# Forero and/or moderator



## Necsus

Hi everybody. I'd like to know your opinions about a particular aspect of the moderator's figure. Do you think that a moderator can be still a forero too? I mean, is it possible for a forero who has become moderator to continue participating in threads like a simple forero, with the same passion and the same (controlled) excesses, or s/he has to be anyway 'moderate' and super partes since her/his two roles are not separable?
Thanks for your time.


----------



## alexacohen

Yes, I do.


----------



## Moritzchen

They have shown they are able to do it very well.


----------



## romarsan

I agree with Alexa and Moritzchen


----------



## Fernita

I've read many useful posts written by mods answering to threads that have nothing to do with the rules.

I'd like to know why they shouldn't be allowed to post.


----------



## Kibramoa

Necsus said:


> Do you think that a moderator can be still a forero too?  Thanks for your time.



Like Fernita points out, moderators participate as "plain forer@s" in many threads. I have seen this many times in the Spa/Eng forum (which is the one I use the most).   Some give their opinion/suggestion/translation and add an extra phrase or two just like any of us.  I do not think their participation in thread is an abuse.


----------



## romarsan

I can't see where the problem is...
I also agree with Kibramoa and Fernita...


----------



## FranParis

Sorry that I don't go with the flow.

They are human and, as such, they use the power given by their position to manipulate the information to fit their views.

Wait, wait, you will see...


----------



## alexacohen

Not every human being is corrupted by power.
If you want to call it power, that is. 
They have some responsibilities that we have not, and that is all.


----------



## Etcetera

alexacohen said:


> They have some responsibilities that we have not, and that is all.


Well said, Alexa.


----------



## FranParis

Good, let them use them without being both judge and jury...


----------



## anthodocheio

Well, I see the problem the other way round. Don't you think that moderators have to be reeeeally careful when they choose to answer a question? They want to act like foreros and don't start giving advice, and, at the same time, they cannot break any rules, like chatting a little...


----------



## FranParis

Some of them do, some not...

And they can erase your post if they don't like it, explaining that is because this or that rule...

Finally, they are always right, even when they are wrong.


----------



## TraductoraPobleSec

I personally like bumping into the mods and exchanging posts with them. I actually believe it's their duty to be there as much as they can.


----------



## Necsus

Actually I was trying to understand if/howmuch the fact that they are mods can influence other forer@s (and the mods themselves) in their contributions.


----------



## FranParis

So, did you understand that they influence me and my posts?


----------



## rocamadour

Great discussion (thanks, Necsus)!
In my opinion the mods' task is a very hard one. And sometimes thankless, too. This is the reason why I admire many (not all) of them.
I really can't give an answer: I don't know if it is "politically correct" that a person (because persons we are, and human, as FP pointed out) can go on acting both as moderator and forer@ with an unbiassed mind. As for me I'm sure I couldn't.


----------



## alexacohen

Necsus said:


> Actually I was trying to understand if/howmuch the fact that they are mods can influence other forer@s (and the mods themselves) in their contributions.


I don't get it. Mods are not Dr. Jeckyll and Mr. Hyde. They are the same foreros they have always been. 
I can't see at all how they can have any influence on what I write or what I say, apart from chiding me whenever I chat (which is, I'm afraid, quite often).
All right, so sometimes they may make a mistake. So what? 
They are persons, not software!


----------



## Moritzchen

FranParis said:


> Sorry that I don't go with the flow.
> 
> They are human and, as such, they use the power given by their position to manipulate the information to fit their views.
> 
> Wait, wait, you will see...


I´ve never been to any French forum so I don´t know what happens in them. Your accusation is rather serious, but if you say so I guess it´s because you have grounds to base it on. I can say by my experience in the Spanish forums that your statement doesn´t apply.


