More AH mods

batgoat

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Warning seems reasonable to me although we may pull the mod up on excessive use of a thesaurus.

Flogging at dawn so?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

I don't think that most people would suggest that being gay automatically means having an unhealthy interest in children, but by automatically jumping to that presumption and overreacting as the Mod in question has done here it both censors discussion and ignores a reality that such things CAN happen - EVEN in the gay community

Recognising that and calling it out for what it is isn't wrong, nor is it tarring the entire community with the same brush.

In fairness, there were a few posts deleted and at least one person banned for doing just that.

_Kaiser_

Grinchbot wrote: »

So were not allowed change our names now. You know what you can do...

Very mature and exactly what I'd expect from you. Pathetic from a supposed mod of the forum/site to be honest.

I see your warning and definition of trolling has been questioned by others in the thread in question so it seems that it's not just me that has an issue/concern here.

There are long standing and discussed issues with the moderation on this site, but the quote above shows just how childish and unsuitable some of you are for the roles you're playing in the running of this site

But as usual, the wagons will be circled, the pile on will start from others with lots of forums under their name, and the thread will be locked.

.

Mr. CooL ICE

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Very mature and exactly what I'd expect from you. Pathetic from a supposed mod of the forum/site to be honest.

I see your warning and definition of trolling has been questioned by others in the thread in question so it seems that it's not just me that has an issue/concern here.

There are long standing and discussed issues with the moderation on this site, but the quote above shows just how childish and unsuitable some of you are for the roles you're playing in the running of this site

But as usual, the wagons will be circled, the pile on will start from others with lots of forums under their name, and the thread will be locked.

.

Honestly, what is your opinion on mods changing their names? Should they not be allowed?

_Kaiser_

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

The name of the mod is irrelevant. It is the message that is important.

Can you expand on the incident you are referring to and I will have a look.

My concern here, as described above, is the over the top and in my opinion unnecessary warning from a mod on a thread dealing with a serious issue that would concern most people who read it.

More concerning is the fact that a fellow mod (albeit not of AH) seems to have been flood the thread last night with a load of right-on trolling (at least I hope that's what it is.. The idea that someone actually holds those views and is also in a position of responsibility on this site is a bigger concern) and not for the first time on such controversial topics and apparently escape sanction (no "do not post here again" etc comments there) is worrying.

I get that modding these topics is difficult in a world where everyone finds offence in something, but the overwhelming response on that thread from I'm presuming Irish people in Ireland is that it's wrong, not to be supported or encouraged, not to be muddied with whataboutery or virtue-signalling and those are the views that should be reflected in the moderation standards, warnings and sanctions.

alchemist33

Mark Rippetoe wrote: »

Honestly, what is your opinion on mods changing their names? Should they not be allowed?

I'm not the person who raised it but IMO nobuser should change their name without some tag along the lines of *"formerly known as..." This is rife in the soccer forum and I frequently don't know who I'm dealing with.


* exception if someone is e.g. avoiding a stalker or something similar

kneemos

Mark Rippetoe wrote: »

Honestly, what is your opinion on mods changing their names? Should they not be allowed?

Should not. We should know who we are dealing with and their record of moderation.

_Kaiser_

Mark Rippetoe wrote: »

Honestly, what is your opinion on mods changing their names? Should they not be allowed?

Frankly no, at least not while they remain mods.

The role comes with a level of responsibility and accountability and they should be easily identifiable to users - new and regulars - in threads and forums they oversee.

Random name changes "for the craic" by immature individuals like the one I'm referring to (basing this on his childish response above) result in confusion and give the impression of inconsistency, something already bad enough between individual mods on different forums.

Personally I'd question his suitability as a whole given the attitude above but I've been down that road too regarding another AH mod with one of your Admins only to see the thread unceremoniously locked and the points ignored.

It's quite clear that boards management (which includes the volunteers who moderate) are only interested in feedback where it's wholly supportive of the status quo. It's not just me saying this.. There's been numerous threads with thousands of posts expressing similar concerns in the last year or two, yet the same problems they call out remain.

_Kaiser_

kneemos wrote: »

Should not. We should know who we are dealing with and their record of moderation.

Thank you. Exactly the point I'm trying to make
I know I tend to be a bit overly long winded sometimes

_Kaiser_

Mark Rippetoe wrote: »

Honestly, what is your opinion on mods changing their names? Should they not be allowed?

