If this has been asked and answered, forgive me.
Is it at all possible that a Moderator can turn off their “Moderator” signature before they post, when all they want to do is reply as a “member?” Does the software allow it? If it doesn’t, then that will be the end of the discussion.
If the software allows it, then I think that it would be a great idea. Then board members might not get so angry when Mods are posting in a “member” status rather than in their official capacity as a “Mod.”
As far as I know, no, the software doesn’t allow this. When I make a post, whether it’s reply or a new thread, I don’t have a “Post as mod? yes no” button to click on.
I do try to make it clear when I’m stating an opinion and when I’m being an Administrator, but I’m human, and sometimes I forget.
Most of the Moderators here seem to follow the pattern that Lynn mentioned.
As a general rule, I think that it’s safe to assume that in cases where a Moderator isn’t dishing out an admonishment of some kind and hasn’t said “[Moderator hat on]” (or similar), that they are simply contributing to the discussion as a member. As far as I know, nobody has ever got into trouble for merely disagreeing with a moderator as part of a debate dialogue (although of course one is expected to be able to back up one’s arguments, but that would be the same in any case).
The member status is retroactively applied to all posts, just like a sig line (thus leading to the perennial question “How can so-and-so still be posting when it says “BANNED” under his name?”–those posts of course having been made before the banning took place.) So, if Lynn were to change her status to “Member” or “Just Plain Lynn”–which in fact she has the power to do–then her post would read “Member”, but when she had to thump someone upside the head or take some other official administrative action, and she changed it back, that post she made where she said “Samclem is a big fat doo-doo head” would also now show as having been posted by “Lynn ‘the Administrator’ Bodoni”. Meanwhile, during the period when she was “Just Plain Lynn”, every post she ever made, including Official Warnings and announcements that posting links to the Single Integrated Operational Plan Computer is Against the Rules (darned Department of Defense pop-up windows), would also read “Member”. This would surely lead to no end of trouble and confusion.
I think if mods or admins don’t want to show their member, then that’s their business.
I asked this before but didn’t get a definative answer:
why is Ghost a Boomerang instead of a Member here ?
Btw, someone said s/he must be a sock, but the status is still the same.
Sorry, it’s the last post on the page.
At times we’ve been a bit irritated and tagged someone with a label that at the time was more appropriate than simply “BANNED.”
I have changed that one to the usual label, reflecting that poster’s status.
Thank you for bringing this to our attention.
your humble TubaDiva
Administrator
Donkey, the admins can put anything they like in the member status box. Use of the term ‘boomerang’ means the admin was either sick of typing “banned” that day and decided to be created, or for some reason they wanted us all to know that the person was a previously banned poster in a new incarnation.
You may come across the occasional username which has “just another Serlin” in the member status. That was the admin’s way of telling us which particular banned poster we’d been dealing with.
What’s written in the member status doesn’t necessarily indicate whether someone can or cannot post. If I emailed Tuba or Lynn and asked them to revoke my posting privileges, in all probability I’d still show as “member” rather than “banned”.
I seem to recall that at one time someone - had “sabbatical” as their member status, as they were going to be away for quuite some time.
Yes, I remember quite a few “idjit” or “another idjit” in the past.
At times, there have been many trolls/sockpuppets on the board at the same time, and I guess the Tuba and Lynn would just take some artistic license and label them that way.
Thanks Tuba and reprise.
Well I guess that tells us where the Mods fall in the free will/predestination debate… 
Gp
I suppose the way around this would be for the Mods to have more than one user account, so for example you would have:
Lynn Bodoni
[sup]Administrator[/sup]
and
Lynn Ordinary Mortal
[sup]Member[/sup]
but of course that might causeall sorts of administrative, political or technical problems elsewhere.
As well as leaving them open to complaints of hypocrisy from the more tedious elements of this board, because it would be seen as violating the zero tolerance “no socks” rule.
pan
And the post count under each account would be different, and you would have to remember to log out etc.
And a different point of view.
In real life if you represent a company, you are often held to account by the company even when you are ‘off duty’. Whenever the Moderators post they represent the message board and this will be even more true if the board goes PTP.
Yes, in fact those were the exact administrative, political and technical problems I had in mind.