Btw, if you want a good example of tomndebb’s personal bias in modding, see here:
Now read the posts from tomndebb’s favorite buddy FinnAgain and tell me they do not “promote…personal hostility” and are not “provocative and unnecessarily hostile”??
I acted for years as a mod on a board with comparable size and posting frequency to SDMB. I frequently modded without having read the entire thread. You’re missing what I’m saying.
I’m not saying you have to read the whole thread before modding. I’ve vociferously and in detail defended the exact opposite view (elsewhere). What I’m saying is that, if you post in a thread as a poster, you need to read the whole thread first, no matter who you are. If you’re a mod and you post without reading, you’re already setting a bad example: it’s poor board etiquette. If you then go on to read the whole thing and shut the thread based on it, it’s really bad form.
Also, when I modded another board, I did the most moderation in the fora I was most interested in. However, when I moderated in a thread I’d been participating in, it always fell into one of two situations:
- The person was way egregiously over the line toward a poster besides myself, and I was surgical in my moderation; or
- I called in another moderator.
Moderating against people with whom you’re arguing is a shitty idea. And it’s unnecessary.
Thus my suggested guidelines.
Edit: FWIW, leander, what you posted looks to me like excellent moderation, handled exactly as it should have been handled.
True, I got banned at one board for just a mild question about why the board was run that way.
Left Hand of Dorkness: well, then sometimes yes and sometimes no. It all depends on the thread, etc. Generally, it’s good manners, but like I said, sometimes I think of a good reply and want to write it out before I proceed.
Still, I’ll bet that if they came down and made up special rules just for you as a Moderator, you’d tell them where to go. I know I would.
I think you’ve missed my point. I don’t dispute the fact that amanset crossed the line; I’m suggesting that it’s ridiculous to say that amanset was “provocative and unnecessarily hostile” while (once again) ignoring FinnAgain’s usual frothing at the mouth nasty tone and attitude.
ETA: Is there anyone, aside from the usual suspects who will always defend the mods, who thinks that amanset was out of line while FinnAgain was not? If so, please tell me why.
Firstly, maybe amanset was reported and FinnAgain wasn’t.
Secondly, there have been explicit SDMB decisions that posters aren’t allowed to alter direct quotes (in quote boxes) from other posters. Doing so will get you a mod rebuke every time it’s reported.
Thirdly, telling someone multiple times to “shut up” is unambiguously hostile, and provides no useful information whatsoever.
I just spent about 20 minutes locating most of the relevant exchanges in that thread, and while FinnAgain was frequently sarcastic he always brought information to the discussion. He didn’t belittle the person, he mocked their research.I saw nothing approaching, “Shut up.”
I didn’t read every word. If you can locate something from FinnAgain similar to amanset’s attacks, the moderators would presumably give him a warning.
And some of us think that it is poor form to do that in any case. In general to post before having read what others have already said at the least risks just repeating what others may have pointed out already but more cogently. It is not so hard to wait until you have finished reading the whole thing before posting and it is more important to do that as a mod if just to avoid the appearance of abusing “mod powers”.
Tom’s acting on his eagerness to comment before having finished the thread was a mistake which resulted in an unfortunate impression to some.
And sometimes he does inadequately explicitly demarcate his posts as mod from his posts as a participant. Functioning as both in a thread is, IMHO, a fine thing to do, but it requires clear margins even if they seem odd to enforce. (I am imagining Les in WKRP and his inistence that his imaginary office door was respected). Even in this case, Tom, your post as a participant was getting fuzzy edged into mod turf with its comment about what was “being abused” in the thread. Given that you are a mod you really should refrain from making such judgmental comments unless you are functioning as a mod, and then you really should be explicitly clear that you are functioning in that capacity.
Meant as mere constructive advice form someone who in general respects the thankless job you do and knows that he could never do it himself.
You can’t address let alone rebut any of the facts I pointed out either, eh?
I suppose if Tom wanted he could share some information about all the times I’ve insulted him, quite extensively, in public, in PM’s, in emails…
Suffice it to say, your claims are funny.
As a starting point, I might point to the rules of GD. Direct personal insults like “you are looking like an idiot” are not permitted. “Your claims evince an obvious ignorance about history” do not violate those rules.
You make some good points, though I didn’t see where amanset altered the quotes; I thought he was merely paraphrasing FinnAgain’s typical spittle flecked rants. But I’ll admit I might have missed it.
I guess my point was that tomndebb’s comments seemed to imply that he wanted to raise the tone of the conversation and reduce the “provocative and unnecessarily hostile” language. If so, he should have commented on FinnAgain’s childish outbursts as well.
Decaf.
Anyways, I’m sorry, since you’re not just flaming me outside of the Pit because you know full well that I was correct and you’d prefer to foot stomp and impotently cast fictional claims about my behavior, I’m sure you’re perfectly able to prove I was wrong and was in fact just ranting, spittle flecked, childishly and frothy mouthed, you charmer you.
I eagerly await your cite of any and all of your posts showing how I was wrong on the facts or used fallacious logic.
I’m sure you can provide those facts immediately.
Yeah, it wasn’t precisely an altered quote, but it was in a quote box and wasn’t a real quote. It was a conspicuous jerk-move, that was extremely close to a well-known rule violation. Very attention getting.
And you probably don’t want to discuss this with FinnAgain in this thread, but his analysis of what is and is not permitted in GD matches my understanding.
It’s not about discussion.
