Mod Sponsored Community Poll - Your Input is Requested

[Bowfinger]

[ ... ]
Posting more non-contributory "noise" than substance in P&N, for whatever reason, is a pestilence that should be confronted and eradicated.

Perk,

I believe that sums up in a nutshell my main frustration with P&N. It nicely covers a variety of disruptive and unproductive behaviors. In an ideal world, I'd love to see such noise dramatically reduced.

My question for you and Idontcare, however, is if such moderation is practical for a staff of volunteer moderators -- all of whom are fallible human beings, so it will be subjective -- and will it be worth the effort and hassle? Not only will the moderating itself be a lot of extra work, but the inevitable drama of people crying about bias and favoritism must be draining on all of you.

So, will it be worth it? Is there a specific business goal that's driving this or is this more of an altruistic desire to make P&N better? Please be clear this is in no way intended as a challenge. It's Anand's sandbox, we're all free-loading guests here, and you guys have absolute right to set the rules however you (or he) sees fit. I'm just curious what's driving this and how much effort you and your team can realistically invest in it.

Cheers.

 

[Juddog]

This thread reminds me of when they started monitoring internet usage at work because the entire exit point for our network was becoming too slow.

Guess what - the top 4-5 people were using up something like 40-45% of the corporate bandwidth. Streaming music, watching youtube clips all day, etc.. Once those top 4-5 people had their behavior curtailed, then all of a sudden things were smooth once again.

I believe it's the same way here - certain people have this idea that in lieu of a good debate they can simply drown out the opposition in a flurry of replies. Quantity over quality, as they say.

To be honest, there are a lot of good discussions on P&N which hold my interest, but the people that are at the top of the trolling list have drowned out the voice of the moderates on both sides which hold the most interesting opinions. The moderates on both sides (right and left winged) typically create the more in-depth discussions of ongoing events and politics, but if they're chased out by the wing nuts, then the whole P&N subforum begins to lose quality.

 

[Perknose]

My understanding that P&N is "supposed to be" a sewage system so that other areas are not derailed by P&N. I don't think it was every supposed to be a formal debating club.

Your understanding is incorrect on both points. It was never meant to be sewage system. That is the third-hand put-down meme of P&N promulgated primarily in OT by those OT posters who feel they've finally found another forum they can look down on.

P&N was founded as our sincere attempt to accommodate the explosion of genuine desire for political discourse that occurred in the direct aftermath of 9/11.

It was never meant to be some sort of playground for hyper-partisan trolls or any ethically and logically deficient spin zone for dishonest discourse of any kind.

 

[randomrogue]

You still don't understand what a fact is, what faith is, what a hypothesis is, what a theory is, or what science is.

 

[Perknose]

Perk,

I believe that sums up in a nutshell my main frustration with P&N. It nicely covers a variety of disruptive and unproductive behaviors. In an ideal world, I'd love to see such noise dramatically reduced.

My question for you and Idontcare, however, is if such moderation is practical for a staff of volunteer moderators -- all of whom are fallible human beings, so it will be subjective -- and will it be worth the effort and hassle? Not only will the moderating itself be a lot of extra work, but the inevitable drama of people crying about bias and favoritism must be draining on all of you.

So, will it be worth it? Is there a specific business goal that's driving this or is this more of an altruistic desire to make P&N better? Please be clear this is in no way intended as a challenge. It's Anand's sandbox, we're all free-loading guests here, and you guys have absolute right to set the rules however you (or he) sees fit. I'm just curious what's driving this and how much effort you and your team can realistically invest in it.

Cheers.

Ay, there's the rub, the bolded paragraph. It's why we long ago backed off and let the sewage back up so.

As for the second bolded part, lol, the latter is the case, there is zero business goal involved.

Can P&N be made better? Many posters have long complained that it should be, and we will never know unless we try.

 

[heymrdj]

You still don't understand what a fact is, what faith is, what a hypothesis is, what a theory is, or what science is.

Those that steep themselves in science pull this one alot. Science is a system. It's a system of proofs that man uses to contemplate and figure out his surroundings. A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a piece of occurence in our surroundings. A theory is a set of hypotheses that attempt to understand the functioning of said surroundings. A fact is a set of theory that has been proven to work when tested in a repeatable manner over and over again.

