Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ketara wrote:
I think this is quite the astonishing opinion. It says far more about you and how you personally perceive holding any kind of power, than it does anyone else. Moderation is a dreary, mostly thankless job, which involves dealing with argumentative scammers, trolls, and facetious people convinced of their own righteousness. You do it because you enjoy the community that you're part of and because you want to preserve it from the above users.

So there you go, attacking me personally when I have not done the same to you. Classic move of someone who believes/knows they are in a position of power over someone else. What are my options to this? Speak up and risk punishment? Say nothing and simply agree that you are right?

You might want to take a read of this; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment, it's pretty well known that people will, unfortunately, often default to a negative stance (with regards to their treatment of other people) when given power. You have provided the perfect example in your response above, rather than respond to the critique with your own stance, you instead opt to attack me. Great moderation?

 Ketara wrote:
You're clearly new here.

Relevance or just another attack?

 Ketara wrote:
The 'Swapmod' user category literally didn't exist at that time I got asked to take the position; it got created when I accepted. The reason I got offered it because I was already trying to make things better as a regular user in a productive fashion (I started the Reputable Trader List concept, for example). You can blather on inventing things about how I must be self-deceiving, but I was doing what I do now before the position existed and thus had no expectation/intent of getting it. Occasionally, having to deal with accusations like the above makes me wonder why I bother. Then I go and have an enjoyable conversation or two, see some great pics, learn a thing or two, and remember why.

It's funny though, because you wouldn't have to bother. You could literally have a position where you can only edit posts in a certain mod sub forum, y'know, like the one that you actually became this so called "Swapmod" for? I'm not 'blathering', I'm stating facts. Facts that you are actively proving by your ignorant responses. If your intentions were pure, for example, why moderate anything that you perceive as outside your very specific remit? Why even be able to? Could it be that you enjoy the power?!?!?!oneoneone

It's nothing to be ashamed of. It's "normal" in that it is expected behaviour.

Haven't you literally been attacking every mod by saying "They're all just here to power trip"? Bit of a double standard there.

I’m surprised that we can’t find a single MOD who doesn’t want to participate in the Politics thread to serve as the designated MOD for that thread.

 Elemental wrote:
The locking of the thread in question....I can understand the reasons, but the way it was done looked very unprofessional. It's even more questionable when the comment KK was being called on was the same sort of hostile over-generalisation that had already earned the thread a temporary lock from a different mod: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/3210/753985.page#10001383

When a mod engages in the sort of behaviour that a different mod had warned posters about....the impression is not positive.

The US Politics thread seems to be (aside from maybe Star Wars movie threads) the only thread on the site that consistently has trouble following Rule #1. Even the threads in Nuts and Bolts debating whether or not the thread should be allowed get locked. Posters consistently ask for special dispensation to violate Rule #1 in the US Politics thread because posters want to be able to call a spade a spade as they see it and not be hampered by the need to be polite when they point out erroneous reasoning or falsehoods. If it really is too hard to discuss US Politics without making derogatory comments about other people then the site is better off without it.

 Wolfblade wrote:
Haven't you literally been attacking every mod by saying "They're all just here to power trip"? Bit of a double standard there.

Have you read my posts? Take another look.

E - there is also a significant difference between attacking a system and attacking a person, personally. You get that right? I haven't named any specific mod with my comments.

 d-usa wrote:
I’m surprised that we can’t find a single MOD who doesn’t want to participate in the Politics thread to serve as the designated MOD for that thread.

Really? I wouldn’t want to invest my time into that job even if it was paid.

So, I'm not saying Mods become mods for the "power". They have power invested in them when they become Mods. Just as a prince has power invested in them when they become king. It comes with the position. I very much believe in the potential for Plato's philosopher kings. Enlightened dictators that rule from their own Pursuit of the greater good. I do not use the term Dictator in a derogatory way. I use it only to describe the power dynamic at play.

Site owners are seemingly beneficent overlords of this domain. They invest power in those they believe capable of fulfilling their desires for their domain. This is the power dynamic of a Dictatorship. The members of this site may appeal to those in power, but there is no means to "overturn" a decision. The people in control are not elected. They are appointed by whim.

This does not mean they are selfish. Moderating is not a joyous task. Anyone moderating a site is almost certainly doing so from an altruistic position. This does not change the power dynamic. If they think what's best for the site is to can a given user, they have the authority to do so.

