Seems to me, as an interested observer of the just-closed ATMB thread, that you raised a point germane to the thread, or at least to ATMB, in the very post in which you closed that thread. To wit:
This is the nut of the issue. Do you really mean to suggest that the mods’ description of why threads are deemed to be hijacked is indistinguishable from their opinions as posters? If that’s really the case, then I would submit that they don’t have much of an official basis for posting as mods there. If a mod interjects a subjective take on a post or a poster that he or she is emotionally invested in, that pretty much tells me that he or she is NOT remotely speaking in an official capacity, and needs to announce that he or she is stepping out of that thread as a mod, shall issue no mod decisions due to his involvement in that thread as a poster, and then do what he or she has announced. This to me is only common sense, but mods seem to resist powerfully any suggestion that they err on the side of caution and good sense, and recuse themselves from posting indiscriminately as mods and as posters inside the same thread. Why you permit, indeed, why you encourage such behavior puzzles me, and I believe it leads to much resentment of the sanctioning of mods’ abuse of their powers to squelch discussions that they happen not to be enjoying as posters very much.
If a situation arises between a mod (posting as a normal member) and another member then I do think its best to let another mod (better still an admin) take care of it.
Let’s face it, a mod would scarcely be human if he didn’t allow some of his irritation with the member he has just been at hammer-and-tongs with to spill over into his moderating decision.
And even if he doesn’t and remains strictly neutral the judgment could appear biased because of what had gone before.
Mods should, like Caesar’s wife, be above suspicion. They should ask another mod to make a judgment call if they believe they are too close to the situation.
Yes, that’s the thread, G. Thanks for your clarification.
I agree entirely with Aldiboronti that “Mods should, like Caesar’s wife, be above suspicion” but would like to see the “should” enforced by other Mods because the point is that each Mod is perhaps the worst possible judge of hos or her own abuses of authority. It’s sorta like why I turned down an offer of a glass of wine at dinner last night: I know I’m not going to get legally drunk on one glass of wine, but I was driving, and I might (on one glass of wine) get giddy enough to have another little one, and then another, and before you know it I’m loaded and behind the wheel–so I exercise a little judgment before I have my first sip and I know I’m free to drive without guilt or worry at any point that night. If a Mod wants to get into issues, that’s great–but they need IMO to announce that they’re removing themselves from their Modness for the remainder of that thread–and then do so, however tempting it might be to start forbidding one’s adversaries from saying such-and-thus or argue by using thus-and-such.
I’d like an answer to this question myself. How could that possibly be interpreted as a personal insult? What secret definition of “personal insult” is used by the staff here now?
My take is that it’s an insult to TomnDebb, suggesting that he plays favorites. rather than doing his job properly. And that is pretty insulting, if indeed that is what was meant.
But what if it’s true?
If suggesting that mods aren’t doing their job properly is an insult and grounds for closing a thread, then you might as well not even bother pretending to allow any kind of criticism, no matter how justified.
But Seven didn’t say that TomnDebb plays favorites. He said that "This place makes rules around the guy [Liberal]. “This place” would seem to mean the whole SDMB (i.e. all the mods, or at least a majority of them). Hardly a personal insult directed at any one mod, or even just the mods for GD.
If there had been evidence to back it up then that’s a different matter. There wasn’t. If I called someone a thief and a liar then I’d be insulting them if I didn’t back it up with evidence.
So now any time we make any statement, we must provide evidence for every suggestion a person might infer from that statement, or risk having said statement classified as an insult? Absurd.
That’s a good point and means my take on this was askew.
In reply to NoJustice however I maintain that it is far from absurd to expect someone to back up an accusation with at least some evidence. Otherwise you’re simply name-calling or, to put it another way, hurling insults around because you like the sound of them.
I think the mods and administrators should be able to handle third grade insults when they aren’t directed at any one person. Think of it as being about as intimidating as “Gee whiz, the teachers treat the third graders like prisoners but the fourth graders get to do everything.” (pout)
Perhaps instead of trying to guess what Dex meant or for that matter who he felt was being insulted when he said, “that remark is out of line and is pretty much a personal insult” we give him a chance to explain it. Until then, all we’re doing is speculating.
Certainly not. What I said was (as you had quoted) that SOMETIMES it’s difficult to separate moderator’s opinion as poster from moderator’s logic as moderator; and that this difficulty can SOMETIMES arise when it’s a question of justifying what is and what is not a hijack.
Most times, it’s not difficult at all. And the mods are discussing this behind the scenes.
Next: Thanks, Lurkmeister, for suggesting people wait for clarification before speculating. It’s always nice to hear calm and reasonableness! Much appreciated.
I thought Seven’s comment was (yet another in that thread) an under-the-table jab directed at Liberal, implying that he gets “special treatment.” Note that it was not an Official Warning, because I did say “pretty much” (implying that there was room for more favorable interpretation), so it was more a friendly reminder.
Finally: Yes, I probably should have let the thread die out on it’s own. Frankly, I was tired of reading it, I thought that the issues had been addressed and resolved, and I thought that the number of side-tracks and hijacks (including all the “noob” stuff and whether John the Babtist was an Episcopalian) had got out of hand and would only worsen if the thread were left open. Our general mod policy is to let threads run their course, but in this case, I thought it had run several courses.
Have a Happy Fourth of July, for those of you in a country where that’s a holiday.
Okay but given that, and given that we’re not always agreed on what those “SOMETIMES” are, wouldn’t it be simpler just to ask mods to decide if they’d rather participate in a thread as a Mod or a poster?
Admittedly, this choice may not always be clear instantly upon reading an OP, but there comes a point when a Mod is clearly participating in an unofficial capacity and is switching Mod hat on to Mod hat off and back with such speed that the two can’t be distinguished, if there is any clear distinction to be made, which I contend there often is not.
Such a neat solution, recusal, that I marvel at the resistance to this policy.
Not to be stupid, but how could implying that Liberal gets special treatment from the mods be a jab at Liberal?
I can’t see how to read that as anything other than a criticism of past moderation where Liberal has been concerned, which seems (to me) perfectly reasonable fodder for ATMB.
I think tomndebb was inappropriately mixing his moderation with his opinions on the OP in that thread, but I don’t think your solution is a good idea. Forcing a choice between moderating and participating would make the job far less enjoyable. Given that we rely on volunteers to do it, it’s a terrible idea to put up barriers to participation by the mods.
What should be done, IMO, is to put all official moderating in separate posts, labeled as Mod notes or Mod warnings. If the subsequent defense of the moderation becomes indistinguishable with the debate in the thread, well, to me that’s a sign that the moderating was in part based on the poster’s views and not on an impartial application of the rules.
