So, this is something that’s been bugging me for a little while now.

Why are the moderators allowed to engage so deeply in the forum discussions? I’ve seen a great deal of posting on the part of the mods in many of the forums (Other most specifically) in which some of them write very opinionated and often, to be quite honest, somewhat inappropriately biased messages. I’m a member of a lot of forums and the norm is to have the mods try and remain as unbiased and low profile as possible. That way they can better act as policing agents without giving the appearance of impropriety or favoritism. It worries me that people who have very sharply defined and aggressively public views are overseeing much of the content in the opinion-focused forums.

Having been a victim of what I consider inappropriate censure based on a conflict between my political ideology and that of the mods I have to question the efficacy of allowing this sort of behavior.

Comments?

Because we're people too?

So you feel the opposite of this http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthr...hreadid=232014

Because the moderators were (partly) chosen for their interest in the forums they moderate. This is not a paid position, so it didn't make sense to us, when we made them moderators, to take away the reason they came here in the first place: posting in the forums they're interested in. We also try to make sure that we picked people who were able to post in a fairly balanced way in the first place, so their participation shouldn't be too off the wall anyways. Moreover, unless it's pretty blatant stuff, the moderators generally don't moderate threads they're participating in, and ask other moderators or admins to step in if it looks like there might be an appearance of impropriety. If you really feel you've been inappropriately censured, then you should email another moderator, or an administrator (me, Randy, X, or Static Cling) and we'll review the situation. Our moderators and administrators certainly aren't perfect, but we do our best. If we do make mistakes, we do our best to correct them if we can.

On the other hand, people sometimes feel that because they are "arguing" with a moderator, they can't disagree with them or they'll be suspended or banned. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Having a discussion in an opinion thread with a moderator is no different than having one with a member. The same rules apply. Of course, I can say this until I'm blue in the face and some people will never believe me. In my experience, however, that opinion is a minority one, and shouldn't be a reason to prevent the moderators and administrators from participating in any thread they want to.

I know I would be participating a lot more in Other myself if I had more time.

On a more "touchy-feely" note, , we also think it's nice that the members get a chance to really know the kind of people who are moderating them. Of course there will be personality conflicts from time to time, but they've been pretty rare in my experience. And other members (as shown by AndyCapps' link above) have agreed with this point of view in the past.

Hope that addresses your concerns and questions, and, again, please email me if you want to address a specific incident.

Bologna.

I, for one, enjoy the Mods' input. They seem like fairly intelligent folks, and probably put a little more thought into their posts prior to "submit" than most of us do.

Having said that, I also think that the thread title changes and user name changes are getting a little out oif hand.

As Andy linked above, I'm all for the mods being active participants. It's what makes this forum a bit different.

If the mods are just "there" but don't post, then....what's the point?

which thread/post?
I've posted in threads where a mod has obviously disagreed with me politically (and was probably calling me an idiot to himself) but I've never had them use their mod powers on me because of it

If Surf Monkey wanted to put the mod on the spot, he would've done it already... I'm thinking he doesn't want to name names. I did a search, and I couldn't find any recent threads that he posted in that were locked, though.

Correct. I don't want to start any kind of fight. It's just a subject I thought could use a little discussion. Also, the incident happened some time ago so it's really no big deal at this point.

Thanks for all the replies, especially Blade's extensive explanation of policy. I fully understand now.

I'd rather let them be anonymous mods and if they want to participate in the forums, have them create a 2nd account with member status.

I value my membership here and my freedom to participate in threads, be they serious or whimsical, quite a bit more than I value my position as a moderator. I doubt that I am alone on this.

DTSC's idea has been employed, with some success, on other message boards. However, it would seem to me that the anonymity afforded by such a setup would invite more, rather than less, abuse by moderators.

Wouldn't that create a problem?

For instance, if you and Static had a problem, he could just use his "2nd" name, and troll you, until you lashed back.

Resulting in a punishment for you

To play devil's advocate, the other mods would probably know my 2nd name, and they'd put a stop to my hypothetical trolling.

I just think having two names unnecessarily complicates things.

Then why don't you change your name to just Static?


*rimshot*




I think things are fine the way they are. In fact, I remember another thread where somebody was complaining that the mods wasn't posting enough and that there was a gag deleted. There is no gag order. Do not speak of it again. Admin

just kidding!, randyc

I'm sure you deferred to their titles and they in fact did not limit your comments. Remember they are just members, too. If you ever think they treat you unfairly, email Geoff and link the post. He'll deal with it. And he's a bit of a lefty, so that favors you.

But on the point, I often find this issue to be created in a member's mind. Give these guys the benefit of the doubt.

I know we've been down this road before Tball but maybe you should look up the definition of the word Moderator if you are going to use the familiar "mod" in your posts. I really don't think you know what it actually means.

Considering how all of your points were torn to pieces in the last thread, you surely don't want to go down that road again.

Strange how many other people feel the same way about Moderators posting that I do; maybe you should look up the definition of Moderator as well.

"The officer who presides over an assembly to preserve order, propose questions, regulate the proceedings, and declare the votes." Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary

"n 1: any substance used to slow down neutrons in nuclear reactors 2: someone who presides over a forum or debate 3: someone who mediates disputes and attempts to avoid violence" WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University

"One that moderates, as:
One that arbitrates or mediates.
One who presides over a meeting, forum, or debate." The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

Hope that helps. Any other questions, here's the link you will need. http://www.dictionary.com/

I think this definition works well for DVDTalk's purposes.

Keep in mind that, for our use, "one" doesn't just mean "any person," it means "any forum member." And all members of the forum have the right to participate in discussions. This is how Geoff wants it, and how it has always worked.