tomndebb, get in or get out

[intention]

After three pages of somewhat interesting stuff (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=529396) interspersed with the usual nonsense, tomndebb chimes in with his latest version of his generic "nobody's really at fault, there's no difference between religions, and besides, religions are not the problem" post, viz:

The topic of honor killings is being seriously abused in this thread.

There are honor killings in a large number of cultures, many of them Christian. They generally have a lot more to do with either sexual mores or stepping outside cultural boundaries than they do with actual religious belief. Keep that in mind when anyone posts statistics showing how "common" they are and then failing to note where they occur throughout the world or the events that give rise to them.

After that, the thread had a very short life:

Next Post:


I have absolutely no idea if this kid speaks the truth.

All I've got to add are a few numbers about honor killings in Islamic minorities in the Netherlands, so, in a modern Western country, pop 17 million. It has been enough of an issue here for police to gather that info.

Between Oct 2004 and march 2005, there were 79 cases of family-honor related trouble involving the Dutch police. Eleven of those ended with the victim (mostly women, sometimes men) dead. 26 cases involved physical violence, and in about 30 cases people were threatened with violence or otherwise pressured.

Of the 79 cases, 43 percent invoveld Turkish families. The other cases were Afghan, Kosovan, Iraqi, Moroccan, Colombian and Antillian families.

A dutch chief of police in our capital said that about 15 honor-killings are prevented each year by timely intervention by the police.

Final post:



Now, having finished reading the thread:

TWEEEEEEET!

I am not moving this rather stupid set of pissing contests ot the Pit, but i am not letting them fester here, either.

This thread is closed.

The topic is not off limits. If anyone wishes to open a new thread on the topic, they are welcome to do so, but you will all constrain yourselves to debate the topic without all the irritating false assumptions about other posters' opinions or beliefs.

[ /Moderating ]

Look, tomndebb, I always enjoy reading your posts, they are almost always caricatures of your point of view, and good for a laugh. And as a moderator, you have the right to post, and the right to close a thread.

But posting, and then immediately closing the thread so no one has a chance to reply to you is ... well ... let me call it "unethical" in lieu of a harsher judgement. If you want to post, post. If you want to close the thread, close it.

But don't post and then immediately close the thread before anyone can call you on your nonsense. That's not right.

[Fear Itself]

This is in the wrong forum, you know.

[mswas]

Tomndebb does that a lot. It drives me nuts when he tells you to stop a line of discussion but then pontificates from the bench about his opinion of what you said. Either you're trying to stop hostility or you're joining in the argument. It can't be both.

He needs to learn to separate his moderation from his identity as a poster a little bit better. I do not notice any of the other mods having this problem.

[monstro]

I like him most times, but he straddles the fence too much. Instead of saying that a certain poster or group of posters are getting carried away, he tends to scold everyone, like everyone is equally getting carried away. It's his way of being fair but it actually isn't.

So, yes, I agree with the OP.

[Gfactor]

Moved from The BBQ Pit to About This Message Board.

Gfactor
Pit Moderator

[mswas]

I like him most times, but he straddles the fence too much. Instead of saying that a certain poster or group of posters are getting carried away, he tends to scold everyone, like everyone is equally getting carried away. It's his way of being fair but it actually isn't.

So, yes, I agree with the OP.

Nonsense, he makes no attempt to be fair at all. He comes in and clearly stakes some ground and then tells everyone who disagrees with his take to shutup. He's the least fair moderator on this message board.

[DrDeth]

I have found Tomndebb to be quite fair, never had an issue with his Moderating.

(Now, some of his posts......:p)

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

My theory goes like this:

1) Modding is hard work--you gotta read a lotta stupid posts, make a bunch of judgment calls, remember what the rules are de facto and de jure, make yourself available to consult on all sorts of modding issues. Takes a lot of time, a lot of effort, a lot of thought.

2) Modding is unpaid. Monetarily.

But 3) Ed is able to offer non-monetary incentives. I think Tom agreed to mod GD if and only if he was permitted to do this quick-change act, the "now I'm a Mod/ now I'm a poster/ now I'm a dessert topping/ and ta-da! now I'm the all-powerful Mod again" routine.

Which is to say that complaining about this marked tendency of Tom's is like--ah, well, you might as well try and catch the wind.

[Rubystreak]

I like him most times, but he straddles the fence too much. Instead of saying that a certain poster or group of posters are getting carried away, he tends to scold everyone, like everyone is equally getting carried away. It's his way of being fair but it actually isn't.

So, yes, I agree with the OP.

This is what I was going to say. Why can't he just warn the people who are breaking the rules and leave the thread open? Why kill the whole discussion because a few people are being assholes? Unilaterally closing a thread with a blanket but non-specific smackdown teaches no one anything, just ends a conversation that might interest people if the signal-to-noise ratio were improved by a little judicious moderation.

[aldiboronti]

Every time that someone complains that Tom has shut down a thread after giving himself the final say I check out the thread. Every time I find that Tom wasn't advancing any argument of his own at all and his final post was as a moderator, giving reasons for closing the thread.

It's pointless to say that somehow one has been denied the right of reply. Such a reply would clearly involve questioning Tom's action as a moderator and thus by the rules would have to be dealt with in ATMB anyway.

[Oakminster]

This is what I was going to say. Why can't he just warn the people who are breaking the rules and leave the thread open? Why kill the whole discussion because a few people are being assholes? Unilaterally closing a thread with a blanket but non-specific smackdown teaches no one anything, just ends a conversation that might interest people if the signal-to-noise ratio were improved by a little judicious moderation.

Possibly because coming in to a lengthy train wreck thread to figure out who did what to whom first is a pain in the ass. You warn one guy, and he waves the "I wasn't as bad as the other guy" flag. You parse the thread and warn half the participants and you spend way too much time on bullshit. Easiest and most efficient thing to do is just lock the thread.

[Rubystreak]

Possibly because coming in to a lengthy train wreck thread to figure out who did what to whom first is a pain in the ass. You warn one guy, and he waves the "I wasn't as bad as the other guy" flag. You parse the thread and warn half the participants and you spend way too much time on bullshit. Easiest and most efficient thing to do is just lock the thread.

I think you parse the thread BEFORE you comment on anything, first of all. You can warn half a dozen people in one post if you need to (though I doubt you'd need to), and have done with it. I'm not sure why that's so onerous a task. They want people to report threads where rules are being broken, but if that means an otherwise interesting thread is going to be locked, that's a disincentive to reporting the offending behavior until it's a complete disaster, no? I think tomndebb is a smart guy and can easily figure out who is screwing up a thread, and handle it. Sure, it's easier to close the thread, but is it really that much harder to read carefully and compose one post to remedy the situation?

[Oakminster]

From a mod point of view, the issue is not so much difficulty as it is time. Mods are not full time board employees with nothing better to do. They are volunteers, and may well be modding between calls at work, or otherwise in a situation where they can't spend 30 minutes reading a thread, and another 30 minutes passing out warnings. You stamp out the flames and move on.

[mswas]

Every time that someone complains that Tom has shut down a thread after giving himself the final say I check out the thread. Every time I find that Tom wasn't advancing any argument of his own at all and his final post was as a moderator, giving reasons for closing the thread.

It's pointless to say that somehow one has been denied the right of reply. Such a reply would clearly involve questioning Tom's action as a moderator and thus by the rules would have to be dealt with in ATMB anyway.

And therein lies the problem. He participates in the debate from the shield of moderation as though being a moderator somehow makes his opinion loftier than it is. For me personally I just think he shouldn't offer an opinion on ANYTHING but civility when he has his moderator hat on. How hard is it to make two posts?

[Rubystreak]

From a mod point of view, the issue is not so much difficulty as it is time. Mods are not full time board employees with nothing better to do. They are volunteers, and may well be modding between calls at work, or otherwise in a situation where they can't spend 30 minutes reading a thread, and another 30 minutes passing out warnings. You stamp out the flames and move on.

He had time to read, compose a post containing his opinion on the subject, then read some more, and shut the thread down. Why not just read the whole thread, write your post wherein you dole out your modding, and have done with it? I'm not getting what's so incredibly time consuming about that. It does deny you that opportunity to vent your own spleen in the thread, but that's the downside of being a mod in the thread that requires moderation.

