Proposed: mod-only screen names

About This Message Board
1

[This post grew longer than I intended. Short version: No new rules! Make mods anonymous]

This thread (about Ellis Dee’s suspension/reinstatement) raises a number of concerns about how the SDMB should be moderated. There were at least three themes:
[ul]
[li]What words should be restricted in the rules?[/li][li]What rules should be against mod abuse?[/li][li]Consistency of mod-actions[/li][/ul]

Zoe reflected my opinion better than I could in saying

I hope that the mods work on consistency. Perhaps, where a mod needs to make a ruling in a less-than-obvious case, he/she bring it to the mod team in private to get a consensus ruling. Over time develop a private “code of consistency” amongst the mod/admin team. Such a code should include a statement against decisions made emotionally. If the membership sees smart/dispassionate rulings made consistently, there’s less of a need for a long list of infractions.

But mod abuse… I agree that the mod’s have a (too often) thankless job - one that must be tedious, at times annoying and tiresome. The moderation, while flawed at times, has certainly been instrumental in fostering all that is good about the SDMB. I can understand their heightened sensitivity to ingratious (abusive?) treatment. A volunteer shouldn’t have to put up with nastiness when freely giving one’s time to provide a valuable service.

But to add more rules, especially rules that restrict freedom of expression, goes against a prized part of the spirit of this board.

Solution: Separate the mod from the member. Each mod should use a generic mod-only account/screenname (e.g. Great Debates Moderator), restricted to announcing thread closings, bannings, poster corrections, etc., in terse, facts only language. The person-who-is-mod is then free to contribute to the discussions using their member screenname.

Once the identity of the mod is anonymous, what offence if someone hurls Anglo-Saxonisms at what would be essentially a human-powered 'bot? Any “abuse” would be obviously directed against only the mod action, not the person. Then any discipline required would be based solely on whether the behaviour in question is jerky enough to disrupt the atmosphere we all want here.

Further, this would free the mod team to reconsider arguable decisions. How can one lose face if one has no face?

2

Mods in socks? I like it!

No, seriously, it sounds like an idea well worth considering.

3

I think that is a excellent idea.

4

I had contemplated suggesting that mods have two accounts, one for modding, one for posting/participating, but I hadn’t worked out the bugs yet.

I think this variation works out the bugs: mods would no longer need to don their mod hats – if they post as a moderator, it’s pretty clear their mod hats are on. They’re also free to continue to participate in their non-modding guises, just like any of us members participate (and takes our lumps if need be).

5

“Once the identity of the mod is anonymous, what offence if someone hurls Anglo-Saxonisms at what would be essentially a human-powered 'bot?”

Well, let’s see.

It’s currently against the rules to hint that someone is a troll. If it’s supposed to be uber-secret, how bad would it be to hint that someone is a mod?

Do you believe the board is currently moderated by people who think, “Well, they can call Poster X a cunt, and that’s okay, but calling me one? BAN STICK!”? If so, do you think giving them this layer of anonymity will make the situation better or worse?

Do you want a message board where (a) calling the wrong person a cunt will get you banned, or (b) calling any person a cunt will get you banned?

6

In fact, we do indeed discuss issues of all sorts in the mod email group.

As for having mod screen names, they’d all have to be SDMB Mod/Admin, as any of us can and will perform mod functions in any forum, not just our home forum. If a GQ mod sees spam in ATMB, s/he shouldn’t have to simply report it, s/he should be able to take the appropriate action (which, in the case of first time spammers, is generally removing the post or thread from view and banning the spammer). I don’t know about the rest of the staff, but I for one would hate to have to log out, log in as Admin, and then perform my duties. I also think that people would soon figure out which mod was doing what, as we do have some pretty distinct styles.

It’s been discussed before among the staff, and the consensus has always been “NO”. This may change in the future, but I wouldn’t hold my breath.

7

Consider the following from the other thread:

{words in braces mine}

If mods wore socks instead of jackboots :D, both of these problems are solved.

8

My wife and I hate doing that too. Can we just use the same screen name?

9

The point isn’t secrecy, it’s separation of mod from member. Any “abuse” hurled at a mod screen name is clearly directed at the action only. If someone insults the member-who-is-a-mod by member-name, that’s jerky behaviour that should be addressed. If someone uses a mod decision in the context of another thread’s discussion with the member-who-is-a-mod, that too is jerky.

