HOME > Chowhound > Site Talk >


Should CH members who are mods disclose themselves?


I ask because it seems as if certain hounds who appear to be moderators are allowed to post certain things with more liberty than those hounds who are not moderators or friends of mods.

Recently on the LA boards, the mods allowed a certain hound to call me "cheesy". I shrugged this off and chalked it up to a poor attempt at a pun. This was allowed to remain on the boards however, my request that a very trusted hound chime in on a particular thread that in the past has been shown to be his/her expertise was deleted? What gives?

Very odd behavior and I suspect allowed because the hound that made the comment was a moderator or a friend of one and thus allowed more liberties than other members.

For the sake of fairness and accountability of posting, should CH members who are mods disclose themselves so they are as accountable as anyone else?

I say yes.

  1. I thought they already did?

    And, really, Porthos, you're being too sensitive. It's merely a message board. Don't take anything on here too seriously or personally.

    Life's too short, and there's too much food to be eaten to worry about such banalities.

    3 Replies
    1. re: ipsedixit

      Mods? Sure, I think it'd be cool to see who else loves the WHO and has a fancy scooter with LOTS of mirrors!

      1. re: jbyoga

        and headlights, don't forget all the headlights

        1. re: hill food

          And skinny pants w/ Ettro shirts.

    2. I say no. Mods more than all others will not be inflammatory, and you are guessing incorrectly.

      6 Replies
      1. re: Veggo

        But if the mods themselves are inappropriate in their judgement, who is to monitor them? Especially when deleting posts or responses that they don't agree with but are not necessarily inappropriate or out of line with the board posting etiquette.

        I've been posting on these boards for a decade now and try to watch what I post. I'm completely confused as to why my posts are being deleted. My request for Das Ubergeek to respond and give us his opinions on the listed restaurants is consistently deleted. I'm not putting down the original post, just asking for a second opinion from a hound I trust. That is the spirit on which these boards is founded and for the life of me, I can't figure out why it is being deleted.


        1. re: Porthos

          Why would anyone need to moderate the mods? It's their board. They can do as they please. We are simply their guests.

          1. re: ipsedixit

            Really? I thought this was a community board and mods were volunteers here to moderate.

            If your response is free from sarcasm and actually accurate, I guess that explains things.

              1. re: ipsedixit

                So are mods volunteers or owners of this board?

      2. They should. The next logical question is why wouldn't they?

        8 Replies
        1. re: Axlsgoddess

          It would alter their status as a regular contributor, and would generate incoming e-mails beyond what they bargained for as a volunteer.

          1. re: Veggo

            It's also a conflict of interest if they don't. They can steer or influence the tone of the thread by deleting those they *feel* are inappropriate when it may be in line but just a dissenting opinion. At the same time, they would more likely allow an inappropriate or borderline inappropriate response if they agreed with it. Human nature.

            1. re: Porthos

              Have you devised a better form of governance? If so, please share it. Until you rule the world, you may have to comport with rules devised by others.

              1. re: Veggo

                Veggo, you seem unnecessarily defensive. I believe the title of the thread is "Should CH members who are mods disclose themselves?" That is the better form of governance I am proposing and "sharing". And the reasons for it are listed above.

                1. re: Porthos

                  And I "listed" two reasons why it is not in their interest, and their personal lives trump your public pleasure. And no, I'm not one; they barely tolerate me, having suffered me for 5 years.

              2. re: Porthos

                For my sins, I get deleted all the time (so does Veggo),, but I really don't think it's for the reasons you suggest.

                1. re: pikawicca

                  I acknowledge fault when I'm dinged for my sins, as it should be. But I'm annoyed when I'm dinged when I'm saintly. And my elderly, incapacitated mother agrees.

