Be careful what you wish for.

[Jersey Girl]

I've long thought that masking the mods identity would be a positive change. It would cut down on suspicions and accusations of bias. If the board is moderated using certain techniques and one wants to petition against a ruling, it likely wouldn't be based on perceived bad blood between posters...

I agree. It's just too disconcerting to be in a discussion with a person (who happens to be a mod) who expresses a personal opinion about your post, and then, suddenly, to see the moderator cap put on and --wouldn't you know it-- the moderator agrees with the personal opinion of the poster (coincidentally, themselves)!

And then moderator action is taken supporting the personal opinion (of themselves), and your post is moved, edited, deleted, whatever.

At least with anonymous modding, that appearance of bias will be removed. Notice I said "appearance." Arguing the mod action was right doesn't eliminate the appearance of bias, which still has the potential to leave a very negative feeling.

“It's nothing personal, Sonny—it's strictly business.”. ~ Michael Corleone

All business should be conducted in the Mod Forum. Determinations made and acted upon. Full stop.

But I am not King of the Universe here. It's only my opinion based on years of management experience.

[Lem]

I agree. It's just too disconcerting to be in a discussion with a person (who happens to be a mod) who expresses a personal opinion about your post, and then, suddenly, to see the moderator cap put on and --wouldn't you know it-- the moderator agrees with the personal opinion of the poster (coincidentally, themselves)!

And then moderator action is taken supporting the personal opinion (of themselves), and your post is moved, edited, deleted, whatever.

At least with anonymous modding, that appearance of bias will be removed. Notice I said "appearance." Arguing the mod action was right doesn't eliminate the appearance of bias, which still has the potential to leave a very negative feeling.

“It's nothing personal, Sonny—it's strictly business.”. ~ Michael Corleone

All business should be conducted in the Mod Forum. Determinations made and acted upon. Full stop.

But I am not King of the Universe here. It's only my opinion based on years of management experience.

It's good technique. Even on my small civil service board, we consider not only doing the right thing, but also being fully transparent in order to avoid the appearance of bias. It matters.

[Jersey Girl]

“It's nothing personal, Sonny—it's strictly business.”. ~ Michael Corleone

All business should be conducted in the Mod Forum. Determinations made and acted upon. Full stop.

But I am not King of the Universe here. It's only my opinion based on years of management experience.

It's good technique. Even on my small civil service board, we consider not only doing the right thing, but also being fully transparent in order to avoid the appearance of bias. It matters.

I'm all for a team functioning as a team with a spokesperson on board. Not that my opinion is the be all and end all. Still that's what I think is best.

[Res Ipsa]

I agree. It's just too disconcerting to be in a discussion with a person (who happens to be a mod) who expresses a personal opinion about your post, and then, suddenly, to see the moderator cap put on and --wouldn't you know it-- the moderator agrees with the personal opinion of the poster (coincidentally, themselves)!

And then moderator action is taken supporting the personal opinion (of themselves), and your post is moved, edited, deleted, whatever.

At least with anonymous modding, that appearance of bias will be removed. Notice I said "appearance." Arguing the mod action was right doesn't eliminate the appearance of bias, which still has the potential to leave a very negative feeling.

“It's nothing personal, Sonny—it's strictly business.”. ~ Michael Corleone

All business should be conducted in the Mod Forum. Determinations made and acted upon. Full stop.

But I am not King of the Universe here. It's only my opinion based on years of management experience.

I’m not Queen of the Universe, but I agree.

[Moksha]

The whole question of moderation, to me, would revolve around how moderate it would be. The lightest moderation possible seems desirable. The only problem with a complete laissez-faire approach is when the unthinkable happens a disrupter appears and undergoes the process of fission. You definitely want to play Bop-a-Mole at that time, but revert back to judicious indifference after that intervention.

[honorentheos]

It's difficult to imagine anyone being a better moderator than EA. For whatever differences we may have had in views and Twitter consumption, he was capable of being a cold calculated machine in execution even when it diverged from his own opinions. Not many people have that trait. I cast my vote before for Res when he tossed his hat in the ring before because I also think he's even handed. But totally respect that he won't put the badge on again in this town. Some retirements are bought, some earned, and some become the only alternative to disappearing completely I suppose. Most of us aren't really unbiased enough to do the job we think we'd do. I'm not.

Conditions I think should be considered:

First, the rule about perfume really needs to be dropped. I know, it seems like I have a personal beef with Shades about it but the truth is it undermines the integrity of the rules. Either it's a joke that isn't enforced which calls into question why include it on the list with the official rules without a wink and smilie-heavy post. Or it's serious which means it should be enforced on a board that otherwise prides itself on free speech. Personally, I think it's cool that Shades has such an unusual devotion because it's unexpected and POW does he really get into it. But that's as far as I think it really ought to go. Could Perfume be the unofficial board J-POP band in the same way the supposed Mormonism / DCP forum is a virtual mossy university overgrown in traditions ancient and solemn as a Mason's ceremony held via Zoom? Why not. But for the sake of fostering respect for the rules it should be reconsidered. I mean that sincerely.

Second, anyone who at any time has been involved in a DOXing attempt or even threatened to do so should be DQ'd from being able to serve as a mod. That's just wrong.

Third, I am for Mods keeping their public screennames with green letters because the persons wearing the badge and swinging the gavel should be willing to do so while being a member of the society they serve. The MDD forums are worse for their culture of having hidden moderators under pseudonyms and I don't see that going well.

[Moksha]

Third, I am for Mods keeping their public screennames with green letters because the persons wearing the badge and swinging the gavel should be willing to do so while being a member of the society they serve.

How deja vu it would be to have moderator names like Nemesis, Hesperia, or Juliann. The idea of moderators using their own screen name would be preferable.

[Res Ipsa]

Third, I am for Mods keeping their public screennames with green letters because the persons wearing the badge and swinging the gavel should be willing to do so while being a member of the society they serve.

How deja vu it would be to have moderator names like Nemesis, Hesperia, or Juliann. The idea of moderators using their own screen name would be preferable.

Yeah, I do agree that there is a benefit to moderators being accountable to the community.

I guess I’m adamantly conflicted on that point.

[Res Ipsa]

Let him account for his libelous claim.

Wrong. You know that is wrong.

Seems like all we need is some clarifications and we can get on with this moderation change, or not.

First, I have never replaced the content of any of my posts with a period. Not even once. Second, I intend to replace the content of all of my posts with a symbol, but it will not be a period.

I have noticed that Doc Cam has not said he agrees with the moderating change. I suspect he intents to continue to insult Ajax. In which case, I only see a tedious moderation task without any benefit to the board. I see too that Some Schmo has discredited the proposal by suggesting that Ajax wants to be insulted. So, again, I see nothing for Shades to do here given that the people mentioned in the opening post (two new posters and Ajax) are either unknown, unidentified, unrepresented or unprotected in the moderation change and those doing the majority of the insulting are not interested in the change.

So Shades, carry on as it were. If the board members do not give a damn about the moderating enough to actually address bullying with anything more than biased babble B.S. about how victimized they are while continuing to do the very thing they bitch about - do nothing.

Me thinks the lady doth protest too much.

What New Kid doesn't get is that Shades' rules allow personal attacks, even brutal ones, as long as they occur in telestial or spirit prison. What I and others (not saying all others) want is for the nastiness to stay in prison, where the rules require it to be, so that substantive discussions, like that in the vaccine and therapeutics thread, can go on without continual derails and pie fights. Doc Cam is then free to attack Ajax all he wants: In Spirit Prison. Cultellus is able to call the board to repentance: In Prison. Then those who want to have a discussion about vaccines and therapeutics can do so: In Spirit Paradise.

New Kid is just going to have to grow up and realize that he can't police the content of other people's speech on board that is designed to allow free speech. Right now, he's using the non-enforcement of the rules to derail substantive discussions for the same reason a dog licks its balls. I reread the vaccines and therapeutics thread over lunch yesterday up to the point that it went to hell. You'll see a small amount of subgenius trolling, with mostly mild responses given the nature of the trolling. You'll see Ajax throwing out his usual red herrings, and some detailed and patient responses to him along with some responses that arguable cross the line. Despite that, the thread contains lots of substantive and interesting discussion.

Until New Kid joins, and then it slides into hell. If Shades goes back to enforcing the rules (which has been the normal around here for years, New Kid), New Kid loses his ability to disrupt substantive conversations, because his attacks and derails will be moved to Prison along with everyone else's. He loses his ability to apply collective punishment based on his objections to a couple of folks who post in Paradise.

Paradise/Prison used to be one section of the forum. They were divided so that substantive discussions wouldn't be overwhelmed by trolling and pie fights. Enforcing the rules, as written, will help accomplish that goal. If the rules aren't enforced, just recombine paradise and prison back into off-topic. Because that is what we have now because the rules are not being enforced.

Even better. Shades, why not duplicate the structure of the Mormon Discussions section in Non-Mormon discussions. Scrap the LDS Paradise/Prison concept and go full on Catholic. Give us Inferno, Purgatorio and Paradiso. Parallel structures. Parallel moderation. Then those who want a place to have a serious discussion on a non-Mormon topic, including other religious topics, have a place to do so. Worth consideration, maybe?

[Res Ipsa]

B.S., Res. B.S..

Shades. Do not change the moderation or the rules. Leave them. This is horse crap.

So it goes to hell when Res does not get his way, and he wants to get his way in all Paradise conversations? Is that it?

The lady doth protest wayyyyyyyyy too much. Shades, this is the mindset of a person whose goal is to disrupt and shut down speech. See how frantic he gets at the simple notion that I could post something in a thread that he can’t derail by trolling or personal attacking me? Of course, he would have exactly the same rights as me in the hypothetical Paradiso. But he’s not interested in constructive discussion. He wants to disrupt and prevent substantive discussion.

If folks can’t have a substantive discussion without having to wade through piles of troll derails and personal attacks, then I’ll confine my participation to the Mormon side of the board. I’ve wasted enough of my life jousting with trolls.