Does Uncle Dale Receive Special Protection Here?

[_Jersey Girl]

This is just rather hilarious.

Jason,

It was not my intention to "scold" you as you stated in your post. It was my intention to inform you of what had taken place because it was obvious to me that you commented based on the OP and weren't aware of what led up to the OP.

It's not hilarious, Jason, when a moderator diligently goes about the work of moderating a lengthy thread such as the Book of Mormon Authorship and a poster such as Ray, makes accusations with the sole intention of smearing that persons reputation via innuendo. He has yet to attack her actual work as moderator.

In that regard, you and I disagree that this is "hilarious".

[_Jersey Girl]

I noticed that "Danny Boy" was removed.

Well bully for you. But it wasn't because the edit was acknowledged by a mod.

Skippy, I've noticed dozens of mod actions that weren't acknowledged by mods on this board. In the past, Shades typically didn't sign off on his own mod actions.

Was the moderator action reported?

[_skippy the dead]

Skippy, I've noticed dozens of mod actions that weren't acknowledged by mods on this board. In the past, Shades typically didn't sign off on his own mod actions.

And this is troublesome. If somebody touches my post, goddammit, I want to know about it. If somebody has edited some one else's post, I want to know about it.

There was a lengthy thread about this a while ago. Some mod had even gone so far as to correct spelling and grammar (I don't recall editing services being part of the board), although I believe this has stopped. I think the consensus was that editing profanity that didn't belong in a particular forum (using *** instead) was the only acceptable modification to be made without a mod note of action.

It's not in keeping with the supposed mission of the board, I think.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I noticed that "Danny Boy" was removed.

I didn't.

Personally, I would have left it. Being called Danny Boy doesn't hurt me at all, whereas, at least in my view, it makes those who try to use it as some sort of weapon against me look rather juvenile. Which is fine with me.

[_Jersey Girl]

Let's see your list and links of evidences that demonstrate pervasive bias in marg's moderator actions on the Book of Mormon Authorship thread.

I honestly don't think it's pervasive bias that people are worried about; it's any bias at all that worries them.

Shades,

First, I'm glad that this dialogue (as convoluted as it is) is taking place publicly and that you are a part of it. I don't have much more time to devote to this, but I wanted to make an attempt to reason this out on the screen, or at least express my concerns more completely. If I post on this thread much more, I'll have to be selective in who I reply to. Just sayin'.

I haven't replied on this thread in the hopes that marg would reconsider modding for the board. I can see that she's had a belly full of it and perhaps the last thing she'd do is reconsider.

And that is the greater point.

In the above you say that you think it's any bias at all that concerns people. If that is so, Shades, you leave the door open for any former or present adversary of your moderators in discussion/debate, to use the cry of bias in order to screw the mod team.

If complainers aren't asked to demonstrate the allegation of bias using the moderators own work, what protects your moderators from bias against them?

Ray has already admitted on this thread, that "Keeping to the rules isn't the point". If a moderator keeping to the rules isn't the point, what the hell IS the point?

When apologists go about the business of attacking the Stanford authorship study, they will predictably attempt to attack Prof. Criddle instead of the work of Jockers, Witten and Criddle. In between the lines of whatever response is made, there will be innuendo intended to attack the character of Criddle. I know it, he knows it and the truth is we've already witnessed hints of that door opening in the posts on this board, on MAD, on other boards and on the FAIR Blog.

What Ray has done on this thread is to employ the exact same tactic. He hasn't got specific evidences of instances where marg acted with bias as moderator, if two words "Danny Boy" are the only evidence he has, then he's simply blowing smoke or McCue described fog. :-)

The current situation is similar to what happened to me and since I saw it again with harmony and now with marg, I see it as a pattern of behavior intended to "get back" at someone a poster doesn't like for whatever reason. The bigger the stink someone can make, the louder they cry out "bias", they wear you down or wear down the moderator to the point of either you or the moderator becoming aggravated to the point of giving up.

That's why you've seen me post on this thread and also responded in defense of harmony.

What concerns me is why aren't you, the person whom these folks work for, involving yourself in facilitating the sorting out of these matters? Why aren't you asking the complainers for evidence of instances where they think the moderator failed?

Is it easier to let your mods be screwed over than it is to do justice to their work? You have good moderators here, Shades. You have a good serious discussion taking place in the Book of Mormon Authorship thread and while harmony and Liz both involved themselves in moderating the thread, it is marg who played a major role in successfully keeping it on topic.

