Peter Morris already started a thread asking (in part) about tomndebb’s accusations. That thread was locked without addressing the question, and we were told to take the discussion to this thread. (Or to send the question to Ed directly.)
Is what tomndebb posted a violation of the rule against accusations of lying in GD? Or is there something about the context that makes it OK, and can you give some kind of description of what that context is?
Regards,
Shodan
The question was addressed.
What about this type of insult (in GD)-
?
tomndebb, in the same thread, denied that his post violated the rule - he said he was simply pointing out errors. Which leaves the same question unanswered - does that construction violate the rule, or not?
[ul][li]Yes, it violates the rules. Posters should not do this, and if mods-posting-as-posters do it, this will be dealt with behind the scenes, and only by Ed.[/ul][/li][ul][li]No, it doesn’t violate the rules.[/ul][/li][ul][li]Yes, it violates the rules, except if it is done to point out errors in other posts. [/ul][/li][ul][li]None of the above.[/ul][/li]Regards,
Shodan
I believe that question was answered in the last post of this thread.
[QUOTE=Miller]
ETA: As always, ignore anything DerekMichaels has to say on the subject. He’s got absolutely no fucking clue what he’s talking about.
[/QUOTE]
As noted, mods don’t moderate other mods. Take engineer_comp _geek’s advice and start an ATMB thread on it. It looks like Miller did make an insult outside of the Pit, but Ed Zotti declared it’s his place to note it, not tomndebb or Jonathan Chance. Don’t expect Ed to make a note of it in public, though. He already stated that it’s a private matter between him and the mods. And I have no disagreement with that.
I reported it and added it to this thread - you think another thread is warranted?
Your reading isn’t my reading, but I’m unsure so I’ll ask to clarify. My impression was that** Ed** meant that when mods mess up as a matter between he and they, he keeps it private. Which I’m fine with. Your reading seems to be that if mods make a mistake - public or private - Ed deals with it privately, which I would certainly not be ok with. If mods make public mistakes, then public remarks are wise if only for the rest of us peons to see that there was a problem and what the problem was.
If Mod X makes a public mistake, is caught on it, and is chastised privately, it might be that all of us get the wrong impression on what correct modly behaviour is. So if Mod Y then makes that same mistake, no-one reports it, because after all, Mod X didn’t get rebuked, did they?
Item #3.
My reading is that Ed won’t rebuke mods in public, no matter what. I may be biased, since I am a mod myself on a message board, but I appreciate knowing that the administrator has my back, even if I fuck up, and he’s not going to hold me up to public censure. That doesn’t mean he won’t admonish me, but I agree that it’s better to deal with each other in private. I don’t have a problem with a general note that doesn’t go into specifics of a particular mod/admin interaction. Ed stated that mods are expected to follow the same rules that all posters do. I trust that he’ll deal with it appropriately in a private manner if a mod breaks a rule.
FWIW, that’s my reading too.
Ed’s words are:
When a mod violates the rules or otherwise behaves problematically, that’s a matter for me to deal with as site administrator… Dealings between the mods and me are a private matter… I’m not about to rebuke them in public.
It’s hard to see any meaning other than Ed seals with it privately.
I think this is a bad policy. Wrongdoings by the mods should be acknowledged in public.
Maybe we should take it up at the next stockholders meeting.
Why?
I mean, don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against Ed. But I don’t have any particular reason to offer my trust, either. I don’t know him from Adam (or Cecil). More to the point, this thread is about how everyone, even mods, can mess up sometimes. Ed, presumably, isn’t immune to that either. But we won’t see it either way, if your reading is correct.
And, with respect, I don’t believe an administrator should have your back, or the mods here’s collective backs, if you or they fuck up. It is* more* important, not less, that potential mod errors are held up, and are able to be held up, to scrutiny, because they have more power. I don’t expect that mods are going to go merrily stomping about with their mod jackboots on, but, like Ed says, sometimes mistakes happen.
An open process is protective, too, not just destructive. Imagine if you as a mod on that other board made an error, simply an accident, and were chastised in private for it… but the board members believed you had made a greater error, out of malice. No public note is made; or simply one is made that you were chastised for your error and that was it. By hiding the process, members might well believe that it’s malice that was forgiven, rather than just some simple elementary mistake. Likewise, accusations of favouritism or double standards can be avoided (or, at least, decreased; this is the internet, after all) with an open disciplinary process.
We’re going to have to agree to disagree. I don’t think 100% transparency is required on mod/admin interactions. The membership is intelligent enough to realize that just because a mod didn’t get chastised publicly for a mistake that that means they got away with it without being admonished by Ed. And what’s wrong with being forgiven for making a mistake as long as you promise to go and sin no more? As for being chastised publicly myself, if an admin did that to me, he’d be looking for a new mod very quickly.
Anyway, I’ve said all I have to say in this thread, since simster has indeed opened a new thread in this forum.
Ok, so extend that to posters. No public mod warnings or notes, and they’re all immediately rescinded upon promise of contrition. The membership is intelligent enough to realize that just because a poster didn’t get chastised publicly for a mistake that means they got away with it without being admonished.
That doesn’t seem workable to me.
As a poster, I don’t think I’d want to be modded by someone who required as a matter of their service that their shortcomings will always be concealed, so at least on this we have a happy state of affairs as regards results.
Forgiveness of an offense doesn’t equal removing a punishment. I moderate a very different message board, though, with a very different set of members and rules. It’s the message board of a videogame publisher and we don’t have a vast population of members debating politics, religion, or LGBT rights. In fact, such discussion is expressly forbidden under our rules. And our members are more accepting of moderator actions. We don’t have a torches and pitchforks contingent. And yes, I’ve made mistakes, but the administrator has always dealt with me quite professionally and in private. We don’t announce warnings in public, either. It’s anyways a private matter between the moderators and the members. The members are quite clear on the rules, though, and know that there are consequences for any violations. I’m sure most Dopers are clear on the rules, too, and don’t require anyone to be made example of. But, we agree that we are not going to sway each other away from our positions. I can see where you’re coming from, but I’m just never going to agree with you, so I’ll bid you “good day” and move on.
Fair enough! At the end of the day it’s not our opinions that matter much, anyway. 
I forgot to mention, the forum I moderate does have a procedure for dealing with staff problems. I’ll quote from our FAQ, redacting the actual name of the message board:
The Straight Dope doesn’t seem to have a similar policy in place. Perhaps they could use one here.
Interesting thing about the last post in that thread.
First, it should be noted that the whole point of that thread was to discuss whether of not Tom broke any rules by editing his post hours after the edit window had closed.
(FTR, I believe he did, even if not for the timing thing, there is a rule that states the mods won’t edit/delete the content of a post).
What I find interesting is that after a 200+ post thread about editing a post that can’t be edited without mod powers, Tom felt it was okay to get in the last word in a thread that had been closed nearly a week ago. Seems to be that he not only abused his mod powers, but abused (more or less) the same exact one that was in question in that thread.
It’s my understanding that mods are here to keep control over us unwashed masses, Tom, in the last week, has used his mod powers, twice, to do non-modding work to his benefit.
If he was a ‘regular poster’ he would have had to start a new thread to answer that question and possibly, depending on how that thread ended, received a warning or note for even starting a new thread just to continue a closed discussion.
That last post was not addressing the editing issue. He was answering the question if he felt his other post ran afoul of the rules regarding saying someone is lying.
He wasn’t getting the last word. He was answering the question asked. He’s allowed to use his mod powers to act in his capacity of a mod- addressing a poster’s question about a rule infraction.
No, not “the whole point”. Part of the point, yes. And the answer was given, that modifying/deleting the post 7 hours later should not have been done. But the unanswered question was whether certain constructions used by tomndebb constituted accusations of telling a lie. A number of posters asked repeatedly for an answer. I believe that the one word post “yes” was an admission and an acknowledgement in answer to that question. Of course, tomndebb can certainly correct me if my interpretation is faulty.