I think as a Mod....

Originally posted by Phlabibit
Yup, doing some time...

Here is a warning I've had given to a newest mod.

'Once you are a mod you will find you don't post much anymore, you feel like you are a rep of RHP. I've written many posts just to erase them on many subjects'.

After reading my message Russ told me he knows how this feels, he has seen many of his favorite subjects go ...[text shortened]... no solution? Perhaps you guys just want to drive all the mods away and make this Yahoo2?

P-

I'm not doubting the integrity of the current mods at all, and the only reason I have not volunteered to moderate is that I don't want to have similar (admirable) concerns. I was talking about removing the possibility of some unscrupulous (hypothetical) person getting the job and going on an ideolgical post-banning tear or something.

Originally posted by royalchicken
I was talking about removing the possibility of some unscrupulous (hypothetical) person getting the job and going on an ideolgical post-banning tear or something.

well why don't we just give the mods the benefit of the doubt.
if this hypothetical reality ever happens, i'm sure it can be dealt with at that time.

in friendship,
prad

Originally posted by royalchicken
A mod volunteers for the job, and thus no-one is forcing them to give up rights if a policy like the one I have suggested is introduced.

Here we have the null hypothesis thing again--isn't it better to just remove the possibility of 'conflicts of interest'?

One big problem with your policy is that it disallows a moderator the same rights that any other poster has, the right to alert. Should then the moderators not be allowed to participate in threads? Without the right of being able to alert, there would be open season on a mod who desired to enter into a debate.

If you don't believe me, just look at the garbage that's been going on for the last few days, when they still have the right to alert.

No one would volunteer just to be the subject of abuse.

Just for the sake of argument, say you and I were both moderators. I come into a thread, see something you said that I take exception to and tell you to "wait until you grow up and are capable of thinking like and adult before you go telling everybody else what to think."

Then you respond with "your response just shows that you're an ignorant redneck with no brain cells left after drinking all that
moonshine."

Now the rest of the community gets a big kick out of this because here are 2 mods at each others throats, so nobody alerts (after all what goes around comes around) So neither you or I have any relief from the abuse of the other.

Originally posted by royalchicken
I'm not doubting the integrity of the current mods at all, and the only reason I have not volunteered to moderate is that I don't want to have similar (admirable) concerns. I was talking about removing the possibility of some unscrupulous (hypothetical) person getting the job and going on an ideolgical post-banning tear or something.

You guys are pushing Russ to get more mods....

Enjoy the doom, or what can we do?

Cribs had one dang post removed... and everyone thinks the sky is falling.

Next time... Mods will remove the post and contact the target? If they want it back fine?

Where is the line? Russ is trying to draw one that all users can be happy with. I am not the only one who cares about this! I've got very good friends over in chess and help that wont take a step in general or debates... Why Bother with the abuse. I've got a Wing Star bud of mine who says I am crazy for even bothering... he lives right up the road and never touches the forums due to this kind of stuff.

Solution... No mods here, all mods there. Or do you guys want just 'some' moderation but not so much? Draw a line.

There is no half way.

P-

Originally posted by bekieke




Just for the sake of argument, say you and I were both moderators. I come into a thread, see something you said that I take exception to and tell you to "wait until you grow up and are capable of thinking like and adult before you go telling everybody else what to think."

Then you respond with "your response just shows that you're an ignorant redneck with no brain cells left after drinking all that
moonshine."

One big problem with your policy is that it disallows a moderator the same rights that any other poster has, the right to alert.

That is correct. A moderator has volunteered for the job, and if my suggestion is used, they have still volunteered even given that knowledge.

Should then the moderators not be allowed to participate in threads? Without the right of being able to alert, there would be open season on a mod who desired to enter into a debate.

I think having the responsibility needed to be a mod comes with the good sense not to be offended by anything one sees on an internet forum.

If you don't believe me, just look at the garbage that's been going on for the last few days, when they still have the right to alert.

Some of it is garbage, but most of it is just reasonable criticism of the moderation system. I don't see what's wrong with this.

No one would volunteer just to be the subject of abuse.

I don't think people are prevented from posting out-and-out abuse by the prospect of being moderated, in an even stronger sense than the fact that people are not deterred from killing by the death penalty. Therefore, I don't think the prospect of not being moderated will encourage abuse. Besides, as I said before, anyone wise enough to decide what is acceptable for others to have said to them is wise enough not to be offended when someone whom they have never met calls them a nasty name.

I'm not even that attached to the idea of moderators not alerting--it was something thought of in a few seconds because this thread seems to be, at least initially, about ''brainstorming''.

Originally posted by Phlabibit
There is no half way.

this is it!
we either trust our mods or we don't.

in friendship,
prad

Originally posted by pradtf
this is it!
we either trust our mods or we don't.

in friendship,
prad

What if someone does not trust the mods? (I actually do trust the mods in general, but I think you've said something unreasonable, so please answer the question.)

