# Closed threads in this forum



## Joelline

I find it ironic that the "We contribute to a business: Obviously not free!" thread was closed right after heidita asked this question: "Just one thing that has always bothered me: is a thread closed by agreement among the mods, or is a single moderator free to do as she/he wishes? This is one of the things I find especially unfair." Her answer was Belen's announcement, "This thread is deviating, if you want to discuss mod actions there are other threads available to do that. Different moderators and foreros have answered all of Märta's enquiries. She seems not to be satisfyed by them, but I frankly don't think we can add any additional information on this subject. Therefore, this thread will be closed right now."

Now, I have 3 questions:

1. Will someone please answer heidita's question?

2. In other forums, mods often intervene to remind (warn) us to stick to the topic or... Almost always, those participating in the topic immediately backtrack and either fall silent or post responses directly related to the topic. Of course, the mods also delete off-topic posts (with an explanation), as well. But they almost never just shut the thread down. Why not follow the same pattern in this forum? I don't know that I find it "unfair" as heidita says, when a thread is shut down, but I find it damned annoying! By the time I have (1) discovered the thread, (2) spent a great deal of time carefully reading the posts, and (3) come to some conclusions of my own and am ready to post: BAM! So how about giving off-topic warnings *first* (or even deletions of off-topic posts)? Then, if the foreros won't comply--CLOSE IT DOWN!

3. I love the final (and only visible) post in the "on hate" thread: "The thread about whether or not controversial posts should be deleted has been temporarily removed, to allow all of us to calm down. 
It will be re-opened in the near future. Please hold your ideas on this topic until the thread is re-opened." Why not make that a standard procedure on the "over-heated" threads?

Joelline

Edit: To clarify, there are 3 closed threads in this forum at the moment;
We contribute to a business: Obviously not free! 
On hate 
Can one be offended by silly words like nicknames?  

It was the fact that they seem to be multiplying that caught my attention!


----------



## GenJen54

Hi Joelline, 

Please note, I cannot speak and am not speaking for all of the moderators when I answer this. 

Hedita's question:





> "Just one thing that has always bothered me: is a thread closed by agreement among the mods, or is a single moderator free to do as she/he wishes? This is one of the things I find especially unfair."


 
The answer to this is that both instances occur. In some occurrences, mods take great care to discuss - either with their "team" members (mods who also mod the same forum), or the entire mod team.

When a thread is opened that is not applicable to a particular forum's guidelines (ex. a research topic asking for "lists" in Cultura), that thread is either closed with a mod note, or removed and a PM sent to the poster.

When a thread continues to veer off-topic and continues to go that way despite mod intervention, a mod may, at his or her discretion, close the thread. 

If a topic becomes very heated and personal vitriol is spewed more than rational thought, a mod may, at his or her discretion, close the thread without much discussion, especially if the other mods on his/her team are not available to discuss the issue.

Remember, even though moderators are all a part of the greater mod "team," they are also only generally responsible only for the forums to which they are assigned. As such, mods tend not to "step on the toes" by modding in other forums, except for extreme circumstances.

From the WR Rules:





> Moderators control individual forums. They may edit, delete, or prune any posts in their forums. If you have a question about a particular forum, you should direct it to your forum moderator.


As for the other ideas you suggest in Item #2., those actions are very often taken. I would say that for me personally, I am far more apt to delete or "step in" threads where warranted than I am to close a thread.

As for the idea suggested in #3 about re-opening threads, I personally think this needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis. Some threads are certainly worth reviving. Others, not so. Invariably, other forer@s will come along at a later time and open a thread on a same or similar topic, so the ideas at least, are renewed with a fresh perspective.


----------



## cuchuflete

Hi Joelline.  I'll try to answer in your text.





			
				Joelline said:
			
		

