Moderators

[sublimit]

A bad moderator is like a bad referee, umpire or official. Someone who mistakenly thinks that they should be the centre of attention and uses their little bit of power to focus attention onto themselves. Someone who thinks they are more important than the discussions themselves.

Any moderating team is only as good as its worst moderator. While being vain, having a huge ego, very little intellect (while fancying yourself to be smarter than everyone else), combined with pedantry, an oversensitivity to criticism and an inability to take criticism might be the perfect combination to become head of the UCI but it makes for a very crappy moderator.

Plenty of posters are like that but not the mods unless I missed something.
You learn to ignore or humour the most annoying posters but in the main the mods are OK. ..
Sometimes.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

If thats the criteria, it sounds like you would be a worthy candidate.

Your point (insults) fails when I have no idea to which moderator you are referring to.

Any resemblance between my description of the personality traits of a bad moderator and your own personality traits is purely co-incidental.

It was not a comment on anyone specific - if I had intended it to be then I would have said so.

I was making the point that if you have 10 moderators and 1 is very bad then it drags down the good moderators and colours and clouds the moderation for the whole site. Second point that bad moderators (and McQuaid) share the same personality traits.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Any resemblance between my description of the personality traits of a bad moderator and your own personality traits is purely co-incidental.

It was not a comment on anyone specific - if I had intended it to be then I would have said so.

I was making the point that if you have 10 moderators and 1 is very bad then it drags down the good moderators and colours and clouds the moderation for the whole site. Second point that bad moderators (and McQuaid) share the same personality traits.

Ah, it was just a general insult.
Normal service has resumed.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

'Physician' arise and heal thyself.

Sweatpea, if I had wanted it to be an insult then I would have written an insult. If you read into it an insult then that says more about you than it does about me.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

'Physician' arise and heal thyself.

If I had wanted it to be an insult then I would have done. If I want to call you a ****faced troll then I will.

It seems I touched a nerve.

To recap:
You raise a point (insulting/trolling) to a group and when you are called out on it pretend that it is some sort of general comment that was not aimed at anyone?

And I am the troll for calling it out?

'Physician' arise and heal thyself.

Sweatpea, if I had wanted it to be an insult then I would have written an insult. If you read into it an insult then that says more about you than it does about me.

I see you are being busy, trying to edit your point - if you don't think saying unnamed moderators are.....
being vain,
having a huge ego,
very little intellect (while fancying yourself to be smarter than everyone else),
combined with pedantry,
an oversensitivity to criticism and an inability to take criticism might be the perfect combination to become head of the UCI but it makes for a very crappy moderator..
.....is not insulting the problem is certainly yours.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

The only thing you've been touching recently is yourself.

If you want to read things into things that aren't there then I can't help you.

Anyway, as I know your ego and vanity means that you have to have the last word so I'll leave you to it.

I'm off to eat the beautiful grass on the mountain.

 

[bicing]

MASERATI wins again. Nobody mess with this man.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

Not really unless the award in question is troll of the year.

Selectively quoting the original post to distort it isn't really the hallmark of a genius but it is very much in his MO.

The point remains this:

Any moderation team is only as good as its worst moderator, and will be dragged down by the bad moderator.

Second point the worst moderators seem to share the same personality characteristics as McQuaid which is what makes them terrible moderators.

Nice grass though

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Not really unless the award in question is troll of the year.

Selectively quoting the original post to distort it isn't really the hallmark of a genius but it is very much in his MO.

I cut to the insulting part - if I misquoted you then you would have a right to complain.

The point remains this:

Any moderation team is only as good as its worst moderator, and will be dragged down by the bad moderator.

Same goes for most roles with humans acting in a system - why make your general comments on moderators?

Second point the worst moderators seem to share the same personality characteristics as McQuaid which is what makes them terrible moderators.

Nice grass though

Aha- so you were actually discussing (insulting) specific moderators.

You should try eating the grass - not smoking it.

 

[pedaling squares]

I appreciate your point MJM, but I don't understand the purpose of the post. It's hard to see it as anything but a critique of one or more mods, which is well within our 'rights' as forum members to do. But without knowing what led to the post and what or whom you refer to, it is hard to take it seriously. Non-specific critique isn't helpful, it's more a smear than a step towards change. How are the mods in question supposed to know what is bothering you?

 

[Stingray34]

Hard to take MJM seriously? You read these forums, yes? Without having to supply particular instances, you can't say you've witnessed some mods do more than merely moderate? In some posts I've read, moderators can be seen to take a heavy-handed response by interjecting into posts and altering them to suit their own purposes.

Some mods have been known to respond to perceived viciousness with some of their own, not to mention general patriarchy (or is that matriarchy?) Certain mods like to remind posters of the 'respect for others' rule ad nauseum. A good and decent rule, one that needs to be demonstrated from the top down consistently for it to work.

My partner warned me off these forums, drawing particular notice to its moderation. I really should listen to her more often.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Hard to take MJM seriously? You read these forums, yes? Without having to supply particular instances, you can't say you've witnessed some mods do more than merely moderate? In some posts I've read, moderators can be seen to take a heavy-handed response by interjecting into posts and altering them to suit their own purposes.

I am afraid you will have to supply particular instances.

I have only seen the mods interject when there is a rule violation.

