Work ethics comes under ethics. Ethics comes under philosophy. It's therefore not out of bounds, given the context. Why should he refrain from saying what he thinks just because Agustino finds it offensive? I don't think that Agustino would hold back if the shoe was on the other foot, and I don't think that he should, moderator or not. That's displaying integrity, in my opinion. — Sapientia

If Hanover would have said something based on what I said, there would be no problem there. If he wasn't a moderator, that wouldn't have been an issue either. But when he makes an unsolicited personal attack based on nothing but his pure imagination, an attack that is aimed to insult - that is a problem, and it's called as you rightly recall flaming. I wasn't talking with Hanover in that thread, I don't understand why he had to reply, and reply with insulting intentions.

Unsubstantiated claims against someone's character isn't philosophy, it's disrespectful trash. Why are you surprised that the person insulted is insulted? It takes no great intelligence to understand why Agustino and others, including myself, are disgruntled with those who are rewarded for acting crassly and like children by being kept a moderator or being made a moderator. — Buxtebuddha

I don't think you are in any position to speak about "disrespectful trash" considering you have on numerous occasions violated what you seem to ask of everyone else; you have flagrantly iterated how much you 'hate' the mod team prior to me and while I understand your frustration, in the end a complete overhaul of the mod team to suit you is not really going to suffice. If you are so unhappy, why not start your own forum? The internet has a lot of space.

Deleted the "poop" talk. Let's stick to constructive feedback, not jokes.

Unsubstantiated claims against someone's character isn't philosophy, it's disrespectful trash. — Buxtebuddha

No, that can be philosophy. Character is relevant to ethics, and ethics is a branch of philosophy. Philosophy doesn't have to be respectful to be philosophy. A philosophical response to such a claim could consist in asking whether it can be substantiated or cutting straight to an attempt at refutation, as Agustino did.

Why are you surprised that the person insulted is insulted? — Buxtebuddha

I wasn't. Why would you think that? That's beside the point.

Maybe I'm lazy at work, and maybe you're not. Maybe, in light of that, you think that I have a questionable work ethic. Maybe if you told me that I'd find it insulting. Maybe the truth hurts. Maybe we shouldn't always pussyfoot around the truth.

Maybe it's not true that I'm lazy at work. But that still doesn't necessarily mean that you shouldn't speak your mind.

et al

This poor root is getting pulled up to see how well it's doing too often for it to be do as well as it might. There must be posts for the mods to be busy checking for spelling, punctuation, grammar... something.

.

You don't understand my frustration at all. If you did, you wouldn't suggest that I go someplace else on the account of providing constructive feedback that you don't like. But I expected nothing less from you. Deflection and strawnen are the names of your game. And now you're a mod so you'll be getting away with that even more now, yipee!

Claiming someone's an unethically lazy person without evidence? A-OK. Have a differing opinion to that of the mods about public decency? You will be warned and then possibly banned for such behavior!

Yeah, I'll be right back, I think my eyes just rolled out of my head.

Hmm, yeah, good point... I think that I may be mustering some attention soaking ire now myself.

If you look at the way everyone is responding in the thread, the majority are hurt, the majority are saying hurtful things. If you look at the forum in general, you'll be able to find bad behaviour and general disagreeableness from every regular poster including the mods. Dismissiveness, uncharitable interpretation, selective engagement, rudeness, aspersions on personal character based on philosophical predilection. Almost everything has the potential to get heated. Everyone has the potential to get pissed.

There are a few things that are clear:
(1) Mods probably have to have a high degree of tolerance for heat in debates.
(1a) mods should also be allowed to heat up.
(2) Mods should curate posts that are offensive for little to no reason, unjustifiably charged or poorly constructed.
(2a) mods should curate each others' posts for the same reasons and reprimand/correct each-other, talk about disagreements.

Flames and pointedness in discussion, ridicule - these are fair game. Most of the good discussions on here are filled with this kind of thing (eg me and apo in SLX's recent thread, I'm no different, and I started it!). Perhaps it's a shame, but it is the reality.

