Thanks for that - although I would like to see that same apology in the thread itself, since the participants in that thread may or may not see this one.
But you wouldn’t be lecturing us on areas where you know you are completely ignorant, right? So that’s rather a moot point. Besides, whether or not you would personally feel insulted isn’t the standard here. Attack the post, not the poser is the standard. Miller’s post attacked the poster, and it attacked him in a very uncivil manner. We have a forum for doing that, and it’s not GD.
I don’t disagree with any of that. Separately - do you think it is or should be permissible to state that another poster is ignorant?
*When it’s time to relax … * {audio file}
As I noted above, it would depend on the context. Personally, I like a high level of civil discourse to be enforced in GD (and elections). Not so concerned with the other forums.
Consider these two statements:
-
My God, but you are ignorant!
-
I’m sorry, but I think you are ignorant on the subject we are discussing. The reason I say that is… <insert correction of factually incorrect stuff the poster has written, with sources to back up the facts>
The first one serves no purpose but to insult the poster. It offers nothing else. The second one is not only polite, but backs up the statement.
Of course, the easiest way to avoid this mess is to not direct comments at posters in GD. Not saying it’s easy, just the easiest way of avoiding a hair splitting argument about the rules.
And then there’s the mildest version: “I love you, but don’t know what you’re talking about.”
In this case, it seems that crossing the line could have been easily been avoided by not making it a blanket statement, even if they had been a bit mean about it. If you say a person made an ignorant statement, you’re not attacking them, pre se. They can always change their position, or state it more intelligently. When you say that you can always disregard their posts due to what appears to be a congenital defect, that’s insulting them.
Thanks for standing up and saying so, Miller. Now can someone with authority note him or warn him or call his dog ugly before people start some really good conspiracy theories? Who knows, maybe the DoS or whatever that’s making the site slow will abate as a collateral effect.
I got an immediate warning for personal insults, not a note, when I said:
I think Miller went a little past that line.
So was Miller never modded for his post or was it the super-secret mod-modding Ed discussed that we’ll never know about?
As Ed said, he wants all dealings between us and him to be private. He will not be publicly rebuking mods.
General reply to all - fair enough. 
Absent Miller’s mea culpa, how would we have known that this was something we should report mods for in future? As well, without access to the rebuking, how will we know that in this case Miller was treated in a justly similar way to how a poster would have been if they had broken a rule?
Also, “dealings between us and him” seems to be an odd way to characterize a situation where a mod breaks a public board rule as a poster. It’s already not a private matter.
Ed’s post in its entirety. I was basically repeating point 3.
We are not publicly accountable. We are accountable to Ed. He hires us, fires us, disciplines us in any way that he sees fit. You (or anyone else on the SDMB) do not get oversight on that process.
This doesn’t mean that you have no input at all. Like I said, if there’s an issue, feel free to start an ATMB thread about it, and anyone should feel free to contribute to such ATMB discussions.
As TubaDiva used to say though, nowhere in the registration agreement does it say that you get to beat the mods like a stubborn mule.
I’m just waiting for the mods Tequila, Vodka, or Everclear to mess up.
That’s gonna be some epic stuff right there.
You would probably be better off not emulating the martyr aspects of TubaDiva’s style.
I never realized TubaDiva could be so verbose.
is tubadiva still on the board ? last I seen was her selling some sdmb momentos in the marketplace and her tone was sort of “I’m done with this place so its for sale…”
and as for miller I think its just a matter of losing patience with an apparently idiotic teenage troll that likes to start crap only reason why hes not banned that I can see is hes polite
So - while I understand this stance in the case of TomDebs usage of ‘edit’ well past normal users time (which is a Moderator ONLY privelege) - I do not get this when it comes to moderation of the moderator when acting as a normal poster - maybe a ‘warning’ would not be issued - but at the same time - a ‘note’ telling the individual that such actions would get any other poster warned, etc - in the thread in question - is, IMHO - required - else other readers of the thread will
a) see no note/warning and take that as a sign the gloves are off
b) wonder why they get warned for the exact same behaviour elsewhere.
There is a HUGE difference between abusing the ‘powers of the moderator’ and not telling the poster (who happens to be a moderator, just not acting as one in this case) to ‘dial it back down, as a mod - you should know better’ to keep the thread ‘moderated’.
I’m fine with any chastising of mods being done by Ed behind the scenes. I don’t want my boss tearing me a new one in front of customers, and I’ll never do that to my staff.
But I think it’s still important that regular posters are made aware of when a mod’s post was out of line - not so we can pile on, but so we can understand what is allowed and what is worthy of moderation. Perhaps the mods can voluntarily post an apology or acknowledgement themselves in the thread where the infraction occurred - like Miller did here, but in the original thread instead so everyone sees it.
Ed made it clear that we are not to moderate other moderator’s posts, even if they are posting as a poster and not as a moderator.
Like I said, feel free to discuss it in an ATMB thread, and you can post that it is being discussed in ATMB in the thread where it occurred if you want folks in that discussion to know that it’s an issue, but you shouldn’t discuss the issue in the thread where it happened. Keep the discussion in ATMB where it belongs.
And again, we are not publicly accountable. We are accountable to Ed. We do not receive the same warnings that regular users do. We cannot warn each other or moderate each other’s posts. For those of you who want us to receive the same warnings that you do, sorry, but that’s not going to happen. Ed gave us clear instructions not to warn or note each other, even when we were acting as posters and not as moderators.
Whether you get it or not is irrelevant. That’s the rules that we have been given and are expected to follow.
You’re actually wrong on that point. Mods are publicly accountable, just to a court of public opinion. Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that general poster opinion is going to be without bias or flaw - but that’s the point. As it stands, we’re left to our own imaginings as to what Ed’s reaction to a rulebreaking mod is. We don’t know whether it’s too lenient. We don’t know whether it’s too harsh. Without asking, we don’t know it’s happened at all, and silence in response to a rulebreaking Mod means there’s less reason to ask.
A hidden process invites speculation. If you’re convinced that some people want to “beat the mods like a stubborn mule”, or that “some of you like to believe that we mods are teh evil”, then a concealed process just adds more flame to that fire.
It does say that posters have rules they have to follow, though. I don’t believe speaking so pejoratively of “we’d like to know what happens to rulebreaking mods” does your argument, or yourself, any favours.
And resorting to language like that doesn’t really engender trust in me that a behind-the-scenes process is going to go swimmingly. If that’s how you treat good-natured disagreement in public…