Maybe a new Moderator or 2 for OT?

[Rik Meleet]

In my opinion are moderators (including OT-mods) certainly allowed to participate in heated discussions. That is one of the reasons busy sections of CFC have more than 1 moderator. Moderators are human first, members second and moderators third.

(..)and stay away from debating heated topics.

Then you must be really thrilled to learn that on the whole of the forum, and OT in particular, as soon as a moderator in his/her section of the forum is involved in a thread in the role as member, the moderating will be done by other moderators.

Section-independent actions, like advertisebot-hunting, signature violations, or some member-requests can be done by any mod.
For example: when I am involved in a heated discussion in the sections I mod (the Demogames), my fellow mods CT or Dave take over and vice versa. I know the OT mods do the same. And when I mod a thread in my section that I have actively participated in; I make sure it is clear in what position (member or moderator) my post is in. When I act as a mod, I always use modtags Moderator Action: Like this . Without them I am posting as a member, not as a mod.

Since this is about OT, what really annoys me is that as soon as a non-OT moderator makes a post there, some members who are unable to distinguish OT-moderators from non-OT-moderators see that as a moderator action, even though the member is not a member of OT and doesn't even use modtags. Please don't make that mistake.

 

[IglooDame]

Of course moderating is going to impinge on a user's fun. Duh. I won't speak for others, but I took the job knowing that, but since I've gotten so much use and fun in the past on CFC that I'd be paying back the debt, so to speak. And it's probably worth noting that no one is forced to be participating here in the first place, so the "you weren't forced" line of thinking should properly be discarded.

And no, it shouldn't ever be okay for mods to step over the line. Again, duh. No one here is saying that it is. I'm not defending (or for that matter, aware of) whatever particular incident you're talking about. We - or you, really, given you raised this thread tangent - are discussing what lengths the posters, mods, and TF would or should be willing to go to prevent having a mod occasionally step over the line. Personally, I think your solution would lead to fewer mods, and thus creates worse problems than it solves.

And by the way I am certainly not describing all CFC posters as 'forum arsonists' - but in rereading my post I can see how someone would be able to misconstrue it that way if they tried hard enough. ( ) Really I can only offhand think of two or three posters that have participated in this thread as falling in that category. I know for a fact that the vast majority of CFC posters participate while following the rules (both the letter and the spirit) and making it a more pleasant and interesting place for everyone. And obviously, there are a small percentage that can't or won't abide by the rules and their participation gets limited in accordance with the enforcement tools available to the moderators. But there are a few whose idea of having fun makes moderator jobs significantly tougher and tends to get threads locked even while they are not technically trolling/flaming/spamming, and I think they would benefit from taking my advice and changing their own posting styles and what they seek in participating here before publicly advocating other ways to improve CFC.

And this concludes my participation in this thread.

 

[Perfection]

Well, I think Mobby has a bit of a point. Mods should hold thier posts to a higher moral standard then regular posters.

I think they should be able to debate about any topic, however they shouldn't debate like I debate. That is they shouldn't set up traps (argue somewhat dishonestly to force them into a position where you can blow apart their position), insert hidden half-insults, flatly dismiss entire concepts without giving a big reason, or perform many other of my wonderful antigonistic practices that make the debate more lively.

They should be able to debate nicely using such things as, "Well, Mobby one thing to consider is x,y,z", or "I don't think that argument is correct because blahbitty blueby blue" and so on.

 

[MobBoss]

In my opinion are moderators (including OT-mods) certainly allowed to participate in heated discussions. That is one of the reasons busy sections of CFC have more than 1 moderator. Moderators are human first, members second and moderators third.

And I disagree with that. Moderators should be moderators first - and then users. Of course mods are human first - thats actually why they should endeavor to be mods first and users seldom.

Then you must be really thrilled to learn that on the whole of the forum, and OT in particular, as soon as a moderator in his/her section of the forum is involved in a thread in the role as member, the moderating will be done by other moderators.

I beg to disagree. I have seen plenty of mods heavily involved in a thread hand out warnings and infractions in that thread. I have also seen non-OT mods hand out the same.

But never have I seen a mod warn another mod.

Section-independent actions, like advertisebot-hunting, signature violations, or some member-requests can be done by any mod.
For example: when I am involved in a heated discussion in the sections I mod (the Demogames), my fellow mods CT or Dave take over and vice versa. I know the OT mods do the same.