> I find it ironic that the "We contribute to a business: Obviously not free!" thread was closed right after heidita asked this question: "Just one thing that has always bothered me: is a thread closed by agreement among the mods, or is a single moderator free to do as she/he wishes? This is one of the things I find especially unfair."  Two replies: (1) that post was substantially removed from the thread topic.  It should have simply been deleted as "off topic".  Heidita is welcome to ask the question in a separate thread, and to receive a straight answer.  Foreros are not welcome to hijack threads.
> (2) Belén closed the thread for the precise reasons she stated. The thread topic was in Märta's first post.  It had been exhausted.  In addition, there were off-topic posts on other subjects.  There was nothing useful to be gained by addressing a question in a post that didn't belong in that thread in the first place.
> 
> 
> Her answer was Belen's announcement,  "This thread is deviating, if you want to discuss mod actions there are other threads available to do that. Different moderators and foreros have answered all of Märta's enquiries. She seems not to be satisfyed by them, but I frankly don't think we can add any additional information on this subject. Therefore, this thread will be closed right now."
> 
> Now, I have 3 questions:
> 
> 1. Will someone please answer heidita's question? The answer*s  *are "yes" and "yes".  When any single mod sees an immediate need to close a thread, that mod may do so.  However, we often confer before coming to a decision.  At some hours, only a single mod for a forum is here, and thus discussion is not always an available choice.
> 
> 2. In other forums, mods often intervene to remind (warn) us to stick to the topic or... Almost always, those participating in the topic immediately backtrack and either fall silent or post responses directly related to the topic. Of course, the mods also delete off-topic posts (with an explanation), as well. But they almost never just shut the thread down. Without seeing specific examples from other forums, I can only speculate as to their reasons and practices, and that's not useful.  We frequently do what you have described, especially in the Culture forum.  Often it takes repeated reminders, and escalating warnings to get people back to the thread topic.
> When that doesn't work, the thread is closed.  Look at any of the political and religious threads in CD for ample examples.
> 
> 
> Why not follow the same pattern in this forum? I don't know that I find it "unfair" as heidita says, when a thread is shut down, but I find it damned annoying! By the time I have (1) discovered the thread, (2) spent a great deal of time carefully reading the posts, and (3) come to some conclusions of my own and am ready to post: BAM! So how about giving off-topic warnings *first* (or even deletions of off-topic posts)?  Then, if the foreros won't comply--CLOSE IT DOWN!  That's a fair description of the most common way of doing it here.  There are exceptions.  We can discuss those on a one-by-one basis if you like.
> 
> 3. I love the final (and only visible) post in the "on hate" thread: "The thread about whether or not controversial posts should be deleted has been temporarily removed, to allow all of us to calm down.
> It will be re-opened in the near future. Please hold your ideas on this topic until the thread is re-opened." Why not make that a standard procedure on the "over-heated" threads?
> We have done this more than once in the past.  Thread closures have been as short as an hour, or as long as a few days.  Usually a Mod note asking for calm is sufficient, so we don't want to adopt a strong standard operating procedure.
> 
> 
> 
> Joelline


----------



## Joelline

Thank you GenJen and Cuchu!

I appreciate your explanations. I'm still a newbie here (I think I'm approaching my 2-month anniversary!), and honestly didn't realize until very, very recently that the Mods were not compensated for all of their hard work and useful contributions to WR! I can't offer you monetary compensation, but I can certainly offer you my respect, admiration, and kudos for a vocation (NOT a job) very well done, indeed.  

As Spock was wont to say: May you and WR live long and prosper!  

Highest regards,
Joelline


----------



## ceci '79

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Foreros are not welcome to hijack threads


 
Something I don't understand about the internet is how many behaviours that in real life are pretty normal and common (and hardly noticeable)receive these harsh, terrifying names online.

For example...

Adding a new slightly unrelated perspective has become going _off topic_.
Mentioning a different related topic is now _hijacking _a thread.
Being a bit heated has become _trolling._
Having a heated reaction has become a _flame war_.
Heideita might simply have seen a conncetion between the two topics - she did not necessarily_ hijack_ anything. 

Conclusion: This makes me think that online communities are much less tolerant and above all less nuanced than real life communities. 

So I see what Märta is saying and the overrection elicited by her first message kind of shows her point better than any of her messages.

But there's a but. I don't think this reaction it has anything to do with WR being a business. I think online communities are different from real life communities and much less tolerant of certain communicative habits. And not very nuanced. 

Where in real life we use our empathy, here online we use this conceptual thinking and "pseudo-legal, pseudo-philophical" (like she wrote) arguments to interact with people. 

But of course the thread was closed before anyone but the more informed senior members and moderators had time to really read it and express their opinions (such as mine here above).


----------



## ceci '79

I just want to add an average politician here online would be described as a hijacking troll that often goes off topic and takes part to many flame wars... in real life we honour these people publicly (after cursing them of course).


