REINSTATE BAD_DADDY NOW!!!

[Karee 4,190]

You have a rather overdeveloped vocabulary, as do I, ergo, I am you. And you are me and we are all together.

F^ck it, we're all the walrus.

Is that what you call that?

[Pooky 3,784]

I have suggested before that the staff have two accounts, one that prominently displays some sort of authoritarian but anonymous banner, to be used for admin actions only, without any comment other than explaining the action taken, and a normal member account, with no additional frills or admin powers, to participate solely as a member, so that such actions as Smoke reported will never be misinterpreted as some sort of conspiracy against (a) certain member(s).

That was tried before, albeit with the mods each having an anonymous account to work from.

It kind of crashed and burned horribly.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

That was tried before, albeit with the mods each having an anonymous account to work from.

It kind of crashed and burned horribly.

Maybe we didn't have the same quality of fine upstanding mods that we have now, aware of the mistakes of the past, and of each other's frailties. Many of the former mods were some of the biggest personalities and therefore, offenders themselves. This site has toned down quite a bit in just the few years that I have been here. Perhaps it could be made to work.

[Pooky 3,784]

Maybe we didn't have the same quality of fine upstanding mods that we have now, aware of the mistakes of the past, and of each other's frailties. Many of the former mods were some of the biggest personalities and therefore, offenders themselves. This site has toned down quite a bit in just the few years that I have been here. Perhaps it could be made to work.

Or rather, the question of who was a Mod and who was which Mod ID took over OT for a while, together with the cliques, who had axes to grind with whom and, if I recall correctly, the UPL issue and associated fallout.

I'd have to disagree with the anonymous Mod route. Knowing who is a Mod and having their actions out in the open is preferable, as it raises the level of accountability and helps to keep them honest.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

His account still looks active to me.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Or rather, the question of who was a Mod and who was which Mod ID took over OT for a while, together with the cliques, who had axes to grind with whom and, if I recall correctly, the UPL issue and associated fallout.

I'd have to disagree with the anonymous Mod route. Knowing who is a Mod and having their actions out in the open is preferable, as it raises the level of accountability and helps to keep them honest.

Maybe give them two accounts, without the anonymity, one with the mod hat on, and the other with the mod hat off.

Edited January 11, 2013 by The Patriot

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

the UPL issue and associated fallout.

Unauthorized Practice of Law?

[Pooky 3,784]

Unauthorized Practice of Law?

That would be correct.

[Kathryn41 3,205]

Personally, I think moderation should be transparent. I would not be comfortable operating from behind a shield of anonymity. Knowing who is moderating allows for a certain degree of accountability as well as provides for good feedback. It also does bring some personal liabilities but overall I think the benefits outweigh the liabilities.

Edited January 11, 2013 by Kathryn41

[Kathryn41 3,205]

His account still looks active to me.

Yes, the membership hasn't been closed yet. It has been banned indefinitely.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Personally, I think moderation should be transparent. I would not be comfortable operating from behind a shield of anonymity. Knowing who is moderating allows for a certain degree of accountability as well as provides for good feedback. It also does bring some personal liabilities but overall I think the benefits outweigh the liabilities.

Maybe anonymity is not desired. The question is, how do you maintain the impartiality that a moderator needs while being a moderator, while at the same time letting them participate in discussions, if they so desire. Perhaps just making a rule that no personal comments should be made, even as an aside, that cannot responded to, when closing a topic and asking that it not be restarted would be the minimum. I do notice with one exception, the moderators generally avoid voicing an opinion in the more contentious forums and threads, although they would be welcome to participate.

Maybe I am bringing up a non-issue.

[Kathryn41 3,205]

This is why it is important that administration chooses moderators carefully. I think it becomes a matter of personal integrity for the moderators to maintain a degree of impartiality, even if there are members and issues with whom the moderator has trouble. There are times when one moderator should 'step back' and let another take over - and this is something that we actually do, do. It can be very difficult at times to keep personal feelings out of the mix, especially on topics which may have some personal meaning or sensitivity, and I know that all of us try to do this. Do we always succeed? Probably not as none of us are perfect, but I know that all of us try to do this. This is also why it is helpful having a team of moderators. We are able to act as checks and balances on each other, and if someone feels that a decision was made for personal reasons and not impartially on the 'evidence', then none of us has a problem with another moderator reviewing the situation. We can also call upon another moderator to address a situation where we ourselves are involved in the discussion so that there is no appearance of conflict of interest.

For myself, I find it a lot easier for me to act from a position of impartiality -and, just as importantly, - to appear to act from a position of impartiality if I don't allow myself to get caught up in contentious issues and discussions. I have to deal with members who hold widely varying beliefs and personal values. Some are similar to my own but many are vastly different. If I am continually 'standing' on my own issues and my concerns I feel that it compromises my ability to do this job fairly and that it would be more difficult for people to believe that I am being fair and impartial, especially if I am addressing individuals who hold vastly different opinions than I do in a subject. Sometimes I need to be able to put myself into the other perspective and 'see' the situation from there to evaluate the nature and degree of a reported violation - and that isn't easy to do under the best of circumstances. If my position is already 'weighted' elsewhere, it becomes even more difficult to do. So, I generally now only participate in relatively safe and non-contentious topics or in the immigration forums.

[TBoneTX 45,288]

[the post above]

Where's the +100,000 button?

[Moderating] also does bring some personal liabilities but overall I think the benefits outweigh the liabilities.

I think that only a tiny percentage of VJ'ers have more than the dimmest inkling of how much the Mods have to take...

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

Where's the +100,000 button?I think that only a tiny percentage of VJ'ers have more than the dimmest inkling of how much the Mods have to take...

Mods are mods because they want to be. They're not paid and they don't sign contracts. They can leave if they can't "take" it.

I realize it's an ungrateful position to take on. But I think a bunch of people take it way too seriously. Here in this thread alone we've got a couple of "essays" about how VJ is moderated and then several posts in "defense" of the down-trodden moderators. All over the membership of someone who contributes very little to the purported purpose of the site.

IMO, this says a lot about the boredom threshold of a lot folks. Perhaps myself included.

[Darnell 8,478]

oh lord - is it time to nominate rade2rising for modship ?