Two problems of critique are:
- If I complain about the behaviour of a specific moderator, it can easily be banned as provoking, offensive or insulting,
but if I don't, it is called a generalized attack, and banned therefore.
- If I try to avoid a generalized attack, and substantiate it with citation, it can be banned because I can be accused to repeat an already banned statement.
Psychologists call this a double-bind situation. Whatever you do, it's wrong.
I try to rescue my former posting, which was banned for unspecified, generalized reasons.
One moderator found it personally insulting, the next one too generalized. (Yes, I know, you don't need two moderators to close a posting, so every single closing is sufficient).
I would have preferred it they pointed on specific sentences, so that I would know, what they feel offending in particular.
So, I have to guess, or further inquiry. Not so fine. (This is not only a meta-comment, but also already on topic: How to treat comments (answers, postings in general) more productive and constructive.
I had a lot of comments of mine deleted and distorting modified by some moderators in the past few days.
My critique on this kind of behavior was modified again, so that it seems to me, that every critique at moderators is taboo, and to discuss this is taboo as well.
IMHO, moderators should stand more dissent.
If I criticize a moderator, and he answers my critique, then changes my arguments, I get the Orwellian feeling, that the documentation of the past is changed to make it look nice. Of course, this discourages me in further critique.
I called a moderator a moderator, which was removed away as provoking, offensive or insulting. I protested, and now the protest is edited away, as if there has never been anything. This complain was again removed.
If you edit something, there are some hints on the right:
How to Edit
* fix grammatical or spelling errors
* clarify meaning without changing it
* correct minor mistakes
* add related resources or links
* always respect the original author
Are this fake-advices, or are they for real? The meaning of my posts were changed. Of cause I don't feel respected - how could I?
From the FAQ:
Dr. Phil Plait defines Skepticism this way: It’s really easy to fool people, and it’s really easy to fool yourself, [...]
If one believes a moderator can be neutral enough to edit the arguments of his opponent in a dispute, he disqualifies, in my opinion, for the job.
I don't like to always control, whether the meaning of one of my posts in younger and older history was changed. My name is coupled to the text, and there is no indication who edited the post.
Consider: moving the conversation to meta
If I move every comment about comments and edits to meta, I would have had 20 new topics yesterday on meta. Chat-login didn't work for skeptics for some reasons (while the SE-chat works), and often the person isn't in the chat. However, this posting is in meta, so it looks as if a text module was used to express the problem of my post.
My impression is, that there are double standards here. Some moderators expect respect, but don't stick to the rules themselves. They act autocratic, are averse to critique and can't stand dissent.
This is a mild critique, to make them feel more comfortable.
If it is closed again, I would like to receive a more concrete advice, which sentences aren't acceptable, so that I don't need to guess.
I admit, that the former version contained some rhetoric pepper, which is due to my nature - I don't like to bore the audience. :) But to avoid being accused to write
inflammatory, I removed some peaks of irony, changed some sentences from second person singular to third person, and emphasized what's my personal viewpoint and experience, and might be seen different from a different viewpoint. Of course, a too much softened critique isn't a critique anymore, it's doxology.
Thank you for spending your time on this.