Again, you state this as fact, however, I tell you honestly, that my perception of this is much different.

And when I mod a thread in my section that I have actively participated in; I make sure it is clear in what position (member or moderator) my post is in. When I act as a mod, I always use modtags Moderator Action: Like this . Without them I am posting as a member, not as a mod.

Your're always a mod. Its not a hat you remove and put back on.

Since this is about OT, what really annoys me is that as soon as a non-OT moderator makes a post there, some members who are unable to distinguish OT-moderators from non-OT-moderators see that as a moderator action, even though the member is not a member of OT and doesn't even use modtags. Please don't make that mistake.

Again, I have seen plenty of non-OT mods hand out warnings and infractions, so I am unsure as to what your point is here.

 

[MobBoss]

And no, it shouldn't ever be okay for mods to step over the line. Again, duh. No one here is saying that it is. I'm not defending (or for that matter, aware of) whatever particular incident you're talking about. We - or you, really, given you raised this thread tangent - are discussing what lengths the posters, mods, and TF would or should be willing to go to prevent having a mod occasionally step over the line. Personally, I think your solution would lead to fewer mods, and thus creates worse problems than it solves.

Fair enough. But fwiw, I would rather have fewer, but better (by better I mean ones not prone to emotional outrage in a debate) mods. Mods that are perceived as abusive of their power would do far more harm than not having enough mods (my opinion).

And to clarify: I am not saying all mods are like this - most arent. But those that insist on engaging in very heated debate tend to go over the line of decorum.

But there are a few whose idea of having fun makes moderator jobs significantly tougher and tends to get threads locked even while they are not technically trolling/flaming/spamming, and I think they would benefit from taking my advice and changing their own posting styles and what they seek in participating here before publicly advocating other ways to improve CFC.

Now wait a second. If they are not trolling/flaming/spamming then why is the thread being locked? Or is it because someone IS trolling/flaming/spamming, but its because someone else lost sphincter control in a debate?

Sounds to me like you would punish the law abiders while being sympathetic to the lawbreakers. Stop blaming others for certain peoples actions. I am responsible for what I post, so let others be as well. Equally.

Well, I think Mobby has a bit of a point. Mods should hold thier posts to a higher moral standard then regular posters.

I think they should be able to debate about any topic, however they shouldn't debate like I debate. That is they shouldn't set up traps (argue somewhat dishonestly to force them into a position where you can blow apart their position), insert hidden half-insults, flatly dismiss entire concepts without giving a big reason, or perform many other of my wonderful antigonistic practices that make the debate more lively.

They should be able to debate nicely using such things as, "Well, Mobby one thing to consider is x,y,z", or "I don't think that argument is correct because blahbitty blueby blue" and so on.

I agree...however, some people apparently think we have some posters that can infuriate people quicker than waterboarding breaks a terrorist - without even breaking the TOS. In light of those elite debate skills how long will such composure last?

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

Real life calls, and this job doesn't pay.

And moderating the OT really takes up a lot of time.

I can't even imagine. That is truly a cesspit of forum vice. My hats off to the crusaders that risk their sanity trying (and succeeding for the most part) in cleaning it up.

Because then they often get drug into un-mod worthy acts/comments just like any user.

In my opinion, its simply better for a mod to not even cross that line to begin with.

Nor did I expect everyone to agree with my viewpoint - especially mods who like to post.

I agree. Though the mods wield the godly power of Perma-ban (or ban in general), they are still human. Given time, the less respectible aspects of forum behavior can eventually be brought out.

But I have no complaint towards you in particular Whomp. But lets just say, not every mod has your restraint.

From reading his posts, and playing a Succession game with him in the past I have come to like Whomp. From me that does entail a certain level of respect, even moreso for his ability to shed whatever smidge of bias he had.

I would vote for MobBoss as an OT mod as well. While I'd like to think I could be, I don't spend much time in OT anymore. I would also vote for not having MobBoss as an OT mod. Basically for the "stop posting" stipulation he suggested. Conservatives in OT are few and far between, and we need all the help we can get against the liberal hordes!

I do also believe that El Justo would make an excellent mod, though he'd be greatly overstretched with all his projects.

 

[Plotinus]

My number one quality in a mod would be:

Stop posting.

Seriously.

So do you think that, say, woodelf and I shouldn't post work in the C&C fora? Or Knight-Dragon shouldn't post news stories in the History forum?

Because then they often get drug into un-mod worthy acts/comments just like any user.

