Do members treat 'normal' posts by moderators with more gravitas than they should do?

[Stuart Wright]

I want to get the opinion of other forum admins.
Our moderators are in a Moderators usergroup. That usergroup has a user title set to Moderator. This is so that everyone can identify the moderator when posting as a moderator in forums or private conversations.

This, however, causes an issue when the moderator posts without their moderator 'hat' on.
Since moderators are usually volunteer members, they have the right to post 'as a normal member' and enjoy the forum in that way.
But when they do so, because they permanently have the Moderator title, other members treat their posts differently.
Normal members are more (most) likely to view the moderator's post as being an 'official' view which is representative of the forum. Or an instruction with the moderator's 'hat' which must be obeyed or there will be consequences. The post will carry more 'weight' than posts from 'normal' members.
This, I think, is a problem.

The solution, I think, is to differentiate posts made with their moderating hat on to posts made as a normal member.
How do we do this?

Do we have an extra check box for moderators to tick when they are posting with their moderating hat on? So that those posts can then be differentiated from 'non moderation' posts?

Do we find a solution on a per-forum basis and only display the Moderator title under posts made in the forums that the moderator moderates?
This would be simpler, but still there would be no way to distinguish between normal and moderating posts from moderators in the forum they moderate.
And let's face it, a moderator usually becomes a moderator of a specific forum because they spend a lot of time there, know the subject, and have posted in there a lot. So I'm not sure this would work as well.

Could we make it so that moderators use a special, 'anonymous' moderator account to post such messages? This would be better when it comes to protecting a moderators' identity. We have had instances of moderators being targeted in the real world by disgruntled wackos. But signing in and out with two different accounts would be a PITA.

Maybe we could have an 'anonymise' checkbox which posts a message from a global moderator account, which would leave readers in no doubt as to the weight of the message.

What do you think? Do you consider this to be an issue? Do you agree that we need to distinguish between moderators' posts which are with and without their moderator hat on?

 

[Mr Lucky]

I don’t like the idea of a second anonymous account. On all forums I partake in that is against the rules anyway.

I just post normally in the discussion saying what I think. But if I post as a mod, e.g. to politely point out a thread is in danger of going off the rails, I just say “mod hat on:...”

 

[Stuart Wright]

I don’t like the idea of a second anonymous account. On all forums I partake in that is against the rules anyway.

I just post normally in the discussion saying what I think. But if I post as a mod, e.g. to politely point out a thread is in danger of going off the rails, I just say “mod hat on:...”

Pain in the butt to have to add "mod hat on:...' every time, though.
Maybe a single anonymous account that the moderators don't log in with, but which is used to post from when they tick a checkbox at the point of posting with their mod hat on?

 

[sbj]

To answer the thread title: yes.

Solution? None. A forum is build on a hierarchical system. You can't escape the system. In a hierarchy, people will always value other people more who are higher on the hierarchy.

What you can do is to ease things. You can train your community that each moderator is also entitled to his/her own opinion. Ask all of your mods to have the same signature which says things like "Unless otherwise marked, all my posts are unofficial and reflect my own opinion."

You can highlight moderated posts with colors, so people are trained. If they see a colored post (it is a moderated post), if not, it is just a normal post like any other.

 

[Mr Lucky]

Pain in the butt to have to add "mod hat on:...' every time, though.

Well luckily I don't have to do it very often. I will mostly do it as part of the same post as making a non-mod observation.

Actually, thinking about it there are some cases where an anonymous mod account could be good. I think I slightly misunderstood the OP thinking the anonymous account could be for the normal posts.

One all-purpose anonymous mod account that any moderator can use could be useful when disciplining certain members, it could stop vendettas springing up.

However I try to resolve all issues rationally and aim for a friendly and understanding outcome (fat chance of that in some cases though!)

 

[Stuart Wright]

You can highlight moderated posts with colors, so people are trained. If they see a colored post (it is a moderated post), if not, it is just a normal post like any other.

Thanks for the replies.

