Abuses of power?

Personally, I would just prefer that they do post under there Admin/Mod name but watch what they say and how they say it.

Back in the day Mark was the poster boy as far as respectable conduct as a mod and later an admin, and I never saw him berate someone or a topic to get his point across.

As I see it that kind of conduct raises the bar and the respect for the mods and admins.

And at the same time lets not degenerate to posting about particular people in an open forum even if they are mods and admins, its poor forum to go and "tell the teacher."

Your email, however, Neal, is greatly appreciated as a strong gesture.

aw... did torifile gets his feelings hurt?
;)

they are members who have been chosent o moderate. why should they behave any differently and not be themselves?

While I agree that admins should (and can) 100% state their views, my "pathetic" comment in that one thread was unnecessary. I apologize for it.

(slips back into moderator mode)

;)

oh, and neal's kidding about the drugs.

mostly.

[quote]Hey, Neal, can we just write you email complaining about Applenut going from forum to forum being a jerk today? <hr></blockquote>

You can email me about anything, but I started getting so many emails about applenut that I had to setup a filter for it.

Or was that Ca$h? ;)

[quote]Originally posted by Bogie:
<strong>First - you are demonstrating your ignorance of his actual suggestion by what you just said.

Second - once you are a mod you are different from other members, just as are policemen and the like.

Third - Hey, Neal, can we just write you email complaining about Applenut going from forum to forum being a jerk today? ;) </strong><hr></blockquote>

oh. guess I insuled you somewhere today. what a shame. unfortunately its not that hard to do

[quote]
Bogie's hit the nail on the head: in the position of moderator or admin, they should not be posting using their opinions. If they want to do that, they should do it as normal users - off the clock, so to speak.<hr></blockquote>

so let me get this straight. they can't have an opinion on anything? who the hell are you to say that?

wow. this place is really going to start sucking if we start having rules where certain people can't express their feelings and offer an opinion on a subject.

[quote]Originally posted by BRussell:
<strong>Jonathan has revealed information about a number of posters' identities, including 68K and dorsal, as well as Macintosh. Bad form.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Re: 68K
I posted an email that 68K sent me and told me to publish when people were convinced that he was FUBUiMac. Only did so per his request, and on the will of the community. No bad form there.

Re: Dorsal
I revealed NO information about Dorsal other than the fact that we had reason to believe that he was the Dorsal of old. Again, no personal information revealed.

Re: Macintosh/Mastergateing
I revealed the identity of Mastergateing only after seeing the public outcry for it, and seeing that an innocent party (pscates) was being accused of something which would have wrongly tarnished his reputation here. There is no reason for an innocent to be dragged down by actions that he did not commit: i did what I did for his benefit, and to place the blame on the shoulders of those responsible.

There's a reason why 2 accounts cannot be established using one email address: it's bad form, as you put it, to troll on the board as a false identity.

As I see it, no bad form at all. I am here to respond to users input on the boards and related issues: any identity revealing that was done was done A) in a manner that did not compromise anyones privacy, (i.e. it's not like i said HEY EVERYONE, THIS IS Mastergateing's IP address) and B) in response to the will of the board community.

I stand by my actions.

[edit: typos and formatting]

[ 12-30-2001: Message edited by: Jonathan ]</p>

It seems to me like we're talking about more than one issue here. Firstly, I feel there is a difference between "revealing an identity" and intervening (albeit inappropriately) in someone's prank. Although it may have been out of line for certain members of the moderation team to make it known that "Macintosh" and "Mastergating" are one person, it is not the same thing as revealing one's "true" identity or personal information. In the case of "Dorsal" or other 'insiders,' the only time we would reveal personal information is if we were forced to by subpoena or other legal action taken against us; in fact, this applies to all members. That being said, it is now our policy not to get involved in the activities of Macintosh, 68K and the like.

Jonathan is correct, however, we only allow one registration per e-mail address to prevent the sort of nonsense some people like to, spew, for lack of better words. Jonathan is also correct in saying that no personal information was revealed (or ever has been at AI).

I hope this helps address some concerns.

-nick nick@macnn.com

[ 12-30-2001: Message edited by: Nick ]</p>

Allow me to say a few things here as I've some experience with these issues...

1) I've always believed it to be a terrible idea for mods/admins to reveal 'who's who.' We (Goatie/Robo/EriMac/Seb/Eugene and myself) joked about it since we were amused by what we saw, naturally - but we didn't share that information.

The most important thing to remember here is that this is an environment which rests on certain assumptions. Chief among them is the notion that online identities not be compromised by those running the technology (or "behind the curtain," as it were.) It is not, however, an expectation at this forum that a certain level of - shall we say abstraction ;) - isn't allowed when it comes to our participation.