Some mods have been known to respond to perceived visciousness with some of their own, not to mention general patriarchy (or is that matriarchy?) Certain mods like to remind posters of the 'respect for others' rule ad nauseum. A good and decent rule, one that needs to be demonstrated from the top down consistently for it to work.

My partner warned me off these forums, drawing particular notice to its moderation. I really should listen to her more often.

Who are the certain modes - and what did they say?

 

[Stingray34]

what did they say?

Things that I can't understand
It's too close for comfort
And I've got to get up and go-oh...

oooooooooooooooo

It's a cr.....

 

[pedaling squares]

I think my point was clear. Critiquing mods is fair game, but we need to be fair about how we do it. Why smear them all by being non-specific? If we have a problem with a mod, we should contact him/her, either via PM or in this thread if you think it needs to be in the open, and speak our mind. I've had people critique my decisions in this thread, and I appreciated the feedback. Usually we ended up having a laugh and reaching an accord via PM.

And really, it's pretty funny that someone would warn you to leave this forum due to the moderation. The mods can't affect your health, your income, or your quality of life, and nobody can really take this forum that seriously, can they?

 

[Anonymous]

Not really unless the award in question is troll of the year.

Selectively quoting the original post to distort it isn't really the hallmark of a genius but it is very much in his MO.

The point remains this:

Any moderation team is only as good as its worst moderator, and will be dragged down by the bad moderator.

Second point the worst moderators seem to share the same personality characteristics as McQuaid which is what makes them terrible moderators.

Nice grass though

I'm not attacking... but this is a universal truth. It applies to virtually any team. Business, sports.... whatever.

Why would this not be true on this forum?

 

[Stingray34]

I'd like to go into more detail, but CorpSeCorps and O'Brien from the Ministry of Love are listening in. Anyway, the Two Minute Hate is over and it's time for calisthenics.

As Hate Week nears, I might expand if I can't get some nookie with Julia or rats gnaw her face off, whatever comes first.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I'd like to go into more detail, but CorpSeCorps and O'Brien from the Ministry of Love are listening in. Anyway, the Two Minute Hate is over and it's time for calisthenics.

As Hate Week nears, I might expand if I can't get some nookie with Julia or rats gnaw her face off, whatever comes first.

So you have no point?
Thats fine.

 

[Stingray34]

And really, it's pretty funny that someone would warn you to leave this forum due to the moderation. The mods can't affect your health, your income, or your quality of life, and nobody can really take this forum that seriously, can they?

What you say is completely true and not catty at all. But, you know, some people take the forum seriously enough to make 2,200 posts. Amazing but true.

 

[Stingray34]

So you have no point?
Thats fine.

I said I won't provide specific examples. Among other reasons, I can't be bothered trawling the forums for your benefit, and I have other things to do so don't demand that follow your parameters of debate.

My point is, it's a question of apprehending the geist.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I said I won't provide specific examples. Among other reasons, I can't be bothered trawling the forums for your benefit, and I have other things to do so don't demand that follow your parameters of debate.

My point is, it's a question of apprehending the geist.

You have the time to write up a long post - time to even post replies, but no time to back it up?
Gottit.

 

[Stingray34]

You have the time to write up a long post - time to even post replies, but no time to back it up?
Gottit.

long post? yes, these replies are real marathons. It's like writing war and peace. Perhaps you've developed software, a database that allows you to find every single relevent post in seconds. That's dedication. As it stands, and to re-state it, I'm not trawling the forums for evidence, perry mason.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

long post? yes, these replies are real marathons. It's like writing war and peace. Perhaps you've developed software, a database that allows you to find every single relevent post in seconds. That's dedication. As it stands, and to re-state it, I'm not trawling the forums for evidence, perry mason.

Its been 40 minutes since your original post - plenty of time to back up your point.

If you still don't have the time then could you just name these moderators -

Hard to take MJM seriously? You read these forums, yes? Without having to supply particular instances, you can't say you've witnessed some mods do more than merely moderate? In some posts I've read, moderators can be seen to take a heavy-handed response by interjecting into posts and altering them to suit their own purposes.

Some mods have been known to respond to perceived viciousness with some of their own, not to mention general patriarchy (or is that matriarchy?) Certain mods like to remind posters of the 'respect for others' rule ad nauseum. A good and decent rule, one that needs to be demonstrated from the top down consistently for it to work.

My partner warned me off these forums, drawing particular notice to its moderation. I really should listen to her more often.

 

[Stingray34]

Its been 40 minutes since your original post - plenty of time to back up your point.

If you still don't have the time then could you just name these moderators -

Did the coroner dig your watch out of your last patient, Dr Nick?

Ve vant you to name names! Keep it up, my features are really pretty under the bright light.

What's your interest in all this?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Did the coroner dig your watch out of your last patient, Dr Nick?

Ve vant you to name names! Keep it up, my features are really pretty under the bright light.

What's your interest in all this?

My interest - if what you say is true, it should be highlighted and dealt with.

Unfortunately, the problem is the "if" part.

 

[python]

mjm, as far as i can judge from his/her posting here, is a well informed and not unintelligent cycling old-timer...

yet, his/her tirades in this thread about the mods are confusing and disappointing.

it's rather transparent WHO he/she has a bug up the internals about...

my suggestion to mjm, as always to anyone, start looking inwards before complaining.