# Rule for Mods/Admins suggestion **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [April 27, 2006, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rule-for-mods-admins-suggestion/354455 "2006-04-27T15:13:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![XJETGIRLX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9fc29f/32.png) [@XJETGIRLX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XJETGIRLX)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2006, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rule-for-mods-admins-suggestion/354455/61 "2006-04-28T21:02:46Z")
> [@C K Dexter Haven](#): > > The job of Moderating is, frankly, difficult enough without imposing additional artificial restrictions. These ‘artificial restrictions’ are good enough for those of us who pay for the privelege of being here. The absolute least any of you with mod/admin status can do is follow those same rules you are entrusted with enforcing. ---
**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2006, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rule-for-mods-admins-suggestion/354455/62 "2006-04-28T21:03:13Z")
> [@C K Dexter Haven](#): > > The job of Moderating is, frankly, difficult enough without imposing additional artificial restrictions. Mods don’t usually make accusations of trolling until things are clear. But mods do have to sometimes say, “I can’t tell from this post whether you’re just trolling (in which case we will soon escort you out of here) or whether you’re just naive and new.” What “artificial restrictions”? Identifying your status? > [@](#): > > I can’t just add “mod hat on” since a newbie won’t have a clue what that means. I’ll have to add some preface like, “I’m an official moderator on this board, and…” Most of us don’t want to do more typing than we have to, thanks very much. Um. Then you can type it once into Notepad, save it and copy and past as needed. 3 (count 'em three) keystrokes and then add the specifics of the offense. There are similar functions for Macs and Linux boxes. And besides. If you’ve got a newbie who doesn’t understand “mod hat on” you’ll have to type the “I’m an official moderator…” bit out ANYWAY. If this hypothetical newbie is incapable of figuring out “mod hat on” with the word “mod” under your name, how would providing _less_ information (by not typing neither “mod hat on” or “I’m an offical moderator…etc”) in any way be _less_ confusing for them? I would think that a basic function of moderation is announcing your status, given that mods can also post as posters. You want to talk about confusing newbies, how are they to know whether a mod is talking to them as a mod or as a poster? ---
**Author:** ![RobuSensei](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/919ad9/32.png) [@RobuSensei](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RobuSensei)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2006, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rule-for-mods-admins-suggestion/354455/63 "2006-04-28T23:17:03Z")
I am an admin on another web forum with about 2000 active members, and in my experience, even when posting sans “mod/admin hat,” it’s best to maintain a higher standard of behavior, because _anything_ we post could be misinterpreted. In order to make things easier, one of our custom hacks of vBull is a “mod box,” which makes it very obvious when we’re posting “ex cathedra,” as it were. We also make extensive use of the newer moderation features of the latest version of vBulletin, which allows us to make official warnings with the click of a button. (Every post shows a “warn this user” link.) In fact, if only you guys would have kept up with the recent releases of the vBulletin software, moderation would have become easier. No need to mess around w. user titles when you suspend someone, editing is a lot simpler, button-activated spoiler boxes that obviate the need to click/drag highlight… And finally, I was one of the many posters who were on the fence about renewing. I have anted up for two years of pay-to-post, and I’ve generally enjoyed my time here. But, I don’t post all that often, so i was undecided about anteing up again. I have decided not to renew, mainly due to this idea that mods and admin are exempt from their own rules. On my other board, when there is a problem with one of the mod/admin team, and complaints are heard from other posters, we work to solve the problem. We have had to “fire” moderators due to their inappropriate actions in moderation. Here, when there is a hint of impropriety, it seems that the admin team circles their wagons and refuses to admit fault. (We have _never_ had anyone go as far as TubaDiva, what with baseless insults and violations of privacy concerns.) This is not conducive to retaining your customers, or getting new ones. Perhaps someday things will change enough to make me want to pay the $15 or so to re-up. But until then…this is my last post. (Not that anyone will care, but I just wanted to make my reasons and feelings known.) Robert ---
