Option to ignore moderators

[Frankybaby66]

This thread's a bit like looking forward to going to a great concert, only to be given a 2 hour lecture on how the sound desk interface works . . .

 

[Flog]

Of course. It happened not long ago.

Go on, spill the beans, Ivar!

I'm joking of course, it's only the business of those concerned

 

[Kathor1]

I am familiar with the Ignore function but I have always wondered about the exact consequences for direct messaging when you set a forum member on Ignore. I never tested this. Can the Ignored forum member still direct message you but you will never see it or even notice the attempt to contact you privately? What if you Unignore the forum member at a later point in time? Will you then see their earlier DM or does it remain invisible for eternity?

While I was looking around on xenforo.com I found this comment from a XenForo moderator:

The maximum number of ignored members is limited to 1,000 in code.​

​

So Ignore wisely. You can't ignore them all.

(It seems that XenForo is the Internet forum software package which this Camino Forum runs on).

 

[lettinggo]

Hello all,

I have waited to respond to my post as there has been a lot of activity, and I my opinion, views that has not have had relevance to the question I asked.

I did not express any dissatisfaction with the moderators, nor did I suggest that the work that they do is a problem for the site.

My believe is, that moderators are necessary for at site to function, and that the moderators are guiding the members in practical matters, as well as securing that the rules of the site is upheld.
Thank you for the work you are doing for the site and the community.

I do think that it should be possible to have a conversation about the moderators and how the content they submit to the site is affecting the threads and conversations.

In my original post, I explained how I over the years have found, that sometimes a very enthusiastic pilgrim arrives in our forum, and it seems like they think it is very important to answer every question immediately after is has been posted.
I don’t have a problem with that.
I think that everyone on the site should do exactly how they feel is the right way for them.
I think there is a beauty in it, as it is a sign of how important people can feel that the Camino is and how it has impacted their life.

When a person is very active in the forum, I sometimes feel that they can be dominating the forum and threads. This is something that I sometimes feel is a problem, so I use the tool available; to ignore that person.
Actually, I don’t like the word or concept of ignoring, as it has a very strong negative implication.
I’d rather say; silence.
So, I silence that person, so I can read the posts without that person opinions.

The question I asked in my original post was; can there be an option to silence a moderator, if I find that person to be dominating the forum and thereby affecting my overall experience of the site?

In my opinion the moderators patrol the site to ensure that it runs smoothly, and their job stops there. To be able to do their job, they have to contact members at times and therefore it can be a problem if they have been silenced.

But the personal views that the moderator have and which they may submit on the site should, in my opinion, be regarded in no other way than any other member of the forum.
I welcome any member of the site to express themselves, and of course also the private person behind the job of a moderator.

But as any other member of the forum, it is my view, that I should be able to silence that person, if I would like to.

In short, to be able to further this conversation, I think it is necessary to see the moderators as two persons; Moderator and private person.

When I was reading the replies to my original post, I have seen a few posts that proposed some solutions.
I do think it is possible to implement a change, seen from a technical perspective, if the will is there behind it.

I think I will end this respond here without wandering into all the different branches of thoughts and opinions that has come from my original post.

I will end the this post in the same way as the first; I am not posting this to provoke anyone, and I just would like to be able to silence people, members or members that happens to also be moderators, so the experience on the site is not dominated by any one person.

With kindness,
Lettinggo

 

[CWBuff]

certainly, we have a distinctly different sense of humour, this side of the water..

Yeah... you spelled "humor" wrong

 

[peregrino_tom]

The question I asked in my original post was; can there be an option to silence a moderator, if I find that person to be dominating the forum and thereby affecting my overall experience of the site?

Lettingo, this post reads to me like a sly personal attack, inviting readers to guess who you are referring to. And all of this because the forum doesn't 'silence' everyone in a way that suits your tastes. It looks like you've not ever been a donating member, one who contributes to the upkeep and development of the forum. And yet you want it organised to suit you.
Maybe there is a technical solution to this? You could have started a private conversation with Ivar about this and, if there were technical options, offered to subsidise the cost of development. It's not too late to do that now, but it won't completely wipe away the bad taste you have left behind.

 

[SEB2]

I agree that the forum is wonderful and that the mods do a great job. But I don't want to be protected, I want to read what people actually think, and over-moderation has stifled so many threads that were very interesting. Perhaps the solution is to put all the posts that have been censored into a closed thread, accessible only by those of us who are sufficiently thick-skinned and enjoy hearty debate.

@Gerard Griffin is this what you are looking for?

 

[VNwalking]

I just would like to be able to silence people, members or members that happens to also be moderators, so the experience on the site is not dominated by any one person.

It's simpler than all of this, actually, and you have the key already. Letting go relieves you of the need to silence anyone, because the mind that lets things be as they are is a mind at ease. All the yadayada, from whomever? No problemo.

 

[CWBuff]

@Gerard Griffin is this what you are looking for?

Always look for the Bright side of Life!!!