----------



## danielfranco

I think this could be seen as a sampling error. Just because many of the foreros go around bouncing against the walls and chewing the scenery every so often, doesn't mean that the mods were like that too, before the ascended into the rarefied stratum of modhood. I believe, instead, that moderators are made out of foreros who, _to begin with_, were already mod material.
Sure, if you are like me (a cheeky bastard) it's easy to imagine that, if given the chance to use the superhuman powers of a mod, you would set up yourself as king of the hill and lord it over all the other peasants.
That would work out, I guess, if there weren't ANY other mods around to keep you in check, or if Mike Kellogg was an absentee landlord.

So, yeah, I believe that mods are just regular foreros that have to work extra-extra-extra hard when they come to these forums, instead of playing around all day long, like me, for example.

I've said too much already,
D


----------



## TimLA

Hey Necsus! Good thread!
Mods have a tough job - they need to read each and every post in every thread, modify it when appropriate, communicate with a forero, slap them around a bit when appropriate, move threads around, and I'm sure they do a lot of communicating among themselves.

I believe they should be foreros also, but I wonder if the presence of "MOD" below their name might impact interpretation of their contribution.

Most of the time, mods make major contributions, and I'm glad to see it when they do...often, they are the most expert.
But sometimes they err, and that means they're just like the rest of us...simply human.


----------



## FranParis

Well, this is the perfect example of twisted reasoning, mod like.



Moritzchen said:


> I´ve never been to any French forum so I don´t know what happens in them.


 
Trying to limit my posts to the French forums (fora), is a failed attempt to minor my contribution. A simple check would allow you to avoid such inane statements..




Moritzchen said:


> Your accusation is rather serious, .


 
As in " You should should shut up, if not..."?



Moritzchen said:


> but if you say so I guess it´s because you have grounds to base it on


 
I indeed have, but I'd rather stay in the topic of the thread.



Moritzchen said:


> I can say by my experience in the Spanish forums that your statement doesn´t apply.


 
Allow me to disagree...


----------



## TraductoraPobleSec

danielfranco said:


> So, yeah, I believe that mods are just regular foreros that have to work extra-extra-extra hard when they come to these forums


 
Amen. 

Moderators, in my opinion, should have an active participation and get involved in the fora as much as they can. It is most sad to see a forum without moderators pitching in and doing their job. It feels like a left out forum. Again, this is a very personal opinion


----------



## alexacohen

FranParis said:


> Originally Posted by *Moritzchen*
> I can say by my experience in the Spanish forums that your statement doesn´t apply.
> 
> 
> 
> Allow me to disagree...
Click to expand...

Allow me to disagree... with you. 
I'm a "socialite" with too many posts, as it's been kindly pointed out somewhere; ninety-five per cent of them on the Sp/En forum.
Moritzchen's statement does apply, yours doesn't.
As for the rest, no one is telling you to shut up; least of all, Moritzchen.


----------



## romarsan

I think the mod's point of view is important or irrelevant as the point of view of any other member of the forum. My opinion and the way I express it doesnt vary if a mod posts in the thread. Sometimes mods delete my posts and sometimes I consider it's a wrong decission and other times I undertand their reasons, but they would do the same although they couldn't post. What's the difference of having them posting in the threads or not?
And agree or desagree with someone is a free option


----------



## Necsus

rocamadour said:


> In my opinion the mods' task is a very hard one. And sometimes thankless, too. This is the reason why I admire many (not all) of them.


Tanks, Rocamadour. So do I. You are not the only one who admire many of them. Obviously they are not all the same.


TimLA said:


> I believe they should be foreros also, but I wonder if the presence of "MOD" below their name might impact interpretation of their contribution.


Thanks, Tim. I was wondering exactly the same thing. Because we (forer@s) are not all the same, either.


alexacohen said:


> I don't get it. Mods are not Dr. Jeckyll and Mr. Hyde. They are the same foreros they have always been.


I don't think the mods are Dr. Jeckyll and Mr. Hyde (even if more or less we all have a split personality ), but I don't think either they are exactly the same forer@s they have always been. Not all of them, at least. Each 'person' reacts in a different way to the 'responsibilities', and I suppose they haven't taken a 'moderation' training course, so it's possible that in some case they don't consider that the tone of their interventions could be amplified (in a positive or negative way) by the _mod_ beside their name.
This is obviously my personal opinion.

