How do sites train Moderators, if at all?

Question

The very first forum I was a part of, they did something unique when they selected a new moderator. The new moderator was put into a separate group called "Moderators In-Training". When I went through the process, I could only give users earning and approve of posts. Over time, I gained access to other moderator tools. Before I was switched over to the main moderator group, I had to be vouched by other moderators.

I was surprised to see that other forums did not do this; instead, you were out into the main moderator group immediately. Stack Exchange has something similar to "Moderators In-Training", as users can unlock moderation tools as they gain reputation.

Since it seems uncommon to have a separate group for new moderators, how do other sites train their moderators, or do they train them at all?

Answer 1

Most forum moderation teams have some form of hierarchy - even if it is solely based on "time served". A few people at the very top, who work directly with or as administrators. Then maybe a few team leaders, or simply people with a lot of experience who know the team and the community inside-out. And then there are varying forms of "grunts": Moderators who haven't been on the team for a long while, or just haven't shown to fit into higher tiers.

This doesn't necessarily mean different system privileges - it might just be a code of conduct thing. Moderation teams tend to discuss the actions they take, and the higher tiers simply have more weight, or more freedom to act on their own - without having to check back with someone else.

As for how "training" works, that's usually a learning-by-doing deal. A team leader keeps watch over their moderators, making sure their decisions are in line with policy, and responds to any queries they might have as to how something should be done. Often, there is also a "handbook" provided, that tells the moderators what actions to take, when to take them, how to talk to users, and who to refer to if things aren't going well.

The harsher form of this hierarchy, of course, is a very strict chain of command, with very distinct levels of freedom and clear designations as to who can (and should) take what actions.

Answer 2

Well, there are obviously many ways one could "train a moderator," so I'll give a few:

1. A mentor system: have an experienced moderator take a new moderator under his/her wing and show him/her the ropes so that both learn how to moderate more effectively.
2. A place to talk: have a place for moderators (and only moderators) to discuss things about the site (be it specific edge cases or general rules).
3. A gradual acceptance system: let new mods gradually gain access to more powerful tools as they spend more time moderating. The more they're on the site learning how to be a better moderator, the more tools they will find in their arsenal to help them gain experience effectively.
4. An election: to ensure that mods are ready from the get-go, allow the community to elect those users who are already active on the site and who have built relationships and experience on the site.
5. A hierarchy: create an internal system within the group of moderators that is based on privileges, authority, or power (similar to FEichinger's suggestion).

Stack Exchange (more or less) uses a combination of these, which is why I believe that its model works so effectively.

Ideally, you'd want to combine these rather than use any particular one on its own, as any sole option above could cause power/balance issues.

Answer 3

The forum where I worked would always select new moderators based on how well they were doing in keeping the site safe. We had a 'report post' feature, and users that used it the most AND had a high percentage in reporting the right posts would eventually become moderator. We would then give them some pointers, like how to use certain moderation features, and let them on their merry way.

It worked pretty well, we never had a moderator we regretted selecting.