Tough Calls and Conflicts of Interest

Okay, I figure I may as well finish the week off with a subject that's something of a continuation from yesterday's discussion of black-and-white dealings with members. As "nowhere" said on Monday, this is the sort of thing all staff should already know, although in my experience this is not always the case. Anyway, sometimes things aren't so clear, even for the more levelheaded staffers out there.

If an argument occurs between two established members, it can be a difficult call to make. The best choice with heated discussions is to lock or delete the thread in question. If the thread is locked, include a simple post saying something like "this discussion is getting out of hand". Don't take sides. Usually, this is all it will take. It's the topic's fault, not the members'. If necessary, send each involved party a cautionary message. Don't get into a "who started it" game, or allow the members to pull you into one. Depending on the circumstances, you could caution one member against baiting others and another against rising to the bait. Warnings are rarely necessary where otherwise-upstanding members are concerned, since they have a stake in the community and should understand that they should behave accordingly. However, repeat offenders should be officially sanctioned no matter their status.

That's still something of a no-brainer. Here's the bigger point, and the one where I slipped up as I'll tell you in a minute: don't get involved. Even if the subject of discussion is concerning the site, do your best to remain impartial. If it's a topic of some concern to you, step back and ask another staff member to deal with it. Similarly, don't use the locking method I described above to foreclose debate. Unless a subject is clearly inciting a polarized and heated debate (as in the example I gave on Monday of the "What do you think about homosexuals?" thread on Facebook), it should be allowed to run its course unless it gets out of hand. Just because you may not like the way the discussion is going doesn't give you any right to bring your extra powers to bear.

Sometimes, you just want to leap into the fray. Hey, a good argument can be fun, so long as it remains civil. However, if you're going to join up, leave your badge at the door, and make it clear to the members that you are doing so. If necessary, message a fellow staff member asking them to keep an eye on the thread and moderate any or all participants if necessary, even you. If you bring your powers into a discussion, your relationship with members will change forever. It can't be undone.

This is the point where I bring in my own painful example, where I became involved in a discussion and a user ended up leaving the site for good as a result of my behavior. During a political debate, I brought up my rather polarized views against Israel's foreign policy. The other user responded with equally-polarized view in support, and we fell into discussing the country's enemies. Eventually, I felt that the other had become quite offensive, both to the Islamic religion and Arabs themselves. I issued a summary ban. I realized almost immediately that this was an overreaction, so I scaled it back to a warning. Here's the worst part: I then asked one of my fellow moderators to send a message explaining the reasons behind the warning that I had issued. I didn't want it to look like I had become emotionally involved in the discussion, and didn't believe that I had. In retrospect, that was certainly the case. The other member reacted in an understandable fashion towards myself and my middleman: he sent us both indignant messages, deleted all his torrents, then his own account. I had, in the end, effectively banned him from the site.

The biggest lesson to take away from this example is that there's a right and a wrong way to involve other staff members. Asking another to do the work I didn't feel comfortable doing myself should have sent up red flags that what I was doing was not a good idea. Part of the problem is that I don't think he had quite internalized The Moderator's Bible that I posted on Monday, and didn't feel comfortable enough to say no to me. That's another reason that mods need to be relaxed and comfortable in their roles, since they may need to call you out when you behave improperly yourself. Hey, we're all human. Well, we are under a layer of internet, anyway.