Seeking a Moderator for the Moderators (6 Viewers)

[DickyP]

... and keep your politics where they belong...

As far as I am concerned with all political opinions on this site - in the gutter. Carry on deleting Uncle Gizmo!

 

[isladogs]

I have got to ask, what is the collective for a group of moderators?

As this is an Access forum, perhaps a (Y)ule of mods - as in module . . .

Or a rater of mods . . .OK sorry I'll stop now

As for the mod of mods, I think the ideal characteristic would be to do the job so well, they would make themself redundant.
In this particular case, I think that has already happened without anyone needing to be appointed.

 

[Vassago]

In this particular case, I think that has already happened without anyone needing to be appointed.

And there it is. I tend to agree. I know I've been away for a short vacation, but it seems to me that the moderators do a well enough job still that there's no need to have someone to moderate them. If there ever is a rare dispute that can't be mediated, Jon can step in. I just don't see it occurring enough that it requires anyone elevated.

As far as I can tell, everyone has done a fantastic enough job keeping things in order. Maybe this would be something to revisit if things change in the future.

 

[NauticalGent]

A Congress...

 

[NauticalGent]

The Jet Set, ACEs in the hole

 

[Vassago]

A ban of moderators?

A repository of moderators?

 

[CJ_London]

Given this has come about as a result of UK law, I was going to suggest ‘the speaker’ as in the speaker of the House of Commons- the person who slaps down inappropriate behaviour of MP’s

 

[Vassago]

If you really need a moderator of moderators, just have the moderators nominate someone other than themselves. I think you'll have a better time than bringing someone new on straight to a higher position. You can also always bring in another regular moderator to replace their previous role.

Or you could allow majority vetoes if there is a dispute.

Are there often issues that come up? I don't remember seeing much in the past, but I know it's been a while and with site rule changes, if may be necessary.

 

[BlueSpruce]

I would simply defer to the AWF Owner to select one, if it's still necessary to have a Chief Moderator. In fact, the AWF Owner has been fulfilling that role, and perhaps needs someone to take over so he can focus on other tasks.

 

[Isaac]

I recall an AI thread where someone joined it and started spouting political garbage, polluting an otherwise benign thread... And I deleted the post... If that was you, well I hope you learned something from it and keep your politics where they belong...

As I'm a moderator I have the luxury of being able to delete individual posts... When I was just a normal user with no luxuries, I would have deleted the whole thread and started fresh. I've done that on numerous occasions to get rid of stupid comments from stupid people, disrupting an otherwise interesting thread ...

When did you become a moderator, roughly speaking? Are you happy with that position? I think I might find it annoying

 

[GPGeorge]

If you really need a moderator of moderators, just have the moderators nominate someone other than themselves. I think you'll have a better time than bringing someone new on straight to a higher position. You can also always bring in another regular moderator to replace their previous role.

Or you could allow majority vetoes if there is a dispute.

Are there often issues that come up? I don't remember seeing much in the past, but I know it's been a while and with site rule changes, if may be necessary.

The situation has been greatly complicated by the recent censorship Online Safety Act laws in the UK.

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

When did you become a moderator

March 2014

 

[BlueSpruce]

The situation has been greatly complicated by the recent censorship Online Safety Act laws in the UK.

I feel we have adapted well in the last couple of months to the status quo. I would be surprised if the thought police were to complain about the new AWF.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Here's another suggestion:
- Add a special Like/Dislike function for moderator decisions and democracy will take over.

The problem with this proposal is that (a) the site is privately owned and is more of a free-for-all melee than a democracy, but (b) there are some folks who translate "democracy" as "My God, how did we ever get into this mess?" Asking democracy to take over ignores the fact that this site - and any other publicly-oriented sites - are subject to various government content regulations that in-site democracy will not be able to overcome.

My prior comments in answer to amorosik's question are oddly applicable. As a moderator on a technical forum, I feel that I have come to understand the difficulty of herding cats.

