Why would Mod Rhad's post be signed 'Smac'?

[_Bond...James Bond]

Bond, Liz, and Shades manage to pull off the single identity thing pretty easily. Why is this so hard for the MAD moderating team?

I've always wondered why they have mystery mods...what is their explanation?

Here are my thoughts on the subject:

1) On MormonDiscussions we have a few rules, but they are pretty much black and white. Keep bad language out of the Celestial, keep certain words out of the Terrestial, etc. We don't have to make too many judgment calls on what is and what isn't exceptable. Yeah, sometimes the mods irritate someone.....but we try to keep things running smoothly. Compare our moderating style to MAD, where they have to make several judgment calls on what's insulting and what isn't insulting to something LDS. Rather than the cut and dried rules we have about language, they have alot more grey area, concerning what is insulting of LDS history, LDS posters, etc.

2) The MAD board specifically says they want to protect LDS posters. And they do. Here it's pretty much free speech. We also have a spot that's earmarked for more scholarly stuff (The Celestial), where scholarly posts are naturally protected by the rules for all, rather than one large board where very scholarly posts are next to silly type posts (like the main discussion board on MAD).

3) We have a place on this board for just about any type of post (except Spam). On MAD they have to moderate politics, insults to the Prophets, personal threads, and all manner of stuff. Here very insulting threads go to the Telestial, and Off-Topic stuff goes to the Off Topic folder. Our limit on what's exceptable and not exceptable is much more wide than on MAD, which has a much narrower view of what is exceptable behavior.

That's a good enough start.....

[_Blixa]

2) The MAD board specifically says they want to protect LDS posters. And they do. .

But that wouldn't necessiate have mods who post under their own "names" and behind the mask...

[_Bond...James Bond]

2) The MAD board specifically says they want to protect LDS posters. And they do. .

But that wouldn't necessiate have mods who post under their own "names" and behind the mask...

As to the second layer of Mod identity (sorry bout that....got sidetracked) they've already had mods who didn't have moderating sockpuppets (such as Slacktime, who moderated under his own name If I recall correctly).....I think the moderating sockpuppets came about due to the need to unfairly protect some posters. It's pretty much an open secret anyway (for those who want to figure out who the mods are)....so I really don't see why they keep up the cherade. I wish they'd just come out and use their normal postering names for moderating.

[_asbestosman]

Are you talking about the PM with photo thing?

Yep although there are many similar tricks one could use in case the PM thing is too conspicuous. Also, looking at both boards, I think it likely that both are useptible to XSS although I have not yet seen any obvious 'sploits.

[_Smac97]

Scratch,

> Actually, as I've just pointed out, it *is* related to your being a mod, albeit in an admittedly tangential way.

==The "Mr. Itchy's Blog" thing is not related to my being a mod. You accused me of creating it *before* I became a moderator.

==You can make anything "related" to anything else by calling it "tangential." But you only end up proving my point: Individuals who act as moderators get dinged just for *being* mods. There is no connection between my being a moderator and that Mr. Itchy blog thing, but you conflated the two anyway. Hence I can understand why a mod would want to be able to post under his own moniker without getting blowback about being a mod (or vice versa). You demonstrated that need quite well.

-Smac

[_Jersey Girl]

Scratch

Who was Mr. Itchy? I think that you could pretty easily find out, since you arose to the status of Mod. After, it was someone among the FAIR moderating team who leaked private IP information. So, you answer the question, and I'll amend the blog. What say ye?

What IP information are you thinking about? Be specific.

[_asbestosman]

What IP information are you thinking about? Be specific.

Scratch is talking about his Internet Protocol address which is what a web server uses to reply to your web browser. From there one can easily determine what state and probably what city a person lives in unless that person is using a proxy.

IP in this instance is not referring to Intellectual Property.

[_Jersey Girl]

What IP information are you thinking about? Be specific.

Scratch is talking about his Internet Protocol address which is what a web server uses to reply to your web browser. From there one can easily determine what state and probably what city a person lives in unless that person is using a proxy.

IP in this instance is not referring to Intellectual Property.

Oh for Gawd sakes, ab, I know what an IP address is. I'm asking WHOSE IP address he thinks was leaked by a MAD mod. This is relevant to more than one situation on the table.

[_asbestosman]

Oh for Gawd sakes, ab, I know what an IP address is. I'm asking WHOSE IP address he thinks was leaked by a MAD mod. This is relevant to more than one situation on the table.

I got the impression that it was his (Scratch's) IP address that was leaked but it appears I misread it. That's also why I misunderstood your question. Now it appears he may be referring to someone else too. Perhaps Dr. Shades.

[_Mister Scratch]

Scratch,

> Actually, as I've just pointed out, it *is* related to your being a mod, albeit in an admittedly tangential way.

==The "Mr. Itchy's Blog" thing is not related to my being a mod. You accused me of creating it *before* I became a moderator.

==You can make anything "related" to anything else by calling it "tangential." But you only end up proving my point: Individuals who act as moderators get dinged just for *being* mods. There is no connection between my being a moderator and that Mr. Itchy blog thing, but you conflated the two anyway. Hence I can understand why a mod would want to be able to post under his own moniker without getting blowback about being a mod (or vice versa). You demonstrated that need quite well.

-Smac

My dear Smac---

After further consideration, and after a brief consultation with some of my informants, I have come to the conclusion that you were probably not Itchy, and have decided that I will go ahead and delete the bit about you possibly being Mr. Itchy from the blog.

Warm wishes,
Mr. S.