Blowing the RWD Horn a Bit

[Admin]

I have a double identity. And it helps. :toocool:But it is not used for deception.

Of course it is a deception. It is an admitted deception to hide your true identity. As in:

SUBTERFUGE [/i]suggests the adoption of a stratagem or the telling of a lie in order to escape guilt or to gain an end.

Your identity is not "moderator" because you choose not to share your real identity with us. You hide behind your secrete identity to escape any possible retribution. I personally have no problem with that, but it isn't what I would choose to do. Many people may not like my opinions, but I damn well aint gonna hide the fact that they are mine.

KenC
[/quote]

Ken,

It would only be a "lie" or "subterfuge" if we had not been totally and completely up-front about what we were doing at the time.

I ran a poll. I made a decision. I found someone whom I could trust. They had a legitimate concern - and I implemented an approach to overcome that concern - so that I could get the benefit of some assistance which I needed.

None of that was hidden from anyone. In fact, it was announced, and announced, and announced - all while it was going on.

Unfortunately, I have just recently been pruning some of the older Admin topics and I deleted a couple in which I ran the poll asking for input - and I made the announcement about the Moderator. Most should recall that as it wasn't all that long ago - about 6 months.

- Dan

[jb]

WRT the agency owners doing double IDs, Jack will attest, I'm  sure,  that when he did the multiple screen name gambit, it  generated distrust, disrespect, and outright hostility, no only towards  himself, but towards his agency when the deception was  discovered.  I think it ultimately cost him a lot of business.

Most folks just don't like being fooled.  I can easily understand  Richard's reluctance to cross those boundaries, and I applaud his  upfront honesty in the matter.

[Jet]

Hey jet, did you see my question to you above regarding who banned Ellen and what for?

 

 

Spencer banned her, for details it's probably best to ask him, but the published terms of use were broken. OTOH it doesn't seem to have even put a dent in her posting though, seems she may actually be posting MORE since it was announced.

[Admin]

At least on the other board we knew who the moderators were, and when they  posted, it was for all to see and the honesty of the message was taken for  granted, i.e., they were accountable for their own words. Now that the moderator has openly admitted he has a  double identity it makes me wonder about a few things.

Actually, I don't think you DID know who the Moderators were. It follows my rationale that most of us really don't know the other members of the board very well at all. We know the slightest amount - but even that is questionable. On those very rare occasions where we meet someone from the board, we get a little better glimpse - but even then, unless we live close-by and can get to know them closely - we still don't "know" that person very well.

So I submit that while you knew a little of their internet board persona, you still had little idea of who they are - and there is almost no difference to what I implemented here.

- Dan

[Admin]

WRT the agency owners doing double IDs, Jack will attest, I'm  sure, that when he did the multiple screen name gambit, it  generated distrust, disrespect, and outright hostility, no only towards  himself, but towards his agency when the deception was  discovered. I think it ultimately cost him a lot of business.

Most folks just don't like being fooled. I can easily understand  Richard's reluctance to cross those boundaries, and I applaud his  upfront honesty in the matter.

No-one likes to feel they've been made a fool of. As I've mentioned many times before, I never followed the goings-on at RWG, hence, have no personal knowledge of what happened. I can imagine that, if anyone came onto the board, and presented themselves as one thing - and their subsequent actions called that into questions - then there is bound to be suspicion and repurcussions.

In the case of Richard - once again, I did not personally witness it - but I have the impression he was just posting as he always had posted - but after he made the announcement he had started an agency, those very same posting practices began to generate suspicions.

I find that kind of odd - but, at the same time, I see how it might occur.

Some of the policies I have enforced on the board are - I do not allow someone to establish a username which promotes their commercial activities. I explicitly turned-off the board feature which allows 'Signatures' to be included in every post. I frown on the use of board identities which are obviously commercial in nature.

Now - with this exchange - and considering how I have seen other boards deal with similar questions - I am re-thinking some of these policies.

