AD, this is a good place to talk about it, please elaborate.
dada wrote:Elvis, locking the 'wither the democrats' thread is not going to magically fix things. You are a mod, and are not behaving like one. This is something that should be discussed publically on the board, as AD said.
dada, I don't remember any occasion when a moderator put locking up for discussion (I did unseriously suggest deleting that whole thread). None of the deletions would have happened if Slad hadn't taken a Trump dump there. I've apologized for deleting your responses to it, I admit it was not especially well thought through. But nor is the frequent disruption/derailment of threads, which to me is this board's biggest problem.
I'm human, I make mistakes, and I can learn from them. I hope you'll forgive me and we can move on.
dada wrote:"Mod" is basically a referee in a demolition derby.
Food for thought, there; people have compared moderating with "bartender," "janitor," "cop" and now "demolition derby referee" (there must be others as well). All seem like good analogies under various circumstances. (But remember that demolition derby basically has one rule: you have to bash someone when you pass them.)
dada wrote: give things 24 hours before taking action
I gave AD two days to move his totally off-topic post.
peartreed wrote:It is a difficult role and it is particularly delicate when the members objecting to a moderator’s decisions are known to be sensitive and thin-skinned over criticism.
None of us think we deserve discipline or a time out or an outright banning. Ego blocks our objectivity to see our own posts as problematic in any way.
All I can offer, on Elvis’ behalf, is that I’ve seen his calls as justified and judicious.
Thanks, Peartreed. It
is difficult. I especially dislike being put in a position that calls for moderater action when people should be moderating themselves. I am taking dada's criticisms into account, I can't blame him for being upset, and I'm a little upset with myself for deleting too large a swath.
Some time ago in a PM, my correspondent wrote, "They should just ban that person!" and I replied along the lines of, "Yeah, no kidding!." But when you suddenly become the "they," that attitude changes (if you're being fair): we don't have the
right to just ban someone because we disagree or don't like their style. My interest is in a healthy discussion board, with minimal disruptions, and rewarding exchanges for everyone.
Feedback welcomed, but between the family crisis and work, I might be slow to respond.
P.S. A post I read about being messed up that day on drugs (legal) and medicines might partly explain the poor judgement in one of these instances, but the reference was later deleted, and not by me. So maybe we're not getting the whole story.