• Responding to email notices you receive.
    **************************************************
    In short, DON'T! Email notices are to ONLY alert you of a reply to your private message or your ad on this site. Replying to the email just wastes your time as it goes NOWHERE, and probably pisses off the person you thought you replied to when they think you just ignored them. So instead of complaining to me about your messages not being replied to from this site via email, please READ that email notice that plainly states what you need to do in order to reply to who you are trying to converse with.

  • IMPORTANT! PLEASE READ!! About the Google Adsense ads being displayed

    =====================
    Posted 08/15/2025
    =====================


    Yeah, I know. They are a pain in the butt. But they pay the bills to keep my server running. Just a fact of life, I am afraid.

    Want to get rid of them? Simple. Just become a Contributor level member or above and they will be gone. -> Please click HERE."

    Is that too much for me to ask of you to keep this site running? Well, sorry about that. I too wish I could get everything for free. But alas.....

    =====================
    Addendum: 01/10/2026
    =====================


    Google Adsense ad revenue for December, 2025 was just $30 over the cost of the lease for the server running this site. So, in effect, the money providing the incentive for me to continue running this site is coming SOLELY from the paid memberships and sponsorships here. Which honestly ain't much....

moderators role - moderation vs. personal involvment

R

robin d.

New member
Joined
Feb 14, 2003
Messages
3,710
Reaction score
5
Points
0
Age
90
Location
San Antonio, Texas
as posted by webslave

Well, I do see the points brought up here, and have to admit that there does need to be some division between a moderator and the person behind the job. So I have come up with what I hope is a viable solution to be placed into effect immediately:



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Best I can come up with, off the cuff, is that anyone that is personally involved in a thread cannot also be a moderator of that thread. You have to choose one or the other. If you are participating as a member, with your own viewpoints and own opinions, then you cannot also act as a moderator within that thread. Once you start assessing warning points to people who disagree with you, whether it is true or not, it gives the appearance of abuse of your position as a moderator.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I think this is fair, but I am open to criticism and discussion. If it looks like it may get involved, please start a new thread in the FaunaClassifieds Feedback forum so we don't clutter up this thread in the process.
Click to expand...


i think this is a fair way to deal with it rich. to chose one or the other. However the only moderator i have seen abuse this is jay. I just realized i got points given to me by jay in that last thread... i got no email notification not even in my control panel. he gave them to me for discourtesy towards other when at the same time two others randy and josh were slinging quite a bit of mud. the only people whom got points in that thread were ones against it. i would think that the fair thing to do since it was apparantly biased points remove the points given out by jay to the three or so people he gave them to. i personaly thinkjay is not the kind of moderator you or the comunity wants here. shoot i would much rather see glenn bartly or even seamus (even with seamus's vocalization- he can be very unboiased when he wants)
do we really want this to turn into another KS? because people are afriad to write what they think and ok maybe not have our thread deleted but rather given points and be banned or whatever?or be afriad to post that a mod my have a hiden vendetta against the person or group of people? i personally feel after this jay will indeed have one for me (whether he will admit to it or not) and possibly others and chose the moderating position but use it very strict. i think the removal of a mod here may be the best choice . i think both ken and dennis do their mod jobs well, like they are suposed to be done but jay has over stepped the line many times and i am sure he is not pleased with your choice in pucking one or the other so why not take it out on the people whom caused it???? maybe we should have a vote
 
Er... What'd I miss?

Which thread where blew up? Who said what? Why has Rich made an official statement about moderator roles?

And uh... Just because I'm writing a post to figure out what happened and I saw this quote...

shoot i would much rather see glenn bartly or even seamus (even with seamus's vocalization- he can be very unboiased when he wants)
Click to expand...

The vote of confidence is kinda nice, but I am in no way impartial enough to act as a moderator anywhere (Not that Rich would consider it anyway) for anyone in any way. I don't lack the ability to keep roles seperate but I do lack the inclination to do so.

