An open letter to all moderators

[RavingMad]

How do you moderators view your role on these boards? How does the Chicago Reader view your role?

I ask because to my mind, a moderator should be just that: one who moderates and facilitates discussions between others -- not one who takes an active participation in those discussions. Personally, I don't feel it is a moderator's job to join discussions, criticize arguments (or the poster making the argument), or applaud them either.

As soon as a moderator makes it clearly known whose side s/he is on, all semblance of neutrality disappears. If a moderator makes a judgment to delete the inappropriate remarks of a poster with whom the moderator is known to disagree, the action immediately smacks of bias -- even if the decision in that case was perfectly legitimate.


Actions I personally feel moderators should engage in:
· Calling obnoxious posters to task -- in an official, productive, I'm-a-representative-of-the-Straight-Dope-Message-Board sort of way, not an I'm-a-regular-here-and-you're-an-ass sort of way
· Providing pertinent links to topics both external on the Web, and internal to previously-posted SDMB material and Cecil columns
· Removing threads from inappropriate boards, placing them where they belong, and succinctly explaining why the decision was made
· Generally helping the experience here be positive and enjoyable -- for both newbies and veterans.


Actions I personally feel moderators should not engage in:
· Playing favorites
· The flip side of the above: persecuting those you dislike
· Critiquing a poster's argument

You can probably see a pattern developing here: I think moderators' roles should be as minimalistic as possible in order to stay as neutral as possible. I don't expect moderators to magically lose their bias - but I do expect moderators to be able to control them.

I realize, however, that my view is sorely at odds with the participation level of some moderators. I further realize that most moderators probably took the position because they like the board so much they wanted a more - not less - involved role in it.

So, moderators, what think you?
Dopers? Agree or disagree?



------------------
~ Complacency is far more dangerous than outrage ~

[manhattan]

I obviously can’t say what the moderator’s response might be. But here’s mine.

The UBB software costs $170. Your ISP will install it on your web page for a small fee, probably around $200. Bandwidth is cheap. You can swap ads until you’re on your feet. I figure about 2 grand, all in.

So if you think you can find moderators uninteresting (and uninterested) enough to work under your conditions in exchange for coffee mugs, go for it. Otherwise, quitcherbitchin.

------------------
Livin' on Tums, Vitamin E and Rogaine

[nayaran]

STARK, this is not the way to get David B and Nickrz on your side

Seriously, the mods here, especially David and Nick, were once members like us. They had, and still have, biases that they cannot lose. They shouldn't say that their biases are those of the SD, and I don't think any of them do that. IIRC, the moderators have a special sig that identifies them as such for "official" posts like closing/moving threads or whatever else they do for the SDMB. I think that they should be able to post their opinions as their own. Not playing favorites, just stating their feelings on the subject. "Trollish" behavior should be noted, and the threads deleted, if necessary. Pertinent links are already provided, by members and mods alike. And I'd say that since that fiasco earlier this summer and its fallout, it has been a fairly enjoyable experience, outside of the Pit.

My conclusion: Moderators should be involved with the workings of the board, but should post their opinions and beliefs in moderation.

I'm not picking on you, STARK, but everyone has had something to say about the moderators and their position around here. I guess I've been quiet too long. Don't take it personally, I need all the friends I can get.

(Note: I was logged off AOL while deciding whether to post this. Take from that what you will )

------------------
"Of course, that's just my opinion; I could be wrong."--Dennis Miller

[C K Dexter Haven]

Here's the bottom line, though, STARK: none of the Moderators wants to give up the ability to post. We became Moderators because we enjoy these boards and enjoy posting to them.

Someone suggested that we post under a different screen name, but Ed squashed that for two good reasons:
(a) the whole point is that the Moderators NOT be computerized gizmos searching for naughty words, but people, who can interact with the teeming millions
(b) there's enough paranoia out there as it is.

It's usually pretty clear when we're posting with our Official Hat on, and when we're posting as mere mortal beings. (I guess this post is something of an exception, since I'm posting in my capacity as Moderator, but I'm adding comments that are very much Me-as-Person.)

I think, frankly, that we view our roles as more administrative than parliamentary. We're not judges or chairpersons or coaches who should refrain from the debates; we're more like the maids and janitors and security guards, who happen also to be participants. That's my take.

[Contestant #3]

Stark,

As one that often finds oneself on the receiving end of the bias of one SDMB moderator in particular, of course, I very clearly see your points and agree with them all. I might guess that your witness of the tactics used against me and those that think like me provided the examples and impetus for your post.

There are others that over time have made the same points and suggestions that you have made. Each time, their valid, fair, and articulate suggestions have been quickly dismissed by those in charge. Some of those that believe as you have either left the board in disapointment and frustration, or they have severely curtailed their level of participation.

I won't leave. I'll continue to suffer those that are intimidated by a different point-of-view. I no longer expect any changes to be made. In fact, my criticisms have garnered me deletions and threats of expulsion. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that you have received a "cease and desist" email for having brought up a topic that "stirs things up" (to quote one email that I received).