[tomndebb]

The point of closing the thread is not to punish anyone, but to simply break the cycle of anger so that any further discussion can take place without current posters repeatedly chimimg in with angry references to ancient posts, (or the ever popular, "the Mod told me I can't talk about this topic"), or new posters to the thread taking sides in an earlier spat and re-opening wounds. In the thread in question, there were three separate feuds fgetting personal and I saw no reason to let that turn into a general conflagration. I suspect that most posters in those threads are quite confident that they are inocent of all error and that the Warnings I would be handing out would fall only on their opponents. I suspect that that would not really be the case.

I find it intersting, and a bit amusing, that several posters saying I should just slap "offenders" and leave the thread alone have been reported in this or similar instances in other threads.

I am operating on the assumption that people get emotional and occasionally let their tempers carry them a bit too far. I see no reason to hand out Warnings for mistakes, as opposed to flagrant rules violations. My intention is to keep the discussions sufficiently civil that they do not erupt into major flame wars that carry on from one thread to another.
Nothing prevents anyone from opening a new thread on the same topic with a link to the old thread.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

You forgot to close this thread.

[Liberal]

Nothing prevents anyone from opening a new thread on the same topic with a link to the old thread.That's the thing. That's why this thread is so weird. You actually invited people to restart the topic, but without the Pit-like ad hominem and assumptions about motive and that kind of crap. That's not what Great Debates is even for. Looking over that trainwreck of a thread, it wasn't, as some claim, a "heated" discussion. It was one insulting post after another, and pulling off in three separate directions. It needed to be closed because the behavior (I honestly can't think of a more appropriate word) needed to be stopped.

[DSYoungEsq]

This is the second time within a few months that this exact same behavior has come up for discussion here.

I have opined before that it is a bad idea for a moderator to close a thread or shut off a topic AFTER taking the time to offer his/her own personal opinion into the mix as a regular poster. It gives off the impression of last-wordism. In almost no such case is the contribution of the moderator-cum-poster of vital, earth-shaking importance on the topic, so it could just as easily be left unsaid.

I repeat that I think this should be the way things are handled. The fact that the issue has come up twice in recent memory supports my assertion that it does not help matters to take such an action.

[tomndebb]

I repeat that I think this should be the way things are handled. The fact that the issue has come up twice in recent memory supports my assertion that it does not help matters to take such an action.
Perhaps.

OTOH, having posted in response to a series of posts part way into the thread, (posts submitted before the nasty personal shots really got under way), your solution offers me only the options of failing to deal with the trainwreck or going back and erasing my last post.

I suppose I could delete my post, but I see no reason to do so.

In the last instance, I made a totally neutral GQ/Straight Dope observation that did not bear on any of the anger in the thread. In this case, I posted another GQ/Straight Dope observation, although one closer to the actual core of the topic, at the time I encountered the posts that prompted my remarks, then, a quarter hour later, after finishing reading the thread, (indeed, after at least one other post had been submitted), I made a Mod call. To describe either situation as one in which I was having the "last word" and then slamming shut the thread is odd. To describe this thread in that way, when I was not even the penultimate poster, is beyond odd.

[intention]

The point of closing the thread is not to punish anyone, but to simply break the cycle of anger so that any further discussion can take place without current posters repeatedly chimimg in with angry references to ancient posts, (or the ever popular, "the Mod told me I can't talk about this topic"), or new posters to the thread taking sides in an earlier spat and re-opening wounds. In the thread in question, there were three separate feuds fgetting personal and I saw no reason to let that turn into a general conflagration. I suspect that most posters in those threads are quite confident that they are inocent of all error and that the Warnings I would be handing out would fall only on their opponents. I suspect that that would not really be the case.

I find it intersting, and a bit amusing, that several posters saying I should just slap "offenders" and leave the thread alone have been reported in this or similar instances in other threads.

I am operating on the assumption that people get emotional and occasionally let their tempers carry them a bit too far. I see no reason to hand out Warnings for mistakes, as opposed to flagrant rules violations. My intention is to keep the discussions sufficiently civil that they do not erupt into major flame wars that carry on from one thread to another.
Nothing prevents anyone from opening a new thread on the same topic with a link to the old thread.

Did you read my complaint, tomndebb? I don't give a shit if you close the thread or slap some offenders, and I SAID THAT IN THE OP. I was insulted that you posted your own sanctified opinion, and then closed the thread without giving anyone a chance to respond. You found the thread interesting enough to post your own opinion of others' ideas ... but not interesting enough to allow anyone to post their opinion of your ideas.

That's the problem. Please address that instead of explaining irrelevancies.

[Liberal]

What sanctified opinion? Where is it? What is it?

[DSYoungEsq]

Perhaps.

OTOH, having posted in response to a series of posts part way into the thread, (posts submitted before the nasty personal shots really got under way), your solution offers me only the options of failing to deal with the trainwreck or going back and erasing my last post.

I suppose I could delete my post, but I see no reason to do so.

In the last instance, I made a totally neutral GQ/Straight Dope observation that did not bear on any of the anger in the thread. In this case, I posted another GQ/Straight Dope observation, although one closer to the actual core of the topic, at the time I encountered the posts that prompted my remarks, then, a quarter hour later, after finishing reading the thread, (indeed, after at least one other post had been submitted), I made a Mod call. To describe either situation as one in which I was having the "last word" and then slamming shut the thread is odd. To describe this thread in that way, when I was not even the penultimate poster, is beyond odd.
Tom, you persist in failing to understand the underlying issue here.

It doesn't matter if your addition to the thread pre-closing is as innocent as the newborn child. It's the simple appearance of the matter, and the statement it makes about your power, regardless of your intent. The fact that you get to say ANYTHING, regardless of how seemingly innoculous, to which no one else is allowed to respond, is bound to upset some people. As I said, it smacks of simple last-wordiness.

This gets to a larger issue about which I have spent some time trying to convince some of the moderators/staff here: once you become a moderator/administrator, you cannot ignore the effect of what you do on the denizens here. Thus, you should take pains not to do things which are generally frowned upon when done by those who referee. As a teacher, if I tell a student of mine that they need to stop talking about something, that's a part of my job. If I explain to them why I want them to stop talking, and then tell them not to answer back, that MAY be acceptable, circumstances depending. But if the student and I are in a discussion, or if the student is engaging in a class discussion, and I dump out MY opinion, and then having done so, tell everyone to shut up and don't allow anyone in the class to respond to my comment, that's not a good thing. The students will naturally resent my use of my power in a way to have the last word, and prevent them from comment. And that will be true even if my last word is entirely benign.

A similar situation exists when I referee soccer. Other similar situations abound.

If you have reached the point that you feel a thread needs to be terminated, simply step in and terminate the thread. Resist the impulse to add your two cents first as a regular poster. Yes, that might be a bit confining, but it will avoid hard feelings. And if you really do have some important point to make to individuals posting in the thread, you can always make that by PM/email.

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

Tom, you persist in failing to understand the underlying issue here.

It doesn't matter if your addition to the thread pre-closing is as innocent as the newborn child. It's the simple appearance of the matter, and the statement it makes about your power, regardless of your intent. The fact that you get to say ANYTHING, regardless of how seemingly innoculous, to which no one else is allowed to respond, is bound to upset some people. As I said, it smacks of simple last-wordiness.

This gets to a larger issue about which I have spent some time trying to convince some of the moderators/staff here: once you become a moderator/administrator, you cannot ignore the effect of what you do on the denizens here. Thus, you should take pains not to do things which are generally frowned upon when done by those who referee. As a teacher, if I tell a student of mine that they need to stop talking about something, that's a part of my job. If I explain to them why I want them to stop talking, and then tell them not to answer back, that MAY be acceptable, circumstances depending. But if the student and I are in a discussion, or if the student is engaging in a class discussion, and I dump out MY opinion, and then having done so, tell everyone to shut up and don't allow anyone in the class to respond to my comment, that's not a good thing. The students will naturally resent my use of my power in a way to have the last word, and prevent them from comment. And that will be true even if my last word is entirely benign.

A similar situation exists when I referee soccer. Other similar situations abound.

