Should moderators be able to push an agenda?

[TheRealZed]

Given some clear bias I can see in posting, I have had cause to wonder if moderators should be given free-range to push an agenda? The reason being that they will tend to receive much less push back due to the level of power and access they have to the forum backend. I think that this is probably a negative over all. I know we can't wind back time, but there may be some merit to having a moderation account that is used to perform admin actions while the moderators themselves post personal utterances under personal accounts. Ideally we'd not make the connection between the two and moderation would always be rules based without emotional influence. A bit late now, but looking forward...

I'm not bitching about any actions moderators have taken, I'm more concerned that people are telling me that they have them on ignore, so they just don't have to deal with them. This isn't great, they should be pushing back if they disagree.

Just a stray thought... take it FWIW to you.

 

[Joe King]

they should be pushing back if they disagree.

Always.

 

[pmbug]

@Zed - you might enjoy reading this thread:

PMBug Moderation (team)

A Q cult member should not be a moderator. Moderators moderate. They don’t push Q bullcrap on posters

www.pmbug.com

 

[Goldhedge]

The reason being that they will tend to receive much less push back due to the level of power and access they have to the forum backend.

IMO you can push back all you want. If it's me, I don't have a problem. I don't take offense and neither should they.

As for the Q thread... those who disagree are ignorant morons who aren't awake yet.

Liberals most likely? They're the type that wear masks because the government told them to.

Now that we know what we know (and I knew 2 years ago) that the jabs are NOT effective and more likely DEADLY I am proven right.

Censorship is what they desire. Cancel culture is the domain of the liberal agenda. They can 'stuff it' for all I care.

 

[Newmisty]

IMO you can push back all you want. If it's me, I don't have a problem. I don't take offense and neither should they.

As for the Q thread... those who disagree are ignorant morons who aren't awake yet.

Liberals most likely? They're the type that wear masks because the government told them to.

Now that we know what we know (and I knew 2 years ago) that the jabs are NOT effective and more likely DEADLY I am proven right.

Censorship is what they desire. Cancel culture is the domain of the liberal agenda. They can 'stuff it' for all I care.

Orange man bad!

 

[TheRealZed]

IMO you can push back all you want. If it's me, I don't have a problem. I don't take offense and neither should they.

I know you, so I can and will push back if I disagree... my point is more that newer folk might not or may even be put off.

Call it a separation of powers thing, post all you like on a personal account while not wearing the badge... but when you log in as a mod account it's a bit like a police officer going to work, best to leave all the bias and perceived bias behind when the uniform goes on.

I'm not talking censorship, just a more level playing field while accepting that there has to be a force keeping the playing field level with basic rule enforcement.

Anyway... it's a bit late now, just if things change in the future it might be worth considering.

 

[Cigarlover]

As for the Q thread... those who disagree are ignorant morons who aren't awake yet.

Liberals most likely?

Actually you got it backwards. Sorry I had to point that out to you. Libtards are the ones pushing the Q BS. Been that way for awhile and if your still a believer you definitely haven't woken up yet.

 

[TheRealZed]

@Zed - you might enjoy reading this thread:

PMBug Moderation (team)

A Q cult member should not be a moderator. Moderators moderate. They don’t push Q bullcrap on posters

www.pmbug.com

Probably best to close the thread, I can't see this going anywhere good.

It was just a thought after I deleted a post because I've lost some trust.

 

[Goldhedge]

ibtards are the ones pushing the Q BS.

False.

Libtards are pushing the Qanon BS.... there IS a difference!

 

[Joe King]

My opinion isn't worth even two cents on this subject, but I have to say that I think this is a very good point.

I know you, so I can and will push back if I disagree... my point is more that newer folk might not or may even be put off.

Me and Search' go way back. At least a Decade and we've had our up's and down's, so I have no qualms about giving him some pushback. He gives me some too.
....but you are right. A new person might very well be reluctant, or even afraid to.

but when you log in as a mod account it's a bit like a police officer going to work

It kinda is, yes.

 

[TheRealZed]

A new person might very well be reluctant, or even afraid to.

Yeah, that's my main issue. Not censorship, just making sure that people at very least feel equal in the arena of ideas. Police officers shouldn't really spout politics or whatever, just enforce the law, saving the rest for the weekend BBQ or whatever!

