# Should we have C&S threads in which mods are not allowed to participate?



## coppergirl

Hi everyone! 

First off, I'd like to say this thread comes out of a thought from the "over-moderated" thread, and it was really just a thought about how we might encourage some other new ideas into C&S.

I have nothing against mods and, as I've said before, I think we definitely need good moderators in all the fora. In fact, considering the amount of time they must spend every day on the internet (some of them are on it nearly 24/7), I think it's great that they manage to stay as fair and balanced as they do! 

The reason I was thinking this was just that C&S is a virtual "suggestion box" and with heavy mod participation in most C&S threads, it feels sometimes a bit like a hotel suggestion box where you might be about to put in a suggestion or idea, only to see the manager of the hotel standing right next to the box. 

Then you think "Hmmm . . I was about to put in my suggestion that the hotel was really very good, but the food was disappointing and the mattress a bit lumpy. Should I still do it?" 

So you approach the box, put in your suggestion, thank the manager and then find he has just read your suggestion out loud and assured you that the food is perfectly adequate and no on has ever complained about the mattress before. At that point, you feel a bit like "Wow . . maybe I shouldn't have said anything"  and just then, the chambermaid appears to say that she made up the bed and it was perfectly fine and no one has ever complained about this before. 

At that point, you slink out of the hotel. As you do, you notice a lot of other guests who were about to put in their suggestions, but they saw what happened to you and saw the manager standing there reading everyone's suggestion as it was put in the box. At that point, they sensibly decide to just go without saying their ideas either.

If mod participation in C&S threads is eliminated, then the mods could still discuss all the ideas generated afterwards when they make up the rules or discuss how to run the fora among themselves later. That way, they of course will still have their say (as they should), but they can have it after everyone else has discussed and debated the ideas. 

Of course, forum mods should also moderate the thread as it develops, to avoid chat etc. 

It's just an idea, of course, but then . . .that's what C&S is for, isn't it? 

What does everyone else think?

PS As an added bonus, this would give all the mods even more time to moderate the forums themselves, which would probably be even more efficient from a business point of view!


----------



## Broccolicious

coppergirl said:


> The reason I was thinking this was just that C&S is a virtual "suggestion box" and with heavy mod participation in most C&S threads, it feels sometimes a bit like a hotel suggestion box where you might be about to put in a suggestion or idea, only to see the manager of the hotel standing right next to the box.


 
Hi Coppergirl

I don't see it this way at all, for two reasons: my perception of the Mods, and my understanding of the function of the C&S forum.

From my experience of this site, the Mods are people (yep, _people_)without any kind of sinister agenda. They are interested in people, language and culture, and committed to making this site as useful, user-friendly and intelligent as possible. Sometimes against the odds! Let's not forget that they are _volunteers, _and that this is a free resource. What's more, the Mods I've encountered have brought considerable knowledge and expertise to the threads in which they've posted (whether in 'official' or 'personal' capactities) - their input is as valid and as valuable as anyone's.

As I understand the C&S forum (and I may be wrong), its purpose is to post constructive comments and suggestions to improve the running of the site as a whole. 'Official' feedback is essential in this forum - perhaps more than any other - both to explain processes and rules, and to reassure users that their comments are read and considered. Otherwise - and this is how I imagine the Modless threads you suggest - threads would run the risk of becoming one long round of criticism or questioning, which the Mods could easily and reasonably counter if they were allowed to participate. 

Finally, doesn't that idea simply run counter to the spirit of WR, that everyone's contribution is valid and welcome? In other words, we aspire to work in an atmosphere of collaboration, not censorship.

I hope I've understood your suggestion correctly. It might be helpful if you give some examples of the sorts of discussions from which you would like to see Mods excluded.

Broc


----------



## Nunty

I also don't really see the point of this suggestion.

If I were slipping my suggestions for improvement into the hotel's suggestion box, I would be _delighted_ to see the manager standing there, ready to read my suggestions. Then I could speak with her, exchange opinions, helping her better understand what I'm suggesting, and by listening to her I could gain a better understanding of how she sees things.

I do not see the hotel manager as my adversary, nor do I see the mods as adversaries. It's awful boring to read, I know, but I am grateful that this site is here and that I am able to make as much use of it as I choose without paying a penny. I am grateful to Mike, the proprietor, for everything he does to make this site pleasant and efficient and to the mods, whose indispensable _volunteer_ work keep the wheels rolling.

Why on earth would I want to exclude the folks who keep things running smoothly from a discussion whose goal, presumably, would be to keep things running smoothly?


----------



## Trisia

Hi, coppergirl.

Despite the fact that I found your witty illustration quite charming, I feel compelled to say that mods aren't hotel staff, though they graciously act as hosts. But, I'll take advantage of the fact that I'm neither a mod nor an ex-mod (how can we single them out?) to answer your post.

If you would please have a look at this thread... No need to read it all, or to post. It's just that your idea reminded me of it. It's called forero and/or moderator.

If you skim through it, you'll notice that the first mod posts were at #31 and #34. Until then, they stood aside and let everyone say what they thought about it, so as not to pressure anyone. In fact, those two posts were only simple explanations (and one was to correct an incorrect piece of info from the thread). _Nothing _about how the mods feel about it. And they were the ones being discussed, not always in the nicest manner. Some people felt that mods should stay out of threads altogether. But they felt free to post even that. You felt free to open this thread.

I think I understand where you're coming from... people with more power have to be even more delicate and nice to the rest of us, in order not to offend, and to help everyone express their opinions and concerns. I also think they try their best to do that.


----------



## coppergirl

Hi Broccolicious (and everyone!)

Well, I have to admit, I didn't think of it in the way you thought of it at all. 

I only thought it might encourage some of the less vocal foreros to say their ideas if they knew that they could discuss and expand them without having to think too carefully at the outset as to whether they were in keeping with what the other mods in particular would like to see happen.

This only came out of the idea that there might be some people out there who are maybe not expressing themselves as frequently or freely as they might like, because they feel that maybe their suggestions might not be appreciated initially, or that maybe the mods might throw the idea out early in a thread, before other people have had the chance to expand or develop it further into something feasible.

Of course, I also thought that it might be a little bit easier on the mods themselves not to have to worry about one more forum like C&S and participating in it when they have so many other fora to moderate. I thought it might save them a bit of time really. 

I had no particular types of discussions in mind, so much as just that the forum as a whole seemed to me to be set up for ideas and suggestions in the usual sense---like a suggestion box in the front lobby of a company---but a suggestion box in which many of the comments were from management rather than guests.

I just thought that seemed a bit of a backwards way to offer suggestions, since usually suggestion boxes are put there for the guests, since of course the management can discuss new ideas in their management meetings.

Naturally, I am aware that mods are participants and people too, so again---this was really merely thrown out as an idea of how to make it more efficient, both for them and for the guests/foreros, to discuss and offer suggestions. I mean, if you think about it, if mods are participating in threads directly in C&S and then later have to discuss amongst themselves whether to implement any of the suggestions or how best to use them, they are really spending twice as much time as they need to on this sort of thing, since they have the dual role of participant and manager.

As I said before, though, this is just a thought. It is not meant to be seen as unhelpful, but more a possible way to facilitate things.


----------



## Jana337

To put things into perspective, I have participated in 713 (and this one is my 714th), which is almost one third of the total (2214). Just a few were polemical, while most of them dealt with forum features and various problems that foreros encounter. I can't see how I could stop participating here. Not that I consider my input indispensable; there are many competent foreros who could address many of the questions that pop up here. But for some types of queries, you simply need to be a moderator because regular members cannot check each other's settings, for example. I enjoy CS thoroughly (most of the time, anyway ) because it is very rewarding to see how foreros are becoming more and more adept at using the functions of the vB software as well as dictionaries. I'd miss it if I were locked out from here, so your "one less forum to care about" offer has very little appeal to me.

