# Mods UK.



## cabby (May 14, 2005)

Rather than drag out the other thread.

Simple question; Do we need a Moderator in the UK. My answer is YES.
Do we need to know who it is; My answer is NO.

I say this as we do need someone who does understand the logic behind MHFs
and it's members, so can act accordingly.

We should trust their judgement and not ask for a full enquiry in a thread unless we are personally involved.Then by PM only.

cabby


----------



## eurajohn (May 9, 2005)

Your opinion, to which you are fully and freely entitled.


.


----------



## caulkhead (Jul 25, 2007)

Until that nastiness last spring with a certain ex-member I didn't believe in the principle of mods as such. I was happy to let the owner (Nuke) wield power as he saw fit. However when VS took over and 'he who shall remain nameless' was allowed to personally insult anyone who crossed him and, on occasions, post downright lies, it became obvious to me that someone in the UK was needed to enforce the site rules. So YES to a mod and probably best if identity is unknown. I would also like to see a simple explanation for the reasons behind any action. Not disclosure of personal data obviously, but which rules have been contravened etc. 

Andy


----------



## BillCreer (Jan 23, 2010)

I can live with with some of the lunatics running the asylum but, as a patient, I can't see how I can be expected to have a reasonable conversation when I don't know if I am talking to a fellow patient or a member of staff. 

Having Admin Privileges does give you power over others. 

.


----------



## nicholsong (May 26, 2009)

BillCreer said:


> I can't see how I can be expected to have a reasonable conversation when I don't know if I am talking to a fellow patient or a member of staff.
> 
> .


Bill

I am sure, but without checking, that the post closing the thread came from user 'UK Admin' - so it was clear that it was not an ordinary member.

Geoff


----------



## peribro (Sep 6, 2009)

Doesn't this thread simply prolong the agony?

If some people don't want a moderated forum then they should perhaps look elsewhere. This forum is privately owned and if the owners want moderators then that's their right and their prerogative so far as I am concerned.


----------



## caulkhead (Jul 25, 2007)

peribro said:


> Doesn't this thread simply prolong the agony?
> 
> If some people don't want a moderated forum then they should perhaps look elsewhere. This forum is privately owned and if the owners want moderators then that's their right and their prerogative so far as I am concerned.


Pro!ong what agony Peter? Just people exchanging views surely! Isn't that what the forum is all about?

Andy


----------



## BillCreer (Jan 23, 2010)

Moderators are fine, in my opinion, it's having secret ones that I object too.

If Moderators have Admin Privilege then presumably they can access your messages etc.


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

As one of the former Moderating team I perhaps have a biased viewpoint but bear with me;

Local Moderators can react quickly to problems about "good taste" whether it is bad language or personal attacks, BUT as was explained to me *VERY *early on when I started;
*
"Activity on here is not life or death and very few things cannot wait before being dealt with even if there is a 24 hour delay"*

that is a view that I increasingly recognised as being accurate and useful - frequently decisions (and actions) taken in haste were repented at leisure - and IMO that has not changed.

Yes, as a member of a Moderating team (and IMO if such a thing *IS *needed *it needs to be a team* in order to give reasonable cover every day) you do exercise power over others and that CAN place you in a difficult situation - we were identified by a logo in our profile and that meant we were easy to "target" if wrong decisions were made - and they were and we were.....

Non-identification and anonymity was something that was sought *BEFORE* the Mods were discarded by the then owner, overnight, without discussion and is perhaps an example of the "*act in haste repent at leisure*" mentioned earlier as the owner failed to do what he said he would and left the site unsupervised - which lead to a decline in activity and standards IMO. *NOT *as serious as I had feared but still a decline - and that may well have lead to the unpleasant attacks mentioned by other posts.

So, while I can see some advantages, to me to disadvantages outweigh the advantages and I would not be keen to support such a step again.

MHF works well through self-moderation - thinking and re-reading *BEFORE* pressing "Post quick reply", if any of us steps out of line then others are rightly quick to point it out to us - if that is done *WITHOUT* a personal attack or abuse then IMO it is more likely to be received without raising antipathy.

*BUT *those are *MY* views and *MY *views only, each of us has the chance for our own views and in the end it is owned and operated by VS who must decide if such an introduction is needed - but at present IMO it would not be warranted.

Dave


----------



## barryd (May 9, 2008)

Yes. Some of us cannot be trusted! 

Even Fruitcakes has 2 mods as well as me. You cannot really have a forum without them really.


----------



## Brock (Jun 14, 2005)

Surely VS is responsible for ensuring there is effective moderation and we are responsible for not posting anything that needs moderation.

VS will no doubt be aware of the Defamation Act 2013 [effective 1 January 2014 I presume] under which website operators can be pursued by those who claim they have been defamed as a result of comments on their site even if they are not the author of those comments.

In an action against a website operator, it is a defence to show that it was not the Operator who posted the statement on the website and the Operator followed the Defamation (Operators of Websites) Regulations. If the website operator effectively moderates statements posted on it by others, then it aids the defence. Would a 'member moderation' be considered effective?

I'm no lawyer and haven't looked at the Defamation Act for over a year so I may be reading this all wrong. However, the Defamation Act does seem to me to make it abundantly clear that liability for defamation lies with the poster if the website operator has a valid defence.


----------

