Deputy Mods on VJ: Moderation Structure

[Kathryn41 3,205]

Could you post a list of who is a mod now, and who is a deputy mod? Thank you.

Hi Carla,

If you go to the Members link in the upper right hand corner ( http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?act=Members ) under the search and filter options you will see below the place you type in a name, a pull down menu that says "all members". If you open up the pull down menu you will see the options listed. Included are 'moderators, global", "Moderators,'Deputy" and 'Organizers". Click on one of those and press 'go' and it will display the profiles of everyone in the category you selected.

[TracyTN 237]

Well I think mods in the upper forums need to have immigration knowledge in that particular area. And I think the upper forums are less prone to drama so long as people stick to the facts of someone's immi situation. At least that's what I think mods there should be enforcing.

Maybe we should make a list of these types of folks and then go from there (see if they're interested)?

Edited December 27, 2009 by TracyTN

[TracyTN 237]

Anyone...? Buehler... Buehler...

[LaL 418]

I think mods in the upper forums need to have immigration knowledge in that particular area.

Disagree. The worst thing that I have seen happen is when a mod does try to "fix" an argument by posting erroneous immigration advice as fact then closing the thread. They should stick to TOS violations and if immigration advice is given, it should be as a member.

[Kathryn41 3,205]

Disagree. The worst thing that I have seen happen is when a mod does try to "fix" an argument by posting erroneous immigration advice as fact then closing the thread. They should stick to TOS violations and if immigration advice is given, it should be as a member.

This is what we try to do right now. As moderators- either global or deputy - we work with the TOS of VJ to make sure the site is working productively and supportively. We are not here as immigration specialists, although we do tend to have some good immigration experience behind us because we have been through the process or are actively involved in the process right now. When we post information related to the immigration journey we generally do it as private members, not as moderators. The two functions really are separate.

[mox 298]

Disagree. The worst thing that I have seen happen is when a mod does try to "fix" an argument by posting erroneous immigration advice as fact then closing the thread. They should stick to TOS violations and if immigration advice is given, it should be as a member.

This.

[SuperDuper! 230]

Well yeah, it's the nature of the biz. I'll cop to not having all the answers, but the qualities I outlined sure couldn't hurt.

And two posts in a row where I'm not being a complete jackass...Merry Christmas VJ, and that goes for you moderators too!

The Mox needs to stop telling on himself: "Somebody stop me!"

[TracyTN 237]

Disagree. The worst thing that I have seen happen is when a mod does try to "fix" an argument by posting erroneous immigration advice as fact then closing the thread. They should stick to TOS violations and if immigration advice is given, it should be as a member.

I wasn't suggesting that the deputy mod should be involved solely to give immigration advice. Rather, I was thinking more along the lines that they would be able to tell which posters were routinely giving misleading (or downright wrong) advice and keep a watch out for such repeat offenders. No one knows EVERYthing about immigration, but surely we have enough quasi experts around here to be able to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Or do you think ignorance of the immigration process is a better quality for an 'upper forum' mod to have?

[LaL 418]

Or do you think ignorance of the immigration process is a better quality for an 'upper forum' mod to have?

I can't think of one (global) mod that has been ignorant of the immigration process, so my answer would be yay for knowledgeable but nay for guru and coaxing the conversation in any direction.

[Niels Bohr 72]

Hello Mods....I like to be MOD so I can abuse people! Muwhahahaha!

[TracyTN 237]

I can't think of one (global) mod that has been ignorant of the immigration process, so my answer would be yay for knowledgeable but nay for guru and coaxing the conversation in any direction.

I'm not saying the mods are ignorant either - I was just trying to glean your criteria. And I don't remember saying we should have gurus who coax conversations either.

[mox 298]

they would be able to tell which posters were routinely giving misleading (or downright wrong) advice and keep a watch out for such repeat offenders.

It frustrates me too when I see people handing out terrible or just factually incorrect advice, and it frustrates me even more when they manage to build up a little fan base around themselves who shut down anyone else who dares to correct the so-called expert. But I don't think it's the job of the moderators to decide who's a misleader and who's not. They're certainly welcome to put their member hat on and join in the conversation, but when their moderation hat is on they need to moderate discussion, not control it.

[Niels Bohr 72]

I will shut everyone up! I promise!

It frustrates me too when I see people handing out terrible or just factually incorrect advice, and it frustrates me even more when they manage to build up a little fan base around themselves who shut down anyone else who dares to correct the so-called expert. But I don't think it's the job of the moderators to decide who's a misleader and who's not. They're certainly welcome to put their member hat on and join in the conversation, but when their moderation hat is on they need to moderate discussion, not control it.

[TracyTN 237]

It frustrates me too when I see people handing out terrible or just factually incorrect advice, and it frustrates me even more when they manage to build up a little fan base around themselves who shut down anyone else who dares to correct the so-called expert. But I don't think it's the job of the moderators to decide who's a misleader and who's not. They're certainly welcome to put their member hat on and join in the conversation, but when their moderation hat is on they need to moderate discussion, not control it.

I completely agree. I was just thinking that if a mod knew that a certain poster was prone to giving inaccurate information, they may watch conversations more closely that involve that person. Whether that means actually moderating something would really be on a case by case basis, or if a certain post had been reported, etc. They may just do as you said - put their 'member' hat on and become involved in that capacity. But I think something needs to be done to try and reign in misinformation beyond what we're already doing (which is mostly members self policing).

[john_and_marlene 162]

I completely agree. I was just thinking that if a mod knew that a certain poster was prone to giving inaccurate information, they may watch conversations more closely that involve that person. Whether that means actually moderating something would really be on a case by case basis, or if a certain post had been reported, etc. They may just do as you said - put their 'member' hat on and become involved in that capacity. But I think something needs to be done to try and reign in misinformation beyond what we're already doing (which is mostly members self policing).

Unless they have passed the BAR, MODs have ABSOLUTELY no business moderating the accuracy of any immigration advice. Zero -- none -- nada!!!! How do they distinguish information from misinformation???? Do they take a vote? Do they go with what they believe to be true? Do they go with the majority????? Too often I see bits of misinformation even from some fairly knoledgeable members. To moderate the advice given is the same as giving legal advice--an action reserved for legal professionals.