In case you'd want to exclude us from "policy-related" threads only, well, I am sure that it would trigger a surge of very different emotions; many members would probably appalled that we can't we bothered to address their suggestions and would pillory us for lack of accountability. Like a pile of yellow, rotten sheets of paper in the hotel's suggestion box.


----------



## LouisaB

I hesitate to post in this thread, not out of fear, but because I don’t think I’m really senior enough to justify holding a strong opinion. However, while I disagree with the original suggestion, I think I can understand some of the frustration that led to it, and maybe a relative ‘outside’ view may help others do the same.

It would be wrong to exclude mods from any of these discussions for all the reasons pointed out, ie that they are designed precisely to elicit an official response, without which they are only a bunch of people having a grumble. Neither would it do away with the ‘fear factor’, for even if they’re not posting, the Mods Are Reading and you could be in trouble all the same.

And yet there is a valid point here, and if we all go attacking coppergirl we prove it all the more. For me the problem is basically this:
The hotel analogy points out the official response of denial without even investigation. Surely this can never be helpful? I’ve never moderated a forum so my viewpoint is of limited value, but I _have_ run a major organization subject to Press Office rules, and frequently been frustrated by the need to toe the party line. When a viewer has written in with a valid complaint, my urge has been to say ‘Yep you’re right, I’m really sorry, I made a mistake. Thanks for pointing it out and I’ll try not to do it again’ but the Press Office had always squealed like an outraged peahen and said ‘You can’t do _that!_ You have to say – no, you’re wrong, this is what we always do’. I hated it then, and I hate it now. In a recent C&S thread coppergirl pointed out something that was being done (occasionally) by mods on certain fora, but the response was ‘No, what we do is this’. Yes, yes, I’m sure that is what is _meant_ to happen, but occasionally it doesn’t – and please, where is the harm in saying so? The mods are _not_ paid hotel staff, they are very hard-worked, public spirited volunteers, and if they get it wrong occasionally my own impulse is to take them out for a drink and say ‘Stuff the lot of us’. Most of the time the mods post to say ‘Let me know the instance and I’ll investigate’ which is absolutely fair enough – indeed, in most instances I think a better course is to PM the mod involved rather than play out the conflict in public. But occasionally a frustrated mod _does_ post in C&S to the effect of ‘This doesn’t happen’, ie ‘You’re blind, stupid, or lying’ – and can any of us really blame the forer@ concerned for being offended?

Much of the fault is our own. Our tone in the C&S forum should be ‘I’m a little worried about this’, not ‘You’re all out to get us’ which is bound to elicit a defensive response. In this way, a small grievance can escalate into a major row which none of us want. I know it doesn’t always work like that – I once posted the politest query ever in this forum about a closed thread, and while the mod actually concerned could not have been more helpful, courteous and friendly, another mod decided to take umbrage and sent me a PM so nasty I have it attached to my lavatory wall. But we are _all human. _Can we not admit it – and move on?

I apologize to everyone for so long a post. But junior as I am, I love this forum with an absolute passion. It has helped me in ways I never dreamed. To me, it represents a place where people with different languages and culture can meet and help each other without boundaries of politics or fear. This thread may seem a very small part of that, but to realize the dream we need to resolve this too.

Louisa


----------



## coppergirl

Hi guys! 

Thanks to everyone who has participated so far in this thread. 

Also, don't worry---I don't feel attacked at all or anything. 

I'm a friendly type of gal, and my only point is really to see how people actually feel. If everyone says "No . . .definitely not! We definitely want mod participation in C&S in all threads" then that is one thing and that is fine. 

If everyone says "Well, actually . . . I was feeling similarly myself here.. . . so maybe I could say that I would prefer it if we had a little less active mod participation in suggestion threads" then that is another thing.

No one needs to get defensive, since I'm not really advocating this point. If it is a good idea, then of course, no one NEEDS to try to persuade anyone that it is a good idea, since good ideas speak for themselves. 

If it is a bad idea, then throw it away and go back to the drawing board.   It's all the same to me. 

On the other hand . . it was food for thought. Two of my favourite things! Food . . and thought! 

Of course, not many people have seen it yet, so it might be interesting to see what else comes of it in the discussion (another of my favourite words----discussion! )

Many thanks again to everyone who has contributed so far, and many thanks in anticipation to those who have yet to express their opinions!


----------



## Josh_

Regarding the hotel analogy, I understand Coppergirls's point about being reluctant to give feedback when the hotel manager is right there.  If a person is like me then they do not want to upset anyone, or they do not like confrontation, or they do not want to be directly associated with an issue and then be known as _that_ person who raised the complaint.  It is so bad with me that I do not even tell the waiter at a restaurant if my order is wrong.  Sometimes I order a salad that never comes, yet I say nothing and just suck it up.  But I digress, that's my problem and I'll deal with that.

At any rate, I actually would take a different approach in order to encourage more feedback from the less vocal forum members or those who are shy or do not express their ideas because they feel intimidated or whatever the reason.  And it can also be analogous to a hotel suggestion box.  

What is the hallmark of the hotel suggestion box, or most any other kind of feedback or evaluation questionnaires (such as a professor evaluation form)?  The anonymity, right?  As I related above, many people do not like to leave feedback because they do not want direct confrontation, the thought of embarrassment, being known as _that_ person, or whatever the reason.   I, for one, know that I am much more likely to leave feedback or raise an issue knowing that it is anonymous than I would with my name attached to it.  So, maybe there could be an option for a member to start a thread and raise an issue anonymously.  I do not know if the vBulletin software supports something like this, but maybe it is worth looking into.   This way the poster does not have to fear being branded or embarrassed and the moderators can still participate.


----------



## avok

I agree with you Coppergirl that's good idea, we need a place of our own!


----------



## Trisia

Dear Avok,

I don't mean to nit-pick, but saying "we *need *a place of our own" is different from "I *want *a place of our own." The second I'd consider a simple statement: _that is your preference, and it's great to have stated it._ 

But a verb like "need" is desperately asking for some objective arguments to back it up.


----------



## coppergirl

Josh_ said:


> As I related above, many people do not like to leave feedback because they do not want direct confrontation, the thought of embarrassment, being known as _that_ person, or whatever the reason. I, for one, know that I am much more likely to leave feedback or raise an issue knowing that it is anonymous than I would with my name attached to it. So, maybe there could be an option for a member to start a thread and raise an issue anonymously. I do not know if the vBulletin software supports something like this, but maybe it is worth looking into. This way the poster does not have to fear being branded or embarrassed and the moderators can still participate.


 
Excellent idea, Josh!   

Another issue which I have seen before in C&S threads and in Cultural Discussions in particular can sometimes occur in cases where maybe there has been, for whatever reason, an issue between a mod and a forero which maybe has left a slightly bad taste in the mouths of both those people.

If they see each other posting in a particular thread, the name alone of each of them can sometimes trigger a few emotional issues even before they read each other's ideas.   Sometimes I have looked at a few responses in C&S and in Cultural Discussions and wondered if no one knew who had posted which response, if the tone of the thread would have been different.

Anonymity might be one way to handle this, so that everyone felt able to post his or her ideas about policy or new technology in the forums (buttons, etc) or even about how the report button etc makes them feel without anyone taking their comments to be, erroneously in many cases, directed against someone else, or perhaps some reference to something that has gone on previously.

It might actually help to make everyone feel at home and able to contribute ideas more effectively.  