If a mod acts to censure or censor opinions which aren't their own unjustifiably, in a consistent pattern over time, this should be brought to the attention of the rest of the staff who can make an informed judgement. Nevertheless, personal standards for posts and etiquette will differ from person to person - so will whether they decide to delete a thread.

If there is such a problem, a consistent pattern of moderation bias with Timeline (or Hanover, but Hanover's been a mod much longer), I'm sure it will leave some traces on the website. I'm sure it would be noticed and discussed among the staff. It will eventually be found out and Timeline would have their position revoked. If they don't, it's a mark on the forum, and we would expect to lose whatever posters know of it and care.

Give the new mod time. If it turns out their behaviour as a moderator will be unduly influenced by either their personal opinions or their philosophical ones, you'll turn out to be right in the end.

You don't understand my frustration at all. If you did, you wouldn't suggest that I go someplace else on the account of providing constructive feedback that you don't like. But I expected nothing less from you. Deflection and strawnen are the names of your game. And now you're a mod so you'll be getting away with that even more now, yipee! — Buxtebuddha

Buxte, I am not sure where your constructive feedback is and I am happy to listen; are you saying that I would be incapable, for instance, of being able to edit the content of a post without being prejudicial or bias? Just so you know, I am currently a graduate student in astrophysics, having studied to masters level law and political science and my issue has long been the lacklustre nature of some of the philosophy of science threads bordering the pseudo-science. In the former forums, I was responsible for bringing in philosophers like Graham Priest, David Chalmers etc to have discussions with the posters. If that is your grievance with me, I hope I have clarified enough to tell you that perhaps first allowing me to fill the role and prove to you all that I will be capable would be a much more logical approach. This works in line with my character that you may or may not like, but that is the nature of forums as long as I do not impinge on your right to speak freely. You may not remember or were unaware, but I am for freedom of speech. I am not the type of person who will delete posts.

Or, is your grievance in general the overall capacity of the moderation team?

@Baden
If I may ask you, this is written on the site guidelines page which you posted, so my guess is you are the best to answer it.

Let me first say that there is a motto in NY and America in general, called "See something, say something" and although I agree whole heartedly, I have often wondered exactly what I am looking for because it is often an existential threat, not a visible backpack with wires hanging out.

So I read this: Tone matters:

A respectful and moderate tone is desirable as it's the most likely to foster serious and productive discussion. Having said that, you may express yourself strongly as long as it doesn't disrupt a thread or degenerate into flaming (which is not tolerated and will result in your post being deleted).

And so here too I wonder what the difference is between "flaming" someone and with speaking with someone in a "condescending" manner? Could you please offer me an example of what would be considered "flaming" as opposed to speaking to someone in a "condescending" manner? I ask this in all seriousness, so please answer in kind. It will allow myself and others to clearly understand what it is that we can be banned for.

I don't think you are in any position to speak about "disrespectful trash" considering you have on numerous occasions violated what you seem to ask of everyone else; you have flagrantly iterated how much you 'hate' the mod team prior to me and while I understand your frustration, in the end a complete overhaul of the mod team to suit you is not really going to suffice. If you are so unhappy, why not start your own forum? The internet has a lot of space. — TimeLine

Buxtebuddah may be the proverbial black kettle, but that's really irrelevant to his points. It is reasonable to expect better behavior from moderators than from the unwashed masses. Unwashed dozens. It bothers me that the moderators in general don't see that. This forum matters to us. Even if you don't care what PosterX thinks about your actions, even if he is a pain in the ass, worse, It matters to me how you treat him, whether you handle the situation responsibly.

I am interested to see if you bring a different tone to the moderating. I'm an engineer, you're an attorney. We know what professionalism is. I recognize that the obligations associated with managing this forum do not rise to the level of our professional responsibilities, but the principles are similar. With great some power comes great some responsibility.

