• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

Moderator(s) needed here....

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hmm, maybe I should make it a requirement of anyone to be placed on the moderator's selection list to define "moderation" to me so I (and everyone else) know where they stand on that concept. :rolleyes:
 
Rich Z said:
Hmm, maybe I should make it a requirement of anyone to be placed on the moderator's selection list to define "moderation" to me so I (and everyone else) know where they stand on that concept. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I'd assume that most would tell you they'd like to be as hands off as possible. I know that if selected for that I wouldn't WANT to have to be in every thread yelling at people. In fact, most threads don't need any sort of moderation.

Regardless, there are those threads that need it. I'd like to think that with the crew of people we've got posting here that a simple warning of "lay off the name calling" or "tone it down guys" would be sufficient as a warning.

I think the job of a moderator is just that---to moderate against the extremes. Obviously you need to step in when someone is on the board screaming "F You!" to everybody, but you also need to let 'arguments' play out as long as they're being conducted appropriately.

That is one thing I've loved about this website. We have gotten into some very heated discussions in the past and you have not locked most of those threads. There are plenty of other websites out there that will lock a thread the minute it becomes controversial just because they're afraid of where it 'might' go. IMO, that's no way to run a message board and no way to moderate it. It pisses people off and genuinely cuts down on some great debate.

So after all that rambling----moderation to me would be stepping in when things got out of hand. No reason to come crashing in with a heavy hand when a simple "chill out guys" will do.


:shrugs:
 
Susan said:
Just asking, Dean...have you gone back to the beginning of that thread and read it again down to mike171's "offensive" response?
Click to expand...
I've read the entire thread many times, Susan. But I just finished re-reading the section you specify.
Susan said:
I don't think it's his response, as such, that was the problem, for me anyway.
Click to expand...
But that was Leandrae's sole problem with Mike's post, and you posted this in that thread:
Susan From "Eggs" Thread said:
I happen to be on Leandrae's side...I think things could have...and should have been said a bit differently. You've got rep points!
Click to expand...
If you're on Leandrae's side as you stated, and you think Mike's post should have been said a bit differently, then his response was a problem for you.
Susan said:
I found the sort of off-topic nature of it more the problem, as well as it's wording in that instance, plus all the nastiness that resulted from it further along in the thread.
Click to expand...
Now it seems that you're not just saying that Mike's reply shouldn't have been worded the way it was, but that it shouldn't have been made at all. Maybe your opinion now includes both of those elements. I respectfully disagree.
Had the O.P. asked about all the options available about what to do with the eggs, or had mike171 gave some sort of an "intro" to his remark, perhaps it would have sat better with me.
Click to expand...
So if I ask what I should do to care for a severely-kinked hatchling, a poster shouldn't tell me that euthanasia is an option-- maybe the best option? After all, I asked how to care for it, not how to euthanize it. How far do you go with this kind of thinking to keep things absolutely on topic? There may be members out here who don't appreciate us having this off-topic discussion in this very thread. And I'm really not trying to be obstinate when I say that I still don't see any problem with Mike's post exactly as it's written. It's an open discussion board.
Susan said:
The O.P. already knew that the eggs may or may not be viable, but he was still hoping. That remark basically told the O.P. that he shouldn't even bother hoping, and that he's an idiot for even thinking it.
Click to expand...
Neither the O.P. nor the other posters leading up to Mike's post mention the possibilty that the eggs may not have been viable. The O.P. mentions something about doubting that they will make it, but hoping that they will be fine. I don't think the possiblity of slugs was even mentioned until I did so later in the thread. I think you've read a lot into Mike's post that isn't there. To say that Mike's post implied that the O.P. was an idiot is a real stretch. And where did his post imply that there was no hope for the eggs? To me, his reply was applicable to live eggs, slugs, or whatever. I don't see where hope comes into it?

I'm not trying to be overtly argumentative, Susan, and I've sincerely tried to objectively look at both sides. I hope everyone else has done the same. I stand by my original opinions, and I'll offer one more: that thread is relatively harmless, and its type can be found on 99+% of the open discussion forums out there. It's not a big deal in and of itself. The only reason I've given it so much attention is because it's being used in the larger discussion of this site's direction.
 
