Forum "Moderation"

I do agree that we DEFINATELY need more than one moderator in the Behavior section.  Heck there are like three or four in this section and it is nowhere near as troubled.  Adding a second mod would be a good step towads avoiding unfortunate situations like we have had lately.

And Bevo--I feel ya.......[]

ORIGINAL: BEVOLASVEGAS
If you're not recommending more exercise, being the "pack leader", 3 alpha rolls, & numerous tsssst's.  Then you are likely going to be edited. 

Wow. that's a pretty severe criticism. My initial response is to think that this is a huge exaggeration if not completely untrue. Granted I've not been here long, but I've never seen anyone edited for NOT recommending something. I don't suppose you could illustrate where this has happened?

By the way, I've not seen anyone edited for recommending something either. I've seen people edited for getting totally off topic and for attacking, being rude, baiting, but never recommending (or not recommending) something about dog behavior.

I wholeheartedly agree with some who say that more than one moderator is needed in such a busy and 'volitile' section as Behavior. If that is where much of the drama and emotional postings are, then yeah, at least another moderator is warranted, IMHO. NOT to keep people from posting what they think, but to serve the board's and members' needs as regards a healthy environment for ALL viewpoints to be seen and heard.

My main issue is with the "off-topic"ing. I feel that it is sometimes used to "silence" someone who is raising a question to which the answer may not be in line with the modertor's personal philosophy. Previously, "off topic" was something that was rarely red-inked--only when it was a really blatant irrelevent conversation between two people, or if someone had come in with a specific question that didn't get answered because the thread went off in some other total random direction. But to call 'off-topic!' when a theoreritcal question is posed every time someone tries to broaden the discussion is really stifling to debate and conversation.

ORIGINAL: houndlove
My main issue is with the "off-topic"ing. I feel that it is sometimes used to "silence" someone who is raising a question to which the answer may not be in line with the modertor's personal philosophy.

If that's happening, then absolutely, that needs to be addressed. In my opinion, a moderator should NOT apply their personal beliefs. They should stay as unbiased as possible when using their "power". It's the whole "with power comes responsibility" thing.

Previously, "off topic" was something that was rarely red-inked--only when it was a really blatant irrelevent conversation between two people, or if someone had come in with a specific question that didn't get answered because the thread went off in some other total random direction.

Those sound like valid "off-topic" scenarios. I actually haven't seen where someone has been "red-inked" for other "violations". Of course, I don't comb all the threads. And I don't have a history here so I haven't seen what you and others have, so I can't give my opinion. (Thank God, huh?) LOL

I'm unfamiliar with the "red-ink" method of moderating. I had never seen it before coming here. And I can't say I'm totally supportive of it. It reminds me of getting a bad grade in school or punishment or public embarrassment. I've also seen blue ink, I believe? Is there somewhere on the forum where this is explained?

But to call 'off-topic!' when a theoreritcal question is posed every time someone tries to broaden the discussion is really stifling to debate and conversation.

I absolutely agree! I just haven't seen this.

My main issue is with the "off-topic"ing. I feel that it is sometimes used to "silence" someone who is raising a question to which the answer may not be in line with the modertor's personal philosophy.

 
Agreed.  And how to decide what is "off topic"?  There are plenty of people who don't believe that the thyroid plays a part in behavoir.  So someone who suggests getting a thyroid check for a behavoir problem may, or may not depending on personal belief, be off topic.  Not that I've seen that happen here, but that was just an example that sprang to mind. 

ORIGINAL: spiritdogs

Not having been in on billy's thread, I really can't comment on it except to say that we probably need to consider members' usual posting style, too.

I don#%92t think we should allow things from established members that we wouldn#%92t allow from someone we didn#%92t “know”. A lot of Billy#%92s comments would have people up in arms if they came from someone whose posting style wasn#%92t known yet. IMO, rules should be enforced across the board or not at all. That#%92s where accusations of favoritism and cliques come from [sm=2cents.gif]

My main issue is with the "off-topic"ing. I feel that it is sometimes used to "silence" someone who is raising a question to which the answer may not be in line with the modertor's personal philosophy

Cressida, you bring up a great point.
 
Especially in behavior this becomes an issue.  If you're discussing "alphas" and a multi-dog household-and intervening with behavior issues, this automatically goes into a discussion of "pack dynamics." 
 
It's very confusing in behavior because issues are cross linked and connected.  As Agilebasenji stated, there may be medical reasons for a behavior, or there may be external factors for the same behavior.  So to venture into an offshoot discussion might shed more light upon the situation. 
 
It's kind of like trying to read a book with a laser pointer.  The laser pointer can and will illuminate one letter or maybe two at a time, but a flashlight can give you a better overall view of the page.

Are we allowed to nominate moderators?  I nominate Billy for mod in the behavior section! []

ORIGINAL: FourIsCompany

 I've also seen blue ink, I believe? Is there somewhere on the forum where this is explained?

 
The mods use red ink to delete something, but if you click on that big A that's underlined, you can use whatever color ink you want, even red. [] Blue ink just means that the poster chose that color to stress something.
 
Joyce

Are we allowed to nominate moderators? I nominate Billy for mod in the behavior section!

 
LMAO.. perfect choice...he can demonstrate "bad behavior"  [sm=biggrin.gif]

ORIGINAL: luvmyswissy
Are we allowed to nominate moderators?  I nominate Billy for mod in the behavior section! []

 
LMAO.  No one needs guidance on behavior more, that's for sure.

I don#%92t think we should allow things from established members that we wouldn#%92t allow from someone we didn#%92t “know”. A lot of Billy#%92s comments would have people up in arms if they came from someone whose posting style wasn#%92t known yet. IMO, rules should be enforced across the board or not at all. That#%92s where accusations of favoritism and cliques come from

 
I agree 100%  
To me it doesn't matter who is posting... what is a rule for one should be a rule for everyone.  Its not fair for anyone..including the mods...to try to decide what kind of personality posted.  And its not fair for any poster to read something and not answer the say way.

quote:

ORIGINAL: houndlove
My main issue is with the "off-topic"ing. I feel that it is sometimes used to "silence" someone who is raising a question to which the answer may not be in line with the modertor's personal philosophy.


If that's happening, then absolutely, that needs to be addressed. In my opinion, a moderator should NOT apply their personal beliefs. They should stay as unbiased as possible when using their "power". It's the whole "with power comes responsibility" thing.

 
This is what some members perceive is happening there.  The mod on that section was basically trying to moderate the threads she started, even before she was a moderator.   She, and others, posted general behavior topics in the CM section to avoid their beliefs being challenged, and IMO, she is stopping discussions that could be productive, along this theory:
 

It's very confusing in behavior because issues are cross linked and connected.  As Agilebasenji stated, there may be medical reasons for a behavior, or there may be external factors for the same behavior.  So to venture into an offshoot discussion might shed more light upon the situation. 

It's kind of like trying to read a book with a laser pointer.  The laser pointer can and will illuminate one letter or maybe two at a time, but a flashlight can give you a better overall view of the page.

 
I have no problem with OT discussions that are a bit tangential, but still generally relate to the topic, or with brief side discussions.  I think it adds to the camaraderie on the board in many cases.  But, obviously, if a behavior topic is derailed by a too-long discussion of the role of hypothyroidism in aggression for example, then perhaps a gentle suggestion to take that to a new thread is good.  But, to stop back and forth conversations between members that are even on topic in a general way, is, IMO, censorship.  If someone starts being unpleasant, fine.  But, if two members are continuing a debate that is related to the OP, what's the problem?  To me, mods might even invite some lurkers to comment, or try to engage other members to respond, not just shut the active posters up. [sm=2cents.gif]


 

ORIGINAL: probe1957

ORIGINAL: luvmyswissy
Are we allowed to nominate moderators?  I nominate Billy for mod in the behavior section! []

I vote for Billy (or was that Bully), too.  LOL, it would be the first time I could publicly call a moderator a snot and get away with it. [][][][][]

If life was fair, I would be taller.