Secret Moderators

[ABSpareEditor]

I would like to acknowledge that there are some accounts that have been created by our moderators, to help them control the community, without breaking their normal identity.

Having multiple AnswerBank accounts is against site rules. However, these accounts have been approved by the Editors.

These moderators will be added to this thread, and you should give them as much respect as you would give to an Editor.

If you are a moderator, and would like to have one of these accounts, please send us an email.

[calmck]

Regarding qualifying an answer I agree with jim360. I will answer a Body and Soul question if I can based on my nursing experience or personal health experience, a parenting question based on being a parent and grandparent, ex pat and Brexit as a legal expat in Portugal complying with all regulations re driving and residency. If people did this life would be easier on here. State your qualification to answer

[Khandro]

jim // if, for example, you say "I'm not a lawyer/doctor/scientist, but my understanding is that...", or words to that effect, then voila, problem solved...//

Within the context of that post maybe, but don't forget that professional lawyers, doctors & indeed scientists have widely differing views within their own disciplines.
In fact, my experience has been that the best are usually the least dogmatic.

[naomi24]

calmck, I disagree. You can't be that picky on a site like this because it creates confusion. Anyone can say they have experience in any given area but it doesn't follow that they have. I've actually, on more than one occasion, reported and had removed highly dangerous medical advice posted by someone who regularly claims to know about medicine. As long as there's a disclaimer at the topic heading, the questioner knows that answers should not necessarily be taken as gospel. That is all the owners can reasonably do.

[Peter Pedant]

"I'm not a lawyer/doctor/scientist
cheer up boys and girls - there is no evidence at all that anyone on the Law thread has actually taken the advice.....
other than the category of "I was gonna do it anyway"

ditto for medicine

[Spicerack]

Couldn't people who have erroneous theories about, say science, be shown why they are wrong by experts rather than have their 'stupid' ideas removed. Otherwise, they not only go on believing arrant nonsense (as Jim would say ;)) but they feel belittled and marginalised.
Personally, I feel I've been educated by people, mainly, on here but also other sites since discovering t'internet relatively late in life.
For instance, believe it or not, I'm a lot more open minded and try to be understanding than I was a few years ago.
If everyone had just dismissed me, jeered at me, I'd still believe the things I did only with added anger.
In short, you'll catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. (hope that's right)

[pixie374]

I agree with naomi and spice... have said the same myself. Leaving only "expert" advice on, would be very complicated. How does a new person see the qualifications and verification of those posters? Will they have a tick by their name to show they have proven themselves?
Internet rules are kind of- read everything and then make up your own mind. Wrong answers should be discussed and explained. Not removed, this isn't a "professional" site. A disclaimer should be enough.

[roadman]

amen spicy amen

[anneasquith]

Why is there any discussion with management. ? Who, in turn are replying to abers ? Either accept the ‘ new’ rules or leave the site.

[pixie374]

Maybe they prefer it to work, Anne?

[naomi24]

^A good example of bad advice. People leaving the site is exactly what the owners don't want, anneasquith.

[Togo]

Where's Wally? :))

I note that the "SecretMod"(Nearly wrote Secret Squirrel) persona was set up 7/10/2019. It has taken almost 2 years for the first post. Curiouser and Curiouser.

[jim360]

Khandro: //Within the context of that post maybe, but don't forget that professional lawyers, doctors & indeed scientists have widely differing views within their own disciplines.
In fact, my experience has been that the best are usually the least dogmatic. //

Absolutely right, and the last point also is very fair. I think it's a question of judging when to be dogmatic or not, as there are certainly times when it's correct to be unequivocal. I personally highly doubt I get the balance right, but perhaps in part it's reactionary -- which isn't to say that it's justified.

[douglas9401]

There seems to be a school of thought that refusing to accept terms and conditions will result in change.
Some are clearly not as clever as they imagine.

Like all organisations with a hierarchy Answerbank will back their staff until the bitter end for better or worse so get over it

[pixie374]

It shouldn't be a question of "judging". It either breaks a particular rule or it doesn't.

[roadman]

heads you win tails i lose anyone want to play

[pimplyteen]

Reading though this thread it really only leaves VAR to be demanded. :0)

[jim360]

// Leaving only "expert" advice on, would be very complicated. //

Clearly -- and there's also obviously the question about who judges what is and isn't expert advice. As Naomi said earlier, too:

// I've actually, on more than one occasion, reported and had removed highly dangerous medical advice posted by someone who regularly claims to know about medicine. //

So in that sense, my own point is that we should be more aware of our own limitations. The more technical a question is, the more cautious we should be of contributing if we aren't sure of ourselves, and the more self-critical we should be. How this intersects with moderation is obviously also a difficult balance, but I think the general guideline is that if it's clearly objectively wrong (as, eg in Naomi's examples), then it's obviously correct to step in and remove it.

[roadman]

douglas9401 that is a very good point it would look bad if the powers that be did not support their own

[pixie374]

It would be more useful to answer it and explain. "Advice" can change on a daily basis. Where are the qualifications shown of these people removing what they believe is "wrong"?

[jim360]

If you were replying to me, Pixie, I was here talking about "judging" in terms of judging *my own* decisions about when to be dogmatic or not, and not in terms of moderation. All the same, this idea that you seem to have that there is any possibility of a rule set that is wholly objective is, at best, wildly optimistic. It doesn't occur in real life, there is always room for interpretation; no rule set can avoid some amount of grey area. What matters is that a moderating decision can be justified.