New Moderators

Good post, Jack. And avoiding the use of words like shill, academic fraud, etc., would certainly help. Not that there aren't any and they have posted here, but the name calling should help keep things more civil.

 

Not so far.

 

Exactly! Cordial debate about a school is healthy, and tends to bring out the truth. However, some quickly decide to attack the person that tries to explain why he or she made the decision to go in the direction he or she may have went. When a member tries to humiliate another and call names like shill, fraud, etc then you can expect the receiver to want to lash back. My problem has always been that such attacks seem to be ok as long as they go in one direction, but not ok in the other. Certain people know that they can do most anything and they will NOT be banned, yet others know they can't cross the line.

I am certainly willing to give anyone a chancebecause I have changed my mine about many here. I will not leave just because I may not be thrilled with the decisions made by the owner. However, like others I will voice my opinions about what I do not like as long as I am allowed to or want to post here.

 

Well, sure, if the university is non-wonderful, then you're correct.

Do you equate external validation of the institution with wonderful-ness?

I can think of some things that would make a doctoral program "wonderful" -- and nowhere in that list is external validation of the institution. Examples are: some freedom to propose an advisor from within the field of specialty. Freedom to not be "assigned" a doctoral topic based upon faculty likes/dislikes. Freedom to defend the dissertation using a viva voce modality other than face-to-face. Freedom to not have to do any residential (not even a token "visit") in a non-residential field (such as much of computer science). Freedom to bite off more than one can chew and accept the consequences thereof (even if too much might mean failure of the dissertation).

I'm not talking about freedom from committee scrutiny, however.

;-)

It's hard to argue convincingly for something that is non-wonderful. The above freedoms do not influence the academic quality of many fields. External validation is not in the list of what I would consider a "wonderful" program.

I could convincingly argue for a wonderful university that gave me those wonderful freedoms, if what resulted was a wonderful dissertation.

But the first thing that some would ask is "But is it regionally accredited or equivalent?"

And the conversation would abrubtly stop there, because (to me) that's like asking whether or not the state approved of my choice of spouse.

 

In the interest of thread topicality, I'll copy my post to the appropriate subforum. Please answer in the other forum if it's this branch, to avoid thread-dispersion.

 

ay, mama!

OUCH.

 

Jorge

Jorge:

Didn't you write on the other forum that your "cred" would suffer by posting there? If that is the case, what's the difference if "they" post here?

Are you saying that by posting in a debate with them your "cred" would not suffer, because you are doing it here?

 

You know, this is the sort of post that causes some concern. You really don't have to respond to everything, you know?



Tom Nixon

 

I admit I used to use "pre-emptive strikes" quite liberally, simply because I didn't have the time or the assistance to see how some things would play out. Now that the moderation team is back to full-strength, I don't see that being an issue anymore.

For those that disagree about a certain new moderator(s), I'm thinking back to the day I graduated the police academy. Right before we were "pinned" (had our badges pinned-on for the first time), the commander of the academy made a very impressive speech. I'm going from memory, but it went something like this;

"Before we start the pinning ceremony, I want every graduate to look at the piece of metal they're holding in their hands. Look at it. I mean, REALLY look at it. How heavy does it feel? It's only a dozen or so ounces of relatively cheap metal, but it should feel like it weighs 100 pounds. Not for its physical weight, but for the magnitude of its meaning. You have all been entrusted with perhaps the most sacred rights that citizens can bestow on other citizens.....the right to lawfully deprive them of their life, liberty, and property. It's not something that should ever be taken lightly".

"Keep in mind that while you have been given this sacred trust, it can also be taken away from you in the blink of an eye. If you ever do something to soil the badge you're now holding in your hands, I'll be the first person in line to rip it off your chest. If you dishonor your position as a police officer, that damages the reputations of ALL police officers. Remember why you raised your right hand, why you went through these months of training, and most of all, remember that your job is to protect and serve the public against those who would prey on them. I trust that none of you will disappoint me".

"Congratulations, God bless, and stay safe".

Now, I know that banning someone from an Internet message board hardly equates to putting someone in prison, but the underlying message does apply.

 

Is there really an question in your mind that I'm not? That one went to my integrity; suggesting I would do something with my moderator capabilities that I would never, ever do; and the suggestion of which offended me as other criticism here does not.

People who make such suggestions are usually projecting. No amount of criticism is going to make me stop calling 'em as I see 'em.

Everything else is mere opinion... to which its authors are entitled; which don't necessarily require a response from me; and whose authors' right to said opinion is at the core of my value system.

 

Re: Re: New Moderators

Bill,

Don't worry. I may be in the background -- insanely busy these days -- but I'm still very present. As long as I'm involved in DegreeInfo, you don't need to worry about being banned unless you stray wildly from the sorts of posts you've made over the past years.

