So how do your politics work...(The Offtopic bit)

The Beer Baron

I might incurr a lot of wrath for this but in all honesty I think that that mods here need to lighten up somewhat and not snap at people as much.
i.e.- "YOU ARE A NOT A MODERATOR DO NOT TRY TO MODERATE"- to Muck, an active and well-respected member of this community- is one example I can think of.
It angered me, and I saw it as completly unjustified. I cannot remember who it was who done this to him, but in all fairness- I found it petty and childish.

I've seen instances of "DON'T YOU DARE TELL ME WHAT I CAN OR CAN'T DO" and such behaviour- which to my mind, is every bit as antisocial and antagonistic as anything other members, and myself personally might do.
"I'm the boss so nyyah!"- please!
Respect works both ways.

A second point is this- as moderators, I can respect your right to having an opinion, as much as I would like you to respect ours.
But shouldn't a moderator be impartial? Or at the very least not slam down his/her opinion on every thread. Granted if one of the mods starts a thread I have no problem with it, but I've found that the weight of every argument tends to sway whichever side the mod leans. And those who disagree are often ostrasised, ganged up on, and in extreme cases, agitated to such a point that the thread becomes closed. It might also be the case that certain people might be afraid to air their opinions out of fear of being at odds with the moderators.

Bonkey (and this isn't a personal attack) you tend to do this quite often. I'll admit, whilst I've disagreed with him on certain issues, you still make some very valid and interesting points. Although having said that, isn't your job primarily an administritive one, presiding, much like a judge. But certainly you can't be judge, jury, defendant and executioner all at the same time?

I've no idea how this is going to be interpreted.
And I assume I'm not the 1st one to voice such grievances.
I understand there comes a time to lay down the law.
But discussion in a bulletin board is still a discussion, and like all discussions- tend to go off on tangents. (Much like I'm doing here I think)


Anyways- I'm typing this on my breaktime and thrashing it out- I'm off now, and I'm hope people can understand my hastily-typed post. I await your reply(/ies)

{btw I know I'm no darling of the boards community but I've never set out to be. And I hope that people understand that too.}

mr_angry

While I'd love to see a democracy in Boards, it almost certantly wouldn't work. What you really need are dedicated individuals as Mods, and it'd be very difficult to discern from a campaign whether or not a candidate was both balanced, and dedicated enough to run a forum.

On 'my' board, the Mods would be chosen from the amount of posts (the top 10 posters for example) then they would stand for election. Then the rest of us would vote for your favorite person to be mod. This would change on a regular basis (every few months), and there wouldn't be a 'supreme' mod, more like a council of mods.

Not a bad addition to the democracy idea, but it might suffer from people spamming like crazy. Also, if these people have radical views, and tend to put down people for no reason, then we'd be in trouble.

Seems to me that boards.ie as a whole is an example of how sometimes a benign dictatorship is the best model. As long as the worst thing that can happen to you is getting banned (or being photographed doing drunkenly humiliating yourself at a Boards Beer bash) and nobody has to do anything productive.

I agree entirely. I think there has to be some form of nepotism invloved, with DeVore at the top, as he has a vested interest in making things work. He then selects people he trusts to become the mods.

It might also be the case that certain people might be afraid to air their opinions out of fear of being at odds with the moderators.

I do agree that the moderators should be held accountable for unfair outbursts or the dismissal of people out of hand. But frankly, I think that job has to fall to someone higher up the chain of command who has the authority to punish a mod. Maybe an ombudsman? Actually, I think an ombudsman would be a very good idea!

At the same time, you can't expect everyone to agree with you all the time. For example, if my call for an ombudsman was ignored in all future postings on this board, is it right for me to keep whinging "No, you're all wrong! An ombudsman is the only way to go", even if everyone disagreed with me? At some point, a Mod has to step in and say "Everyone's had enough of your opinion - shut up". That just HAS to be the way. Many posters on Boards have demonstrated that they are not capable of acting in a civilised manner at all times, and someone has to keep them in check.

