Topics

moderated Moderator privileges


Beth Weld
 

It would be very helpful to be able to limit what a moderator can do in terms of files, photos, databases, and wikis.  Right now the moderator permissions don't control those by individual, and while someone might need to be able to upload files they might not need to be able to create a table as an example.  It seems to be all or nothing for these items, and that could make changes very difficult to track in the future.
Thanks
Beth


Joseph Hudson <jhud7789@...>
 

If you want to know what moderator did what, you can look in the activity log for your group.

On Oct 12, 2018, at 3:50 PM, Beth Weld <@bethweld> wrote:

It would be very helpful to be able to limit what a moderator can do in terms of files, photos, databases, and wikis. Right now the moderator permissions don't control those by individual, and while someone might need to be able to upload files they might not need to be able to create a table as an example. It seems to be all or nothing for these items, and that could make changes very difficult to track in the future.
Thanks
Beth


Beth Weld
 

Thank you,
I know that you can see right after a change has been made, but I don’t plan to check the activity logs for a number of groups all of the time to try to keep up with numerous moderators. It just seems safer to limit what moderators can do instead of babysitting.


 

I don’t plan to check the activity logs for a number of groups all of the time to try to keep up with numerous moderators. It just seems safer to limit what moderators can do instead of babysitting.

 

Beth,

That´s exactly the way I feel too. I strongly support this wish. Additionally I´d really like to see an automatic owner notification when members or moderators upload files, photos or links.

Victoria


Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

Not that I have any objection whatsoever to having a pick and choose "powers collection" for moderators if Mark were to create such, but it still leaves the question:  Why do you not trust your moderators?

The whole idea of moderators is that you have someone who can take care of things, when necessary, that can be trusted to do so, and if you don't want them doing certain things that the roles provided by the software allows stating that at the outset.  What limits them is that you trust them and you have an agreement with them about what it is you want them to do and not do.

If you can't trust your moderators not to do something you have asked, and they have agreed, not to do then those individuals shouldn't be moderators in the first place.
--

Brian - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1803, Build 17134 
     Explanations exist; they have existed for all time; there is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong.

          ~ H.L. Mencken, AKA The Sage of Baltimore


Bob Bellizzi
 

A moderator operates at some level in place of the owner with the owner's trust and permission.
Brian is absolutely right.
It's your responsibility as an owner to clearly define the duties of each moderator and to have agreement from each moderator they will carry out those duties.  Without that, it's chaos.
We have several moderators and their duties are clearly described in documents they have signed in addition to confidentiality agreements to protect our members' information.
We also have Mentors with similar agreements whose job is to help members to get the appropriate non technical information that we provide as patient advocates.  Mentors do not approve messages or do other technical group.io type things..
--

Bob Bellizzi

Founder, Fuchs Friends ®
Founder & Executive Director, The Corneal Dystrophy Foundation


 

In answer to Brian's point about trusting moderators: there are degrees of trust. You might ask in a parallel fashion, why make some moderators co-owners and others not? The levels of trust are already built in to that extent, at least. And I would like more levels to be built in. There are some group members I trust to handle certain tasks, and others I trust with more. So I second the request being made here. I may have already made it in the past. 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

Bob,

         Thanks for the words of support.  One of the groups on which I'm a moderator on groups.io has me do one, and only one thing:  manage the archive.  This is by agreement (no formal paperwork necessary in this case, but I see why it would be in yours) and the group's owner and other moderator can still call upon me on an as needed basis to "pick up" for them when they will be away (which has never happened since both have never been absent at the same time).

          When it comes to moderators, you have to trust those you chose for the role impilictly, including that they will exercise only the powers you agree to, even if the software in a given venue gives them broader powers.

           Software can become virtually impossible to manage if it allows each and every possible option to be configured.  One can see this in a number of office suites, where no one knows anything near to each and every option that's available and it's often very difficult to find the ones you actually want when you want them.  It's not that this style cannot be created, but it has its pitfalls, and they're not insignificant.

            On another site where I moderate there are "levels" above the moderator that do have even broader powers.  Moderators there cannot ban members nor suspend posting privileges, while the roles global moderator, site admin, and admin (which is the big kahuna - the "God Role" that can alter anything and everything) all can.  And, of course, you have to trust those who are in those roles, too.
--

Brian - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1809, Build 17763 
The terrible state of public education has paid huge dividends in ignorance.  Huge.  We now have a country that can be told blatant lies — easily checkable, blatant lies — and I’m not talking about the covert workings of the CIA. When we have a terrorist attack, on September 11, 2001 with 19 men — 15 of them are Saudis — and five minutes later the whole country thinks they’re from Iraq — how can you have faith in the public? This is an easily checkable fact. The whole country is like the O.J. Simpson jurors.

      ~ Fran Lebowitz in Ruminator Magazine interview with Susannah McNeely (Aug/Sept 2005)


Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

On Sun, Oct 14, 2018 at 12:53 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
There are some group members I trust to handle certain tasks, and others I trust with more. So I second the request being made here. I may have already made it in the past.
Like I said, I have no objection to this.

That being said, I don't know that the "pick and choose from among a menu for ala carte functions" is the way I'd go.  I'd be more inclined to go with more roles that each have successively more permissions.

