@Feeds I was not aware that mods could edit posts by the bot Feeds. It seems, at least to me, that this is an unnecessary edit, because the edit history is anyway accessible to everyone.
@TheAmplitwist I find that concerning. Why does a moderator try to cover his tracks after removing someone from the list of room owners?
@TheAmplitwist That also explains the spurious asterisk at the end of the message. The auto-generated feed message is italicized, and Pedro removed the leading asterisk, but not the trailing one.
@TheAmplitwist I did not seem relevant to remark who did this, as it was a decision agreed upon by the moderator team, and not a unipersonal action. There is no tracks being covered, as you noted, since history is easy to see.
cc: @MartinR
In short, it'd be much better and closer to reality if the message said "The moderator team removed [user] from the list of room's owners".
@JitendraSingh Are you asking why this was done?
@MartinR This seems to have a rather unnecessary dose of conspiracy seeking. ;)
Pedro It was your decision, done immedately after I wrote that user, including Xander, recognize the quanadry created for users when they don't leave chatrooms despite not being around for close to a week. Immediately after, you were editing posts in this room, and your message about removing me as room owner referred only the above (this comment). That was not an abuse of room ownership.
You say very very offensive things to me,@Pedro, but you face no sanctions. Making a request of a moderator, is not offensive.
@PedroTamaroff I anyway treat moderator actions as arising from a team consensus, whether that consensus be implicit or explicit, so I did not think there was any particular personal motivation in your action (nor do I think I implied anywhere in my comments that I thought any such thing).
Nevertheless, thank you for confirming that it was indeed "a decision agreed upon by the moderator team", at least. I hope the moderator team realizes that it "looks bad" when they use their powers to edit a changelog for what appears to be no good reason. It would have been far less controversial to reply to the message by Feeds, noting that the decision was taken by the moderator team as a whole and is not to be construed as an individual moderator's action.
Even better in terms of optics, at least, is if a moderator had also clarified (in broad terms) why their intervention was found necessary. You're of course free to ignore any and all of my recommendations, but I hope you (the collective "you") can also see how some of your own actions can be viewed from the outside as being conspiratorial.
@TheAmplitwist I think I have explained the reason. You can also note that the user is fixated on the idea that this was a unilateral action. Anyways, maybe tone down the conspiracies, as I said many times before, moderators have little time, and absolutely no time to be wasting time scheming and conspiring.
@TheAmplitwist Since this action was taken in the context of a previous private exchange with the user, we are not free to disclose that information. I can consult with the team to see what we can tell you.
@PedroTamaroff Hah! If I remember correctly, a mod should not
...repeatedly target one user over the course of six months. You, like all of us, are subject to the code of conduct, and actually, held to a higher standard.
@TheAmplitwist It was not. There is never ever any point in time, within two minutes, where enough mods are around at the same time to form a consensus. What is more accurate, is that every mod has the power to act "on behalf of the team", and can say: "this was an action from the entire time", even if they where huffy-puffy and acted alone that action. It's a cop-out takes all consequences away from a mod making a poor decision.
The point is, the non-disclosure agreement newly elected mods must sign, requires that they stay mum about other mods decisions, "and for the sake of the team, support any mod's action, no matter how biased that action was.
This room was placed in timeout for 5 minutes; To give time to write without interruption.
(1) The action was taken after discussion with the moderation team. It was not a unilateral action.
(2) We cannot discuss why the action was taken. Please do not speculate.
@amWhy (3) If you believe that the moderators are in violation of the CoC, you are welcome to contact the CM team.
@amWhy (4) The moderation team sometimes does have disagreements, and we voice different opinions. There is nothing requiring the moderators to "support any moderator's actions". In this case, action was taken after consensus was achieved.
@amWhy (5) How a user chooses to interact with chat is up to them. I am sorry that it causes you discomfort to see an inactive avatar in chat. Please learn to live with it, and please do not dictate to me (or anyone else) how they should interact with the software.
At this point, I believe that everyone has had their say. Let us please allow this room to return to its stated topic, and cease this unproductive debate.
