Rules and Moderator information

[Marcus]

But, posting multiple threads on the same topic in a relatively short period of time could be fairly viewed as disrupting the smooth operation of the board, regardless of intent.

Agreed. Which the trolls have been doing.

Had anyone disregarded my plea in red and continued to play zombie thread to control the front page, I would have invoked UR8.

Ok. So, 'zombie thread bumping ' has the potential to disrupt the board.

So it seems the troll's actual 'disruption of the board' cannot be dealt with in the same manner you dealt with the potential for Philo's strategy to also disrupt the board.

On top of that, the red notice itself would be reinforcement of behavior that I try to avoid reinforcing. So, although I certainly could do as you suggest, I don't think it would be effective in terms of rules enforcement.

So you red-fonted Philo, because you thought he would comply, but you won't red-font the trolls, because they will be triggered and refuse to comply. This is my assessment of what you are saying, so my opinion, only. But it's not coming across as consistent.

[Res Ipsa]

Question for the Moderators:

If in your professional life you have legal training in mediation or de-escalation, what specific professional skills or tactics are used in moderating this board?

and the follow up question,

What mediation (in real life) skills are not relevant to a judge (in real life)?

I have experience in mediation, including CLE courses. I have no formal training. In my opinion, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to act as a judge and mediator at the same time. They are completely different tasks that can involve conflicting approaches. In my professional practice, I have never seen a judge in a case purport to act as mediator in the same case. Retired judges often become mediators and current judges can mediate effectively in cases that they are not assigned to. I see my role as moderator as being more like a judge than a mediator. To the extent I have mediation skills, I find myself rarely using them in my moderator role.

Listening, not taking sides, and appearing to be fair is important to both. Otherwise, I don't think mediation skills generally help one be a better judge.

[Marcus]

So following the suspensions of two posters, has the behavior changed?

My practice is not to discuss suspensions or the reasons for suspensions publicly unless the affected person invites a public discussion or I feel a need to correct an account of what took place. When I temporarily suspend a poster, it's for a specific reason. Were they to continue the behavior that resulted in a suspension, that would lead me to request Shades to queue or ban the poster, depending on the circumstances.

It's pretty clear that "the behavior that resulted in a suspension" is continuing. I would argue it is increasing.

Without revealing any confidences, can you share with us any details about whether the mods agree or disagree, and whether you all have requested that Shades "queue or ban," and how that discussion is going?

[Res Ipsa]

My practice is not to discuss suspensions or the reasons for suspensions publicly unless the affected person invites a public discussion or I feel a need to correct an account of what took place. When I temporarily suspend a poster, it's for a specific reason. Were they to continue the behavior that resulted in a suspension, that would lead me to request Shades to queue or ban the poster, depending on the circumstances.

That was more of a thought provoking question, not a dig for information, RI. If you feel it appropriate, and if I were you, I'd raise the issue in the MF. If the suspensions were predicated on specific behavior patterns, and if you haven't already, I think you guys should discuss whether or not that behavior has been modified and if not, what the next step might be.

From this side of the screen, I don't see that anything has changed at all. If I don't see change, then I'm assuming there has been no change. Apparently I'm not the only poster who sees no change.

In the event that I thought someone I had suspended was continuing the actions that were the reasons for the suspension, I would do exactly as you suggest.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

It’s literally UR #8.

-_-

in my opinion, it's literally not. Intent to "be disruptive" is not the same as "disrupt the smooth operation of the board."

-_-

[Res Ipsa]

But, posting multiple threads on the same topic in a relatively short period of time could be fairly viewed as disrupting the smooth operation of the board, regardless of intent.

Agreed. Which the trolls have been doing.

Had anyone disregarded my plea in red and continued to play zombie thread to control the front page, I would have invoked UR8.

Ok. So, 'zombie thread bumping ' has the potential to disrupt the board.

So it seems the troll's actual 'disruption of the board' cannot be dealt with in the same manner you dealt with the potential for Philo's strategy to also disrupt the board.

On top of that, the red notice itself would be reinforcement of behavior that I try to avoid reinforcing. So, although I certainly could do as you suggest, I don't think it would be effective in terms of rules enforcement.

So you red-fonted Philo, because you thought he would comply, but you won't red-font the trolls, because they will be triggered and refuse to comply. This is my assessment of what you are saying, so my opinion, only. But it's not coming across as consistent.

Consistency involves treating like as like and different as different, as well as evaluating which likenesses and which differences are important in a given situation. I posted publicly in red, not to "red font Philo," but to prevent a situation that was already disrupting the board (all of the "new" posts on the first screen were by Philo, many of them zombie posts) from escalating. "Red fonting" a person isn't actually a thing. We take action as moderators based on conduct.

[Binger]

As a moderator, do you find that you do not initiate as many conversations as you would if you were not a moderator?

follow with,

What topics would you like to discuss in more depth on this board?

[Res Ipsa]

As a moderator, do you find that you do not initiate as many conversations as you would if you were not a moderator?

follow with,

What topics would you like to discuss in more depth on this board?

Yes.

None spring to mind.

[Marcus]

I posted publicly in red, not to "red font Philo..."
"Red fonting" a person isn't actually a thing.

Minor point, but yes, it is. And it is exactly as you defined it. I used the phrase "red-font Philo" to indicate that you "posted publicly in red," (your words) to Philo. Shades has made it absolutely clear who is allowed to use red font, and under what circumstances.

[Binger]

What is unique about moderating an exmormon forum with nonmormon subforum?

Would there not be similar turf wars and BSD contests in a forum about diesel motors in a Mercedes Benz?