Don't really have anything to say regarding the content of the post though, because I have no idea what happened where. Can someone shed some light on this in a more specific manner?

Link maybe?
 
Robin, I can guarantee you that if I should decide to remove a moderator, it will not be at the prompting of someone who has been involved in an argument with him.

When I get the time, I will try to look at those warning points assessed and make a determination on whether they are valid or not. I hate to apply a guideline ex post facto, however, as that in itself is not good policy.
 
i am not asking just because i want him gone... take a look at several of his posts. even take a vote. i would not expect removal just because my feelings. as far as the points shoot even if you leave them others in that same thread should gotten them as well. whom where being equally as rude or whatever.
seamus, i was just making a point, that there could be others suited better for the job, not necessisaily you just saying you as an example of someone whom pocesses the skill to be unbiased ( if you wished)
 
i was just making a point, that there could be others suited better for the job, not necessisaily you just saying you as an example of someone whom pocesses the skill to be unbiased ( if you wished)
Click to expand...

Well... Probably not actually... Although it ends up being an interesting addition to this discussion. A buddy of mine and I were talking about this via email... I essentially refrained from giving a solid opinion because I know for a fact that my opinion of Jay is not particularly high and that I would tend to be hypercritical of him. In reading through that thread you listed, Yes... I believe that the points which were handed out were applied based not solely on the severity of an individual's transgressions, but with more than a small hint of personal bias. Of course I myself fully acknowledge that I am not without certain predjudices in forming my opinion. Especially when I weigh this against the fact that Jay and I don't really get along too well (although generally aren't outright antagonistic) and Jay was able to appropriately apply (or fail to apply as the case may be) the responsibilties he has as a moderator even when he and I were involved in a direct confrontation. I'm a fairly abrasive person much of the time... if he can stay even handed when disagreeing with me, he's probably got the ability to do it anytime. Using the ability and posessing it are different things.

So I think Rich's solution is probably a good one... Check the situation a bit more closely and Rich- as an unbiased third party and the one who all of us really have to answer to in the end for our conduct on his website, will decide what transgressions exist and what solution is best for everyone involved. If Jay has a clear and proveable history of such actions, more serious consequences may be in order. If it was a one time slip, perhaps a patchwork solution. If it wasn't an error in moderation judgement at all, then everything stands as is.

If you just want pure opinion... I don't think Jay is a good moderator, he posesses too many of the same qualities which would prevent most people from being a truly good one. Impartiality is really a very difficult state to attain and few are able to find and sustain it on a long term basis. Jay, however much he and I may end up disagreeing on a given issue, is not a stupid individual, just a human one. With the emotional involvement and strength he has in his convictions, he's incapable of impartiality or even handed application of the rules. He has a long history on multiple forums of supporting his personal friends, to the point where he has a blind spot where their negative actions are concerned and will seemingly go out of his way to bring the full weight of his opinion... and his moderator powers, to bear on anyone involved in an argument with them.

Like I said though... he and I have had... differences of opinion... in the past, so my judgement is compromised. Just like his was in the thread which caused this problem.
 
Oh... and just as a kind of note... In reading my own post, I believe there may be some ambiguity on a few points.

There's a difference between demanding impartiality as a member of a board and demanding impartiality as a moderator. A good moderator will be able to keep the two seperate- disagree with or argue with anyone you want when it comes to personal opinions. Adhere to the rules of the site as set forth and apply all punishments in an unbiased and even handed manner.

So I'm not saying moderators can't disagree with members, an opinion is an opinion and dismantling the arguments of someone with an opposing opinion is all well and good if it can be done. Just the moderators themselves need to refrain from personal attacks (unneccesary roughness) and should not utilize the trust which has been given them as moderators in a vindictive or personal manner.

Just for the record, I'm also have never seen this as a problem with any moderator except for Jay on this site... and Jay only infrequently at BEST when he was emotionally involved with a thread (which, while not an excuse, is a reason and one I can empathize with).
 
seamus i didnt know that you and jay had ever "locked horns" so it was not my not knowing this (until now) that i used you are an example. i appologize for any misunderstandings or misinterpretations, i was just trying to make my point
 
I am an Admin at a tech forum. We had a similar situation a year or so ago.

