Started by Jeremy Davis7 · · 👁 7 views · 149 replies
…
Lisa Hernandez3 said:I only edited the part that was actually off-topic—the bit about the admins—since that isn't really the subject here, which I assume you realize. I mostly did it to save the rest of your post, as there were some interesting points in there.
Anyway, if you guys are struggling with something, maybe just send a private message to whoever is responsible—if there isn't a more appropriate place to ask.
@ duck - I won't jump on everything, but regarding this idea of objective moderators versus subjective users—I don't think it's just an idea. Often, a moderator has to step back from their own preferences to ensure they act consistently, regardless of how they personally feel about a user or a certain opinion. There are certain things a moderator simply can't allow, even if a user tries to push them. Then again, the way those duties are carried out and how freedom is defined is pretty personal, so I guess moderators can be quite subjective in their own style. You can probably see that most clearly in how different PDF files are profiled by the various moderators.
| On the flip side, though, the way these responsibilities are handled and how freedoms are defined is totally individual, so mods end up being subjective in their own unique style. You can see it most clearly in how certain sub-forums get shaped by the specific mods running them. |
| I honestly thought this thread was actually about psychology—you know, looking at what kind of traits make someone want to be a moderator in the first place. I’m not here to lecture anyone on the official procedures, that’s not what this is about. I'll just lay one thing out plain and simple—there’s no big secret here—current mods basically just nominate new ones based on how much they contribute to their specific subforum. It's as informal as it gets. But let's get back to the actual topic: the psychological makeup of a moderator. |
Jeremy Davis7 said:briskpuma23;
Quincy:
I honestly thought this thread was actually about psychology—you know, looking at what kind of traits make someone want to be a moderator in the first place.
I’m not here to lecture anyone on the official procedures, that’s not what this is about. I'll just lay one thing out plain and simple—there’s no big secret here—current mods basically just nominate new ones based on how much they contribute to their specific subforum. It's as informal as it gets.
But let's get back to the actual topic: the psychological makeup of a moderator.
In my book, you can't separate how a forum functions from the actual motives that drive someone to take on a mod role.
They aren't two different things. They're tied together.
Why am I saying this?
What really trips me out about this whole setup is how a massive commercial media entity (one that operates on a global scale) can have its entire core business model built on the backs of volunteers! People who work for free, without whom the whole thing would collapse overnight.
It's pretty obvious the people running the show accounted for that in their math.
The whole business lives off that reality.
To me, it looks like pure applied psychology. The owner (or whoever is sitting at the top of the food chain) uses it in a very calculated, lucid way.
We all know—well, I hope we do—that industrial psychology teaches us that money isn't always the primary driver for people in the workplace.
Employee motivation isn't just some academic sociological puzzle; it's behavior aimed at hitting goals that satisfy deep-seated human needs.
People act the way they do because of internal psychological triggers. A person's output doesn't just depend on their skill, it depends on what's driving them.
And that right there is where the rabbit hole starts.
A manager's job—the person steering the ship—is to grasp the complexity of human personality and use motivational theories to pick the right tools, whether that's material rewards or psychological ones, depending on the situation.
One thing they can easily exploit is the basic human need to feel valued.
Big corporations do this all the time; they hand out status symbols, like fancy cars or executive perks, to keep people hooked.
Around here, the equivalent—as cliché as it sounds—is being able to use a larger avatar or a bigger profile picture.
Another huge motivator is praise.
People love hearing that they're trusted, that they're doing a good job, that they matter.
So, I'm curious: have any of you moderators actually been praised?
Like, through a private message or something similar?
Did it move the needle for you when someone reached out and offered you a moderator spot?
How did you react, and why?
I don't buy the idea that power is the only thing pulling people in here.
I get what people say about just wanting to contribute... whatever.
But I think the real engine is that inner drive to feel recognized—to feel like you've been plucked out of the crowd.
The way this whole project works has to be built on that. Everything I just said has to be baked into the system.
Otherwise, the boss wouldn't be able to "squeeze" out that intense volunteerism from the very people the business relies on.
I'm genuinely wondering: what methods are the people running this place using to try and manipulate you? Because obviously, someone is coordinating everything—and they're getting paid for it. Someone has to talk to advertisers, track the metrics, and handle the business side. How are they working to turn you into an instrument for their own ends?
Was the mere fact that someone—say, another moderator—reached out to you enough of a reason to "take the bait"?
Who actually gave that person the green light to contact you?
Does this feel like part of a larger pattern?
Is anyone asking you guys to handle this stuff on your own?
