Who do you think would make a good moderator?

While I agree with frodly that the thread should be about who we think would make a good moderator rather than personally attacking those we don't, I do think we can discuss what kind of past behavior makes for a poor candidate as a moderator. I would include in that list people who bait, flame, provoke, and just generally act like jerks toward other members, personalizing the debate. Partisan hackery should be a no-no as well.

As for who wouldn't make a good moderator, I would suggest putting that in a PM to a current mod if you have valid concerns about someone specifically nominated within this thread. That way you'll still be heard, without derailing the thread into tit-for-tat personal attacks.

 

http://vocaroo.com/i/s0xoHePPh8Fs

 

My vote goes to Really People, a very reasonable guy to converse with. I have never seen him fly off the handle in his posts.

 

It has nothing to do with todays culture, and everything to do with the rules of the forum. You cannot address posters personally in a negative way. It is the rules. Honest assessment or not, it is the rules. My honest assessment of some of the forums posters, is that they are ignorant jack asses whose posts lack even a modicum of intelligence. I cannot say that about them personally though. Those are the rules of the forum.

 

See, this is the difference right here, though. Look at the language you're using. It's very hostile and inflammatory. How else could you phrase that in a way that still points out your concerns without being so condescending? Remember, if you're having to use insults to get your point across, you're probably being a bit more emotionally reactive than neutrally observant.

Thus far, I haven't been reprimanded for giving honest critique. Only when I've stepped over the line into flaming. I don't think the forum frowns on honesty. As long as what you're saying comes from a sincere place that is not intended to offend the person it is addressing, I don't see how it could be construed as a personal attack. Like I said earlier, there's a difference between honesty and malice. And that difference is typically a basic level of respect for the other person in your words.

 

We need mods who have great senses of humor too! Nobody likes a big ol' stick in the mud. =D

 

And thus we come to personalizing the debate. Gee, that didn't take long.

 

See, stuff like this is exactly what got you put on my ignore list in the first place. That last post was about the most sterile way I could have even addressed that. And somehow you still found a way to get offended by it. I was trying to give the guy an honest pointer that might help him in being able to express his views in the future in a way that wouldn't conflict with forum rules. Which he seemed concerned about. Contrary to how you appear to have taken it, I was trying to do something nice.

Look, Perriquine, please stop quoting me in the future and you have my word that I won't respond to you anymore. Let's just keep our distance from one another, cool? We clearly don't get along very well. I've tried to be cool with you, and apparently it's just not going to happen. And I have no control over that. I've done all I know how to do to extend an olive branch. And apparently it's just not enough. At this point, anything further would be sacrificing my integrity. And I'm not willing to do that. Sorry.

Now Pas, that's not true at all. I have a lovely stick in the mud that you've never even met. I think you two would get along fabulously. It doesn't eat much...... because it's a stick....... so it's really low maintenance. And it bathes in exotic mud made from the finest Japanese Ass Wizards® also containing the nectar of ten thousand ground up martians, a dozen puppy eggs, a sprig of dingleberry grass, and one lone hair from John Oates' mustache.

Surprisingly the mustache hair was the easiest ingredient to get.

 

'attack the message not the messenger', but then most political conversation is focused on identity politics these days. Attacking the group identity in the crudest way possible gets to pass for attacking a message or issue when I think its very similar to making a personal attack except it hits more than one person at a time and you get to escape taking responsibility for the disruption you're causing because you didn't directly name someone.

 

Mostly because I have done so for 15 yrs, tend to refrain from personality conflict when acting as a Mod, have a relatively keen sense of impending stupidity, and manage to use language as a tool when required.

Plus.....I've always been pretty good at it....heh.



Oh.....for the record.....I'm having way to much fun here to ever ruin it by acting as a Mod.

 

Two things, I have enough P.T. Barnum in me to get members emotionally involved in the threads. Our site has anger, which is not passion. But, members do come here to vent. I am a researcher, I would take threads with excessive disagreement, and Google fact/links to settle disputes and keep thread pointed in a positive direction. As it stands now, I use that talent to enhance my opinions.

Something that seems to get lost in this forum is that all of us have a limited time for internet usage. We want that time to be entertaining. I have looked at threads that have died, but with a little TLC could have been very successful. There are some things we should be discussing that fall by the wayside. Some call it "baiting" or "flaming," I call it being provocative to get an emotional investment in the subject matter by the PF member.

