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 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?



Regards,
- BC

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 don't expect mods to be Prince fans, just be capable of doing necessary intervention.

These are good points. Maybe two moderators should make the decision to close a topic, thus eliminating one person's potential bias. I've seen some of the examples given.

I equate moderator with "site management". Therefore, if a post is made on a forum that's strictly the viewpoint of the moderator as an orger, then maybe the "moderator" title should not be used under the name. It would eliminate confusion and perceived bias.
Moderator should be used when wearing the management hat and intervening. Better yet, maybe a separate name/avatar for nonmoderator posts by staff.
I don't expect mods to be Prince fans, just be capable of doing necessary intervention.

I equate moderator with "site management". Therefore, if a post is made on a forum that's strictly the viewpoint of the moderator as an orger, then maybe the "moderator" title should not be used under the name. It would eliminate confusion and perceived bias.
Moderator should be used when wearing the management hat and intervening. Better yet, maybe a separate name/avatar for nonmoderator posts by staff.
I don't expect mods to be Prince fans, just be capable of doing necessary intervention.

However, it should be noted that behind the scenes many of us do this anyway and have done for a long time in asking for anothers advice and/or opinions if we are in anyway unsure about how to proceed further.

I generally always ask for a few different outside perspectives before a major action is made in my Name

xplnyrslf said:

It could be said that Orgers should know which mods moderate which forums and that if a mod is voicing their opinion on a thread not in their
forum(s) of moderation, then orgers could drop their confusion and preceived bias of that person as a mod at that time.

Accountability rolls on both sides of the coin.

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]

All this said, the moderators aren't flawless - it does really annoy me that they insist on moving threads even though it clearly makes the website crash. They should just lock them, but they don't. That really annoys me!

PreacherMan said:

I lock like a beast

xplnyrslf said:

It could be said that Orgers should know which mods moderate which forums and that if a mod is voicing their opinion on a thread not in their
forum(s) of moderation, then orgers could drop their confusion and preceived bias of that person as a mod at that time.

Accountability rolls on both sides of the coin.

Mach said:

You have to keep in mind, members aren't here every day nor in all the forums. "Moderator" indicates site management. There has to be a way for mods to express opinions as a member and orgers to not be concerned it reflects the view of Prince.org.

Which we do.

And yet you can bet your last dollar that 9 times out of 10 we'll get called out on it, or bitched at constantly and consistently. We know it's a catch-22 situation however much we try pleasing everybody all of the time, that much we're used too. The real test comes when we keep trying time and time again to convince the site membership at large that we try our best with limited tools and a small staff putting in long hours who also have family lives and other external-site interests too.

The notion of objectivity raised here though is an interesting one - I can vouch for every one of my collegues that they do their job to the best of their ability when they are online and have an issue or complaint to deal with - the thing is, can orgers distinguish the difference between someone being objective, and someone being personal? Sadly, my guess is not, because the amount of baby-sitting and diaper-changing we have to do is criminal. I mean, it's alright as long as it works in your (ie an Orgers) favour, but as soon as something is done about it to bring it in line with site rules, it's mod-bashing time. A perfect case in point.

Of course, vouching for my collegues will no doubt now leave me wide open to the usual predictable responses. As I said, catch-22.

We just wish you guys would understand it works both ways and we do try our best, and yes we make mistakes too occasionally like anyone else. But at the end of the day after trying to explain what we have to work with and how we try and maintain a fast-moving, functioning site with thousands of members worldwide (over 14,000 people logged onto Prince.org at one point during super bowl weekend for example), is it any wonder we seem jaded at times?

No, of course not.

W-E

A-R-E

M-A-C-H-I-N-E

I equate moderator with "site management". Therefore, if a post is made on a forum that's strictly the viewpoint of the moderator as an orger, then maybe the "moderator" title should not be used under the name. It would eliminate confusion and perceived bias.
Moderator should be used when wearing the management hat and intervening. Better yet, maybe a separate name/avatar for nonmoderator posts by staff.
I don't expect mods to be Prince fans, just be capable of doing necessary intervention.

That's fucking ridiculous!!!


If we want to add a comment on the site, in a forum, then we'll do it.

If we want to moderate a forum we are in charge of moderating, then we'll do it... adding the whole, [We're moderating this thread bold shit font shit comment thingy]. End of story.

We mod.

We comment.

We are very much a part of this site.

Get over it.

Thank you.

June7 said:

No need to get cranky.
The problem arises as some members have posted, is objectivity of the moderator.
In order to reduce confusion and make things better for mods and members is come up with ideas on how to reduce the miscommunication. There are many members who have posted this as a problem in the past.

How's this?
If a moderator is posting as simply a member, then anyone who questions the post should keep track of who the mods are for that forum and/or org note the mod with concerns.
If a thread is locked for questionable reasons (mod pushed over the edge) and other mods agree, then it should be unlocked the next day. Consider it a temporary lock. (Of course then everybody's gooing to want their threads unlocked).