Is there any recourse for dubious modding?

About This Message Board
1

I’ve had a continuing problem with a particular mod who demonstrates little or no grasp of what I’ve been trying to explain to him for weeks now (because he kept PMing me over and over about it). It very much seems to me to be the result of poor reading comprehension, for I’ve explained it perhaps a dozen different ways without success.

That leads to a broader issue, which is what this OP is all about: Is there any recourse for a poster when a mod demonstrates that he or she is not quite cut out for moderating a particular forum because the topics there seem to be a bit out of his depth? In other words, if they can’t quite grasp an only slightly subtle explication, should they be moderating the most intellectually demanding forum here, GD?

The mod in question has demonstrated clear bias against me as a result of his lack of understanding, too. There are few things more irritating than the uneven enforcement of rules such that one poster (myself) is issued a (fully justified) warning for something that another poster gets away with nothing more than a “head’s up”. What’s good for the goose should be good for the gander, but when that’s not the case it will usually bring on dissatisfaction and justified fear of reprisals and unfair judgments in the future.

On a separate issue about a separate moderator, I was told I had to post the following here. So here it is:

By that reasoning, your judgment is that criticizing a poster’s racist views as infantile, immature, and childish is equivalent to calling the poster a racist! I didn’t merely “toe the line”, let alone cross over it – in fact, I explicitly asserted in that post that my opponent was NOT “infantile”! And I genuinely apologized for my earlier behavior!

If a poster can’t even correctly and accurately and fairly and with perfect justification characterize someone’s views as infantile, immature, and childish – while taking pains to openly note that the poster him- or her-self is not infantile, immature, and childish – what other draconian restrictions on intellectual honesty are secretly in your rulebook? One seems to be related to the length of a post!

I’ve avoided criticizing mods for the most part because of the fully justified fear of biased treatment in reprisal. I know the mods are human, too, and that they’re volunteers – and I respect them tremendously for their voluntary service. But they also have the power where we do not. Power imbalances always invite abuse. That, too, is human. So I can’t help thinking this complaint will end up hurting me far more than helping me…

2

You know you wrote me first, right?

You can always ask us - meaning the individual mod or the staff in general - to review or reconsider any decision. You can’t get a mod removed, no.

How so?

You received your warning about two weeks ago. You never disputed the warning itself (in fact you acknowledged it ahead of time), but since then you have attacked my reading comprehension and a number of other issues in PMs and in this post. Have you faced any kind of reprisals or punishment?

3

As some have mentioned in other forums, part of your problem could be your communication style. Not the length of your posts, necessarily, but your tone. Accuse me of poor reading comprehension all you want, but there is a haughtiness and condescension in your writing that is simply off-putting. You may not mean to sound that way, but I and several others have told you that you do. It may not be fair or logical, but the emotions that writing can evoke are not bound by such concepts. Here is what most of us are hearing in the above-quoted excerpt:

“If someone can’t understand what I’m saying, even when I try to say it different ways, it must be their problem. I am perfectly clear and coherent in my writing, after all. No one with a brain could fail to understand anything I write.”

“While I appreciate the enthusiasm of this cute little moderator [patting the mod on the head], I don’t think he’s quite up to snuff intellectually with the rest of us Great Debators. If he but understood a modicum of our brilliance, he would certainly not rule against me.”

I don’t think you intend your posts to come off like that, but, as I said, interpretation sometimes defies logic.

4

Here is a link to the thread that prompted this discussion.

ambushed was warned for this post. It begins as follows:

And continues in this vein. He hasn’t disputed the warning, but thinks orcenio should have been warned for some other posts, including this one:

and this one

Those comments are not exactly polite, but I didn’t feel they rose to the level of being personal insults. So I didn’t issue a warning to him and I think that was the correct decision. I did give orcenio a note saying he should avoid any other personal remarks and stick to the arguments. (I admit I forgot to do this while I was writing my warning to ambushed. I did it in a separate note the following morning.)

The rest of the problems ambushed has with me come from private messages.

5

I’m not feeling the rant, but, if you were acting as a moderator in those PMs, then their contents are still relevant to this thread. And if you were acting as a poster, then he can Pit you for it. Although, based on what he seems to be mad about now, that would probably backfire quickly.

6

I’m not commenting on their relevance. I’m saying it’s up to ambushed to decide if we’re going to publicly discuss any of what was said. I’m not going to be the one to make any of the contents public. I don’t think it would be appropriate, and it could make problems for me in the future.

7

Maybe this isn’t intended to be a rehash of any issues between ambushed and me. So I’ll reiterate: anyone can ask questions about any moderating decision due to bias or any other reason, and ask that we reconsider anything we’ve done. If a poster feels any given mod is no good, he’s free to say so. There’s no process by which the poster can remove a mod or exclude a mod from commenting on his posts.

8

Kewl. I just misread you. In fact, I probably shouldn’t have said anything. I have a bad habit of feeling the need to respond in this forum when I really don’t.

9

ambushed said:

Wait, you called orcenio a toothless hillbilly, and he called you a philosophy major, and you think it was unfair that you got an official warning and he didn’t?

10

Well, in all fairness, “philosophy major” is pretty strong stuff.

11

It does carry with it certain…implications. Implications which ambushed is not exactly dispelling.

12

Did you just call him stupid? Personal insults in ATMB. Banned!

13

In the end there is NO recourse when it comes to moderators.

14

Is there any recourse for being insufferably tedious?

15

My experience differs. If there is a contested moderator action, it does get reviewed and sometimes reversed.

It just might take longer than a couple of hours. And you actually have to have a case, not just not like getting called on your bullshit.

16

There’s no recourse for consistently shitty moderation.

17

If the moderation around here is consistently shitty, why do you stick around?

18

Funniest thing I’ve read all week.

19

Piffle.

Noting that a comment appears to be racist or even noting that a post appeared to be infantile falls within the realm of attacking the post, not the poster.

Go back and read the post to which I responded. You did not merely make a comment and then explain it, you went on, at length, across multiple paragraphs, repeatedly making derogatory comments throughout your post.

20

I prefer dick jokes. Much more sophisticated.