I'm beginning to wonder if moderators should be posting in the Politics forum. I'm not sure if anyone else has mentioned this, but outside the forum, there are several members who question the validity of editing, changing, deleting, suspending, and banning when it comes to moderators. There is potential to use such powers against common members due to political views.

I suggest the possibility of moderators not participating in discussions. It would make things much more objective, and when a member violates a rule, the action taken would be more objective, rather than the perception of abuse of power because the views are not akin to their own.

If moderators want to continue discussions in the Politics forum, then don't make them moderators in that forum.

I agree, but don't limit it to that forum.

I've always thought it was better if mods weren't active members in the forum they moderate (before or after being mods). They should just be people that want to volunteer to help out, and modding a forum they don't post in will allow them to be as objective as possible, as they have no preconceived notions of who the "trouble makers" are in the forum, are less likely to have "favorites" who they've gotten to know while posting in the forum, and by not being active members while mods they don't risk getting into debates with members or being called hypocrites for posting things they sometimes punish (or that the other mods in the forum somtimes deal with).

That said, I think the mods here do an excellent job most of the time. I just think it makes more since for mods on any site to not be active members, at least of the areas they mod.

Of course it's not a big deal for the bargain forums, or DVD talk where there isn't much heated debate. But in forums like politics, video games etc. where flame wars run rampant at times, an outsider can better handle it IMO.

I completely disagree having the mods/admins participate in postings adds fun. Besides most are mods because they were respected as regular members. You want someone who has a grasp of the forum and knows the ebb and flow of the forum. Otter would be horrible if the mod was an outsider just cracking the whip when looked like a person did something wrong.

I mean Bandoman would be suspended all the time.

Don’t forgot you can always email other mods/admins if you feel you are mistreated.

**chain from my perspective***

Mods --> Admins (X, static, pilot) --> Geoff

Being a moderator in a particular forum means you have an interest in the topics discussed in that forum.

Why would someone want to moderate and have to read threads in a forum that they have no interest in? And why would someone want to read threads they're interested in without being able to join in the discussion?

That makes sense.

If I had a problem with a moderator deleting my post, I might another mod and politely ask them to check it out (or just let it go, it is a political discussion on a DVD site). I'm sure if another mod thought it was hinky they'd tell the other mod. I also think if any mod was in the habit of doing odd things they wouldn't last.

This is a good point, as if I had to moderate Politics, everybody would be banned

You do realize that no one would ever moderate Politics then? Who's going to volunteer for that pain in the ass knowing he won't be allowed to participate in discussion? That is unless <b>Adam</b> is done writing ModBot 3000.

das

No, moderators SHOULD post in politics and other controversial threads. That way, when I'm banned I can dig up some time that the moderator disagreed with me and use that against him or her. HAHAHAHAHAHA

"Hogwash"!

All mods/admins are not from a cookie cutter mold. We're all different, have different views on threads and posters and such. I agree that sometimes a poster might be butting heads with certain mods, but as ShallowHal said, there's a whole community of mods out there you can email, or talk to for a different opinion on a thread decision by a mod.

Lets say hypothetically all the mods in a particular forum all have it in for you (I personally have never seen this). You can always talk to a mod from another fourm or even Geoff (as a last resort - we know the guy is swamped keeping this place running).

Having people who aren't interested in a forum moderate it probably means the mods will never look at the forum unless they get a reported post. We're human and you're not always going to agree with our judgement calls, especially if either one of us is emotionally involved in a particular thread.

I don't agree that moderators should be banned from posting -- indeed, many times I have found that the moderators are the ones steering certain threads in a positive direction. But I do think that the Political Forum needs some new moderators from the left-wing side -- the progressive/liberal mods in that forum have basically gone AWOL.

I think things are a bit better especially since a long-time member was recently banned and the "political exile" rule was imposed.

Sure, there are biased moderators but I don't think they really let their bias get in the way of moderating.

Also, it's actually sfsdfd who is AWOL.

.... who are the left wing mods and who are the right wingers?

bfrank's last post was in April.

AFAIK, all of the active mods in Politics are pretty right-wing. Some mods are a bit more middle-of-the-road, but there are no members of the "loony left".

...say what now?

Only took two days to see it

I've voted for two Republicans in my lifetime.

George Pataki (mistake)
Rudy Giuliani (happy I did it)

I don't see myself voting for any of the current crop of Republicans, that's for sure.

I don't think I qualify for the looney left though. At this point it's pretty much me and nemein doing a lot of the moderating, so you've at least got a 50/50 shot.

Sure, if by "April" you mean "January":



Wait, that's even worse.

It's not like mods are collecting a check from DVDtalk. As far as I can tell they are just regular and frequent posters to the forums they are assigned. For Geoff to appoint people mods to a forum section that the poster has little or no interest in would be foolish and ineffective.

Over at HomeTheaterForum a couple of years ago, they ended up with a problem in the videogame section because the mods they appointed where not into games and seldom kept up on the messages being posted. The result was a few troublemakers kept pissing everyone off and then when the mods finally checked it out, they banned the wrong people because they really did not understand what was going on. They shortly after fixed that problem, but it's still a good example of why the mods should always be people who do read and often post in the areas they are watching over.

bfrank is the same as sfsdfd?

Yes... Re the original question, not the bfrank/sfsdfd question

Probably about time for an assessment to see how the new rules are doing. Please check out http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showthread.php?t=469127

I suck at teh internets, and, consequently, life.

I have never seen anything unfair about posting or moderating that happens in any of the forums. This site is well run.

(My only "beef" is when no explaination is given when threads are closed. Even if it's a "This isn't gonna end well" kinda comment.)

What a <b>jolley</b> good point. Geoff does pay us, but only in cyber backrubs and HOT AIM talk.