What's with the mods lately?

[ivn1188]

It seems like there have been a lot of threads closed for silly reasons. There has been a noticeable uptick in bannings and suspensions for pretty much ridiculous "infractions". TubaDiva seems to be running around closing every thread that isn't worshipful of the mods, if Czarcasm hasn't beaten her to it.

My question is, "Why?"

I mean, there are obviously (looking at the photo gallery) a lot of adults here. What's with the overzealous and frankly silly modding, and the "sensitive" rules?

Why do all of these threads need to be closed? Why do we get so little transparency and so many "because I said so" replies?

Maybe a lot of the mods have been doing it too long, or maybe it's because people are scared of impending financial failure and want to promote some sort of salable message board. There are still a few who seem to be possessed of a bit of discretion and common sense -- those are the ones that aren't the subject of an ATMB (because there is no pitting) thread every couple of days or who aren't closing every other thread here in ATMB because it's easier than being consistent and logical. Apparently, even discussions of rules now must be closed because TubaDiva just "isn't having it".

Either way, there has been a decline in quality posters and an increase in content that I would best qualify as "something I would see on Yahoo Answers".

This board is supposed to be a haven for intellectuals, a place where people aren't hypersensitive, and where poster provides cites and reasoned discussion, or at least aspire to do so.

But it keeps getting more and more ridiculous, where good posters get banned because they "cross the line", which gets closer to unthinking agreement and mindless sunshine every day.

Let's have some actual bright line rules, and less butthurt sensitivity by certain moderators. Maybe it is a thankless job. Fine. Quit. If it's so important to have some respect and authority, maybe you need to rethink what this board is supposed to be about. As it stands, a lot of these decisions are doing a lot of harm and zero good, because of mod ego, administrator fears, and poster frustration.

[Kal]

For years, the analogy used when describing the board and the mods interaction with posters was that the place was like a pub/bar/coffee shop or cafe and the mods were like the barstaff/waitstaff.

Now, it seems that the analogy often used for the interaction between mods and posters is that of traffic cop and motorist.

That shift in mindset is what's with the mods (and, by extension, the board).

ETA:butthurtKnife fight!

[Rushgeekgirl]

Someone will come soon and assure us that it's always been this way.

[tacoloco]

This board is supposed to be a haven for intellectuals

Intellectuals?. That's some funny stuff right there.

Let's have some actual bright line rules, and less butthurt sensitivity by certain moderators. Maybe it is a thankless job. Fine. Quit. If it's so important to have some respect and authority, maybe you need to rethink what this board is supposed to be about. As it stands, a lot of these decisions are doing a lot of harm and zero good, because of mod ego, administrator fears, and poster frustration.

Well said.

[Nametag]

Someone will come soon and assure us that it's always been this way.Of course it hasn't always been this way; once upon a time, the board had fewer members, less visibility, and less attention from its owners. All of these have changed, and the style of moderation has changed with it. There are more rules and less judgment, more loopholes and less slack.This is absolutely predictable -- SDMB has become civilized.

That said, this fatuous comment:For years, the analogy used when describing the board and the mods interaction with posters was that the place was like a pub/bar/coffee shop or cafe and the mods were like the barstaff/waitstaff.
makes me snicker. While he may have kept a fine liquor cabinet, I think Manhattan would have had your balls on toast if you called him "barkeep."

First person to say "He was the fucking hall monitor" owes me $1.00 for the straight line.

[hajario]

For years, the analogy used when describing the board and the mods interaction with posters was that the place was like a pub/bar/coffee shop or cafe and the mods were like the barstaff/waitstaff.

Now, it seems that the analogy often used for the interaction between mods and posters is that of traffic cop and motorist.

This sums it up really well. The drift is a shame but, I think, perceived to be necessary because of the change in the financial expectations of the place.

