Leave moderating to the moderators

[Neversoft]

Not a dig at you or anything Rosie, just a general enquiry.

Just wondering, why exactly does this rule exist? I have seen countless non-staff members help others by pointing them in the right direction concerning the rules and such, but this rule pretty much classes those helpful people as rule breakers. Someone posted a thread on New Years Resolutions earlier (here) and I posted to say that a thread had already been made and gave them the link. The poster then went to the correct thread and posted where they should have done and if they were VIP I am sure they would have acknowledged the mistake and closed the duplicate thread themselves (which I have seen happen countless times in the same situation), thus saving the moderators a job. Yet I get a moderator warning edited into my post?

A8. Leave moderating to the moderators ~ If you see someone breaking a rule, click the report post icon on that post with and provide a brief description. Also, you may not discuss bans on the forum. If you wish to dispute a ban use the Support System. You should also never ignore a moderators warning, change their warnings, open a thread they have closed or use the Moderator Specific BBcode ([modwar]).

Whereas it is explained why rules like pointless posting and posting inappropriately are in place (even though they're quite self-explanatory), the 'leave moderating to the moderators' rule can't even justify itself. Surely a mod-log or two wouldn't go a miss. Never have I ever seen this rule anywhere else but on this forum.

[hamheyelliot]

Mishaps like posting in the wrong forum or creating multiple threads aren't officially recorded as Rules either so really giving a gentle nudge in the right direction isn't really breaking the moderator rule in the first place.

[Jamesy]

The rule exists I'd say because moderators+ are the only ones who should have the authority to point out rule breaks. If everyone did it, whether intentions good or not, it would become confusing to new members who need to see who the moderators are and such. I agree with elliot though that things that you can't be punished for shouldn't come under acting as a moderator - although posting completely off topic just to point it out is a bit far - you should just report it and move on.

[Nemo]

Mishaps like posting in the wrong forum or creating multiple threads aren't officially recorded as Rules either so really giving a gentle nudge in the right direction isn't really breaking the moderator rule in the first place.

indeed, ive never been told off doing so.

But in all its a really dumb rule, i remember it being there and their reasoning was "as some people will give false information" well then warn them

[GommeInc]

Mishaps like posting in the wrong forum or creating multiple threads aren't officially recorded as Rules either so really giving a gentle nudge in the right direction isn't really breaking the moderator rule in the first place.

Interesting point. It should also come down to how you say it, to who and why. As long as it isn't mentioned in a rude "u r stupido" way then it's fine. I think they may disallow you from saying such things because it's seen as messy and pointless in a thread (when it is moved it looks odd and out of place). Saying that though, they love their red writing/mod warnings which would say it had been moved to a new forum, thus destroying much of the point

indeed, ive never been told off doing so.

But in all its a really dumb rule, i remember it being there and their reasoning was "as some people will give false information" well then warn them

Isn't that the whole point of a forum, a mix-match of true and false information? It's up to the individual if they're dumb enough to accept false information (even though most of the useful information is listed somewhere anyway).

[Inseriousity.]

Hmm I agree. There are people who can be quite rude about it but they could probably be sanctioned under the 'don't be a ********' rule rather than this one tbh.

[Neversoft]

The rule exists I'd say because moderators+ are the only ones who should have the authority to point out rule breaks. If everyone did it, whether intentions good or not, it would become confusing to new members who need to see who the moderators are and such. I agree with elliot though that things that you can't be punished for shouldn't come under acting as a moderator - although posting completely off topic just to point it out is a bit far - you should just report it and move on.

I think there is a huge misconception that new members of this forum are completely illiterate. It's not hard to see who the moderators are, they all have a userbar pointing it out. I really find it hard to see how new members would become confused if someone other than a moderator helped them out as well. At the end of the day it just seems strange to me that a good deed is against the rules. The rule needs a little more clarity as well, how far do you have to go before you're 'moderating' in place of the moderators. Pretty sure my post and countless others never had this intention.

[GommeInc]

The rule exists I'd say because moderators+ are the only ones who should have the authority to point out rule breaks. If everyone did it, whether intentions good or not, it would become confusing to new members who need to see who the moderators are and such. I agree with elliot though that things that you can't be punished for shouldn't come under acting as a moderator - although posting completely off topic just to point it out is a bit far - you should just report it and move on.

Surely making members useful is a better aim? Better to have social, helpful members than ones that have to go about saying nothing just to make moderators look smarter and superior

And last time I chcked new members weren't born without a brain, it's probably why there aren't that many new members as they feel like they're being patronised :/

[Jamesy]

I think there is a huge misconception that new members of this forum are completely illiterate. It's not hard to see who the moderators are, they all have a userbar pointing it out. I really find it hard to see how new members would become confused if someone other than a moderator helped them out as well. At the end of the day it just seems strange to me that a good deed is against the rules. The rule needs a little more clarity as well, how far do you have to go before you're 'moderating' in place of the moderators. Pretty sure my post and countless others never had this intention.

I never intended to say new members are illiterate, but its a common rule on many forums that users shouldn't act as a moderator. In the case of your post simply reporting it and moving on would have had the same effect - because you then posted simply to say it, it comes under it. But I've seen replies to threads in wrong sections that append something like "by the way you'll get better replies in this forum" and they don't get edited.

[Hecktix]

I think there is a huge misconception that new members of this forum are completely illiterate. It's not hard to see who the moderators are, they all have a userbar pointing it out. I really find it hard to see how new members would become confused if someone other than a moderator helped them out as well. At the end of the day it just seems strange to me that a good deed is against the rules. The rule needs a little more clarity as well, how far do you have to go before you're 'moderating' in place of the moderators. Pretty sure my post and countless others never had this intention.

I think it's about the rights of who has to say what really, I mean personally in my opinion I don't think pointing out that a thread already exists is breaking this rule, you aren't suggesting they are breaking the rules as such merely informing them of something - should you dispute the action taken against your post to Nicola and I am sure she will probably take a similar viewpoint and remove the edit.

The rule is in place to stop members telling other members what they can and cannot do on the forum and believe me a lot of people get up their own backside and do it, they sometimes don't totally cross the rudeness line therefore sanction for being rude wouldn't quite cover it but this rule is there to stop these kind of people, having ago at others for breaking the rules in public - that's the main reason for it, if a member breaks the rules they are dealt with by a moderator in the privacy of their own inbox, what is said is between the moderator and the user and an edit is left on the post to show that the post was against the rules (which is quite educating for the other members, I know I didn't learn a lot of the rules on this forum until I saw other people break them, or broke them myself). It's not too pleasent to be brought up by another member when most of the time when this happens it's quite unpleasent, stuff like "this thread is breaking the rules" - although it looks innocent this can also appear rude/condescending and it isn't the users place to suggest that the thread is breaking the rules, should it be breaking the rules then they should report it.

That's what it's used for, arrogant people who decide to go around telling people what they can and cannot do around this forum when they are in no position to do so, things like "there's already a thread on this here: XXXXXXXX" is more advice than moderation, as you aren't really telling them they have broken the rules. Perhaps this should be clarified with the moderators.