I do, and believe they should be. There is a decorum or "lead by example" that should be exhibited. Generally speaking this involves knowing forum rules and abiding by them.

Hi Breathweapon - I'm not sure why what you quoted bothered you. I completely agree with you. I don't think I should be exempt from my own standards.
I completely agree with you. I don't see banning Bart for maligning another poster (who happens to be a mod) as an ethics violation.
But that isn't why I banned him! I banned Bart for maligning another poster in what I thought was a mean spirited manner.

Maybe I'm not using quite the right words. By "mean spirited," I mean intended to demean Truthiness. That's how I interpreted the post that got Bart banned then, and (whatever Bart's true intentions) that's how I interpret the words he wrote when I re-read them now.

I don't mean to be stubborn about it. That's just the way I see it. Hopefully I'm always open minded. Sometimes I do change my mind, and sometimes I simply make mistakes and then recognize them. In this case, nothing has been written in this thread that would cause me to change my mind.

You don't think Bart's post was mean spirited? You don't think Bart's post was insulting? Believe it or not, if that is your point of view, I can appreciate it, although I disagree. Those things are judgment calls. Often times in a trial by jury, the jurors disagree. I would like to convince you that my point of view is correct, while being willing to listen to and consider opposing points of view.

As an aside, moderators don't have the authority to ban other moderators. But I wouldn't ban Truthiness if I did have the authority - because rightly or wrongly, I don't interpret his post to be mean spirited. I didn't interpret it as mean spirited then, and I don't interpret it as mean spirited now.

Buzz

Hi metsandfinsfan - It doesn't really matter what I think. Moderators do not have the authority to ban other moderators. For me to think that way would obviously be absurd. No, I don't think that's O.K. at all.

I didn't originally, nor do I now, interpret Truthiness's post to be mean spirited. I did originally, and still do, interpret Bart's post (whatever his true intent) to be mean spirited.

And rightly or wrongly, that makes a big difference to me.

Buzz

He has always been in the Omaha section of the net. He is a great guy that I dealt to many years ago (circa 2001). As far as the noobs as mods, I have often wondered about this. I think anyone that came here after about 12/31/02 is entirely too new On a somewhat related note in the last few months the 10th anniversary of my first 2+2 post came and went.

This thread reminds me of this scene

With all due respect and we all understand being a mod is hard...

A mod opening a post by calling a forum full of posters "you idiots" ISN'T mean spirited?

But a non-mod ASKING "what kind of mod starts his posts by insulting other 2p2 posters? And then this "if you are good" crap" is MORE insulting than the previous?

I ask the logic police to explain this.

I don't think the argument is about a co-mod banning another co-mod, that should be handled next level up.

At minimum...it's a wash and both be warned.

Well then it's lucky for some of us that you don't have any power nor say about this whatsoever!

Hi Taso - When you put it that way, it sounds rational to me too.

Rightly or wrongly, I didn't think Truthiness's post was mean spirited, but I did think Bart's post was. And in any event, moderators don't have the authority to ban other mods.

If I let people take other posters to task for real or imagined wrongs, the forum will tend to degenerate into a trash talking forum with the result that some solid posters will be distracted and others will be reticent to post, for fear of being ridiculed or maligned.

The truth (as I see it) is Truthiness is an excellent moderator and will make his own peace with anyone he might have offended. As a moderator, he's a particular target for anti-authority types. I'm going to protect him as much as I can. I'm also going to protect any poster on a forum I moderate from what I judge to be mean spirited attacks. If that means I have to take heat on this forum for my actions, so be it.
You're welcome to put in your two cents worth. I appreciate and will consider your point of view.

Buzz

I'm not the logic police, but since I'm the mod who issued the ban, I'll give it a shot.

In my opinion, one was not mean spirited and the other was.

Buzz

Wouldn't people be reticent to post if the mod calls them idiots, and people who stick up for them get banned? I sure have no interest in participating.

I can hardly believe this.

Buzz, as I said in my previous post: if you believed at that time that I was demeaning, then the ban was justified. It is my responsibility to make myself clear.

But.

In the meantime I pointed out that I had no such intentions. Yet you continue making that claim. You continue telling people "no, he is lying, he really meant to be demeaning!"

This is no longer funny. I have seen people demand an apology from mods several times here. I will not do that because I always found such demands ridiculous.

I will just say that if you do not apologize, then you deliberately set a new standard for this forum: that you can decide when a person says the truth and when a person lies.

I do not want to be a member of such a forum. No one does.

To all other readers - sorry for sounding overly serious, but my sense of humour got lost somewhere along this thread.

This. Didn't ATF learn from the PokerBob vs RR thing that forums are moderated differently and what flies in some forums doesn't in others?

Dids, when's the last time you even posted in a strat forum?

Lastly, proof that the OP is a terrible poster in case anyone was wondering, Bart plz post in SSNL so I can also ban you for a week. I'd ask you to do something stupid so that I'd be justified in doing so but I'm pretty sure you'll find a way to accomplish that even without my requesting it.

Is this why you answered my question that way?

From your earlier post...

The truth (as I see it) is Truthiness is an excellent moderator and will make his own peace with anyone he might have offended. As a moderator, he's a particular target for anti-authority types. I'm going to protect him as much as I can. I'm also going to protect any poster on a forum I moderate from what I judge to be mean spirited attacks. If that means I have to take heat on this forum for my actions, so be it.

If so, then it sheds a little light on your view. However, I still wouldn't consider Bart's statement to be anti-authority.

I'm asking these questions for the benefit of those that'll read this thread in the future so they have an understanding of 2p2.

Aww, ain't that cute. In my book this was an open threat, but we are already beyond that. We have already established that mods can threaten anyone at any time with impunity. We have also established that you do not have to say anything stupid; it is sufficient that the mod thinks it was stupid.

A side note - Buzz a friend of truthiness24? Buzz was the one who dragged him into the limelight. Instead of telling him to PM me to find out what the hell is wrong with me, he made sure that the guys of 2+2 discussed this silly incident even at the WSOP.

no... chit...?


...


wow

well now that's one hell of a subjective can of worms youre looking to open there

sorry sir an older boy told me to do it

OMG, I see it now - BUZZ IS TRYING TO STAB TRUTHINESS IN THE BACK AND RECLAIM TOTAL CONTROL OVER THE O8 FORUM!

That's one way of putting it.



Buzz, it really seems Bart was simply playing hall monitor and trying to enforce the rules and principles you so (rightfully I should add) strongly believe in. He saw a poster addressing a group of other posters as 'idiots' and implying their beliefs were based simply on an ineptitude in the game being discussed, a clear violation of said rules and principles, and chose to address the poster directly rather than notify you...



...



Srsly this is fascinating.

Bart = RR is the closest to making this analogy work, and even then it's a stretch.

Really? Bob makes a couple posts in B&M, everyone that doesn't read that forum is like "wait wat", RR's like "lol gtfo noobs this is how B&M works"? I thought it worked

eh Buzz wants a certain tone in his forum (I have this too) he felt it was violated and acted. OP is back posting, its not like buzz is getting de-modded or op is getting time credits from 2p2, lets be done. This all seems ridiculous to me, im just trying to be the shepard here.

Bart was like 'be nice (lol gtfo noobs) this is how Buzz wants O8 to work' but it got horribly misinterpreted somehow.

Well then, that should be the end of it, shouldn't it?
Oops. Evidently not the end yet.
I have not told anyone you are lying. I really did originally interpret your post to be demeaning and when I re-read it, I still interpret it to be intentionally demeaning. If you deny you meant it to be demeaning, then I'm happy to hear that. It doesn't make your offending post all right.
I never thought it was funny.
Don't hold your breath. I actually generally feel badly about banning a poster and sometimes apologize for doing so. However, I don't think you deserve an apology. If I did, I'd apologize.

Oh well... if I have misunderstood you, I apologize.

Happy?

I don't know what you think you're doing here with this thread on this forum or what your intention could be after my initial explanation of why I banned you except to give me a hard time.

And claim what you will, I don't buy it that you were protecting the Omaha-8 posters from the mean Truthiness moderator.

I'm not setting any standard. We each decide for ourselves what to believe. Nothing new there - certainly not a new ATF forum standard.
I still have my sense of humor, but I didn't think this thread was funny from the outset.

As far as I can tell, you have a total of two posts on the Omaha-8 forum, and the second post had no Omaha-8 content and got you banned.

If you come back to the Omaha-8 forum again, please behave yourself.

Buzz

No. I just tried to give you what I thought might be a somewhat logical answer to your question.

Rightly or wrongly, that's how I saw it and that's how I called it.

Buzz