I apologise to The Beer Baron (perhaps he has some justification for being upset with the Mods), but I feel you're only giving one side of the story here, and using this thread as a place to moan about past greivances. Personally, I think the Mods do a very good job, and Bonkey in particular. This thread itself is an example of that.

bonkey

OK - first off a couple of points...

Beer baron right - its offtopic - I'll split it to a seperate thread later, but I'm not gonna kill this discussion cause I think its worthwhile.

Secondly, I'm definitely not going to take offence. I see the want to improve as a necessary part of being a moderator, and without feedback that can't happen. If I just go off in a snit because someone criticises the way I've done things, then we wouldn't get very far.

Having said that, I'm also going to be blunt about my stance here. Let me also explain that where I use the singular, I am in no way implying that the other moderators agree with me, nor should they. This is how I see things, and they quite often differ.

Anyway....

Originally posted by The Beer Baron
Respect works both ways.

Yes, it most certainly does.

When I see people stepping in and telling others what to do on this forum, I take the stance that they are no longer fully respecting the rules, nor the moderators.

Your argument here seems to be that I have to respect them despite the fact that they are already disrespecting the hard work that myself, Swiss and Gandalf put into running this forum.

Let me take a moment to highlight the very first entry under teh "Moderating" section of our rules.

f you have a problem with a post, complain to the mods. Do not respond to the post in question.

A second point is this- as moderators, I can respect your right to having an opinion, as much as I would like you to respect ours.
But shouldn't a moderator be impartial? Or at the very least not slam down his/her opinion on every thread.

But my opinion in a thread carries no more weight than anyone elses, and being a moderator is not supposed to mean that I lose the right to take part in discussions.

I've found that the weight of every argument tends to sway whichever side the mod leans.

I'd have a quiet chat with Sand, Typedef, and several others before making an assumption that your perception is actually a trend

I fight my corner as any other poster is entitled to do. If others are letting my being a moderator sway them, then I'm sorry, but their impressionability is not my problem.

Could it not also be that perhaps my views are more populist? Or that I choose which side to come in on regardless of my actual beliefs so that I'm going to have the stronger arguments?

If people have a problem with my posts, they should complain about them in the way they're encouraged to complain about the others - we do have two other mods who will react impartially (and I have been slapped by them on at least one occasion).

And those who disagree are often ostrasised, ganged up on, and in extreme cases, agitated to such a point that the thread becomes closed.

Hang on a second....

If you feel that someone is stepping over teh rules, then theres a mechanism to complain. If you feel that someone is being treated unfairly, then tehre is a mechanism to complain. If you feel the mods are being unfair and not treated each other as "regular" posters, then there is a mechanism to complain.

To my knowledge, complaints have never been made about the politics mods through those mechanisms, so its difficult for me to see why we should do something about it because you think there's a problem?????

There is also an open stickied topic marked "discussion on the rules" which is an invitation for anyone to make suggestions about how the rules could be improved, or to discuss how they work / should work / might work.

It might also be the case that certain people might be afraid to air their opinions out of fear of being at odds with the moderators.

Then those people should complain to the admins.

And if they're too scared to complain to the admins, they should vote with their mouse, and move to a different board/website.

I know that sounds a bit harsh, and I'm sorry it does, but we cannot be expected to run a forum where everything we do has to be second-guessed in case someone is afraid.

Although having said that, isn't your job primarily an administritive one, presiding, much like a judge. But certainly you can't be judge, jury, defendant and executioner all at the same time?

Well, which of these three situations do you think is better :

1) You choose people who are interested in a subject to become moderators, and having made them such prevent them from taking part in the discussions they are interested in .

2) You choose people who aren't interested in a subject to moderate it, because they won't mind never being involved in teh discussions.

3) You require moderators to have a second account for moderating, enabling them to goad with one account and slap with the second, with no-one who is not an administrator able to determine that there is a definite connection.

4) You allow moderators to partake in teh discussions, clearly wearing their moderator "badge" so that people know who and what they are.

