Setting moderators on the Ignore- list

[Speakeasy]

Originally Posted by muspell

First you're going to promise that this will not be the same as "targeting specific members for the sole purpose of shaming them in public".

LOL, I'll ignore that fact that you think I'm of such low character that I'd warn you for fulfilling my request and assure you I will not do so.

[Miranda]

Originally Posted by Speakeasy

LOL, I'll ignore that fact that you think I'm of such low character that I'd warn you for fulfilling my request and assure you I will not do so.

Not that you asked my opinion, but I think you should at least pinky swear.

[Speakeasy]

Originally Posted by Miranda

Not that you asked my opinion, but I think you should at least pinky swear.

No way! I gotta keep people on their toes with a little bit of mistrust! You never know what crazy ol' Speakeasy is gonna do...

[noahath]

Originally Posted by muspell

No. I specifically said I want a clear line between personal opinions and moderating.

I must say that I still have never encountered a problem such as what you describe. For example, Matt Larson and I disagree on just about every topic, yet he has never had cause to "moderate" me. Although we disagree, I see him as being able to differentiate his "personal opinion" side from his "moderator" side. I have also often-times seen moderators declare that they will not be moderating a particular thread due to their discussion in it; just to be sure that there is no conflict.

Would it not be a more appropriate question to ask yourself what exactly you are doing with your posts that is causing such moderator attention?

[Tethys]

Originally Posted by noahath

I must say that I still have never encountered a problem such as what you describe. For example, Matt Larson and I disagree on just about every topic, yet he has never had cause to "moderate" me. Although we disagree, I see him as being able to differentiate his "personal opinion" side from his "moderator" side. I have also often-times seen moderators declare that they will not be moderating a particular thread due to their discussion in it; just to be sure that there is no conflict.
Would it not be a more appropriate question to ask yourself what exactly you are doing with your posts that is causing such moderator attention?

Three days to go – 13 October – and I will have been here for one year – but, so far, zilch warnings. I’m thinking I should do something radical to get at least one mod warning by Saturday. Hmmm….

I have to say your post made me chuckle, Noahath, because MattLarson and me also don’t see eye to eye when it comes to politics, but he has also never “moderated” me. Ah, unless I count that one post of mine he deleted from a batch of posts on a thread that had gone a wee bit off-topic - Not me, of course - I mean, I’d spent a good hour writing this post, I post it, and next minute…zap, I see the dang thread going from, like, eight pages, to seven, to six…and my post is GONE!

But the only PMs I have received from Matt were two PMs that showed me he is genuinely nice.

Yes, there are some issues related to moderation, but I have to add my voice to those here who are saying that they have had no problem in being able to tell when a mod is posting privately and when they are in mod mode.

I like this place. And a big part of why I have lasted here almost a year is because the board is so well moderated. So thanks to all the mods…now, let me see what mischief I can make to get a warning PM before Saturday.

Tethys

[muspell]

Originally Posted by Speakeasy

LOL, I'll ignore that fact that you think I'm of such low character that I'd warn you for fulfilling my request and assure you I will not do so.

And if I abuse that trust, I won't have any problems with any warnings. But as you say earlier, apparently I do not get repeated warnings because of asking for clarifications to some points - I get warnings for repeatedly breaking the rules. Of that, there somehow is no question. But I don't think -

As for any warnings I may give, do not PM for any reason, including for an appeal. Since I have the final say, it is pointless.

- is a very good justification. So I'm not exactly unjustified in wondering, maybe..? And I promise you that this would not have been a problem at all if moderators were not involved, or if moderators were not covering up their personal whims by saying it is "the rules".

Ahmadinejad Speech at Columbia University (merger and general topic)
(- So is questioning someone's integrity without evidence, or making things up about the person of others to dismiss their argument, perfectly fine now? Or is it just in this particular case? Several posts questioning that, not somewhat disrespectfully like the first one, were simply deleted from the thread. What does that mean, then? What should I take to be the signal from the moderator in this case? What is the rule- violation?)

US implicated in Zionist air strike on Syria.
(- What is the message here? What is the rule- violation? Who stepped over the line? What is the problem?)


And again, referring to outstanding personal judgement in some cases, regardless of the actual argument made, or what the substance of the case is - that's just silly. But since threads pointing that out is deleted, and specific cases are not allowed discussion in public, and no general cases either earlier on (no discussion of moderator actions, and that's final), while private discussions are absurd - that is what has been done on several occasions.

Of course, I don't mind that. I don't care if the mods have all kinds of fun running around the board. I really couldn't care less about what sort of complexes you believe other posters have, or what sort of "line" you insist on putting yourself on - until it interferes with debate in a significant way, and for instance warnings are issued on the basis of someone's "real intentions". Which, even in person, cannot apparently be challenged.

And that, Speakeasy, is why I wonder:
1. if we can ignore mods, like other people, on the public forum.
2. or have a serious look at how personal and moderating business is handled.


...In any case. Come to think of it - I'm not sure it's impossible to put mods on the ignore list, and still receive PMs from them. Actually, I think only administrators can't be put on ignore.. Again, that would be a perfectly acceptable solution.

[muspell]

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

Your behavior? Just as you were making a polite suggestion, I was speaking in generalities.

Where you suggest that anything I say should be dismissed based on your assessment of my apparent authority complex.

And you're defending that. Just to be clear on this - I'm not putting down a blanket statement to condemn all the mods on the site. I am simply not allowed to point out specific instances because that is against the rules (they say). If you didn't understand that, now you know.

edit: and I'm sure you also see the deleted comments at the end of post #44. And if you don't have access to the various pms I've received, through your "review process", I can send them to you.

[MattLarson]

Originally Posted by muspell

Ahmadinejad Speech at Columbia University (merger and general topic)
(- So is questioning someone's integrity without evidence, or making things up about the person of others to dismiss their argument, perfectly fine now? Or is it just in this particular case? Several posts questioning that, not somewhat disrespectfully like the first one, were simply deleted from the thread. What does that mean, then? What should I take to be the signal from the moderator in this case? What is the rule- violation?)

US implicated in Zionist air strike on Syria.
(- What is the message here? What is the rule- violation? Who stepped over the line? What is the problem?)

Um, if we left the rules violations in the threads, there wouldn't be much point in moderating the forums, would there?

In the first thread you linked, some forum rule violations were deleted or edited.

In the second thread, there was a note asking posters to return to the topic. The reason for that note should be readily apparent to anyone reading the posts immediately preceding that note.

Originally Posted by muspell

Of course, I don't mind that. I don't care if the mods have all kinds of fun running around the board. I really couldn't care less about what sort of complexes you believe other posters have, or what sort of "line" you insist on putting yourself on - until it interferes with debate in a significant way, and for instance warnings are issued on the basis of someone's "real intentions". Which, even in person, cannot apparently be challenged.

And that, Speakeasy, is why I wonder:
1. if we can ignore mods, like other people, on the public forum.
2. or have a serious look at how personal and moderating business is handled.

The answers are simple.

1. No.
2. If you have a specific complaint, PM an Administrator with it.

Originally Posted by muspell

...In any case. Come to think of it - I'm not sure it's impossible to put mods on the ignore list, and still receive PMs from them. Actually, I think only administrators can't be put on ignore.. Again, that would be a perfectly acceptable solution.

Whether it is possible or not, putting a public forum moderator on ignore is a violation of the forum rules, regardless of whether or not you think it should be.

Matt

[muspell]

Originally Posted by MattLarson

Um, if we left the rules violations in the threads, there wouldn't be much point in moderating the forums, would there?

In the first thread you linked, some forum rule violations were deleted or edited.

I understand that you call a lot of things a rule- violation. But as I said, your justifications are not sound.
I quote:

As for any warnings I may give, do not PM for any reason, including for an appeal. Since I have the final say, it is pointless.

Do not reply to this PM.

or:

I need take it up with nobody else. I have issued you a warning.

Comply or not as you choose. Understand that non-compliance will have consequences.

This, however insistent, is not a justification for why something is a rule- violation.

Whether it is possible or not, putting a public forum moderator on ignore is a violation of the forum rules, regardless of whether or not you think it should be.

I think tautologies are not efficient as rules.

[MattLarson]

It's amazing. 95% of the posters who get a warning here say "OK, sorry, it won't happen again", and they get on with their lives.

A tiny handful carry on about it for weeks like a little child deprived of a lollipop.

I've looked at the post you got warned for - and you deserved the warning. It's too bad you can't just be mature, acknowledge that you were wrong, and move on.

Matt

Edit to add: Just for the record, although Muspell seems to be claiming those PMs were from me, the truth is that neither of the PMs he has quoted there was written or sent by me.

[drgoodtrips]

Originally Posted by muspell

Where you suggest that anything I say should be dismissed based on your assessment of my apparent authority complex.

And you're defending that. Just to be clear on this - I'm not putting down a blanket statement to condemn all the mods on the site. I am simply not allowed to point out specific instances because that is against the rules (they say). If you didn't understand that, now you know.

edit: and I'm sure you also see the deleted comments at the end of post #44. And if you don't have access to the various pms I've received, through your "review process", I can send them to you.

First off, I don't have access to anyone's PM's but mine. Secondly, if a post is edited, moderators can't see the "pre-edited" version unless it's been stored in a warning/PM/subsequent post. There is no indication that post #44 was edited by anyone (unless you did it within a few minutes, in which case, the "edited by" wouldn't appear).

[Donkey_Left]

Yes, provided that I can also put the United States government on Ignore.

[daisym]

I agree with Muspell. Unfortunately I believe that having the option of putting moderators on ignore would improve USPO.

[White Rabbit]

Originally Posted by Donkey_Left

Yes, provided that I can also put the United States government on Ignore.

Now there's a statement I can agree with here!

Btw, you are almost as good as Speakeasy with clever one-liners.

[muspell]

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

First off, I don't have access to anyone's PM's but mine. Secondly, if a post is edited, moderators can't see the "pre-edited" version unless it's been stored in a warning/PM/subsequent post. There is no indication that post #44 was edited by anyone (unless you did it within a few minutes, in which case, the "edited by" wouldn't appear).

Sure, and if a moderator does it within a few minutes, there is no "last edited by", either. I've seen that before. But, I assumed the deleted text and the deleted posts were still visible to the other mods. Even if the edits were done quickly after the post was submitted. Guess I was wrong, huh.

Well. This explains a few things, doesn't it.

edit: ..right, of course.. - and what I was writing in #44 was that you could look at the few deleted threads (I assumed still were visible) for some examples of what sort of behaviour I was talking about.

Originally Posted by MattLarson

Edit to add: Just for the record, although Muspell seems to be claiming those PMs were from me, the truth is that neither of the PMs he has quoted there was written or sent by me.

The first is O'Sullivan's, and the second is yours. heh. Funny.