All of the original moderators were either personally known to me (people I'd met F2F) or otherwise had shown themselves to be trustworthy through lengthy online conversations, chats, actions, etc. And all have historically been pretty evenhanded and relatively calm in their opinions. (Well, most of the time, anyway -- and I include myself in the exception category.)

We've been very, very conservative about choosing new moderators. Bruce has done an absolutely fantastic job, unpaid and underappreciated, almost singlehandedly for a couple of years now, and I've known for some time that we needed someone -- it's just that finding people that can handle the responsibility and not go "power mad" is exceptionally difficult. That's one of the reasons I've been reluctant for so long.

However, it became clear this weekend that something needed to happen, and so we made the choices to ask Gregg and George and Jack. It will probably take some time to make sure that everyone is on exactly the same page, but we've always had a policy of having the moderators communicate with one another when a major decision (banning a poster who is known to the community, for example) is made, and that won't change.

Once again, although I'm busy (and sick at the moment with bronchitis) I'm always open to comments or concerns about DegreeInfo's operation. Feel free to contact me if there are ever any concerns. And if anyone feels that we've made an unwise choice about this, or anything else, let me know that as well -- I'm not afraid to hear opposing viewpoints, nor to do whatever is necessary if I've not given proper consideration to a sitauation.

In short, I don't want to lose your contributions here, and I'd like to know if you ever feel that your contributions/views aren't being given appropriate respect.

 

Re: Re: ever on and upwards

I don't completely agree with the above statement, but I don't fault Gregg... he's taken on this responsibility without any official guidance (i'm still looking for the long, long-ago written moderation notes to send to our new moderators) .

So to clarify what the official policy, so much as there actually *is* one, has been:

-- If a post or thread is deemed sufficiently controversial or in violation of our TOS by any moderator or admin, it is moved out of public view. If there is the slightest question as to whether it's the right action to take, the moderator/admin emails the others for opinions, and it's generally the collective opinion of all the moderator/admins that decides the final action. Thus, one moderator might remove something that we, as a group, decide it's appropriate to let stay, so it's added back.

-- If a new poster is an obvious shill, repeat offender, or is violating TOS by registering more than one login, s/he will simply be removed by the first moderator/admin to see the action.

-- If a moderator/admin strongly disagrees with any other moderator/admin's action, then we seek the input of all the admins/moderators and take action based on the majority opinion.

-- if, for some reason, there's a dispute/tie/disagreement among the moderators, I reserve the right to make the final decision, though I don't think I've ever had to do that.

-- The actions of admins/moderators are rarely, if ever, identified individually (except in the case of an email warning sent to someone violating TOS). But these cases are also subject to interpretation, so once again, as a unit, the moderators should usually make the same decisions and speak with the same voice.

-- The forums at DegreeInfo.com are a privately run service, not a public forum, and DegreeInfo does have a corporate philosophy that isn't unbiased -- we don't like fraudulent or unwonderful schools -- and so our moderation takes that into consideration. Yet, at the same time, we recognize that DegreeInfo is successful *because* of the community that posts here. So we do listen to input from the community about our choices, decisions, actions, etc. We may not always follow the "majority" wishes based on the mail we get (since that can easily be manipulated), but we'll consider all input we get, and if we've done something ill-informed or poorly advised, we'll do our best to fix it.

I hope that clarifies any questions that may have been created as a result of issues raised and/or opinions stated in this thread.

 

Sure it would be unethical, but the issue here is not about ethics but about credibility. I feel degreeinfo is a board which is the primary resource for distance education on the net. In order for the board to be credible also and especially for newbies and advice seekers - which we both don't want to see ending up at jamesville and be convinced about the joy of diploma mill degrees- also the moderators need to portray a certain image.

In the past you have posted a lot of messages which were "not-so-wonderful". Some were quite paranoid such as the thread about people with assumably two screen names, although all evidence concluded that they were very well 2 seperate persons. Others were vast personal insults with people disagreeing with you. Your posts are lengthy and often neither well structured or organized, you get carried away in them and your argumentation lines are sometimes, let's call them carefully, a little weak. This is all quite reminiscent to the posts of Mr. Dovelos whose posts show quite some outer similarities to some of yours. I am sure you have (unlike Dovelos!!) the best intentions and I am glad that someone like you has the ability to spend a lot of time on this board. Thank you quite honestly.

However, posts such as the one below are I feel a little embarassing for you (and I am actually sorry to bring such posts back up again). What's even worse: it says "moderator" now quite next to it and being officially associated with degreeinfo, this is quite a change in meaning.