(forgive me my English )


----------



## alexacohen

Necsus said:


> This is obviously my personal opinion.


Then, my personal opinion is:
I don't know each and every one of the mods, obviously. But the ones I know best have always acted fair and just as mods, and are very valuable foreros. Both. 
This forum wouldn't be what it is without them. I may disagree with them many times, I may be reprimanded, my posts may be deleted. 
But I have never doubted their honesty and their sense of justice. 
I have been a member of several other moderated forums. I know what I'm talking about.

EDIT: Chat: Mis mods-foreros favoritos, no os estoy haciendo la pelota. Pienso seguir tan problemática como siempre, y absolutamente off-topic.


----------



## danielfranco

Necsus said:


> ,I don't think the mods are Dr. Jeckyll and Mr. Hyde (even if more or less we all have a split personality ), but I don't think either they are exactly the same forer@s they have always been. Not all of them, at least. Each 'person' reacts in a different way to the 'responsibilities', and I suppose they haven't taken a 'moderation' training course, so it's possible that in some case they don't consider that the tone of their interventions could be amplified (in a positive or negative way) by the _mod_ beside their name.
> This is obviously my personal opinion.


 
Bueno, pero la verdad es que son 'ñeros que ya de por sí eran muy bien portaditos. Por ejemplo, imagínate si un día fuera yo moderador, mi título sería "*desMODre*".

Este... ¿de qué estábamos hablando?
D


----------



## Tampiqueña

En lo personal estoy en contra de las generalizaciones. Además, no he tenido la oportunidad de tratar a todos los moderadores pero he tenido la suerte de que por lo menos tres de ellos me hayan ayudado con excelentes sugerencias en mis threads. 

Tampoco he sido testigo de que su posición como moderadores afecte su comportamiento al participar como foreros. Excepto quizá porque se apegan a las reglas, no olvidan los buenos modales y no "chatean" como el resto de nosotros.

Aunque como ya lo dije, sólo puedo referirme a los moderadores que conozco, respeto y admiro.

Disculpen que no escriba en inglés, temo que nadie me entendería .

Saludos a todos.

Nota: Me sentiría mal de guardar silencio cuando mis moderadores favoritos (entre ellos mi gurú) son tema de discusión. Espero que nunca dejen de participar como foreros, sería una gran pérdida para el resto de nosotros.


----------



## Jaén

Cien por ciento de acuerdo con los argumentos de los que están a favor.

Además, si la propuesta hecha por el forero/moderador no le parece buena o válida a la persona que pregunta, pues simplemente no la utiliza. El moderdor, además de particiapar, vigilará que se respeten las reglas en el hilo, pero no va a controlar lo que la persona que pregunta escribió en su trabajo final de traducción.

Por lo tanto, cuando hacemos una consulta se mantiene el principio del libre albedrío para elegir la respuesta que más nos parezca adecuada de entre todas las propuestas, sea ella de un simple forero o de un moderador.

Que los moderadores continúen participando como foreros, y con su indispensable (y brillante) trabajo, que nosotros nos encargaremos de mantenerlos bastaaaante ocupados 

(Es broma, amigos Mods!!)

Saludos!


----------



## Paulfromitaly

Necsus said:


> I suppose they haven't taken a 'moderation' training course



We do go through a several week training period.


----------



## alacant

Necsus said:


> Actually I was trying to understand if/howmuch the fact that they are mods can influence other forer@s (and the mods themselves) in their contributions.


 
If that was what you wanted to know why didn't you ask the question in the first place, instead of the other question that you asked?

"Mean what you say and say what you mean", applies to all of  us here.

Saludos, Alacant


----------



## TimLA

alacant said:


> If that was what you wanted to know why didn't you ask the question in the first place, instead of the other question that you asked?
> 
> "Mean what you say and say what you mean", applies to all of us here.
> 
> Saludos, Alacant


 
How kind!
In my opinion, that was the essence of Necsus' first question/post.
Un Saludo


----------



## TrentinaNE

Let's take Necsus's recent comment as a clarification/expansion of his first post and move on, OK?   

