Two Things

[pink_silk_glove]

Two Things.

1 ~ @ToPleaseHim

This is not a court of law and there are no expectations that mods don’t have opinions and perspectives. Feel free to take it up with Laurel, though.

That's not righteous nor condescending at all. :/ The internet is chock full of righteous self-serving my-word-is-fucking-law-and-I-never-fuck-up-my-shit-doesn't-stink-so-suck-it asshole moderators (I've met many of them), and a comment like that makes you look like you are smack in the middle of that group.

2 ~ @barefootgirl

Do you honestly think Laurel simply appoints a moderator without knowing their signature or how they treat others?

Yes, a thousand times, yes!! Abso-smeggin-lutely she does. As do most admins on this here internet thing. How does one become a mod? Participate in the discussions and raise one's profile and show that one is active, then volunteer. The forum needs mods, the admin doesn't want to waste time with it. They anoint whoever wants the job and dust their hands. It;s the same at almost any site.

Furthermore, Laurel herself steps in to mod on occasion and has proven to make righteous decisions with little to no investigation, so why would she care if one of her mods does the same?

You should see some of the righteous asshole mods running around in the chat. They see a borderline infraction (or even something that does not violate the rules but they just don't think it should be allowed), then they insult the member before kicking their ass out of the room or banning outright. If they get called out for overmodding, they hurl more righteous insults and threaten because their tin star makes them fucking perfect. There are a couple of mods who are quite good and then there are some that are total shit. It's bullshit wild west justice and the same happens in the forum, although the AH is decent because AH Mod seems to be one of the decent ones who can check any personal agendas at the door and be fair and transparent.

Example, a couple of months ago a thread got locked and a couple of posts got nuked with their posters accused of personal attacking. I was one of them, and I never attacked anyone, so the smear was false, and my words were wiped so that no one could see the truth. It was bad modding. Through PMs I found out that it was Laurel who stepped in, did the damage and never signed her name, no transparency, covering her tracks, no flies on her for fucking up, no accountability, no responsibility for damaging someone's reputation. That's horrible modding. There are several mods on this site who will do the same or worse.

A mod has the power to CHANGE WHAT WE SAY. If they don;t leave their name behind when they do and be clear that they changed it, they can do serious damage, and most mods don;t even realize the responsibility that goes with that. Then when you try to point it out to them, they get all snobby rather than admit that they may have made a human error because they don't know what they are doing. They think they have a badge so that makes them right. They've never thought it over.

Mods are volunteers handed a badge and a gun and are given ZERO training. Here's the rulebook, interpret it any way you like with impunity. Have at it. That's how Laurel runs things. It's exactly like giving Cartman authoritah! Sounds like a joke but it's 100% true. OF COURSE it's going to be run badly. How could it not?

And if you're a mod who is offended by this, then YOU are Cartman with authoritah! whether you know it or not, so smarten up (or continue being a dick).

 

[MelissaBaby]

I have no strong opinion on what happened in the Quitting The Site thread. I was born and raised a Mainer, I know a "hard tellin', not knowin" situation when I see one.

I which the Mods would stop with the "This conversations run it's course" comments when they close a thread.

If people are still talking, the conversation has not run its course. If there is a problem with conversations going on too long, please remove all future threads about the under eighteen rule, the mean commenters in Loving Wives and how long one can expect a story to remain pending.


Oh, and..."in before the block".

 

[SimonDoom]

I have no strong opinion on what happened in the Quitting The Site thread. I was born and raised a Mainer, I know a "hard tellin', not knowin" situation when I see one.

I which the Mods would stop with the "This conversations run it's course" comments when they close a thread.

If people are still talking, the conversation has not run its course. If there is a problem with conversations going on too long, please remove all future threads about the under eighteen rule, the mean commenters in Loving Wives and how long one can expect a story to remain pending.


Oh, and..."in before the block".

I completely agree.

I don't like the idea in general of one person deciding that a thread has run its course and shutting it down. If people are still responding to it, then it means that some people in this forum think it has NOT run its course.