[C K Dexter Haven]

I think that both of those analogies are fine AS ANALOGIES, and neither offers a complete picture. When we see someone mildly misbehaving, we're usually more like a bouncer at a pub: gentle reminders, then stern Official Warnings, etc. and things can escalate if the person doesn't co-operate. When we see certain misbehaviors (such as spammers, multiple sock accounts, etc), we come down fast and hard, at once.

And when there are things in the middle... well, it is now and always has been a judgement call. When is the person taking an unpopular stand, and when is it trolling? We tend to give a fairly wide benefit of doubt. When is it a personal insult and when is it just joking around? When us a thread a total train-wreck and when is it just going on a tangent? These are now, and always have been, judgement calls... different mods make different decisions. ::: shrug ::: That's not new.

Have mod judgements and expectations changed over the years? Of course, as the membership has changed, as the boards have grown, as the internet has become more riddled with spam and Nigerian money-schemes, as the number of banned posters grows (and some of them start sock accounts, or harbor grudges, blaming the mods for their own inability to play nice.) We bump into new situations that we couldn't have envisioned earlier. As time goes by, there are more people who feel that they were treated unfairly (regardless of the reality) and who bear long grudges. So, sure, things change. Static would be uninteresting and other than human.

[Hal Briston]

Intellectuals?. That's some funny stuff right there.True. The curve took a major hit about 10 months ago.

[fubbleskag]

I think my annoyance with the moderation of this forum is quickly taking a second place seat to my annoyance with the constant complaining about the same.

[descamisado]

That's funny, 'cause I think my annoyance with people who pop into clearly-titled threads to say they're annoyed with the constant complaining has already taken a second place seat to my annoyance with people who could avoid reading/posting to threads that annoy them.

[Trepa Mayfield]

Before, when there were only 31 threads complaining about the recent-ish moderation change, there was no hope of it doing anything. But now that there's 32, I'm sure everything will be different. You tell 'em, ivn.

[Rushgeekgirl]

Of course it hasn't always been this way; once upon a time, the board had fewer members, less visibility, and less attention from its owners. All of these have changed, and the style of moderation has changed with it. There are more rules and less judgment, more loopholes and less slack.This is absolutely predictable -- SDMB has become civilized.

That said, this fatuous comment:
makes me snicker. While he may have kept a fine liquor cabinet, I think Manhattan would have had your balls on toast if you called him "barkeep."

First person to say "He was the fucking hall monitor" owes me $1.00 for the straight line.

Do you see how long I've been here? I have come to this board damn near every day for ten years. I still come here every day. I see change. The recent change I see is nonsensical bannings, suspensions and closed threads with no reason other than a mod not liking it for personal reasons.

If you could look at my posting history, you'd find that not once in the near ten years I've been here have I ever complained about the running of this board but it's starting to tick me off. And I'm not easily ticked off.

[fubbleskag]

That's funny, 'cause I think my annoyance with people who pop into clearly-titled threads to say they're annoyed with the constant complaining has already taken a second place seat to my annoyance with people who could avoid reading/posting to threads that annoy them.touche

[ivn1188]

It's not even the changes that are most annoying; it's the complete lack of explanations and discussion. It's just "We discussed it in private and it's done, thread closed, buh bye". The mod comments are increasingly patronizing and condescending, and when they aren't, they are just vague and irrelevant.

Even in ones where the judgment calls are in serious doubt, there's no mea culpas or even an admission that the call was iffy. Instead, the responses in those cases tend towards a Rodney-style "I get no respect!" or a sort of hurt "It's a hard job and why do you have to pick on me?"

There are always going to be disagreements and, yes, changes in style and judgment. But that doesn't excuse bad changes, and certainly isn't a an explanation of why the management has become so paternalistic.