No one should be banned simply for using a word. It is not language that should be addressed, rather jerky behaviour. Personal insults outside of the pit are not allowed using whatever language. I see no value in splicing that rule with word-specifics.

10

Good point. Many functions, though, like deletions, do not print the mod’s name. For others, who cares? Alternatatly, instead of “GQ Mod” it could be “Moderator Black” leaving open the question, “Why do I have to be Moderator Pink?” :smiley:

Is it possible for a member to be granted mod powers without the “Moderator” tag? They could then do the “as I discover it” type of moderation (deletions, for example) as they’re cruising. For the times you must post as a moderator, yeah, I guess you’d have to log off and on (unless there’s a way to have multiple sessions with multiple logons?) At work I have five or six different accounts on various parts of our system - part of the job, you get used to it kind of thing.

11

First, the mods do generally discuss borderline, fuzzy cases amongst ourselves. Sometimes, however, a mod feels it’s necessary to take action before discussion, remembering that any action can be reversed later. But there are times when you want to splash a bucket of water on the combatants, and then sort it out later.

Second, we have always resisted “rules” in the sense of setting up some legal code. Yes, we should be striving for consistency, but not at the expense of recognizing that some situations are very individualized. Look, the cops sitting beside the highway aren’t always consistent, either: sometimes you get away with speeding, sometimes you don’t. Sometimes they’re dealing with someone who was going 15 miles over the speed limit and therefore miss someone going 25 miles over the limit. So, yes, we strive for consistency in the sense of fairness, but we’re not trying to generate a law code and we’re not worried about minor differences in individual circumstances.

Yes, mods do have memory failure. We’re trying to develop a “guidelines and precedents” for modding, but who has the time for that sort of admininstrative/bureaucratic effort.

On the question of dual identities, this was discussed a great deal in the early days (before television.) It was always rejected, for several reasons:

  • Fairness: members aren’t allowed to have dual identities, why should Mods?
  • Building a community: If we’re supposed to be building a community, then why should mods hide behind alternate identities? The police, the mayor, the city council, all live and work in the town, and don’t need secret identities. We are who we are, and we should be able to be both poster and moderator without much difficulty.

Yes, there can be a problem when the line between poster and moderator gets stretched or thin. We try to differentiate, some of us put things like “Moderator hat on”[super]*[/super] or “Speaking as a poster, not a moderator” when there’s danger of confusion. Usually, there’s little to no danger of confusion; the Official Voice can be heard over the background noise.

And yes, we expect as Moderators to take more abuse than we would if we were just posters. That’s pretty much part of the package. However, there are limits: just are there are limits to the type of abuse that any poster needs to put up with, even in the Pit.
[super]*Not to be confused with “Moderator hard on”[/super]

12

But the mayor doesn’t have a special rule where he can call people names but people can’t call him names. I don’t think you’re as much like cops in a town as you are like security in a theme park where people pay to get in, except that no one constrains you but yourselves. The interests of staff have a very strong present and historical advocacy, but you have no one who advocates for members. You’re judge, jury, executioner, and manager of customer service.

13

I buy this and all that you wrote above it. At the risk of brown-nosing, I sincerely thank the team for this effort.

One class of inconsistencies I’ve seen (on few occasions) is a mod’s knee-jerk reaction to something going on. Some mod actions need to be instant: threads started by a sock/troll - delete’em, spam - zap it on sight. But some times, through honest misunderstanding, a mod storms into a fray, closes a thread, rudely blasting the “combatants.” This ends up in the Pit with a WTF, and often enough the mod in question remains unrepentant, sometimes citing unprecedented interpretations of rules (or rules made up on the spot) [Although there’s been an increase in mod actions being reconsidered/reversed - kudos!]

This type of thing can be prevented if mods realize a spat is no emergency, bounce it off each other as a guard against one being in a bad mood, or not seeing alternate interpretions, etc. It sounds like y’all are doing it - cool.

Don’t buy it. Members can’t edit their own posts, why do mods? Members can’t [insert mod-power here], why do mods? The answers to each is: In the interests of the boards.

