# Ignore moderators



## BentMikey (7 Jan 2009)

There are a few moderators who I'd like to ignore because they keep feeding trolls and wasting topic space, but I'm not allowed to by the forum software. Pretty please could this be changed?


----------



## Shaun (7 Jan 2009)

No, sorry, I need the moderators to be visible to all members for times when they need to referee threads and carry out moderator operations.

PM me with examples and I'll discuss it with the mods in question.

Cheers,
Shaun


----------



## yenrod (7 Jan 2009)

BentMikey said:


> There are a few moderators who I'd like to ignore because they keep feeding trolls and wasting topic space, but I'm not allowed to by the forum software. Pretty please could this be changed?



I understand Benty - at least the police wear a uniform !


----------



## ufkacbln (7 Jan 2009)

yenrod said:


> I understand Benty - at least the police wear a uniform !



Except the ones that don't?


----------



## BentMikey (7 Jan 2009)

Oh, I'm fairly happy with the moderation on here, and it's not as though there actually is a lot of moderation going on. It's really minimal - I'm not sure I have ever seen a moderator comment I *needed* to read. If a topic is suddenly locked or moved it's easy enough to click "view post" to find out why. If I need to be told I did something wrong, surely they can just PM me, which is probably what they should be doing anyway as proper practice?


----------



## yenrod (7 Jan 2009)

>If I need to be told I did something wrong, surely they can just PM me, which is probably what they should be doing anyway as proper practice? 

Quite true.

90% on here are ok. ! - i feel.


----------



## col (7 Jan 2009)

Why do you want to block some mods bent?


----------



## alecstilleyedye (7 Jan 2009)

surely the mods shouldn't have ignore lists either (a bit self defeating if they do)?

personally, i've never felt the need for one anyway…


----------



## Rhythm Thief (8 Jan 2009)

I don't use the ignore list either. I like the breadth of opinion on this site.


----------



## mr_hippo (8 Jan 2009)

The ignore facility is the internet forum's equivalent of a 5 year old putting their fingers in the ears, dancing round and singing "la la la la la la la! and is used by posters who have the mentality of 5 year olds


----------



## yenrod (8 Jan 2009)

There are some mods on here who simply hinder rather than help.

I've had words with Shaun before now on this matter and it appears nothing has been communicated on this matter.

Maybe Im wrong?

Mods do...need to be visible, surprising it hasn't been done before now!


----------



## yello (8 Jan 2009)

Each to their own Mr Hippo. Whilst I might not use the ignore facility, I will defend to my death (well, not quite, there are greater causes) the right of others to do so. 

I don't know who the moderators are btw. Nor do I think I've seen a moderated post/thread. I stop reading once something gets silly.


----------



## wafflycat (8 Jan 2009)

No, the mods don't need to be visible. This is why:-

Apart from the fact the modding here is done with a *very* light touch,

1. No modding decision is going to please everyone, there's always going to be one or two with noses out of joint

2. Remember back to the C+ days when the mods were identified - the result was utter unnecessary *nastiness* to the mods. It was beyond a joke

3. The mods aren't doing it for money - they give of their time to help keep this place running very smoothly - and for the most part, they do it damn well.


----------



## beancounter (8 Jan 2009)

The ignore facility is an absolutely invaluable feature of any forum. At last count there were 50 posters on mine.

If only we had the same facility in real life!

bc


----------



## cheadle hulme (8 Jan 2009)

beancounter said:


> At last count there were 50 posters on mine.
> bc



50? Flippin heck, do other people have this many on ignore lists? I have 1 or 2 but only due to their regular dullness. I wouldn't block posts because somebody annoyed me.

Can we find out who's ignore lists we are on?


----------



## BentMikey (8 Jan 2009)

wafflycat said:


> 2. Remember back to the C+ days when the mods were identified - the result was utter unnecessary *nastiness* to the mods. It was beyond a joke



That bit is simply unacceptable behaviour, and should have had consequences. It didn't, I think because the C+ forum was not well run, unlike this place.

If someone was utterly and unacceptably nasty on here, I'm sure it would lead to banning eventually. I do feel mods should be visibly obvious, and I also feel that we should be able to ignore them.


----------



## BentMikey (8 Jan 2009)

What about giving each mod a separate moderator account to moderate with? That way I can ignore people when they are posting with their own personal hat on, and will still be able to see any necessary moderator action.