[samclem]

There are always going to be disagreements and, yes, changes in style and judgment. But that doesn't excuse bad changes, and certainly isn't a an explanation of why the management has become so paternalistic. It's because we love you, son. You may not understand this now, but when you're older you'll appreciate what we've done. :p:p

[Antinor01]

It's because we love you, son. You may not understand this now, but when you're older you'll appreciate what we've done. :p:p

Don't forget to mention how it hurts you more than it hurts him.

[Giraffe]

Don't forget to mention how it hurts you more than it hurts him.
That's going to be hard to pull off, what with the maniacal cackling.

[Antinor01]

That's going to be hard to pull off, what with the maniacal cackling.

Well, I didn't say it had to be convincing.

[Sapo]

Don't forget to mention how it hurts you more than it hurts him.
And make sure you drop a "Don't worry your little head" for good measure.

[samclem]

That's going to be hard to pull off, what with the maniacal cackling.

Damn! Did I leave my speaker on?

[zuma]

I always enjoy how whenever someone bumps an old thread, 3/4 of them are banned.

This place went fully dysfunctional a long time ago. Everyone points it out but nothing gets done about it. Just about every mod here should be fired and replaced, but it'll never happen.

[Beadalin]

Do you see how long I've been here? I have come to this board damn near every day for ten years. I still come here every day. I see change. The recent change I see is nonsensical bannings, suspensions and closed threads with no reason other than a mod not liking it for personal reasons.

If you could look at my posting history, you'd find that not once in the near ten years I've been here have I ever complained about the running of this board but it's starting to tick me off. And I'm not easily ticked off.
Seconded. An eleven-year habit is hard to break, but it's been getting easier.

[Jake]

Go look at the comments on YouTube or some other boards. I think you'll begin to see just what the Mods do and how they keep the 'Dope at the high level it is.
DoU undrstnd?

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

Go look at the comments on YouTube or some other boards. I think you'll begin to see just what the Mods do and how they keep the 'Dope at the high level it is.
DoU undrstnd?

And yet he we are, being asked to take seriously the claim "If the modes didn't engage in precipitate bannings, overbearing warnings, and pretextual post-hoc justifications, this board would be just like YouTube."

In other words, "I think you'll begin to see just what the Mods do and how they keep the Dope at the high level it is," does rather seem to assume facts not in evidence, doesn't it?

[Jake]

And yet he we are, being asked to take seriously the claim "If the modes didn't engage in precipitate bannings, overbearing warnings, and pretextual post-hoc justifications, this board would be just like YouTube."

In other words, "I think you'll begin to see just what the Mods do and how they keep the Dope at the high level it is," does rather seem to assume facts not in evidence, doesn't it?

I don't think so, Kimmy. The facts are (and I don't think you will get much argument) that this is an intellectual board with educated adults participating. (Mostly) I think maybe we differ in the definition of "high level."

[MeanOldLady]

Go look at the comments on YouTube or some other boards. I think you'll begin to see just what the Mods do and how they keep the 'Dope at the high level it is.
DoU undrstnd?
I don't think so, Kimmy. The facts are (and I don't think you will get much argument) that this is an intellectual board with educated adults participating. (Mostly) I think maybe we differ in the definition of "high level."Why should "intellectual" and "educated adults" need such stringent moderation? My old man moderates (and I use this term in the loosest sense possible) a board dedicated to heavy drinking, of all things, and somehow the posters there all manage without warnings left and right, frivolous bannings, and anti-cunt-saying rules. There isn't even a rule against personal insults, mainly because there need not be. When the occasional slap fight appears, the posters seem to self-moderate, and by the third page of the thread, everyone has agreed to lighten up hoist another. It is not, despite the lack of overbearing moderation, a "lol fag" "no u" YouTube-lite board. Surely a set of intellectual, smartest people evar, adults whose primary cause is to "fight ignorance" can figure out the basics of acceptable behavior.

[Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party]

Go look at the comments on YouTube or some other boards. I think you'll begin to see just what the Mods do and how they keep the 'Dope at the high level it is.
DoU undrstnd?