**Author:** ![Giraffe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giraffe/32/129_2.png) [@Giraffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giraffe)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2006, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rule-for-mods-admins-suggestion/354455/64 "2006-04-28T23:51:32Z")
> [@Fenris](#): > > We’re no longer officially “family” or a community (regardless of how individuals feel and I’m certain that many angry “Hey! I’m still part of the family and this IS a community” responses will be forthcoming, especially when this gets dumped in the pit), we’re paying, ergo, we’re customers. It’s exactly analagous (IMO) to the difference between hosting a party in your house vs running a resturant (if we want to torture the analogy, the resturant is a “one price for all you can eat but pay up front buffet” type). \ Speaking as a long-time poster, I hate the restaurant analogy. It’s not uncommon – as soon as we went pay-to-post (years before I became a mod), people were talking about customer service and their rights as consumers. Personally I think it’s the wrong way to look at an Internet message board. If anything, I think the party analogy still holds. For a long time, the party was hosted free of charge. Now there’s a cover charge, which gets you a plastic cup and unlimited access to the keg. The cover charge doesn’t transform the house into a formal business and the hosts into service employees. There’s always going to be a far greater degree of informality at a party or on a message board than at McDonald’s or on [amazon.com](http://amazon.com). Note that this is not in any way related to the current **Tuba** / **catsix** issue, but simply a general appeal for realistic expectations of your hosts/evil Internet overlords. \ ---
**Author:** ![Nic2004](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/4491bb/32.png) [@Nic2004](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nic2004)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2006, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rule-for-mods-admins-suggestion/354455/65 "2006-04-28T23:55:21Z")
This has probably been suggested before but, given the confusion and permitted dialog, why don’t the Staff simply have two posting identities. Not to confuse whom it is you are speaking to at any given moment, why can’t they have: **Admin-TubaDiva** and **TubaDiva** the poster. **Mod-Frank** and **Frank** the poster. That sort of thing. I think it would take a great deal of confusion out of the process and make it much easier for the Staff to participate as the posters I feel they long to be. ---
**Author:** ![Xploder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/a183cd/32.png) [@Xploder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xploder)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2006, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rule-for-mods-admins-suggestion/354455/66 "2006-04-29T00:36:42Z")
> [@Nic2004](#): > > This has probably been suggested before but, given the confusion and permitted dialog, why don’t the Staff simply have two posting identities. Not to confuse whom it is you are speaking to at any given moment, why can’t they have: > **Admin-TubaDiva** and **TubaDiva** the poster. > **Mod-Frank** and **Frank** the poster. > That sort of thing. I think it would take a great deal of confusion out of the process and make it much easier for the Staff to participate as the posters I feel they long to be. Well damn! Don’t start being logical NOW!!! Good idea though. ---
**Author:** ![Nic2004](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/4491bb/32.png) [@Nic2004](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nic2004)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2006, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rule-for-mods-admins-suggestion/354455/67 "2006-04-29T01:12:51Z")
> [@Xploder](#): > > Well damn! Don’t start being logical NOW!!! > > Good idea though. Don’t worry. It was but a momentary lapse. 😃 And thanks. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2006, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rule-for-mods-admins-suggestion/354455/68 "2006-04-29T01:58:37Z")
> [@](#): > > C K Dexter Haven said: > But mods do have to sometimes say, “I can’t tell from this post whether you’re just trolling (in which case we will soon escort you out of here) or whether you’re just naive and new.” Hmm, everybody let this go but I’ve got to ask, _why_ would a mod _have_ to say that? Think it, sure. Also, how would “naive and new” apply to catsix or hombre? ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2006, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rule-for-mods-admins-suggestion/354455/69 "2006-04-29T03:55:42Z")
