I feel about brand logos. Good ones are there, reliable, comfortable, present in the background, and you don't pay much attention to them - bad ones stick out as a risk for the entire site.
I want to say something about the mods at Stack Overflow specifically...
Their efficiency really amazes me! (I'm only talking about default comment flags, as they're the vast majority of my flags) From the several communities that I've been flagging comments at, handling them can take up to several weeks.
Now don't get me wrong, I know that handling comment flags properly isn't the easiest task; it takes patience and good judgement, which just contributes to my amazement at the work of SO mods! It always has me wondering: How do they do it? SO is such a large site, and I'm sure there's a whole lot of users flagging comments constantly.
2"Handling comment flags properly isn't the easiest task": +1. Honestly comment flags are probably the most difficult flags to handle; whereas questions and answers you have a lot of options (editing, post notices, closing, commenting, deleting, etc.), with comments you can basically either delete the comment or dismiss the flags as unhelpful. Also, comments section is where borderline rudeness tends to show, meaning a lot of judgment calls. Sep 25, 2021 at 15:12
I don't have a particular example in mind, but any time I notice a moderator action that uses a light touch and effectively applies the Theory of Moderation, specifically
Your goal is to guide the community with gentle — but firm — intervention. Respect your fellow community members at all times; demonstrate fairness and impartiality in your actions.
I consider that moderation action a triumph of the moderation system.
When a moderator takes an abrupt action that goes against that grain (e.g. arriving and immediately applying a very hard/extreme stance), I notice it and tend to remember better, and consider it an abject failure of said system.
5If we do it perfectly though... you never notice... like Ninja Mimes... Sep 21, 2021 at 18:02
Participation in the per-site meta
I know this kind of falls under the communication mentioned in other posts, but I felt like it was important to emphasize how important meta is. Meta is where the community and members of the community
- Learn how to ask better questions
- Figures out what makes a good question for their community (and it's not just young sites that do this, RPG changed its rules recently, and quite a few sites recently changed their policies on accepted answers and pinning.)
- decide what to do with tags
- Ask about moderator decisions
And so much more. Most of the great moderators I've interacted with use Meta, and ask, answer, and act upon the posts there in a nice and productive way.
3This is a great point, thanks for bringing it up. Oct 6, 2021 at 15:59
@Philippe out of curiosity, how do you decide which answers to reply to? Oct 6, 2021 at 16:20
7I wish I could tell you that there's a systematic method, but I suspect that it's basically the same way that you do: when I see something particularly interesting, I respond. That's not to say that one that I don't respond to aren't interesting - it probably means that I saw them and either felt others had responded better than I could, or I got distracted by something shiny, or any number of factors. Oct 6, 2021 at 16:24
The invisible mods
Some posts have hinted that great moderation activity can be rather subtle. However, I think it is worth pointing out that there are a great number of excellent moderator actions that are basically seen by none unless one knows where to look, yet useful to many.
There is a certain type of mod who almost exclusively behaves this way, and I can tell you quite a bit about it, because this is the type of moderator I try to emulate somewhat. A role model, perhaps. While their actions are often unknown, I have learned some of what I believe to be their methods (I mean, this stuff is hard to reverse engineer, and the effectiveness may depend on unknown personal factors. Maybe this is just a fairy-tale I tell myself. Even if this is just a story, I think it's a good story):
Be patient, and watch. Look before you leap. If you are unsure about whether an action is good, postpone it, ask a co-mod for their opinion. Prefer doing nothing over doing something wrong, unless the matter is urgent. Recently, I thought I had a nice proposal. I showed it to my co-mods, and one of them immediately convinced me that it was a bad idea. So I did nothing. And it was the best thing I could have done. Such are the ways of the silent moderator (there is this joke that the sophisticated person thinks and then says something, the average person says something and then thinks, while the unsophisticated person says something. However, it takes greater sophistication still to think and then say nothing).
Speaking of silence, it is always good to practice the virtue of silence: to be silent if discussing something can realistically only make matters worse. This one is very difficult, and I have failed it often. (Exercise for the reader: I'm I failing it right now? If so, please let me know why!) Some argue that this is not a virtue at all, and that it is always better to be transparent, no matter the consequences. (I disagree, but this is getting off-topic) As for me, I try. I have a rather large and growing text file with many opinions and essays that will remain unpublished indefinitely, as this is for the best.
