Setting moderators on the Ignore- list

[Speakeasy]

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.

I'm sure they're quite illogical to you, the person who broke the rules. You know who never has these problems? People who don't break the rules.

Don't take it the wrong way, but I don't believe you.

So, let me get this straight. You come in here with some outlandish problem that only you seem to have, ask that the moderators bend over backwards to fix this personal issue, then when we don't and offer an alternate methods towards dealing with this problem, you accuse us of being liars. Okay, why are you wasting our time?

It's obviously we either meet your 'demands' or we're liars.

I fully expect that I will receive warnings due to certain mods' interpretation skills, as usual.

I fully expect you to receive warnings, as well, so long as you continue to break forum rules.

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.

You still haven't told me why we should address this simple issue that only you seem to have. Nobody else here has difficulty telling the difference between a moderator's moderating posts and a moderator's discussion posts.

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.

Okay, then. You are still free to ask for clarification from me whenever the need arises, but that's as far as we're going to go in helping you with this personal issue. You can take this offer or not, but complaining that you didn't understand that a mod was being a mod isn't going to get you out of any future warnings or suspensions. Stick within the forum rules, ask for clarification when needed, and you'll be fine. It's really pretty simply.

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.

Well, appreciate you letting us know how to make moderating 'easier' and how to moderate well. I'm sorry to say that we don't think your suggestion would work out very well in practice, nor is there a large enough demand to implement it.

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".

You mean that if a mod is in a thread full of infractions, another mod steps in and takes care of it?

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're free to leave if you find the moderating here too oppressive. It's obviously not as bad as you claim it is, as membership here continues to grow and the site continues to gain popularity. The vast majority of members stick within the forum rules and never have any sort of issues with the mod team. I'll admit, your requests would hold a bit more water if you weren't a notorious thorn in our side. I have reviewed actions taken against you and they are all pretty clear that you broke the rules repeatedly. You are very, very much aware of the forum rules and no matter how many disclaimers we add to our posts, no matter how we do our moderating, it doesn't change the fact that you consistently break the rules.

You know as well as I that unless you change your posting style around here, you will earn a permanent suspension. This is not a threat, this is the reality of the situation. The responsibility is not on the mod team to change, it is on you.

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.

Oh, please.

[timj219]

Originally Posted by muspell

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".

If I am mistaken about the nature of your complaint then I really see no point at all to this entire thread. The trivial inconvenience of having to read the posts of a mod you don't like does not scale to the work involved in your proposed solution. In fact the inconvenience is so trivial and your accusations of lying and persecution so self serving that your "request" doesn't pass the laugh test.

[drgoodtrips]

Originally Posted by muspell

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.

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.

I'm not sure why you would have taken my "passive-aggressive" and "martyrdom" comments to be about you. You see, you don't have a patent on glib semantics - just as your comments aren't designed to be a slap at the moderators, but instead a "suggestion", my comments were not about any particular person. But, it's interesting that you would assume they were about you - almost as if you felt that those descriptors applied to your little dog and pony show here.

As for me or "us" being threatened... I think that you're putting a bit too much importance on the role of discussion forums in various people's lives. But, hey, whatever makes you feel important. Stick it to the man, noble visionary. Viva la revolucion!

[muspell]

Originally Posted by Malvolio

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

or

If that will replace remarks about people's "true intentions" and posting style, I think that's a good solution.

I'm not sure that was what you were saying, though.

Neither does it look like any of you want to address whether it's an idea to write moderator business clearly separate from the usual posting.

Any comments on that turning up anytime soon?

[muspell]

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

I'm not sure why you would have taken my "passive-aggressive" and "martyrdom" comments to be about you. You see, you don't have a patent on glib semantics - just as your comments aren't designed to be a slap at the moderators, but instead a "suggestion", my comments were not about any particular person. But, it's interesting that you would assume they were about you - almost as if you felt that those descriptors applied to your little dog and pony show here.

In other words, you already know what I'm /really/ suggesting, and have already decided that my only goal is to insult the mods.

..That's pretty funny, yes.

As for me or "us" being threatened... I think that you're putting a bit too much importance on the role of discussion forums in various people's lives. But, hey, whatever makes you feel important. Stick it to the man, noble visionary. Viva la revolucion!

Do you know what you're even saying? You're accusing me of acting out an authority complex against your fictional persecution - in other words, you're suggesting that I have problems following the simplest order from a figure in authority, and are principally against it.

