HammerDano
Survivor
Just say "we made up our own definitions" that's far more accurate.
Console Pc and consoles are not equal
- Thread starter DIZZYCHIMERA892
- Start date
- Status
theFlu
Hunter
At this point you might want to bring in a dictionary page or some such, otherwise you have no point, just pure snark ... matches the previous patterns though, so no surprises here.
Wikipedia says "The page "Community moderator" does not exist" . So I searched for "moderator" and was led to a disambiguation page where one entry seems to apply:
Internet forum moderator, a person given special authority to enforce the rules on a forum or social media platforms
Think about it, you could have done this research yourself and prevented shooting yourself into your own foot.
No, that's the definition you'll find in pretty much every community forum or message board on the internet.
Every board I've ever been part off that had moderators had that kind of moderators, including the one where I am a moderator myself.
HammerDano
Survivor
when did I ever say community moderator? The closest I can think of is that I have advocated for a Community Manager.
Have I not asked, more than once, what is the TFP sites definition of a moderator?
A moderator is there to enforce the rules of the site. that's true. But in the classic definition a moderator is not an active participant in the conversation, other than to try to keep things civil. which is part of their duties. According to you, they don't even need to know the game...just what constitutes a "foul".
I just had another ban for pointing out that banning someone for "doom and gloom" is ridiculous. Literally any complaint could be treated as "doom and gloom". My ban was for even discussing it. I expect to receive yet another ban for THIS conversation. Because the users of the forum can't even discuss the rules without incurring a ban. it's a fan club...just call it a fan club if you are going to be that ridiculous.
@theFlu @Treb @meganoth go ahead...look up moderator...you'll see that it is defined as someone who is there to monitor the conversation, to ensure people follow the rules, to remove offensive comments, to ban people for infracttions. NO WHERE in there will you see they are active participants in the conversations. NO WHERE.
theFlu
Hunter
I won't actually assume good faith, but for the sake of argument, you seem to have misread "Moderators are also people interested in the game.".
It is not saying that all moderators are interested in a game. It is saying that moderators are people too, and usually with an interest in the game/subject of the forum they're mods for. It is not a definition of "moderator", it's a description of their common predisposition.
Why do I not assume good faith? IF you think that moderators ARE NOT interested in discussing the game, then your complaints about lack of moderators(subtype console) is already null and void. You're just trying to prove anyone who disagrees "wrong" in any sense you can grasp at, so you can maintain your delusional opinion of your own correctness. Get some help.
Rotor
Hunter
Edit: below is from AI overview in Google with refs in picture.
A general reply.
AI Overview
An active participant can be an effective moderator, but their success often depends on a careful balance of their engagement, objectivity, and adherence to established community guidelines [1].
Potential Benefits:
Deep Understanding: An active participant is likely to have a thorough understanding of the community's culture, norms, and history [1].
Credibility: They may already have the respect and trust of other members, which can make moderation decisions more readily accepted [1].
Insight into Content: Their engagement means they are familiar with the type of content the community produces, allowing them to make nuanced judgments about what is appropriate [1].
Passion: They are likely passionate about the forum's subject matter and success, which can drive a committed approach to moderation [1].
Potential Challenges:
Bias and Partiality: They may struggle to remain neutral, potentially showing favoritism toward friends or bias against those with whom they've had disagreements [1].
Difficulty Separating Roles: Shifting from a peer to a position of authority can be a difficult transition, both for the individual and the community [1].
Perceived Conflict of Interest: Other members might question their motives, especially if they are involved in discussions that require moderation [1].
Potential for Burnout: Balancing active participation (contributing to discussions) and the work of moderation (enforcing rules) can be demanding and lead to burnout [1].
Ultimately, an active participant who can maintain objectivity, apply rules consistently regardless of who is involved, and clearly separate their personal opinions from their moderating duties can be an excellent asset to a forum [1].
[1]
A general reply.
AI Overview
An active participant can be an effective moderator, but their success often depends on a careful balance of their engagement, objectivity, and adherence to established community guidelines [1].
Potential Benefits:
Deep Understanding: An active participant is likely to have a thorough understanding of the community's culture, norms, and history [1].
Credibility: They may already have the respect and trust of other members, which can make moderation decisions more readily accepted [1].
Insight into Content: Their engagement means they are familiar with the type of content the community produces, allowing them to make nuanced judgments about what is appropriate [1].
Passion: They are likely passionate about the forum's subject matter and success, which can drive a committed approach to moderation [1].
Potential Challenges:
Bias and Partiality: They may struggle to remain neutral, potentially showing favoritism toward friends or bias against those with whom they've had disagreements [1].
Difficulty Separating Roles: Shifting from a peer to a position of authority can be a difficult transition, both for the individual and the community [1].
Perceived Conflict of Interest: Other members might question their motives, especially if they are involved in discussions that require moderation [1].
Potential for Burnout: Balancing active participation (contributing to discussions) and the work of moderation (enforcing rules) can be demanding and lead to burnout [1].