Hang in there Stark. The redeeming feature of this board is that there is a large collection of people with above-average intelligence, and that helps me to ignore the "Iron Curtain" handling and administration that we face.




------------------
Contestant #3

[Czarcasm]

*sigh*
It's not about you, C#3. That fact of the matter is that this board is run by the rules that they think work best. Their game, their ball, their playing field, their rules. What is so difficult about this concept? Nobody is forcing you to leave, but by the same token, you are not going to force them to change the rules to suit your needs.
Moderators and Moderatites, if I have mistated anything, feel free to correct as you see fit.

[TubaDiva]

Thanks.

If we were guilty as charged, there would be no dissent on these boards and anyone that criticized us would simply vanish, never to be heard from again.

Let common sense and your own eyes be the judge.

your humble TubaDiva/SDStaffDiv
for the Straight Dope

[nayaran]

You people would not believe how scared I was when I saw the number of replies (6) on the thread list. And then I scanned the names on the side of this thread. Yes, I almost screamed when I saw "Contestant #3"

[quote]If we were guilty as charged, there would be no dissent on these boards and anyone that criticized us would simply vanish, never to be heard from again. -- TubaDiva[/q]

Not true, Diva, as I think you know. There would not necessarily be no dissent, just any effective dissent, like a conversational coup that a particular moderator wasn't up to besting. The 'charge' being levelled isn't one of indiscriminate purging, but of a lack of evenhandedness with regard to a specific viewpoint. And there are more ways to discriminate than merely deleting. A moderator can refuse the reasonable requests of one party to a dispute while fulfilling those of another.

Within this context, I was going to complain about what I took to be unfair treatment by DaveB in the "July, 1952" thread, where he deleted an insulting response I made to pldennison as a result of pld's starting a gratuitous insultfest earlier in the thread. When I then requested that he remove all the insults back to Phil's use of an epithet in my direction, he (DaveB) refused, and seemed to make quite a bit of doing so.

I was going to, but in reviewing the thread it appears he has gone in and deleted the posts in question. I'm assuming that he did so after reviewing his actions and deciding his initial refusal was wrong. If so, I congratulate him. Hell, I've even had a civil exchange with pldennison lately, so ya know anything's possible.

However, Stark's remarks are well-made. I would suggest that, if someone wants to be a moderator on one of the boards, that they agree not to involve themselves in threads where a controversy breaks out, except under the circumstances Stark suggests. If they find the need to express themselves irresistible, they should leave a breadcrumb message and move the thread to one of the boards they don't moderate. GQ could be moved to GD and vice versa, it seems to me, since in real terms there's little difference between them, and what there is, is not all that important.

Of course, there may be those who would still charge collusion between moderators, but somebody's gotta do the job, and sometimes you can't have egg in yer beer. However, that doesn't mean you have to settle for Budweiser without asking the pubmeister what's available. Rules may be rules, but rules can and do change to meet new situations.

[Markxxx]

Actually their is one moderator is is most often out of line. He will flame someone.

I read his posts and you can generally knock off the first two paragraphs which are just name calling and then he makes his point. Granted the point is usually correct but it isn't proper for a moderator to use name calling.

Secondly a lot of mods I can see want to do was CA does. Call names. This CA guy is a writer, when he does it, it has a tendency to be funny. When most everyone else (mod or not does it, it is not funny.

Mods and Admins like it or not represent the Straight Dope and should be accountable for higher standards. No one is asking them to stifle their views but do it w/o childish name calling. If you can't give up the job and go back to being a regular member.

[C K Dexter Haven]

Contestant says: << Each time, their valid, fair, and articulate suggestions have been quickly dismissed by those in charge >>

This is absolutely a falsehood. There has been nothing of "quickly dismissed" about it. There was been considerable debate amongst the Moderators and Administrators about these ideas, with some of us supporting and some not. Ed's arguments were ultimately convincing, but I guarantee you there was nothing quick or dismissive about it.

Just because we chose to have our discussions quietly behind the scenes does not mean that there were no discussions. We had decided earlier (some of you will recall) that such discussions should be held quietly amongst the Moderators and not publicly.

And, yes, Markxxx, we agree that Moderators need to be held to a higher standard of behaviour than non-official posters.

See, if I were only a Moderator, I'd have to stop there. By being also a poster, I can add: Nonetheless, Con, please hang on to your illusions, I'd hate to think that reality might impinge.

[Contestant #3]

I made several assertions in my post. Some of them were echoed by others. Dex picked but on one of my statments, and at that, he attempts to wiggle out on a technicality. Apparently the ONE WORD he objects to is "quickly". He affirms that the suggestions were indeed dismissed. He doesn't provide a timeframe, but rather refocuses upon volume...so I still assert that the dismissal was performed "quickly".

The fact that he expounds on that one word within that one statment while witholding comment on the other statements I made is telling.