----------



## col (8 Jan 2009)

I dont think you should be able to ignore mods,as thats akin to ignoring someone in charge of something.The real problem is that there are some who shouldnt be moderators,as they misuse or abuse the position.Thats the issue,not just being able to blanket ignore.


----------



## Chuffy (8 Jan 2009)

beancounter said:


> The ignore facility is an absolutely invaluable feature of any forum. At last count there were 50 posters on mine.


If it wasn't for the Ignore list I wouldn't be on here anymore. Reading the bilge posted by certain members just gives me indigestion and I know from experience that there's absolutely no point engaging in any kind of debate with them. 

Having said that, there are only a few regular posters on mine and most of them post in P&L, where I don't go.


----------



## Crackle (8 Jan 2009)

Yes must admiit to experimenting with an ignore list for the first time. It's just the sheer repetition or depressive nature of some which I don't want to read anymore, objectionable is OK. Don't know if I'll stick to it but I thought I'd try it.


----------



## Shaun (8 Jan 2009)

A list of mods has been asked for before, and I'm not going to publish one for the simple reason that mods _will_ get bashed as a result - it won't happen straight away, but eventually a contentious modding decision will be made and there will be a backlash; result, mods will get harrased!

I've illustrated how the modding works here on numerous occasions, but briefly; 

*a post is reported* (this is generally how we are prompted to look into something, although on occasion a mod will highlight a thread if they feel it needs some attention)
*we discuss it in the mods forum* (which is invisible to non-mods and allows us to discuss an issue without all and sundry wading in with their opinions and recommendations etc.)
*then we take whatever action we feel is appropriate*
I have, due to moderators being wrongly accused of things in the past and being abused either openly or by PM, created a generic *Moderators* account so that modding actions can be carried out without members identify the specific moderator.

I'd actually prefer to not have to do this, however some people get very upset with modding / mods and it is totally unfair to ask the volunteer mods to take abuse for something they offer their valuable free time for.

The fact that most people don't even notice the moderation here tells me we have a good system and a balanced approach.

FWIW there are roughly 20 mods, made up of a mixture of sex, age, and cycling / foruming experience.

Cheers,
Shaun


----------



## ChrisKH (8 Jan 2009)

Have never used the ignore function. You can't do that in real life -you have to take the rough with the smooth. There will always be people you disagree with or who hold a different opinion. If you want to use one that's fine, but aren't you trying to create a Utopia that doesn't exist on a 'public' forum? It must get very boring. I'll admit to having moved here from Bikeradar because it's a little more pleasant, but otherwise I take it on the chin. If I had stuck bonj on an ignore list in the early days, I would never have seen his later posts bear fruit.


----------



## yenrod (8 Jan 2009)

wafflycat said:


> 2. Remember back to the C+ days when the mods were identified - the result was utter unnecessary *nastiness* to the mods. It was beyond a joke



I recall WAffs that they were 'shot down' BUT it was so self-policed that Future shoot themselves as they were bothered about the bigger legal picture if anything serious happened.

It was so self-regulating and Clare I think her name was who was the admin n there and got quite a following esp. amongst the lads and they wanted to see her pic and the likes...

No one likes being moderated on here (well some )..and there are a section, like so - on here, mostly those that came from c+

So they amalgamated all the mags they run..to their detriment !  (ie we're all on here)


----------



## Chuffy (8 Jan 2009)

ChrisKH said:


> Have never used the ignore function. You can't do that in real life -you have to take the rough with the smooth.


Yes you can! It's not as neat and simple as on here, but it's not hard to avoid people you don't want to get involved with.

The user-mods on C+ got little back-up from Future and yes, sometimes it got personal and rather unpleasant. If we'd had a generic Mod account to act under, rather than our own names, it would have been much better.

I'm going to try and Ignore everyone now, to see if I can figure out who the Mods are.....


----------



## MacB (8 Jan 2009)

Never used ignore and can't imagine ever doing so and don't care who the mods are. If a site has mods 'in your face' pulling you up all the time then, for me, it kills a forum. This place seems pretty reasonable but then I am new on here, so appreciate I lack the history of many. But I've been on other sites for 7-8 years and experienced the full spectrum of forum niggles. Ultimately I can switch off, walk away, but the only thing that's ever driven me from a site is over moderation.


----------



## Arch (8 Jan 2009)

I don't have an ignore list - I simply skim the posts from some people (or don't bother with the threads they start).