In my opinion, its simply better for a mod to not even cross that line to begin with.

Don't you think that should apply to everyone, moderator or not? Shouldn't everyone restrain from emotional outbursts or whatever it is you're protesting against? I'd say that "un-modworthy" behaviour is identical with "un-userworthy" behaviour.

I think they should be able to debate about any topic, however they shouldn't debate like I debate. That is they shouldn't set up traps (argue somewhat dishonestly to force them into a position where you can blow apart their position), insert hidden half-insults, flatly dismiss entire concepts without giving a big reason, or perform many other of my wonderful antigonistic practices that make the debate more lively.

They should be able to debate nicely using such things as, "Well, Mobby one thing to consider is x,y,z", or "I don't think that argument is correct because blahbitty blueby blue" and so on.

Same point. I wish no-one debated like you debate, irrespective of whether they are moderators or not.

I agree that moderators ought to conduct themselves properly on the site, but I disagree that this is because some kind of special code of conduct should apply to them, or even that they must be held to such rarified standards that they can't post at all for fear of slipping up. I think it's because moderators should be setting an example of how everyone should post. In other words, the same standards apply to us all, and moderators have a particular duty to keep to those standards in order to set an example to everyone else. It seems to me that this argument to the effect that moderators should have higher standards than everyone else is really an argument that non-moderators should have lower standards.

Or maybe because they can simply remove the entire post/thread.

You dont see it because you dont have the ability to see all, be all, here at CFC.

All deleted threads go into a folder in the moderator area and are visible to all moderators. Also, all moderators can view all deleted posts in their original locations. I have never seen any deleted thread or post which looked like it had been deleted in order to cover up some kind of moderating error or breach of the rules on the part of a moderator.

 

[Perfection]

Same point. I wish no-one debated like you debate, irrespective of whether they are moderators or not.

Gawd, you're such a Goody-Two-Shoes.

I agree that moderators ought to conduct themselves properly on the site, but I disagree that this is because some kind of special code of conduct should apply to them, or even that they must be held to such rarified standards that they can't post at all for fear of slipping up. I think it's because moderators should be setting an example of how everyone should post. In other words, the same standards apply to us all, and moderators have a particular duty to keep to those standards in order to set an example to everyone else. It seems to me that this argument to the effect that moderators should have higher standards than everyone else is really an argument that non-moderators should have lower standards.

Well, I don't think more confrontative and devisive debating strategies, as well as showmanship are "lower" or "higher" standards. Only, that the type of posting I do generally does't earn me the sort of trust that a moderator would desire.

 

[MobBoss]

So do you think that, say, woodelf and I shouldn't post work in the C&C fora? Or Knight-Dragon shouldn't post news stories in the History forum?

Did I mention anyone by name Plot? Apparently you didnt catch my clarification. Informative or instructional types of posts I have no problems with. Opinion arguing is another matter.

Don't you think that should apply to everyone, moderator or not? Shouldn't everyone restrain from emotional outbursts or whatever it is you're protesting against? I'd say that "un-modworthy" behaviour is identical with "un-userworthy" behaviour.

Of course everyone should be held to a standard. Its just that those vested with responsibility (i.e. mods) should be held to an even higher standard. Thats pretty much true across all spectrums in many societies, I fail to see why it is such a burdensome concept for CFC.

Same point. I wish no-one debated like you debate, irrespective of whether they are moderators or not.

If how he debates is within the TOS its immaterial.

I agree that moderators ought to conduct themselves properly on the site, but I disagree that this is because some kind of special code of conduct should apply to them, or even that they must be held to such rarified standards that they can't post at all for fear of slipping up.

A little bit of logical fallacy there Plot. We have no shortage of cops because potential recruits fear slipping up. I think we have a shortage of mods because there is a distinct shortage of legitimately responsible posters willing to take the job. And I also disagree with you on that 'special code' thingy. If you are given a badge (i.e. Mod tag) and a gun (i.e. ability to ban) then you dang sure are called to have a higher standard.

I think it's because moderators should be setting an example of how everyone should post. In other words, the same standards apply to us all, and moderators have a particular duty to keep to those standards in order to set an example to everyone else. It seems to me that this argument to the effect that moderators should have higher standards than everyone else is really an argument that non-moderators should have lower standards.

Not in the least. I simply want those standards enforced by a group of people who dont themselves break the law. I dont think thats too much to ask.

All deleted threads go into a folder in the moderator area and are visible to all moderators. Also, all moderators can view all deleted posts in their original locations. I have never seen any deleted thread or post which looked like it had been deleted in order to cover up some kind of moderating error or breach of the rules on the part of a moderator.

Let me ask plainly then since I have never seen it in all my time here. Do moderators get warnings/infractions/bans? Pretty much every single time I have seen a mod do something questionable (or even fairly blatently over the line), it never gets a warning (that we can see), and complaints of same are handled via pm. I have seen stuff get edited out plenty of times, but never a warning/infraction/ban.

 

[Plotinus]

Did I mention anyone by name Plot? Apparently you didnt catch my clarification. Informative or instructional types of posts I have no problems with. Opinion arguing is another matter.

Well, I'm not so sure you can draw such a hard and fast line between them. Some people think it's a matter of established fact that Thatcher was a brilliant prime minister and others that it's a matter of established fact that she was an appalling disaster. I'm sure you can think of many similar cases. How can you distinguish clearly between "informing" and "opinion arguing"?

Of course everyone should be held to a standard. Its just that those vested with responsibility (i.e. mods) should be held to an even higher standard. Thats pretty much true across all spectrums in many societies, I fail to see why it is such a burdensome concept for CFC.

I'm not sure that it is true at all, to be honest. Politicians, the police, etc (whoever it is you're trying to draw an analogy with) are not subject to additional laws. Conversely, there are, as far as I know, no laws that I'm allowed to break simply because I'm not in government. Of course people generally want those in authority to be paragons of virtue, or at least of lawfulness, but again I don't think that's because they think that those in authority should be subject to a more rigorous standard. Rather, it's because they think that such people should exemplify the standards that apply to everyone. If a politician gets into trouble for dodgy dealings or whatever, he is forced to resign not because he's broken some special code of behaviour for politicians, but because politicians are supposed to adhere to the code of behaviour that they prescribe for everyone.

A little bit of logical fallacy there Plot. We have no shortage of cops because potential recruits fear slipping up. I think we have a shortage of mods because there is a distinct shortage of legitimately responsible posters willing to take the job. And I also disagree with you on that 'special code' thingy. If you are given a badge (i.e. Mod tag) and a gun (i.e. ability to ban) then you dang sure are called to have a higher standard.

I'm not sure how I can commit a logical fallacy simply by stating that I disagree with you. But, again, no - having a "gun" and a "badge" doesn't hold you to a higher standard, it simply means you have that much more of a responsibility to adhere to the standard that you enforce. I'm pretty sure that applies to whatever law enforcement paradigm you're thinking of and I certainly see no reason why it shouldn't apply here.

Even if it did apply here, I don't see that it would follow that moderators shouldn't be allowed to join in debates. All it would mean is that only people who don't resort to flaming in debates should be asked to moderate.

Let me ask plainly then since I have never seen it in all my time here. Do moderators get warnings/infractions/bans? Pretty much every single time I have seen a mod do something questionable (or even fairly blatently over the line), it never gets a warning (that we can see), and complaints of same are handled via pm. I have seen stuff get edited out plenty of times, but never a warning/infraction/ban.

I can't say I've ever seen a moderator do anything infractable, so I can't answer that.

 

[Padma]

Disciplining of "errant moderators" is carried out behind the closed doors of the Staff Forum.

 

[MobBoss]

Disciplining of "errant moderators" is carried out behind the closed doors of the Staff Forum.

What happens in Fight Club...

 

[MobBoss]

Well, I'm not so sure you can draw such a hard and fast line between them. Some people think it's a matter of established fact that Thatcher was a brilliant prime minister and others that it's a matter of established fact that she was an appalling disaster. I'm sure you can think of many similar cases. How can you distinguish clearly between "informing" and "opinion arguing"?

I think when you are giving information in regards in being a theologist that you are indeed being informative because thats your area of expertise. But if you argue with me about the merits of cheese mold and choose to get emotional about it, that would be opinion.

I'm not sure that it is true at all, to be honest. Politicians, the police, etc (whoever it is you're trying to draw an analogy with) are not subject to additional laws.

But they are subject to the expectation of higher moral behavior due to their position.

I'm not sure how I can commit a logical fallacy simply by stating that I disagree with you. But, again, no - having a "gun" and a "badge" doesn't hold you to a higher standard, it simply means you have that much more of a responsibility to adhere to the standard that you enforce.