----------



## emma42

Hi Ceci.  Just to take up your point about "online communities being less tolerant and less nuanced than real life communities", (and I am only talking about these WR Fora), I would say the following:

You could liken the discussions to a debate in a hall, where there is a chairperson to keep people on track and moderate people's behaviour towards one another.  I certainly would not object to that.  I would not want the debate to descend into, for example, personal attacks and irrelevancies.  No, I would want the debate to stay on topic and cordial.

We have to remember that this is not a pub or a bar.  It is a discussion forum.

Are you in any agreement with me?

Emma


----------



## ceci '79

emma42 said:
			
		

> Hi Ceci. Just to take up your point about "online communities being less tolerant and less nuanced than real life communities", (and I am only talking about these WR Fora), I would say the following:
> 
> You could liken the discussions to a debate in a hall, where there is a chairperson to keep people on track and moderate people's behaviour towards one another. I certainly would not object to that. I would not want the debate to descend into, for example, personal attacks and irrelevancies. No, I would want the debate to stay on topic and cordial.
> 
> We have to remember that this is not a pub or a bar. It is a discussion forum.
> 
> Are you in any agreement with me?
> 
> Emma


 
Yes, absolutely. However, I daresay that most people are more familiar with a discussion in a pub than in a debate hall. 

Just to clarify, I don't think these WR forums are worse or less tolerant and nuanced than any other online community. I am just a bit skeptical about the value of debate without empathy - unless objectivity is strictly necessary, as in the case of academic / scientific debate, for example.

[EDIT] Actually, this is my pont: Even in a discussion hall I imagine the tone of the moderator would be something like "Please, ladies and gentlemen / Mr X / Ms Y, let's get back to our original theme. This is becoming irrelevant". But online people become hijackers, trolls, flame launchers...


----------



## emma42

I understand what you are saying, Ceci. But, take it from me, there is LOADS of empathy, humanity and humour on these Fora.  The enforcing of Rules, including closing threads, in no way precludes those things.


----------



## ceci '79

emma42 said:
			
		

> I understand what you are saying, Ceci. But, take it from me, there is LOADS of empathy, humanity and humour on these Fora. The enforcing of Rules, including closing threads, in no way precludes those things.


 
Thank you for you kind words.  

I realize that I was rather targeting the standard online language used to characterize certain communicative behaviours... I find it so harsh!


----------



## cuchuflete

Hi Ceci,
I agree that computer language in general, and forum terms in particular are harsh and melodramatic. Just think of "data dump", "terminal failure!" and the "blue screen of death"!

We have some WR jargon that's a little softer...we "pongo" a thread rather than the more common "trash it". Why don't you come up with some better terminology, and we can give it a try?

example (I'm a terrible creative writer, so don't gag too much, please.)  Instead of off-topic, how about 'adrift'?


----------



## Joelline

Cuchu,

Be careful what you ask for; you may just get it! The first time a Mod tells me I'm "adrift," I'm going to post, "All hands on deck! Lower the anchor, batten down the hatches, tow me to a safe harbor..." Then, the others on the thread will start a discussion of nautical terms and .... 

Ultimately, what will happen is that *all* of the current terms will take on a nautical flavor:

Adding a new slightly unrelated perspective will become going *off course. *
Mentioning a different related topic will become _*pirating* _a thread.
Being a bit heated will become *sinking other people's ships*.
Having a heated reaction will become a _*sea battle*_.
It's just not a pretty picture! 

I think just adding a "please" at the end of "stay on topic" or "don't troll" would do it!  On the other hand, what do I know?  I didn't even know what trolling and flaming meant until today!


----------



## ceci '79

Hi Cuchuflete, what a great idea! Thank you!

The "blue screen of death" made me laugh!  

I am not sure my creative writing skills are that great, but maybe with your help and the help of the other foreros we could come up with something much friendlier (and less frightful)!  

I think that most of these communicative behaviours are unintentional and accidental, so all these radical and accusatory terms should be avoided.

I like "adrift" very much because it implies that the discussion has veered a bit, perhaps unintentionally. It is less radical and not as accusatory as "off-topic." Alternative: "not very pertinent."

For "hijacking" I would suggest something like "diverting", "confusing", "taking over"...

A "troll" could be an "agitator".

But these are just suggestions I threw out there.  Any improvements are welcome (I'm curious to see what comes out of this).


----------



## ceci '79

Joelline said:
			
		

> I think just adding a "please" at the end of "stay on topic" or "don't troll" would do it!


