Why is Czarcasm a moderator?

I didn’t know whether you could pit moderators so I put this here.

In this thread:

Mr. Kobayashi posted some poorly researched information concerning Pit Bulls and several posters joined the thread to voice their disagreement.

But that’s not okay to Czarcasm who apparently thinks that ill-formed opinions are more worthy than actual facts.

He then sniped at another poster (Jennyrosity) for writing favorably things about Staffies (read Pit Bulls) while ignoring other posters who wrote similar comments about other breeds.

And then in this thread:

He opines that it his “nightmare” that threads devolve into a pit bull debate. Again, reinforcing the idea that ill-formed opinions are more important to him than actual facts.

It’s clear he believes Pit Bulls are a menace despite the available evidence to the contrary. That’s his right just as it is other people’s right to believe in UFOs, alligators in the sewers and death panels.

But is it allowable for him to conflate his personal views with his job as a moderator?

I don’t know what Czarcasm thinks about pit bulls. But I think the issue was that pits bulls are a really contentious topic and he didn’t want the thread to turn into yet another long and drawn out discussion of pit bulls and whether or not they are dangerous. Here’s a recent example.

As far how he got to be a moderator… let’s just say he has pictures. Pictures that would be very damaging to certain people if they ever saw the light of day. Catch my drift?

I often wonder the same thing, OP.

I understand that it’s a contentious issue. I also understand that people are tired of the subject but I (and I’m sure, others) am tired of people repeatedly using wonky statistics and sensationalized media articles to malign the breed. And it’s particularly galling when a moderator sanctions this behavior but reprimands those posters who would rebut the above with informed opinion and well-researched facts.

Czarcasm doesn’t like the breed (you need only look in GD where he compares pit bulls to hand grenades) and that’s fine, as I said. And it’s fine that he’s a moderator. What is not fine is when he allows his personal views to interfere with his position as moderator.

Because the position of “Maximum Proconsul of Love” was already filled.

Hey, I love pit bulls! A few of the truck drivers I work with have them in their cabs, and I always have a treat for them(pepperoni cubes) when they stop by. What I hate is when somebody happens to mention pit bulls in a thread in any manner thought to be the slightest bit derogatory, because it is almost immediately followed by angry followers on both sides of the fence armed with multiple cites and a willingness to argue for pages upon pages.

We have a MaxiMod?

You see, son, when an administrator and a very confused donkey love each other very much [REDACTED] and the you have to go over the hill with a red balloon covered in maple syrup while you [DATA EXPUNGED] through Venice with a lamb shank! [CENSORED]

And that’s how we get moderators! Isn’t the miracle just grand? You see moderatordom isn’t something contestable, it’s divine providence as evidenced by the ritual necessary to create one.

He seems reasonable and fair enough (except when he disagrees with me).

Oh! Staffies! Cute widdle Staffies!! Come to daddy, baby!!!

CHOMP

Obviously that was not a purebred Staffordshire bull terrier.

It’s people like Czarcasm who cause this kind of confusion. I think he should be confined to his room and have his cellphone minutes severely limited.

Sorry, you’re lying.

These are recent threads specifically about Pit Bulls so there’s no need for “angry followers” to come in and hijack the thread.

http://boardstest.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=530560

You are all over these threads. You ask the same spurious questions and repeat the same specious arguments as other people who demonize the breed. And if you find the subject so tiresome, why are you in them at all?

Additionally, if people repeatedly enter threads spewing ridiculous statistics about a given subject, what would you have someone who knows the subject well and knows these people are wrong, do? Keep quiet? Clap? Cheer?

If someone went around this board repeatedly telling posters that there are Satanic cults in this world abducting children for ritual abuse purposes, would you chastize people who set about proving said poster wrong?

If you want to be a fear mongerer, fine by me. If you’re a moderator, fine by me. But don’t bully posters, as you did in the “In My Humble Opinion” thread just because you have a personal bias to the subject and at least have the stones to admit it when you’re called on your behavior.

I saw the thread, and the only bias I saw was everyone jumping Czarcasm because he told them to, gosh, actually keep the topic of the thread, and to move all the pretentious bullshit to another thread in more appropriate forum.

Why the hell does it matter whether he likes Pit Bulls or not? His moderator actions need not be read as having anything to do with that.

But, no some people feel the need to come in and try ruin a thread because it differs with their ideological stance.

You got facts that say the question is invalid. Great. Post that in the forum for FACTS. You want a [del]pointless, vindictive argument[/del] go to GD.

Just keep it the hell out of the lighter forums where people go to try and relax, and have, gosh, FRIENDLY conversation.

And everyone knows how expensive electrons are, and how we have to be sure not to squander our rapidly diminishing, endangered herds of wild electrons.

A similar protest fell on deaf ears a few weeks ago. Apparently, “fighting ignorance” in an IMHO poll thread will cause the sky to fall. Of greater concern, allowing debates to develop there might even lead to someone “placing recipes in great debates”.

I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s probably about decreasing the amount of time/effort needed to moderate in that forum (with debates believed to be more likely to require mod intervention than would a simple poll). But, that’s fine. I have no problem with that rationale. If I were a mod, I’d probably feel the same way. What I do have a problem with is not admitting it, and, instead, when asked to explain why no debates are allowed, he, like some ‘couldn’t-give-damn’ civil servant, simply points to the sign saying “Great Debates is the place for debates”.

Pit Bulls are ok as long as you declaw them.

But do you make them remove their shoes indoors?

Yes. Here’s how it works:

If you have comments or complaints about specific moderator action, they go here (About This Message Board)

If you wish to attack a moderator personally, or complain about something that moderator said when not acting as a moderator, then that goes in the Pit.

The question is, why are the people who lie about pit bulls allowed to post willy-nilly, while the posters who set the record straight told to stop? Why aren’t the former creating just as much of a hijack?

Suppose I were to answer the question “What’s the best way to make an omelet” by replying “First boil the eggs for an hour and a half.” Shouldn’t it be OK for someone to correct that?

If the question is “How is an omelet made?”, then your response would be correct. If, on the other hand, the question is “How do you prepare your omelet?” and that answer is given, then no correction is necessary, because that is how that respondent prepares an omelet, whether you like it or not.
If someone posts, in a forum “In Your Humble Opinion”, a thread about which dogs are good or bad for a family, then opinions are being sought. People base their opinions on personal experiences and knowledge acquired, and no two people have the same personal experiences and/or knowledge.

The question was neither. The question was “What is the best way … ?”

I want to make sure I understand you perfectly clearly. Certain opinions are OK, while others are not? It is forbidden to post a contrary opinion in that forum? Why is the opinion of the pit bull hater allowed, but not the defender?

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but no one is entitled to make up facts, even in IMHO. Or am I wrong about that?

A second thought : How I prepare my omelet is a matter of fact, not opinion. Should it not be in IMHO then?