Hypothetically, this "implicit threat" is the root of their authority, and the means to enforce a certain kind of posting. All authority is ultimately derived from being able to enact force. This applies here, as well.

Did someone get in over their head? Probably. If bothered, would it have been best to invite a dialogue, rather than issue demands? I think so. Not specific to the OP. This seems to be a trend of sorts. A sentiment shared by many.

There is a best way to approach this. Attacking the powers that be results in wagon circling and the point gets lost in the process. People vent, but nothing gets done. "The people" express disapproval, and "The power" gets defensive and points out, fairly, that they're unpaid volunteers.

The approach sets up for failure, by creating an adversarial exchange. Rather, the issue could be approached as,

"Hey, powers that be, could we talk about Mods that are taking mod action in threads they're involved in?"

This is an invitation to converse. Not a demand to be met, "or else." This invitation can be met or ignored, but the invitation shows a desire to discuss, not rattle sabres.

Anyhow, like I said earlier, the US politics thread and really anything related to it ought to be a take it somewhere else topic. Any topic that generates the same rehashed, partisan crap should be a take it somewhere else topic. It doesn't seem to add to this site's value. Nothing new gets generated. Even just reporting the dope-of-the-day news is inflammatory. It is immediately bias-filtered into whichever camp the person belongs to, and then the crap-apult gets loaded and the poop starts flying. Both ways.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

So there you go, attacking me personally when I have not done the same to you.

Sorry, but is there a language barrier here? I said that your own words are quite revealing as to your own thought processes and attitudes towards the topic under discussion. Which they are. It's self-evident. That was the point of you writing them down. It's the purpose of communication. If you're taking that as an insult, you're literally insulting yourself there.

Classic move of someone who believes/knows they are in a position of power over someone else. What are my options to this? Speak up and risk punishment? Say nothing and simply agree that you are right?

Neighbour, that martyr complex around your neck looks awfully heavy. You might want to put that cross you're carrying down. I've seen other people hauling them laboriously through conversations before, and they just end up looking a bit silly when they make themselves fall over from the weight.

You might want to take a read of this; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment, it's pretty well known that people will, unfortunately, often default to a negative stance (with regards to their treatment of other people) when given power. You have provided the perfect example in your response above, rather than respond to the critique with your own stance, you instead opt to attack me. Great moderation?

You might want to look closer. The Stanford Experiment was disproven as being fatally flawed and heavily biased years ago. All participants from one cultural makeup, all male, only 24 of them (statistically insignificant), results not able to be duplicated in later testing. Terrible piece of research. You might want to read your own links in future, because you can find that information in there.

It's funny though, because you wouldn't have to bother. You could literally have a position where you can only edit posts in a certain mod sub forum, y'know, like the one that you actually became this so called "Swapmod" for?

Errrr...I do? That's what Swapmods are about? Sorry, I'm not really following here.

I'm not 'blathering', I'm stating facts. Facts that you are actively proving by your ignorant responses. If your intentions were pure, for example, why moderate anything that you perceive as outside your very specific remit? Why even be able to? Could it be that you enjoy the power?!?!?!oneoneone.

Speaking of facts (because you really don't seem to have many of the relevant ones), you're aware that I don't moderate anything outside the Swapshop, right? I comment on the behind the scenes stuff from time to time as seems appropriate, but that's the extent of my involvement in the general forum management.

Trust me, I get enough hassle from scammers, format rule breakers, and people trying to palm off recasts as originals, to want to deal with this sort of crap as well. I swear some of the regular mods are saints for the tolerance they show some people. I simply wouldn't have the patience.

 Manchu wrote:

 John Prins wrote:
I mean, who would volunteer to moderate forums they have no interest in?

We do it nonetheless.

@Sasori - Generally speaking, I don't think there is an inherent conflict of interest between participating in a conversation and moderating it. US Politics is so polarized, however, that maybe we mods should decide to either moderate or participate. I personally have decided not to participate.

 Ketara wrote:
The reward isn't the 'sense of power'

People who claim we moderate for "the power" really have the very worst opinion of us.

Manchu,

I do agree that the US Politics (Really, politics in general in the current environment) is the biggest offender, but this isn't the first time it's happened. It just felt so blatant this time, that I felt I needed to speak up.

I understand that this may be a difficult thing to implement, just due to the short amount of mod staff but I do think it would overall help the general impression people have of the staff and benefit the community as a whole.

Please keep in mind that think the mod staff really does an excellent job here, but I do think this would be a pretty major improvement that could benefit the whole Dakka community.