However, there's one fatal flaw to all over it, the testing is being done by the testee! Humans trying to understand humans, blind leading the blind. Be it medical, economical, psychological.

The egg was bad for you. Then it was good. Then it was bad. Then it was good. Now it's kinda wish wash. Whoever had faith in those scientists were wrong either way, because it wasn't proven correctly in either way!

It's a hypothesis that black kids have lower grades than white kids. It's a theory that lower income families have children that do poorer in school. It's, IMHO, a fact that poor areas have higher violence than richer areas (of course that grid has outliers but it is generally true). However if you would combine those issues into an economic policy to increase wealthyness in those areas, it wouldn't have the effect you're looking for? Why? Because of that damned human element. Because morally (there's another one of those words that alot of science people think should not affect anything) nothing has changed in that community. But alot of polititians have faith that it would work after all.

 

[Bowfinger]

Ay, there's the rub, the bolded paragraph. It's why we long ago backed off and let the sewage back up so.

As for the second bolded part, lol, the latter is the case, there is zero business goal involved.

Can P&N be made better? Many posters have long complained that it should be, and we will never know unless we try.

Hats off to all of you then, and good luck! Personally, I don't want to suppress valid discussion, especially including conflicting points of view since echo chambers are boring. But I would certainly love to see P&N have more signal and less noise. My "vote" is whatever you guys are willing to tackle.

 

[cybrsage]

What I said:



Your either bone stupid, or more likely, intentionally dishonest twisting of what I said:



Followed by your BS and dishonest conclusion based on your equally dishonest summation of what I said:

^^^ Folks, this is a simple but telling example of cybrsage's intellectually dishonest manner of discourse in P&N.

It it his Modus operandi there. It is trolling, plain and simple . . . dishonest, non-contributory noise.

Posting in this intellectually dishonest manner should be eradicated from P&N, or more honest discourse will never stand a chance.

You have to weed your garden or the weeds will overwhelm your crop.

You are like many other left leaning people here...you say something slightly vague and then get upset when someone does not know what you meant in the specifics.

When you counted my posts, you counted all of my posts, right? You then said this was part of the problem. Therefor, you lumped all of my posts into the problem category.

Apparently, others thought you meant the same thing I did, which means it was not me being "intellectually dishonest" as you claim.

I did not attack you in my post, I did not belittle you in my post, I did not even say your post was stupid, etc. I was taking what appeared to be your logic to its ludicrous conclusion. I realize I should have asked "what do you mean by this, it appears you mean xyz" though I am not sure that would have changed your viscious reply.

As an aside, you used direct, personal attack against me in your reply to my post. By doing that, are you saying you accept it being done back to you? My personal view is you lost your cool and wrote something you normally would not have written, but if you can do personal attacks on me, I should be able to do them back to you without fear of reprisal via the point system or bannage.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Dictionary.com says:

faith

   /feɪθ/ Show Spelled[feyth] Show IPA
noun 1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.

2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.

4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.

5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith

The problem is you are missing the point......

It takes faith to believe in something that you cannot see, yet you know God cares about you and loves you and if you allow God will direct your life and every fibre of your being knows beyond a shadow of a doubt their is a God!

The Biblical Definition Of Faith


Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen (Hebrews 11:1, KJV).

Hebrews 11:1 is probably the most concise definition of faith found in the Bible. It is considered the classical definition of faith. Faith is both the substance of things hoped for and the evidence that things exist that are not yet perceived with the senses.


1. Faith Is Substance
The New Testament was written in Koine [common] Greek. The Greek word translated "substance in Hebrews 11:1 is hupostasis, literally, "that which stands under." The derived meaning is "that which has real existence, the basic essence, the actual reality, the substance of something" [Hobart E. Freeman, ThD, Faith (Claypool, IN: Faith Publications, n.d.), p. 3]. It is a condition of the human heart that is as real to God as the thing we asked for will be to us when we receive it. It is the exact image of the thing for which we ask (hupostasis is translated "image" in Hebrews 1:3). When we receive what we have prayed for the image is replaced by the actuality.