          2. I participate in a forum where volunteer Mods are anonymous but they don't post at all as members and I participate in a forum where moderation is not anonymous and Mods participate in the discussion and actually create the OP to get the conversation going. So, there are different ways of doing things but nothing is perfect or makes everyone happy and the best way to ask any specific to your experience question seems to always be: ask the Mod; not fellow members. Porthos, if you want to know why your specific posts are deleted, email the Mods directly. The rules around CH or any site with a community board is not a one size fits all and the "owners" have their reasons (I'm sure) for the guidelines enforced.

            3 Replies
            1. re: HillJ

              I have. No response. And the rules say, they do not need to inform you. Which I get but deleting a post asking for input from another hound seems very odd. All I can think of is they don't want me specifically requesting a certain hound to comment. But I think we've all seen many posts asking for comments from specific hounds before. Totally confused.

              1. re: Porthos

                Yes, that would be confusing and unfortunate to hear that you have tried to reach out using the email addy for Mods and did not hear back. That's disappointing.

                eta: Porthos, it also occurs to me that the CH Report button is avail to everyone and may or may not result in comments being deleted.

                1. re: Porthos

                  Porthos, could you ask that specific CH for a direct line (their own email addy) to them? Maybe it would be easier for you to approach the CH. Do you list your email in your preference listings? Invite the CH to email you directly. Otherwise, the guidelines pretty much stand as written-one community, all free to contribute.

              2. in the past, I have seen notes from the Chowhound Team that posts requesting a reply from a particular Hound are inappropriate: on the theory that if you ask a particular person to reply you are or may discourage others from posting about their experience. This is a theory I subscribe to: I am very un-inclined to reply to a post where a specific person's opinion (other than my own) is requested, and moreover, I find it to be a bit of a turn-off, even if the requested opinion is from someone I also trust. So, I suspect that is why your post asking for a specific request has been deleted.

                When I see posts that clearly should have been deleted but haven't been, I always assume that it is because the mods haven't seen it, *not* because of some ill will or conflict of interest. So I report it. (I am not, nor have I ever been, a moderator on any board, including this one).

                In some cases, the post may already have been up for quite some period of time, but disappears after I report it, which just tells me that the mods cannot be everywhere at once.

                8 Replies
                1. re: susancinsf

                  This is a theory I subscribe to: I am very un-inclined to reply to a post where a specific person's opinion (other than my own) is requested, and moreover, I find it to be a bit of a turn-off, even if the requested opinion is from someone I also trust.
                  Be that as it may, plenty of threads exist where the opinions of a specific hound is requested and has since CH inception. It may be a turnoff to you, but there are certain hounds that have very extensive experience on certain topics and it would be valuable to a particular thread for the present and for the archives for that very experienced hound to chime in on that topic. It would enrich that thread immensely. The request of that particular hound's opinion doesn't mean no one else can chime in. It's a bit harsh to ban the request for a particular hound's expertise. Especially if that hound's opinion is so valuable and contributes to the spirit of these boards.

                  1. re: Porthos

                    I contribute mostly to the Mexico board, and I have been asked dozens of times to expand a response, and the rest of the world was equally invited to chime in. I am not aware of a question to me that was deleted, additionally I am glad to respond to off- topic queries on my profile address, including thus far 4 wedding plans. (No, I am not a wedding planner, nor do I profit from my presence here.) - and I went to 3 of the weddings!

                    1. re: Veggo

                      Exactly my point. And people request you because they know you live there and your response is valuable. Try asking for Das Ubergeek to respond to the thread I've referenced and see what happens. A bit whimsical and arbitrary don't you think?

                      1. re: Porthos

                        Some of the old guard have been given leaves of absence, and they can read but not write. Been there. No, it wasn't arbitrary, I earned my way out the door two years ago.

                        I am grateful to have been invited back.

                        1. re: Veggo

                          but just the very fact that mods are anonymous, is it possible that any absence is just a ploy.... who's word can we trust? can we trust your word that you aren't? I personally believe you're not but you see my point?