@the Mods, I do apologize for my first post, it came off much more aggressive than I intended.

 Ketara wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

So there you go, attacking me personally when I have not done the same to you.

Sorry, but is there a language barrier here? I said that your own words are quite revealing as to your own thought processes and attitudes towards the topic under discussion. Which they are. It's self-evident. That was the point of you writing them down. It's the purpose of communication. If you're taking that as an insult, you're literally insulting yourself there.

You know we can see your posts right?

You said this; "It says far more about you and how you personally perceive holding any kind of power, than it does anyone else." which to me is a pretty clear insult, veiled or not. I don't see you referencing the topic under discussion and if that is the entire point of your comment it's completely redundant. 'User posts feelings on topic' crazy he'd do that on a forum huh?

 Ketara wrote:
Neighbour, that martyr complex around your neck looks awfully heavy. You might want to put that cross you're carrying down. I've seen other people hauling them laboriously through conversations before, and they just end up looking a bit silly when they make themselves fall over from the weight.

No need to patronise.

 Ketara wrote:
You might want to look closer. The Stanford Experiment was disproven as being fatally flawed and heavily biased years ago. All participants from one cultural makeup, all male, only 24 of them (statistically insignificant), results not able to be duplicated in later testing. Terrible piece of research. You might want to read your own links in future, because you can find that information in there.

Some sources believe it to be flawed yes. Shock. Like any piece of scientific research. Further/other studies have been done since with similar results.

 Ketara wrote:
Errrr...I do? That's what Swapmods are about? Sorry, I'm not really following here.

So you can literally only edit posts in the single subforum relevant to you? In that case I am corrected and mistaken. Wasn't my impression.

 Ketara wrote:
Speaking of facts (because you really don't seem to have many of the relevant ones), you're aware that I don't moderate anything outside the Swapshop, right? I comment on the behind the scenes stuff from time to time as seems appropriate, but that's the extent of my involvement in the general forum management.

Trust me, I get enough hassle from scammers, format rule breakers, and people trying to palm off recasts as originals, to want to deal with this sort of crap as well. I swear some of the regular mods are saints for the tolerance they show some people. I simply wouldn't have the patience.

Again, if you can only moderate your specific subforum then I am very wrong in your involvement and apologise. Just so we're clear, if you have any ability to moderate posts from other subforums I'd not consider this to be adequate in your defence that you do this for the feelgoods only.

Let's not pretend the mods are saints though, if they were this topic would not have started?

The topic being, that we have gone off by the way, mods should not moderate topics in which they have a vested interest or may be otherwise biased. Impossible of course, because it would mean this very topic is hence immune to any moderation.

What I would like to see is some sort of fall out for a mod who acts inappropriately. It happens often and there is no reprimand.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:
Haven't you literally been attacking every mod by saying "They're all just here to power trip"? Bit of a double standard there.

Have you read my posts? Take another look.

E - there is also a significant difference between attacking a system and attacking a person, personally. You get that right? I haven't named any specific mod with my comments.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

It is exactly because the position isn't paid, that the reward is the position itself and the power it gives you. This is why (in my opinion) the moderation is so bogus at times.

Am I missing something?

Personally, I think Dakka would be better if starting a politics thread resulted in an automatic suspension, and those threads were automatically locked.

(Not entirely facetious, BTW)

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Personally, I think Dakka would be better if starting a politics thread resulted in an automatic suspension, and those threads were automatically locked.

(Not entirely facetious, BTW)

I'm not sure why they even lock it when feelings get hurt. As long as it doesn't contain sexual imagery, violence, threats of violence, or something actually illegal why lock an OT thread? If two people want to shout troll at each other ad infinitum you'd be better off banning them.

We used to have an independent offshoot forum frequented by Dakkanauts ("The Wasteland"), where it really was anything goes except something like you describe. But Dakka itself isn't really the place for that, I think

We do have a mod willing to shepherd an OT politics thread, if we get to the point of reopening one. That doesn't mean another mod might not need to deal with an alert from the thread or the like, but it should help keep things on the straight and narrow a bit!

 Sasori wrote:
@the Mods, I do apologize for my first post, it came off much more aggressive than I intended.

No problem, we appreciate feedback (good as well, just in case it comes up ) and that's partially what this section is for!