Have you ever seen an official manual for this, or have you been personally nudged to act this way?
It feels like a well-oiled machine here, one that’s basically designed to keep itself running indefinitely.
Someone had to design this whole setup. In my opinion, it takes just a tiny handful of employees—maybe one or two per major US region—using pyramid-style engineering and clear instructions based on behavioral psychology to build up enough momentum to stay unstoppable.
Once those wheels start turning... once that flywheel gets spinning... all the boss has to do is check the reports, count the cash, and enjoy the ride.
If I were sitting in his chair, I’d set specific targets for that small group of employees and build a reporting system—basically a bonus structure—if they hit their numbers (you know, traffic, ad revenue, all that jazz).
PS.
I also don't think you can run a business on pure volunteerism for years on end.
Let's be real: people will work like this for a while... until they're completely burnt out and fed up.
Then you have to go out and recruit new blood—people who actually want to be there—just to keep the machine alive.
That means you have to factor in a predictable turnover rate for volunteers, which clearly needs to be part of the plan.
For those of you actually doing the moderating, have you noticed any signs of this?
Like, do they push out the less motivated people by stripping away perks or authority, while giving more power and privileges to the new recruits?
I don't know... just asking.
Looking at it pragmatically... it sounds totally plausible to me. Honestly, if I were making my living off this forum, it's exactly what I'd do too.
😉
briskpuma23 said:God, help me. 🤦
Jeremy Davis7 said:briskpuma23;
Quincy:
I honestly thought this thread was actually about psychology—you know, looking at what kind of traits make someone want to be a moderator in the first place.
I’m not here to lecture anyone on the official procedures, that’s not what this is about. I'll just lay one thing out plain and simple—there’s no big secret here—current mods basically just nominate new ones based on how much they contribute to their specific subforum. It's as informal as it gets.
But let's get back to the actual topic: the psychological makeup of a moderator.
In my book, you can't separate how a forum functions from the actual motives that drive someone to take on a mod role.
They aren't two different things. They're tied together.
Why am I saying this?
What really trips me out about this whole setup is how a massive commercial media entity (one that operates on a global scale) can have its entire core business model built on the backs of volunteers! People who work for free, without whom the whole thing would collapse overnight.
It's pretty obvious the people running the show accounted for that in their math.
The whole business lives off that reality.
To me, it looks like pure applied psychology. The owner (or whoever is sitting at the top of the food chain) uses it in a very calculated, lucid way.
We all know—well, I hope we do—that industrial psychology teaches us that money isn't always the primary driver for people in the workplace.
Employee motivation isn't just some academic sociological puzzle; it's behavior aimed at hitting goals that satisfy deep-seated human needs.
People act the way they do because of internal psychological triggers. A person's output doesn't just depend on their skill, it depends on what's driving them.
And that right there is where the rabbit hole starts.
A manager's job—the person steering the ship—is to grasp the complexity of human personality and use motivational theories to pick the right tools, whether that's material rewards or psychological ones, depending on the situation.
One thing they can easily exploit is the basic human need to feel valued.
Big corporations do this all the time; they hand out status symbols, like fancy cars or executive perks, to keep people hooked.
Around here, the equivalent—as cliché as it sounds—is being able to use a larger avatar or a bigger profile picture.
Another huge motivator is praise.
People love hearing that they're trusted, that they're doing a good job, that they matter.
So, I'm curious: have any of you moderators actually been praised?
Like, through a private message or something similar?
Did it move the needle for you when someone reached out and offered you a moderator spot?
How did you react, and why?
I don't buy the idea that power is the only thing pulling people in here.
I get what people say about just wanting to contribute... whatever.
But I think the real engine is that inner drive to feel recognized—to feel like you've been plucked out of the crowd.
The way this whole project works has to be built on that. Everything I just said has to be baked into the system.
Otherwise, the boss wouldn't be able to "squeeze" out that intense volunteerism from the very people the business relies on.
I'm genuinely wondering: what methods are the people running this place using to try and manipulate you? Because obviously, someone is coordinating everything—and they're getting paid for it. Someone has to talk to advertisers, track the metrics, and handle the business side. How are they working to turn you into an instrument for their own ends?
Was the mere fact that someone—say, another moderator—reached out to you enough of a reason to "take the bait"?
Who actually gave that person the green light to contact you?
Does this feel like part of a larger pattern?
Is anyone asking you guys to handle this stuff on your own?
Have you ever seen an official manual for this, or have you been personally nudged to act this way?