 
Yes, good idea, maybe. But what about "Your message is off-topic."? You can't say "You message is off-topic, please" or "The discussion is becoming off-topic, please." 

[EDIT] So you're suggesting that these harsh terms are so well-established that any other choice would be ridiculous?


----------



## Joelline

NO, ceci '79, I'm not suggesting that at all. I am suggesting that other choices have inherent problems as well. 

For example, you suggested that a "troll" could be an "agitator". For me, as an AE speaker, an agitator is a much stronger, harsher term than "troll." When I think of trolls, I think of the scandinavian tricksters, and I imagine that they look like the ones on this site (you have to scroll down to get a clear picture of some trolls):
http://troll.freeservers.com/

Yes, I know that the "troll" in trolling is NOT the same as one of these silly little creatures, but that's the image that pops into my mind.

Again, as an AE speaker, I don't find most of the terms used now to be overly harsh (I'm not fond of "hijacking," but "kidnapping" sounds silly in this context: here's where a neologism such as "thread-napping" might work!). 

But my larger point is that using more polite language in general would be a good idea. 

You're right, of course; one does not say, "The discussion is becoming off-topic, please." But, "Please stay on-topic" is said, is polite, and does mitigate what you find to be harsh language. 

I wonder how much of the harshness you perceive may be a language issue? How are the Italian speaking Mods? Does their language offend you? I ask this NOT because your English isn't superb--it's truly excellent! But years ago, I took a couple of Italian courses. My Italian never was very good, but I could (barely) communicate when I went to Italy. One day, I was chatting (in my bad Italian) with a shop-keeper at a stall who was trying to sell me a sweater (that I really wanted to buy, but that was too expensive for me--a poor student at the time). Then, he offered to lower the price significantly if I bought 2 sweaters! Suddenly a word that we had studied and seen used in our Italian textbook popped into my head! Proudly (proud of having remembered the word!), I smiled and said, "Che furbacchione!" He became furious! Fortunately, I didn't understand what he was calling me, but I knew it wasn't good. I was horrified that, somehow, I had insulted him when I thought I was saying, "What a clever man you are!" 

You can see my point, I hope! Some of these terms may not be quite as harsh as you believe them to be. They don't seem that way to me, but maybe I just don't take them as seriously. 

I have found 10 times more kindness than I have of incivility or harshness on these forums. On the other hand, sometimes I actually feel sick reading the posts in the cultural forum! It's not the mods there who are offensive; it's the foreros! Some of the discussions (especially political or religious) become horribly ugly, with name-calling and hideous accusations, with nobody listening to anyone else, but only intent on shouting out their own ideas! I've decided just to stay away from them, in general, or to be very choosy about which ones I even look at (I do like the one on jokes and humor!).

We all want the same thing: cordial, enlightening, discussion with interesting people about topics we love or care about deeply. I think we can all work to achieve that here at WR!

Ciao,
Joelline


----------



## ceci '79

Joelline said:
			
		

> For example, you suggested that a "troll" could be an "agitator". For me, as an AE speaker, an agitator


 
Yes. It's better if it's a native speaker who comes up with this kind of suggestions. I'm well aware of that.  



			
				Joelline said:
			
		

> I wonder how much of the harshness you perceive may be a language issue?


 
I could very well be. I'm not sure. In the past I've seen these terms (such as "troll") being used for a very wide variety of behaviours, ranging from very offensive, vulgar and disruptive to mildly irritating. The same term is used, for example, to describe both a teenager who posts a couple of naive provocations (teenagers can come across rather strong), and an ill-willed adult who floods a forum with spam, porn and racial discrimination. The difference lays in the intentionalty of the behaviour (and it's nature as well). 

After all, "_The word [troll] likely gained currency because of its apt second meaning, drawn from the "trolls", which are portrayed in Scandinavian folklore, and children's tales, as often ugly, obnoxious creatures that are bent on wickedness and mischief._" (Source)

The same goes for hijacking. Some people "hijack" a thread by posting a long, fussy and uncalled-for reply to a secondary and irrelevant remark in someone else's message. But someone else could veer completely unintentinally, sincerely convinced to be still on-topic. Imagine their surprise (and perhaps indignation) at being called a "thread hijacker"! 

Also "off-topic" as an adjective is so-so, although not as harsh as the other examples. I like your exhortation "Stay on-topic, please." It's a good compromise.

In conclusion, I think that these terms should be used carefully...