Joejr14 said:
I'd assume that most would tell you they'd like to be as hands off as possible. I know that if selected for that I wouldn't WANT to have to be in every thread yelling at people. In fact, most threads don't need any sort of moderation...
Click to expand...
Excellent post. You'll have my vote, and Susan will too, for that matter. You don't need to think exactly like I do for me to respect you. :cheers:

I won't be voting for me (*leaves self open*). :grin01:
 
desertanimal said:
2) Mike's post did NOT say that the O.P. shouldn't even bother hoping, and that he's an idiot for even thinking it. This is what you chose to INFER from Mike's post, and it's really not fair putting what you infer from what someone says on that person. Your inferences could be wrong. Inferences often are. It's always best to ask someone directly if they meant to imply what you have inferred, just to be clear.
Click to expand...
This follow-up from Mike himself I think clearly shows that his intent was not to offer a polite opinion or suggestion.
mike17l said:
If you don't want to do this, you could always crack them into a skillet and scramble them with some bacon.
Click to expand...
Personally, I don't think anyone who can't see that has any right being a moderator on this or any other site. It also didn't help anything that the first response included a list of 6 items, 3 of which were to separate the snakes. Advice and opinions can be given politely and constructively, and are usually more effective when they are. Politeness given is much more likely to result in politeness returned. A moderator has to be able to read obvious or likely intent such as these and diffuse things before they blow up, not say others are just too sensitive, IMHO.

I think a definition of moderation from all the nominees would be a great idea.
 
FWIW, I personally saw no issue with the throwing the eggs out comment. If you have no idea what you're doing---and aren't ready to be responsible for a clutch of eggs and hatchlings--that's a perfectly viable option.
 
Duff said:
This follow-up from Mike himself I think clearly shows that his intent was not to offer a polite opinion or suggestion.
Personally, I don't think anyone who can't see that has any right being a moderator on this or any other site. It also didn't help anything that the first response included a list of 6 items, 3 of which were to separate the snakes. Advice and opinions can be given politely and constructively, and are usually more effective when they are. Politeness given is much more likely to result in politeness returned. A moderator has to be able to read obvious or likely intent such as these and diffuse things before they blow up, not say others are just too sensitive, IMHO.

I think a definition of moderation from all the nominees would be a great idea.
Click to expand...

What was wrong with saying to separate the snakes three separate times? In my opinion, that was the most important piece of advice I could give him. His female was WAY too young to breed, and it did so because of cohabitation. The last thing he needs or wants to deal with is that undersized and underage female double clutching and becoming egg bound and dying. Furthermore, the poster didn't seem to have a problem with my stating that three times. In fact, he said that the snakes had been separated. The other advice I gave him was right on spot, and there was no attitude given.

This website is going to suck if we have moderators who are going to try and read into the intent of other user's posts and censor what they have to say based on what MIGHT happen. This isn't 'Minority Report'---there are no little wooden balls that drop down that tell us exactly what is going to happen. If a particular user has a history of doing that---that is one thing. But to hunt through threads trying to find sentences or comments that might potentially be inflammatory is absurd and a huge waste of time.
 
There was nothing wrong with the advice, and I never said there was. It's the way the advice was given.
 
Actually, I thought Joe was being more polite than I might expect. He was trying to point out something that was critically important to the health of the snake, without saying what a poor choice it was to have cohabbed them in the first place. He gave a lot of information, was never sarcastic, and - specific to the point of the thread deterioration - did not appear to upset the O.P. None of the frustration expressed in that thread stemmed from his post.

-Sean
 
desertanimal said:
1) The nastiness that ensued after Mike's post cannot be blamed on Mike.
Click to expand...
Totally agreed, and I apologize if I made it sound as if Mike were to blame for it.
desertanimal said:
2) Mike's post did NOT say that the O.P. shouldn't even bother hoping, and that he's an idiot for even thinking it. This is what you chose to INFER from Mike's post, and it's really not fair putting what you infer from what someone says on that person. Your inferences could be wrong. Inferences often are. It's always best to ask someone directly if they meant to imply what you have inferred, just to be clear.

To make my point, I inferred from Mike's apparently calculated and completely emotionless "tone" that he was making the point that in that particular situation, there were other, possibly more rational choices that were being overlooked. The tone of his post made me think long and hard about what the most rational choice really was, instead of getting carried away in the emotion of needing to "save" the eggs. Since this is how I took his post, his tone was spot-on, because it was part of the point he was making.

BUT, I don't really know if that's the point he was making with his tone, and neither does any of us. And it's certainly not fair to Mike to get upset with him for what we think his tone implied if we don't check to see if we were right. I agree--things got out of hand in that thread, but none of that can be rightly pinned on Mike's original post.
Click to expand...

Again, you are correct. I did make an inference from his statement, as did many others. And again, I apologize to Mike for that inference. But that is exactly why I thought some form of "intro" or a re-wording would have been a better post...to avoid such inferences. We are all guilty of it upon occasion, which is why all of us need to be just a little more careful about what we post. If something could be taken the wrong way, it probably will. Most of the time, it doesn't create problems especially when the people involved know each other better. What people say is misunderstood, misinterpreted or just taken the wrong way due to whatever reason on a daily basis. However, we do have the luxury, and the privilege, of being able to proof-read what we type before submitting it, making alterations if we think it may be needed, to try to avoid any misunderstandings, especially if we know a specific person may take it the wrong way. Both my husband and my mother have finally come to understand that they have a communication problem. Each has often taken what the other has said the wrong way, often with disastrous results.

