In a previous thread (which you can access by using the link in the quote):
Not when the mod isn’t acting as a moderator. And I propose that any time a mod insults another poster, he is no longer acting as a moderator, no matter what he claims. Moderator actions are limited to enforcing the rules, and they very well can’t break a rule while enforcing it. And if the moderator actually tells you to open up a pit thread to complain about a moderating action, that should count as giving you permission. If they don’t want to do that, be more careful with language.
I would also posit that a moderator who claims to be acting as a moderator should be held to a higher standard than regular posters. There’s no reason they can’t stick to being civil when acting as a moderator. The idea that a personal insult could have happened by accident would be moot if all mods agreed to use higher-level language, or at least a default template; in neither can an insult can’t creep in.
And yes, I’m raising the bar on mods when I say (while moderating) they shouldn’t be able to use insulting language at all. It’s honestly not that hard. “So-and-so, such-and-such is against the rules of this forum. Knock it off.” (To be more formal, they’d merely quote the rule, and replace “Knock it off” with “Please desist.” They might even include a quote showing where the rule was broken.)
Finally, as there is no shortage of level-headed people who would love to moderate, each moderator should have a limited number of times they can mess up and apologize. In this regard, even when moderating, a moderator should be held to the same rules as regular posters.
(The last part, as far as I know, may already be in place, but as it is not made public, I am unsure. And while the moderator actions mentioned by Starving Artist are the inspiration for this argument, I am not directing this toward tomndeb, but as a suggestion to moderators and administrators in general.)
Moderators ARE held to a higher standard, and ARE supposed to be generally polite when engaged in their moderating duties. If they are not being so, then the proper course is to report to an Administrator. So, on the whole, we all agree with you.
However, as a somewhat minor footnote, please note that it is pretty much impossible to enforce the rules without some personal insult. “So-and-so, being a jerk is against the rules of this forum” is a meaningless statement without adding the explanation, “You are behaving like a jerk.” Frankly, we have enough problems with some people not understanding moderator instructions as things stand. If we could only quote the rule, without saying “you have broken this rule”… well, I can’t imagine. The distinction between “you are being a jerk” and “we have a rule about not being a jerk and you have violated that rule” … seems to me to be too fine for practical consideration.
If Poster X said to Poster Y: “Trolling is defined as blah-blah and you fit that definition,” we’d call it a personal insult, even though Poster X didn’t actually say “You are a troll.”
So, again, I think that all the mods agree with you that politeness and common courtesy is the way things should be. I think we also all agree that sometimes the frustration level is just too much, and we do vent. We are chastized for it later and we do feel great regret. Ed has expelled moderators who went over the line too often.
And this is, after all, the Straight Dope board. Cecil’s columns make it quite clear that he has never suffered fools gladly. I think it quite fitting that his staff should follow suit
Teachers are required to do exactly that all of the time. They are not supposed to use personal insults against a student. No name-calling. No sarcasm. No one-ups-man-ship.
Quote the rule or rules which have been violated.
Describe the behavior (in this case, quote the words) which have broken that rule.
Take the moderator action that is appropriate.
In step two you have to be very objective and not let your feelings get the best of you. Stifle the urge to be cutting.
Where some mods get in trouble is in arguing afterwards. That should either be handled totally respectfully by the poster or explained in PM by the mod.
Not true. I moderated a large board for years and was able to do so without insulting posters, even when they flagrantly flouted rules. Remind people of rules; ask them to behave. And whatever you do, do not moderate when someone is breaking the rules to insult you. That’s like feeding gremlins after midnight. If someone is insulting you, call in another mod for a second opinion.
edit: Tom, in my case, I handled such issues by saying something like, “Poster X, please check your inbox, and do not post again in this thread.” Failure to comply would result in an immediate suspension. This gives other posters a clear indication that such behavior is not to be tolerated, and it does not result in insulting Poster X. The insults inevitably escalate the issue; I’ve seen that repeatedly on this board, and I suspect you may have noticed it also.
Yes, actually you should. You lose as a moderator/administrator when you engage such behavior. Amazingly enough, it is NOT important to have the last word, or be “right” in the eyes of everyone, or get a concession out of the other poster. After all, you do have the controlling whip in these cases: if a poster insists on being a jerk, you can suspend or ban them, right?
Horses for courses. This has always been a feisty board (that’s one of the things I enjoy about it), and I think it quite fitting that it should have feisty moderators, who aren’t afraid of plain speaking when the occasion calls for it.
That’s not to say they’re not polite most of the time, it’s been my experience that they are. It just means that if you lay into a mod you’ll probably be answered in kind. As the apocryphal zoo sign had it, Cet animal est fort méchant, / Quand on l’attaque il se défend.
All you’d have to do is change “Don’t be a jerk” to “Don’t act like a jerk.” Then, if you say they are breaking the rule, you are no longer insulting the person, but the actions.
Most of the other rules seem to already be constructed in such a way as to avoid personal insults.
Other than that, most of my post was to get you to come on record and say what I suspected was true. It seems that a lot of posters in this forum don’t believe that.
I was responding to the idea that non-insulting moderation was impossible. I disagree. The question of whether it’s desirable on this board is a different one. If you’re suggesting that some insults in moderation are desirable, I agree.
However, there’s a problem when a moderator uses the position of being a moderator to dish out insults but not take them. I disagree that that’s desirable, and I believe that happens sometimes. It’s not a huge deal, but I’d like that not to happen.
I’m being quoted out of context. I’m getting quoted as saying “However, as a somewhat minor footnote, please note that it is pretty much impossible to enforce the rules without some personal insult.”
Yeah, OK, but that was only the first sentence of the paragraph. My POINT was (please read the rest of the paragraph, omitted in the quotes above):
Hence, Zoe, when you quote only my first line, you are distorting what I had to say. We’re stuck with (as you confirm): [Whatever] is against the rules of this board. You are [whatever]ing." And our posters take “You are trolling” and “You are being a jerk” (behavioral descriptions) as personal insults. I (and, I presume you agree with me) do not; I view them as accusations and explanations of the rules and why the person is violating them.
Left Hand: ditto. I did not mean to imply that moderation is impossible without insult. I meant to say (and probably did not say it well) that making an accusation of a rules violation can be (and seems to have been in the recent cases) perceived as an insult by the poster. It’s NOT desirable to moderate without calling attention to behaviors that are in violation of the rules. It’s NOT desirable to moderate without explaining WHY such-and-such is a hijack, or trolling, or jerkiness. And we have no control over whether posters will take those explanations as insults.