> [@](#): > > _C K Dexter Haven:_ > Finally, TubaDiva is out of town this weekend, so the howling wolves are not going to get any kind of response. Guess you misunderstood the situation. She’s posting tonight, just not in this thread. [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=7345270#post7345270](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=7345270#post7345270) [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=7345266#post7345266](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=7345266#post7345266) howlingly yours, CarnalK ---
**Author:** ![Lakai](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9de0a6/32.png) [@Lakai](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lakai)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2006, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rule-for-mods-admins-suggestion/354455/70 "2006-04-29T04:14:23Z")
Since when is Friday considered the weekend? ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2006, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rule-for-mods-admins-suggestion/354455/71 "2006-04-29T04:26:05Z")
> [@](#): > > **Giraffe** said: > Personally I think it’s the wrong way to look at an Internet message board. If anything, I think the party analogy still holds. Except that this isn’t a house, and it isn’t owned by an individual. It’s a commercial website owned by one company and hosted on the servers of another company who are both subsidiaries of the same parent corporation. The image that is being asserted does not reflect reality. > [@](#): > > **C K Dexter Haven** said: > Finally, TubaDiva is out of town this weekend, so the howling wolves are not going to get any kind of response. Somehow I don’t think I’d have gotten away with calling anyone a ‘howling wolf’ outside of the Pit. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2006, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rule-for-mods-admins-suggestion/354455/72 "2006-04-29T04:30:00Z")
Lakai, complainers in this thread “are not going to get any kind of response.” sort of meant to me that Tuba wasn’t able to post in the near future because she’s gone. I guess YMMustV and C K was just giving us a heads up on Tuba’s plans for Sat and Sun. I don’t think there’s much point debating this. do you? ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2006, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rule-for-mods-admins-suggestion/354455/73 "2006-04-29T04:36:44Z")
> [@Nic2004](#): > > This has probably been suggested before but, given the confusion and permitted dialog, why don’t the Staff simply have two posting identities. Not to confuse whom it is you are speaking to at any given moment, why can’t they have: > **Admin-TubaDiva** and **TubaDiva** the poster. > **Mod-Frank** and **Frank** the poster. > That sort of thing. I think it would take a great deal of confusion out of the process and make it much easier for the Staff to participate as the posters I feel they long to be. It has been suggested before, and it _sounds_ like a good idea, but think it through: Probably right about 50% of my moderating activity comes from browsing. (The remainder from reported posts.) So I come home from work, pop a beer, open a fresh pack of cigarettes, and settle down for an hour or two or reading the SDMB. After a bit I discover something I should make a moderator comment on, so I login as a mod. New username, new password. Then I read some more. I find a thread I want to reply to. So I login again as a poster. New username, new password. Then I read some more. I need to issue a warning. So I login again as a mod. New username, new password. Then I read some more. I find I desire to rip someone a new one in the Pit. So I login again as a poster. Well, you see what happens. ---
**Author:** ![Lakai](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9de0a6/32.png) [@Lakai](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lakai)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2006, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rule-for-mods-admins-suggestion/354455/74 "2006-04-29T05:34:51Z")
> [@catsix](#): > > Except that this isn’t a house, and it isn’t owned by an individual. It’s a commercial website owned by one company and hosted on the servers of another company who are both subsidiaries of the same parent corporation. > > The image that is being asserted does not reflect reality. Well this is not exactly a restaurant either. We don’t serve food. The point of an analogy is to compare one thing to another similar thing. These things do not have to be completely alike. Maybe you just do not see how an individual owner could be expected to have adequate customer service like a corporation would? In that case, just pretend the house was owned by a corporation and run by volunteers, only one of which gets paid a small fee because she handles the money at the door. A representative from the corporation stops by once in a while and promises to upgrade the furniture, get new TVs and possibly other cool stuff. In this context, the volunteers that run the place do not have a uniform but there names and pictures are posted on a wall somewhere. Is that better? ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2006, 11:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rule-for-mods-admins-suggestion/354455/75 "2006-04-29T11:18:08Z")
