Moderator Position Vacant?

Moderation is necessary, but credibility matters.

It gets surrealistic when someone blatantly confused about themselves is patronizing you.

I understand the need for rules ensuring security and safety. But I can never comprehend why bellicosity get posters in trouble when some moderators consistently get away with it, as if only them ought to be triggered.

So moderation and explicit rules, I fully get behind, but I wish moderators would be subjected to higher standards than posters, as often, it looks like it's the other way around.

I am not pointing the finger at anybody in particular, least of all in this thread, but those are attitudes that have been recurring over the years.

----------------------------

Edit: I did not mean to echo Jomp, I'm just a slower poster!

justonemoreperson wrote:If you want moderation to work in this place then it needs to be consistent.

Yeah, cause that'll definitely work...

*cough cough*

Reaper wrote:

justonemoreperson wrote:If you want moderation to work in this place then it needs to be consistent.

Yeah, cause that'll definitely work...

*cough cough*

Jomp, Reaper: it's meaningful that you consider the problem in this perspective - as a means for a purpose.
The point isn't just if moderation works or doesn't. Everyone deserves an equanimous and responsible moderation - sociopaths and psychopaths don't differ.

HSS:

To be clear, I have no interest in whether or not the forum is moderated in any way at all; it makes for a new environment that changes stuff up, if only for a short while. I don't think anyone really cared what xdude was banging on about, aside from its comedic value, as it was just something to target.

Inconsistency represents a way in; an indication of weak spots. If this forum is to be moderated successfully, then it needs to be consistent or weaknesses will be exploited. It's not a bad thing, it's just what will happen.

This should be obvious to anyone with a knowledge of the condition and how it needs to be handled. Not all animals respond to treats & punishment.

There is perhaps a misunderstanding, or I find it difficult to understand your position. No idea.

I don't think that you are interested in whether or not the forum is moderated in any way at all.

But it sounds as if you are saying that moderation is right, if it works: nothing else is required and a hypothetical moderator could have every kind of problems: to be abusive, corrupt, insincere, have prejudice against sociopaths,... he's always ok, if his moderation works.
Well, if you are ok with this... I appreciate your honesty (!!??), but at my eyes these declarations, and this attitude, seem a little self-destructive.

However, sorry but I remain firm on my position: even if nobody cares/ has an emotional reaction here, your emotional indifference doesn't make everything right, nor is a good reason to justify everything.

“Not all animals respond to treats & punishment”.

Yeah, it's clear.

Moderation of the forum is right in the same way that driving on the correct side of the road is right.

Without it, it'll become cluttered with spam to the point where it's unusable. I don't really care how it's done, as long as it's done.

My comment wasn't an opinion on how it should operate, just the realistic outcome of two different approaches.

However, sorry but I remain firm on my position: even if nobody cares/ has an emotional reaction here, your emotional indifference doesn't make everything right, nor is a good reason to justify everything.

Correct.

This morning I noticed this before getting into work (I'm supposed to be on leave to get clean but I need to keep myself busy) and my initial thought was for a moderator to not be active. I'm not sure that this is necessarily what I think is needed though. Ada and seabreezeblue both participated without incident. They commented, took tests, wrote responses, challenged users, etc. All not an issue.

The issue was in impartiality and in a mod being unable to separate their personal feelings from their administrative role on the forum. If a moderator were easily able to observe without personal investment the rules and moderation of the forum then there would not be an issue. The whole meltdown came to be because of a similar entanglement of what looked like personal offence and then trying to bolster their own personal feeling with their administrative capacity on the forum.

Even if a moderator were to break rules and get 'stuck in' with the squaddies it'd be fine so long as they then received the same treatment as anyone else on the forum. Jomp mentioned consistency and that seems key.

If a new moderator for the subforum were to be selected, since that seems to be what xdude's question points at (unless he is looking to change his own interaction with it) then I think that we need to be clear that we're not going to have somebody meltdown and then be hypocrites with seemingly no consequence.

I don't know about you guys, but I personally don't want a moderator here who thinks we need a babysitter, and I certainly don't want one that is disrespectful and dismissive of the real issues some of us live with because of this disorder. xdude went down that path and as far as I'm concerned he shouldn't be a moderator here.

He lost all respect here with his meltdown. It made him look weak and vulnerable, and if the opportunity presents itself, you can guarantee it's going to happen again and it will be worse next time because some of us are definitely gonna wanna fuk with him.

If we have to have a moderator, then get one that doesn't treat us like we need to be babysat and who isn't disrespectful or dismissive. This is a serious disorder that can, and certainly has had (in my experience), a significant affect on our lives. If a moderator can't respect that then they shouldn't be a fuking moderator here.

I call a spade a spade and xdude's is not suited to moderate this forum. He should fuk off.

Did you just change your mind, Reaper?

I agree with Jomp, if it works it works.
Why? Because finding the right person for the right job, with the most perfect and noble intentions is an almost impossible task.

When it happens: swoons, and really, it's the cherry on the cake. But expecting it every time is unfettered idealism.

Here, it is just an issue of rising the standards for moderators a bit. To not recruit someone just because they are compliant, seemingly appropriate with sycophantic attitudes, but because they also have the nerves to stand up respectfully. But because some moderators can not stand any form of contradiction, those people are never recruited in the first place.

ViniStonemoss wrote:Did you just change your mind, Reaper?

Nope, just sharing my opinion on the subject since we have to have a moderator here apparently.

There's no point me going on about not wanting one since that will never happen anyway. It doesn't mean I've changed my mind about it.