But a cop on duty doesn’t drink with the boys. The alternate username acts as the cop uniform. I agree that Mod Hats do the job too, and are more quickly switched. The value of the full uniform is there’s no room for confusion, not just when the mod is speaking, but also the target of a member’s reply. Also, a cop in full uniform uses painfully strict politeness - “Sir, I’m going to place you under arrest.” My suggestion included all posts made by the mod-only account be “just the facts, ma’am” style. Donning the full uniform and adopting cop-talk when posting as mod also addresses my previous point of knee-jerk “mod-hat” postings.

On re-read my use of “don’t buy it” etc. sounds more argumentative than I intend. Rather than edit I’ll hereby disclaim: You are in the best position to decide - I’m merely point out if those are the only reasons against, they’re not as pursuasive as they at first appear to be.

14

“Any “abuse” would be obviously directed against only the mod action, not the person.”

Okay, I missed the real issue on my first pass through.

They would still get angry that a mod had pushed the button, not that the button had been pushed. If the mod is anonymous when that happens, they’ll still get angry; they just won’t know whom, for certain, to be angry with. As angry as most angry posters are about the actions of some of the mods, most of them aren’t angry at all of the mods, and your suggestion would require them to switch to that: if you’re gonna get mad, you have to get mad at everybody, because you don’t know who pushed the button.

I’m still trying to see a specific, measurable improvement to board happiness that this solution would provide, other than to allow moderators to moderate behind a barrier of anonymity, which we should know, on the internet, is not necessarily a helpful thing.

15

I offer this as an alternative to adding to the list of rules “No cussin’ at the mods” or more importantly “No using the C*** word.” In my opinion, creating a legalistic codified pre-emptive rule-based behavioural structure will decrease board happiness by restricting the free flow of discourse. The metric you’re after is: board happiness is (in part) in inverse proportion to the number of rules - more so the number of rules that direct what can and cannot be said, or how things should be said.

If we want to limit mod “abuse” then separating the mod from the person makes such rules unnecessary while allowing the person-who-is-also-a-mod free participation in the boards as members, no different from the rest of us until. Hey, it works for Superman - except I don’t expect these members to be mild-mannered by day :smiley:

16

Unless you’re in Boston.

17

Reality check, please.

I keep hearing this complaint and it’s just not valid.

We don’t call people names in the everyday course of doing business; some of you make it sound like we do nothing but harass users all the livelong day here at the Straight Dope Gulag.

You would think this was the Bounty and most our posters were nailed to the mast.

Have we never lost our temper, blown a call, said something we regretted, called someone a name, characterized them negatively, said bad things about their mama? Sadly, we’re not perfect. I’ve probably done all of those at one time or the other, including the mama part; I hope that when I misstepped I made amends when I was more to myself.

And we didn’t suspend someone for using an ugly word, we suspended him for his abuse of moderators, something even the object of the action admits he did at the time and was correct to be called out for. The situation has had what is really the best resolution – he’s come to understanding and he’s a better member for it – and really, it’s over except for the bonfire of the strawman here.

We endeavor to treat our members with courtesy and respect. More often than not, we make it, sometimes through gritted teeth and bitten lips, but there we are, polite and calm, just the same. There are plenty of times I have wanted to handle a situation by bitchslapping someone like a Pete Townshend guitar solo, but I didn’t, I didn’t. Mostly we don’t and to insist that oh yes we do as a regular course of everyday business is ludicrous.

TubaDiva

18

If you keep hearing the complaint, then maybe there’s something to it. Your decision to make a caricature of it with gulags and whatnot doesn’t make it invalid. No one is saying that you’re always mean.

19

It was not my intention to erect a strawman for effigial incineration here. Honest. In the referred to thread you gave indication your team was reviewing this incident. I inferred the possibility of some new rules were forthcoming. I offered this suggestion as an alternative to new rules.

I hoped it was clear that, despite the inevitable/understandable mistakes mods make, in my opinion the work y’all’ve done has been the backbone of what makes the SDMB good. And as volunteers - sheesh, I hope that mug is gold rimmed at least :smiley:

20

I have stayed out of this whole thing 'til now, but I’ve seen this particular bit a few times now and it’s beginning to grate on me. He “came to understanding” that he’d crossed a line he shouldn’t have before he was suspended.

I really object to the language used here: “he’s a better member for it.”

The poster’s initial apology was not acknowledged by the Mods, he got a time-out and now the Mod position is you’ve cured him?

This whole thing smacks of face-saving.