Just a question about choices for staff.

[iceberg]

I actually remember the first time I argued with FCT in a thread. I was sweating it; expected to be banned forthwith. But no. Even Westwall left me alone. I've seen Coyote look the other way at some of you haters when she's in a thread, when if I were a mod, I'd have hauled them out by the shirt collar.

They're fair. I wouldn't be.

Far as I know I've never been modded as revenge or anything.

Sometimes a thread gets deleted for going a bit off topic, but not nearly as many that have actually drifted off topic I've posted.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I actually remember the first time I argued with FCT in a thread. I was sweating it; expected to be banned forthwith. But no. Even Westwall left me alone. I've seen Coyote look the other way at some of you haters when she's in a thread, when if I were a mod, I'd have hauled them out by the shirt collar.

They're fair. I wouldn't be.

Far as I know I've never been modded as revenge or anything.

Sometimes a thread gets deleted for going a bit off topic, but not nearly as many that have actually drifted off topic I've posted.

Now that I think about it, Kat, MDK, Winter Born, Aye, Meister, MeBelle and Taz have never modded me as an act of revenge, either.

 

[Hossfly]

If the mods were to moderate each other to keep bias in check, this place would improve drastically.

There is something of an old boy network in action here, though, in that no matter how utterly biased and corrupt a mod acts, the rest of the mods just look the other way.

It has been that way since first joined, anyway.

It's kinda like the police, isn't it.

I wish you were a mod, Pogo.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I wish you were a mod, Pogo.

Pogo a mod?

Damn, man, he'd be issuing citations for misspellings!

 

[Pogo]

If the mods were to moderate each other to keep bias in check, this place would improve drastically.

There is something of an old boy network in action here, though, in that no matter how utterly biased and corrupt a mod acts, the rest of the mods just look the other way.

It has been that way since first joined, anyway.

It's kinda like the police, isn't it.

I wish you were a mod, Pogo.

That wouldn't work. I would refuse to ban you.

 

[Pogo]

I wish you were a mod, Pogo.

Pogo a mod?

Damn, man, he'd be issuing citations for misspellings!

Dammit, now I'm all hard and shit.

 

[iceberg]

I actually remember the first time I argued with FCT in a thread. I was sweating it; expected to be banned forthwith. But no. Even Westwall left me alone. I've seen Coyote look the other way at some of you haters when she's in a thread, when if I were a mod, I'd have hauled them out by the shirt collar.

They're fair. I wouldn't be.

Far as I know I've never been modded as revenge or anything.

Sometimes a thread gets deleted for going a bit off topic, but not nearly as many that have actually drifted off topic I've posted.

I stand corrected.

 

[Coyote]

If the mods were to moderate each other to keep bias in check, this place would improve drastically.

There is something of an old boy network in action here, though, in that no matter how utterly biased and corrupt a mod acts, the rest of the mods just look the other way.

It has been that way since first joined, anyway.

It's kinda like the police, isn't it.

I wish you were a mod, Pogo.

That wouldn't work. I would refuse to ban you.

ya..cant ban hoss!

 

[Coyote]

If the mods were to moderate each other to keep bias in check, this place would improve drastically.

There is something of an old boy network in action here, though, in that no matter how utterly biased and corrupt a mod acts, the rest of the mods just look the other way.

It has been that way since first joined, anyway.

It's kinda like the police, isn't it.

I wish you were a mod, Pogo.

That wouldn't work. I would refuse to ban you.

ya..cant ban hoss!

 

[strollingbones]

Which mod isn't kissing Gracie/Karen ass...asking for a friend

 

[Rocko]

Shouldn't mods be unbiased? If they are "in charge" of this board being "where your voices count", shouldn't those who moderate be exempt from expressing their voices except in moderation decisions?

Asking for a friend.

Good luck finding people without opinions and viewpoints. A good moderator only needs to keep his personal views separate from enforcing board rules and regulations and apply them fairly and equally.

Agreed. And lets be honest there no such thing as a good orbad moderator on this sight because people get away with whatever they want. I mean I’ve said pretty repugnant shit in my day and I’ve never received as much as a warning. Some times threads get moved or locked, but who really gives a shit?

 

[Rocko]

I wish you were a mod, Pogo.

Pogo a mod?

Damn, man, he'd be issuing citations for misspellings!

pogo is a grammar nazi, isn’t he? Other than that he’s ok under the rare occasions where he’s not being an idiot. He’s fun to troll as well

 

[Sunsettommy]

Shouldn't mods be unbiased? If they are "in charge" of this board being "where your voices count", shouldn't those who moderate be exempt from expressing their voices except in moderation decisions?

Asking for a friend.

If I understand what you are asking about, bias is the wrong metric in deciding what is a good candidate for a moderator.

To me a good moderator candidate is one with a good temper, lots of patience and willing to discuss the problem through the PM system.

