No, no, and no. You appear to have missed the point I was making: he did not disclose information about anyone’s reporting habits before being accused of ignoring reports due to anti-Shodan bias.
Other than that, like I already said, I’m not interested in rehashing a thread from last summer, and tomndebb can speak for himself.
Ah- I did miss that point. Fair enough.
That doesn’t seem that hard to me. If you are disagreeing with something that he did in his capacity as moderator, then respond to that part of the post in ATMB. You can include a link in the original thread if you want. Like people say in MPSIMS “I’ll see you in the Pit, click here”. If you are disagreeing with something that he said as a poster, then respond in the same forum. If you think you can’t tell the difference, then ask in the thread or via e-mail to a moderator “where should I put my response to this portion of your post?” Or just post in the same thread with an explanation “I think my response should go in here, but if not, feel free to remove and I will start another thread elsewhere.”
Who mods the moderators?
Sounds better in latin: Quis modiciet ipsos modicatores? 
Given that the entire discussion took place in a Forum where I am not a Moderator and where I exercised no effort to impose my authority, I would guess that any reply or challenge could be posted in that same thread. (Under the current rules, much of that thread would have been posted in ATMB at this time, but that would have been the case regardless of any indication that a poster was acting as a Mod in a particular post.)
Or even better in a song sung by Bobby Daren. :eek: I have this on tape from 1960 or earlier
Who’s taking care of the caretaker’s daughter, while the caretaker’s out taking care?.
A woodchuck?
Then it is a distinction without a difference. If the rule against Mod Pitting of other posters is to keep a civil tongue in the Mod’s posts when they are addressing other Dopers, in this instance the guidelines failed miserably. And if a Moderator did not want to be accused of “Pitting” another Doper, she or he could simply hijack a thread pitting another Doper, as was the case here.
Your comment about Mods also being Dopers is noted and I will make it a point not to make that exclusion again. Sorry!
I have just re-read the entire last pages of that thread. I was actually quite civil. At no point did I “Pit” another poster. I called no poster nasty names. I did not even reply in kind to slurs and name-calling directed at me. I did respond to attacks on my behavior or my person by pointing out actual facts of the situations involved, but even there I permitted a number of false claims lodged against me to go unanswered on the grounds that any poster who was willing to read with comprehension would recognize that the attacks and slurs were false.
While I can see a point to having Mods refrain from attacking other posters, your apparent belief that we should also simply accept attacks on ourselves, offering no defense against calumny, seems to be a bit much to ask.
Tom, have you ever, in your 27k posts here, admitted you were wrong? If so, could I please have a link.
Thanks,
leander
tomndebb is never wrong. You are just deliberately misinterpreting him.
Regards,
Shodan
I found this truly, choking back my laughter funny. 
For what it may be worth, my point in disagreeing with the second point in Fenris’s generally well-thought-out suggestions was that Moderators can moderate effectively in threads in which they take part as discussants/debaters, provided that they take care to distinguish what they are doing in which role, and make sure that that distinction is clearly understood by the general consensus of membership. And I held Tom (and Gaudere) up as examples of being able to do this effectively.
I’ve criticized Shodan’s snark-in-lieu-of-substantive-critique in the past; Shodan responded quite courteously giving his rationale for when he does this and why – and while I may still disagree with his stances, I understand his motivations in doing so from his response, and withdrew that criticism (tacitly, at least; I don’t recall now whether I overtly answered him on open board about it). I read Tom’s response to Shodan in the example you cited in much the same vein – he was critiquing Shodan’s posting style and selectivity in reporting posts. (Since I tend to discount left-leaning snark and be offended by right-leaning snark, I can see where Shodan might well do the reverse.) In that vein, I can see your point. However, I reserve the right to be offended by comments made by you, Shodan, Tom, or anyone else as a member of the boards, as no doubt do you and Shodan, and I believe Tom as a member should have the same right – provided that he does not misuse his Moderator powers in doing so. I personally do not believe that he has – he was responding as a member, albeit one who knows more than the average about reports – just as I’ve defended Tuibadiva from a couple of accusations based on off-public-board comments we’ve exchanged, and used information which does not break confidences garnered from those off-board exchanges in doing so.
Bottom line to me: It seems to me like you’ve misreferenced my position in support of your own, prr. But I recognize that that may be merely emotional reaction, and hence am merely commenting on it here rather than taking issue with it elsewhere. But more cogently,. I do feel that Ed seems out of touch with the sentiments of non-staff Dopers generally, misperceiving the issues that have led to protests and departures as “just 'cause we can’t use foul language in the Pit” rather than the real issue – random, arbitrary and capricious rule-making, applied sometimes retroactively, with good loyal members banned for the heinous sin of having pissed Ed off,.
