Setting moderators on the Ignore- list

[muspell]

Should it be allowed?

I could imagine the following solution: formal warnings can be issued via pm, and moderators could be moved outside the ignore- filters in those circumstances. Either through using a common account for these warnings, or through some technical solution on the board that won't stop pms from being received (if that's what would happen when someone is put on the ignore- list, I mean).

[AjaxPress]

Too much of a hassle.

[Speakeasy]

We're not allowed to ignore you and you're not allowed to ignore us. Besides, the whole 'do not ignore mods' thing is for your benefit. Often, mods will give you an 'alert' or a heads up to stop doing something or else you'll face consequences. If you have us on ignore, you won't see these alerts and you'll face the penalties (then, of course, people come yelling at us for not telling them ahead of time, go figure).

Plus, the idea of having a common account to issue warnings means there would be absolutely no accountability in who did what. Believe it or not, we like to have a bit of transparency in our actions, so admins and other mods can be sure no one is abusing their mod duties. If you received a warning from 'Moderator1' that you disagreed with, it would take more time and effort to get the issue resolved.

Just skip our posts if you don't like us. The idea is quite ridiculous, you're basically asking if it's okay to totally ignore the people who keep this place in check. What's the benefit in that?

[Crystal]

I want to second everything Speakeasy has already said. And believe it or not, every once in awhile we actually post something worth reading like an announcement or important sticky. We've even been known to post within a thread something like, "Hey, I've cleaned up this thread. Let's keep it civil".

[muspell]

Originally Posted by Speakeasy

We're not allowed to ignore you and you're not allowed to ignore us. Besides, the whole 'do not ignore mods' thing is for your benefit. Often, mods will give you an 'alert' or a heads up to stop doing something or else you'll face consequences. If you have us on ignore, you won't see these alerts and you'll face the penalties (then, of course, people come yelling at us for not telling them ahead of time, go figure).

I'm not allowed to discuss things like that.

Plus, the idea of having a common account to issue warnings means there would be absolutely no accountability in who did what. Believe it or not, we like to have a bit of transparency in our actions, so admins and other mods can be sure no one is abusing their mod duties. If you received a warning from 'Moderator1' that you disagreed with, it would take more time and effort to get the issue resolved.

I'm not allowed to discuss that either.

Just skip our posts if you don't like us. The idea is quite ridiculous, you're basically asking if it's okay to totally ignore the people who keep this place in check. What's the benefit in that?

I don't think that has anything to do with what I said.

I was asking about a practical solution to allow anything that is not moderating become invisible, even though the person posting it is a moderator on the forum. That is, whenever the mod does not do moderating, I should not need to see their posts.

For instance - any formal or informal warnings in a thread could be posted through a specific or alternative account. This is doable, obviously.

[Speakeasy]

Originally Posted by muspell

I'm not allowed to discuss things like that.

I'm not allowed to discuss that either.

You most certainly are allowed to discuss any sort of moderator action through PMs.

I don't think that has anything to do with what I said.

I was asking about a practical solution to allow anything that is not moderating become invisible, even though the person posting it is a moderator on the forum. That is, whenever the mod does not do moderating, I should not need to see their posts.

There is no way for us to switch on and off from being a mod. There is no feature that I'm aware of for us to designate some posts as 'moderator posts' and other posts as 'non moderator' posts. I do browse the many 'hacks' and add-ons for vBulletin every now and then and haven't seen anything like this available. If you find something like this, please show it to us.

For instance - any formal or informal warnings in a thread could be posted through a specific or alternative account. This is doable, obviously.

As I said, this removes any sort of oversight to our moderating, something which I'm sure many members would complain about. If all the mods and admins used the same account to issue warnings, it would take much more effort to figure out who did what and when. If you were warned by 'Moderator1' and you disagreed with it, we would have to spend the time figuring out which moderator issued the warning and why. This could take awhile and severely slow down our ability to deal with member complaints. Wouldn't it just be easier to receive a warning from Malvolio and be able to direct your complaints right back to Malvolio directly?

[MattLarson]

Sounds like a bunch of utterly pointless extra work for the forum staff. No, thanks.

just learn to scroll past any messages you don't want to read.....

Matt

[Speakeasy]

Originally Posted by MattLarson

Sounds like a bunch of utterly pointless extra work for the forum staff. No, thanks.

just learn to scroll past any messages you don't want to read.....

Matt

Exactly.

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.

It would slow down our ability to quickly deal with reported posts, quickly deal with warning complaints, and it would make our actions even less transparent. All of this just so people don't have to waste an extra 0.5 seconds scrolling past our posts. No thanks.

[muspell]

Originally Posted by Speakeasy

You most certainly are allowed to discuss any sort of moderator action through PMs.

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

There is no way for us to switch on and off from being a mod. There is no feature that I'm aware of for us to designate some posts as 'moderator posts' and other posts as 'non moderator' posts. I do browse the many 'hacks' and add-ons for vBulletin every now and then and haven't seen anything like this available. If you find something like this, please show it to us.

Sure.

As I said, this removes any sort of oversight to our moderating, something which I'm sure many members would complain about. If all the mods and admins used the same account to issue warnings, it would take much more effort to figure out who did what and when. If you were warned by 'Moderator1' and you disagreed with it, we would have to spend the time figuring out which moderator issued the warning and why. This could take awhile and severely slow down our ability to deal with member complaints. Wouldn't it just be easier to receive a warning from Malvolio and be able to direct your complaints right back to Malvolio directly?

I don't know how much work you have as moderators on this board, so I won't argue with what seems to be a very strange statement.

