Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > Feedback > Blocking Moderators

Blocking Moderators
Thread Tools
Ω
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2006, 04:59 AM
 
Why can I not put moderators on ignore?

"If this post is in the Lounge forum, it is likely to be my own opinion, and not representative of the position of MacNN.com."

Why can I not block posts from a mod who I frankly think is full of ****, and whose views I would rather not read?

The moderator has themselves gone out of their way to say that in certain parts of this forum that they are representative of the 'whole', so why can I not block these parts?

Disclaimer:

If this post is in the feedback forum it is the likely to be what I feel and would like to do, but in all likelihood nothing will come of it.
"angels bleed from the tainted touch of my caress"
     
red rocket
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2006, 05:30 AM
 
I agree. If a moderator insists on constantly stating his personal opinion, he should set up a secondary, non-mod account for the purpose, and keep the moderator account for moderating use only. There is a difference between moderators and standard users, but that difference is not to give standard users super-powers. Moderation requires maturity and restraint.
     
tooki
Admin Emeritus
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2006, 07:27 AM
 
Well, I think the actual question of whether moderators should be ignorable is self-evident: absolutely not. I think it's also obvious why.

On the other hand, there is merit in wanting moderators (especially those with strong political/religious/moral/etc views) to have a separate account for non-moderating posts. Let's wait and see if any other mods here respond (I hope they do) and if need be, I'll bring it up for discussion with the admin/mod team.

tooki
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2006, 09:46 AM
 
I second the idea for a separate account.

-t
     
Oisín
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Copenhagen
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2006, 10:04 AM
 
Well, I think the actual question of whether moderators should be ignorable is self-evident: absolutely not. I think it's also obvious why.
Well... Moderators should obviously not be ignorable in forums they moderate. But since mods here are usually assigned to only one or two forums, and thus post as regular members in the other forums, they should be ignorable in forums they don't moderate, in my opinion.

This of course also touches upon the discussion of whether mods should have separate accounts—something that I am also fully in favour of. One should be able to ignore moderators' opinions and 'personal' posts, but not their 'official' posts, and the only way of achieving this is to use different accounts.
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2006, 10:11 AM
 
We've already had such conversations in the past. If you're going to muzzle one moderator for his views, then all have to abide by a new arbitary rule. How would it even work logistically - would a moderator who starts getting political have his posts reported? Boy oh boy, these leftists definitely are intimidated by diversity of opinion, and they are only fans of free speech that does not offend them. I have disdain for OreoCookie's political views, but I have never suggested that he should be barred from spewing the crap he spews.
( Last edited by Big Mac; Oct 27, 2006 at 10:27 AM. )

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Dakar²
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: The Annals of MacNN History
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2006, 10:42 AM
 
I have no problem with a moderator who posts his personal views on these boards. After all, that's they started here, right? Why should they lose that ability because they are doing MacNN a favor by moderating?

However if they become more personally vested in posting their opinions in a certain (sub)forum it's probably a conflict of interest if they are a moderator of said (sub)forum.

Also, for the record I also have no idea who we're talking about here.
     
Oisín
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Copenhagen
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2006, 11:16 AM
 
We've already had such conversations in the past. If you're going to muzzle one moderator for his views, then all have to abide by a new arbitary rule. How would it even work logistically - would a moderator who starts getting political have his posts reported?
If he's breaking forum rules, then yes, he would. Moderators are not above the rules the rest of us have to abide by.

Boy oh boy, these leftists definitely are intimidated by diversity of opinion, and they are only fans of free speech that does not offend them.
Err... okay...

I have disdain for OreoCookie's political views, but I have never suggested that he should be barred from spewing the crap he spews.
No one here is suggesting that he should be barred from posting his political views (provided he abides by the forum rules, obviously), either.

Putting someone on ignore, however, has nothing to do with reporting them, barring them from posting, or 'muzzling' them. It just means that one person doesn't want to read one other person's posts. I don't personally use the ignore feature at all, but some people do. And as long as what a moderator writes is not moderator-related (i.e., it's his personal opinion on a subject), members should have the option to make use of the ignore function if they want to.
     