Thanks for that one, Josh!   Glad, too, that I'm not the only one who doesn't fancy being seen as automatically confrontational or critical just by offering a few ideas up for consideration.

I would also love to see it develop into the sort of place where everyone feels equally comfortable and that their suggestions are valued.


----------



## coppergirl

Trisia said:


> Hi, coppergirl.
> 
> Despite the fact that I found your witty illustration quite charming, I feel compelled to say that mods aren't hotel staff, though they graciously act as hosts.


 
HI Trisia!

I think you've made some good points in this thread, and I'm grateful for them.

I think that, although of course this isn't a hotel, the analogy sort of works well anyhow, since it's fairly close to a business situation in which there are many different types of "guests" or users.

For example, some guests are "regulars".  They stay there very frequently, know the manager and staff very well, and possibly are on very good terms with all the waiters, to the point where they routinely ask after their families and how the new baby is doing etc.  

Some are stay there occasionally, but enough that they have noticed a few things by now and know enough to comment on some things they would like to see changed, plus they also have got the "feeling" of the place, know where to find most things, but are not really "regulars".

Then there are the one-time visitors, just passing through.  They simply want one night there and that's it.

That is where the difference might be important.  The regulars might well go up to management and just say what they think, greet the manager and state exactly what's on their mind.  Some of the middle-to-lower users would probably think twice at least before saying anything, even if they had something to suggest or a compliment to pay.  

This will naturally give the managers a few slightly biased ideas, since only the regulars that they know very well might have the courage to go up and say what they think, or make suggestions, or give any mixed feedback.  

What I'm sensing from this thread so far is that, naturally mods and "regulars" feel that they have no trouble at all piping up with their opinions in C&S and frequently do so.  Most of their comments are also very complimentary.

The others who have spoken up so far have also been mostly complimentary, but at the same time, I am sensing that several of them have mentioned fears or qualms about making constructive criticisms in particular.  Everyone seems happy to state the excellent things they are happy with, and yet a few have suggested that they are a bit unsure about expressing themselves in any sort of constructively critical way.

Just my observations so far, but as always, I'm very interested in what everyone else thinks too.  

BTW, another thing I should probably admit to, is that while people might say that it is really the guests and not the main foreros who are the reason that the business side of it all keeps working and that is the main "core" of the business, I have another confession to make. . . I don't always log in.  Many don't.  Although I CAN log in, again, I don't always have tons of time to chat with people, stay in the forum for a long time etc, so I don't log in, use the functions, read a few threads and that's it.  

That makes me, at least, not only a forera, but probably also I am being counted in the figures as a guest.  If I am not alone here, that means that a lot of foreros are also counted as "guests".  

Either way, I think it might be a great idea to have a constructive dialogue like this one, so that everyone can chime in with their suggestions about how to improve the situation.

I look forward to reading everyone's views as and when they feel like posting them!  Thanks again to everyone so far who has contributed!!!


----------



## coppergirl

avok said:


> I agree with you Coppergirl that's good idea, we need a place of our own!


 
Hi Avok! Thanks for your ideas! 

In fact, I don't think it is so much that we need a place of our own, since this can BE a place for everyone. The fact that some people don't FEEL it is a place of their own, or where everyone is equally happy to pipe up their opinions with equal confidence seems to me to be more the problem.

Tell you what . . . why don't those of us to tend to keep a bit quieter speak up with what we feel, and then this can be a place where everyone feels equally comfortable. What do you think? 

Thanks again for your ideas though. I know it can also be difficult for people to express their opinions in detail if English is not their native language too, so thanks extra for that! 

PS   That's more than enough from me.  Let's hear what everyone else thinks now!!!  I am shutting up for a bit---  Promise!


----------



## Trisia

I have so little time for the forum these days, and I feel it's a sort of betrayal to use it all up for C&S (but for some reason I felt like answering again).

The idea of anonymity _would be good, for the reasons mentioned_. It would also be bad, for at least two reasons (and I could be wrong here, so take it with a grain big boulder of salt):*

1. it could easily turn into a venting area* -- that moderator upset me, I'll say it loud and clear! Nobody would know who repeatedly breaks the rules, and the moderators would have even more time to waste here, trying to keep a keen eye on the quality of the threads. That is, if we could truly be anonymous; but...

* 2. there is no real anonymity*, folks. The best we can do is _hide from other members_ like ourselves. The administrator (and very possibly all the moderators) have access to our IP addresses. Unless I go to a friend's place just to post a complaint, or commute when we're discussing something in this specific forum, I can't be entirely anonymous. They would all know anyway who said that one. Except they'd have to hide this fact, to give us the impression we're so smart posting our complaints using... whoa, fake names! I'm sure the moderators wouldn't like having to lie to us in such a manner.

Now, about the hotel analogy. I think you're right. Usually the C&S threads are made by either <100 posts members, or by 'regular' ones. But isn't that normal?

* If I'm staying for one night/my stay here has just begun, I will try to enjoy it, and wait to know a bit about the place. If something's _horribly amiss_, yes I will either say something, in case they seem friendly enough to accept suggestions, or I will decide never to come back again. There are numerous threads by junior members, asking about different problems they're experiencing with their browser, signature or whatever. This means that generally they seem friendly enough for them to give it a shot. And it would be nice to see some graphs about the traffic on this site. I'm pretty sure that not many decide to go away and never come back...

* If you're a senior, but not really a "regular," then you've probably never experienced major software trouble, and use this site normally. But since you're not involved in the community, you don't really know that much about what's going on, and how we bicker on and on about context, and all those insufferable rules . Simply no reason to post on C&S.

* And if you're a 'regular' -- you either post or you don't. By now you know that you can send PMs to five people at once so you can have a little gossip club, and it's very likely that you've stayed as long _because you love this place_.


----------



## coppergirl

Trisia said:


> *1. it could easily turn into a venting area* -- that moderator upset me, I'll say it loud and clear! Nobody would know who repeatedly breaks the rules, and the moderators would have even more time to waste here, trying to keep a keen eye on the quality of the threads. That is, if we could truly be anonymous; but...
> 
> *2. there is no real anonymity*, folks.


 
Well, Trisia, good points again. 

I think the whole idea I had originally was exactly to avoid a comments and suggestions area being turned into a venting area. I mean, I don't think it should be allowed to be used for venting at all, and in fact I don't think ANY threads should be opened just because someone is having a tough day and feels like a moan. 

Anyone who wants a general "Isn't life pathetic?" type thing has something else for that---their friends, the PMs, and even their real-life friends.

No one in a hotel posts into the suggestion box "Someone tripped me up in the hallway as I was about to get in the elevator and I'm really annoyed at all men in dark suits as a result of it". 

So, the question is . . . why would anyone start a thread in any forum just to vent? I mean, isn't that a little unhelpful and not very constructive, not to say utterly immature? 

I think the aim of separating out the mods from the foreros was not really so that we foreros could all virtually beat them up the minute we thought they were out of virtual earshot, but more that people could come forwards with *suggestions* and *ideas* and *constructive criticisms*, rather than merely to vent their anger.

Anyway, I think the mods have some sort of complaint reporting system already in place, don't they? I mean, I think foreros are encouraged to go to a mod they trust and say what's on their mind anyway, so it would naturally be understood (or else, dare I say it, someone who likes rules could make another rule about it) that the C&S forum is exactly that---constructive comments and suggestions. With emphasis on *"constructive".*  

Any mod-bashing would be strictly prohibited (and no doubt enforced by whatever mod was moderating the forum). Any forero-bashing would be equally prohibited.

