-
Welcome
to BookAndReader! We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!
Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.
I Don't Like Secrets...
- Thread starter Stewart
- Start date
novella
Active Member
Martin, first you start a thread entitled Mods and Banning, inviting people to discuss moderators and banning, which would obviously be about who was banned by whom and why. Then several mods complain that 'certain members' are stirring things up? What did you expect to happen in the thread you started? Clearly it would lead to discussion of certain mods attitudes toward certain members, past and present. That was the point, wasn't it?
Reading that thread, I think Stewart does not stand out as particularly abrasive, merely gives his opinion about how one should moderate, and in fact provides a neat little guideline that makes a lot of sense.
The central issue of whether a moderator only needs to behave as a moderator when 'called upon' has not been answered yet, which to me was one of the main points of that discussion.
As a moderator, can you answer that question or can you refer to something in the guidelines that does? Clearly the exchange in which Stewart became embroiled focuses on this question, and I think the membership ought to know what the policy there is. In fact, it is more than a little ironic that the person with whom Stewart was clearly frustrated was actively doing the member/moderator shuffle. I too wonder whether he was then speaking as a mod or as a member, and isn't it unfair to change hats after baiting someone?
Reading that thread, I think Stewart does not stand out as particularly abrasive, merely gives his opinion about how one should moderate, and in fact provides a neat little guideline that makes a lot of sense.
The central issue of whether a moderator only needs to behave as a moderator when 'called upon' has not been answered yet, which to me was one of the main points of that discussion.
As a moderator, can you answer that question or can you refer to something in the guidelines that does? Clearly the exchange in which Stewart became embroiled focuses on this question, and I think the membership ought to know what the policy there is. In fact, it is more than a little ironic that the person with whom Stewart was clearly frustrated was actively doing the member/moderator shuffle. I too wonder whether he was then speaking as a mod or as a member, and isn't it unfair to change hats after baiting someone?
Irene Wilde
New Member
I'm still abiding by a truce until Darren returns but, respectfully, novella raises a fair point.
Stewart
Active Member
Personally, I think the warning should be removed due to a loophole that SillyWabbit made for me. 
Mine was a personal attack against a moderator. He wasn't a member at the time and was, instead, acting as a moderator. And since there was no rules about attacking a moderator I fully believe I am right.
Mine was a personal attack against a moderator. He wasn't a member at the time and was, instead, acting as a moderator. And since there was no rules about attacking a moderator I fully believe I am right.
Martin
Active Member
I love the war-related imagery.Irene said:
The point about a moderator being a moderator at all times is a very valid point, and one well taken at that. It's truer than I'd care to admit. What I will admit it that I (I'll take the blame here) made a mistake when I said that I was speaking as a member as opposed to a moderator. I hang my head in shame - my apologies for not thinking it through.
That said, the point of the enitire discussion is this - do the current moderators try everything within their powers to keep this forum the warm and friendly community it was, is, and will, hopefully, always be?
Yes, they do. I do. We do. But we can't keep everybody happy. No matter how hard we try.
Cheers
EDIT: Clever thinking, Stewart.
Irene Wilde
New Member
But one only has to click the "View Moderators" to see which members online are also moderators.
Not taking a side in whether this makes a loophole a loophole or not.
And when one is labeled an insurgent (fairly or not), one may as well run with it.
Not taking a side in whether this makes a loophole a loophole or not.
And when one is labeled an insurgent (fairly or not), one may as well run with it.
Halo
New Member
Fair point, Irene, but I still think that you are either a member (someone who has joined the forum, which obviously includes moderators) or a guest (someone who is visiting but has not joined the forum), so moderators can still be classed as members. But having said all that, as Martin said, the whole point of rule 3.1 is trying to keep the forum a friendly place where people can post without being insulted or abused for their views.
novella
Active Member
Stewart is right. It's a classic bait-and-switch.
"Let's talk about moderators"
"Okay. I think mods should behave this way. Some mods here don't. That's a problem."
"Why are you making a personal attack?"
"It's not a personal attack. But come to think of it, you do fit the bill"
"You are just stirring things up."
"You don't understand your job."
"I was speaking as a member then, not a moderator."
(Martin, this BTW, was not you.)
Oh.
It is unjust to penalize and single out Stewart when the exchange he was having was with a moderator and about the moderating function in a thread about moderating started by a moderator in which his point is all too truly evident.
"Let's talk about moderators"
"Okay. I think mods should behave this way. Some mods here don't. That's a problem."
"Why are you making a personal attack?"
"It's not a personal attack. But come to think of it, you do fit the bill"
"You are just stirring things up."
"You don't understand your job."
"I was speaking as a member then, not a moderator."
(Martin, this BTW, was not you.)
Oh.
It is unjust to penalize and single out Stewart when the exchange he was having was with a moderator and about the moderating function in a thread about moderating started by a moderator in which his point is all too truly evident.
Halo
New Member
novella said:
There are some points I would like to make about this. Firstly, I would not like people to come to the conclusion that Stewart's warning was given because he insulted a moderator, and secondly, it was not given because Stewart had insulted someone for the first time. We do not hand out warnings lightly, nor generally for a first offence, unless it is extremely serious. People are given the benefit of the doubt. However, Stewart has been insulting towards people in other threads in the past. After discussing these, and recent posts, it was decided to issue a warning for all these infringements of rule 3.1.
Irene Wilde
New Member
I'd just like to point out that my secret rebel base in the Hollywood Hills is nowhere near Stewart's secret Afghan cave and that in no way have I ever roused his rabble. If his rabble is roused, that's his own doing.
Irene Wilde
New Member
It's you. That was a perfectly PG-13 post.