No, I do not expect to be offered a moderators spot, and that is "ok." I know I am not even-tempered enough to shoulder that responsibility. However, I wish I could find a way to post unpopular opinions without becoming a target myself. "Please don't shoot the messenger," does not seem to be enough. But, I will continue to push my limits as long as my contribution to "keep things interesting" is appreciated by members and mods.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P._T._Barnum​

 

The tone taken was insulting, though it's honestly up to frodly whether or not to take it that way. In frodly's post, the only 'you' is a general 'you' (it could be replaced with 'one' and have the same meaning). It was responded to with a personalizing of the discussion.

I stand by my assessment, I will quote whomever I darn well feel like, and I will not be intimidated, manipulated with passive-aggressiveness, or just plain bossed around.

 

Dude come on, don't be like that. He wasn't trying to manipulate or boss you around. All he was doing was asking for a simple truce where the two of you just don't interact with each other.

 

I am not the topic of this thread. The topic of this thread is also not the enmity that exists between certain posters, despite another's attempt to introduce it here.

The topic of the thread is who we think will make a good moderator, and by extension what qualities we expect a good moderator to possess, and which should give us pause. Among the latter, personalizing a debate strikes me as a quality we would want to avoid when considering moderator candidates.

Can we move on now, and get back to recommending people to be moderators?

 

I disagree. I believe OK Grannie would be great. . .and I think you are way too partial, and I would hate to see a moderator with his finger in my face!

See how opinions differ?

I believe LOLO would be great, and Margot. There need to be a balance among moderators in terms of ideologic/political orientation.

 

The bias in the users of Margot and LOLO are way too strong too be modded. A viewing of their post history will confirm this.

 

Obviously, neither you nor I would ever agreed on how to select a mod. . .since, for the most part, we disagree on everything....

So, if a poster tends to ALWAYS agree with you and your "team," you would LOVE to see that person being a moderator. . .
And I must admit that I reflect the other end of the spectrum, so NEITHER you nor I would make good moderators.

But Margot, although she has strong opinions, does have a fair and intelligent characteristic in her posts which I believe would allow her to be a fair minded moderator (which is obviously the greatest quality. . .with intelligence, as most of the mods have displayed for years), and not take part in discussions (or threads) where she knows her opinions are so strong that she wouldn't be able to hide her bias.

And for what I know of Lolo. . .he would never be interested anyway. . .but he is a steady, strong, and fair person.

I do not believe that ANYONE is asking mods to have no opinions. . . just to put them aside for the time necessary to make a decision on a report.

 

Oh. ..another person whom I believe would make a GREAT mod (although we rarely agree!) is Zoiasmom. . .

She has the intelligence, the fairness, and the strength to do the job. I trust her already, in spite of our different opinions on almost every subject. I know I would totally trust her as a moderator.

I would also trust Ethereal. . .for the same reasons.

 

You're entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts. The difference between me and the others you have mentioned is that I can typically take a step back and acknowledge when I'm being partial. Most people on this forum (and really in life in general) are not good at doing this.

I'm not even interested in the position. I just felt the need to set the record straight for the sake of accuracy.

 

Fair enough. I have not had the personal experience of seeing you "take a step back and acknowledge that you were being partial."

But. . . I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and I will certainly congratulate you for your fair mindedness when I have an opportunity to observe it.

And, in anyway, I believe that the moderators are more than separate units of moderations, they function so well because they are a TEAM, and there is a kind of "code of honor" that ties them. . .a check and balance, that operates. So I believe you when you say that you COULD be impartial. . .but so could the people I nominated.

I have GREAT faith in the team of moderators as a whole.

 

Agree. This is why I would recommend zoiasmom or ethereal, they ar both smart, articulate, fair, and trustworthy based on my experience (mostly arguing on opposite sitdes of most issues) with both of them.

 

I'd make a GREAT moderator.

But I wouldn't accept the job.

Why not?

I can be fair and even-handed and thoughtful and respectful of others' pov's yet decisive. I'm friendly but I'm not looking to make friends or please nor hassle anyone for any reason other than their compliance with the rules.

However, otoh, I love being a partisan opinionated voice. And I love my freedom. And I'm not much of a techie.

So, I'm taking myself out of the running, if anyone (besides me) had pondered my potential candidacy.

TYVM

 

I wouldn't mind the job, but my posting would have to become more neutral. I don't know if I could handle that.

 

By definition wouldn't the best moderator be someone who lurks all the time but rarely posts?

This is one of those short lists that I am extremely happy to NOT be on.

 

RP isn't "partisan" as i've noticed. Cubed has a bad habit of bypassing the profanity filter, and Uni is way too cool to be a mod.