Should moderators be Validated

meditraitor

Propaganda has for the past 2 centuries been more potent than the sword and intellectual mickey measuring is rife among the foremost protagonists of sophism,but what is to stop shylocks and charlatans from integrating and effecting opinion? Many of the fascist agenda's in the last century were promoted by such means.

Being an influential and important public medium in this modern age Boards.ie has a big influence on public opinion especially in the 25-35 year old age bracket of our island, so should the choice of Moderators be validated for certain forums?

Politics, humanities and current affairs for example

Moderators are respected and opinions are sometimes taken for granted here, its expected that the decision to make certain persons a moderator is well thought out but whats to stop a mod from say Humanities trying to propagate his unwavering far right views on the politics forum for example?

If a guy says he is a successful scholar and businessman should a moderatorship be a validation or should he be challenged before normal joe assumes he must be?

(I think)The responsibility lies with you lot not the rest of us to promote social justice and moral honesty, so the whole " make your own mind up" answer doesn't wash

Should we ignore history?

I only had 8 cans, been drunker

Shield

Validated by who?

Zaph

How do you propose we validate an anonymous user on an internet forum who can claim to be anything and anywhere they like? And what criteria would have be met to deem a person "fit to moderate"?

Iwannahurl

meditraitor wrote: »

Propaganda has for the past 2 centuries been more potent than the sword and intellectual mickey measuring is rife among the foremost protagonists of sophism,but what is to stop shylocks and charlatans from integrating and effecting opinion? Many of the fascist agenda's in the last century were promoted by such means.

Being an influential and important public medium in this modern age Boards.ie has a big influence on public opinion especially in the 25-35 year old age bracket of our island, so should the choice of Moderators be validated for certain forums?

Politics, humanities and current affairs for example

Moderators are respected and opinions are sometimes taken for granted here, its expected that the decision to make certain persons a moderator is well thought out but whats to stop a mod from say Humanities trying to propagate his unwavering far right views on the politics forum for example?

If a guy says he is a successful scholar and businessman should a moderatorship be a validation or should he be challenged before normal joe assumes he must be?

(I think)The responsibility lies with you lot not the rest of us to promote social justice and moral honesty, so the whole " make your own mind up" answer doesn't wash

Should we ignore history?

I only had 8 cans, been drunker

"Being an influential and important public medium in this modern age Boards.ie has a big influence on public opinion."

Really?

I doubt even Boards.ie believes that.

K-9

Libertarianism and hard line Republicanism to take 2 examples will never be that popular among the Irish electorate, no matter how much a small, select view post about it, I think that's the type of thing you're post was aimed at. They aren't even that popular on Boards.

Taltos

I have to say I was totally against this argument until I got to your last point.
You might be onto a winner there...

In reality and sobriety though how do you propose a poster is pre-validated to become a mod?
(for what it's worth - being a mod means the rules apply alot more stringently - not sure about the rest of the posse buy my rate of posting has dropped and I am trying to be a lot more level headed about my replies, taking out emotion that I would have previously fueled my sometime ranting posts - oh there I go again )

looksee

Presumably mods are researched by someone looking over their posting history? Should they (the someones) have to be 'validated' too? Everything is there in the public domain for anyone to investigate if they wish.

If other posters assume that a Mod's opinions (other than Modding opinions) are more valid than other peoples, well that is their problem. I do notice a slight tendency to treat my (non-modding) posts with a bit of respect on the part of some people. This is very nice for me but is not necessary. Outside of trollish behaviour I am not going to keep count of who said what to me.

meditraitor

meditraitor wrote: »

but whats to stop a mod from say Humanities trying to propagate his unwavering far right views on the politics forum for example?

subtle, very subtle

Should mods & posters only be allowed to propagate far-left views on politics then? You don't like their views so suddenly the whole moderator system should be overhauled?

If people notice someone has a good posting history on the forum they're being considered to mod and isn't a total muppet with a bunch of infractions on other fora, that's enough "validation"

A mod on one forum is just a poster on any other forum and that's that

Nodin

meditraitor wrote: »

.................

If a guy says he is a successful scholar and businessman should a moderatorship be a validation or should he be challenged before normal joe assumes he must be?

................

If somebody feels the need to constantly flash their IRL 'credentials' about the place, it says much about them, and none of it good. Whether its true or not is rather besides the point, as neither qualification or cash make a post correct or incorrect, plausible or otherwise.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Iwannahurl

bluewolf wrote: »

A mod on one forum is just a poster on any other forum and that's that

In which case, any Tom, Dick or Harriet, no matter how boneheaded in general, is a candidate for being a Mod or CMod in a given forum?