                    2. re: Porthos

                      don't you think that if the hound in question wanted to and could respond on a particular thread where their 'extensive experience' 'would be very valuable...and enrich that thread immensely' that they would? I am quite sure that if DU could and wanted to respond on a topic that interested him, he would, whether or not you asked him to do so. If he read it and had an opinion and wanted to post, he would, whether you asked him to or not. As the Team points out below, you may believe his response would enrich the thread, but perhaps you are putting him on the spot for reasons you don't know. Or perhaps he just doesn't feel like answering for whatever reason. Or perhaps he just isn't as outgoing as Veggo. Or perhaps he can't answer. Or for that matter, for all you know DU himself is a moderator and doesn't want to do something that, per their post below, the moderators discourage. (I have no idea if he is or isn't, but it seems fairly presumptuous to assume that one LA hound is and another hound is not, based only on your perception of how they do or should reply to your post). By insisting that you should be able to call him out you are limiting the field, IMO, because it does definitely discourage others. Limiting the field by its very nature and definition does just the opposite of enriching the boards. Less is not more when it comes to posts on Chowhound.

                      Just my opinion, of course. And for all I know, not having read your posts that were deleted, they were deleted for some entirely different reason.

                      1. re: Porthos

                        I know of prolific and widely respected regulars who make a point of ignoring specific requests for their comments. Why? Because they think that kind of interaction on the boards runs counter to the open, all-comers-welcome discussion on which Chowhound thrives.

                        Do you fear that those hounds refrain from contributing until they're called out by name? That's not my sense. For the most part they're not shrinking violets, and thank goodness. They don't hesitate to post when they have something germane to add.

                        1. re: Porthos

                          Have you considered that DU may have asked for the posts to be removed?

                          In the spirit of what susancinsf and squid kun have posted, I feel it's detrimental to the community nature of the site to call out specific people to comment.

                      2. Hey all.
                        With regard to calling out a specific poster for input, it's something we really discourage. It puts that named poster on the spot, which is unfair to them. It may also discourage posters who might have had opinions. That's never the intention, but it's sometimes the result. Chowhound is a community that thrives on multiple opinions. Hope that helps!

                        1. A lot of hounds I know would consider being called 'cheesy' a compliment. :-)

                          1. No. Why should they? It's their site, no matter how empowered you think you are. If you cross the line, somebody needs to be there to keep things civil. It happens a lot that people cross that line, I've done it myself. At other times I was notified that although my comments weren't inflammatory, the thread was being closed. I appreciated being notified, and especially appreciated being told it wasn't because of me that the thread was being yanked. .

                            1. Should friends of moderators have to reveal themselves as well?

                              1 Reply
                              1. re: donovt

                                Before we get too knee jerk in response to the OP's suggestion, I'll just point out that it's really not that extreme. Seems to me that in more forums than not, moderators are clearly designated and no more anonymous than any of the other contributors. From what I've seen, it hasn't caused any forums to implode or lives to be ruined.

                                Personally, I'm ambivalent on the matter (and it's obviously not my call anyway). But it's not like anyone's insisting the mods post their home phone numbers, email addresses, and baby photos.

                              2. Porthos,

                                I think one thing that you have to come to terms with is that Chowhound, and the moderation that goes on at Chowhound, is not a democracy.

                                They do as they please. You either like it or not. If you do, stay around. If you don't, leave.

                                It really is as simple as that.

                                I've had many many posts of mine deleted, and long ago I've just stopped worrying and stopped caring.

                                I suggest you do the same, it'll make you a much happier and content 'Hound.

                                4 Replies
                                1. re: ipsedixit

                                  There was a time when CH was a community board meant for the free exchange of chow recs amongst individuals. I did not realize that sale of the site also meant that was no longer the case and that mods could delete at will and enforce randomly. I was under the false impression that this was still a community board and that mods were just here to, well, moderate. Now that I know it is no longer a community board but a private enterprise, I agree with your stance. My mistake.

                                  1. re: Porthos

                                    If anything the moderation has loosened up a whole lot under CBS ownership.