Please remember that WRF Rules 2 and 3 are:


> 2. Be helpful, not hurtful.
> If someone's Spanish, English, French or Italian (whichever languages apply) isn't perfect, don't treat him/her badly.
> 3. Be polite.
> The use of "hello", “hi” and "thank you" is always welcome.


Thank you.
Elisabetta


----------



## Necsus

Paulfromitaly said:


> We do go through a several week training period.


Thanks, Paul. I'm really glad to know it, believe me. I'm sorry for my wrong assumption, but nobody said this before, or better I've never read it anywhere. 
Then let say that sometimes and in some case it can happen that the character of person/mod prevail over the training.


----------



## Necsus

TrentinaNE said:


> Let's take Necsus's recent comment as a clarification/expansion of his first post and move on, OK?


Yes. Thanks, Elisabetta. I understand that as a learner maybe I'm not so able to express clearly my thoughts in English, but I hope that who knows me in WRF knows that I don't ask questions at random. I don't find so strange that questions expand and become more specific and articulate in the course of a polite discussion.


----------



## Fernita

Necsus said:


> Then let say that sometimes and in some case it can happen that the character of person/mod prevail over the training.


 
Hola Necsus.

Todos somos humanos y si eso ocurriera, no creo que un mod seguiría siéndolo por el solo hecho de haber sido elegido. 
Ellos también tienen que atenerse a ciertas normas que aprenderán durante el entrenamiento.

Como ya dijera alguien, antes de ser moderador, la persona comenzó siendo un forero, como todos. Si cometiera excesos, no creo que Mike lo dejara actuar. 

Por otro lado, me siento tan amiga como antes, de ciertos moderadores y me gusta cuando participan en algún foro. Porque así es como llegué a conocerlos. 

En lo personal, y no voy a dar nombres, he recibido PMs de algunos mods, *no* para ser advertida sino como lo han hecho otros foreros: para decirme que les ha gustado algún comentario que he hecho. Otros mods son más distantes al igual que cualquier forero.

Si vamos a pensar que por ser mod, eso lo puede convertir en un déspota, creo que estamos menospreciando el criterio de quien lo eligió y de sus colegas. 

Insisto en que un mod, debe seguir teniendo la opción de ser forero porque esa es su esencia. Por supuesto que como hay más trabajo, quizá no pueda participar tanto como lo hacía antes. Y es por eso y me consta que algunos mods lo han pensado bien antes de aceptar dicha tarea.

Para concluir, siguiendo tu línea de pensamiento, diría que el carácter de un forero prevalece a pesar de las normas y de las advertencias que pueda llegar a tener. 

*No creo que un foro, le cambie la personalidad a nadie. *

Saludos.


----------



## alexacohen

> Originally Posted by *Necsus*
> Then let say that sometimes and in some case it can happen that the character of person/mod prevail over the training.


I'd say that any person's character always prevails. Training is not brain-washing. 

I'd rather deal with a person than with a software computer.


----------



## Fernita

alexacohen said:


> I'd say that any person's character always prevails. Training is not brain-washing.
> 
> I'd rather deal with a person than with a software computer.


 
Of course, Alexa. I agree with you. In fact, that's what I meant to say in my previous post.


----------



## Necsus

alexacohen said:


> I'd say that any person's character always prevails. Training is not brain-washing.
> I'd rather deal with a person than with a software computer.


I agree, I've never said that mods should be brainwashed or replaced by a computer program! 
I'm simply convinced that the opinion of a forer@ with 'mod' written beside her/his name counts more than other opinions for most forer@s, and even if I consider that this fact is fair in many cases, since the character prevails it can even happen that a mod who participates in a thread as forer@ goes a little too far, and in this case the effect is definitely negative, in my judgement. 
But obviously I don't think that 'mod' cannot mean forer@ too, let's say that maybe not all of them could have the same talent for it.
However, as I already said, this is just my personal opinion, and I don't want to convince anyone of it, I was just curious to know the experiences of my 'colleagues' forer@s with regard to this issue. So thanks a lot for all your precious contributions!


