# Czarcasm: please don't mod the threads in which you're heatedly participating. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 13, 2004, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/czarcasm-please-dont-mod-the-threads-in-which-youre-heatedly-participating/268914 "2004-10-13T00:38:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2004, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/czarcasm-please-dont-mod-the-threads-in-which-youre-heatedly-participating/268914/1 "2004-10-13T00:38:20Z")
I’m only putting this in the pit because we’re told to put such issues here. I’m not furious about the issue; I just think that there is room for improvement here. [Here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5360291&postcount=286) is the problematic post. And here it is in quote form: > [@Czarcasm](#): > > A small note to **Peter Morris** , **SnakeSpirit** and **Aeschines** -this is supposed to be a debate about ghosts, _not_ a James Randi Pit Festival. If you want to cast aspersions on Mr. Randi’s character, start a thread in The BBQ Pit. Is this modding? Half-modding? Advice from a fellow poster? It is entirely unclear. I’ve also had Czarcasm lock a paranormal thread of mine–but he wasn’t a participant in that thread; hence, nothing to complain of there. It’s the conflict of interest that occurs when a mod mods his/her own debate that concerns me. I’ve found it uncomfortable to participate in _certain_ paranormal threads at _certain_ times because of this kind of thing. In general, I think a mod shouldn’t mod or half-mod the threads in which s/he is heatedly participating. How can one remain objective? I don’t think it’s possible. It’s a credit to Czarcasm that he is actually pretty good at keeping his cool in these threads. There are times when I’ve crossed over into Pit-worthy comments (just barely!) and he _hasn’t_ lashed out. He was more than patient the other day with Otto in the Pit. That’s all admirable. But the problem still is there, and assume that Czarcam isn’t the only mod to do this from time to time. In general, I think there should be a policy that addresses this potential conflict of interest. Thanks, and, honestly, I’m not interested in a rancorous Pit thread here. I just would like to address the issue and be done with it. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2004, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/czarcasm-please-dont-mod-the-threads-in-which-youre-heatedly-participating/268914/2 "2004-10-13T00:58:03Z")
I didn’t mind your(or anyone else’s) opinions on the subject at hand, which concerned the existence of ghosts. That topic always gets a bit heated because the subject cuts to the core of deeply held beliefs. I felt that the thread took an unnecessary detour with **Peter Morris** reviving his lon running"let’s argue semantics with James Randi" feud. ---
**Author:** ![TubaDiva](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tubadiva/32/507_2.png) [@TubaDiva](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TubaDiva)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2004, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/czarcasm-please-dont-mod-the-threads-in-which-youre-heatedly-participating/268914/3 "2004-10-13T01:02:06Z")
I think that you have gotten the worse end of this argument and you are looking to slap at Czarcasm. He pointed out that this is not a new issue to this board. He pointed out that this is ground that has been much covered, in fact, by himself and others. However, as a True Believer, you are unwilling to disbelieve and as such, anything anyone says contrary to that is probably going to hurt your feelings. The thread should have ended much sooner; what use is there in arguing when people believe? If I fault Czarcasm for anything in this, it’s right there. your humble TubaDiva Administrator ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2004, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/czarcasm-please-dont-mod-the-threads-in-which-youre-heatedly-participating/268914/4 "2004-10-13T01:06:49Z")
But wasn’t your admonition slightly unclear as to “hat”? And if we suppose that it was as a mod, people don’t exactly get an appeal, do they? They might feel that it’s important to the subject, or that the skeptic side started it and it’s not fair, now that it’s going, for a mod on the skeptic side to cut off discussion thereof. I personally feel that the whole “Randi Prize Argument”–raised in _every_ paranormal thread, is a big, irrelevent tangent and pretty much serves as little more than a “nya-nya” point for the skeptics. But as a non-mod I don’t get to cut people off when they raise that point, do I? I think the conflict of interest issue is valid and should be addressed. Again, I’m not saying it’s just you, and I’m not saying you’re particularly prone to do it. But there’s no policy in place and I think it deserves a good airing out. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2004, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/czarcasm-please-dont-mod-the-threads-in-which-youre-heatedly-participating/268914/5 "2004-10-13T02:09:03Z")