I'm not really talking about moderated posts. Moderated posts aren't posted by the moderator, they are edited or, more often, deleted by a moderator.
I'm talking about the two types of posts a moderator will make

1. a post in a thread or private conversation relating to applying the forum rules. Like asking members to stay on topic or stop a certain pattern of behaviour. In the case of a private conversation, it could be automatically started when a warning is given. This is acting with their moderating hat on.
2. a post in a thread or private conversation helping a member with advice or asking for help. A 'normal' post which is definitely not acting with their moderating hat on.

How would we differentiate between the two? There is no system for colouring a post in a certain way, and doing so wouldn't mean anything to members unless they already knew of the different colour scheme.

Solution? None. A forum is build on a hierarchical system. You can't escape the system. In a hierarchy, people will always value other people more who are higher on the hierarchy.

What you can do is to ease things. You can train your community that each moderator is also entitled to his/her own opinion. Ask all of your mods to have the same signature which says things like "Unless otherwise marked, all my posts are unofficial and reflect my own opinion."

But making a member a moderator elevates them to a position of power which changes the way other members' regard all the moderator's posts in a way which is not natural in the normal earned hierarchy of post count + positive reactions.
We already have moderators include such a disclaimer in their signatures. It makes no difference to whether or not their 'normal' posts are regarded or sometimes misunderstood as being an official 'policy' on some issue.

I think I slightly misunderstood the OP thinking the anonymous account could be for the normal posts.

I'm talking about using that account only for moderating related posts and if it had no name in particular, it would indeed stop any resentment of certain moderators.

The busier a forum, the more unreasonable nutters you are going to get. Sometimes you have to get rid of some people pretty quickly, and it would be better if there wasn't a long standing moderator who has historically shared a ton of information about themselves, then a banned nutter could then act irrationally and illegally with unpleasant consequences.

 

[Alpha1]

How would we differentiate between the two?

You don't. Staff has a certain status. If you have good staff, then they as a person have a natural overweight or have earned a certain level of respect even before they became staff. Making them staff gave them more overweight and respect. The only thing you can do is to give staff a secret second account, but this can easily blow up in your face because you are then hiding secret accounts. This is likely to be found out and could be perceived as a grand conspiracy. I would not go there.

 

[sbj]

I'm talking about the two types of posts a moderator will make

I know, I was also referring to those.

1. a post in a thread or private conversation relating to applying the forum rules. Like asking members to stay on topic or stop a certain pattern of behaviour. In the case of a private conversation, it could be automatically started when a warning is given. This is acting with their moderating hat on.
2. a post in a thread or private conversation helping a member with advice or asking for help. A 'normal' post which is definitely not acting with their moderating hat on.

How would we differentiate between the two? There is no system for colouring a post in a certain way, and doing so wouldn't mean anything to members unless they already knew of the different colour scheme.

Again, you have to train your userbase. Yes, at first it doesn't mean anything to them but with time they will get used to it. Look how Blizzard does it:

Our progress so far

We are a true no mans land

us.forums.blizzard.com

They color the replies of their official team. Actually they color every reply of their official team, so every answer from them is an official answer. Of course for our cases (or yours), we don't have that. So, let your mods use a particular color when their "moderating hat" is on. So with time people will see that colored posts are official, non-colored are just the guy talking.

And font-color is default in core. If you want it more fancy, you could use @Xon bb codes addon.

So when they see these banners, they know it is an official "mod hat on" answer.

You could also use @Lukas W. Editor Manager addon (for commercial websites there is a fee) for reusable content and create pre-defined templates for your mods. Stuff like they use the same thing over and over. And in those templates you can create colored texts or whatever fancy thing you want your "mod hat on" answers should look like.

But making a member a moderator elevates them to a position of power which changes the way other members' regard all the moderator's posts in a way which is not natural in the normal earned hierarchy of post count + positive reactions.
We already have moderators include such a disclaimer in their signatures. It makes no difference to whether or not their 'normal' posts are regarded or sometimes misunderstood as being an official 'policy' on some issue.

As I said, you can't escape the system. There is no solution for this. A forum is build on a hierarchical system. The perception of mods and admins will always be different than of normal users because they are in a position of power. All you can do is to train your userbase like dogs. You must include a system (which I described above) where one can clearly distinguish "mod hat on posts" vs. "mod hat off posts". Only then you can change the perception a bit but you will never be able to make it perfect.