So, what are the criteria for being a Mod? What is the selection process?

Iwannahurl

K-9 wrote: »

Libertarianism and hard line Republicanism to take 2 examples will never be that popular among the Irish electorate, no matter how much a small, select view post about it, I think that's the type of thing you're post was aimed at. They aren't even that popular on Boards.

This kind of thing seems to be fairly popular on Boards.

Zaph

Iwannahurl wrote: »

In which case, any Tom, Dick or Harriet, no matter how boneheaded in general, is a candidate for being a Mod or CMod in a given forum?

So, what are the criteria for being a Mod? What is the selection process?

The selection process is roughly as follows:

• Mod vacancy arises
• CMod discusses possible candidates with existing forum mods and/or fellow CMods
• Cmod proposes candidate to admins for approval
• Candidate's suitability for modship is discussed between admins and voted upon
• Admins advise CMod of candidate being approved or denied, and depending on outcome the person is offered the modship or the process is repeated.

There are no set criteria, each application is taken on its own merits. However we would expect that each candidate has a good record on Boards and is someone that we feel we could trust to look after the best interests of the forum and site.

Dudess

There's a difference between expressing a view and pushing an agenda.

Corsendonk

[QUOTE=RopeDrink;75201284
These things do get noticed. It never has and likely never will be a case of "Oh, hey, can I be mod?" *bang* welcome to the Mod team... Even then we still always get 'offers' along that lines They're appreciated but in all honesty you can't expect to just grab any random unknown Joe and slap a ModHat on them, that doesn't do the Forum community or the Forum itself any real justice when there are so many Boardsies out there with a real genuine love for their Forums and it's visitors.

Becoming a Mod is often achieved by people who've been within that Forum and it's community for quite a while, are noted as respectable contributors and them being submitted to the Mod team is discussed between people of the exact same mindset and then selected by the CMod/Admin team.
.[/QUOTE]

Interesting but when you browse the forums you come across the odd mod with low post counts so they must have had exceptional quality posts to qualify for the mod role, even when checking there post stats they didn't stand out as regulars in that forum. Also how does that process work for new forums? I can think of 2 newbie mods that became mods to new forum without previous mod experience. Can you clarify who are the Mod Team?

Zaph

On occasions there may be mods with relatively low postcounts, but generally you'll find that a high proportion of their posts were in that forum. These would most often be mods of relatively small or quiet forums with a small user base. So while it could be argued that their experience is limited, they will have demonstrated an interest in the forum and the quietness of the forum will allow them to find their feet as a mod. As I said above, there are no set criteria for becoming a mod, each case is dealt with on its own merits.

Dudess

Mods should be impartial when it comes to any dealings they have with members posting to the forums they moderate, but I don't think they should feel obliged to hide their views. The two above can be mutually exclusive, and seems to work fine. Any time someone says they were banned/infracted because the mod disagreed with their view, you can be sure that's not actually the case.

Corsendonk

RopeDrink wrote: »

Define low post count? I mean, I've been here going on 12 years and my post count is laughable compared to some other Mods... And yet here I am with 13 Forums under my wing.

I've not seen a Moderator without at least a thousand posts... And, well, think about that number... Say it out loud... A Thousand posts... Low? Sure, compared to others, but WAAAAY more than enough to judge a general online persona.

EDIT: I guess a slogan along the lines of "Post Count Isn't Everything" slots in here somewhere

Yes but to be fair some of your forums are "dust gathers", I have a mental image of you sitting in the Awards forum and talking to yourself for the last 12 years!:D

On your statement about not seening a mod with less than a 1000 posts the below boardsie was a mod in Living abroad when they had I think 540 posts.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/member.php?u=137175

Insect Overlord

Dudess wrote: »

Mods should be impartial when it comes to any dealings they have with members posting to the forums they moderate, but I don't think they should feel obliged to hide their views. The two above can be mutually exclusive, and seems to work fine. Any time someone says they were banned/infracted because the mod disagreed with their view, you can be sure that's not actually the case.

What works well is if one mod gets involved in a thread (posting their own opinions, etc) then another moderator looks after reported posts or disputes in that thread. It helps keeping the mod-team for a forum in regular contact, and it prevents people from saying one mod or another is "abusing their powers" to win an argument.

