Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Site Feedback' started by wormhole, Feb 17, 2014.
Bonnie, this you as a moderator implying OP's tone or as a participant?
Since I am not one of the people who pm'd him, I'm only saying that the speculation got people off on the wrong foot. Since I am a volunteer moderator (and clearly identified as a moderator), it could be argued that I am always both.
Wouldn't it be great to have enough people contributing so that we could have paid moderators on the site?
Unfortunately this comes with the territory on these forums...guilty until proven innocent.
Not sure what one has to do with the other...just another blurring of the lines - moderators moderate, participants don't. Tone is tough to read...one could easily read tone into your 'innocent' question that started this brew ha....
Don't agree at all....one could easily read tone into Bonnie's comment...everyone brings their view points to public forums...but the clear trend on these forums, and some people's clear history, is to assume the worst of people when they post something negative about TM.
Yes, totally lots of negative tone in those posts. After that, posted links to where he might find actual posts about cold weather problems.
Oh the horror. -eye roll-
Is this you as a moderator or participant? The fact that you volunteered to moderate just further makes my point. Given you volunteered hold up the integrity of that position and moderate and abstain from posting your opinions and as a participant, or chose to exercise the freedom to be a participant and post as you see fit...given that you are a moderator calling perfectly legitimate posts into question blur the lines...but like i said, i certainly could have read tone into your third post above...add to that your seemingly constant use of derogatory sarcasm (eye roll), and one wonders...its a mosaic.
Hardly. I've posted negative things and no one has ever piled on me. But I post factual accounts without wild negative speculation. I also post a lot of positive things. People know that I have good intentions, even on the occasion when I post something negative.
Other people seem to go out of their way to dig up something negative, and post it saying, "I suspect this is a massive widespread problem". They never post anything positive. From my perspective - and many others - it looks like they have an agenda. An agenda to tear down Tesla. Then they try to hide behind a defense of, "oh you're just all fanboys who can't take a little criticism". Well, sorry, I'm not buying that.
Wow. Just ... wow. What legitimate post did I call into question? As to the rest. No. Read what you want, but I directed the OP to a place to get more info. Including negative info. How does that fit with your 'world view of Bonnie'?
And yeah, my response was "Bonnie to Wormhole" directly. You've accused me of many things. You should probably pm doug, as head moderator and site administrator, and let him know of your concerns directly.
well if we are being fair you've accused me of quite a bit as well. That said there should be a clear separation between moderator and participant. Moderators should not be the belief or opinion police. They should get involved when threads get off topic or when people use inappropriate behavior. That isn't the case in these forums. Moderators given their position are in a different position when they get involved as participants in a thread which hurts the integrity of the site and puts the other participant in a difficult position.
So to restate, you feel moderators should only post if they are getting threads on topic, moving posts/threads, or correcting behavior. Other than that, we should have no opinion.
That is moderating. Its not that moderators shouldn't have an opinion. But as it pertains to the role of moderating, no, they shouldn't. Having one's opinion challenged by a moderator is different than by another forum member.
For example, shouldn't a moderator by this time have already warned everyone, you, me, brian, etc, that the thread has gone way off topic and should get back to the OP?
We typically ask another moderator to step in (like in this case). That gives the other moderator a chance to look at things and decide how best to handle.
Let me clarify that I am not 'upset', but i do believe, as I've stated above, that there should be a clear separation of moderator/participant for reasons I've already stated.
That said, ignoring the, as I read it condescending tone from huntjo post (although I could be wrong) and basically agree with huntjo's i think underlying premise and suggest the OP contact his local SC and find out what happened. Who knows if this is happening elsewhere but please report back what your local SC says.
That is not practical. We wouldn't have any moderators. Generally speaking all moderators were active participants prior to be invited to that role. I doubt we'd have any moderators if they were told, "oh, and you can't participate anymore".
To be clear, I'm not agreeing with wormhole or how bonnie has paraphrased here. I'm quoting for context.
I believe wormhole brings up a good point of concern. When a moderator replies to a thread, it can be difficult to distinguish moderator participation (forum member just being involved) from moderator intervention (management activities). Some of Nigel's posts are pretty clearly the latter based on somewhat subtle formatting clues, whereas his posts in the former category usually also have a different flavor.
I'm not sure what can/should be done about it, and it certainly hasn't been a problem generally but I can definitely think of specific examples where the lines have gotten uncomfortably blurry. The posts in this thread (so far) have had no blur problems in this regard though, IMO.
really??? there would be no moderators? on almost every other site moderators don't participate...they moderate
- - - Updated - - -
Sounds like agreement to me ...maybe begrudgingly so, but agreement none the less
I think this has really manifested because this site was set up by enthusiasts, not the company or the people responsible for the product, so of course those that have volunteered to be moderators also want to participate. But that creates potential conflict and issues. As you wrote brianman, you can think 'of specific examples where the lines have gotten uncomfortably blurry' and that really shouldn't happen. Being a moderator isn't easy, but IMO there role is essential to ensure the integrity of the site.
Well, just as another point of reference, I'm a member of 5 or 6 forums and all of them the moderators are both participants and moderators, and it is usually pretty clear if they are making a post as a participant or as a moderator.
In this particular case, I did not see the moderator doing any form of moderating, she was asking questions about the topic to gain clarity as to whether this was an ongoing problem or an issue that was old and was already addressed.
Jim: This car is great. It has everything I need. Except I think it should have solar panels under the battery.
Joe: Yeah, the car is great.
Jim: See you're agreeing with me.
Joe: Um, no.
Thanks for the example.
I think most people know quite clearly when I'm moderating, since I typically start the sentence with "Moderator Note". Not always. But I don't think there has been any confusion on that point.
As to doug_g's point that moderators would be in short supply if we could not participate. Yep. This one would go away in a heartbeat. I was a participant and owner, long before I was asked to volunteer. Same for the rest. We identify who might make a good moderator by their actions as participants. But we're here because of our interest in Tesla.
To issue a blanket statement of "on almost every other site moderators don't participate...they moderate" is a bit disingenuous. I can name plenty of other car forums where either there is NO active moderation and it's more like a Wild West show or the moderators are the most active participants (or they're leading the Wild West show).
I understand you'd like us to have no opinion, but on-going feedback seems to indicate that the majority of TMC is happy with the way it's been going. From a business perspective, if membership were declining because of unhappiness over this issue, it would have to change. But the messages I've seen indicate that a large number of people LIKE this forum precisely because of the moderation.
Are we perfect? Heck no. Do we try our best? Yep. Do we call each other out privately? Oh yeah.
Ultimately the site owners will decide policy regarding moderator participation. They are aware you've raised the question and it's worth a discussion imo. And it's probably worth a discussion on an on-going basis.