 

[Alpha1]

To elaborate: no matter what method you use to signal that a moderators hat is on or off, it makes little difference. Because the moderator has power and status. Anything a member posts can affect moderator opinion. Even if the moderator hat is off, then a rule breach in the same thread will still result in the moderator taking action against the member. I would even suggest to you that a moderators hat is never truly off. There is no such thing. Or at least it is a subjective perception that exists in moderators mind only.

 

[Mr Lucky]

I'm talking about using that account only for moderating related posts and if it had no name in particular, it would indeed stop any resentment of certain moderators.

The busier a forum, the more unreasonable nutters you are going to get. Sometimes you have to get rid of some people pretty quickly, and it would be better if there wasn't a long standing moderator who has historically shared a ton of information about themselves, then a banned nutter could then act irrationally and illegally with unpleasant consequences.

Yes I get that now. Like on here there is a "xenForo" account which is not the same thing but similar function (the one that replies to bug reports)

Im also remember when I banned somebody who then went on a social media spree of spreading deragatory stuff about on of our mods. So sometime anonymity can be very good.

As an aside, slightly OT but also a bit relevant, the warning improvement addon by @Xon allows you to issue anonymous warnings via alerts.

 

[djbaxter]

Really, this is a non-issue IMO.

I don't think posts by moderators are treated differently on any of the forums I've been involved in over the years, nor have I seen any evidence that forum members "fear" moderators. When they post, they are just regular members and they are treated as such when another member disagrees with their posts.

 

[Stuart Wright]

Really, this is a non-issue IMO.

I don't think posts by moderators are treated differently on any of the forums I've been involved in over the years, nor have I seen any evidence that forum members "fear" moderators. When they post, they are just regular members and they are treated as such when another member disagrees with their posts.

I'm glad that it's a non issue for you. It's an issue for us.

 

[Paul B]

Do members treat 'normal' posts by moderators with more gravitas than they should do?

Yes.

I have received a lot of pushback, flak, and hostility for posting opinions on this site - whether it be related to a suggestion or something else.
I now limit myself to mainly support type interactions.

Hmm, perhaps I shouldn't have posted that ...

 

[Stuart Wright]

Yes.

I have received a lot of pushback, flak, and hostility for posting opinions on this site - whether it be related to a suggestion or something else.
I now limit myself to mainly support type interactions.

Hmm, perhaps I shouldn't have posted that ...

Glad you did.
So being a moderator has made you feel like you can't continue to post as a normal member because readers can't distinguish between you in your role as a moderator and you posting as a Xenforo user/enthusiast?

 

[Paul B]

So being a moderator has made you feel like you can't continue to post as a normal member because readers can't distinguish between you in your role as a moderator and you posting as a Xenforo user/enthusiast?

Exactly that.

I have received a lot of pushback, flak, and hostility for posting opinions on this site

Glad you did.

That's not very nice!

 

[Stuart Wright]

Exactly that.



That's not very nice!

You know I was saying I'm glad that you posted

So having experienced one side of the issue, do you think that we/Xenforo could implement some things to better separate moderating actions from the people doing them? And maybe protect moderators' identities at the same time?

 

[djbaxter]

You know I was saying I'm glad that you posted

So having experienced one side of the issue, do you think that we/Xenforo could implement some things to better separate moderating actions from the people doing them? And maybe protect moderators' identities at the same time?

Just don't use the Moderator banner for your moderators.

 

[beerForo]

The best thing you can do is when you hire a moderator is to make sure they understand what they are getting into. It actually goes both ways. As you say members post differently to mod posts. But also mods act more professionally and reserved. They will bite their tongue, not use as much slang, be diplomatic in conversational situations when the mod hat is off. Because they want to represent the site accordingly. So your point A also has a counterpoint B. The solution really is just to make sure the person is suited for the position with forewarning.

 

[beerForo]

Just don't use the Moderator banner for your moderators.

The Staff Member banner may sound a little friendlier for some as well, or just come up with a new name for Moderator like Community Liaison, etc. There's many ways to mitigate this, everyone's situation is different.

 

[beerForo]

Look, if you go to a bar and the bartender is off duty and playing pool, you still don't disrespect his bar. It's just going to work this way unless you do the anonymous thing, which is not a horrible idea, when you get scolded on social media you don't know their name. It's food for thought for a feature maybe.