Ultimately, an active participant who can maintain objectivity, apply rules consistently regardless of who is involved, and clearly separate their personal opinions from their moderating duties can be an excellent asset to a forum [1].
[1]
As I said, you keep talking about things you have no idea about. This is a recurring occurrence.
Forum moderators are always active participants because they are chosen from the active posters on said forum. This isn't specific to this forum and is basically ubiquitous. This is clearly the first forum you ever participated in (or at least paid attention to moderation).
You keep mixing debate moderator and forum moderator, but they are two very different things.
I searched for "community moderator" first because that is what is printed as title below my name. Then I searched for moderator.
Yes, but when Crator Creator gave it you dismissed it as made up definition. Even though the dictionary definition says exactly the same.
WOAH. Where comes that "classic" definition from and why are you not quoting it? Do you mean the classic definition of moderator before the internet and forums existed?
Then a bug's classic definition is it is an insect, and being a programming mistake is a made up definition?
This is why I mentioned there is disambiguation page in wikipedia. Further down you will find your definition of a "discussion moderator", one who moderates a discussion and doesn't take sides or says his opinion. But a word can have multiple meanings and a discussion moderator is not a forum moderator and vice versa
I looked it up: Quote wikipedia for forum moderator: "The moderators (short singular form: "mod") are users (or employees) of the forum who are granted access to the posts and threads of all members for the purpose of moderating discussion".
"users of the forum" does imply that they "use" the forum. And ask yourself this: Why would an unpaid user of the forum do the moderation work if it prevented him from using the forum?
If the forum operator would not allow moderators to use the forum he will not get any volunteer moderators at all. He would have to use employees.
Last edited:
HammerDano
Survivor
some people ref local sports for free...I can't tell you what makes someone volunteer to take a job where neutrality is necessary...for free. but neutrality is still expected...except by the dog pile...apparently they thought you couldn't handle this by yourself. This site is run by the inmates. It is a fan club...it is not a legitimate forum.
This is becaus they think they help children with this. Surprise, they can still do sports there as well.
I as well am doing volunteer work at a local fablab. But I am also a member who can use the fablab
Do you really think anyone would read this forum and do work for it and be forbidden to use it. For total strangers?
Look at other forums, they do the same thing. Because that is how they can make it work. Call it whatever you like.
theFlu
Hunter
Welcome to the internet; any forum is a mainly mix of survivorship bias. The regulars like it there, even if they cop a few bans; I'm one of those. Deserved mine for essentially being obnoxious, but in a way I'm glad I got them. I was merely trolling in each, but the forum is better for not allowing that.
Are you happy that you got banned?
Rotor
Hunter
Jost Amman
Hunter
You're hateful, disrespectful, you're often insulting this community members at large, you are spamming all the topics with the same rhetoric over and over, even when you've been replied to several times. You don't accept or even consider the responses you get by TFP themselves.
You accuse the developers of this game to be liars and scammers. Developers who are, need I remind you, just people working like you and me.
Now you are directing your repressed ire towards the moderators, who are, need I remind you, players like us.
The fact you haven't been already permanently banned yet is the biggest proof of the extreme leeway the moderators are giving you. But barring that, you've put to the test times and again the patience of the members of this forum.
We come here to read news about our beloved game, to have fun and to discuss interesting ideas.
We don't come here to fight or be rude and hateful to each other.
I sincerely hope you can find back your inner peace and remember that, in the end, this is just a game.
Crater Creator
Community Moderator
People can have different roles at different times. This is what I was getting at with the “moderator hat” analogy. A judge can sit behind a bench while court is in session and speak in their official capacity as a judge. They can also step down from that bench, go to the bar, and shoot the ■■■■ about the local sports team with some buddies over a beer. That is allowed. Now substitute moderator for judge, and 7 Days to Die for the local sports team, and it should be clear how moderators can post with their moderator hats off.
What’s not allowed is discussing the moderation of the forum. That’s why I said, in the post you quoted, that this will not be a thread for discussing the moderation of the forum. Here you discussed prior and future forum bans, so, your prediction was correct. You are now banned for discussing the moderation of the forum. The irony isn’t lost on me, but it also isn’t a shield you get to break the rules.
It probably doesn’t feel good for your ban to be out in the open as part of the public conversation. That’s one reason why users are instructed to avoid it, and keep moderation matters like who gets banned out of the public discussion: to protect users, both the innocent and the guilty, from ugly rumors and public humiliation.
Doing it in this thread was also rude to the OP. They made an on topic thread to discuss the differences between the game on PC and the game on consoles. The forum is fundamentally for discussing the game. The moderation of the forum is not the game. It’s off topic for the forum. The OP understood this, even though they just joined on Friday and this was their first post. Now their thread is so derailed by the discussion of moderation that we have to close it. I hope they won’t just leave in frustration.
The takeaway should be simple to understand. If you are not a moderator, then do not discuss moderation in your posts.
- Status