Setting moderators on the Ignore- list

[Crystal]

Originally Posted by Curly

I answered yes - sounds like a great idea to me.

I never knew that moderators had two accounts - the normal member account and a moderator account. Is there any visible-to-the-eye difference in the accounts? I would assume that moderators use their moderator accounts to, well, moderate the forum. But if the other account is used to post to the forum just like any other member, why wouldn't the ignore feature be available for that account ... just like any other member?

Where in the world did you read that moderators have two accounts? None of us have two accounts. And none of us even want two accounts. That would be a hassle.

[muspell]

Originally Posted by Speakeasy

If you have any doubts as to whether a moderator is expressing a personal opinion or declaring something as a moderator, feel free to ask for clarification from me. I'll be happy to help.

Forgive my paranoia if it's misplaced. It's not completely unwarranted, as people making suggestions to the moderator team as a way to insult us is nothing new.

Neither is nonsensical and non- responsive answers from the moderators, such as this one, followed by angry threats of bans, justified from some technical legal trapezeing that cannot be challenged. Or more correctly, the threats come when pointing out how illogical the edicts are.

But again, my "true intentions" is not what this is about.

As I said, feel free to contact any moderator if you need clarification. I will always be more than happy to help you out.

Don't take it the wrong way, but I don't believe you. I fully expect that I will receive warnings due to certain mods' interpretation skills, as usual. Also, you and other moderators have had several opportunities, such as this one, to address this simple issue I've mentioned - to split personal opinion and moderating very clearly, in order to help avoid the kind of example I described. Of which there are many on the board. I've described some of them to you in detail in PMs before, with predictable results.

Which is why I find your suggestion - to ask in private when I'm in doubt - as an unacceptable, and laughably so, solution. As this will not, and has not, resulted in any of these concerns being addressed in any meaningful way in the past. Since, obviously, this continues unabated.

Just understand that the reason I take this up is not because I want to "insult you" - but 1. because the continuous stream of these curious messages from certain mods hamper debate. And 2. it is easier for mods to moderate well when there are clear lines between moderating and regular posting.

No doubt no one remembers this, but before a number of threads were locked and deleted when I left the last time, I tried to - nicely at first - get you to reconsider the idea of not having to send any moderating requests to a second mod, if the first mod was participating in the thread. A rule that was perfectly useful - but which was explained away as "inefficient".

And as I predicted, the result turned out to be less useful moderating, and more personal edicts that could not be challenged. Followed by more and more defensive positions on the moderating team, until you're so deep not even a simple request can be addressed properly. Because it all depends, as I specifically told you, very quickly on the personal integrity of the moderator - and not the interpretation of the rules.

You'll do whatever it is you please as usual, of course, so I guess there's no point - but if you're at all interested in having more useful debate, you know what to do. And "I'll be happy to help", as well.

[MattLarson]

Originally Posted by muspell

Neither is nonsensical and non- responsive answers from the moderators, such as this one, followed by angry threats of bans, justified from some technical legal trapezeing that cannot be challenged. Or more correctly, the threats come when pointing out how illogical the edicts are.

Apparently not misplaced in the tiniest.

More pointless drama cloaked as a "suggestion". You know, as many times as we've played this game, is just never gets old.

Matt

[drgoodtrips]

It seems to be kind of a moot "issue" anyway, since the only person who voted "yes" misunderstood the way moderation/warnings work. That is to say, there doesn't seem to be much interest among the forum membership for this great injustice to be corrected, any passive-aggressive martyr acts in the form of "suggestions" notwithstanding.

It appears that most posters don't struggle when attempting to discern between personal opinions and the enforcement of the forum rules.

[Steve]

Originally Posted by muspell

Um.. no. I was specifically told not to, and that it was useless to protest since the mod had the final say.

Man, I've had more warning than I care to count, and I protested all but one of them. Nobody says you can't do it.

It is, though, usually an exercize in futility...

[Steve]

Originally Posted by muspell

Neither is nonsensical and non- responsive answers from the moderators, such as this one, followed by angry threats of bans, justified from some technical legal trapezeing that cannot be challenged. Or more correctly, the threats come when pointing out how illogical the edicts are.

But again, my "true intentions" is not what this is about.

Don't take it the wrong way, but I don't believe you. I fully expect that I will receive warnings due to certain mods' interpretation skills, as usual. Also, you and other moderators have had several opportunities, such as this one, to address this simple issue I've mentioned - to split personal opinion and moderating very clearly, in order to help avoid the kind of example I described. Of which there are many on the board. I've described some of them to you in detail in PMs before, with predictable results.

Which is why I find your suggestion - to ask in private when I'm in doubt - as an unacceptable, and laughably so, solution. As this will not, and has not, resulted in any of these concerns being addressed in any meaningful way in the past. Since, obviously, this continues unabated.

Just understand that the reason I take this up is not because I want to "insult you" - but 1. because the continuous stream of these curious messages from certain mods hamper debate. And 2. it is easier for mods to moderate well when there are clear lines between moderating and regular posting.

No doubt no one remembers this, but before a number of threads were locked and deleted when I left the last time, I tried to - nicely at first - get you to reconsider the idea of not having to send any moderating requests to a second mod, if the first mod was participating in the thread. A rule that was perfectly useful - but which was explained away as "inefficient".

And as I predicted, the result turned out to be less useful moderating, and more personal edicts that could not be challenged. Followed by more and more defensive positions on the moderating team, until you're so deep not even a simple request can be addressed properly. Because it all depends, as I specifically told you, very quickly on the personal integrity of the moderator - and not the interpretation of the rules.