My solution to the matter was for all of my mods to have 2 log-ins.

One as a mod, where they are there to moderate forums and be a representative of the site.

And another as a normal member. So they could participate in threads and maintain their freedom of speech without their personal opinions reflecting on the site itself or being mistaken as the attitude of the site itself.

If you have mods with integrity it works great. If you do not, then they do not need to be mods anyway.
 
I had thought about this sort of solution, but wasn't certain it would be well thought of by anyone. On one hand, it is what I use myself, and feel that it is fairly effective at keeping ME straight about what hat I am wearing while in here. Perhaps the moderators would want that, but I never really asked them. Because on the other hand, maybe they really deserve the recognition of helping out here that using their real name would afford them. This is really a tough board to moderate, and those guys are volunteering their time and efforts to help us all out here. So would it be fair of me to ask them to give up their identities in the process?

Personally, I lean towards the recognition they deserve for the excellent job they do here. I never made it a requirement that they be perfect in all decisions and actions, however, nor could I. I know darn right well that I am not perfect in all of my decisions, so until I hit that mark, I am not going to demand it from anyone else.
 
Oh by no means do I think it is a perfect solution. Just throwing ideas at you...if you had not thought of it yourself already.

This board is much different than my situation. We had Microsoft lawyers sending threatening emails due to the posts of one of my mods who thought he had discovered a security exploit in Windows.

As it turns out, he was not the first to discover it. They just wanted the info hushed up. Which we did delete the thread, but it taught me to try and separate my mods personal posts from "official" posts. So there can not be any liability placed on the site itself.

Like you said, none of us are perfect. All that can be expected is that we try our best. Good luck to you, Webslave. You and your site are much appreciated.
 
Heck, I'm hard headed enough that I would have flipped those Microsoft lawyers the bird and told them to take a hike. Microsoft is not exempt from the freedom of speech. It's not their fault that an exploit exists, and it is certainly no violation of any law I am aware of for people to discuss such things. If they would spend the money they do on lawyers on people to fix those exploits, then they wouldn't have those kind of problems.

I've had more threatened lawsuits since I started this site then probably anyone else has had in two lifetimes. As long as I stay on the right side of the law, then I don't mind facing them down.
 
UGHHHHHH

Old habbits die hard. I have really been trying to avoid posting on this site alltogether, but figured I would add my two cents here.

I also agree that Jay is out of line in his role as a moderator on this site. Of course I have a personal beef at this point with Jay, so I am far from unbiased.

To Jay, as I said in Tinley, I hold no ill will towards you. However I do have a MUCH LOWER opinion of you then I did a few weeks ago.

I have never had a problem with a moderator on any site before Jay. I always looked at them as the "hidden guy/gal behind the screen". Half the time I didnt know who was moderating the forum, and that was fine by me. Then when the KC thread got hot, sure enough Jay stepped in. This made perfect scence to me, as he is from KC. His actions however did not.

I tried to have a few thing clarified by Jay, what was the responce "quit whinning". I then started trying to deal with a very busy Rich (getting ready for yet another hurricaine) and was told to take it back to Jay. When I did this Jay turned it into me "crying" about the thread.

I have to say as a new "paid advertiser" on the site, I felt just a little bit of clarification was not too much to ask. I also just wanted a level playing field in the thread in general. This was my first experience with a thread that the moderator was leaning towards one side, and it rattled me. I was prepaired for people to say their opinion, however to allow others to post baseless facts was low in my opinion. Once everyone was made aware that it was "open season on Mickey" things got ugly. I truely believe many good people could have avoided many stupid statements had the thread been moderated better (or not at all).

Then to take it to a new low, Jay used our corrispondence back and fourth to hurt my business. The emails I was "threatening him in", that would have never been sent had I not been trying to "clairify the thread with Jay" were sent to the NARB promoters.