TheyKnowMyIP

What is very worrying, is the fact anybody who registered before 10 Jan 2010 potentially has their email and name plastered all over the internet. God only know where that info ends up.

I mean you could close an email account, but if they aren't recycled, who is to say it does not match your real life identity if you have been posting for a long time on this site?

How many users here don't use first.lastname in their reg email? Not many I am guessing. Even though this isn't official, it would be fairly easy to identify a large percentage of the users on this board now?

Am I talking sh3te or sense?:(

Delirium

so the OP is claiming that because a poster sees a mod posting something, they give it more credence than if it came from a normal poster? seriously?

personally, with due respect to the mods, unless you're posting with the modhat on I'm going to treat the posts as I would any other poster (i.e. by their content). and I presumed that was how most posters thought.

unless mods are abusing their mod-powers I don't see what the problem is, other than the OP doesn't share the views of one (or more) mods.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

K-9

Iwannahurl wrote: »

This kind of thing seems to be fairly popular on Boards.

Sorry, only seen your post. That sort of attitude is prevalent everywhere, plus it's AH! All you can do is argue and debate it.

I've presented stats on how that particular part of society has substantially dropped in the last few years, both sides of the debate don't really care as to the reasons why that is.

Tom Dunne

Corsendonk wrote: »

On your statement about not seening a mod with less than a 1000 posts the below boardsie was a mod in Living abroad when they had I think 540 posts.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/member.php?u=137175

In situations like that, there are other factors that come in to play.

Boards.ie has regular social events, it is most likely that whomever appointed Cazlou had met her (I know I certainly did on a few occasions, though I am pretty sure I had nothing to do with her appointment).

It goes along the lines of "Low postcount? Yeah, but I met him/her at a beers and he/she doesn't seem the type of person to go nuts and ban a load of people".

Again, as Zaph said, there are no rigid rules.

Kinetic^

If you want to start "validating" people before they become moderators, they had better start getting paid.

Corsendonk

RopeDrink wrote: »

...So what if they are / I do? Hasn't exactly got much to do with my point and that is post-count isn't a defining factor when it comes to selecting Moderators.

My reply was more to do with your "laughable post count" statement, it may be low but the post traffic of some of your forums is low and to be fair your a very frequent contributor in Feedback and arn't posts in the feedback forum not added to your post count?

Corsendonk

Tom Dunne wrote: »

In situations like that, there are other factors that come in to play.

Boards.ie has regular social events, it is most likely that whomever appointed Cazlou had met her (I know I certainly did on a few occasions, though I am pretty sure I had nothing to do with her appointment).

It goes along the lines of "Low postcount? Yeah, but I met him/her at a beers and he/she doesn't seem the type of person to go nuts and ban a load of people".

Again, as Zaph said, there are no rigid rules.

Or very attractive girl turns up at Boards meeting were 90% of attendees are guys who call their righthand their gf lol

I know were your coming from but say that method of selection isn't too scientific and led to the odd howler were drink gave a better impression of someone ability to mod.

Zaph

Corsendonk wrote: »

Or very attractive girl turns up at Boards meeting were 90% of attendees are guys who call their righthand their gf lol

I know were your coming from but say that method of selection isn't too scientific and led to the odd howler were drink gave a better impression of someone ability to mod.

We could just as easily have a problem with a mod who has 10,000 posts and been on Boards for years. As has been said, it's not a scientific process, we're only human and can make errors of judgement. However I like to think that we do get it right almost all of the time.

Corsendonk

I wouldn't be in favour of the validation system myself because for boards it would be too aspirational and unworkable. You would be expecting volunteers to submit to well a paid job structure minus the wages. Head down that road and suddenly no one wants to mod.

Aside from that, you would have to validate all the existing mods to ensure they are all singing from the same hymn sheet and in the interests of quality control conduct yearly validations of Mods just for starters. Just not a practical idea.

Agent Smith

Just ask for all their A/S/L's




(17/F/Cali)

Dudess

koth wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

A commonly held paranoid notion. Most people aren't stupid enough to think to themselves "Oh that was written by a moderator on Boards.ie - it must be brilliant".

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Saw a Occupy Cork guy buying stuff in TK Maxx with an AIB Visa the other day...

meditraitor

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I may have left leanings but to lump me in with the occupy crowed is insulting and leading, this is exactly why you have a following of diametrically opposite posters. My problem with you is based on my beliefs that you are not everything you would have people believe......