 

[TheRealZed]

Not really... I think I'm making the point that I want to make. Opinion should not come with authority, yours is as bad as the next guys. Authority should be neutral, it should also be perceived to be neutral. That's the only way you will see truly open discourse. Authority + opinion = propaganda in my book. By design, places like this should strive to avoid that. JMO etc... Management may not agree!

 

[TheRealZed]

Oh, come now... even you don't believe that.

Every post a guy with a mod badge on makes is made as a moderator. You are delusional if you think otherwise. Anyone reading is cognisant of that fact.

 

[TheRealZed]

Not the point that I am making, do try and understand what I am saying.

 

[pmbug]

As mentioned in the other thread, moderators here are volunteers that help enforce the forum's guidelines. Their moderator status has nothing to do with their personal opinions and if anyone suspects a moderator of abusing their moderating powers here they should contact me directly to address it. This forum software keeps a log of all moderating activity and I can audit what has been done. I won't tolerate any abuse of moderating power here.

 

[TheRealZed]

Not with yourself. You have a political bias that you push, which is fine. You really do need to admit that.

This is my problem with you, things get twisted, nowhere did I say you shouldn't be allowed to post your propaganda opinion. Nowhere did I say you were outside guidelines etc, etc... However, I will tell you what I think of it on occasion, it is a forum after all.

I know the point I'm making is a little principled, something you seem unfamiliar with, but please try and understand that it was a suggestion to improve the quality of the forum in general.

 

[TheRealZed]

As mentioned in the other thread, moderators here are volunteers that help enforce the forum's guidelines. Their moderator status has nothing to do with their personal opinions and if anyone suspects a moderator of abusing their moderating powers here they should contact me directly to address it. This forum software keeps a log of all moderating activity and I can audit what has been done. I won't tolerate any abuse of moderating power here.

Yup, and no one was suggesting otherwise, but this is beside the point that I was making.

Cops shouldn't carry pride flags, political signs, religious symbols etc, etc, yet this is effectively what goes down.

We could be better... that is all I was suggesting. If the opportunity arose in the future to somehow address the issue, it would be worth exploring. For now, it is what it is... however, regardless of what you might think mods do set a tone because they wear the badge. Maybe that's worth considering.

 

[CiscoKid]

IMO you can push back all you want. If it's me, I don't have a problem. I don't take offense and neither should they.

As for the Q thread... those who disagree are ignorant morons who aren't awake yet.

Liberals most likely? They're the type that wear masks because the government told them to.

Now that we know what we know (and I knew 2 years ago) that the jabs are NOT effective and more likely DEADLY I am proven right.

Censorship is what they desire. Cancel culture is the domain of the liberal agenda. They can 'stuff it' for all I care.

 

[pmbug]

... mods do set a tone ...

If all the mods were on the same page and setting the same tone, I would concede your point. As it is, some folks didn't like GH's posts and sought to censor/punish him by calling out his moderator status. Now folks are doing the same with Searcher. No one has brought forth any complaint of abuse of moderating powers. I don't believe that moderating status is really at issue here.

 

[Casey Jones]

The tendency, and I saw it with other boards in the past...if a moderator is prevented from advocating/pushing an agenda...being a mod, he will create socks or second personas to push it.

That, too, can be addressed, but given how moderator pay is a bit low - like nothing - if a mod is prevented from any advocacy, he's essentially prevented from participation and thus, there's no motivation to moderate.

That leads to second-tier and worse types, becoming board management, and THAT leads to a complete decomposition of the board.

 

[Casey Jones]

If all the mods were on the same page and setting the same tone, I would concede your point. As it is, some folks didn't like GH's posts and sought to censor/punish him by calling out his moderator status. Now folks are doing the same with Searcher. No one has brought forth any complaint of abuse of moderating powers. I don't believe that moderating status is really at issue here.

Judas Priest.

That makes me embarrassed to be from nearby...from Cuyahoga and Portage counties.

Also embarrassed to have studied several of the same disciplines...communications and political science. At Kent State, a dozen miles from the University of Akron.

But...at least I knew better than to make a royal @$$ of myself in a public setting, onstage...