For example, one board I visit has the poster's 'status' displayed with their username on every post. Some are "Management" some are "Moderators" some are "Commercial Members" some are "Members" - and there are probably some other classifications I am missing. I want to take some time to think about that, and determine if there is a value to the board in implementing something similar.

In any case, I certainly may have done some things that are not the most efficient - but I assure you (and others) there was NEVER any intent to mislead anyone.

- Dan

[jb]

Dan wrote:

Have you any specific reason to believe there is ANYTHING inappropriate afoot jb?

Obviously not, but that's the nature of a successful deception, isn't  it?  The victims are not aware of being deceived.   Now  you've inferred that there are more than one unknown moderators out  there, alas, whom can we trust,,, we just don't know anymore.

And FYI, since I was a moderator on the other board for a time, I did  have occasion to meet on the phone with some of the other  moderators.  We, especially Leslie and I, tried to be as  transparent as possible, which was probably the reason we didn't last  too long in that role.

[Admin]

Now  you've inferred that there are more than one unknown moderators out  there, alas, whom can we trust,,, we just don't know anymore.

jb,

Not sure where you are seeing that inference - but let me deal with it explicitly - there is only ONE moderator on RWD - in addition to my acting as a moderator from time to time.

Now as for the bigger question - I don't know about you, but if I felt I was being deceived or lied-to or there was subterfuge afoot - it wouldn't take me long to 'vote with my feet' and go elsewhere.

I resent any baseless unfounded allegations of wrongdoing - and welcome anyone to ask any questions they wish. I also encourage anyone who feels a lack of confidence in my management of the board - to find one they are more comfortable with.

I've worked hard to insure my decisions are transparent to the board community - though I reserve the right to act in the best interest of the board, as I solely see fit.

Anyone who feels uncomfortable with any of that, always has the option to find more comfortable territory - and I wish them well.

- Dan

[Jet]

As far as the multiple identities, for me it all boils down to credibility. There are many members here and elsewhere that due to their credibility, have earned my highest respect (whether or not I agree with them). Once a poster starts to assume multiple identities, it erodes my confidence in their credibility even if they have the most noble of intentions. I start to look for underlying motives which may or may not be present.

This does not apply (in my mind) to those who as Dan suggests, might have seperate computers/IPs at home and work like Randy and Randy2 or multiple incarnations of Helen on RWG. Usually no attempt is made by these people to disguise the fact that both usernames are in fact, the same person - usually they'll use the same avatar for all accounts so it is easily understandable to others.

[jb]

You miss my point, you seem to think I'm deliberately chopping down  trees while you try to enjoy the view of the forrest.  Not the  case at all.  My concerns are simply that I got the impression  from an earlier post of yours that the moderator(s) was/were someone you know  and trust, possibly located in Europe.  Isn't that true?

Considering the nature of my relationship with our two principle  European based posters, (now that it's been established that the  moderator is also an active principal on the board), and my opinion,  especially of one in particular, it just makes me wonder.  If the  person you've appointed to be in charge in your stead is indeed that  same person that you recently took me to task about, I will vote with  my feet.  Be assured of that.

You tell me, should I leave or stay?

[Admin]

You miss my point, you seem to think I'm deliberately chopping down  trees while you try to enjoy the view of the forrest. Not the  case at all. My concerns are simply that I got the impression  from an earlier post of yours that the moderator(s) was/were someone you know  and trust, possibly located in Europe. Isn't that true?

Considering the nature of my relationship with our two principle  European based posters, (now that it's been established that the  moderator is also an active principal on the board), and my opinion,  especially of one in particular, it just makes me wonder. If the  person you've appointed to be in charge in your stead is indeed that  same person that you recently took me to task about, I will vote with  my feet. Be assured of that.

You tell me, should I leave or stay?

jb,

I will answer the specific question you are NOT asking, in a PM in a few moments.

Yes, the Moderator is based in Europe. That was a strategic decision I made to provide some overlapping coverage taking advantage of the timezone differentials.