----------



## danielfranco

Necsus said:


> I'm simply convinced that the opinion of a forer@ with 'mod' written beside her/his name counts more than other opinions for most forer@s...



This is one of the reasons I enjoy participating in these forums so much: the diversity of perspectives.

You see, some cheeky monkeys like me would have thought the complete opposite: that those opinions count less than others', precisely for the same reason.

Of course, nowdays I've modified my views, and I believe that the mods are just like any other forero, albeit foreros that are twice (or many times) busier than the rest of us...


----------



## alexacohen

Necsus said:


> But obviously I don't think that 'mod' cannot mean forer@ too, let's say that maybe not all of them could have the same talent for it.


Gosh, no!
If they were all alike, they would be an endless row of Delta twins in Brave New World!
But my favourite mod-foreros are the most brilliant of them all, right?
That's why I admire them so much.


----------



## Jaén

Necsus said:


> But obviously I don't think that 'mod' cannot mean forer@ too, let's say that maybe not all of them could have the same talent for it.


It's already been said - and for me it's true - that before being named Mods, all of them were forer@s and good ones, you are completely wrong when you say they could not have the same talent. Nobody losses talent only because is named Mod here!

I've had enough of this.

Saludos.


----------



## Angel.Aura

Ciao Necsus, 



Necsus said:


> Do you think that a moderator can be still a forero too?



I think so, yes.



Necsus said:


> I mean, is it possible for a forero who has become moderator to continue participating in threads like a simple forero, with the same passion and the same (controlled) excesses, or s/he has to be anyway 'moderate' and super partes since her/his two roles are not separable?



Yes, in my opinion, again.

I think that, first of all, a Mod is a forer@ and not the other way round. 
And  the fact that one has been chosen to be a moderator is significant of his/her special contribution to the forum he/she attends more.

That said, I guess anybody has his/her own idea about on each forer@ (moderator or not), based on so many things: politeness, precision, competence  (I can add more and more...).
I don't think that the word Mod under a forer@'s name may add authoritativeness to his/her contributions.


----------



## speedier

This has been an interesting discussion, which seems to have revolved around:

1. The original question - should moderators continue participating in threads.

2. Do people take more notice of posts from moderators?

3. Do foreros "change" when they become moderators?

Firstly, I have had very little to do with the moderators, apart from being guided, very kindly and diplomatically I might add, when I have made mistakes.

1. Regarding moderator input to the threads I approve of it completely!
After all, if foreros have been contributing for thousands of posts, why should they have to "bite their tongues" when, as a moderator, they see a glaring error that perhaps someone like me has (in good faith) put forward in response to a question.
To my mind, their duty is clear. If that mistake has not been corrected by another forero, and the questioner accepts my incorrect answer, then the moderator must correct it before it escapes to the archives. Otherwise not only will the questioner be misled, but also everyone who follows them in the thread (until someone eventually corrects it, if at all).

2. Do people take more notice of moderator posts? I believe they do. For someone who hasn't been using the forums long enough to get to know which foreros produce consistently accurate replies, what else do they have to go on? Only three other things come to mind, the number of posts, the conviction of the reply, and whether others agree. Of course, none of those things offers a cast iron guarantee that the reply is a valid one. 

3. Do foreros "change" when they become moderators? I'm not sure that even they themselves would know, but from outward appearances, let me just say that I "dropped out" from the forums for many months due to excessive work commitments, and on my return I was amazed to see how many of the names that I had previously known as foreros had become moderators. I have yet to see any difference in the posts that they made before or after. Whether they had the type of personality to appear curt and abrupt, or whether they appeared outwardly more sympathetic, they didn't seem to change. Whether or not they changed on the inside; who knows?


----------



## Víctor Pérez

speedier said:


> 3. Do foreros "change" when they become moderators?



What I noticed is that due to the amount of work, they participate much less than before and I think is a pity as some of them were very good.


