moderator status to be displayed - Yes or No?

summerishere · Post by **summerishere** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 4:29 pm

Don't know if I'm doing this right... but I'm of the opinion that members should be aware of who the moderators of this site are... a simple 'Moderator' displayed under their name/avator should do the job nicely.

How many agree ??

booradley · Post by **booradley** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 4:38 pm

unamed mods works way better imo. Let them get on with the job, not get bogged down in petty he said/she said stuff

summerishere · Post by **summerishere** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 4:51 pm

Thanks for taking the time, booradley !:)

Pheasy · Post by **Pheasy** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 4:53 pm

Yes I think the mods. should be known. Having been here some time now, and for asking, I now know who the mods are. But it would be useful for new members. :-6

summerishere · Post by **summerishere** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 4:56 pm

Thank you Pheasy !

Chezzie · Post by **Chezzie** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 5:04 pm

I voted yes.

Its how every forum iv'e been involved with runs and they all run perfectly with the mods still posting happily as members and modding in the background.

It doesnt have to be a huge sign on their profile either, just a sticky somewhere to tell all members who they are.

WonderWendy3 · Post by **WonderWendy3** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 5:09 pm

I said NO....hasn't bothered me all this time, don't see it being any problem....

I'm not sure why, but this has my panties in a wad.....

Chezzie · Post by **Chezzie** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 5:11 pm

WonderWendy3;730391 wrote: I said NO....hasn't bothered me all this time, don't see it being any problem....

I'm not sure why, but this has my panties in a wad.....

sounds irritating lol...:wah:

summerishere · Post by **summerishere** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 5:26 pm

Thanks Chezzie and Wendy for taking the time...

Snooze · Post by **Snooze** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 5:31 pm

I'd also like to suggest that there be a rotation of mod duty. Or perhaps, as I've seen in most forums, mods that are responsible for certain areas only unless it's spam/troll disposal.

Snooze · Post by **Snooze** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 5:33 pm

Whoa! Summer got banned already?

SuzyB · Post by **SuzyB** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 5:33 pm

I would say that I am not bothered either way, if I have a problem I know what to do:), thinking on that any problem I've had I've always PM'd Tombstone

Pheasy · Post by **Pheasy** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 5:59 pm

Snooze;730423 wrote: Whoa! Summer got banned already?

Crikes ..... I was starting to wonder about Summer (well actually about 3 days ago) ... are we allowed to ask why she/he

was banned?

WonderWendy3 · Post by **WonderWendy3** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 6:50 pm

Chezzie;730394 wrote: sounds irritating lol...:wah:

You are too funny!!

Okay, why was summer banned, and who was she REALLY???

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 7:03 pm

If she was banned, I think her avatar and account info would be gone.

Absolutely mods should be ID'd. This incognito bit is sneaky and unappealing.

Even better, can the moderation and let people police themselves.

G-man · Post by **G-man** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 7:15 pm

In my experience, it's better the way Tombstone has it set up. I've had it both ways on my forums and seperating the two tends to lead to mod abuse (from both the mods and the members abusing the staff out of jealousy). I've always said you can tell who the good mods are, because they don't make a big to-do about their so-called "status"... ie putting it in their titles, sigs, etc.

Who cares really, though? Seriously, is your real life so uneventful? :rolleyes:

Chezzie · Post by **Chezzie** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 8:47 am

If summer is banned how come I saw her here this afternoon?

When your banned can you still log onto the forum under your nick?

SuzyB · Post by **SuzyB** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 8:51 am

Chezzie;731082 wrote: If summer is banned how come I saw her here this afternoon?

When your banned can you still log onto the forum under your nick?

I think you can log in and may be able to send messages but you can't post on open board, Spot will be here to clarify for you very soon :wah:

Pheasy · Post by **Pheasy** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 8:52 am

Chezzie;731082 wrote: If summer is banned how come I saw her here this afternoon?

When your banned can you still log onto the forum under your nick?

Maybe she (or he

) just changed the text under name.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 8:54 am

summerishere;730323 wrote: Don't know if I'm doing this right... but I'm of the opinion that members should be aware of who the moderators of this site are... a simple 'Moderator' displayed under their name/avator should do the job nicely.

How many agree ??

Youre a trouble maker.

YES ! :-6

Chezzie · Post by **Chezzie** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 8:54 am

ThePheasant;731088 wrote: Maybe she (or he

) just changed the text under name.

No it said Banned but its the first time Ive seen a member being able to log into a banned account...Usually they have to look in as a guest.

Chezzie · Post by **Chezzie** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 8:56 am

WOW Nomad what BIG text you have:sneaky::sneaky::sneaky::wah:

Kathy Ellen · Post by **Kathy Ellen** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 8:58 am

No, I don't think we need to know all the names of the mods. I think that they're all doing a great job.

