I got a free coffee mug.
Sucks to be you-I got a free whiskey mug. 
Some of the newer mods didn’t even get a mug. I guess they have to drink straight from the bottle.
You’re done when I say you’re done.
You’re done.
ducati?
No, he’s not done.
I haven’t had my evening coco with the tiny little marshmallows and the sprinkle of nutmeg and cinnamon.
I paid for my coffee mug.
Although it will be seen as heresy, I agree with Relevant Threshold.
As for the comments about no financial stake, when we pony up for our membership, we do have a financial stake. It does not confer us special rights, nor any special attributes apart from some title.
I appreciate Millers apology, but it doesn’t alter that if I made the same comment I would have a big red cross on my file. We are told that Ed may call him a big pooh or something.
However, now we can all relax because the normal apologists are coming out and circling the wagons.
Y’know, that “wagon-circling” shit gets old fast. I am so sorry my opinion differs from yours, but if you want threads where everyone is in lockstep maybe it should be so stipulated in the OP.
My one problem with not knowing about what that discipline entails is that it’s an extension of the “chilling effect” point. If I see a poster being insulting, and they’re reported, I know that they’ll get some mod action and I know what that’ll be. If they later get banned, or suspended, we have the (very good and useful) posts in here saying why and linking the posts that were problematic. So we can see that justice is being done, and what kind of behaviour over what period of time means what punishment - even if that’s not pinned down to a set system. If we disagree about the strength of the punishment, or don’t feel one of the examples is fairly moderated, or believe that the period of time being drawn from is out of the norm, we can ask about those things and have them clarified, or, possibly, changed.
With mod actions, we can’t do that. If **Miller **had been far too roughly punished for his actions, we can’t defend him. If he’d been very leniently let off, we can’t question that. If another mod had acted in a very similar way, but received different treatment, we can’t draw attention to that. If some unknown factor in the whole thing makes a difference to how Ed reacts; we don’t learn that for the future.
I don’t think apologising for a mistake should be a matter of giving great praise. Apologising when you err is the base level of respect and politeness, not a bonus to be admired, in my eyes.
Your only opinion appears to be that Ed and the mods can do whatever they want. You appear to be saying that no one should ever complain or offer dissenting opinions about mod actions.
You don’t actually seem to have an opinion about the topic of the thread itself. Just that RT should not be questioning mod practices.
I’ve seen you complain in ATMB before. How would you like it if someone just came in and told you that you’re just a guest in their house, and you have to go along with whatever they said?
In short, you seem to be arguing that people shouldn’t complain, rather than actually giving a different opinion on whether mods should be Warned in public for actions they make as posters.
I would fairly characterize that as a mod apology.
I agree with you on this point. Things like that strike me as not being great for discussion purposes since it’s both dismissive and also dismisses without saying who is being dismissed; it can leave you wondering if you’re in this mysterious group who’s views are already being ignored or misread.
Which is why I also don’t like things like this;
[QUOTE=engineer_comp_geek]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Or fromt’other thread;
[QUOTE=engineer_comp_geek]
As much as some of you like to believe that we mods are teh evil, Tom didn’t just add a post so that he could get the last word in.
[/QUOTE]
Meh, I don’t care that we don’t know what the discussion was, or the ultimate disciplinary action. I don’t see threads here complaining that someone didn’t get punished enough when posters get modded, I only see people complaining that they feel that they (or another poster) was unfairly modded (sometimes a complaint that another poster got off lighter for what they perceive as the same thing). If a mod gets off lighter than a poster would have… so what? If a mod gets punished heavier than a poster would have, that’s up to them to argue with ed about.
I give great praise for his apology because it is not required by the current rules, it seems unprecedented, and was a great thing to do.
Once again, I have seen maybe two or three examples of mods breaking rules. This is really not that big a deal. I do like the apology for closure and consistency, but even that wouldn’t make that much of a difference unless the mods start becoming habitual rule breakers.
Agreed. I can only think of three examples of mods breaking the rules in the 10 years I’ve been here. Miller and tomndebb in the last couple of weeks, and twickster a few years ago. So, just how prevalent is that, anyway, when some posters seem to break rules twice a month? Mods are chosen partly because they are good at sticking to the rules.
What about… this thread? The OP seems like a complaint that someone didn’t get punished enough, to the extent that they appeared not to be modded at all. The “what is happening with this board re:modding” likewise. “When moderators break the rules”, likewise (I think that one runs into at least one of the previous, though). That’s three, or two, depending on how you count it. And, as you point out, within threads about perceived harsh rulings there’s discussion about perceived lenient rulings, too.
“So what?” is that in theory it promotes poor board conduct. A mod punished too lightly is less likely to be concerned about making mistakes, and (in a case of genuine malice) less concerned about repercussions. If a mod is punished more heavily, we get the opposite, mods that might be too careful and worried to mod as they should.
Saying that it’s a matter for them to argue with Ed about poses two problems. One, again, a mod punished too harshly that can have no backup at all for their position is less likely to bring it up. A poster being modded can at least bring this up to people who might think differently; a mod must, as I understand it, bring their issue up solely with Ed, the person who modded them in the first place, and are entirely subject to his opinion. While a poster harshly modded likewise is at the mercy of the mods, at least there’s a spectrum of possible opinions with there, and we have the possibility of threads such as this to provide backup or reasoning (or agreement). It’s harder to make a mistake with oversight.
Two; one of the useful things about this forum and the threads within it is that it broadens our understanding of how the rules are interpreted. There are hard rules, and there are soft rules, such as the “don’t be a jerk” part, that aren’t defined deliberately so that posters can’t trolllishly skirt the defined line and then complain that they didn’t cross it. We don’t know how every rule is going to be interpreted, but through these threads, we can get a better idea for the future. A non-transparent process doesn’t let us, or the other mods, learn from that. If Miller’s mistake was one of ignorance, his ignorance might be fought by Ed. But other mod’s ignorance wouldn’t be. Our ignorance, as posters who might report mods, wouldn’t be.
Simply because something isn’t required doesn’t mean it’s praiseworthy to do. Requirements don’t provide a base line, in my view. That it’s unprecedented to me doesn’t make him look better, but, uh, the other mods look worse, if true. It being a great thing to do is a restatement of the question; “I called it good because it was good”.
So far as I remember, I have a perfect disciplinary record here; I think I got mod noted for something once, but I don’t think it was a warning. Either way, you’ve seen I would imagine zero examples of me breaking rules, and I’m happy for a mod to openly post my record if I’m remembering inaccurately. I have over 10 years of good service.
Given my excellent disciplinary record, that it certainly is even less of a big deal, and that I am by no means a habitual rule breaker, would you be in favour of exempting me from public admonishment for rulebreaking?
Moderator Note
Since this thread has devolved into just making the same points over and over again, that’s enough.
Thread closed.