I think Admin has it right about the mods. And at the end of the day, Admin's word goes, as far as I'm concerned.

I can see Bent Mikey's point, but I think two separate accounts for mods (as opposed to the generic account Admin mentions) is a bit cumbersome. Sooner or later, someone forgets which account they are in, or something.  And it could lead to accusations of mods 'hiding' behind one identity. By and large, if you don't want to trawl through stuff you find tedious, it's easy enough to skim it.


----------



## BentMikey (8 Jan 2009)

Arch said:


> I can see Bent Mikey's point, but I think two separate accounts for mods (as opposed to the generic account Admin mentions) is a bit cumbersome. Sooner or later, someone forgets which account they are in, or something. And it could lead to accusations of mods 'hiding' behind one identity.



Not really. It's not as though there's much moderation going on here at all, so it won't be hard work to give each moderator one extra account to moderate with, and return their personal accounts to personal use only. It has the *MASSIVE* benefit in that it really separates out moderator duties with personal chat on the forums.

It's really tiresome when an otherwise good debate gets soiled by a couple of the moderators really going off on one with another member in a vigorous flamefest. You miss all the good bits in the amount of noise going on. Really, moderators shouldn't be behaving like that if they can't be ignored.


----------



## wafflycat (8 Jan 2009)

Chuffy said:


> If it wasn't for the Ignore list I wouldn't be on here anymore. Reading the bilge posted by certain members just gives me indigestion and I know from experience that there's absolutely no point engaging in any kind of debate with them.



+1


----------



## alecstilleyedye (8 Jan 2009)

> It's easy to see who the mods are. Just note which regulars aren't posting on this thread.



once a year is regular…


----------



## BentMikey (8 Jan 2009)

> It's easy to see who the mods are. Just note which regulars aren't posting on this thread.



Except that's nonsense, as you're a moderator. Want to find out for sure? Try adding Mr P to your ignore list.


----------



## BentMikey (8 Jan 2009)

> Darn. Foiled again.
> 
> There you go -if you want to find out who the mods are, try adding them to your ignore list.



Yeah, I'm not that bothered by who is a mod. Plus it's off topic, at least for this topic. I just want to be able to ignore the odd one.


----------



## MacB (8 Jan 2009)

BentMikey said:


> Yeah, I'm not that bothered by who is a mod. Plus it's off topic, at least for this topic. I just want to be able to ignore the odd one.



but how do you know which are the 'odd ones'


----------



## Flying_Monkey (25 Jan 2009)

I don't know about odd, but some moderators should be a little more careful of what they say. I stopped being a moderator because I found it to be a bit of a problem separating myself as moderator from myself as argumentative forummer. And I am not badly behaved, I just enjoy robust discussion. However, moderators should behave a little better than everyone else. Moderators should not, for example, throw accusations of being a 'troll' at members. If we can't ignore moderators, they should have to refrain from being abusive, surely?


----------



## Shaun (25 Jan 2009)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Moderators should not, for example, throw accusations of being a 'troll' at members.



FM is there a thread with an example of this?

Cheers,
Shaun


----------



## wafflycat (25 Jan 2009)

Sorry, FM, but in this case, Simon was trolling. 

In the relevant thread, post 38, he states he deliberately posted to wind-up forum members:-

http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=558333&postcount=38

_"Smokin' Joe and others have been too kind in defending me - *this thread is, in a way, a wind-up. I knew that the hang 'em and flog 'em brigade would froth at the mouth in the usual fashion.* I'd hoped that some more sensible consideration might show up, and, in that sense, the thread has been quite uplifting. But the answer to your question is...."_

Indeed trolling is Posting derogatory messages about sensitive subjects on newsgroups and chat rooms to bait users into responding, so IMO, on this occasion, the term 'troll' is not an inaccurate term to use. The subject is a very sensitive one, and Simon himself used derogatory terms about forum members: trolling.


----------



## yenrod (25 Jan 2009)

So who'll be the naughty Mod standing outside Mr Shaun's office 

So whats the 'punishment' going to be ~ better still; a good thwacking perhaps


----------



## yenrod (25 Jan 2009)

Simon - step forward !


----------



## Chrisz (25 Jan 2009)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the 'Mod' position a voluntary one (i.e. unpaid)? In which case, should we, realistically expect all Mods to be 'whiter than white' (I feckin hate that expression!!) at all times or should we accept that they perform a necessary function for very little/no reward and therefore should not be expected to be perfect?