Little things like the whole Farmer from donegal who went to Princeton and came back enlightened with libertarianism....

You see claims of being a very successful entrepreneurial free spirit,the €5000 bet on Michael D to win presidency, €1.5m in bank shares, being staunch FF last year and calling them left looneys this don't fit right with me.
Then there is your complete refusal to engage in a proper debate unless its structure suits your loaded questions.......

I have a difficulty with you and your coterie of so called libertarians spouting rubbish that I believe is harmful and morally repulsive,

Essentially I think there is something amiss with you, the posting, the boasting and the lack of clarity all contribute to this.

This is the point of the thread, in my opinion your supposed views have no place in a just and equal society and if given time to flower (you have been using boards for your soapboxing long enough now) will be damaging to anyone who is for reasons of nature not as strong as the alpha male.

The idea of validation doesn't imply I would silence you, quite the opposite, I would have you and your ilk in clear view, the idea is just for the direction of boards and how they would be perceived externally, say for example you were made mod of the Politics forum tomorrow then it would send a clear signal that there is support for your ideologues and I think it could be harmful,

As for myself, you can question my motives and trawl my posts for stupidity (of which there is many), drunken posts and contradictions but I always say what I mean and no ulterior motives, my postings here are just simply musings in the moment...... like this one.

On a similar but lighter note I will admit to a certain movement from the left to the centre in the time I've being using boards, maybe its age.

what was that falsly attributed to churchull quote,

"If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain."

Orion

Corsendonk wrote: »

yearly validations of Mods just for starters. Just not a practical idea.

Isn't that what mod beers is for? :pac:

Orion

And another one bites the dust.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Duke Leonal Felmet

Shield wrote: »

Validated by who?

Coast guard?

davoxx

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

correct me if i'm wrong here, but are people not meant to be having a discussion in politics forum rather than poking fun?
and that most people hold mods (regardless of which forum they are in charge of) to a higher standard of posting?

maybe this is why people find it more offensive than that from a normal poster?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

davoxx

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

thanks, i was wrong, i thought you were referring to the normal politics forum not the light hearted cafe subforum,

your post seemed to imply that it was the normal politics forum, but thanks for clarifying that up.

i can't see why people would be annoyed of what you said in that sub forum ...

Blowfish

It should probably be pointed out that there isn't a whole lot of point to this thread anymore as it seems the OP has closed their account.

davoxx

Blowfish wrote: »

It should probably be pointed out that there isn't a whole lot of point to this thread anymore as it seems the OP has closed their account.

that's sad ...

Beruthiel

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I would like to confirm that.

I very rarely read the Politics forum. When us Admins are choosing a new Mod for that forum, the persons politics are never discussed and would not be known by most of us.
We would also not know if you are male or female, what colour you are, your religion or lack there of, your sexual preference or your age.
We don't care.

The requirements for choosing a mod have to do with having a level head, half a brain and cop on.
That's it.

davoxx

Beruthiel wrote: »

The requirements for choosing a mod have to do with having a level head, half a brain and cop on.
That's it.

:rolleyes:

User Friendly

davoxx wrote: »

:rolleyes:

:D*

Beruthiel

davoxx wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Is that feedback davoxx?

I have no clue what you are trying to communicate there.

Same goes for you User Friendly.

User Friendly

Beruthiel wrote: »

Is that feedback davoxx?

I have no clue what you are trying to communicate there.

Same goes for you User Friendly.

do i really need to spell it out?

ask Davoxx why he thanked a post,the gave it the it the:rolleyes: in the next post?
cheers:o

Amber Lamps

He thanked a joke

User Friendly

Amber Lamps wrote: »

He thanked a joke

yeah,thats cleared it up

davoxx

Beruthiel wrote: »

Is that feedback davoxx?

I have no clue what you are trying to communicate there.

Same goes for you User Friendly.

please don't ban me ... someday i want to be a mod too!!!

looksee

Beruthiel wrote: »

The requirements for choosing a mod have to do with having a level head, half a brain and cop on.
That's it.

Well I suppose if you only had half a brain you would have a level head...it would be kind of flat on top Still I hope I wasn't asked to be a mod on that basis

Corsendonk

Beruthiel wrote: »

The requirements for choosing a mod have to do with having a level head, half a brain and cop on.
That's it.

I hope their is a long waiting list of mod candidates or it doesn't speak well of any boards members not mods!:D