If you have reached the point that you feel a thread needs to be terminated, simply step in and terminate the thread. Resist the impulse to add your two cents first as a regular poster. Yes, that might be a bit confining, but it will avoid hard feelings. And if you really do have some important point to make to individuals posting in the thread, you can always make that by PM/email.

It really is pretty simple: A moderator should not participate in the forum he moderates. I'm not saying that tomndebb is a venal moderator (I rather doubt this); but I can say he no longer has much credibility as a moderator, since all his mod actions almost inevitably get controverted here in this forum.

Given the nature of Great Debates, it would be easy enough to get a reputation for partiality just by moderating it, quite apart from tomndebb's obvious enthusiasm for participating in its threads. The best solution would be to reassign him to a forum where his reputation doesn't precede him so doggedly and where his zeal for joining in the threads is much more muted (which is to say, no joining in at all). It isn't fair to tomndebb to keep him from threads that he clearly relishes, and it isn't fair to the SDMB to allow compromised moderating.

[Liberal]

Who will step up and moderate Great Debates? Who will invest the time? Read all the stupid threads? Make decisions that half the board disagrees with? Close threads without comment, and then be dragged into ATMB for doing so? Who? You?

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

Who will step up and moderate Great Debates? Who will invest the time? Read all the stupid threads? Make decisions that half the board disagrees with? Close threads without comment, and then be dragged into ATMB for doing so? Who? You?

Pffft. I am not about to nominate myself for mode. Although I would be pretty fuckin' great.

[DrDeth]

Who will step up and moderate Great Debates? Who will invest the time? Read all the stupid threads? Make decisions that half the board disagrees with? Close threads without comment, and then be dragged into ATMB for doing so? Who? You?

Right- who will bell the cat?;)

Is tomndebb perfect? Hell no. But he does a pretty damn good job, with no pay and only gets a lot of grief. I think the rest of you should cut him some slack.

[intention]

Who will step up and moderate Great Debates? Who will invest the time? Read all the stupid threads? Make decisions that half the board disagrees with? Close threads without comment, and then be dragged into ATMB for doing so? Who? You?

I don't care who moderates, just that they do not take advantage of their power to post uncontested opinions. I have no issue with threads being closed, for good reasons or bad, mods have to make tough calls. I also have no problem with people both moderating and participating. The moderators here, including tomndebb, are generally quite scrupulous to clearly identify when they are modding as opposed to when they are just posting. And I'm glad that the moderators have taken on a thankless job.

But for tomndebb to read a three page thread, post his own opinion on the topic under discussion, and then immediately close the thread? Sorry, that's just plain unethical on my planet, although as always, YMMV.

[tomndebb]

That's the problem. Please address that instead of explaining irrelevancies.I guess you have chosen to ignore my previous response, noting, (as is clear from the timing of events--and even partially admitted in your OP), that I did not do what you so desperately wish I had done to rationalize your anger.

If you have reached the point that you feel a thread needs to be terminated, simply step in and terminate the thread. Resist the impulse to add your two cents first as a regular poster. Yes, that might be a bit confining, but it will avoid hard feelings. And if you really do have some important point to make to individuals posting in the thread, you can always make that by PM/email.Again, in this instance, when I posted as a poster, I had not even read the portion of the trainwreck that caused me to subsequently close the thread. In other words, I did exactly what you are asking, already, making no further comments once I had made a Mod decision to intervene.

This time, there was a period of a quarter hour, (along with an intervening post), between the point where I posted information and where I, having read more of the thread, made a decision to close it. I think that any decision to pretend that I was getting the "last word" is forced. The next time I would guess that someone will complain that I posted an hour earlier or a day earlier and only let four posts or ten posts follow me before I closed a thread.
The only option that you would leave me is to go back and delete all my posts to any threads I subsequently close. I take your point about appearances, but there is no defense against people who go looking to be offended, even if they have to ignore the realities of time and third party actions.

Maybe I should just submit Moderating posts using the sig:
Honi soit qui mal y pense

[DrDeth]

Maybe I should just submit Moderating posts using the sig:
Honi soit qui mal y pense

They'd just think you were talking about your honey coated penis. :p

[Oakminster]

The only option that you would leave me is to go back and delete all my posts to any threads I subsequently close. [/I]

In fairness, another option would be to refrain from commenting as a poster until you've read the entire thread. That way, you'd know you were going to moderate something, and could do it, without participating as a poster.

[Stink Fish Pot]

It really is pretty simple: A moderator should not participate in the forum he moderates. I'm not saying that tomndebb is a venal moderator (I rather doubt this); but I can say he no longer has much credibility as a moderator, since all his mod actions almost inevitably get controverted here in this forum.


I think this has some merit.

I'm not sure that all forums need to follow this rule, but for something like GD, I think tomndebb is the most active moderator and enjoys posting in the forum. When he makes these types of moves, he seems to put into question his moderation vs. poster activity. And when you have the ability to have the last word and close a thread, it can annoy.

tomndebb is called out more than any other mod that I can think of on this board, but I don't think that necessarily reflects on the quality of his moderation. It's the blending of his moderating with his opinions, often in the same posts that cause problems.

Is this necessary in MPSIMS? Perhaps not. But I think tomndebb would be a much better mod if he were in a different forum and allowed to post away in a forum like GD in which he obviously enjoys participating in. Take away his moderating status in GD, and let another moderator decide when he crosses any line.

I think if this were the case, most would find tomndebb a rational mod on this board.

[intention]

I guess you have chosen to ignore my previous response, noting, (as is clear from the timing of events--and even partially admitted in your OP), that I did not do what you so desperately wish I had done to rationalize your anger.

Again, in this instance, when I posted as a poster, I had not even read the portion of the trainwreck that caused me to subsequently close the thread. In other words, I did exactly what you are asking, already, making no further comments once I had made a Mod decision to intervene.

This time, there was a period of a quarter hour, (along with an intervening post), between the point where I posted information and where I, having read more of the thread, made a decision to close it. I think that any decision to pretend that I was getting the "last word" is forced. The next time I would guess that someone will complain that I posted an hour earlier or a day earlier and only let four posts or ten posts follow me before I closed a thread.
The only option that you would leave me is to go back and delete all my posts to any threads I subsequently close. I take your point about appearances, but there is no defense against people who go looking to be offended, even if they have to ignore the realities of time and third party actions.

Maybe I should just submit Moderating posts using the sig:
Honi soit qui mal y pense

tomndebb, you should stop for just a moment and consider why people are upset at your behaviour. You keep just blowing it off with excuses and cute latin phrases. I'm not the only one saying the exact same thing.

The fact is, you posted and then closed the thread. You uncapped your electronic pen before reading the thread. You didn't have the courtesy to take fifteen freakin' minutes to finish the thread first to see if it should be closed. You were in a hurry to post your opinion, too much of a hurry to do your day job.

Nor was your post in any sense uncontroversial. You said:

The topic of honor killings is being seriously abused in this thread.

There are honor killings in a large number of cultures, many of them Christian. They generally have a lot more to do with either sexual mores or stepping outside cultural boundaries than they do with actual religious belief. Keep that in mind when anyone posts statistics showing how "common" they are and then failing to note where they occur throughout the world or the events that give rise to them.

So you think it's fine to accuse unspecified people of "serious abuse", to tell everyone what we need to "keep in mind", and then not let anyone answer? You post an uncited belief, that honor killings have more to do with culture than religion (as if they can be separated in many parts of the world). An interesting thought, but totally unsupported, and quite controversial.

Now, that's fine, you're free to put in your two cents worth ... but at least you should have the balls to let people respond before slamming the door in their faces. However, it seems you are in too much of a hurry to spend fifteen minutes finishing the thread, you have to rush to give your opinion first.

And when I protest, rather than just saying "Hey, I moved too fast, my bad", you want to convince us how rational your position is ... yeah, that's the ticket. Claim it's all perfectly reasonable, tell everyone in Latin that they should be ashamed to think evil of the way you moderate. Preemptive strike, good plan.

[TWDuke]

In fairness, another option would be to refrain from commenting as a poster until you've read the entire thread.This should be the standard for all posters. If you don't have time to read a thread, you don't have time to participate in it.

[Ruby Slippers]

In fairness, another option would be to refrain from commenting as a poster until you've read the entire thread. That way, you'd know you were going to moderate something, and could do it, without participating as a poster.

