REPOST: "Fired for being politically incorrect"

Earlier this evening I had all instances of Melin's post "Fired for being politically incorrect" pulled. On reflection, I should have left it up in the Pit, so I'm reposting.

Concerning the substance of Melin's post, I'll just say that the issue is not political correctness, but rather getting into a public dispute with another board moderator. I have had a talk with the other moderator and do not expect this to happen again.

Here's Melin's post:

-----

I am posting this here as well as in other forums because I know not everyone reads every forum, and I'd like for as many of the Teeming Millions to see this as possible.
Political "in"correctness has led to me being fired as moderator for MPSIMS at the Straight Dope. I will be posting this message in all of the related boards (the old board, the SDMB2, and the newsgroup), since I am sure that it will be deleted from this board as soon as anyone with the power to delete sees it, just as the thread which gave rise to it has been deleted without comment.

Those who have known me for the last year or so, on the old board and on this board, know that I have strong feelings that race and ethnicity are matters which should not govern our daily affairs or our government's interaction with us, or much else. Individuals should be evaluated as individuals on their own merits, regardless of race or ancestry. I have argued against and will continue to argue against those who make generalizations about groups based upon the color of skin, rather than evaluating people based on their own merits.

Over the last few days a debate developed on the General Questions Board, on a thread called "minorities." Don't look for it -- it's been deleted. Fortunately, before it was deleted, I saved all of the relevant postings. On that thread I made the comment -- as I have made elsewhere -- that it is my belief (and my practice, and my instructions to my children) that in filling out forms that ask for nationality and race, the only answers that should be given are "American" (or whatever one's citizenship happens to be) and "Human." It is my belief, stated many times, that we would do better to focus on our commonalities rather than our differences.

Another board moderator is employed in public health. She and I have disagreed about this issue of forms for a long time, and in our discussion this time she pointed out that identification of race can be relevant for public health purposes, for disease tracking, etc. This was a point I hadn't considered, and I acknowledged that this was a legitimate use for the information, and that I would modify my practices accordingly when filling out forms that were to be used for such a purpose. When other posters agreed with my basic philosophy about forms, however, this moderator told them that they just "didn't get it." Anyone who disagreed with her position was told that "white people" (her words) have the "luxury" to ignore or not "to worry about racial/cultural issues" (her words), because they are white and can disappear into the mainstream. That comment was repeated at least three times.

I ignored this comment the first or second time it was made, but I finally responded to it, asserting that such a negative comment about a group of people based solely upon their skin color was racist, arrogant garbage. Racial issues affect every person in this country, regardless of race, and one's skin color does not give one the "luxury" not to worry about those issues. I ran the post by the moderator of General Questions before I posted it, and got no objection to it.

Based on my response I was subjected to personal attacks as being hostile, defensive, throwing a hissy fit, etc. In an off-board conversation I offered to apologize for my remarks if she would apologize for hers, and she refused. She further took the matter to Ed Zotti, who has fired me as moderator because I would not back down from my assertion that as both a moral person and a moderator I should not let comments which slur a group of people based on their skin color -- whatever color that skin might be -- go unchallenged. I was told that this was not "moderator temperment," particularly because there was another moderator involved. It is now my perception that it is apparently okay to publicly make statements based on skin color if one is a moderator, but it is not okay to publicly challenge those statements if one is a moderator.

I note that was not the only poster who was offended by the remarks made by the moderator. Other posters challenged her on that statement, from stating that it "ruffled their feathers" to that it made them "VERY ANGRY." One of those posters cited a history of working against bigotry and for civil rights. My own extended family is multiracial; I have worked for minority causes and marched in more a few protests, and my ex-Jesuit husband has been shot at at least once by an unhappy grower for daring to stand up for the rights of migrant farmworkers in North Carolina. Nevertheless, this moderator felt that she could summarily dismiss my opinions and the opinions of other posters -- without knowing anything about us except her assumptions regarding our skin color -- with the comment that "white people" have the luxury to ignore racial issues.

In today's politically correct world it is not fashionable to bash gays, and so on the "Gay Pride - WTF" thread in the Pit another moderator can call a member poster a homophobe, a "jerkbag," and a "bigot" and, a month later, still be moderating. Indeed, when a member suggested to that moderator that he should stay out of the discussion, a board administrator came in to defend him. It is very fashionable, and politically correct, however, to bash whites -- or to minimize their sincerity or their understanding -- when whites make statements on racial issues that those who believe their own racial "credentials" are more sympathetic do not agree with.

And so the person who made the sweeping generalization about a group of people based upon the color of their skin will remain here to moderate among you, and the person who challenged that sweeping generalization as being an arrogant and racist comment will not.

I want to thank the Teeming Millions -- and especially my beloved MPSIMSers -- for all the fun and support, for the EMs and the IMs that have come with being a Board Moderator, as you have asked questions or sought assistance or shared ideas. Your new MPSIMS moderator, Eutychus (Pat) is a great guy who was a moderator on the old AOL board too (we could never figure what to call him -- the lone male in the midst of all those Board Goddesses! ) My thanks to to the other Board Moderators -- except perhaps one -- for the fun and support in the past.

-Melin
Former Board Goddess

Jeeze, Ed. I liked it better when it looked like you were trying to cover something up. You've just sucked all the intrigue out of the situation!

In all seriousness, I'm curious about that too -- if two moderators were involved in a dispute, why was only one of them fired? Compared to some of the stuff found here in the Pit, the "minorities" thread was tame -- and unoffensive. If one person (moderator or not) is offended by another, they can settle it between them -- here in the Pit, by e-mail, or by guns at ten paces if they want. It's the firing people part that I'm not getting.

It's been my opinion that moderators should not get involved in ANY discussion whatsoever on the board that they moderate, period. Quietly monitoring for abuses and closing down super-long threads; that's about the extent of what it should mean to be a moderator: a lurker with power.

I don't post alot, but I'm read almost all of the threads. If you are going to fire one moderator, then fire the other one. When I punish my children for fighting, I don't send one to their room but let the other one keep playing.

Good point, RTA. However, on the thread in question, neither person involved in this dispute was the moderator of GQ. Papabear did have a good point - this does lend a hand to the argument for moderators to post comments to a thread under a different screen name.

And jodih, I've made the same points you did. Compared to some of the fights that have occurred on this board, that thread was nothing!

------------------
"And the knowlege that they fear is a weapon to be used against them."
-Neil Peart, RUSH, "The Weapon"

I ran the post by the moderator of General Questions before I posted it, and got no objection to it.

Me

I have learned in a friendly discussion with the GQ moderator that he does not remember this the way I do.

So . . . I want to apologize to Nickrz for giving the mistaken impression that he had in any way "approved" my offending post before it was posted. He did not.

-Melin

What's wrong with a public debate between moderators? Why is it different than a debate between two members? Moderators are human too, and we all understand that; no one expects them to be perfectly neutral. As long as they're not abusing their power and deleting each other's posts or something, what's the harm?

------------------
"Eppur, si muove!" - Galileo Galilei

What a load of crap. Melin is, 'scuse me, WAS the moderator for MPSIMS... and as the Minorities thread was not in that forum, she was not acting as a moderator in her postings. It's completely ridiculous, not to mention plain wrong, to have her removed as a moderator of an entirely different forum. She did a wonderful job in MPSIMS, this was completely uncalled for. Nickrz, as the moderator of GQ, was fully within his rights to delete or edit Melin's posts, but there is absolutely no reason to strip her of her well-deserved status. If this is the way it's done, then I recommend that Nickrz be fired for posting things like (paraphrasing) "Get the fuck out!" and the like in BBQ threads. Doesn't make sense does it? Because Nickrz still does a good job of moderating GQ. Melin's opinions and postings were not based on junk... they were well thought out, and intelligently presented. So, Jill and Nickrz didn't agree with her. Too damn bad. She didn't agree with them either and I don't see anything about them being ousted. I truly am stunned that this has happened. I thought the purpose of the Straight Dope was to fight ignorance, not perpetuate it.

Guess I've finally got to post on this great message board.

I've been lurking here since literally day one. I wasn't on AOL, so wasn't involved in those boards, but read the weekly columns religiously. I read a lot of message boards, and post to a few on a regular basis (I'm one of the "old regulars" on snopes).

I have to agree that the censorship shown here is way out of line. I don't always agree with Melin, but her views are just as valid as anyone elses. If you want to "draw the line" between moderator and regular poster, then just about everyone here should be fired.

Thank you for re-posting this message so others can follow this saga. Remember the credo of the Straight Dope that you are "Fighting Ignorance"... Let's continue to do so here even if it goes against the agenda of another moderator.

Yeah... I know I'm a Junior Member... respond and free me!!!

-Spud

ChrisCTP -

::Applause:::

My thoughts exactly.

Well, I've gotta say -- this whole thing was clearly VERY badly handled. I didn't frequent the "minorities" thread, so I don't know the specifics of the debate but it certainly seems unfair that only one of the offending moderators was fired. Perhaps a better way of handling this would have been to clarify the rules against moderator debate -- rules, BTW, that don't seem to have been enforced previously. Since the firing was public (or at least has become so), I think the powers that be ought to publicly defend the reason to fire Melin retain the other moderator. Otherwise this may all fester and ruin what has been a great board and a nifty on-line community.

------------------
Jess
Full of 'satiable curtiosity

Sheesh. In my previous post "publicly defend the reason to fire Melin" should read "publicly defend the decision to fire Melin."

Jess (who was trying to talk and type at the same time)

What a load of crap. Melin is, 'scuse me, WAS the moderator for MPSIMS... and as the Minorities thread was not in that forum, she was not acting as a moderator in her postings. It's completely ridiculous, not to mention plain wrong, to have her removed as a moderator of an entirely different forum. She did a wonderful job in MPSIMS, this was completely uncalled for.

Absolutely! I haven't been here that long but I never thought I would have witnessed something so unjust on this forum.

I've seen other moderators post some really rude things. Why weren't they forcibly removed for the moderatorship?

The whole thing seems absurd.

I go away for a few days and what happens? You all go insane on me. I thought I was dealing with adults on these boards, for the most part, at least. Now I find petty, pig-ignorant behavior running rampant among moderators and administrators alike. Is it the heat?

Melin, I thought you were a delightful moderator of MPSIMS and I shall miss you.

Nickrz, you weasel - get a backbone. If things were going awry on YOUR board, why didn't YOU handle it? And how about standing up for Melin? I seem to remember a thread, since deleted, originally posted by C#3 when he was threatened with expulsion - you were quite clear about your views on censorship then, before you became a moderator and tasted power for the first time.

You all disappoint me greatly.

Well, since my previous post of support got deleted along with Melin's original post, I'll repeat it.

Melin, this is a drag. I'm very sorry to hear it happened and I think you are owed a huge apology.

Hey, Ed - Would you care to give us your story of what happened here? 'Cause if it happened the way Melin says then you come out lookin' real bad here.



------------------

For what it's worth; I have never threatened anyone with expulsion, nor have I ever deleted any thread (much less one of C3's).

I have always been quite clear on my views on censorship. I'm dead-set against it. If someone has a different view of what I've said on that subject, I invite them to search my archives and refresh their memory.

I think it's rather amusing that since the original brouhaha ocurred in GQ, many people assume I was directly involved. I was not.

Melin has already explained, to my satisfaction, the misunderstanding that lead to my being dragged into her post. My role was a tangential and completely inconsequential one, but I suppose you are all free to imagine anything you like.

If you think I am trying to divorce myself from this issue, you are entirely correct.
I strove mightily to stay out of it from the get-go, but was found guilty on the basis of my moderation of the forum where this unseemly tragedy took place.

My job here is to serve and protect the interests of The Straight Dope Message board,
and in that I will brook no quarter. I stand behind Ed and Tuba and the rest of The Straight Dope staff not because of blind loyalty or some sort of evil cabal - but because I know the facts of the matter.

Yeah, but why did just one of them get fired? Was it just the caucasian moderator
that got the ax?

For your information, C3, since you rarely bother to be in possession of a fact before you open your big goddamned mouth, JillGat and Melin are both white. And they both have multiracial families.

Melin, I would not have had this happen to you. I've always felt that you (and, indeed, the rest of the moderators both here and on the AOL SDMB) were always fair. And I have, obviously, been able to disagree with you publicly without repercussion.

I think the whole thing could have been largely avoided if Jill had said, "The only people who have the luxury of ignoring race as a factor also happen to be white." It's a small but subtle difference, and a sentiment with which I agree.

Not having read the original minorities thread, I'm not going to venture an opinion on the actions that have been taken. However, I have read some people's suggestion that board moderators should have a moderator screen name and a seperate non-moderator screen name. In my opinion, that's a bad idea. I can foresee the possibility that people could be having problems with moderators and not realize it. You could get into an argument with Mike King and then find your posts being deleted by moderator Gnik Ekim.

Folks, bottom line:

The reality of our society is that it is acceptable to talk about racism against non-whites. However, open your mouth about racism against whites -- even to the extent of arguing that it is possible (and many will shout you down claiming it is not) -- and you have a problem!

It all boils down to Melin standing up and pointing out that someone was being racist regarding whites, and she got sacked for it, because that's not an "acceptable" view.

Semantics and "he said, she said" debates aside, that's what happened.

I expected better from TSD. I didn't realize they too were an arm of the Ministry of Information...

NICKRZ says:

My job here is to serve and protect the interests of The Straight Dope Message board, and in that I will brook no quarter. I stand behind Ed and Tuba and the rest of The Straight Dope staff not because of blind loyalty or some sort of evil cabal - but because I know the facts of the matter.

"To serve and protect"? What -- you're a Board Cop? Well, you apparently didn't do a very good job of keeping the peace on your beat. And could you possibly sound any more pompous?

We are all adults here and non of us are out to do anything that would harm of threaten the message board, which gives us so much entertainment and information. The moderators and management would be well-served to assume we can handle things maturely unless and until it is proven otherwise. It's nice to know that you stand behind the Straight Dope Staff because you know the facts -- bully for you. But you must recognize that the posters do not know the facts and no one will TELL us what the heck happened. So your assurances of your loyalty and the rightness of your position cut no ice here. If you want our support you're going to have to explain what's going on.

I've gotta go with jodih, on this one, Nick. Your ass is in for a lot of wear and tear if you stay on that fence much longer.

Excellently put, Jodi.


------------------
------------
--Rowan
Shopping is still cheaper than therapy. --my Aunt Franny

I have never seen so many SDMBers agree on anything. For the first time, we have C#3, RTA, Melin, PLD, jodih, myself, and all the rest uniting on an issue.

NickRz, you claim to stand behind Ed and Tuba (when no one else here does) because you "know the facts of the matter". Would you care to fill us in? We're adults here.

I know I only have Melin's POV here, but she sounds morally in the right to me. If she did indeed take a stand against a racist statement, as it seems for her post she did, then I aspire to do the same. And if it costed her her job, I respect her the more because of it.

Ed, tell us what happened or I'm going to have to believe you're covering something up.

Your Quadell

Wow, Nickrz, that did NOT help your cause. You sound like a self-important mall cop. You may want to rethink, or at least restate, your POV.

Kudos to you, jodih...I agree.

Well, Ed, are you going to explain your side, or let us seethe here in our own growing bitterness? And JillGat, are you going to defend yourself, or shall Melin become a sainted martyr and you the Big Bad Bitch?

Probably not. It seems the way most of these things are "handled" is not to handle them at all. Ignore them, refuse to speak, and eventually everyone will stop asking about it and things will move on.

What a healthy way to handle problems. Such integrity. Such morality. Such fairness.

Such cowardice.

Just a quick reply to the above, and then I figure to be done with this.

The two board moderators involved in this dispute were Melin and Jill. Both had been posting to a thread called "minorities" (since pulled) on the General Questions forum.

Jill contacted me Monday morning to say that Melin had posted what Jill considered a personal attack against her. She wanted me to pull this post and her own (Jill's) posts that precipitated it, on the grounds that it looked bad to have two board moderators quarreling in public.

There had been a previous incident in which Melin appeared to side with a user against another moderator (not Jill) on an administrative matter. I had sent a note to all moderators saying that I expected them to keep their disagreements internal. At the time I was thinking mainly of disagreements about board moderating duties. I was reluctant to tell board moderators they couldn't get into ANY sort of argument. But I had warned them against appearing overly partisan.

Anyway, I read the "minorities" thread at Jill's request. Jill had made a certain point repeatedly in several different posts, and once or twice had been a bit snippy about it. Melin had replied with a strongly worded but brief post to the effect that Jill's comments were "bullshit." Jill had posted something saying she hoped she hadn't been misunderstood, etc.

The whole thing seemed pretty mild compared to some flame wars we've had and I told Jill I didn't see the need to delete any posts. Apparently she'd also been in touch with Bruce, the GQ moderator, and he said the same thing.

That evening I got a note telling me to take another look at the "minorities" thread. It had gotten pretty ugly. Other people had taken sides; a friend of Jill's had jumped on Melin with both feet. Melin had posted a long indignant note accusing Jill of racism, among other things. I was appalled. I was not concerned about the substance of the argument; I simply did not want two moderators duking it out in public. I sent the following note to both Melin and Jill (quoted in its entirety): "I'm not going to get into who's right and who's wrong, who started it, or any of that stuff. I'll just say this: I do not ever want to see a public dispute on the SDMB between SDMB moderators. Please acknowledge."

Jill's reply, in its entirety, was, "No problem here." Melin sent me a long note recapitulating the entire argument, suggesting that she felt it was a moderator's duty to challenge racist statements, etc.

It seemed clear to me at this point that Melin just wasn't getting it - that the purpose of having moderators was to moderate, not to pour fuel on the flames. So I decided Melin would have to go. The question was whether I should can Jill too, since she had been partly at fault. I decided against it, since (a) Jill's initial instinct was that moderators shouldn't bicker in public, and had brought this matter to my attention privately, before it got out of hand, and (b) she stopped arguing when I made it clear I wanted an end to this. Melin, on the other hand, is STILL arguing.

I am sure Melin is a good person. Clearly she is smart and articulate. But there's no question in my mind that we're better off having her as a user than a moderator. Jill has made her share of mistakes (hey, so have I) but has shown a better understanding of what this moderator thing is all about.

This is completely ridiculous . I have lost ALL respect for the Straight Dope, something that I have cherished and respected for many years. This is the last place that I thought this kind of crap would happen. This is truly sad. Management will not be allowed to forget this, as I'm sure my fellow members will attest to. If there is really a Cecil, I have lost all respect for you, too, for not handling this yourself. This is, afterall, YOUR SHOW. You should all be ashamed of yourselves!

Thanks for the explaination, Ed. But what interests me is why the "minorities" thread was deleted in its entirity and why you spent so much time running around deleting Melin's threads, when you could have just posted the above response (last night!)

If ANY OTHER MEMBER of this board had made the statements Melin had made, we wouldn't be in this situation. Are we saying moderators can't make comments on threads? Even if it's not in their area? If so, better remove David B - lord knows he's made a lot of comments over in Great Debates, some nice, and some not. Time to remove him!(And yes, that was sarcastic for the humor-impared.)

And one last thing. Put back the goddam thread, folks. Let everyone at least see what happened. That way we can all use our intelligence that this board purports to promote, and decide for ourselves. I've never felt my sig line was more appropriate, which is sad. I expected more from this board.

------------------
"And the knowlege that they fear is a weapon to be used against them."
-Neil Peart, RUSH, "The Weapon"

What the heck is wrong with moderators arguing? And on a thread they're not even moderating, yet?! You've done far more harm to our perception of moderators with your actions than a thousand arguing Jill and Melins. As long as they perform their duties honestly, they have the same rights to publically argue as any one of us. I don't care in the slightest whether it says "moderator" or "member" after someone's name. They can disagree with me, I can disagree with them, and anyone can disagree with anyone else.

------------------
"Eppur, si muove!" - Galileo Galilei

Well I, for one, have substantially LESS of a problem with this now. It appears that Mr. Zotti decided things were out of hand and he handled it as he saw fit -- hey, he's the administrator. We might not all agree with how he handled it, but that's HIS job, not ours.

The problem for me always was the furtive, cloak-and-dagger purging going on, which was (and is) antithetical to the "fight against ignorance". If you race around deleting stuff and firing people and then put up a wall of silence, you can expect us posters to get suspicious -- and upset. This is not to say that every detail of board administration should be publicly handled, but when a public discourse suddenly becomes a MISSING discourse, we have to start wondering what's going on. I only have two further comments.

First, it seems to me that this whole dust-up could have been avoided if Mr. Zotti had posted at the end of the minorities thread something like: "This is getting out of hand; everyone simmer down or I'm locking this thread. Melin and Jill, we need to clarify the duties of moderators, and I'll be e-mailing you both."

Second, it seems to me that perhaps Mr. Zotti needs to clarify what is and is not acceptable for moderators to post. Apparently, not only are moderators prohibited from disagreeing on adminsistrative matters -- where the necessitiy of a united front is understandable -- they are prohibited from disagreeing in their capacity as posters, simply because they are moderators as well. It's not for me to pass judgment of the wisdom of that as a policy, but I do think it should have been made clear to the moderators before now.

The bottom line for me is that I think this is a wonderful environment for discourse and humor on a wide variety of subjects, and I'd like to see it get back to that. I still think Melin's firing was unfortunate, and I hope she'll continue to participate as a poster, because I think she was a valuable addition to our twisted little group.

The explanation of why Melin was terminated has left me with questions as to the "policy" of mods posting. Can two moderators not disagree on a topic? If I were to post a "nature vs. nurture" question in GQ and two (non-GQ) mods had different opinions, could they not post and defend their posts?

Sweety, there's no need to be condescending.
I buy the books. I look at the "Chicago Reader" banner ads, and I even click on them sometimes. We make The Straight Dope money, which is why they try to honor our wishes. And we obviously wish to know the truth. That is, after all, why we're on this message board in the first place.

Now let's not get sidetracked by unrelated semantic arguments.

Ed has the right to fire whoever he wants. The fact that almost all of us disapprove, though, is a bad sign.

Doesn't anybody have the old thread in their cashe somewhere?

Your Quadell

There'a petition in MPSIMS for the reinstatement of Melin as a moderator. I put my name on it, and I recommend that everyone else who's disgusted, stunned, or otherwise displeased with the situation should, too.

And as I stated over there... the other moderaters might consider cleaning up their now sullied reputations by putting their names on it, too, if they even care what we, the general public, thinks about them.

Apparantly this is a matter of some great interest and concern to your users, Ed. It also appears that 9 out 10 think you made a bad move, even after hearing the facts of the matter from all sides. Is it possible we're right?

Guys, you know what? We're not taking a vote on this. It's an internal matter.

As for reposting the original thread, I don't have a copy. If somebody else has a copy, feel free to repost it in this forum. I reserve the right to edit out the parts where everybody goes ballistic; that's why I pulled the thing in the first place.

I reserve the right to edit out the parts where everybody goes ballistic; that's why I pulled the thing in the first place.

Then how will we understand why you pulled it?

------------------
"Eppur, si muove!" - Galileo Galilei

:chanting:Me-lin,Me-lin,Me-lin

As long as the moderators aren't getting into it with someone on their own board, what difference does it make? I believe firing was uncalled for. Close the thread if it's continued beyond all hope but don't punish someone for having a strongly based conviction.

------------------
And can it be that in a world so full and busy, the loss
of one weak creature makes a void in any heart, so
wide and deep that nothing but the width and depth
of vast eternity can fill it up!
-Charles Dickens "Dombey and Son"

Sheesh. Even Cecil admits it when he's wrong.

I'm going to make a couple of points:

1. Once we delete a post/thread, it's gone from the system. We can't hide stuff and later unhide it.

2. If it weren't for the moderators, this MB would have been taken over by the spammers long ago. I should know, I've pulled my share of purely commercial posts.

3. Is OpalCat still reading this site?

4. I'm sad that this whole thing happened.

Lynn/SDStaff Lynn
For the Straight Dope

Mike,

"user" was Ed's word, not mine.

Here's my vote: Goodbye

Well. I'm glad Ed took the trouble to let us hear his side of the story. Now that I see the rationale behind Melin being fired and Jill being retained, I'm willing to let it drop. I still think it was poorly handled, but this is Ed's site and he has the right to make management decisions as he chooses. As far as I'm concerned it's over.

------------------
Jess
Full of 'satiable curtiosity

Ed:

What is the point of saying the original can be re-posted if the parts we are interested in seeing for ourselves are deleted??

Oy vay.

And while you may not be taking a vote, that doesn't mean we aren't still right, only that you have the power to ignore us. Bully for you.



------------------
*************
Are YOU ready for Y2K? Take my advice: Panic early and avoid the rush.

I'm going to stick my neck out and more or less side with Ed here--not that I think either Melin or Jill did anything unforgivable or even wrong (I've always emjoyed both of their postings). But what needs to be done from now on is to firmly establish rules and outlines for a Moderator's duties. Maybe they should be even stricter, and Moderators should not post their opinions. In that case, people should re-think whether they'd rather BE Moderators, or just posters (me, I'm happy to stay a simple, shy little poster). The trouble arose because Ed, Melin and Jill all had different thoughts and opinions as to what a Moderator can and can't do. If that were laid out in black and white, it would not happen again. I also get the feeling there are some Personal Things going on here, and people get fired because of those every day (right or wrong).

Tell ya what, Ed...I think you've made it abundantly clear that our opinions have no value because we only post here, while you are the great and powerful Internal.

If that's the attitude of the admin here, I'll go elsewhere.

The Straight Dope may not be dead, but I think cancer has just been diagnosed.

I agree with Flora. I also think it's really easy for all of us to Monday-morning-quaterback this thing, with what should have been done, but that's pointless. Someone has to make the decisions on how we keep all the balls in the air around here, and it is counter-productive for the peanut gallery to second-guess those decisions. I'd like to think that if it happened again, it would be handled differently, but I see little reason in continuing to beat this particular dead horse.

I also think the idea of flying along without moderators is silly. They're the grease beneath our wheels (if not the wind beneath our wings) and they keep things running smoothly around here. It's too bad there wasn't greater clarification of the parameters of their duties before now, but I hope that's being rectified.

[quote]There'a petition in MPSIMS for the reinstatement of Melin as a moderator. I put my name on it, and I recommend that everyone else who's disgusted, stunned, or otherwise displeased with the situation should, too.
And as I stated over there... the other moderaters might consider cleaning up their now sullied reputations by putting their names on it, too, if they even care what we, the general public, thinks about them. [/quote}

Ed has spoken; some of our other moderators have already weighed in with their stuff, here's mine.

We ask our moderators not to fistfight in public. That's not argument, that's not discussion; that's disagreement that topples over into abuse. If staffers have difficulties with one another, it's an internal matter and should not be on public display.

If you work here, we want you to (no pun intended) moderate your actions. By the nature of the situation, staff members are held to a higher standard of behavior than users; all of you certainly expect stuff from us that you do not expect of one another.

And that's as it should be.

If a staffer does not wish to abide by these conditions, then what choice is left? Any reasonable person (and you are all reasonable people) can see how this plays out.

A resignation was tendered . . . and it was accepted. Hence, it was by mutual consent.

She was not "fired for being politically incorrect;" she can't work here if she won't follow rules. For anybody to say otherwise is to be untruthful to you, which is unforgiveable.

It's complicated by the fact that this simple matter of staffing has been blown up into a full-fledged psychodrama, with the "victim" as the star of the show. Why she chose to do that, I cannot begin to tell you; I can only say that it baffles and saddens me.

I am infuriated that you as users and we as staffers have been so used and abused. It disturbs the trust between us that must exist for this site to be successful; if you do not trust or believe us, then what good is anything that we do?

I hope that we can recover from this . . . and go forward.

your humble TubaDiva/SDStaffDiv
for the Straight Dope

PS You should also know that this woman was my dear friend and I hired her over the objections of others; I let affection take the place of reason. My mistake, and I have paid the price; I have lost the friendship.

Put the freakin' Minorities thread back up, in its entirety, and unedited. Close the thread so no one else adds to it; just make it a read-only thread.

We need to see the whole thing, including the "ugly" parts. Ed doesn't have a copy, but I know Melin has some of the posts. Put it back up.

And nice to know our opinion is ultimately of no value to the way things are handled in such situations, Ed. That's simply repulsive.

This is the pit, right???

Up until now, I might have disagreed with some decisions (particularly the ongoing refusal to let the unexpurgated minorities thread return), but I did not sense a truly reprehensible attitude until Ed's last post.

Ed, you can take your attitude and stuff it! "We're not taking a vote here." Oh yes we are! You can ignore it if you like, but I am voting that 1) I've clicked on my last banner on your site, 2) I've bought my last print copy of any SD book, and 3) I'm looking for a good alternative to this site.

You can call us users, customers, whatever you like, but piss enough of us off, and your franchise won't be worth snot. You've made your condescending, disdainful, superioristic attitude abundantly clear.

Me, I think it's a plot to keep everyone interested in this board - something has to compensate for the gawdawful load time, why not a combination of defining racism and constitutional rights?

I am infuriated that you as users and we as staffers have been so used and abused.

Tuba, you seem to be indicating that Melin abused us in some way. How do you rectify this with the fact most of us feel she shouldn't have been kicked out in the first place? You seem to be playing the "That bad woman, I'm sorry she did this to you" game, and I doubt it will be very effective.

Let's try to get some sense here. Does anyone disagree with the following statements?

1) Ed has a policy that moderators not publicly (adamantly) disagree with other moderators.

2) Ed has no problem with a moderator posting controversial posts about racism in their own names.

3) One did, and Melin felt she had to speak out publicly against a public statement she found abhorant. We don't know exactly what she said.

4) Ed said "stop." Melin said "No" because of issues of conscience. Melin was fired.

5) All traces of Melin's POV were deleted. Ed admitted this was a mistake, and put her POV back in the pitt.

6) Most of us think Ed made a bad move.
Most of think this could be avoided.
Most of us believe that aside from disagreeing publicly with a moderator, Melin was doing a great job.

7) Almost all of us want to know the details of what really happened in the offending thread.

Are we in agreement?

Your Quadell

P.S. Now let's see how many relevant posts I missed while I was writing this...