The Moderator has done a terrific job of acting on my behalf - and I appreciate VERY MUCH their efforts. Candidly, so should you and the rest of the board. They have provided much needed stability when I have been unable. I *know* they have acted in a fair and even-handed manner and have even moderated some of my tangents once or twice.

jb, you seem to feel there is some revelation in this latest exchange insofar as the Moderator is concerned. I know that all of this was discussed ad nauseum some time back. There is nothing new, and it perplexes me why this is suddenly consuming so much bandwidth. It has all been previously discussed and we now have many months of experience to see the fair and balanced action of the Moderator.

Seems a bit strange.

- Dan

[Jack]

......that when he did the multiple screen name gambit, it generated distrust, disrespect, and outright hostility, no only towards himself, but towards his agency when the deception was discovered.  I think it ultimately cost him a lot of business.....
 
jb I will respectively disagree. landscaper post's were not deceptive in any way. I did not see any drop in business during or after this time. But I believe that was mostly due to a small percentage of our business coming from discussion boards.

[jb]

Jack,

I distinctly recall you used "Landscaper" as a shill for First Dream, I  also recall you lost a good deal of credibility among board members  when it was realized you had conned them with the multiple IDs.  I  suspect much of the business that was gobbled up by Witchdoctor's (Ron  Woody) LTP might have gone to you had that scheme not backfired on  you. 

For what it's worth, I think honesty is still the best policy.  As I said up thread, folks just don't like to be fooled.

[KenC]

Dan.

Please don't let these posts regarding the moderator be a source of frustration for you.  The topic here was double identities and the moderator chose to reveal that he had two different identities.  No one here is questioning that you were open and honest about establishing a moderator.  No one questions the quality of the moderation.  But that is not the point.  The point is that the moderator has a second identity which he uses to post his personal opinions.  That is new news.  At least to me it is.  I had previously thought that the mod was not an active member here.

Maybe I was too strong in my previous description of this action being deceptive, but in truth it is not entirely open either.  Why the hidden identity?  Is the moderator not proud of his work?  To explain where I am coming from with this, I will use RVR as an example.  You wonder why his opinions were suddenly questioned when it became known that he had an agency?  It was because he then had a second agenda, his business, to consider and to be considered by other posters.  Once he became an owner of an agency, people will question if his post is his personal opinion, or is it a self serving opinion of an agency owner.  Just for the record, I will say that I very much admire Richard as a man's man, and as honest a man as you could ever come across, but it is also only common sense for people to now question if his opinions are self serving or not.  He now has something to gain or lose with each post.  I personally do not question Richard's integrity, but I also do not question others that tend to scrutinize his posts just a little bit more now that he is an agency owner.

Say what you want, but there is some honor in being open and honest with just whom is doing the moderation.  The fact that on RWG, the moderators are not only named but are also specifically responsible for their individual sub-sections is a very above board way to do business.  I could understand not sharing your moderator's identity when it was assumed that he wasn't an active poster because it was a non-event.  But to be secretive about his identity while he actively posts, is another issue all together.  It doesn't seem completely honorable to me.

KenC

[KenC]

......that when he did the multiple screen name gambit, it generated distrust, disrespect, and outright hostility, no only towards himself, but towards his agency when the deception was discovered.  I think it ultimately cost him a lot of business.....
 
jb I will respectively disagree. landscaper post's were not deceptive in any way. I did not see any drop in business during or after this time. But I believe that was mostly due to a small percentage of our business coming from discussion boards.

Jack,

It may not have affected your business, but your integrity did take a hit.

KenC

[Bruno]

Considering the nature of my relationship with our two principle European based posters, (now that it's been established that the moderator is also an active principal on the board), and my opinion, especially of one in particular, it just makes me wonder.  If the person you've appointed to be in charge in your stead is indeed that same person that you recently took me to task about, I will vote with my feet.  Be assured of that.

Jb, don't worry, i am not the moderator  ... in anycase, i cannot accept so work with my motivated and controversial post... i don't wish moderate myself  ...

