The solution is very easy, just require admins and mods to wear two hats.
The log in as a mod to moderate and then they log out and back on to comment as a member.
Seems pretty straightforward and would clearly end any question.
If JoeMember is commenting he’s commenting
If JoeMember-Mod is commenting he’s moderating
You and your oh so reasonable ways!
That actually makes sense.
Might make sense for the members, but then they wouldn’t be the ones constantly logging out and back in again. I should imagine there are enough hassles to being a mod already without adding another.
O the cruelty! O the degradation!
And for what? So that it might be clearer when they’re doing their jobs and when they’re just fucking around? Is that so valuable?
First, thanks for explaning your injokes. Now, hmm. Let’s see, what I actually said was:
An interesting leap, and sort of missing the point, if not actually twisting what I said. I don’t think I mentioned poor, nor overworked. My point was in reference to your earlier suggestion that mods not be allowed to post at all, except when doing their duties.
And now you’re saying that mods should have two different screen names, one as moderator and one as poster? This has come up every so often in the past, and consistently been rejected on several grounds (no, the question of difficulty in signing in was NOT one of them.) The basic problem is the same reason we don’t allow posters to have multiple screen names: we want to create a community, and we think that happens better if there’s not two classes of citizens, one with multiple screen names and one not.
You know this. You’ve been around long enough.
Pseudo, do you REALLY find it unclear that when I post about egg recipes, or about Dickens, that I’m posting as a poster? Or, as you put it, “just fucking around”? And that when, in a post like this, I’m discussing moderator actions and behaviors, I’m posting as a mod? Is it really that difficult?
Again, I think this is pretty much mountain out of molehill. The number of times that there is confusion about a mod’s role are few and far between, and most mods make some sort of statement to distinguish when they think there is such a risk. I agree that it can be a problem from time to time; I disagree that it is either a significant problem or one that needs massive revision of processes that work well 99.9% of the time.
In this situation, PRR, you are NOT a mod, and therefore there’s no lack of clarity that you cannot be posting as a mod. Are ALL non-mod posts “just fucking around”? Ah, I get it. So by your own logic, you are “just fucking around” by tossing out ideas that you know have been rejected in the past, by twisting words, and by… hmmm. There’s a word for that sort of behavior, I can’t quite think of it at the moment, starts with a T I think.
So, thanks for clarifying your attitudes. [mod hat off*]I guess I’m pretty naive, that it’s taken me this long to understand that I’m being played[/mod hat back on] That means that this thread has run it’s course. I shan’t close it because y’all don’t like threads being closed, even when they’re past their time, but I also shan’t be reading it again.
This is an excellent idea, and is implemented at many boards.
As to this:
Loging out and back in is a three or four second process for me at most. After Ed’s recent point about the relative ease of finding someone’s location status by clicking into their profile rather than displaying it by their name, the argument that logging out and in is some onerous task that adds hassle to a workload is ridiculous. Moderators do not intervene often enough that it is any more of a problem than opening a poster’s profile.
As to Dex’s point (if I understand it correctly) about there being some posts with mixed text — some modding and some just jabbering, there is no reason that they have to be mixed. Post what you need to post as a member, and then post separately with the mod name.
It is the most sensible solution for all involved. It is simple for the mods. It is unambiguous for the members. It eliminates any of this “can’t you honestly tell the difference?” stuff.
This is a solution in search of a problem. 99.9% of the time there’s no confusion about whether a mod is posting ex moderedra or as an ordinary schlub. In the few cases where there is some confusion, a quick PM or email or post solves the problem. I can’t see where this is an issue big enough to require any changes.
If this is what I suggested, then I was a total asshole and I apologize. But I don’t think I ever made that suggestion, so let’s hold onto an apology until you produce a cite, okay? Talk about deliberately twisting someone’s words to form an argument you can jump all over with both feet… (Go ahead, talk about that. I won’t mind. You’re good at it.)
Now, as to what I DID say, and why I was saying it: yes, it’s only a problem a small percentage of times. Most of the time, it is fairly clear when a Mod is speaking official and not.
BUT: when it’s unclear, it’s often spectacularly so, especially if you happen to be a poster who thinks he’s being officially bawled out (but is only being disagreed with by another Doper) or if you happen to be a poster who is getting into some nasty shit with another asshole on the Dope (but who turns out to have powers and abilities, including banning your ass, beyond those of mortal men.) Worst is when you don’t know whom, exactly, you’re responding to, a God or a man.
