Why?

[']['ear]

I generally ignore the site discussion.

[earthJoker]

I generally ignore the site discussion.

Me too. But the outcome of this discussion could effect d&d so I can't ignore it.

[Khendraja'aro]

Then I also would like the moderators being held to a higher standard. Sorry Dread, but if you insist on questions being answered while you yourself conveniently evade answering questions, then I can't respect the moderators. I don't like it when those in power make up their own rules.

[Wraith]

I don't think insisting on questions being answered/evading questions should be a moderator issue. I think the rules are going to need to be amended if we want to do something like that. The mods are all users also, and shouldn't have to always wear their mod hats in everything they say/do.

[Khendraja'aro]

I don't think insisting on questions being answered/evading questions should be a moderator issue. I think the rules are going to need to be amended if we want to do something like that. The mods are all users also, and shouldn't have to always wear their mod hats in everything they say/do.

Then they are not mods and I shall treat them as such. Either they are moderators or they are users - it indeed is a binary choice. You can't have it both ways.

There are countless examples of why wearing one too many hats only creates more problems than it solves. For instance, I won't befriend my pupils.

[Wraith]

If you treat them as users and what you do is appropriate treatment for other users, I think you should be fine. It's always been pretty obvious (IMO) when the mod hat goes on, and it's unfair to ask someone to stop participating just because they're mods.

[']['ear]

I don't think insisting on questions being answered/evading questions should be a moderator issue. I think the rules are going to need to be amended if we want to do something like that.

Totally agreed.

The mods are all users also, and shouldn't have to always wear their mod hats in everything they say/do.

Not true. Mods actually have to adhere to the rules and not, for example, create snotty, mocking posts that also happen to be based on belief in a demonstrably flawed source.

Then they are not mods and I shall treat them as such. Either they are moderators or they are users - it indeed is a binary choice. You can't have it both ways.

There are countless examples of why wearing one too many hats only creates more problems than it solves. For instance, I won't befriend my pupils.

Well, it's not black and white. Mods are certainly allowed to participate in the give and take of the forums. But they should also adhere to a high standard wrt the rules.

[Hazir]

I think it's not necessary for Wraith, Rand or Dread to stay out of discussions. It might be wise for them to somehow make clear in which capacity they are acting. I could imagine that they don't 'mod' in the form of posts in a thread, but through PM's and/or deletion of the offending post.

[']['ear]

Impartiality is critical.

[littlelolligagged]

If someone seriously thinks a mod is acting inappropriately, take it up with one of the other two.

Privately.

I've never seen either Dread nor Rand take action based on their own disagreements;I hardly think they will start now.

I have no reason to think Wraithy would behave any differently.

[Nessus]

Then they are not mods and I shall treat them as such. Either they are moderators or they are users - it indeed is a binary choice. You can't have it both ways.

There are countless examples of why wearing one too many hats only creates more problems than it solves. For instance, I won't befriend my pupils.

Why would anyone want to volunteer to be a moderator under those circumstances?

Dread can behave poorly as a poster but so long as he doesn't abuse what little privilege the moderating staff currently enjoys, what exactly is the problem? It should be possible to think of someone being a useless cunt as a person but still be doing agreeably in their "job".

[']['ear]

Rand is not a cunt. Not even close. Yet there was a snotty, arguably trolling post in the thread where Wraith told me my posting to Loki was inappropriately personal (true, by the way). So arguably Rand flaunted the new rules, and Wraith failed to call him on it.

[Wraith]

There are a couple reasons. First, and probably the biggest, nobody reported it. I'm available for modding around these times, but I still can't always read every single post that gets made. Second, it's way before the line as I see it. Trolling and flaming are already against the rules, but those rules will have to be amended before I can do anything about sarcasm. The mandate was for a forum without flamewars, not total saccharin sweetness from everybody. And if I'd had to call out everyone for things like using sarcasm, I'd have absolutely no possible justification to just give a verbal warning for your own post.

[earthJoker]

Then they are not mods and I shall treat them as such. Either they are moderators or they are users - it indeed is a binary choice. You can't have it both ways.

There are countless examples of why wearing one too many hats only creates more problems than it solves. For instance, I won't befriend my pupils.

We are not professionals here. If you want someone who is mod only, you would need to pay him. A mod is more like a Vereinsvorstand (~Clubpresident) he is still a normal member at the same time.

Two things that still could be good for a mod:
- Try to live up to the values.
- Clearly stating when a post is made with the moderator hat on.

Also mods should be dedicated to forum sections. This way the mod still has a section where he can write as a very normal member.

[']['ear]

There are a couple reasons. First, and probably the biggest, nobody reported it. I'm available for modding around these times, but I still can't always read every single post that gets made. Second, it's way before the line as I see it. Trolling and flaming are already against the rules, but those rules will have to be amended before I can do anything about sarcasm. The mandate was for a forum without flamewars, not total saccharin sweetness from everybody. And if I'd had to call out everyone for things like using sarcasm, I'd have absolutely no possible justification to just give a verbal warning for your own post.

Agreed, saccharin sweetness isn't desirable.

I'd argue that Rand's post was trolling, but trolling is difficult to define. The fact that he never posts like that to me (or anybody else) was also striking. I wonder what the special occasion was?

Can't argue with your reasoning that you can only respond to what has been reported. Seeing as other forum members with an ax to grind will be aggressively reporting any of my transgressions, I'll be punctilious about reporting any offenses I see.

[Aimless]

I'd argue that your offense-detection system needs some calibrating

[littlelolligagged]

I can't see how RB's post could possibly be construed as trolling - you have to be seriously stretching to read it that way.

Perhaps Minxypooh is right, and you are being oversensitive.

[']['ear]

Or maybe Rand has never posted something quite like that to me.

[littlelolligagged]

Or maybe Rand has never posted something quite like that to me.

Because it's politically convenient.

OMG the rich poli's don't care about sending troops out to die as none of them served, none of their children do. Only poor black kids join the military as they have no choice otherwise they're impoverished. Stop war. Start conscription.

Your problem is that he posted something "like that" to you, not that it was posted at all? Regardless of how silly it seems to the rest of us that you are upset over something as innocuous as this comment, if it truly bothered you I'm sure you would have been better served by either sending a PM to RB telling him so, or reporting it to either of the other moderators. No one else would have reported this, because I don't actually think anyone else would have been offended by it, even if they were mentioned specifically by name. All RB did was mock the mindset.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Can't argue with your reasoning that you can only respond to what has been reported. Seeing as other forum members with an ax to grind will be aggressively reporting any of my transgressions, I'll be punctilious about reporting any offenses I see.

Will you be doing this reporting right off the mark, or will you wait to see whether your prediction is true?

[']['ear]

Will you be doing this reporting right off the mark, or will you wait to see whether your prediction is true?

Oh, my prediction has already been shown to be true.

[Ziggy Stardust]

An event in the future has already been shown to be true.

[Aimless]

Oh, my prediction has already been shown to be true.

Really? Where?

[earthJoker]

An event in the future has already been shown to be true.

Temporal backwards implication

[']['ear]

Because it's the Heritage Foundation? Because their "report" is riddled with partisan manipulation (i.e. dissing certain people and sources while lauding others others in a clearly partisan manner)? Very unprofessional. When the people who generate "science" use the science in their publication as a political bludgeon, I tend to start worrying about the science. This judgment is orders of magnitude more relevant for social sciences, of course.

The study is very selective about their data. A classic example is using the high school diploma as a benchmark. They show that "the military has a higher high school graduation rate." Big fucking deal! That's because the military doesn't allow high school drop outs! So they choose the metric that by selection bias proves their point! And they don't bother addressing that the military does this to avoid mental deficients (a damed wise policy, BTW). The military is also much more law-abiding, because they won't accept recruits with a felony record!!11! Again, well done. How about we measure crime rate in ex-enlisted compared to age-adjusted control group who also didn't commit a crime by that age?

Jesus, and you call yourself a social scientist? I don't know whether this is a commentary on your abilities, your laziness, or your willingness to lose the truth to score your precious "points."

And do we get into the conflation of enlisted vs officers? For the point of discussion here, fatalities are disproportionate amongst enlisted personnel. So when thinking about quality of military or the demographic details of the military, how could any researcher not consider officers and enlisted separately?