                                    Prior to the sale, the fact that the site was not a democracy was the mantra. You were told you were a guest at someone's party and if you didn't like it leave and start your own site.

                                    Some of it has been good, but lately it seems like the decision is there's no harm in letting endless socializing to go on. I may be wrong about that but it is getting to be more and more difficult to get actual info without wading thru people's childhood reminances, pet stories, etc, etc. etc. That gets even more annoying since the software has slowed considerably lately.

                                    1. re: rworange

                                      Prior to the sale, the fact that the site was not a democracy was the mantra. You were told you were a guest at someone's party and if you didn't like it leave and start your own site.

                                      I think this is still the case after the sale to CBS/CNET.

                                    2. re: Porthos

                                      >There was a time when CH was a community board meant for the free exchange of chow recs amongst individuals. I did not realize that sale of the site also meant that was no longer the case and that mods could delete at will and enforce randomly.

                                      The mods could and did delete at will long before CBS and before CNET. That hasn't changed. That policy has kept Chowhound on point and way more readable than other sites that permit endless digressions and back-and-forth that have little to do with food.

                                  2. Folks, we've removed a number of posts from this speculating about who the moderators are or suggesting that others in the thread are moderators. We know that that sort of speculation is inevitable given our anonymous moderation, but we'd really prefer that people not make those kinds of posts.

                                    Moderators are not permitted to post under their own name tags on Site Talk threads about moderation -- we don't think it would be fair to secretly defend ourselves in the guise of users. If a moderator is speaking in this thread, it will be me, or it will come under The Chowhound Team account.

                                    Not asking specific posters for their opinions is an old rule that dates back to a time when that was a significant and ongoing problem on the boards, and it's been unevenly enforced since. I'll discuss it with our team -- it may be time for that rule to be laid permanently to rest.

                                    -- Jacquilynne, Community Manager for Chowhound

                                    16 Replies
                                    1. re: Jacquilynne

                                      how does one become a moderator and are there any incentives beyond managing the board?

                                      As a community leader are you head moderator or is your position with Chowhound more involved (not shortchanging head moderating duties) ?

                                      1. re: Rodzilla

                                        I invite moderators to join the team, it's not a position that can be applied for. If you're interested in helping the site, the best thing you can do is use 'report' to bring problem posts to our attention as you see them. Users who have repeatedly demonstrated a good eye for problems are the ones I consider, and even if you're never invited to become a mod, the reports themselves are tremendously helpful and important.

                                        It's a volunteer position with no pay or honorariums. We very occasionally send little gifts to the mods to say thank you, but we are well aware that the value of the gifts doesn't even compensate them for the mental toll of the nasty emails they receive, never mind the actual hours of effort they put into helping make Chowhound a better place.

                                        My primary responsibility is as head moderator -- setting policy, monitoring moderation activity, helping mods with more complicated issues, etc -- but I do work on other things related to Chowhound with the larger CHOW.com team, as well.

                                        1. re: Jacquilynne

                                          I'm NOT kissing ass, but J that sounds, for you, rather thankless.

                                          I'll stay up here in the balcony.

                                          1. re: hill food

                                            I don't want to give the impression that the mods are miserable and unhappy -- it's a great group of people who enjoy giving back to a site they value.

                                            Speaking personally, I love my job. There are moments of it that I could live without, but that's true of any job, and on the whole, it's fun and engaging. I enjoy working with the moderators and the rest of the hounds. It's a joy to get to spend my days interacting with a bunch of smart, passionate folks who are here because they want to be.

                                            1. re: Jacquilynne

                                              not the impression (the negative part) I received. I figured there must be a personal motivation behind it all (otherwise why bother, right?).

                                      2. re: Jacquilynne

                                        >>> it may be time for that rule to be laid permanently to rest.

                                        I hope not. It is just plain rude to single anyone out on the board.

                                        You know it is bad enough that there is 'expert' ask the eperrts. Now letting certain Chowhounds allowed to be called just is like saying the average poster's opinion just doesn't matter. And that was the beauty of Chowhound ... every person's opinion was considered just as important as anyone elses.

