jroa is a bad mod

Vladtheimpaler, please keep low content posts out of the upper fora.  Thanks.

Unless of course you are in fact jroa - in which case feel free to make a low content post.  You're more likely to get away with it if you are a FE proponent too from the experiences in my thread.

Just throwing this out there because I can't stand moderator abuse/inconsistency.

Punish me if you like, I'm making a valid point.

Quote from: Rabhimself on August 21, 2013, 07:20:47 AM

Quote from: iwanttobelieve on August 21, 2013, 07:18:28 AM

i think the moondust went to his head.

Are you guys just trolling? 

Serious answers please.

No.  That is insulting.

If you are going to complain about my moderation skills, at least do it in the right forum.

There, I moved it to the complaint forum for you.

Now, let's take a look at Vladtheimpaler's post.

Oh look, another thread abandoned by Tom. What a surprise.

Vladtheimpaler's post offered nothing to the thread.  It was not on topic, and was just a snidey remark to complain about Tom's absence.

My "low content" post directly answered a question that was posted.

Do the noobs think that this is Tom's full time job?

If they don't want him to leave the thread ... they should be more interesting. FErs leave threads when they get bored of them. Its as simple as that.

Actually Jroa is an excellent mod. Ski and Roundy need to learn from him.

Rabhimself was not complaining about your moderation of his post, just that it is not surprising to see Jroa make low-content posts that go unmoderated.  Like this bit of trolling:

Thork, why is the world so flat?  I mean, it could be round if it was not so flat.  The amount of flatness is ridiculous. 

Also, why can some people see the flatness, but others can not?  Are they in denial?  Do they really see the flatness but neglect to admit it? 

These are some unanswered questions that I have had.  Please post links to the answers or you can answer yourself.  I just need to know.

The victin complex of the angry noobs is almost as bad as that of American Christians. Astonishing, really..

The victin complex of the angry noobs is almost as bad as that of American Christians. Astonishing, really..

Sorry I thought this was the place mature people discuss legitimate issues in an adult manner. Thanks for correcting me Tausami.

I'm not talking about this specifically. Every few months a thread like this pops up. The details are always different and often contradictory. It makes me feel that the issue is likely the angry noobs, not the mods or regulars.

I'm not talking about this specifically. Every few months a thread like this pops up. The details are always different and often contradictory. It makes me feel that the issue is likely the angry noobs, not the mods or regulars.

If you think your feelings are the most accurate judge of this rather than research, let me say I am happy you do not adjudicate these matters. In the time I have been here, more of these threads have been started by regulars than "noobs".

I suspect you misunderstand me. I'm specifically referring to threads about mods being biased amd hypocritical in their moderation. Not complaints in general. Those are usually made by Saddam, Pizza, or Thork.

Anyway, there's no reason to get angry with me.

Anyway, there's no reason to get angry with me.

Well, its not that difficult to see that FEers are treated as an out-group, even from some of the more fringe REers, and then when it is addressed, you make condescending statements like

The victin complex of the angry noobs is almost as bad as that of American Christians. Astonishing, really..

so you should not be surprised if it upset someone.

Anyway, the fact of the matter is that this thread has been created, and should be taken seriously.

I am taking it seriously. Accusing the OP of having a victim complex is not more insulting than titlimg the thread 'jroa is a bad mod'. I'm merely countering the aggression with condescension, as it deserves. However, my point stands. Threads such as this one appear quite frequently on this forum and may be used as precidents to show that jroa is, in fact, a pretty decent mod and at making an effort, unlike certain others.

I'm also rather bitter about threads such as this one, as they got me demodded (in my opinion) unjustly

jroa's real error in the Mitchell thread wasn't that he made a low-content post, but that he didn't take action against iwanttobelieve for his low-content drivel.  Seriously, if anyone is treated too leniently here, it's iwanttobelieve.  We've had to endure his drooling about "faqqers" and "Alice is Bob? " in the upper forums for far too long as it is.

Actually, I believe jroa was guilty of both low content posting and failing to enforce this rule against several others in my thread.

'No.  That is insulting'

He said this in response to a rhetorical question I directed towards iwanttobelieve, who gave me an answer of moondust going to Mitchell's head.  As you can see, this isn't a serious answer by any stretch of the imagination so it seems clear to me he is attempting to derail my thread (with a low content post I might add).

When I see jroa - a mod by the way as we all know, quip a response like this, which claims my question towards iwanttobelieve is insulting, then what else am I supposed to take from that?

He fine well knows iwanttobelieve's response is taking the piss, yet not only does he avoid giving iwanttobelieve a warning for low content posting - he chips in with a low content post himself and actually stands shoulder to shoulder with him.

Yet, in another thread, when I see a RE proponent make an arsey, low content, one-liner towards somebody (towards Tom I think) he quickly steps in with the warning (and rightly so by the way).

I hate inconsistency - and in my opinion he moved my message here to a new thread (in a new section of the forums) to minimize attracting attention to himself for his inconsistent behaviour in general discussion.

