Oakminster, I’m going to speak to you as a fellow poster, and not as a moderator. As I said, I have no dog in this fight. I do not recall that we have had any significant negative interactions. I rarely post on politics, and do not really know what the history is between yourself and Czarcasm (aside from your complaints in ATMB). I have not, however, noted substantive political bias in Czarcasm’s actions as a moderator.
However, regardless of how justified you think your complaints are, I don’t think you are handling this issue in an apropropriate way. For example, continually bumping your complaint threads and posting new ones on basically the same issue just makes it look like you are obsessed with the matter. I think you really need to know when to walk away.
I mean this with all due respect. I just think you are doing yourself a disservice by not letting go of this.
I disagree. However, in good faith, and attempting to follow Colbri’s instruction, I suggest that it is possible that Czarcasm’s conduct (not his personality) as a poster causes his actions as a moderator to be seen in a particular light. He is aggressive, often snarky and derisive of conservatives when he posts in political threads. If he were to tone down his rhetoric in those threads, his actions as a moderator in similar threads would create less of an appearance of impropriety.
I believe a moderator should lead by example. Debate the post, not the poster. Don’t indulge in unprovoked snark. Show some measure of respect for differing opinions. Avoid straining the rules, including the “don’t be a jerk” rule, when acting as a poster. This doesn’t mean a moderator can’t participate and have fun in the various forums. It does mean they should show some restraint–moreso than that expected from poster. If I ever become a moderator here, I will attempt to live up to this standard.
And yet, after he made very clear that this is what he was trying to do, barely 30 minutes later Rigamarole came in and reiterated his assertion that “conservative” and “intellectual” are mutually exclusive categories. And all that got was a note, and no “Infraction issued.”
I’ll ask again what i asked in my earlier post: are we, then, to assume that we can safely ignore a Mod’s first admonition to tone things down, but not the second? In future, if a moderator tells people to cut out the sniping, will there be a race to see who can get in one last dig before that “real,” second admonition takes effect?
As you say, that thread was starting to look messy very early on. It was looking so messy that Czarcasm, rightly, came in and told people to knock off the crap and stick to answering the question. And yet the very first person to disobey this instruction was also the only person to disobey it who did not get an actual infraction recorded against his name.
I really don’t think that this was a product of political bias on the part of the moderator, but i can see how it might look like that. I’m also probably much closer to Czarcasm on most political issues than i am to the OP of this thread. But moderators should, i think, be held to a pretty high standard in stuff like this. Justice not only needs to be done; it needs to be seen to be done.
I have no issues with you. I concede that you may have a point. However, I am frustrated here. If you read the other thread, you know that my complaints were never addressed on the merits. I made an effort to handle that the right way. I tried to be polite. I was dismissed, in my opinion rather rudely, and was not afforded the courtesy I offered when that chain of events began.
I wish Czarcasm and I could have resolved the first matter quietly and privately. That’s why I pm’d him before posting that other thread. If he’d just talked to me the way you’re doing here in this thread, I’d have felt I’d been given a fair hearing, I’d accept it even though I “lost”–ie, did not get the result I wanted.
I’ve argued with mods here before. During the unpleasantness in Winter, 2009, I ripped into quite a few mods. Ed, Lynn, Skip, Dex, Marley, and probably some others. Heat of the battle, regrettable things were said by both sides. That’s all over and done with now. As far as I know, I have excellent relations with all mods here, except Czarcasm.. I’d like to resolve this, within the rules of the forum. I do not know how to do that, given the response I’ve received.
How do you figure? None of the original thread was directed at you? Am I missing something. It sure looks like you have a hard-on for Czarcasm. You seem to be following him just waiting for a chance to jump on him.
I’m not entirely sure what you feel would “resolve” this. Czarcasmhas responded to your complaints, although you obviously do not feel his responses were adequate. Personally, I don’t see that Czarcasm’s responses merited the degree of offense you have taken with them, to justify this campaign that has been going on for a full month now.
This is a fair point, although it’s not like this is the first time a mod has ever given two notes rather than giving a warning at the first available opportunity. Czarcasm was lenient with the first poster who didn’t pay attention to his mod note. He would have been justified in giving him a warning, at least according to the letter of the rules.
But all other things being equal I think we’d prefer to be lenient. Does it follow that if we’re lenient with the first poster who makes an out-of-bounds comment after a note, or even the second, that we then have to overlook in the third, fourth, eighth time? I don’t think it does. Logically that would put us in a situation where we have to warn everybody who ignores or misunderstands or overlooks a mod note. That might be fair (it’s essentially a zero tolerance policy), but I don’t think it would be just.
His dismissive response to the PM that started this whole mess…as detailed in the other thread…where he asked if I reported the thread…was deliberately provocative and unprofessional. I had reported the thread, which he knew, because as moderator of that forum, he gets copies of all reports submitted. I acted in good faith, in full compliance with board rules, and I was polite. In response, I got a knee to the groin.
Ideally, if he would have just taken 5 minutes to respond on the merits to that PM, none of this would have happened.
Too late for that now.
I would appreciate an apology for the dismissive response to the PM. A sincere one. Not a weak “I’m sorry you were offended.” Straight up, “Oak, I fucked up. Sorry, man.”