------------------
Contestant #3

[Czarcasm]

Which just proves that a duck's quack does indeed echo.
As I have stated in so many of your topics, C3, facts are not something you get to vote on. If you have actual evidence of something, show it. Finding people who share your opinion is only proof that you're not the only one who likes to plant seeds of dissent just to watch the havok that ensues.
To say that you want the Moderators to both keep their personal opinions off the boards and put their private arguments on the boards just show me what type of person you are.

C#3 said:

Each time, their valid, fair, and articulate suggestions have been quickly dismissed by those in charge.

CKDextHavn responded:

This is absolutely a falsehood. There has been nothing of "quickly dismissed" about it.

To which I say: It's a candy mint and a breath mint! One man's perception of 'quick dismissal' is another's 'timely, reasoned discussion'. Since it's a subjective judgment, it's pointless to argue back and forth about it, unless someone can offer a specific time-frame to go by. If a jury goes out and comes back in with a verdict in 4 1/2 hours after a nearly yearlong trial, it may be fair to conclude something about their mindsets going into the jury room; if they take a couple of days, that's something else. Since I came into the board very late in the whole brouhaha over whatever it was C#3 or Melin said or did, and don't really know how much time was involved I'll let that particular dog sleep.

However, CK, I would like to recommend you avoid the use of terms like 'absolutely' when possible, for the reasons just given, unless you assert something that is truly unassailable. I generally try to do the same, which may get me charged with being waffling or wishy-washy, but so be it.

You were doing fine, but then you seemingly had to blow it:

And, yes, Markxxx, we agree that Moderators need to be held to a higher standard of behaviour than non-official posters. . .See, if I were only a Moderator, I'd have to stop there. By being also a poster, I can add: Nonetheless, Con, please hang on to your illusions, I'd hate to think that reality might impinge.

I hope you realize that, by stooping to impute that C#3 is somehow deluded, you've merely served to make his point, along with Stark's, Markxxx's, and mine (to a lesser extent). In a forum where, up that point, the postings have been refreshingly free of vituperation, your resort to it would seem to indicate a certain self-awareness of the insecurity of your position; not to mention cueing slythe, who of course must leap for the biscuit:

Which just proves that a duck's quack does indeed echo.

Pretty craven tactic, IMO: sort of like being in a press conference and calling out, "Senator, do you still molest your daughter? Oooo! Ooooo! 'Just kidding!'" Your past behavior in regards to C#3 justifies a charge of hypocrisy and cowardice, after you fling an insult and then dare to hide behind a smiley face. I don't recall seeing you respond to C#3 in any other thread with an insult followed by an iconagraph symbolizing humorous intent. That you would do so here, where the behavior of certain moderators has been called into question, is (as C#3 might say), telling.

You're right about 'facts' not being a demographic; however, sir, it's a fact that I don't think you'd recognize a fact if it came up and tapped you on the shoulder. And it is equally a fact that C#3 is not alone in his perception that there is level of improper, immoderate behavior on the part of some 'moderators' going on, which calls for reasoned response from someone who can truly say they 'speak for the board'.

As far as evidence goes, as I pointed out in my first post, there was what I considered to be real evidence of biased treatment, but the posts in question have subsequently been removed, and thus the reason for the complaint. But, as someone on another thread noted Stephen Jay Gould said, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", especially when the allegation is that some posts have been deleted when equally offensive posts of opposing viewpoints have been sustained. It is for C#3 to cite the specific instances of his own maltreatment, as I believe he well could, if he saw any point to responding to you.

Finding people who share your opinion is only proof that you're not the only one who likes to plant seeds of dissent just to watch the havok that ensues.

Some brass, coming from someone who's typical behavior is to 'hang' in a troika with others who customarily 'stalk' the board for Contestant#3's postings, only to start throwing conversational hand grenades from the get-go; and contribute little or nothing to the subject at hand, once your slurs have been cast. I've been posting to these boards for about 2 1/2 months now, and I've seen enough instances of that to know that C#3 isn't just ranting when he complains about it.

Contestant#3 is an iconoclast, no doubt about that, and iconoclasts by their nature are going to get on people's nerves. You, unfortunately, only seem intent on being his gadfly.

To say that you want the Moderators to both keep their personal opinions off the boards and put their private arguments on the boards just show me what type of person you are.

And distorting what someone has said to make it fit your own delusion is pretty revelatory of your character, as well. The basic complaint is that moderators should not indulge in arguments on the boards they themselves control since it will inevitably lead to charges of unfairness, and when it would be a simple matter to move the thread to a board the moderator doesn't control.

As for private arguments -- when the arguments concern the operation of a public forum which vaunts the reputation of being open to all who enter seeking information, enlightenment, and harmless entertainment, then to do so 'behind closed doors' is bound to strike some as smacking of the Star Chamber.

The moderaters are cool!
The Trolls/Swine are in rebellion!

<font size=6>Flog the Swine!


