For the record, I see now the John Harris stuff did go on more than a few days and I and others received a few PMs about him. I had forgotten some of the details. Doesn't change what I said though.

According to your perspective, but of course, you are infallible? — TimeLine

No, and that's my point. No one is, including the mods.

The mods in general are anything but bitter. — Baden

That's a laugh. The purple prose-laden, hyperbolic, and ill-tempered responses by the mod team toward anyone who supported the right to own firearms in the recent gun control thread alone puts the lie to this suggestion.

We were only bitter because we had to deal with so many lemons.

Case in point.

My guess is that this poll is being taken to aid in some self-reflection by everyone. I think it is a very good idea.

If an innocuous joke like that is a case in point of the "bitter sarcasm" you object to then we're not going to change anything because the problem is in your interpretation not in the comment itself. (Mod or non-mod, a comment like that is acceptable.)

The problem is that you've deleted posts, including my own posts, that have been similarly innocuous and yet patronizing little snipes like Michael's post above are paid no mind. Naturally, you agree with the sentiment, so why moderate them? But if an Emptyheady engages in sarcasm of a similar nature, you gullibly take the bait, interpret him literally, and permaban him. Ergo, inconsistency, as I said.

The problem is that you've deleted posts, including my own posts, that have been similarly innocuous and yet patronizing little snipes like Michael's post above are paid no mind. Naturally, you agree with the sentiment, so why moderate them? — Thorongil

No, in fact, I haven't. Not only have I not deleted a post like the above from anyone including you, I haven't moderated you at all in as long as I can remember. In any case, we can settle it now. We have a record of all changes including edits and deletions, so let me know roughly what the content of the post was and roughly when it was deleted and I'll check the record. And that can be done any time by the way if any member really feels a post was unfairly deleted.

But if an Emptyheady engages in sarcasm of a similar nature, you gullibly take the bait, interpret him literally, and permaban him. — Thorongil

As much as I enjoy being reminded of ridding the site of a Nazi sympathizer, I'm not going to debate the banning of Spaceyskull again. We have completely different interpretations of events, so it's pointless.

No, in fact, I haven't. Not only have I not deleted a post like the above from anyone including you, I haven't moderated you at all in as long as I can remember. In any case, we can settle it now. We have a record of all changes including edits and deletions, so let me know roughly what the content of the post was and roughly when it was deleted and I'll check the record. And that can be done any time by the way if any member really feels a post was unfairly deleted. — Baden

This is about the mods in general. You're welcome to peruse my history, but I don't keep a running list of deletions, so I can't point you to anything, although I did make a thread calling out jamal, I believe, for deleting something I wrote about postmodernism. And I've made numerous comments in the past directed to mods asking why certain posts were deleted. I think Sapientia might recall some of those interactions.

Nazi sympathizer — Baden

Still gullible!

I'm right leaning, and to be honest, am likely less tolerant than other mods, meaning some behavior allowed now would not be allowed if I were king. The point being, if you're prone to misbehavior, which includes rabble rousing, you would want as few conservatives on your jury as possible.

I do realize the importance, however, in having a jury with diverse worldviews, but you are sadly mistaken if you think I'll be more prone to protect you if we both happen to have voted for the same idiot for president.

If your post was deleted because I made a complaint requesting it and if you were banned for your behaviour, how is change possible? — TimeLine

Now there's a shift in mission statement. Our purpose is therapeutic, to bring about personal change through philosophical debate. Would you propose a banning for someone who violated no rule, but for whom such a punishment would provide needed humility?

It just seems you're defining this board's purpose as aiming to provide psychological growth, which I can acknowledge might be a a tertiary byproduct, but not what I'd consider a primary goal. Regardless, interesting perspective.

Now there's a shift in mission statement. Our purpose is therapeutic, to bring about personal change through philosophical debate. Would you propose a banning for someone who violated no rule, but for whom such a punishment would provide needed humility? — Hanover

Nay, I am against banning because it would contradict my stance on communication and freedom of speech, unless they are very extreme cases (as mentioned, like that guy that hung out in the banned section of the old forum spouting racially apocalyptic nonsense). My position is that a moderator should only concern him/herself with content without any bias (including political or religious) so that we, as a community on a forum, can learn how to communicate without relying on our ego or getting offended by those who disagree or are different to us. Indeed, I believe that it can promote psychological growth because forums and philosophy or the argumentative process therewith enables others to learn how to articulate themselves better. Without people who have different opinions, how can anyone improve?

It's simple: overspecialize, and you breed in weakness. - Ghost in a Shell (the actual anime, not that rubbish hollywood crap)

My job, as true king, is to shake confidence and prejudice to spur revaluation, and further deliberation. Certainty always returns, but displacing it, even briefly inspires some growth.

Nay, I am against banning because it would contradict my stance on communication and freedom of speech, unless they are very extreme cases (as mentioned, like that guy that hung out in the banned section of the old forum spouting racially apocalyptic nonsense). — TimeLine

And that's the problem with idealism: in practice, it just wouldn't work.

I've seen those other forums with less stringent standards. They're awful.

And I've made numerous comments in the past directed to mods asking why certain posts were deleted. I think Sapientia might recall some of those interactions. — Thorongil

Vaguely. In Feedback and The Shoutbox.