Personally, I think option 4 is the best available, and its how we work things right now.

Is it perfect? Far from it.

What is probably more of an issue is my posting style. However, if you look around the boards, you should see that I adopt the same style in Humanities, Green Issues, and anywhere else I happen to be arguing a point of view. I also had this stance long before I was asked to become a mod.

Therefore, I do not think that it is fair to say that my style is in any way leveraging my being a moderator, or is in any way influenced by it. If I were no longer a moderator, it wouldn't change my approach in teh slightest, except that I'd no longer make the "moderating" posts any more, and could ignore many of the threads that I read faithfully but have no significant interest in.

Also, although it tends not to happen that often, you will see that I (again, being a more active poster than the other two mods) have stepped in as a moderator to "defend" someone who I am arguing against.

(Incidentally, the reason it tends not to happen that often is because most of the threads that get out of hand are threads where there isn't a moderator involved in the discussion.)

I've no idea how this is going to be interpreted.

I've no problem that you raised it, and I hope you appreciate that I'm being equally up front with my answers. I'm not truing to bully your opinion here (no matter what I might try and do in a "regular" debate.)

I understand there comes a time to lay down the law.
But discussion in a bulletin board is still a discussion, and like all discussions- tend to go off on tangents. (Much like I'm doing here I think)

This raises a wholly seperate issue of off-topicness and how we deal with it. Let me give you my 2c, starting with the official position :

Replies should be kept on-topic.
If you wish to discuss a seperate issue, take it to a seperate thread, and post a link in the original thread if you feel it appropriate.

Now, when you've a bunch of mates sitting around with a few pints, its easy to discuss something and head off on tangents. Indeed, if the group is large enough, and only some people want to go off on a tangent, it happens organically and the group splits into two concurrent discussions.

In a bulletin board, there is no such "organic" split. Typically, one conversation gets stifled by the other, unless the two are seperated. Hence, we ask that if you want to go off on a tangent, then you do so, but leave the existing thread intact.

Now, we do let some stuff wander off topic - most usually i only step in when someone specifically asks me to or when I perceive one of two things :

1) the thread is going off "on a tangent" without the original topic even being given a chance. The thread started by that new guy...Lenin...is an excellent example of this, IMHO.

2) The thread has gone off on a tangent, with all resulting posts coming from a much smaller group of individuals than were interested in the discussion before it started.

Regarding closing threads, we typically close threads when requests to get back on topic are ignored, and/or when a thread has reached the point of no return - where its going nowhere except down in flames. Some threads (e.g. the recent ban on smoking one) are closed pro-actively, some retro-actively. In any case where we are not 100% certain, we discuss it between ourselves, and come to an agreement.

You'll see we don't always agree - I put Turnip on a final warning the other day, but you'll see that following a moderators' discussion shortly afterwards, he was banned for a week - what would have been the "next step" for me. If anything, I was guilty of being nicer to him than I normally would be because I was posting "against" him at the same time!!!

We don't do a perfect job. We know that. We just try to make this a good place for what its supposed to be. I want people to be able to get riled up, but I don't want it taken too far. I want people to explore topics, but lines must be drawn somewhere.

Yes, we make some universally unpopular decisions, and even more that are selectively unpopular. We accept this and try to determine when a decision was bad rather than unpopular with some.

Anyway...its time for me to go buy beer and head off to a BBQ. Hope there's some merit in what I've written, and - as always - I'm willing to discuss this here, in the stickied threads, in a new thread, or via PM/e-mail. I assume that gandalf and Swiss would say the same on that count.

Have a good evening all....

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by mr_angry4
I do agree that the moderators should be held accountable for unfair outbursts or the dismissal of people out of hand. But frankly, I think that job has to fall to someone higher up the chain of command who has the authority to punish a mod. Maybe an ombudsman? Actually, I think an ombudsman would be a very good idea!

Currently, anyone who objects to a mod's decision can complain about it in the Feedback/Suggestions thread under Admin. The objection is reviewed by the admins (deVore, Ecksor, Cloud et al).