> [@Frank](#): > > Probably right about 50% of my moderating activity comes from browsing. (The remainder from reported posts.) So I come home from work, pop a beer, open a fresh pack of cigarettes, and settle down for an hour or two or reading the SDMB. After a bit I discover something I should make a moderator comment on, so I login as a mod. New username, new password. Then I read some more. I find a thread I want to reply to. So I login again as a poster. New username, new password. Then I read some more. I need to issue a warning. So I login again as a mod. New username, new password. Then I read some more. I find I desire to rip someone a new one in the Pit. So I login again as a poster. Well, you see what happens. It’d be a better system but cause untold problems for the mods? I’d be just as against that as I am against the current way, in which we have a system that causes problems for the posters. Just to try and bring back this thread to the original topic, what would be the reasoning against using this rule? I could be wrong, but the only actual reasoning i’ve seen against it is that it isn’t needed as that situation doesn’t happen - something which is (I think we’ve pretty well established now) pretty open to debate. I don’t think it would cause annoyances for mods at all. ---
**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2006, 11:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rule-for-mods-admins-suggestion/354455/76 "2006-04-29T11:47:23Z")
> [@Frank](#): > > It has been suggested before, and it _sounds_ like a good idea, but think it through: > > Probably right about 50% of my moderating activity comes from browsing. (The remainder from reported posts.) So I come home from work, pop a beer, open a fresh pack of cigarettes, and settle down for an hour or two or reading the SDMB. After a bit I discover something I should make a moderator comment on, so I login as a mod. New username, new password. Then I read some more. I find a thread I want to reply to. So I login again as a poster. New username, new password. Then I read some more. I need to issue a warning. So I login again as a mod. New username, new password. Then I read some more. I find I desire to rip someone a new one in the Pit. So I login again as a poster. Well, you see what happens. Fair enough and that makes a lot of sense and would be a ton of extra work–especially if the board is running slowly. But I believe you could open two browser windows and “Moderator Frank” could be logged into one and “Frank-Poster” could be logged into the other. (At least I’m pretty sure that’s possible.) In the past, I seem to recall that the objection to mod-identity/poster-identity concept is that “No-one’s allowed to have two screen-names, even the mods.” which is, on the face of it, silly. No-one’s allowed to call “Troll” except mods, no-one’s allowed to give warnings but mods, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2006, 12:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rule-for-mods-admins-suggestion/354455/77 "2006-04-29T12:16:24Z")
> [@Fenris](#): > > Fair enough and that makes a lot of sense and would be a ton of extra work–especially if the board is running slowly. But I believe you could open two browser windows and “Moderator Frank” could be logged into one and “Frank-Poster” could be logged into the other. (At least I’m pretty sure that’s possible.) No. If you browse by cookies, then as soon as you log in under another name, that cookie is changed. I tried logging in under cookies with one account and under sessions with another just now, and that did not work either - you have to log out to open the session in the other tab, and that clears the cookie. If you re-enable the cookie, you are forced to log in as yourself. So each of my two windows always updates to the last login. At least that’s in Firefox. I tried a few different permutations with two different user accounts, and I couldn’t get it to work within the framework of a single browser. Someone else might be able to - maybe someone else can test it with multiple accounts. You could do it if you did all browsing in Firefox, and all Mod actions in IE, for example, as they use different cookies. But most people use only one browser, or are limited to only one due to work issues, or simply refuse to use an inferior browser like IE, or an “evil open-source” browser like Firefox. ---
