PHYS251

Depends on what you call "training."

If you mean, showing new mods how to move, close, and delete threads, yes.

If you mean, how to deal with X sticky situation on the forum, no.

Honestly, I think CF's training program leaves a lot to be desired, and if they would fix it up, it would take care of a lot of the underlying issues of the forum. That and the mod interview questions....

Well there has come one welcome side effect out of having them leave: Not having them crawl down our backs. No offense to them, but the mods-vs.-members battles were getting quite annoying, not to mention that it had to be taxing for the IIDB staff to handle.

elanor

Despite my frustrations over at CF, I cannot believe they would tell staff members they can't post here. I just don't believe anyone on a messageboard would try to control what people do elsewhere (no pun intended). Besides, what would stop someone from taking on a new screen name and posting here anyway? No one is required to reveal their identities.

TransverseWave

Nothing, but if any such policy is in force now, it wouldn't be the first time CF staff have decided to implement a completely unenforceable rule.

The time they decided to ban anyone under 18 from posting in General Apologetics left me scratching my head. That, if Erwin hadn't rescinded it quickly, would have been effective in doing one thing, and one thing only: disrupting the discourse and relationships of regular GA posters who had already identified themselves as being under 18. It would, of course, have done nothing whatsoever to keep out the willful troublemakers because the troublemakers would simply lie about their age. I would not have described this rule as being well thought out.

However, I'll also be startled if the existence of a policy against CF staff posting here turns out to be more than speculation. I am imagining any Christian trying to tell my most aggressively fundamentalist relative that, while she belonged to their particular Christian organization, there were some venues in which she wasn't allowed to talk to people. As irritating as said relative can be at times, she takes the Great Commission seriously and I can imagine what she'd have to say. Vividly.

nicky

That is what I have been thinking too the last couple of days.
So I checked some of their last assess dates here.
They are still logging on here daily.

Dean Anderson

I have no idea.

I have never posted, registered or even lurked on CF if that is what you mean. This thread would not have held any interest for me if it weren't for the fact that I am a moderator for this ~~Elsewhere~~ forum, so I am obliged to read all the threads in it.

If that is not what you mean, then we are unlikely to know each other in real life unless you have been to Britain - since I have only been forced to reluctantly travel to America twice, and never for longer than a week.

As for boards, I've been posting on here for a while, and I posted (as "PHF") on RaptureReady for a short time, until I realised that refuting all those "Evilution is wrong!!! I've never seen a dog turn into a giraffe!!!" arguments was taking up far too much of my time.

nicky

That's different then CF.

rigorist

But no posts--not even the silly ones.

nicky

I believe you mean no posts viewable to the regular members except with Mod Hat on.

apenman

Seebs would be able to see such posts.

IamMoose

I post on a mental health board where people were discouraged from posting on other MH boards and would not be considered as mods if they actually did. I consider such policies pretty draconian, frankly.