I would also appreciate if he would cease and desist his current practice of quoting my posts and repeating the same question over and over and over again.
Finally, I’d think it might be best if he’d just go his way and let me go mine. No more sniping by either side. He doesn’t quote or reply to my posts. I don’t quote or reply to his. Let things settle down a bit. In a couple weeks or months, maybe we meet up at a Dopefest or something. I’ll shake his hand and buy him a beverage of his choice. Maybe we laugh about how hotheaded we both can be sometimes. Maybe he just says thanks for the drink, and we part ways peacefully.
Mods can’t start Pit threads, but they can participate in them. There’s no rule against you Pitting me, and if you do, Czarcasm can say whatever he wants therein. I may or may not participate.
Or, we could do rock, paper, scissors for it. Or that “chooses” thing they did on Seinfeld. Or cut a deck of cards. My terms for ending this thing are negotiable.
6.) People keep sniping ( or one person pops in without reading thread fully and snipes once ).
7.) Thread is closed.
I’m near certain I’ve seen Czarcasm follow the above pattern multiple times for polling threads ( in the days before actual polling applications ) over the years. Now I think at times Czarcasm has gotten a little growly and quick to close threads when he thinks folks aren’t toeing the line close enough. But he isn’t any worse in kind than Manhattan’s past snapishness, which somehow generated a devoted following in certain corners.
There is nothing saying that Czarcasm is required to give more than one instruction before he starts handing out formal warnings. But IMO it’s polite and might catch someone who missed the earlier one.
This one honestly looks like thin-skinned overreaction and reading something into nothing from where I’m sitting. I saw nothing untoward in the moderation of the above thread at all. And I could give a shit about the particular political proclivities of anybody. All y’all annoy me with your partisan blather :).
Oakminister, you remind me of my high school students who would say, “How come he got another “warning” for playing in class and I have to stay after school?”
Do I have to give another “warning” to all of the other 28 rascals in the class in order to be fair? That’s just nonsense and you know it. It’s childish and a waste of time. And of course the student who has to stay after school will claim things like “She’s just picking on me.”
What he seems to have forgotten is that no one made him play in class after two “warnings” had gone up. He is the one responsible. And he wants the teacher to apologize?
I have no dislike of you at all, Oakminster. I just think this round clearly goes to Czarcasm.
I know that it must be hard toughing it out on a board with a lot of liberal people when you are a conservative. But I don’t see a liberal bias in this decision.
Marley23, as short as this thread was when you posted, I think that under the circumstances you should have read it first. I don’t disagree with your opinion, but if I were in Oakminster’s shoes, I would feel justified as seeing that as a sign of the circling of the wagons. YMMV.
Actually, I do, though I’m not the type to complain loudly about this in public. I’m not claiming to be blameless in this situation, and I do understand why a moderator might choose to issue a second “note” before handing out infractions. Nevertheless, I can’t help but feel that there’s a measure of (possibly unconscious) bias involved.
In part, this is because I think there’s a huge difference between pointing out why conservatives might not feel welcome around here and Rigamarole’s insistence that conservatives cannot possibly be intellectuals. The latter offense goes far beyond merely being off-topic, and it’s the sort of remark that should have no place around here except in the Pit. I think it is prudent to issue reminders for posters who, in their haste, might have missed the admonitions to stay on topic. Blanket insults that do nothing to further meaningful discussion .
More importantly though, I couldn’t help but note that even after Czarcasm’s moderator instruction, other postings WERE allowed that failed to address the OP. After all, Czarcasm specifically said “Again, this thread is for helping the OP find a conservative version of the SDMB” (emphasis added). Nevertheless, BigT and others continued to discussion the age demographic of the SDMB and whether it accounted for the liberal leanings around here. In fact, my own offense was made in response to a posting by Amblydoper, who opined that liberals are more likely to be vocal and that conservatives are more likely to observe and lurk. None of these folks received admonitions, even though none of their postings were in compliance with Czarcasm’s instruction.
Now, I’m not suggesting that every single one of them should have been disciplined. However, when the only two people who receive admonitions are the ones who pointed out how badly conservatives tend to be treated here – well, as mhendo said, it looks bad and doesn’t seem very consistent.
Oh, well, then you’re obviously just like a child who doesn’t like being scolded by Dad/Teacher. And mhendo is just like a child who doesn’t like some other kid being scolded by teacher.
That was uncalled for. I specifically said that I made no claims of being blameless, and at no point did I protest about receiving an infraction. In other words, I did not complain about being scolded. I do feel that there was evidence of bias though, for reasons that I explained in great detail.
I want to say more about your remark, but I think it’s best that I hold my tongue.
Quite frankly, we weren’t in GQ, but in IMHO. My comment was humorous and self-deprecating, which would normally tolerated in GQ (if not done to excess), and certainly is widely accepted in IMHO. Czarcasm made a mistake and allowed his bias to show. Oh, well, I don’t care, because unless I suddenly rack up a shit-load of warnings, there’s no cause for my banning and so I’m otherwise unaffected by this sad abuse of power.
[Moderating]
Let’s keep personal remarks of this kind out of this thread. (This is neither a warning nor a note, but an instruction to keep the thread focused on the substance of the complaint.)