2. Faith Is Evidence
The Greek word translated "evidence" is elegchos, which basically means "conviction." John writes,


And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us: And if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him (1 John 5:14-15, KJV).
The existence of the God-kind of faith in the human heart is the evidence that what we have prayed for exists. Faith, based on the Word of God, is the evidence—not what we see or don't see—not good or bad circumstances. Faith is not based on human feeling but rather it is based squarely on the fact of what God says. The evidence is not found in the feeling, rational, visible or sense realm.


3. What Faith Is Not
Faith is not mere human hope. Faith is based on the Word of God alone. Human hope may be based on the sands of wishful thinking or human desire, rather than on the rock of the Word of God. Doubt and hope raise the question, "What shall I do?" Faith says, "I have done!" The common phrase, "I am hoping and praying" is incorrect. "I have prayed and am believing" is more scriptural.


Faith is not natural human faith. In order to function in life, we must exercise a natural faith. We have faith in natural laws such as gravity and inertia and assume that they will work the same every day. If the universe were unpredictable and untrustworthy, chaos would reign and life as we know it would be impossible. We trust inanimate machines. By turning an ignition key, flipping on a light switch, boarding an aircraft, we exercise faith in machines. We trust vegetables and animals—we assume they will perform according to our past experience. We trust other human beings. We trust our surgeon, our spouse, our pilot, etc. However, faith in God is supernatural—a gift from God. We will examine the nature of faith in God in the next chapter.


Faith is not mental assent. John Wesley warned in his time that there was a dangerous substitute for faith that he called "mental assent." He was caught in this dangerous trap and only escaped after failing as a missionary in America. Faith is of the heart (human spirit) and not merely the head (human reason). Simply agreeing that God exists and that his Word (the Bible) is true is not Biblical faith. James states that demons believe in this manner and tremble in fear of judgment:


Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble (James 2:19, KJV).
Faith is not a psychological attitude. Mere positive thinking may have some good results, but it is not Biblical faith.


Faith is not sight. Faith is not based on mere sensory perception or human reasoning. Paul says,


We live by faith, not by sight (2 Corinthians 5:7, New International Version).
4. Attributes of Faith
Faith thanks God beforehand. If a husband tells his wife that he has placed a hundred dollar bill in her purse for her birthday, she thanks him immediately. Why? Because she trusts him. She knows it is hers before she sees it. Jesus says,


Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. (Mark 11:24, New International Version).
God does not answer biblical prayer with "No" or with substitutes. Paul says,


For no matter how many promises God has made, they are `Yes' in Christ. ... (2 Corinthians 1:20, New International Version).
Faith will endure to the end. Abraham waited 25 years for Isaac to be born. Caleb waited 40 years for his land. Noah waited 120 years for his physical salvation. Faith does not look at the calendar, but to Christ. Hope may last a few minutes or a few months. Faith will endure until it is replaced by the thing for which we are believing. D. L. Moody said,


Faith that fizzles out at the finish, had a flaw in it from the first.


Conclusion: Dr. Freeman concludes:
Faith is not hope. Faith is the means by which we receive those things we hope for. Neither is faith sight. Faith is the evidence of things not seen. Faith can only operate in the realm of the invisible concerning those things we hope for and do not yet see. Faith cannot exist in the visible realm. When the things we hope for are manifested to our sight, then faith, the invisible "substance," having done its work, is supplanted by the visible substance, that is, the things we hope for. When the actuality comes into view, then the image (faith) vanishes. (Hobart E. Freeman, Faith, p. 4).
Biblical faith is an absolute requirement for answered prayer. The writer of Hebrews states,


But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him (Hebrews 11:6, KJV).

http://www.thegloryland.com/index.php?p=1_11_The-biblical-definition-of-faith

 

[JEDIYoda]

Hats off to all of you then, and good luck! Personally, I don't want to suppress valid discussion, especially including conflicting points of view since echo chambers are boring. But I would certainly love to see P&N have more signal and less noise. My "vote" is whatever you guys are willing to tackle.

There should be a fourth category -- #4 -- whatever you guys are willing to tackle!!

 

[cybrsage]

There should be a fourth category -- #4 -- whatever you guys are willing to tackle!!

I agree. As long as the changes are promulgated to the posters and applied equally to all posters, I am fully supportive.

 

[dank69]

You are like many other left leaning people here...you say something slightly vague and then get upset when someone does not know what you meant in the specifics.

When you counted my posts, you counted all of my posts, right? You then said this was part of the problem. Therefor, you lumped all of my posts into the problem category.