And you're using that "true interpretation" of my person to dismiss a very specific request for the mods to more clearly define personal sentiment and moderating actions.

I admit I enjoy this, but for gods' sake..

[muspell]

Originally Posted by timj219

If I am mistaken about the nature of your complaint then I really see no point at all to this entire thread. The trivial inconvenience of having to read the posts of a mod you don't like does not scale to the work involved in your proposed solution. In fact the inconvenience is so trivial and your accusations of lying and persecution so self serving that your "request" doesn't pass the laugh test.

Sure it does. But nothing is trivial on this forum, is it. lol

[timj219]

Originally Posted by muspell

Neither does it look like any of you want to address whether it's an idea to write moderator business clearly separate from the usual posting.

Any comments on that turning up anytime soon?

It's a non-issue. Anybody who can't differentiate moderator business from the usual posting just needs to pay better attention.

[Speakeasy]

Originally Posted by muspell

Any comments on that turning up anytime soon?

Could you provide a link to a post from a mod where it's unclear whether they're speaking as a poster or a moderator? That may help clear things up.

[drgoodtrips]

Originally Posted by muspell

In other words, you already know what I'm /really/ suggesting, and have already decided that my only goal is to insult the mods.

..That's pretty funny, yes.

Do you know what you're even saying? You're accusing me of acting out an authority complex against your fictional persecution - in other words, you're suggesting that I have problems following the simplest order from a figure in authority, and are principally against it.

And you're using that "true interpretation" of my person to dismiss a very specific request for the mods to more clearly define personal sentiment and moderating actions.

I admit I enjoy this, but for gods' sake..

Wait a minute... you seem to be having trouble keeping your ostensible intention straight. The original post - the "suggestion", if you will - was a poll asking for board input as to whether or not it made sense to allow for ignoring moderators. So, your first story was to take a litmus test of board sentiment - now that it hasn't worked (no one agreed with your suggestion), you're shifting the goalposts?

And, to borrow from your sentiment, you don't know my true intentions with what I'm suggesting. They may be interesting, but they aren't relevant. I find it interesting that you introduced all the psychoanalysis about "authority complex" in response to a goofy non-sequitur that I made in joking fashion. Interesting... I don't know where you come up with this stuff. Are you suggesting that my purpose was something other than what I'm glibly suggesting? Why would you think such a thing?

[Curly]

Originally Posted by Crystal

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.

Here:

Originally Posted by Speakeasy

It would require us to log out of our accounts, then log back into the 'moderator account', issue the warning, log out, then log back in to our regular account.

Perhaps this was a hypothetical?

[drgoodtrips]

Originally Posted by Curly

Here:


Perhaps this was a hypothetical?

Yes, it was hypothetical. Currently, there is no 'moderator' account. Any moderator activities (warnings, etc) are all in the mod forum under our handles that you see, and are all transparent for review by other moderators and the admins.

[Curly]

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

..... So, your first story was to take a litmus test of board sentiment - now that it hasn't worked (no one agreed with your suggestion), you're shifting the goalposts?

To be fair, someone (me) agreed with the suggestion that members be allowed to put moderators on ignore.

In practical terms, I think it would clearly be to the disadvantage of the forum member to have a moderator on ignore, since that forum member would not see posts of a moderating nature from that moderator. On the other hand, there are moderators with 5, 10, 15, even 20 thousand posts. And while moderators have every right to participate fully in the forum discussions - and I wouldn't suggest otherwise - out of 10,000 posts, how many fall into the moderating category? And how many are posted as just another forum member?

I have NO problem with moderators moderating - frankly, it seem to me to be a very difficult job at times, and one I would not want to do myself. Therefore, I appreciate greatly the willingness of ALL the moderators to take on this important task.

That said, I would appreciate greatly the ability to place on "ignore" ANY participant in forum discussions. In the forum rules, prior to the rule that states that moderators may not be placed on "ignore", it says: b. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. But if a forum member genuinely feels the need to place a moderator on "ignore" because of non-moderating posts by the moderator, he is prohibited from doing so. I don't believe that's right.

Just my opinion, in response to the poll.

[drgoodtrips]

Originally Posted by Curly

To be fair, someone (me) agreed with the suggestion that members be allowed to put moderators on ignore.

