It depends on how they set things up but the default is that they can.
Yes. As a moderator on another board, it is a very simple function. It takes perhaps two mouse clicks to see the original unedited version. It’s actually slightly harder to move a post then it is to view all the versions of a post
We can, yes.
Yes. If you make several edits within the 5 minute time window or the post is edited by a mod later we can see all of the versions and can compare any two of them to see exactly what changed during each edit. So if we want we can go down the list and see what changed with every edit along the way, or we can just compare the first and last versions if we want and see what the overall changes were.
We can also see posts that have been sent to the “cornfield”.
The reason we have an editing time limit is explicitly to prevent posters from going back and deleting their offending posts, yet that is exactly what tomndebb did. Furthermore, moderators in the past have refused to delete posts by posters because we have to live by our words. Yet tomndebb has violated that premise, and furthermore, he did not receive a Warning because another moderator would have to give a warning without the offending post being there?
That seems a blatant abuse of power. Furthermore, we have had instances where posters posted something insulting, deleted it within their edit time limit, yet that post was seen by someone else, reported, and the original poster was moderated for the comment that was then deleted. So there appears to be a precedent that it can occur, and there is a means of doing so.
The original comment should be restored, and a Warning issued to tomndebb. I know he could get leniency for his “oops, wrong forum”, but his blatant abuse of power to do something regular posters cannot is WRONG.
tomndebb, there’s nothing silly about the claim, because he did not claim that a Report by the Report system was somehow not sent through the Report system. What he stated is that he sent a PM rather than use the Report system so that he could bypass that system. Furthermore, “intercepted” meant in context “viewed by that moderator and that moderator taking action rather than letting the other moderator of the forum address the complaint”.
He deleted the post and replaced it with something else. Same difference.
He did not get equal treatment or wiggle room, he’s being given a free pass for not only violating the rules (which might have merely earned a Note), but abusing his power and deleting the comment in a way that regular posters are not allowed to do, and we have set up the system to prevent regular posters from doing.
That is not the same thing at all. You horked up the coding, and asked a moderator to correct the coding. That is done all the time. You did not ask a moderator to delete an insult that you made in the wrong forum, much less get one of them to do it for you.
You did not have the moderator change the intent of the post, but correct the intent of the post. tomndebb changed the very content of the post.
Of course there’s no provision for punishing an act that the normal members cannot do. That is a lousy defense. tomndebb abused the power as a moderator that normal posters do not have, and he did not even get a Note in the original thread because he did so. That is not just nontransparent moderation, that is circumventing moderation.
Bad form on tomndebb for deleting the content, bad form on Jonathan Chance for not commenting on it in the thread.
That wasn’t a defense, that was me correcting the impression another poster had that editing after the five minute window was a warnable offense.
This is, quite frankly, astounding in its tone-deafness.
Not a “happy place” for you? This is some sort of parody, right? You understand how explanations work, i assume, especially since you moderate Great Debates. Would it have taxed your explanatory powers to write a short discussion of what happened, and why?
Can we assume, in the future, if someone breaks a rule and and another poster reports the post, and if the rule-breaker then send the mods a PM saying that he or she agrees with the complaint, that the rule-breaker will avoid a warning because they fessed up? Maybe we can start some sort of official SDMB Penitence forum, sort of a message board equivalent of traffic school, where some self-abasement and some sackcloth and ashes, along with a sincere promise to do better in future, will obviate the need for warnings.
Two big problems here.
First, the content of tom’s post. It has been made clear to us, time and again, that clear and unambiguous allegations of intentional dishonesty outside of the Pit will be moderated as being in violation of the rules. Phrases such as “you deliberately misread” and “you deliberately ignore”, as well as accusations that a person’s argument is “pretending” something, seem to fall squarely within that rule. People have been noted and warned for precisely the sort of assertions that tom made in his post.
Second, and perhaps even more troubling, is Jonathan Chance’s decision to “defer to” tom in this case. Something else we have been told, time and again, is that when a Moderator is not explicitly posting as a Moderator, then that person is posting as a regular poster. And yet it is clear, in this case, that Jonathan deferred to tom precisely because tom is a moderator. What should have happened, rather than simply accept what he says because he’s a mod, is to moderate him him as if he were a poster. This did not happen.
Can we assume that, the next time a regular poster is accused of a rules violation, that poster can simply explain why he or she thought that it was not, in fact, a rules violation, and be deferred to by the moderating staff?
I should add that, had tom come out immediately, and simply said “Hey, my bad. I thought this thread was in the Pit. I apologize.” then that could have been the end of it. Plenty of people accidentally screw up like this from time to time. I know that i’ve been let off once before for this exact same mistake. But the sort of track-covering and self-serving rationalizations about moderator actions highlighted in this thread make up a horse of an entirely different color.
I personally don’t think that Tom was trying to cover his tracks. He made an honest mistake. I think we agree on that. When he realized his mistake, I think he just tried to fix it. He was trying to make it right, even though he went about it in a way that arguably wasn’t the best way of handling the problem.
So does that mean that the new standard is that if someone reports a post (whether by PM to a mod or report button) and a mod removes it within 7 hours that no warning or note will be given?
Or does that only apply if you are a mod? Rank hath its privileges I guess.
I don’t think that is it. Tom was able to erase the post before Jonathan Chance saw it so no evidence = no crime.
Except that Jonathan Chance can easily see previous versions of the post and knows it was edited far beyond the five-minute limit placed upon the rest of us that post as non-mods.
But, as i suggested in my previous post, the fact that he tried to “fix” it in the way that he did suggests a rather astonishing level of tone-deafness about the way that moderation and rules are supposed to work around here. I know that tomndebb is a smart guy, and i can’t believe that he decided to erase his own rule-breaking post without thinking about the implications.
But what’s worse is the decision of a second moderator to basically let the whole thing slide because, hey, he erased his post already and like, you know, what was i supposed to do? It was all too much for me! I was in such a tough position!
And because it was so tough, i also decided to defer to his opinion about whether or not his other post had broken the rules. I could have evaluated it myself, like a moderator is supposed to do when a poster is accused of violating a rule, but we all know that he’s a moderator too so he should get to make the call about his own conduct.
Nope.
The second post was not erased. It was the post where tom made the accusation of dishonesty. It’s already been linked in this thread, it’s still up, and you can find it here. Jonathan Chance could have read it and moderated it any time he chose, but he decided instead to defer to tom’s interpretation of his own post.
Complaints about moderator insults on a board run by Cecil? With the barbed insults he aims at some particularly witless correspondents? I have no problem at all with moderators following that noble tradition. As long as the insults are funny!
That’s not entirely a one-to-one comparison. tom called another poster stupid. The poster who got warned after editing their post, edited it to remove a pretty vicious racial slur. There isn’t any forum on this board where that’s allowed, including the Pit - which, indeed, is where that post occurred.
I’m not clear on what would be served by restoring the original post, other than ensuring that the person who was wrongly insulted gets to actually be insulted.
He deleted the post, and replaced it with an admission that he’d posted in the wrong place, and an apology for doing so. That strikes me as a very significant difference from just deleting the post entirely, or editing it to try to hide that he’d screwed up. That tom insulted someone outside of the Pit has not been obscured: only the specific nature of the insult. I don’t see a problem with that.
As to how the post should have been moderated. If Jonathan Chance had seen the post before tom had a chance to edit it, a mod note would have been appropriate, both to re-enforce the forum rule, and make sure other posters didn’t retaliate in kind. With the apology replacing the insult, a mod note is redundant. The post he would be noting already contains the rules clarification the note is making.
Or he could warn tom. Which doesn’t really make a lot of sense. Warnings serve two purposes. First, they let us track persistent trouble makers. Which isn’t something we need for moderators. Not that moderators can’t be problematic ourselves, but while there’s some thousands of you guys, there’s like, ten of us. And we talk to each other pretty regularly. We’re not going to forget who each other are. The second purpose is to, well, warn posters that they’re getting close to being banned. There’s not much point in Jonathan giving tom a warning that he’s going to get banned soon, because Jonathan can’t ban tom. Moderators can’t ban each other. Even if the software allows it (pretty sure it doesn’t), none of us have the authority to kick another moderator off the board. We’re volunteers, but we’re effectively Ed’s employees, and he’s the only one in a position to fire any of us. And if there’s any discipline to be handed out to the staff, it’s something that really should be done in private. I wouldn’t stay in a for-money job where my boss dressed me down in front of the public. I sure as shit wouldn’t keep a volunteer gig where that happened.
Then how about this? I got modded for the following post as it “insults other posters”.
Sorry, what I meant was no one I personally know alive at that time that excuses what Calley did. On SD I tend to dismiss the first 3 people that hold a contrarian views because they are usually trolls or idiots.
Did Tom get modded for calling the other poster stupid?
Honest mistake my ass, when he deleted his post he will have known full well he shouldn’t have been doing it. He did it anyway, because he thought he would get away with it.
So much for all the sanctimonious “stand over your words” rhetoric.
Minor correction. The accusation of dishonesty was the *first *post.
The second post, where Tom called someone stupid, is the one that was altered.
No biggie, just making it clear.
Actually, this requires a clarification. See JC’s post #19
So in fact the offending post was still there when JC saw it.
or rather #16.
In short, it’s not the crime; it’s the cover-up.