My husband spent one of the hurricanes that passed though at home, in the dark with no power, alone, instead of next door at my mother's house, with the rest of us, with power from the generator simply because he misinterpreted something my mother said and got POed. Those of us that know my mother better, had trouble figuring out what had gotten hubby so upset, as we thought the comment from my mother to be of no concern and totally innocent.

There's more than just name-calling and profanities going on in the problem threads. If it was as simple as that, moderating this forum would be easy. Joe has the right attitude. A simple private word to tone it down and "play nice" would most often be what's needed. At times, a request for clarification or a simple "Oops! Sorry! What I meant was..." might be all that's needed. I'm not against good, honest debate, nor for voicing various opinions. What I am against is the perpetual harping on an issue with what seems to be purposeful inflammatory statements. Some members are much better at debate than others, some are more eloquent speakers and/or some simply have more knowledge than others. There are times when I haven't got a clue what the joke is about in jazzgeek's post...but I at least know it was a joke...and probably a sarcastic one.

Whether I would be a decent moderator or not, I can't say. I'm willing to give it a try and let the rest of you decide. I'm not perfect, never said I was. And at this stage of my life, I'm starting to react differently than I did before. Sometimes I can be a very rational person, other times, I'm an emotional wreck. Menopause will do that to a woman! :)
 
Well then..........who needs moderators? Just make each thread with a 2-3 page limit and it will not turn out like this one (and the majority of the others). Yeah, it would suck, but it will sure beat having to wade through all of the crap.

galen
 
I have to hold my hands up here. I caused the OP on that 'eggs' thread to become upset by questioning whether the early breeding was accidental or deliberate. I have a nerdy habit of remembering some unusual names, so I recognised the OP's, and looked at earlier posts. This raised the possibility for me that after getting good advice about the right way to breed, the OP had ignored it and gone ahead co-habbing underage/ undersized snakes. If I'd kept my thoughts to myself, then I wouldn't have provoked the reaction. In hindsight maybe a PM would have been better, I could have asked the same questions without embarrassing the OP.
 
OK Dean, I may not be as eloquent a speaker as you are, and I may have some difficulty in expressing my thoughts so that others fully understand them. Therefore, I will try it again.

Yes, I had a problem with this statement:

mike171 said:
you could always place the eggs in a brown paper bag, and place the bag in a plastic trash bag, and then place that in a dumpster.[/QUOTE}

The problem was not with idea of throwing the eggs out/euthanizing the embryos/whatever you want to call it. The problem I had was with how that whole idea was brought up in that statement. The O.P. was already aware of the fact that he made a mistake by co-habitation, that his female was too young/small to have been bred, and that he might not get any viable hatchlings from the clutch. What he wanted was some advice he could pass on to possible increase the chance of getting healthy hatchlings. The next several replies not only answered the actual question, but also reiterated the fact that the snakes should be separated (co-habitation is one of those debatable topics anyway) and showed concern for the female. The O.P. responded with thanks for the advice, admitting to the co-hab mistake and saying it had been rectified. Then all of a sudden, the statement. I do admit that "Off-topic" was a bad word choice on my part, but the sudden change from how to help these poor eggs to killing them was a bit uncalled for. A statement such as this one may have more appropriate:

"Since you are away from home and are unsure about the condition of the eggs and starting them properly incubated, another option for you might be to sacrifice the clutch, concentrating your efforts on the health of your female so that you can try your hand at breeding under more optimal conditions for both you and your snakes."

OK, that is a bit sugar-coated and I doubt even I would have said it had I been the one to bring it up. But I hope I'm getting my accurate opinion across on this thing.

To answer your theoretical inquiry on how to care for a severely kinked hatchling...
"Is there any way you could perhaps post a pic of the hatchling? What one person thinks is a severe kink may not be to another. I have hatched out and cared for several kinked hatchlings, giving them away to good homes that I know will not breed them, just in case the kinks are genetic. Basically, their care would be the same as for any other hatchling in most cases. I had one hatchling with a severely kinked tail that I monitored closely at shedding to make sure the shed completely came off. This hatchling had no troubles and is now happy in it's new home with Misty. However, I've also hatched out some hatchlings that are truly so severely kinked that they honestly would have great difficulty doing normal snake things, such as moving or eating. In those cases, I'm afraid the best option would be to humanely euthanize the poor thing."