			
				Joelline said:
			
		

> How are the Italian speaking Mods? Does their language offend you? I ask this NOT because your English isn't superb--it's truly excellent! But years ago, I took a couple of Italian courses. My Italian never was very good, but I could (barely) communicate when I went to Italy. One day, I was chatting (in my bad Italian) with a shop-keeper at a stall who was trying to sell me a sweater (that I really wanted to buy, but that was too expensive for me--a poor student at the time). Then, he offered to lower the price significantly if I bought 2 sweaters! Suddenly a word that we had studied and seen used in our Italian textbook popped into my head! Proudly (proud of having remembered the word!), I smiled and said, "Quel furbacchione!" He became furious! Fortunately, I didn't understand what he was calling me, but I knew it wasn't good. I was horrified that, somehow, I had insulted him when I thought I was saying, "What a clever man you are!"


 
 Thank you so much for your kind words and your amusing story - _furbacchione_ means more or less "sly person." Sorry you had to go through that (that vendor was rather intolerant and hot-tempered, though, since _furbo _actually means "clever").

I don't find find these forums to be harsh at all, and even Cuchuflete's reply is a great example of kindness and open-mindedness.


----------



## TimeHP

Hi all.



> Why don't you come up with some better terminology, and we can give it a try?



Yes, it could help, but I think that we should pay much more attention to the tone of our posts. And to the fact that sometimes the words of a post are decontextualized, or, worse, manipulated.
I think that we should be a bit more honest when we discuss. I like this forum, more or less, but, sorry, sometimes I notice a lack of good faith.
Is there a remedy for such a defect?
Maybe talking and even get a bit angry (but not more than 'a bit'... )

Ciao
(Sorry, I'm not an English mother tongue and I may be not as clear as I'd like)


----------



## ceci '79

TimeHP said:
			
		

> Hi all.
> Yes, it could help, but I think that we should pay much more attention to the tone of our posts. And to the fact that sometimes the words of a post are decontextualized, or, worse, manipulated.
> I think that we should be a bit more honest when we discuss. I like this forum, more or less, but, sorry, sometimes I notice a lack of good faith.
> Is there a remedy for such a defect?
> Maybe talking and even get a bit angry (but not more than 'a bit'... )


 
Hear hear!  
What you say is very true of most forums and most discussions, unfortunately. 

Maybe toning down the competitive spirit a bit?


----------



## OlivierG

We could find a more politically correct vocabulary for this forum, but I'm afraid it'd become harder to understand for people who don't speak English fluently.
Ceci wrote, about the word "troll":


> The same term is used, for example, to describe both a teenager who posts a couple of naive provocations (teenagers can come across rather strong), and an ill-willed adult who floods a forum with spam, porn and racial discrimination. The difference lays in the intentionalty of the behaviour (and it's nature as well)


I have to disagree. The word "troll" is very specific to people who post a message in the sole intent to spark off a conflict, to make people react strongly about what they say. They don't care about the actual topic, they just want the thread to become a nice mess.
Well, let's take an example. If you post a thread in the Spanish forum saying:
"Spanish is not a real language, it just borrowed words from Italian and French, and added 'o's and 'a's  here and there", you obviously expect a "flaming" discussion about your lack of education.
If you did this intentionally, you are a "troll". (if you really think what you wrote, then you are a blithering idiot, but it's another debate).

This word has acquired its own precise meaning, now understood by almost everybody. Finding another one, or using a circumlocution would be useless in my opinion, and would just result in unnecessary confusion.


----------



## cubaMania

I seldom stray into this forum, but as to WR in general, my opinion is that the mods do a terrific job.  I do not consider the moderating to be overly strict.  In fact I'm grateful for the civil tone that the moderators usually manage to maintain.  Whether or not I agree with any one particular decision, I do not consider an occasional closed thread to be a significant problem.  And if I do occasionally disagree with the mods' reasons for some action, I consider it a tiny price to pay for the preservation of the excellent level of discussion found in these forums.  My suspicion is that the vast majority of users feel similarly.  I hope a few shrill malcontents will not adversely affect the outstanding way these forums are currently moderated.

(In my opinion, the TONE alone--obnoxious, rude, confrontational, and disingenous--of the complainants in the "We contribute to a busineness.  Obviously not free!" thread was enough to justify closing the thread.  But as I said, even if I had not agreed I would not consider it a big problem to have the thread closed.  Moderators make judgment calls.  Not 100% of forum members will agree 100% of the time.)


