Let’s stick to the issue that prompted this thread rather than diverging into generalized complaints about other mods and unrelated topics.
The response when I point this out always seems to be the same: the mod saying something mean to me is wrong because moderators shouldn’t be allowed to do that. Me saying something mean about a moderator should be OK, because it’s true. I don’t think “we should be allowed to be mean to people, but only if it’s true” is a useful guideline, because people will never agree on what’s true. Or are you saying that if the hijack truly was dumb, then it would be OK for tomndebb to call it dumb? OK then, the hijack truly was dumb. Problem solved!
There’s speaking truth to power for noble reasons, and then there’s, say, “taking a stand” and berating a cashier because she permitted the old lady in front of you to pay for 11 tangerines in the “10 items or fewer” lane. And hopefully, there’s the wisdom to recognize the difference.
Does this apply to **Arnold **'s point? If so, I won’t respond to it.
Nobody’s forcing you to read these threads, is there? Or do you want me to accede to your wisdom on the principle that you know the time to bring up abusive behavior and the time to let it slide? If so, I’ll just run all my complaints past you first, and we can discuss them in PM for a couple of weeks as you strive to educate me in the ways of the wise.
Don’t think I can commit to reviewing *all *of them, but I’ll do what I can to reduce the workload.
I would suspect that if a poster called a mod “dumb” or their actions “dumb” said poster would be in more “trouble” than if it was the other way around.
Hey, as a freeloader here I greatly appreciate the work mods here do. Having said that, I also think there could be a fair bit of improvement on mods being either mods OR posters in any given situation. And, for that matter, when a mod get all “official” on your ass, being actually “official” rather than dropping a “here’s YOUR insult from me to you and don’t fuck with me now or else” bomb to end it all.
But we see a poster caling a mod’s actions dumb all the time. Look at this thread.
1.) **tomndebb **shouldn’t have used the opportunity to get a last dig in as to his opinions on the hijack before telling everybody else to take it elsewhere.
2.) **prr **shoudln’t have brought it up in that thread.
3.) **tom **shoudln’t have continued to express his opinion on the hijack in the thread while instructing **prr **to neither comment further on the hijack or his moderation in that thread. The threat of a warning for further extra-ATMB moderation complaints, however, strikes me as fair.
Really, this would be so much easier if the PTB would just come out and say “we’re okay with the mods being snarky to everybody all the time.” And then make me a mod, because I’d be the bestest at it ever.
And said posters can do it ELSEWHERE, not get in trouble doing so, get in the last word while doing so, and to top it all off threaten a mod with official action while doing so?
I take it you’ve never gotten a ticket from a “jerky” cop? Same thing here IMO. Well, a generic “here” in this case. The specific case the OP is bitching about I have no idea about. But, the general principle still stands I think.
People are quick to make this accusation, but in this case it has nothing to do with anything.
I didn’t have a problem with Arnold Winkelried’s post. I was referring to comments about twickster and about other moderating issues. What I’m sayins is this: this thread is about tomndebb’s comments and the general issue of moderators making editorial statements while moderating. Other subjects belong in another thread.
Well, you could have just let it go. It’s not like tomndebb demanded that you start a thread, only stated that if you continued the complaint that you do so in the correct forum. If it was so trivial, you had already made your suggestion, you could have just dropped it.
How ironic - you telling someone else to “let it go”. Why don’t you try it first?
Indeed. Some are willing to go to the mat on principle. I know somebody who spent about $1,000 successfully battling an unjust $500 levy.
There comes a point where the moderator is going to have final authority and be able to tell someone to knock it off. If the moderators don’t have that authority then we might as well not have them.
My point is that the stuff moderators say to posters is not any worse than the stuff posters say to moderators.
IMHO both sides are right here.
In general, it’s wrong for moderators to get the last word in by using their mod powers to cut off further discussion. Nonetheless, in a case like this one, in which the hijack was so completely retarded and idiotic, I think there’s an exception. Because the moderator is not taking sides in a legitimate discussion, but only dismissing a crackpot position for what it so obviously is.
But now the OP is saying that there’s a poll out there and a substantial percentage of Dopers agree with her (I’ve not checked this). If so, that changes everything back again. Because even though the notion remains as idiotic as ever in my opinion, and no doubt Tom’s as well, for purposes of this MB it needs to be taken seriously, since it’s within the mainstream of viewpoints on this MB.
But the thing is that Tom didn’t know that at the time he made his post. So from his vantage point at the time, he was merely calling some drivel by it’s correct name. So he’s off the hook. And PRR has a valid point now that she’s (apparently) been vindicated by a subsequent poll.
I’m OK, You’re OK. 
Oh, I can well agree with that.
But there is having “authority”, exerting “authority”, and using “authority” in a “professional” manner. Its doing one and two without three that gets my (and others) goat on occasion.
Now, is it SOOO bad that the SDMB is a hell hole of power abuse? Of course not. Could the mods do better ? Certainly IMO.
Ain’t a “her”–this is very unreasonable. In that thread, up to that point, there were several posters giving credence to the notion that I was posting. It’s not as if Tom could safely conclude that I was a lunatic because I held an off-the-wall position. It just happened not to be a position he agreed with. His position, whether a majority or minority position, has nothing at all to do with the fact that the discussion was hijack. That was sufficient to have the sub-discussion moved to a separate thread–which already existed. Tom understood perfectly that there were some of us who agreed my speculation was within the realms of possibility–still, he gratuitously decided to label that position “truly dumb” while moderating.
No, you.
Oh, and I keep forgetting to ask…
Does this mean you’ll send someone $0.10 every time they see an issue with a way a moderation issue was handled here? If you’re willing to put your money where your mouth is, we could whip up an invoice. Balances could be paid in the form of gifted custom title subscriptions.
Sorry.
I think it was only one other person at that time. And a couple of other posters had already had pretty much the same reaction as Tom before he posted. So I think he was within reason to assume that your position was out of the mainstream.
[Whether you yourself are therefore a lunatic is not part of this discussion, AFAICT.]
True. My error.
But there were only a few people who had chimed in at all, so **Tom **certainly had no basis to judge whether most Dopers agreed with me or with him.