Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pawsplay" data-source="post: 5084413" data-attributes="member: 15538">That is the primary benefit of red text; it indicates you are speaking in an official capacity. If a mod is involved in a participant in a discussion, not only would I not expect them to be trying to moderate in-line without making that very clear, I think they should be very cautious about moderating at all in threads in which they are active participants. Ultimately, when mods are just &quot;one of the gang&quot; but are also empowered to use their authority at will to impose a certain view of decorum on the site, the result is an impression that the mods are, essentially above the law. Because mods don't have to worry about being summarily banned by a mod, they can post with less inhibition, and let's be honest here, in such a situation, inevitibly will. You can take a look at theRPGsite for an example of where such things are dealt with in a straightforward manner: it's the Pundit's site, period, and the freewheeling style he fosters is his preference, not a compact he has made with any other person. On the other hand, if you want to look at duck blind moderation at it's worst, you need look no further than RPGnet. The put out attitude that gets paraded out every time someone asks, &quot;Is that official?&quot; is a symptom of a situation in which the policies state a very high standard of neutrality, but no one really wants to take responsibility for being the grownup. &quot;Officiality&quot; is the only defense against arbitrary mod action in such a scenario, and hence is dispensed with great reluctance.I am fine if EN World wants to take the &quot;this is my front porch&quot; position, but in that case, if the site staff don't want to run off open, engaging discussion, there needs to be fair warning. Red text is fair warning.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pawsplay, post: 5084413, member: 15538"] That is the primary benefit of red text; it indicates you are speaking in an official capacity. If a mod is involved in a participant in a discussion, not only would I not expect them to be trying to moderate in-line without making that very clear, I think they should be very cautious about moderating at all in threads in which they are active participants. Ultimately, when mods are just "one of the gang" but are also empowered to use their authority at will to impose a certain view of decorum on the site, the result is an impression that the mods are, essentially above the law. Because mods don't have to worry about being summarily banned by a mod, they can post with less inhibition, and let's be honest here, in such a situation, inevitibly will. You can take a look at theRPGsite for an example of where such things are dealt with in a straightforward manner: it's the Pundit's site, period, and the freewheeling style he fosters is his preference, not a compact he has made with any other person. On the other hand, if you want to look at duck blind moderation at it's worst, you need look no further than RPGnet. The put out attitude that gets paraded out every time someone asks, "Is that official?" is a symptom of a situation in which the policies state a very high standard of neutrality, but no one really wants to take responsibility for being the grownup. "Officiality" is the only defense against arbitrary mod action in such a scenario, and hence is dispensed with great reluctance. I am fine if EN World wants to take the "this is my front porch" position, but in that case, if the site staff don't want to run off open, engaging discussion, there needs to be fair warning. Red text is fair warning. [/QUOTE]

Verification