The rules do cover that, I think, although they don’t say it that way outright:
Aaayyyyyyy! 
[sub]I’m sorry.[/sub]
I am sure that you actually believe this little anecdote, but since it never happened, I am not sure why you insist on repeatedly posting it across multiple message boards. (Your accusation that I would swat down my opponents while ignoring the crimes of my partisans is simply false. badchad tried to make the same claim, although he had the misfortune to point to a thread involving theists and atheists where the only Warnings and admonitions were delivered to some theists–not a particularly good example of his claim.)
I suspect that you may have confused an incident in The BBQ Pit, (where I clearly did not exercise my mad Mod powers), with some other fight, however the closest event to your claim, above, was on one occasion when a poster dropped any pretense at discussion simply to hurl insults at me and engage in direct name-calling, earning a Warning for a specific violation of GD rules. Folowing that Warning he then posted multiple times with more insults while I ignored his hissy fit to let him cool off rather than slamming him with multiple Warnings or calling for his suspension. ::: shrug ::: Since that event occurred months after you began posting your claims of my failure to behave appropriately, I suspect that that was not the incident that prompted your tale of repeated injustices.
Fenris, I’m glad you got some response to this. I have suggested the same thing several times since this began with no response.
Honest perspective here: I’ve been here a while, and I don’t think I’ve ever gotten so much as a Mod Note, let alone a warning. And I think you’re right that it’s very rare that I see moderator “misbehavior.” But what I do see is someone getting a mod note/warning/directive laced with snark, condescension, or snippiness that makes me think “geez, that was unnecessary,” (or, depending on whether the person deserved it, maybe I laugh at their expense… doesn’t make it right). It’s pretty minor, and definitely wouldn’t be classified as “abuse”, but it’s disrespect, it serves no purpose, and it increases the animosity, probably leading to more posters who want to respond with “fuck you” than “thank you.”
Something to think about. I think it wouldn’t hurt to require all mod duties to be carried out with the professionalism that 95% of them are carried out with.
You’re now claiming that I never suggested that you should recuse yourself as a Mod in a particular thread? Or that I did make such a suggestion, and you complied with it? Or that you did comply with the suggestion, but I still wasn’t satisfied?
Or is this just “Deny, deny, deny” and trust that most people (who don’t really care) will assume that there’s got to be some truth to your categorical denial that anything resembling my contention ever happened on this earth?
You told me to stay out of threads lots of times. Your reasoning has always been based on events that never happened.
It is a false claim that I ever posted in a thread, invoked Mod powers to take a swipe at an opponent, then went back and posted in the manner that I had admonished another poster to refrain from posting.
It is a false claim that I ever invoked Mod powers to take a swipe at an opponent while ignoring the same behavior from a poster on “my” side of the discussion.
Your claim is that I have done one or both on numerous occasions, yet when asked for examples, you have specifically said that you did not want to get bogged down in digging up citations. There is a phrase that describes making charges often enough to get them believed even when they are not true. At this point I think you are simply running your grudge based on your imagination, but at some point I have to begin to wonder whether it is deliberate.
Kind of like when Zoe goes after prr because she’s convinced he’s not really an English professor at an accredited university?
As a long time reader, and incredibly infrequent poster (I think this is maybe my 3rd post?!) I’ve been observing this situation with increasing incredulity.
For what it’s worth, here’s my opinion!
People who subscribe to message boards feel a sense of ownership of the board as they have directly contributed to a community that they’ve helped to create. However, this “community” is open to anyone, and certain expectations of behaviour should be made clear to all who want to participate. These are defined in your “rules”. Because some will push the boundaries, unfortunately, you’ll need someone to oversee these.
Here’s the conundrum for the Straight Dope.
Should these “overseers” (or moderators) be part of the community or should they be slightly separate from the community? In an ideal world, the mods would be part of the community, and be respected as people who steer discussions back on track.
As I see it, if a mod is a member of the community that they are moderating, then they are going to become vulnerable to personal attacks. This is because people who are angry will throw anything they can at the person they are angry with.
I actually think that moderating under your community name is dangerous - simply because it will always cross boundaries and it will always be a blurred line. Again, in an ideal world, where the only members of a community have the same ethos behind their debates, then named moderators are great. Unfortunately, this isn’t an ideal world.
So in summary my suggestion? Mods when moderting should have a username that relects that (i.e. Moderator John; Moderator Moon; Moderator Jones), and also be permitted to have a community username, that doesn’t identify them as mods. That being said, the fact that someone is a moderator doesn’t need to be hidden, but it should simply be clear which “hat” they’re posting under. Incidentally, by removing the mod (while modding) from the community will make it difficult for personal attacks to occur, as no personal history will be divulged.
Suggestion over! I shall return to lurking 
Having been on boards where Mods had a regular account and a Staff account, it’s been my experience that it doesn’t help. Members will yell at John the Poster and Mod John equally. Mod John will post John the Poster’s thoughts and reactions. Nothing really changes, except for the level of complexity.
One possible solution to the blurring of the line between Mod and Member is the use of a [mod] [/mod] tag, which specially highlights the Mod action/directive and is available only for Staff use. Many boards are using them these days, so there are plenty to choose from.
Anything inside the tags is the Mod speaking. Anything not inside the tags is the Member speaking.
'th hell? How can you say that? What part of “drunken Mickey Rooney having the DTs in a Disney family classic” deserves contempt?
Twickster, I provided so many citations for why I didn’t believe PRR that I was asked to stop correcting his grammar. There was the time, for example, that he forgot what his doctorate was in and contradicted what he had written previously. Ultimately, I was not the one who convinced others. He was.