Post by **spot** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 8:58 am

SuzyB;731087 wrote: I think you can log in and may be able to send messages but you can't post on open board, Spot will be here to clarify for you very soon :wah:

I'm being mocked. Why am I being mocked? I was mocked between June and November 2005, then April to December 2006 and February until October this year and now it's starting again. I don't understand it. Alas that it should come to this I'm being undone.

(Fellow members are particularly asked to note that this is a rhetorical post and does NOT require a response, especially one starting "Because").

Chezzie · Post by **Chezzie** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 9:00 am

spot;731099 wrote: I'm being mocked. Why am I being mocked? I was mocked between June and November 2005, then April to December 2006 and February until October this year and now it's starting again. I don't understand it. Alas that it should come to this I'm being undone.

(Fellow members are particularly asked to note that this is a rhetorical post and does NOT require a response, especially one starting "Because").

Spot check anyone???:wah::wah:

Pheasy · Post by **Pheasy** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 9:00 am

Chezzie;731103 wrote: Spot check anyone???:wah::wah:

I have calomine lotion :wah::wah:

SuzyB · Post by **SuzyB** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 9:01 am

spot;731099 wrote: I'm being mocked. Why am I being mocked? I was mocked between June and November 2005, then April to December 2006 and February until October this year and now it's starting again. I don't understand it. Alas that it should come to this I'm being undone.

(Fellow members are particularly asked to note that this is a rhetorical post and does NOT require a response, especially one starting "Because").

:wah::wah::wah:

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 9:02 am

spot;731099 wrote: I'm being mocked. Why am I being mocked?

I was mocked between June and November 2005, then April to December 2006 and February until October this year and now it's starting again. I don't understand it. Alas that it should come to this I'm being undone.

(Fellow members are particularly asked to note that this is a rhetorical post and does NOT require a response, especially one starting "Because").

Actually you were mocked during that period from Nov 2005 thru Mar 2006.

Theres never been that big of a gap when you werent being mocked.

Post by **spot** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 9:03 am

Nomad;731109 wrote: Actually you were mocked during that period from Nov 2005 thru Mar 2006.

Theres never been that big of a gap when you werent being mocked.

I was away then, you cad!

littlemissgiggle · Post by **littlemissgiggle** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 9:16 am

I don't feel i need to know,

if i have ever had any problems i just PM tombstone

Post by **spot** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 9:29 am

For some reason Nomie missed the next line from the jokebook which reads: You might have been gone but you don't really think the mocking stopped, do you?

I only signed up as the straight man, I don't feel equipped to handle punchlines.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 10:12 am

spot;731132 wrote: For some reason Nomie missed the next line from the jokebook which reads: You might have been gone but you don't really think the mocking stopped, do you?

I only signed up as the straight man, I don't feel equipped to handle punchlines.

I had it typed out but stopped short of clicking post.

Sometimes the one liners can stand on their own.

kazalala · Post by **kazalala** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 11:27 am

I'm not really bothered:-3 and im normally a very nosey person:wah: If i didnt like it here or how it was run i would just bugger off elsewhere:wah::rolleyes:

freetobeme · Post by **freetobeme** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 1:19 pm

They should definitely be displayed. I tend to think that mods should not post in the forums they moderate - bias and all that - well at least in news and politics.

Post by **spot** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 2:08 pm

freetobeme;731317 wrote: They should definitely be displayed. I tend to think that mods should not post in the forums they moderate - bias and all that - well at least in news and politics.

What strange forums they must be. And what strange moderators, come to that.

As a matter of record and for comparison, the last time the question was put as far as the extent of moderation here's concerned - last year - 22 requested no moderation, 10 that FG be moderated and 8 expressed unconcern.

Those of us who were present during the three months either side of last Christmas, during which that poll was taken, will recall a period when thread moderation was undertaken solely by the site's management. What I wrote during that poll was that moderation should be a function of the entire membership and I stand by that comment. To quote myself from that time when there were no site-wide moderators:spot wrote: Trouble is very rare. Moderation is much more divisive. I don't see the need for it. Banning people, as we've seen, can and does lead to long-term partisan resentment. Censoring posts has the same effect between fewer people in the short term. What works is peer pressure. If we collectively treat what might otherwise be Moderated as a topic for discussion then the abuse brings us together. Everything posted has a potentially positive side to it, you just need to uncover that aspect and work it into the stream. [...]

Moderation sucks, honestly. We each have more than sufficient power on here to moderate the site without deletions or bannings. The only thing ForumGarden needs protection from is our in-fighting, and admin's occasional slow application of thread closure is all that it takes to bring us back to rational responses.Now, it may be felt that the site has been a placid place since moderators were authorized to deal with more than keeping spam out of the threads. I'm not sure that's a consequence of moderator action but I concede it might be. I still think that a closing of ranks against bad behaviour by the membership as a whole is far preferable to a top-down authoritarian imposition of order. I believe the team has operated with a light hand. I've issued more infractions than anyone and my record, ignoring spammers, is issuing 9 infractions during the 7 months the team's had the option. That's the price of a placid environment in which to post. In terms of keeping the largest number of posters happy on site that is how it's done. Had those 9 infractions not been given, posters would have left feeling they had been either insulted or outraged beyond their tolerance. The cost is that some of those who received the infractions left or accumulated sufficient infractions that they received a month's ban. Few people return after that enforced absence.