Woulda been nice if you’d posted a link to the posts that prompted **Czarcasm** ’s response. Would’ve saved me the effort of slogging through six pages of that crap to come to the conclusion that your complaint in this thread has about as much going for it as your claims in the GD thread. “My friends have absolute proof that ghosts exsist, and have a website to prove it, but I’m not going to tell you where it is or who they are because you’re going to poke great, gaping holes in their claims just like you did with mine, and that’s mean!” Sweet Christ. Put up or shut up, already. ---
**Author:** ![Kythereia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e8c25b/32.png) [@Kythereia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kythereia)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2004, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/czarcasm-please-dont-mod-the-threads-in-which-youre-heatedly-participating/268914/6 "2004-10-13T02:11:06Z")
**Miller** , I started those six pages of crap ☹ ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2004, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/czarcasm-please-dont-mod-the-threads-in-which-youre-heatedly-participating/268914/7 "2004-10-13T02:45:49Z")
> [@TubaDiva](#): > > I think that you have gotten the worse end of this argument and you are looking to slap at Czarcasm. Maybe I have gotten the worse end of it. Objectivity, however, requires one actually to examine the issue I have raised in this thread. It seems to me that the mods don’t want to consider the issue. I’m sorry, **TubaDiva** , to see you taking cheap shots at the “True Believers.” I had not seen such commentary on your part before; it does not seem up to your usual high standard. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2004, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/czarcasm-please-dont-mod-the-threads-in-which-youre-heatedly-participating/268914/8 "2004-10-13T03:04:26Z")
Objectivity requires your giving due consideration to the fact that she might be right. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2004, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/czarcasm-please-dont-mod-the-threads-in-which-youre-heatedly-participating/268914/9 "2004-10-13T03:13:46Z")
> [@andros](#): > > Objectivity requires your giving due consideration to the fact that she might be right. So, there might be no problem modding one’s own thread? If that’s what the mods believe, then I think they should just say so: There is no problem with a moderator moderating the threads in which s/he is participating. If that’s the policy of the board, then I’ll just live with it. ---
**Author:** ![moriah](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b2d939/32.png) [@moriah](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/moriah)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2004, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/czarcasm-please-dont-mod-the-threads-in-which-youre-heatedly-participating/268914/10 "2004-10-13T03:51:49Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > If that’s the policy of the board, then I’ll just live with it. Mods are active participants in many threads. If they started recusing them from every thread they participate in, or try to parse what ‘heatedly’ mean, it’d be chaos. So, live with it. And since this is a board for the Straight Dope, where ignorance is fought, and where certain norms of evidentiary proof is needed for claims… especially for extraordinary claims like ‘ghosts’, if you’re surprised that the people moderating the boards tend to be skeptical of your claims, then you’re at best, naive, at worst…\. ---
**Author:** ![SnakeSpirit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snakespirit/32/7271_2.png) [@SnakeSpirit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnakeSpirit)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2004, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/czarcasm-please-dont-mod-the-threads-in-which-youre-heatedly-participating/268914/11 "2004-10-13T04:36:41Z")
> [@TubaDiva](#): > > I think that you have gotten the worse end of this argument and you are looking to slap at Czarcasm. > > He pointed out that this is not a new issue to this board. He pointed out that this is ground that has been much covered, in fact, by himself and others. However, as a True Believer, you are unwilling to disbelieve and as such, anything anyone says contrary to that is probably going to hurt your feelings. > > The thread should have ended much sooner; what use is there in arguing when people believe? If I fault Czarcasm for anything in this, it’s right there. > > your humble TubaDiva > Administrator I think it fair to point out that this _is_ the proverbial two-edged sword. Since we have no proofs on either side but only opinions, experiences and conjecture, both sides on this issue are “True Believers.” I think your assessment in your first sentence is off the mark. I, too, could not tell if Czarcasm was modding or vehementing. His explanation above clarifies, somewhat, but … Well, what use is there arguing when people close their minds and reject everything. Better: we shouldn’t be arguing; we should be debating. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2004, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/czarcasm-please-dont-mod-the-threads-in-which-youre-heatedly-participating/268914/12 "2004-10-13T04:56:36Z")
> [@moriah](#): > > Mods are active participants in many threads. If they started recusing them from every thread they participate in, or try to parse what ‘heatedly’ mean, it’d be chaos. > > So, live with it. If that’s the way it is, then, certainly, I’ll live with it. I’m a roll with the punches type of guy. Not a trouble maker. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2004, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/czarcasm-please-dont-mod-the-threads-in-which-youre-heatedly-participating/268914/13 "2004-10-13T04:59:20Z")
> [@Kythereia](#): > > **Miller** , I started those six pages of crap ☹ Sorry, **Kytheria** , it was an perfectly good OP. You can’t always blame the host for who shows up at the party. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2004, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/czarcasm-please-dont-mod-the-threads-in-which-youre-heatedly-participating/268914/14 "2004-10-13T05:15:55Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Sorry, **Kytheria** , it was an perfectly good OP. You can’t always blame the host for who shows up at the party. Oh, you ain’t so bad. ---
**Author:** ![moriah](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b2d939/32.png) [@moriah](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/moriah)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2004, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/czarcasm-please-dont-mod-the-threads-in-which-youre-heatedly-participating/268914/15 "2004-10-13T05:20:06Z")
> [@SnakeSpirit](#): > > I think it fair to point out that this _is_ the proverbial two-edged sword. Since we have no proofs on either side… There you have it, there’s no proof that ghosts exist. Those who are asked to prove that ghosts do not exist have not been able to make a case, because they’re still working on proving the tooth fairy doesn’t exist, despite all the evidence of missing teeth, silver coins, and first hand testimonials from hundreds of thousands of people (albeit, all under seven). ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2004, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/czarcasm-please-dont-mod-the-threads-in-which-youre-heatedly-participating/268914/16 "2004-10-13T05:45:50Z")
> [@moriah](#): > > Those who are asked to prove that ghosts do not exist have not been able to make a case, because they’re still working on proving the tooth fairy doesn’t exist, despite all the evidence of missing teeth, silver coins, and first hand testimonials from hundreds of thousands of people (albeit, all under seven). Mockery–the final propaganda frontier. To go where all skeptics have gone before! _Cue music_ ---
**Author:** ![SnakeSpirit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snakespirit/32/7271_2.png) [@SnakeSpirit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnakeSpirit)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2004, 7:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/czarcasm-please-dont-mod-the-threads-in-which-youre-heatedly-participating/268914/17 "2004-10-13T07:34:03Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > Mockery–the final propaganda frontier. To go where all skeptics have gone before! > > _Cue music_ ROTFL! Don’t you mean the “first defense” of skeptics on the SDMB? Oops, I’m peeing my pants laughing again. This is even better than the “The Amazing Randi” is impartial fiasco! Shit. Next time you Cynycks gotta come over here and clean it up! Haw, haw haw! ---
**Author:** ![bienville](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4bbf92/32.png) [@bienville](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bienville)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2004, 7:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/czarcasm-please-dont-mod-the-threads-in-which-youre-heatedly-participating/268914/18 "2004-10-13T07:38:25Z")
I’d love to see a little discussion in _this Thread_ on the topic of the OP in _this Thread_! I actually think it’s a pretty interesting topic and am a little disapointed to see that all that’s really been addressed is how “wrong” **Aeschines** was in the _other_ Thread and how “wrong” **Aeschines** ’s motives were in starting _this_ Thread. If you want to go on about **Aeschines** ’s stance