One of the reasons my post count is so low is that I try never to post until I have read everything already posted in a thread that interests me. I usually discover that anything I had thought of posting has already been said and possibly refuted. I don't have a dog in this fight, but it seems that a moderator would be especially well advised to read to the end of the thread before chiming in.

[leander]

Good ideas all around but there is ZERO chance that tomndebb will change his behaviour unless he gets sacked.

[Gary Kumquat]

Good ideas all around but there is ZERO chance that tomndebb will change his behaviour unless he gets sacked.

Much axe to grind?

A storm/teacup OP, with some damned silly ideas proposed.

[mswas]

I'm glad DSYoungEsq is here to tell Tomndebb exactly what I've been telling him for a while. As he told me explicitly he only listens to criticism from those he respects. As he does not respect me, it's good that someone here that he does respect is saying the same thing.

Now for an apologia for Tomndebb.

While kimmy_gibbler's view on it is logically sound I think it's pretty unreasonable. There simply is nothing in it for a moderator to moderate a forum that doesn't interest them. Online forums are not that serious. I think we take it a bit too seriously every day. This isn't some high minded academic institution inviting scholars from around the world to come debate with our home team. This is an internet message board. Such miscarriages of justice are to be expected simply because they are kind of trivial.

I don't even think that what this thread is complaining about are the worst of it. It's far less obnoxious to post and then decide to close a thread than it is to make a post on the topic in direct response to someone and then moderate them in the same post. That's dirty pool right there. Because we're not allowed to question a moderator's decisions, we're also not allowed to respond to his rebuttal of our opinion.

In my view he needs to either moderate or rebut, but not both. I'm not saying he can't do both in the same thread, or even to the same person, but don't make it seem like you are using your moderator hat to stifle debate. Maintain civility in post 43 and make your point in post 44. How hard is that?

[mswas]

Double post.

[DrDeth]

This should be the standard for all posters. If you don't have time to read a thread, you don't have time to participate in it.

No one is saying Tom didn't read the whole thread:rolleyes:, clearly he did. However, some of us read a bit, think of a good reply to a post that stands out, post- then finish reading- and maybe even post again.

[DSYoungEsq]

In fairness, another option would be to refrain from commenting as a poster until you've read the entire thread. That way, you'd know you were going to moderate something, and could do it, without participating as a poster.

+1


intention, by the way, it's not Latin, it's French. ;)

[MeanOldLady]

The funny thing is when I saw the thread was closed, I thought, Juh? Then I read the thread closing post and my next thought was, Well then tell the derailers to knock it off. Then I read this thread and thought, Oh, I guess that would have been a poor option because... it wouldn't have worked?

[Liberal]

I don't care who moderates, just that they do not take advantage of their power to post uncontested opinions.Once again, I ask: what uncontested opinion? I don't see it in that thread. I would agree with you, on principle, but there is nothing there.

tomndebb, you should stop for just a moment and consider why people are upset at your behaviour. You keep just blowing it off with excuses and cute latin phrases. I'm not the only one saying the exact same thing. You're not the only one, but you're one of only a few. I can't get anybody to explain to me what the problem is. I mean, yes I know you think he posts his opinions, and then closes the thread. But when? Where? Specifically.

[intention]

QUOTE=intention]
I don't care who moderates, just that they do not take advantage of their power to post uncontested opinions.
Once again, I ask: what uncontested opinion? I don't see it in that thread. I would agree with you, on principle, but there is nothing there.[/QUOTE]

The uncontested opinion where he posted, and then immediately (15 mins) closed the thread.


tomndebb, you should stop for just a moment and consider why people are upset at your behaviour. You keep just blowing it off with excuses and cute latin phrases. I'm not the only one saying the exact same thing.
You're not the only one, but you're one of only a few. I can't get anybody to explain to me what the problem is. I mean, yes I know you think he posts his opinions, and then closes the thread. But when? Where? Specifically.

Specifically, at the end of the thread that I referred to in the OP. What am I missing here?

[CarnalK]

Intention, some people have drank so much of the "everything is beautiful in it's own way" kool-aid that they don't think "religion has nothing to do with it" is an opinion. It's simply what all sensible and enlightened people think. Come on! Get on the trolley!

[Liberal]

@ Intention

Well, now, wait a minute. The way you're expressing your complaint is different from what other people are saying, and is the reason I asked where did Tom express his opinion in his closing. It is, as you say, NOT in his closing remarks, but in remarks he made about 15 minutes before closing. The remark he made, incidentally, was critical of the Christian church.

But I think it's wrong to fault him with trying to get the thread back on track (the track of honor killings) and then fault him for closing the thread when its participants were obviously oblivious to the topic. In your listings of the final posts, you arbitrarily limited your list to 3. But look at the post just before the first one you list:

I wasn't making a statement about Christians, I was making a statement about hysterical religious profiling. The same is true of other statements I've made about Christians blowing up abortion clinics, etc. I'm not saying that to bash Christians, I'm using thsoe examples to show that it's ridiculous to make assumptions about the whole based on the behavior of an extreme minority of nutters and violent bigots.

That's Dio arguing with mswas about "hysterical religious profiling" (whatever that is). The thread was a trainwreck by the time Tom intervened and Maastricht posted. It might have made it in the Pit, but that was Tom's call, whether to close it or move it to the Pit, where Dio and mswas could hash it out. Mods make calls. Either way they make the call, someone is likely to complain. It just so happens that the call went the way that prompted you to complain. Had Tom made some other decision, someone else might be here complaining that he has no balls, and is letting a trainwreck proceed in Great Debates.

[intention]

@ Intention

Well, now, wait a minute. The way you're expressing your complaint is different from what other people are saying, and is the reason I asked where did Tom express his opinion in his closing. It is, as you say, NOT in his closing remarks, but in remarks he made about 15 minutes before closing. The remark he made, incidentally, was critical of the Christian church.

But I think it's wrong to fault him with trying to get the thread back on track (the track of honor killings) and then fault him for closing the thread when its participants were obviously oblivious to the topic. In your listings of the final posts, you arbitrarily limited your list to 3. But look at the post just before the first one you list:

I wasn't making a statement about Christians, I was making a statement about hysterical religious profiling. The same is true of other statements I've made about Christians blowing up abortion clinics, etc. I'm not saying that to bash Christians, I'm using thsoe examples to show that it's ridiculous to make assumptions about the whole based on the behavior of an extreme minority of nutters and violent bigots.

That's Dio arguing with mswas about "hysterical religious profiling" (whatever that is). The thread was a trainwreck by the time Tom intervened and Maastricht posted. It might have made it in the Pit, but that was Tom's call, whether to close it or move it to the Pit, where Dio and mswas could hash it out. Mods make calls. Either way they make the call, someone is likely to complain. It just so happens that the call went the way that prompted you to complain. Had Tom made some other decision, someone else might be here complaining that he has no balls, and is letting a trainwreck proceed in Great Debates.

Liberal, thanks for your response, but I still don't understand. If Tom was trying to bring the thread back on topic, why close the thread right afterwards?

I've said it before, I'll say it again, because you didn't get it. I have no problem with Tom closing the thread, or with Tom trying to bring it back on line. What I have a problem with is Tom posting and then immediately closing the thread before anyone can respond to his post.

I don't know if Tom did this deliberately or not. I'm just saying it's the wrong thing to do. He should either get in or get out. Close the thread, sure. Straighten out the thread, sure. Move it to the pit, sure.

But post a controversial opinion and then immediately close the thread? Why are you defending that? Like I said, what am I missing here?

[Shodan]

Liberal, thanks for your response, but I still don't understand. If Tom was trying to bring the thread back on topic, why close the thread right afterwards?This.

If a thread is worth posting to, it is worth leaving open. (It's also worth reading before you post, for crying out loud.) If a thread is a trainwreck, DNFTT - lock the thread, or move it or something.

But posting your opinion and then locking the thread is annoying for the same reason saying "you are on my ignore list" is annoying - it smacks of the 'nyaah nyaah I can't hear you" school of debate.

Regards,
Shodan

[Liberal]

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc, everybody. C'mon. The last person to get his say in that thread was NOT Tom, but Maastricht. All Tom did was basically call for a restart, inviting the opening of a new thread, ostensibly in the hopes that Dio and mswas would not hijack it. It just seems to me like nefarious motives are being assigned to Tom for no good reason.

[intention]

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc, everybody. C'mon. The last person to get his say in that thread was NOT Tom, but Maastricht. All Tom did was basically call for a restart, inviting the opening of a new thread, ostensibly in the hopes that Dio and mswas would not hijack it. It just seems to me like nefarious motives are being assigned to Tom for no good reason.

Oh, please. Are you a lawyer? Maastricht happened to slip into the fifteen minute slot between when Tom posted and when he closed the thread. He didn't even comment on Tom's post, and Maastricht's post was clear and informative.

Surely you don't think that excuses Tom's actions?

Also, you say that "nefarious motives are being assigned to Tom" ... despite the fact that I clearly said:

I don't know if Tom did this deliberately or not.

Liberal, Tom is quite free to (and likely occasionally justified to) close a thread immediately after I post. That's not a problem

But doing it immediately after he posts is an abuse of power.

[DSYoungEsq]

But doing it immediately after he posts is an abuse of power.

True, but not relevant here, it turns out. Look up the meaning of the word "immediately."

:smack:

[mswas]

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc, everybody. C'mon. The last person to get his say in that thread was NOT Tom, but Maastricht. All Tom did was basically call for a restart, inviting the opening of a new thread, ostensibly in the hopes that Dio and mswas would not hijack it. It just seems to me like nefarious motives are being assigned to Tom for no good reason.

I dunno. I never really understood how two people having a heated conversation where neither of them is losing their shit at the other one, but neither are they being very cordial is a hijack. If Dio and I are having a discussion you can join in or not as is your pleasure. I regularly read threads and skim them until I find the thread of conversation that I am involved with. Like the Wolf Whistle thread in the BBQ Pit, it's hundreds of posts long, I haven't read even half of them, I read specifically the ones that interested me. I guess I just have a higher tolerance for hijacks. My view on it is that you can't really hijack a thread if the other people are more interested in their viewpoint. I regularly post things that get no response at all and if they don't get a response I don't keep pimping it I move on. Besides Dio and I didn't hijack the thread, that's an abuse of the word hijack. We were speculating about what the motivations to run away from home were. I think that's pretty relevant to the thread. Rubystreak and I got into it for a minute and we both saw when it was fruitless and we ended it. I like Rubystreak because she and I have found out a way to deal with one another where we know when it's just becoming futile. I wish more of the people I clashed with were like that. Yes Dio and I were both projecting our own personal histories onto that thread, but I don't see that as being a 'hijack'. I guess it's all subjective though.

[Gary "Wombat" Robson]

It really is pretty simple: A moderator should not participate in the forum he moderates.I've been trying to decide whether to respond to this or not, Kimmy_Gibbler, because I don't want to get involved in a debate about tomndebb. Speaking in generalities, though...

Your idea really wouldn't work. Almost all Dopers have forums that they regularly participate in--that they're really interested in. Similarly, most of us have forums we avoid. Moderating is an unpaid volunteer position. Despite the rumors and jokes, the compensation is limited to a mug and a shirt (I did get a free book once).

Under your system, becoming a moderator would mean either (a) having to read a forum I'm not interested in, or (b) having to stop participating in a forum I enjoy. Speaking only for myself, I wouldn't do it. I can't imagine very many of the other mods would be interested, either.

I think the issue of participating in threads as both poster and moderator is quite overblown. It happens every day, and only becomes an issue once in a blue moon. All of us are perfectly capable of saying "I disagree with XYZ about these issues" and ten posts later saying, "Hey, XYZ, cut out the personal insults in MPSIMS."

I know, in the heat of the moment it's easy to take personal offense when somebody you're arguing with steps back and issues a moderatorly admonition. But it's very rarely personal. Really.

[Baal Houtham]

Comments on various points raised in this thread:

Moderator posting a comment and then closing the thread before people can respond?
In this case the comment was pretty generic, and then when the thread was closed the Mod said it could be started right up again, without the vitriol.

Mods shouldn't participate in threads they're moderating.
They're here because they love the SDMB. If mods can't post on things that interest them, it makes their lives less happy. Their postings aren't causing horrible problems, so screw the platonic ideal of Moderation, and try to keep the volunteers contented.

Mods should finish threads before offering comments.
Everybody should, but also no one should violate the speed limit unnecessarily. I'll normally finish a thread before commenting, but not invariably. If my comment is the kind that can be dropped in at any point, I might go ahead and post.

Mods should try to parse the threads and only slap down the people actually at fault.
The few times in my life when I've actually tried to isolate the root cause of a multi-page squabble it took half an hour or longer. On the other hand, it takes almost no time at all to see that a thread has a 90/10 heat/light ratio.

In the thread under discussion, I felt it obvious who the main troublemaker was, but several other people clearly had a different opinion. And were the "good guys" completely blameless? Were there a few overly personal comments made by posters who were otherwise making GD-appropriate posts? I don't know and I'm not about to try to parse every boring legalistic post in that thread.

So again, carefully isolating blame to the person who starts the trouble is good in theory, but isn't always practical. If the same person shows up with questionably posts in several trainwrecks, then they will probably face some consequences eventually.

[Gary "Wombat" Robson]

Mods should finish threads before offering comments.
Everybody should, but also no one should violate the speed limit unnecessarily. I'll normally finish a thread before commenting, but not invariably. If my comment is the kind that can be dropped in at any point, I might go ahead and post.People make this sound difficult, but it's not.

As you're reading a thread, every time you see something you want to respond to, click the "multi-quote" button (it's the one with the quote mark to the right of the big oval "QUOTE" button). When you get to the very end, click the "RESPOND" button.

Everything you wanted to respond to is right there. If someone beat you to it on some of them, just delete those. Respond to the rest. There's little reason to respond immediately to something on page 2 of a six-page thread.

[Baal Houtham]

People make this sound difficult, but it's not.

As you're reading a thread, every time you see something you want to respond to, click the "multi-quote" button (it's the one with the quote mark to the right of the big oval "QUOTE" button). When you get to the very end, click the "RESPOND" button.


I didn't know about multi-quote. Might prove useful.

It is worth pointing out that the button only shows up if someone is logged in.

[crazyjoe]

Comments on various points raised in this thread:Mods should finish threads before offering comments.
Everybody should, but also no one should violate the speed limit unnecessarily. I'll normally finish a thread before commenting, but not invariably. If my comment is the kind that can be dropped in at any point, I might go ahead and post.
[

Y'know, when cops violate the speed limit while not responding to a call, they deservedly get flack for it. I beleive it's justifable to call a mod out on doing something that they encourage others not to do.

Unless someone submitted a "report this post" request about a specific breach, mods should exercise the board courtesy of reading the whole damn thread before posting. People who don't do this will invariably look inconsiderate and stupid eventually.

[Gary "Wombat" Robson]

Unless someone submitted a "report this post" request about a specific breach, mods should exercise the board courtesy of reading the whole damn thread before posting.I agree, and thank you for posting the caveat.

When we receive a report on a post, we really do try to go and check it out right away. Sometimes it takes some research or consulting with admins or other mods before taking action. In those cases, we do try to read the whole thread.

But if we get a report that somebody slung a personal insult in a thread like the current World of Warcraft (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=509115) thread (4,381 posts and still growing), I don't think anyone really expects us to read the whole thread before dealing with it.

[DSYoungEsq]

I agree, and thank you for posting the caveat.

When we receive a report on a post, we really do try to go and check it out right away. Sometimes it takes some research or consulting with admins or other mods before taking action. In those cases, we do try to read the whole thread.

But if we get a report that somebody slung a personal insult in a thread like the current World of Warcraft (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=509115) thread (4,381 posts and still growing), I don't think anyone really expects us to read the whole thread before dealing with it.

I do, but I'm being a sadist. :D

[tacoloco]

And therein lies the problem. He participates in the debate from the shield of moderation as though being a moderator somehow makes his opinion loftier than it is. For me personally I just think he shouldn't offer an opinion on ANYTHING but civility when he has his moderator hat on. How hard is it to make two posts?

With the level of anal retentiveness seen on these boards, it's a wonder anyone is willing to moderate at all. Especially when all people do is give the mods a hard time all the time.

[mswas]

With the level of anal retentiveness seen on these boards, it's a wonder anyone is willing to moderate at all. Especially when all people do is give the mods a hard time all the time.

Yes, what a difficult thing to ask, to not put an argument into a moderation post that you cannot respond to.

I was a moderator on an internet message board for a while, the way it was handled was that the moderator handles were specific but the people running them was a team. So you'd always get a warning from the moderator but you weren't sure who the poster you were dealing with was. It was an interesting system prone to its own sorts of abuses, like the one guy who was deleting things that differed from his conservative political viewpoint without telling anyone. Posts would just disappear. I was asked to leave as moderator because the guy who owned the message board was writing hit pieces on Obama during the election and actually getting some national publicity for them, was one of the early people who defined the 'Obama is an acolyte of Saul Alinsky' style of attacks. I was very passionate in my defense of Obama so I was asked to resign. The guy who was randomly deleting posts was asked to leave too. I got banned for calling him out publically and threatening to expose his identity if he didn't stop doing it. He no longer posts there much but I am back as a regular.

The business of moderating an internet message board is interesting. My style was to stick to issues of civility completely and entirely. I didn't mix my opinion in with my moderation. I have sympathy for mods but I wouldn't go so far as to feel bad for the poor put upon mods with their thankless job. It is tedious, but there's a way to do it and a way not to do it. That's just my opinion though.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Tom, would you agree to follow guidelines something like these?
1) Do not respond to a thread until you've read the entire thing. (XKCD's boards will ban you if you respond without reading a whole thing. They've got the benevolent tyrant thing down pat. It's awesome).
2) If you do respond without reading the whole thing, call in another moderator for support.
3) Before modding in a thread you've been participating in, call in another mod for support.

In my ~10 years here, you're the only mod whose behavior has been in my opinion unjustly biased. I think steps like this would cut down on the actual or apparent bias.

[tacoloco]

Yes, what a difficult thing to ask, to not put an argument into a moderation post that you cannot respond to.

Please.

People jump on the asses of moderators at every even slightly perceived miscue.

I think it's time to pit your shenanigans.

[mswas]

Please.

People jump on the asses of moderators at every even slightly perceived miscue.

I think it's time to pit your shenanigans.

Clearly there are several people who agree with me that Tomndebb is unique in his approach.

Time to Pit my shenanigans? Sorry bub but the Pit thread is just winding down. You can probably try to revive it but I think that most of the people are sated.

[tacoloco]

Clearly there are several people who agree with me that Tomndebb is unique in his approach.

Time to Pit my shenanigans? Sorry bub but the Pit thread is just winding down. You can probably try to revive it but I think that most of the people are sated.

Yeah, yeah, "sparky", whatever you say.

I'll pit you when I'm ready.

You can return to your petulant little forum drama now.

[mswas]

Yeah, yeah, "sparky", whatever you say.

I'll pit you when I'm ready.

You can return to your petulant little forum drama now.

You sought me out bub, not the other way around. Feel free to Pit me. Time it properly if you want me to come in and drive traffic for you. Right now my energy for such things is at a lull due to after Pit post-coital bliss. You missed the last orgy so you're going to need us all to not be spent when you do it. There's a perfect balance of everyone being pissed off at me and not. As far as I am concerned the drama is over.

[tacoloco]

You sought me out bub, not the other way around. Feel free to Pit me. Time it properly if you want me to come in and drive traffic for you. Right now my energy for such things is at a lull due to after Pit post-coital bliss. You missed the last orgy so you're going to need us all to not be spent when you do it. There's a perfect balance of everyone being pissed off at me and not. As far as I am concerned the drama is over.

You still posting.

I wonder what your next drama inducing post will be?

[mswas]

You still posting.

I wonder what your next drama inducing post will be?

LOL I guess you'll just have to accept that you were tardy to the party. Toodles!

[DrDeth]

Tom, would you agree to follow guidelines something like these?
1) Do not respond to a thread until you've read the entire thing.
2) If you do respond without reading the whole thing, call in another moderator for support.
3) Before modding in a thread you've been participating in, call in another mod for support.
.

Why? I do act as a Mod on another board. If I get report that s poster has- on page 6 after 250+ posts, committed a violation like a disguised profanity, then why the fuck do I need to read the other 250+ posts?

These are silly requests. Tom did nothing wrong.

[Zoe]

Tomndebb: I find it intersting, and a bit amusing, that several posters saying I should just slap "offenders" and leave the thread alone have been reported in this or similar instances in other threads.

Being "a bit amused" at suggestions that you follow a traditional route seems a little strange.

[TWDuke]

No one is saying Tom didn't read the whole thread:rolleyes:, clearly he did.[/quote]I thought in context reading the whole thread pretty obviously meant reading the whole thread before posting. Sorry that wasn't clear to you. However, some of us read a bit, think of a good reply to a post that stands out, post- then finish reading- and maybe even post again.Well, no. You have no way of knowing if it's a good reply until you read other replies to the same post. That's why so many threads are cluttered with redundant information, people repeatedly asking the same questions, and jokes that have already been made.

[leander]

Much axe to grind?

A storm/teacup OP, with some damned silly ideas proposed.

Nonsense. Over the years tomndebb has consistently hand-waved away any and all criticism of his modding. He only seems to respond to Ed's directions; everything (and everyone) else is ignored.

[tacoloco]

Why? I do act as a Mod on another board. If I get report that s poster has- on page 6 after 250+ posts, committed a violation like a disguised profanity, then why the fuck do I need to read the other 250+ posts?

You don't. The required action is to handle the offending post.

[aldiboronti]

Over the years tomndebb has consistently hand-waved away any and all criticism of his modding.

Think you left a word out there, sport. Let me fix that for you.

"Over the years tomndebb has consistently hand-waved away any and all unfounded criticism of his modding."

God knows that modding is a thankless task, especially in GD, but tomndebb has performed that task well over the years. In such a passionate forum if you're not getting complaints then you're not doing your job properly. I don't envy him that job.

In fact,

When the enterprising troll is not a-trolling
When the jerk has stopped being jerkish for a time
He loves to hear the merry bells a-tolling
And listen to the distant village chime.

When the members have done jumping on each other,
They love to lie a-basking in the sun
Ah take one consideration with another
The poor mod's lot is not a happy one, ...... happy one.

(Chorus of admins and mods)

When there's moderating duty to be done, to be done
The poor mod's lot is not a happy one ...... happy one.

(With apologies to G&S).

[Liberal]

Nonsense. Over the years tomndebb has consistently hand-waved away any and all criticism of his modding. He only seems to respond to Ed's directions; everything (and everyone) else is ignored.Prove that. Or else back off. Many of us believe you are wrong, and that your accusations are wild and reckless. Frankly, I wish they would promote Tom to admin and bring back DavidB to mod GD. Then you would get a fair amount of scolding, belittling, and snark to go with your alleged hand-waving.

[leander]

Think you left a word out there, sport. Let me fix that for you.

"Over the years tomndebb has consistently hand-waved away any and all unfounded criticism of his modding."

God knows that modding is a thankless task, especially in GD, but tomndebb has performed that task well over the years. In such a passionate forum if you're not getting complaints then you're not doing your job properly. I don't envy him that job.

In fact,

When the enterprising troll is not a-trolling
When the jerk has stopped being jerkish for a time
He loves to hear the merry bells a-tolling
And listen to the distant village chime.

When the members have done jumping on each other,
They love to lie a-basking in the sun
Ah take one consideration with another
The poor mod's lot is not a happy one, ...... happy one.

(Chorus of admins and mods)

When there's moderating duty to be done, to be done
The poor mod's lot is not a happy one ...... happy one.

(With apologies to G&S).

You have way too much time on your hands, sporto. :D

[leander]

Prove that. Or else back off. Many of us believe you are wrong, and that your accusations are wild and reckless. Frankly, I wish they would promote Tom to admin and bring back DavidB to mod GD. Then you would get a fair amount of scolding, belittling, and snark to go with your alleged hand-waving.

Look at the past several threads (and there are many to review) that have been critical of tomndebb. EVERY SINGLE ONE HE HAS HAND WAVED AWAY.

All you have to do is search past threads in ATMB that are about tomndebb to find my "proof".

[DSYoungEsq]

Look at the past several threads (and there are many to review) that have been critical of tomndebb. EVERY SINGLE ONE HE HAS HAND WAVED AWAY.

All you have to do is search past threads in ATMB that are about tomndebb to find my "proof".

Opinions without anything offered in support are not fact.

Your opinion is noted, and all the merit it is worth is given to it.

[tacoloco]

Look at the past several threads (and there are many to review) that have been critical of tomndebb. EVERY SINGLE ONE HE HAS HAND WAVED AWAY.

All you have to do is search past threads in ATMB that are about tomndebb to find my "proof".

So what. You should feel lucky that the board policies allow you to even express criticism of a moderator. Lots of other boards and you be whacked with the ban hammer.

[leander]

Well, we all know your opinion of the mods here DS. ;)

-That was of course for DSYoungEsq - tacoloco squeezed in (a good point) inbetween posts.

[leander]

Btw, if you want a good example of tomndebb's personal bias in modding, see here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11496464&postcount=342):

Originally Posted by amanset
<Load of crap here from FinnAgain ignored as that's all it is worth>
If you quote the section to which you wish to reply, we will presume that you are not going to reply to the unquoted sections. This sort of comment is not necessary as it promotes even more personal hostility.


Originally Posted by amanset
Oh shut up.
. . .
Just shut up now, you're making yourself look like an idiot.
Telling other posters to "shut up" is provocative and unnecessarily hostile.

Direct insults are prohibited in this forum.

Knock it off.

[ /Moderating ]

Now read the posts from tomndebb's favorite buddy FinnAgain and tell me they do not "promote...personal hostility" and are not "provocative and unnecessarily hostile"??

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Why? I do act as a Mod on another board. If I get report that s poster has- on page 6 after 250+ posts, committed a violation like a disguised profanity, then why the fuck do I need to read the other 250+ posts?

These are silly requests. Tom did nothing wrong.
I acted for years as a mod on a board with comparable size and posting frequency to SDMB. I frequently modded without having read the entire thread. You're missing what I'm saying.

I'm not saying you have to read the whole thread before modding. I've vociferously and in detail defended the exact opposite view (elsewhere). What I'm saying is that, if you post in a thread as a poster, you need to read the whole thread first, no matter who you are. If you're a mod and you post without reading, you're already setting a bad example: it's poor board etiquette. If you then go on to read the whole thing and shut the thread based on it, it's really bad form.

Also, when I modded another board, I did the most moderation in the fora I was most interested in. However, when I moderated in a thread I'd been participating in, it always fell into one of two situations:
1) The person was way egregiously over the line toward a poster besides myself, and I was surgical in my moderation; or
2) I called in another moderator.

Moderating against people with whom you're arguing is a shitty idea. And it's unnecessary.

Thus my suggested guidelines.

Edit: FWIW, leander, what you posted looks to me like excellent moderation, handled exactly as it should have been handled.

[DrDeth]

So what. You should feel lucky that the board policies allow you to even express criticism of a moderator. Lots of other boards and you be whacked with the ban hammer.

True, I got banned at one board for just a mild question about why the board was run that way.

Left Hand of Dorkness: well, then sometimes yes and sometimes no. It all depends on the thread, etc. Generally, it's good manners, but like I said, sometimes I think of a good reply and want to write it out before I proceed.

Still, I'll bet that if they came down and made up special rules just for you as a Moderator, you'd tell them where to go. I know I would.

[leander]

Edit: FWIW, leander, what you posted looks to me like excellent moderation, handled exactly as it should have been handled.

I think you've missed my point. I don't dispute the fact that amanset crossed the line; I'm suggesting that it's ridiculous to say that amanset was "provocative and unnecessarily hostile" while (once again) ignoring FinnAgain's usual frothing at the mouth nasty tone and attitude.

ETA: Is there anyone, aside from the usual suspects who will always defend the mods, who thinks that amanset was out of line while FinnAgain was not? If so, please tell me why.

[Baal Houtham]

I think you've missed my point. I don't dispute the fact that amanset crossed the line; I'm suggesting that it's ridiculous to say that amanset was "provocative and unnecessarily hostile" while (once again) ignoring FinnAgain's usual frothing at the mouth nasty tone and attitude.

ETA: Is there anyone, aside from the usual suspects who will always defend the mods, who thinks that amanset was out of line while FinnAgain was not? If so, please tell me why.

Firstly, maybe amanset was reported and FinnAgain wasn't.

Secondly, there have been explicit SDMB decisions that posters aren't allowed to alter direct quotes (in quote boxes) from other posters. Doing so will get you a mod rebuke every time it's reported.

Thirdly, telling someone multiple times to "shut up" is unambiguously hostile, and provides no useful information whatsoever.

I just spent about 20 minutes locating most of the relevant exchanges in that thread, and while FinnAgain was frequently sarcastic he always brought information to the discussion. He didn't belittle the person, he mocked their research.I saw nothing approaching, "Shut up."

I didn't read every word. If you can locate something from FinnAgain similar to amanset's attacks, the moderators would presumably give him a warning.

[DSeid]

No one is saying Tom didn't read the whole thread:rolleyes:, clearly he did. However, some of us read a bit, think of a good reply to a post that stands out, post- then finish reading- and maybe even post again.And some of us think that it is poor form to do that in any case. In general to post before having read what others have already said at the least risks just repeating what others may have pointed out already but more cogently. It is not so hard to wait until you have finished reading the whole thing before posting and it is more important to do that as a mod if just to avoid the appearance of abusing "mod powers".

Tom's acting on his eagerness to comment before having finished the thread was a mistake which resulted in an unfortunate impression to some.

And sometimes he does inadequately explicitly demarcate his posts as mod from his posts as a participant. Functioning as both in a thread is, IMHO, a fine thing to do, but it requires clear margins even if they seem odd to enforce. (I am imagining Les in WKRP and his inistence that his imaginary office door was respected). Even in this case, Tom, your post as a participant was getting fuzzy edged into mod turf with its comment about what was "being abused" in the thread. Given that you are a mod you really should refrain from making such judgmental comments unless you are functioning as a mod, and then you really should be explicitly clear that you are functioning in that capacity.

Meant as mere constructive advice form someone who in general respects the thankless job you do and knows that he could never do it himself.

[FinnAgain]

FinnAgain's usual frothing at the mouth nasty tone and attitude.

You can't address let alone rebut any of the facts I pointed out either, eh?

from tomndebb's favorite buddy FinnAgain

I suppose if Tom wanted he could share some information about all the times I've insulted him, quite extensively, in public, in PM's, in emails...
Suffice it to say, your claims are funny.


who thinks that amanset was out of line while FinnAgain was not? If so, please tell me why.

As a starting point, I might point to the rules of GD. Direct personal insults like "you are looking like an idiot" are not permitted. "Your claims evince an obvious ignorance about history" do not violate those rules.

[leander]

Firstly, maybe amanset was reported and FinnAgain wasn't.

Secondly, there have been explicit SDMB decisions that posters aren't allowed to alter direct quotes (in quote boxes) from other posters. Doing so will get you a mod rebuke every time it's reported.

Thirdly, telling someone multiple times to "shut up" is unambiguously hostile, and provides no useful information whatsoever.

I just spent about 20 minutes locating most of the relevant exchanges in that thread, and while FinnAgain was frequently sarcastic he always brought information to the discussion. He didn't belittle the person, he mocked their research.I saw nothing approaching, "Shut up."

I didn't read every word. If you can locate something from FinnAgain similar to amanset's attacks, the moderators would presumably give him a warning.

You make some good points, though I didn't see where amanset altered the quotes; I thought he was merely paraphrasing FinnAgain's typical spittle flecked rants. But I'll admit I might have missed it.

I guess my point was that tomndebb's comments seemed to imply that he wanted to raise the tone of the conversation and reduce the "provocative and unnecessarily hostile" language. If so, he should have commented on FinnAgain's childish outbursts as well.

[FinnAgain]

Decaf.

Anyways, I'm sorry, since you're not just flaming me outside of the Pit because you know full well that I was correct and you'd prefer to foot stomp and impotently cast fictional claims about my behavior, I'm sure you're perfectly able to prove I was wrong and was in fact just ranting, spittle flecked, childishly and frothy mouthed, you charmer you.

I eagerly await your cite of any and all of your posts showing how I was wrong on the facts or used fallacious logic.
I'm sure you can provide those facts immediately.

[Baal Houtham]

You make some good points, though I didn't see where amanset altered the quotes; I thought he was merely paraphrasing FinnAgain's typical spittle flecked rants. But I'll admit I might have missed it.


Yeah, it wasn't precisely an altered quote, but it was in a quote box and wasn't a real quote. It was a conspicuous jerk-move, that was extremely close to a well-known rule violation. Very attention getting.

And you probably don't want to discuss this with FinnAgain in this thread, but his analysis of what is and is not permitted in GD matches my understanding.

[FinnAgain]

It's not about discussion.

If Leander believed that I was "ranting" and having "childish outbursts" it would be a trivial matter to point out how wrong I was. Or to quote any such occurrences. If he really wanted to call me out, he could even post in the GD thread and take me to pieces, what with me being so wrong and all.
He hasn't. He won't.

If Leander believed that I somehow violated the rules of GD he could have quoted a line, a phrase, a word I used which showed such a thing. He could discuss things I said which violate the GD rules, with specific examples, rather than vague personal insults with zero substantiation. He could report the posts themselves in GD. He could PM GD mods and ask them to discuss their policies. He could do the same with the board's admins.

If Leander believed that Tom really favored me he could look at the knock down, drag out fights I've had with Tom, in public and still on the record. He could ask Tom to substantiate the fact that I have been quite antagonistic and outright insulting to him more than once in the past over his moderation style, carrying out long arguments via PM or email. Leander could then apologize to Tom for making such claims in the first place, were he so inclined.

This isn't about a discussion of GD rules, it's a rather risible accusation that Tom considers me a "buddy" and he displays bias in 'helping me out' unfairly. And it's a chance to flame me outside of the Pit and make stuff up about me.

~shrugs~

[leander]

Decaf.

Anyways, I'm sorry, since you're not just flaming me outside of the Pit because you know full well that I was correct and you'd prefer to foot stomp and impotently cast fictional claims about my behavior, I'm sure you're perfectly able to prove I was wrong and was in fact just ranting, spittle flecked, childishly and frothy mouthed, you charmer you.

I eagerly await your cite of any and all of your posts showing how I was wrong on the facts or used fallacious logic.
I'm sure you can provide those facts immediately.

For someone who seems to pride himself on his mad debating skillz, you're not very good at reading comprehension, are you?

I never said whether you were correct or not. I merely pointed out that your posts are ridiculously over the top and most definitely "provocative and unnecessarily hostile". And yes, they are also ranting, spittle flecked and childish (whether they are correct or not). It's a shame, because you seem like a fairly smart fellow but unfortunately you take a giant dump in every Israeli thread instead of merely trying to argue with and/or educate people.

In general I don't bother wasting my time with people that engage in such behaviour.

/end hijack

[leander]

If Leander believed that I somehow violated the rules of GD he could have quoted a line, a phrase, a word I used which showed such a thing.

Once again, reading comprehension fails you. This time I'll leave it up to you to figure it out. Come back to me when you do. :)

[FinnAgain]

Very, very interesting. Surely you can point to me saying anywhere that I have 'mad debate skills'. Of course we both know you made it up, but anyways... let me try to explain a bit to you why "reading comprehension" assumes that the thing you're trying to comprehend isn't just angry bombastic noise, ya know, like a rant. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed that you were at least trying to mount a semi-coherent argument as to how I'd done something wrong. I knew that your little song and dance about my behavior in GD was a pretense, because you still can't actually cite anything of mine which was over the line for GD let alone anything that was "over the top". No "ranting", no "outbursts". And, you've actually just reached the low point of pretending that 100% correct factual refutations that I engage in are 'taking a dump' in a GD thread, while tellingly you have not one word to spare for those who posts fiction and ignorance in GD which necessitates those factual refu, er, I mean, horrible horrible no good very mean ranty rants.

You aint got nuthin, and you know it.

And please, this is no hijack.
Your fiction about Tom letting my conduct in the thread 'slide' is what started this. You then went on to flame me in several posts because you evidently can't figure out how to find the Pit. Hijack? Your whine about me is the entire substance of what you've just posted.

P.S. You could always stop this game where you post bullshit, I catch you, and you babble about me lacking "reading comprehension". But again, we both know that the reason why you won't attempt to pretzel yourself up here is because you alleged that I was somehow "out of line" and yet that's just another thing you've made up about me, because you can't cite a single word, phrase or sentence of mine that was out of line as per GD rules. You can't cite a single word I said to amanset that was over the line, because you're making it up.

You won't exert the energy to justify that fiction because, well, it's mighty hard to provide proof of something you imagined. But you'll keep slinging insults.

[leander]

I have to admit your post made me laugh, kid.

My "cite" was that entire page of your usual over the top vitriol. As I said, it's unfortunate that you can't get that little tick under control, but that's really your problem, not mine (thank Og).

As far as tomndebb is concerned, the matter is whether he shows bias in his modding. For some very bizarre reason this question keeps coming up again and again. ;)

[FinnAgain]

So, pretty much, you're trying to say:
'You are an over the top ranter who froths at the mouth and shits in every thread on this subject with your spittle flecked ranting and childish outbursts. Not like me, calm, collected, and polite.'

You haven't looked up words like "irony" or "Janus" recently, have you?


My "cite" was that entire page of your usual over the top vitriol.

Here, why don't you quote one whole paragraph of this "over the top" vitriol that I directed at a single other poster in GD. Can't do that?
How about a line?
How about a phrase?

There some actual reason, other than the obvious, as to why you can't cite a single word to back up your game of Let's Pretend?

[leander]

Too funny! :)

[DSYoungEsq]

Well, we all know your opinion of the mods here DS. ;)

-That was of course for DSYoungEsq - tacoloco squeezed in (a good point) inbetween posts.

You might ask Marley23 what he thinks my opinion of his moderating has been at times, and there are, and have been others with whom I have discussed moderating tactics here. But, unlike some with a perverse desire to flame every moderating decision because they cannot just let authority get on with its business, I usually take my complaints behind the scenes, where, I assure you, they tend to obtain a much better, and more helpful, reception.

As for your continued attempt to establish that tomndebb is biased in his moderating in favor of certain posters, you fail. All you have shown is that he properly admonished one poster for improper behavior, and failed to admonish a poster who, while perhaps histrionic, wasn't violating the rules. Goodness, if the mods started punishing posters here merely for being less than polite in their posting, well, many of us would have gone away long ago, including you for your remarks to Tuba earlier in the Atalaya thread. ;)

[TubaDiva]

Leander:

This thread is filled with your personal insults to people, every one very much against the rules.

This is a notice that you are formally warned for all those violations. Further action may well be pending, discussion is underway.

[leander]

Leander:

This thread is filled with your personal insults to people, every one very much against the rules.

This is a notice that you are formally warned for all those violations. Further action may well be pending, discussion is underway.

I have very clearly insulted the posts, not the posters. Which I believe is within the rules. The only thing coming close to an insult of a poster is the "reading comprehension" comment, which is used quite often in GD.

Could you please point out specifically where I have used "personal insults" here?

[DSYoungEsq]

For someone who seems to pride himself on his mad debating skillz, you're not very good at reading comprehension, are you?

I have very clearly insulted the posts, not the posters. Which I believe is within the rules. The only thing coming close to an insult of a poster is the "reading comprehension" comment, which is used quite often in GD.

Could you please point out specifically where I have used "personal insults" here?

Well, this post is an example of a personal insult.

But, to be fair, that's the only one in this thread that I noticed. Now, the thread about the Atalaya overlords... <shrug>

[leander]

Well, this post is an example of a personal insult.

But, to be fair, that's the only one in this thread that I noticed. Now, the thread about the Atalaya overlords... <shrug>

Well, I appreciate your honesty here - but as I pointed out, the "reading comprehension" line has been used in GD on more than one occasion.

Still waiting on TubaDiva to respond...

[DSYoungEsq]

Mmm, there was more to that post than just the words "reading comprehension" that was insulting. ;)