Originally Posted by
seanthepilot
The problem koko talks about was more a symptom of the situation. The milepoint link would be absolutely of no interest to anyone if the thread was not locked. I would guess that the link is of little interest or value to members on a fair weather day.
Had the thread not been locked, the link would have not stood out. The problem wasn't the link, but that the thread was closed at a time of high activity.
Nobody is questioning the locking of the thread. This is the job of the moderators, who have and require enough autonomy to carry out their tasks, as they seem fit.
Reactive management would see the problem as the link, when really the link wasn't really the issue. Looking at the same link out of that specific situation shows that the link is pretty harmless, which reinforces my point. It then seems like your concerns are critical of moderation (comments like the number of people on the forum when the thread was locked, etc) and not relevant to this conversation.
You make a good point.
Would it be wrong to insist on a more strict set of rules for moderators' signatures than for posters' signatures?
I get it that they are members 'first and foremost,' but when a thread is locked,
their sig line is the last thing anyone sees on that thread.
As such, they have an extra responsibility to be judicious in what is contained in that sig line.
Something like: 'Moderators signatures must comply with every TOS and should not link to alternative IBBs, blogs or other sites where locked thread discussions can continue.'
I know I am going to get the whole knee-jerk 'you can't tell moderators what to do....only moderators can do that.' But how about just a friendly suggestion for an addition to the Moderator Best Practices document?
Originally Posted by Jenbel
You are our reprsentatives, not our controllers
I have to say, this made me giggle. Don't worry, we know who the controllers are.
:*