For people to ask is hardly a sufficient reason to interfere. Imagine the damper on the atmosphere if the mods/admins unmasked aliases by popular request. I'd find it terribly off-putting - and would wager that most would as well.

Nor is it relevant whether the information divulged may or may not positively identify someone outside of these forums. The fact that people value their online personalities enough to distinguish one from another tells us what's really important here.

It's also preferable and far more simple from the moderators' point of view never to tell who's who. To define the conditions where such and such may be revealed, etc. is to open a can of worms; you'll find that the line moves around a lot once you say that it's movable.

(We're talking outside of MacNN's legal obligations, of course.)

2) Being a moderator or administrator means you are different. You are the chaperone of the party and therefore will never be regarded the same way again. There's just no getting around this. Expect to be judged differently.

It was also suggested at the first wave of mods that they retire their usernames/create new ones for the purpose of moderation. But of course, this wasn't necessary - and it isn't necessary now. Only recognize that expressing your opinion as someone in a position of authority requires that one eye be kept on how it appears; that's frequently the case in our society.

In fact, for mods/admins to be recognizable personalities - rather than keeping 'out of the fray' - lets everyone know what to expect from whom. A group of individuals as diverse as Robo was from Goatie, or Eugene from myself could never be perfectly consistent. But people knew how to deal with each one of us, knew our individual approaches, how to come to us with problems and disagreements. (For the most part, anyway. Sumayouse were real pains in the... ;) )

Which leads me to:

3) Some people simply do not recognize rudeness. They do not view consideration for others as anything other than a violation of the self. Social interaction usually consists of more than the exertion of our excesses of personality upon others - whether they like it or not - but such is not the case for everyone, apparently. :rolleyes:

One need not go far to find examples. Simply remember this when next you encounter someone who uses these forums as a forum for throwing their weight around (forget you, buddy - this is me!!): There isn't room for both of you to head down that path. So don't.

4) Moderation is usually bad. There - I've said it. There's either too much, or not enough, and the people responsible are bound to be wrong sometimes. But the fact of the matter is that these guys have sacrificed something to keep these boards up and running for the rest of us who run around and go nuts. :D

So let's give them a break, alright? Things are pretty darned good now. <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />

Cheers,

Mark.

[ 12-31-2001: Message edited by: Mark ]</p>

[quote] Jonathan and EmAn have gone back and forth (earlier in the resurrection of AI) about whether a post should be open or closed and what forum it should be in. This is bad for an administration. <hr></blockquote>

EmAn is new at this, as am I. If he mistakenly closed a topic, i'm allowed to reopen it. I have veto power (as I am an administrator) over his decision on a topic.

[quote] EmAn has at least 1000+ posts that are entirely superfluous. I don't care what he has to say. Why? Because he usually doesn't say anything. This is bad for an administration. <hr></blockquote>

This point is entirely valid, and we have taken steps to fix this problem.

[quote] Jonathan seems to have the tendency to interject lots of personal opinion into his posts (e.g. telling members to watch themselves when the discussion between him and someone else gets heated in a matter that's entirely not policy related. Moderators and admins don't have the right to tell someone to "check yourself before you wreck yourself" if the issue at hand is one about an opinion. <hr></blockquote>
[emphasis added by me]

I'd really like to see an example of this. It is our stated policy to not allow topics to wander too off topic, or to allow ad-hoc flamefests to continue. If you would prefer a thread to just be locked instead of "guided back onto course" as I have attempted to do, then please, tell me- but I believe the majority of members would disagree with you.
I have NEVER used my ability to lock a topic to try to win an argument. I'd really like to see an example of where you see this happening.

[quote] The other moderators and admins are seen much less frequently and, as a result, they are noticed when they make a comment or suggestion. Just as they should be. They may, in fact, be participating in the discussion as normal users, but we don't know that, and we shouldn't so that our views are not unduly influenced. If our views are influenced by the moderators or admins, just by virtue of their feeling a certain way, their power has been abused. There. Plain and simple. <hr></blockquote>

I would really like to question the logic here. You're saying that my status as an administrator gives my opinions on, say, for example, alternative energy sources, more weight? I really doubt this. And, FYI, the reason that many of the moderators/admins haven't been posting as much is due to external circumstances which have prevented them from paying enough attention to the boards.

I find this idea that solely because I'm an Administrator, my ideas are somehow more influential than other posters'? In my opinion, this is preposterous. I'm not going to stop posting my opinions on issues under MY USER NAME, because this is not necessary. It seems that you are the only person who is so swayed by my opinions because I'm an admin. I admit I've made a few mistakes, but, you would make it seem like I own this entire message board and all opinions must be kosher in my book else the threads be locked.