I was clear that I WAS NOT THREATENING JAY, yet he decided in one case it was a threat (when directed at him) and in another not (when directed at myself).

Suddenly my location at the show went from the same table we have always had, to the back of the room. I am confident this cost us many thousands of dollars in sales, as we did not see nearly the traffic the main room had.

Now is this what you want from a moderator on this site? Get on the wrong side (in a moderators mind) of an issue, and the full power of their position will be brought upon you.

Ive emailed most of theese thoughts to Rich, and had considered starting a thread about this myself. As I had not heard back from Rich, I figured I would hunt around the site see if anything was cooking. I found this thread, and the above is MY OPINION of the situation.
 
Now is this what you want from a moderator on this site? Get on the wrong side (in a moderators mind) of an issue, and the full power of their position will be brought upon you.
Click to expand...

Mickey, moderators here have only the following "powers":
  1. Delete posts/threads
  2. Edit posts/threads
  3. Move posts/threads
  4. Assess warning points
  5. Ban members (which I review)
    [/list=1]

    About the only "powers" I am aware being applied in your case was the warning points. And quite simply, were the points justified or not? Should other people have been assessed warning points as well? Probably, but that is not the point. The warning system is a method that the moderators and myself use to communicate problems with behavior to a member that we would like to see corrected. Although some people may use the warning points system to judge a person, that is not what it is for. The posts themselves are what should be used as evidence to make judgement calls.

    What other "powers" do you feel were brought against you?

    As for the threat, here's the post quoted from the thread in question:
    Mickey_TLK said:
    Crying and whinning? POST THE <font color=red>[**censored**]</font>ING EMAILS YOU PIECE OF <font color=red>[**censored**]</font>>

    NOW THE FILTERS OFF< YOU DR JAY CAN GO <font color=red>[**censored**]</font> YOURSELF. I WILL SEE YOU IN TINLEY.

    ANTHONY C. IF I EVER SEE YOU I HAVE A PRESENT FOR YOU TOO YOU <font color=red>[**censored**]</font>ING PIECE OF <font color=red>[**censored**]</font>. YOU DO NOT KNOW WHO THE <font color=red>[**censored**]</font> YOU ARE INSULTING WITH BASLESS FACTS>

    RICH IM SORRY, BUT YOUR MODS A <font color=red>[**censored**]</font>ING ASSHOLE>

    POST THE <font color=red>[**censored**]</font>ING EMAILS YOU PIECE OF <font color=red>[**censored**]</font> DR JAY>
    Click to expand...

    Considering the context and tone of the post in general, I believe any reasonable person would interpret the statement "I WILL SEE YOU IN TINLEY", considering your obvious agitation, as a threat. If that post had been directed at me, I certainly would have interpretted it that way.

    As for your comment about being a "newly paid advertiser on this site", that has absolutely no bearing at all on the situation. Being an advertiser here does not give you immunity from scrutiny, and I am sorry that you somehow got that impression. In a huff you cancelled your advertising and I refunded your money. You see, there is a perception problem here. I offered advertising as a way for people and businesses to show their support for what I intended to do with this site. Someone has to pay the bills here, and I didn't think it fair that I should have to shoulder the entire burden. Supporters, in the way of paid banner advertising, was the method I chose to help bring in some financial support. The only other alternatives were to charge EVERYONE a small fee to utilize the resources here, or just forget the whole idea and dump the entire site. And I will be honest with you, the time effort and money, along with the headaches and personal confrontations I have to be dragged into, is NOT worth the few pennies (if even that) I may make after the bills are all paid. How many times do you think I get emails from people asking me to take time out of MY workload to read some ongoing spat and step in on one side or the other? The email usually starts of something like "Hey, I know you are busy, but.....". No "buts", I AM busy, and this site is NOT what puts food on my table. So no, I am not going to take on the additional work load of everyone else's problems along with my own.