No mercy for Swine!</font>

------------------
We have met the enemy, and He is Us.--Walt Kelly

[Czarcasm]

Dif, this is neither a publicly supported forum nor a forum that you have a financial interest in. This a privately owned forum that we have been invited to participate in. We have no say in what the moderators may or may not do/say. We are the guests at this party, and as such have the option of either getting in the party mood, or finding another party.
As far as my postings go, I tend to react to C#3's postings of incredible but unproven claims, which are sometimes supported by nothing more than, "I heard it on Art Bell!", by asking him for some sort of proof of said claim. May I suggest you go back and review what his reactions to this is before you criticise my posting patterns.

[C K Dexter Haven]

The fact that I chose to comment on one item in your post, Con#3, and to ignore obvious rhetoric and polemic drivel, means nothing whatsoever except that I chose to comment on only one item. No implications may be drawn from my silence, and certainly my silence does NOT in any way imply any agreement on my part with your soi-disant point of view.

The point that I did decide to comment on was the term "quickly dismissed." You have chosen to reply that "quickly" is subjective -- yes, I suppose. The choice of the loaded word "cur" compared the neutral word "dog" is probably subjective too, but the person who uses it knows its implications. The fact is that the term "quickly dismissed" implies little or no discussion, WHICH WAS NOT TRUE. There was considerable discussion, over many days.

Yes, DIF, I confess, I got a dig in at Con#3, it was a human failure on my part and I regret it. If the role of moderator WERE that of police, then I would feel bad about allowing my emotions to show when I feel someone is shitting on me and my colleagues. The police are supposed to sit there and take it. But, frankly, if the role of moderator is NOT that police, then I don't mind that my annoyance shows thru from time to time.

If Con#3 can pretend that "quickly dismissed" is a neutral or subjective term, then I can say that "absolutely a falsehood" is also a neutral term. From the Latin:
Ab = lower stomach muscles
Sol = sun
Ute = Native American tribe

OK, I'm done. Someone asked about how Moderators view their role, and I thought that was a legit question and I responded. If this thread is only a pretext for more moderator bashing, then I have no interest in reading or responding any longer.

[John John]

Tuba says " if we were guilty as charged there would be no dissent on the boards and everyone that criticized would vanish" Yeah, and then you would " moderate" empty space.

------------------
"Wet Floor" sign does not mean do it.

[Contestant #3]

Hey Mr. CKDextHavn, mister administrator sir,

You might want to take the opportunity to re-read BOTH of my posts in this thread. I offer that advice because you seem to have gone "off the deep end" with your imagination of what I have written.

First of all Dex, you make reference to my posts as "obvious rhetoric and polemic drivel"...come again?...then you spew: "I would feel bad about allowing my emotions to show when I feel someone is shitting on me and my colleagues."...huh?...nice use of scatalogical visuals, but where is the "shitting upon"?...then, you finish with "If this thread is only a pretext for more moderator bashing..."...what?...where did I BASH?...

Good folks of the SDMB, please carefully re-read my 2 posts in this thread. In fact, re-read ALL the posts in this thread especially the OP. A few of us have brought up legitimate complaints concerning the lack of proper behavior of some SDMB moderators and administrators.

I feel that the posts have been well written and free of flaming. In fact, the first several, including mine, did not even name names. I don't see the "drivel", the "shitting upon", or any blatant "bashing".

In conclusion, I'd like to reiterate that emotional outbursts toward the members like the ones displayed by Mr. Havn in this thread are indicitive of the type of behavior that we don't expect from the ones in charge. The OP by STARK is true and should be internalized and acted upon by those holding the SDMB "power".



------------------
Contestant #3

[John John]

Well writtten and accurate, 3. I see the poop but it wasn't from you.

------------------
Brille
"Wet Floor" sign does not mean do it.

[John John]

Is there an option such as picking a different font, spellcheck or color in the reply?

------------------
Brille
"Wet Floor" sign does not mean do it.

[C K Dexter Haven]

It is certainly the case that people carry past baggage with them. It is also certainly the case, Con#3, that you are on the "receiving end of the biases" of Straight Dope Staff. I wonder why that should be?

The shit that has been dumped on Staff is not evident in this post. As I said, I have undoubtedly committed the sin of allowing past frustrations to get the best of me, and not keeping my mouth shut.

I have committed the second sin of continuing to read this thread, long after it serves any useful purpose. I saw a legit question; I answered it.

You may take this as an apology for those sins... I'll do three Hail Cecil's and I'll stop smoking.

[John John]

No one SMOKES anymore.

------------------
Brille
"Wet Floor" sign does not mean do it.

[David B]

Since I was out of town, others have already posted most of what I would have added to this thread. And there's no point responding to C3's whines because logic has nothing to do with his complaints, all of which have been responded to before. So there is only one thing really left to respond to.

DIF said:

Within this context, I was going to complain about what I took to be unfair treatment by DaveB in the "July, 1952" thread, where he deleted an insulting response I made to pldennison as a result of pld's starting a gratuitous insultfest earlier in the thread. When I then requested that he remove all the insults back to Phil's use of an epithet in my direction, he (DaveB) refused, and seemed to make quite a bit of doing so.