**Author:** ![C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b2d939/32.png) [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/C_K_Dexter_Haven)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2006, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rule-for-mods-admins-suggestion/354455/78 "2006-04-29T12:37:36Z")
> [@](#): > > If a mod personally insults me and suggests I could be banned for my behaviour, how can I respond without risking it seeming like i’m insulting mod actions? How do I know i’m not insulting mod actions? It’s unclear. First, there’s this wonderful new invention called email, that allows you to ask for clarification privately without involving the entire world. Second, are you telling me that whenever you feel yourself insulted, you always reply in kind? You are unable to respond in a calm, well-mannered, polite tone? Any time someone says something that you interpret as offensive, you yell back? You always call them on it? That road rage is your normal behavior pattern? Or are you saying that you don’t **know** whether you’re insulting someone? I don’t believe that: you’re bright enough to know when/whether you’re being insulting. I have to say that I think this thread has gone on way, way past any usefulness and has degenerated into the absurd. > [@](#): > > The main problem I see is this - mods have two hats, and we members have to treat them differently based on what hat they are wearing I understand that’s a useful distinction, but I personally that I think it’s pretty much silly. I like **Giraffe** ’s analogy to a party. The host(s) serve two roles: they are there at the party, and they are the people giving/serving at the party. Do you treat them differently when they’re opening more champagne than you do when they’re standing around chatting? Do they treat you differently? This is why we’ve never wanted or allowed different usernames when we’re modding. We take responsibility for what we say; and yes, we are held to a higher standard than other posters. Do we always stick to that standard? No, we’re human beings, and sometimes we stress out. Sometimes there’s history, whether in emails or on the boards, behind the scenes that y’all up front don’t see. Also, I apologize if I misstated **TubaDiva** ’s schedule. She told us she would be gone this weekend and have limited 'puter access. I thought that information would be useful. I am not in the least surprised that, if she has limited computer time, she doesn’t spend it reading or posting to this thread. ---
**Author:** ![XJETGIRLX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9fc29f/32.png) [@XJETGIRLX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XJETGIRLX)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2006, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rule-for-mods-admins-suggestion/354455/79 "2006-04-29T13:40:40Z")
> [@C K Dexter Haven](#): > > We take responsibility for what we say; and yes, we are held to a higher standard than other posters. No, some of you don’t. That’s the entire point of this and all the other threads. Tuba has refused to take responsibility for what she has said, and while the rest of you mods and admins might tout reason after reason to back her up, the fact remains she still has not taken responsibility for her words. You say you are held to a higher standard, and yet when posters complain that you’re not acting in accordance with that standard we’re told that it doesn’t apply to you. So please excuse me if I find your statement hard to believe. You’ve told us here that mods are exempt from actually having to adhere to the rules they enforce upon the rest of us. How on earth does that translate to mean you’re held to a higher standard? Who is going to hold you to this standard if not the people who post here? The OP of this thread was asking if some rules could be clarified that would ensure you are held to a higher standard, and you’ve pooh-poohed them over and over. We can all go over this until we’re blue in the face but the only way this can be resolved to most peoples satisfaction, I think, is if Tuba herself takes responsibility for her words and rules are put in place to ensure that mods _are_ held to a higher standard. ---
**Author:** ![Garfield226](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Garfield226](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Garfield226)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2006, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rule-for-mods-admins-suggestion/354455/80 "2006-04-29T15:52:42Z")
> [@C K Dexter Haven](#): > > I have to say that I think this thread has gone on way, way past any usefulness and has degenerated into the absurd. I agree that a lot of the back and forth in this thread (back and forth which has actively been participated in and perpetuated by yourself and **Frank** ) has been firmly planted in the “useless and absurd” category. Seems to me that the most usefulness this thread could have (after **TubaDiva** answered **Revenant Threshold** ’s question) is for her or someone else to clarify the question which I directly asked of her. Neither she nor anyone else who could has done that. So if the thread has devolved into uselessness, I’d say there’s one person who could make it useful and she seems to be willfully ignoring it. She was wrong. She continues to be wrong. She isn’t fit to be in a position of power on this board. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rule-for-mods-admins-suggestion/354455.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rule-for-mods-admins-suggestion/354455.md?page=5)