Demonhood
Administrator
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Land of the Easily Amused
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2006, 12:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by Oisín View Post
Well... Moderators should obviously not be ignorable in forums they moderate. But since mods here are usually assigned to only one or two forums, and thus post as regular members in the other forums, they should be ignorable in forums they don't moderate, in my opinion.
the software doesn't work that way. it's all or nothing.

This of course also touches upon the discussion of whether mods should have separate accounts—something that I am also fully in favour of. One should be able to ignore moderators' opinions and 'personal' posts, but not their 'official' posts, and the only way of achieving this is to use different accounts.
so a moderator would need to log out and then back in as a new user just to share an opinion about something? or do they only need to do so when it's a hotly contested issue (such as is found in the political lounge)?
do people really think "oh my god! he's expressing his opinion and his big bad blue stars are forcing me to believe it!" ? are they causing people to feel less free to express their own views? i somehow doubt it.

i don't think that moderators need to have a completely separate account because they're opinionated. if they choose to, that's fine. but i don't think it's necessary for them to give up the reputation and history they've built up over several years because one person might not like what they're saying. if they're violating the forum rules, however, that's another matter.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2006, 04:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by Dakar View Post
However if they become more personally vested in posting their opinions in a certain (sub)forum it's probably a conflict of interest if they are a moderator of said (sub)forum.
Since this was brought up I wanted to second it.

I must note though that I only bring this point up on it's merits separate from the individual in question (vmarks). Though I obviously am not privy to all of his moderation, I must say that as far as I can see he has risen to the challenge of this conflict of interest quite admirably. It's quite possible he has a personal rule that he doesn't moderate threads he is directly participating in (at worst using his status as moderator to directly inform a different moderator). I would be fine with that, though I think everyone would prefer if it was stated explicitly.

Full disclosure: I have been personally moderated by vmarks recently. FWIW, while I didn't necessarily agree with his call, it was by no means unreasonable.
     
Oisín
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Copenhagen
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2006, 04:33 PM
 
so a moderator would need to log out and then back in as a new user just to share an opinion about something? or do they only need to do so when it's a hotly contested issue (such as is found in the political lounge)?
do people really think "oh my god! he's expressing his opinion and his big bad blue stars are forcing me to believe it!" ? are they causing people to feel less free to express their own views? i somehow doubt it.
Actually, I was thinking more the opposite: keeping the account they already have as a non-mod account, and creating a new one to use for modding purposes. After all, I think most mods use their modding powers a lot less than they use their account for non-modding purposes. You can always just keep the mod account in a different browser or something, so you don’t have to log out every time you want to mod someone...
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2006, 06:58 PM
 
If it's who I am thinking you are talking about, he is hardly full of ****

I guess the truth burns some people's ears.
     
rjenkinson
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2006, 07:04 PM
 
obviously, you don't want to give users the ability to ignore a moderator. but if a moderator is offering personal opinions or commentary in threads, like any other user does, then users should be allowed to ignore their comments, just as they would for any other user's comments.

just because someone has a moderator position doesn't mean that other users might find their personal take on a given issue objectionable. i'll second keeping the current accounts for personal commentary and creating another account strictly for forum moderation.

-r.
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2006, 07:13 PM
 
I think some people get offended far too easily. Or look for things to get offended by
     
rjenkinson
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2006, 07:16 PM
 
i don't know if that matters in the end, since your comment about people being easily offended equally applies to comments by other users and moderators. users can be offended (easily or not) by other users and block their comments, but can't do the same for moderator's personal comments.

-r.
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2006, 09:13 PM
 
There has been others like this one in this forum. 5 or 6.

I've never seen anyone in the conservative side of thinking make threads like this.

Why do you think?

Not a flame, but a serious question.

You never see anyone say this about Oreo. And he has just as "controversial" and I use that loosely because I think it's an exaggeration beliefs as vmarks.
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2006, 09:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
We've already had such conversations in the past. If you're going to muzzle one moderator for his views, then all have to abide by a new arbitary rule. How would it even work logistically - would a moderator who starts getting political have his posts reported? Boy oh boy, these leftists definitely are intimidated by diversity of opinion, and they are only fans of free speech that does not offend them. I have disdain for OreoCookie's political views, but I have never suggested that he should be barred from spewing the crap he spews.
Exactly.