In case nobody but me has caught this – the volunteer staff is caught in the middle by this – they have the choice of publicly acquiescing in what Ed decides or quitting (and notice that some have). And for nobody is this more true than the three Admins. who have been here since the beginning: TD, Lynn and Dex. They have had to take a lot of public flack for things that may not have been their decisions – and I have little doubt that having had to do so has affected them emotionally, and not in a good way. No, I don’t think moderators deserve being called offensive slurs for doing their job – but the mode that Ed chose to correct that is the sort of top-down authoritarian management that treats the board’s clientele as if they were unmotivated recalcitrant teenagers working for minimum wage at a fast-food joint.
Ed’s caught between a rock and a hard place, too – he has been given the Dope to market at a time when the parent company is going through bankruptcy. While it’s been said that his decisions are not financially motivated, and he is an independent contractor, I cannot but think that what’s going on at Creative Loafing has not ingfluenced his decision making. The one bit of advice I’d give him is that it’s not good business practice to humiliate and drive away a substnatial part of your clientele – and that he has resources to draw on. How about him asking Giraffe and TVeblen privately why they quit staff, or at least paying attention to what they’ve said publicly – if he hasn’t already done so? How about looking at what caused past kerfluffles – like Melin, the incident Dex chewed me out because he thought I was referncing (and no, I’m not beating a dead horse here – Dex corrected the incident with me nobly, but what happened that he thought I meant is instructive for how not to handle a situation). How about looking again at the more controversial bannings, from Satan to Otto, to see what can be learned from what happened and people’s reactions to it? (I’m not criticizing staff decision-making there; I’m saying to review how they were dealt with, as a group, for what can be learned about board reactions from them.)
How about looking at this as having the potential for a partnership – CL, Ed, staff, and membership – devoted to preserving and making viable the Dope as the market for alternative journalism shifts? You have a self-selected group with an immense amount of knowledge here, Ed, and one that’s motivated to support your product, if you can avoid alienating them. Figure out how to use that as an asset. For example, how about a new Staff Report daily, seven days a week? (And no, I don’t want to just dump that on Tuba – it would take logistics to ensure she has help in mounting and managing it – and that you have help editing it. As an example, double the size of the SDSAB, recruit twickster to do first-cut edit, so all you and Dex need to do is pass on who’s preparing what and critique the final post-edit draft reports – then have someone with FTP and PHP skills whom Tuba works well with, providing her backup and coverage in making sure they’re up and properly linked?) Figure out a way to provide premium content, either for a user fee or subsidized by a business that sees it as worthwhile to provide it for name recognition. The possibilities for new creative marketing are endless, if you look at the Dope as a resource.
But to get there, there needs to be open communication, a sense of mutual respect in seeking a common goal. And frankly, at this point I’m surprised someone hasn’t taken the picture of you from whitetho’s site and Photoshopped it with pointy hair à la Dilbert. Because frankly, that’s how you’ve seemed to come across. I know you, Ed, well enough to know that’s not your intent. So I’m saying this by way of warning and wake-up, not as condemnation.
And I really hope this has been some help.
We part company on this point. I think it was a serious misuse of power. (and I’m not knocking Tom-it only happened once and that was several years back), and as long as we’re actually having a dialogue with mods & admins about concerns, changes, etc, I think it’s instructive to use this as a “Don’t do this again!” lesson.
This! 100% agreement.
Agree again–
For one specific example about how reviewing procedures and openess has helped, it used to be that any time someone was banned (suspended wasn’t an option), there would be a multi-page thread where junior-detectives (and I’m one of 'em. 
) would try to figure out the reason, dig up prior warnings, and it would inevitably turn into a flame-fest.
Somewhere along the way, someone got the message and bannings (and suspensions) for long time posters are now put in ATMB with a short (or long) list of prior offenses. The number and vitriol of the “Why was so-and-so banned” has dropped astonishingly. I’m not saying those threads don’t exist any more, but they don’t go on for 17 pages spawning multiple sub-threads any more.
Openness helps. Clarity helps (which is why I keep reiterating the nesessity for a “Mod hat” for any, repeat any mod-action. No “I’m making a helpful suggestion as a poster” stuff that just confuses people (I can link to some examples if needed). You can put your mod-hat on and say “I’m not giving you a warning, 'cause I think you didn’t realize that you broke < such-and-such > rule, but please don’t do this again.” and mutual respect helps.