First, let me note that it wasn't that thread, but the Jon Benet Ramsey one. Second, actually, Phil didn't start it, somebody else did and I warned them. Then Phil & you jumped in and I posted a general warning to everybody. Then you decided it didn't really apply to you and that you could just go ahead and continue to insult Phil. So I followed through on my warning and deleted the insults. Actually, I didn't go as far as I warned I would -- I said I'd delete any messages containing insults, but I let the rest of your message stand (including the part where you attacked the way I was moderating) and just edited out the insults. You then asked me to delete the previous insults and I said no. I'd already posted the warnings about them. I'm not sure what you mean by saying I "seemed to make quite a bit of doing so," but I told you what I'd told you earlier -- any further insulting messages would be deleted. I'm terribly sorry that you thought the rules and that warning didn't apply to you, but believe it or not, you don't get a special exception just because you wanted to get the last insult in.

I was going to, but in reviewing the thread it appears he has gone in and deleted the posts in question.

Perhaps you should have reviewed the proper thread.

[Contestant #3]

...yeah...David B deletes insults against those that he sides with and leaves the insults toward the ones that he disagrees with.

...he also hurls insults at me regularly.

...a real model of a moderator is he...I'd bet that the obvious behavior of David B prompted the OP by STARK.

------------------
Contestant #3

[Czarcasm]

I don't know why your're so concerned, Connie. Mr. STARK doesn't seem to care anymore. He hasn't shown up here since he started this rehashed topic six days ago.

[Deceased Equine]

Let me see if I've got this right.

Two people were arguing and insulting each other. The official staff member stepped in and said, "OK, enough, stop it or I will take action." One person stopped. The other person did not stop. The official staff person took action against the person who did not stop. That person then complained about being treated unfairly.

Do I have that right?

It sounds depressingly familiar.

[Contestant #3]

No, you don't have it right.

Persons A and B (who shared a viewpoint with the moderator) were insulting Person C (who had a dissenting viewpoint).

Moderator says "hey, stop that and furthermore I'll delete any further occurances".

Person C, signs on, reads insults hurled by Person A and B and hurls retalitory insults toward Persons A and B.

Moderator deletes retalitory insults from person C (who's viewpoint the moderator disagrees with)

Person C says "hey, why don't you delete the insults of Person A and B too?

Moderator says (effectively) "No, I'm not gonna do it and you can't make me".

Got the picture?

------------------
Contestant #3

[David B]

Yeah, Deceased Equine, it's a big conspiracy, dontcha know. Everybody's out to get C3 and anybody who agrees with him. Oh, sure, it may look simply like we're enforcing the rules, but C3 knows how to look past any obvious explanation and find the secret motives behind them. In fact, I probably used special mind control techniques to make DIF ignore the rules and the warnings and post more insults just so I could edit them out.

[Contestant #3]

It's nothing as complex as a conspiracy. It's very plainly and simpley David B using his moderator position to advance and protect his opinions while tearing down his opposition. Very un-moderator-like...

------------------
Contestant #3

[C K Dexter Haven]

aha! Seems to me we have an easy resolution to this, since the facts are there for all to see. I confess, I have NOT read every post in detail -- in part because I don't care about the topic, in part because I don't wanna read 111 posts.

I read from the end backwards, and the critical bits seem to me:
- 9/16 at 3:48 PM, when DavidB posts his first warning that things are getting out of hand
- Next gratuitous insult occurs on 9/17 at 11:54, issued by DIF
- At 11:59 on 9/17, DavidB posts his second warning and intent to delete/edit.
- The next post is DIF's, and is edited.

I do not see any posts by any other party after 11:59 on 9/17 that include gratuitous insults. I do see the "retaliatory" comments by DIF, issued after first warning but before second warning; there was no editing of those comments.

Seems to me that the evidence of plain eyes, and open to anyone, supports DavidB's position and disproves Con#3's.

Please note -- it is not possible for a Moderator or Administrator to edit a note without the warning "Edited by..." to appear at the bottom. Deletion of a note, of course, leaves no trail.

DavidB declines (for obvious reasons) to edit ex post facto -- to go back and edit out the insults before his warning.

So the trail is there for all to see.

[David B]

You have summarized it well, Dex, but don't expect C3 to pay any attention. After all, he claims:

It's very plainly and simpley David B using his moderator position to advance and protect his opinions while tearing down his opposition.

Anybody reading the thread can see this is simply a blatant lie. The only material that has been edited were the insults by DIF (after he was explicitly warned that would happen) and this morning I deleted a message by Daniel P Bostaph, who came in just recently to insult two other posters (one of whom was, I believe, C3!)

All arguments (whether against or for the viewpoint I happen to hold) were left completely intact. Hell, as I noted above, even DIF's maligning of my moderation was left alone! Yet C3 continues to lie in proclaiming this had something to do with my opinions when it is obvious that this was nothing of the sort. But that's about what people around here have come to expect from him, I'm afraid...

[David B]

DIF said:

Almost two hours to respond to one insult, versus 15 minutes to read, edit, and respond to another. Like I said originally, a peculiar sense of timing.

