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.

[albaqwerty]

I've modified my original suggestion to
--anseer removed-- Site rule No (insert) breached/broken

No need for secret mods.

[THECORBYLOON]

I would think using alternative names to explain deletions is an easier and faster alternative to changing the software to display the specific rule that was broken.

[pixie374]

16:16- I honestly don't think so, jno. Anyone without the courage of their conviction, shouldn't be removing a post anyway. Imv, as little should be removed as reasonably possible.
Anyone willing to be a mod now, would be blamed for every decision made- like Andy is. I think, now, it might probably be better to allow mods to put their name to a removal along with the reason.
That should reduce erroneous removed answers.

[pixie374]

TCL, surely that would just cause debate? There must be a particular rule broken for it to be removed in the first place?
If it were me lol- it would take about 4 mins to post under the wrong name anyway :-)

[THECORBYLOON]

There are various reasons for deleting posts and I think it would take some time to automatically produce the reason.

Creating a new account takes minutes and it can then be used to post comments from the Mod.

[jim360]

// [My suggestion] should reduce erroneous removed answers. //

What "erroneous removed answers", though? Multiple times, the Editors have confirmed that they (a) review all decisions taken, and (b) are happy with them all -- or at the very least the overwhelming majority. Now, granted, you could argue that the Editors themselves are "wrong", in the sense that the rules themselves might need some changes, but in that case the moderation itself still isn't an issue.

An alternative explanation might be that those users who feel that answers were removed erroneously themselves have missed something. This rarely seems to figure in the complaints. Perhaps some increased transparency would help, for sure, but not because the moderation itself is flawed.

[ABSpareEditor]

"Perhaps some increased transparency would help"

That was the objective.

[pixie374]

Maybe jim- but you have already suggested "interpretation" comes into it.
In any case, I hope AB never want more moderators- as that seems to be public, so basically "you will get the flack for all the secret ones too".
Tbh, it's all quite mind-boggling....

[pixie374]

"More transparency" with secret mods, double accounts and no rule numbers given?

[THECORBYLOON]

As the idea is the responsible Mod justifies the deletion, would that not specify the rule that was broken?

[pixie374]

No TCL- that would require each mod responding- and giving an opinion. Just the factual rule broken will suffice. Thanks though.

[naomi24]

Jim, the editors might give reports accompanying deletions a cursory glance but I don’t for a moment believe they ‘review all deletions’. I have never seen a removed post restored unless specifically requested but I’ve seen countless posts that broke no rules removed. Ive even seen people who broke no rules removed. It’s nonsense to suggest the moderation isn’t flawed. It is.

[pixie374]

Of course it is- this idea that people won't all instinctively respond to someone saying "I removed your post, as it was a personal attack", by saying "it wasn't, because....." and others weighing in and derailing it all, is never going to happen.
There needs to be a visual difference.

[THECORBYLOON]

"I’ve seen countless posts that broke no rules removed. Ive even seen people who broke no rules removed. It’s nonsense to suggest the moderation isn’t flawed. It is."

You have seen posts re-instated because someone has asked for that.

If, as you claim, posts abiding by the rules have been deleted, would their authors not have challenged them and seen them re-instated? Perhaps it could have gone either way but if the author isn't fussed, why re-instate it?

When you notice a post has been deleted, can you mind on the contents of that post, word-for-word?

I have seen posts that blatantly broke the rules but then the author swears blind it was fine and dandy.

Why would someone who has broken no rules be banned? It is possible that there is something you're not aware of which would justify that action.

[Khandro]

If something isn't done, you'll end up with more moderators than users, that would be fun, they could moderate one another & see how they like it! :0)

[naomi24]

Corby, why don’t you get yourself one of those big spotlight things to shine in my face whilst you attempt to interrogate me? I’m getting a bit fed up with this from you. I’ll say once again just for your benefit I don’t make imaginary claims.

[wolf63]

This thread could go on for years and the problem would still remain unresolved.

ABeds need to work out what they want from the site.

Deletions need to be categorised - to distinguish spam and totally inappropriate answers from the rest.

The mods should have to explain why they have removed any posts that are due to infighting and the usual human bad behaviour.

I think that mods should be visible but I understand why some folk might not wish to reveal that they are a mod.

On the brights side - I have bought some popping corn for the microwave, anybody want to buy some?

[jim360]

Since the overwhelming majority of moderation is pretty trivial stuff, really -- deleting spam accounts, closing dead threads that the spammers reactivate for whatever reason -- then I don't see any reason not to take seriously the idea that the Editors are able to keep track of any of the more possibly controversial decisions. So for them to repeatedly stress, publicly and privately, that they're satisfied with the moderation, suggests that in this too they ought to be listened to.

[pixie374]

Wolf, I would suggest Eds decide what they want they want from the site?
Professional expertise, chat and friendliness, longterm users, younger people, and so on. It can't be everything to everyone.
I would suggest their USP is slightly more mature members, and it shouldn't resemble FB, Twitter etc. Part of its charm is that it isn't just the same as all the others. However, adults do like to be treated as such. Anyone about to say "act like one then".... is getting it the wrong way round.

[FatticusInch]

THECORBYLOON
//"I’ve seen countless posts that broke no rules removed. Ive even seen people who broke no rules removed. It’s nonsense to suggest the moderation isn’t flawed. It is."//

/You have seen posts re-instated because someone has asked for that./

Never seen that. I’m still yet to fathom why being chased by a herd of cows whilst serving in Northern Ireland was removed, no satisfactory explanation to its deletion, zero reinstatement.

It certainly made up my mind for me in regards to making a donation to the site.

But as has been mentioned when I glanced in on the thread, some are obviously and blatantly favoured over others.