Overnight moderation on voluntary basis

[Butterymuffin]

Can MNHQ please explain why overnight moderation of the site is left to unpaid volunteers, and why they don't feel this work should be paid?

Please note that this is in no way intended as criticism of the Night Watch volunteers or anyone moderating overnight, or how they do that. That's not the issue here at all. I'm asking why MN as a business (and I understand it is a business; again, that's not the issue) isn't paying for this work to be done if they feel it's needed.

Would be interested to hear others' opinions. I know @Maryz for one had posted similar views on an earlier thread.

Hello Butterymuffin, thanks for posting.

You're right in that nightwatch is done on a voluntary basis by MNers, who very kindly agree to help us out by hiding threads or posts until the regular mods can take a look in the morning. It can be incredibly helpful in preventing the occasional dodgy thread upsetting MNers and we're really grateful that the NW are prepared to help us and their fellow MNers out.

We hope they don't feel taken advantage of - as far as I'm aware no-one's said so and they genuinely do it to help out. The wee small hours tend not to be the busiest time on the boards, and we don't ask them to make any moderation decisions, or reply to user queries, which would certainly feel too onerous. At the moment the busiest times are during the day so it makes sense to direct our resources there, but we'd certainly give it more thought if that looked to be changing.

Why do you care buttery? People often do voluntary hours in big organisations where other people are paid.

What surprised me when this issue arose was that there seems to be no paid member of staff available to deal with situations that aren't necessarily covered by just hiding threads. If someone - or a group of people - were sufficiently determined they could potentially keep posting rule breaking stuff/spam all over the place for hours and all the night watch could so would be to follow them around hiding posts. If I were on the night watch I'd be pretty unhappy to have to spend hours doing that when it could much more easily be dealt with by at least a temporary ban.

'If someone - or a group of people - were sufficiently determined they could potentially keep posting rule breaking stuff/spam all over the place for hours '
If that happened non doubt mnhq would review things. People like doing voluntary hours. It doesn't always have to be altruistic charitable stuff. If it doesn't work and there's more demand for paid mods then tell mn there was a problem with overnight moderation. If there hasn't been then I don't get the issue.

It just seems the op thinks they should be paid. That's it.

I do indeed think people should be paid for working, yes. Volunteering is all very well for certain types of organisation, charities and the like, but I am not convinced it's ethical for businesses to be doing it in the service of making money, when they could afford to pay people and create actual jobs.

And while I'm not finding fault with the volunteers themselves, the way it's set up seems to ask them to do it with their hands tied. There has been more spamming lately and trolling in general, and some of that (as with the crumbs threads, discussion of this now deleted I think) has happened at night, leaving tricky issues to be dealt with by moderators with limited powers.

It is a bit odd that MN relies solely on volunteers for the night watch

If the volunteers don't mind, so what?!

What business is it of yours?

Because what other profit making business relies on volunteers to work for them in essential roles overnight?

Sorry I didn't realise a thread had already been started on this over here. I totally agree with you OP that a business should pay those doing work for them.

If someone wants to do it voluntarily, there is no reason why the business has to pay them.

People are just moaning for naff-all here, and trying to create an issue where there isn't one.

Do people have nothing better to do?

So you object that someone wants to volunteer

This place is getting fucking weirder by the week.

I object that a business is using volunteers, yes. It is unethical.

I think it would make sense to have at least one person who had further abilities to deal with incidents during nighttime hours. It's become public knowledge that MN isn't moderated at times of the day/week, and trolls are taking advantage of that

MN makes a massive profit. I have done/do loads of worthwhile voluntary stuff, cubs, riding for the disabled, wildlife trust, raising money for school, school governor, give my area of expertise free to two charities etc., etc..

But MN is a business that generates a big profit, not a charity. People should be paid for their work.

Actually, unless the volunteering is set up very carefully, I suspect MN may have actually created a situation of de facto employment, and the volunteers would be entitled to sue for minimum wage.

I volunteered at an event a few months back, that was for profit and there was no charity or helping needy people involved. I just wanted to do it. I don't see the Night Watch as anything different.

'Using volunteers is unethical.'

Don't talk such rot.

FFS, if someone WANTS to do it, why should they not?

Some people just moan about ANYthing. I can't believe the ludicrous and pathetic remarks on here about Mumsnet having volunteers help with the boards. What is wrong with you people?!

@brasty

Actually, unless the volunteering is set up very carefully, I suspect MN may have actually created a situation of de facto employment, and the volunteers would be entitled to sue for minimum wage.

Now i KNOW you are taking the piss. Volunteers should sue for minimum wage?

You do not what a volunteer is don't you dearie???

I wouldn't volunteer for something with a net worth the size of MN. I agree with brasty, completely unethical.

Why not pay?

Oh for the love of GOD!

GOOGLE what a fucking volunteer is!

You are all talking such utter bollocks!

tippz Sounds like you don't understand employment law. And yes a charity has been successfully sued by a volunteer under employment law. Charities know that volunteering has to be set up carefully.

I wouldn't volunteer for something with a net worth the size of MN.
But clearly some people want to. I doubt they're making anyone do anything against their will.

I have no problem with people volunteering - sometimes I think MNHQ needs all the help it can get

But I have always wondered, when MN has the reach it has, why they don't have a community team - salaried - based in Australia/New Zealand, to take advantage of the time difference.

@brasty

I DO understand employment law, and I can see you clearly do NOT.

Why not report Mumsnet to social services, or trading standards, or to the government?

See how long it takes them to stop laughing when you say how disgusting and 'unethical' it is that mumsnet uses volunteers. You know, people willingly and happily giving their services for free, BY CHOICE.

That is the definition of a volunteer.

Are people taking the piss? Or are they THAT CLUELESS?

How do these people cope in the real world? Serious question.