# Proposal for members to be "released" from a moderator



## Ynez

I am not asking for special treatment. I am asking that all members can choose to be released from one moderator after X posts.


----------



## Ynez

Thank you for creating this thread. 

Some of us can't help but feeling hurt when we see the same moderator once and again editing us. Seeing that there are dozens of moderators, I consider that it would not be so difficult if we could please ask not to be moderated by someone in particular, who might have a very different character from ours, or any other reason.

It could be one moderator every 1,000 posts, 5,000 posts. I don't know.


----------



## JamesM

Who are you asking?


----------



## Ynez

JamesM said:


> Who are you asking?



To whom it may concern.

I didn't create this thread, but anyhow it is _Comments and *Suggestions*_. Do you think I should create this thread in a different place?


----------



## Cagey

I don't know whether this was James' question, but my question would be, _Whose opinions are you asking for?_


----------



## Ynez

Whose opinion are the threads in this section addressed to, Cagey?

I have a question now: Is it such a strange question?


----------



## Suehil

It's a fairly strange question, yes.  It is not a matter of character; all you need to do to release yourself from all moderators is simply abide by the rules and guidelines of the forum you are posting in.  

It's not so hard - the majority of our members manage it.


----------



## Dmitry_86

Suehil said:


> It's a fairly strange question, yes.  It is not a matter of character; all you need to do to release yourself from all moderators is simply abide by the rules and guidelines of the forum you are posting in.
> 
> It's not so hard - the majority of our members manage it.



Surprisingly, it is sometimes extremely hard, even impossible, I would say


----------



## JamesM

Any given format will not fit everyone. The function, style and purpose of WRF is different from many sites on the internet; the focus is narrower, the format is more concise, and the rules and guidelines are fairly actively enforced.

If it is impossible to abide by the rules and guidelines it may not be a good fit. That doesn't mean the person is wrong or the rules are wrong, just... incompatible.

As Suehil said, given the amazing volume of posts here each day, the number of posts on which action is taken is very small, so it does seem to be possible for many people to operate within the guidelines.

As for being "released" (or "exempt") from a particular moderator's actions, it seems like an unwieldy way to deal with an issue.  Any action by a moderator can be challenged and appealed by a participant by contacting any other moderator in that forum.   If that fails to give satisfaction, the participant can take it up with the board owner.  There is no need for each moderator to keep a list of "exempt" participants to refer to before taking any action.  It is an overly-complicated solution to a problem that can already be handled with existing procedures.


----------



## Dmitry_86

Ynez said:


> Thank you for creating this thread.
> 
> Some of us can't help but feeling hurt when we see the same moderator once and again editing us. Seeing that there are dozens of moderators, I consider that it would not be so difficult if we could please ask not to be moderated by someone in particular, who might have a very different character from ours, or any other reason.
> 
> It could be one moderator every 1,000 posts, 5,000 posts. I don't know.



You seem to be saying exactly what I am currently thinking about. Even your words sound as if it was me who has created this very thread and this very suggestion. 

Very often, as the British say, tastes differ. What one says is not always clear to the other. I mean that different rules however obvious and transparent they were are interpreted differently by people. For this reason, conflicts arise. For example, very often I found myself in a situation when I was accused of creating multi-topic thread whereas I actually did not. Well, it is true that I asked several questions in one thread but these questions cannot be considered as separate and independent because the connections present among them are logical and obvious. If we forbid everyone to ask several very close questions in one thread, people will start creating multiple threads concerned with almost the same question. As a result, repetition will become unavoidable because we will be complelled to write again and again one and the same background but focus on different examples. This is useless and will cause a great aamount of redundancy.

Now about moderators. Dear moderators, I am sure you are all educated and civilized people and regularly take part in different international events such as workshops, conferences, meetings, etc. I am a very experienced conference participant because I have been engaged in my topical field of signal processing for 6 years already despite the fact that I am only 23 now. Do you know how the reviewing process usually takes place? People submitting papers send their manuscripts via e-mail or by means of specially designed electronic systems, fill special forms and .... they are provided with a list in which they can highlight the names of those reviewers whom they do not want to see as people assessing their work. They (people submitting papers) do not have to explain why they rejected a particular reviewer. Maybe because they have already met each other and had a crow or probably just because they disliked their name or avatar. Actually, it does not matter at all. This list is very large and, if I am not mistaken, usually 20% of reviewers are allowed to be declared undesirable by each participant. This system works fine and no one is offended or upset. Why not doing the same thing here? Maybe the only change contributed is to choose moderators whom you want to see as your reviewers rather than to mark those whom you do not want to. It is a good idea and quite feasible if approved.

All the best



JamesM said:


> Any given format will not fit everyone. The function, style and purpose of WRF is different from many sites on the internet; the focus is narrower, the format is more concise, and the rules and guidelines are fairly actively enforced.
> 
> If it is impossible to abide by the rules and guidelines it may not be a good fit. That doesn't mean the person is wrong or the rules are wrong, just... incompatible.
> 
> As Suehil said, given the amazing volume of posts here each day, the number of posts on which action is taken is very small, so it does seem to be possible for many people to operate within the guidelines.
> 
> As for being "released" (or "exempt") from a particular moderator's actions, it seems like an unwieldy way to deal with an issue.  Any action by a moderator can be challenged and appealed by a participant by contacting any other moderator in that forum.   If that fails to give satisfaction, the participant can take it up with the board owner.  There is no need for each moderator to keep a list of "exempt" participants to refer to before taking any action.  It is an overly-complicated solution to a problem that can already be handled with existing procedures.



I will repeat very briefly that it seems impracticable and inconceivable only at first sight. Many servers on the Internet have already found a key to the problem and this key has been acknowledhed as efficient. If necessary, I can provide particular links addressing this issue.


----------



## cuchuflete

1. Some of the smaller forums have only a single moderator.  This proposal is not in any way reasonable or logical for those forums.

2. Some of the forums have two or three moderators.  Given time zone differences, the need to work outside the forum, to say nothing of such trivial matters as sleeping, eating, bathing, etc., there is often only a single moderator "on duty" during long periods of the day or night.  For a member to be excused from any one of the moderators would mean that the member would be free to do whatever they pleased, including actions contrary to forum rules and guidelines.  Any needed moderator action would be severely delayed or overlooked.  This is not a logical or reasonable proposal for these forums.

3.  Let us assume that we are discussing one of the larger forums, such as Vocabulario general or English Only.  Suppose that a given forero is "free from moderation" by Moderator XXX, whom we shall call Henrietta the Horrendous, just for purposes of argument.  Now suppose HtH sees a post by Rfam (the user name adopted by a _hypothtetical_ member *r*eleased *f*rom *a* *m*oderator) that insults another forero.  

Under current procedures, Henrietta would delete the post.  She might also send a PM to Rfam. Under the proposal, Henrietta would not be allowed to moderate Rfam, so HtH would have a few choices:  (1) Report the post and hope that another large forum moderator would see the report promptly and take needed action.  The action would, of course, be identical to the actions that HtH would have taken under the current procedures.  (2) Henrietta could use other means to try to contact another moderator, such as a PM, e-mail, instant message, telephone or telepathy.  These might be successful in establishing prompt contact, or they might be, just like Report-a-Post, unsuccessful.  If the post is not removed promptly, it could provoke a similarly insulting response, and the thread would go to hell-in-a-handbasket in a matter of minutes. (3) The moderator Henrietta, not allowed to deal with Rfam, would have only one other choice: Close the thread.  Then wait for another moderator to arrive and sort things out.  This would be unfair to all thread participants, even including Rfam, who may have made good contributions in addition to showing a darker side.  

The problems with this are self-evident:  A.  Action is delayed, when it needs to be as prompt as possible.  B. It creates more work for more moderators all to accomplish exactly what might have been accomplished by HtH or any single moderator.  C. It puts at risk the needs and wants of the thread starter and other participants and readers of the thread.  

Is it feasible to do this in large forums?  Yes.  Is it logical and reasonable?  No.
It would also be an administrative nightmare.  Some moderators work in more than one forum.  They may have duties both in a large forum and in a very small one, in which they are the only mod or one of two.  Thus they would be unable to moderate Rfam in Forum X<>Y, but still have to actively moderate Rfam in Forum W<>Z.  

Frankly, it's all totally unnecessary.  We recently added some members to a forum team.  Part of our basic moderator training included a section about what to do when there is, for any reason, good or bad, sane or otherwise, scientific or emotional... "bad blood" between a moderator and a single member.  The new moderators were taught to do what the more experienced moderators already do:  Avoid the member whenever possible.  Call on other team members to deal with that person _when that is a possibility.   _When other moderators are not around, or are otherwise occupied, take actiion when prompt action is required.  Otherwise, and I repeat, "avoid the forero".  