----------



## wafflycat (25 Jan 2009)

Yes, the mods are voluntary - a large group of diverse folk, so a range of views can be found. No-one is perfect and you can't please everyone all the time.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (25 Jan 2009)

wafflycat said:


> Yes, the mods are voluntary - a large group of diverse folk, so a range of views can be found. No-one is perfect and you can't please everyone all the time.



We've been here before. The question is simply one of whether moderators should refrain from behaving as if they were normal members, i.e. maintain a little dignity and set some standards. I think they should - I decided I would prefer to be able to keep my freedom and hence I resigned my moderation duties, but then I know I tend to be rather more concerned (perhaps over-concerned) with ethics than most people. 

And BTW, being provocative in an intelligent manner, even 'on a wind up' about a particular issue is not the same as 'trolling', which involves some destructive intent towards the purpose of a forum (like our Swiss friends). dellzeqq is fully in tune with the purpose of the forum, and he posts political topics in the right place (unlike some) and rarely repeats himself or gets boring (unlike certain people (non-mods this time) who go on about him 'trolling'). I think some people just have a problem with dellzeqq simply because he is more intelligent, articulate and witty than them, and more than a little arrogant with it. 

Anyway, that is my view. It's a minor issue and it's not worth any more time if no-one else cares.


----------



## Chuffy (25 Jan 2009)

Flying_Monkey said:


> dellzeqq simply because he is more intelligent, articulate and witty than them, and *more than a little arrogant with it*.
> 
> Anyway, that is my view. It's a minor issue and it's not worth any more time if no-one else cares.


That's one way of putting it... There is also a bit of inter-fora history with this particular individual, which I'm sure you are well aware of. CC has always been the place that he comes to for a bit of rough (his normal hangout being _far_ too rarefied for such vulgar behaviour) so accusations of trolling have more than a whiff of validity...

But that's what the Ignore list is for. 

You say that you expect a higher standard of behaviour from the mods and that you didn't feel that you could uphold that standard. Fair enough, but the logical implication of that is that members can't be active debaters _and_ Mods unless they restrict themselves to nothing more than anodyne comments from the margins. I think that's a bit much to ask.



> but then I know I tend to be rather more concerned (perhaps over-concerned) with ethics than most people.


Because if you're on the outside it's so much easier than being in the thick of it and running the risk being wrong, isn't it? It's shame you weren't a bit braver, because I think you would have done a good job.


----------



## gavintc (25 Jan 2009)

Well, I believe that the mod system employed here is pretty good and I have no complaints over the decisions made by the mods. There are some contributors who are simply boring, tedious and I think ,try to disrupt. Applying a system that removes the worst but maintains an open system of commenting cannot be easy. So, from my perspective, the mods get my support; whoever you are. I have no desire to find out as Admin commented, it is a job better done with a modicum of anonymity.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (25 Jan 2009)

Chuffy. Iam really not going to say any more, it isn't that imporant and because as gavin says, the modding here is generally fine. Just to clarify though - I said I didn't want to keep to those standards not that I couldn't. I made a choice, I didn't feel compelled. And is the only choice apart from abuse, to be anodyne? Of course not. There are all sorts of fun, intelligent, interesting (and evil and devious) ways to express what you feel without resorting to 'you're a twat'-type childish stuff - although that too can be funny in some situations - all I am saying is that moderators who behave like that are in danger of losing our respect. That's all.


----------



## LLB (25 Jan 2009)

As a mod, you have to retain a sense of dignity, and as someone who mods, and has admin'd on other busy forums for about 8 years now, I think I can say that with a bit of experience to back it up.

If I wanted to mix it up there in the way some mods do here, I'd hand the buttons back, and allow others who do want to retain that dignity.

Admin has to find what is right here, but IMO someone putting a mod hat on needs to be seen to show some balance in their posts, and they also need to be seen as mods who are actively posting on the boards and 'moderating' when the more lively characters get out of hand.

If the general rule here was you get a warning off a mod for bad behaviour to another poster you listen or get a weeks suspension - people might not like it, but it would cut down on a lot of the crap which get flung around and would also mean that the mods would gain respect for people who can be approached if they feel that things are getting out of hand with they way some like to gang up on others with little fear of reprisals, then the retaliation when their targets get backed into a corner - which does happen here.


----------



## Shaun (25 Jan 2009)

Chuffy said:


> But that's what the Ignore list is for.