 

[CiscoKid]

Are you saying that it's ok for others - including yourself to post pro trump stuff, russian propaganda and vaccine nonsense but it's not ok for me to post true news about orange peel? lmao

Personally, I think it's funny that you still believe the Russia, Russia, Russia crap about Trump. Everyone pretty much knows how and where that came about and who paid for it (Granny Scandals). And, if Trump was so cozy with the Russians, why exactly did Elena Baturina give Hunter $3.5M? https://www.newsweek.com/hunter-bid...ow-mayors-wife-republican-report-says-1533834 Democrats aren't denying the payment, they are just saying that it had nothing to do with the pedophile. Knowing what we know about Hunter, does anyone actually think he is worth that kind of money? What exactly was he selling? If you think about this really hard, I'm sure you will begin to figure it out.

And, with all that is coming out around the world regarding excess mortality rates and the clot shots, do you still believe that they were either "safe" or "effective"? I mean, seriously? It's fine if you do, I guess. But more and more people are changing their minds on those experimental injections every day. I watched the recent Australia hearings and Pfizer did not come out looking good. Will you be lining up this fall for your "boosters"?

 

[CiscoKid]

Don't want to answer the political stuff here but will answer this one. Yeah.........will be getting my yearly flu shot shortly. Better safe than sorry.

Good luck with that!

 

[Stonedywankanobe]

You are ignoring content by this member.

 

[Goldhedge]

As mentioned in the other thread, moderators here are volunteers that help enforce the forum's guidelines. Their moderator status has nothing to do with their personal opinions and if anyone suspects a moderator of abusing their moderating powers here they should contact me directly to address it. This forum software keeps a log of all moderating activity and I can audit what has been done. I won't tolerate any abuse of moderating power here.

and you haven't had to address anything AFAIK!

As for moderating here, it's fairly easy compared to GIM1&2. Everyone seems to adhere to PMB's rules.

There's an occasional post moved around because it's in the wrong thread - it doesn't bother me a bit. If the mods think it fits elsewhere it's for a good reason.

Nothing untoward is going on.

 

[Goldhedge]

As for the thread title

Should moderators be able to push an agenda?​

There's a logical error in that statement. It's a forgone assumption. Something that isn't happening any more than anyone else here is 'pushing an agenda'.

It's a "Searcher have you stopped beating your wife?" type fallacy.

A loaded question is a propaganda technique, which is never about appealing to logic but to play on people’s psyche.

 

[Joe King]

No one has brought forth any complaint of abuse of moderating powers.

I did once, but you handled it in a satisfactorily manner.

What exactly was he selling?

His dad.

He didn't ask about the flu shot.

He asked if you were still taking a wuflu jab. There's a difference.

As for moderating here, it's fairly easy compared to GIM1&2. Everyone seems to adhere to PMB's rules.

It'd be stupid not to. Why intentionally do shit that would only serve to piss him off?

 

[jrog100]

I think so. If they push an agenda that pisses me off, i generally leave an expletive filled post and check out. Glock talk is notorious for the mods over there being cuck bitches. every time i join i get banned within a couple days. same with reddit and facebook. twitter has gotten better but they're still woke. This forum is moderated a little bit but i havent gotten pissed off yet so all good, so far.

 

[Viking]

Given some clear bias I can see in posting, I have had cause to wonder if moderators should be given free-range to push an agenda? The reason being that they will tend to receive much less push back due to the level of power and access they have to the forum backend. I think that this is probably a negative over all. I know we can't wind back time, but there may be some merit to having a moderation account that is used to perform admin actions while the moderators themselves post personal utterances under personal accounts. Ideally we'd not make the connection between the two and moderation would always be rules based without emotional influence. A bit late now, but looking forward...

I'm not bitching about any actions moderators have taken, I'm more concerned that people are telling me that they have them on ignore, so they just don't have to deal with them. This isn't great, they should be pushing back if they disagree.

Just a stray thought... take it FWIW to you.

Did that back in February.

Important - Ignore feature

Folks, this forum software has a an "ignore" feature. Just hover your mouse cursor over someone's username and click the "ignore" button on the pop-up screen. There's no need to harange folk personally or shoot the messenger because they post news or a POV that you don't like. Let's keep...

www.pmbug.com

 

[TheRealZed]

Should moderators be able to push an agenda?
There's a logical error in that statement. It's a forgone assumption. Something that isn't happening any more than anyone else here is 'pushing an agenda'.

There is no logical error in that statement, the idea is valid if you believe either case is true. There will be a degree of inhibition when dealing with a mod's opinion on anything. No matter how fair you think you are.