                                        As to mod thing, I don't think they should identify their regular id posts. Most of the forums that I participate in and do this ... it isn't pretty. As it is there is enough griping about moderation on the board, When mods get identified, inevitably someone starts going after them because they didn't like some decision.

                                        1. re: rworange

                                          and that was the beauty of Chowhound ... every person's opinion was considered just as important as anyone elses.
                                          Let's call it like it is. Whether you call someone out or not, when looking for recs, people do look for certain members because of their experience or because their recs may have been successful in the past or because through experience, they've realized that certain hounds share similar tastes.

                                          Also to claim that everyone's opinion is as important as anyone else's is a bit naive given there is a very public "people reading me" section that serves as a badge and intentionally or unintentionally sets a hierarchy on the boards.

                                          1. re: Porthos

                                            I am not saying there are not posters that I pay close attention to for all the reasons you mention.

                                            People reading me is the creation of the current owners. There are endless posts on Site Talk about people feeling left out or their opinions less important because no one is following them.

                                            And that is how people feel when specific advice from specific posters is asked for.

                                            Personally it pisses me off. I might have some great information that could be better than anything the person singled out might have. My reaction to such posts is ":Screw you. Your loss since you don';t give a damn about my opinion".

                                            So when someone asks for me specificlly I won't answer because I don't want my fellow posters to feel left out of the conversation.

                                            It is just plain rude and NO information is worth a snub to the rest of the community.

                                            If the person you are looking for sees the posts and has information to add, they will without having a shout out.

                                            And like me, a lot of responsible posters will not answer when called out. This is too bad for the entire community because otherwise there might be more info that everyone could use. This isn't a personal message board, but a community.

                                            And when someone leaves who feels left out of the party because no one thinks they are important enough to follow or answer certain posts ... we all lose.

                                            It encourages exclusionary cliques with the same people saying the same thing and congratulating each other on their brilliance.

                                            1. re: rworange

                                              Personally it pisses me off. I might have some great information that could be better than anything the person singled out might have.
                                              Then share it. Just because someone's opinion is being requested doesn't mean others cannot reply. Don't understand why anyone should feel pissed off because their name wasn't called. As you say, it's a community. What's the point in being vindictive and withholding your rec?

                                              1. re: Porthos

                                                Occasionally I have, and given the rudenss of the OP, the response to anyone else but the golden poster is ignored. If the poster responds there is the appropriate gushing.

                                                I guess I don't understand why you can't just ask the question without singling someone out. If the poster is reading, they will answer and you can ignore the other rabble who reply.

                                                I don't get why saying this type of thing can hurt people's fellings, results often in less info, is unimportant.

                                                All the personal feelings aside, there are people who are polite posters. They see a question addressed to a specific poster and feel etiquette-wise only the person called out should respond. The people who do respond just are the helpful types and they usually get the response I usually get ... shut out.

                                              2. re: rworange

                                                That's pretty much how I approach it as well. I never answer personal requests on the boards because it just seems too exclusionary.

                                          2. re: Jacquilynne

                                            Hi, Jacquilynne:

                                            "Moderators are not permitted to post UNDER THEIR OWN NAME TAGS on Site Talk threads ABOUT MODERATION -- we don't think it would be fair to secretly defend ourselves in the guise of users. If a moderator is speaking in this thread, it will be me, OR IT WILL COME UNDER THE CHOWHOUND TEAM ACCOUNT." (my emphasis)

                                            Would you please explain? If I'm reading your response accurately, an individual Mod *can* post on moderation (i.e., and therefore "secretly defend ourselves in the guise of users"):

                                            (a) under a different name tag here in Site Talk;
                                            (b) under the cloak of "The Chowhound Team" on Site Talk;
                                            (c) under *any* name tag on *any* other board about moderation.

                                            If even one of the above is true, you *are* secretly defending yourselves in the guise of users.

                                            Would you please clarify? And how long has this policy been in effect?