And it’s such a simple solution: be clear. As others have suggested, you could post under separate user names: “Dex” and “C.K. Dexter Haven, Official Administrator of the Holy Roman Dope” or you could recuse yourself entirely from threads wherein you’d like to mix it up, or any of the previously named suggestions to minimize confusion.
Or you could just keep explaining that I am asking for the impossible, and I am asking for it in a particularly belligerent manner, if you think that’s working for you.
I don’t know if it’s been brought up or not, but why can’t the mods/admins make official warnings in bold red letters? That would be pretty damn clear methinks.
It would be as simple as using the code for [mod hat on].
I’ve seen on some other message boards a moderator would post his warnings in bold red letters in a post of his own and would also edit the offending posters post, also in bold red letters explaing what parts of the post are not kosher. Never deleting or rearranging the offending post, just sticking an edit in at the end of the post explaining how the broke the rules.
What’s wrong with this? What room does this leave for ambiguity?
You could be right. And yet, there seem (to me at least) to arise posts or whole threads about this or related issues with quite some regularity. And so, I think you would have to admit that your 99.9% statistic is pretty much just made up.
The problem seems to occur most notably when a single post includes both posting comments and modding comments. Unless those are very clearly distinguished, there is the possibility for ambiguity. It is even worse when the posting comment and the modding comment are both directed to the same poster. That forces the poster to split his responses into two separate directions. He must respond to the posting part of the post in the thread where it is posted, but is forbidden from responding to the modding part of the post there. He must open another thread, and in this particular forum.
And the final exacerbation is the fact that there is no consistency among mods for how to indicate mod comments. There are mod hats, mod underwear, “modding” with brackets — even whistles, and other assorted personal styles. And sometimes, especially from admins, there is nothing more than a terse, often rude remark followed by a closure of the thread.
Consistency. Clarity. Civility. These, I believe, should be the driving forces behind whatever system the mods use. Why this position is unreasonable, untenable, or dismissable with statistics pulled out of thin air is a mystery. It shouldn’t even be controversial.
It is, however, very easy to forget which account you are currently logged in with, as several sock puppeteers have discovered to their cost. You’d get moderators posting modding comments under their user names, and ordinary comments under their modding names. On the whole, best keep it to one name each.
Exactly. Then why apply a broadbrush solution to something that could be addressed by a followup post by the member, seeking clarification, or by PM? A rule change seems to me completely unnecessary.
To **Covered_In_Bees! **'s suggested remedy of bold red letters for mod comments I would only say this: AAAAAARGH! Please god no, anything but that. It’s garish, unpleasing to the eye and smacks of those boards where colours, smileys and gifs are considered the ne plus ultra of witty repartee.
We’ve recently implemented, after a discussion here in About This Message Board, an infraction tracking system. Official warnings now:
In addition, we still note the warning in the thread. If you get an official warning, you will know.
Is this really any clearer than [mod hat on] and [mod hat off]?
Are you freaking kidding? All of that is coming from the suggestion that moderators use bold red letters to warn someone? I didn’t suggest we all start typing in crazy rainbow colors and wacky fonts.
Exaggerate a little more next time so I can tell more clearly that you’re joking okay? Thank you.
That works too. 
You make a good point. I know from experience as a mod that what you say is true. We had poster names and mod names, and although we tried to be vigilant about it, one or two would slip through once in a while. And that required a retraction. And it always derailed discussions. So, you’ve convinced me.
I like the system announced by GFactor. It completely solves the problem of being warned and not returning to the thread. Good job!
Here’s the thread where we discussed it. Warnings/Infractions - Comments, Please - About This Message Board - Straight Dope Message Board
We’ve been using it for warnings for a while now.
Great thread. I should make a better effort to keep current. It was illustrative of how a problem can be solved with creative thinking and reasoned discussion. I suspect it had been my own cynicism at that time that caused me to pay it no attention. A sort of “they won’t do anything about it anyway” attitude.
But you have. And you’ve done it very well. It is professional, useful, and easy to understand.
The slippery slope. The thin end of the wedge. The … ah crap, you’re right, I went way over the top on that one.
Still think it’d look ditsy though.
It’s okay. Would you like to go get a drink?
I am so sorry. 