Ideally, you'd not know who the mods are. They'd post under personal accounts and police under official accounts. That would limit the emotional impact of any moderation. Currently, if you moderate someone you run the risk of them believing that it is because of your differing views REGARDLESS of how fair you are being.

As it is, some folks didn't like GH's posts and sought to censor/punish him by calling out his moderator status.

And my suggestion would avoid that situation.

Now folks are doing the same with Searcher.

Nowhere did I mention Searcher. If he thinks this is exclusively about him, that is his issue.

You really, really, struggle with comprehension, don't you? No wonder you struggle with the nuances in the other topics.

Here let me lay it out for you... the idea is that you post whatever you want under your personal account BUT if you have to moderate you log in under a moderator account that isn't connected to your daily forum persona. That keeps the emotional issues in a box... people will not feel they have to pull punches when dealing with you, and any moderation won't get the "he hates me" reaction if it is a person you have fought over some issue.

No restriction of your posting or moderating power.

Got it genius?

OBVIOUSLY, this idea works better if we never work out who the mods are... a bit late for that. Moving forwards and for new members, it may be helpful to project that sense of a totally level playing field. It will be better.

Even in this current situation, I have totally lost respect for you and any authority you think you may have. If the structure was as I suggested, doing your job as a moderator would be easier, as my total loss of respect for you wouldn't be a problem.

My suggestion is based in principle. Cops should not drink at their local in uniform or fly flags on duty. They need to be seen as impartial.

It's a "Searcher have you stopped beating your wife?" type fallacy.

A loaded question is a propaganda technique, which is never about appealing to logic but to play on people’s psyche.

That's an appalling mischaracterization of what has been suggested.

 

[TheRealZed]

And, with all that is coming out around the world regarding excess mortality rates and the clot shots, do you still believe that they were either "safe" or "effective"? I mean, seriously? It's fine if you do, I guess. But more and more people are changing their minds on those experimental injections every day. I watched the recent Australia hearings and Pfizer did not come out looking good. Will you be lining up this fall for your "boosters"?

That Dutch study by batch was interesting, three distinct outcomes placing the batches in clear groups from placebo to outright dangerous. Highly suspect, the outcomes should be uniform across batches, but they aren't.

Idiots and facts don't play well, never expect it to happen.

 

[TheRealZed]

The tendency, and I saw it with other boards in the past...if a moderator is prevented from advocating/pushing an agenda...being a mod, he will create socks or second personas to push it.

The mod should just own their position in a personal account, I'm not suggesting they be muzzled, just that their arguments and idea not be seen as coming from authority. If they are posting nutty shit, it should be on the same level as all the other nutty shit.

Moderate from a clean, uncompromised anonymous account. All you have to do after that is add some appeal process as a check on actions taken. Could be as simple as a forum where you can ask What the heck did I do? After all, enforcement without education and understand isn't helpful. That was one of my issues with GIM, often you weren't sure why something had happened, and you didn't get much by way of explanation depending on the mod.

 

[TheRealZed]

No one has brought forth any complaint of abuse of moderating powers.

Nor was that suggested, I merely pointed out the impact of the current structure, regardless of how the mod posts there will always be some frictions. Done differently, you sidestep any potential issue.

OK, enough, if people don't get the point I made and think that this is personal, all I can say is reread the actual suggestion!

If you can explain to me how my suggestion limits the freedom or power of any current mod I'd like to hear. Anywhooo look who voluntarily stepped into the fan blades, LOL, what a giveaway.

Maybe some guys like wearing their badge at the bar... I dunno, maybe it's a status thing, I don't get that, but anywhoooooo.

Check ya later.

 

[Goldhedge]

Look in a mirror...

 

[TheRealZed]

Yet your previous statement displayed a clear misunderstanding of my proposal. Maybe that was just intentional.

... and still you miss the point.

... and still missing the point.

Frankly, you don't even appear to understand, as you have not really tackled the suggestion beyond defending your integrity. Something that was never challenged in the first place. However, thanks for flagging your obvious internal concerns in that area, I had wondered.

You talk about tackling the post then you just DON'T, FFS, do you own a mirror? Deal with the pros and cons of the suggestion or the reality of the new general user's experience. We do want to see growth, don't we? Make the place inviting to the saner goldbugs out there, no?

All you seem to be concerned about is YOU. Shelve the ego, think about the site dynamics and how we might improve.