----------



## EmilyD

I think it is probably not technically possible, but I wish that the software did not make changes so exhaustively. (retroactively?)

I apologize for not making sense -- I mean that when a forero becomes a Mod and takes on a Mod hat ( and I love the individualized nicknames) it appears that every post that person has contributed was during Mod status.

I remember when X person's status changed; I don't doubt that there is always a "Welcome thread", but for the evolution predating my arrival, I have little sense of the trajectory...

It seems the sense of humor and patience of the Mods is Vast.

Hugs to all,   _Nomi  _( and I will appreciate anyone who can edit/clarify this).


----------



## TrentinaNE

EmilyD said:


> I think it is probably not technically possible, but I wish that the software did not make changes so exhaustively. (retroactively?)


The information you see displayed in the upper-right corner of each post, as well as the "member level" is dynamic -- the current information is stored in a person's profile and retrieved for display with each message. As far as I know, it is not technically possible for the software we use to store this information historically with each post. 

Elisabetta


----------



## NonComposMentis

danielfranco said:


> Sure, if you are like me (a cheeky bastard) it's easy to imagine that, if given the chance to use the superhuman powers of a mod, you would set up yourself as king of the hill and lord it over all the other peasants.
> That would work out, I guess, if there weren't ANY other mods around to keep you in check, or if Mike Kellogg was an absentee landlord.
> D



Please forgive me for intruding while merely a junior member on such a high-powered group discussion, no one with less than 1,000 posts, most with many times that!!

My experiences with the moderators in the Spanish fora has been exceptional: kind, considerate, polite, absolutely great job! The job is obviously a difficult and demanding one, and their linguistic expertise is priceless. On the other hand, though. What recourse has a mere forum member, if s/he posts in a smaller forum with a single moderator with a king-of-the-hill mentality who then decides not to delete any posts you have made, but to strip you of your ID and toss you out of all the forums, perhaps for having made the grave mistake of showing that they were wrong on a point of grammar? Must you start from scratch with a new ID and just make sure to avoid that forum? Is there any mechanism for reporting such moderator behavior?



danielfranco said:


> Bueno, pero la verdad es que son 'ñeros que ya de por sí eran muy bien portaditos. Por ejemplo, imagínate si un día fuera yo moderador, mi título sería "desMODre".D



I love it! Que poca madre de tales modres.



danielfranco said:


> I've said too much already,
> D



Creo que yo también me he metido en honduras.


----------



## TrentinaNE

NonComposMentis said:


> Is there any mechanism for reporting such moderator behavior?


I'd be eminently surprised if anything like what you described actually occurred but... if you have questions or concerns about a moderator's actions, please contact another moderator.

This thread is veering into different territory than the topic of the initial post.  Let's stick to that, please.  

Elisabetta


----------



## speedier

Now all the headscratching will start NonComposMentis, with everyone trying to work out who you were in previous life .

By the way Víctor Pérez, you are quite right, the mods do post far less because of their onerous duties, but I haven't noticed the style of their posts changing at all.


----------



## dn88

EmilyD said:


> I think it is probably not technically possible, but I wish that the software did not make changes so exhaustively. (retroactively?)
> 
> I apologize for not making sense -- I mean that when a forero becomes a Mod and takes on a Mod hat ( and I love the individualized nicknames) it appears that every post that person has contributed was during Mod status.
> 
> I remember when X person's status changed; I don't doubt that there is always a "Welcome thread", but for the evolution predating my arrival, I have little sense of the trajectory...
> 
> It seems the sense of humor and patience of the Mods is Vast.
> 
> Hugs to all,   _Nomi  _( and I will appreciate anyone who can edit/clarify this).



As TrentinaNE said, the software updates these changes automatically (as well as signatures), so a user can have only one member status at a time. I know there are forums, also basing upon vBulletin, like http://www.offspring.com/forums/ - and this one allows memebers to change their status to whatever they like as soon as they reach 500 posts. I am personally all against it, because it can cause a terrible mess, and the "barrier" between ordinary members and moderators slightly disappears. I am just a bit dissapointed that there are only three member statuses here on WordReference.