Someone's words never bothered me so much that I felt I needed to add them to the ignore list.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2006, 09:21 PM
 
I have to agree with Demonhood. Requiring volunteer mods to log out and back in just to use the forum is too much, although I agree there is somewhat of a disparity with the ignore feature. I guess we can hope that mods will be sufficiently civil that nobody feels the need to ignore them.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2006, 09:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Since this was brought up I wanted to second it.

I must note though that I only bring this point up on it's merits separate from the individual in question (vmarks). Though I obviously am not privy to all of his moderation, I must say that as far as I can see he has risen to the challenge of this conflict of interest quite admirably. It's quite possible he has a personal rule that he doesn't moderate threads he is directly participating in (at worst using his status as moderator to directly inform a different moderator). I would be fine with that, though I think everyone would prefer if it was stated explicitly.

Full disclosure: I have been personally moderated by vmarks recently. FWIW, while I didn't necessarily agree with his call, it was by no means unreasonable.
I attempt to not moderate in threads that I participate in, and will ask for assistance from other moderators, but it is not a firm rule- if I happen to post in a thread which later requires moderation, I do not consider that to be wholly off limits. If I moderate a thread early on and then pages later decide to post, likewise, it's not off limits. The real intention is to not moderate the posts of people I'm mid-discussion with. Deleting double posts is a non-issue.

Furthermore, the notion of secondary accounts fails.

In the past I've seen non-moderator accounts be accused of being a moderator in disguise. It's the same behavior of users harrassing marden because he's believed to be abe, rather than focusing on the topic at hand.

And then there's this concept of tolerating the speech of those whose opinions you don't like, which is really the origin of this thread in my estimation. There are a lot of nasty opinions expressed in the P/L. That's partly why the P/L exists, so that these nasty opinions do not pollute the other forums. Should a person choose to participate in the P/L they had better be prepared to be confronted on occasion with some unpleasant opinions. The personal attacks on their character should not stand, but opinions ought to.

Lastly, I was asked to be moderator of the Political / War Lounge, I did not submit myself for it. The only forum I ever asked to be moderator of was the iMac forum. I accepted the role for P/L forum after there was a feedback thread with users requesting that I take on the task.

http://forums.macnn.com/61/feedback/...ks#post2139007 is the thread that led to my being recruited to the role.

Some folks don't like Millenium's opinions, some dislike OreoCookie's, and some people vehemently reject mine. It doesn't matter much, because it doesn't affect how I moderate. I take great care to not use a heavy hand in moderating, and to not overuse the tools the software presents me with.
( Last edited by vmarks; Oct 27, 2006 at 10:15 PM. Reason: added link)
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2006, 09:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by vmarks View Post
Furthermore, the notion of secondary accounts fails.

In the past I've seen non-moderator accounts be accused of being a moderator in disguise. It's the same behavior of users harrassing marden because he's believed to be abe, rather than focusing on the topic at hand.
I think you misunderstand. The idea of having two accounts isn't about conflicts of interest — he just wants them to have to use secondary accounts so he can ignore-list them.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Tuoder
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Here
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2006, 09:46 PM
 
I am with Demonhood on this. Even if there was a rule about logging out and then in to express opinion, it would be a pain, and that would result in self-censorship (depriving the discussion of their opinion) or the rule would simply be ignored (defeating its purpose). It would be nice if it were a feature of the software, but it is not.

I guess people will just have to deal with conflicting opinions, eh?
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2006, 09:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
I think you misunderstand. The idea of having two accounts isn't about conflicts of interest — he just wants them to have to use secondary accounts so he can ignore-list them.
No, I understood that.

I'm contending that it fails. Sure, he can ignore the one he pleases, but it becomes a big deal when every thread is derailed with the nonsense harrassment of that username -

Or didn't you see the rash of threads that had every post that replied to marden calling him abe, aberdeen, mojaberdeen, mojoabeden, and any other combination you could conceive of?