This is logical, reasonable and feasible.  It will not make every Rfam happy at every moment of every day.  It will serve the large forum community fairly well.


----------



## Suehil

Your point about separate but related questions is valid, but here you have to remember that all our threads are linked to the dictionary and as such have to be searchable under the word being discussed.  It seems to create redundancy, but it actually makes the system more efficient.
Moderators are not the same as reviewers.  What they do has no consequences to the poster - they are just tidying the forum.  They are all volunteers and are on line at different times.  If a moderator happens to be on line when something needs to be done, then that moderator does it.  It would be very difficult, if not impossible, to arrange it otherwise.


----------



## Ynez

Dmitry, thank you very much for talking about all those systems. I had no idea about any of them. I only made up this idea because I was trying to find a solution.

Now, from all the suggestions I am reading here (thank you very much, I think this information should be found somewhere, because some of us feel helpless) I find that some of them are much more conflictive than mine. For instance, I don't think that telling other moderators is a good idea. Do you really like receiving those complaints? What do you do in those situations?





cuchuflete said:


> We recently added some members to a forum team.  Part of our basic moderator training included a section about what to do when there is, for any reason, good or bad, sane or otherwise, scientific or emotional... "bad blood" between a moderator and a single member.  The new moderators were taught to do what the more experienced moderators already do:  Avoid the member whenever possible.  Call on other team members to deal with that person _when that is a possibility.   _When other moderators are not around, or are otherwise occupied, take actiion when prompt action is required.  Otherwise, and I repeat, "avoid the forero".
> 
> This is logical, reasonable and feasible.  It will not make every Rfam happy at every moment of every day.  It will serve the large forum community fairly well.




Now this gave me an idea. If we send a private message to a moderator telling him/her "I think there is bad blood between you and me", do you think this would solve the problem? What type of reply should we expect from the moderator? And also, would those who take part in several large forums be allowed to send this type of message to more moderators than those who only participate in a forum with one or two moderators?

Of course, I still prefer my own system. It looks cleaner and nicer to me. I don't know how it could be or if it could be implemented, but maybe someone comes with more ideas.


----------



## Dmitry_86

cuchuflete said:


> 1. Some of the smaller forums have only a single moderator.  This proposal is not in any way reasonable or logical for those forums.
> 
> 2. Some of the forums have two or three moderators.  Given time zone differences, the need to work outside the forum, to say nothing of such trivial matters as sleeping, eating, bathing, etc., there is often only a single moderator "on duty" during long periods of the day or night.  For a member to be excused from any one of the moderators would mean that the member would be free to do whatever they pleased, including actions contrary to forum rules and guidelines.  Any needed moderator action would be severely delayed or overlooked.  This is not a logical or reasonable proposal for these forums.
> 
> 3.  Let us assume that we are discussing one of the larger forums, such as Vocabulario general or English Only.  Suppose that a given forero is "free from moderation" by Moderator XXX, whom we shall call Henrietta the Horrendous, just for purposes of argument.  Now suppose HtH sees a post by Rfam (the user name adopted by a _hypothtetical_ member *r*eleased *f*rom *a* *m*oderator) that insults another forero.
> 
> Under current procedures, Henrietta would delete the post.  She might also send a PM to Rfam. Under the proposal, Henrietta would not be allowed to moderate Rfam, so HtH would have a few choices:  (1) Report the post and hope that another large forum moderator would see the report promptly and take needed action.  The action would, of course, be identical to the actions that HtH would have taken under the current procedures.  (2) Henrietta could use other means to try to contact another moderator, such as a PM, e-mail, instant message, telephone or telepathy.  These might be successful in establishing prompt contact, or they might be, just like Report-a-Post, unsuccessful.  If the post is not removed promptly, it could provoke a similarly insulting response, and the thread would go to hell-in-a-handbasket in a matter of minutes. (3) The moderator Henrietta, not allowed to deal with Rfam, would have only one other choice: Close the thread.  Then wait for another moderator to arrive and sort things out.  This would be unfair to all thread participants, even including Rfam, who may have made good contributions in addition to showing a darker side.
> 
> The problems with this are self-evident:  A.  Action is delayed, when it needs to be as prompt as possible.  B. It creates more work for more moderators all to accomplish exactly what might have been accomplished by HtH or any single moderator.  C. It puts at risk the needs and wants of the thread starter and other participants and readers of the thread.
> 
> Is it feasible to do this in large forums?  Yes.  Is it logical and reasonable?  No.
> It would also be an administrative nightmare.  Some moderators work in more than one forum.  They may have duties both in a large forum and in a very small one, in which they are the only mod or one of two.  Thus they would be unable to moderate Rfam in Forum X<>Y, but still have to actively moderate Rfam in Forum W<>Z.
> 
> Frankly, it's all totally unnecessary.  We recently added some members to a forum team.  Part of our basic moderator training included a section about what to do when there is, for any reason, good or bad, sane or otherwise, scientific or emotional... "bad blood" between a moderator and a single member.  The new moderators were taught to do what the more experienced moderators already do:  Avoid the member whenever possible.  Call on other team members to deal with that person _when that is a possibility.   _When other moderators are not around, or are otherwise occupied, take actiion when prompt action is required.  Otherwise, and I repeat, "avoid the forero".
> 
> This is logical, reasonable and feasible.  It will not make every Rfam happy at every moment of every day.  It will serve the large forum community fairly well.



Your example, dear cuchuflete, deals with isults, which should definitely be nipped in the bud. I agree that in such cases this thread should be closed. Moreover, if this insult addresses a particular person and/or is made on purpose, moderators are eligible to ban the person. However, I meant a different thing. There are many other discrepancies which are difficult to handle. As for me, I have been warned many times for breaking forum rules. I agree with only 10% of all the warning messages I have received so far and these messages were sent when I was an inexperienced participant. All the rest messages do not correspond to how I interpret a particular forum rule. Similar problems also concerned other members!!! Your statement about time zones is reasonable because now, for example, it is night in Saint-Petersburg and my friends-moderators working in Russia are sleeping, but in the USA it is daytime now. I think that the solution to the problem consists in involving more volunteers. I know that this job is interesting despite being unpaid.

I also approve of your phrase about avoiding the member when and if possible. Your signature is also brilliant: "that moderator is best that mods least". In 99% of cases this simple rule works.



Suehil said:


> Your point about separate but related questions is valid, but here you have to remember that all our threads are linked to the dictionary and as such have to be searchable under the word being discussed.  It seems to create redundancy, but it actually makes the system more efficient.
> Moderators are not the same as reviewers.  What they do has no consequences to the poster - they are just tidying the forum.  They are all volunteers and are on line at different times.  If a moderator happens to be on line when something needs to be done, then that moderator does it.  It would be very difficult, if not impossible, to arrange it otherwise.



Thanks for your agreement. Yes, your forum has a good opportunity for searching for a word via the search engine. But what made you think that asking related questions in one thread will prevent a person from finding what they have been looking for? Imagine, for instance, I am asking about some technical term. I do not know the word but I know the options that might fit. First I provide description of what I want to address by one word and then forum members make suggestions. When the discussion of these suggestions has been finished and we have come to some conclusion, I can do the following: introduce, for example, 10 collocations with THE BEST suggestion and ask whether these collocations are idiomatic or in some of them the original word, despite being recognized as best according to my description, must be substituted. This will help prevent many threads from appearance and, besides, new forum members will understand the subject of the thread quicker than in the case when there is no description given and only sample sentences are posted. When some time has passed and you, for example, decide to find something on the topic, you enter the word in the gap and see the link. No problem!!!

I do not think that modeartors' work leads to no consequences for the poster. They must combat disobedience and violence of the rules and guidelines struggling for purity of the forum, but sometimes they overdo it.


----------



## JamesM

I think you misunderstand the most common use of this site. As far as I understand, nearly 90% of the traffic to this site is generated through the dictionary. The dictionary links to the forums through the thread _titles_, not through the thread _contents._ The thread contents provide additional information to researchers about the use of a word or phrase in context (hence the constant harping on "context and background" for every question.) When looking for a particular collocation or a word in the context of a phrase, ten clickable thread titles with ten posts each is much more useful than one thread with a hundred posts.

What you are seeing as "redundant" when opening ten threads on different collocations is actually creating ten links in the dictionary for various collocations. This facilitates the most common searches here. The rules and guidelines support this organization of the material.

It is not the sole purpose of the site to serve as an adjunct to the dictionary but it is an overarching goal and one of the primary reasons for its existence. Perhaps this will help make the reasoning clearer behind the rules.



> They must combat disobedience and violence of the rules and guidelines struggling for purity of the forum, but sometimes they overdo it.


 
By now I'm sure you know the procedure to follow if you think that any specific action is an example of a moderator "overdoing it".