    This thread was moved from the BOI, where it was inappropriate, to the Shows and Events forum. From there, once the invective got out of hand (as evidenced by the quote above), it got moved into the HELL forum.

    As mentioned before, Jay Owens is his own person and has every right to express his personal opinions and views on this site. Personally, I do not believe a moderator should utilize any of the tools of a moderator's position while personally involved in a thread, and I have taken steps to clarify that to all moderators here. That is my fault for not having a policy in place earlier.

    A while back, I asked people what they felt this site needed in order to help keep things in order. The overwhelming response was to add more moderators, which I openly resisted. I knew that there is no perfect answer, and people asking for more moderators were really asking for PERFECT moderators. There is no such thing. Moderators are people too, you know. They are not automatons that are completely unbiased, impartial, nor completely aloof and above personal involvements with other people within this industry. The reason people are here on this site is because of involvement with the industry. To expect them to not have their own opinions, and to not express them concernng friends and acquaintances is kind of ridiculous. So if you are all expecting to find perfect moderators or a perfect admin for this site, you are at the wrong place. If you expect to find a perfect website of this nature, you have the entire internet at your fingertips to search, or perhaps you can just go ahead and create your own perfect site. I wish you well on your quest.
 
Some of that seemed directed more towards the rest of the thread and general readership and some of it specifically to Mickey...

For the part that was more generalized the following quote-

Personally, I do not believe a moderator should utilize any of the tools of a moderator's position while personally involved in a thread, and I have taken steps to clarify that to all moderators here. That is my fault for not having a policy in place earlier.
Click to expand...

Pretty much seems to address what this thread started out discussing and should probably lay any doubts about any moderator related issues to rest. As posters, they post. As moderators they apply the "powers" you listed above in an impartial manner. End of story really.

I stumbled upon all this in a kind of backwards way but did have an opinion... I thank you for allowing me to express it and it certainly seems as if you gave everyone's thoughts the credit they deserve in weighing what kind of end stance would be taken. It also seems that there really hasn't been a change, just a clarification for those who had doubts and the system seemed, by and large to be working.

Out of curiosity, the thread which prompted Robin's initial post... has anyone gone back and reassessed warning points that were given? Either "taking them back" from those who feel that Jay's application of his ability to assign them was inappropriate or assigning points to those others with similar conduct who were coincidentally in agreement with jay's position but were not reprimanded for their behavior?
 
Seamus - no, I have not. This is the reason for the statement above about people asking me to step in to take a look at their situation. I just have trouble accepting why everyone thinks I should take my time to look into their problems. My time is better spent doing things I HAVE to do, or when I do have some free time, there are other things I would LIKE to do other than spending all of it reading about other people's squabbles and problems.

Sorry people, but my time is valuable to me. And this site already sucks away more of it then I care to think about.
 
Rich

I would have never have made any of the "see you in Tinley" statements to Jay had we not been corresponding back and fourth due to his role as a Moderator. As I said in the emails, I was PROVEING A POINT WITH THAT STATEMENT. If you go back and read the emails BEFORE I EXPLODE, you can see I said it to him IN JEST a few times.

Your right they only have certain powers on THIS SITE. HOWEVER by trying to fix the problem with Jay, he was made privy to inside information, that had he not been a moderator HE WOULD HAVE NEVER HAVE HAD. Its not like I randomly started emailing Jay.

As for the paid advertiser statement, NO I DIDNT NOT THINK THAT WOULD GIVE ME SPECIAL TREATMENT. However I was in a position where I would be spending a good deal of money on advertising on this site (more then I pay on Kingnsake, for classifieds, and banners). As such I felt haveing THE OWNER OF THE SITE deal with an issue that was important to me was not too much to ask. Instead I got to deal with a biased moderator.

During the middle of this fight, I opened the thread to find a statement about my business that was baseless. Right next to it was my banner for my business I had paid to have on the site. It pissed me off that I was paying good money to be talked down to by a moderator. I had never had issue one with this site before. I have been on here many years.
 
