Are you satisfied with how the forum is being moderated?

[kirkmc]

Also, I should add that your views about the word 'doctor' make me hesitant to try and predict what you think.

Now on that one there is no doubt. A doctor is a teacher: look at the root of the word. Most physicians don't care one whit about teaching their patients. In the UK you don't even need a doctoral degree to practice medicine but they still call themselves "doctor". I will concede that physicians in the US have to have doctoral degrees but I am offended by the fact that most people, and almost all the mainstream media, reserve the use of the word "doctor" for medical practioners. Even though you would not guess it from the mess they have got the country in, both Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke have PhDs in Economics, but how many times have you heard them referred to as Dr. Greenspan and Dr. Bernanke? The use of the word as a teacher has been around since the middle ages but its use as a medical professional has only been around for a couple of hundred years.

Ah, good old Dr Straw... Don't you know that language changes, that it evolves? The use of the word doctor as "teacher, instructor," is "now rare" according to the OED. As a doctor of medicine, the OED gives the earliest occurrence as 1377. Chaucer used it as "Docture of Phesike." It comes from that: a learned person in a field who is capable of practicing or teaching.

Let us also cite Shakespeare, in The Merry Wives of Windsor: "Shall I loose my Doctor? No: hee giues me the Potions and the Motions."

Yes, I'm a word geek; I even have a paper copy of the OED...

[willemien]

this post is getting of topic

Where is the moderator to put us all straight again ?

but more concrete. I like Johns posts very much.
I always want to put them into sensei's straight away. But always forget to ask permission and then Cannot find them anymore.


About Moderation

I have myself no problems with moderation, and i sometimes did ak to move treads from one forum to another forum.
What i do miss is:
- an indication that the thread is moved (at the old forum)
- an indication at the new forum that the post is comming from another forum.

I think it is all just a bit teething problem I am happy with the forum

[Joaz Banbeck]

...
What i do miss is:
- an indication that the thread is moved (at the old forum)
- an indication at the new forum that the post is comming from another forum...

Those are good points. I can't see any downside to them. I'll post this in the mod area where we all will see it.

[Peter Hansmeier]

My only request is to reduce the influence of British English on this forum.

OK, I'll leave if you want. Many a true word is spoken in jest.

Ease up, I was being facetious, and I am not a moderator.

[Liisa]

Human rights issues are never political issues.

[oren]

Human rights issues are never political issues.

Human rights issues are very often political issues.

[Liisa]

Human rights issues are never political issues.

Human rights issues are very often political issues.

This is exactly why world is a sick place that people do think them only as political issues when people are slaughtered in some countries. They are just internal political affairs and it is politically incorrect foreigners to meddle.

Forum moderation practices should take this in consideration.

[Horibe]

OK, I'll leave if you want. Many a true word is spoken in jest.

It is unusual, though not unheard of, for Mr. Fairbairn to go over a week without a post...

I suspect that most readers here ignore the "like" button, the rest, save a precious few, underuse it.

Mr. Fairbairn's 178 "likes" are the tip of a Titanic of an iceberg.

[zinger]

Back on original thread topic:

Yes.

[Jedo]

I just want to say that I think that it is crucial that we know who is responsible for editing a post.

[xed_over]

I just want to say that I think that it is crucial that we know who is responsible for editing a post.

we know who... its a moderator.

I don't think its actually crucial to know which one, but it might be nice to know.

[Bantari]

I'm going to be very controversial here and ask for a vote of confidence / no confidence.

The purpose of moderators is to serve. If the community feels they are not being served, moderators in question should step down to be replaced by a new nomination. I think transparency and accountability are very important.

If other admins and moderators are ok with the idea, why don't we all put ourselves up for a vote of confidence?

I am not sure I agree with all of your ideas. Here is what I think, in no particular order.

1) Voting on moderators (the 'vote of confidence' you mention) would transpose being a moderator into winning a popularity contest. Result: most successful (most voted for) moderators would be those not doing their jobs properly. Unless you seriously assume people would vote reasonably... but then you must be on another planet, somewhere.

1.5) Having said the above - I understand that there is a need to weed out bad moderators. But this should be done by the forum owner, possibly, not by the community.

2) The purpose of the moderators is not to serve, it is to moderate. Even if the community decides the forum guidelines are too strict at times, unless the guidelines get changed, moderators have to stick to them. Again - its not a popularity contest.

3) Even if we assume that the moderators' job is to serve, it is not really to serve the community, but to serve the forum. There is a slight distinction... the forum might serve the community, or not, depends on the guidelines and the needs of the community at the moment. What if the community decides (by majority vote, or something) that this forum would be nicer with links to indecent sites?

4) I always found it debatable that a forum is there to serve the community either. Call me a cynic, but I see each service as serving its creator/owner in some fashion. Even if it is a free service. Might be a commercial need (like exposure, etc) or personal need (like the need for recognintion, kill boredom, etc) - but this forum is not a community property, as far as I see it. At any point its owner might fold his tent and say 'tada'. Does not even need to be nice like Don to allow a sweet transition and data migration. And the community can do squat.

5) Finally, the moderators as a group can do what they wish, put themselves up for the vote or even resign... but again - this is personal decision, and not community issue. And not necessarily good for the community either. What if all moderators get voted down? Will it be an unmoderated forum? Or will new, maybe much worse moderators need to be found. Or will the present moderators just say "to hell with the vote, we're staying"... In which case - what's the point of the vote?

Just my 2c.

[zinger]

1) Voting on moderators (the 'vote of confidence' you mention) would transpose being a moderator into winning a popularity contest. Result: most successful (most voted for) moderators would be those not doing their jobs properly. Unless you seriously assume people would vote reasonably... but then you must be on another planet, somewhere.

The poll results do not support your reasoning

[Liisa]

One thing need to be considered. Saying that "I will ignore person X" is the most serious insult what people may express on public forum! If someone feels ignoring, then ignore, but it is extremely vulgar to say that in public, because it is direct insult. This should lead at least notification and deletion of message (must preferably, by the person who is involved, voluntarily)

Other slight inaccuracy is that it is impossible to ignore moderators. If this is impossible, due to software issues, moderators should not use moderator accounts for discussing. Preferred would be that there are [admin]...[/admin] tags, that will bypass any ignores. If moderator need to say something administrative. Using too parallel accounts is however easy, if person uses e.g. IE tab extension or different web browsers with different accounts. That is why I think that separate moderator accounts would be preferred.

This does not require fix as long as there are no jerks as an admin who talk too much of nonsense. But it is in any case moral inaccuracy, because it in practice elevates moderators to higher social status than regular discussers.

[Loons]

Hmm, I think I broadly disagree with Bantari.

Considering that we moved here from Godiscussions.com as a community, and we are, at least piecemeal in contact without the forum, I would suggest that we are not particularly vulnerable to corrupt administration. Continuing along this line, I'd suggest its moderation style etc are more up to us as a community than any particular administrator.


So, I think that if anyone is suited to democratic decisions, we are.


On a side note, to suggest that the site owner (Jordus?) would treat us so casually would be to malign him. Also, if we were by majority anarchists, or an unsavoury group who wished indecent links plastered everywhere, kind of definitively...

My 2 bits anyway. Dissenting opinions are healthy for reaching good conclusions, right?


PS: Tangentially- our truck number is >1 now, right? That was part of the theme of moving over here?

PPS: Hm, I'm quite fine with the moderation. I do not get the impression that anyone's heart isn't in the right place, so I'm confident we'll work past disagreements smoothly.