Meh. More and more Reddit has a higher standard of discussion than here, and the rules and moderator actions there aren't as overbearing and strict as they are here. It's also a lot busier, too.

[Southern Yankee]

Why should "intellectual" and "educated adults" need such stringent moderation? My old man moderates (and I use this term in the loosest sense possible) a board dedicated to heavy drinking, of all things,

There's a board for that?? Please share!

[tacoloco]

I don't think so, Kimmy. The facts are (and I don't think you will get much argument) that this is an intellectual board with educated adults participating. (Mostly) I think maybe we differ in the definition of "high level."

Intellectual board?

BWAHAHAHAHAHA.

Good one, Jake.

This board is no more intellectual than most other boards. The only difference seems to be that more people here seem to think they're intellectuals.

I don't think it's wise to play the intellectual card, Jake.

[rolandgunslinger]

Intellectual board?

BWAHAHAHAHAHA.

Good one, Jake.

This board is no more intellectual than most other boards. The only difference seems to be that more people here seem to think they're intellectuals.

I don't think it's wise to play the intellectual card, Jake.

BOX! BOX! BOX!



Whoops wrong board.;)

[tacoloco]

BOX! BOX! BOX!
Whoops wrong board.;)

I don't think moderators from other boards are watching what I say here.

:D

[Caught@Work]

I don't think moderators from other boards are watching what I say here.

:D

What on earth does that mean?

[Xploder]

He's trying, in his oh not so subtle way, to say that moderators from here watch what he says over on the 'raffe.

[hajario]

Meh. More and more Reddit has a higher standard of discussion than here, and the rules and moderator actions there aren't as overbearing and strict as they are here. It's also a lot busier, too.

If you think that it's so damn easy to run a message board, why don't you start one yourself.






:p

[Xploder]

He's trying, in his oh not so subtle way, to say that moderators from here watch what he says over on the 'raffe.

Which doesn't necessarily make it so...

[Beadalin]

NVM

[Xploder]

NVM

No problem whatsoever!

[Sister Vigilante]

I've been lurking here on and off for over 10 years and I have noticed a definite change.

Also, for a very long time, one administrator (Tubadiva) seemed good enough, now there are several. And lots more moderators. Maybe the new ones just aren't as good at it. Or maybe the newer members are just more ornery.

I also noticed that "Ed Zotti" posts a hell of a lot more then he used to (which was never).

That said, I run a much smaller message board and would probably close down many of the same threads that get complained about, except for that whole "harassment via PM" thing which I find baffling. We don't ban people or suspend them though, ever. Usually after a couple thread closings they knock it off.

It's not a democracy after all. :)

[Marley23]

I don't think there's anything up with the staff lately. In 2010, at least, I think there have been a few more suspensions than normal, but not by a lot. Nor has there been any kind of rash of bannings. (We've banned one longtime member and a couple of guests. Some of them, mainly Cesario, did make a big splash in a short time.) Most of the bans and suspensions had at least one thread devoted to them, so I'm not going to reargue them. Obviously some of them seemed ridiculous to some posters, others passed with little or no comment.

As far as lockings go, yeah, we're quick on the trigger with that sometimes. In ATMB it's pretty standard even though it often doesn't make a difference. (When a thread gets locked, a new thread is often opened to reargue the issue and ask why the earlier thread was locked.)

I found four relatively recent closings by TubaDiva- by recent I mean in the last month plus a few days.

There's this one, which was closed because it had been inactive for six months and then got a bump for no particular reason. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=529937) This one was closed for the same reason. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=12123570)
It looks like this one was closed because it had degenerated into insults between a couple of posters. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=552954) This one, too. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=12120383#post12120383)

Czarcasm has closed some threads in IMHO, I know. But I didn't follow those very closely, so I'm not going to comment.

