"Backseat moderating"

[Ungatt Trunn]

You know I don't get this whole "backseat moderating" thing... I get that the mods get a final say in what's done with members n' such, but at the same time I feel that people should be able to express thoughts on matters, even if it means suggesting courses of action for moderators to take. The staff aren't some coalition of elite intelligentsia who are above us all and know what's best for all of us more than we do (well, maybe in a sense they are, but not to the degree where they're so superior that their decisions are unquestionable).

If someone chooses to "backseat moderate", in the sense that they suggest courses of action or vocalize opinions on stuff like that, then it really should be up to them and on their heads what the public thinks about them. Why do they also need "warnings" or "punishments"? I get that members trying to meddle in certain staff situations aren't good, and that the staff do know more about certain situations than we do, but what's wrong with vocalizing a belief/idea?

Not trying to flame anyone, I know that both the staff and the members are great people, but I don't get it.

EDIT: Like, I see some people saying "Maybe this topic should be moved? Sorry for backseat moderating" or "This person seems like a bot, maybe look into? Sorry for backseat moderating" Like why would anyone need to apologize for that, or even have their suggestion deemed as wrong/punishable? They see something they think should be done, so they suggest it. It's upon them if they come off as nosy. Why is it "punishable"?

I'm not trying to sound like a Bolshevik or anything, but the whole idea of "backseat moderating" almost feels like a borderline of abuse-of-power to me (unintentional or no). I'm just worried.

[James Gryphon]

If you're in a classroom in elementary school, any teacher worth their salt does not care what the other kids think about whether Little Johnny should get the dunce cap or just slapped with a ruler. Your mom is not going to listen to you about how to punish your sister. And if you loudly offer your opinion anyway, I suspect that the reaction you get is not going to be in your favor.

Using the last incident here as an example, when members are suggesting that someone be banned or making harsh comments about their presence on the forum, I don't feel I have to defend the idea that the forum shouldn't have to suffer these kinds of opinions.

One other thing that I think a lot of people forget is that there's also a rabble-rousing element to this. The member doesn't seem to be trying to guide the staff, so much as take over. If they really wanted to recommend anything to us, why not talk to *us*, privately? As it is, while the member has no authority to do any of the things they recommend, they try to raise public support for their idea, as if to try to compel the staff into making a certain decision. Well, this is not a democracy, and I don't like someone trying to force my hand, especially when they don't know what's going on.

If you have suggestions you care to make to us about how we should be doing our jobs, feel free to talk to us. We have taken such advice before, believe it or not, and changed some things. However, moderating is our job. It is indisputable fact that we know more about the whole picture than you do, which is key to making moderation decisions. The public forum is not a place for you to discuss in committee right in front of the people that would be affected what you *think* should happen. The saying goes that "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all"... all the more when you don't know the facts of the situation, nor power to do anything about it, and would effectively be acting against the people who do have both of those.

If there's a rule that's being broken, we will do our best to take care of it. Your job is simply to "love one another". I think that is hard enough without adding the judgement chair to your responsibilities.

[Ungatt Trunn]

But, like, in the last incident, it seemed like at least some of the staff knew what was going on, but they didn't reveal what exactly to the other users in a way that they'd understand and accept the situation. Was this "Soerry" guy set up to expose just how mean and nasty all of us members are? If not, then what's the point of taking the Soerry dude's side and pointing fingers at the members? If the staff has this "bigger picture" then they should help members see enough of it so that they don't "overreact" and cause problems.

Like, with the Soerry guy, for the most part everyone "played along" with him and treated him like he was just a normal person. Then one member suggests that this person is probably a troll/spammer (like I said, it's on this member's head what the public thinks of him saying this), and then all of a sudden he and others are "backseat moderating". The idea here is that this member sniffed a troll and stated what he smelled to the public. He wasn't making a call to arms: he just strongly felt that this Soerry guy was a troll. Maybe he should have PM'ed a staff member about it - but again, it comes back to the idea that what the public thinks about him is on his head for posting that. And he didn't even really post it in a way that would try and create a "rabble" as you put it: the original poster of the idea was the only one who was borderline provocative, the other two who flat-out agreed with him were just stating their beliefs, and the last one who was at least doubting the Soerry member's legitimacy clearly stated that everyone should still give that member the "benefit of the doubt." It was just some people stating opinions: nothing provocative.

I think it's a bit of an injustice to compare the members of the Redwall forum to a "rabble". If you look at the Soerry situation, several members actually treated the Soerry guy as an actual human being in a polite and courteous way. The the Soerry guy even turned out to "not be legit", and yet it seems like the staff still took his side. I don't think anything here would have blown up if 1. the staff hadn't pointed fingers and tried to guilt people for posting opinions, or 2. If the Soerry guy didn't just troll in the first place (because let's be real, he was trying to purposely play with people).

The Redwall community is very nice to new members (and members in general) for the most part. They're also smart: they'll identify suspicious activity when they see one. Even if this Soerry guy was "legit", that would mean he wasn't here because he loved Redwall or wanted to get involved with the community. Not all new members are like him: not all longtime members treat new members like they treated him (but heck, many of them even did treat the Soerry guy really nice for the most part!). He really did seem suspicious: I don't think members should be penalized for stating an opinion in a situation like this.

I get what you said, but I guess I'm not seeing this forum in the same lense as you. I don't view this forum as a preschool where the adults have to constantly be disciplining and guiding their children and making sure that their job is just to "love one another". I view it as a place where good, intelligent people interact with each other and are actually very nice and level-headed for the most part. I feel that this Soerry guy situation was too heavily against the members (honestly I think this Soerry guy is in the wrong). I get that the staff know more than the members and that they do have a degree of disciplinary responsibility, but I feel like there's a disconnected between what's really good and bad.

[Matthias720]

This has nothing to do with what was said, but rather how it was said. I have faith in the members we have here. I trust that each of you wants what's best for the forum and our community. However, good intentions don't always result in good decisions. Regardless of whether or not someone is a troll, we should treat everyone who comes here with a warm and friendly attitude. If someone is a troll, let the staff handle them. Because if someone is mistaken for a troll and treated as though they were one, then they stand a good chance of leaving and thinking the worst of us. It's about not closing ourselves off to new people.

As for this situation, the staff remained just as in the dark as you until a few hours ago. It has since been dealt with. We will not be discussing it publicly, as the matter doesn't need to be handled out in the open. It is simply unnecessary. If we did, there may be those who would jump to conclusions without knowing the full story. It might seem conspiratorial or arrogant for the staff to not be discussing these things in the open, but it is everyone's best interest to keep it that way.

If you have ANY concerns, tell us. It's what we're here for. Cutting us from the equation only leads to misunderstandings all around. We're here for you, but you need to speak to be heard.

[The Skarzs]

It's one thing to thank a post, but it's an entirely different thing to express oneself completely.

Thank you. Sierra, Matthias, James.
And sorry.