Erm ... Chuffy ... that's sort of the point of this whole thread - you can't add moderators to your ignore list! 

I must say though FM, that you are probably not the only person who thinks moderators should _rise above it_ and there are likely to be many forums where there are hard and fast rules about how involved moderators can get; however I have always considered CC mods to be forum members *first*, and moderators second.

That being said, if anyone ever feels a moderator has overstepped the mark or is acting irresponsibly, please feel free to report them or their post / thread, and I will have no problem dealing with it.

If you have reservations about using the reporting feature, PM me.

Cheers,
Shaun 

PS. If it's of any interest, we do have a moderators rule that you can't moderate a reported thread you've been arguing in; just so people are aware that moderators can't mod themselves!


----------



## PrettyboyTim (25 Jan 2009)

> It's easy to see who the mods are. Just note which regulars aren't posting on this thread.



Damn! I am found out!


----------



## Arch (26 Jan 2009)

LLB said:


> Admin has to find what is right here, but IMO *someone putting a mod hat on needs to be seen to show some balance in their posts*, and they also need to be seen as mods who are actively posting on the boards and 'moderating' when the more lively characters get out of hand.



I think you are wrong there. They should show balance in their _moderating actions_, certainly, and I think that is achieved by generally acting on a concensus among the mods, rather than a single person's opinion. But they should have a right to post whatever they feel like, within the rules and conventions of the forum. Otherwise, you might as well not allow them to post as 'normal' forummers.


----------



## Chuffy (26 Jan 2009)

Admin said:


> Erm ... Chuffy ... that's sort of the point of this whole thread - you can't add moderators to your ignore list!


Ah. I was referring to the specific example that was raised, not necessarily to the Mods.



> PS. If it's of any interest, we do have a moderators rule that you can't moderate a reported thread you've been arguing in; just so people are aware that moderators can't mod themselves!


That's one of the first things we agreed on back in the C+ User-mod days. Covers most problems of conflict of interest.


----------



## Crackle (26 Jan 2009)

We're moving away from the very simple point of, if a user is also a moderator you can't ignore them. Now given that I have never seen anyone intervene openly as a moderator and that there is now a moderator login, it strikes me that not being able to ignore someone isn't necessary: Is it? The moderator login can be used for PM's or thread intervention.


----------



## Arch (26 Jan 2009)

So you're suggesting that mods are no longer 'marked' as such under their own names, as far as the forum 'knows', but use the moderator name to perform actions.

I can see the logic, but it might make it difficult for the mods to discuss issues in the way they do now. Also, can more than one person be signed in at once as one name? Having more than one mod online at once seems preferable.

(Having said that, I don't have an ignore list - if I want to ignore someone, I simply don't read any posts by them.)


----------



## zimzum42 (26 Jan 2009)

Indeed, the issue is resolved simply by not sitting in the corner with your fingers in your ears going 'la la la la'.... or using the ignore list, the internet version of the naughty corner


----------



## Crackle (26 Jan 2009)

Well, the way the moderation works on here i.e. pretty much in the background unseen, means that mods who are forummers are forummers first, mods second. In their capacity as mods they don't openly intervene (I've perhaps seen one or two open modding comments) but I presume, discuss topics on their own board, do occasional edits and locks and perhaps send the odd PM. With the exception of the latter, being on someones ignore list wouldn't prevent any of that happening but if it did, use of the moderator login, which de-personalises things anyway, would get around that.

Because of that, it seems less of an issue to allow people who are mods to be ignored. If the style of moderation was different, as it is on many boards, then it wouldn't work. I think it rather points to the good moderation set-up here that such a proposal could even be considered as possible.

Of course forummers who are mods, can't run an ignore list as that's kind of self-defeating. As for ignore list's themselves, well they exist as part of the forum functionality and therefore people use them. If they do then requests over their functionality have to be considered. It's a different discussion as to whether the forum benefits from them.


----------



## Shaun (26 Jan 2009)

Crackle said:


> We're moving away from the very simple point of, if a user is also a moderator you can't ignore them. Now given that I have never seen anyone intervene openly as a moderator and that there is now a moderator login, it strikes me that not being able to ignore someone isn't necessary: Is it? The moderator login can be used for PM's or thread intervention.



Unfortunately, it's not technically possible at the moment with the current software.

Having all mods use a single account isn't workable and the software option to allow people to ignore mods also includes admin in the ignore group, and there's no way of separating the two.

I feel we have a good balance at the moment; if anyone has a problem with a particular moderator, or thread/post, then feel free to report them or PM me if you'd prefer to discuss it in private.

Cheers,
Shaun 

[Edit: If future software upgrades allow mods to be ignored, then we'll discuss it - openly ]


----------



## Crackle (26 Jan 2009)

Admin said:


> Unfortunately, *it's not technically possible at the moment with the current software.*
> 
> *Having all mods use a single account isn't workable and the software option to allow people to ignore mods also includes admin in the ignore group, and there's no way of separating the two.*
> 
> ...



 Now if you'd said that on page 1 

There you go BM, you'll just have to stick your fingers in your ears and go la,la,la,la,la..... until your eyes scan to the post below


----------



## LLB (26 Jan 2009)

Admin said:


> Unfortunately, it's not technically possible at the moment with the current software.
> 
> Having all mods use a single account isn't workable and the software option to allow people to ignore mods also includes admin in the ignore group, and there's no way of separating the two.
> 
> ...




You could always put all of those with mod status in a group without mod rights, but having access to the mod board to discuss mod issues, and then give them the password to a single login account with mod rights to acrry out mod duties 

Then the ignore function could be exploited as requested.


----------



## Shaun (26 Jan 2009)

Crackle said:


> Now if you'd said that on page 1



Do you know, that's strange, because I would have sworn blind that I had already mentioned this.

The problem is ... I haven't ... I've just been back through the entire thread and there's nothing there.

Sorry everyone ... I've obviously looked at the technicality of doing it, and not reported back to the thread.

Erm, cheers,
Shaun


----------



## Arch (26 Jan 2009)

Admin said:


> Do you know, that's strange, because I would have sworn blind that I had already mentioned this.
> 
> The problem is ... I haven't ... I've just been back through the entire thread and there's nothing there.
> 
> ...



TBH, I thought you'd already said it too... maybe you said it somewhere else.


----------



## col (26 Jan 2009)

Iv never had a problem with shauns modding,in fact it was done in a pleasant way, being warned or even some would say a wrist slap for my energetic argumentative way sometimes
The only problem iv had was when someone tried to mod on request,when i was debating with someone,with no pm or contact,or it seems with no other mods being included as to the reasons? Until the next day.
But i cant really see a reason as to why a mod should be ignored?Unless said mod wasnt suited to the job,or by maybe taking advantage of mod powers to their own advantage in some way?Being ignorant to someone because you dont agree with them is daft really isnt it?


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (26 Jan 2009)

I think you should be allowed to ignore Mods... of course you'll be the one to pay when your account is locked due to you not listening to/heeding any warning(s) from them... 

I don't have anyone on ignore - don't see the need, as has been said if you don't agree with someone and don't want to read their contributions then just miss out their posts.


----------



## summerdays (26 Jan 2009)

Do mod's know who is on an ignore list? I mean if they sent a message to someone would they be aware that it was being ignored?

I haven't had a problem with the modding on this board ... as far as I can tell its usually fairly quietly done... - so thanks from me.


----------



## BentMikey (26 Jan 2009)

It's very easy to do, and there are no technical limitations. Each moderator has their own account, thus "Mister P" is a standard user with no priviledges. Mister P then also has his own moderator account "Moderator P", a separate login, with moderator privileges. Some other bloke would then have the setup, such as "Other bloke" and "Moderator Other bloke".

User account is allowed to discuss, moderator account is only for moderation. Thus everyone is happy, Shaun still has accountability, the mods have actual anonymity (unlike now), and I can ignore someone if I want to. Given how little moderation goes on here, this can hardly be a stumbling block for the moderators either in terms of effort of logging in or out. Besides which, it would be very easy to run two different browsers, one with the moderator login and one with the user login.


----------



## Shaun (26 Jan 2009)

Hmmm ... let's see:

*Current system:*


Step 1: Oh look, there's a spam post / thread
Step 2: Oh look, it's gone now!
*Dual account system:*

Step 1: Oh look, there's a spam post / thread
Step 2: Log out
Step 3: Login to moderator account
Step 4: Browse back to spam post / thread (if you can remember where it is!)
Step 5: Remove spam
Step 6: Log out
Step 7: Login to regular account
Step 8: Browse back to where you started from
Erm, I don't think so! 

The way we've got it now works fine, and I'm sure the ignore mods feature will become available in the future - just hang in there! 

Cheers,
Shaun


----------



## Rhythm Thief (27 Jan 2009)

BentMikey said:


> It's very easy to do, and there are no technical limitations. Each moderator has their own account, thus "Mister P" is a standard user with no priviledges. Mister P then also has his own moderator account "Moderator P", a separate login, with moderator privileges. Some other bloke would then have the setup, such as "Other bloke" and "Moderator Other bloke".
> 
> User account is allowed to discuss, moderator account is only for moderation. Thus everyone is happy, Shaun still has accountability, the mods have actual anonymity (unlike now), and I can ignore someone if I want to. Given how little moderation goes on here, this can hardly be a stumbling block for the moderators either in terms of effort of logging in or out. Besides which, it would be very easy to run two different browsers, one with the moderator login and one with the user login.



Blimey, I'd never remember all that. I'd be forever forgetting one password or the other, or just posting under my mod account ... no, that might be easy for you but it would be a pain in the arse for me.
Incidentally, I can understand why some of the other mods would prefer to keep their identities private, but I don't care who knows I'm a mod. As I see it, if I'm open about it I can still take an active part in the forum. Which is, after all, why I'm here.


----------



## tdr1nka (27 Jan 2009)

+1


----------



## Shaun (27 Jan 2009)

I'm a mod .... and so's my wife!!


----------



## Arch (27 Jan 2009)

tdr1nka said:


> +1



+2


----------



## Chuffy (27 Jan 2009)

Yeah, but you lot are the known unknowns. We want to know about the unknown unknowns.


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (27 Jan 2009)

...and what we don't know about the unknown unknowns shouldn't be worth knowing or not knowing. If you know what I know/mean.

IGMC


----------



## alecstilleyedye (29 Jan 2009)

i think a point of misunderstanding might be the fact that on other forums (yacf, bikeradar etc), a moderator is responsible for a particular section of the site. the moderator is named under the forum title. some people may be assuming we have the same system but with mysterious anonymous mods. 

as no mod has particular duties to this forum or that, it's inevitable that occasionally you find yourself having to moderate a thread in which you might have posted 16 pages back and forgotten about. it's not perfect, but for the most part it works, and virtually all serious mod issues get discussed before action is taken.

the fact that this subject is even up for open debate says much about the moderation here…


----------



## Arch (29 Jan 2009)

alecstilleyedye said:


> as no mod has particular duties to this forum or that, it's inevitable that occasionally you find yourself having to moderate a thread in which you might have posted 16 pages back and forgotten about. it's not perfect, but for the most part it works, and virtually all serious mod issues get discussed before action is taken.



I think it's perfectly reasonable for a mod to moderate a thread they've taken part in, as long as it isn't blatantly altering or locking something to their 'advantage'. Plenty of threads are ok until someone loses their rag and gets abusive, for example, at which point action may need to be taken. But anyway, as alecetc says, the vast majority of such decisions would be jointly taken. Mods really only act alone to get rid of spam and suchlike, and even then, it's sometimes out up for discussion.


----------



## BentMikey (5 Feb 2009)

Right, well I'm bored of not being able to ignore some of the moderators now. Please could you delete my user account?


----------



## zimzum42 (5 Feb 2009)

Don't leave. You post good stuff here, and many of us appreciate that. To go over this would be a bit silly IMO. Please stay!


----------



## Arch (5 Feb 2009)

Yes, come on, that seems a bit OTT. If you want to ignore someone, skim over their posts. I do it all the time.

It's not being left as it is because of some whim or to annoy you. It's not possible as the system stands, and to alter the system would over complicate things. Admin has always been very amenable to change, when he can sort it, and if he prefers to leave it, I think that's fine.

Don't cut off your nose to spite your face, please.


----------



## Chuffy (5 Feb 2009)

BentMikey said:


> Right, well I'm bored of not being able to ignore some of the moderators now. Please could you delete my user account?


4000+ posts suggests commitment. If you leave, you'll end up coming back. Just take a break for a week or two or avoid the area of the forum where said Mod posts (and I don't know for sure who you mean 'cos there's dozens of the buggers).


----------



## Crackle (5 Feb 2009)

Stick commuting on the don't show posts bit and leave it alone for a while. Otherwise we'll all have to go to considerable lengths to stalk you on other forums; and we will.


