Moderators

[Zam_Olyas]

This isn't 'Nam, Smokey.. there are rules. Mark it zero!

 

[Big Harold]

I most likely won't change the way I post, but I won't have any problem if another mod edits/deletes some of my posts and/or bans me. If I by being a mod, no longer can be a regular poster, then I'd rather stop as a mod.

The same rules that applies to others also applies to me. No more, no less IMO.

Regarding my posting style, I draw the line one place: Would I edit it out of another poster's post? If not, then I have no problem posting it, if so, then I won't post it. I understand that different mods draw the line (of what to edit/delete) different places, so if I crosses the line of other mods, I should of course be edited. I don't want any special treatment positively nor negatively.

Take Budha and Magellan too...

 

[Christian]

Netserk's behaviour as a mod is crossing a line too often, in my opinion. Moderators should follow not only the rules, but the spirit of the rules. I don't think he's making any real effort to obey the spirit of the rules. Quite a bit of borderline baiting, and going pretty close to breaking rules on swearing and filter avoidance "It doesn't effing matter".

It's small change but I really think it harms the atmosphere of the whole forum when moderators behave in a manner that the forum rules strongly discourage. Not only does it lower the tone of that thread, I think other users definitely take cues on what is acceptable from the moderators. Acceptable behaviour is, to an extent, what the mods do + a little more. It becomes very different for the moderators to effectively moderate when someone can point to a mod misbehaving similarly to them, and immediately opens the usually good moderating team up to accusations of double standards.

The Sagan podium behaviour thread is one example of what I would consider going a little too far, but there are others.

Amen... there are many examples of this. His posting deteriorates the general atmosphere of the forum. People must think twice before responding to the moder-baiter's posts because if they take the hook then it means bye-bye.

Regarding my posting style, I draw the line one place: Would I edit it out of another poster's post? If not, then I have no problem posting it, if so, then I won't post it. I understand that different mods draw the line (of what to edit/delete) different places, so if I crosses the line of other mods, I should of course be edited. I don't want any special treatment positively nor negatively.

Ah, I see the confusion. Maybe this will help:

Forum Rules & Guidelines

 

[Netserk]

Have I ever baited-then-banned anyone? Or are you just making stuff up?

 

[ebandit]

modded

Have I ever baited-then-banned anyone? Or are you just making stuff up?

sir...........you have only been a mod for........ weeks

i have only been a cn forum member for a short time.........it's unlikely that i
would have been banned yet

well?......................banned.........many times

Mark L

 

[mewmewmew13]

Have I ever baited-then-banned anyone? Or are you just making stuff up?

quote from Christian
"People must think twice before responding to the moder-baiter's posts because if they take the hook then it means bye-bye."

Don't see where Christian is making anything up?

..and I don't read that you in particular are accused of doing the 'banning'..there are many mods here.

That seems a really aggressive and unnecessary reply for a mod/ admin.

I agree that many here think your style and attitude deteriorates the general atmosphere of the forum which is generally relaxed and humourous banter...

 

[Netserk]

quote from Christian
"People must think twice before responding to the moder-baiter's posts because if they take the hook then it means bye-bye."

Don't see where Christian is making anything up?

..and I don't read that you in particular are accused of doing the 'banning'..there are many mods here.

That seems a really aggressive and unnecessary reply for a mod/ admin.

I agree that many here think your style and attitude deteriorates the general atmosphere of the forum which is generally relaxed and humourous banter...

Can you come with just one example of a poster being banned, because of a conversation with me? Or are you just making stuff up?

 

[mewmewmew13]

Can you come with just one example of a poster being banned, because of a conversation with me? Or are you just making stuff up?

No one but you ever said a poster got banned because of a conversation with you.

Christian said if a poster takes 'the hook' then it's bye bye...
as we all who post here know if you get caught up in replying to trolling of any sort by anyone and get carried away with it then it is pretty likely that you will get a ban.

A short review for you:

"6. No personal attacks.
. . .a) No insulting other members. This includes counter-insults ("he started it").
. . .b) No caustic insults or humiliation of individuals in public outside of this forum. Most public figures may be considered fair game for criticism or lampooning, but again, use common sense.
. . .c) No discriminatory remarks of any kind. Bringing up someone's race, religion, creed or similar for anything other than reference will not be tolerated.
. . .d) Blatant lying, baiting, or teasing other members will not be tolerated."

that is only one rule of 16 but....
"Violating any of these rules will result in warnings or infractions and the post or thread being removed. Egregious violations of these rules will result in bans ranging from one week, to months, or even lifetime bans."

You seem to be creating a 'straw dog' or making things up. I feel like you are forcing me to come up with a response to something that I really didn't say.

this is exactly what I said:
quote from mewmewmew13--
"..and I don't read that you in particular are accused of doing the 'banning'..there are many mods here."


I don't like your tone.

 

[Netserk]

Come with one example of taking the hook (from me) = bye bye.