It feels like a well-oiled machine here, one that’s basically designed to keep itself running indefinitely.
Someone had to design this whole setup. In my opinion, it takes just a tiny handful of employees—maybe one or two per major US region—using pyramid-style engineering and clear instructions based on behavioral psychology to build up enough momentum to stay unstoppable.
Once those wheels start turning... once that flywheel gets spinning... all the boss has to do is check the reports, count the cash, and enjoy the ride.
If I were sitting in his chair, I’d set specific targets for that small group of employees and build a reporting system—basically a bonus structure—if they hit their numbers (you know, traffic, ad revenue, all that jazz).
PS.
I also don't think you can run a business on pure volunteerism for years on end.
Let's be real: people will work like this for a while... until they're completely burnt out and fed up.
Then you have to go out and recruit new blood—people who actually want to be there—just to keep the machine alive.
That means you have to factor in a predictable turnover rate for volunteers, which clearly needs to be part of the plan.
For those of you actually doing the moderating, have you noticed any signs of this?
Like, do they push out the less motivated people by stripping away perks or authority, while giving more power and privileges to the new recruits?
I don't know... just asking.
Looking at it pragmatically... it sounds totally plausible to me. Honestly, if I were making my living off this forum, it's exactly what I'd do too.
😉
Jeremy Davis7 said:Thanks.
Look, when I bring up things like "special treatment" or whatever, I’m not trying to demonize this board or the mods.
I’m just trying to wrap my head around how a system built entirely on volunteers—one that actually manages to stay afloat—even works in the first place.
The whole thing is fascinating to me. It’s really just a byproduct of how we all communicate now... you know, thanks to the internet.
Cheers.
PS.
Your post output is absolutely insane!!! Good grief...
We practically started hanging out on this forum at the exact same time, yet you've somehow outpaced me nearly 20 to 1!?
Over 23,000 posts logged (and that extra bit there? That's more than half of everything I've ever written)!!!
😲
Where does all that energy come from?
It’s pretty obvious this place is a huge part of your life.
I can't help but wonder if someone behind the scenes is watching... maybe offering moderator spots to the people who show the most enthusiasm.
🙂
slywolf45 said:It really just boils down to the fact that I barely have any life during the week. 😁
When I actually have free time, it's usually on the weekend. During the work week, I'm not exactly the social butterfly type—I'm working, and I have internet access at the office too. Once I'm home, this has been my favorite way to decompress over the last few years. Maybe I'm a bit of an addict, but who's counting...😬
silentpilot6 said:Honestly, there’s a certain level of satisfaction that comes with banning an idiot 😁. As a moderator here, I can’t tell you how many times I’ve thought, "this guy needs to be banned immediately." Too often, those people managed to stay online 😢
. Today, I handed out a 500-point penalty for hate speech... you just can't win with some people in America 😠. I actually regret not issuing a permanent ban right then and there, but I'm taking it slow... I'm just waiting for his next move 😈
Jeremy Davis7 said:So what you're saying is... being a "devoted muff diver" is just some kind of poetic metaphor!?
PS.
Just kidding.
😉
Rebecca Scott3 said:...that feeling of total authority, like they can just wipe everything out...reorganize the whole system...
...it’s just the title itself...the idea that they're actually "doing" something...acting like supervisors...
...they've got a thousand people under them...kind of like having a massive crew of gravediggers at a cemetery...🙂
....
Ashley Phillips41 said:honestly, people would probably pay good money just to have moderator powers because it’s such an instant ego boost—they get to feel like they actually have some kind of authority over everyone else... it's just pathetic...
slywolf45 said:Nobody is being "encouraged," and nobody is having "privileges" revoked, regardless of what that term might imply.
It’s actually quite straightforward. You either pull your weight and do the work, or you don't.
If you aren't contributing, we simply look for new moderators.
End of story.
For my part, I stepped into a moderator role on this site after being nudged about it for quite a while.
I’ve been around here for a long time and I enjoy it; I eventually said yes because, let's face it, I spend a significant amount of my time online anyway.
Since I'm already hanging out here, I figured I might as well get a little more involved.
I volunteer for so many things in life without expecting a paycheck; this isn't anything out of the ordinary, nor does it drain any significant amount of energy or time from me.
I don't view it as granting myself some sort of special power or elevated status, much like I don't view any of the other significant responsibilities I carry in my daily life.
Michelle Alvarez8 said:But where are we supposed to ask if we can't even post a question on the sub-forum? 🙄
And thanks for editing my post—the truth hurts, right?
