More moderators?

Post Reply New Topic

It has its merits. If they don't perform, Alex sacks them. Seems the fairest system I've seen yet.

First off, we don't have much power at all. I think it would be highly unlikely that anyone would use what we do have incorrectly (such as editing posts to make someone look worse than they are). It would also be apparent. That said, my feeling is that I would be more likely to come down on someone treating another person badly than one treating me that way. I think that attacks on moderators fall into a protected class of speech - as we do have some powers, and could abuse them. Obviously though, something which goes against forum rules in other ways would need to be cleaned up. So, if you want to insult me, just don't post porn with it.

The danger is if someone went on some sort of power hungry cutting spree. I suspect that he used some judgement though - even if minimal (couldn't be much with me being selected).

As a newcomer, you don't know what happened here previously with mods abusing their position to victimise people who didn't suck-up to them. Indeed, even long-standing mods of supposed reputation have embarked on sabotage. So, you'll have to take my word that the relatively-random selection process is probably best for everyone, as long as those who start to abuse their position get the boot.

I've yet to see that be the case. Until such a thing happens with the new mods, treating them as if it has already happened is rather unfair. By encouraging such fears before there is any reason to hold them, the vicious little cycle continues.

And yes, I'd have said this even if you were a mod.

Well, if you're a mod you're proving my point. If you're not, then just wait and see...

You already believe the mods are guilty. Guilty until proven innocent, which will never happen, because there's always tomorrow. This was the point of my last post, hopefully I have made it clear enough now.

And no, I'm not a mod, so you can stop holding your nose quite as high. Or is speaking up for a mod just as "bad" as being one?

I've dealt with "bad" mods, and good ones. They're unique individuals. Treat them as such.

Yes boss. You know, you'd have fitted-in with the mod clique quite well 18 months back.

Anyway, I'm confident in my observations, and feel my analysis was accurate. I'd qualify that, however, with the comment that several of the new, and not so new, mods do seem to have the correct approach and attitude. And, like I said, I think the current system is the best I've seen yet.

Yes, great argument, I don't have firsthand experience with one situation, so it isn't possible I've had similar experiences elsewhere, and I therefore have no clue what I'm talking about, or something like that, right?


So several of them are OK. If you have a problem with a specific one, why not put it out in the open rather than complaining about nothing, or making an issue over something that hasn't happened yet with the current mods and may not happen at all?

Thanks, I do my best.



I think it's slipped your mind how this little exchange started, old chap. I was challenging your assertion that there's no reason for them to be treated differently. There clearly is, and I illustrated that it's to do with the fact that they have powers normal members don't, and human nature being what it is leads people to abuse those powers. Taking that line of thinking to an extreme — where there's a huge imbalance of power — you wouldn't argue with a guy you knew was carrying a loaded gun, even if you knew your argument was sound, would you?

I was always very careful about who I chose as moderators. I observed their behaviour, I observed how others behaved around them and I chose based on how objective they could be, their maturity and whether they displayed any hint at a desire for more control/power over everyone else. I also, because it was a spiritual/problem forum looked for those who had perhaps experienced enough to be able to offer useful advice to those coming in with problems and issues, or at least who has a reasonable level of patience and compassion of sorts.

I took on one mod hastily, at a time when I badly needed more, and she took it upon herself to delete another mod's post AFTER asking me about it and receiving the response that I saw no reason to delete it and that is was fine. Needless to say, I did fire that mod not because of what they did so much as the fact they were not willing to admit that they shouldn't have deleted someone else's post just like that.

I must admit, I could not hire and fire at random like that as in the end, mods do it because they wish to assist in making the forum better...for the most part. They do it for free, in an environment where they are perhaps open to more abuse. I preferred to have mods that would grow as the forum grew and that would come to know the rules inside out. I would have found it far too irritating to have the whole learning curve again for another set of mods. Better to teach the first lot well and hope that the majority learn the ropes well. I could not simply fire mods because my morals wouldn't allow me to do that...already too many disposable things in the world as it is...name 10 things that aren't now disposable once they have outlived their use... I cannot do that to people...wham bam, sorry you're out, no use to me now lol.

So I'll still challenge your "clear fact" that they should be treated differently. It is my belief that by treating them differently, there's a higher chance that that abuse of power will occur. If you're afraid of being punished for speaking your mind, go ahead and cower, but that's not my plan.

There are a few on here who have upset me since I was made a mod, one in particular... I have responded to them the same way as I would have without my mod capabilities. I could have edited out their reference to me that caused me upset, but I did not, although it was slightly tempting for a moment. I could have got all bolshy and said I am a mod and if you continue to behave this way, I will do X, X and X...however, I have not and would not... for one, I am aware that the rest of the members will do their own form of letting said person know their strong feelings...and for two, I know Alex would not stand for that sort of thing, I doubt anyway...and for three, I do not wish to be seen as some bullygirl(usually it is bullyboy but I adapted it, lol) sort of figure...

I cannot deny, of course, that I have the odd moment when I wish I could use the abilities to stop someone saying things that I don't like, but I think that is simply human nature...whether one acts on that is another matter entirely.

Your initial statement included this:



You asserted that there was no reason, and I replied with an account of why there was a reason — a very good one. You are now moving on from this and taking a position where you're asking me if they should be treated differently. Naturally they shouldn't. But, in that example I gave above with the man with the gun, putting aside your personal safety, should you treat him any differently just because he has the power advantage? What should happen, and what does happen are two different things. Because of the power imbalance I maintain that mods will never be treated the same way as normal members by the majority of the people here.

Just as a mod has the choice to abuse their power or respect their position, a "normal" user has the choice to view the mod as a threat or merely as another user with responsibilities to take care of users that are out of line.

Your gun comparison is a bit extreme, a mod can't cause you physical harm.

What does happen and what should happen aren't all that different. We can choose to do what we ought to, or choose to do otherwise. Or one could just act without thinking and claim that it isn't their fault...because they didn't think about their actions.

Nor should they be. They should be distrusted and challanged more than anyone else should be.