And the original question, I think it cannot be answered - it's more a matter of an individual's personality; we are all humans after all.


----------



## tatis

I am glad we have the moderators we have in wordreference forums, and I value their contributions as foreros too.

I've been corrected numerous times, in my opinion, within reason and in a kind way (the first time I felt soooo hurt )

I have seen other forum sites and let me tell you, I wish they had moderators; if they do (I don't know if all forums do), they are not doing their job at all because the comments range from disrespectful to obscene and hurtful to say the least.

I too, have found useful their participation as foreros, although I rarely see if the answer comes from a forero-moderator, which tells me that I do not see necessarily an abuse of authority when they participate as foreros.

I'd like to thank them, for the great job they do.  I love wordreference forum, and I am sure some of it has to do with the moderators' work.


----------



## asm

There is an obvious conflict of interest for all members with two different roles; this happens in all groups. By definition having two roles means conflict. However, in this case the problem is not that important. Moderators have shown respect and responsibility on their duties. Although there have been conflict in the forum, the balance is by far positive.

Beyond my(our) opinion, if moderators weren't allow to be foreros, we couldn't have any; they'd flee the first second they had only one role.

I think we should be thankful for their service and patient for their mistakes (overuse of power included); we need to live with their conflict of interst for the forum's benefit.









Necsus said:


> Hi everybody. I'd like to know your opinions about a particular aspect of the moderator's figure. Do you think that a moderator can be still a forero too? I mean, is it possible for a forero who has become moderator to continue participating in threads like a simple forero, with the same passion and the same (controlled) excesses, or s/he has to be anyway 'moderate' and super partes since her/his two roles are not separable?
> Thanks for your time.


----------



## avok

Necsus said:


> Hi everybody. I'd like to know your opinions about a particular aspect of the moderator's figure. Do you think that a moderator can be still a forero too? I mean, is it possible for a forero who has become moderator to continue participating in threads like a simple forero, with the same passion and the same (controlled) excesses, or s/he has to be anyway 'moderate' and super partes since her/his two roles are not separable?
> Thanks for your time.


 
I guess it really depends on the context of the question asked. For example if someone asks something like "How can I say "I love you" in Portuguese?" The moderator should, of course, answer this question because the answer shall be "objective". Certain grammar rules, that's all.

But on the other hand "cultural forums" or any other "similar threads" should be discussed among the foreros not because we dont like moderators' posts but we want to know and meet "new people", "new foreros", "new ideas". If not, this forum shall turn into a "neighbourhood". "Word Reference Neighbourhood." Everybody knows everybody, everyone knows other moderators' soft spots, it is no fun. And people want to remain anonymous here, that's why we choose a nickname and an avatar. But of course moderators should /will post a few posts "now and then" especially a question about their countries, cultures, religions etc.. is needed to be answered.


----------



## alexacohen

avok said:


> For example if someone asks something like "How can I say "I love you" in Portuguese?" The moderator should, of course, answer this question because the answer shall be "objective".


That question is the one that shouldn't be answered, as it has already been answered one thousand fifteen hundred times!


> But on the other hand "cultural forums" or any other "similar threads" should be discussed among the foreros not because we dont like moderators' posts but we want to know and meet "new people", "new foreros", "new ideas".


But the cultural forums are not the place for meeting new people or new ideas. It is a place to discuss the differences and similarities among our different cultures.
And it is the forum which needs to be more heavily moderated (my opinion and no more). Cultural differences can be tricky.


> ". If not, this forum shall turn into a "neighbourhood". "Word Reference Neighbourhood." Everybody knows everybody, everyone knows other moderators' soft spots, it is no fun.


If you post in the forums long enough, you will of course end up knowing a lot of foreros. Sometimes it is fun, sometimes it is sad, sometimed it is serious. 