Moderators have to base their decisions on the board rules of conduct and posting guidelines, not on how they feel about you personally, which is why they have to be neutral on the person they are moderating.

 

[Gracie]

Shouldn't mods be unbiased? If they are "in charge" of this board being "where your voices count", shouldn't those who moderate be exempt from expressing their voices except in moderation decisions?

Asking for a friend.

If I understand what you are asking about, bias is the wrong metric in deciding what is a good candidate for a moderator.

To me a good moderator candidate is one with a good temper, lots of patience and willing to discuss the problem through the PM system.

Moderators have to base their decisions on the board rules of conduct and posting guidelines, not on how they feel about you personally, which is why they have to be neutral on the person they are moderating.

They are all good moderators. Except one. That one has issues. But, is human and therefore has fallacies like all of us. Which means biased depending on the poster. However, the good outweighs the bad, so I avoid that one as much a humanly possible.

 

[Sunsettommy]

It's kinda like the rules in businesses that employees cannot date other employers or the boss cannot date an employee. It can create a conflict of interest. Or so the friend I am asking for claims.

I don't see how Moderators here can have a conflict of interest, since they are VOLUNTEERS, who were chosen by the vote of the existing Moderation team, who I am sure discussed the possible candidates before they were even asked to consider being a moderator.

There is no money in it, no percentage of the forum "profits" being shared, no leverage to a better job, nothing of substance here in the forum to create any.

I was once asked if I was interested in being a Moderator here in this forum, there were no mention of money, favors or partnership, just wanted to know if I would be interested, that was all. That was well over a year ago, in all that time since, I haven't been offered the opportunity, probably because there were better candidates out there.

They are here to defend the board rules and posting guidelines, nothing more.

 

[Sunsettommy]

As long as they do not use their mod superpowers to screw with regular users following the rules it does not matter at all. Been on boards where the mods banned people as the last word in an argument. Those boards no longer exist.

They apparently had a poor Administrator/Moderator team not looking for the best moderator candidates, who would strive to be even tempered, patient and neutral. Who would stick with the board rules of conduct and posting guidelines.

When a forum doesn't strive for high moderation standards, everyone suffers.

 

[Circe]

As long as they do not use their mod superpowers to screw with regular users following the rules it does not matter at all. Been on boards where the mods banned people as the last word in an argument. Those boards no longer exist.

Yep. I've seen it since the '80s. Nothing kills a board like the ban-happies.

 

[Gracie]

Well..they have allowed this thread to continue because it has stayed pretty much neutral in discussion but if it starts in with mod bashing/rules...they will close it.

They have had and have some great admins. I miss many of the mods that are no longer mods but just regular posters. Even mods get burned out. Ruling us is like herding cats. It probably gets tiresome. Bad day, they may react in not so great a manner. Good day, they will be even more lenient than they already are. Some get snippy. Some snarky. Some downright mean and rule unfavorably. But in the long run, the board is the best I have run across in a long time.

We all have our days.

And with that said...mods can now close the thread before it gets out of hand.

Kat flacaltenn Coyote @ whomever is on duty.

And thanks for letting me ask questions, get answers and opinions and not lock it up beforehand.

 

[flacaltenn]

Shouldn't mods be unbiased? If they are "in charge" of this board being "where your voices count", shouldn't those who moderate be exempt from expressing their voices except in moderation decisions?

Asking for a friend.

If moderators at USMB had MORE personal discretion from the rules being MORE ambiguous than ours actually are --- it could be an issue.. But moderation at USMB is stone simple..

Read the Post --

Does it contain "specific topical content? YES = Legal Post.. NO = NOT Legal Post..

That's it... If the topic and OPost and Title pass muster -- members can discuss anything they want to. We only ask the posts ALL honor the topic in some way -- and don't go OFF topic or get 100% personal..

So -- there's discussion about some actions in the mod room. And we'll take any member request to review moderation actions via PM.. Stuff DOES get "overturned" occasionally.. But it's rare.

And I believe personally that BECAUSE of the way the rules are written -- anyone with people skills and ANY political objectivity could do the job.. But we prefer folks who have kept a clean "warning record" and people skills.

 

[flacaltenn]

Shouldn't mods be unbiased? If they are "in charge" of this board being "where your voices count", shouldn't those who moderate be exempt from expressing their voices except in moderation decisions?

Asking for a friend.

Hmm Worthy though Gracie.

How 'bout this: Mods could have sock names, used only for participating in threads, while moderating under a mod name.
That way ---- no would know who the mods are.

We're members FIRST.. Better to know where we come from on opinions and issues than "hide it".. Not ONE of us would volunteer for this job hiding under an alias when we moderate.. If you like ANONYMOUS moderators -- "boy wonder" Zuckerberg has 35,000 of those. They ARE -- "his algorithm"..