Ron, I think your policing of phrasing goes a bit too far here. I read "have to" as an innocuous figure of speech, nothing nefarious, conspirational or something that could be viewed as "mischaracterization".
No policing here. But different words mean different things. You are very articulate so I tend to take you especially literally. I typically assume there is something specific behind what I assume to be your careful phrasing.
I have no opinion on the question presented. I will not be voting in the poll.
I think the unnamed member who raised the issue with Tom is a snowflake.
Given Tom's unique position and role at WBF as Super Moderator I think it is thoughtful and sensitive of Tom to think about this issue. Each moderator's role and responsibility is to enforce the forum's Terms of Service in as unbiased a manner as is humanly possible. It is not unreasonable for a digital-only member to wonder whether the sentence under examination suggests a bias which might affect Tom's analysis of posts about digital topics.
When one operates essentially as a judge in a sensitive role, evaluating members' statements against the provisions of the Terms of Service, it is not "weird" to want to be viewed by the membership as unbiased.
I would think moderation is not about topics, but about behavior in discussions. If a moderator has a bias against a topic, ideally this shouldn't factor in, nor should it be assumed that it does unless there is irrefutable evidence otherwise.
I am extremely tired of the analog is superior debate. I think the signature is in poor taste. The fact that the moderator thought it was a good idea to ask should have already told him it was not a good choice for a signature.
Can I change my signature to "stats rule, horns blow"?
I am extremely tired of the analog is superior debate. I think the signature is in poor taste. The fact that the moderator thought it was a good idea to ask should have already told him it was not a good choice for a signature.
Can I change my signature to "stats rule, horns blow"?
Boy you just opened a can of worms on yourself Tom
Acting as a moderator you need to have an objective view and basically look at everything with that view.
Your statement is very subjective, somewhat condescending and goes against how a moderator should view things.
I've always felt you were a subjective guy. Now thinking about your signature, it just kind of reaffirms my thought.
Instead of removing your signature line maybe you should keep it and think about resigning from the "super moderator" role here...
Boy you just opened a can of worms on yourself Tom
Acting as a moderator you need to have an objective view and basically look at everything with that view.
Your statement is very subjective, somewhat condescending and goes against how a moderator should view things.
I've always felt you were a subjective guy. Now thinking about your signature, it just kind of reaffirms my thought.
Instead of removing your signature line maybe you should keep it and think about resigning from the "super moderator" role here...
i strongly disagree with the idea that somehow moderators cannot have hifi hobby biases. unless you are a serious hifi participant, how can you have the commitment here to be a moderator? and you have to relate to the passion of the members. enforcing the TOS and keeping things civil is the job. you just have to be capable of being the adult in the room when called for.
Acting as a moderator you need to have an objective view and basically look at everything with that view.
Your statement is very subjective, somewhat condescending and goes against how a moderator should view things.
I've always felt you were a subjective guy. Now thinking about your signature, it just kind of reaffirms my thought.
Instead of removing your signature line maybe you should keep it and think about resigning from the "super moderator" role here...
Do you have examples that demonstrate where Tom has allowed his preference to influence his moderation of posts? Other than him reigning in personal attacks, or asking folks to stay on topic I haven't. Unless there is some stipulation in the TOS that moderators are prohibited from also participating as a general member I think he is entitled, in the context of being a general member, to express his objective or subjective views on topics same as everyone else.
Do you have examples that demonstrate where Tom has allowed his preference to influence his moderation of posts? Other than him reigning in personal attacks, or asking folks to stay on topic I haven't. Unless there is some stipulation in the TOS that moderators are prohibited from also participating as a general member I think he is entitled, in the context of being a general member, to express his objective or subjective views on topics same as everyone else.
I think he mostly does a good job at what no doubt can be a sometimes unpleasant and thankless task.
I take issue with some of his moderation such as the time he ran off a forum member for the temerity to question the validity of salt lamps improving audio.
On the subject of the thread, I think you need to ask three questions:
1. What subject matter repeatedly produces the most acrimony here?
2. Is the moderators purpose to moderate and actively discourage acrimonious conversations here?
3. In light of the above, is the moderators bolded signature a good look?
Why do I feel like inserting stainless steel spikes into my eyes after I read this? I for one absolve Tom of all thought crimes regarding his analog bias. If we can’t tell the difference between a harmless tease in a signature line, and something unnecessarily provocative performed as a moderator, then we are sunk. This is what adults are supposed to be able to discriminate.
Tom has shown nothing but fair mindedness in the interactions I’ve seen. This almost seems like a childish personal attack. I get that passions run high in this holy of holies topic of analog vs digital, but can’t the people who are so exercised about it direct their energies more productively in one of the innumerable analog vs digital threads and leave Tom out of it so I can go back to my nap?!
Treitz now its you stirring the pot lol
These kind of statements can produce such heated discussions on this site .
It might lead even lead to some bans ( extra moderation for sure).
That was not my intention. My intention was to get the heartbeat of the forum and see whether or not folks actually cared about the signature, with myself being a moderator on the forum.
I have the same signature on every other forums I am currently a member of.....but foe some reason, this is the only forum I have ever had someone call me out on it.
As of right now, the vast majority of the forum thinks it is okay.
One of you actually thinks I should step down over a signature? That's a little harsh, don't you think? At the end of the day, it's just an opinion.
The only thing I believe I have mentioned in these analog versus digital debates is that I like both and enjoy both, that I really dont see the need to debate it....to just enjoy what one has. I know I do.
The only thing I believe I have mentioned in these analog versus digital debates is that I like both and enjoy both, that I really dont see the need to debate it....to just enjoy what one has. I know I do.
Right, just enjoy what you have. So what is the point of a signature that in a condescending manner undermines that notion?
But hey, please keep it! It conveniently keeps reminding everyone of the condescending attitude that many -- fortunately not all -- analog fans have on this forum. The only digiphiles that spread such a condescending attitude the other way are the "techies" that prop up from time to time, but usually don't last long on WBF.
From my point of view there is nothing being discussed within any of the threads that is so consequential to get exercised about what he put in his signature. And, if he dropped it ask yourself if the acrimony you alluded to is going to disappear
