More Moderators Please

[Just_a_fan]

Here's a fun example from the race thread. Ringo is clearly biased towards Lewis and expresses his opinion as such. I don't completely agree, but it's just an opinion on the topic of discussion. What is given in reply, is blatantly antagonistic, dredging up past incidents in an inciteful way by inserting conspiratorial facts. Then there's a wild allegation of an illegal car...

This type of thing had been endemic recently (not just from Ryar although he/she has become notorious for it in short order). I initially went to report it, but stopped short because it's a drop in the bucket, nothing has been done against countless other examples, so I have zero confidence it will get dealt with.

Max doesnt lose anything if Lewis gets the win.
It was not Max's to win in the first place.

You are right, after the silverstone and hungary ploy, it wasn't. Probably Masi knew very well that Mercedes ran an illegal car in some races, but couldn't be open about it.

Actually, the last part of the post - the bit about an illegal car - is pure trolling because it's only there to get a reaction and start an argument. It serves no other purpose. It is a perfect example of the problems being raised here and elsewhere.

[Sulman]

I used to moderate an F1forum (long gone now). I can tell you: It is hard and thankless work.

• You upset everybody, and can only aim to do so equally.

• Senior members are usually every bit as bad as shitposters/trolls/flamebaiters. Often they are the worst.

• Moderators typically come from the user pool. This causes problems as favoritism is unfortunately real, and the worst senior posters assume they have some sort of leverage or seniority. Worst case is they're mates with the owner (ask me how I know..)

• To do it properly you have to be hard, or it's pointless. This can be stressful.

I don't post much here, but I read a lot. I like it. I have noticed a tendency for what I call Reddit culture to creep in, but the format of the forum stops the worst of it.

It's just not easy, and takes a lot of work and dedication to run a community.

[west52keep64]

Have the moderators considered applying rating penalties as something less extreme than a ban? I wonder if that would have more of an impact than the threat of a ban. It would also serve to highlight users who troll more often than they post valued content, as everyone can see their rating, but most people don't know that a user has been banned for 30 days.

Maybe something like, -1 point for every report the moderators rule in favour of, with maybe larger penalties applied for repeat offenders. I imagine that would act as a fairly hefty deterrent to continued trolling.

[Big Tea]

Have the moderators considered applying rating penalties as something less extreme than a ban? I wonder if that would have more of an impact than the threat of a ban. It would also serve to highlight users who troll more often than they post valued content, as everyone can see their rating, but most people don't know that a user has been banned for 30 days.

Maybe something like, -1 point for every report the moderators rule in favour of, with maybe larger penalties applied for repeat offenders. I imagine that would act as a fairly hefty deterrent to continued trolling.

Or 'read only' for a week then a month Real pain

[west52keep64]

Have the moderators considered applying rating penalties as something less extreme than a ban? I wonder if that would have more of an impact than the threat of a ban. It would also serve to highlight users who troll more often than they post valued content, as everyone can see their rating, but most people don't know that a user has been banned for 30 days.

Maybe something like, -1 point for every report the moderators rule in favour of, with maybe larger penalties applied for repeat offenders. I imagine that would act as a fairly hefty deterrent to continued trolling.

Or 'read only' for a week then a month Real pain

I think that would just motivate the trouble makers more, they will feel like they need to "make up" for lost time, as evidenced by some recent posts in this very thread.

Lets make it so everyone has got some skin in the game. Post something that ultimately gets moderated, lose a point. Keep doing it and enjoy your negative rating. You could even have some thresholds where people get banned for a time. -10 points, that's a 10 day ban. -30, say goodbye for 30 days. -60 etc. etc.

[Big Tea]

Have the moderators considered applying rating penalties as something less extreme than a ban? I wonder if that would have more of an impact than the threat of a ban. It would also serve to highlight users who troll more often than they post valued content, as everyone can see their rating, but most people don't know that a user has been banned for 30 days.

Maybe something like, -1 point for every report the moderators rule in favour of, with maybe larger penalties applied for repeat offenders. I imagine that would act as a fairly hefty deterrent to continued trolling.

Or 'read only' for a week then a month Real pain

I think that would just motivate the trouble makers more, they will feel like they need to "make up" for lost time, as evidenced by some recent posts in this very thread.

Lets make it so everyone has got some skin in the game. Post something that ultimately gets moderated, lose a point. Keep doing it and enjoy your negative rating. You could even have some thresholds where people get banned for a time. -10 points, that's a 10 day ban. -30, say goodbye for 30 days. -60 etc. etc.

If you look at the rating of some posters it is apparent they are trying to get the highest negative score they can.
Ironically, some of these have reasonable positive scores on their 'other' account

[El Scorchio]

Have the moderators considered applying rating penalties as something less extreme than a ban? I wonder if that would have more of an impact than the threat of a ban. It would also serve to highlight users who troll more often than they post valued content, as everyone can see their rating, but most people don't know that a user has been banned for 30 days.

Maybe something like, -1 point for every report the moderators rule in favour of, with maybe larger penalties applied for repeat offenders. I imagine that would act as a fairly hefty deterrent to continued trolling.

Or 'read only' for a week then a month Real pain

I think that would just motivate the trouble makers more, they will feel like they need to "make up" for lost time, as evidenced by some recent posts in this very thread.

Lets make it so everyone has got some skin in the game. Post something that ultimately gets moderated, lose a point. Keep doing it and enjoy your negative rating. You could even have some thresholds where people get banned for a time. -10 points, that's a 10 day ban. -30, say goodbye for 30 days. -60 etc. etc.

You do have to put your faith in the moderators (or the moderator online at any given time) being completely even handed and objective, though.

[CMSMJ1]

The moderation here though is, in my view quite relaxed and does allow for some building up of steam

ref the Yas Marina thread - I am glad it has been locked to be fair. There are only dusty remains of the donkey it once was and no-one need beat the poor bugger any more.

It cannot be easy - I have no idea of posting volumes, or key posters but am sure the Pareto principle applies that 80% of posts are by 20% of posters.

Taking the lead on content and quality needs to focus on these high volume and high emotion posters alike. Quality in begets quality out.

Roll on the 2022 season eh?

[McL-H]

My suggestion is to base the number of posts you can make on a user’s credit score on a monthly basis. Let’s say you can post 1 comment each day. And for every + you have had in the past 30 days, you gain another comment you can make daily. For every - you have, you lose a comment option. Every + and - must be clarified and is reviewed by moderators. That way, most of the moderation is done by the community themselves. The mods are just there to see if the rating system is used correctly.

Additionally, you can make users gain perks by having positive weekly/monthly streaks, upgrading their initial 1 daily comment.

I believe these cultural controls could help promote positive behaviour, increase the quality of the posts and reduce the need for mods. It could make the forum go back to what it was: a technical forum, where experts discuss and noobs like me come to read, ask questions and learn.

[notsofast]

• Senior members are usually every bit as bad as shitposters/trolls/flamebaiters. Often they are the worst.

This.

Post something that ultimately gets moderated, lose a point. Keep doing it and enjoy your negative rating.

Not this.

Senior members can help the volunteer mods by not trolling and not taking the bait. There will never not be someone who is wrong on the internet. Just ignore them.

[Ryar]

• Senior members are usually every bit as bad as shitposters/trolls/flamebaiters. Often they are the worst.

This.

Post something that ultimately gets moderated, lose a point. Keep doing it and enjoy your negative rating.

Not this.

Senior members can help the volunteer mods by not trolling and not taking the bait. There will never not be someone who is wrong on the internet. Just ignore them.

There will always be someone posting content that would go against the sensibilities of one or more people. That doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong and I guess that is why, mods choose not to take action or remove content which infuriates those who sensibilities are hurt. I have experienced it too, just like most others. When more such people come together, it becomes a bigger noise without a good reason. Posts that are outright disrespectful to each other, aggressive tone/language towards each other, abuvise, racist and xenophoebic, need to be acted upon, which does get acted upon, but may be more action is needed (may be mods do more in the background which is not apparent, as I have received warnings too which no one would know) and that is where the title of this thread is apt.