In practical terms, I think it would clearly be to the disadvantage of the forum member to have a moderator on ignore, since that forum member would not see posts of a moderating nature from that moderator. On the other hand, there are moderators with 5, 10, 15, even 20 thousand posts. And while moderators have every right to participate fully in the forum discussions - and I wouldn't suggest otherwise - out of 10,000 posts, how many fall into the moderating category? And how many are posted as just another forum member?

I have NO problem with moderators moderating - frankly, it seem to me to be a very difficult job at times, and one I would not want to do myself. Therefore, I appreciate greatly the willingness of ALL the moderators to take on this important task.

That said, I would appreciate greatly the ability to place on "ignore" ANY participant in forum discussions. In the forum rules, prior to the rule that states that moderators may not be placed on "ignore", it says: b. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. But if a forum member genuinely feels the need to place a moderator on "ignore" because of non-moderating posts by the moderator, he is prohibited from doing so. I don't believe that's right.

Just my opinion, in response to the poll.

I understand the sentiment. You're right - the vast majority of our posts are not "moderating posts", and could be reasonably ignored. And, I also understand the frustration of not being able to use the ignore feature (I'm not allowed to ignore anyone). But, the situation could get dicey in certain situations. For instance, there are times where we'll go into a thread that has turned ugly and delete large amounts of posts wholesale, and then post an explanation of what happened, and why. Having a moderator who does this on ignore may lead to a poster to miss the warning, or (more likely) make sweeping accusations of moderators deleting things "on the sly" and whatnot (this has happened plenty of times, even without moderators on ignore and them posting explanations), which generally leads to a situation that devolves quickly.

I think that the situation isn't terribly difficult to remedy. There are and have been posters whose posts I automatically skip, unless they've been reported or brought to my attention. The same sort of thing could be applied to a moderator that a poster wishes not to deal with.

I think that Marc's original idea was to employ moderators that could be counted on to separate their personal opinions from moderator actions and behave fairly. And, though people occasionally seem to doubt this, there really is a review process that occurs for warnings, etc. We also have other practices that we generally follow, such as 'abstaining' from moderator actions in threads that we're active in, in favor of an uninvolved mod handling it. I think Marc's idea is that he's picked moderators that are not so detestable as to inspire lots of posters to want to ignore them. Obviously, not everyone will agree with that assessment for one or more particular moderators, but the idea is likely that it's simply part of the site, like the rules or the software or whatnot.

As it is, the ability to ignore moderators has never really been raised and received strong backing from the membership at large, compared to other decisions that rest with the mod team. We have, in the past, had lengthy discussions with site membership about particular rules, such as whether or not the discussion of moderator actions should be allowed.

Hopefully, this makes some sense to you - believe it or not, the general goal of the moderators is to have a happy forum membership, unbothered by insults and other unpleasantness. The aim with the rules that have been created is to keep as many people happy as possible.

[muspell]

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

Wait a minute... you seem to be having trouble keeping your ostensible intention straight. The original post - the "suggestion", if you will - was a poll asking for board input as to whether or not it made sense to allow for ignoring moderators. So, your first story was to take a litmus test of board sentiment - now that it hasn't worked (no one agreed with your suggestion), you're shifting the goalposts?

It's the same issue, goodtrips. If I'm allowed to ignore moderators, I'm perfectly happy. If that is not possible on the board, I seriously ask you to indicate clearly where and when a moderator posts information I am supposed to consider "a moderator action". It's not that difficult, or complex.

Do I begin to suspect that this is too difficult? Yes, I do. Of course. How could I not.

And, to borrow from your sentiment, you don't know my true intentions with what I'm suggesting. They may be interesting, but they aren't relevant. I find it interesting that you introduced all the psychoanalysis about "authority complex" in response to a goofy non-sequitur that I made in joking fashion. Interesting... I don't know where you come up with this stuff. Are you suggesting that my purpose was something other than what I'm glibly suggesting? Why would you think such a thing?

It was you who introduced the "passive- aggressive" expression to explain my behaviour, not me.

Originally Posted by Speakeasy

Could you provide a link to a post from a mod where it's unclear whether they're speaking as a poster or a moderator? That may help clear things up.

First you're going to promise that this will not be the same as "targeting specific members for the sole purpose of shaming them in public".

[drgoodtrips]

Your behavior? Just as you were making a polite suggestion, I was speaking in generalities. I think both claims would be equally credible to anyone reading.