ChatterBank1 min ago
Secret Moderators
467 Answers
I would like to acknowledge that there are some accounts that have been created by our moderators, to help them control the community, without breaking their normal identity.
Having multiple AnswerBank accounts is against site rules. However, these accounts have been approved by the Editors.
These moderators will be added to this thread, and you should give them as much respect as you would give to an Editor.
If you are a moderator, and would like to have one of these accounts, please send us an email.
Having multiple AnswerBank accounts is against site rules. However, these accounts have been approved by the Editors.
These moderators will be added to this thread, and you should give them as much respect as you would give to an Editor.
If you are a moderator, and would like to have one of these accounts, please send us an email.
Answers
Zacsmaster - It looks like I started all of this last night. In the past I removed posts and had to watch as a row breaks out about who was responsible and why. I can now use my usual name to remove the posts and explain why in my secretmod name. I will also be able to warn posters to kerb their tempers and it might result in less suspensions happening.
15:23 Mon 26th Sep 2022
Cant believe this is still going on. It has opened my eyes to how some people see things though and I'm sure some of the attitudes will be a bit of a problem for the owners.
Jim, bit of a diatribe there and I dont have the time to plow through it all but I think the idea of inter communication is a sound one. Shouldnt be difficult to implement either, just create a hidden category and allow mods to create posts between each other and the Eds. (OK not the most elegant solution but I appreciate the need to keep dev costs down).
Jim, bit of a diatribe there and I dont have the time to plow through it all but I think the idea of inter communication is a sound one. Shouldnt be difficult to implement either, just create a hidden category and allow mods to create posts between each other and the Eds. (OK not the most elegant solution but I appreciate the need to keep dev costs down).
The problem with Jim's suggestion is that mods could be seen as ganging up. Their opinions could conflict, so whose opinion would hold sway, more particularly a problem when the Ed is not on duty.
Anyway this is called the Answerbank, not the Expertbank, when you can only answer in posts when deemed ok by the assumed expert
Anyway this is called the Answerbank, not the Expertbank, when you can only answer in posts when deemed ok by the assumed expert
Personally, I will just see what happens here.
TCL seems to have the opinion "If in doubt, take it out" in case of thin-skinned users.
And others seem to think thy need to communicate and debate with each other. If even the mods aren't sure if a post breaks the rules- then nobody can complain if the users aren't sure either. It should be clear- or left alone. Rewrite the rules- clearly- and give the one broken, so there is no debate or "interpretation".
It shouldn't matter "who" a mod is. They should all be following the same rules anyway.
TCL seems to have the opinion "If in doubt, take it out" in case of thin-skinned users.
And others seem to think thy need to communicate and debate with each other. If even the mods aren't sure if a post breaks the rules- then nobody can complain if the users aren't sure either. It should be clear- or left alone. Rewrite the rules- clearly- and give the one broken, so there is no debate or "interpretation".
It shouldn't matter "who" a mod is. They should all be following the same rules anyway.
No suggestion that involves a committee can ever be perfect. But it stands to reason that you are more likely to get moderators that are working together if you give them the opportunity to talk to each other, rather than allow them to work entirely individually (and anonymous even to each other, to an extent), albeit with some single source of oversight. Sure, my suggestion is vulnerable to the inevitable office politics -- that, for example, might come when veteran mods and newer ones disagree on some finer point of judgement -- but I can't see it worsening the problem, especially when one of the chief complaints seems to be about individual mods overstepping their authority. It should be stressed that this is almost invariably a flawed perception, but, still -- it can hardly hurt to reduce the impression that individual mods are acting alone, by ensuring that instead they are able to work together.
As to "Answerbank" v. "Expertbank", well, it's just a matter of common sense. The point is merely that, the more specific a question is, the more relevant the answer should be. As a more mundane example, questions about crossword clues tend to invite only answers that solve that specific clue. While I'm certainly not advocating aggressive moderation to enforce this, it's also notable that the community here tends to "self-enforce" that anyway. People who don't know the answer don't post, and when a correct answer has been given it tends to end the discussion right there.
Again, going back to the law example, I think the original question was,
// Is it acceptable to call a child by [their] hair colour? //
While a later comment by OP linked it to the possibility of racially-motivated bullying, and mentioned an explicit incident and an upset child, it seems clear that they were not asking for legal advice, nor seeking a legal solution. At most it looks like maybe they'd raise a complaint with the school. That therefore would seem to suggest that it's a more general discussion, rather than one requiring a technical answer with reference to whatever specific legislation is relevant; in which case, anything that serves to muddy the waters about the legal question, or doesn't directly address it, would indeed clearly be distracting. Similar principles would naturally extend to any other specialist topic, whereby it's worth at least giving some thought yourself as to whether you have anything useful to say.
As to "Answerbank" v. "Expertbank", well, it's just a matter of common sense. The point is merely that, the more specific a question is, the more relevant the answer should be. As a more mundane example, questions about crossword clues tend to invite only answers that solve that specific clue. While I'm certainly not advocating aggressive moderation to enforce this, it's also notable that the community here tends to "self-enforce" that anyway. People who don't know the answer don't post, and when a correct answer has been given it tends to end the discussion right there.
Again, going back to the law example, I think the original question was,
// Is it acceptable to call a child by [their] hair colour? //
While a later comment by OP linked it to the possibility of racially-motivated bullying, and mentioned an explicit incident and an upset child, it seems clear that they were not asking for legal advice, nor seeking a legal solution. At most it looks like maybe they'd raise a complaint with the school. That therefore would seem to suggest that it's a more general discussion, rather than one requiring a technical answer with reference to whatever specific legislation is relevant; in which case, anything that serves to muddy the waters about the legal question, or doesn't directly address it, would indeed clearly be distracting. Similar principles would naturally extend to any other specialist topic, whereby it's worth at least giving some thought yourself as to whether you have anything useful to say.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank3 mins ago
Is There Any Good Reason Why This...
News4 mins ago
ChatterBank8 mins ago
Isn't It Good To Hear That Another...
ChatterBank19 mins ago