And as for my statement re: the viability of the eggs and when that was mentioned: Again, perhaps a poor word choice on my part. In the O.P.'s original post, he says he holds little chance of any hatchlings making it but wants to give these poor little mites the best possible chance.. And then in post #7, he doubts the eggs will survive, but he's keeping his fingers crossed. Both of these were before "the statement". That sounds like the O.P. was doing some hoping that the eggs would actually make it, even though he didn't think they would. As a breeder, I'm sure you've had those eggs, or even whole clutches, that you didn't think would make it, but you tried anyway. I know I have. But to be told to just throw them away would indicate that my slight hope was a waste of time, even if deep down, I agreed.

I don't have the time at this moment to continue, so will post this "as is" and hope I have clarified some of my thoughts and statements.
Click to expand...
 
Duff said:
This follow-up from Mike himself I think clearly shows that his intent was not to offer a polite opinion or suggestion.
Click to expand...

That's immaterial to my point, which was about the reaction to his first post, not his later ones.

I agree with you that his later post about bacon was decidedly inflammatory. It was also funny as hell, probably one of the funniest things I've read since I've read a good long jazzgeek post, so it was still a plus for me. But I don't get my knickers in a bunch over what to do with snake eggs.
 
I do agree with many points in this thread. I do wish we could leave the debating of the egg thread out of this thread on moderators but since it has helped to keep this thread going I doubt it will happen. I agree with Joe when he said that the moderator(s) should be as hands off as possible. It's very easy to remind people to step back or that things need to cool off. I do believe that's what we need most of the time. I'd love it if we had moderators to help remind us of common courtesys for a while and then it became so second nature that they didn't have much of a job to do other than getting rid of obvious trolls. I think that being a moderator will be a tough job but that there are people on here that are very capable of finding the balance needed. I also agree that it should be someone that was here "before". The longer that I've been on here the more that I've gotten to know people and can tell the difference between the general banter that goes on and a slap to someone else. Sometimes it's a fine line that might need to be defined to newer members but it's also a line that needs to be recognized by moderators. I hope this works out (although I'm sure it will have it's kinks at first) because I enjoy this forum and have for almost two years now (has it really been that long...) and I want it to stay the great community it has been before and is now.

~Katie
 
Susan said:
OK Dean, I may not be as eloquent a speaker as you are, and I may have some difficulty in expressing my thoughts so that others fully understand them. Therefore, I will try it again.
Click to expand...
I think you are sufficiently eloquent, Susan. Thanks for the thorough reply. If I could get my time machine working, you wouldn't have had to spend so much of your time on it. ;) Heck, if my time machine was working, I'd be hanging out in a year far before this site's inception, and none of this would matter to me anyway! :grin01: I sincerely apologize for going after you in my previous posts. I didn't mean them that way, but they sure look that way in hindsight. Hopefully you'll see a new Roy/Dean from here on out. He may not be as willing to help, or as quick to right a wrong as the old one, but maybe he and this site will be better off for it anyway. It'll be tough for me to do this, but I'll follow some advice an old boss once gave me: "fake it till you make it!" :shrugs:
 
Roy Munson said:
Wow, I really didn't think you had any interest in it. I guess I shouldn't have assumed. I also thought that you didn't have time for it at this point. Had I not made these assumptions, I would have nominated you. In fact, I'm going to go nominate you right now. I hope that people are objective, and that the voting doesn't turn out to be a popularity contest. If the "voters" look back on your contributions here, Joe, I think they'll see that you're as qualified as anyone, and more qualified than many. And there's no question regarding how much you care about this site. :cheers:
Click to expand...
Me too Joe. Glad your name is on the list. I know this is a little late to add but I've been out of town since Friday.
 
Well, after reading through all these pages, I have to say...joejr has my vote. Your description of what a moderator should and shouldn't be is spot on IMO.
 
I, like Dean, will not be voting for myself. As for who I will be voting for, I refuse to say. And I sincerely hope that I continue to see the Roy/Dean I've come to know and appreciate. Giving help and righting wrongs are not bad things. And sometimes, you have to be rough to get your point across. I sort of look at it like raising children. They need discipline and a guiding hand. They need alot of love and tenderness, but also the occasion swat on the behind. There are times when they totally infuriate you and it is then that you really need to step away, regain your own control and composure before attempting to handle the situation. Otherwise, you may just end up literally killing the things you love in the heat of the moment. You put yourself through hell, emotionally and sometimes physically, all in the hope of seeing a decent human being emerge in the end. At that point, a parent knows they have fulfilled their duty.
 
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Susan again.

awesome post Susan, very well said. (parents do know a thing or two) :cheers:

galen
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top