ChatterBank2 mins 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
What is important is that a Mod can justify a decision, even if in a minority
erm accountablity?
and you might ask ( back ) as quick as a flash
why we need dat den?
and my answer would be - - - to prevent getting into another Boris situation ( or Trump) where a manipulator ( er Boris or Trump that is!) sees no accountability and starts lying like well no one will notice
erm accountablity?
and you might ask ( back ) as quick as a flash
why we need dat den?
and my answer would be - - - to prevent getting into another Boris situation ( or Trump) where a manipulator ( er Boris or Trump that is!) sees no accountability and starts lying like well no one will notice
// It should be clear- or left alone. Rewrite the rules- clearly- and give the one broken, so there is no debate or "interpretation". //
There is, in practice, no such thing as an unambiguous rule set. If you're going to have guidelines covering, for example, posts that cause offence, then it stands to reason that there is some amount of subjectivity in this. As Corbyloon says, two reasonable people can even disagree and be both "correct", at least as long as they can justify the decision. Even if you did find a way to create rules that admit no interpretation, there's still the subjectivity about *what* rules those ought to be, and what ought to be explicitly included or not.
It's an impossible task, then, to remove individual judgement from the equation. The best you can do is ensure that there's a broad consensus among the judges, and a review procedure in place to reverse any egregiously wrong decisions.
There is, in practice, no such thing as an unambiguous rule set. If you're going to have guidelines covering, for example, posts that cause offence, then it stands to reason that there is some amount of subjectivity in this. As Corbyloon says, two reasonable people can even disagree and be both "correct", at least as long as they can justify the decision. Even if you did find a way to create rules that admit no interpretation, there's still the subjectivity about *what* rules those ought to be, and what ought to be explicitly included or not.
It's an impossible task, then, to remove individual judgement from the equation. The best you can do is ensure that there's a broad consensus among the judges, and a review procedure in place to reverse any egregiously wrong decisions.
Mods should simply stick to the Site Rules, use as little subjectivity as possible, & remember this isn't 'Just a Minute' & deviation is not a sin, in fact it is what can make for interesting debate.
Jim's ideas on restricting responses concern me. On his suggestion we've already had this happen in the Science category but that has, thankfully, since undergone a very sensible re-think and now all are welcome again. The thing is, AB is not a specialist site in any respect - it doesn't claim to be. Serious categories carry a warning that answers should not be taken as 'gospel', and frankly whatever is said here is never going to influence the world. That's a basic fact of life. The owners are not social workers - they are in business to make money. As anyone who's ever been in business will know, imposing ill-considered restrictions upon the customer is not the way to generate business and thrive, or to keep the customer happy - that all important necessity.
As for 'ganging up', there is certainly an element of that here already. Mods are supported by admin and other mods regardless of what they do. There is certainly a notion of 'them and us' - and that isn't beneficial either. To my mind the membership should be as confident in the mods as admin is but with the current state of affairs that isn't going to happen any time soon. In retaining the current crew en masse and the cloak and dagger mentality that comes with it, I seriously think the owners of this site are their own worst enemies.
As for 'ganging up', there is certainly an element of that here already. Mods are supported by admin and other mods regardless of what they do. There is certainly a notion of 'them and us' - and that isn't beneficial either. To my mind the membership should be as confident in the mods as admin is but with the current state of affairs that isn't going to happen any time soon. In retaining the current crew en masse and the cloak and dagger mentality that comes with it, I seriously think the owners of this site are their own worst enemies.
It has crossed my mind as to whether some of the Mods have a financial interest in AB. It's the only logical explanation I can see for the owner's / Ed's loyalty to some of them.
I know I keep bleating on about it but last night's example of the Secret Mod using their Secret Mod identity to hand out personal opinions verging on the insulting was absolutely appalling. I do hope something was done about it.
I know I keep bleating on about it but last night's example of the Secret Mod using their Secret Mod identity to hand out personal opinions verging on the insulting was absolutely appalling. I do hope something was done about it.
But sly digs are not easy to report because probably its only picked up by the person who the sly digs are about and that is why I emailed you. I would point out that there were plenty more of them that I didn't report for that reason. I rarely report. I have never got sly digs before or insinuations. If people are nasty up front I can deal with it. I am not thin skinned.
PIXIE, '"Offence" is easy to show- an answer is either responding to a post, or to a user.'
I have given this example before.
I used to be Decision Maker (DM)at the DWP and that involved looking at cases where someone had claimed Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) after being dismissed from employment for misconduct or had left employment voluntarily.
The rules have changed since then but at the time, the law was that a claimant's JSA could be sanctioned (stopped) for any period from one week to twenty-six week if the claimant hadn't shown good cause for what had resulted in their claiming JSA.
The DMs were given various scenarios to look at with evidence from the employers and claimants and then had to decide if a sanction should be imposed or no.
If the decision to sanction was given, the length of that sanction also had to be given.
The decisions were then looked at by the section expert to decide if they were justified based upon the evidence and the reasons given for those decisions.
There were cases where no sanction was imposed by a DM but others had imposed a twenty-six week sanction on the same case based upon the same evidence.
I queried this and was telt that providing the DM had given adequate justification for reaching a particular conclusion, the decisions to impose no sanction and a twenty-six week sanction were both correct.
DMs were stopping benefits for up to twenty-six week and they could not always agree on the "right" decision.
Compare that to folk getting the hump because a post has been deleted.
The same disagreements and principles apply to both situations.
I have given this example before.
I used to be Decision Maker (DM)at the DWP and that involved looking at cases where someone had claimed Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) after being dismissed from employment for misconduct or had left employment voluntarily.
The rules have changed since then but at the time, the law was that a claimant's JSA could be sanctioned (stopped) for any period from one week to twenty-six week if the claimant hadn't shown good cause for what had resulted in their claiming JSA.
The DMs were given various scenarios to look at with evidence from the employers and claimants and then had to decide if a sanction should be imposed or no.
If the decision to sanction was given, the length of that sanction also had to be given.
The decisions were then looked at by the section expert to decide if they were justified based upon the evidence and the reasons given for those decisions.
There were cases where no sanction was imposed by a DM but others had imposed a twenty-six week sanction on the same case based upon the same evidence.
I queried this and was telt that providing the DM had given adequate justification for reaching a particular conclusion, the decisions to impose no sanction and a twenty-six week sanction were both correct.
DMs were stopping benefits for up to twenty-six week and they could not always agree on the "right" decision.
Compare that to folk getting the hump because a post has been deleted.
The same disagreements and principles apply to both situations.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank2 mins ago
ChatterBank10 mins ago
Is There Any Good Reason Why This...
News12 mins ago
Isn't It Good To Hear That Another...
ChatterBank27 mins ago
