Moderator(s) needed here....

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.

Originally Posted by Rich Z

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Susan

Just asking, Dean...have you gone back to the beginning of that thread and read it again down to mike171's "offensive" response?

I've read the entire thread many times, Susan. But I just finished re-reading the section you specify.

Originally Posted by Susan

I don't think it's his response, as such, that was the problem, for me anyway.

But that was Leandrae's sole problem with Mike's post, and you posted this in that thread:

Originally Posted by Susan From "Eggs" Thread

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!

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.

Originally Posted by Susan

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Susan

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Joejr14

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...

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.

I won't be voting for me (*leaves self open*).

Originally Posted by desertanimal

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.

This follow-up from Mike himself I think clearly shows that his intent was not to offer a polite opinion or suggestion.

Originally Posted by mike17l

If you don't want to do this, you could always crack them into a skillet and scramble them with some bacon.

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.

Originally Posted by Duff

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.

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

Originally Posted by desertanimal

1) The nastiness that ensued after Mike's post cannot be blamed on Mike.

Totally agreed, and I apologize if I made it sound as if Mike were to blame for it.

Originally Posted by desertanimal

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.

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!