Threads that contain content that violates site rules can be dealt with by deleting the offending content, or by giving a warning against offending content. They don't have to be closed or deleted.

 

[Voboy]

Abso-smeggin-lutely

I like this term.

IBTL. But I, too, wish the mods would stop deciding when we're done. If people are posting, and it's not harming anybody, why close a thread?

 

[lovecraft68]

This thread was ended by our mod because it took an unpleasant turn for TPH when the discussion her unprofessional sig was called out and they knew her and BFG (who by the way only shows up in the AH when TPH does to be Murray to her Carvelli and you have to be my age to get that one) were going to try to get it locked or deleted. By it being locked beforehand those posts will stay.

In case others haven't noticed there is a lot of drama going on in mod land, and I'm going to say that the mod of this forum is not the problem, but sometimes their hand is forced.

I'd rather they do it than the others.

 

[M_K_Babalon]

This thread was ended by our mod because it took an unpleasant turn for TPH when the discussion her unprofessional sig was called out and they knew her and BFG (who by the way only shows up in the AH when TPH does to be Murray to her Carvelli and you have to be my age to get that one) were going to try to get it locked or deleted. By it being locked beforehand those posts will stay.

In case others haven't noticed there is a lot of drama going on in mod land, and I'm going to say that the mod of this forum is not the problem, but sometimes their hand is forced.

I'd rather they do it than the others.

I had no clue there was mod drama. I never pay attention to who's a mod, and don't go in many subs. I know Jafo and AH Mod, who I find it weird to have such an on the nose user name. And I ran across an old as fuck thread that she started, reminded me Etoile was a mod at one point. Oh and Sirhugs.

 

[Paul_Chance]

I'm kinda thrilled to learn that mods get guns....

Cue Toby Keith....

 

[TheRedChamber]

Honestly, for the most part, I'm really happy with the moderation here, even on the rare occasions when I've been on the wrong side of it. We're generally allowed to go at each other's ideas hard as long as we don't descend into flat-out name-calling (and even then there are ways round it in a parliamentary 'I feel the Right Honourable Gentleman is being economical with the truth' style) and you have to go exceptionally over the top to get an actual ban.

(This contrasts sharply with some other forums I'm on where bans are handed out like candy - for example, a video gaming one where bans for the crime of 'console warring' are ridiculously common, or where the discussions of Biden and Trump's age-related mental decline are treated obviously and hypocritically differently)

I like that the AH_Mod has a username that leaves no doubt as to their role and that they never get involved in actual discussion on the board and are, thus, not 'a face' here. (They may of course have an alternative profile).

I support the way politics is dealt with on these forums - not allowed in authorial spaces but a wild west anything goes space set aside for it. The signature in question clearly goes against this spirit and I'd encourage the Mod in question to really think about how helpful it is for the role they are doing.

 

[ElectricBlue]

I like that the AH_Mod has a username that leaves no doubt as to their role and that they never get involved in actual discussion on the board and are, thus, not 'a face' here. (They may of course have an alternative profile).

Agree, the AHMod is obviously the moderator of this forum; on other forums the designated mod could be a regular participant, or impartial, but unless you're a regular in those forums you wouldn't know. I get the sense those mods are often part of the drama, from the occasions where it breaks out of the forum in question.

I support the way politics is dealt with on these forums - not allowed in authorial spaces but a wild west anything goes space set aside for it. The signature in question clearly goes against this spirits and I'd encourage the Mod in question to really think about how helpful it is for the role they are doing.

Yep, that confirms my comment up above. Mods being part of the problem can't ever be a good solution.

 

[M_K_Babalon]

I'm reninded of back in my youth, when I wanted to be a mod on some website. No friends, a dialup internet, and time.

 

[AH_Mod]

When I say a thread has run its course, that's my way of saying that the original purpose of the thread has been served, and it has devolved into insults and flaming.

Threads concerning the moderators of other forum sections serve no purpose here other than to stir up trouble. If you have questions or concerns about the moderator of another forum section, take it to the section where the problem is occurring, take it up with them directly, or take it up with Laurel. We have enough drama of our own without importing it from other sections.