The way to reduce the need for moderation isn't to try to vote it out of existence, it's to take collective responsibility for challenging unfair posts directly yourself. Last year's thread also had this comment:Tombstone;381943 wrote: Utopias do not exist. It's a fact of life. You make friends and gain respect by your actions here. A moderator cannot control that. An admin cannot control that. Since it is a community, those of like minds will stick together. That's what it is all about. You cannot expect the entire community to love you all the time. You are what you post.

dunkin1 · Post by **dunkin1** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 2:16 pm

Chezzie;730376 wrote: I voted yes.

Its how every forum iv'e been involved with runs and they all run perfectly with the mods still posting happily as members and modding in the background.

It doesnt have to be a huge sign on their profile either, just a sticky somewhere to tell all members who they are.

I agree with you.

Daniyal · Post by **Daniyal** » Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:47 pm

summerishere;730323 wrote: Don't know if I'm doing this right... but I'm of the opinion that members should be aware of who the moderators of this site are... a simple 'Moderator' displayed under their name/avator should do the job nicely.

How many agree ??

Sound Like A Good Idea , Good Way To Know Who / Who ,

Post by **spot** » Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:50 pm

Daniyal;937379 wrote: Sound Like A Good Idea , Good Way To Know Who / Who ,

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showt ... hp?t=38840

Daniyal · Post by **Daniyal** » Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:56 pm

spot;937385 wrote: http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showt ... hp?t=38840

Thank You ~ Spot

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Fri Aug 01, 2008 1:15 am

For the record, I agree that that mods should be labeled as such. Just having a floating list of them is not sufficient and still smells of secrecy. Every forum I've been at including the ones I have moderated have had labeled moderators and it never caused any problems.

Post by **spot** » Fri Aug 01, 2008 1:19 am

RedGlitter;937768 wrote: For the record, I agree that that mods should be labeled as such. Just having a floating list of them is not sufficient and still smells of secrecy. Every forum I've been at including the ones I have moderated have had labeled moderators and it never caused any problems.

The list's being transferred to the FAQ on moderation. FG is a lightly moderated site and the moderators prefer to spend their time posting as members.

kayleneaussie · Post by **kayleneaussie** » Fri Aug 01, 2008 1:25 am

I voted no....it dosent bother me

Chezzie · Post by **Chezzie** » Fri Aug 01, 2008 1:25 am

Everyone has the option of editing the words under their username. Is their anything stopping the mods who want to, to use Mod or Moderator for theirs?

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Fri Aug 01, 2008 1:32 am

spot;937773 wrote: The list's being transferred to the FAQ on moderation. FG is a lightly moderated site and the moderators prefer to spend their time posting as members.

That's better than nothing I suppose, And being labeled as moderators would not prevent them from posting as members.

Post by **spot** » Fri Aug 01, 2008 1:42 am

RedGlitter;937782 wrote: being labeled as moderators would not prevent them from posting as members.Yes it would. Definitively. That's the point.

shelbell · Post by **shelbell** » Fri Aug 01, 2008 9:19 am

spot;937788 wrote: Yes it would. Definitively. That's the point.

I've only been here a little while and have made many new friends. I know which of them are mods and it has not affected our interactions at all. I'm glad they are able to still post because if they are smart enough and level headed enough to be mods, they should be able to post wherever they want. IMO.

Helen · Post by **Helen** » Fri Aug 01, 2008 10:46 am

i "know " a few of the new mods and i dont have anything to fear, if thats the right word, from them as im not liable to post anything that they would disagree with. well, i havent done so far when talking to them as ordinary posters.

i think its a good thing they can still post on here otherwise they would lose the friends they had on here for along time and that would be a shame.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Fri Aug 01, 2008 11:12 am

To be honest I don't see what it matters whatsoever...

You either conduct yourself respectively or you don't...I don't see how knowing who the moderators are gives credence to anything...

I'm neutral...

buttercup · Post by **buttercup** » Fri Aug 01, 2008 2:44 pm

I dont care either way, did not see that option, its plain yes or no on the poll. I dont care about post counts either. If people feel the need to have titles & numbers beside a name = fine with me. If they dont = fine with me.

Carolly · Post by **Carolly** » Fri Aug 01, 2008 2:49 pm

buttercup;938589 wrote: I dont care either way, did not see that option, its plain yes or no on the poll. I dont care about post counts either. If people feel the need to have titles & numbers beside a name = fine with me. If they dont = fine with me.
I want a pink badge and they wont let me have one:mad: