Moderating is a funny old game.

There has been a lot of talk of late in the forums and in blogs about site staff, be they admins, mods or whatever, and how they conduct themselves or do their jobs. Here's the deal; it's not easy!

When I got taken on as a mod, I wasn't given a rulebook of how I should do the job. I got a 3-4 line overview. Vet and publish site news, moderate the forum, keep main chat clean. Simple really. Or is it?

People have differing views on moderation, what should stay, what should go, how far mods should exercise their thread locking or editing powers. The simple answer is, all we have to guide us is our common sense. I don't know how many of you are involved with different internet forums. I lurk on two (other than FUMBBL) that aren't moderated at all, and two that are extremely heavily moderated, to the point where if you repeat a topic, it's instantly locked and you're warned. Imagine that on FUMBBL! Fouling threads would be a thing of the past. On the two that aren't moderated at all, some people's worst sides come out, I'm exposed to a barrage of signatures that are 3000% bigger than the word 'fale' that is their post, and n00bs are swiftly slapped through a strange interweb hazing process. On the other two, any sort of debate seems impossible, admins and mods are so keen to keep a squeaky clean, friendly to all site that any kind of dispute, revolutionary opinion or passing comment is clamped down on instantly, making it not much fun lurking there, to be quite honest.

I think FUMBBL has the right mix.

Now you might not agree, you might think it's pedantic having a language bot that kicks you for saying reasonable things some days, or that thread necromancy doesn't deserve locking, you should be allowed to swear, whatever really, but remember who's house you're in. Then think of the alternatives out there on this here interweb. Are you really that badly off?

Also, I must point out, you aren't given a code of conduct when you get that @ infront of your name. A case study is shadow. Now you may have pre-conceived ideas about everyone's favourite mod, but put those aside for twenty seconds and think. Assuming that you don't get a set of rules as to how to do your job, and your personality isn't under scrutiny (or at least as far as I know) to any great degree whilst you do it, does any moderator play a more active role on this site, or indeed, do a better job? If your definition of 'good job' does not fit his, I remind you once again, it's a play by ear, common sense process. I don't think I'm as active as he is, although I certianly try. Should he be super-cheesy-nice to everyone he meets in main? Your call really. I'm not sure people need a welcome mat thrust under their feet, there are plenty of helpful people, a user guide, a rulebook and the forums around already. They certianly served me well as a n00b. I also think he's the big bad wolf, blown up out of all proportion, but again, just my opinion.

I suppose what I'm saying is this, give us a break. Those of us that are trying (even if it's not up to your high standards) to do a job to help on here don't get a manual, don't get a lot of help from some of you guys some days, and put in way more time than we realise trying to help. When you think about it, it's amazing what Angie did. Again, love or hate her, the amount of hard work she did so we could all have fun was phenomenal.

And lastly, you know what, if you have any issues with any of us, what we do, how we do it, take it up with our boss. You'll find his overview page under the search 'Christer'. Alternatively, you could start numerous threads and write several blogs flogging the same, tired dead horse, and turn yourself into a bit of a laughing stock. Your call.