Bear in mind that these are the people who really care about how boards.ie is functioning, so don't assume they're automatically on the mods side.

The idea of an ombudsman - or something similar - has been brought up before, and I think the general objection to it from the admins is that there is a system currently in place that they do not see any glaring problems with,

is it right for me to keep whinging "No, you're all wrong! An ombudsman is the only way to go", even if everyone disagreed with me? At some point, a Mod has to step in and say "Everyone's had enough of your opinion - shut up". That just HAS to be the way.

Or they let you keep whinging, and keep posting teh same stock reply after each one until you get the hint.

Seriously...we've had people who we've wanted to shut up, ban, or just do somethign to because they wouldn't let "it" go...whatever "it" was. I don't think we ever banned any of them as a result though, although a number of them have stormed off in a snit that we didn't let them monopolise the soap-box.

Personally, I think the Mods do a very good job, and Bonkey in particular.

Why thank you, but I would honestly prefer not to be singled out unless for criticism.

jc

star gazer

The use of one's political nose is the most important tool in life and i would humbly (as a green newbie) submit that policies be made but rules not be always black and white. If there is a healthy debate going on it's ideal that smaller offences are overlooked. Only when it gets uncomfortable on a personal level or there is political insensitivity in the extreme is shown (eg mocking sept 11 or insulting one's religious beliefs) should people be told cool off and if necessary take a break.
The boards are for everyone here so everyone here has a responsibility to hold back when they see a debate spiralling out of hand. I like to think ireland is a progressive and open country. Open and reasonably liberal moderators and admin would seem appropriate.

In ancient greece democracy was true. Unlike our system democacy wasn't representitive. Democracy was much more pure. Every year in Athens a vote would be cast for the most favoured individual and the leaast favoured in the city. The most favoured would have honours confered on them. The Least favoured would be exiled from Athens....
C E

I can see a number of modern day politicians winning both elections!
eg. CJH

mr_angry

Why thank you, but I would honestly prefer not to be singled out unless for criticism.

An interesting position there Bonkey. Sorry for the "hero worship". I've just seen you kick some ass in the forums the last couple of days, and I'm impressed.

Can I stalk you?

Please?

Pretty please?:rolleyes:

The Beer Baron

I apologise to The Beer Baron (perhaps he has some justification for being upset with the Mods), but I feel you're only giving one side of the story here, and using this thread as a place to moan about past greivances.

Mr Angry, perhaps that's a name more fitting for myself, I'm an angry man, and an unruly one at that- however I try not to be petty- oh how I try

I was referring right across the Board(sic) but since I'm mostly actice on politics and was more or less invited to get a few things off my chest- well, how can a loudmouth like me resist?

When I see people stepping in and telling others what to do on this forum, I take the stance that they are no longer fully respecting the rules, nor the moderators.

Ok bonkey that's all fair and well, but perhaps do as I should do sometimes- take a step back, take a deep breath and...

haaaaaahhhh!

It would serve both you and Gandalf well to do this.

Surely you can only concede on this.

Now I know you have procedure "if you have a problem with the mods"- however I just felt I'd mention it out in the open. There's no animosity on my behalf- so I was banned for a week- as you recall we swapped PM's and our exchange was quite civil.
I want this to be known also so as other members don't miscontrue this as me having a beef with you personally just in certain areas (which I've mentioned) in the running of this forum- which is surely my right after all.

I'd have a quiet chat with Sand, Typedef, and several others before making an assumption that your perception is actually a trend

A trend I've noticed.
I'm not saying in any way it's like this and that's how it is, merely mentioning it. It's not outside the realm of possibility that because I've noticed the trend perhaps others might have have too.

I fight my corner as any other poster is entitled to do.

Sometimes quite well I must say.

If people have a problem with my posts, they should complain about them in the way they're encouraged to complain about the others - we do have two other mods who will react impartially (and I have been slapped by them on at least one occasion).

