ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE
As was explained a short time ago, the warning was rescinded. No one is sanctioned in this situation, so the statement is factually incorrect. It is acknowledged that the circumstances were unclear all around. It is now resolved.
Counseling and disciplining of moderators is an internal matter and not handled publicly.
Jenny
your humble TubaDiva
Administrator
Thanks for this consideration.
Regards,
Shodan
Nice. Happy ending and an entertaining thread. 
Just got here and I laughed twice while reading.
Thanks Shodan!
(should there be a comma in there somewhere?)
Only if you’re sending him your regards.
Is that policy only if they are acting as a moderator or both as moderator and as poster. Specifically for this discussion the question is still why was Shodan originally warned and tomndebb was not for an ever worse violation of the mod’s direction. Are you saying that although tomndebb was acting *as a poster and not as a mod *that he was dealt with in private or that he simply was never warned?
All disciplinary actions for moderators, regardless of whether they were posting as a moderator or as a regular user, are handled privately.
This may be a bit unsatisfying for those that want to see blood, but it’s been our policy for many years. It’s nothing new.
True; and fine actually. But lately, at least to me as a sort of outside observer, some Mods have at times almost seemed more possessive of “their” forums than during the “Ed Years”. Faster to act maybe? Less likely to kick it around the Mod Loop than before? I have no idea. But the cases where things look to have gone wrong, at least in terms of actual Modding, look to have been on a bit of an upswing.
It’s not that we’re out for blood. It’s that, without it being public, we have no way of knowing it happened. The purpose of Warnings being public is not public shame, but so we can see what action led to them and know not to do them again. Without that, it looks like whatever the mod did was acceptable.
It’s also a good way to communicate that the mods are not above the law. That’s one of the purposes of insisting on “transparency,” even when they don’t actually think something underhanded is happening. It’s reassuring and makes things feel more fair.
I’m not saying you need to change the practice. And I’m definitely not saying that public admonishment (or even admonishment of any kind) is required here. I simply wish to explain that there is a legitimate argument for such things to be public, that doesn’t involve some desire to “see blood.”
I will say that I prefer forums where mods acting as posters get the same punishments as posters, though. It feels much more like it’s a conversation among equals, with just some trusted people additionally empowered to enforce the rules. But that is a personal preference.
It’s not about wanting to see blood but rather wanting to see equity. If a mod is acting as a poster then why should they get what is perceived as special treatment? Look at what we “normies” see:
Non-mod: “You’re a liar.”
Mod: “No accusations of lying are permitted. Warning issued.”
vs
Mod: “You’re a liar.”
<crickets chirping. apparently no action taken>
Do you know what the failure to publicly warn tomndebb (in fact was he ever warned? we don’t know) while warning Shodan for a lesser offense tells us “normies”? That mods are above the rules.
In fact YOU MODS are to blame for Shodan’s warning - not him. Maybe if tomndebb were publicly warned for violating the mod’s direction then Shodan would have realized the subject was verboten and not have posted. And then to rescind the warning and act like everything is cool now shows how out of touch you guys really are. Why did it take 5 days and this thread to rescind the warning AND why make it sound like things were unclear like it’s an oopsie doopsie with no responsibility? If they were unclear then it’s because you mods did not enforce the rules when one of your fellow mods broke them - or IF you did (again, no way of knowing) you certainly did not make it clear that tomndebb’s post was against the rules. Are you mods going to take responsibility for creating the unclear situation because
. doesn’t sound like it. TubaDiva makes it sound like it just happened and move along, nothing to see here.
ISTM that mods should have special mod accounts and only use them for moderation. If they want to post on the board as well, they should do so with separate accounts that no one knows are used by a mod, not even the other mods.
“Because that’s the way it’s always been done” is the worst sort of explanation for why something is the way it is.
mmm
I’m happy with any mod discipline happening in private, it’s a thankless enough job without adding public humiliation into it (and I say this as a poster who is no fan of most of the moderation here)
I’ve been thinking this for years. Also the Mod’s name when acting as a mod should all just have a generic “Moderator” label.
There is no reason for us to know their name if they are acting as Mod. The only thing that accomplishes is drama and friction.
I agree. In addition to the issue Grrr! mentions, the inescapable intimidation factor when a moderator posts as “normal poster” is also a problem, IMHO. Not only would SlackerInc’s suggestion quash that aspect, it might also address the “moderator burnout” that occurs. So often a long-time poster becomes a moderator and, shortly thereafter, drops off the board altogether. The board’s attitudes towards posters who become moderators changes.
Or something like back in the old AOL days when you were either posting as a regular person under your e-mail address/name or acting under you “Host #whatever” when you put your Mod hat on? I can’t say about here but over the Civil War Chat Room and boards most of us were pretty quiet about who were and were not the Mods. It did help some of the discussions and debates.
And in case there’s a problem with the software about multiple “Moderator” accounts they could be called something like
GQ Moderator A
Cafe Society Moderator
Alpha Dog Administrator
etc.
That wasn’t an explanation for why something is the way it is, rather it was a statement of fact.
This may be colored by SpiceWeasel’s recent shorter stint as a mod, however going back through the history excluding the current moderators, the average time a person has been a mod from start to finish is just over 5 years. The average length of time for current moderators is 7 years and growing.
This idea gets floated periodically, but the search terms are too common for me to find more recent examples. Here is an older one. Personally, I’d find it would be somewhat tedious. In addition to the reasons mentioned in that thread, I think the idea would reduce overall transparency which is a bad thing. There’s probably more reasons too, but I’d be opposed.
All Dope posters are equal rule-wise but some are more equal than others.
Do as I say, not as I do.
It’s not the crime, it’s the cover-up.
Yeah, I’m much more at ease when the headsman wears a hood.
Yeah, I can see the accusations flying already-“I know so-and-so isn’t getting moderated because she/he is really a moderator!”. Complaints about conflicts of interest would skyrocket.