As I have previously divulged, I myself am a moderator for a pretty busy online forum, albeit not a political forum. I understand the issues and problems moderators face in their daily work (if you’re like me, you volunteer for a thankless job), which is why I’ve found the recent moderator actions here…troubling, and I would like to explain why.
First of all, I think we can all agree that a moderator should not simply act because forum members tells them to. It is the moderator’s job to recognize a situation, deliberate about the nature of the situation and how it should be handled (if at all) in the best interests of the forum, and then act (if action is required).
So, referencing the ‘RIP Thomas Szasz’ topic, when the first thing the moderator says in acting is this:
“This has become a bitching thread…”
Who would describe those words as the words of someone who has deliberated about how a situation should be handled? Furthermore, doesn’t a moderator who violates the forum rules at the same time that they are warning others about violating them trivialize the very rules they are there to uphold? I understand that moderators are forum members like everyone else and that’s a fine line other forum members are hardly ever happy with, but when you’re taking action as a mod, you should act like a mod.
Lastly, did the moderator action serve the best interests of the forum by locking the thread? Given that two other topics sprung up in place of the first, and neither of them had any effect on stimulating conversation as had begun in the original topic, it would not appear so. The moderator action had the exact opposite effect of that intended.
And now referencing the ‘I’d like your thoughts on this…’ topic, what was the point of such moderator actions? If the moderator thought the complaint was taking place in the wrong forum, why not move the topic there if possible, or at the very least lock it and ask Aristophanes if he is willing to start a new topic in Member Issues to which the original thread can be linked? But now even that option is off the table since Aristophanes has been banned, and by the time he returns it won’t even matter.
And why was there such a seemingly snap judgment to ban Aristophanes based on that topic anyway? Having seen other dialogues he was in last evening, he can obviously get pretty foul-mouthed and I wouldn’t have faulted a moderator for banning him based on those discussions. But it wasn’t about those discussions according to the moderator, it was about the discussion in the ‘I’d like your thoughts on this…’ topic. And frankly, the point that Aristophanes was making in posting that conversation is the same concern that was expressed by jordan161 and myself, that Autolykos has taken a liking to using threatening and bullying language towards other forum members under the guise of “working within the forum rules” to paraphrase the moderator. This concern was left completely unaddressed by the moderator, and instead Aristophanes was punished for being a “whistleblower”.
That’s not to mention (again) the issue of the moderator using language that they are admonishing forum members for using.
How do you think these actions reflect on the management of this forum? Do you think forum members should be more or less confident in the moderators based on such actions?
As I said, as a fellow moderator, I know what it’s like to be in your shoes, and on a high-profile website such as this that responsibility may sometimes feel enormous. But that does not excuse hasty decision making and language which would tend to make the forums look bad. Even if being a moderator is a thankless job, you need to hold yourself to a higher standard when you intend to act as a moderator.
Not to mention that they had the gall to ban me because I mocked back [in the most dignifed and respectful manner possible, giving the orginal mocker sound advice about how to further his career] at someone who mocked me.
No, I can’t. I attempted to edit the post a couple of times when I initially posted it and saw that occurring, but nothing I did would make the post respect the newlines. Now I have no option to edit the post at all.
If your main point is:
When acting as a mod, act with a higher standard - I agree. And it should be called out as much as possible when one feels otherwise.
myhumangetsme: Do you think it’s consistent with the rules of this forum to post things like “You’re a moron”? I don’t think so, and apparently the moderators agree with me. So I think it’s ironic that you call on the moderators of this forum to hold themselves to a higher standard when they apparently think they’re already doing so.
And “You’re a moron” sure sounds like bullying language to me. So I also think it’s ironic that you obliquely accuse me of using threatening and bullying language when you seem to have no problem doing so yourself.
In sum, I really have no idea where you’re coming from. Nor do I have any idea why you act like you’re on such a high horse.
