# Alternate identities for moderators



## .   1

I have seen a few instances where moderators appear to post as moderators but it is a post that is intended to be as a member and other posts where the moderator has intended tp post as a member but it looks like a moderator's post.

There have been some times when this confusion has raised emotions and that is difficult.

There are quite reasonable rules governing arguing with moderators and making statements about moderator's behaviour and decisions.

Would it be reasonable for moderators to be assigned obviously alternate identities?

For a member named 'Fast-time' there could be an alternate identity of 'Fast-time - mod' or some such identifying feature that makes obvious that this post is being made by the moderator and not the member and is therefore not open to debate.

.,,


----------



## Jana337

Hm... Is it such a huge problem? Huge enough to be worth the hassle? Those of us who cannot use two different browsers would have to log in and out constantly. Not to mention posts where I comment on the topic in question and also gently remind someone of the rules. Would I have to post twice?

I think that (in the language forums at least) it is kind of obvious that Jana-moderator has no strong feelings about auxiliary verbs and vice versa.

Jana


----------



## .   1

No.
It is not really a problem as much as a slight confusion.
I did not realise that technical limitations would be an issue.  I almost commented in my question that I know next to nothing about computers.
I did have some difficulties with this issue when I first came here but I am now savvy enough to be able to deal with it.
I suppose that any newbie who is similarly troubled will also learn to deal with it.
Some moderators in attempting to not be too stern can be slightly deferential when being moderators and this is slightly confusing but the forum has been running well for longer than I have been here and will probably outlive me.
Thanks Jana

.,,


----------



## maxiogee

. said:


> Would it be reasonable for moderators to be assigned obviously alternate identities?



But the 'obvious' would fade with time.

Don't forget *The Sacred Rules*



			
				Posting messages said:
			
		

> Do not pretend to be someone you are not. This includes gender and nationality. Who you are and where you are from is very important to understanding any translations or other language information that you provide.​


----------



## geve

When I was still a child likely to deserve some scolding or piece of advice (I could still use some now but people seem more reluctant to give it!), I sometimes had 'normal' discussions with my mother where she would adress me like any other person. She didn't stop being my mother all the while, but I could tell the difference


----------



## cuchuflete

The rules, sacred and profane, say something clear and useful about mods being foreros, except when either they, or context, make obvious that they are acting as mods.  Some mods change text color when they wear the mod hat.  Others sign their modding posts "Moderator".  

I was an active forero, as were all the other mods, before taking on the mod job.  A very tiny portion of my activity in public is done as a mod--most modding, other than helping newbies find their way around, is done by PM.  

And yet...especially in that hothouse of elevated banter, the Cultural Discussions forum, some folks do confuse the green cloak and the amber dunce cap, and some pretend to do so, when it suits an argument.  

I'm open to some obvious, consistent, way of identifying foreros when they are acting as mods...be it a color change, an introductory phrase such as "Moderator comment:" or anything else simple.


----------



## Etcetera

I really like the way GenJen54 writes her mod notes: she just puts "Mod note" before it, so it's always clear when she's a forera, and when she's a mod. 
And it would definitely confuse me if I come to a thread and see there a 'Jana337 - mod'.


----------



## cuchuflete

But Anna, in addition to GenJen's wonderful little "Mod note", which many of us use, she uses that crushed raspberry color. Aaargh!!  Please don't make us write with free-range, organic, crushed berry inks.   It deprives the birds of their only winter food source.


----------



## Etcetera

Yes, after having sent my post I remembered that she also uses some special colour for her Mod notes. 
OK, I've got the hint. I'll be a good girl, I promise!


----------



## geve

cuchuflete said:


> But Anna, in addition to GenJen's wonderful little "Mod note", which many of us use, she uses that crushed raspberry color. Aaargh!! Please don't make us write with free-range, organic, crushed berry inks. It deprives the birds of their only winter food source.


That's all right, Cuchu. You can use another color if you want. How do you like white?  (hey, you _expect_ me to be sarcastic, don't you?)


----------



## maxiogee

geve said:


> That's all right, Cuchu. You can use another color if you want. How do you like white?  (hey, you _expect_ me to be sarcastic, don't you?)



No fair! I've got dibs on white!


----------



## Alxmrphi

I disagree that you can't argue with a mod, as many mods know if I disagree with something they have done I will question them about it and make my concern noted. Not for a petty sake but if I really disagree with a decision, or annoy mike in a PM

It's nice to be democratic sometimes


----------



## cuchuflete

Last time I looked....we have no rules against being annoying.


----------



## zebedee

I always sign my mod interventions as 



> zebedee
> Culture Moderator


or 


> zebedee
> Moderator


to make it clear that I've got my mod hat on. If I don't sign my post, or I sign it with a simple



> cheers,
> zeb


then I'm participating as a forero.

I like to think that makes my position quite clear. If there is some sort of quibble due to lack of clarity, it's normally very easy to clear up via a couple of PMs. I'm always very happy to answer queries if that makes things clearer, and I think that goes for all mods.


----------



## cuchuflete

zebedee said:


> I always sign my mod interventions as
> 
> or
> to make it clear that I've got *my mod hat on*.



Signing is the wise choice.  This is the infamous Zeb mod hat:


----------



## Daddyo

I have been a lurker for many months, and from what I've seen I think that most moderators should always be considered forer@s until they tell you different.
Maybe I'm wrong and I should consider all moderator's posts to be moderator first and forer@ last.


----------



## Jana337

Daddyo said:


> I have been a lurker for many months, and from what I've seen I think that most moderators should always be considered forer@s until they tell you different.
> Maybe I'm wrong and I should consider all moderator's posts to be moderator first and forer@ last.


Rule 49: Moderators are also forum members.  Unless they say otherwise, or it is clear from context, their posts are made as members.


----------



## 140278

I think any mod can sign up as a new user and harass another one.


----------



## geve

140278 said:


> I think any mod can sign up as a new user and harass another one.


Oh yes, I'm pretty sure they can...  (hey, are you one, 140278?)

But that's a different matter altogether - no confusion possible in this case.


----------



## cuchuflete

Interesting comment 140278.  Would you care to tell us why a mod would take the trouble to sign up as a new user, in order to harass "another one", whether "another one" refers to another mod or to anyone else?

If you are aware of any harassment by any forero, including one who is also a mod, please contact a mod you trust...assuming that you may trust at least one of the dozens of mods, and provide whatever facts you have.


----------



## elroy

140278 said:


> I think any mod can sign up as a new user and harass another one.


 This is true, but I fail to see how it is relevant to the discussion at hand, or what important point you are trying to make.


----------



## panjandrum

Usually, I post in red inside << ... >> when I am posting as a mod.

Otherwise, my opinions are my own, and are not in red.

If anyone is not sure, please ask.


----------



## Alxmrphi

How about setting up a system for all mods to do?
Like somehow when you want to post as a mod make the background a different colour on that post so all mod posts are easily distinguisable, I nearly always go past mod posts without recognisning them, and respond to another comment in that thread, when sometimes the mod has warned no more on that topic, it's confuisng sometimes.


----------



## DDT

Alex_Murphy said:


> How about setting up a system for all mods to do?
> Like somehow when you want to post as a mod make the background a different colour on that post so all mod posts are easily distinguisable, I nearly always go past mod posts without recognisning them, and respond to another comment in that thread, when sometimes the mod has warned no more on that topic, it's confuisng sometimes.


I think one can easily distinguish my posts as a mod from my posts as a forero - which is what I consider myself  
I only use the red colour whenever I have to edit someone's post in order to erase what exceeds the 4 lines copyright limit. That's just in order to let the poster understand that to edit a post is an exceptional measure. Apart from that I don't see any particular need for a colour in my interventions

DDT


----------



## Jana337

Alex_Murphy said:


> How about setting up a system for all mods to do?


I ain't a robot, matey. 


> I nearly always go past mod posts without recognisning them


You ignore _my_ posts?  

Jana


----------



## elroy

Further, changing the background is an impractical solution because, as mentioned earlier, sometimes one post contains both moderatorial commentary and regular linguistic contribution (as a forero).

As for my *mod*us operandi, most of the time I change the color of my text, but not always - when it's more than obvious that I'm speaking as a mod.  When I post to announce the split of a thread, I doubt anyone is thinking of elroy the loquacious forero.

As far as I know, I have not run into any problems resulting from a misinterpretation of my role while posting.


----------



## ILT

I think that in the language forums it is pretty easy to identify when a post or commentary is made by ILT the mod instead of ILT the forero. ILT the mod splits threads, changes titles and edits lyrics when the post breaches rule 17 (I even know it by heart! ). Everything else is ILT the forero. Things may not appear as clear in Culture, but the foreros who mod there make sure it is clear that they are posting as a mod when pertinent.
I really think that using an alternate nickname would be more of a hassle, as I would have to be logging off and logging in all the time.


----------



## .   1

elroy said:


> As far as I know, I have not run into any problems resulting from a misinterpretation of my role while posting.


How could you know?
Public comment is prohibited.
Many newbies would be too nervous to approach you on PMs.
I have noticed a staggering number of members with less than 10 posts and I suspect that some of them have left because of public comments made by moderators.
Some moderators do have the ability to give the impression of sarcasm in their role as moderator but sarcasm should only be used between equals.

.,,


----------



## Daddyo

I've seen before that the moderator of the medical forum (sorry, can't remember the name) posts the forer@ contribution separate from the mod contribution. Even goes as far as saying in the second post: "Now, as a forer@, etc...."
Probably cuts down the "confusion" factor.


----------



## maxiogee

140278 said:


> I think any mod can sign up as a new user and harass another one.



That would be against the rules.
Whilst *anyone* can do that, you're not suggesting that Mods actually would break the rules are you?


----------



## Alxmrphi

Jana337 said:


> I ain't a robot, matey. You ignore _my_ posts?
> 
> Jana



I was talking about the CD forum
I'd never ignore your posts, as much as I'd wish they'd conveniently disappear for a while, while I break a few copyright rules hehehe.


----------



## TrentinaNE

. said:


> I have noticed a staggering number of members with less than 10 posts and I suspect that some of them have left because of public comments made by moderators.


And I suspect that the vast majority had a short-term need, fulfilled it, and moved on.  Would you like to take a poll? 

As a new moderator, I appreciate the suggestions about making my "official" comments stand out from my "forer@" comments.  Thanks for the feedback!

Elisabetta


----------



## Alxmrphi

I agree with .,,  .....

The "tone" some new members are warned with to me, seem quite off putting, and I've felt like I have a duty to PM a LOT of newbies and explain in softer terms, the rules and why, without just refering to a page of rules I know they won't read.

I think that's an issue that would be better changed.


----------



## maxiogee

. said:


> I have noticed a staggering number of members with less than 10 posts and I suspect that some of them have left because of public comments made by moderators.





. said:


> How could you know?


----------



## TrentinaNE

Alex_Murphy said:


> The "tone" some new members are warned with to me, seem quite off putting


Just remember that you don't see the PMs that moderators might have sent to some of those new posters before taking the quicker step of a "public warning."  


> and I've felt like I have a duty to PM a LOT of newbies and explain in softer terms, the rules and why, without just refering to a page of rules I know they won't read.


You do realize that they already explicitly agreed to abide by the rules upon subscription?

Elisabetta


----------



## Alxmrphi

I know I know Elisabetta, but seriously, who reads the rules upon subscription, I didn't, I'd be surprised if a lot of people did.
It's just a formality with registering with anything.


----------



## .   1

Posted by maxiogee

Quote:
Originally Posted by *.,,* 

 
I have noticed a staggering number of members with less than 10 posts and I suspect that some of them have left because of public comments made by moderators.

Quote:
Originally Posted by *.,,* 

 
How could you know?


I don't know but I do suspect.
I very neally quit at the beginning due to rather abrupt moderating and the abruptness was not softened by PMs.

.,,


----------



## Alxmrphi

> I very neally quit at the beginning due to rather abrupt moderating and the abruptness was not softened by PMs.



This is what I mean, I know as Elisabetta said, we don't see all the PM's, but before I understood the mindframe of WR, and the correcting and people having a go at me because of my bad English that I really didn't know was bad at all, it nearly made me quit, I had PM's as well.


----------



## Talant

Hi,

I agree that giving the mod's another identity is too bothersome. I think most times it is clear what kind of hat the mods are wearing. And whenever it isn't so, then it doesn't matter. We're not talking about Clark Kent and Supermod.

However, using a different colour might be useful when posting those special comment as Copyright issues,...

Finally, I think I read the rules once, when I was young. It's probably the first forum whose rules I've read. A little "reminder" of the rules to junior members is often necessary.

Bye


----------



## cuchuflete

Alex_Murphy said:


> I know I know Elisabetta, but seriously, who reads the rules upon subscription, I didn't, I'd be surprised if a lot of people did.
> It's just a formality with registering with anything.



Who reads the rules/instructions when trying to assemble a model airplane?  Some beginners do, for the first few models at least.  Others lavishly apply adhesives willy-nilly to whatever pieces of extruded plastic seem to go together, with some frustrating, if not highly amusing, results.  (Spoken with the embarassing memory of distant youth...)

What should we do, Alex?  Should we post a very large, bold statement on the registration page:

Unlike other boards, we take our Rules seriously!
If you don't read them carefully, you will be in deeeeeep yougurt.
A mean Moderator may brutalize you later by suggesting that you
read the Rules to which you will have agreed by registering.  
This is not just a formality.


When that statement is ignored, we could modify it to suggest that context is important, or even copyright law. 

Since this forum first opened, only about fifteen or twenty percent of registered members have posted with any frequency.  That includes the time when there were no moderators.  If you look at other boards, you will see something similar.  As a part-time mod, I am willing to be held accountable for global warming, the price of petrol, degradation of family values, but not newbie post counts.


----------



## geve

. said:


> I don't know but I do suspect.
> I very neally quit at the beginning due to rather abrupt moderating and the abruptness was not softened by PMs.
> 
> .,,


I suspect that many leave because they were informed that they couldn't have their homework done here. Or because they can't see the point of writing full words instead of chatspeak. Or because these darn members won't translate the lyrics of their favourite song of the moment. It's a pity if they don't understand the purpose of these rules, but I can't say I'll miss these members... 
Or maybe, as Trentina said, they had a question, got their answer, and they didn't feel that registering here made them a member of a _community_.

And forer@s can be abrupt too. There are some senior members that I've never ever seen writing "hello", "welcome" or use a smiley... True, they're not wearing the official staff badge.


----------



## .   1

geve said:


> And forer@s can be abrupt too. There are some senior members that I've never ever seen writing "hello", "welcome" or use a smiley... True, they're not wearing the official staff badge.


True.
Equals are welcome to be abrupt and be ignored but moderators carry power.

.,,


----------



## Alxmrphi

I don't care about newbie post counts at all, I was just saying, i'd be surprised if anyone actually read the rules before posting.
Maybe we could agree on a standard post that is very explaining and it's send out as a standard message? I think that might be a good idea. (whenever they, let's say, post a question that has been answered somewhere else, and another one sayng we only use good English)


----------



## cuchuflete

Alex_Murphy said:


> I don't care about newbie post counts at all, I was just saying, i'd be surprised if anyone actually read the rules before posting.
> Maybe we could agree on a standard post that is very explaining and it's send out as a standard message? I think that might be a good idea. (whenever they, let's say, post a question that has been answered somewhere else, and another one sayng we only use good English)



I must be too foggy to follow the logic, Alex.  People frequently do not read the rules.  Why should we assume that these same people would read a post, a sticky, a standardized welcoming email?


----------



## Alxmrphi

I mean a PM.


----------



## maxiogee

. said:


> I very neally quit at the beginning due to rather abrupt moderating and the abruptness was not softened by PMs.


LOL —> that's just hilarious! 



cuchuflete said:


> I must be too foggy to follow the logic, Alex.  People frequently do not read the rules.  Why should we assume that these same people would read a post, a sticky, a standardized welcoming email?



Don't you understand?
You're expected to call round with a bottle or wine or a six-pack and sit down and explain the rules personally - how slow are you guys? Sheesh!


