No way! I wouldn't want the power and I also wouldn't want to be separated from the IIN crowd by having a different role here. I wouldn't feel part of it any more. I'd do it for Yahoo!Answers, though, if they nominate one of their lot to do it here.
I'm not saying that I don't trust that you'd be a great mod, but I think the concept of users being picked for mod roles would only deepen the problems that we are having with the popularity issues and make the users more distrustful of the mods because it presents the possibility of being able to gain favor (or lack of favor) from mods.
That's another issue that crossed my mind. In fact, I built on that thesis. If I was approached about an issue between someone I know well and someone I barely know, I'd have to be impartial even if it meant falling out with someone I like. I've been in that position in other places and while I can do it, I don't want to do it here. This is purely a selfish attitude but I don't apologise for it.
Also, I'm too "known" here to be a good mod. My opinions are all over the place. People know how to influence me or get under my defences. Like I said, mods shouldn't be site users. But I would happily mod another site in return for them modding us.
I believe that it would be entirely possible on a website where the rules are cut and dried but the rules of this website leave (much needed) wiggle room and I do tend to believe that the boundaries between offensive, right and wrong are not entirely clear in the realms of freedom of thought.
The sad part, I guess, is that many users choose to and often make it a point to abuse that wiggle room. I doubt that we're all innocent of it.
Hmm, I don't know. I think that's where you need clever mods. Because the rules are flexible, the mods can work within that framework to resolve things. A good mod can actually be hampered by stringency. Stringency helps bad mods that need back-up, though.
And yeah, my own behaviour hasn't always been exemplary. I once came down on someone so hard that I think they left the site.
A Mod's role is not to take sides in a public debate, nor to give opinion weighted on their powers above others.
They are here ONLY to keep posts/topics/polls within the rules. Any further than that is NOT a Mod.
Therefore a Mod can post just as any other user and be comfortable in knowing that nothing will change from what it already is.
Further, the IP address or any other non privacy issues is already against the site. This site's number 1 principle is that all users can remain anonymous, even if we don't like some of their posts.
Cyber bullying will not be accepted by any social site online. This behaviour if seen as 'bullying' and not just a difference of opinion, would be met with a ban or suspension of account (or other limitations imposed).
As it presently is, I don't see this ongoing bullying that you may reference. I do see very descriptive wording and light hearted attacks that are not breaking any rules. Although the 'bully' posts may have just been removed before I even see them.
I agree 'dappled' would be a good Mod, and if a vote existed (which probably shouldn't happen) he'd get my vote.
True, I was sticking with the word because dinz used it but, you're right, what I was talking about was something different. I was thinking more about a conciliator or arbitrator. Someone to listen and then resolve problems impartially between two or more parties before it becomes a bigger problem.
I have some of the skills to do that but there are plenty of reasons I wouldn't want the role.
Is it normal: Why users make stories of other users?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
No way! I wouldn't want the power and I also wouldn't want to be separated from the IIN crowd by having a different role here. I wouldn't feel part of it any more. I'd do it for Yahoo!Answers, though, if they nominate one of their lot to do it here.
--
NeuroNeptunian
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
4
4
I'm not saying that I don't trust that you'd be a great mod, but I think the concept of users being picked for mod roles would only deepen the problems that we are having with the popularity issues and make the users more distrustful of the mods because it presents the possibility of being able to gain favor (or lack of favor) from mods.
--
dappled
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
That's another issue that crossed my mind. In fact, I built on that thesis. If I was approached about an issue between someone I know well and someone I barely know, I'd have to be impartial even if it meant falling out with someone I like. I've been in that position in other places and while I can do it, I don't want to do it here. This is purely a selfish attitude but I don't apologise for it.
Also, I'm too "known" here to be a good mod. My opinions are all over the place. People know how to influence me or get under my defences. Like I said, mods shouldn't be site users. But I would happily mod another site in return for them modding us.
--
NeuroNeptunian
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
2
2
I believe that it would be entirely possible on a website where the rules are cut and dried but the rules of this website leave (much needed) wiggle room and I do tend to believe that the boundaries between offensive, right and wrong are not entirely clear in the realms of freedom of thought.
The sad part, I guess, is that many users choose to and often make it a point to abuse that wiggle room. I doubt that we're all innocent of it.
--
dappled
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Hmm, I don't know. I think that's where you need clever mods. Because the rules are flexible, the mods can work within that framework to resolve things. A good mod can actually be hampered by stringency. Stringency helps bad mods that need back-up, though.
And yeah, my own behaviour hasn't always been exemplary. I once came down on someone so hard that I think they left the site.
--
Dad
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Just my 2 cents.
A Mod's role is not to take sides in a public debate, nor to give opinion weighted on their powers above others.
They are here ONLY to keep posts/topics/polls within the rules. Any further than that is NOT a Mod.
Therefore a Mod can post just as any other user and be comfortable in knowing that nothing will change from what it already is.
Further, the IP address or any other non privacy issues is already against the site. This site's number 1 principle is that all users can remain anonymous, even if we don't like some of their posts.
Cyber bullying will not be accepted by any social site online. This behaviour if seen as 'bullying' and not just a difference of opinion, would be met with a ban or suspension of account (or other limitations imposed).
As it presently is, I don't see this ongoing bullying that you may reference. I do see very descriptive wording and light hearted attacks that are not breaking any rules. Although the 'bully' posts may have just been removed before I even see them.
I agree 'dappled' would be a good Mod, and if a vote existed (which probably shouldn't happen) he'd get my vote.
--
dappled
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
True, I was sticking with the word because dinz used it but, you're right, what I was talking about was something different. I was thinking more about a conciliator or arbitrator. Someone to listen and then resolve problems impartially between two or more parties before it becomes a bigger problem.
I have some of the skills to do that but there are plenty of reasons I wouldn't want the role.