 

[lalaone]

Volunteers deserve so much respect. By necessity it *is* a dual function: you love something, you know it well. Then maybe you are tapped to educate, share, manage, or perform whatever other needs exist in a community.... At the same time, you are still the same person who was drawn as a member of the community yourself. Volunteer responsibilities are gratifying too, but in my experience, there can be a sense of longing - remembering that previous freedom, how it felt like to belong to the community without added responsibilities. (I suppose the same might be said of hospitaleros and hospitaleras.) I admire the moderation here. I personally feel that volunteer moderators should be honored for that dual role and *not* be blocked for any individual comments. We're all members of the same forum and the same Camino community, and posts are easy enough to scroll past, as others have stated.

 

[Pilgrim9]

Perhaps there might be a hidden benefit for the mods themselves if mods operating in moderator mode used a different username than when they are operating in normal member mode.

When a moderator must enforce discipline, for the person at the receiving end it is almost always an unpleasant experience. It is human nature to resent being subjected to disciplinary action - no one enjoys being told that they messed up - and it is basic psychology to associate the unpleasant sensation of having been disciplined with the person who applied the disciplinary action.

The act of providing disciplinary action unavoidably causes the discipliner to become an aversive stimulus. This is unpleasant for the person whose job duties caused them to became an aversive stimulus. No one likes being disliked.

People who have become aversive stimuli are less listened to than those who are pleasant stimuli.

People who are less listened to become less effective advisors and sources of information and wisdom.

For mods, this can interfere with the good work that they try to do when they are in normal member mode.

Perhaps moderators should when working in moderator mode have a username completely different from the one they use when they are in normal member mode. Maybe something purely functional and impersonal such as Moderator 37A, Moderator 14G, etc., and no idiosyncratic icons or pictures attached to the mods' usernames.

Also, there should be no way for anyone except the forum owner to connect the moderator-mode usernames to the normal-member usernames. No leakage of identities between the two sets of usernames.

Just some thoughts.

Also this would enable silencing of mods in normal-member-mode as per OP's idea.

 

[CWBuff]

Perhaps moderators should when working in moderator mode have a username completely different from the one they use when they are in normal member mode. Maybe something purely functional and impersonal such as Moderator 37A, Moderator 14G, etc.,

Sure! "You just have been censored by LUCIFER! "

and...think on it... I don't rightly know how "moderation" works... suppose there is nothing going on "at this particular moment" but that is not to say that it may not happen next second. so... does the moderator has to have 2 devices on so he\she can monitor on one with that handle and meanwhile keep on participating as a "regular member" on the other with the 2nd handle?

The "Moderator" is not a "mode" - its a "privilege" of a sort and obviously with it come enough headaches that most of us would cringe of...

 

[Pilgrim9]

Sure! "You just have been censored by LUCIFER! "

and...think on it... I don't rightly know how "moderation" works... suppose there is nothing going on "at this particular moment" but that is not to say that it may not happen next second. so... does the moderator has to have 2 devices on so he\she can monitor on one with that handle and meanwhile keep on participating as a "regular member" on the other with the 2nd handle?

The "Moderator" is not a "mode" - its a "privilege" of a sort and obviously with it come enough headaches that most of us would cringe of...

I was thinking in engineer mode not in normal person mode.

 

[CWBuff]

of course, but IMHO its still not as easily implemented in the usual every-day situation. not unless there will be some "inconvenience" for the moderator.

 

[Pilgrim9]

of course, but IMHO its still not as easily implemented in the usual every-day situation. not unless there will be some "inconvenience" for the moderator.

It was merely a set of ideas offered for discussion and then evaluation and disposal by the forum owner as he see fit.


If people don't like the ideas I will refund the money.

 

[GettingThere]

I have been watching this discussion with interest. I've never bothered with the "ignore" function - partly because if I don't want to read someone's comment I can just... not read it. But also it seems an odd thing to do, to "ignore" someone because you don't like how they dominate discussions or don't like their views. If you are reading a thread and some of it is missing, the discussion itself is incomplete. I would think especially if it was someone who posts a lot, wouldn't other posters in the thread be referring to that person's posts, or replying to them, or the discussion itself may be influenced by something that person said but you can't see? Weird. If rather know the full context of the debate. And I can choose to engage or just scroll on past.

Definitely agree there's no need to enable ignoring of our hard working moderator team, nor to set up multiple identities for them.

Also, and really why I decided to post, @lettinggo I definitely don't agree that the word "ignore" is more negative than to "silence" someone. That word has connotations well beyond just not reading what someone says. I know you didn't mean it like this, but "to silence" is commonly used to describe suppression, state repression, even more sinister actions. To silence those who don't share your views - that's not a concept I want anything to do with, and just reading it here makes me shiver. Sorry to those who think this is overreacting - I know we're not likely to see the ignore button change it's name! As I say, I know you didn't intend this and maybe are not familiar with this usage, but talking about "silencing" someone is not generally used in a benign sense.