I do not like seeing somebody smeared who has made a significant contribution to babysitting a thread that has presented so much useful information in helping people work through their consideration of the S/R Theory.

Most sincerely,
Jersey

[_marg]

I noticed that "Danny Boy" was removed.

I didn't.

Personally, I would have left it. Being called Danny Boy doesn't hurt me at all, whereas, at least in my view, it makes those who try to use it as some sort of weapon against me look rather juvenile. Which is fine with me.

One comment about the "Danny Boy". It wasn't changed at the point of discussion. I believe at a point of having to move a number of posts I noticed it. I first contacted by pm Bryon to ask him to change it. I received no response, Bryon didn't open his p.m. After a few day, I think about 4 or 5 I elected to go ahead and remove it. It's not the most offensive comment obviously, but I didn't think it appropriate in that thread. And at the point I changed it, it was done for future purposes because the current participants I doubt were aware.

[_Jersey Girl]

I noticed that "Danny Boy" was removed.

I didn't.

Personally, I would have left it. Being called Danny Boy doesn't hurt me at all, whereas, at least in my view, it makes those who try to use it as some sort of weapon against me look rather juvenile. Which is fine with me.

Just as an aside here, whenever I see someone refer to you as "Danny Boy" it makes me think the person is rather weak in their thinking and I feel compelled to break out in song! :-)

I think the reason marg removed it was because she thought it had the potential to bait you into a snappy little back and forth series of exchanges, In other words, a derail. But I'd be mind reading on that count.

Still, I don't see how the removal of a two word phrase is enough to hang a mod. I remember once when Scottie ridiculed dart in the same thread that he modded him on. I was the only person who took exception to that and it went on completely ignored as unimportant.

Jersey "in sunshine or in shadow" Girl

[_Yoda]

And at the point I changed it, it was done for future purposes because the current participants I doubt were aware.

Marg, when you changed it, did you identify that you had changed it, and specify that it was you who changed it?

Shades has repeatedly stated that any type of Mod action must be identified in the following fashion:
(Moderator Note) Edit by Liz, Marg, Harmony, Scottie, Shades, etc.

That way, everyone is aware that a post was modified, and why.

I think that what Skippy was upset about was that someone's post was modified by a Moderator, and there was no note explaining that it was done. It appeared that a random edit had simply been done without anyone's knowledge.

That being said, I agree with Jersey Girl that this one-time error is hardly something to hang a new Mod over. I think that all new Mods deserve a learning curve. Good grief, none of us are perfect. I have certainly made mistakes as a Mod, and have readily admitted to them. Shades has graciously given me the opportunity to improve...as have the other posters on the board.

I really don't understand why the same courtesy can't be extended to all of the Mods...particularly since we are talking about a job which is volunteer. We're not getting paid for this. We're doing this because we want to help, and because we agree with Shades' vision for the board.

The bottom line, here, people, is that although we all make mistakes, I think our hearts are honestly in the right place. We're going to screw up now and then.

I don't understand why we can' just admit mistakes and move on.

[_marg]

And at the point I changed it, it was done for future purposes because the current participants I doubt were aware.

Marg, when you changed it, did you identify that you had changed it, and specify that it was you who changed it?

It's on page 31 Jan 6, 2009 post by Bryon.

As usual, Daniel Peterson writes about what isn't.

Tell me deleted by marg -ad hom] Daniel, if you can, a little about the 1816 Pittsburgh newspaper describing that there were

I was not moderating the thread at the time of the, but because I was asked to go back and look at posts I noticed that comment. Attempted to inform Bryon so that he could removed my note and replace his words of Danny Boy, but he never opened the pm.

I don't understand why we can' just admit mistakes and move on.

To be frank Liz I don't think this whole thing was a question of mistakes, and since Ray still accuses me of unnecessary bias and your talking about mistakes I'm going to have write detailed post on this on what exactly happened. The chain of events.

[_Yoda]

If you identified things the following way:

It's on page 31 Jan 6, 2009 post by Bryon.

As usual, Daniel Peterson writes about what isn't.

Tell me deleted by marg -ad hom] Daniel, if you can, a little about the 1816 Pittsburgh newspaper describing that there were

Then I REALLY think that this whole issue is being nit picked. I thought that Skippy had a valid beef if things were not properly documented. If they were, then all I see is possibly a post that was a little over-zealously moderated.

Again, I don't understand why there are so many issues being taken with this.