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 greatbigtree wrote:
Snip

If the mods acted as you suggest they can, and aggravate enough people to leave, they will be the dictators of nothing. They don't want this. Regardless of how sincere you think the mods are make absolutely no mistake that the only reason anyone becomes a mod is because they want a sense of power over other people.

DakkaDakka already has an extremely bad perception in the community at large. Extremely bad. If the mods want to grow the community and the forum (thus increasing their power) they should take the advice of some of their more frequent posters.

They can ignore the advice if they want and when the forum falls apart or people migrate to another they will know who to blame.

What community?

You're right! Doc their pay!

 d-usa wrote:
I’m surprised that we can’t find a single MOD who doesn’t want to participate in the Politics thread to serve as the designated MOD for that thread.

I have already volunteered (upon opening the thread to begin with) and as you can see I have steered clear of making anything but moderation posts in that thread. I used to discuss politics quite regulalry on Dakka Dakka but I no longer have much interest in it.

 Wolfblade wrote:

 John Prins wrote:
If mods can't post in areas they're moderating, you won't have moderators for very long. I assume mods moderate the forums they want to moderate because it's the forums they're most interested in.

I mean, who would volunteer to moderate forums they have no interest in?

More like they shouldn't moderate threads they have a personal interest in and post often in when it comes to something as polarizing as US Politics.

Again, your definition of "personal interest" appears off.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

 John Prins wrote:
If mods can't post in areas they're moderating, you won't have moderators for very long. I assume mods moderate the forums they want to moderate because it's the forums they're most interested in.

I mean, who would volunteer to moderate forums they have no interest in?

More like they shouldn't moderate threads they have a personal interest in and post often in when it comes to something as polarizing as US Politics.

Again, your definition of "personal interest" appears off.

Personal interest is not limited to just money.

 Manchu wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I’m surprised that we can’t find a single MOD who doesn’t want to participate in the Politics thread to serve as the designated MOD for that thread.

I have already volunteered (upon opening the thread to begin with) and as you can see I have steered clear of making anything but moderation posts in that thread. I used to discuss politics quite regulalry on Dakka Dakka but I no longer have much interest in it.

Mods occasionally have bad days. No biggie.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wolfblade wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

 John Prins wrote:
If mods can't post in areas they're moderating, you won't have moderators for very long. I assume mods moderate the forums they want to moderate because it's the forums they're most interested in.

I mean, who would volunteer to moderate forums they have no interest in?

More like they shouldn't moderate threads they have a personal interest in and post often in when it comes to something as polarizing as US Politics.

Again, your definition of "personal interest" appears off.

Personal interest is not limited to just money.

I didn't say money. No poster, has a personal interest in any thread. It's. Literally just a thread.if you have a personal interest in one then you need to step back and take a breather.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I’m surprised that we can’t find a single MOD who doesn’t want to participate in the Politics thread to serve as the designated MOD for that thread.

I have already volunteered (upon opening the thread to begin with) and as you can see I have steered clear of making anything but moderation posts in that thread. I used to discuss politics quite regulalry on Dakka Dakka but I no longer have much interest in it.

Mods occasionally have bad days. No biggie.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wolfblade wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

 John Prins wrote:
If mods can't post in areas they're moderating, you won't have moderators for very long. I assume mods moderate the forums they want to moderate because it's the forums they're most interested in.

I mean, who would volunteer to moderate forums they have no interest in?

More like they shouldn't moderate threads they have a personal interest in and post often in when it comes to something as polarizing as US Politics.

Again, your definition of "personal interest" appears off.

Personal interest is not limited to just money.

I didn't say money. No poster, has a personal interest in any thread. It's. Literally just a thread.if you have a personal interest in one then you need to step back and take a breather.

...Personal interest as in "They like talking about X/Y/Z and post regularly". What possible definition are you thinking of?

Something more important than winning an argument on the internet.

 Frazzled wrote:
Something more important than winning an argument on the internet.

Who said anything about winning an argument?

 Manchu wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I’m surprised that we can’t find a single MOD who doesn’t want to participate in the Politics thread to serve as the designated MOD for that thread.

I have already volunteered (upon opening the thread to begin with) and as you can see I have steered clear of making anything but moderation posts in that thread. I used to discuss politics quite regulalry on Dakka Dakka but I no longer have much interest in it.

And thank you for taking the time to clear up questions that came up a while ago. That was one of those “too many chefs” kind of instances that also involved a participating MOD (which wasn’t necessarily bad, but it was one of those “optics” kind of situations).

