Of course it’s his personal feelings/opinion, but in the context of moderation that he was directly involved in. There is no interpretation where he was posting simply as a board member, divested from his role as mod.
Now whether as a mod he should or should not have those specific opinions, or express them as a mod is a completely separate question, which could be addressed by an ATMB, not a pit, thread.
Fake ATMB thread:
Anyone else feel like they are watching a shark being jumped?
That really doesn’t make any sense but cool that you’re hip to all the new lingo.
I’m now waiting for the warning on personal attacks, and then the inevitable thread complaining that that troglodytendebb wasn’t an insult on any particular moderator.
It was an extreme example to highlight why I don’t think moderators’ personal opinions should be protected just because they happen to be in an ATMB thread. I am not ascribing any of that extreme example to tomndebb.
Their opinion’s aren’t protected. You can criticize them all you want.
You just can’t pit them for actions/opinions expressed under the umbrella of their moderation duties. You are free to open an ATMB thread about any moderator and criticize away. The only constraint is that you have to abide by the rules of ATMB and not the more free-for-all rules of the Pit.
God bless you on your noble legal crusade! Perhaps the ACLU will be of assistance.
Quiet everybody! It seems CarnalK is *still *trying to make a point!
I made my point. You just disagree. We are in ATMB, no need for you try so hard to belittle.
I’m curious, are all the people here in agreement with tomndebb that political affiliation should be included in our “hate speech” rules?
That’s why you used a totally imaginary name for the poster and an insulting derogatory version of an existing moderator’s name in your example?
Right.
If I am, does that mean I can’t say “All Liberals are a bunch of snowflakes!”?
You’ll have to ask tomndebb. I’m not sure if he meant an official party affiliation only or anyone who has a strong affinity to a certain part of the political spectrum.
If it means **tom **would actually do his damn job and mod hate speech for a change, sure, I’d be all for it.
Yup. Honestly, if a moderator declares that they’re not willing to do part of their job, they should be out. Are we really so hard up for mods for Great Debates that we have to accept one who just declares he won’t enforce the part of the rules he dislikes?
Noone had an issue with Miller doing exactly that in the pit. Strange, eh?
And that’s conceding your statement is actually accurate.
The moderators can issue warnings on a whim … that would save their time having to explain the details for the 87th time …
**Miller ***modded *the dumb language rules, he just didn’t issue *warnings *for them. As is his prerogative. So no, not “*exactly *that”.**tom **doesn’t even do that little when it comes to hate speech in GD.
So Miller perpetuated a farce? Great. I’m not sure that’s a good model for the general board. The problem you are having is your personal and highly selective interpretation of so-called hate speech isn’t addressed precisely as you wish.
No, **Miller worked to rule. AKA did his damn job even he disagreed with the rule. **tom **does no such thing. It wouldn’t matter if the hate speech was such that we all agree on, tom won’t mod it as such.