If Leander believed that I was “ranting” and having “childish outbursts” it would be a trivial matter to point out how wrong I was. Or to quote any such occurrences. If he really wanted to call me out, he could even post in the GD thread and take me to pieces, what with me being so wrong and all.
He hasn’t. He won’t.
If Leander believed that I somehow violated the rules of GD he could have quoted a line, a phrase, a word I used which showed such a thing. He could discuss things I said which violate the GD rules, with specific examples, rather than vague personal insults with zero substantiation. He could report the posts themselves in GD. He could PM GD mods and ask them to discuss their policies. He could do the same with the board’s admins.
If Leander believed that Tom really favored me he could look at the knock down, drag out fights I’ve had with Tom, in public and still on the record. He could ask Tom to substantiate the fact that I have been quite antagonistic and outright insulting to him more than once in the past over his moderation style, carrying out long arguments via PM or email. Leander could then apologize to Tom for making such claims in the first place, were he so inclined.
This isn’t about a discussion of GD rules, it’s a rather risible accusation that Tom considers me a “buddy” and he displays bias in ‘helping me out’ unfairly. And it’s a chance to flame me outside of the Pit and make stuff up about me.
~shrugs~
For someone who seems to pride himself on his mad debating skillz, you’re not very good at reading comprehension, are you?
I never said whether you were correct or not. I merely pointed out that your posts are ridiculously over the top and most definitely “provocative and unnecessarily hostile”. And yes, they are also ranting, spittle flecked and childish (whether they are correct or not). It’s a shame, because you seem like a fairly smart fellow but unfortunately you take a giant dump in every Israeli thread instead of merely trying to argue with and/or educate people.
In general I don’t bother wasting my time with people that engage in such behaviour.
/end hijack
Once again, reading comprehension fails you. This time I’ll leave it up to you to figure it out. Come back to me when you do. 
Very, very interesting. Surely you can point to me saying anywhere that I have ‘mad debate skills’. Of course we both know you made it up, but anyways… let me try to explain a bit to you why “reading comprehension” assumes that the thing you’re trying to comprehend isn’t just angry bombastic noise, ya know, like a rant. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed that you were at least trying to mount a semi-coherent argument as to how I’d done something wrong. I knew that your little song and dance about my behavior in GD was a pretense, because you still can’t actually cite anything of mine which was over the line for GD let alone anything that was “over the top”. No “ranting”, no “outbursts”. And, you’ve actually just reached the low point of pretending that 100% correct factual refutations that I engage in are ‘taking a dump’ in a GD thread, while tellingly you have not one word to spare for those who posts fiction and ignorance in GD which necessitates those factual refu, er, I mean, horrible horrible no good very mean ranty rants.
You aint got nuthin, and you know it.
And please, this is no hijack.
Your fiction about Tom letting my conduct in the thread ‘slide’ is what started this. You then went on to flame me in several posts because you evidently can’t figure out how to find the Pit. Hijack? Your whine about me is the entire substance of what you’ve just posted.
P.S. You could always stop this game where you post bullshit, I catch you, and you babble about me lacking “reading comprehension”. But again, we both know that the reason why you won’t attempt to pretzel yourself up here is because you alleged that I was somehow “out of line” and yet that’s just another thing you’ve made up about me, because you can’t cite a single word, phrase or sentence of mine that was out of line as per GD rules. You can’t cite a single word I said to amanset that was over the line, because you’re making it up.
You won’t exert the energy to justify that fiction because, well, it’s mighty hard to provide proof of something you imagined. But you’ll keep slinging insults.
I have to admit your post made me laugh, kid.
My “cite” was that entire page of your usual over the top vitriol. As I said, it’s unfortunate that you can’t get that little tick under control, but that’s really your problem, not mine (thank Og).
As far as tomndebb is concerned, the matter is whether he shows bias in his modding. For some very bizarre reason this question keeps coming up again and again. 
So, pretty much, you’re trying to say:
‘You are an over the top ranter who froths at the mouth and shits in every thread on this subject with your spittle flecked ranting and childish outbursts. Not like me, calm, collected, and polite.’
You haven’t looked up words like “irony” or “Janus” recently, have you?
Here, why don’t you quote one whole paragraph of this “over the top” vitriol that I directed at a single other poster in GD. Can’t do that?
How about a line?
How about a phrase?
There some actual reason, other than the obvious, as to why you can’t cite a single word to back up your game of Let’s Pretend?
Too funny!
You might ask Marley23 what he thinks my opinion of his moderating has been at times, and there are, and have been others with whom I have discussed moderating tactics here. But, unlike some with a perverse desire to flame every moderating decision because they cannot just let authority get on with its business, I usually take my complaints behind the scenes, where, I assure you, they tend to obtain a much better, and more helpful, reception.
As for your continued attempt to establish that tomndebb is biased in his moderating in favor of certain posters, you fail. All you have shown is that he properly admonished one poster for improper behavior, and failed to admonish a poster who, while perhaps histrionic, wasn’t violating the rules. Goodness, if the mods started punishing posters here merely for being less than polite in their posting, well, many of us would have gone away long ago, including you for your remarks to Tuba earlier in the Atalaya thread.
Leander:
This thread is filled with your personal insults to people, every one very much against the rules.
This is a notice that you are formally warned for all those violations. Further action may well be pending, discussion is underway.
I have very clearly insulted the posts, not the posters. Which I believe is within the rules. The only thing coming close to an insult of a poster is the “reading comprehension” comment, which is used quite often in GD.
Could you please point out specifically where I have used “personal insults” here?