Also, I've just seen your response on the thread in question.

Exactly as I expected.. Circling the wagons and backing up what was basically a bad call by your moderating colleague.

As someone in management myself I get the need to present a unified front, but really the poster Brian? should have been warned not to post again so as not to inflame and disrupt the thread further - this action being based on similar warnings I've seen numerous times elsewhere.

If we're going with "people won't be banned because you disagree with their opinions" then there's a lot of those warnings and sanctions that will need to be reviewed.

Dangerous statement to make if it's actually only SOME views that the mod team disagree with that will be actioned.

Mr. CooL ICE

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Frankly no, at least not while they remain mods.

The role comes with a level of responsibility and accountability and they should be easily identifiable to users - new and regulars - in threads and forums they oversee.

Random name changes "for the craic" by immature individuals like the one I'm referring to (basing this on his childish response above) result in confusion and give the impression of inconsistency, something already bad enough between individual mods on different forums.

Personally I'd question his suitability as a whole given the attitude above but I've been down that road too regarding another AH mod with one of your Admins only to see the thread unceremoniously locked and the points ignored.

Mods are volunteers and not paid staff. Moderating is all done in our spare time. We are also users on this site, dontcha know.

Seems to me that you'd like to zap one of the remaining bits of trivial fun mods get to have.

_Kaiser_

Mark Rippetoe wrote: »

Mods are volunteers and not paid staff. Moderating is all done in our spare time. We are also users on this site, dontcha know.

Seems to me that you'd like to zap one of the remaining bits of trivial fun mods get to have.

I'm not buying this "we're unpaid volunteers" line. I see it used all the time as a defence and it's not good enough.

You have a position of responsibility and power of sanction over the other users on that site. That means you have (or should have) a different standard of behaviour and action applied than regular users.

If that doesn't suit, step down and let someone else take the responsibility and the recognition of the impact the role has on.

Mr. CooL ICE

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Also, I've just seen your response on the thread in question.

Exactly as I expected.. Circling the wagons and backing up what was basically a bad call by your moderating colleague.

As someone in management myself I get the need to present a unified front, but really the poster Brian? should have been warned not to post again so as not to inflame and disrupt the thread further - this action being based on similar warnings I've seen numerous times elsewhere.

If we're going with "people won't be banned because you disagree with their opinions" then there's a lot of those warnings and sanctions that will need to be reviewed.

Dangerous statement to make if it's actually only SOME views that the mod team disagree with that will be actioned.

Unified front? Come off it. You're seeing things that aren't there.

Trust me, there are some posters I'd love to have banned because I find their views disgusting and archaic across a variety of topics, but I don't. There's the whole boards-wide "don't be a dick" and "attack the post, not the poster" rules.

There's a reason why mods have a charter to stick to and why Cmods exist (i.e. to moderate the moderators). It's the best way to apply the rules fairly across the board.

Mark Rippetoe

Mark Rippetoe wrote: »

Mods are volunteers and not paid staff. Moderating is all done in our spare time. We are also users on this site, dontcha know.

Seems to me that you'd like to zap one of the remaining bits of trivial fun mods get to have.

In all fairness, it’s quite reasonable to expect to be able to recognise which mod you’re reading/interacting with at a glance.

Name changes might entertain you, but if it causes confusion amongst the general user base, maybe it’s not such a community spirited thing to have ‘fun’ with.

I’m pro-Mods, but he has a fair point here and I think obfuscation of Moderator’s past usernames is better avoided, unless you’re not particularly interested in a good community spirit here after all.

kneemos

Mark Rippetoe wrote: »

Mods are volunteers and not paid staff. Moderating is all done in our spare time. We are also users on this site, dontcha know.

Seems to me that you'd like to zap one of the remaining bits of trivial fun mods get to have.

Mods bend over backwards for the chance of giving up their free time for a commercial company.

Given that I'd question the judgement and motivation of all of them.
This one in particular.

Captain Obvious

Mods history shouldn't really be relevant to the user. There is a dispute resolution system to argue individual sanctions and feedback/help desk to argue against the general moderation of a thread or forum. It sounds like people just want a way to challenge a mod outside of the official process. Argue bias when you can't defend your actions. I'm sure the Cmods keep an eye on individual mod complaints.

OldMrBrennan83

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Mods history shouldn't really be relevant to the user. There is a dispute resolution system to argue individual sanctions and feedback/help desk to argue against the general moderation of a thread or forum. It sounds like people just want a way to challenge a mod outside of the official process. Argue bias when you can't defend your actions. I'm sure the Cmods keep an eye on individual mod complaints.

The 'official process' is absolutely laughable. It borders on brazen and insulting to users at this stage.

By the mods for the mods.

_Kaiser_

Mark Rippetoe wrote: »

Unified front? Come off it. You're seeing things that aren't there.

Trust me, there are some posters I'd love to have banned because I find their views disgusting and archaic across a variety of topics, but I don't. There's the whole boards-wide "don't be a dick" and "attack the post, not the poster" rules.

There's a reason why mods have a charter to stick to and why Cmods exist (i.e. to moderate the moderators). It's the best way to apply the rules fairly across the board.

My view of the moderation is that there's a fairly loose charter in most forums and sometimes wildly differing actions and interpretations of said charter where there's multiple mods in a forum.

Where you've taken the "people won't be banned for different views" line - which to be fair, IS usually the right response in my view - others will issue warnings and sanctions.

But, where we have a thread like the one in question, it's clear that Brian? and a few others are deliberately disrupting it for the sake of virtue-signalling, or worse that they genuinely hold those views and if that is indeed the case then a bit of cop on and thought to the standards of our actual society should be applied - and here, in Ireland, in 2019, there are very few people who would agree with an 11 year old child being exploited in this manner. If it were a young girl instead this wouldn't even be a question.

You don't need to take my word for it.. Look at the overwhelming disgust expressed by dozens of others to those views.

Any actions or warnings should be based on these standards accordingly

Mr. CooL ICE

JayZeus wrote: »

In all fairness, it’s quite reasonable to expect to be able to recognise which mod you’re reading/interacting with at a glance.

Name changes might entertain you, but if it causes confusion amongst the general user base, maybe it’s not such a community spirited thing to have ‘fun’ with.

I’m pro-Mods, but he has a fair point here and I think obfuscation of Moderator’s past usernames is better avoided, unless you’re not particularly interested in a good community spirit here after all.

I've been a user on this site for almost 20 years and a mod for over 3. I've had a total of 4 names. The shortest amount of time I've gone with the same name has been around 6 months. And if there's any confusion, you can click on my profile and the About Me section shows my previous nicknames.

I'd understand if mods were changing their names every other day, but that's not the case. I find it hard to see how this is an issue.

Captain Obvious

Patww79 wrote: »

The 'official process' is absolutely laughable. It borders on brazen and insulting to users at this stage.

By the mods for the mods.

I agree it has issues. I've been a the brunt of some fairly ridiculous infractions myself over the years that should have been overturned. There is definitely a reluctance to go against a mod decision. But I don't think that is related to the issue of mods being identifiable to users.

Mr. CooL ICE

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

I'm not buying this "we're unpaid volunteers" line. I see it used all the time as a defence and it's not good enough.

You have a position of responsibility and power of sanction over the other users on that site. That means you have (or should have) a different standard of behaviour and action applied than regular users.

If that doesn't suit, step down and let someone else take the responsibility and the recognition of the impact the role has on.

This is bizarre. Thread started about looking for more AH mods and now somebody is asking for AH mods to step down because they sometimes change their names :rolleyes:

_Kaiser_

Mark Rippetoe wrote: »

This is bizarre. Thread started about looking for more AH mods and now somebody is asking for AH mods to step down because they sometimes change their names :rolleyes:

Threads move on as the discussion evolves. I probably could have started a new thread but this one was here, so..

You haven't addressed the core point I made in the post you've quoted here. That still stands

Mr. CooL ICE

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

My view of the moderation is that there's a fairly loose charter in most forums and sometimes wildly differing actions and interpretations of said charter where there's multiple mods in a forum.

Mods sometimes get it wrong. We are human after all. We try to get it right all the time but at the end of the day, we aren't really a hive mind. But if you see there is a problem with mods consistently making varying calls, then that is indeed a problem. Feel free to raise it with specific examples when you get the chance.

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Where you've taken the "people won't be banned for different views" line - which to be fair, IS usually the right response in my view - others will issue warnings and sanctions.

But, where we have a thread like the one in question, it's clear that Brian? and a few others are deliberately disrupting it for the sake of virtue-signalling, or worse that they genuinely hold those views and if that is indeed the case then a bit of cop on and thought to the standards of our actual society should be applied - and here, in Ireland, in 2019, there are very few people who would agree with an 11 year old child being exploited in this manner. If it were a young girl instead this wouldn't even be a question.

You don't need to take my word for it.. Look at the overwhelming disgust expressed by dozens of others to those views.

Any actions or warnings should be based on these standards accordingly

I'm not going to go into detail here because you're singling out a specific poster you have a problem with and quite frankly, it's unfair. And before you go on about circling the wagons, I'd say the same thing if the user wasn't a mod.

Captain Obvious

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Threads move on as the discussion evolves. I probably could have started a new thread but this one was here, so..

You haven't addressed the core point I made in the post you've quoted here. That still stands

Just out of curiosity, and feel free not to answer, how many times have you been involved in threads targeting specific moderators? Has there ever been a moderator you believed did the job well enough?

OldMrBrennan83

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Just out of curiosity, and feel free not to answer, how many times have you been involved in threads targeting specific moderators? Has there ever been a moderator you believed did the job well enough?

Most do it fine. You just have a few that either want to use the privileges to mess about, the few that are just plain lazy and don't actually want to moderate anything, and the others that abuse their powers to dish out warnings if they disagree with a poster. They're in the minority but naturally they're the ones that stand out the most because a good one is rarely noticed.

Pawwed Rig

JayZeus wrote: »

In all fairness, it’s quite reasonable to expect to be able to recognise which mod you’re reading/interacting with at a glance.

Why though? There was an idea floated not too long ago that the mods be anon'd ie the warning would be from "AH Mod" rather than "Leninbot" or whatever they are called this week. Then idea being that the mod can do their mod duties while enjoying the site as a normal user under their own name. It never went ahead but the point still holds. The mod giving the warning is irrelevant for the purposes of the user. Where someone has an issue with moderation in AH they contact myself or Lein or do the helpdesk thing. Currently I have no concerns with any of the AH mods. They are doing a great job in very difficult circumstances. Per the feedback in the OP we are attempting to identify additional mods to ease workload a bit. This tends to be a drawn out process though as identifying potential mods is difficult and then they have to be approved by the admins. Following that the person might just say No and then we are back to square 1.

Patww79 wrote: »

The 'official process' is absolutely laughable. It borders on brazen and insulting to users at this stage.

Not sure why. I have overturned about as many infractions as I have upheld in my time. The DRP is the second part of the appeals process so there are a similar number that never get to DRP. As a user here for a decade or more I can tell you that it is extremely difficult to get banned from the site. You have to ignore multiple warnings and second and third chances before access is ultimately revoked. Noone has ever been permbanned without deserving it (except maybe the deals website shilling thing but that is another story).


Some people want to be able to say whateever they want with no consequences so will always have a problem with mods. That is not going to happen. See unmoderated forums and you will see why.

Mr. CooL ICE

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Threads move on as the discussion evolves. I probably could have started a new thread but this one was here, so..

You haven't addressed the core point I made in the post you've quoted here. That still stands

Kinda misleading to claim the thread 'evolved' when it was you brought up the mod name changes into the discussion when making a point about a moderator decision.

But anyway, I already made my opinion on name changes known. Gonna have to agree to disagree.

Skylinehead

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

The role comes with a level of responsibility and accountability and they should be easily identifiable to users - new and regulars - in threads and forums they oversee.

Fairly easily identifiable by the bold tag line "Moderator" in fairness. Also, our previous names are in our profile, hardly that difficult.

Seriously, if this is the level of pathetic, pedantic kind of arguing against mods, I'm delighted, because you've clearly f all else to complain about

OldMrBrennan83

Nixonbot wrote: »

Fairly easily identifiable by the bold tag line "Moderator" in fairness. Also, our previous names are in our profile, hardly that difficult.

Seriously, if this is the level of pathetic, pedantic kind of arguing against mods, I'm delighted, because you've clearly f all else to complain about

Yeah belittle it. That gets everyone on the same page.

batgoat

Patww79 wrote: »

Yeah belittle it. That gets everyone on the same page.

Why exactly does the moderator's name matter?