in the other Thread then _go to the other Thread_. > [@moriah](#): > > Mods are active participants in many threads. If they started recusing them from every thread they participate in, or try to parse what ‘heatedly’ mean, it’d be chaos. I do agree that there is a conflict of interests but I think **moriah** ’s point is right on, there’s just not a really effective way of fixing it. Fact of the matter is I really just see it as a problem in _principle_. I’d say that _for the most part_ I have faith in Mod judgement on this Board. And although there is a conflict of interest when a Thread in which a Mod is a participant suddenly needs modding, I _generally_ trust the Mods to recognise when to pull rank and when to remain an equal participant. I would have loved to hear **Czarcasm** and **TubaDiva** share there feelings on this. Although **Aeschines** ’ inspiration for this Thread may have been based on heated feelings about events in the other Thread, I think the OP was well constructed for the purpose of a _new_ discussion on a _new_ topic. Too bad two of the folks who had the opportunity to provide an interesting perspective on this couldn’t put down the red pen and demerit slips just long enough to contribute. ☹ ---
**Author:** ![roger\_thornhill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@roger\_thornhill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/roger_thornhill)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2004, 7:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/czarcasm-please-dont-mod-the-threads-in-which-youre-heatedly-participating/268914/19 "2004-10-13T07:50:36Z")
But if mods and admins address the issue as phrased, with the presupposition that they do “heatedly” participate in threads, then they would have either to deny that they do get heated, which will prompt a deluge of responses and cites galore, leading to _white heat_, OR to accept the presupposition (yes, we’re all human, no different from you lot), which rather undercuts the difference between mods/admins and ordinary posters, a difference on which the status of this board as rather special is in large part premised. After all, mods only become mods because they have a track record of being knowledgeable and equable(-ish, most of the time). Most posters understand this, and agree it to be the case, and so why try to wring out of our leadership a self-criticism or a confession that we are all sinners. This place isn’t a commune, and runs much better as it is. Some things aren’t worth pursuing. ---
**Author:** ![SnakeSpirit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snakespirit/32/7271_2.png) [@SnakeSpirit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnakeSpirit)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2004, 7:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/czarcasm-please-dont-mod-the-threads-in-which-youre-heatedly-participating/268914/20 "2004-10-13T07:53:05Z")
> [@bienville](#): > > I’d love to see a little discussion in _this Thread_ on the topic of the OP in _this Thread_! I actually think it’s a pretty interesting topic and am a little disapointed to see that all that’s really been addressed is how “wrong” **Aeschines** was in the _other_ Thread and how “wrong” **Aeschines** ’s motives were in starting _this_ Thread. If you want to go on about **Aeschines** ’s stance in the other Thread then _go to the other Thread_. So would we all – or many of us, at least. I think **TubaDiva’s** discourse was more knee-jerk “protect the moderators” than anything else, and frankly, I don’t blame her. We are relative newcomers in an old and well-established order. ‘How DARE we?’ Frankly, I’m a bit concerned by **Czarcasm’s** behaviour. The rationality I have seen in the recent past seems to be deteriorating. Irrational bias is creeping in. I’m honestly concerned for **Czarcasm’s** health, and have expressed this in letters to Admin, to which I got no response. **Czarcasm** I’m sure you are reading this, and I want to let you know that if you got health concerns, I’m your first advocate. Do what you gotta do, and if anyone gives you shit about it, send them to ME! If on the other hand, you’re OK, and just being smarmy, they lay on! We can handle it. > [@bienville](#): > > I would have loved to hear **Czarcasm** and **TubaDiva** share there feelings on this. Although **Aeschines** ’ inspiration for this Thread may have been based on heated feelings about events in the other Thread, I think the OP was well constructed for the purpose of a _new_ discussion on a _new_ topic. Too bad two of the folks who had the opportunity to provide an interesting perspective on this couldn’t put down the red pen and demerit slips just long enough to contribute. ☹ The best defense is a good offense. Are Mods allowed to have feelings? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/czarcasm-please-dont-mod-the-threads-in-which-youre-heatedly-participating/268914.md?page=2)