Maybe a new Moderator or 2 for OT?

[MobBoss]

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?

I never said you were unable to talk about anything else and yes, I think you could be very informative in a wide range of topics. Did I somehow indicate otherwise? I dont think so.

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.

One thing I can tell however, is when a conversation gets trollish. And yes, some mods toe (and cross) that line just like Igloodude accuses some users of doing. Which is the entire point of my comment.

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?

Sometimes plot, a few bad apples spoils the bunch. I have said most mods I have seen retain a cool head, but yes, there are a few, which can, on occasion, cross the line. My recommendation is meant in the best of interests - and yet, some are bound and determined to be insulted by it. /oh well.

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.

Which, in my humble opinion, is much easier for some the less they post.

 

[MobBoss]

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.

If all the mods chosen remained calm and skilled I wouldnt be making my recommendation. As in all things, your level-headed milage varies.

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.

Maybe. Maybe not. There is a sense of community (I hope) in the level of poster even being considered as a mod. I dont think Igloodudes comment of 'giving something back to the community' is something he alone has experienced. And there is nothing that says modhood is forever, or some kind of death sentence.

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.

Thats kind of like saying we shouldnt prosecute police that break the law because we would end up with less cops and more criminals. It makes no sense.

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

So....you consider taking away a thankless responsibility that many wouldnt take anyway, and even more regard as a pain in the butt; as an incentive for keeping a mod in line?

I'm not sure I see your point in regards to incentive....

 

[D0NIMATRIX]

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.

Do they have to be skilled? So long as they can keep a level head and have no bias against particular posters (except those who have been borderline spamming like unscratchedfoot for a long time), then they have my vote.

 

[Miles Teg]

Generally the unskilled ones are the ones who loose their temper. It's not a requirement, but it (and disallowing them to moderate threads their in) is a decent indicator.

 

[The Yankee]

Members of a police force could also be punished within the ranks of the department (indeed, some departments may have entire divisions set up for this task of in-house investigation) for violations. Of course, if they were more serious matters, they'd get arrested and charged outright. So I would disagree about the premise that people of authority are always held to an open rebuke if they stepped over the line.

But we do have Thunderfall to ensure that we do keep ourselves to a high degree of responsible posting and moderation. And I do say that he is a very good judge.

At least, that's my view there. On the rest, of course, I am obviously biased (as I said in my previous post) and going round and round would get us nowhere there.

 

[Rik Meleet]

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

Regardless whether it is desirable to do so or not, it is technically impossible for a mod to give yellow or red cards to other mods. Same for banning other mods. The forum software simply doesn't allow it.
Only Thunderfall can take technical actions against moderators.

Which means that if a moderator crosses the line (s)he will get addressed for it, usually by the moderators of that section or by TF. And IMHO that's the way it should be.

Edit: see; no card option

 

[GenMarshall]

So that's how quickly they pass out those darn things

 

[Birdjaguar]

What does the computer icon mean Rik?

 

[azzaman333]

I'd guess it shows the IP address of the computer used to make that post.

 

[Padma]

That's right.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Thank you, both.

 

[D0NIMATRIX]

I'd guess it shows the IP address of the computer used to make that post.

What do you do with it, though?

 

[Plotinus]

You watch people. We see all.

 

[ainwood]

My point is a mod that argues in threads is infinitely more likely to engage in behavior that should earn warnings/bans as opposed to one that doesnt.

Simple actually.

Well, except for the point that warnings / bans are about what is posted, not what the position of the person who posted them is.

I have never had a warning - and spent a few years as an OT poster before I was a mod. There are a significant number of others that give no problems at all.

It is possible to debate without earning infractions.

 

[MobBoss]

Well, except for the point that warnings / bans are about what is posted, not what the position of the person who posted them is.

I have never had a warning - and spent a few years as an OT poster before I was a mod. There are a significant number of others that give no problems at all.

It is possible to debate without earning infractions.

Its also possible to eat flavorless food.

But you are a very good example of what I am talking about Ainwood. IMHO, you do a great job as a mod, and dont really get into many threads/arguements in the OT. I suspect thats more from being busy than a desire to avoid arguement though. But from my perspective, at least, you do exactly what I suggest....mod, but keep the argueing to a minimum in order to avoid problems.

 

[Red Door]

What do you do with it, though?

It's to make sure people like a nameless user don't make 5 log-ins, even when they move places.

 

[.Shane.]

Wow, MB, you really energized this thread.

I get what you're saying. And I agree to the extent that mods should recuse themselves from threads they're actively involved in.

That said, w/ 1 exception, I think the OT mods are great, there's just not enough. And the 1 exception is not so horrible that I'd PM Thunderfall and complain.

So, I stick by original premise. The mods are good, but they need to add a couple more. And, I think your argument is ultimately counter-productive MB, because best mods will be people who appreciate and care about that forum which typically means they are fairly active in it.

 

[ainwood]

I get what you're saying. And I agree to the extent that mods should recuse themselves from threads they're actively involved in.

In many cases, they do - if they're not sure, they ask another mod to step-in.

That said, in some cases it is appropriate for a mod to moderate a thread they are active in - more so to deal with 'third parties' than people who troll / flame them.

 

[Masquerouge]

Errr all Hell has broken loose on CFC OT.

Which again makes a strong point for a new moderator, particularly one that would be here when the others are not...

 

[Catharsis]

Today's not really representative of the year. It's April 1st... this always seems to happen on April 1st.