And see TFF's quote in my sig

 

[Cyivel]

No one but you ever said a poster got banned because of a conversation with you.

Come with one example of taking the hook (from me) = bye bye.

..............

 

[hiero2]

. . . People must think twice before responding to the moder-baiter's posts because if they take the hook then it means bye-bye.

Have I ever baited-then-banned anyone? Or are you just making stuff up?

Can you come with just one example of a poster being banned, because of a conversation with me? Or are you just making stuff up?

No one but you ever said a poster got banned because of a conversation with you.

Christian said if a poster takes 'the hook' then it's bye bye....

I'm going to try and mediate. Briefly.

The quotes above start with Christian's accusation. I can see that Netserk's response could be slightly defensive, thinking that it was referring strictly to Netserk. But frankly, I also read it that way, and netserk's point is valid even if the accusation is more general. Christian is accusing netserk, and/or the mod staff, of acting unfairly and unequally. He is accusing us of banning someone for responding to a mod's baiting/trolling post.

Christian is making an ad hominem attack, and creating a straw man.

So netserk's question is then actually accurate. I also understand the statement that nobody has accused netserk of doing this bait/ban routine - but Christian's statement is, in fact, an accusation, either of netserk or the mods in general of baiting --> banning. So, he is either making it up, or he can point to an incident, or he is revealing his inner fear of being banned for arguing with netserk.

Christian closes that post with a statement that is patently ridicule and inflammatory.

Now, if I had to make a judgement based on these posts alone, I would note that Christian's post used the most techniques that are described on this page:
http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/rhetological-fallacies/

 

[ElChingon]

Now, if I had to make a judgement based on these posts alone, I would note that Christian's post used the most techniques that are described on this page:
http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/rhetological-fallacies/

Judgment or Cop out?

 

[function]

An example of a moderator using their position to bolster their opinion, unfortunately in this case it hinders the discussion and was directed to a new user. Not very welcoming.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1198218&postcount=1534

 

[Zam_Olyas]

This is a cyclingforum any kind of drug use should always be talk about.

 

[Cyivel]

An example of a moderator using their position to bolster their opinion, unfortunately in this case it hinders the discussion and was directed to a new user. Not very welcoming.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1198218&postcount=1534

Particularly odd for the reasons Dr Mas gave.

 

[Netserk]

I'm going to try and mediate. Briefly.

The quotes above start with Christian's accusation. I can see that Netserk's response could be slightly defensive, thinking that it was referring strictly to Netserk. But frankly, I also read it that way, and netserk's point is valid even if the accusation is more general. Christian is accusing netserk, and/or the mod staff, of acting unfairly and unequally. He is accusing us of banning someone for responding to a mod's baiting/trolling post.

Christian is making an ad hominem attack, and creating a straw man.

So netserk's question is then actually accurate. I also understand the statement that nobody has accused netserk of doing this bait/ban routine - but Christian's statement is, in fact, an accusation, either of netserk or the mods in general of baiting --> banning. So, he is either making it up, or he can point to an incident, or he is revealing his inner fear of being banned for arguing with netserk.

Christian closes that post with a statement that is patently ridicule and inflammatory.

Now, if I had to make a judgement based on these posts alone, I would note that Christian's post used the most techniques that are described on this page:
http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/rhetological-fallacies/

Christian has referred to me before as 'moder-baiter' so the accusation was directly aimed at me.

And since no one has *ever* been banned after a discussion with me (by me or another mod), it is something that Christian has made up.

...And the reason isn't that posters always play by the rules when discussing with me, but most likely because I'm more thick skinned than most.

 

[AussieGoddess]

I dont usually post much on here ... and this is one of the reasons why.

I am a huge backer of moderators under most circumstances. Its a hard job and mostly the mods do the best they can. CN has responded to a serious need to get more mods, and I think in general you should get a fair bit of leeway to settle in and learn the role.

Having said that - seriously Netserk ... you are out of line.

In he Sagan/podium thread you were incredibly aggressive towards members, taking a controversial position and basically challenging members to get worked up.

Whether you like it or not, mods simply dont get to do that. If you want to be able to post as a 'normal member' then go back to being one. As a moderator you accept and agree to certain responsibilities - and one of those is to calm potentially difficult situations and mediate between members. You put yourself in a position of not being able to do that ever by being the aggressor. How do you think its possible for people to view you as an unbiased mediator, or as an objective decision maker, when at other times you create situations of this nature.

In addition - its not a fair fight. Whether you are 'just posting how you normally do' or not, you are a mod and the others are simply members. You HAVE that power - and how you are viewed and seen to be using that power is equally as important as the actual moderation you do. Inflamatory and argumentative posts which are purely to aggravate members is not in any way appropriate for a moderator.

In short - you need to learn to walk away. You need to learn to ask yourself the questions - 'do I really need to post that?' 'Does it really add anything to this discussion?" "is this going to compromise my ability to moderate?" before you hit post.