----------



## timpeac

I have found
- 39 threads containing the word "troll"
- 18 threads containing the word "flaming"
- 24 threads containing the word "hijacking"

Now, obviously there will be a few other permutations of these words, but then again some threads will be represented more than once above.

Now, we have at last count 140,821 threads in total! When you think of how many posts each of those threads have and the number of instances of those words being used... a tiny percentage! I don't understand your point at all Ceci. I didn't include "off-topic" as a search word there, because if you find that term offensive, well - there's always the Disney channel for you to watch.


----------



## geve

timpeac said:
			
		

> I didn't include "off-topic" as a search word there, because if you find that term offensive, well - there's always the Disney channel for you to watch.


Now I find _that_ to be offensive  -and yet, there is not one single word in that sentence that could be considered offensive in itself.
I don't see how "off-topic" could be offensive, indeed. A thread has a topic, and if you don't stick to it, you're off-topic. Whether one says "Please stick to the topic of the thread" or "Please refrain from making off-topic comments" sounds pretty much the same to me. 

I can understand that sometimes such a remark can sound "dry", but I can also understand that taking the time to 'wrap up' each one of these comments (that moderators might sometimes have to post quite a few times per hour) in a diplomatic packing might seem like a waste of energy.

I also agree with Olivier: choosing other words might make it more difficult for learners. If we chose to write "adrift" instead of "off-topic", I would have to check my dictionary, and you have no idea how lazy I am.  As for saying "not relevant" - well, I find that to be more offensive than "off-topic"! Something can be relevant but still not on-topic...


----------



## jester.

geve said:
			
		

> Now I find _that_ to be offensive



I like the answer because it just shows how _strange_ it is to say that "off-topic" is offensive.

A little contribution to the current discussion: I like the strict moderation here, everything here is quite well structured and order is maintained very well.


----------



## Jana337

ceci '79 said:
			
		

> Maybe toning down the competitive spirit a bit?


I must be living on another planet because I perceive the spirit here as very friendly and cordial.

Jana


----------



## cuchuflete

Yes Jana, Illinois is another planet.

I frequently see a healthy competitive spirit among translators, but that's quite apart from the unhealthy competition to 'sell' a viewpoint that we find in some of the religious and political threads in the Cultural Discussion forum.
That's where things tend to go off-topic, where threads are hijacked. Look at the thead supposedly about low fertility rates in Europe. A few foreros used that thread as a pretext to attack followers of a religion. You might wish to characterize it as 'heated' rather than competitive. In any case, the tone was combative.

I'm off to find a Disney animated film.  Fairy tales are always full of trolls.


----------



## Bienvenidos

I've noticed the rise in "WR RIGHTS AND MOD ACTIONS" threads in the last few days, and me being computer-less until the factory ships back my laptop, I'll keep this short.

1) I think our moderators are excellent. They're funny, not strict. Funny. Funny.  They're extremely polite, and I've come to know them personally over my short time here.

2) I agree that there's humor and lightheartedness all around this forum. Even when closing threads. I just visited a closed thread in the CD forum and smiled, and laughed, and then smiled some more, and then laughed some more when I read Jen's hillariously entertaining closing comment:



> Since this thread has apparently worn out its shelf life, it is now closed. Please add any further insight in the other thread.


 
A funny pun, indeed, since the thread was about "fake name brands".  And I see great, respectful words like "please" and "insight" in there, too.  

And now I'll go make a salad for lunch. With croutons. 

*Bien*


----------



## charlie2

Reading some of those recent controversial threads has made me a bit uneasy. If we have to assume intentions, can we assume good intentions instead?


----------



## cuchuflete

Hi Charlie,
I share your desire to assume good intentions.  Sometimes it becomes apparent quite rapidly that there is a superficial intent, and also a not very well hidden agenda.  The great majority of threads are direct and honest.  A few unfortunately are not.


----------



## TimeHP

> can we assume good intentions instead?


 
I agree with you. 
Ciao


----------



## heidita

I am the hijacker, and late for this thread, possibly closed by now.

I was surprised to see, that both threads I was talking about were closed by mods who had not actively participated in it. I thought that to be strange and unrespectful. 

But then we must not forget the personal issue. Some people do not have the privilege to be friends with all the mods and they sometimes take harsh action because of a personal issue. After all, mods are only human, but in this case I think they have no right to do as they please, as long as the member is not rude or unrespectful him/herself.