Now, about European posters, we have a lot of them... BC, Leslie, Kevin, Richard, Ste... it can be one of the +- 40 european member ( i use the term european in the meaning of continent, not the politic border )...

A judge can have a personal opinion over something and be able to be neutral when he make his job... same for a moderator... i know that i cannot be fully neutral so that i am not able to be moderator ( i have already refuse these charge on other forum )...

Now, why a moderator need to keep a double identity... very simple, if the moderator need to stop member during some of fight, member reponsible of the attack can search revenge and attack usual post that the moderator can make on his own real name...

[BC]

Had to add some extra sugar and milk to my coffee..  boy what a read!

[align=center]"Mod Blows his/her Cover!"

[align=left]
I have to admit that I also thought the Mod was an 'off board' personae.  This settled the obvious question in the back of my head as to who the 'Mystery Mod' was..  Other boards with mods picked from the user pool seem to be riddled with problems inherent with active user moderation.  Dan's original solution seemed quite good if not an excellent solution..   

As far as moderation goes I have been pleasantly surprised with actions (or mostly inaction) our Mod has taken so far.  That he/she was not an active poster here did a  help me accept the few decisions that were deemed necessary.

Now true intrigue sets in..  We (users) are by default a curious lot and I don't believe things will really rest easily.  Sure some won't care, some will, but in any case I don't see the issue just 'blowing away'.

That the Mod by slip of tongue or otherwise decided to drop the veil is cause in itself to doubt long term viability of a truly impartial  role.  There was no need for the Mod (in right mind) to even make a post which indeed was also a statement trying to prove a point or lead to a defined conclusion.  Leading a double role is tough, a 'slip' was bound to happen sooner or later.  IMHO better that it happened now, before tougher moderation decisions were needed.

At this point it likely serves no good purpose to declare fault or ask for someone's head on a platter. Considering the very few minor interventions over the past months the board has proven it can more or less moderate itself.  It would probably work out best just to drop the 'Moderator' title and let the board move on without personalities getting in the way..

Lessons learned with no true harm done.. can't ask for more than that.

btw. 'It is not I am.'






[/align]
[align=left]
[/align][/align]

Interesting discussion as expected.

Reasons for making the moderator account were as Dan already told. First reason to protect independence. I am active on many boards. Some have a bad opinion of RWD. Second reason as Bruno states. A decision to moderate could lead to form an opinion about my posts and attacks. RWG moderators are often attacked for posting their personal opinion or entering discussions.

If anyone has big problems with my double identity, PM Dan. He can reveal my other identity if he thinks it useful. I trust him on knowing who to tell and who not.

 

[BC]

Interesting discussion as expected.

Interesting indeed.. but as expected? I dunno..

I guess it depends on the 'role' Dan wants you to play.. that of line judge or  personae to lead/direct/prompt/participate in discussion..

Sure a line judge can err and those playing usually accept the decision or contest with Dan.  Get the line judge on court with a racket (racquet) and who knows what will happen..

[Jack]

hey jb, it's kind of cool to be able to again call you either a liar or a stupid fool at 40,000 feet. jb, YOU are WRONG, again. landscaper never once shilled for Firstdream, not once. All the post's by landscaper were gone over in great details, their was NO case of landscaper shilling for FD.

Ok, round two, go ahead jb.

[Jack]

while I await round 2 from jb I will comment on the unknown moderator.

I think the unknown moderator is doing a good job. We hardly notice him and to me that is a sign he is doing a good job.

To my knowledge only Dan knows who he/she is and that's fine with me. I have tried to guess at who the mod is and I have my guess. And if it is this person we often disagree (no, I don't think it's jb) but I still think that person is doing a good job.

[jb]

Mod wrote:

I am active on many boards. Some have a bad opinion of RWD.

