Identifying People as Moderators
 

I have noticed that people who are moderators in a particular forum are shown as "Moderator" in every forum in which they post. While we certainly should be grateful for the work that they do, showing them as a moderator in every forum gives them a certain "moral authority" which I do not believe they have.

My experience is that they generally seem quite level headed when actually moderating in their own forum, but occasionally "let loose" in other forums. While they are certainly entitled to their opinions, I don't think there should be a suggestion that their opinions are the official opinions of Flyertalk, particularly when they are posting a controversial opinion or, even more importantly, are being "blunt" or even threatening with another Flyertalker.

ILP,

You may get a quicker response from Randy in the ORP forum... do not believe the Talkboard controls the system issues.

NOTE: This is a personal opinion, not one based on my role as a Moderator of CC. :)

William

FWIW, I would prefer if the tagline under my handle only read Moderator in the forums that I moderate.

All moderators are Flyertalk Members first and foremost. Believe it or not, I'd personally like to be seen as such over the entire FT community, and just as a "keeper of the peace" in the board I moderate.

This is, of course, my opinion. I don't pretend to speak for the other mods or Randy.

I agree with CB4.

This is also a question of both policy and technology. Istm the technical question needs to be answered first (is it possible) and only then will the policy question fruitfully be able to be addressed.

So, imo, the first thing is to ask in the Tech forum whether such is possible. If so, then reference the answer and raise the question about the policy in ORP. If not, end of discussion.

My understanding, and I may be wrong here, is that all Flyertalk members are assigned to 'groups' and that group name is displayed underneath the member's handle.

Some groups are:
Moderator
TalkBoard Member
Flyertalk Evangelist
Original Member
etc.

And I think it has to do with (at least in some cases) granting system permissions.

It might be possible to grant the relevant moderator permissions without creating a moderator 'group' - that is, to have Dan grant the permissions one member at a time (and then remember to take those permissions away individually if appropriate, rather than just take a member out of the moderator group).

My sense is that the user 'group' feature was the easiest way for the FT admin folks to tackle the issue, though it might be possible for them to add a bit of work to the process to change the way this is done if it's widely considered to be a problem.

[Posting in a personal capacity only and not as a member of any group, and probably wrong in any case]

Gary

Works for me, so off to the tech forum it goes.

My tag never reads "moderator" so I guess I'm ambivalent.

I'm not sure how the formatting of this may actually work. Dan's on vacation but perhaps we can re-configure this to be less of an issue. I think on several occasions I have pointed out to members that I can not be party to anything that would prevent Moderators from also being members. They must first and formost be able to participate as regular members on issues and opinions and that may on occasion include being a bad boy. But, in those situations, they will be dealt with just as any other member - the difference of course as with any other situation, it depends on if you are any other member with a reputation and history of being a bully or bad boy or if you are just a member who just happens to step over the line in this one occasion.

Again, perhaps there is a way to change this so it's less intrusive in other forums they post.

I doubt that this is possible.

Looking at the settings there is no option to display the moderator tag only in that user's "home" forum. User titles seem to be an all or nothing proposition.

The only way I think you could do this is to make a new user group for each moderator, and name that moderator group after the boards the moderator works in...

Would be a few hours work for all the moderators and to me that would seem like too much work for a minor problem...

Why not just require all moderators to show their "credentials" in their signature line?

As a moderator, I only use my OMNI/Amex sig when posting on "official business".

I don't post creds in my .sig unless it's official business in the US forum, and sometimes not even then.

Member first. Moderator second.

OK. But that begs the question - b/c when you post it is "moderator first" (and only - there is no second), since that is how you are identified off to the left under your handle.

Randy doesn't share that thought. We are members first, and then moderators. Just because some have the title next to their name doesn't make them "more" than others.

You are confusing a feature of the software's defaults with something substantive, imo.

When I'm acting as moderator I "sign" it as moderator. When I'm not, I don't.

Good for him. I agree. However, as is apparent from the OP, some members have a different perception. Hence the discussion in this thread.

So when you are not signed in as a moderator all of your posts don't have the "moderator" tag under your handle, above the "bio"?