Apparently, others thought you meant the same thing I did, which means it was not me being "intellectually dishonest" as you claim.

I did not attack you in my post, I did not belittle you in my post, I did not even say your post was stupid, etc. I was taking what appeared to be your logic to its ludicrous conclusion. I realize I should have asked "what do you mean by this, it appears you mean xyz" though I am not sure that would have changed your viscious reply.

As an aside, you used direct, personal attack against me in your reply to my post. By doing that, are you saying you accept it being done back to you? My personal view is you lost your cool and wrote something you normally would not have written, but if you can do personal attacks on me, I should be able to do them back to you without fear of reprisal via the point system or bannage.

There is nothing vague about his post.

 

[cybrsage]

There is nothing vague about his post.

Sure there is. What constitutes signal, what constitutes noise?

 

[randomrogue]

Cybrsage take a timeout. How about not posting for a few hours? I hesitate to even use the question mark. Really, ask yourself what value your last 3 posts have. The reason I picked 3 is because when I checked this thread for new posts there were 6 and 3 of them were yours. What value would anyone on this forum have from those 3 posts? Please don't answer. I beg you. A few hours...

 

[Perknose]

You are like many other left leaning people here...

Sigh.

At the very beginning of your post, you have once again exposed yourself and your partisan attack style. You just can't help yourself, can you?

Apparently, others thought you meant the same thing I did, which means it was not me being "intellectually dishonest" as you claim.

This is OUTRIGHT FACTUALLY UNTRUE. There was zero evidence for this factually untrue statement in this thread between when I posted and you replied.

Therefore, I am calling on you to either quote the post or posts from which you got this impression or own up to your factual untruth, simply and forthrightly.

If and when you do, please explain to us how you came to such a totally untrue conclusion . . . if it wasn't just a lazy lie on your part.

^^^This once again highlights what I believe to be a signal problem in P&N.

You get dragged down into endless and essentially unwinnable troll fights, because the other poster isn't "fighting fair."

It doesn't even matter if the other poster is predominantly too stupid to make contributory posts, or just too ethically challenged to care whether he does or not. The troll posters of P&N will simply throw out anything, no matter how logically or ethically deficient, to cloud the issue.

The end result is troll noise that drives out more honest, on-point discourse.

Let me be clear. This poster I am replying to is not the only problem child in P&N. Posters of all political stripes who engage this way are a pox on P&N's house.

The forum doesn't have to be a no-holds-barred free-for-all, like a cage match or a Khardashian wedding. It seems from the way that the poll has trended that a lot of other posters agree. :thumbsup:

 

[CanOWorms]

One statistic leaps out at me here. As of the first 166 posts, fully 72 of them were made by but 3 posters;

dmcowen674 -- 31 posts
cybrsage --22posts
JSt0rm --19 posts

That's right, more than 43% of all the posts in this thread were made by the above three gentlemen alone.

Read them, these 72 posts, and I believe you will conclude as I have that their collective noise to signal ratio is unacceptably unproductive and non-contributory to any rational, measured discourse.

This has long been a problem in P&N.

Posting more non-contributory "noise" than substance in P&N, for whatever reason, is a pestilence that should be confronted and eradicated.

In other situations, having a high percentage of posts belonging to a handful of posters can be common when a large group with a majority opinion attacks a small group with a minority opinion. It's common for those in the minority group to respond to every one who responds to them. The alternative would be to ignore some posters (which would essentially drown out the minority opinion or ask them to somewhat submit) or I suppose merely quote several posts in a single post (which is basically just the same thing but technically reduces the post count but not word count).

I hope this would be considered in a determination of noise-to-signal ratio.

 

[JSt0rm]

nope all 19 posts of mine are noise. No value added.

 

[Infohawk]

In other situations, having a high percentage of posts belonging to a handful of posters can be common when a large group with a majority opinion attacks a small group with a minority opinion. It's common for those in the minority group to respond to every one who responds to them. The alternative would be to ignore some posters (which would essentially drown out the minority opinion or ask them to somewhat submit) or I suppose merely quote several posts in a single post (which is basically just the same thing but technically reduces the post count but not word count).

I hope this would be considered in a determination of noise-to-signal ratio.

LOL. Translation: "Sometimes CanOWorms/RabidMongoose bleat 75% of the posts in a thread. Please keep allowing me to troll about the British Monarchy in threads about trade relations between the US and Canada."

 

[JEDIYoda]

A real good example of intellectual dishonesty -- taken from this thread -- http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2221520

Originally Posted by dmcowen674 ---

Negative Ghost Rider

This is no longer need because the Supremes granted warrantless tracking by cell phone and everyone has one of those.

I am sorry but the Supreme court has NOT ruled on warrantless tracking of cell phones!!

This is what is called intellectual dishonesty!

You know you are wrong,,,,,yet you bait your response with "everyone" has one...

Here are links that you are wrong --
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.ac...81474978672888

In August, a New York federal court found that law enforcement agents are constitutionally obligated to get a warrant based on probable cause before obtaining historical cell phone location information.

And in September, the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals held that judges may order the government to get a warrant for cell phone location information based on probable cause.

http://www.mobileburn.com/17599/news...phone-tracking

A U.S. District Court judge in Texas has ruled that a law that allowed the government to obtain cellphone records without a warrant is unconstitutional. The judge said that obtaining information such as a phone's location when a call was placed requires a warrant, as per the Constitution.

Judge Lynn N. Hughes kept her decision brief, stating "The records would show the date, time, called number, and location of the telephone when the call was made. These data are constitutionally protected from this intrusion."

 

[DominionSeraph]

Meh, this forum is probably hopeless. A pretty good percentage of the posters here are simply stupid. Low IQ and poorly informed. With only a few exceptions, the remaining are quite incompetent at forming any sort of solid argument and resort to specious/fallacious reasoning. That could be worked through if they knew just enough to hold themselves to some sort of objectivity, but they don't. They have layers of specious/fallacious reasoning surrounding their specious/fallacious reasoning, which makes them pretty much impenetrable.
Anandtech doesn't seem to filter for quality, and as the above types cannot be worked with it leaves no workable systems.

“Attempting to debate with a person who has abandoned reason is like giving medicine to the dead.”
― Thomas Paine

Constructing a logical argument takes work. Spouting an endless series of retarded responses to reasoned arguments does not. If you cannot hold someone to reason there's no point in going through all the work to try to reason with them -- they'll slip out of any argument. That just leaves calling them on it -- a personal attack.
If a spade won't turn into something better, eventually you're left with calling it a spade.

 

[cybrsage]

Sigh.

At the very beginning of your post, you have once again exposed yourself and your partisan attack style. You just can't help yourself, can you?

Are you denying it? You post in support of left leaning items. It is obvious you are left leaning. That said, you started out vague statement and then got upset when others did not know the specifics of what you did not post, which is something I have only experienced from left leaning posters. When someone says "Shabbat Shalom" to me, I assume they are Jewish...

This is OUTRIGHT FACTUALLY UNTRUE. There was zero evidence for this factually untrue statement in this thread between when I posted and you replied.

Therefore, I am calling on you to either quote the post or posts from which you got this impression or own up to your factual untruth, simply and forthrightly.

If and when you do, please explain to us how you came to such a totally untrue conclusion . . . if it wasn't just a lazy lie on your part.

oh ok I didnt realize all my posts here were just "noise" I'll stop.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=32894151&postcount=172

Two of the three you called out came to the same conclusion that you consider all our posts to be noise. The third probably does not even know you called him out.

^^^This once again highlights what I believe to be a signal problem in P&N.

You get dragged down into endless and essentially unwinnable troll fights, because the other poster isn't "fighting fair."

You did not state what you considered signal and what you considered noise and then became enraged when others did not know what you did not say. Then you started posting personal attacks...which, of course, did not clarify what you meant.

It doesn't even matter if the other poster is predominantly too stupid to make contributory posts, or just too ethically challenged to care whether he does or not. The troll posters of P&N will simply throw out anything, no matter how logically or ethically deficient, to cloud the issue.

More personal attacks from you.

 

[cybrsage]

Cybrsage take a timeout. How about not posting for a few hours? I hesitate to even use the question mark. Really, ask yourself what value your last 3 posts have. The reason I picked 3 is because when I checked this thread for new posts there were 6 and 3 of them were yours. What value would anyone on this forum have from those 3 posts? Please don't answer. I beg you. A few hours...

You always have geod posts. Well, at least the ones I have noticed...I simply extrapolated backwards from there.

I still have yet to find what Perknose considers signal and what he considers noise. Two of the three people he called out do not know, and he will not say. Instead of saying, he launches into personal attacks. The little I can glean is "do not question what I say or it is noise". I am doubtful that is what he really means, but there is not really anything to go on.

 

[Idontcare]

More personal attacks from you. Mods are supposed to not do things like this. You need to be more like Idontcare and not let your personal bias cloud your ability to mod fairly.

It gets rough when a mod does personal attacks...that means everyone can do it, since a mod doing it means it is not against the rules even thought it is the first item listed in the member and posting guidelines.

Perknose has not posted moderator posts in this thread to my knowledge, his posts are member posts.

For reasons that relate to providing our volunteer moderators a modicum of "off the job" downtime free of harassment and free to "be themselves", when posting as members they are to be treated as members and not as moderators.

Calling them out as mods, inferring their member posts are reflective of their moderator positions, etc, is verboten.

Any issues or concerns with moderators (individually or collectively) are to be taken to the Moderator Discussions subforum.

AnandTech Forum Guidelines

13) Baiting moderators will not be tolerated nor will Mod Call Outs. Any action that reasonably can be considered baiting a moderator, or multiple consecutive actions that heavily push the boundaries of any of these guidelines will result in an instant short term vacation. Repeated violation of this rule may result in a permaban.

Our moderators are volunteers who work hard to keep the forums a hospitable place for everyone. Please respect their dedications and commitment to fair and balanced treatment of our members.

A moderator post is required to be signed by the moderator as indication that they are posting as a moderator. The absence of their moderator signature indicates the post is a member post.

Perknose's posts in this thread are those from concerned citizen perknose who is making his member inputs regarding how he'd like to see P&N evolve. They are not edicts from the forum director.

Administrator Idontcare

 

[cybrsage]

Perknose has not posted moderator posts in this thread to my knowledge, his posts are member posts.

For reasons that relate to providing our volunteer moderators a modicum of "off the job" downtime free of harassment and free to "be themselves", when posting as members they are to be treated as members and not as moderators.

Calling them out as mods, inferring their member posts are reflective of their moderator positions, etc, is verboten.

Is there a way to tell when a mod is a mod and when a mod is a standard poster? EDIT: Answered at the bottom of the post.

One little extra question, if a mod is posting as a standard member and they violate a rule (let us assume the rules against personal attacks are being enforced, just as an example) should the post be reported like any other standard member's posts?

I have to admit, I have never seen a forum where the mods take off the mod hat and turn into standard members...interesting idea. I will go back and edit out the parts where I mention he is a mod, since he took off the mod hat.

Any issues or concerns with moderators (individually or collectively) are to be taken to the Moderator Discussions subforum.

AnandTech Forum Guidelines

I do, but I considered this thread to be a moderator thread. My apologies.

A moderator post is required to be signed by the moderator as indication that they are posting as a moderator. The absence of their moderator signature indicates the post is a member post.

Perknose's posts in this thread are those from concerned citizen perknose who is making his member inputs regarding how he'd like to see P&N evolve. They are not edicts from the forum director.

Administrator Idontcare

Thanks, answered my question from the top of this post. I will leave it there for continuity sake.

EDIT EDIT: Is there a timeframe yet decided for any changes to how moderation is done/rules we are to follow is to start, if any changes are to be made?

 

[Infohawk]

A moderator post is required to be signed by the moderator as indication that they are posting as a moderator. The absence of their moderator signature indicates the post is a member post.

I'm not talking about the behavior in this specific thread, or singling out any moderators and I'm saying this here because this topic is specifically about moderation, but:
It clearly sets a tone when moderators engage in pissing matches, personal attacks, (I've seen both of these numerous times) and other questionable behavior. It doesn't matter that they don't have their mod hats on.

Generally speaking, it's pretty strange that a mod can simply take his mod hat off and get dirty. How can the average poster ignore that? It's like an off-duty cop stealing or selling drugs except it's worse because everyone knows exactly who the off-duty cop is. People expect the enforcers to maintain a high standard, even in their off time. When they do whatever they want, it suggests a dysfunctional regime.