"But let's examine your moral compass, shall we? Precisely what are you stifling yourself from "citing [in my] past posts" which would illustrate your point that it would be appropriate, in my case, to now start applauding? What, precisely, did you mean by that? Or are we all now about to be witness to your cowardice and inability to either stand by or bring meaning to your hateful, not-well-thought-out words. And what, besides a childish personal attack for lack of anything substantive and meaningful, could your criticism of my signature possibly be? What... are you 12 or something? Do you have a complaint about me that actually amounts to anything, or is this just you embarrassing yourself and being a putz?" (please see the arithmetical azad thread in the accredited forum for full context, as there isn't anything in that would justify such a strange response)

I feel it does degreeinfo no good to have posts like this or the threads about azad, learner, well to be honest actually most people that disagree with you, now officially associated with the board. If for "ethical" reasons you do not wish to remove older posts of yours, I hope that at least future posts might be a little more - excuse the wordplay - moderate. That's all I'm going to say to this topic. Best wishes and thank you what so ever for the time you invest into this board!

 

First, I won't offer any of the new moderators congratulations. "Good luck" seems more appropriate. This is a tough crowd and unfortunately also attracts some tough trolls. You guys have your work cut out for you. If anyone deserves a 'congrats' it's Bruce for handling most of it himself for a long time.

Second, maybe everyone needs to remember that the manner in which this forum is often criticized (here and elsewhere) is almost a compliment, albeit a left-handed one. If certain other forums can do little else but criticize this one then that screams the unspoken message that this one is indeed doing something right.

Since discovering this site and forum a few years ago, and becoming a member last year, it remains the FIRST place I send anyone who has questions about distance education. The site itself has an excellent intro and articles, and this forum remains the one with the best information from individuals who have "been there, did that". Not the least of which includes the ability to not be afraid of telling people the truth about certain issues regarding education and accreditation, even if it's not fair or not what everyone wants to hear. People need the truth before they commit their time and money toward earning any credential.

Third, FWIW I think George Brown and Jack Tracey are excellent choices for moderators. In one thread, Jack Tracey mentioned that he might be posting less often now that he is a moderator so as not to confuse anyone that his personal opinions may not be "degreeinfo opinions". I hope he might reconsider that decision as his posts are most informative and have helped many. Gregg DesElms seems to be the 'controversial' choice, but I think he will do a good job as well. Yes, he has had rather spirited disagreements with others, even a few times resorting to some name-calling. But I suspect that was just a matter of his getting a little too passionate and too personally involved in the disagreements at hand. I don't know Gregg but also suspect that he never truly meant to insult anyone personally, and that if it had been brought to his attention that he did he likely would have apologized. Some folks just plain love to argue. It doesn't mean he won't do a good job moderating. In fact, if they channel it properly those kind of folks often bring the same passion and involvement to whatever job they are assigned. To those who have reservations about Gregg DesElms as a moderator, give him a chance. I'm not a gambler but would be willing to bet that he will pleasantly surprise you.

Kit

 

We simply do not remove or edit posts unless they are TOS violations or violate our corporate policies/philosophy. It's a longstanding (and sometimes unpopular, when someone posts something they later regret) policy that is rarely if ever "bent."

So while it might be nice for a moderator to edit/sanitize his previous posts, it would be inappropriate. While I do agree that some of the posts made were perhaps, um, ill advised for someone who is now a moderator, it would be more ill-advised to go back and modify those posts, and I agree with Gregg's view that it would be wrong for him to *want* to change them, let alone to actually change them.

 

Well, here I am posting again on this thread, concisely (!).

Thanks, Bruce.
Thanks, Chip. Get well.

 

I don't really post enough to offer an opinion, but I believe the concerns over Gregg are unwarranted.

If he uses his own behavior as the benchmark, no one will ever be banned for any reason - this forum will be a free-for-all.

 

Good points Jack. I would like to add something. If someone has reads enough of Gregg's posts, they would realize he strongly favors the rights of free speech. I know in my heart he would only ban something that was truly, truly offensive, obscene, etc.

Gregg does not believe in banning/quashing for no reason. We get enough of that under this present Administration. Let's not back peddle.

Oh well, enough said,


Abner

 

I meant that to be a statement to of support. I want to further express my support of Gregg as a moderator. When I consider DegreeInfo.com's mission statement, which is located on the "About us" page, I think there are very few of us here who could be as capable a moderator as Gregg in helping DegreeInfo.com accomplish its mission.

 

In my opinion, none of Gregg's posts have ever been "inappropriate" or otherwise an embarassment to him or this board.

Some of my fondest memories of his posts were around that guy who did a lot of self flagellation here over his "porn addiction".... only to be asked by some wiseacre at the conclusion of a lot of hot air (much of it Gregg's) on the topic.....

"So.... Is the porn collection now for sale then?"