He says using an identical device. LOL

This isn't about me, I have no qualms about hosing you down when you get off track. If you haven't understood that, you need to go back to the start.

You made this about you, I never dragged you into it or singled you out. I presented an idea about how to further level the playing field.

You walked into the fan mate. You are making a big noise about an idea that doesn't restrict or target you in the slightest and preserves your full ability to moderate.

It looks very much like the biggest thing for you is wearing the badge. The status, because that is about the only thing you really lose under my suggestion. The logical step from there is you enjoy the weight that the badge lends to anything you post, which circles back to my argument about it not being the greatest thing for new posters to deal with.

If this wasn't true, you'd have at least considered the suggestion and not perceived it as a personal attack of some sort.

 

[spinalcracker]

the idea of moderator anonymity is a good one

speaking from experience , and cigarlover knows , we did that on a private invite only cannabis forum where I was a mod for about 10 years

i had a secret mod handle and then i also had a handle as a regular member

worked great!

then someone had the bright idea to take away the anonymity and go public

when that happens the forum started to go downhill big time and is but a shadow of what it once was

i think that idea would work great in this place , erase the board , replace every mod , elect/appoint new mods with hidden identities , and have a Great Reset



fire away ya bastiages!

 

[TheRealZed]

the idea of moderator anonymity is a good one

speaking from experience , and cigarlover knows , we did that on a private invite only cannabis forum where I was a mod for about 10 years

i had a secret mod handle and then i also had a handle as a regular member

worked great!

I had a smudge on my glasses, read cannibals... did a double take, WTF! LOL.

Good to hear. It's logical, and provided there are checks and balances to hear any grievance, I don't see the downside.

 

[Goldhedge]

i think that idea would work great in this place , erase the board , replace every mod , elect/appoint new mods with hidden identities , and have a Great Reset

Thing is there is really nothing to 'mod' around here.

GIM1 was a completely different animal, but it was the Wild Wild West New Frontier back then.

GIM2 was a lot easier, but then Scorp kept a tight lid on stuff from Europe and the Far East. We could have had a lot of spammers if not for that.

PMBug is kind of a "yawn" for 'modding'. Everyone seems to be on their best behavior. We're like the Maytag man.

I don't remember when any of us had 'something', or 'someone' to moderate... other than moving a post from 'x' thread to 'y' it's been like the town of Mayberry R.F.D. Someone stole a watermelon from Otis Campbell's patch and Barney Fife is looking into it.

I'm not complaining, but seriously this thread is attempting to fix a problem that does't exist!!

Everyone should imbibe their favorite pass time and chill!

 

[Casey Jones]

the idea of moderator anonymity is a good one

speaking from experience , and cigarlover knows , we did that on a private invite only cannabis forum where I was a mod for about 10 years

i had a secret mod handle and then i also had a handle as a regular member

worked great!

then someone had the bright idea to take away the anonymity and go public

when that happens the forum started to go downhill big time and is but a shadow of what it once was

i think that idea would work great in this place , erase the board , replace every mod , elect/appoint new mods with hidden identities , and have a Great Reset



fire away ya bastiages!



View attachment 10079

A lot of that depends on the character, the nature, of the board and members.

You were dealing with something that was illegal to own, sell, grow, and possibly advocate. People could lose their jobs for known association with this sort of board.

Aside from the illegality of it, growing the stuff isn't controversial. You plant seeds, or situate them in hydrophonic solution. You provide sunlight; you watch progress. You cut, dry, chop, pack and store. Vacuum or nitrogen? Baggies or sealed tins? Under the bed or in a cold storage location?

Not much there to argue about. It would be like arguing about tire brands on a motorcycle forum I'm a member of.

Politics is the opposite. An opinion without a name and face, is a troll post, quite likely. And cannot be taken seriously. Yes, I know we're all known as aliases. We all also know each other, and that process took time.

I'm of the belief that a moderator should be known as to his actions - if he's afraid to be associated with editing, removing, or banning, then he probably has reasons. If the board is so immature and contentious that they cannot handle disagreements...you're probably at the wrong site.

Just my opinions - free, and worth exactly that.

 

[TheRealZed]

An opinion without a name and face

The mod accounts would be solely for moderation, they'd not be posting opinions at all. The personal accounts should remain pretty much as they are, minus a badge.