Having 'much' more responsibility to adhere to the standard = expectation of a higher standard.

I can't say I've ever seen a moderator do anything infractable, so I can't answer that.

So you never seen a mod get a warning or infraction. Thanks.

 

[GenMarshall]

So you never seen a mod get a warning or infraction. Thanks.

More than likely, they take care of that behind the relm of the Staff Forums.

 

[MobBoss]

More than likely, they take care of that behind the relm of the Staff Forums.

The point being that despite it being earlier alleged, mods dont get warnings/infractions like other posters.

Or did you miss that slight nuance there?

So, if they dont get little yellow or red cards on their posts, their not treated exactly like other posters are they now?

Which is what I was referring to earlier. A mod carries a higher responsibility to not break the rules and if it indeed does happen, they arent treated like normal posters.

So, the development of the discussion has been thus.

I suggest mods shouldnt be involved in heated discussion due to the expectations of their modhood.

Some mods say they should, and that they are treated just like users.

However, when its asked when has a mod ever gotten a yellow/red card, its pointed out that misbehaving mods are dealt with outside the public purview.

Ergo...they are not treated just like regular users.

All this from my small suggestion. /meh. To me it would seem common sense if your a mod to stay away from debates that you would be emotional about. But thats just the way I see it.

 

[Padma]

To explicitly answer the question, only TF can "infract" moderators.

I think most of us mods have had the occasional message from TF saying, "you shouldn't have done that." But more commonly, we discuss "questionable" actions amongst ourselves, kind of a "peer review" thing.

 

[MobBoss]

To explicitly answer the question, only TF can "infract" moderators.

I think most of us mods have had the occasional message from TF saying, "you shouldn't have done that." But more commonly, we discuss "questionable" actions amongst ourselves, kind of a "peer review" thing.

Thanks for the clarification Padma! And fwiw, I have no problem with that, as its TFs call. My recommendation is merely my viewpoint on the matter, no more, no less, and again, fwiw, most mods do indeed stay out of highly charged arguements. As I stated, I merely wish they all would.

 

[Plotinus]

I think when you are giving information in regards in being a theologist that you are indeed being informative because thats your area of expertise. But if you argue with me about the merits of cheese mold and choose to get emotional about it, that would be opinion.

But again, you can't draw such hard and fast distinctions. Contrary to your assumption, theology is not, in fact, my main area of expertise, so you can't just classify me as a "theologist" (!) and say I'm allowed to talk about that and nothing else. I have a history A Level; am I allowed to talk about history? I have a geography GCSE; am I allowed to talk about geography? I learned about the Egyptians in primary school; am I allowed to talk about them? At what point does a subject stop being something I'm considered "informed" about and become wild speculation on my part?

Besides which, most people who are experts on something have opinions on it. Someone might be an expert on modern politics and be a committed member of a political party. In fact, people who are experts on things are more likely to have opinions on them; the fact that they are informed opinions doesn't make them any less opinions. This is quite apart from my point before, which you haven't addressed, to the effect that you can't necessarily tell the difference between objective fact and subjective opinion anyway.

Again, you give the example of me arguing about cheese mould and getting emotional about it, and you call that "opinion". But you're loading the dice here by imagining me getting emotional. What if I don't? Am I to be barred from discussing subjects on which I am not considered an authority, even if I do so coolly and calmly? Surely the objectional element in your scenario is my becoming emotional, not my straying outside my area of expertise. But then we just come back to the rules which everyone is expected to follow: don't lose your temper.

 

[Miles Teg]

Mobboss. Let's consider something.

We (or rather Thunderfall) tend to give moderator status to known level headed users that inhabit their jurisdictions. And in OT, one becomes known either through debate, or through what is essentially spam. Obviously the latter is not Mod material. So essentially, every time we appoint a mod, by your argument we should loose a well known, calm, skilled debater.

And further more, who on earth would put such a huge amount of time and energy into this sub-forum, arguing with people, and then get told their job is now to clean up after people who don't play nice? People would be turning down offers of moderatorship.

 

[Catharsis]

And what's the point of an infraction? It's to send a message to the poster: 'If you do any more of this, you'll get a ban.' But it would be silly to ban a moderator - you'd just end up with fewer moderators and less control over the proletariat - so the threat of banning means nothing to a mod.

The threat of discipline from TF and the possibility (however extreme) of demodding, however, should be enough to keep them in line.