 

[Vassago]

The problem with this proposal is that (a) the site is privately owned and is more of a free-for-all melee than a democracy, but (b) there are some folks who translate "democracy" as "My God, how did we ever get into this mess?" Asking democracy to take over ignores the fact that this site - and any other publicly-oriented sites - are subject to various government content regulations that in-site democracy will not be able to overcome.

My prior comments in answer to amorosik's question are oddly applicable. As a moderator on a technical forum, I feel that I have come to understand the difficulty of herding cats.

This is true. People often confuse free speech as meaning you can say anything you want, anywhere, at any time. Free speech laws across many countries protect you from government censorship or punishment. It has nothing to do with rules in a private forum. Jon can make whatever rules he wants to.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

If you really need a moderator of moderators, just have the moderators nominate someone other than themselves.

Wouldn't that lead to an example of Russell's Paradox? Or at least close to it?

OK, for those not familiar...

There is a town where the barber shaves everyone who doesn't shave himself. Who shaves the barber?

 

[Edgar_]

As far as I am concerned with all political opinions on this site - in the gutter. Carry on deleting Uncle Gizmo!

You are referring to the individual who initiated a thread titled "T. is still the world's best bet." How hypocritical. And this is not the only example I recall. It is rather convenient for @Uncle Gizmo to make such a statement, considering he himself started and contributed to numerous political threads, none of which he is willing to acknowledge apparently. Fortunately, these threads remain accessible through Google and, quite likely, on the Internet Archive.

Spoiler

And I'm ready to reply to anything that involves the word "context". Because when I made the claims I made (I will address that shortly), there was no ban on politics or any warning about the topic being a threat to the well being of the site. Here's what happened:

@Uncle Gizmo posted a video of Nvidia's CEO saying something like "AI is good, everyone should be using it", in an interview. To which I simply replied: "Well, he's making trillions off the tech, how would he say otherwise?". I'm clearly just pointing out the conflict of interest and the disconnect between the downside effects AI has already had on jobs and his profits. How is this a political thing more than economics 101? You can't know, because the uncle gizmo deleted the thread and my posts. Not only that, he also deleted my post asking why he deleted my posts.

So @Uncle Gizmo thinks shutting down my thoughts is his luxury? talk about reasons to moderate mods.

Before anyone thinks I'm derailing the thread, oh no, this is merely a reason to continue it.

 

[Edgar_]

The problem with this proposal is that (a) the site is privately owned and is more of a free-for-all melee than a democracy, but (b) there are some folks who translate "democracy" as "My God, how did we ever get into this mess?" Asking democracy to take over ignores the fact that this site - and any other publicly-oriented sites - are subject to various government content regulations that in-site democracy will not be able to overcome.

My prior comments in answer to amorosik's question are oddly applicable. As a moderator on a technical forum, I feel that I have come to understand the difficulty of herding cats.

It's just a suggestion. But someone or something has to judge the judges. It's a must, just look at your staff:

I recall an AI thread where someone joined it and started spouting political garbage, polluting an otherwise benign thread... And I deleted the post... If that was you, well I hope you learned something from it and keep your politics where they belong...

As I'm a moderator I have the luxury of being able to delete individual posts... When I was just a normal user with no luxuries, I would have deleted the whole thread and started fresh. I've done that on numerous occasions to get rid of stupid comments from stupid people, disrupting an otherwise interesting thread ...

Holy... lies on top of rudeness on top of insults.

Speaking of which, I suspect it was you, @The_Doc_Man, who moderated my mention about the site still having posts quoting P. H.'s posts. Why was that? any reason?

 

[Edgar_]

When the people who cheer for censorship finally get their way, the outcome isn’t nearly as sweet as they expected.

Who are you referring to as someone who cheered for censorship? be direct and assertive, dude.

 

[BlueSpruce]

I feel we have adapted well in the last couple of months to the status quo. I would be surprised if the thought police were to complain about the new AWF.

Well, my above statement was short-lived after reading the 3 haughty posts prior to this one