Of course, I am still in a state of shock, as I mentioned, that the mods do not get paid. But then, apart from liking the language and being a very passionate language lover like me, do we have a reason of power abuse? You don't become a mod because of the money. But what about the power you have ? That 's sometimes more important for people than money and a very _powerful _reason.


----------



## timpeac

heidita said:
			
		

> I am the hijacker, and late for this thread, possibly closed by now.
> 
> I was surprised to see, that both threads I was talking about were closed by mods who had not actively participated in it. I thought that to be strange and unrespectful.


It was probably quite deliberate. If a mod who was involved in the thread then shut it they would be accused of having to have the last word (or judging by some of the threads recently, worse than that!)


			
				heidita said:
			
		

> But then we must not forget the personal issue. Some people do not have the privilege to be friends with all the mods and they sometimes take harsh action because of a personal issue. After all, mods are only human, but in this case I think they have no right to do as they please, as long as the member is not rude or unrespectful him/herself.
> 
> Of course, I am still in a state of shock, as I mentioned, that the mods do not get paid. But then, apart from liking the language and being a very passionate language lover like me, do we have a reason of power abuse? You don't become a mod because of the money. But what about the power you have ? That 's sometimes more important for people than money and a very _powerful _reason.


I'm not sure where you're going with this. Mods are carefully chosen, vetted and screened and discussed before they are asked to come on board. Someone who was power-crazed would not be asked to become a mod no matter how much they would like to be asked.


----------



## heidita

Nice word: power-crazed. Well, let's see what other people think, as I have seen this power crazyness. But then : who would dare to give a name?


----------



## emma42

If a mod was "power-crazed", then the other mods or Mr Kellogg would do something about it.  I think some people may be looking for fault where there is none.


----------



## geve

heidita said:
			
		

> Nice word: power-crazed. Well, let's see what other people think, as I have seen this power crazyness. But then : who would dare to give a name?


I don't know about power crazyness, but what I see could be called simply "the human factor". 
It's like in a sport game: there are rules, and there are people to enforce the rules (the referees). Sometimes (more than often if we are to believe after-matchs discussions in pubs!), decisions made by the referees are debatable.
In my mind there are two things on this forum that can help in this matter: There are guidelines and rules on which decisions are based; and there's more than one moderator in each forum, which should mean that there's always a possible 'recourse' if needed.


----------



## cuchuflete

Hi Heidita,

You and I both like a lively debate, and you have certainly invited one with these comments. I hope I don't disappoint you by agreeing with you at times. 





			
				heidita said:
			
		

> I am the hijacker, and late for this thread, possibly closed by now. You knew darn well when you wrote that last sentence that the thread was open. Otherwise you would not have been able to even begin a reply. Still, I compliment you for your wit!
> 
> I was surprised to see, that both threads I was talking about were closed by mods who had not actively participated in it. I thought that to be strange and unrespectful. It is the precise opposite of strange and unrespectful. The people who participated in the threads did so as foreros. Had they suddenly changed uniforms, become moderators, and then closed the threads, you and others would have rightfully screamed about the unfairness of it all. Meanwhile, non-participating moderators looked at the threads' development with some objective distance, which they would presumably have lost as participants, and made decisions to close the threads. In both cases they stated their reasons.
> 
> But then we must not forget the personal issue. Some people do not have the privilege to be friends with all the mods and they sometimes take harsh action because of a personal issue. After all, mods are only human, but in this case I think they have no right to do as they please, as long as the member is not rude or unrespectful him/herself. This is the sort of innuendo that deserves a stern reply. If you have evidence, and not vague generalities, of misbehavior by a moderator based on a supposed friendship with some foreros, or supposed animosity towards others, then provide it to the mod of your choice. I expect you might find at least one or two that you consider to be fair.
> 
> You are absolutely correct in stating that a mod has no right to "do as they please". They have both the right and the duty to attempt to maintain the spirit of the forum guidelines, and they are deemed responsible users of the power to do so.
> Moderator actions in any forum will inevitably result in disagreement and negative emotional responses from affected foreros at times. If those times were to become frequent, then the moderator's judgment would be questioned both by fellow mods, and by the Administrator.
> Action would be taken.
> 
> For example, in the course of what I do as a moderator, I receive some PMs with thanks, and some complaints and disagreements, and some rather ugly attacks. If the latter categories were to regularly exceed the first one, you can be quite certain that Mr. Kellogg would send me away.
> 
> Of course, I am still in a state of shock, as I mentioned, that the mods do not get paid. You say you are a teacher. In most of the world, teachers are not paid for much of the effort they make on behalf of their students and schools. I expect you do a lot of work for which you are not compensated, other than with the satisfaction that comes from the work itself. This forum work is somewhat similar. But then, apart from liking the language and being a very passionate language lover like me, do we have a reason of power abuse? You don't become a mod because of the money. But what about the power you have ? That 's sometimes more important for people than money and a very _powerful _reason.