If you cannot, then perhaps you are not suited to being a moderator.

 

[Netserk]

@AussieGoddess

I'll guess we'd just have to agree to disagree about that.

And I don't really see why it matters that I don't have the same opinion as the majority regarding the podium incident. IMO it's not any more controversial than that of the majority.

And I agree that I'm not suited to be the moderator that you want me to be. I do think though that I'm suited to be a moderator here, at least until I get told otherwise by Susan or Daniel.

 

[AussieGoddess]

I dont want to argue with you ... so this will be my last post on this.

Whether you agree with the majority or not on the situation is not actually that important. You can disagree without being aggressive and argumentative. You can post your opinion (even an unpopular one) without inflaming situations and causing members to get into situations that will call for another moderator to come and sort it out.

Getting into an argument over that opinion is the problem here. Yes its unfair that other people get to 'play the man' as you put it ... but mods dont get to. Thats the job ...

I am not saying whether or not you should be a mod - only you can decide that. (well, Susan and Daniel can too ).

I am saying that you need to decide if you want to be a mod, or if you want to be able to argue freely and without restraint. Its not good for the forum for you to do both.

Anyway - best wishes. I'm out.

 

[Netserk]

When I post as a poster, I'm just a poster like everyone else. Same rules. When I moderate or tell people to cool it, I post as a mod. To me I'm a poster that from time to time takes on the mod cap. I see it as two separate roles.

That is the reason why I post like a poster, and not cleaner-than-clean. I think it's fair to require me to be 'cleaner-than-clean' when I am posting as a mod.

As I see it some have a more holistic view, whereas there isn't a cap I can take on and off, but more like a tattoo. And since my status on all of my posts is administrator, whether I post like a poster or post like a mod, I understand why some have such a view. But I don't agree with it.

I hope this clear things out, so we can all understand each other.

 

[hiero2]

Judgment or Cop out?

Both. I'm trying to be somewhat circumspect. I can understand both sides, for the most part. But, from everything I have read - which isn't everything - I do notice some posters being less rational, and more emotional.

Some people regard netserk as inflammatory at times (or argumentative, semantics). I can think of plenty of posters whom I've thought to be inflammatory, when others thought them simply sarcastic. I've publicly noted some examples of same. Some people agree with me, some don't. I usually "get" what netserk is saying, so I don't see him as inflammatory when other people do.

I didn't see a need to go on about who was right, and who was wrong, when I can see points on both sides. I did figure out I could point out what I see as an error, and hopefully someone would learn from it. And I hoped, in that process, to help everyone find a middle ground.

 

[ElChingon]

So cop out it is.

 

[TheGame]

@AussieGoddess

I'll guess we'd just have to agree to disagree about that.

And I don't really see why it matters that I don't have the same opinion as the majority regarding the podium incident. IMO it's not any more controversial than that of the majority.

And I agree that I'm not suited to be the moderator that you want me to be. I do think though that I'm suited to be a moderator here, at least until I get told otherwise by Susan or Daniel.

In addition to your former offensive avatar, I'm still totally confused how a so called moderator can have a) swearing in their signature and b) deliberate baiting in their signature.

 

[TheGame]

When I post as a poster, I'm just a poster like everyone else. Same rules. When I moderate or tell people to cool it, I post as a mod. To me I'm a poster that from time to time takes on the mod cap. I see it as two separate roles.

That is the reason why I post like a poster, and not cleaner-than-clean. I think it's fair to require me to be 'cleaner-than-clean' when I am posting as a mod.

As I see it some have a more holistic view, whereas there isn't a cap I can take on and off, but more like a tattoo. And since my status on all of my posts is administrator, whether I post like a poster or post like a mod, I understand why some have such a view. But I don't agree with it.

I hope this clear things out, so we can all understand each other.

And that is exactly the point, like it or not, you are ALWAYS posting as a mod. Moderating isn't just about calming down arguments, warning members etc, Moderating is also about setting an example as a poster, leading the way in demonstrating an acceptable posting style to members.

You cannot switch between posting as a user and posting as a mod. You have "Administrator" under your name. Every post you make is as a mod. Perhaps you should have thought about that, or it should have been better explained to you prior to taking on the role. Honestly, my personal opinion is that you aren't suited to the role and I think you rather wish you hadn't taken it on.

That said, I am totally 100% opposed to this thread in that it is just a baiting war between members and moderators. If members have a grievance with an individual moderator they should approach another mod, or more senior person so as Dan and explain the situation. It should be dealt with privately, behind closed doors. Instead you end up with what is happening. Netserk will not back down as it will damage his reputation as a mod and a poster, the other mods are stuck in the middle, and the likes of Daniel and Susan have to be seen to supporting the moderators (you can be sure this has been discussed between the mods at length behind closed doors), and you ultimately end up with a stalemate which just creates more tension on the forum.

 

[Netserk]

So you basicly say that you have a holistic view. Fair enough. I don't.