BentMikey
Rider of Seolferwulf
- Location
- South London
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.
Ignore moderators
- Thread starter BentMikey
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
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
Lover of things that come in 3's
- Location
- Farnborough, Hampshire
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
Recyclist
- Location
- Odawa
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?
wafflycat
New Member
- Location
- middle of Norfolk
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.
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.
Chrisz
Über Member
- Location
- Sittingbourne
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
New Member
- Location
- middle of Norfolk
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
Recyclist
- Location
- Odawa
wafflycat said:
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
Veteran
- Location
- On the banks of the Exe
That's one way of putting it...Flying_Monkey said:
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.
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.
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
Recyclist
- Location
- Odawa
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.
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.
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.
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!