The first part of the post above is a classic problem of the forum. Seniors members getting carried away, falling for baits and unable to ignore such posts. Human nature is to increase negative behavior when confronted aggressively. It's a demon that grows with aggressive confrontation. Anyone that thinks I can stop people post content that I don't like, are attempting it in vain. It increases toxicity on the forum.

I have seen many people saying the forum is meant to be technical and is dead because of latest wave of new people having come and having a field day, which is natural, all thanks to a season like 2021. The reality is, there was always toxicity on the forum as was demonstrated in any grand prix where there was an incident between title protagonists. Examples like 2014 Monaco, 2016 Spain, Austria, 2018 Canada (i opened those thead to glance through, oh god) comes to mind as the most recent ones. The footprint was relative less back in those days and hence the toxicity seemed relatively less too. We haven't had consistent years of a strong title fight between different drivers and teams, which also is a reason for largely quiet periods in the past decade. Even when fights happened, most non Mercedes folks stay away, leaving only Rosberg and Hamilton fans to spar. This year has been different in that sense. I won't be surprised to see a 2021 like behavior continuing on this forum if we keep having racing years with a similar theme to 2021.

There are only a fraction of members here who have technical backgrounds and converse on technical matters. Mostly they are restricted to core technical threads. Most people that languish (me included) in race and team threads aren't adding to the technical nature of the forum. But footprint is equally important to the sustainability of any forum. Hosting and managing a site like this is a mammoth commercial affair. Every site grows overtime and attracts footprint of all sorts, beneficial to the objective of the site in multiple ways but also inducing a lot of headache. I am not sure of the commercial viability of this site and if moderators are also commercially beneficial. It's hard to do a honorary job of being a mod to go through such vile and venomous toxicity for long durations. If there is a commercial benefit for being a mod, then the question is how many moderators can the owners afford. It's easy for individuals to be excited to come forward and say, I am ready to do it on a honorary basis. But sustaining such enthusiasm would probably be a nightmare. A mod will be split as a fan and then as a mod and that dual mentality can cause severe stress. A thankless job where no one thinks the mods are right. Even if it is a paid job, it's going to kill you psychologically.

We all can expect a better world, but how much are we willing to try and mend our own uncontrollable behaviors for it? If you expect it be done by others, because you think you are right, it's the same situation on the other side too. More moderators? Probably yes. Better behavior of members (me included)? Definitely yes.

[Just_a_fan]

When so-called senior members continually see incorrect and/or inaccurate posts, they eventually get tired of them. When these posts are written carefully to be innuendo and "weasel words", it becomes worse.

"Junior" members writing what often amounts to lies, or just suggestions that amount to lies, gets on the nerves of others. That the mods ignore reports about such posts and delete posts that attempt to rebutt those posts, drives people to exasperation. Hence we see tempers fraying and threads such as these started.

And I don't buy the whole "everyone thinks we're biased so we must be about right" line. People see what is and isn't deleted. This isn't new - it's been going on for a number of years, even before the current Max-mania hit the forum.

Of course, when there are so few mods available, those that are available effectively have free reign. The issue has been much lesser when there were other mods in the mod panel.

[Starkblood80]

I think some less openly biased moderators would be a good start

[Wouter]

I think some less openly biased moderators would be a good start

Could you give me an example where I can see that a moderator is openly biased?
A link to a post from a moderator or maybe something else.
I don't see it. Thanks.

[Starkblood80]

I think some less openly biased moderators would be a good start

Could you give me an example where I can see that a moderator is openly biased?
A link to a post from a moderator or maybe something else.
I don't see it. Thanks.

This was a post from Hollus earlier this evening in the RB team thread
“ Red Bull Racing F1 Team
Red Bull Racing F1 Team
Red Bull Racing F1 Team
Red Bull Racing F1 Team
Red Bull Racing F1 Team
Red Bull Racing F1 Team
Red Bull Racing F1 Team
Red Bull Racing F1 Team

Is there a Mercedes thread somewhere?

I mean, comparing to Reb Bull is totally OK.”
The same mod also trolled Mercedes fans in the AD race thread.