A few days ago I reported a moderator for personal insults. Twice. Two posts a day apart. The first was a form of words that has been ruled to be an insult in the past. Some people have disagreed with the ruling. The second was direct and indisputably an insult.
The moderator was not acting as a moderator at the time. This individual was just a participant in a heated discussion.
I guess that words were exchanged in private. Several hours later the offending post was deleted.
I think this is wrong. If moderators break the rules, they should be subject to the same penalties as the rest of us. Anyone else making those comments would have got at least one warning, possibly two, perhaps even had his posting privileges reviewed. Moderators should be held to the same standards, arguably even higher. If they break the rules, they should get Warned for it, and the Warning should be public, just like the rest of us. Nor should they be allowed to delete their mistakes. The rest of us can’t, why should they?
I have deliberately not identified the moderator in question, and I will neither confirm nor deny any speculation.
As you know, emails of reports go to the moderators of each forum only. However, we can see a list of all reported posts. Can you tell me what date you reported these posts, because I have looked through the list of reported posts going back two weeks and don’t see your reports
Granted, I may have missed them, but I looked three times and just don’t see it. Do you have a ballpark date?
Not knowing who you PM’d it’s hard to determine if there is a benign explanation. Not all mods are equally active right now. Some mods are off on vacation or have work responsibilities and are not accessing the boards as much. We keep each other in the loop, but general board users may not realize it.
I have no idea what incident Peter Morris is referring to, nor do I want to, but I don’t think moderator posts should be deleted, ever. I’m happy for them to get more than 5 minutes to edit their own posts, but if they screw up, editing it with explanation is the most they should be able to do.
The first was legitimate. I thought I was in the BBQ Pit and responded to an insulting post (directed at another poster) that was total nonsense with an insult. (Since I thought I was in The Pit, I did not issue a Warning to the first poster’s insult.)
I found it, myself, the next morning, without anyone calling it to my attention, deleted the post with an apology, then told another Mod that I had no problem with being Warned for my infraction.
The second report was nonsense, in which I was accused of calling a poster a liar when I simply pointed out errors in another’s post.
= = = =
The claim that the Report was not sent through the Report system is silly, since all Mods on a forum receive identical e-mails that cannot be “intercepted” and all Reports are posted to a Mod thread so that every Mod can review them, regardless of the forum he or she Moderates.
Do I understand this correctly: You were the offending poster, insulting someone although you thought you were in the Pit. The next day, you went back to your post, noticed it was NOT in the Pit, and so deleted it?
Tom, would you accept “I thought I was in the pit” as a valid excuse from someone else that made a personal insult?
(since Tom has outed himself I no longer need to be silent on identity)
Regardless of whether you should have been noted or warned for it, you should not have deleted the post. That was taking undue advantage of your ability to do so.
As for this, I’ll let people judge for themselves.
GD moderator Jonathon Chance defines the “liar” rule as follows. Some people have disagreed with his definition, but this is the rule as it currently stands.
I’m the mod Peter PMed. I don’t have a lot of time this afternoon but I’ll give some my background on it.
Having gone back and looked at things here’s the sequence of events:
Tom makes offending post.
Sometime later - indeterminate - Peter Morris PMs me about it.
I look and PM Tom asking about it.
He PMs back the following morning saying he should be warned. Sometime prior to that he deleted the post.
I receive PM, check the post and he’s edited it.
Now, I won’t reveal the contents of any private message but I will say that Tom did say I should warn him for the insult. However, by the time I saw his PM the insult wasn’t there and I’d be in the position of warning a post no one could see. Not a happy place for me. I contented myself with knowing that Tom was aware of Peter’s complaint and agreed with it.
For the post in question regarding an accusation of lying? I also communicated with Tom about that and he strongly disagrees with the interpretation of the post. I elected to defer to him.
To follow up on the ‘lying’ post, I PMed Tom about that as well and he - as he does here - strongly disagreed with the interpretation that Peter presents. I elected to defer to him.
Peter, in each of the specific posts that Tom made on the ‘liar’ rule, I want to point out that Tom issued a note and not a warning in every example you cite.
I’ve seen that accepted by moderators in the past, so I wouldn’t have any problem with it.
Now this I find highly suspect. Why not just post, like the rest of us, that you thought you were in the Pit. Deleting the post does seem like giving yourself special treatment. (Just to be clear, you = Tom, not Frank)