How's about we compare other metrics? Say, percentage of ex-enlisted college grad vs non-military college grads to complete post-bacc work? The document you cite decries other studies for using different metrics without defending them. Frankly, the metrics chosen by the Heritage Foundation are far more dubious.

So from now on how about you don't just spam us with a link, but quote the passage that supports your point? You're being both a) lazy by making us track down the data that "supports" your point, and b) disingenuous because your links often don't even support your point you claim they do (witness the high school graduation rate).

So your "proof" is suspect on four levels:
1) I don't trust the Heritage Foundation any more than I trust tobacco company "research," which is to say about as far as I could shot put Baxter.
2) Clearly some of the HF's chosen metrics are intentionally misleading on a quick surface level. Why should I trust their others? That's like trusting Michael Moore on arguments that seem reasonable after you've learned that some of his techniques are quite reputable.
3) The HF report cites other studies that come to different conclusions. Huh, how about that? In a brief look at those, they look less suspect and more professional.

Look, we know that you're training to become a hack at one of these think tanks, but kindly don't insult my intelligence by tarting such crap up as "science" and parading it around as "proof."

And from now on give me quotes that "prove" your point, not lame-ass links. Why? Because I don't trust you. This document was the last straw, and you wasted my fucking time on it.

Somebody reported this as being too hostile, apparently. Loki lied yet again, and I told him I wouldn't respond to anything he said by link, but would require quotations from his source. This is utterly reasonable, because he frequently misrepresents or flat out lies about his sources. I was justified in being irate, too, since he once again wasted my time by requiring me to do what he should have done.

Did I call him a dick? Did I sling personal insults at him? Make some sort of slur? Where is the line? Here I thought that Cain-level activity was what was required for censure.

[Nessus]

Look, we know that you're training to become a hack at one of these think tanks

The pronoun there means the comment's, uh, personal

[Ziggy Stardust]

My mistake. When you said: "will be aggressively reporting", I thought you meant in the future.

Anyway, I see that Wraith "Please calm down." even used the magic word. If you see this sort of behaviour from other posters I fully support you in reporting it

Did you get warning points or permanent infractions?

edit: I see you had problems with RB's post, is that the one lolli posted above?

[Aimless]

Somebody reported this as being too hostile, apparently. Loki lied yet again, and I told him I wouldn't respond to anything he said by link, but would require quotations from his source. This is utterly reasonable, because he frequently misrepresents or flat out lies about his sources. I was justified in being irate, too, since he once again wasted my time by requiring me to do what he should have done.

Did I call him a dick? Did I sling personal insults at him? Make some sort of slur? Where is the line? Here I thought that Cain-level activity was what was required for censure.

You sometimes misrepresent your own posts, but here is what you said:

Jesus, and you call yourself a social scientist? I don't know whether this is a commentary on your abilities, your laziness, or your willingness to lose the truth to score your precious "points."

I think the whole point is that we're moving away from using Cain as our measuring stick, maybe it's time you retire that one

[Wraith]

Somebody reported this as being too hostile, apparently. Loki lied yet again, and I told him I wouldn't respond to anything he said by link, but would require quotations from his source. This is utterly reasonable, because he frequently misrepresents or flat out lies about his sources. I was justified in being irate, too, since he once again wasted my time by requiring me to do what he should have done.

Did I call him a dick? Did I sling personal insults at him? Make some sort of slur? Where is the line? Here I thought that Cain-level activity was what was required for censure.

Fantastic, and now we're sliding backwards. Overtly hostile posts like the one you made are not continuing here, Tear. Especially when it represents as large an escalation of hostilities as yours did.

Also, please stop trying to bait Loki. He's not even in this current discussion! Please don't act like you don't know what I'm talking about either - starting another argument as an excuse to bait someone is not acceptable. I'm not very patient by nature, and I'm not going to just let people go and do whatever the maximum they think they can get away with is. I'm not an automaton, so rules-lawyering will not work with me.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Good rule to use: if you feel like attacking, attack the argument, not the one posting.

edit: Yes, that means I have to alter my behaviour as well, for instance towards Lewk.