----------



## Alxmrphi

I vote Tony for new policy leader!!!!


----------



## TrentinaNE

maxiogee said:


> Don't you understand?
> You're expected to call round with a bottle or wine or a six-pack and sit down and explain the rules personally - how slow are you guys? Sheesh!


 Tony, you've captured exactly how I often feel. 

So the thread began by addressing how moderators can/should make their "mod" comments stand out from their "forer@" comments, but now seems to be about displeasure over comments that clearly are made with a moderater hat, is that about right?  

Elisabetta


----------



## timpeac

Hi all. The discussion (potentially interesting and useful) seems to be starting to wander.

.., asked this -



. said:


> I have seen a few instances where moderators appear to post as moderators but it is a post that is intended to be as a member and other posts where the moderator has intended tp post as a member but it looks like a moderator's post.
> 
> There have been some times when this confusion has raised emotions and that is difficult.
> 
> There are quite reasonable rules governing arguing with moderators and making statements about moderator's behaviour and decisions.
> 
> Would it be reasonable for moderators to be assigned obviously alternate identities?
> 
> For a member named 'Fast-time' there could be an alternate identity of 'Fast-time - mod' or some such identifying feature that makes obvious that this post is being made by the moderator and not the member and is therefore not open to debate.
> 
> .,,


Now, I think that the practicalities of having two identies would be too difficult. However, it is also clear from this conversation that the moderators in general do not agree that there is often confusion as to which hat they are wearing. Like the others I think I add a "timpeac (moderator)" to any moderating comments (although I can imagine you may find an occasion or two where I haven't, but only if it is on an issue which is really not contentious). I also try not to moderate in a thread in which I have been involved heavily.

So, if this is not as clear as we think please let us know by PM. Just say "I don't think that your boundary between forero/moderator was clear enough here and caused confusion". This would not cause offense but be greatfully received. If you like, you have another option of the red triangle report a post. Just report the message you don't like with the message of why. These report a posts can be seen by all moderators so you can be sure your concern is not swept under the carpet and it would be another moderator who would look into the issue for fairness's sake.

We don't want lack of clarity so if you can help us in that it would be appreciated.

You may be interested to know that the first PM I ever sent a moderator was to complain that I thought they hadn't defined their role closely enough in some thread and that as a consequence I thought they had been heavy handed. This lead to a very pleasant PM exchange and the moderator being added to my buddy list.


----------



## Etcetera

I confess that I didn't read the rules _while _registering. But _after _registering I went and read one of the "World Reference General Guidelines" threads - I don't remember exactly which one, but they don't differ too much, do they?


----------



## Philippa

cuchuflete said:


> Lead? Led?





timpeac said:


> ....I thought they had been heavy handed. This *lead* to a very pleasant PM exchange...


Hello Tim and Cuchu,
I write lead like this too. I assumed it was a British English thing, but so far I've found no evidence for that at all  I've even found this:


> "Efforts to derecognise 'led' as the past tense and past participle of 'lead' continue, as in 'Arthur Scargill, who lead his men' ; and 'Badat lead the traditional Ramadan recitals ...'."
> " Why is it such a persistent error? Does it have something to do with the fact that lead, the "heavy bluish-grey soft ductile metallic element occurring naturally in galena and used in building and the manufacture of alloys" (Oxford) is pronounced led? Or that what we have in our pencils is lead (pron: led)?
> Whatever the reason, the failure to recognise the legitimacy of "led" as something we used to do afflicts some of the Guardian's leading columnists. To quote a couple of examples: "Never has the EU been at such a low ebb, badly lead with too little vision"; and "it has lead to a tenfold increase in arrests". The affliction is clearly shared by some subeditors and editors. from here


Perhaps we're being lead led badly by the examples in our press?!

And just to sort of stay on topic  (it's a boring comment!) - it's good if you can see clearly whether mods are posting as mods or not and the different colours or signing off as a mod are very helpful.

Saludos
Philippa


----------



## .   1

cuchuflete said:


> Some people have questionable taste in buddies.
> 
> Lead? Led?


This is just a funny quip and not on topic and could easily be deleted as chat.
There are many posts just like this one that are not deleted.
I have had quite a few posts deleted that were more on topic than this one but I am not a moderator.
There is another moderator who insists on writing in lower case and is not deleted.
This type of inconsistant application of the rules is quite confusing.

.,,


----------



## maxiogee

. said:


> This type of inconsistant application of the rules is quite confusing.
> 
> .,,



But —> wouldn't deleting a comment about "lead" be a bit heavy-handed?


----------



## Kelly B

Moderator note: if you quote a post that you think should be deleted, it makes it hard to delete that post without affecting the flow of the conversation. You can see examples of that above: there are quotes that no longer have originals where others can read them in context. It is much more effective to use the report triangle.


----------



## ElaineG

> This is just a funny quip and not on topic and could easily be deleted as chat.


 
Actually, it was (actually it wasn't - my mistake, but much of the follow-up was).  Actually, it was.  (You want confusing, _this_ is confusing  ).



> There are many posts just like this one that are not deleted.


 
If you see a post -- _regardless of whether it is by a moderator_ -- that you think is chatty or off-topic, use Report-a-Post or send a PM to a different moderator to let someone know. Life is a judgment call, but specific feedback (as opposed to after-the-fact generalizeed bitching) is always helpful and always appreciated.



> I have had quite a few posts deleted that were more on topic than this one but I am not a moderator.


 
Actually, your present post is not on topic at all, the topic being how to distinguish mod comments from forero comments. So far it has not been deleted, life being a judgment call, as I said. But life is also long, so perhaps your comment _and_ my response will be deleted.



> There is another moderator who insists on writing in lower case and is not deleted.


 
This subject has done been done to death in previous threads. No moderator is permitted to write in lower case in any forum where rules on capitalization are enforced. Different fora have different policies about capitalization. Come to the Italian fora, and you (and that person) will use capital letters. I don't know what languages you speak, so I can't address your personal situation.



> This type of inconsistant application of the rules is quite confusing.


 
If you find it so confusing that dozens of human beings dealing with dozens of unique cases occasionally deal with different cases differently, maybe this isn't the best place for you. I could promise you that we would all do our best to behave like humorless feeling-less automata producing uniform results at all times, but I would be lying to you if I did.

I find it confusing to discuss anything in the abstract -- I'm a lawyer by trade, and I like facts, figures and examples. 

Do you have specific examples of what is confusing? Please don't post them here -- they are bound to be off-topic (we've already wandered so far), but please, open a new thread with any specific examples of confusion that are bothering you.


----------



## .   1

maxiogee said:


> LOL —> that's just hilarious!
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you understand?
> You're expected to call round with a bottle or wine or a six-pack and sit down and explain the rules personally - how slow are you guys? Sheesh!


Why do you consider my post to be hilarious?

.,,


----------



## maxiogee

. said:


> I very neally quit at the beginning due to rather abrupt moderating and the abruptness was not softened by PMs.


 


maxiogee said:


> LOL —> that's just hilarious!


 


. said:


> Why do you consider my post to be hilarious?


I don't think I ought to elaborate in public, but believe me, it's funny.


----------



## geve

ElaineG said:


> If you find it so confusing that dozens of human beings dealing with dozens of unique cases occasionally deal with different cases differently, maybe this isn't the best place for you.


This says it all... Maybe some day in the future, Mike will be able to develop a software that can automatically spot and deal with off-topic, chatty, abusive or plain stupid posts without any human intelligence having to interfere in the process. In the meantime we have to rely on regular human beings to do the job, alas! 
So since we have to put up with that, why don't we try to make it a _good thing_? (yes, I know it's hard, but it's worth trying. Not _all_ of these people are bad you know!) I don't find it a nuisance that each of them has their own way of handling things - quite the contrary. I find that the color, the signature, the tone of the posts and any other tricks that these smart creatures can think of to point at their mod's hat are all helpful and efficient.

And I don't agree with Tony's suggestion. Or if we enforce it as a rule I will register as a new member to get the six-pack I deserve!


----------



## Kelly B

I believe that the original question has been answered. At this point, I think additional issues would be best addressed by PM. 
Thank you.


----------