It happened in the past. It will happen again. It's a nuisance, and a failure in its unintended consequences beyond the single intended consequence he wishes for.
     
rjenkinson
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2006, 09:55 PM
 
harassment of a username and ignoring particular users' personal comments are separate issues. confusing the two doesn't help resolve the issue. a harassment policy already exists. what's being discussed is how to handle the second issue, when the user has one account for moderator duties and personal comments.

-r.
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2006, 09:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by vmarks View Post
Or didn't you see the rash of threads that had every post that replied to marden calling him abe, aberdeen, mojaberdeen, mojoabeden, and any other combination you could conceive of?
That needs to stop too. If it was mojo he should have been banned. If it wasn't, or you guys were giving him another chance, it should have been nipped in the bud.

Every thread he made or participated in turned into one big lame ad-hominem.
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2006, 10:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by rjenkinson View Post
harassment of a username and ignoring particular users' personal comments are separate issues. confusing the two doesn't help resolve the issue. a harassment policy already exists. what's being discussed is how to handle the second issue, when the user has one account for moderator duties and personal comments.

-r.
Sure, and that's fine to consider them conceptually as separate. I'm telling you that the history shows the two occur together. As I said, it succeeds for his intended result, but fails on the unintended consequences.
     
rjenkinson
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2006, 10:49 PM
 
if they occur together, it's because users have never been able to ignore moderator's personal comments, if they find them objectionable in any way. coincidence is not causation.

-r.
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2006, 11:40 PM
 
You're mistaken.

What happens is that the moderator starts posting his personal opinions under another nickname, and users will both (a) ignore that user, and (b) spend large amounts of posts off topic all about how that user is a moderator and isn't it horrible that a person could post opinions and be a moderator.

They occur together, not because users lack the software capability to place moderators on ignore, but because some users can't accept a moderator having opinions that might be other than their own, and some users really can't get past the notion of a moderator possessing any opinion at all and find that objectionable and protest-worthy on its own.

Once there are two nicknames in place, the latter hound the non-moderator nickname to expose the 'secret.' Of course, taking moderator action against that behavior is then seen as personal and a vendetta - even though it is not.

It's really a large failure surrounded by the one small success that a user can ignore via software rather than their own self-control.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2006, 02:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by vmarks View Post
I'm contending that it fails. Sure, he can ignore the one he pleases, but it becomes a big deal when every thread is derailed with the nonsense harrassment of that username -

Or didn't you see the rash of threads that had every post that replied to marden calling him abe, aberdeen, mojaberdeen, mojoabeden, and any other combination you could conceive of?
That's the same reaction he got back when he was posting under all those names. It was because people didn't like him. It's not like he created marden and all of a sudden people decided to start bashing him. He created a new username and got the same reaction he was getting before — I'd reckon you would also be treated much the same as now if you created a new username and posted on that, at least as long as you weren't all, "Who, me vmarks?"
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2006, 01:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by vmarks View Post
It's the same behavior of users harrassing marden because he's believed to be abe, rather than focusing on the topic at hand.
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

The only reason that people thought of marden as being abe in the first place is because of the same inflamatory post & run style that abe / aberdeenwriter / mojo had utilized . There is no real "topic" at hand, except if you consider trolling a topic.

-t
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2006, 02:37 PM
 
What they did is, instead of replying to comments he made, because they didn't like what they had to say, they just personally attacked him.

It's typical of this forum. This thread is an example of that. The original poster of this thread made is CLEAR who he was talking about.

Funny how no one ever complains about OTHER moderators with EXTREME views that post them.

Why is that?

Some people don't like seeing or hearing the truth. And when they lack the self descipline to ignore it, they get angry and post threads like this.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2006, 02:54 PM
 
There was actually a thread just like this about a year ago that I think was about Millennium. So yes, there are other moderators who rub people the wrong way. I'm sure there are people I rub the wrong way as well. But they have the option to ignore me.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2006, 03:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin View Post
Some people don't like seeing or hearing the truth. And when they lack the self descipline to ignore it, they get angry and post threads like this.
So, you still think that in every matter, there is ONE true position ?
Ignoring ignorance is NOT an option ?

-t
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2006, 03:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
There was actually a thread just like this about a year ago that I think was about Millennium.
Really? Must have missed it. Couldn't find it either.

There have been about 6 for vmarks. Usually by the same people.