Sometimes when people are annoyed they don't always complain, sometimes they can't be bothered, sometimes they're afraid to speak up- more often than not they bitch about other things. That's why the world needs to have great big bitchy bastards like myself that aren't afraid to speak out.

In fact my trouble is, has and always will be never shutting up.
It puts me at odds with a rather sizeable slice of society.
However if you think my comments are unreasonable then fair enough. I'm not a good debater you'll note I generally either add my 2 cents, add a snide remark or merely agree/disagree with something- I could argue my points but I generally find that no matter how much ones does so- 99% of people don't listen.
So I'll let the ganging up thing slide.

4) You allow moderators to partake in teh discussions, clearly wearing their moderator "badge" so that people know who and what they are.

Yes- but I still you should try to remain neutral in discussions as much as possible. I know this is not always possible, and indeed you deserve a chance to air your views (as you obviously put in a lot more time in here than I do) Still I feel it right, myself personally, that a over-meddling mod can often taint the thread.
And this should be avoided at all costs. It's like a teacher who would rather tell the children how it is, than provide an active learning enviroment. I don't have a problem with authority, if I feel that it's just and fair. When I see something that unsettles me, then I speak my mind.

Regarding closing threads, we typically close threads when requests to get back on topic are ignored, and/or when a thread has reached the point of no return - where its going nowhere except down in flames..

This applies to the stay on topic rule to a point as well, it can be stifling, and often a thread may not be locked, as merely stagnate without affording the opportunity for it to progress further. I understand that you're still the Mod. Which makes you Da Boss. And sometimes little ****s like myself- sitting @ the back messin'- need to be (if I may hammer one last nail in the teacher analogy) sent up to Mr Devore's Office.

Some threads (e.g. the recent ban on smoking one) are closed pro-actively, some retro-actively

And a good call- there were 1 or 2 people in there that were pissing me off (as they do in other threads so I don't read them)
I know you have rules- and by insulting people I broke them.
But I am the sort to insult idiots as is my right as an arrogant intellectual snob. Fair enough on that one because in all fairness I would have gotten a lot more peavish and annoyed a lot more members to boot.

Now I hope it's evident to all that I'm not attacking you personally, I'm not flaming and I'm measuring my tone so as not to be overly critical. In fact I think I'm conducting myself on this thread 100 times more graciously than I have any or all others. This, to some degree, is me venting I'll admit, but then again, it serves you well to hear some criticism does it not? For how else can we improve ourselves unless we listen to the concerns of others- as a mod, and moreover as a person, I think that is your duty.

Victor

Originally posted by The Beer Baron
Granted if one of the mods starts a thread I have no problem with it, but I've found that the weight of every argument tends to sway whichever side the mod leans.

I think this is largely because Bonkey, probably the most vocal of the "Politics" mods (the other two mods mod multiple boards) tends to either take a quite neutral / balanced stance or alternatively plays devils advocate, sometimes it's difficult to see the difference.

Originally posted by Bonkey
Could it not also be that perhaps my views are more populist?

I don't think your views are populist (lead by the people), simply that they tend to be popular (they concur with what most people thought themselves). He also has the ability to put his thoughts forward rationally and articulately, something more extreme or more emotional posters can't or don't.

Originally posted by mr_angry4
I agree entirely. I think there has to be some form of nepotism invloved, with DeVore at the top, as he has a vested interest in making things work. He then selects people he trusts to become the mods.

It's not quite nepotism, more often it is a matter of hard work building a board (experience), coupled with a pint at a boards beers to ensure basic sanity (interview). Soemtimes the sanity test hasn't worked because DeV did too many interviews that day, but nepotism implies power with no merit - I imagine there is very little of that on boards (hmmm where is tr1n1ty these days ).

As a political system, boards.ie is a private entreprise, promoting and benefitting from other private entreprise, but recognising that there must be limits to private entreprise.

Not only does it have shareholders and directors, it has - like many enlightened companies - stakeholders. While these are normally shareholders, directors, management, workers, suppliers, customers and community, in the case of boards these lines are often blurred, but certainly there are Admins (mostly shareholders & directors), Mods (management, workers, suppliers, community) and Members (suppliers, customers and community).

