I am sorry that I can not be more specific but if I were I would be risking suspension myself.

I just want to say that Supermoderator Canarsie and the moderators of the Mileage Run Forum deserve a lot of credit for the way they handled a recent, unfortunate, situation.

I know that the decisions they took were not easy for them and may well result in quite a bit of resentment but they were absolutely the right thing to do. ^ ^ ^

I'm pretty sure that you were indeed specific enough so that everyone knows what you're talking about. The ban on discussing moderator actions should include positive talk as well, lest the compliments create the perception that moderator actions are uniformly praiseworthy.

Actually, iriefrank, although this was truly an exceptional situation, in most cases moderators do handle matters correctly -- and I am telling you this as a person who has been repeatedly charged with being "anti-moderator".

I just don't think it's fair to allow positive discussion of specific moderator actions and forbid negative talk. I will not weigh in on this particular moderator action, to prevent myself from being summarily suspended. I will say that there is, let's say, a diversity of opinion on the matter of which you speak.

If we're going to ban all talk of specific moderator actions, let's do that, and include the OP. If you really want to tell them what a great job they did, send a PM.

To allow your positive discussion of specific moderator action is unfair and presents an incomplete and deceptive account of community opinion on an issue.

I agree with iriefrank. I don't think any kind of talk regarding moderation is warranted*. It suggests what "side" you are on and doing so publicly is just as bad as being on the other "side" and saying so publicly.


* Edited to add: Under the current system. If the rules are that there should be no talk of moderating decisions, then it should be upheld. I think more transparency is a good thing, but that's not currently how things are set up. We just need to be consistent, IMHO.

Thank you, magiciansampras, for your view. I'd like to clarify that it is not personally my stand that no one should ever talk about moderation, or even that there shouldn't be public discussion of specific moderator actions. On the contrary, I personally feel that some transparency and review of the process would be most refreshing. However, I don't wish to argue the merits of that personal view of mine here.

Here, my only point is that if mods/TB members/RP are serious about enforcing the policy against commenting on specific moderator actions (which they apparently are, given recent activity on the UA and MR forums), then Dovester's post should be deleted at once and Dovster should be reprimanded or suspended, just as other members have been in the past several days for doing the same thing the Dovster did. To do otherwise would be capricious selective enforcement. Sycophancy should be treated the same as constructive criticism. These days, that is post deletion and sometimes suspension.

iriefrank makes very valid and thought-provoking points. ^

1. If you were at all familiar with my posting history on this subject you would know that I have always favored an openness in moderation and that I feel that posters should be allowed to state their disagreements with moderators' decisions. Indeed, if you will go through past ORP threads you will find that I have done so -- in the days when it was permitted.

2. I think that the suggestion that I am a sycophant for moderators would bring a laugh to those I have taken to task.

3. For all of that, Randy -- and he owns the board and thus gets to make the decisions -- has decided that any negative criticism of a moderator equals a personal attack. Personal attacks, as you are well aware, are against the TOS.

4. That being the case, my initial post has to be considered in the same light as any other post which says something positive about a member vs a post which is an attack on one. Is it your contention, for example, that because I can get a time out for saying "FlyerTalkerA is a babbling idiot whose posts are pure garbage" that I should also be disciplined for saying "FlyerTalkerB has made many intelligent and helpful posts"?

I think you're conflating concepts. Saying that a FTer is an idiot and saying that an FTer makes good posts is not at all like saying particular moderation in a particular instance was good or bad. You don't see the difference?

It is exactly the same if you accept the premise that any post contending that a moderator erred is a personal attack. It is not a premise with which I agree but Randy does hold to that and therefore those are the rules here.

Under no circumstances could expressing appreciation of a particular moderation decision be considered a personal attack. It does not even imply that those decisions which you have not mentioned were bad ones.

In this particular case the moderators were faced with a very bad situation. On one hand, IMHO, they had a thread which had gotten out of hand to a degree which I have never before seen on F/T. On the other, a number of the posters were respected members who have excellent records here and, in some cases, personal friends of the moderators. (Indeed, some were my personal friends as well.)

That is why I felt that the moderators faced a very difficult problem and handled it excellently.