                                            1. re: kaleokahu

                                              The only one of those they are allowed to do is (b), but as The Chowhound Team is the official nametag of the Team, there's nothing secret about it.

                                              1. re: Jacquilynne

                                                Hi, Jaquilynne:

                                                Thanks for your reply. That's good news that Mods can't have more than one name tag.

                                                Obviously, if a Mod posts as "The Chowhound Team", it's not a secret that it's from an official source. But it's not exactly obvious whether the "Team" is really a single Mod who has been participating in a thread.

                                                Frankly, I think it would be a good policy for CH to prohibit any Mod from moderating on any thread in which they've posted, across the *whole site*. If CH was to implement, announce and enforce such a policy, it would go a long way toward removing members' doubts that moderation is fair.


                                                1. re: kaleokahu

                                                  Mods are strongly discouraged from moderating situations they are involved in, but that doesn't extend to whole thread. If someone shows up and shills in a thread they started about a restaurant, or posts an inappropriate blog link on a thread they've already posted in, they're welcome to remove those posts. If they're involved in a specific conversation that starts to go off the rails, though, they're expected to bring in another mod for a second opinion on how to deal with the problems.

                                                  1. re: Jacquilynne

                                                    Hi, Jacquilynne:

                                                    Thanks for clarifying, that helps a lot, and is good to know.

                                                    This is just the sort of thing that IMO illustrates how a basic statement of moderation policies and procedures (which I would be shocked if you don't *already* have), should be made available for all to see. You might need to sanitize--a bit--whatever you now have. But I think, overall, to put some basic rules of the road above-board would pay dividends on several fronts.

                                                    Just my suggestion.


                                          3. I don't see the need for a moderator to be identified as such when they are posting "off the job".
                                            The negatives far out-way the positives for singling them out.

                                            I believe an ethical person is able to post their opinion as a private individual and tweak the site when wearing their moderator hat without conflict. It's a volunteer position and IMO, seems a very taxing one to do.

                                            Anyone who posts with frequency will eventually get deleted. I've been told why only when I've asked. Otherwise I view it as a good time to read the rules of the road again and try to figure it out.

                                            1. No, I don't see the need.

                                              In addition, I think many of the moderators have disclosed themselves. Nevertheless, I don't see how that will change of anything. Comments get deleted. Having more or less disclosure is not going to make the comment deletion any more different. The only difference is that it gives you a face to yell at. I see that being destructive.

                                              1. Hell Y E S ! Why hide? Staying under cover also risks being exposed by fellow hounds (who may or may not have the correct info). This site is great because of US the 'hounds, not the mods

                                                13 Replies
                                                1. re: BiscuitBoy

                                                  I gotta disagree.

                                                  Yes, without the 'hounds there would be no content.

                                                  As a sometimes insomniac I have seen a great many train wrecks and bouts of nastiness in the wee hours. I appreciate the cleaning up the mods do. Their work keeps things on topic and much, much friendlier.

                                                  Anyone who has had their (brilliant of course) post deleted experiences frustration. With some that turns to self righteous fury. I don't think that a volunteer mod, who came to the site to share their love of chow like the rest of us, deserves to be harassed on a personal basis. I know of several regular posters who have been harassed off the boards due to their posts. For a poster/moderator it would be much, much worse.

                                                  We all get to play here for free. We can give as much or as little as we wish. I don't always agree with the sometimes elusive rules, but I want to be here, so I try to operate within them.

                                                    1. re: meatn3

                                                      the mods can still clear up nastiness (as they have when bitterness, envy and prejudice were lobbed at me....from a female on this very thread) and be known, levels the playing field. If they don't have a thick enough skin, they shouldn't be mods...just sounds cowardly to me

                                                      1. re: BiscuitBoy

                                                        Y'know, you have two hours to edit posts. You really want to go on record saying the mods are cowardly? Sheesh.