Originally posted by bekieke
One big problem with your policy is that it disallows a moderator the same rights that any other poster has, the right to alert. Should then the moderators not be allowed to participate in threads?

i think you make some excellent points here.
it is not right that we exclude mods from the rights to the site that others have.
their primary job shouldn't be to 'babysit' as phlabs said.

if anything, we should support our mods who are really going above and beyond the call of a subsciber and make the effort not to give them a hard time - both by exercising some care with our posts and by not criticising or harrassing them in public or private.

in friendship,
prad

Originally posted by royalchicken
What if someone does not trust the mods? (I actually do trust the mods in general, but I think you've said something unreasonable, so please answer the question.)

well why wouldn't you trust the mods?
you trust your police force right? you trust even some of your politicians!!

these guys are our friends and fellow chess players - what's there not to trust?
this is only RHP - not some wartorn politically upheaved country.
it is only a chess site, for goodness sake!

a better question would have been, how do we deal with a situation, if it ever comes up, where there is reason not to trust the mods?

in friendship,
prad

Originally posted by pradtf

you trust your police force right?

No, that is why in the US, we have separation of
powers between the executive and judicial branches
of governemnt. We have public trials, where police
must present their case publicly, and the evidence
is weighed by a jury of the accused's peers.

Dr. Cribs

P.S. There is a theoretical discussion taking place
in the debates forum on criminal procedure that
might have some application in the problem at hand.
You may be interested to read it.

Originally posted by pradtf
well why wouldn't you trust the mods?
you trust your police force right? you trust even some of your politicians!!

these guys are our friends and fellow chess players - what's there not to trust?
this is only RHP - not some wartorn politically upheaved country.
it is only a chess site, for goodness sake!

a better question would have been, how do we ...[text shortened]... ation, if it ever comes up, where there is reason not to trust the mods?

in friendship,
prad

Trust is a silly concept like faith.

One can operate under the assumption that the mods are always trustworthy, or one can institute policies such that trust is as irrelevant as possible (the Magna Carta, the Constitution, and the Declaration of the Rights of Man are all examples of this).

As an organization, I don't trust the police, at least my local police department, at all 😕.

I agree that this is a friendly place, and furthermore I personally like all of the mods I've talked to. However, it would be very hard to determine when such a situation arose, and very hard to deal with it. It may be better to make it as unlikely as possible.

however, I already said I'm not too committed to this discussion, which I consider peripheral and based on an ill-conceived idea that I had. As it stands, I don't doubt the integrity of our mods, I just acknowledge that it is an imperfect system and that artificial means in the form of rules would help correct it.

Originally posted by Cribs
No, that is why in the US, we have separation of
powers between the executive and judicial branches
of governemnt. We have public trials, where police
must present their case publicly, and the evidence
is weighed by a jury of the accused's peers.

Dr. Cribs

I read your post against a user.
Flash alerted it.
I asked him about it.
We talked about it and he took it down.

Russ knows. Russ did not put it back.

Did you message Russ about this. He's got much more power than any moderator here at RHP.

Or should we wait 3 months and get lawyers to try and keep RHP forums a good place for users of all ages, all backgrounds, all tolerance levels?

Originally posted by Cribs
No, that is why in the US, we have separation of
powers between the executive and judicial branches
of governemnt. We have public trials, where police
must present their case publicly, and the evidence
is weighed by a jury of the accused's peers.

Dr. Cribs

yes but that is after a case has been built and evidence has been gathered.

the mods aren't a police force anyway, they aren't hired and they aren't 'the enemy'.
there is no reason to treat them with suspicion.
there is no reason to put them on trial on these forums.

in friendship,
prad

Originally posted by Phlabibit


Or should we wait 3 months and get lawyers to try and keep RHP forums a good place for users of all ages, all backgrounds, all tolerance levels?

No, your first post in this thread posed a solution
to the problem. As you described in the hypothetical
General forum, the public would moderate the posts,
through a tally of alerts and rec's, which captures
the essence of a public trial and a jury of one's peers.
Your idea was good, I said it was, and I stand by it.

Originally posted by royalchicken
Trust is a silly concept like faith.

One can operate under the assumption that the mods are always trustworthy, or one can institute policies such that trust is as irrelevant as possible (the Magna Carta, the Constitution, and the Declaration of the Rights of Man are all examples of this).

As an organization, I don't trust the police, at least ...[text shortened]... it is an imperfect system and that artificial means in the form of rules would help correct it.

well if you are not all that committed then let's not talk about it anymore.

trust isn't silly at all.
it happens to be the foundation of our civilized way of life.
would you like some examples?

in friendship,
prad