You'll do whatever it is you please as usual, of course, so I guess there's no point - but if you're at all interested in having more useful debate, you know what to do. And "I'll be happy to help", as well.

Wow... Extra knots in the panties today?

...justified from some technical legal trapezeing that cannot be challenged

"Legal"? What do you mean by that?

I'm pretty sure the owner of this forum could boot you off if he woke up one day and was pissed off because the sun rose that morning.

You've got no "right" to be here. If not being permitted to put Mods on "ignore", I'm sure you could find happiness and joy elsewhere.

I'm not judgin', I'm just sayin'...

[timj219]

Originally Posted by muspell

Don't take it the wrong way, but I don't believe you. I fully expect that I will receive warnings due to certain mods' interpretation skills, as usual.

If I felt this way about an internet discussion board I cannot imagine myself wasting time by posting there. In fact it cracks me up that you think yourself important enough to warrant changing the way the mods do their business just because you insist on visiting a place that clearly makes you unhappy.

[AdrienXII]

I am so ignoring the mods. Two-bit power-hungry apparatchiks. Alright, you can ban me now, we've beaten the All Blacks, anyway.

[noahath]

I find that most of the moderators often-times post the most interesting comments on topics; so I'm not sure why you'd like to censor them?

[pramjockey]

Originally Posted by noahath

I find that most of the moderators often-times post the most interesting comments on topics; so I'm not sure why you'd like to censor them?

Well, except for that Crystal chick. She's nothin' but run-on sentences and Texas Twang.

[Malvolio]

Having an extra account for moderating would be quite impractical. I think mods usually should keep moderating and posting apart. At least that's what I'm generally trying to do. And I think it usually works quite well. Of course often people believe that a warning or any other mod decision wasn't justified or biased or whatever. But I doubt that this would change just with using an extra account. Of course it's a disadvantage of the system that you can't ignore the "private" posts of a mod. But nobody forces you to reply to them or even to read them in full length.

[muspell]

Originally Posted by timj219

If I felt this way about an internet discussion board I cannot imagine myself wasting time by posting there. In fact it cracks me up that you think yourself important enough to warrant changing the way the mods do their business just because you insist on visiting a place that clearly makes you unhappy.

Didn't I mention I just returned after some half a year or so? You're right, no one is forcing me to stay. And no one is forcing other posters to stay. Which is why this board gets much less, and much less varied traffic nowadays than it used to.

But again, you know, my "true intentions" are not the issue. Neither are your suggestions about what I "really think".

Originally Posted by noahath

I find that most of the moderators often-times post the most interesting comments on topics; so I'm not sure why you'd like to censor them?

No. I specifically said I want a clear line between personal opinions and moderating. This is something even the smallest tea- party forum usually find is useful, since allegations - warranted or not - quickly show up when moderators have opinions, and are not arguing well for their decisions. Even if there are more specific reasons that I'm bringing this up in this case, such as members disappearing, and the way moderators sometimes use implicit threats - that hardly go under the rules - to target specific members.

It seems to be kind of a moot "issue" anyway, since the only person who voted "yes" misunderstood the way moderation/warnings work. That is to say, there doesn't seem to be much interest among the forum membership for this great injustice to be corrected, any passive-aggressive martyr acts in the form of "suggestions" notwithstanding.

In other words, unless I agree with you, there's nothing to discuss. And I'm martyring myself for bringing up this very, very simple concern.

Really - who are the passive- aggressive criers around here? As I said, you will do exactly what you wish, and no one is forcing you to take this issue seriously. So if we lay off the very curious psychoanalytical explanations on authority issues for a while - honestly, you only have the power here to ban me or harass me on this forum. That's not where "authority issues" come into play, no matter how much you insist on it - then perhaps we could focus on the actual issue.

It appears that most posters don't struggle when attempting to discern between personal opinions and the enforcement of the forum rules.

Well, a not very clear or specific poll, that has been open for a day, might not be the best way to prove no one else but me has this "problem", perhaps? As I said, it's not just for my personal sake I'm bringing this up. And sadly, many members who would, and have, given their opinions about this - are no longer with us.

As several people say - this is not a command, and I am not forced to write this. You (mods) are not forced to follow it up, or even take it seriously. And I can and probably will leave again because of the personal character of the moderating, and the erratic way it's applied on this forum - because it always ends up in some personal grudge - even because of the tiniest suggestion that change might be beneficial for making discussion flow easier.

And if that threatens some of you in some way, then I at least know where we stand here.

[muspell]

Originally Posted by Malvolio

Having an extra account for moderating would be quite impractical. I think mods usually should keep moderating and posting apart. At least that's what I'm generally trying to do. And I think it usually works quite well. Of course often people believe that a warning or any other mod decision wasn't justified or biased or whatever. But I doubt that this would change just with using an extra account. Of course it's a disadvantage of the system that you can't ignore the "private" posts of a mod. But nobody forces you to reply to them or even to read them in full length.

What about a small header over references to the rules, then, when posting in the forums? Other forums have had for instance:

-- Forum reminder [link to rules] --

And it's usually worked fine.

[Malvolio]

We could introduce a certain "mod-smiley" as an indication.

or

[Si modo]

Originally Posted by Malvolio

We could introduce a certain "mod-smiley" as an indication.

or

And, you could make that smiley a link to the forum rules for those who forget where the rules are or what the rules are. I think you're onto something, there.