                                                        1. re: Melanie Wong

                                                          clever twist of words my friend...the policy is cowardly, I stand up for what I believe in, and I have no issue being on record

                                                          1. re: BiscuitBoy

                                                            I find that when one juxtaposes "If they don't have a thick enough skin..." and "...just sounds cowardly..." one can fairly be thought to be calling the volunteer moderators "cowardly" for not wanting to get hate mail/posts when they put something here on CH as contributing members under their regular screen names...

                                                            1. re: Servorg

                                                              I find that when one tries to draw disparate similarities to conjure a conclusion, they've tried to learn some of the basic debate strategies I have. I stand by my words

                                                              1. re: BiscuitBoy


                                                                You know I love you man, but the word "cowardly" is too much. Many jobs/policies require a level of secrecy. FBI, CIA, undercover cops...etc. Unnecessary of displacement of "bravery" is foolishness.

                                                                I have plenty of my posts deleted with next to no good reason, and there definitely were cases of inconsistency to say the least, but revealing moderators' names does not solve these problems. It makes their jobs less efficient.

                                                                1. re: Chemicalkinetics

                                                                  Typo. Sorry. I meant to say:

                                                                  Unnecessary display of "bravery" is foolishness.

                                                                  1. re: Chemicalkinetics

                                                                    Although unnecessary displacement of bravery can also be pretty foolhardy.

                                                                    1. re: ipsedixit

                                                                      The Good , the Bad, and the Ugly, for example: "If you're gonna shoot, shoot, don't talk".

                                                            2. re: BiscuitBoy

                                                              Sorry, I misunderstood your antecedents "they" and "mods" as what you were defining as cowardly. That's syntax, not twisting anyone's words. Though either usage, saying the policy is cowardly or that mods shouldn't be hiding comes out in the same nasty wash to me.

                                                              But that's just me. I'm all for making the tough job of moderating this site as easy as possible for the volunteers who take on that task. I appreciate the job they do.

                                                      2. re: BiscuitBoy

                                                        Agreed that the site is great because of the us of it all, but can you agree that some people are much, much thinner-skinned than others? I see it all the time.

                                                      3. I can appreciate keeping the identity of Mods private but what can complicate the Mod distinction is when CH's act like Mods in their replies when they aren't a part of the moderation team. You can see examples of this throughout Site Talk when a harmless OP is made asking for help and someone other than a Mod answers the question. Sometimes help is help and sometimes help is perceived as "what gives you the authority to answer me like that?!" When we don't know "who is who" sometimes it can complicate the intended discussion.

                                                        2 Replies
                                                        1. re: HillJ

                                                          I assume that if the post isn't from "The Chowhound team" or Jacquelynne it is not a moderator.

                                                          Sometimes the mods don't answer questions for whatever reasons and posters who know the answer will answer. These days I'll usually wait a day or more. If there is no response and I know the answer, I will.

                                                          I think any poster who answers just wants to be helpful both to the poster asking the question and to the mods so they don't have to answer repetative questions.

                                                          If the answers are wrong, the mods always step in to correct it.

                                                          1. re: rworange

                                                            I do agree most CH's are trying to be helpful but I have also seen CH's go way beyond that initial effort, almost in an effort to speak for Mods and the moderation rules, and that rarely works out as helpful...all too often in leads to deletion, locked threads and a good deal or arguing.

                                                        2. Hounds who use a pseudonymous Chowhound name and not their real name, and at the same time argue that mods should identify themselves, have a questionable sense of fair play.

                                                          2 Replies
                                                          1. re: Veggo

                                                            Flawed logic really since the mods would be revealing their CH handle and not their real name...

                                                            In any case, it doesn't matter. I was under the impression it was a community board. Since it is not I agree with the previous posts that the mods can moderate however they see fit since it is their board. End of discussion.

                                                            1. re: Porthos

                                                              The one mod I know uses his or her real name, and a personal e-mail address in their profile.

                                                          2. Folks, people are starting to direct nastiness toward each other at this point, so we're going to lock this thread.