Finally, what is this nonsense about "bad for an administration"? This is NOT the White House. It's not like we're under constant scrutiny about our decisions to move or lock a thread, nor is it that we should be. This is an internet message board. It is a very trivial thing. The movements of the administrators and mods don't need to be scrutinized as much as you seem to.

This is AppleInsider, NOT Washington.

I think torifile's [I know I spelled it wrong - sorry] got a good point although you are expressing it a bit on the antagonistic side [eh, I do it to].

As always, I was very happy to read what Mark wrote on the subject, to be honest I think he has been one of the most influential and positive members of this board since he came here.

Applenut, you just seem to be argumentative lately, lets move on with life ok?

Jonathon, mods/admins do have more influence due to their position and people do give what they say more weight - that is until they abuse that fact too much. Not a statement about you as I have not come across you in the forums much and can't comment on that intelligently, just a reply to you statement on the matter.

Jonathan, do you ever think that it's not worth the trouble to be an admin?

I don't know, with my caustic style, that I could ever hold any kind of responsibility because I would end up banning myself.

There is more power among the proles, Jonathan, remember that.

;)

It's a job with no pay, I don't get it.

The only attraction I see is having the power or a genuine desire to actually do *something* with the board (get rid of trolls or pursue some agenda or something).

Unencumbered, that's the way to be! Lose the lame titles and trappings of iPower and join the proletariat horde!

[edit]

If you don't like EmAn you'll find him annoying whether he is a moderator or a member or an administrator, I don't see how him being an avid poster is "bad for the administration."

You can go on other points, most likely, but I fail to see what's wrong with frequently posting, even if it is mainly superfluous.

[ 01-02-2002: Message edited by: groverat ]</p>

I as not very happy to click a link posted by Jonathan in this forum.

<a href="http://forums.appleinsider.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000167&p=4se" target="_blank">http://forums.appleinsider.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000167&p=4se</a>

Why has it not been removed. I come to forums to have fun and see what is happening in the world of Apple and discuss the world in general. I started reading the posts for the AppleInsider Word Association Game. Where I found the link. I wanted to see what the link had in connection with the game. As soon as I realized what I was looking at I had to quickly close the window. I don't expect to see this in an innocent game of word association. I am not calling for blood but something should be done to remove the link.

I think some mods are lock topic happy.

brad,
You know none of that's true. Please stop trying to act the martyr. You know why you were banned fo r 1 week (messing with the boards code without permission) and you know that noone has influence over Gecko. I'm sure you (or anyone) can ask him and he'll verify this. I'm sure noone else wants to hear your childish rantings...

Now please stop.

First thing I have to say is that Mark, you rule!

2. I must agree with the point that this "Administration" or whatever you want to call it in general has been very, umm, childish? that's not the word I want, but its all I can come up with right now, so don't flame me for it ;) . Basically, at the old AI, Admin/Mod powers were never used like they seem to be now. I look at the topic listing one second and see some topics lock, look again and they are unlocked again. You guys are all suppose to be a 'team'. If one of the mods or admin's makes the call to lock a thread, that call should stand as is, regardless of another mod/admins/and even members views. Also, Its kinda depressing to look a topic listing page full of locks. If a topic varies slightly from another I dont see a problem leaving it open. I just looks like yall a little lock happy lately.

Tres. The Admins/Mods of any online community need to realize they have "celebrity" like status amongst members weather they like it or not. They set the standard or the rest of the board. They are the people others look up to. If they can't handle that than I don't think they should be in a position of moderating. However, I am definitely against the idea of having 2 names for the mods to post under (unless they want to obviously). They should simple know that what they say will be looked at differently. Take this example. A person drives down the street and yells a racial slur to a minority. Now consider a police officer driving down the street in a curser yelling a racial slur at a minority. Do you think that people (including the one being yelled at) would have a different view at the two scenarios? (I know its a bit exaggerated, but you get my drift).

IV. No Admin or Mod should ever reveal any information about a member (unless held to by the law) thats not a rule, but common courtesy and respect. Even if someone says too or public opinion demands, I still think you shouldnt. This goes for linking usernames to one another as well. Along the same lines, no one should be singled out by admins/mods (even among admin/mods). (*cough* gorgonzola *cough*).

E. Applenut, were you out drinkin' last night or something? You dont seem yourself ;)

Six. Brad and JK, is it possible to keep your personal bitterness off this board (or at least in the right topic :rolleyes: )