I didn't vote. The options of "too strict" and "not strict enough" are too broad to be meaningful. Besides, since posts are deleted and edited stealthily, it is difficult to see how much moderation is actually taking place. I've seen some examples of questionable and petty moderation decisions, but for all I know those may have been exceptions.

Anyway, I've made my more specific complaint elsewhere.

That's a laugh. The purple prose-laden, hyperbolic, and ill-tempered responses by the mod team toward anyone who supported the right to own firearms in the recent gun control thread alone puts the lie to this suggestion. — Thorongil

I wish you wouldn't lump us all together like that. The mod team did not act as one in that discussion, and we don't all share the same views or manners. For instance I don't share the views espoused in the posts you refer to, although I can be a little ill-tempered at times.

But is it not a fact that all moderators (with the exception of Hanover) are left-leaning (or leftists) and all moderators (including Hanover) are atheists? There seems to me to be some valid ways to lump all moderators together. In certain ways, you share a lot of similarities with each other in terms of worldview.

Maybe, although I seem to disagree with them as much as agree when it comes to politics. On many issues I'm often much more inclined to agree with, say, Hanover or Thorongil than with, say, Sapientia or Street. So if you class me as being on the Left along with them, you're obscuring some deep differences.

In any case, the Left is over-represented there probably because it's over-represented among those who are into philosophy (a point made many times before in discussions like this). I'd like to see more diversity in the mod team. Conservatives are welcome. Ranting alt-right maniacs, maybe less so.

The thing about the gun-control discussion is that I don't even see it as a left vs right issue at all. Conservatives in the UK seem to be as much in favour of gun control as Labour and the Liberal Democrats are.

To me, it's an American vs non-American issue.

I think you're right that it's not left vs right. Some on the far Left are as supportive of the right to bear arms as American conservatives and libertarians, and not only in America.

Maybe, although I seem to disagree with them as much as agree when it comes to politics. On many issues I'm often much more inclined to agree with, say, Hanover or Thorongil than with, say, Sapientia or Street. So if you class me as being on the Left along with them, you're obscuring some deep differences. — jamalrob

There are differences of course, but your views all bear a certain family resemblance to each other on many issues (for example religion).

I'd like to see more diversity in the mod team. Conservatives are welcome. — jamalrob

You could always get someone like Mariner, or Thorongil on the mod team then.

Ranting alt-right maniacs, maybe less so. — jamalrob

I haven't met any of those on this site yet.

There are differences of course, but your views all bear a certain family resemblance to each other on many issues (for example religion). — Agustino

I think our views on religion are probably quite diverse, although you could be right that we're all atheists. I'd be happy to have believers on the mod team, but they are few and far between.

I wish you wouldn't lump us all together like that. The mod team did not act as one in that discussion, and we don't all share the same views or manners. For instance I don't share the views espoused in the posts you refer to, although I can be a little ill-tempered at times. — jamalrob

Sure. Fair enough. A generalized statement still admits of exceptions, and you are one of them, for you never commented in that thread, so please accept my apologies if you felt unjustly slighted by my comment. Still, the fact remains that there were several mods in that thread who saw fit to post in such a way as I describe.

I think you're right that it's not left vs right. Some on the far Left are as supportive of the right to bear arms as American conservatives and libertarians, and not only in America. — jamalrob

This is correct. I have known two college professors who are left wing in their politics but who enthusiastically collect guns. That being said, it is generally the left that wants to severely restrict them and/or ban them in the US.

Sure. Fair enough. A generalized statement still admits of exceptions, and you are one of them, for you never commented in that thread, so please accept my apologies if you felt unjustly slighted by my comment. Still, the fact remains that there were several mods in that thread who saw fit to post in such a way as I describe. — Thorongil

I've just gone through all my posts in that discussion. I can't find any of mine that are "purple prose-laden, hyperbolic, and ill-tempered".

Also, Hanover didn't reply at all, and andrewk posted once in response to me, and it was a very congenial comment. So at best your generalization covers less than half the mod-team.

Still, the fact remains that there were several mods in that thread who saw fit to post in such a way as I describe. — Thorongil

The fact is that some posts by some of us in the discussion fit some of your negative description as did some of your own posts. The fact also is that members of the mod team have distinct personalities and post in accordance with them just like regular members. There's no special uniformity among the mod team that differs significantly from the community as a whole.

Those three adjectives don't have to apply to every mod. "Ill-tempered" suits your "contributions" well enough. "But I wasn't ill-tempered," you will say. Well, I can't enter into your subjectivity to determine that, so I'm only giving you my impression. You seemed quite frustrated and agitated that people like me were, in your mind, standing athwart the perfectly diaphanous position to take on the issue, which is to severely restrict and/or ban all guns. One of the most common expressions for frustration and agitation is sarcasm, which you did clearly display in your terse, biting little comments.

I've just gone through all my posts in that discussion. I can't find any of mine that are "purple prose-laden, hyperbolic, and ill-tempered". — Michael

If Thorongil's standard for that accusation includes this:

We were only bitter because we had to deal with so many lemons. — Michael

as a case in point, as he has claimed, it could include almost any joke or negative comment aimed at him, so it may actually include some of yours.

The fact is that some posts by some of us in the discussion fit some of your negative description as did some of your own posts — Baden

Ah, the "I know you are but what am I?" grade-school response. Well, at least you admit the former. You can accuse me of whatever you like, but this thread is about the mods, not Thorongil.