No, this is not correct. We do not have a separate log in as moderators. (with few exceptions) I log in as wharvey and it automatically has "moderator" assigned above the bio. The only for me to remove that designation is to resign as a moderator.

William

:confused: You know the answer to that. It's been pointed out many times.

Your complaint is with the software. Asking rhetorical questions about what is a software issue isn't very probative.

And because the software defaults the way it does, every moderator takes pains to make it clear when he/she is acting as a moderator and posting as a member. I suspect that's pretty clear to most folks.

You are welcome to explore my posts. When acting as a Moderator, I sign it as moderator. When acting as a member, I don't sign it as a moderator. I'm not clear why you are still confused since this is exactly what you asked for above:



Most if not all do this. So what is the problem?

And, in any case the bottom line is this: the question was asked. FT Tech staff quickly responded that this was not possible in the current software options. The amount of work to do a workaround would be massive and lead to an administrative mess as dozens of separate forum moderator groups are maintained. So the question has been asked and answered. While the discussion has been illuminating, I hope that John will now close this because further discussion or disingenuous-appearing questions simply appear, imo, to be tendentious at this point.

I think this has been mentioned a few times (mostly by moderators who wish they weren't so identified board-wide), but it doesn't appear that anything can be done.

I like that it gives new members an opportunity to see which community volunteers are around to help them with questions, but I certainly hope that no one would ever read it as someone's opinion was more important than any others.

No, when I post as part of "official business", I leave the sig box checked (like on this post).

A bit of [my perception of] history
 

Back on the first day of moderation, which was three years ago next week, me and the other original moderator ("Moderator1" a.k.a. "Burkey") decided to be anonymous. Randy assigned sequential handles, at our request.

About three weeks later we decided to end anonymous moderation, after a ground-swell effort of posters to "out" us ;). We decided to maintain the handle, as a way of people immediately knowing we were acting as a moderator. We added a signature line with our normal name, so posters knew who was behind the posting.

Soon after Burkey and I started moderating, a third moderator was named, but she decided to use her normal handle. I recall there were some instances where people weren't sure whether she was posting as a regular user or moderator, as the old software at that time did not have any sort of flag, Consequently I believe she would add a signature line to designate "official" moderation acts.

There was a pretty long period before other moderators were added, maybe six months. No one else apparently ever asked for a sequentially assigned name. Eventually the de facto practice was to use one's normal handle.

I have to log in and out, to change my handle. A bit of a pain I'll admit, but one wouldn't want to kill off a legacy tradition :cool: .

I'm back in "normal" mode. :eek:

As a newbie on the job (and still learning my way around here as a mod), I too had the concern of always having the "moderator" title looming under my SN. I don't know if I'm still comfortable having it wherever I post on FT, but when only acting under official moderator business do I ever post a signature stating that I'm a moderator of a particular forum.

Perhaps it should be made a bit more clearer that moderators are moderators when a signature is placed under where they're posting?

aloha

I'm not sure that signatures are the answer, as many people (myself included) suppress the display of sigs, and so they would never be seen by many.

When it comes down to official moderating business, I physically type in:

"slippahs | Hawai`i board co-moderator"

rather than having it in my signature file... It's allowed me to avoid this problem. In any case, it was just a thought.

aloha

So if this were a Bridge game, a "FT Evangelist" out-trumps any "moderator"? ;)

I appreciate the attention this issue has received and whatever is decided, we'll live with. However, there does not have to be some grand technical solution IMO. If you want to correct the problem, change the system so that NO one be designated with the "Moderator" tag. Then, require that all moderators indicate in their signatures that they Moderator of X forum, as slippahs indicates above. So, unless I'm missing something it is not true that nothing can be done.

Further, the signature would ensure that people could see who is a moderator and of which forum(s). I'm not trying to suggest that anyone would think that a moderator's opinion is more important than another's. What concerns me is the moderator who, for example, in a fit of pique, says something inappropriate. (It can and does happen - we're all human.) Unless everyone knows who moderates each forum, it appears that the "moderator" has license to be a jerk. Contrary to what is posted above, I do not believe every moderator takes great pains to make it clear that he/she is posting as a moderator or a member, nor should she or he have to if my suggestion were to be implemented.

Thanks again for looking into the matter.

