At some point, a community will need moderators to help filter out the junk traffic from the good traffic and resolve disputes with other players.
There are a few ways moderators can be chosen. How should they be?
At some point, a community will need moderators to help filter out the junk traffic from the good traffic and resolve disputes with other players.
There are a few ways moderators can be chosen. How should they be?
In communities, there are many ways to choose moderators, and each one will work or not work depending on the type of community and users that make the community up. I'll try to give a summary of just a few methods that can be used when determining moderators.
This is the administrators/owners of the community pick staff members from a pool of people. Usually, members in these pools are older members, have high reputation, or are friends of the owners.
Pros
Cons
This is where the community casts votes for moderators that apply for the position. Stack Exchange uses this model with their moderator selection process. Users can vote for who they want to become a moderator. There is usually with a certain threshold, such as reputation, length of time, or a combination of these or more factors, when allowing to vote, to prevent abuse of the system. It is also sometimes weighted based upon these factors.
Pros
Cons
This one, along with community election is a method that is used on the Stack Exchange sites. This model is where privliges are 'unlocked' as you get more karma and in so, being more trusted with tools. This, while not a conventional moderator system, can be useful in load-balancing the work (especially for a larger site).
Pros
Cons
Use the one that fits the community best. You can even try using a hybrid of this format, where the users cast 'votes' or support, while having the community administrators approve, or community elections and a rep based system. You can always test and refactor, punish those who don't uphold their status correctly, and ask the community members for suggestions.