> And people want to remain anonymous here, that's why we choose a nickname and an avatar



My sister made the mistake of posting in one forum (her husband's) under her own name. The result was verbal and physical attacks on her in real life. We remain anonymous for our own protection.


----------



## Einstein

I really don't see why moderators shouldn't be foreros too. After all, they become mods on the basis of their experience; why should that experience finish? Surely they remain in touch with the work if they continue to participate and express their views on language, and not just on the behaviour of other foreros.
If I disagree with moderators' opinions about language I say so in a post, as I do with anyone else. On the other hand, if I disagree with their decisions as moderators, I sometimes send them a private message. Their response doesn't always satisfy me, but that simply shows that the forum is as imperfect as its members.


----------



## bibliolept

I can only say that I would be very sorry if mods did not help answer questions. And those seeking answers would be ill-served if denied access to the significant experience, insight, and knowledge exhibited by many mods.


----------



## Moritzchen

Have you noticed mods have been having a more active participation in the threads lately?


----------



## Namarne

Moritzchen said:


> Have you noticed mods have been having a more active participation in the threads lately?



Yes, if you call it like that, "participation", yes. 
(I'd rather say they've been more... "DELETErious"...  In my humble opinion, I love them when participative.)



bibliolept said:


> I can only say that I would be very sorry if mods did not help answer questions. And those seeking answers would be ill-served if denied access to the significant experience, insight, and knowledge exhibited by many mods.



I totally agree.


----------



## speedier

I've just come across my first 'normal' thread with contributions from two mods.

http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=196941

They might not have been mods when they made the contributions, but I wonder what the record is, i.e., the thread with the most number of moderator contributions. Any advance on two (excluding this one or others relating to moderator activities of course)?


----------



## klodaway

Hello all-

A very interesting thread indeed.

I do not know any moderators well (or at all) to read their minds, eventhough I've exchanged PMs and have had posts deleted or edited on a few occasions, but I think it is a rather philosophical debate. 

How many mods would be willing to do the "mods" job if they were denied the right to participate?
A previous post has pointed out that "one cannot be judge and juror". I disagree in the context of forero (juror?) vs. moderator (judge?).
Being a forero and a moderator allows the mods to still be part of the community _(on a side note, I here disagree with avok in post #55 : you make sound "neighbourhood" derogatory, but why shouldn't a forum be a place where people feel part of a community, where at random you come across other people you like?)_. 
If they were only moderator, they would not be only "judges", they would become more like "the police" and stand OUT of the community. 

Then two questions would come out :
 - will you like a moderator who is only here to remind the rules, edit and delete?
 - would there be anybody left willing to become moderator?

That is why I am saying the original question, eventhough a very interesting topic to debate, is rather philosophical : the "essence" (that's a big word ) of these excellent forums (I use French/English and English only) rests with the moderators being able to post as foreros...

Obviously, as I appear - upon proofreading my post - to have worded my opinion quite strongly, it is simply and only my humble opinion.

klod-


----------



## brian

I can say quite happily that being a moderator has in no way affected the quality or depth of my posts, at least not how I see them. While I might make less posts in quantity than I otherwise would as a regular forero, when I sit down to answer a question in a thread, I give it my full attention and say everything I need and want to say. The only reason my posts might be better now than long ago is because I've learned so much by continuing to be a forero as well as a mod.

Whether or not my post comes off as more "correct" or exhaustive just _because_ I am a moderator.. I cannot say. But I can say this: I love writing long and detailed posts about the subtle nuances of a word or construction, only to find out that someone completely disagrees with me. Ever since I got here, I've tended to write novels for posts--mostly because I'm not good with what some might call "brevity of words."  Sometimes my posts help, sometimes they spark more discussion, and sometimes they completely kill the discussion! But in any case, I do it because I love the dialog, so the more people who disagree with me or ask me to explain something further, the better. The last thing I want is for people to think that my posts are somehow more correct just because I have a mod title under my name!

Actually, maybe the last thing I want is to not be _able_ to make such posts at all. If I weren't able to still make posts like this because of moderating duties, you can be sure I'd have quit loooooongggg ago.


----------

