Mods modding their own threads

[Piratecat]

I don't understand why you and a couple of others continue to frame this debate as if nobody thinks it's a problem and it's actually all hypothetical and we shouldn't make a rule about something that nobody thinks is actually going on. That is not the case.

Here's the thing. The one concrete example we've been given isn't actually a problem in our opinion. I don't disagree that some people perceive it to be a problem. I disagree that it is a problem, and as one of the admins I'd need to be shown evidence that I'm mistaken before I'd consider changing anything.

You're soaking in it. That is to say that this thread is a bell that cannot be unrung.

That's a neat metaphor, but I'm not sure what you mean. I invite you and anyone else to email with specific problems. If anyone does so, I'll review those and address them as necessary; I'm very much end-results oriented. If you're hoping to get a change made for the purpose of making a change, though, I suspect that you'll be disappointed.

 

[Pielorinho]

It looks like three of your users think it is currently a problem.

To the best of my knowledge, nobody has yet either reported a thread in which the closure was a problem or emailed a link to such a thread to Piratecat. Again, if you have seen this actually being a problem, we invite you to take those steps. If you're not taking those steps, I guess I'm not sure that you really do consider it to be a significant problem, given that those are the ways to reach a solution, not posting in this thread about it.

Daniel

 

[Deset Gled]

I have explained my reluctance to focus on particular already-closed threads: because the very bias a mod should have to defend another mods past decisions will make a discussion of a particular closed thread that already happened useless. No mod is going to publically say another mod was wrong over such a relatively minor issue, and so no discussion would really be furthered by even mentioning it.

If we call out a particular closed thread, you and others will defend the mod decision and explain why it was fine and not an issue (for the perfectly reasonable reasons listed above). If we do not call out a particular closed thread, you and others will claim this is all hypothetical because we cannot point to a thread where this is going on. So you have us in a catch-22. Any offer we make or do not make to back up this issue will not help.

So we fall back on the only thing we have - telling you this is an issue to us, and unless there is a reason why doing something about it would harm anyone, the fact that it is an issue to us should have some meaning beyond a blanket dismissal as all hypothetical.

Frankly, this is BS. If you've got an example, give it. If your complaint is true in that case, people like me will consider it honestly. If it really is a perfectly reasonable case of a mod doing what they're supposed to do, then you don't have a leg to stand on. You've got the rest of us caught in a catch-22 of you own.

However, relative to this community, it's significant enough to post about for some apparently.

Three complainers pales in comparison to the number of people that post in the "Thanks Mods!" threads that start up here at least once a year.

 

[nerfherder]

LOTS of boards of all sizes embrace this idea as non-controversial and not major and not akin to a courtroom. Heck, this board already has a system set up for mods to post to other mods to avoid conflicts of interest in other areas, so it's not even a foreign concept here!

I don't think any of the boards I frequent have the rule of mods not moderating in threads they participate in. I just don't see it as a problem, and, not being a mod, I don't think I have a conflict of interest...

 

[Mistwell]

Frankly, this is BS. If you've got an example, give it. If your complaint is true in that case, people like me will consider it honestly. If it really is a perfectly reasonable case of a mod doing what they're supposed to do, then you don't have a leg to stand on. You've got the rest of us caught in a catch-22 of you own.



Three complainers pales in comparison to the number of people that post in the "Thanks Mods!" threads that start up here at least once a year.

So is it your opinion that I have not seen this happen, and I am simply lying in order to create drama? I mean that as an honest question. If you suspect there is no thread where I have seen this happen, then what are you saying when I tell you I have seen it (and the original poster apparently as well)?

As for me catching others in a catch-22, hey we are asking for a guideline that apparently causes nobody any harm at all. Untill I see someone actually give a reason why it would harm anyone in the least, I'm not sure how I've caught anyone in anything.

As for the thanks mods - I thank the mods often. I think they do a great job in general. I do not think raising this issue of an internal guideline (which doesn't even have to be announced to users - since it really is an internal thing) is some broad brush comdemnation of mods. I've been a mod on several other boards, and I know how hard it is to do and how thankless it can be, and I am fully in support of the mods in general on this board. It's one of the other reasons I don't want to single out any particular mod on this issue. But I think people should feel safe in raising this kind of topic without the fear that others will frame it as an attack on the mods.

Heck, the mere fact that you raise the "thanks mods" issue shows the circling the wagon mentallity. Already we are at the point where I suspect if I linked to a thread where a mod threatend to ban someone for smiling wrong, a huge number of people would defend the mod merely out of instinct to defend the mod (and no that has not happened - that one really is a hypothetical). The issue has already risen to the level of being an impossible burden to overcome the presumption that a mod's decision to close a thread is correct.

I guess I should bow out of this one (not trying to be dramatic "take my toys and go home" there, though I admit it sounds like that). I really do think there is no possible thread I could present at this point that would result in any reaction other than "you are wrong", because people think I am attacking the mods rather than suggesting a guideline. And if I don't post a link to a thread, people will either continue to imply that the claim we saw it happen is either a lie, or at best an overreaction. This is a no win at this point.

Maybe, just by raising the issue, it means it is less likely to happen in the future. I hope so.

 

[Crothian]

I think the mods do a fine job and I can see how one might think there could be a conflict of interests but that would have the mods being a lot more petty then they are. I can't think of a single instance, even the ones linked to here, I would call a conflict of interests. The mods have done very well in that regards.

 

[nerfherder]

I think even if there were a conflict of interest, then... I wouldn't really care. If I thought there was a problem, then I'd report the post.

Actually, I see that PC already mentioned to report a post, earlier in the thread.

Mistwell, I don't think you have a hate on for the mods or anything, it just looks to me like they disagree with you. Amyway, there's no harm in having this debate.

 

[Piratecat]

I suspect if I linked to a thread where a mod threatend to ban someone for smiling wrong, a huge number of people would defend the mod merely out of instinct to defend the mod (and no that has not happened - that one really is a hypothetical).

Man, were you not around when I deleted the "roll eyes" smiley?

I don't see this as an attack, and (in case it's not clear) I think your interest in this speaks incredibly highly about how much you care for these boards. You've articulated your opinion clearly, and I value that tremendously because it's really obvious to me that you aren't just trying to make change for change's sake.

We'll keep an eye open for examples, and as always please call them out to me if you see them.

 

[Deset Gled]

So is it your opinion that I have not seen this happen, and I am simply lying in order to create drama? I mean that as an honest question. If you suspect there is no thread where I have seen this happen, then what are you saying when I tell you I have seen it (and the original poster apparently as well)?

I don't think you're lying to create drama. I do think you're either intentionally withholding information or exagerating circumstances to create drama.

As for me catching others in a catch-22, hey we are asking for a guideline that apparently causes nobody any harm at all. Untill I see someone actually give a reason why it would harm anyone in the least, I'm not sure how I've caught anyone in anything.

Creating rules for the sake of creating rules hurts the entire community in the long run. Even the rules that this board has are vague and left almost entirely to the moderators to interpret. Its worked for years with almost no problems. I fail to see how creating specific rules for them now will help in any way. I do, however, easily see ways that it will lead to more people complaining about if the mods don't follow specific rules like the ones you propose to the letter.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I can't think of a single instance, even the ones linked to here, I would call a conflict of interests.

Well, except for Rel. All his posts generate conflicts of interest - even before he became a mod!

It's just that he's so damned sexy we let him get away with it.

-Hyp.