I'll admit that this is just my personal preference, and I have no real horse in this race.
 
--

Brian - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1809, Build 17763 
The terrible state of public education has paid huge dividends in ignorance.  Huge.  We now have a country that can be told blatant lies — easily checkable, blatant lies — and I’m not talking about the covert workings of the CIA. When we have a terrorist attack, on September 11, 2001 with 19 men — 15 of them are Saudis — and five minutes later the whole country thinks they’re from Iraq — how can you have faith in the public? This is an easily checkable fact. The whole country is like the O.J. Simpson jurors.

      ~ Fran Lebowitz in Ruminator Magazine interview with Susannah McNeely (Aug/Sept 2005)


 

I agree and prefer the roles idea.


On Oct 14, 2018, at 9:59 AM, Brian Vogel <britechguy@...> wrote:

On Sun, Oct 14, 2018 at 12:53 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
There are some group members I trust to handle certain tasks, and others I trust with more. So I second the request being made here. I may have already made it in the past.
Like I said, I have no objection to this.

That being said, I don't know that the "pick and choose from among a menu for ala carte functions" is the way I'd go.  I'd be more inclined to go with more roles that each have successively more permissions.

I'll admit that this is just my personal preference, and I have no real horse in this race.
 
--

Brian - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1809, Build 17763 
The terrible state of public education has paid huge dividends in ignorance.  Huge.  We now have a country that can be told blatant lies — easily checkable, blatant lies — and I’m not talking about the covert workings of the CIA. When we have a terrorist attack, on September 11, 2001 with 19 men — 15 of them are Saudis — and five minutes later the whole country thinks they’re from Iraq — how can you have faith in the public? This is an easily checkable fact. The whole country is like the O.J. Simpson jurors.

      ~ Fran Lebowitz in Ruminator Magazine interview with Susannah McNeely (Aug/Sept 2005)

--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


Duane
 

On Sun, Oct 14, 2018 at 11:59 AM, Brian Vogel wrote:
go with more roles
Seems to me you'd need quite a few.  Say you have a moderator that you want to handle Files and Photos, another for Files and approvals, and yet another for Photos and Wikis.  Using the a la carte method would allow that much easier than all the possible combinations of roles.

Duane


 

That’s true, too. 😊


On Oct 14, 2018, at 12:43 PM, Duane <txpigeon@...> wrote:

On Sun, Oct 14, 2018 at 11:59 AM, Brian Vogel wrote:
go with more roles
Seems to me you'd need quite a few.  Say you have a moderator that you want to handle Files and Photos, another for Files and approvals, and yet another for Photos and Wikis.  Using the a la carte method would allow that much easier than all the possible combinations of roles.

Duane

--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


Max H.
 

It's not so much a matter of trust as a matter of security. I mean, if you trust your moderators, why not just give them your Groups.io login? Well, first because sometimes it helps to see who did what, but also that's more of a security risk. There's no reason to give everyone the ability to delete the group, so we don't allow moderators to do that, unless you trust them enough to be co-owners with you. So we already have a tiered system, even though there are only three tiers right now. I say three because you can also block the public from doing some things that members can do. 

It may not be a problem for most groups, but if you have a large enough group of people who have only met via the internet to communicate about a shared interest, it might be wise to only give them access to what they need to do. The more people have access to secure areas that they don't need, the more likely that a compromised account could really compromise your group, too. It's just good security practice.

Do we need this level of granularity? It probably depends on the group, but I'm guessing most don't, and for those that do, they can get by alright 99% of the time without it. That's the way security works, you usually don't need it...until you do. As someone who manages government websites to pay the bills, of course I lean towards granularity -- the owner or owners should be able to assign the access each moderator needs to accomplish their part, no more, no less. (That includes expanded access for "backup" mods who might not normally, say, access the database, but are trained to do so in case the DB mod goes away on vacation.)


 

Max, you took great pains to explain this issue; I think you mentioned a lot of reasons for individual privilege attribution. I´d like to summarize it like this:

 

There are so many different group types and resulting needs, groups with higher and lower frequentation, groups with more or less delicate subjects, big ones and small ones. And there are moderators with different characteristics and insights (f.e. in human nature), some are very fit in technical matters, some in judgement and specialized knowledge, they also might have different time limits etc. So it´s not necessariliy a matter of trust but one of distribution according to capacities and talents as is done in many teams in “the real world”.  

 

.….therefore I also plead for the possibility for owners to differentiate between moderator´s functionalities and privileges.

 

Victoria


 

On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 04:59 AM, Max H. wrote:
It's not so much a matter of trust as a matter of security.
It's both. But it's also semantics. I have been requesting for a long time (as have several others here) the ability to allow mods to see the member "notes" page as an option rather than automatically (along with the other options already available). That's because I simply don't want all moderators to see the member notes. Often, they are confidential between me and the group member. Often, they involve group dynamics that I don't want certain moderators to know about. I would like to be able to have a class of moderators ("helpers"? "admins"? whatever  - perhaps a different role, or class of moderator) that are willing and able to help with some administrative tasks, but whom I specifically do not want to have access to certain classes of group info. This has nothing to do with security.
 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu