This is a question that has come up recently on the Non-Prince forum, where one moderator's actions and comments have been questioned. The moderator has said more than once to several members that his/her job "is not to moderate discussion...it is to manage the rules that (the site originator) has set forth for this website...when will you guys understand that?"

Several members have questioned this because the moderator's posts have shown evidence of strong biases that have raised eyebrows, even in one instance as to purposely mislead with statements by misinterpreting other's comments and trying to pass off opinion and exaggeration as fact. The moderator also has shown alleged tendencies to control situations selectively (and often act when it's in his or her best and personal interest), in addition to an inability to separate being a moderator and being just another member on a board.

The moderator also seems to be incredibly active on the boards, and too much in the capacity of another person posting. That seems to be a potential conflict of interest, particularly when the moderator closed a discussion as several members once again questioned his or her objectivity.

IMO, based on other Web sites I have visited moderators should be disassociated from topics of discussion and if there is an interjection from them it should be objective and balanced. It certainly should not be mean-spirited and biased toward or against the topic or another member, which this moderator allegedly has done. So when does a moderator cross the line, and where is the line?
[Edited 2/11/07 14:45pm]

I agree. I would like some clarification on the role of a moderator as well. I am use to message boards on other sites where the moderator's job is to be moderate and to monitor discussions so that they do not get out of hand. The moderator usually clarifies misinformation and helps a topic stay on track.

However, on Prince.org, especially in the past few months, I have experienced several situations where a moderator had a clearly negative biased opinion about Prince and just added to the negative energy of a thread by not only injecting their opinion, but by also stating opinion and secondhand information as if they were fact. Then they get an attitude if someone like me calls them on it. I've also seen the same moderator basically hijack a thread with their biased opinion.

This has mostly taken place in the Prince Music and More and Associated Artists forums, but most recently took place in the Music Non-Prince forum. I am not a Prince fanbot by any stretch, but I find it odd that a moderator on a Prince fan site would have such a biased opinion about him.

I don't think that a moderator is supposed to act this way. What is the consensus on a moderator's role on this site?

You know, I thought I was the only one who was confused at times of the role of a moderator. There was an occasion where I responded to a poster, a known Prince hater, on the way he responded to another poster which was in a very flamed deragatory manner. Then out of nowhere, this moderator responded to me?? Mind you, my response had no flame and included a pretty good point. The poster I responded to has since been banned for constantly responding to people in a rude manner. I also noticed a pattern where this moderator only seem to jump in where there is something negative to say about Prince. I actually had to question the moderator a few times on things said that was not necessarily right.

I guess my question too is why is someone who has a negative bias towards Prince allowed to moderate a Prince forum? Or if someone can clarify the roles of a moderator who participates in the discussion of a forum that will be very helpful.
[Edited 2/11/07 15:55pm]

Well I have seen threads get "personal" numerous times and no mods have stepped in to lock them. I do recall one thread in particular where I personally questioned what I perceived to be a moderator's racial bias in statements he/she made (i don't know if the mod is a he or a she) about Beyonce. That thread was locked immediately after I posted the comment.
Yeah I used the "bigot." I do strongly feel that if I'd suggested that you or some other orger might be a bigot, or if someone said that to me, the thread would never have been locked.
Now, without naming names, I see on an almost daily basis orgers questioning other orgers about some statements/opinions that they may perceive as homophobic; NONE of those threads (not the ones I've seen anyway) have ever been locked. So I am guessing the moderator's rules on locking threads is that it is okay to accuse someone of being a homophobe but it not ok to accuse someone of being a racist.
I don't think that moderator's should not participate in discussions but they cannot invent/suspend the rules to suit their own purposes either.

I also find it bizarre that a moderator of a Prince-dedicated Web site would be harshly critical of Prince. In a thread in which I participated concerning Michael Jackson's eccentricies vs. Prince's, the moderator said that Prince lived in a "fantasy world." When I asked what factual events does (s)he have as a reference point, (s)he presented one opinion ("he lived in a bubble") and some unconfirmed innuendo from a rather questionable source as facts.

When asked by myself and another person about the "living in a bubble" statement, the moderator said "I was speaking metaphorically!" even though (s)he knew (s)he was asked to cite factual events and there was nothing to suggest it was tongue-in-cheek. It came off the moderator wanted to pass it off as a factual event if no one tried to question it, and then (s)he became defensive when questioned about his/her intent.

I'm not saying the moderators have to bow down to Prince -- BTW, I am not a Prince fanatic (and I would hard pressed to call myself a Prince fan) -- but it really is a head-scratching moment to have a moderator seemingly willing to misrepresent information against him.

I have some more questions:

* What are the requirements for being a moderator?

* On what basis is a moderator held accountable?

* What are disciplinary actions against a moderator, up to the maximum amount of punishment?
[Edited 2/11/07 17:16pm]

alwayslate said:

I'm just going to step in here and answer some of these points you raise, as well as touch upon a few others. I think the remainder of this thread is best handled by someone like Ben the site owner, who it will be passed on to if you guys so wish.

Now, to the points raised here.

What many people do not stop to realise is that just because someone is a moderator does not make them omnipresent. We have day jobs like the rest of you, some of us are able to access the Org from those jobs, some of us are not. Some of us like a rest when we get home, some of us jump straight online and see what needs to be done. For example, as gallery mod, i've spent an unbelievable amount of my own cash buying up stuff to scan for it, another example is that I have to be up at 7am for work, it is now 3:11am and I am taking the extra time out to answer and clarify these gray areas for you guys because you sound particularly concerned.

As for threads or posts that pass by like ships in the night without any action, that's most often because whatever problem that lies within them has not been reported using the 'Report to moderator' button that lies beneath every single post. We say it time and time again, but the bottom line is the credo: 'Help US to help YOU'. We just can't be everywhere at once, or be expected to check every post, thread etc. We do scan thru what we can though, of that you can be assured. That said, we have to judge whatever is reported on an individual basis, and sometimes what someone perceives as a slight is not meant as such upon further investigation or looking at the context of the thread, there may be external circumstances or previous history between certain Orgers that we are not aware of. Again, this is where you guys come in. Our job is not fool-proof, we are as much your tools as you are ours. It's about working together.

Our final judgement call may not meet with the approval of the person who reported the offending post, but we try our best. You are of course, entitled to a second opinion, as all mod reports go out to all of us via mail. Rest assured that we DO get to them as soon as we possibly can. But as previously mentioned, we're not always online either, and we're certainly not online 24/7 - we're not machines, we're human beings and we make mistakes too just like anyone else.

As for where is the line drawn, my personal thoughts on this is that I'm a member of this website too as well as a moderator, and have never felt compelled not to post like anyone else. My opinion is just as valid as anyone elses, moderator or not - sometimes I think you guys get a little freaked out if one of us posts on a thread, but we're doing so as fellow Orgers. Sure there are times when that is not the case, and you'll soon see that it's moderation due to the style of post, a snipped comment etc. But again, that's my take on it - maybe the others, Ben etc can shed a little more light on it for you guys.

Before I finish, I have to applaud you guys and say it's nice to see a thread that has (so far?) been constructive in its approach and has been very careful not to name names, flame or bait anyone, and for that you should be commended, seen as it's a rare thing on the Org before something gets so heated it spontaeneously explodes. So...let's keep it that way, don't let me down.

Sure, it doesn't always run smoothly, and Ogres are a disfunctional lot at the best of times - but hey, what family isn't?

Anyway, if you'll excuse me, I've a pillow with my name on it waiting for me.

Regards,
- BC

Najee said:

BananaCologne said:

You said in your previous post, "I think the remainder of this thread is best handled by someone like Ben, who it will be passed on to if you guys so wish." I said that would be fine, go ahead and forward it to this "Ben." So why the confused look?

Najee said:

Well, it came across a little harsh/odd to me the way you phrased 'this Ben' - it seemed kinda disrespectful. A little 'thanks for replying/listening', or a simple 'that's appreciated' or something of that ilk would have maybe sat a little better, that's all.

Politeness goes a long way.

Just sayin'.

BananaCologne said:

We may be ogres, but we're beautiful on the inside!

fathermcmeekle said:

Oh I know, I just like it

I feel Mods can be as involved in forums/threads (or not) as they wish. They are Org members as well. As long as they to are respecting the Org rules they have as much of a right as the next orger to state and debate their opinions.

I see most Mods as able to put on their Mod faces when they are having to act/be a Mod.

Mach

BananaCologne said:

That's because I have no idea who "Ben" is. It would seem disrespectful if I was referring to someone I knew in this context, but that wasn't the intent. Being on the Internet, we really have little control over how our words are interpreted (lack of voice intonation and inflection, no physical body language, etc.).

Having been at this site since '97 or so, and becoming a Mod in, what... '02?, I don't see how we could not participate in discussion.

We do need to be aware that our input may sway the thread into a different direction other than what was intended - and we are aware that some Orgers are intimidated when Mods post. But, you should know that we post here because: first, we are fans/and were fans before we became mods. Second, we had friends here before we became mods, but the friends that are truly such, have been okay with the friendship being set aside so that we can moderate as needed. Third, and I don't know how many times we can say this... but, we are human. We make mistakes, and when brought to our attention - make every effort to remedy the situation.

Lastly, I have been called out on some occasions, even recently, regarding a comment made while moderating. I will stand by my statements, but will defer to Ben any problems an Orger has with my decisions or demeanor.

I don't get a lot of that - but, hey (in my best elephant man voice) I..... am..... a..... human..... being.....

Najee said:

Aah! Ok, my apologies, no harm done.

June7 said:

Yes, we are all human beings (I won't even attempt the Elephant Man voice...lol) But at the same time I feel that moderators should be a bit more objective, especially on this site...That doesn't happen enough....

June7 said:

Thanks June7. We seem to be coming to an understanding. I just found it odd for a moderator to be on a Prince website where most of the posts written by this person always lean towards a negative bias against Prince. I wondered why this person is here in the first place. However, like you mention if the rules are being followed everyone has a right to form their own opinion. I'll take you up on reporting when there's a pattern of hijacking or attempting to sway threads.
[Edited 2/13/07 10:21am]

several of the mods held me down whle the others took turns kicking me in the face.

cborgman said:

LOL, i think you just gave me an idea.

I personally LIKE that the mods are members of the community. I think they get a better feel for the vibe and what's going on if they are regularly posting and communicating in the forums.
Of course, there comes a time when there's a need for objectivity, but overall I think things are handled quite well.
I will say, I've had questions on mod decisions in the past and have always taken them up with the mod, being as polite and fair as I could in the process. Most are happy to discuss the issue with you as long as you aren't attacking them, as they should be.

I'm happy to see this topic posted as I would've othewise.
Just left the M&M forum "commercial-thank you from Prince".....
There was an interaction between two orgers where a moderator defended the unreasonable position of one individual.( who also referred to Prince critics as "motherfuckers")
I consider mods to be "management". If site rules are broken I expect objectivity. I have lost all confidence and trust, should I have a disagreement with "preferred orgers" to get unbiased treatment from management. Period.
Any moderator who wants to defend this ridiculous nonsense should lobby Ben to ammend the site title to..Prince.org, AKA "moderators and their friends.org".
[Edited 2/13/07 18:45pm]
[Edited 2/13/07 19:00pm]

I need to correct myself, it's not "unreasonable position" it's the moderator "unreasonably defended" her. There was nothing wrong with the orger's point, what was wrong was the mod's clear bias in defending an individual who consistantly gives grief to others who make similar negative statements. I would've edited but the edit title isn't there.
[Edited 2/13/07 19:57pm]

xplnyrslf said:

Not true. If anyone is consistently negative to other orgers, it's you.

xplnyrslf said:

I will say it again, Nick and I have had numerous disagreements and he has always felt that he can come to me and I to him when I say something he feels is out of line. As I have stated before, Nick is also a participant of the forum as well as a mod. He can post his opinion to something just as everyone else can. Did you have a problem with anyone else that agreed with me?

Ummmmm can u 2 take your personal shitznit to orgnotes with each other or at least stay away from each other to cool off??

Or this thread will get ruined and I may be forced to this. Keep your personal shitznit offa this thread.

luv4u said:

dont this ... It was going well before the slight drama

Yes please don't lock it luv4u. This issue had brought up several times and it ended up being locking up due to drama without any solutions. If folks want to discuss their complaints with a particular mod or two (yes I have my story to tell too) in a mature way I think this is a good thread to do it but if any orger has a problem with another then I agreed to take it to the orgnotes.

ladygirl99 said:

That's what I'm saying. Keep one's personal fight off the thread/forum.

Now let's keep this thread on topic folks

I don't hardly experience all of the moderators at work cos I never post in the P&R or Music forums, so on those that only moderate there I have no opinion. I think people need to remember that some of the mods only actively moderate in one or maybe two forums, in the rest they're just posters that certainly can have opinions and be biased as long as they don't break the rules.

And certainly xplnyrslf is negative, he/she beats even me in negativity with how I used to be.