I’m surprised that you all continue to bring it up every time that it’s brought up.
Despite our having been on opposite sides in many, many discussions and debates, I do recall a thread in which I believe PRR specifically asked Tom to recuse himself. I believe that has been within the last year. I’m not certain that the word recuse was used, but I think that it was.
I also recall a post in which Tom berated someone – I don’t remember who – for too frequently reporting posts and for doing so for inappropriate reasons. There was nothing profane in what Tom had to say, but he is very talented with words and can use ordinary language in the most intimidating ways. As I read what he posted to the Doper, I had the impression of flesh being torn from bone although there was absolutely no reference to this or any such metaphor used in Tom’s post.
Since that time, I have not used the “Report This Post” option in Great Debates.
And I don’t disagree with some of the things that PRR has posted in this thread.
The post in which PRR asked Tom to recuse himself was over two years ago. My how time flies when you’re debating “Are Xtians Stupid?”
You’re funny. Please note that my point in this thread was initially to agree with **Polycarp **that you had, as is well-noted by your friends and my adversaries alike, in point of fact, done precisely what you deny doing: you entered many a thread as both Mod and poster, and issued official admonishments and warnings alongside tendentious personal opinions and interpretations of fact, mixing up your roles as Mod and poster promiscuously. The difference between my point and Poly’s is not whether you ever did this. We (and anyone with half a brain cell) agree that clearly that is your MO–where we differ is whether this a good thing or a bad thing. Obviously, both Poly and I have particular axes to grind here, and clearly he finds your “I’m a Mod/No, I’m a poster/ No, I’m a floor wax” comedy routine to be judicious and fair, which is understandable since he’s the primary beneficiary of your protection and baby-sitting services. I’m not, and I’m here to tell you that you have displayed repeatedly a lack of personal ethics that I find appalling, and also contrary to what **Marley **describes as basic good modding: recusing yourself at the first serious sign that you are deeply invested in a discussion as a poster with a bias towards one side of a debate. That’s you, in a nutshell, and since even your friends and supporters brag that you do it so skillfully and well, you might want to consider that you’re the only one here who is still denying (with your typical belligerent defensiveness) that you do it at all. As I say, you’re very funny.
This Pit thread is the one in which Tom is very critical of a poster for using the “Report This Post” option in Great Debates. The actual discussion of this issue begins on page three with a comment by Starving Artist (who is not the target of Tom’s criticisms.) See Post 140.
Who says that Mods can’t Pit Dopers? Tom just didn’t have a separate thread for his pitting. He also received a lot of criticism for bringing to light what should have been a private matter (reporting a post).
Gotta point there …
We’ve said it repeatedly, because we can’t.
Then he didn’t pit another poster, since pitting is defined as starting a thread in the Pit. We’re not told to refrain from ever criticizing another poster, although there are general limits on tone. That would be a really onerous restriction and we’re supposed to be able to enjoy the boards, too. We volunteer to moderate because we like it here and there are already restrictions on what we do.
[ETA: You made an interesting distinction by making mods a separate category from Dopers. I know what you meant, but we’re Dopers too. We’re here because we like the board and want to pitch in in helping it run. I understand how much people value their posting privileges and the board, but our actions are taken too seriously a lot of the time.]
Without rehashing somebody else’s old argument, I think reported posts should be private without exception. But tomndebb wasn’t the one who raised the issue there.
Yes he was.
-post 145
He’s the first person to mention “post reporting” and specifically asks if anyone did.
Shodan says “I didn’t bother” and Tom jumps him, using mod-only information that should be private. Regardless of any other issues about Tom, that particular incident showed remarkably bad judgment and should have garnered him a warning. (Or at least an apology from him)
No, The specific point is not whether I ever acted both as a poster and as a Mod in the same thread–a point I have never denied, would not deny, and have actually noted, myself, in this very thread.
Your claim, repeated in flowery language, here, is that I specifically did it favoring one side or another in an argument. You have failed to ever cite a single instance in whch I used my Mod powers to slap down an opponent whose behavior was the same as my behavior or the behavior of a poster on my side of an argument while failing to slap down posters on “my side” of the argument who engaged in the same behavior.
Poly’s point was that I have been able to distinguish my roles, effectively and fairly. Your claim is that I gratuitously mixed those roles, yet you continue to avoid demonstrating even a single instance, much less a patternm of behavior.
Note the example cited by Zoe. You called a poster “stupid” in GD. Rather than issuing a Warning, I simply told you to quit. In the course of my post, I attempted to forestall an ongoing complaint that you had dragged into - that was off-topic. I did not call you names or insult you. I merely pointed out the rules, you explicit violation of them, and told you to stop breaking them.
By the way, for those who say it’s 100% clear when someone’s wearing their mod hat or not, how 'bout this post by Tom? (from the same thread as my post above
Shodan ends a snarky post with “You’re lying”
and Tom responds:
He sounds like a mod in the second half, and a poster pitting another poster in the first half–same post though. No mod hat anywhere, but the second half, after the ==== part is pure mod…sorta–it’s a mod making public info that I’d understood to be public and using it to attack a poster. If I wanted to respond to that single post, would I have had to respond to it in ATMB for part of it and in The Pit for part of it?
Hypothetically, if he’d posted that today, what answer would be appropriate where? So…for those who’ve argued “Mod hats” aren’t necessary and shouldn’t be required, what is the current board sanctioned method of handling this kind of situation?