 Regarding power as a motive, I suspect that a power-hungry person would not be selected. If they were, they would likely overuse and abuse the power, and that would become quite obvious very quickly, and would result in withdrawal of the power.


----------



## ceci '79

heidita said:
			
		

> I am the hijacker, and late for this thread, possibly closed by now.
> 
> I was surprised to see, that both threads I was talking about were closed by mods who had not actively participated in it. I thought that to be strange and unrespectful.
> 
> But then we must not forget the personal issue. Some people do not have the privilege to be friends with all the mods and they sometimes take harsh action because of a personal issue. After all, mods are only human, but in this case I think they have no right to do as they please, as long as the member is not rude or unrespectful him/herself.
> 
> Of course, I am still in a state of shock, as I mentioned, that the mods do not get paid. But then, apart from liking the language and being a very passionate language lover like me, do we have a reason of power abuse? You don't become a mod because of the money. But what about the power you have ? That 's sometimes more important for people than money and a very _powerful _reason.


 
Well, of course I agree with you, Heideita. You made a very good point, in my opinion. Some mods carry out their mod tasks for ideal reasons, but nothing excludes that others might do it for the love of power. I had laways thought that free work = ideailsm, but now I see that there can be another reward that doesn't come with a Euro / Dollar symbol on it: the feeling of power. 

This said, I *don't* think that *all* mods choose to be mods for this reason (just so nobody replicates the tiresome "business" thread).


----------



## ceci '79

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Hi Heidita,
> Regarding power as a motive, I suspect that a power-hungry person would not be selected. If they were, they would likely overuse and abuse the power, and that would become quite obvious very quickly, and would result in withdrawal of the power.


 
Cuchuflete,

I don't want to name names, but in some cases (not yours, in case you might be wondering) that is actually quite obvious (at least to me).


----------



## cubaMania

heidita said:
			
		

> ...But then we must not forget the personal issue. Some people do not have the privilege to be friends with all the mods and they sometimes take harsh action because of a personal issue...


For the record, I am not friends with, acquainted with, nor in correspondence with any of the moderators, nor have I ever been.  The only things I know of them are what I can surmise from reading their posts, and likewise the only things they know of me are what they can surmise from reading my posts.

I think the mods do a fantastic job.  I have been corrected by the mods.  In one case I could clearly see I had violated a rule and I gladly changed my post.  In another case I did not agree with the mod; I thought he misunderstood what I said.  Rather than waste everyone's time I simply deleted my post and went about my business.

Have you considered these possibilities?
1.  It is not necessary to make a huge fuss about everything with which you are not in total agreement.
2.  You may be wrong in your evaluation of the motives of the mods.  Try modifying your own tone and attitude and see how it goes.

For the record, my observations of the mods are uniformly that they are earnestly trying to be fair while at the same time trying to preserve order and civility and relevance in the forums, and doing a *dang fine job* of it, sometimes under quite trying circumstances.


----------



## timpeac

This thread seems to be wandering all over the place. Could we please stick to Joelline's questions? To remind these were

- is a thread closed by agreement among the mods, or *is a single moderator free to do as she/he wishes*?
- In other forums, mods often intervene to remind (warn) us to stick to the topic or... Almost always, those participating in the topic immediately backtrack and either fall silent or post responses directly related to the topic. Of course, the mods also delete off-topic posts (with an explanation), as well. But they almost never just shut the thread down. *Why not follow the same pattern in this forum*?
- "The thread about whether or not controversial posts should be deleted has been temporarily removed, to allow all of us to calm down. 
It will be re-opened in the near future. Please hold your ideas on this topic until the thread is re-opened." *Why not make that a standard procedure on the "over-heated" threads?*

Can we please stick to this? I hope that no one will see more conspiracy theories than in a Dan Brown book if a moderator removes future posts not on this topic in this thread.

Tim (moderator)


----------

