Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Phillyfanfrombirth
I work as a Mod on a very large forum and I can relate to that... Perhaps the main difference is the mods on that forum are under another account, so unless posters have been around for a significant time, they don't know who is and who isn't a moderator.
As far as discussing politics on message boards, I think I'm pretty burnt out on discussing things with folks who don't really keep up with the situations and live by talking points handed out by PACs.
So, I've learned to stay out of partisan pissing matches... and stick to specific issues, especially as they relate to the economy... ie tax policy, energy policy, the future of social security, and regulatory policy.
|
Good idea.
If I had it to do over (and ran my own site), I would have all Moderators be 'invisible' as to their online identity and work under a generic name, such as 'Moderator'. I would also make a firm rule that mods could not post on the 'open discussion' forums. That might sound over-restrictive, but I found that trying to balance my moderator/administrator duties - which, inevitably, included closing threads that broke posting rules - and maintaining political positions (online) that were often 'controversial' (translation: some people didn't like my opinions or how I stated them - without apology) was very difficult. I was constantly accused of either 'abusing' my status or scolded by those who opposed my views by being told that
"As a moderator", I should (or shouldn't) do this or that. That's why I gave up the positions (in frustration) and also became somewhat distant from the forums here. Burnout factor kicked in. I notice that the MW site survived my leaving the staff.
Now, I usually post elsewhere and still have occasional online political/cultural arguments but I no longer have to be concerned with being accused of 'abusing' any website 'management positions' (unpaid, at that) because I have to close a thread that has gone
way over the line. I've also learned - the hard way - to avoid 'religious' arguments as they can quickly get nasty and of course, can never have a resolution as all 'religion' is based on faith of some sort.
The best argument is always stating the facts but even then, the facts will be challenged and political biases and long-held suspicions will still cloud some minds. Iin the final analysis, whether it's politics or religion, I've found (long ago) that people will believe what they want to believe, facts or no facts. So be it.