----------



## Chuffy (5 Feb 2009)

Crackle said:


> Stick commuting on the don't show posts bit and leave it alone for a while. Otherwise we'll all have to go to considerable lengths to stalk you on other forums; and we will.


Heh. I avoid Commuting. Perhaps for the same reasons. It can be done....


----------



## col (5 Feb 2009)

BentMikey said:


> Right, well I'm bored of not being able to ignore some of the moderators now. Please could you delete my user account?




This is extreme, even i dont want you to go


----------



## Speicher (5 Feb 2009)

Please don't leave, I would miss your threads like the one about the igloo.

As others have suggested, you can easily ignore a particular someone, or a Section.


----------



## tdr1nka (5 Feb 2009)

I think this is BM's igloo in this odd story roundup?


----------



## Christopher (6 Feb 2009)

I find the 'Ignore Sections' much more useful than an ignore list. Even the very worst people in P&L are okay out of that bearpit.


----------



## silverbow (6 Feb 2009)

BentMikey said:


> Right, well I'm bored of not being able to ignore some of the moderators now. Please could you delete my user account?



BM, if you really don't wish to use CycleChat any more don't login, but I don't thnk that is what you are saying. If you are throwing yourself on your cyber sword, don't - Nothing can be changed from the outside. If it is a cry for help, I'm surprised I thought you had more of a fight in you.

You seem to have pretty committed/strong views I find it hard to believe you would quit a forum you appear to ultimately enjoy.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (6 Feb 2009)

BentMikey said:


> Right, well I'm bored of not being able to ignore some of the moderators now. Please could you delete my user account?



Cheerio then.


----------



## gavintc (6 Feb 2009)

I often see this 'toys out of the pram' attitude at work where people resign in fit of pique expecting the office to notice or worry about their departure. An organisation is always bigger than one man and people talk about at the cooler for a day or two and then just get on with work.


----------



## Crackle (6 Feb 2009)

gavintc said:


> I often see this 'toys out of the pram' attitude at work where people resign in fit of pique expecting the office to notice or worry about their departure. An organisation is always bigger than one man and people talk about at the cooler for a day or two and then just get on with work.



It's not an office, it's a community and personally I'd be very sorry to see BM leave. I hope he hasn't. I also understand where he's coming from.


----------



## cheadle hulme (6 Feb 2009)

You don't need your user account deleted to leave. You're either being a drama queen or attention seeking in the hope people will say nice things about you.

I can personally live without knowing how ineffective hi viz is or how rim brakes are just as good as disk brakes blah blah blah.

All the best though.


----------



## cheadle hulme (6 Feb 2009)

User3143 said:


> What Mod are you trying to ignore? imo all the mods on here that I know of are generally sound apart from one.



BM was posting in a thread on helmet compensation just before he posted his deletion request.

So was Cab.

I am so bored right now to work that out.


----------



## Crackle (6 Feb 2009)

cheadle hulme said:


> BM was posting in a thread on helmet compensation just before he posted his deletion request.
> 
> So was Cab.
> 
> I am so bored right now to work that out.



You musta missed the fairly open reference from BM in Cab's this morning thread (or whatever it's called).


----------



## hackbike 666 (6 Feb 2009)

It's a shame really that BM has found it necessary to go into one.

Hope he comes back.


----------



## Downward (6 Feb 2009)

A bit confused but I tell you there are way worse forums than this and this one is very tame tbh.

Only on the 1 footie forum I go on do i know of a person ignoring another but thats due to them just winding each other up. Very very strange that this seems to be quite common here.


----------



## col (7 Feb 2009)

I suppose threatening to leave does get attention to their cause, it has happened before with another,but it just seems like a cutting ones nose off to spite their face scenario?


----------



## hackbike 666 (7 Feb 2009)

> You seem to have pretty committed/strong views I find it hard to believe you would quit a forum you appear to ultimately enjoy.



Aye.


----------



## alecstilleyedye (7 Feb 2009)

well the door's open for him to come back…


----------



## Rhythm Thief (8 Feb 2009)

As someone said somewhere else, it's only a cycling forum and he's not Captain Oates.


----------



## hackbike 666 (8 Feb 2009)

Im one of the worst to fall for wind ups but it's sad to see this happen.I guess he must have too much of an ego to come back.


----------



## magnatom (8 Feb 2009)

Strange reaction BM. Is there something I've missed? Well, in the end you've gotta do what you've gotta do, but it'd be a shame for you to go like this.


----------