"Considering the context and tone of the post in general, I believe any reasonable person would interpret the statement "I WILL SEE YOU IN TINLEY", considering your obvious agitation, as a threat. If that post had been directed at me, I certainly would have interpretted it that way." - webslave

Well considering the tone of the original stetement that started the whole "see you in Tinley" ordeal, I FELT IT WAS A THREAT. Any UNBIASED MODERATOR would have seen it the same way. Thats where all the "threats" started. Your moderator allowed them in one direction, but the minute I flipped it to show him how it felt, it was a threat. If its not a threat against one person, then how is it against another?
 
Out of curiosity, the thread which prompted Robin's initial post... has anyone gone back and reassessed warning points that were given? Either "taking them back" from those who feel that Jay's application of his ability to assign them was inappropriate or assigning points to those others with similar conduct who were coincidentally in agreement with jay's position but were not reprimanded for their behavior?
Click to expand...
valid question

- no, I have not. This is the reason for the statement above about people asking me to step in to take a look at their situation. I just have trouble accepting why everyone thinks I should take my time to look into their problems.
Click to expand...
understood you are a busy man
but you say......

The warning system is a method that the moderators and myself use to communicate problems with behavior to a member that we would like to see corrected. Although some people may use the warning points system to judge a person, that is not what it is for.
Click to expand...

and that all sounds nice and dandy but first off thats one of the first things people will bring up when attacking you..... i have a good reputation on the BOI and my feedback rating is pretty good but then someone can say "well, look at her points" just like it has been rbought up in SEVERAL occations.
now while i do understand why you have points, which can be assed by the mods. no matter what the point system was meant for it obviously is taking a different turn and when abused by mods (some mods) it can beused as some sort of retaliation. the more points the less character some people would like you to have. those points do not affect how i do business. what the quality of my animals are, how i ship or even the quality of customer service BUT, it always gets brought back to that....
so back to what i was getting at i think those posts do need to be looked over and others as well because it seems like to me whats good for the goose its necessarily good for the gander.

really it's gonna come down to even moderating or getting rid of the point system all together. if it can be kept in check and assesed equaly and unbiased keep it but if it cant something has got to give
 
robin s. said:
really it's gonna come down to even moderating or getting rid of the point system all together. if it can be kept in check and assesed equaly and unbiased keep it but if it cant something has got to give
Click to expand...

I guess I am curious about how you would propose "even moderating" would be enforced. Moderators for moderators? Hire robots? Find people completely outside of this field entirely (which means I would have to hire them and pay them a wage to do this)? How exactly? Institute a point system for members to apply against moderators? Heck wouldn't THAT be just ducky! Nearly everyone gets pissed at the traffic cop when they get caught speeding. Never mind that they were the one breaking the rules. Imagine how that particular system would be abused in here!

As far as the warning system and how it is used, well, people can abuse an anvil with a rubber hammer if they try hard enough. When I ran my poll about which custom programming tools to carry through into the new version, I believe the warning system was either right at the top or pretty darn close. So the majority of the people here seem to like it. I very seriously doubt anyone has ever lost any business because they had warning points about their conduct on this site.

I have already stated my policy about how moderators are to conduct themselves when personally involved in threads. I am sorry, but if you think I am going to spend all of my time reading through every post, especially going back through old ones, to make sure everything is absolutely fair and even handed, you are thinking about someone else for the job. Quite frankly, I do have better things to do with my time. Which is my choice to make.

This is a free site, remember? It doesn't pay my bills, so you have to take it "as is" or not at all. If you all would rather have a site that is a lot more closer to being perfect (which will have to be EXACTLY defined before I would start on that job) where I can just sit here and monitor it 24/7 then you better accept that this site will have to become a pay per view sort of affair in order to allow me to give up my REAL business and do it that way. And quite honestly, the chances of this site paying anything near what it would take for that to happen is so slim that it is not even worth seriously considering. Until that time, not trying to sound harsh, but to the point and accurate, as far as this site is concerned it is "take it or leave it."
 
Back
Top