My point is legitimate.  I know no action will be taken against him I just had to point it out.

I apologize if you thought the "moondust" reply was an insult against you. It was not.
It was a play on the silly moonshrimp belief.

a bad joke, i know. sorry.

tbh jroa is a great asset to the FE society.

I apologize if you thought the "moondust" reply was an insult against you. It was not.
It was a play on the silly moonshrimp belief.

a bad joke, i know. sorry.

On the contrary, I was not insulted.  As I said, I knew you weren't being serious - I was merely irritated by this because it was derailing my thread with nonsense and LOW CONTENT POSTING.  You received ZERO warning for it, but I see others getting warnings on a daily basis for doing things just like that.

To make it worse, a moderator then comes in and not only doesn't act on your low-content post (or the others who were guilty) he makes one himself that actually defends you, which is ridiculous for a supposed moderator.

Seeing him take action in another thread against someone else (they are correct to do so) just pissed me off.

Moderators should never be above the rules they are supposed to enforce.

Finally:  I am not the author of this thread.  I pointed out inconsistency with jroa's low-content posting warnings in another thread and he took it upon himself to create the thread on my behalf without my consent.  It makes me look like an extreme whinge which was probably his intention when he moved my message, as well as simultaneously removing the direct comparison of actions in the thread I initially left the message in.

I know not if he is a great asset to this society or not.

I do know, however, he is inconsistent when it comes to enforcing the low-content rule.

That doesn't constitute a thread in it's own right in my opinion, the actions I speak of are an example of bad moderation.  I never said this makes jroa a bad moderator as a whole.  Those are his words and not mine.

Ok, I will admit that there may be some bias in the issuing of warnings and bans; however, I can assure you that, at least in my case, it is not deliberate.

When a person visits our site and makes condescending, snidely, or down right rude remarks after being here a few weeks or months, I am probably quicker to let them know that it is against the rules than I would for someone who has been here for years, posts in at least a polite manner, and posts something that remotely has to do with the subject, even if they could be considered to have posted low content. 

I have given warnings to several FE'ers, but I am sure that I have given more warnings to RE'ers.  This is not because of their beliefs, but because of the content and because of the amount of time and effort they have put into this site.

In the future, I will try to issue warnings and bans more fairly.  I do, however, ask that our RE friends try to be a little more polite and understand that we do not get paid to be here at their beck and call.  If someone does not give you an answer that you are satisfied with, do not bring it up every week or try to call the person out for not giving you a different answer.  If we stop answering you, it means we are done with the subject.

Fair enough?

Edit:  In all fairness, I split this from a thread in FEG and I am the one who made the title.  I just wanted to clear this up. 

Ok, I will admit that there may be some bias in the issuing of warnings and bans; however, I can assure you that, at least in my case, it is not deliberate.

When a person visits our site and makes condescending, snidely, or down right rude remarks after being here a few weeks or months, I am probably quicker to let them know that it is against the rules than I would for someone who has been here for years, posts in at least a polite manner, and posts something that remotely has to do with the subject, even if they could be considered to have posted low content. 

I have given warnings to several FE'ers, but I am sure that I have given more warnings to RE'ers.  This is not because of their beliefs, but because of the content and because of the amount of time and effort they have put into this site.

In the future, I will try to issue warnings and bans more fairly.  I do, however, ask that our RE friends try to be a little more polite and understand that we do not get paid to be here at their beck and call.  If someone does not give you and answer that you are satisfied with, do bring it up every week or try to call the person out for not giving you a different answer.  If we stop answering you, it means we are done with the subject.

Fair enough?

Edit:  In all fairness, I split this from a thread in FEG and I am the one who made the title.  I just wanted to clear this up.

Consistency is all anybody can ask for.  You aren't going to get it right 100% of the time - I was just annoyed to see you not only fail to act on the low content posts in my thread which were derailing it, but effectively condone them by creating one yourself that defended iwanttobelieve's post on moondust (while simultaneously attacking me for rhetorically asking if he was serious, which obviously he wasn't -  that much has been kindly admitted now) and then after all that you slap someone on the wrist because they called Tom out for abandoning another thread.

I wasn't trying to make a big deal out this, but I'm glad you acknowledge you can improve.

I won't be a frequent poster here by any stretch of the imagination, but whichever forums I visit I expect those in power to act fairly and consistently with regards to the rules - that's all.

Fair enough.  I think I can lock this thread later today or tomorrow, unless you have an objection to that. 

Fair enough.  I think I can lock this thread later today or tomorrow, unless you have an objection to that.

Not at all.  I had no intention of creating a thread in the first place.

Quote from: jroa on August 24, 2013, 05:42:01 AM

Fair enough.  I think I can lock this thread later today or tomorrow, unless you have an objection to that.

Not at all.  I had no intention of creating a thread in the first place.

Please apologise to Jroa before I unleash my Super Admin skills on you. thanks.