No one group other than the Admins has a monopoly on what goes on on boards. Individual boards are built by mods and groups of posters. A board with no mod can get lost, a board with only a mod will die.

And while boards.ie may have a superficial capitalist front to it, that capitalism is limited, exploitative ad.s aren't accepted, free-for-all behavior restricted. In a way it's like a communist entreprise that provides all the services to its members / workers - social services, art, entertainment, commerce, work, housing, education, sport. In other ways it is spontaneous and anarchist.

In all these ways, it is the complete spectrum of politics, but more specificly it is one of those Europeans little bit of everything social democracies that neither a Socialist nor Capitalist nor Facist nor anarchist, even with absolute power, would dare change (tinker with but not change). Because they know people can vote with their feet.

---

While I contribute quite a bit (too much ) to "politics" and have been mistaken for a mod (I was mod of the General Election board), I usually only post there (a) to help inform (b) when I get all "holier than thou" ®©™ and angry at some extremist view. In reality the politics board is like a bell graph, with most people in the middle and the striker (the mods) capable of swinging either way (no pun intended), but unlikely to go outside the bell.

Éomer of Rohan

Well I am going to be a little shocker and say that though I am a communist and absolutely in favour of people's rule, for something as small as an internet board, we do not need a fricking committee.

I think, personally, that Bonkey is a superb mod for politics and is open to ideas, requests and is as neutral and friendly as anyone else. Swiss, well let me tell you what I think whenever we get the next post he makes (about the time I finish my degree ). Gandalf, well, I have disagreements with him and I feel he abused his capacity as moderator in an argument with me but fair play to him, he didn't take the bait I laid out before him not so long ago. Don't ask me what thread that was...

Bottom line, theoretically, if Dev is happy in his choice of mods, and they do something to offend us and actually do break the rules but Dev ignores it, there is nothing we can do. However, Boards is a commercial venture and depends on the number of members in our little community and therefore I would imagine that if enough people complained, Dev would have little choice but to make amends or face an exodus, would I be right?

Moreover, I have yet to see an occasion where mods act harsh in terms of banning people - that they post their own opinion, in opposition to a stated post and people believe it to have more weight than it does or feel intimidated because they are arguing with a mod is the fault of the people who have this perception, not the mods themselves.

All in all, I rather think the arrangement we have in Politics is nice - although given the arrogant attitude of one other mod (JC knows who I mean) from a certain nationstates thread, I am thankful we have the mods we do.

Dave.

mr_angry

But I am the sort to insult idiots as is my right as an arrogant intellectual snob.

Acceptance is the first step on the road to recovery! How many of us are still in denial?

Éomer of Rohan

I'm not in denial, I just enjoy being just that. Everyone watch out for me today in Dublin! It's a pity there's no boards.ie t-shirts or something which I could've got hold of and worn to identify me on the news

A man was arrested today in connection with....... LOL.

bonkey

Originally posted by The Beer Baron
Ok bonkey that's all fair and well, but perhaps do as I should do sometimes- take a step back, take a deep breath and...

haaaaaahhhh!

It would serve both you and Gandalf well to do this.

Surely you can only concede on this.

Yes, and no. (Damn, I've been watching too much "Yes Minister" - BBC Prime, which I can get over here, show it 5 nights a week at the mo! Too funny.)

I generally do let these things slip, until we perceive them being a problem, and then I take action.

In the case in question, I noticed an increase over a couple of days, across a couple of threads of people increasingly thinking they had the right to tell others what was and was not acceptable. The manner in which this was being done had gone from warnings about "I wouldnt let the mods catch you....." to "dont do.....". I decided it was time to step in and make a point.

If that hadn't cut down on ppl doing it, then someone else would have triggered me making a more forceful point.

Unfortunately, I have to start somewhere, and with someone, and unless you'd prefer that the mods became complete rules nazi's (forgive the term - holdover from AD&D days), then I don't see any other way of doing it.