(Am I the only one who actually writes my actual *comments and suggestions* in those hotel boxes, rather than "I think someone should shoot the chambermaid and kill the chef"???    )

As for the anonymity issue. . . well . . . that is another matter. Although mods could probably find our IP addresses if they wanted to, I suppose if this idea were to go forward in some form, the people in charge of it would have to program out that function for the mods for that particular forum. 

I don't have a hugely technical background, but I did enough programming once upon a time to know that these things can most likely be done. I can't say for sure though, but I suspect that is not as big a problem as it may sound.


----------



## avok

Trisia by "we", I meant "people like me and the coppergirl". More than "I" needs "We". Right?

By the way, I/we need this, because I simply stopped opening new threads in this particular forum. Each time I opened a new thread in CS forum, I was forced to believe that I was either wrong, or sarcastic, or cynical, or ulterior motivated blah blah blah... by the mods. Maybe I was. I would not know, since my threads were deleted and I could never learn what the other members thought about the issues that I mentioned about in my deleted threads, posts etc.


----------



## Josh_

coppergirl said:


> Excellent idea, Josh!
> 
> Another issue which I have seen before in C&S threads and in Cultural Discussions in particular can sometimes occur in cases where maybe there has been, for whatever reason, an issue between a mod and a forero which maybe has left a slightly bad taste in the mouths of both those people.
> 
> If they see each other posting in a particular thread, the name alone of each of them can sometimes trigger a few emotional issues even before they read each other's ideas.   Sometimes I have looked at a few responses in C&S and in Cultural Discussions and wondered if no one knew who had posted which response, if the tone of the thread would have been different.


Yes, I agree.  In fact, I had that exact thought when I was writing my previous post.  I agree that if emotions are involved, especially bad emotions, one cannot be truly objective.

As far as the anonymity issue and IP addresses is concerned, I think it is a good idea that that function could possibly be disabled for moderators in the Comments and Suggestions forum if the option of posting anonymity were come to fruition.  Aside from that, though, if there were an option for anonymity then that anonymity should be respected.  A truly ethical moderator would have no need to reference someone's IP address unless there was some pressing issue that necessitated it (such as checking to see if a previously banned member re-registered under a new name or banning a current member for inappropriate behavior).  If a question or issue is posed in earnest and a moderator referenced the IP address to see who posted it ... well, that's just dishonest.


----------



## Etcetera

I don't see why the Mods should be kept out of C&S discussions.

I've never been afraid or anything of speaking my mind out, even in the presence of the almighty Mike. They're, first and foremost, forer@s - they just have some extra possibilities and *extra responsibilities*. Including the one concerning reading all that we simple forer@s have to suggest in this fora. 

And I remember at least half a dozen propositions that were accepted and turned into useful forum features. I've always known that, if I have something to ask or complain about, I can come here and start a new thread (on case there wasn't a similar one), and this thread will be visited by the Mods, and my question will be answered as soon as possible.


----------



## Revontuli

If we keep the mods completely out of C&S,how will our suggestions be taken into account? Then we'll have talked in vain.

On the other hand, if most people say that something should be done about that; if,for example,Avok says he's stopped posting threads in this section for some reasons,this means that not everything's perfect with C&S section. I think,instead of not having mods in C&S at all,anonymity could be better. Because not everyone might be really aware of WRF rules and while we only intent to make suggestions and share our opinions,there might be others who can misuse this opportunity. I don't mean this for anyone,I'm just talking about something probable. Or,mods could have limited rights in C&S forum.

Thanks for starting this thread Coppergirl.


----------



## avok

Etcetera said:


> I don't see why the Mods should be kept out of C&S discussions.
> 
> I've never been afraid or anything of speaking my mind out, even in the presence of the almighty Mike. They're, first and foremost, forer@s - they just have some extra possibilities and *extra responsibilities*. Including the one concerning reading all that we simple forer@s have to suggest in this fora.
> 
> And I remember at least half a dozen propositions that were accepted and turned into useful forum features. I've always known that, if I have something to ask or complain about, I can come here and start a new thread (on case there wasn't a similar one), and this thread will be visited by the Mods, and my question will be answered as soon as possible.


 
I have been here for a while Etcetera but the only proposition that was accepted and turned into a useful feature thanks to CS forum is this "native of" / "native language" thing. I am not sure how useful as a feature it is though.

Anyway, as you said, you and many other foreros come here to "ask a question" but bear in mind that this forum is called "Comments and Suggestions" not "Frequently Asked Questions". Therefore, when I "comment" on something, I would not want/need/wait for an answer from any mod. Because, asking a question and waiting for an answer from a mod/forero is different than commenting on something and letting people know about it.

As I already said, this forum is called "Comments and Suggestions" but it is full of "Questions" which are neither comments nor suggestions. That's why people need moderators here in CS (aka FAQ) forum, when they ask questions, they surely need someone to answer i.e. a mod. 
You can simply not write something like "Where can I find the Turkish bath at the hotel ?" on a paper and put it in the hotel suggestion box. If so, you shall find the hotel manager standing right next to the box and trying to answer. That's just what happens in CS forum though. 

I don't mean that the mods are not helpful, but I just think ideas/comments/suggestions in CS should develop more. Maybe questions like "Why cant I change my avatar?" and comments/suggestions should have two different forums, one with mods, the other with less active mod participation.

The only thing that I am sure of, though, is that we all love WRF and want good things to happen for it.

By the way, Trisia do you grasp now why we "need" ?


----------



## Etcetera

avok said:


> Therefore, when I "comment" on something, I would not want/need/wait for an answer from any mod. Because, asking a question and waiting for an answer from a mod/forero is different than commenting on something and letting people know about it.


It's really odd. Because when you comment on something, I'd expect you to be waiting for comments on your comment. You wouldn't just leave your suggestion and go away, would you?

As for questions which are neither comments nor suggestions, every forum has a special subforum for reporting technical issues and asking questions. I had one more look at the description of the C&S forum, and that's what it says:


> If you have any general comments, questions or concerns about the forums, first search this forum to see if it has been asked before. If you don't find an answer, ask for it here.


So questions are absolutely legitimate here. Including questions about avatars, signatures, and other stuff. 

The only problem with this forum, in my view, may be that its title isn't quite precise. But I wouldn't suggest its renaming, really.


----------



## coppergirl

Revontuli said:


> If we keep the mods completely out of C&S,how will our suggestions be taken into account? Then we'll have talked in vain.
> 
> Thanks for starting this thread Coppergirl.


 
HI Revontuli!

Well, first off, I'm really not suggesting keeping mods completely out of C&S, since of course I expect and hope they would ultimately read what was suggested.  As Jana explained in her post in this thread, it might be useful to have mods in on certain types of threads (like the feedback ones about the new buttons or devices etc) but not on other types (like policy types, new ideas etc).

Of course, I'm also aware that mods also need to have their say.  The point is, they DO have their say, since they take these ideas and suggestions and discuss them among themselves later anyway to determine what is feasible or not.  

To prevent everyone in the suggestion discussion saying "But we came up with a great idea and the mods didn't do it or like it etc", of course I suggest that there might be a way for mods to say what the outcome of their discussions were on the new ideas generated.

For example, they might say something like 

"Many thanks for your new idea about X.  We have discussed this amongst ourselves and we feel that, at this time, it is not practical.  However, we have also discussed Idea Y, and feel that there was a lot of support for that idea AND it is feasible from our point of view, and so we will be doing it." 

It just means that the "suggestion" area might be kept a little more open to discussions, particularly for those foreros who feel that they might have had a negative experience at some point and who would still like to speak up, but who feel a little uncomfortable saying their ideas or suggestions knowing that this particular forum has a great deal of heavy mod participation in threads.  

For example, from what Jana said, many of her total posts related to this particular forum, and this is probably true of other mods.  From what some foreros have mentioned, they have not always felt comfortable sharing their ideas with such heavy mod participation.  SOME foreros don't have any problems with it, but some others appear to feel less comfortable with it.

Anyway, this is only one suggestion.  The other that has come up so far would be anonymity for posters, which might be another way to take this forward and get more people to feel comfortable participating in C&S.

There may be still other ideas, so . . . now would be a great time to hear them!


----------



## Nunty

Yet another suggestion would be to leave things as they are and I do not understand who the "we" is in the thread title.

I've been reading and trying to understand this thread - to no avail. I just do not understand this desire to separate mods and users into two separate groups. For all the lip service given to dialog and discussion in some of these posts the overall tone seems to be one that favors division over unity, talking "at" instead of "with".

We are not talking about a foreign occupying army here or about warders in a prison. We are talking about forum members who have agreed to take on boring and unpleasant duties to help keep the forums running smoothly. In return they get... a smooth-running forum. And the chance to read about how oppressive they are, of course. Gosh, sign me up!

Anonymity? Why? Are you afraid of repercussions? Of what nature? When I disagree strongly with something I say so and I respond to criticism or take it on board, as I see fit. Why hide? I'm not ashamed of my ideas.

It has been said over and over again and I will repeat it, even though it will probably make me the butt of a snide comment with a smiley after it: WRF is not a democracy, it is a business. We users are important to WRF, obviously - and I, at least, receive full return for my investment - but we are not the "targeted market sector". 

Get over it, folks. Take the best and leave the rest. No one is compelled to be here. We are here because it meets our needs and it is, as far as I've been able to see, unique of its kind. Why would you want to change it into something else?


----------



## coppergirl

Nun-Translator said:


> Yet another suggestion would be to leave things as they are and I do not understand who the "we" is in the thread title.
> 
> Anonymity? Why? Are you afraid of repercussions? Of what nature? When I disagree strongly with something I say so and I respond to criticism or take it on board, as I see fit. Why hide? I'm not ashamed of my ideas.
> 
> Why would you want to change it into something else?


 
HI Nun,

Thanks for participating---it's always good to hear more opinions.

Well, the truth is, I'm not really sure WHAT people ARE afraid of by expressing their opinions here---whether it is repercussions or what. I'm just as confused as you are, actually. Since I started this thread, I have had four people send me PMs. One said basically to delete the thread because maybe I risked banning just by starting it, and this person said they didn't want to see me banned.

I thought that was nice, actually. 

At the same time, I was a little confused as to why someone would have thought I might be banned for making a polite suggestion. 

Then, just as I was wondering why someone would have thought that, I had 3 more PMs from other foreros (none of these were mods, by the way) who said basically "Steer clear of offering suggestions like this. Best to just let it go.  Some of us tried this before and got into trouble."

Trouble? What KIND of trouble? What, exactly, were they worried about?  

Some of them were senior foreros too who had quite a few posts, so no newbies here.

A few of them added that threads like this had been started before, but had always been quashed early on and not got anywhere. 

So . . . I suppose this suggested, to me at least, that maybe there are other people who might like to participate more in C&S but who felt that, for whatever reason, they WERE afraid of something, or had raised such ideas in the past only to find that they felt the ideas were not welcomed.

Now . . . I further ask myself (sorry, I'm always doing that ) why anyone would feel their ideas were not welcomed in a suggestion box?? 

And, more worryingly, why ANYONE would write to say "Don't get yourself banned by suggesting anything that those who run the forum won't want to hear".

I mean . . . this is like a scared guest approaching someone as they head for that old suggestion box and saying "For God's sake . . don't post your suggestion, or they may throw you and your luggage out of the hotel right now!" 

At that point you think "Wow . . am I in Hotel California here?" 

So, really, I once again find myself having to ask the same question you are, Nun . . . What are people afraid of exactly in C&S?? And why don't they feel comfortable posting their suggestions and speaking up with their ideas? 

PS The "we" in the title meant "You, me, everybody in the WRF". Sorry I didn't make that clearer.


----------



## Nunty

I have three friends who were banned from here. I like them, but that does not keep me from seeing that they were banned for cause. I am not aware and have not heard any charges of anyone being banned capriciously or out of some kind of revenge. 

As I am writing, I see that there are 23,005 active members of WRF. Four PMs warning you of possible "retribution"? I am not impressed. 

But this is silly. I'll go back into my cozy little hidey-hole and let y'all carry on. Have fun, kids, and no one get hurt.


----------



## coppergirl

Nun-Translator said:


> As I am writing, I see that there are 23,005 active members of WRF. Four PMs warning you of possible "retribution"? I am not impressed.


 
Hi again!

First off, as I said, I'm not really out to impress anyone here, or convince anyone of anything. That's the whole thing about having a discussion. It's a free place for people to say in a relaxed way how they feel about something. 

Second, you are right. There are 23,005 active members of WRF. As I am writing, I see there are 17 currently viewing C&S. Those 4 that PM'd me, therefore, must have been among the 17 (or so---it's only an estimate) who took the time to check out the C&S forum and read the various threads. 

As I have remarked in other threads, 17 out of 23,005 is not really representative, since a lot of the people out there viewing the other threads are not the "civic-minded" type necessarily.

So, to put this into perspective, figure more like 4/17 (I'm really bad at maths and so won't try to calculate the percentage here but you get the idea) feel reluctant to express themselves freely in the C&S forum. 

That 17 doesn't mean "only 17 people will view this thread in total, since of course people flit in and out of threads and reading them at different times in the day, so the real figure might be more like 4 out of 25 or 4/30 or something . . . I have no idea. . . but it seemed at least to suggest that more than a few people are reluctant to express themselves freely in a Suggestion box, for some reason. 

That is why, getting back to the original thread topic, it might be worth exploring other alternatives to the C&S forum in the form that we know it.


----------



## TrentinaNE

coppergirl said:


> Second, you are right. There are 23,005 active members of WRF. As I am writing, I see there are 17 currently viewing C&S. Those 4 that PM'd me, therefore, must have been among the 17 (or so---it's only an estimate) who took the time to check out the C&S forum and read the various threads.


This thread has had 660 views.  That makes it the 6th most frequently viewed thread in C&S (other than the stickies) over the past month.  

Elisabetta


----------



## coppergirl

Thanks, Trentina.

What would be really nice is if some of those 660 threw in a few of their ideas too, to make it feel a bit more like a group discussion and a little less like me and a few others.  As I said . . the joy of a discussion is . . there are no "right" or "wrong" answers, right?


----------



## Nunty

Maybe there is little participation because there is simply little interest in the topic.


----------



## Josh_

Nun-Translator said:


> Anonymity? Why? Are you afraid of repercussions? Of what nature? When I disagree strongly with something I say so and I respond to criticism or take it on board, as I see fit. Why hide? I'm not ashamed of my ideas.


Assertiveness and confidence are traits to be commended.  I wish I were more assertive and confident, but unfortunately I am not. And unfortunately, many other people are not either.  The fact of the matter is many people, for whatever reason, do not feel comfortable enough to leave feedback or bring up issues on their minds, when their name is attached to it.  This happens in many spheres of life (professor evaluations, feedback questionnaires at hotels and restaurants, etc.  Even voting is done anonymously).  That's why I suggested the anonymity thing.


----------



## EmilyD

Besides being active within the Word Reference fora, I. like many many others, participate ( in varying capacities) in several other internet sites.

Each has its own culture.  The cultures, of course, evolve...

I have become both comfortable and fond of the way moderation is used in WordReference.  

That is the reason I have not "contributed" to this dialogue.

There are other places where the moderation is quite distinct from here, and I value those too.

There is the New England saying:  *"If it aint broke, don't fix it."

*_I will continue to pore over this thread with abiding interest and respect for all.

_Thank you everyone, for the labor (labour), investment, discipline.

Peacefully,

_Nomi_


----------



## lizzeymac

coppergirl said:


> Hi again!
> 
> First off, as I said, I'm not really out to impress anyone here, or convince anyone of anything. That's the whole thing about having a discussion. It's a free place for people to say in a relaxed way how they feel about something.
> 
> Second, you are right. There are 23,005 active members of WRF. As I am writing, I see there are 17 currently viewing C&S. Those 4 that PM'd me, therefore, must have been among the 17 (or so---it's only an estimate) who took the time to check out the C&S forum and read the various threads.
> 
> As I have remarked in other threads, 17 out of 23,005 is not really representative, since a lot of the people out there viewing the other threads are not the "civic-minded" type necessarily.
> 
> So, to put this into perspective, figure more like 4/17 (I'm really bad at maths and so won't try to calculate the percentage here but you get the idea) feel reluctant to express themselves freely in the C&S forum.
> 
> That 17 doesn't mean "only 17 people will view this thread in total, since of course people flit in and out of threads and reading them at different times in the day, so the real figure might be more like 4 out of 25 or 4/30 or something . . . I have no idea. . . but it seemed at least to suggest that more than a few people are reluctant to express themselves freely in a Suggestion box, for some reason.
> 
> That is why, getting back to the original thread topic, it might be worth exploring other alternatives to the C&S forum in the form that we know it.



Just an expansion of your 'stats', though I don't think it's necessarily a sensible idea to justify this thread through statistical relevance -
A more accurate look at this thread might be that this thread has been viewed 767 times (so far) and contains 33 posts from 14 forer@s.
This seems to be a little below the average for a C&S thread.

As I am supposed to make a _relevant_ contribution, my thoughts on this issue:
I've never had an unpleasant experience with a Mod here, though I have had problems with other forer@s and been grateful for a Mod's intervention, advice, or even their kindly worded suggestion that I get my head out of my a** and accept the likelihood that I was the unreasonable party.  I have spent enough time reading threads here to have developed some sense of the personality of most of the Mods, and many of the forer@s, in the forums I read, and a respect for their knowledge on the subjects involved.  I think the current structure for dealing with a problem with a Mod is excellent if only the forer@s will take advantage of it.  
If you think you have been dealt with unfairly then you have to follow up and stick with it.  If everyone suggests that you rethink your attitude, then maybe you are being unreasonable.  The forum is pretty much the same as Life.
 I also accept that other forer@s may have had less pleasant experiences though I can't recall seeing any unreasonable thread closings, if you accept the rules of this forum, which I do. This is perhaps the central issue.

I don't feel the need for anonymous posts or threads, nor am I interested in an un-moderated thread, but I am interested in hearing from more forer@s on this topic.  I hope this thread will attract a broader range of opinions from more forer@s, directly - I think that would be truly informative.


----------



## Etcetera

Nun-Translator said:


> Anonymity? Why? Are you afraid of repercussions? Of what nature? When I disagree strongly with something I say so and I respond to criticism or take it on board, as I see fit. Why hide? I'm not ashamed of my ideas.


And what's the point of having your own ideas if you're afraid of sharing them?

By the way, anonymous messages are usually regarded less heedfully.


----------



## coppergirl

Etcetera said:


> And what's the point of having your own ideas if you're afraid of sharing them?
> 
> By the way, anonymous messages are usually regarded less heedfully.


 
Hi Etcetera

Well, actually, there are two things happening here. One is the process of having the ideas in the first place. The second is whether you feel comfortable sharing them in an open forum like this.

As Josh pointed out, there are a very noteworthy precedents in non-virtual life where anonymity tends to be used fairly frequently. Voting ballot boxes, hotel suggestion boxes, worker's union strike ballot boxes, and, among others, my doctor's office has one for anyone with a suggestion about how they could improve the practice or make it more efficient.

I think maybe in real life these things exist in an anonymous form because some very savvy people thought that maybe not everyone was equally comfortable saying their new idea in front of everyone. This is especially true for less assertive people, people expressing minority opinions, people with constructive criticisms, or simply people who---for whatever reason---didn't want everyone to know that the idea to rethink whatever it was came from them.

Not everyone actually enjoys the spotlight on them, or we'd all be in politics or on stage or something. This forum is absolutely GREAT at taking on board ideas from assertive people, but that means that it might be losing some good ideas from the less-assertive types. That's all.

To say this is not to criticize mods, the system, the people who run the place etc etc etc. It is more to point out that maybe, for whatever reason, some people's ideas are getting overlooked and maybe to "widen the net" of suggestions, it might be worth thinking about the ideas which have come up so far (in no particular order):

1) anonymity in the suggestion forum

2) having separate forum threads for foreros and mods on ideas generated in the suggestion forum

3) separating out the "suggestion" aspect of C&S from the "I.T Dept" type threads (in other words, "My button won't work", "I'm new here and need help navigating the site" etc.) since those are not so much "suggestions" but more questions which require moderator or technical staff attention.

If everyone feels "the system is working just fine", then there is no need to change it. If some people feel it could be improved, well, maybe a change could be considered if it helped to make it more efficient or inclusive.


----------



## TrentinaNE

So far this thread contains exactly one post by a current moderator (Jana's at #6). I suspect (but don't know for a fact) that the moderators are deliberately staying out of it for the time being. So why don't we use this opportunity to gather all the great suggestions that apparently are lingering in the minds of members who heretofore have been too shy to share them?  Bearing in mind, of course, these guidelines.

Elisabetta


----------



## EmilyD

This has probably been addressed before:

Is there a way for members or thread writers to learn how many people are subscribed to a thread?

I'm *thrilled *with that unlimited gift*!

*In my early days before I understood that function I had many internal debates on the virtue/vice of a polite comment that contributed little or nothing beyond politeness...

I subscribe to many threads in this "region" as well as in other parts of WR without posting.
_
Nomi_


----------



## Robert_Hope

I think it is important not to see Mods as government spys. Obviously it's important for Mod's not to police the C&S forum deleting things they don't agree with. (I have no reason to believe they do or indeed ever would)

Everyone who makes a C or an S have to keep in mind that not everyone will agree with them. 

I would suspect that some members would post "comments" in here like "The moderator called BIGBADMOB is mean, he deleted my post" (I do not know if there is a mod called this - nothing personal!) if the mods were banned from here. Like in all other forums, it's important that these threads stay factual, on topic and are not abusive to anyone. Disputes about moderating decisions can be delt with using PM or emailing the top dog of this site.

If I have a suggestion to improve the site, I would happy post it here, whoever was able to comment on it. This forum, however, is not for complaints.

As previously stated, some mods seem to spend most of their waking hours on this site, and contribute a lot to it. Surely, getting mods involved with any suggestions is a good thing - they probably have much more experience with the site than many of the members and therefore will be able to offer constructive reflection based on their exerpience. 

Above all, mods are people (and members) too. They're just trying to keep things tidy! 

Instead of a moody hotel manager, think of them as your mother tidying up after you when you leave your threads all over your bedroom floor! They surely should have a say when you want to start knocking walls down to decorate!

Happy wordreferecing to everyone

Bob


----------



## bibliolept

Moderation is necessary in any discussion, especially one that will hopefully be open-ended, frank, and passionate.

Now, if you have a good idea, why not talk it over  via PM with other foreros, gathering other opinions? And if you're really shy, why not then discuss it with one or two moderators with whom you've established degree some rapport? (In fact, it would behoove a person to pick a moderator's brain sooner rather than later, probably because your idea has already been brought up or simply to access their experience and insider's perspective.)

But, as a compromise, heck, as an experiment, couldn't you make some foreros mods in only a C&S thread? Think of them as "trustees" in a prison. I think the mods should be allowed to view and post, but they should let these "ombudsmen"--or ombudspeople, I suppose--do the moderating.


----------



## Robert_Hope

bibliolept said:


> Moderation is necessary in any discussion, especially one that will hopefully be open-ended, frank, and passionate.
> 
> Now, if you have a good idea, why not talk it over  via PM with other foreros, gathering other opinions? And if you're really shy, why not then discuss it with one or two moderators with whom you've established degree some rapport? (In fact, it would behoove a person to pick a moderator's brain sooner rather than later, probably because your idea has already been brought up or simply to access their experience and insider's perspective.)
> 
> But, as a compromise, heck, as an experiment, couldn't you make some foreros mods in only a C&S thread? Think of them as "trustees" in a prison. I think the mods should be allowed to view and post, but they should let these "ombudsmen"--or ombudspeople, I suppose--do the moderating.



So instead of having fereros who have been made mods being allowed to be active in the C&S forum..... let's have fereros who have been made into c&s forum moderators....

It sounds a bit like, instead of having a sandwich, let's have a filling between 2 pieces of bread....

I suspect standards in these forums would slip if moderators weren't allowed to do their thing. It would turn into a venting area as so many people have already said. And instead of getting extra moderators to moderate here..... why not just keep the moderators we have?

Moderators are people too! Follow the rules, read this sites mission statement and guidelines..... then make sensible suggestions. Where's the problem with mods being active in here?


----------



## Trisia

Problem is that the original question was based on several assumptions:


 there is a significant number of forum members with good improvement suggestions, who are too shy to talk things over in public and don't have any friends or fave mods to consult with (like Biblio suggested);
there is a high probability that a whole bunch of people who won't have to answer to anyone for their anonymous/whatever posts will always try to keep it decent and on-topic;
it's better for moderators to keep quiet on the forum, let us say whatever, discuss things behind closed doors solely, and let us know only the end-result. That will make all of us shy people feel so much better, especially if the answer is no.
I know this was originally meant as an idea to help people, but I personally think it's a bad idea (there, I've said it).   And that's enough from me.


----------



## coppergirl

Well . . . I don't think it's a case of tying up mods and gagging them. At least, the way I see it, those in the discussion would still be answerable to whatever mod was moderating the forum, to keep it "on-topic", no chat, etc. . . so anonymous posts would presumably still be treated with the same forum rules as usual. I would just imagine that whatever was said in them would not have an avatar and a nic with it, so people would evaluate the ideas posted, rather than react partly based on the postee.

As for whether there is a need for it, as Trisia suggested, this is based on whether or not there really are a significant number of forum members who are shy, uncomfortable about posting their ideas, or who feel that mods might jump in very quickly in the discussion with reasons why the ideas aren't feasible when, maybe, after a bit more discussion they might get to a point where they were feasible in a different format etc.

Now, if there really is no need for this and most people don't feel shy, don't mind no anonymity, and are happy to see the "suggestion" section mixed in with the "I can't navigate the site" questions, then ok, don't change it since most people are happy with it as it is.

The real issue to me seems to be that many of these new idea discussion threads can end up leading nowhere much, because as many people in this thread have already pointed out: 

*1)* the ultimate decisions are left to the moderators (which is necessary of course, but at the same time may make people feel as though their "say" doesn't count, won't make any difference anyway etc)

*2)* there is currently no vehicle for determining what the majority of foreros would like to see happen (e.g. a random quick questionnaire or something to "gauge the pulse" or keep a finger on what different people think)

*3)* there is no anonymity for anyone who feels like maybe they would like to speak up but for some reason doesn't think they feel comfortable doing it. (e.g. either shyness, fear of saying something in an area of the forum with heavy mod participation IF they have had some negative experience with one or more moderators in the past)

*4)* It is a forum dominated by English, so those from other countries or cultures might be reluctant to participate on the grounds that they didn't feel their English was good enough for a proper discussion/debate (this applies to a few of the foreros who contacted me anyway about this thread through the PMs) 

*5)* If anyone was banned or had a bad experience as the direct (or perceived direct) result of anything that may have happened in a C&S thread in particular, then it may be that other foreros may be disinclined to state their ideas in this particular forum if the perception of fairness (think "blindfolded statue of Justice with those two scales" if you are thinking "what is fairness"?) is in any way lacking. 

NOTE: I am not suggesting anyone WAS banned inappropriately, and I don't even know if anyone has ever been banned as a result of any discussions in C&S in particular. But if that were the perception, then I could see where it might mean that anyone who had any doubts about posting might be disinclined to risk it, especially if they had a new idea and weren't sure about the spirit in which it might be received.

*6)* It also may be simply that mods in discussions on ideas have two hats---their moderator hat and their forero hat. Now, to some people it may be obvious which hat they are wearing when. To me, it has always been a little fuzzy. Are they speaking as just another forero? Or as a mod? Is this their opinion? Or the "official" line? Is this their own idea? Or have they already discussed it with other mods? 

Now, this may be me, because I'm a bit thick here. It may be obvious to everyone else whether mods are in the discussion in their "official" role or just giving their personal opinion. But then again, if I'm confused, maybe others may be confused about this too. 

This is also not to say the system isn't working at all, since a lot of people in this thread have suggested that, for them at least, it IS working and very well. It is just to say that I can see where there might be a few areas in which a lot of other new ideas might be missed out. 

As for me personally . . . well, I can honestly say that I have no problem with moderators in . . . well . . . moderation!  

I have never actually had a post deleted, never received a warning, either formal or informal, and have never really had an altercation with any of them, so, again, this is not to say that for me they are big, bad people. I just am more concerned about how free people feel, and how easily the system allows for new ideas from all members to flow freely through C&S.


----------



## Broccolicious

To be honest, I think we're reaching a stalemate here. If people are too shy to post, they're unlikely to join this thread. I'm not sure how much more can be gained by continuing with a discussion that can only be one-sided if some people are too afraid (or not interested enough, or happy enough with the status quo) to contribute.

Some suggestions have been made on perceived problems with the forum, and possible solutions - and I think they have been explained clearly, so that everyone understands. Maybe now is the time to invite Mods (or even the Big Boss) to respond, so that the discussion can either move forwards or come to an end?


----------



## TrentinaNE

> It is just to say that I can see where there might be a few areas in which a lot of other new ideas might be missed out.


I'm breathlessly awaiting this flood of "new ideas." If people are concerned about anonymity, perhaps they can send their ideas to you by PM, and you can provide a list without attribution. 

However, having participated here regularly for close to three years, it seems to me that suggestions regarding WRF tend to fall into three major categories:

(a) technical enhancements. Responses to these suggestions depend largely on what is technically feasible given the structure of the software in use. When changes are feasible and there is general agreement that they would enhance the WRF experience, Mike tends to make these changes. 

(b) requests for expansions of the WR forums' missions, e.g., sections for discussing other topics, for general proof-reading requests, etc. Mike has already stated his thoughts about such suggestions.

(c) "suggestions" about changing the way moderation occurs at WRF. I see no indication that Mike is interested changing the *general* way things work at present. That doesn't mean he's unconcerned about the quality of moderation within the stated guidelines. If people have *particular* experiences with moderators that they perceive to be contrary to the stated goals and rules of WRF, then it's best to address those *particular* experiences by contacting another moderator or Mike -- politely, and as objectively as possible, of course. 

Elisabetta


----------



## Grop

I remark that, if there are good new ideas, you don't want them to be flooded by unreasonable demands and lots of chatty, nothing-new threads (which may be the natural consequence of ceasing any moderation here). Good ideas are only useful if they are implemented.


----------



## Josh_

Trisia said:


> _____________________________
> 
> Problem is that the original question was based on several assumptions:
> 
> 
> there is a significant number of forum members with good improvement suggestions, who are too shy to talk things over in public and don't have any friends or fave mods to consult with (like Biblio suggested);
> there is a high probability that a whole bunch of people who won't have to answer to anyone for their anonymous/whatever posts will always try to keep it decent and on-topic;
> it's better for moderators to keep quiet on the forum, let us say whatever, discuss things behind closed doors solely, and let us know only the end-result. That will make all of us shy people feel so much better, especially if the answer is no.


I think there might be a mixing up of ideas here, so I just wanted to clarify my point.  My idea was about an option for anonymity (that is, a member would have a choice to post using his/her name or without it) in a thread that is fully moderated.  My suggestion was not about unmoderated threads. Indeed, I believe moderators need to be present to answer questions and address other concerns.  Also, anonymity should not give license to rant and rave and to open frivolous threads.  Obviously, any frivolously opened threads should be closed, deleted, or dealt with accordingly by moderators, whereas questions asked and issues raised in earnest should be engaged and answered accordingly.


----------



## danielfranco

Ah, analogies… 

They have a way of becoming completely senseless the further you carry on "analoging". Often sooner than later. 

For example, in the hotel manager analogy. I would have expected to speak directly to the manager instead of writing on a piece of paper (that I believe will go directly from the box to the trash can, unread.)
Maybe I'm blunt and rash and uncouth, but I rather speak to the manager in person and tell him off if I'm dissatisfied. Even if what I have to say were just a suggestion to make things better, I may just tell him off anyway, because that's the way I am.

But I would only suggest and/or complain if I meant to return, if I'd found my experience otherwise enjoyable. If I disagree or feel not taken care of, I will simply never return. Ever.

So much for analogies: After a couple of years I'm still here. I've had some uncomfortable moments with the mods, but that's only because I had been behaving like an ass. The moment my conduct became more acceptable, there were no more mod-problems. That was easy.

So, I think a C&S forum with no mods would be like having a suggestion box with a chute attached to it that goes directly into a trash bin.

Maybe, instead, we could have threads where only members less than 1,000 posts old can participate, to encourage n00bs to speak up.

[Another, more Texan, idea to make shy foreros speak up is a cattle prod.]

Other than that, I'm out of ideas at the moment.
D


----------



## tsunami

I think there should not even be a C&S forum but rather, a link at the top to make individual comments and suggestions for managers of the site to consider. What is the point of having a discussion on individual suggestions or comments when the people responding are not in a position to change or consider anything. With a link, at least if enough people make a similar suggestion for example, the managers can decide if they want to take that on board and change, add, remove elements of forum protocols or rules.

Oh one more thing, lol.. if there was a link, maybe you could leave your email address so they could respond to you personally, even if it was to acknowledge they had recieved your comment or suggestion.


----------



## Etcetera

tsunami said:


> What is the point of having a discussion on individual suggestions or comments when the people responding are not in a position to change or consider anything.


Every new feature is likely to slow down the speed of the forums. If the feature is really handy and important, it's definitely worth it. 

But in order to understand if this or that suggested feature is actually needed by the users, it should be discussed by the users. That's the point of these discussions, as I understand it.

Besides, the more people, the more ideas.


----------



## mkellogg

For those interested in making somewhat anonymous suggestions, feel free to write me through the "Contact Us" link below.  I'll read anything that isn't too long, and I'll probably forget who wrote what within a day or two.


----------



## avok

Revontuli said:


> If we keep the mods completely out of C&S,how will our suggestions be taken into account? Then we'll have talked in vain.
> 
> *Hi Revontuli, it is about less mod participation rather than no mod  *
> 
> On the other hand, if most people say that something should be done about that; if,for example,Avok says he's stopped posting threads in this section for some reasons,this means that not everything's perfect with C&S section.
> 
> *Yes, that's the real problem here. And you seem to be the only person to make a sad but a true link between me not opening any more threads in CS forum and the flaws thereof. Thanks. *
> 
> *Milleti ikna edemedim ama hahaha.*
> 
> Thanks for starting this thread Coppergirl.
> 
> *Thanks Coppergirl, the crusader. I like the way you express yourself no matter how long it is. *


 


Etcetera said:


> It's really odd. Because when you comment on something, I'd expect you to be waiting for comments on your comment. You wouldn't just leave your suggestion and go away, would you?
> 
> *Hi Etc. of course I'd wait for other comments but without a mod saying "Not possible" too early on. So people would have a little more chance to discuss through threads about what they would like to see without worrying.*
> 
> *To tell you the truth, sometimes I just leave my comment and never turn back hahaha  I guess that's what is going to happen with this thread too.*
> 
> 
> So questions are absolutely legitimate here. Including questions about avatars, signatures, and other stuff.
> 
> *Yes, but I did not say/imply that questions should be out of here. *
> 
> *But if a forum is called "Comments and Suggestions", I would wait to see....."comments and suggestions". Is not it that simple?*
> 
> *And the only way seems to make another forum for those who are new or confused, so they can ask questions about their avatars, profile pictures, navigating the site etc., while we keep discussing here freely wihout any mod (any foreros in some cases) hitting out at us.*
> 
> The only problem with this forum, in my view, may be that its title isn't quite precise.
> 
> *I agree with you *
> 
> But I wouldn't suggest its renaming, really.
> 
> *Why would that be? . Though, it seems a more "necessary" suggestion than the infamous "native of-must-become-native language" suggestion. *


----------



## Etcetera

Hi avoc. 



> Hi Etc. of course I'd wait for other comments but without a mod saying "Not possible " too early on. So people would have a little more chance to discuss through threads about what they would like to see without worrying.


But what would be the point of discussing, for example, some new feature, if its introducing isn't at all possible from the technical point of view? I think it'd be a total waste of time. 

Let's remember that it isn't Mike who sets limitations for the fora. Most of the limitations are set by the vBulletin software.




> *Yes, but I did not say/imply that questions should be out of here. But if a thread is called "Comments and Suggestions", I would wait to see....."comments and suggestions". **Is not it that simple?*


It is indeed. But can't we see complaint as a kind of comment?
 And besides, the description of this forum says that it's the place for asking questions. Maybe the problem is that some people don't read these descriptions? Well, then it's their fault, not the forum's.



> Why would that be?


Just because 'Comments and Suggestions' looks beautiful. It's really different from most similar forums on other boards.


----------



## coppergirl

avok said:
			
		

> *And the only way seems to make another forum for those who are new or confused, so they can ask questions about their avatars, profile pictures, navigating the site etc., while we keep discussing here freely wihout any mod (any foreros in some cases) hitting out at us.*




This might be one reason why people feel a bit shy of offering their ideas and suggestions for any changes or modifications in C&S.  I also sense that more than a few people might be feeling that if a suggestion or idea were offered up for consideration, some foreros and/or moderators might jump in to criticize it before the discussion about it had really developed in the thread.  

Many ideas evolve in threads into more viable solutions, and to stem that discussion too early on in a suggestion thread seems to me to be the main issue.  

Of course, Avok has a point, I think, when he mentions that no one likes to feel put on the defensive in any thread for an idea or suggestion, and I think that maybe this happens in C&S more than in other language-related threads perhaps, where issues may be slightly less open-ended.

Anyway, my thanks to everyone who has participated in this discussion in such a constructive spirit.  I have found your ideas and views to be really interesting, and I look forward to seeing whether any of these ideas might be taken forward in some form in future.


----------