Only speak when what you have to say is both true and important, and if you do, try to do so as kind as possible. (This is a variant of the Victorian Sufi Buddha-comment policy.) It is always good to think of the purpose of your post. Simply stating the facts is often to not very useful, giving a recommendation (the sternness would depend on the situation) in addition is often most helpful. Furthermore, repeating essentially the same thing can lead to a pile-on effect. It's usually better to either say something completely new, or just comment on/edit the existing work.
A corollary of some of these points worth pointing out explicitly is that the subtle moderator has a long learning curve where they will slowly learn how stuff works, how other people think stuff works, what to say, and how to say it. Being silent helps here, because one doesn't have to fear the consequences of mistakes. But not everything can be learned from a safe distance. This means the learning process at times produces visible mistakes. The best thing to do is to accept and learn from them, as noted by Snow. Hail the absent mod, hiding the terror and (at times their own) error! Who toils and trains in secret! (Hiding their own error may sound bad; I actually mean cleaning up the mess, but I couldn't get that to be poetic.)
As above, so below. I try to act on the ideal I'm aspiring to, independent of whether it exists. For a long time, I've tried to limit my posting on Meta.SE to factual, practical issues. Only recently, I considered answering some of the community-vp-questions, because I thought I had something useful to say that hasn't been said yet, and knew how I would say it. Reception of the first one has been... mixed, but I'm not here for a popularity contest. It's more important that I've been able to write something I still stand by now, perhaps would slightly change based on what I know now.
A related thought: some people think they are too much of an introvert to become a moderator. Well, that depends. Most of the things above require neither introversion or extroversion, mainly some interpersonal skills and training (btw, becoming a moderator is an excellent opportunity to improve your interpersonal skills, especially if you're an introvert)
Let me call out explicitly the valiant work against the sock-puppet armies, spammers, recurring trolls, vote fraudsters and other hidden villains. I'm but a novice in this mostly invisible war, and I greatly respect the masters that can find massive hidden voting rings, detect ban evaders, and evil automaters. I guess the SmokeDetector project and related tools deserve a mention as well, as this is an often-used tool. Of course, I cannot go much in specifics here, but trust me that while the evildoers are plentiful and some quite sophisticated, the moderator community has quite some exceptional people in their ranks. And that's before I've mentioned the power tools that are not even available to moderators... It's an endless defensive battle, but I think I'm on the winning side.
Enough talk. Now, a toast!
To the unsung heroes! To the silent janitors! To the invisible mods!
... Still there? Very well then, I think I still have time for an encore. Join me in a parody of this song:
Mods! -- GoldHammer
Deep the networks' servers
An ancient war still burns
A moderator message is sent and a suspension starts
These are the tools of the mods, fighting the trolling horde
A secret battle for eternity
Agile and powerful, keepers of chaos
Closing the questions, with only one vote
Reaching consensus, in the TL
Guardians of SE
Far in the past they've been elected
Into the future they see
The Smoke Detector reveals the spammer to me
They see the coming battle
Across all of SE
Where evil and good collide in a controversial HNQ
Agile and powerful, keepers of chaos
Closing the questions, with only one vote
Reaching consensus, in the TL
Guardians of SE
Agile and powerful, keepers of chaos
Closing the questions, with only one vote
Reaching consensus, in the TL
Guar-di-ans of SE-E
1Re "the sock-puppet armies, spammers, recurring trolls, vote fraudsters and other hidden villains": You could add plagiarists (who plagiarise both content from inside as well as from outside Stack Exchange). Sep 23, 2021 at 11:44
The team at Worldbuilding, Skeptics and Meta.
What I've observed is frequent low-level and occasional much more extreme abuse:
Jitendra Singh commented on the question above:
Can't understand the reason of down-vote.
Because there are many young, inexperienced people from many different backgrounds who read the word "MODERATOR" and immediately see red, make snarky comments, are rude and generally abusive to mods (and curators alike) and just by reflex downvote without thought.
So I admire them for staying in the job during the learning curve part of the process, enduring the "challenging behavior" until they grow the necessary thick-skin needed for the job.
Aaand, for still retaining the sense and sensitivity to deal with everything with tact and patience. (Why I'm still a member of Worldbuilding after a few initial "misunderstandings" and why I'll never be a moderator most likely.)