A suggested rule to improve moderation

[saveliberty]

The answer is less rules, not more. Free speech as much as possible.

 

[saveliberty]

Already am.

 

[Viktor]

I am aware that moderators are members who are free to engage, just like any member, in a thread of interest.

The problem comes in when a moderator puts on her “member” hat to oppose or debate the OP (or any poster, really), and retains moderator capabilities to delete posts or move the entire thread to Badlands when it was originally started in a Zone 1 forum.

I suggest the following: any time a moderator is a participant on a thread - ESPECIALLY when debating the OP’s premise - she cannot simultaneously moderate that thread. The bias is obvious and she cannot objectively do to her “job.”

WE NEED TO BE ALLOWED TO IGNORE OBNOXIOUS MODERATORS

 

[Unkotare]

WE NEED TO BE ALLOWED TO IGNORE OBNOXIOUS MODERATORS

Impotent pussy.

 

[Zincwarrior]

WE NEED TO BE ALLOWED TO IGNORE OBNOXIOUS MODERATORS

They need to be allowed to ban you permanently.

 

[Ropey]

---

WE NEED TO BE ALLOWED TO IGNORE OBNOXIOUS MODERATORS

Proposed Avatar for Vicktor:

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

WE NEED TO BE ALLOWED TO IGNORE OBNOXIOUS MODERATORS

.

With your permission, I'll PM you and tell you how.

.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

They need to be allowed to ban you permanently.

.





From a failed mod, of course.




.

 

[Zincwarrior]

.





From a failed mod, of course.




.

Well, yes!

 

[Ropey]

Well, yes!

I must say, the place is running better with you as a member rather than a mod.

I like to think that I had some small part to play in it since I read those posts of yours though.

And they were the reason you were dumped... er... retired. The left and their games with narrative syntax and context are many.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I must say, the place is running better with you as a member rather than a mod.

I like to think that I had some small part to play in it since I read those posts of yours though.

And they were the reason you were dumped... er... retired. The left and their games with narrative syntax and context are many.

He was brought in with a specific agenda in mind, but was just too obsessive and obvious in the way he pursued it.

 

[Ropey]

He was brought in with a specific agenda in mind, but was just too obsessive and obvious in the way he pursued it.

His posts were worse than Victors, and as a mod? I'd say that he doesn't even have a bag to hold the hammers he's dumber than.

The funny thing is that now he's no longer a mod, his posts have become far less antagonistic.

I suppose he misses the powah!

 

[Zincwarrior]

The answer is less rules, not more. Free speech as much as possible.

What rules are you worried about?

 

[Dekster]

We need to settle this the old fashioned way---auction off moderator vacancies to the highest bidder.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

We need to settle this the old fashioned way---auction off moderator vacancies to the highest bidder.

.

Nobody wants it.

This has become the third world of political boards, alas.

.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

.

Nobody wants it.

This has become the third world of political boards, alas.

.

Well, the Arab states, anyway.

 

[Donald H]

I am aware that moderators are members who are free to engage, just like any member, in a thread of interest.

The problem comes in when a moderator puts on her “member” hat to oppose or debate the OP (or any poster, really), and retains moderator capabilities to delete posts or move the entire thread to Badlands when it was originally started in a Zone 1 forum.

I suggest the following: any time a moderator is a participant on a thread - ESPECIALLY when debating the OP’s premise - she cannot simultaneously moderate that thread. The bias is obvious and she cannot objectively do to her “job.”

Nearly all problems can be avoided by simply not trying to debate moderators that are a problem to the member concerned. Those won't always be the same moderator who is causing us difficulties.

Hint: Be polite and then have a moderator return snark and profanity, and you'll know that you're doing as well as possible.
And the moderator gets something out of it too!

 

[Viktor]

.

With your permission, I'll PM you and tell you how.

.

OK

 

[Viktor]

Thank you for your response.

I can see your point, but it does let really biased mods with personal animus toward certain posters take very unfair advantage on threads in which they are participating as members. It is especially irritating when the moderator applies her “super-duper” powers unevenly, depending on her politics.

But again, I see your point and appreciate your getting back with me.

THESE MODS ARE TROLLS

 

[Viktor]

It's a great theory, but in practicality it doesn't work. We are volunteers; we aren't employees. We don't work certain shifts. We are here when we are here and we aren't when we aren't. Sometimes several of us are here at once; sometimes just one of us is here. If that one person participating in the thread is also the only moderator around the thread can get out of control really quick if that one moderator has to wait for another to sign on. Then some of you are going to be upset that your complaints aren't getting handled fast enough and it will also result in more threads simply being closed because by the time another moderator could sign on to deal with it you could have 20 pages of garbage to sort through and it's not worth the time.

NINE