Yuku free message boards

Penelope wrote:

Kate - the moderators are members of this community.

Yes technically you are still members, but you have taken on the role of moderators. That means when you are being moderators you need to be moderators, not members.

Moderators are supposed to remain neutral, impartial and uninvolved in the scrabbles of the group they are moderating.

A good moderator does not become involved in positional arguments and must remain detached from showing any preference or alliance to either a position or person.

That is another reason why it is good policy to rotate moderators on a regular basis - because then the members who have done that job for a period of time can resume being ordinary members where they can more freely express their personal opinions and get into positional arguments if they so desire.

I really can't believe I'm having to tell you this stuff when you've been a moderator for all this time. But if your seeming innocence about the role of a moderator is genuine and shared by other members of the moderator team, that may better explain some of the inappropriate behaviours you've illustrated.

This thread seems like a microcosm reflecting how you've carried out your moderator duties in a general sense. It's actually quite revealing.

Are you really serious that you didn't know moderators are supposed to be neutral and impartial?

Are you saying that we shouldn't participate in the thread?

Exactly!!! You're moderators. Not only that, you're seeking input on how the community believes the moderators should do their job. You have a vested interest in the outcome!!!

How on earth do you think it can be a fair process when you TELL people how you want it to be in the initial stages of the consultation? Why bother consulting? Why not just do what you usually do and make it up as you go along between three of you based on your personal preferences and shared blind spots?

Of course you can go right ahead and jump all over the thread expressing your personal opinions as 'members' but you do so at the risk of the remainder of the membership realising you are using your moderator's powers to control the framework in which the discussion occurs so that it serves your personal interests.

Can you not see what you are doing? Are you really so caught up in your shared blind spots? Are you really not sure what I'm talking about?

Let me show you a small example then.

The Guidelines (These are your guidelines for how this forum should work.)

• Do not make rash decisions.
• Avoid pointing fingers.
• Don't take things personally.
• Remember that we're all here because we care about KCI.
• Do not be afraid to speak up with your concerns and questions.
• Encourage group members to participate.
• Be wary of the dominant personality or powerful advocate.
• Develop a willingness to listen to minority opinions with an open mind.
• Strive for near unanimity.

(To that list, I'd add "Beware of lobby groups with a vested interest in the outcome'.)

Here's an 'inventory' for you.

Post count in this thread

Page 1 - Mods 6 / Members 5

Page 2 - Mods 3 / Members 7

Page 3 - Mods 5 / Members 5

Page 4 - Mods 3 / Members 7

Page 5 - Mods 4 / Members 6

It gets slightly better after that but there is still not one page in this thread that doesn't have a moderator comment on it.

There are 3638 members registered at KCI. Let's be generous and say 300 of them are genuine active members.

One interest group of three members who have controlling powers far greater than the other members has, therefore, had an incredibly disproportionate amount of input to this discussion.

The moderators' views on the subject had been well and truly vocalised by the end of page 3. We all knew how to comment to 'follow the party line' and stay in favour.

What chance is there that this can be a fair and equitable discussion that genuinely represents the views of the people when a group with a vested interest is dominating the replies?

I didn't read the entire post.

(Note: This is a question.) So should I assume from this statement that you're adopting Loraura's policy of ignoring feedback from people you don't respect or whose lives you don't wish to emulate?

Do you think it's appropriate to comment on a post when you haven't even paid the author the courtesy of reading the post in its entirety?

If you make a point of noting that you've ignored the post of a member who has obviously gone to considerable effort in contributing to the thread, do you think this acts as an incentive...or disincentive...to other members who may be waiting before they offer their own comments?

To actually read the post would show good manners and "a willingness to listen to minority opinions with an open mind".

Were you to follow some of the source links I provided, you may also see that what I am suggesting here is not simply the personal opinion of someone you may think is out to wreck your fun but, in fact, recommended practice for conducting fair and equitable consultation processes.

If an independent facilitator was moderating a discussion in a community workshop about how KCI moderators should do their job, first up they would probably exclude the people who are currently doing the job...unless they stepped down and left the positions vacant at the start of the discussion.

If the KCI moderators wanted to have input into how much power future moderators would have to penalise people for their posts, then that would be fine but the independent facilitator still wouldn't allow that sub-group to dominate to the extent that they did at the start of this process.

The purpose of this forum is to be solution focused about issues.

There have been a lot of solutions offered already but it's possible you are ignoring some of these as well.

There seems to be a suggestion that this whole process is flawed and that the topic itself is inappropriate. Can we vote on whether we think the best solution might be to scrap this kind of biased consultation process?

Since some people seem to feel that the moderation of the board is an issue, it seems reasonable that the moderators would participate in the discussion.

You think so? In your work situation, do you think it would be reasonable for a staff member to be involved if the topic was whether or not to increase the staff member's salary?

People don't get paid to do the moderator job. Their rewards are the status and the opportunity to have more power than ordinary members. Everything else (the rewards of helping others, for example) they could get as a normal member.

So if you analyse this discussion topic, in essence it relates to a request to extend the moderators' powers to control what people can or cannot post here. In that case it's really not appropriate for people who have a vested interested to be involved in decisions that impact directly on them and their 'rewards'.

If that seems unreasonable (Moderators participating in a community discussion,) perhaps that should be one of the items voted on by the rest of the community.

With the way this board is set up, how could we decide we want to vote on any subject unless we go through the moderators to ask their permission to post a topic for discussion or for voting?

If you're actually showing respect to the community you serve, you would refrain from sharing your personal position in any discussion in which you stand to personally gain anything at all.

But perhaps this is where we have another difference in perspective because I see the moderators' roles as being in service to the community, whereas a lot of the actions the current moderators have taken indicate that it's possible you view yourselves as being here as managers controlling the community?

If we're here to consult and find solutions, maybe we could have a discussion about the role of a moderator and what the community actually wants them to do?

I have a question for the Mods too.

When you have been quite happy to run with a top-down management model for the last two years or so, how come you are only now attempting to introduce a consultative bottom-up decision-making process?

Would it have anything to do with the fact that there have been a number of threads suggesting that it is time for moderators to be rotated and this is a bargaining chip...a way of offering a power-sharing compromise model...to be able to hang on to your 'seats'?

You've decided to hold elections and it gives the appearance that there's a democratic process involved, yet your 'party' has been able to frame the issues that will be voted on in a very biased manner and then you've dominated the comment made on the issue.

When the members of this community have witnessed previous incidents where members who dared to challenge the moderators have been banned or penalised in some other way, what assurances have people been given that they can freely discuss their opinions on the subject without fear of negative repercussions?

While the same people are still 'in power' and still obviously controlling the process, how would members know they are truly free to speak out without suffering the same fate as others did before?

Most of us who are being obviously vocal on the topic have decided we're prepared to risk you banning us because we're no longer dependent on KCI for our support needs. Not everyone is in this position

So how is this process any different to the mockery of democracy in a place like Zimbawe?