Now this is a statement that I find truly  interesting.    I think it would be hard to have a bad  opinion of something without having ever tasted it.  I have also  perused some other boards from time to time, and truthfully, I wasn't  terribly impressed with the level of operating intelligence in some of  those places.  There are those who populate other boards of whom I  have a low opinion, FWIW, there are members here who do not occupy high  places in my esteem either.  And,,, I'm sure those feelings are  mutual.

IMHO, that thing which makes a good discussion board is the depth of  thought that goes into the answers of questions, both simple and  complex.  If what you see is a majority of one liners, you can  generally bet your not playing with a group of Einsteins.  In any  case, why would a new person to this endeavor really want to get  marriage/relationship advisement from a bunch of losers and  failures.  It would irk me beyond words to have someone who  routinely misspells four letter words and has to use an enlarged font  so that his advice will occupy more than one line, spouting off with  answers and comments about something as important as the selection of a  life's mate.  Even worse, to learn that those brilliant lines of  wit might be coming from someone whose only experience is a single  trip, isn't married, or perhaps even a failed marriage, or a K-1 that  went sour, and worst case of all, someone with a vested monetary  interest.   With a few exceptions, RWD has some very  experienced and articulate posters who are willing to invest their time  and knowledge to share with the newbie.  The rest is all fluff and  BS.

And curosity drives me to ask, what is your personal opinion of the RWD?

[KenC]

Jack,

I am more than a little suprised that you even posted in this thread due to the fact that you were publicly embarrassed by being caught using a second identity.  I was a very active member of PL when all that accured, and I remember it well.  I think that jb referred to it happening on RWG incorrectly, unless of course you also assumed the role of "landscaper" there too.  I wasn't an active member there, so I wouldn't know that part.  jb may also have overstated the fact that lanscaper was a shill for First Dream, but not by much.  I was going to let that incident slip on by (as you should have), but now that you choose to rub jb's nose in it, well, that just isn't right.

What you did by taking on the second identity of landscaper was to put your integrity up for review and debate.  Did landscaper post "I used Jack's agency and found a great wife and you should too"?  No.  But what you did do under the guise of "landscaper" is endorse your own philosophies promoted by your agency.  As "Jack" you can honestly do that all day long and never be questioned for your actions, but to dupe the membership into thinking that there is another guy out there posting under the handle of "landscaper" that has the same mindset as Jack and FirstDream is dishonest and subterfuge.  You had something to gain by deceiving the membership, plain and simple.  The fact that you also tried in vain to deny that landscaper was actually you, when caught,  only added to the deceit.  So please don't come here and boast about your actions as landscaper, because it is not something to be proud of.  Instead I would suggest that you hope that everyone justs forgets about your past indiscretion.

KenC

[jb]

I have no interest in debating past business ethics with Jack over  something that happened six or seven years ago.  However, anyone  who was involved in the message boards dedicated to the pursuit of a  Russian bride at that time, and has more than two working brain cells,  will remember the incidents clearly.  Jack was caught pretty much  red handed, (landscaper also posted on the RWG) he was properly  pilloried, crucified, and at least temporarily banished for his sins.  Oddly, he was not banned because of the multiple IDs, but for the  vicious methods employed to defend his actions. 

I will state to his credit, he learned from the experience and now seems to walk the straight and narrow.

[Son of Clyde]

I think there is a big difference between using multiple user names or using multiple identities and posting to one board. This is quite different from using different user names in different forums.

Personally, I have spoken with Jack several times on the phone and I have exchanged pm's with him.

I have no idea what was done on the other board, I only know that Jack is "above board" (no pun intended) on RWD.

Jacks posts are intelligent and helpful to others.

If anyone here is posting as two people I would not care unless one of the identities was disruptive.

A moderator should have the right to post as a moderator and as a member. The person has the status of being moderator and there is a difference between moderating and posting as one of the guys.

Whatever rumors I heard about Jack in the past seem to have been greatly exaggerated considering his very constructive posts at RWD.

[acrzybear]

Hey Dan

How about adding to the mystery and changing moderators handle to "Deep Throat"? jk:D