|
VideoAdminAlpha -> RE: Welcome to Collar Me (1/13/2012 5:50:03 PM)
|
OK I stopped reading at page 10 and am posting on this thread.Therefore any comments after page 10 I have not seen and am not avoiding, but have not seen them.
For those that wonder about the Hyatch House thread. It was locked until I could make a statement on it and clarify the OPs meaning and make a statement for the site.
http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=3994202 for anyone that cares to read it.
Second, I want to address moderators and why they have moderator nicks and not their usual nicks. I have gone back and removed more posts, not because the site is or isnt hiding anything, but trying to call out a user as a moderator is akin to blacklisting that user, because, in fact, that is what you are doing. You are saying they are something they (in this case) aren't, and it is not fair to that user to be accused of it any more than you calling a user a liar or a fake.
For once and for all, here is the reason that moderators do not post as moderators under their regular nicks.
Moderators ARE users of the site, and in all cases at present, have participated in the discussion forums. You have all seen moderator nicks come and go. That is, because for various reasons, voluntary or involuntary, the mod lineup changes. Some get burnt out, some have real life situations come up, some just dont work out. Does that mean that they should be banned from the forums permanently? Does that mean that, if one wants to help the site, they should not be allowed to post as a user and still actually enjoy the forums?
I do not post AT ALL under my regular nick anymore, other than the occasional happy birthday etc to people that I have written and communicated on the forums with. The other moderators are allowed to post under their regular nicks for a couple of reasons. Believe it or not, they actually have opinions, that are utterly independent of the site. If they expressed those under a moderator nick, would that not stop healthy debate? Would that not also "taint" their opinions, so that others may not want to disagree with them? Would that not possibly kill threads because a "moderator" posted on the site, and possibly held a non popular opinion? Also, those opinions are NOT from the site, why would we want to muddy the waters and have users possibly think that the moderators opinion is also the site opinion? This is different than Fet, because the group owners are very visibly posting their own opinions, and in no way could that be construed as Fet's opinion. Not so here. Also, when moderators retire, for whatever reason, they are able to continue ( or resume as the case may be) posting freely under their own nick, without other users treating their remarks differently than any other users.
I will say, UNEQUIVOCALLY, that a moderator NEVER moderates a thread they have posted on as a user. That would be grounds for their immediate cessation of moderator capabilities. I cannot say that did not happen under previous "moderation terms", but I can only assure you that it DOES NOT happen now.
If a post was missed earlier in this thread about moderation and one was not, it is only because for a bit there was a lot of activity on this thread, and it "took a minute" for moderators to jump in on this one, since, believe it or not, we do not see every post as it is made, and sometimes it takes a bit to actually clean threads. ALso, if we are operating on a ticket, we may not see the other posts made corresponding with THAT remark that generated a ticket until we are reading back and forth around that reported post.
|
|
|
|