----------



## Dmitry_86

Ynez said:


> Dmitry, thank you very much for talking about all those systems. I had no idea about any of them. I only made up this idea because I was trying to find a solution.
> 
> Now, from all the suggestions I am reading here (thank you very much, I think this information should be found somewhere, because some of us feel helpless) I find that some of them are much more conflictive than mine. For instance, I don't think that telling other moderators is a good idea. Do you really like receiving those complaints? What do you do in those situations?
> 
> Now this gave me an idea. If we send a private message to a moderator telling him/her "I think there is bad blood between you and me", do you think this would solve the problem? What type of reply should we expect from the moderator? And also, would those who take part in several large forums be allowed to send this type of message to more moderators than those who only participate in a forum with one or two moderators?
> 
> Of course, I still prefer my own system. It looks cleaner and nicer to me. I don't know how it could be or if it could be implemented, but maybe someone comes with more ideas.



Of course, I do not tell modearators that we are "bad blood" with them. In fact, the vast majority of them have helped me substantially both via the present forum and in response to some personal questions and requests. I have suffered some unpleasant moments, however, but I try to retain my composure and not to use sharp-words when arguing or opposing.


----------



## Ynez

Dmitry_86 said:


> Of course, I do not tell modearators that we are "bad blood" with them. In fact, the vast majority of them have helped me substantially both via the present forum and in response to some personal questions and requests. I have suffered some unpleasant moments, however, but I try to retain my composure and not to use sharp-words when arguing or opposing.



Some moderators are among my favourite users in the forum too, but I can send one of those messages of "bad blood" if that is the procedure.


----------



## Dmitry_86

JamesM said:


> I think you misunderstand the most common use of this site. As far as I understand, nearly 90% of the traffic to this site is generated through the dictionary. The dictionary links to the forums through the thread titles, not through the thread contents.  The thread contents provide additional information to researchers about the use of a word or phrase in context (hence the constant harping on "context and background" for every question.)
> 
> What you are seeing as "redundant" when opening ten threads on different collocations is actually creating ten links in the dictionary for various collocations. This facilitates the most common searches here. The rules and guidelines support this organization of the material.
> 
> It is not the sole purpose of the site to serve as an adjunct to the dictionary but it is an overarching goal and one of the primary reasons for its existence. Perhaps this will help make the reasoning clearer behind the rules.
> 
> By now I'm sure you know the procedure to follow if you think that any specific action is an example of a moderator "overdoing it".



No, James, I understand very clearly how your search engine functions. I know that the key words are those used in thread titles and the thread contexts are ignored during the search. In order to make it clearer I will give you one example: Recently I asked a question dealing with the name of a particular type of noise encountered in practical applications of signal processing. I entitled the thread "a special type of noise". The contents of my first post encompassed the salient description of this noise and then I suggested two possibilities for the noise name and asked forum members which option is best. When satisfied with the answers I decided to introduce 10 collocations which I found in my dictionary. I wanted to make sure they are correct and have not become outdated. All the collocations included either word and I wanted to know which word was best. However, having done so I received a message that I have created a multi-topic thread. Have I? I think, I have not because both words were in the the thread and I just wanted to know which one agrees with a particular word that follows. I did not asl to explain each of the 10 collocations, I just wanted to know whether they seem OK.

Now imagine I started creating 10 threads each devoted to a particular example. This would drive you moderators mad!!!



Ynez said:


> Some moderators are among my favourite users in the forum too, but I can send one of those message of "bad blood" if that is the procedure.



It is amazing but you seem to be thinking the same way as me again!!! There are moderators that are my favorite ones. However, your second idea is not so good as as the first one about making friends with moderators. It is better not to unleash resistance and be wiser. I do not know the original idiomatic English proverb but translating from Russian I hav got "The worst peace is better than the best quarrel"

I have found it: "A lean compromise is better than a fat lawsuit"


----------



## JamesM

> Now imagine I started creating 10 threads each devoted to a particular example. This would drive you moderators mad!!!


Actually, no, it wouldn't.  Creating ten threads, one for each example, fits in with both the spirit and the letter of the site. As someone visiting the dictionary, I would love to see the list of collocations and click on the one I was interested in, rather than wading through a thread with responses about nine or ten I wasn't interested in.

As moderators, we have to keep in mind how the information is organized for the benefit of later research. This includes avoiding duplicate threads, merging duplicate threads, requesting that people research first (which is rule #1), trimming off-topic content and confining a thread to a single topic.

It is a very specific format. Personally, I have never encountered another site like it. However, the content and format work for tens of thousands of users a day and the site receives compliments and accolades specifically because it is organized in this fashion. It seems to serve a particular purpose for a large number of users around the world. It will not be a suitable format for every user's individual purposes in using the forum. 

Proofreading, for example, is not allowed in the English Only forum, and yet we receive many requests for proofreading each day. It is not within the scope of the forum. There are many sites for such requests, but this is not one of them. If that makes it useless for a person needing to have some proofreading done, that's understandable. It doesn't mean, however, that it would be best for the forum to include proofreading because we receive requests for it.  "Please proofread my résumé / cover letter / email" would not be useful content for anyone looking up any of those words.

Likewise, it may suit you to ask about ten collocations in one thread. That might suit your purposes. However, if it is at odds with the format of the forum it is outside the bounds of the rules and guidelines. It may not make it the most efficient or convenient site for your requests. That's understandable. It does keep the site functioning in its current format, though, for all the users who use it precisely because of its format.

Every site has its own functions, features, and purposes. The moderator's job on this site is to keep it functioning within the mandates of the guidelines and rules that are already set forth. A participant may find himself at odds with that format. If he can work within the format he may find the results well worth the effort. If not, it may not be the most suitable site for his purposes and goals.



Ynez said:


> Now, from all the suggestions I am reading here (thank you very much, I think this information should be found somewhere, because some of us feel helpless)


 
The information about moderators and how to dispute an action is freely available here:



> _What do I do if I disagree with a moderator action?_
> Discussions about moderator or administrator actions are welcome via email or private message, but should not be discussed in the public forums. This is out of respect for the members and moderators involved.
> If you don’t understand or agree with a moderator’s actions, send a private message to that moderator or another moderator that you trust. Your complaints and suggestions are welcome and will help us improve the WR forums.
> 
> _How do I contact a moderator?_
> At the bottom of each forum is a list of members who moderate that forum. Their names are also listed on the Forum Leaders page, accessible at the bottom of the forum’s main page. To contact a moderator, click on his/her username or avatar to send a private message.


This is found by clicking on "Moderator FAQ" in section 15 of the basic rules of the site (see below):



> *These are Moderated Forums*
> Moderators are forum members who supervise individual forums. They may edit, delete, or modify any posts in their forums. Please direct your questions about a particular forum to that forum’s moderator.
> 
> Moderators are also forum members. Unless they say otherwise, or it is clear from context, their posts are made as members. Comments made by moderators may not necessarily reflect the opinions of WordReference.com.
> Discussion about the rules should take place in the Questions, Comments and Suggestions forum. Discussions about moderator or administrator actions should be discussed via email or Private Messages – not in the public forums.
> More information about the moderators is available in this Moderator FAQ.





			
				Ynez said:
			
		

> I find that some of them are much more conflictive than mine. For instance, I don't think that telling other moderators is a good idea. Do you really like receiving those complaints? What do you do in those situations?


 
Complaints are taken seriously. The individual action is reviewed, usually by multiple moderators. If the action does not seem consistent with the rules or guidelines it is usually reversed. The complainant is contacted with the results of the review. 



			
				Ynez said:
			
		

> Now this gave me an idea. If we send a private message to a moderator telling him/her "I think there is bad blood between you and me", do you think this would solve the problem? What type of reply should we expect from the moderator?


 
If you read the notes above you will see that it says "or another moderator you trust." If you do not trust any moderator in that particular forum you may contact another moderator you know with an explanation of the problem. If that doesn't work for you, you can always contact the board owner.


----------



## panjandrum

To the point.

There appear to be two out of hundreds of thousands of members who have a problem.

Have these members thought that perhaps the problem is not the moderators?

Just passing through.  I have a few other members  _fish _to fry.


----------



## Kelly B

If you wish to have a second opinion about a moderator action, you might click the red triangle to report an edited post or a private message. Post reports can be viewed by the entire moderator team. In the teams I know best, controversial reports are discussed at some length, often by three or more moderators in the forum team. You'll generally find that the team agrees with the action taken - this makes sense, as we support the same guidelines and principles - but at least you'll know that the final decision wasn't personal or individual.

Please keep in mind that this may take a while. We often have to pass through several time zones before the others log on, and... well... we do tend to go on a bit*. 

*discuss at length


----------



## alacant

panjandrum said:


> To the point.
> 
> There appear to be two out of hundreds of thousands of members who have a problem.
> 
> Have these members thought that perhaps the problem is not the moderators?
> 
> Just passing through. I have a few other members  _fish _to fry.


 
I'm in total agreement. 

As they say in Spain "es lo que hay" and no one holds a gun to anyone's head to use WR. If you don't like the way it is run maybe the answer is to find somewhere else where you would be happier.

Fly high and be happy, ala


----------



## Loob

cuchuflete said:


> We recently added some members to a forum team. Part of our basic moderator training included a section about what to do when there is, for any reason, good or bad, sane or otherwise, scientific or emotional... "bad blood" between a moderator and a single member. The new moderators were taught to do what the more experienced moderators already do: Avoid the member whenever possible. Call on other team members to deal with that person _when that is a possibility. _When other moderators are not around, or are otherwise occupied, take actiion when prompt action is required. Otherwise, and I repeat, "avoid the forero".


Cuchu's comment seems to me very wise, and rather humbling.  


Ynez said:


> Now this gave me an idea. If we send a private message to a moderator telling him/her "I think there is bad blood between you and me", do you think this would solve the problem?


Maybe, Ynez.  It couldn't do any harm, could it?


----------



## Dmitry_86

JamesM said:


> Actually, no, it wouldn't.  Creating ten threads, one for each example, fits in with both the spirit and the letter of the site. As someone visiting the dictionary, I would love to see the list of collocations and click on the one I was interested in, rather than wading through a thread with responses about nine or ten I wasn't interested in.
> 
> As moderators, we have to keep in mind how the information is organized for the benefit of later research. This includes avoiding duplicate threads, merging duplicate threads, requesting that people research first (which is rule #1), trimming off-topic content and confining a thread to a single topic.



Even if the fact of creating multiple threads complies with the forum guidelines, we must contemplate another aspect of it first. Many times there are such messages like "a proofreading request", "out of scope", etc. These messages show that the thread created does not contribute anything to wordreference and its members or contrdicts the existing rules. In other words, having done of such kinds of violations we seem to suppress people's interests who seek some important information here. Now consider creating 10 threads on one topic but with subtle differences in the contents. In this case, the upper part of English Only forum page will be congested with unnecessary information. However, it could be worse because many threads that were at the top of the page before 10 threads appeared will now be found somewhere in the middle of the page or even at the end of it. As a result a person who has just loaded the Wordreference will pay attention to the upper threads and might ignore the ones located lower. What will the purson who has suffered from it do? Write private messages asking to reply to his thread? Possible, but may prove exhaustive and uneffective because some members are not able to receive private messages, some just neglect what has been written to them and some do not have enough time to satisfy the requests of everyone. The only solution in such a situation is to post the second message in the same thread despite the first one remaining unanswered. Is it possible? Yes, it is. But what can they write if they have already asked their question and are waiting for someone's comments? As you see, the situation becomes difficult. Let us remember what I have suggested. I suggested asking these 10 questions in one thread. I repeat, I did not mean that each collocation or phrase should be explained in detail, the latter being a multi-topic thread, which is a breach of the forum rules. I think everyone will benefit from this. I will manage to have my questions grouped within one thread so that the subject will be clear to everyone who has got acquainted with the thread for the first time. Besides, there will be less information for moderators to chect and edit. Finally, what is of the utmost importance, I will not congest and overwhelm the forum allowing other people have their posts at the top of the page, which is critical for them (posts) to be noticed and commented upon.

One of the greates problems of Wordreference is that even newly created threads may disappear very quicly from the field of view. Human vision captures what is at the top of something and only then we do investigate what is below. The number of participants amounts to several thousand or even more and because of this some threads do not receive support. The forum is an international one visited by many people and such problems as described become practically fatal.

Due to what I have written, I see the possibility of starting 10 threads inconceivable. This action will only aggravate the situation with the forum congestion. Only when this problem has been handled successfully, it will be realistic to think about increasing the number of threads dealing with almost the same question(s).

Yours


----------



## cuchuflete

I agree with Loob that it couldn't do any harm, but frankly I think it is probably rather obvious to all parties concerned when there is a contentious feeling in the air.  Here's a recent example of this sort of thing.

1. A moderator deleted a post in one of the bilingual forums.  It contained explicit statements about a language other than the language pair of that forum.  Those statements, however kind the intention that led them to be included, did not address the thread topic directly or indirectly or by way of another planet.

2. The moderator received a pm protesting the deletion.  It was, to put it rather mildly, less than cordial.  It contained some insults.

3. There was a further exchange of pms, including the normal attempts at factual explanation, disagreement on points of fact, and also a few more ripe insults.

4. The moderator in question informed other members of the moderator team that he would no longer moderate the person involved, for the rather obvious reason that it is difficult to be objective towards someone who has insulted you numerous times.  We do strive for objectivity.

All that said, if that moderator were to see a post by the member in question that was directly and strongly contrary to the second forum Guideline*, which is the basis of most of our rules, and if he thought it was apt to provoke bloodshed, he would remove it instantly, and then call on colleagues to intervene.

Would there be any benefit, or harm, in a note from that member to that mod stating that they were not the best of friends?  You decide.

.
.
 


* The Forums promote learning and maintain an atmosphere that is serious, academic and _*collaborative,*_ *with a respectful, helpful and cordial tone.*


----------



## Dmitry_86

cuchuflete said:


> I agree with Loob that it couldn't do any harm, but frankly I think it is probably rather obvious to all parties concerned when there is a contentious feeling in the air.  Here's a recent example of this sort of thing.
> 
> 1. A moderator deleted a post in one of the bilingual forums.  It contained explicit statements about a language other than the language pair of that forum.  Those statements, however kind the intention that led them to be included, did not address the thread topic directly or indirectly or by way of another planet.
> 
> 2. The moderator received a pm protesting the deletion.  It was, to put it rather mildly, less than cordial.  It contained some insults.
> 
> 3. There was a further exchange of pms, including the normal attempts at factual explanation, disagreement on points of fact, and also a few more ripe insults.
> 
> 4. The moderator in question informed other members of the moderator team that he would no longer moderate the person involved, for the rather obvious reason that it is difficult to be objective towards someone who has insulted you numerous times.  We do strive for objectivity.
> 
> All that said, if that moderator were to see a post by the member in question that was directly and strongly contrary to the second forum Guideline*, which is the basis of most of our rules, and if he thought it was apt to provoke bloodshed, he would remove it instantly, and then call on colleagues to intervene.
> 
> Would there be any benefit, or harm, in a note from that member to that mod stating that they were not the best of friends?  You decide.
> 
> * The Forums promote learning and maintain an atmosphere that is serious, academic and _*collaborative,*_ *with a respectful, helpful and cordial tone.*



That makes sense. Insults and indecent hints must be tracked and punished. The forum rule placed in the footnote is among the ones that can hardly ever be questioned.



alacant said:


> I'm in total agreement. I can't believe that Cultural Café was opened with the aim of it being a place for people to complain.
> 
> As they say in Spain "es lo que hay" and no one holds a gun to anyone's head to use WR. If you don't like the way it is run maybe the answer is to find somewhere else where you would be happier.
> 
> Fly high and be happy, ala



"Complain"??? Who is complaining? No one is complaining. We are discussing and exchanging opinions of the forum rules. "Complaining" is when you mention names but if you just tell one about a thread or a question that has proved controversial, it cannot under any circumstances be considered complaint. Examples clarify what we try to make other people understand and only with the help of them will we manage to deal with problems.

Now about your idea of holding a gun to one's head to make them use Wordreference. You are right, no one has ever aimed at me with a weapon for the purpose of seeing me as part of WR  But just suggesting abandoning the forum will not help and heal. When we come to public organizations such as clinics, police, commumity services, we are sometimes treated badly. So does it mean we have to leave the clinic where medical treatment should be allocated for free owing to our insurance and go to another clinic, pay and see a doctor there? I think, you will not agree with me. If you happen to get a cold welcome at the clinic and if you are insulted, you will probably want to inform your insurance company about the incident so as to make them delve into it and defend your rights. Of course, forum is not obligatory, it is a volunteer occupation but since it is available on the Internet to everyone, everyone must try to find compromise rather than offer to exclude members. 

Again I would like to recollect a proverb depsite being unsure of how it is said in the idiomatic way: "There is no possibility of solving a problem only when one has already sunk into the grave. Some people, however, manage to find these possibilities even when they have found themselves there" 



panjandrum said:


> To the point.
> 
> There appear to be two out of hundreds of thousands of members who have a problem.
> 
> Have these members thought that perhaps the problem is not the moderators?
> 
> Just passing through.  I have a few other members  _fish _to fry.



You were right when saying "appear". We both know what "appear" means. It means we are not sure about something and can only assume or predict. You were assuming here, panjandrum. Many people just do not bother writing private messages or contacting moderators in some other ways. A lot of forum members including me use WR for academic purposes and many remain unsatisfied.


----------



## Trisia

Just a note.


Dmitry_86 said:


> Even if the fact of creating multiple threads complies with the forum guidelines, we must contemplate another aspect of it first. ...


I understand your concern. We share it. This is why rule #8 states:


> *Be considerate.*
> No flooding. If you post several threads, do your best to ensure that  no more than 5 of them appear on the front page of a forum at any one time. This  allows other members' threads to get their share of attention.



I think the key word here might be patience. On both sides.


----------



## JamesM

Dmitry_86 said:


> A lot of forum members including me use WR for academic purposes and many remain unsatisfied.


 
Is this not also an assumption?  How many is "many"?  If we go only by what we see we have a thread opened from time to time where from somewhere around two to six forum members are dissatisfied.  Out of six thousand active members this is a 0.1% expressed dissatisfaction rate at any given time.  Assuming everyone who writes is speaking for ten who don't write, this is still a 1% dissatisfaction rate. 

The number of active members continues to grow.  The number of users continues to grow. There is an avenue provided for speaking directly to the board owner.  This, too, is not flooded with requests to change the forum format or requests to change the rules or remove certain moderators, as far as we've been told.

Operating on those facts, if you were a moderator, what would your assumptions be?  What conclusions would you draw?  I don't think our assumptions or conclusions are unusual, given what we have to go on.


----------



## cuchuflete

This conversation has wandered fairly far from Ynez's topic:



> I am asking that all members can choose to be released from one moderator after X posts.


Dmitry_86 clearly wants his interpretation of forum rules, or his re-casting of forum rules, to apply to Dmitry_86.  He is certainly entitled to advocate for that position in this forum.  Such advocacy is quite apart from the proposal put forward by Ynez.   Accordingly, I suggest that Dmitry_86 open a new thread to propose whatever changes he thinks would be beneficial.  


There is unanimity among the English Only moderator team about interpretation of current forum rules and guidelines. In the event that Ynez's proposal were adopted, say at the 5000 post level, one would need some fifty or sixty thousand posts to be "free of" the entire English Only moderator team.


----------



## for learning

Hello everyone!!

I don`t particularly see any necessity of taking such measures(what Ynez proposed)but I am conscious that my opinion about this subject could be less worthy than others.
I just have a question that I can`t help asking!. You are suggesting that in case of having some "discrepancy" with one moderator the forero could send any private message to another; however, you are suggesting too that (usually?) there is unanimity among moderators!!!.

Thanks a lot, and I thank you all for allowing me to take part in W.R.!
Best regards!!. Have a nice day.


----------



## Ynez

panjandrum said:


> Have these members thought that perhaps the problem is not the moderators?



panjandrum, I already admitted that it is something personal. 



			
				Ynez said:
			
		

> But then we are human, and when we have been edited for reasons we cannot understand, it builds up and it becomes irrational. We just can't bear it any more, even when that person is right.


http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=943963&page=8  (page 8)

There are about 50 moderators in the forums I've been taking part. I consider that nothing much would happen if I could choose not to be moderated by 10 or more, and they would not have to be the ones who are most frequently in the forum.






			
				cuchuflete said:
			
		

> I agree with Loob that it couldn't do any harm, but frankly I think it is probably rather obvious to all parties concerned when there is a contentious feeling in the air.



cuchuflete, according to your story, some people make it very obvious.


----------



## cuchuflete

for learning said:


> Hello everyone!!
> 
> I don`t particularly see any necessity of taking such measures(what Inez proposed)but I am conscious that my opinion about this subject could be less worthy than others.
> I just have a question that I can`t help asking!. *You are suggesting that in case of having some "discrepancy" with one moderator the forero could send any private message to another; however, you are suggesting too that (usually?) there is unanimity among moderators!!!.*
> 
> Thanks a lot, and I thank you all for allowing me to take part in W.R.!
> Best regards!!. Have a nice day.



Hi for learning,

That's a very fair question.  When I said that there is unanimity among the EO moderators, I meant that we all operate from a common understanding of terms such as "proofreading" as used in the forum rules.  We all interpret "a maximum of four sentences of quoted text are permitted" exactly the same way.  Beyond that, there are areas in which we apply our individual judgment to a situation.  

This is most often seen in matters involving "off-topic posts".  There is no way I can think of to codify a precise measure of how near or far a message is to a thread topic; we use our educated judgment and experience.  This is an area in which a member and a moderator may disagree, and it is useful to contact another moderator.  What usually follows is a team discussion in which there are a range of viewpoints.  If the initial request is made objectively—without too many references to somebody's grandparents and livestock—it may result in a reversal of the initial decision, or an attempt to reach a compromise.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

Ynez said:


> There are about 50 moderators in the forums I've been taking part. I consider that nothing much would happen if I could choose not to be moderated by 10 or more, and they would not have to be the ones who are most frequently in the forum.



Let me see if I understand the point you're trying to make: first you said you wish you could "be released from *A* *(one)* moderator" seeing as, in your personal opinion, one moderator dislikes you or your posts.
Now you have moved further, and you don't want to be moderated by *"10 or more" *moderators.
What's the next step? Will you demand that you should be moderated by only one specific moderator whom, of course, you want to be able to choose?


----------



## Dmitry_86

Paulfromitaly said:


> Let me see if I understand the point your trying to make: first you said you wish you could "be released from *A* *(one)* moderator" seeing as, in your personal opinion, one moderator dislikes you or your posts.
> Now you have moved further, and you don't want to be moderated by *"10 or more" *moderators.
> What's the next step? Will you demand that you should be moderated by only one specific moderator whom, of course, you choose?



 That is a good idea!!! Why not? I even know whom I am going to choose if such an opportunity is provided. . Seriously speaking, I approve of my colleague's suggestion. No matter how many moderators we will be entitled to exclude from our personal preference list. The key point is that we will manage to legally intervene in the process of thread contents assessment.


----------



## Ynez

Paul, this is the kind of conversation which could take place in private and I am not really interested at all in having. You change my words and say things that I have never said. Fortunately for you and me, we are not in the same forums. 

To satisfy your doubts, my deepest need is to get free from one moderator in particular, but I'd happily have some others not moderating me. 

I told panjandrum: 



			
				Ynez said:
			
		

> I consider that nothing much would happen if I could choose not to be moderated by 10 or more



And it is true, nothing would happen. 


This is what I said first:



Ynez said:


> It could be one moderator every 1,000 posts, 5,000 posts. *I don't know*.




Now, I have to accept your proposal is the very best:



			
				Paulfromitaly said:
			
		

> Will you demand that you should be moderated by only one specific moderator whom, of course, you want to be able to choose?



I would feel really honoured if I could choose to be moderated by only one. I would ask that Dmitry could also have that privilege, and of course Loob if she also wants.


----------



## for learning

Thank you very much Cuchuflete for your reply.
Ynez, I misspelt your name, sorry, I have just corrected it. Un saludo.
Best regards!.


----------



## cuchuflete

Dmitry_86 said:


> That is a good idea!!! Why not? I even know whom I am going to choose if such an opportunity is provided. .


But what if none of the moderators wants the high honor of being your personal mod?  



> Seriously speaking, I approve of my colleague's suggestion. No matter how many moderators we will be entitled to exclude from our personal preference list.


Your personal *what?   *Sorry, I'm afraid we ran out of personalized rules, personalized guidelines, and personalized moderators some time ago.  Ever since then, the entire community has had to share a single set of rules, guidelines, and moderators.  Most have found the experience reasonably pleasant.  It's a classic example of "one size fits all".  Those who cannot squeeze into it comfortably have to go elsewhere for their haberdashery.  



> The key point is that we will manage to legally intervene in the process of thread contents assessment.


 No.  "Thread content" is governed by the existing "one size fits all" rules.  This is not a democracy.  Acceptable thread content is not negotiated.  

Let us be very clear.  You may not have a personal moderator, selected on the basis of your assessment of which moderator is most likely to agree with your interpretation of the rules, in the interest of your personal use of the forum to meet your personal needs, and to the detriment of the entire forum community.  It just is not going to happen.

Short form of the above:  No.


----------



## Ynez

cuchuflete, it was not our idea.


----------



## cuchuflete

Ynez said:


> cuchuflete, it was not our idea.



Ya lo sé, Ynez.  I'm planning something interesting for Paul's tricycle...


----------



## Dmitry_86

cuchuflete said:


> But what if none of the moderators wants the high honor of being your personal mod?



Are you sure that none wants? 




cuchuflete said:


> Your personal *what?   *Sorry, I'm afraid we ran out of personalized rules, personalized guidelines, and personalized moderators some time ago. Ever since then, the entire community has had to share a single set of rules, guidelines, and moderators. Most have found the experience reasonably pleasant. It's a classic example of "one size fits all". Those who cannot squeeze into it comfortably have to go elsewhere for their haberdashery.
> 
> No. "Thread content" is governed by the existing "one size fits all" rules. This is not a democracy. Acceptable thread content is not negotiated.
> 
> Let us be very clear. You may not have a personal moderator, selected on the basis of your assessment of which moderator is most likely to agree with your interpretation of the rules, in the interest of your personal use of the forum to meet your personal needs, and to the detriment of the entire forum community. It just is not going to happen.
> 
> Short form of the above:  No.



I did not mean "my personal interpretation of the rules". Yes, rules are the same for everyone, but we are all living people and tend to interpret even similar things differently. Besides, we are subject to mood swings and emotions along with revealing personal preferences. Right I am or wrong, but one thing is indisputable: rules ARE interpreted differently by different mods. Frankly speaking, I cannot see how it can harm or hurt the forum community. Unless, of course, someone does things considered commonly unacceptable such as offending, placing pornography, etc. I have never done any of these.


----------



## Suehil

For any particular case you are completely free to appeal to any mod you think may agree with you, and the case will be discussed by the mod team.
You are not free to pick and choose who moderates the threads in which you participate.  Nor will that change.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

Suehil said:


> You are not free to pick and choose who moderates the threads in which you participate.  Nor will that change.


You're being very mean!! 
Isn't this "pick and choose" how Justice and Democracy work in every civilised country??
You break the rules, you go to court, you stand trial and if the judge finds you guilty you claim that this particular judge is biased and has it in for you. Then you demand a new judge once, twice, three times until you find a judge that finds you innocent 
Wouldn't it be perfect?
Wonderland, here we come!


----------



## Loob

I'm rather depressed by most of the posts in this thread (there are some _enormously honourable_ exceptions).

In the "real world" we accept that there may be personality clashes between individuals. We should, surely, also accept that there may be personality clashes here in WRF.

Ordinary-forero to ordinary-forero, the solution is simple: Forero A puts Forero B on his/her "ignore list".

But you can't do that when Forero B is a mod.

What should Forero A do when every input by Mod-Forero B sets his/her teeth on edge?


----------



## Dmitry_86

Loob said:


> I'm rather depressed by most of the posts in this thread (there are some _enormously honourable_ exceptions).
> 
> In the "real world" we accept that there may be personality clashes between individuals. We should, surely, also accept that there may be personality clashes here in WRF.
> 
> Ordinary-forero to ordinary-forero, the solution is simple: Forero A puts Forero B on his/her "ignore list".
> 
> But you can't do that when Forero B is a mod.
> 
> What should Forero A do when every input by Mod-Forero B sets his/her teeth on edge?



Forero A should commit suicide in this case, for example, hang himself or herself . If one is serious, I do not think that any dispute may arise among moderators. As a rule moderators are natives and therefore they understand much better than learners which questions are adequate and which are not. By the way, what is "forero"? Is it synonymous with "moderator"? I have not found this word in any dictionary so far.

Best


----------



## Ynez

Dmitry, you were doing so well as my lawyer...are you suggesting now that we are not native? What do you mean?


----------



## Dmitry_86

Ynez said:


> Dmitry, you were doing so well as my lawyer...are you suggesting now that we are not native? What do you mean?



Thanks!!!  It is a pity, but I am not actually a lawyer - I am a mathematician and a tourist guide . Saying "native" I meant a shortened version of "native speaker". The latter is used to talk a person for whom some language, in particular English, is their mother tongue rather than the one they have learnt. The idea behind my previous post is that moderators should, in my opinion, be people originating from an English speaking country: the UK, the USA, New Zealand, Canada, Australia, etc. I suppose that if two people have a fluent English since their childhood it is unlikely that they will hardly ever argue about grammar aspects, lexical matters and other language elements. As regards learners, they will never, I think, master any language better than natives. They may know it remarkably well, but that is something different. Anyway, my suggestion concerned Loob's message where she imagined two moderators seeking truth in one of the questions being discussed.


----------



## Ynez

But you are a native speaker of Russian. 

I understand now the other part: Forero means "forum member", "forum user" (you and me). 


And, Dmitry, the whole idea is wrong: in all the forums I visit there are moderators who are not native (I like them all).


----------



## Dmitry_86

Ynez said:


> But you are a native speaker of Russian.
> 
> I understand now the other part: Forero means "forum member", "forum user" (you and me).
> 
> And, Dmitry, the whole idea is wrong: in all the forums I visit there are moderators who are not native (I like them all).



Thanks for elucidating what "forero" means. A strange abbreviation ,indeed. Unless I knew what it meant I would not probably guess. Speaking about moderators, this forum also has some included in the moderator team. I am  not saying it is wrong for some reason, I am just repeating that natives feel the language better when some colloquial questions have been asked. Of course, in some domains I know much more than an ordinary native speaker. For example, this phrase of mine is applicable to signal processing and artificial intelligence. But that is because I have been engaged in these fields for a huge amount of time.


----------



## JamesM

Loob said:
			
		

> In the "real world" we accept that there may be personality clashes between individuals. We should, surely, also accept that there may be personality clashes here in WRF.
> 
> Ordinary-forero to ordinary-forero, the solution is simple: Forero A puts Forero B on his/her "ignore list".
> 
> But you can't do that when Forero B is a mod.
> 
> What should Forero A do when every input by Mod-Forero B sets his/her teeth on edge?


 
For non-moderating actions, Loob, you _can_ put a moderator on your ignore list. However, if the input you are talking about is a moderator action because of a violation of the rules it would not work to have foreros ignoring such input.

As other moderators have said, it is very common for a moderator to step back from moderating a particular forero simply because there is a personality clash. On the English Only team we will basically "recuse" ourselves, either temporarily or permanently, and notify the others so that they are aware we are no longer moderating that forero. We also check in with each other, particularly if we notice ourselves moderating one person frequently, to make sure that the moderating is based on legitimate grounds. 

Also, if we notice that we have sent multiple messages or deleted/edited multiple threads for one user we usually ask someone else to take over for a while so that the moderating is balanced. It's not always possible, given that we are spread out in time zones from UTC-8 to UTC+2 but I think it works fairly well overall.

I wish there were a way for the average forero to know how much discussion goes on behind the scenes most of the time before any big action, such as an official warning, is taken. Also, there are almost always several private messages to the forero with reminders and referrals to instructions before we even reach that point. (I can't say that this always happens because there are cases where an advertiser will spam multiple forums in the space of two minutes with ads and will be banned immediately, but in the typical day-to-day case there are multiple private messages first.)

As I've said before, the board has a very narrow, focused scope. There are so many things that it isn't. It isn't a chat board, a resource board for materials or language programs, a social networking site, a general discussion board, a proofreading service or a place for free translation work, among other things. If someone is accustomed to such sites it can be quite an adjustment to this format. Because of that, we often send messages explaining the differences, offering examples of contributions that will fit within the scope and encouraging people to re-submit questions in a form that will fit this narrow format.

It is very, very rare that only one moderator will have interacted with a forero from initial contact through the point of a formal warning, and private messages to a forero regarding a violation of the rules are copied to other team members so that everyone on the team is aware of the history and aware of the communication going on, both the content and the tone.

I can only speak for my team but I assume it's the same on the other teams. Of course, some teams are so small that there is no practical way to take a break. With only one or two moderators for some forums it becomes more difficult. So far, though, the forums involved in this discussion have been the larger forums, as far as I know.

If the issue is the action itself, an appeal can be made to another moderator. If the issue is how the action is expressed, that, too, can be taken up with another moderator or moderators. Ultimately, any forero can contact the board owner, Mike Kellogg, if the forero is not satisfied with the response from other moderators. That is the mechanism that is provided, and it appears to be functioning well in almost every case.

If the issue, however, is that the forero simply thinks that the entire structure is wrong and unacceptable and therefore resents any moderator actions that are taken to keep contributions to the board in line with the structure, changing moderators will not help. If the issue is "I like this forum but I want it to be a general discussion board" or "I'd rather be able to chat freely" or "I want to be able to organize all my questions into one thread because it's more convenient for me" it is at odds with the board's format. 

I talk a lot when I'm concerned about something, tending to overcommunicate to avoid misunderstandings, so excuse me for blabbering on.  I want to make it clear that there is a lot of concern, both visible and behind the scenes, about keeping moderation fair and limited to only what is necessary.


----------



## Dmitry_86

JamesM said:


> For non-moderating actions, Loob, you _can_ put a moderator on your ignore list. However, if the input you are talking about is a moderator action because of a violation of the rules it would not work to have foreros ignoring such input.
> 
> As other moderators have said, it is very common for a moderator to step back from moderating a particular forero simply because there is a personality clash. On the English Only team we will basically "recuse" ourselves, either temporarily or permanently, and notify the others so that they are aware we are no longer moderating that forero. We also check in with each other, particularly if we notice ourselves moderating one person frequently, to make sure that the moderating is based on legitimate grounds.
> 
> Also, if we notice that we have sent multiple messages or deleted/edited multiple threads for one user we usually ask someone else to take over for a while so that the moderating is balanced. It's not always possible, given that we are spread out in time zones from UTC-8 to UTC+2 but I think it works fairly well overall.
> 
> I wish there were a way for the average forero to know how much discussion goes on behind the scenes most of the time before any big action, such as an official warning, is taken. Also, there are almost always several private messages to the forero with reminders and referrals to instructions before we even reach that point. (I can't say that this always happens because there are cases where an advertiser will spam multiple forums in the space of two minutes with ads and will be banned immediately, but in the typical day-to-day case there are multiple private messages first.)
> 
> As I've said before, the board has a very narrow, focused scope. There are so many things that it isn't. It isn't a chat board, a resource board for materials or language programs, a social networking site, a general discussion board, a proofreading service or a place for free translation work, among other things. If someone is accustomed to such sites it can be quite an adjustment to this format. Because of that, we often send messages explaining the differences, offering examples of contributions that will fit within the scope and encouraging people to re-submit questions in a form that will fit this narrow format.
> 
> It is very, very rare that only one moderator will have interacted with a forero from initial contact through the point of a formal warning, and private messages to a forero regarding a violation of the rules are copied to other team members so that everyone on the team is aware of the history and aware of the communication going on, both the content and the tone.
> 
> I can only speak for my team but I assume it's the same on the other teams. Of course, some teams are so small that there is no practical way to take a break. With only one or two moderators for some forums it becomes more difficult. So far, though, the forums involved in this discussion have been the larger forums, as far as I know.
> 
> If the issue is the action itself, an appeal can be made to another moderator. If the issue is how the action is expressed, that, too, can be taken up with another moderator or moderators. Ultimately, any forero can contact the board owner, Mike Kellogg, if the forero is not satisfied with the response from other moderators. That is the mechanism that is provided, and it appears to be functioning well in almost every case.
> 
> If the issue, however, is that the forero simply thinks that the entire structure is wrong and unacceptable and therefore resents any moderator actions that are taken to keep contributions to the board in line with the structure, changing moderators will not help. If the issue is "I like this forum but I want it to be a general discussion board" or "I'd rather be able to chat freely" or "I want to be able to organize all my questions into one thread because it's more convenient for me" it is at odds with the board's format.
> 
> I talk a lot when I'm concerned about something, tending to overcommunicate to avoid misunderstandings, so excuse me for blabbering on.  I want to make it clear that there is a lot of concern, both visible and behind the scenes, about keeping moderation fair and limited to only what is necessary.



Thanks for the information, James!!! You should not fell worried about having written so much. Moreover, moderators especially experience ones, to whom you definitely belong, are supposed to explain everything in detail especially when the subject deals with forum rules. I have read your message twice and found a lot of useful facts. Everything is logical and reasonable. I consider most of your statements plausible, fair and necessary because such things as chartboards should indeed be allocated a special section in the forum. Also should we be careful when choosing the thread's name and filtering their contents so as not to contradict the instructions. Still, and this is my key idea passing through the whole thread, we tend to interpret even simple rules differently. Everything that is obvious is so only at first glance as a rule. As practice confirms, misunderstanding and misinterpretation are the major factors leading to private messages whose intentions are far from being welcoming and friendly . I must acknowlege that I have been awarded many kinds of such .


----------



## Ynez

Thank you, JamesM. I can understand that being a moderator must be difficult.

Here in this thread the perspective is another: a forum member.



It would probably be interesting to open a thread talking about the problems involved in being a moderator (especially now that I know some of you get insulted in private!).


----------



## JamesM

I think this is valid information for someone who is sincerely interested in understanding how the board operates, Ynez. If you don't find the information useful there's not much I can do about that. I hope it's useful to someone. If not, they're free to ignore my "input". 

It's a funny catch-22 for moderators. If we participate in threads like this one we can be accused of interfering. If we don't we can be accused of not caring. I'd rather make it clear that I care.


----------



## Cagey

Ynez said:


> Thank you, JamesM. I can understand that being a moderator must be difficult.
> 
> Here in this thread the perspective is another: a forum member.
> 
> [....]


Ah, now I have the answer to my earlier question.  


Cagey said:


> I don't know whether this was James' question, but  my question would be, _Whose opinions are you asking for?_


It wasn't clear to me until now.


----------



## Dmitry_86

JamesM said:


> It's a funny catch-22 for moderators. If we participate in threads like this one we can be accused of interfering. If we don't we can be accused of not caring. I'd rather make it clear that I care.



I approve of your decision!!! In this case it is far better to get involved in the discussion rather than to ignore the one.


----------



## JamesM

Well, that makes one "for" and one "against".


----------



## Dmitry_86

JamesM said:


> Well, that makes one "for" and one "against".



Yes, but these "ones" are not equal ranking (equivalent). The "one" in favour of taking part in the discussion outweighs that which supports a contrary viewpoint


----------



## Ynez

I am not against you, JamesM. That would be like saying that if you delete me for being off-topic, you are against me!


Sorry, I appreciate all contributions here, even those that I don't understand. Truly.


----------



## JamesM

It is a common expression in English.  It means one vote "for" something (in this case, a moderator's participation in the thread) and one vote "against" something.  It doesn't mean one person for another person and one person against another person.  I apologize for any confusion.


----------



## Ynez

Thank you, again. I was not against your participation, just to clarify.


----------



## TimLA

panjandrum said:


> To the point.
> There appear to be two out of hundreds of thousands of members who have a problem.
> Have these members thought that perhaps the problem is not the moderators?
> Just passing through. I have a few other members  _fish _to fry.


 


			
				Cuchuflete said:
			
		

> But what if none of the moderators wants the high honor of being your personal mod?


 
*Bravo! To both of you!*

I'm not sure I've seen any specific examples of problems in this entire thread, but I'm also not sure we need any.

One of the interesting psychological issues with the internet boom and the development of "social websites" is the concept of "ownership".
There are many users who participate in a website, and over time, they feel an "ownership" of that website,
in the sense of "I have participated in this website for a long time, and I know all of these people, so I should have a say in how it's run".
But the "ownership" never really exists.

Many moons ago, my first post on WR was deleted -
I answered as a "joke" and perhaps the mod was having a bad day, or perhaps was humorless.
I said to myself - "whatever" - and went on to the next post.
It doesn't matter. I don't own this website - I don't have control of this website - I wish no control.

Perhaps if someone is having problems on this website, they might ask themselves:
1. Am I *really* being reasonable?
2. Is the mod *really* being unreasonable?
3. Do *I* wish the rules would change so *I* get what *I* want, the way *I* want it?

I'll leave the questions rhetorical...I'd probably get deleted if I answered them.


----------



## JamesM

TimLA said:
			
		

> I'm not sure I've seen any specific examples of problems in this entire thread, but I'm also not sure we need any.


 
Actually, everyone has been very good in this thread about not discussing specific moderator actions since that is a violation of a rule.  I've really appreciated the effort.  I know it's difficult.  I've been there.


----------



## alacant

Ynez said:


> And, Dmitry, the whole idea is wrong: in all the forums I visit there are moderators who are not native (I like them all).


 
So, it seems you have a problem with certain mod/s who are native. Could this be because they are more likely to be sure that they are right when they take action? None of us like being "told off" or having our fingers rapped, however in my experience whenever it has happened to me it's because I've gone too far, or they don't understand the British ironic sense of humour.

To paraphrase, "you can like all of the mods some of the time, some of the mods all of the time, but you can't like all of the mods all of the time", same applies to the way they feel about us, I am sure.


----------



## Dmitry_86

alacant said:


> So, it seems you have a problem with certain mod/s who are native. Could this be because they are more likely to be sure that they are right when they take action? None of us like being "told off" or having our fingers rapped, however in my experience whenever it has happened to me it's because I've gone too far, or they don't understand the British ironic sense of humour.
> 
> To paraphrase, "you can like all of the mods some of the time, some of the mods all of the time, but you can't like all of the mods all of the time", same applies to the way they feel about us, I am sure.



Yes, there were some problems with some moderators which I suppose were not my fault most of the times. Of course, since they deleted or closed some of my threads they considered them to be inappropriate for the present forum. Well, that is very difficult, as you can see.

Best


----------



## Dmitry_86

I want to emphasize one very important thing about this forum, though it is not directly connected with the thread's topic. I have mentioned many times that I am a researcher (applied mathematician) and a tourist guide and that is why I deal with English a lot. I will not reveal secret if I say that English has become international now and mastering it will allow you to not only take part in foreign conferences and publish in international editions but also to earn a lot by holding excursions for foreigners, which I regularly do in summer. From what I have said so far, it is not hard to conclude that I use this forum principally for academic purposes. I am sure that many other people from non-English-speaking countries come here with the same intentions. Have you, moderators, thought why such a thing happens? Why are there so many people looking forward to receiving a competent and detailed answer to their question? The answer is easy to guess: people consulting here, mainly natives, of course, are very clever and talented and, what is more important, are always eager to help providing disinterested assistance. Even when they do not know the subject pretty well, they make suggestions, give ideas that even if not provide a solution but definitely contain clues and key points leading to correct answers. At least, I have never been seriously frustrated with the aid I have received. I hope so did my colleagues.

Now let us think why we have been discussing the subject raised in this very thread for so long? We have already posted more than 50 messages here!!! Something suggests to me that this is not the upper limit and the conversation is to be considered. The reason is that we all highly estimate this forum and the people working for its development and flourishing and making effort to help us. We try to find a compromise when some rules seeming unclear lead to embarassing situations. I must say that among numerous forums I have encountered so far this one is invaluable for me and I always take for granted what has been said by natives. If it were otherwise, believe me, neither I nor other people would not express their opinions about what improvements can be made, what ways of settling all the problematic matters can be effectively used. We could just forget about this forum and stop the discussion. Nonetheless, we do not do this.


----------



## Suehil

Loob said:


> What should Forero A do when every input by Mod-Forero B sets his/her teeth on edge?


 
Much the same as when the situation is reversed (which, believe me, also happens ).  Make the best of it and ask other mods for help if it gets out of hand.


----------



## for learning

Hello everyone!

Once more I can`t help taking part in this thread.I thank you for reading this post. This thread has been born in a previous thread and that`s why I am folowing it, to a great extent.

Since the very begining the rationale or raison de etre of this thread has been questioned.

This is what worries me, more than the subject itself. Actually I have already expressed my opinion about it. James M, you have said something that interested my :



If the issue is the action itself, an appeal can be made to another moderator. If the issue is how the action is expressed, that, too, can be taken up with another moderator or moderators. Ultimately, any forero can contact the board owner, Mike Kellogg, if the forero is not satisfied with the response from other moderators. That is the mechanism that is provided, and it appears to be functioning well in almost every case.

If the issue, however, is that the forero simply thinks that the entire structure is wrong and unacceptable and therefore resents any moderator actions that are taken to keep contributions to the board in line with the structure, changing moderators will not help. If the issue is "I like this forum but I want it to be a general discussion board" or "I'd rather be able to chat freely" or "I want to be able to organize all my questions into one thread because it's more convenient for me" it is at odds with the board's format. 

I would like to ask: does anyone here think that always, the rules, here or everywhere, are absolutly accurate?. Does anyone think that the rules, any rule must be always kept intouched, that they never need changes or that the have to be interpreted always in the same way?. Do anyone here think that rules never have some nuisance to argue?. I know none  of you have said exactly that. Even some of you have expressed and explained your commitment or disposition to reconsider any point of view when, to argue it with your team . That is really commendable. In my case I don`t have any problem with all of this, I have nothing to claim.

But what happens if a member comes to the conclusion that no moderator in W.R is going to accept his/her opinion or point of view about the interpretation of a rule. It wouldn`t be  this forum "Comments and suggestions" a good place, when being respectful with foreros and moderators, to propose a change or to suggest a new idea?. I think it is, isn`t it?.

Thank you once and once again for allowing me to take part in W.R. I hope my poor english let me be understood.

Best regards!


----------



## GavinW

for learning said:


> Since the very begining the rationale or raison de etre of this thread has been questioned.
> Sorry, I don't agree. I don't think it has been questioned. Surely the fact we're still here talking about it proves that...
> 
> This is what worries me, more than the subject itself.
> Like I say, in that case I don't think you need to worry!
> 
> I would like to ask: does anyone here think that always, the rules, here or everywhere, are absolutly accurate?.
> Are you asking "everyone"? If so, my answer is: yes.
> Does anyone think that the rules, any rule must be always kept intouched, that they never need changes or that the have to be interpreted always in the same way?.
> Well, we can always discuss rules if they are not clear and *need *to be interpreted...
> Do anyone here think that rules never have some nuisance to argue?.
> (Sorry, I don't understand this...)
> [...] In my case I don`t have any problem with all of this, I have nothing to claim.
> I don't really understand what you mean when you say "all of this". Do you mean that you agree with all the objections made to the proposal in the thread title?
> 
> But what happens if a member comes to the conclusion that no moderator in W.R is going to accept his/her opinion or point of view about the interpretation of a rule.
> I think James has answered that one.
> It wouldn`t be this forum "Comments and suggestions" a good place, when being respectful with foreros and moderators, to propose a change or to suggest a new idea?. I think it is, isn`t it?.
> Yes, unless (and until) it is pointed out that the new idea or suggestion actually *conflicts* with the aims and workings (modus operandi) of the forum (not to mention its ethos and philosophy), and I think this has been pointed out, in several ways and using various different explanations.
> 
> Thank you once and once again for allowing me to take part in W.R.
> But you don't *need* to thank anyone for that! *Anyone* and *everyone* can take part in WR! That's the beauty of it! ;-)
> This is, in fact, a very *inclusive* place. Most people realize that pretty quickly...
> I hope my poor english let me be understood.
> Your English is not bad at all! (It's much better than my Spanish...). But lots of foreros understand Spanish too, so you could always say something in Spanish if you think you might not be understood in English...
> ;-)


 
I hope someone, at least, finds my answers and comments helpful, even if only a little.


----------



## for learning

Hello!

Thank you GavinW for your reply and for reading my post.
It is more than possible that my previous post added very little to this thread.
I am grateful to W.R and to all the people who work here.
I have no problems neither with W.R`rules nor with their interpratation and I am likely not to have any in the future. It is my wish and my will. I even believe as I have said in other thread that rules play an important roll in W.R. W.R seems to me unique to a great extent because of its rules.
When I said nuisance I meant to say detail or nuance. Sorry.
Then what I meant is that I don`t have any problems neither with the rules nor with their interpretation as I have just said. I have a short experience in W.R, however I can imagine or understand that someone(forero or moderator or both)could in a given moment have a new ideas regarding rules or regarding their interpretation. I suppose that W.R is not the same now than three years ago. Have the rules or their interpretation changed?. I don`t know, but I believe that in some moments it could be worthy to reconsider things. I am not talking about this specific moment nor I am referring to the subject we are arguing. It is just a general idea.
So why am I posting in this thread?.
Mainly to express my opinion that this forum(Comments and suggestions) seems to be a good place to discuss or suggest any idea regarding any other forum or W.R.
It has been my appreciation that in some moments during this thread it was not so. I apologise if that is not true, really.

Best regards!


----------



## Veentea

JamesM said:


> I want to make it clear that there is a lot of concern, both visible and behind the scenes, about keeping moderation fair and limited to only what is necessary.



Even if you didn't say it, it seems clear to me after reading most of this thread and after having followed the original thread from which this one was started.

EXTRA PATIENCE must be one of the qualifications of moderating.  You all have taken a lot of time to reply to what appears to me to be two people in particular and I think that shows your intention to be fair and to limit moderation.

Just my two cents (not sure whether it belongs in this thread, the other or both)


----------



## GavinW

for learning said:


> Best regards!


 
And you, and thanks for taking the time to post again, and for explaining your views so clearly!
Cheers,
Gavin


----------



## ampurdan

Ynez said:


> Thank you for creating this thread.
> 
> Some of us can't help but feeling hurt when we see the same moderator once and again editing us. Seeing that there are dozens of moderators, I consider that it would not be so difficult if we could please ask not to be moderated by someone in particular, who might have a very different character from ours, or any other reason.
> 
> It could be one moderator every 1,000 posts, 5,000 posts. I don't know.



As wonderfully explained by others in this thread, it is not feasible right now.

I agree with other people in this thread when they say it seems unreasonable that you could choose the mods that are going to moderate you; but, if I have understood you well, Ynez, you were not suggesting that. You were suggesting to make it possible to bar a particular moderator from moderating you because of personal reasons. This is quite different and I think it's not unreasonable: 

1. If you've previously clashed with a moderator, that moderator might not be as objective as others.

2. If a moderator has moderated you many times, you are likely to perceive that he or she got it in for you. This can be the case, but it is also possible that you have a problem understanding or abiding by the rules of the forum.

In both cases and whoever has the problem in case 2, I agree that it would be better that other mods moderated you, but I don't think that we can afford a system like the one you suggested. Not any time soon, at least.

If I were the mod that you don't want to mod you, I would certainly try to avoid doing so after receiving your request, but reasons involving fairness and equality might urge me to mod you in some cases.

However, don't forget that in many instances a mod deletes your post or sends you a PM, this action has been previously discussed by several mods.


----------



## Ynez

Thank you for the explanation, ampurdan.


----------