I have made sufficiently few errors that one rarely has an opportunity to see either an error or an admission of same. There is no need.
However, to make you happy, here are some from the previous year
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=10360208&highlight=apologize+mistake*#post10360208
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=10210636&highlight=apologize+mistake*#post10210636
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=9815908&highlight=apologize+mistake*#post9815908
This is all true, but at the same time, the problems are more serious than that. His apologies for making changes in an abrasively stupid manner don’t cover up the fact that some of the changes he’s sticking with weren’t just implemented incorrectly–they were the wrong decisions from the beginning. It makes not a bit of difference if he’s sorry about the poor implementation of these changes if he’s unwilling to admit that the changes themselves are stupid.
Of course, that’s not all of the changes. Practically no one has a problem with moderators not receiving abuse for doing their jobs. Moving complaints about moderation and board administration to ATMB was a smart thing to do.
But the Potty Word List is still utterly moronic. I mean, hell, nobody much cares about “cunt”, but he’s also proscribed the most basic English language insults. If I can’t call a stupid motherfucking poster a stupid motherfucker, but insults more generally are allowed, then we’re left with a middle-school thesaurus game. I’m going to have to search for even more “abusive” language to make sure that my point is sufficiently well made.
Compare:
Christ, you’re a stupid motherfucker.
When I was doing your mom last night, I made sure to triple bag, 'cause that woman’s vagina has diseases that the CDC has never heard of. Probably because you bang her so often yourself, you fucking idiot.
Well, no. I refuse to play the childish game of being allowed to level blistering insults when appropriate, but having a schoolmarmish finger wagged at me if I happen to type a word form that crosses the line. For all the contriteness he’s shown, Ed still refuses to compromise on the fundamental way he administrates, which is amply demonstrated by his persistence in mandating a list of words that aren’t allowed because they offend his delicate sensibilities.
The Pit as a steam valve has always been a fundamental part of this board. That means allowing insults. And once insults are allowed, it becomes an utterly ridiculous game to dictate so many specifics of vocabulary. But apparently, he can’t see that. He genuinely thinks that he does a pretty good job “putting things right”, when the big brouhahas are almost never put right.
It’s not possible for him to change his administration style if he doesn’t even recognize the problems. He’s going to continue to run the board in the same error-riddled authoritarian way, with the big problems never changing, even if he’s constantly kinda sorta sorry about how authoritarian he is.
George Carlin’s ashes are spinning.
Yep. Ed’s clueless.
There’s ignorance, and then there’s willful ignorance. Ignorance can be fought. Willful ignorance such as that displayed by Ed often can’t. I doubt he sees the irony.
:
You then list three links to errors in facts that you made. You can at least admit to making mistakes about factual information.
Where did I state a belief that Mods should also (simply) accept attacks on yoursellves, offering no defense against calumny (lies). You say that my believe is “apparent*.” How did this belief become apparent to you when I hold no such belief and have stated no such belief? Like anyone else, you, as a Moderator, have a right to defend yourself from attacks if you choose to. I would think that defending one’s self from damaging lies would be a point of honor. (You might want to check my signature elsewhere.)
But there is a difference in defending yourself and in attacking the other Doper. It is the latter of the two that I see mostly in the exchange with Shodan. Defending yourself is assertive behavior and it is giving and demanding in return fair treatment. Aggressive behavior is snarling and accusatory.
If you will notice, I did give you credit for not using profanity in your comments to others. (It isn’t necessary to be profane in order to wound.)
Notice also that Shodan and I are from opposite sides of the political bird. I have no ulterior motive for sticking up for him other than finding your dressing down of him grossly unfair and unbecoming a mod.
You were wrong ethically then to expose him that way just as you are wrong now to try to portray my position on Mods as suggesting that you should be passive when you are being attacked. Just don’t be violent with your words. Don’t try to be hurtful.
[/quote]
Whereas, I see the same tired and baseless complaint lodged against the staff, in this instance, making a point to target my efforts, in a thread where my sin was noting that the hostility on the board arose among a small number of partisans across the philosophical spectrum rather than being a moral failing of everyone on one “side” or the other. My effort was to defuse the stereotypical “THOSE OTHER posters are always EVU-U-U-UL” accusations that typically degenerate into polarized camps where few, if any, posters attempt to actually exchange ideas.
As you are fond of pointing out, one may attack another without resorting to harsh language, yet you only seem to condemn the staff, (or, perhaps, me), for offering a defense when attacked.