But would you be willing to, at least, to make an effort to not mix moderating actions and regular posts? In the way that if a moderator issues a "reminder", it will be done in a formal way, for instance with a header saying something like: "---friendly, non- insulting reminder here follows from very nice moderator who does everything in his power to further discussion on the board ---", instead of through the usual language. Is that a fair request, do you think?

I ask about this, you see, since I have difficulties telling whether something is a moderating action, or a hint at a moderating action in the future, a hint to a rule violation, or just someone being their usual obnoxious self. So a clear header across what is the moderator's extremely important message to the forum - in red type, for instance - would help me know what I can, in fact, skip through.

Because, as you point out - I am not allowed to ignore moderators' posts - since I that way might miss one of these reminders.

[Speakeasy]

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.

Actually, the admins have the final say. Surely, if you protest a warning against you and the moderators and admin deem the warning to be warranted, further complaining will not be appreciated. But, you are more than welcome to question any warning you receive.

I don't know how much work you have as moderators on this board, so I won't argue with what seems to be a very strange statement.

Sometimes it's a decent amount of effort to moderate, sometimes everyone is doing good and little moderation is needed.

But would you be willing to, at least, to make an effort to not mix moderating actions and regular posts? In the way that if a moderator issues a "reminder", it will be done in a formal way, for instance with a header saying something like: "---friendly, non- insulting reminder here follows from very nice moderator who does everything in his power to further discussion on the board ---", instead of through the usual language. Is that a fair request, do you think?

It seems like a fair request, yes, but it's a request for something that is absolutely not necessary. It appears that you're the only poster who has a problem discerning moderator posts from non-moderator posts. If this were a large problem, we'd be happy to address it. As it is, we're not going to change the way we do our thing for one poster.

I ask about this, you see, since I have difficulties telling whether something is a moderating action, or a hint at a moderating action in the future, a hint to a rule violation, or just someone being their usual obnoxious self. So a clear header across what is the moderator's extremely important message to the forum - in red type, for instance - would help me know what I can, in fact, skip through.

And as I said, this is the first time I've heard of anyone having difficulty with this. You can make it simple by following this rule: if a moderator tells you not to do something, don't do it. If you need further clarification, PM the moderator. We're not going to get into the habit of adding all sorts of disclaimers to our posts just so you know whether you can skip them or not.

Because, as you point out - I am not allowed to ignore moderators' posts - since I that way might miss one of these reminders.

Remember, none of these reminders will ever apply to you if you follow the board rules. So, stick to the rules and you can skip any moderator or admin post you desire.

[muspell]

Originally Posted by Speakeasy

And as I said, this is the first time I've heard of anyone having difficulty with this. You can make it simple by following this rule: if a moderator tells you not to do something, don't do it. If you need further clarification, PM the moderator. We're not going to get into the habit of adding all sorts of disclaimers to our posts just so you know whether you can skip them or not.

That's not what I asked. I asked if any specific moderator business can be plainly written separately from the moderators' usual writing. I hope it's apparent that this is only a concern in ordinary discussions on the board, of course.

I could add that this would only be for your benefit, as no one would again mistake a moderator's opinions for actual moderating actions. If there's any difference, of course.

[Speakeasy]

Originally Posted by muspell

That's not what I asked. I asked if any specific moderator business can be plainly written separately from the moderators' usual writing. I hope it's apparent that this is only a concern in ordinary discussions on the board, of course.

I could add that this would only be for your benefit, as no one would again mistake a moderator's opinions for actual moderating actions. If there's any difference, of course.

I guess I'm failing to see the issue here. If a moderator says "The Iraq war is totally stupid", they're obviously not issuing a moderator statement. If a moderator says "Keep it civil or I'm going to start issuing warnings", they're obviously not providing their views on a current event. Never once in my 3 years of moderating here have I ever seen anyone mistake a moderator's political opinion with a moderator's moderating.

You're asking us to put in quite a bit more effort just so you don't have to spend 2 seconds determining whether or not to read our posts.

And your comment "If there's any difference, of course" makes me question whether this is an actual concern of yours. I have a feeling that due to that comment, combined with the nonsensical nature of your request, that this thread's purpose is only to insult the mod team and accuse us of enforcing our personal opinions rather than the board rules.

[muspell]

Oh, no. It's a serious request. Having fun at others' expense is what the rest of the board is for. But I do wonder whether there is any difference, or if some mods are willing to make the - as you argue it - nonexistent effort it apparently is to state the difference between general banter and moderating actions explicitly.

Because it's frequently the case that moderators issue decrees of various sorts about others' arguments, about their behaviour, and about their true intentions - for no other discernible reason in the thread than to disparage another poster's person, message or posting style.

Which I take to be either 1. a personal insult, or 2. a moderator's request to stop breaking the rules. Can you tell which is the correct one? I cannot.

And therefore I ask that more care should be taken with "moderating" of that sort, if I cannot actually be allowed to ignore it altogether. Your opinions about my true intentions are of course interesting enough - but not relevant.

[Speakeasy]

Originally Posted by muspell

Oh, no. It's a serious request. Having fun at others' expense is what the rest of the board is for. But I do wonder whether there is any difference, or if some mods are willing to make the - as you argue it - nonexistent effort it apparently is to state the difference between general banter and moderating actions explicitly.

Because it's frequently the case that moderators issue decrees of various sorts about others' arguments, about their behaviour, and about their true intentions - for no other discernible reason in the thread than to disparage another poster's person, message or posting style.

Which I take to be either 1. a personal insult, or 2. a moderator's request to stop breaking the rules. Can you tell which is the correct one? I cannot.

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.

And therefore I ask that more care should be taken with "moderating" of that sort, if I cannot actually be allowed to ignore it altogether. Your opinions about my true intentions are of course interesting enough - but not relevant.

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.

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

[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?