As if vmarks has been spewing horrid lies and propaganda.
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2006, 03:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by what_the_heck View Post
So, you still think that in every matter, there is ONE true position ?
Ignoring ignorance is NOT an option ?

-t
I said they had no self discipline to ignore ignorance.

For example, there are many people in the PL that say ignorant things. For some reason I feel no need to put them on some physical ignore list. That words do not bother me in such a way that I would want to do such a thing. That I can ignore such silliness on my own.

Some people may lack that discipline I guess. And need help in ignoring said person.

But lets be honest with ourselves. Does anyone here really think this thread is about having the ability to add certain people to ignore lists?

I don't think so. If that was the case, said person would have never been singled out, or said he was "FOS"

This was simply a personal attack. A attempt to discredit if you will.

Same goes for the other threads of the like.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2006, 03:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin View Post
This was simply a personal attack. A attempt to discredit if you will.
I dunno. The OP did NOT mention a name. I don't know what mod he was talking about, and I have not tried to figure it out. Probably not too hard if you are a regular PWLer.

-t
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2006, 03:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by what_the_heck View Post
I dunno. The OP did NOT mention a name. I don't know what mod he was talking about, and I have not tried to figure it out. Probably not too hard if you are a regular PWLer.

-t
Well only one mod HAD this in his sig which he claimed said mod had.

"If this post is in the Lounge forum, it is likely to be my own opinion, and not representative of the position of MacNN.com."

Don't have to be a regular post to the PL to know that.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2006, 04:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin View Post
Well only one mod HAD this in his sig which he claimed said mod had.
"If this post is in the Lounge forum, it is likely to be my own opinion, and not representative of the position of MacNN.com."
Don't have to be a regular post to the PL to know that.
LOL, I still don't know who this mod is.

You are probably right, I don't spent hardly any time in the PWL, so how would I know...

-t
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2006, 05:36 PM
 
No, you must not pay attention to sigs. vmarks posts all over the forum.

And he has had that sig for years.


I guess I must be some detective mastermind or something.

That can't be because I have the attention sp..

Hey wanna go ride bikes?
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2006, 06:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin View Post
And he has had that sig for years.
So he got rid of it now ? I can't see any sig in his posts here...

-t
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2006, 06:11 PM
 
Yes. He recently just removed it.
     
rickey939
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Cooperstown '09
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2006, 07:30 PM
 
     
bradoesch
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2006, 08:19 PM
 
     
rickey939
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Cooperstown '09
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2006, 09:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by bradoesch View Post
Oh no you didn't......wait, you did! Yes, you really did.
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2006, 11:45 PM
 
It needed to be done. If the poster would have done a search, he could have seen people requesting something similar and being told to go jump in a lake.
     
tooki
Admin Emeritus
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2006, 06:32 PM
 
I guess it's fair to say that one of the job perks of being a mod is being un-ignorable. Considering that none of us receive any material compensation for our time, at least some prestige and status is nice!

Also, FYI, about a year ago we decided to do away with actual mods, and silently upgraded them all to super-mods. That means that although a mod is still "assigned" a few forums, every mod has full mod powers in every forum, and is encouraged to use them as needed. So having mods be ignorable outside of their forums (even if it were technically possible, which it's not) would not necessarily be in our best interests.

tooki
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2006, 08:05 PM
 
tooki,

Is there a difference between super-mods and admins ?

-t
     
sweatpants boner
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2006, 08:19 PM
 
[image size rules still apply --tooki]
( Last edited by tooki; Oct 30, 2006 at 05:59 AM. )
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2006, 08:36 PM
 
Huh ? Who's that ?

-t
     
Peter
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: England | San Francisco
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2006, 08:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by what_the_heck View Post
tooki,

Is there a difference between super-mods and admins ?

-t
yes.
Super-Mods (me) put our trousers on one leg at a time, whereas admins, well... you know..





Actually admins can do anything, whereas supermods can only adjust a few things...
we don't have time to stop for gas
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2006, 08:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by Peter View Post
yes.
Super-Mods (me) put our trousers on one leg at a time, whereas admins, well... you know..
Run around naked ?

-t
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:42 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,