The current system is fine with me. I don’t see a benefit to the member who has a post moderated to have their name displayed. The reasons given are good enough to satisfy my curiosity. What member doesn’t have an off-moment?

From my understanding, the moderators, or at least Augustlan, can keep an eye on a member who is having more than an average number of posted deleted. One of the moderators will have a private chat with the member, and if need be, give them a ‘time out’ from Fluther. Some return; some don’t. The best action we members can take is flag the questionable posts when they come up.

If we did it the way you propose, I think the mods would have a much harder time. They would have to defend themselves much more. Patterns might emerge. People who had been modded would say things about how unfairly they had been treated, and the mods couldn’t defend themselves.

Under the old system, the name of the poster was visible, however, the reason the post was removed wasn’t. So every moderated post just said “Removed by Fluther moderators” next to the name of the poster.

When the system was redesigned to give the mod team better internal tools, a side goal was to give the community more useful information (the reason a post is removed). Leaving the name up just really serves no practical purpose. For what it’s worth, I’ve not noticed any difference in people’s behavior under the new system. Frequently modded members were just as likely to be moderated under the old system, even when their name was in full view.

@wundayatta We had just as many challenges on our actions under the old system.

It seems like it would be odd to have random names without input. It would be like having a party and putting duct tape over some of the guests mouths. (Not necessarily a bad idea- just odd)

Maybe use the prefix, “That’s right, twas him again….who knew?”

Because they don’t want people to know how often I fuck up!

I was remembering incorrectly, Auggie. You’re right, next to the name it only said “removed by fluther moderators” rather than listing a specific reason for the removal.

I still liked it better the old way though :)

I think I misbehaved less when I knew my name would remain up.

I see it as a form of bullying.. Okay, he/she was out of line, an unfeeling A-hole in fact.. Does that give us the right to act the same way? We know who writes these things (if by avatar alone) we don’t need to emulate their cruelty. We all have opinions, some times these opinions aren’t accepted by everyone.. We also receive ‘points’ as a gesture from others that agree with us.. Not receiving acknowledgments should be enough up and until the moderators remove (or block) the aggressor completely for policy abuse then that’s when thy need to explain their actions to the rest of us.

@chewhorse I’m having a hard time understanding some of the points you’re trying to make.

“We don’t need to emulate their cruelty”

Can you give me an example of this?