No... not at all. All the moderators cover the whole forum, there are no individual forums or threads assigned to specific moderators.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Purpose of the ignore lists? (Why can't we ignore a moderator?) [MERGED]
- Thread starter revmacian
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Can a Police officer do up the report on his own traffic accident and situation?
Does he/she pull themselves over if speeding?
What if they've had a drink and shouldn't have - Do they report themselves and/or field test themselves?
It's a fair comment about the challenges and fairness if moderators do/don't do certain things that they themselves are involved in. I'm sure there's stuff getting through the cracks on those scenarios.
There simply "is" an inherent and somewhat unavoidable conflict there if you're going to let moderator accounts also fully & normally participate in threads with that same account.
[doublepost=1551115752][/doublepost]Anyhow - I think I've said all I care to on this.
We're not all going to see eye to eye on this, clearly.
I'm used to that around here honestly, especially with conversations about how the site is managed and moderated.
Have a good day all
I'm not sure I understand what you are suggesting? Are you saying if anybody in the thread wants a moderator to stop posting, the moderator should leave the thread? I don't think that is reasonable.
Now if you specifically don't like my replies to you, and you sent me a PM explaining you don't want me to reply to you any longer, and have no way to ignore me because I am a moderator.... I would certainly honor that request and not reply to you in the thread as you asked.
[doublepost=1551116008][/doublepost]
What happens in those cases is the moderator will leave the issue for another moderator to handle. It is pretty common in the reports notes to see something like, "Can another moderator please handle since I'm active in the thread."
That’s a good policy, but it does still count on a moderator doing the right thing in a situation involving themselves. That’s where the problems and conflicts crop up in life, the police example and in this example on the forums.
Anyways. Thx for reply. I’m out for now.
thats known as reductio ad absurdum.
sorry but it doesnt work.
you might be enlarged to know, however, that spouses of Supreme Court Justices and of course the Justices themselves are both under traditional ethics to reduce their public comments and public profile to a minimum.
some dont, and we trust them less because of it.
I agree moderators should not police themselves. If you see a rule violation by a moderator, report it and it will be reviewed by a different moderator. If that report gets rejected, and you disagree, then send it in as a "contact us" to the admins and ask them to review the rejected report. A case like that would normally prompt multiple admins to get involved and review the issue.
Does that then mean of that they therefore aren't allowed to drive?
This is how I got my one warning from a mod (I think I've only had one, possibly misremembering) - the first person I ever added to my ignore list (because their comments were consistently awful, homophobic, etc., and it was clear that we were never going to have an effect on each other's attitudes or opinions), someone replied to several of (person's) messages, and it looked like an enormous non-sequitur to me and I replied something like "what the heck are you talking about", and he said he was replying to (person's) post, and I was terribly confused, and after finally figuring out what happened, I replied, "oh, I wasn't seeing the quote because I blocked (person)". And that was when I learned about the "don't mention whom you have blocked" rule. I wasn't trying to be mean, didn't foresee the implications, just was tricked by not sufficiently understanding what was going on, and was happy to have figured out the "problem".It does make the context a bit odd. It just appears as though Stephen R dropped a random "Wat"
No - they can drive, but they can't be the police officer enforcing the rules regarding their own driving.
See below (from a moderator btw)
Agreed. My replies were more in the context of the idea of moderators simply not being allowed to post at all that was being surfaced in some of the posts.
I know my opinion won't be a popular one in a thread of this nature, but I still maintain that forum life is easier without the ignore button. There is no out of context posts or replies, no questions about who can or can't ignore who and it is an even playing field for everyone
I know my opinion won't be a popular one in a thread of this nature, but I still maintain that forum life is easier without the ignore button. There is no out of context posts or replies, no questions about who can or can't ignore who and it is an even playing field for everyone
SD on the ignore list!!
lol
(Kidding)
Sure, why not. I would ignore me.
Is there a thread for why you can’t put yourself on your own ignore list?
Sure, why not. I would ignore me.
Is there a thread for why you can’t put yourself on your own ignore list?
I already ignore myself routinely..
I already ignore myself routinely..
Me too! Often times the wife and dogs ignore me as well hahaha
Not too far off the mark of a slight topic drift we've got into here: I think the upshot of using the forum software to "ignore a specific user" is that just doing that without comment on intent to do it can feel awkward, at least when one has previously been engaged in discussions with that user in that thread. It can leave the other party wondering, for instance, why a request for backup of some assertion is not forthcoming.
So, that awkwardness can lead one to inadvertently making posts about intended use of the ignore feature that end up fodder for moderation.
I've asked a moderator privately today to consider tossing this problem around with other moderators and admins and posting something on it in here, probably not in this particular thread but in this forum.
By making this post I do not mean to ask for putting a rush on that process.
As I said this post is a bit off topic although not unrelated to some of the posts in this thread. I hope the mods can decide in future to shed some light or improve guidelines for us so we don't post remarks about use of "the ignore feature" in violation of guidelines without even realizing it.
More on this I could not possibly say now, nor encourage anyone else to say here either.
So, that awkwardness can lead one to inadvertently making posts about intended use of the ignore feature that end up fodder for moderation.
I've asked a moderator privately today to consider tossing this problem around with other moderators and admins and posting something on it in here, probably not in this particular thread but in this forum.
By making this post I do not mean to ask for putting a rush on that process.
As I said this post is a bit off topic although not unrelated to some of the posts in this thread. I hope the mods can decide in future to shed some light or improve guidelines for us so we don't post remarks about use of "the ignore feature" in violation of guidelines without even realizing it.
More on this I could not possibly say now, nor encourage anyone else to say here either.
Are you suggesting that mods are not people/users/posters, too? Wow. Just because they sometimes act in the moderator role should not preclude them from joining in a thread that interests them.
[doublepost=1551154113][/doublepost]
I strongly disagree. Moderators should be free to post on any thread that interests them, just the same as you, me and every other user. I have absolutely no issue with a mod choosing to participate in a thread in which I also choose to participate.
[doublepost=1551154494][/doublepost]
Some jurisdictions actually require police and fire fighters to live within the city that they serve.
We've sort of litigated this topic to death.
I think most agree at this point that Moderators should be free to participate anywhere so long as they aren't doing any moderating of their own conduct (or anything related to their interactions with others) during that participation.
I think most agree at this point that Moderators should be free to participate anywhere so long as they aren't doing any moderating of their own conduct (or anything related to their interactions with others) during that participation.
Yes of course and the local community should benefit from the officers awareness of local issues and conditions. However the local policeman has power and with that they’ll also accrue a degree of respect. That respect will soon evaporate if the same policeman is in the local bar pushing his weight about and, consciously or otherwise, using his or her position to project their personal viewpoint. A policeman is never truly off duty. The same applies here and it’s disengenuous for anyone to argue otherwise.
Seems to me we got this covered in that one may report posts by a mod acting as ordinary user, and a different mod will look at the situation. A couple of moderators already indicated in this thread that that's how that would work, and that there is always the contact form route to take exception to the ensuing decision, in which case a bunch of mods and admins get to weigh in.
Let's not drive away people who were originally ordinary users here and eventually volunteered to become moderators. They came here with interests they likely still enjoy, and should be able to use these forums while wearing their ordinary user hats. There are some forums here that would become pretty worthless if they were not moderated, however, and I'm not just talking about threads in PRSI. So I for one appreciate their moderating efforts even if I sometimes scroll past their non-mod posts and even if I happen to end up on the wrong side of their moderation now and then.
The policeman simply being out and about and doing what any other citizen is doing is somehow suddenly equivalent of "pushing his weight about" and therefore they shouldn't be able to do the things that any other citizen is able to?
Please try to read what you quoted a bit more closely.
There was no inference that "just being out" = "pushing his weight about"
@nnoble said "if" the same policeman is doing that..
The "if" is critical there..
Again, my original reply and follow ups have been in the context of some mentions of an idea that moderators simply shouldn't be allowed to post at all. That is the context that the policeman analogy was brought up in.