All my modding is done the same way. I take a number of things into account when deciding how to deal with someone. Sometimes a quiet PM is enough, sometimes a post needs to be modded, and sometimes I need to leave it there so that its very clear to everyone else what it is that I'm taking action against, so that ppl can see what is not acceptable.

Yes, this means that sometimes I seem to be uneven-handed, but I honestly don't see a better way of doing it. And lest anyone be thinking it, the decision on how to deal with the problem is not related to who caused it in any way - it is based on whether I consider the problem to be individualistic or endemic in nature - whether its just one poster losing control of tehmselves a bit, or an entire thread, or what.

There's no animosity on my behalf- so I was banned for a week- as you recall we swapped PM's and our exchange was quite civil.

Which I appreciated. I'd also like to take the opportunity to point out that I've noticed recently that more and more of the people who get moderated turn around and say either "fair enough" or "I disagree, but its your court", serve their punishment and are excellent additions to the community.

When this board started, it was the opposite - every single person moderated insisted they were right, we were wrong/picking on them/idiots/leftists/rightists....the mods couldn't make a decision right if you were to believe the people we were moderating!

I think the change is a worthy tribute to the board that you - the members - are primarily responsible for. Bravo, but please don't take this as encouragement to pick up a ban in order to become somehow more respected Thats not quite what I'm saying

In fact my trouble is, has and always will be never shutting up.

Mine too, which is why if I was given a choice between remaining as a mod, or remaining as a contributor to the actual discussions, I'd resign as a mod without a thought.

Yes- but I still you should try to remain neutral in discussions as much as possible. I know this is not always possible,

See above comment. Here is where I definitely disagree with you, although I do recognise your concerns.

I'll have a discussion with gandalf and swiss about this, and see if there's anything we could be doing that wouldn't make our lives too difficult (lets be practical here!) to try and alleviate things. Perhaps something like, I dunno, posting in a different colour when acting a as moderator, or using cheesy <moderator> tags around what we say.

I'm not convinced it would fix it, though, for the same reason that I would be opposed to the idea of me having two seperate accounts that people knew (or worse - suspected) were related. At the end of the day, the problem is that people know that a post from jc/bonkey is a post from a mod, regardless of whether I'm trying to be a mod or not.

Still I feel it right, myself personally, that a over-meddling mod can often taint the thread.

And I agree completely, but the difference here is that I'm generally not meddling - its just that you're saying that it can be perceived as meddling.

Moderators are not teachers, not facilitators, not guides, instructors, or any of that. Their purpose is to make & keep law and order - no more, no less. Anything outside that is outside the permit of a moderator, and they have absolutely no authority.

So, you see, the problem is not that I am meddling, because I cannot meddle. The problem is that I am perceived (by some at least) to be doing something that my authority doesn't extend to.

This is why I would objct to being told that the solution is for me to stop doing it. The problem isn't my doing it, its other people's perception of what I'm doing, surely?

Now I hope it's evident to all that I'm not attacking you personally, I'm not flaming and I'm measuring my tone so as not to be overly critical. In fact I think I'm conducting myself on this thread 100 times more graciously than I have any or all others. This, to some degree, is me venting I'll admit, but then again, it serves you well to hear some criticism does it not? For how else can we improve ourselves unless we listen to the concerns of others- as a mod, and moreover as a person, I think that is your duty.

No, I agree fully. I would have preferred that this had all gone into the "discussion about the rules" thread which is stickied at the top, but hey.....I've split the thread.

(For future reference, that thread is for venting about how things work, for suggesting changes, etc. etc. etc.)

Anyway....I have to go cook.

jc

The Beer Baron

I thank you for facilitating this discussion and for listening.
I hope there's been some sort of positive outcome from all this.
I'm finished, nothing else to add to this other than...

Yes, and no. (Damn, I've been watching too much "Yes Minister" - BBC Prime, which I can get over here, show it 5 nights a week at the mo! Too funny.)

Great show! One of the best written comedies of all time.
And Sir Humphrey is the man! :cool: