If a Mod could have a seperate username and joke around like we all do and keep the Mod duties seperate it would vastly improve the forums. Just asign a new username when someone becomes a Mod.

Do we really need to know a guy we joked around with a few months ago closed my thread? Can't we just see Mod#12 closed it?

that's an excellent idea, sir.

Anandtech does something like this. When they close a thread, you just see that it was "Anandtech Moderator." I really don't follow the board enough to know if the members know who the mod's are.


Having anonymous mod's may help things from becoming personal....

I've seen places that do this...such as AOL.

They have the TOSAgent4 or TOSJoe

Just whatever. Back on my aol days they invited me to be one of those guys. You still get your normal name and you get that one for when it's time for you to keep track of things.

Curtis

EXACTLY! It would keep situations like today from happening. A mod would just put on his mod hat when he saw something that needed moding.

That's a great idea. You sould implement this asap Geoff. Just creat new accounts for each existing mod, and for each new mod you add on. I think titles like "moderator 1" would be fine. No need to get creative. It would allow the mods to keep posting as normal members. Especially for moderators added in the future, as no one would even have any idea that they were a moderator.

I don't know why, but I don't really dig this idea.

One downside would be that only Moderators would have a chance to know if any abuse of powers were going on. You could have Personality A pick a fight with Personality B then Moderator C could come in and close it whilst all the time chuckling because.... shock horror.... removes mask.... he was Personality A all along! :) Pesky Mods!

Of course there is trust supposed to be involved but you see what I mean. I haven't a strong feeling either way; just pointing out a possible scenario.

I personally don't like this idea. I think part of what makes this such a great community is that the moderators are readily accessible, and a lot of that would be taken away by implementing a new system. It would be, in a way, separating moderators from the rest of the community, and I just don't like the thought of that.

On a related note, I've been watching the reaction to what happened recently with Kenwood no longer being a moderator. While the incident was unfortunate and I'll miss having him as a co-mod, I think there has been some overreaction. Our system has worked well (IMHO) for a couple of years now, and I expect that it will continue to. While it can be difficult at times being a moderator, you sometimes have to just step away from a situation and ask yourself if you're reacting as a member or a moderator. As long as we take the time to do that, we'll all be fine.

--Heather

Entirely impractical. Many of our decisions and actions are a function of our relationships with people. If it were just about closing a thread that would be one thing, but it isn't. Much of what we do goes on outside of the forum and over email.

Guys, I'd love to be free of criticism, trust me.:D But this solution would cause more problems than it would fix. Plus, I think we have thick skins in general, re: our modding. I get a constant stream of criticism from you &*&*^#@ ^&&* &^*&^&;) but it doesn't really bother me.

Bushdog I am not sugesting you abandon posting as a member, I am just sugesting more clearly defined roles. In this situation, for example, when did Kenwood stop joking around (as a member) and start asserting himself as a mod? Even if you knew he was "Mod#2" a post under that username as opposed to "Kenwood" would have stopped the bickering.

I also think it would look more professional.

joltaddict, we aren't professionals. I don't want to be professional either, this job would become hellish if I had to.

I understood your point, and I still feel it is impractical. Much of the successful moderating I do behind scenes is with people I have relationships with. They are willing to listen to me, or write their concerns to me because they know me. Moderator #9 would never devlop that relationship. We could almost get a bot to do the job then, sending out form notices. . . The relationships really do add value to the job we do.

I like Kenwood a lot, but all of us here are not Kenwood. He did what he did in the situation and he felt it was right. Other mods might have reacted differently.

As many people know, I like to get into political arguments. I get into those as much as any other member, often into heated, emotional debates. It never interferes with my ability to mod or mete out justice. Could I be in a situation where it did one day? Absolutely. Are the odds of this large? Absolutely not.

There are bits and pieces that most of DVDTalk is not being exposed to, out of respect of privacy for the involved parties and because it is best for everyone. Everything is not what it seems. Moreover, the system isn't broken. Moderators do fine work here. Are we human? Can problems arise? Absolutely. But it is very unlikely. And the negatives associated with setting up the system you talk about outweigh the positives, IMHO.

If you re-read the thread, Kenwood didn't have his sig on his posts in that thread until he gave Skippy the warning, when he turned on his sig which said something along the lines of "DVD Talk moderator" etc. That seemed to be his general rule of thumb.

actually one of the things I do not like about anandtech is the at times harsh moderation. I think that knowing who the moderators are helps when people are having problems. I think that not knowing who the moderators are creates a sense of powerlessness at anandtech which I have never felt here at Dvdtalk.

I know others for a time felt a lot of frustration over the past few days. However Geoff and maybe others who knew the people tried to minimize the damage and repair the relationships between members.

I think it will rest with the moderators and Geoff deciding , but I think even with the faults the current way for now seems best.

The arguments against doing the seem valid, at least for this site. IMO the site has always been under moderated, and it's just too late to change that now. I prefer more tightly moderated forums because it keeps things more organized, and the main reason I come to boards is to get information, rather than to make friends and have conversations, but thats just me. I guess I was just looking at it from the stand point of "if we had anonymous mods, Kenwood would still be around." If we had always had an anonymous mod system, then no one would have even know that Kenwood was a mod. He would have been posting as a normal member, then suspended damn_skippy as Mod 3 or whatever. I still think he should have gotten Randy, or Bushdog, or Namja to step in, as a mod should step back from something they are personally involved in. Still in the worst case he could have had his resigned his mod responsibilities as Mod 3 and gone on posting as Kenwood and no one would have none the difference.

Thank you... it is suck some times to see a lot of people trying really hard to handle something...and then people making all kinds of assumptions without knowing what is happening. I guess it's human nature.

One point about anon moderation. If a mod was anon, it might change the atmosphere or relationship. It seems if the mods had masks to hide behind, we could be very heavy handed. As it is, if I ban/lock/whatever...you know it was me (normally) :) and I am held accountable for it.

Mod7* would just close all Jules posts and ban his butt... wait, did I say that out loud?

:)

I think it is a good idea as well. Mods should be impartial, and not let their passions take a part in their decisions, and I think they could be better at that if they did it like Anandtech. I'm just generalizing here, not pointing at any particular mod.

That's sort of a faulty logic. Lets say you are simply MOD 7 and you are going around being an ass, and banning people for no good reason. You would still be held accountable. People would just complain about Mod7 instead of randyc. Geoff would know who you were, and could take away your mod job. You could still post as randyc and no one would know the difference. Being a poor mod, doesn't necessarily mean you can't be a good member. Of course if someone went to far over the line, then maybe it would warrant the loss of mod responsibilities and the banning of their regular account. It just seems to me that it would prevent situation like what happened with kenwood, but it could cause more problems than it's worth, as suggested in other posts by dvder and other mods.

Mods don't act on their passions here. That is a key to moderation. Once you make a decision based on your emotions you hurt DVDTalk you do not help it.

Or maybe it should take someone who isn't just a regular Joe Shmoe to become moderator in the first place. Honestly, I know I have those who don't care for me either but some of the people chosen to be mods are not the wisest choices.

well, in the minicock thread, Bushdog posted something, then later had to qualify it with:

"The question I was asking was as a member, not as a moderator"
--

how are people supposed to make that distinction on their own? That could cause some problems possibly.

In the recent Skippy debacle, Skip and Kenwood were kinda bantering back and forth, Kenwood was acting as a member and not a moderator, and then all of a sudden BAM he isntantly switches to mod mode. That is one way to assure that mods win every debate!

Ok, even if it was as a moderator (and it wasn't really), it was still not out of line.

And what problems could arise from this confusion?

That situation was problematic, and it was resolved, fairly. Cases like that are the exception, not the rule.

As I have said many times, I engage in debates constantly, and I pretty much never pull out my mod badge. In fact the more I get into a debate the more thoughtful I am about letting the other person have their say without pulling rank.

I think you misunderstood a basic point (and I could have very well failed to make it clear). I did not mean accountable to Geoff. I meant to the user base.

Sure Geoff would stop a mod run amuck. I am not talking about that. I am talking about the constant little things that might change when handled by an anon mod.