This doesn’t answer his objection to to the moderator’s use of profanity. Do you think it is appropriate, given the decorum apparently expected on this forum, for a moderator to use profanity to refer to a discussion within a thread?
Do you think it is appropriate, by your own personal standard, on a thread titled “RIP Thomas Szasz”, to post “Szasz was a quack (fraud)”? Can you see why this might legitimately (i.e. not a contrived standard to eliminate debate) offend the original poster? If the answer is yes to both of these questions, could you explain why saying “you’re a moron” is an act of bullying? If my point isn’t clear, consider this: at a memorial service for an academic, suppose one of the speakers described the deceased as an academic fraud, and told them watch a video to support that assertion. Do you a see possible, relevant analogy to the first response to the thread “RIP Thomas Szasz”?
I think it’s debatable whether the word “bitch” used as a verb is profane. But point taken. I didn’t realize that’s what myhumangetsme was highlighting.
Of course I see how it would offend the OP. However, I don’t believe that such offense would permit him to then call the other user a moron. Furthermore, I don’t believe (although I could be wrong) that calling Szasz a quack is against the forum rules, while directly calling another user a moron is. So yes, I think it’s legitimate to claim that Szasz was a quack in a thread titled “RIP Thomas Szasz”.
I think you’re barking up the wrong tree with this. BloomJ31 seemed to me to be trying to stifle discussion by making what looked like to me as veiled threats. However, when Physiocrat requested me to not refer to him as “Idea Pig” in retaliation, I readily acquiesced. I honestly don’t see Vladimir Ulyanov’s post as an attempt to stifle discussion. No, he wasn’t respectful toward Thomas Szasz’s memory, but I don’t think he had to be.
Autolykos: “You’re a moron,” is not bullying language, it’s an insult, something you’re also well familiar with. Another part of the problem since it appears that you have gotten away with behavior that others here have been punished for on several occasions.
“I don’t think so, and apparently the moderators agree with me.”
Apparently a moderator responded to several complaints about a thread and took action, which means nothing about the moderators (or even that particular moderator) agreeing with you about one specific statement. For all you know, your bullying language that kept the thread going down the wrong path is what got it locked.
“So I think it’s ironic that you call on the moderators of this forum to hold themselves to a higher standard when they apparently think they’re already doing so.”
So what if they think they’re doing so? That doesn’t mean they actually are, much less that they’re beyond criticism.
“In sum, I really have no idea where you’re coming from. Nor do I have any idea why you act like you’re on such a high horse.”
Because unlike you, I know what it means to be a moderator on a team of high-quality moderators for a very busy site. I’ve done so for several years, and I know what good forum moderation looks like. Moderation actions which tend to deter from forum participation rather than facilitating it need to be addressed, and in this case, I felt it was necessary to speak up. The fact that you think this song is about you is what’s quite hilarious.
And to get back to the point of the discussion, we have yet another instance of questionable moderator action in the “Fiscal Multipliers Debunked” thread. Even if the mod (in acting as a forum member) did not intend to insult the OP with their off-handed statement, the OP was nonetheless offended and fired back. Then the mod decided to shift out of forum member mode and pull out their moderator card to ‘tut-tut’ the OP.
Whenever a moderator enters a discussion acting only as a forum member, they need to think much harder about the language they use as they are still a site representative. In this case, the mod erred and offended a forum member, whether or not it was intended that way, and it exacerbated the tone of discussion; at the very least the mod owed the OP an apology for their poor choice of words.
More importantly, once a moderator enters a discussion acting only as a forum member, it must be understood that they essentially relinquish their right to act as a moderator in that discussion (excepting only those serious situations where action is required). Even if the moderator is acting objectively, the fact that they’ve already taken up a subjective position in the discussion makes it appear as if the moderator will take action against those who disagree with them. This was not a serious situation, this was a situation which could potentially degrade, so there was no reason for the moderator to switch modes. They should’ve alerted another moderator to the goings on in that thread so that the other moderator could issue a friendly reminder, if necessary.
