Moderators posting, ethics and site Terms of Service
- Thread starter Drewski
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
- Status
halemanō;5709034:I know that I am most likely still on the ignore list of at least one moderator, because of the title of the PM in my inbox, early in Jan of this year. I did not read the PM 'cause I really don't care.
There have been times in the past where I thought I was already on "that" ignore list, because relevant questions by me were ignored.
I do not use the "ignore" function, although I do ignore most of a number of members and moderators opinions.
I have made ignorant posts and I think I respond fairly well when that ignorance is "proved." Wouldn't it be considered arrogant for a moderator to ignore valid questions about their own ignorant posts?
How would you respond if it were just a normal user and not a moderator?
What needs to be made clear is that moderators have 2 "hats". On the one hand they have been asked to help "police" (for lack of a better term) the site and on the other hand they are just normal users.
The vast majority of posts made by moderators are made as "normal users". As I said above, we're all divers and we like to engage in debates about diving every bit as much as everyone else does. We have our opinions, we have our "red button" issues and we have our bad days just like every other user does.
Normally, when a moderator is posting with his "mod hat" on then the post will appear like this
A ScubaBoard Staff Message...
This is so that users can distinguish between times when the moderator is acting in that role and time when the moderator is just being one of the crowd.
I know that some people don't like that and they believe that moderators should be held to a higher standard at all times and that they are somehow always "in function" but the simple fact is, that this isn't how it is. I would like to think that moderators are selected well enough that they have a measure of self-discipline so they don't make too many boobish missers but the fact of the matter is that we're normally not "in function".
With that in the back of your mind, I would suggest that the best approach to discussions like the one you posted is to treat a mod who you happen to be debating with (even passionately) as you would treat anyone else.
And that brings me full-circle to where I started. Sometimes people see "arrogance" when none is intended because their expectations of mod behaviour is different than their expectations of other users' behaviour. If, in the future, you assume that a mod is "user first" and "moderator only when necessary" then maybe things will come across more as they were intended.
Hope this helps.
R..
halemanō;5709083:If you feel that my post is inappropriate, by all means "report" it!
What exactly is the topic of this thread?
My post was not about my problem; I could just as easily have typed that I am proud to be on that moderators ignore list.
Stop trying to put words in my 'mouth'. I did not say your post was "inappropriate". It is, however, excruciatingly self-centered and rude.
And since you cannot seem to comprehend the topic, it is about moderators posting as users. They have a right to their opinion.
Ohhh, yeah . . .
Seems like 10, maybe 15, and it takes 24 hours to 'rotate through' and come back.
I used to thank posts in the donation thread, etc. . . . just not worth it anymore. :whatever:
Seems like 10, maybe 15, and it takes 24 hours to 'rotate through' and come back.
I used to thank posts in the donation thread, etc. . . . just not worth it anymore. :whatever:
c'est la vie.
halemanō;5267449:
Well, this was not the first time I have "had" to challenge/correct SB mods posting Hawaii ignorance as users, nor the last. Sometimes I challenge/correct with kid gloves and sometimes not. The ongoing pattern of ignorant negativism from some does occasionally cause my corrective posts to be confrontational, but this post/reply/question was premeditated to be as nicely worded as I could bring myself to be at the time.
I considered including that the studies of reef fish off Maui actually point to the exact opposite of what the mod was posting; near shore reefs have declining coral coverage and near shore reefs have declining fish numbers, while coral coverage at Molokini is stable and there is no recent study of Molokini fish numbers, probably because the fish population at Molokini is pretty good.
I chose not to include that and I do not feel I would have included that if it were just some SB member.
I did not try to put anything in your mouth, yet. :shocked2:
I posted an example of a moderator posting as a user, where the moderator made a statement "as fact" that is not a fact. I immediately (next post) asked for the supporting data for the moderators statement of fact. This was not an issue of someone's opinion; this was about anyone claiming their opinion was backed up by "studies" when in fact there is no study that backs up that opinion. The only studies actually point to the opposite of the stated opinion.
If the mod posting as a user had replied that there are no links to any studies backing up the opinions but even so the mod's opinions will remain unchanged, I'm relatively sure I would have had further questions or comments.
I did however find the lack of reply, being completely ignored, to be excruciatingly self-centered and rude.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