Per Craig's history lesson, I was the fourth moderator appointed by Randy to assist in UA and Coupon Connection (and before the later initial "wave" of moderators)

Randy asked me at the time to make it clear when I was acting as a moderator and when I was posting as a member by typing in something very much like what slippahs indicates above.

So that's what I do.

This is really pretty simple.

I haven't seen anything of this nature before and I'm confused as to what might make you think a problem exists in the first place? Maybe if you gave an example of where you feel a "moderator" took license to be a jerk.

I hate to parse language here, but I said that a situation may make it "appear" that the moderator has license to be a jerk. I seriously doubt that most of us intentionally try to sound like one. Regardless, I don't think it would be wise to accuse any moderator of that here and then have THAT debated.

I think this is a problem. If the powers that be don't, then, as I said above, so be it. If I subsequently have an issue of this nature, I'll deal with it on an individual basis "out of the public eye." I did notice, however, that several of the moderators who posted on this issue seem to wish there could be a differentiation.

IMHO, a significant point has been raised herein, and it surely is an issue.

And I believe that there are other very important related issues as well:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showt...=322795&page=1

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showt...70#post2965170

-Mark

I believe that designating us as moderators is what gives us access to the Moderator forum and the tools that we use as moderators. The IT team is able to give us certain software privileges as a group. Thus, removing this designation would give the IT team additional work.

I'd wonder... perhaps this is a larger problem then one might think:
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?p=2965458

Any thoughts?

aloha

Slippahs, your link is broken. Perhaps the thread was removed?

FewMiles..

I think all the moderators do a good job of making it clear when they are wearing their moderator hats. At the same time, Randy Petersen has made it quite clear that any FTers who happen to be moderators also are members first, and moderators second (and only when needed). This environment provided by Randy has allowed those who moderate to be comfortable using their own handles to handle (pardon the pun) their moderation duties without having to be questioned on separation of their roles. While many of the mods acknowledge that they would prefer not to be labelled as a moderator outside of the forums for which they are responsible, this has been shown to be a technical issue that can't be easily solved. So let's not all harp on this. :)

FewMiles..

Thanks to you and SanDiego1K, the technical issues are clear to me and I'll rest my case with one final comment. Perhaps I'm missing something, but I do not think all moderators do such a good job of making it clear which hat they are wearing. Absent profile information or a signature, how is this obvious? As I look at the posts above, SanDiego1K and skofarrell are the only two who are moderators that have a signature that says which forum they moderate.

Not a Problem Exactly
 

I have to admit being surprised by how many people are on FT with "moderator" under their handle and it would be nice to know what forum each is associated with. Since I only visit a select group of forums regularly, those are the respective moderators I am aware of and I have no clue as to where the other moderators moderate :) . I don't have an issue with the "Moderator" tag line being there, as these folks are volunteering their time and deserve to be recognized for it, but I would like to be able to easily know (somehow) what forums they moderate.

I'm not pushing for any change necessarily, IMO this is a "nice to have" type of thing. I also don't want to see something changed that requires either the Moderators or the HOM to have additional work as we're talking volunteers and a group with enough on their plate already. Perhaps something simple like posting a list of all the FT moderators are their associated forums in one location somewhere on FT, a "Meet the Moderators" link, if you will .... don't know where (or if) it would fit within the board. Just a thought.

You can see the list of moderators here:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showgroups.php

It's a public link that has been at the bottom of the board since day 1 of the new software. FT has 59 moderators, for a board with 37700 members I hardly think there are that many. With the amount of posts on this board I'm always amazed how well we do with so few moderators.

I never said there were too many, just that there is a lot. FT as a whole is more aware of the moderators with the tagline displayed, than we (general members) ever were before. My perspective is based on my experiences on the board which are limited to a handful or two of forums I visit most frequently, not on the board as a whole. I've definitely become more aware of the sheer volume of posts & forums since the new software was released.

Thanks for the link. I would never have found that link without your pointing it out. I don't use the main page very often as it is, and it's kind of buried between the sections. It's also pretty slow to load with that coupon connection enabled list displaying there (I'm assuming that is a software requirement, but what a pain). I think having that list available is a good thing, but I would submit that few people are aware it exists.