Well, gosh, DIF. I'm so sorry that I was too quick to respond to your rule breaking. I mean, I obviously should have purposely avoided looking at the message board just so you could insult somebody in direct violation of the warning I'd posted.

Get a grip, man. I read the board when I can. If I see something that needs moderating, it gets moderated when I see it. I don't have ESP and don't sit around waiting to see if DIF is going to violate a clear warning to stop the insults. Frankly, all you're doing now is pissing and moaning 'cus nobody got to see your "last word" insult after I had specifically said it would be deleted.

Oh, and I'm sure you have far too much to do to spend all your time chasing down every little backyard barbecue. Certainly, not when it serves your purposes.

Serves my purposes? It doesn't serve my purposes to have people in my message area breaking the rules so I have to spend time warning them and then editing or deleting their messages. I'd much rather everybody simply obeyed the rules. Usually, when I've posted a warning to ask people to cool it, they have. Most people don't see a warning to stop insults and say to themselves, "Well, that obviously doesn't apply to me because I didn't get a chance to get the last word in."

I noted the use of the phrase, 'deleted, as promised', and your characterization of the deleted words as insults. I interpret this as your way of saying, "I yam wot I yam!"

You can interpret anything you want -- you obviously were unable to interpret the meaning of a warning telling people to stop posting insults, though. I said that I would delete insults, and when you posted some, I deleted them, as promised. If you want to try to read some strange meaning into that, all I can say is that any such meaning is all in your head.

While one of the sentences you removed was clearly directed at Phil, I maintain that the other wasn't that insulting at all

Alas, it's not up to you to judge (and, considering you knowingly posted an insult after you were told to stop, it obviously shouldn't be up to you to judge). I saw it as another insult and deleted it. Would you have been happier if I deleted the entire message, instead of just the insulting parts, as I'd previously indicated?

Did you delete the 'insulting' postings to be fair, or to only 'seem' fair and bolster your arguments here?

No matter how I answer, it's obvious that you've already made up your mind as to what you think (damned if I do, damned if I don't). That aside, the answer is simple -- I said I would delete further insulting messages, and I did. Period.

Did daniel post a couple of quick, gratuitous insults because he's also following this thread, and he 'sensed' what you needed was the opportunity to 'be big about it'?

Oh, please. I don't do mind reading. I have no idea why he posted it. My guess is he was annoyed by C3 and Big Iron, and said so -- in terms that were unacceptable.

Could someone, knowing full well how slavishly the poor little schlemiel follows your postings (like that late one on Friday), even have put him up to it?

Do you even realize how ridiculous you are making yourself look? Do you expect anybody to take you seriously with this nonsense? As I said earlier: Get a grip.

[Big Iron]

[[Did daniel post a couple of quick, gratuitous insults because he's also following this thread, and he 'sensed' what you needed was the opportunity to 'be big about it'? Could someone, knowing full well how slavishly the poor little schlemiel follows your postings (like that late one on Friday), even have put him up to it?

"Aw, jeeze, conspiracy, conspiracy!".

No. My point is not that there's some sort of willful conspiracy going on ... ]] DIF


Er, isn't that what you just suggested above? That someone "put" bostaph "up to it" so that David could make himself look good?

[RavingMad]

Mr. STARK doesn't seem to care anymore. He hasn't shown up here since he started this rehashed topic six days ago. - Slythe

Slythe, please don't mistake my silence for disinterest. I asked a question in an honest appeal for answers. I hadn't spoken earlier because the mods were still (kind of) answering. BTW, why do you refer to me as Mr. STARK?

I know a thread is free to roam where it will, but the incessant arguing is getting nowhere and I am truly interested in how the moderators view their roles. I know there are extensive disagreements between some moderators and posters, but if y'all could save it for another thread, and if you mods would answer my queries, I'd really appreciate it.


So far in 35 replies, only CKDextHavn has really given a straight answer about what he sees his role as. (DavidB, I know you said "others have already posted most of what I would have added to this thread." Does this mean CKDextHavn summarized your view precisely?

I am truly interested in what you moderators (yeah, all of you!) think about this. In an attempt to put this thread back on what I see as its track, I would welcome your thoughts on these questions:

· How do you view your role?
· Do you see any conflict between your position as moderator and your position as poster?
· If so, how do you personally reconcile these conflicts?
· How does the Chicago Reader view your role?
· Does it jibe with your view?


------------------
~ Complacency is far more dangerous than outrage ~

[David B]

Stark, you're right -- we got a bit sidetracked. Sorry 'bout that. Ok, on to your questions:

How do you view your role?

My role is to enforce the rules of this message board, specifically in the Great Debates area. To do this, I am expected to read every thread, every day, at least once each day, if not more.

Do you see any conflict between your position as moderator and your position as poster?

No. I'd been moderating FidoNet conferences for about a decade before I came here, and I participated in every single one of them. Like Great Debates, they dealt with controversial issues. At one point or another I moderated the following conferences: Politics, Skeptic, Church&State, FMS (False Memory Syndrome), Sci&Tech, Music, UFO (assistant moderator with a True Believer as main moderator in charge), a number of local conferences (which could get just as heated as the national ones), and probably some others I'm forgetting. Were there people, like C3 and DIF here, who accused me of playing favorites? Of course -- that's the last resort of some whiners who don't like to play by the rules (or in some cases, the first resort). But in the Politics conference, one of the busiest in Fido, the whiny liberals accused me of moderating them harshly because I'm a conservative, and the whiny conservatives made the same accusations at me because I'm a liberal. Hmmmm.... At one point I told them they really needed to decide who I was favoring! The fact is I favored neither -- I just enforced the rules. To tell the truth, I even lost a couple of "friends" over it (I use quotes because they obviously weren't the friends I thought they were if they couldn't respect the rules of the conference and recognize that they were going to get moderated just like everybody else).

So maybe some people can't understand what it's like to be objective themselves, and they assume everybody else is like them. But we're not. I am, and will remain, objective about enforcing the rules here -- whether or not some people whine and act like they should receive special treatment.

How does the Chicago Reader view your role?

As far as I know, to enforce the rules of the message board.

Does it jibe with your view?

I haven't been told otherwise.

[C K Dexter Haven]

<< Taking you at your word for the length of discussion, it would help those of us who 'came in late' if you could point to a posted summary of those meetings. Nothing very explicit, just a "one person said, then another person said, etc. Then Ed pointed out, etc.". Just saying, in effect, "we kicked around a lot of ideas for a couple of days and in the end everyone agreed with what Ed said . . ." doesn't help much. It's only by having something such as that to refer to that it can be shown all viewpoints were indeed considered. >>

Well, no. These debates (and others) were private for the very reason that we wanted to be able to express our ideas freely and then take a united stand once agreeement was reached. Publishing the results of such private discussions would be ... well... counter to their purpose.

The point is that comments and ideas generated from the TM's are seriously discussed by the Moderators and Administrators. Sometimes those discussions are public (as this thread), and sometimes those discussions are private (as the decision to continue posting as Moderator and as Member under the same name).

slythe:

Dif, this is neither a publicly supported forum nor a forum that you have a financial interest in. This a privately owned forum that we have been invited to participate in. We have no say in what the moderators may or may not do/say.

Slythe, I understand the point you are making. The point you seem to miss is, that I believe the board's source of funding is largely irrelevant. If you'll review the user's agreement, I think you'll see the basic rule is: don't be a jerk. Two paragraphs further on, this general proviso is specified more thoroughly; and may I point out that, if the paragraph in question were truly enforced, most of the people who make this board worth reading would be history, what with all the "knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening", etc., posting going on? Nowhere does it say revisions to the rules or operating procedures may not be suggested. It also says that messages may be deleted for any reason or no reason, but I dare say if that really happened, it would be no violation of the rules for those who are not deleted, as well as those who are, to nonetheless ask why; and if the the only response was, "Because we wanted to, that's why! The SDMB: Love it or leave it!", a great many people would do so. It therefore seems that 'the rules', such as they are, are rather loose to begin with, and loosely enforced to boot. So, when the rules suddenly do get enforced, it seems entirely fair to wonder why.

Slythe:

.As far as my postings go, I tend to react to C#3's postings . . . by asking him for some sort of proof of said claim. May I suggest you go back and review what his reactions to this is before you criticise my posting patterns.

.

Fair enough; will do.

=========================================

CKDextHavn:

The point that I did decide to comment on was the term "quickly dismissed." You have chosen to reply that "quickly" is subjective . . .{and then: } If Con#3 can pretend that "quickly dismissed" is a neutral or subjective term . . .{and finally: }There was considerable discussion, over many days.

I believe if you recheck the post you will see that it was I who asserted that "quickly dismissed" was pretty much subjective. I reviewed C#3's posts to that point and do not find a use of 'cur'. Taking you at your word for the length of discussion, it would help those of us who 'came in late' if you could point to a posted summary of those meetings. Nothing very explicit, just a "one person said, then another person said, etc. Then Ed pointed out, etc.". Just saying, in effect, "we kicked around a lot of ideas for a couple of days and in the end everyone agreed with what Ed said . . ." doesn't help much. It's only by having something such as that to refer to that it can be shown all viewpoints were indeed considered.

===========================================

John John: If someone hasn't e-mailed you, or you haven't already discovered them for yourself, there are several tutorial-style posts to this forum which contain the information you seek.

==========================================

David B:

First, let me note that it wasn't that thread, but the Jon Benet Ramsey one . . .Perhaps you should have reviewed the proper thread.

Indeed, I should have. I stand corrected, and I thank you for the correction. I also withdraw my congratulations.

You continue:

Second, actually, Phil didn't start it, somebody else did and I warned them. Then Phil & you jumped in and I posted a general warning to everybody. Then you decided it didn't really apply to you and that you could just go ahead and continue to insult Phil.

You issued a warning after C#3 issued one of his patented flares at (IIRC) Big Iron. Then VegForLife responded to one of my previous responses in a way I took to be insulting, and I made reference to the S.E.T.H.II thread and said he was behaving -- inappropriately (so, go read it). A few minutes later, pld -- totally missing the point of what I had just posted, BTW -- ended his post by calling me an idiot. You issued your second warning at 11:59. At 2:01 p.m., in response to both jodih (IIRC) and you, I issued the message you edited. By 2:16 you had the deed done. Almost two hours to respond to one insult, versus 15 minutes to read, edit, and respond to another. Like I said originally, a peculiar sense of timing. Oh, and I'm sure you have far too much to do to spend all your time chasing down every little backyard barbecue. Certainly, not when it serves your purposes. I noted the use of the phrase, 'deleted, as promised', and your characterization of the deleted words as insults. I interpret this as your way of saying, "I yam wot I yam!"

And, see, David, here's that other pesky thing about trying to be both a moderator and a full participant. While one of the sentences you removed was clearly directed at Phil, I maintain that the other wasn't that insulting at all -- it was an admonition that if you wanted to bitch to someone about insults, bitch to pld. Admittedly, I used a term more familar, perhaps, to a pipefitter. Those readers who happened by in the fifteen minutes before you bowdlerized it will know what I mean.

============================================

CKDH says:

I have NOT read every post in detail -- in part because I don't care about the topic, in part because I don't wanna read 111 posts . . .

Well, let's all hope CK turns out to be a better administrator than he is a "fact-checker", since he managed (working bass-ackwards, as some might say) to completely 'overlook' pld's 'toss off' reference to me at the end of his 10:00 a.m. posting on 9/17. Since CK has clearly made himself a party to the dispute, one might infer a deliberate attempt to slant the truth, but not me. I know that CK just messed up. Moderators/administrators will mess up from time to time. And one of the worst ways (IMO) they mess up is to make themselves participants in controversial threads on boards they personally moderate.
What's the saying? No man can be the servant of two masters?

I read from the end backwards, and the critical bits seem to me: . . .
- The next post is DIF's, and is edited.

'Edited' to some; censored, to others.

Seems to me that the evidence of plain eyes . . .

Ummmm . . . had yours checked lately, CK?

DavidB declines (for obvious reasons) to edit ex post facto -- to go back and edit out the insults before his warning.

Well, I'm glad someone finds this new 'rule', that a moderator can't, or won't, 'edit ex post facto' so obvious. I don't see it on the user's agreement page. I guess that's just another way the moderator gets to show his/her powers -- they can make up the rules as they go.
============================================
DavidB continues:

The only material that has been edited were the insults by DIF (after he was explicitly warned that would happen) and this morning I deleted a message by Daniel P Bostaph, who came in just recently to insult two other posters (one of whom was, I believe, C3!)

You're just too close to it to see, D

David B. Do you have to watch this board 24 hours a day? If not, how can you catch something that might get by while your sleeping, or some such Or do you just have electronic cops out there, trained on C#3's every unbiased word? David B. Rules!!

[JillGat]

[[ The basic complaint is that moderators should not indulge in arguments
on the boards they themselves control since it will inevitably lead to charges of unfairness, and when it would be a simple matter to move the thread to a board the moderator doesn't control.]]

1. That would mean moving a thread to a possibly less appropriate forum simply to give the moderator an opportunity to sound off in a non-moderatorish way? That's not why we move threads.

2. It don't matter where we post, it still says "moderator" under our names.

All of us have strong opinions on certain pet topics, and sometimes it's really hard not to get emotionally involved in certain threads and/or to take sides with certain posters. Sometimes there's a grey area between offering information and/or clarification and dominating a thread with our own emotional opinions or arguments. I personally don't think that's my role as a moderator. But hey, we're human and we lose it once in awhile just like anybody else.

However I have seen practically no instances in which moderators on this board have deleted posts unjustifiably. There's not a light trigger-finger in the bunch from what I've seen.

Jill

[John John]

Thanks CK, but no, no one has emailed me anything. Still fumbling in the dark.

------------------
Brille
"Wet Floor" sign does not mean do it.

[DSYoungEsq]

Hmmmm

First Thought: Why are the staff arguing with people who have minds that won't be changed? At some point, you have to let the other guy have the last word...

Second Thought: While one can certainly be a bit miffed at 'gratuitous insults' that are part of messages, Cecil seems to hand out insulting language regularly. Why would the SD Staff be any less free to do so? I have never thought it was done with malice, but simply in the spirit of the Great Uncle.

Third Thought: If you don't like the rules of the playhouse, go find another playhouse.

Fourth Thought: Isn't there a bit more in life to be worried about than who insults whom on a message board?

[JillGat]

[[Second Thought: While one can certainly be a bit miffed at 'gratuitous insults' that are part of messages, Cecil seems to hand out insulting language regularly. Why would the SD Staff be any less free to do so? Ive never thought it was done with malice, but simply in the spirit of the Great Uncle.]]

Sheesh. What a maroon.