 Manchu wrote:
People who claim we moderate for "the power" really have the very worst opinion of us.

Or just very little idea what the job actually entails...

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

You can dress it up how you like but ultimately the only benefit you get for volunteering to be a mod is the ability to change others' posts, to temporarily and permanently ban them.

That's not a 'benefit'. Do you have any idea how aggravating it is to have to write messages to grown adults explaining to them why insulting other people over a different opinion about toy soldiers isn't appropriate behaviour?

Suspending posters isn't a pleasurable activity. It's not a reward. It's frustrating, and at times downright depressing.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

What I would like to see is some sort of fall out for a mod who acts inappropriately. It happens often and there is no reprimand.

All moderator activity is logged and reviewed where necessary. Mods have been reprimanded or removed in the past where their behaviour falls out of line with what the site's owners expect.

If you're not seeing it as often as you would expect, it's possibly just because your view of appropriate moderator behaviour differs from that of the site's owners.

 Sasori wrote:

 greatbigtree wrote:

Stuff

I don't really disagree with your viewpoint on the politics thread, but this was about the conduct presented in it, rather than the topic itself.

While you are in a sense correct, The mods still fall under Yakface, and this is almost certainly the exact opposite of his vision for how the community of Dakka should operate. He has said in the past that he generally favors a looser style of moderation, and that it fits the community much better than fear oriented style. Dakka is still a very welcoming and, for the most part, well moderated community that is generally open to suggestions. I feel comfortable enough here to post an issue I found with moderation, regardless if anything will be done about it. I am sorry that your past experience has caused to you to be so bitter about moderation teams, but I would like to think that the Dakka team hold itself to a higher standard.

Peronally, I like Yakface's policy of loose moderation. The last thing I want to see is Dakka end up like Whineseer (with power tripping pricks like Wintermute). I don't want to see our often laid-back, and fair handed, mods get their very own mention in the Encyclopedia Dramatica (like Wintermute and a few others at Whineseer. You have to make one hell of an impression for a site dedicated to "the lulz" to take notice of you). By letting the mods work as they do here, I've yet to see a major issue in the roughly two years I've been here. The mods have been mostly fair using their own judgement, which I believe they couldn't do if they had to play the part of the Rules Gestapo, and get crazy with the banhammer/lock button.

Lords knows they've cut me a few breaks here and there when I got pissy in OT. In many other over-moderated forums, I would have gotten temp bans at best, permabanned at worst.

I say change nothing as far as the general policy goes. If a mod does get out of hand, or crosses a line, then that is waht the site admin is for.

 RiTides wrote:
For now though, probably best to let things cool off a bit.

But why is there any cooling off required? The thread was proceeding in a fairly calm manner without any problems over the past few pages (at least) until a moderator dropped a flame bait post in it and then locked it. The problem was 100% from one specific person who should not be moderating threads they're participating in, especially when they're going to post provocative things. Nobody else was doing anything wrong, no major arguments were happening, there just wasn't anything hot that needs to cool down.

 trexmeyer wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Personally, I think Dakka would be better if starting a politics thread resulted in an automatic suspension, and those threads were automatically locked.

(Not entirely facetious, BTW)

I'm not sure why they even lock it when feelings get hurt. As long as it doesn't contain sexual imagery, violence, threats of violence, or something actually illegal why lock an OT thread? If two people want to shout troll at each other ad infinitum you'd be better off banning them.

The problem is certain topics get people wound up very fast and if often doesn't just end with two people. Others get drawn in and you can end up with quite a number of normally very active members in one thread having a huge argument in the space of one evening. Suddenly you're looking at quite a core of contributing active members being potentially suspended/banned for disruptive behaviour; but it gets worse than that.

People REMEMBER those fights. They are not often, but they stick in the mind and sour the whole site. Its hard to return to chatting about models when everyone is still remembering that ugly fight over the weekend. Have a couple of those happen and it will drive members away plus new people will see those big threads appear in the new-posts regularly and it sets a bad tone for the site.


Locking a discussion stops it advancing, it puts a halt on it and often can prevent it going south, which means dishing out punishments, easing tensions and generally having a huge amount of fall out to tackle. It's why many sites outright ban religious and political discussion because those are two areas where people get very irate on very fast.


Now you could argue that instead of locking you could just delete the offending posts, In my experience that only works if you've got a very tiny handful of posts in one block removed pretty quick. Once you hit half a page its risky, one page and you might as well lock. At that point whatever disruption has dominated the thread and all the active participants are now wrapped up in the drama. So removing the drama* cuts all their interest in the thread. So the thread often just up and dies right there.



