Concerns about moderating policies

[Bennno]

Bottom line:. By the TOS, some personal attacks are strictly prohibited and others are acceptable. You just have to know how to write them.

Exactly! And it also depends on who you are.

 

[RandomGuy1]

Personally I don't think calling someone something that doesn't include a "curse word" should be moderated at all. Thread locked for getting off topic, or I could see or moderating someone for dropping f bombs or this like. Then again, I am all for personal responsibility and owning what you say, rather than having your bad attitudes swept under the rug by moderators.

 

[Storker]

I don't like your phoniness
[...]
Pete is not a phony

You really should be able to do better. As sarcasm goes, that's pretty weak sauce.

 

[boulderjohn]

I think you missed my point @Storker , or I missed yours. Say there is a thread discussing the use of split fins. Johnny makes a post on the thread that he loves his split fins and thinks they are the greatest thing since sliced bread. If I immediately post on the thread (without naming names) that anyone who uses split fins is a moron, I think that most people I know would consider that to be calling Johnny a moron since he just proclaimed his love for split fins. Unless I am misunderstanding the TOS (entirely possible) that would be acceptable, although it says the same thing as directly calling Johnny a moron.

OK, I am not counting, but I think this is the FIFTH time in this thread that I have explained this. The last time I started by saying "Once more with Feeling."

There are cases that are clear personal attacks. There are cases here there is no clear personal attack. There are gray are cases in which the context needs to be considered.

In my explanation, this will be the third time in this thread that I have said that some descriptions of generic practices are actually "thinly disguised" attacks on an individual. In those cases, they would be considered personal attacks. That is when we moderators use our judgment. Is the poster talking about practices in general, or is the poster talking about a specific person in the thread? If we can tell that it is referencing a specific person, then it is a personal attack and against the ToS.

 

[The Chairman]

I don't like your phoniness and that you put spin on everthing to make your point.
Ok, I'm done with this, Pete is going to weazel himself out of every direct question anyway.

My "phoniness"??? Dear me. You've asked questions and have not provided links to the threads you have questions about. That would work if we were a lot smaller, but I have no idea which thread you're referring to. Now that I've asked you to point to specifics, you start acting like I don't care and I am trying to weasel out of answering for my horrific deeds. I like to weasel... it's why I side mount. Don't deprive me here. Give me specifics. Which were "rumors"? Which were fabrications? Where is this mythical thread where I ruined someone's business? Enquiring minds want to know. Or is it that the thread in question won't support your spurious accusations? Perhaps it will show that the real problem is that for whatever reason, you just don't like me? For that matter, where is all the censorship you claim that will protect me from your criticisms. It's not happening here. It's time to put up.

 

[Storker]

I believe that some of the participants in this thread are forgetting - or disregarding - a very simple fact: Except for Pete (NetDoc) and maybe some of the technical staff, those of us with the "Staff Member" badge have a day job. We participate here on SB in our free time, and doing staff stuff isn't our main reason for staying on the board. We were once ordinary members, some of us were freeloaders, others were supporters. For some reason or another, we were asked to serve as staff (as Pete has said, if you volunteer as a mod, that basically disqualifies you from the job), and I don't think I'm much mistaken if most of us saw this as another way of paying for the privilege of having SB as a place to hang out and discuss our hobby.

So, we participate in the discussions just like other SB members. Being human, we sometimes step over the line. Some of those oversteps are reported, and we are moderated, too. Just like any other member. No big deal. However, we are adults, we realize that we're fallible humans and we don't whine when we're being moderated. Inbetween our participation on the board, we try to do the job we've been asked to do, to the best of our abilities. Sometimes we screw up. And if you think there's anyone who doesn't screw up their job sometimes, I have a bridge in Brooklyn you can buy. Again, we're (mostly) adults, and if you contest our decision in a sober and polite manner, with good arguments, we're mostly willing to reconsider. And usually that reconsideration is done in a larger circle of mods, because we all have our different strengths and weaknesses. If you have a good point, it's quite probable that we'll listen to you.

If you really resent our attempts to keep the discussions civil, there's always rec.scuba. No-one is forcing you to post here.

 

[Bennno]

Pete, I have already given you several examples and you have already chosen to ignore them. Instead you post quotes from a dictionary. Stop acting like you'd be willing to have a honest discussion!

Here is another example of how you spin:

Where is this mythical thread where I ruined someone's business?

I have never said you HAVE RUINED someones business. I said something you interpret as such! This is a dishonest why of arguing... and you do that a lot, you twist people words and argue against what 'they said' according to you!
That's a weazel move!

You know exactly what thread I mean when I mentioned your cave instructor 'friend' and the 90 page thread. When you say you don't know what I'm talking about your being dishonest.

 

[Bubblesong]

Getting back to the original "moron" comment that set this off, here is a different comparison:

Calling someone a moron for having a speargun fish hunting accident when we don't know the circumstances, (just because ANYBODY that has an accident is a moron because training magically prevents all accidents with spearguns) is using a cattle prod in conversation.

Calling someone a moron for having a nail gun fish hunting accident, (because they wanted to hunt tiny fish), is not going to stand out among all the other people piling on the insults.

Could the take on this be, limit the name calling to illegal, uncertified equipment and actions?

 

[Storker]

Calling someone a moron for having a speargun fish hunting accident when we don't know the circumstances, (just because ANYBODY that has an accident is a moron because training magically prevents all accidents with spearguns) is using a cattle prod in conversation.

Sorry, but you'll never see me step back on that assessment. Having >40 years of experience with guns, I still believe - and claim, to anyone willing to listen, plus a few more - that there. simply. is. no. excuse. for shooting someone unless you intend to do so. Period.

 

[Bubblesong]

Why would anyone want to be a Moderator anywhere and bear the Awesome responsibility of the Interlocution Justice League?