Inappropriate moderator behaviour

[HanneSThEGreaT]

nuzzle, why not just leave it? This is just being childish.

I seriously do not know what the whole issue is about? Seriously, this is really getting very unproductive and unecessarily bec oming an issue.

[nuzzle]

Nuzzle, I think that you are blowing this way out of proportion.

1. This is an online forum...not a govern-ment (CG actually blocks this word? HAHA. Ironic). "Corruption" quite strong for an online presence which has almost no affect on your personal life...unless your basing you life soley on answers in a forum from people you don't know.
2. Moderators have "extra power" because they have proven themselves useful in volunteering their free time to assist people they don't even know with problems that aren't even their own. And keep the whole forum well organized. They've earned some extra abilities.
3. And...the thread was closed for being off-topic. Arjay's post was spot on.

A forum may seem insignificant on a grander scale of things but social media is an increasingly important part of society. I don't see why exactly this forum shouldn't aim for the highest standards both technically and ethically. Isn't it because of such ambition there's forum moderation in the first place?

True, moderators put in lots of voluntary work but so does ordinary members. Without the effort of ordinary members there wouldn't be a forum and there wouldn't be anything to moderate. Should the views of a moderator be considered more valuable than those of any member? I don't think so, not outside the realms of moderation.

The only quality quarantee that exists for a public forum is peer review. If a moderator uses his "powers" to post personal views after a thread has been closed he's setting this important principle aside. His views, good or bad, true or false, will stand unchallenged as an act of god. This is contrary to the interests of the forum as a whole. In my view it shouldn't be allowed.

It may seem like a small problem but there are important principles at stake here; The quality of the forum and the equality of its members. I've watched first hand what happens to a forum when moderator corruption is allowed to sneak in. The final state is a tower of mediocrity jealously guarded by a bunch of power-drunk little dictators.

Don't allow that to happen here. Say no in time!

[laserlight]

If there are others that support your perspective, then they should chime in as well.

I view the ability to post in a closed thread as a tool to facilitate moderating rather than a privilege awarded for freely helping others. In other messageboard communities that I moderate, I used to post about closing a thread and then close it, only to have someone reply in the time it took to make my post and to actually close the thread.

As stated in post #2, I agree with nuzzle that posting a reply that is not related to moderating after the thread has been closed is inappropriate because in that context the moderator is acting as an ordinary member, yet is making use of a moderation tool to do so. However, when the offending post is an on topic contribution, I would be fine with letting it stand. Perhaps the moderator should be reminded to avoid making such posts, but I do not think that there is a need to make a fuss about it.

Now, I can see the point about peer review. Indeed, the reason why I do not accept help requests over private messaging is that the help I render may be incorrect, but there would be no one to point that out. Unfortunately, any post that has not been replied to in a closed thread, whether it was made before or after the thread was closed, would be subject to the same problem. I find the suggestion that a moderator could be informed in such a case to be a reasonable workaround.

[Brad Jones]

We are overlooking the most important factor -- why is a thread closed. If you want to really push the social issue, then you should be arguing that a thread shouldn't be closed as a discussion might need to continue even after the original poster has gotten what they want.

We try not to close threads on this forum. Nuzzle was part of the reason that particular thread was closed.

The thread was closed to negative comments and off topic posts. If you want to continue the on-topic conversation in a new thread, then by all means do so. If you want to respond to the post that was made after thet thread was closed, then quote Arjay in a new thread. As long as you are quoting and carrying on the "on topic conversation," go ahead.

I really think, however, that a mountain is being made out of a mole hill. I also think that a court case is being made out of a single instance rather than a trend. It is rare a moderator takes the time to respond after a thread is closed.

As I had said before - if the orignal poster had wanted to respond to Arjay's comment and had requested the thread be opened, I would have considered it and likely opened it back up. Rather, one of the people who was not the original poster and the person who had brought a chunk of the negativity into the thread is the one that wanted to respond. The same person who started this thread with a negative tone and a slam against the moderator.

We've heard this issue. Our moderators don't make a habit out of responding to closed threads, just as we do everything we can to avoid closing threads. To eliminate any need for this thread to suck any more of my time away from issues that are actually important, I've deleted the post in question. Seems like a crazy way to address it, but if it allows me to get back to more important threads, then so be it.

[GremlinSA]

Vote on locking this topic.
Vote on deleting the post.

[ahoodin]

I for one vote to merge this topic with the boring thread.

[Arjay]

A forum may seem insignificant on a grander scale of things but social media is an increasingly important part of society. I don't see why exactly this forum shouldn't aim for the highest standards both technically and ethically. Isn't it because of such ambition there's forum moderation in the first place?

Nuzzle, I've been silent for a while on this subject, but honestly your behavior surprises me.

Understand that the thread was closed based on the off-topic direction that was initially caused by you.

The OP had asked for advice about problems with interviewing and his frustration with the interview process. Your opening reply was the following:

Maybe it's rather an attitude problem. You seem very good at blaming others for your failures. I bet if you flunk that interview it's because you didn't get proper help here.

I suggest you have a good look at yourself.

When the OP asked "Who did I blame for what?", your second reply was:

"they refuse to acknowledge"
"but the recruiter insisted that"
"where I didnt do much coding"
"I became a scripter not a developer"
"the codebase was awful and the management was even worse"
"I learned very little."
"This is, as far as I understand it, the real world of developers."
" I am very intelligent"
"he will probably have 10 other guys lined up"
"I should do great with all of this valuable information."
"I think your reading comprehension skills have failed you."

You're the archetypical Constant Blamer. It's always someone else or the circumstances, never you. 

Nuzzle, do you not see how your replies were inflammatory to the OP?

Do you believe that these replies help hold the forum to a higher standard?

[nuzzle]

We are overlooking the most important factor -- why is a thread closed.

Well, I don't agree with you at all. The most important factor is not why you closed the thread, the most important factor is whether Arjay did the right thing. To me what he did is an act of corruption.

You closed the thread, still a moderator snuck in afterwards using his moderator powers to market his personal views on a topic. That's wrong in any moral system. I wellcome your decision to remove the moderator's comment.

---

The question as to why the thread was closed and if I'm to blame is another story. I've accepted your decision and to me it was a relief.

I'll give more on this in my reply to Arjay.

[Eri523]

I for one vote to merge this topic with the boring thread.

[nuzzle]

Nuzzle, I've been silent for a while on this subject, but honestly your behavior surprises me.

Understand that the thread was closed based on the off-topic direction that was initially caused by you.

It's off topic but I didn't know I was to blame for the thread being closed? The thread is here,

http://www.codeguru.com/forum/showthread.php?t=515411

I immediatey recognized the OP as a dummy in need of a reality check so I gave him the reply he deserved (in very civilised terms).

When you say 'inflammatory' do you mean I cannot tell a person he's a jerk when he is? Just have a look at tmd's #12 post where it's really showing. Making racist comments is what you should've closed the thread for, no me revealing a jerk.

[Brad Jones]

When you say 'inflammatory' do you mean I cannot tell a person he's a jerk when he is?

No, you can't. It is a direct violation of the AUP.

To your other points - If others violated the AUP as well, then that is independent of your actions. The moderators will address that with them independently and usually not in a public manner.

As I often have to say.... it doesn't matter if they called you a name or not, you can't call them one back or you are equally at fault. I've said that many times to my kids and I've said it more times than I can count to people on the forums.

I don't see this thread going any where constructive from this point. If there is still an issue that you believe needs to be addressed, please take it up via private messages or email.

Brad!

[nuzzle]

No, you can't. It is a direct violation of the AUP.

In relation to the AUP, how do you judge this statement,

"the indians that can barely pronounce 3 words correctly in a 10 minute conversation".

And what are you telling your kids when people are talking like that?

[PeejAvery]

Seriously Nuzzle...just drop it. Why must you drag out such a huge waste of everyone's time...including yours?

[TheGreatCthulhu]

Ok, everyone, calm the h3ll down...

Part 1 - the closed thread:
As far as I can see, the thread was closed because it turned into a fight.
It takes two for a fight, it takes two persons to demonstrate a lack of understanding so that a discussion that went awry can turn into a war.
I'm not taking anyone's side here, but let's step back a bit and take a high-level look:

You, nuzzle, using the original post, interpreted the OP's personality to be that of a "Constant Blamer". You may have been right, but there is no way to ascertain that merely based on that one post. What if you were wrong, what if you misjudged him?
You just assumed that you were right. What does that make you? An archetypical First-impression-is-allways-right guy? An I-jump-to-conclusions person?

But, I'm not saying you are: if I accepted that ad hoc, than that would make me a jump-to-conclusions guy. Your initial comment was not all that inflamatory, a little edgy at most. Neither was tmd's initial response to you. However, right after that you called him an Constant Blamer, and then he was naturally agitated, and went out of his way himself calling you an idiot, and before you know it, both of you guys started throwing rocks at each other...
Why?
Because none of you could keep his cool.
You made assumptions about him, he made assumptions about you, and you are both to blame for the situation.

Disclaimer: I'm not a saint, I've posted an inflammatory comment or two, but (as far as I can tell) for way better reasons; and was always willing to get over it and turn it into a collaboration and knowledge/opinion exchange if possible. Nevertheless, I'm guilty as charged; the thing is, this kind of behavior is normally tolerated up to some point.

Part 1 P.S.
About the "Indians": I happen to know that that's a just phrase in some parts of the world, that doesn't have too much weight, but is nevertheless intolerant, maybe even racist. But, mostly, when people say it, they don't really mean it, or have anything against Native Americans. It's just a side effect of cultural defects that come from the environment - defects that can be found in any country in the world.
The phrase most likely comes from the way some American movies, mostly the old westerns, depicted English-speaking Native Americans.
It was wrong of tmd to use that phrase, and many of the others.
The real point is, does any of you know what was your fight actually about (not from your personal perspectives, but what was it really about? And was it at all meaningful?)

Part 2 - the allegedly inappropriate moderator behavior:
From your perspective, it doesn't matter that Arjay's "controversial" post is now removed, because it's not what it contained that's the problem, but the fact that it appeared at all, since the thread was closed.

But that's not entirely true. However, I'll get to that later.
First, this should be seen from a practical perspective.
Rules are there to help us, humans, organize - not to make us their slaves. Sometimes, it's OK to break a rule - maybe there is a higher interest, maybe in a given situation it doesn't make sense, maybe it's was just plain bad to begin with. No rule is perfect.
So, in that perspective, the motivation that lead to the breaking of the rule is extremely important.
I can't say much about that, since the post is removed.

Was a rule broken?
From a moral perspective - we can't say for sure, because this is all in the gray zone. Moral values are slightly different from person to person, from culture to culture. Different people perceive morality in slightly different ways. A lot of this overlaps, but there's no such thing as a universal, absolute moral code.
Maybe this is not in the gray zone for you - but this was never about the way you personally see the world.
The best way to treat this is to see if any real damage was made. So, was it?

Finally, a the state of a "closed thread" means that members can't post in it anymore. But, the way the system is implemented, the moderators are obviously privileged. If it's implemented that way, than it's a part of the business logic, to use the developer jargon, which means that it's a part of the rule system.
Thus, some members are privileged - so what? Not everyone can walk into every area in the Pentagon either.
Unless the users of the forum are lead to believe otherwise?

Again, the bottom line is, was there any real damage made by Arjay's actions? If so, what was\is it exactly - for only when you can tell that in a way convincing to others, your protest can have the some real weight.

I don't think what happened was so terrible that it deserves these 30 post made so far...

[Brad Jones]

I also feel that 30 posts is beyond what this warrants. I've been tolerant, but at this point, this thread is counter productive to the forum. . The AuP is clear. As TheGreatC... stated, not all members on this forum are created equal. Such is life. You'll see that members with few to no posts are treated different from members with 20 posts and so forth. It is the way it is.

Is someone violates the AUP, feel free to use the "report this post" button and let the mods know. We address each one individually.

As to this thread....
Case closed.
Thread closed.

Brad