Oh, I’m soooo grateful for your advice, and it’s sooo wonderful to have moderators who can both post on a subject and moderate it without fear of bias.
The guy was being a jerk Marley by using unwarranted sarcasm as an ad hominem attack in place of discussion. Permitting that and moderating me simply because you disagree with me doesn’t suggest you have a strong personal commitment to fighting ignorance.
He was not being a jerk as far as the rules are concerned, and sarcasm is not an ad hominem attack. Calling someone else “Doughball” would be a personal attack. You made the discussion personal when you said “In a way I feel sorry for you.” That’s where that tack came from, and Czarcasm responded to that. He’s correct that it’s a condescending thing to say. You were also borderline junior-moderating. So let’s move on.
Natural philosophy means physics, and I never claimed Shakespeare wrote in the same way I didn’t claim he name-checked you, Horatio. Nice you can recognise an everyday quote though and react with a modicum of humour tho’.
“You don’t know how your parents reacted. You know how they remember reacting a decade later. I’m not calling them liars, but that’s a different situation.”
Yes, they could misremembering and I could be misremembering, but at some point enough people who have experienced a unexplainable event should be investigated rationally, not sarcastically. That’s the history of science in a nutshell.
Oh puhlease spare me the victimhood. Would it be condescending of someone who experiences synetheisa to say to someone who dismissed synetheisa as delusion to say “I feel sorry that you can’t see the colours in sounds the way I do”? Is that evidence synethesia doesn’t exist? No. So stop whining and debate without pulling rank or forget about this whole ‘fighting ignorance’ pretence.
As far as you interpret the rules. Are you sure you are of the temprement both to take part in a football match and referee it? Because most referees prefer to stay neutral. At first impression you don’t seem to be, Diogenes seems better suited to that but it doesn’t seem a good idea for the judge to be part of the prosecution.
Just as well I didn’t then. Would it be a personal attack if I was to call you a ‘heid the ba’ - and if so, can you explain why?
Ah, there’s the rub though. I wasn’t condescending to him I’m sure you’ll agree, and I had no intention of condescending towards you - at the time.
I apologise if that sounded that sounded like condecension to you, but I don’t know you, you haven’t earned any respect from me yet, and you aren’t going about it the right way by demanding it. For a start, if I was condescending, I was condescending to you not him. I repeat, is it condescending of someone who experiences synethesia to say that they are sorry that people who dismiss them as deluded are
No, I wasn’t, I was expressing an opinion as a poster who had been treated perfectly reasonably by Diogenes among others. You see, when I have moderated debates I don’t get involved because I know it would be impossible to maintain neutrality. This thread promised my ‘ghost story’ would be debunked, but when you failed to do that you resorted to ‘moderating’ in a biased manner.
I can see why you just want to move on.
It’s difficult to investigate something for which there is no evidence except a couple of memories. The person who is in the best position to investigate it is you, your conclusion notwithstanding.
Nobody is claiming victimhood. Your comment was condescending, and you’re not the first person to say that kind of thing in a thread like this one. If you didn’t mean to sound that way, we can shake hands and move on. But it’s not out of bounds to point out something that was implied by your wording.
That said, this is starting to become a tangent and I don’t want it to take over this thread because it’s not that interesting and it’s not what the thread is about. If you have further comments or complaints about my moderating, start a thread in ATMB. And don’t insult other posters by calling them names or accusing them of whining. You haven’t received an official warning so far but you will if that continues.
Around our way, we learned football by a a football and getting gangs of children from different streets to take part in matches. There was no referee, but equal force of numbers always kept things equitable. However, sure as fate, every fourth match or so, the wean who had brought the ball would cry ‘Foul’ and be ignored. At that point he would say ‘Well, it’s my ball and if you don’t let me have that I’ve taking it home’. Such behaviour didn’t
It’s odd to witness the same petulant, puerile and unskillful behaviour years later, especially in a place like this.
That’ll be a warning for ignoring moderator instructions, Drew Kit. Now: either start a thread in About This Message Board if you have a complaint, or drop it and continue with the ghost story topic.
Moderator instructions in this case being the equialent of Cartman’s 'Obey my Authoritah!". That’s mighty big of you Marley, pretending to encourage discussion only to stifle it when the argument doesn’t go your way. How does sunlight get in when your mind is so closed and you know everything already.
Marley, Fighting anyone who disagrees since 2002. Pathetic. The only difference between you and the racist posters here - who I have been able to be perfectly civil to when disagreeing with - is that they aren’t pseudo-intellectual hypocrites. I won’t be posting here again purely because of you, and I suspect I’m not the first person you have driven away from what could be a perfectly decent forum.
Since you can’t debate, and as far as I can see haven’t posted anything of worth in your 8 years here, and since you certainly haven’t learned the basics of moderating a forum, what is it you think you add to this place? A huffy little boy that everyone has to kow-tow to or else?
Wannabe.
That’ll be two. If you want to make a big problem of this, I’m not going to sweat it.
These posts were moved from this thread. Here is Drew Kit’s first post in the discussion, and here is the post that led directly to the moderating and other issues being discussed here.
I’ve come to this party a little late . . .
Drew Kit, perhaps we need to revisit the registration agreement that all participants agreed to when they got here:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/faq.php?faq=vb3_board_faq#faq_sdmb_rules
Prezactly this part:
I am not going to wade through the ghost stories thread, but I will say that Marley23 is a pretty good moderator. You can talk to Marley, and he will listen. He’s generally patient enough to explain his decisions. You may not always agree with the end result, but at least you’re going to be heard.
Seems to me like that thread doesn’t belong in GD. It’s just going to be an endless back and forth of “yes it was supernatural” and “no it wasn’t”.
Marley was an excellent Doper before he became a moderator. Oakminster and I disagree about how well he listens. Maybe that depends on who is posting. Marley also has a reputation for being very impulsive and defensive.
He does not understand that he may perceive that someone implied something when they did not.
He does not understand that he is not the ultimate authority of anyone else’s motives. For example, “I feel sorry for you” is not always condescending. Sometimes it is truly a matter of compassion or even empathy. I suppose that context does give clues and moderators do have to make decisions based on those clues. That’s why it’s a good idea to avoid that expression in Great Debates.
Actually, this is Drew Kit’s first post in that thread:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12600569&postcount=316
Drew Kit said:
Unwarranted? You said:
How is “I feel sorry for you” not condescending in that context? You are claiming that you have a bigger, brighter, fuller view of the universe and everything in it, and that he does not, so he doesn’t have a full an appreciation of the universe as you do, and is therefore having a poorer experience.
Czarcasm replied in turn:
Again, how is that unwarranted? You are the one who just said that you have a bigger view of the universe. All he did was paraphrase you, call you on your condenscension. And your response?
First off, the “Doughball” part is cryptic. Are you throwing that as an insult toward Czarcasm? Using that as your signature? What does it mean in context?
Second, you called for a fight. The SDMB appropriate way to do that is to say “Take it to the Pit” or “Pit Me” or something, or else start your own BBQ Pit thread and then provide a link with something like “Let’s continue this discussion over here”. What is not SDMB appropriate is calling for a fight in the discussion thread.
So of course Marley23 moderated your behavior. What did he do? He gave you a note to take that kind of attitude to the Pit. He did not kick you out of the thread, he did not tell you you could not participate any more, he did not even say “You are wrong, and if you disagree do so in the Pit”. He told you to take the personal attack attitude to where it belonged. He didn’t even give you an official warning for it, just called your attention to behavior that was going in the wrong direction. Essentially, gave you guidance to prevent you from violating the rules and earning an official warning.
Then you questioned his behavior in the thread, and he responded to your question with an answer to why he called you on it - Czarcasm’s post was well within the board rules, yours was escalating to a rules violation.
Uh, apparently people disagree and think you were being condescending. If that was not your intent, you came off wrong.
Well, yes, it is a bit condescending to assert your experience is superior to the experience that other people not only have but can have.
Then Marley23 stated what is and has been a consistent rule here, telling you that discussion of the act of moderation was a separate topic from the discussion of ghost stories and their debunkings, and that discussions about moderation belonged in ATMB.
Instead of complying with the board rules as they are and have been, you continue posting in the same thread, hijacking the topic, in order to accuse Marley23 of treating you unfairly, of abusing moderator powers to silence you. That is incorrect on the face of it, he was enforcing the board rules. Your interpretation was faulty, and your behavior was a continued violation of the board rules and the directions by a moderator. Ergo, the warnings you were issued.
Specifically look again at what he said:
See, right there he told you that you could continue discussing the ghost story topic. And if your complaint was that he was wrong on the discussion about his moderating, he told you that you could continue that discussion in the proper forum. So explain how he was trying to silence you, because I don’t see it. He clearly allowed you options to continue either topic.
Then he even did the dirty work and started the thread for you.
Zoe said:
In the context used, it was condescending. Not that there’s anything against the rules about condenscension, but you can’t claim innocence when someone calls you on it.
How on earth does the SDMB force people to become moderators? I’ve only recently begun posting here, but have read threads for several years, and I don’t recall a case of moderators being unreasonable, just doing their job. I’m likely to be a target of their moderation, but that’s why they’re needed, to keep people like me from messing it all up for everybody. Does it say somewhere that moderators need to be absolutely consistent and dependent on fine definitions in their actions? I assumed the job required using judgement based on experience to make their determinations. Please, please, please, no matter how many rules I break, don’t make me a moderator here.
Yeah, not seeing anything Marley did wrong. Had he warned the guy for saying “I feel sorry for you”, as I first thought, I’d be upset. But nothing like that happened.
Nowhere did I say that saying “I feel sorry for you” is always condescending. That would be stupid. I said it Drew Kit used it in a condescending way, and I stand by that. Several other people have picked up on the same thing, and it really is a common trope in discussions of the supernatural or religion. It’s mildly obnoxious but I didn’t think it needed to be moderated. Drew Kit said he did not intend to be condescending and I accept that. But it was not against the rules for Czarcasm (or me, or anyone else) to comment on that. And I don’t think Czarcasm’s post broke any rules just because he got sarcastic. Sarcasm is allowed. And, uh, kind of expected from a user named Czarcasm. The posts that came after that point did need to be moderated. Drew Kit made some comments about me basically putting my thumb on the scales by moderating a thread I was posting in, but I don’t think I did that here. I’d rather not mix the roles of moderator and poster too much but I also don’t see any reason to let stuff go if it is going to bring down the quality of a thread, or if it may escalate to a rules violation.
I think it’s been a pretty productive thread, actually. But maybe I’ve just spent too much time reading it. 
Most of us [del]are gluttons for punishment[/del] ask for an application. Sometimes people are asked if they have any interest.
People here do slice, dice, and parse things very fine sometimes. But it’s helpful to everybody if we’re consistent. If we’re consistent then people know what the rules are and how the moderation works. If not, then people have to guess what the rules are or they may not bother posting.
My point there was about the experience and judgement used to make the call. So when people complain, you should just be able to say ‘Sorry, judgement call’. Semantic deconstruction of an insult doesn’t sound necessary for a simple moderator’s comment. On the other hand, as Super Chicken used to say, ‘You knew the job was dangerous when you took it Fred’.