Discussion Of Moderator Boundaries

[Bertrand Russell]

Should moderators be restricted to only taking action based on the rules? Can moderators punish members for what they say outside of the forum? Do you think the moderators should conduct themselves solely in the best interests of the forum? That is to say that they can take any action that they deem beneficial to the community. I implore those who respond to not rehash the latest incident. I believe the community should voice their opinion regarding mod behavior. In accordance with the fact that you elected them, how much power do you wish them to have?

[oggie505#2]

this post is bad news

[Johnny_D]

this post is bad news

+1 to the Ogg

Mr One post count asks this why?

My own opinion however - If you don't like the mods then feel free to frog off.

Personally, I've had enough of it.

JD

[newsman]

Methinks Bertrand Russell is no ordinary noob, if you catch my drift. But I agree with with OGG and JD. Let's not touch this one...

[james]

Mods do what they need to. Sometimes I feel sorry for them with all the flack they take.

[sambookamax]

this post is bad news

+2 to that

Heck of a 1st post though ... *sigh*

[PerznPerversion]

Should moderators be restricted to only taking action based on the rules? Can moderators punish members for what they say outside of the forum? Do you think the moderators should conduct themselves solely in the best interests of the forum? That is to say that they can take any action that they deem beneficial to the community. I implore those who respond to not rehash the latest incident. I believe the community should voice their opinion regarding mod behavior. In accordance with the fact that you elected them, how much power do you wish them to have?

apparently this person is probably one of the banned people hahaha. but newayz mods should follow the rules, and do whats best for the forum. Honestly though there are boundaries and we make those boundaries, if things get out of hand like a month ago then we take action into our own hands.

[insidius]

Yeah, being a moderator myself at another site, I can definitely say with experience that this thread has a story behind it.

Seen these a thousand times before.

[Lakemonster]

Perfect timing I suppose.

Motive in question.

Content is not.

[Bertrand Russell]

If anyone cared to look I’ve been registered for some time. I’ve been lurking and using the board for various resources. I merely wished for this issue to be resolved before I committed myself to one forum.

[oggie505#2]

Riiiiiiight.... What's that restaurant with all that goofy sh** on the walls?

[james]

Shennanigans!

[Officer Rod Farva]

Shenanigans!

[Sonthert]

I would like to respond to it, anyways.

The main reason that moderators were democratically elected is because when I asked HK about adding more moderators...the response was "Oh, do you want the job?" What I read into it was, if you want it you can have it. I said, I think there should be two or three and they should be elected, not appointed. If the users see fit to elect me, they do, if they don't, that's fine, too. I proposed minimum requirements to become a moderator, rather than just opening it up to a popularity contest.

Just because you elect a sheriff, don't expect him not to shoot voters who are committing a crime.

You elected several sheriffs. We all act more or less independently. We do have an area to discuss things privately, and we do. We've discussed this situation. We won't nullify the actions of another moderator whether we disagree with them or not. Nor will we moderators discuss the actions of other moderators in a public forum. I would consider discussing it privately conspiratorial and inappropriate. The moderators police each other in private. It would degenerate into locking Joe out, somebody unlocking him, another moderator relocking him. Pandemonium.

Each of the moderators seem to have their own voice or role in the process. I like this quite a bit. We fulfill different functions and do different jobs, yet we all have the same job description and the same powers.

Is conduct/what is said outside the Forum justification for action by moderators inside the Forum? Some moderators feel it is. Some do not. I feel it is not...if Moderator X says "We found out Jeffrey Dahmer is a user on the Forum. We know Jeffrey Dahmer likes to lure people to his house, sodomize them, kill them and eat them." (Yes, I know Jeffrey Dahmer is dead...assume he is alive). Would it be reasonable for me, as a moderator, block this guys posts or at least have them pre-approved? I think most people would say yes (I'm kinda on the fence, but I'm pretty liberal). He might be trying to get hookah smoke activities together that are a setup for murder. Again, I think most people would say yes. So, we have at least one case on the extreme end that the answer is yes, and the other extreme, never ban somebody for their actions/what they say elsewhere. Some moderators (like myself) lean towards never, some lean towards "depends on what they did/said". You can't make a hard fast rule for all cases. Axe murders are banned, stranglers are not. Its up to the discretion of the moderators, ultimately.

The moderators made all the rules you associate with this forum...without democratic input, I think that us interpreting a few very loose rules should only be questioned only in the most dire circumstances. I do understand kicking them back and forth "Why are those moderators such dicks?". Frequently we make decisions from information everybody else doesn't see. Should the process be more transparent and less like the Bush Administration? Its a mixed bag. Good points and bad points. If the process was more transparent, people would be getting all butt hurt when their name was mentioned and bantered around a bit...but in truth, give it a week or two, and the fuss disappears. The poor guy in question could be just having a bad week and then he gets really upset because we start discussing it...and make a situation that doesn't require any type of corrective action into a problem.

I think the system works, I think if we, the moderators chilled out a little bit, things might be better, but I think our actions as a group are in the range of "reasonable" overall.

Yes, the moderators should only conduct themselves in the best interests of the Forum. I agree. What the best interests of the Forum are is a matter for debate. Get ten people and you will probably get ten different answers.

You can voice your objections to mod behavior...but for what purpose? Have a revolt? Spit on my shoes? Ruin my day? I think the users need to chill out as much as the moderators. Its just a Forum. If you can't get on the Forum, your life isn't going to end. People act like if they can't do something they want to do, some huge infringements of their civil liberties have occurred. Some people feel that way even if they did do something wrong. Government has supported this viewpoint, too. the Americans With Disabilities Act is a prime example. My advice: Live your life and don't look for injustice in the world. You will see enough without even trying.