I’m supporting nirgrahamUK. Whether or not you like it when he said that Tugwit wasn’t credible - and he did provide reasons for that - Tugwit really was trolling. There’s no need to explain why, as it’s abundantly clear to anyone who reads the posts in question that Tugwit was trolling nirgrahamUK.
The only moderator action that I have seriously disagreed with was the 30 day temp ban of Smiling Dave. But Daniel James Sanchez explained why he did it, and that’s that. It’s not a mystery. I don’t think nirgrahamUK overstepped any bounds, and I don’t see any mods regularly do that. In fact, if I were to have any complaint about the mods, it would be that there are certain people that they don’t warn enough.
Are you saying that you didn’t call Vladimir Ulyanov a moron in order to hopefully shut him up in that thread?
Insults and bullying language aren’t mutually exclusive, at least not in my opinion.
My claim that apparently the moderators agree with me isn’t based solely on Physiocrat locking your “RIP Thomas Szasz” thread.
It also doesn’t mean they actually aren’t, nor that your criticism of them is necessarily valid.
I got involved in this thread because you brought me up in your OP. So it seems that this “song” is indeed partly about me.
That said, I couldn’t care less whether you (allegedly!) “know what it means to be a moderator on a team of high-quality moderators for a very busy site… for several years” or whether you “know what good forum moderation looks like”. In other words, saying that won’t make me think that you’re necessarily more qualified in this area. And quite frankly, I don’t really believe that you are more qualified. Maybe that doesn’t matter to you, but there it is.
Feel free to post anything you want about the problems you have with my behavior. Also feel free to bring up any/all of it to the forum staff. In no way am I claiming that my behavior has always been perfect.
“Whether or not you like it when he said that Tugwit wasn’t credible - and he did provide reasons for that - Tugwit really was trolling.”
You can only say Tugwit was trolling if you don’t want to consider any more of the thread than the point at which the mod entered it. Before then Tugwit showed willingness to hear suggestions such as emailing an economist in the blogosphere (although why it wasn’t Robert Murphy I don’t know).
“…it’s abundantly clear to anyone who reads the posts in question that Tugwit was trolling nirgrahamUK.”
Rubbish. Tugwit was talking to others in the thread and was obviously defensive prior to the mod entering the discussion, but even more obvious is that the mod made it worse by saying something that offended Tugwit, then asserting that he was a troll and (kindly) threatening moderator action for responding to it. That action only came to be necessary because of the mod’s actions in the first place. If you were being honest you would acknowledge that.
I didn’t start this to suggest that this forum is full of bad moderators, but there are certainly bad moderator actions; how moderators act is the difference between a successful forum and a dead one. And particularly where this forum (and indeed this site) is concerned, with a message about more peaceful ends to the world at large, the moderators need to uphold those principles. Irresponsible speech, an inability to be humble and threats (no matter how nicely put) do not meet those principles, and if no one else knows better than to point them out, I will.
“I got involved in this thread because you brought me up in your OP. So it seems that this “song” is indeed partly about me.”
It’s not even “partly” about you, it’s barely about you. You are involved only to the extent that the moderator chose not to address anything that was brought up by three different people about your behavior in that particular instance, and indeed someone else was punished for even bringing it up. But if you want to be the center of attention, be my guest. I didn’t come here for the purpose of impressing you with my experience and insight into forum moderation anyway, your irrational anger would prevent you from seeing it even if it was there.
The rest of the thread is irrelevant. What matters is the interaction between Tugwit and nirgrahamUK. Tugwit was trolling nirgrahamUK. It’s irrelevant if he was polite to others. That’ was not the issue in question.
I’m going to pretend you didn’t say that. I don’t need to defend nirgrahamUK. If anyone is interested in the truth they can read the thread. Maybe you’ll change your attitude. Maybe not.