If you are so unhappy, why not start your own forum? — TimeLine

Have you spoken to @jamalrob before making this comment or have you already assumed ownership of the forum? Knowing you, I can see where this is going. Too bad almost everyone else is blind.

Yes, we can absolutely start our own forum. A forum where moderators are elected, where the guidelines are voted upon, where new moderators are approved by the community. Sure, we can do that, and we'll see where the people flock to. Not a place where a moderator is chosen in the middle of the night, in a closed room of 7 people - that sounds like a community for the moderators, not for the posters. One gets a request, and who gets to agree on it? Oh, the moderators. Fantastic! As if you are going to moderate the moderators, not us the people.

Buxte, I am not sure where your constructive feedback is and I am happy to listen; are you saying that I would be incapable, for instance, of being able to edit the content of a post without being prejudicial or bias? Just so you know, I am currently a graduate student in astrophysics, having studied to masters level law and political science and my issue has long been the lacklustre nature of some of the philosophy of science threads bordering the pseudo-science. In the former forums, I was responsible for bringing in philosophers like Graham Priest, David Chalmers etc to have discussions with the posters. If that is your grievance with me, I hope I have clarified enough to tell you that perhaps first allowing me to fill the role and prove to you all that I will be capable would be a much more logical approach. This works in line with my character that you may or may not like, but that is the nature of forums as long as I do not impinge on your right to speak freely. You may not remember or were unaware, but I am for freedom of speech. I am not the type of person who will delete posts.

Or, is your grievance in general the overall capacity of the moderation team? — TimeLine

Textbook belittling right here.

I've already posted enough of my thoughts in this thread already. For those with good reading comprehension, it's clear what my points have been. Even poster(s) who don't often agree with or like me have granted me my position.

It is what it is, as Posty might say. We will see how your personality and discussion style works as a moderator. Personally, I think it will result in a dumpster fire, and unfortunately, I doubt I'm the only one here who suspects that.

It is reasonable to expect better behavior from moderators than from the unwashed masses. Unwashed dozens. It bothers me that the moderators in general don't see that. — T Clark

I understand this, but this really boils down to the interpretation of what you consider to be better behaviour. Is it the same decorum as per the other thread on this subject? I personally find some comments from Buxte to be distasteful, for instance, but I will defend his right to say it. My attitude is very much from a Voltaire angle. Ultimately, the way I see moderation is content based; for me, what is pseudo science should be carefully explored in a respectable forum and it will certainly be interesting how I approach this. For a start, from personal experience, I would in all likelihood speak to the person in PM first with my suggestions and why. I would not blatantly delete or edit without a prior discussion.

My intended remarks were in no way meant as any belittling to you Buxte, I am just curious as to whether your concerns were with me directly or generally the overall moderation here and I merely hoped to ameliorate that my capacity should probably be questionable following the next several weeks as I give this a shot. I am actively open to your feedback but your entire post contains insults that seem targeted and defensive making it difficult to ascertain what it is you want from me.

Have you spoken to jamalrob before making this comment or have you already assumed ownership of the forum? Knowing you, I can see where this is going. Too bad almost everyone else is blind. — Agustino

I am unsure of what your intention is behind this remark, but assumptions that I consider myself an authority or better than others is false. Look, some people are haters, they go around creating discord in different ways, such as sending PMs with very negative attacks on people, trying to change opinions and generally are just not nice people. I appreciate that you speak openly here and dont resort to such behaviour because I see this place as a community. Speaking openly is important. Some people on here have posted in my blog, or shared their personal stories with me, and have even asked for help. These relationships are not seen, and if indeed you don't like my character, just as much as I may not like yours, it will never interfere in how I approach you or anyone else.

Claiming someone's an unethically lazy person without evidence? A-OK. — Buxtebuddha

Not quite. The claim would be that someone has a questionable work ethic. If they didn't provide evidence, then the other person could respond to that by requesting evidence. (That's generally how these things work).

maybe this is what is happening here? Some people's minds are hungry, so they go prowling about the forum, like a hungry lion...

Such a claim ought not be made in the first place. That is my point. Don't assert that someone is a sexist, racist, lazy bum if you've no evidence to back that claim up. A false claim is in itself wrong, it doesn't hinge upon the accused's reaction.

a Voltaire angle — TimeLine

All this fuss over an omelet.

Why should anyone here care enough what anyone else's work ethic is here? Supposing someone's work ethic isn't up to high Protestant Work Ethic standards? Then what? What difference does it make HERE.

Work ethics in general are worth discussing, but not anyone's particular work ethic, unless they laid out their work ethic and their work experience and asked for comment. I gather Buxtebuddha didn't do that.

Then we disagree, since I don't think that it's unacceptable to make such a claim in the first place. Although note that I reject the suggestion that such a claim is on the same level as, for example, calling someone a lazy bum, which is clearly a more inflammatory wording, and amounts to an explicit insult. So I don't lump those kind of claims in with what I'm talking about. And remember, we're not discussing a claim with no evidence - it hasn't been ruled out yet. We're discussing a claim unaccompanied by evidence in the same post. Around these parts, the idea is generally that you are careful about making accusations, and that instead of just assuming or asserting that something is false, you show something to be false in a calm and reasonable manner.

Why should anyone here care enough what anyone else's work ethic is here? Supposing someone's work ethic isn't up to high Protestant Work Ethic standards? Then what? What difference does it make HERE.

Work ethics in general are worth discussing, but not anyone's particular work ethic, unless they laid out their work ethic and their work experience and asked for comment. I gather Buxtebuddha didn't do that. — Bitter Crank

The original comment was made by Hanover and it was regarding Agustino, not Buxtebudhha.

The context was such that it was more appropriate than if Hanover had just come out with a comment like that completely out of the blue. They were each already talking about the other. It's just that Hanover touched a nerve.

As I have already said in this thread, false sexual allegations destroys someone's life. Merely because a similar accusation made on a forum doesn't destroy someone's life, the principle at the heart of the issue remains the same. False claims are false, whether people shoot the shit over it or not.

And, as I have already said, I reject the suggestion that the claim that I was talking about was on the same level as that. It's not a similar claim. Full stop.

Of course false claims are false. What a pointless thing to say. I've already said that one ought to be careful before making accusations. Don't preach to the choir.

As I have already said in this thread, false sexual allegations destroys someone's life. Merely because a similar accusation made on a forum doesn't destroy someone's life, the principle at the heart of the issue remains the same. False claims are false, whether people shoot the shit over it or not. — Buxtebuddha

Saying your blue shirt is red is in principle the same as saying that someone who's not a pedophile is a pedophile?

Fundamentally, both are character digs. You can believe that Hanover was being gentle and curious with his post, but I'm not going to be convinced that he wasn't intending to be a dickhead. His other post, and even that same post if I'm not mistaken, attempts to tear Agustino down even further. Not a shred of evidence or good will is to be found in that post, which is why I'm saying that it's not appropriate. If I went on some deriding slander trip against you I'd highly doubt that you'd be so, "oh, gee, I really appreciate you baselessly assaulting my character, thanks man!" Perhaps you would and you're some sort of masochist, I dunno.

and apparently should both be bannable offences. :-}

Falsely accusing someone of something is wrong 100% of the time. Falsely accusing someone of something also makes you a dickhead 100% of the time. Doesn't matter what you falsely accuse someone of, if you are attempting to deride someone's character, and refuse to supply any or adequate evidence to support your claim, then you can fuck off. In the context of this forum, fucking off means being warned not to do that. However, one of the issues here lies in a moderator being the dickhead, which means the chances of them owning up to their game-playing is about nil. I don't even know why this is contentious when the moderator in question has admitted to being a dickhead in no uncertain terms toward Agustino.

Fundamentally, both are character digs. — Buxtebuddha

I said that they're not on the same level. I didn't say that they're not of the same type.

I've been arguing type. READ what I have been saying, sweet Jesus. The type of offense isn't, and ought not be, appropriate here - from anyone.