I'm curious about the whole moving threads and splitting topic issues. There seems to be far more concern about these than there ought to be. Nobody has ever, in my time here as a regular member or moderator, been moderated over threads being put in the wrong board or having their topics split. These are two moderator actions which are designed to keep the boards organised, not to moderate forum members. Nobody needs to feel that they're being moderated if either of these two actions have been carried out, unless they receive a PM notification to explain otherwise.
I actually use split topic quite a lot to avoid having to enforce stricter forum rules which would have resulted in moderator information. Splitting threads into two to prevent off topic discussion stops moderators having to intervene and delete posts (which I would have thought would have upset all of you a lot more), so it's a very useful tool. I don't understand why it's causing so much upset on that basis.
This is a very valid point.
When I first started posting here almost all the moderators would sneak into a thread, make a few quiet edits if necessary, and only make a fuss if someone had seriously stepped across the line.
Then after a while it became a trend (no doubt well intentioned) that the moderators would put something like "my moderator voice is red" in their sig, and start highlighting their interventions.
Again, usually this was restricted to the heavier interventions.
However, in recent years all moderating is done with a highlighter pen. Even the tiniest of spelling mistakes and stat removals (which everyone does from time to time without realising) are picked out in green. It feels an awful lot more invasive and does add to the feeling that the mods are "on your back", especially if you're already in their bad books for whatever reason.
Funnily enough, I remember look through the archives a while back, and if I remember correctly there was a thread somewhere complaining about Staff editing posts back in the day, and it not being visible enough, and people felt that it was sneaky and underhand, which just goes to show that we're damned whatever we do.
I think that the green, blue, or red text works because it stands out. It's not there to say 'so and so has been bad'. That's not it's function. It's functions are to show that a post has been edited (no sneaky moderation actions), to explain clearly why a post has been edited, and for others to see that the post has been edited and why. This stands out more easily when using the moderation tags. It is not a negative label regarding a member's posting habits, those are only given out as a very last resort in the form of a negative custom title when a member has consistently and regularly broken the forum rules, such as when GBT had his spammer title, and even those can disappear over time if no further rules are broken, as was the case with GBT.
The moderation tags are not, therefore, some kind of punishment. All they are there to do is to say to those concerned 'this is just a reminder of the forum rules, please bear those in mind, so that you don't make this mistake again'. That's what they are there for.
If it's an issue, then I'll add a section to one of the forum stickies explaining more about moderation tags and why they are used for everyone to read. Would that be helpful?
On the point of different coloured text in edited posts, that's used to show that the post has been edited in those places. The reason being is that, quite often, edits for copyright make certain sentences incomprehensible, so green text is employed to show that the member whose post has been edited did not write an incomprehensible sentence. It also serves to show the member where the copyright infringement was. This is especially helpful to newbies who won't be aware of how strict GW is about copyright.
What I will say is that for whatever reason, be it green highlighting, or simply that due to low posting the mod:post ratio is more noticeable, it does appear that the rules are being enforced more strictly than ever.
It is the bit I've put in bold which makes it more noticeable. When the coloured text was brought in back in 2010 (I think that was the year), very few people seemed to notice it. I remember not liking it when it was first brought in, but it grew on me after a while, because I realised what it was meant to do. Note that I wasn't a moderator back then either, so I am talking about this from the perspective of a regular member.
My view is that rangers and jetbikes should be allowed to creep into a thread about avengers and guardians without the mod hammer falling... especially when it might be the OP who initiates the digression in the first place.
If the OP had stipulated that this is what they wanted or were to take their own thread in a different direction, then I would agree. This has not been the case in threads where I have enforced staying on topic.
On the Rumours board, those of you who've been around for a while might have noticed that its name changed last year during the forum reshuffle from Rumours to Rumours and Speculation. The idea behind that was to allow all of you to give your opinions about the rumours, discuss their credibility, and give your opinion on the rumoured changes to your codices. Wishlisting would have been the only thing that remained prohibited.
For various reasons, the changes were not publicised. If those changes would be helpful to encourage any of you to use that board, then please say so, and I'll see if I can't get the ball rolling on this.
This site suffers from over-moderation. I think we have all seen instances of moderation where the action was taken purely to enforce a rule for its own sake rather than to increasing the entertainment value of the forum. I have seen instances of moderator activity that were so unnecessary that I swear the moderator must have been trying to meet a monthly quota or something. When combined with an overly officious, pompous or passive aggressive manner, such moderator activity can be immensely alienating not only for the person subject to the moderation, but also for other members reading it.
You make us sound like double glazing salespeople
. I'm sorry to disappoint you, but there's no monthly quota, no special bonus for moderating members, no secret stash of moderator loot for the moderator who edits the most posts in a month, nothing like that at all
. There's no pay of any sort and next to no perks either.
As for the rest of what you're saying here, please post links to threads where moderators have behaved in the manner you suggest.
Whenever one of these threads has popped up, I've always avoided criticising moderator behavior as opposed to site policy. But activity has been falling at the rate of about 50% a year for the last few years. It's at 7% of where it was 5 years ago. The logic behind comments from staff members earlier in the thread that no changes will be made to moderation policy is unfathomable. We are circling the drain here.
I refer you to the alternative explanations cited, with links providing evidence, posted earlier in this thread.
Finally, I just want to make something clear. From my own personal point of view, my favourite days on this forum are when I don't have to do any moderation. Moderation takes up my time, which cuts down on my posting time and my time for reading other threads on boards that I don't moderate, but might be interested in. I'd much rather not have to moderate than to moderate, so the idea that we're all trigger happy moderators is, I feel, misplaced.