Personally I think it would be easier just to ban political discussions on Dakka or put them behind an access wall. This is the second time that political discussions have raised problems and its clear that it puts users and mods on a higher level of stress in dealing with them. At which point one has to consider if they are beneficial to the community or if its just creating topics which stoke undercurrents of hostility/dislike and general bad feeling around the site.


*Removing is not always easy as attacks or insults can be wrapped into posts that contain otherwise sane, sensible and calm points.

 insaniak wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
People who claim we moderate for "the power" really have the very worst opinion of us.

Or just very little idea what the job actually entails...

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

You can dress it up how you like but ultimately the only benefit you get for volunteering to be a mod is the ability to change others' posts, to temporarily and permanently ban them.

That's not a 'benefit'. Do you have any idea how aggravating it is to have to write messages to grown adults explaining to them why insulting other people over a different opinion about toy soldiers isn't appropriate behaviour?

Suspending posters isn't a pleasurable activity. It's not a reward. It's frustrating, and at times downright depressing.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

What I would like to see is some sort of fall out for a mod who acts inappropriately. It happens often and there is no reprimand.

All moderator activity is logged and reviewed where necessary. Mods have been reprimanded or removed in the past where their behaviour falls out of line with what the site's owners expect.

If you're not seeing it as often as you would expect, it's possibly just because your view of appropriate moderator behaviour differs from that of the site's owners.

I don't think it's particularly difficult to copy paste a standard message and send it to a user, no. I think it takes second. So no, I'm not sure how it would be aggravating as you claim.

If it IS aggravating though to you, you know the solution. Stop being a mod. Do what the rest of us have to do and flag stuff up as inappropriate then hope that a mod bothers to do something about it/forget about it.

The primary difference between a mod and a normal user is the ability to edit others' posts and hand out suspensions/bans. Let's pretend you only do it to help the community for a second. Why do you, personally, need the ability to do these things? You can 'moderate' the community without having the moderators powers - like the rest of us do. Let's imagine that you have convinced yourself you do it for an altruistic reason. If you aren't using your only 'tools' as a mod, are you actually moderating at all? You are encouraged to moderate frequently to prove your own worth as a moderator. How else can you show that you're doing a good job? How else can you justify your existence and status?

I have spoken to the moderation team about the so called mod reprimanding/moderation process and it's an absolute joke. It doesn't exist, the mods actively support each other to keep their positions of power. Many of you were given the moderation title because you know someone else who's already a mod. It's like a boys club and to me is the single worst thing about this board.

I'm not saying all you mods are scum or that you all abuse your power or whatever. What I am saying is that there is absolutely no mechanism in place for reporting this abuse of power when it does happen and there is absolutely no interest in reprimanding any mod that does abuse their position. That is wrong.

An Actual Englishman why do you keep saying that the solution for mods is to not be mods? It seems odd to suggest that the best solution is to make mods regular users and to say that's how they can contribute because if that is the attitude all mods took there'd be no mods to deal with the reports being made.

Also I think the latter point in your posts about accountability of the system would have more clarity and impact if you were not to put a point before it (each time) which basically calls moderators power-trippers with only an interest in the position because they can edit posts and ban people (which I won't deny happens but is honestly darn rare in most moderated sites with a decent population size - most sites like that dwindle to almost nothing).


It's also my experience that mods often do know each other because most highly active members often know each other on a site. So mods are recruited from that same pool of active well known users. Also active and well known users have a known personality and level of behaviour which makes it easier to select them for moderation positions. Those with spotty/iffy or just not much back history are hard to approve. Basically its important to remember that you don't get a CV for moderating sites - approval is often just how you are known to behave on the site.

I'm not saying it's a solution mate? I'm saying if the mods hate their moderator role as much as they claim on here then perhaps they should step down. Sorry I thought that was clear.

Accepting that a part of you is a moderator because you enjoy the power/prestige? or whatever you think it gives you is not a heinous thing. Again - I'm not saying mods are these power tripping, moustache twirling villains, however I find it bizarre that they are so reluctant to admit that part of the draw for being a mod is the power it grants. I think the defensiveness of their position is making my reply more aggressive and probably putting my feelings across in a more extreme way than they really are.

Feedback taken.

I'm talking about mods knowing each other irl by the way. Not online only.