Maybe a lot of the mods have been doing it too long, or maybe it's because people are scared of impending financial failure and want to promote some sort of salable message board.
I don't think it's because anyone has been on the job too long. (And most of us haven't been doing this for more than a few years, anyway.) Creative Loafing's financial issues aren't a factor in our moderating. We hardly ever discuss them and they don't drive any actions or policies we make.

Someone will come soon and assure us that it's always been this way.
I won't go that far, but you may be disappointed by this answer anyway: perceptions about stuff like 'the mods are cracking down' are very subjective and in general they don't have anything to do with whether or not we're cracking down on anything. We rarely make a concerted effort on any front. Sometimes tensions between the staff and everybody else do run higher, but those things come and go.

I've been lurking here on and off for over 10 years and I have noticed a definite change.

Also, for a very long time, one administrator (Tubadiva) seemed good enough, now there are several.
I can't give exact dates, but if this was ever the case, it hasn't been in a long time. I think C K Dexter Haven and Lynn Bodoni were admins here before I started posting. xash was an admin years ago, too, although he took a long break from active work and we're glad to have him back. Ed Zotti has also been an admin since the beginning.

And lots more moderators.
In part this is because we have more forums. And some of the longtime staffers are now moderating in more of a part-time capacity and other people have been hired to take up the work.

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

Can't say I notice any major change. Perhaps if the OP had included some links...

[Xploder]

Thanks for the comment Marley, but could you please comment on this: So, let me get this straight, Marley reacted to something that Sleeps didn't actually say when she was reacting to something that Marley hadn't actually done.

Because that's the basis of all the recent commentary here and you seem to be, as always, ignoring it completely.

[Marley23]

Thanks for the comment Marley, but could you please comment on this:
No. The 13 posts I made in that thread are all the explanation I'm giving. I think that's plenty. And that is not "the basis of all the recent commentary here." Maybe it's one of the suspensions ivn1188 has in mind, but he also asks about some issues that don't have anything to do with Sleeps With Butterflies.

[Xploder]

Fine. Thanks for the usual non-answer.

[Xploder]

For the record, I couldn't give a shit less if Sleeps was suspended, banned or what. I just want to know if there was a real thinking process going on behind the scenes or not, because from here, and from what I read, it sure doesn't seem like it in the least little bit.

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

Can't say I notice any major change. Perhaps if the OP had included some links...
Truth be told...OK, it does seem that they have been a lot more vigilant on the rules about asking for legal and medical advice. But everyone has to admit that's been a well known and clearly defined rule for ages.

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

I think a positive change, although not particularly recent, is that the moderators have a wider range of options when it comes to enforcing the rules. I don't think they had the option to suspend a poster until a couple of years ago, or at least they didn't seem to use it. Before then there were only warnings, followed in time by bannings.

As I see it, the SDMB tries to observe a few fundamental principles which occasionally come into conflict with each other.


Maintain a forum for discussion that is as free as possible, however,
Professional liability issues compel limitations in discussions about medicine and law, and
Possible liability with regard to furthering unlawful behavior must be avoided
Encourage reasoned debate, but also (presumably) encourage a "salable" character with regard to the message board. These conflict with each other, because most of us seem to be the sort of people who would gladly watch a talking-head show on TV if it's about our own special subjects, but the masses want action and entertainment.

That's just my take on it, but it sounds like a pretty tough job to manage this place.

[samclem]

I just want to know if there was a real thinking process going on behind the scenes or not, because from here, and from what I read, it sure doesn't seem like it in the least little bit.
Yes.

[samclem]

I think a positive change, although not particularly recent, is that the moderators have a wider range of options when it comes to enforcing the rules. I don't think they had the option to suspend a poster until a couple of years ago, or at least they didn't seem to use it. Before then there were only warnings, followed in time by bannings.

As I see it, the SDMB tries to observe a few fundamental principles which occasionally come into conflict with each other.


Maintain a forum for discussion that is as free as possible, however,
Professional liability issues compel limitations in discussions about medicine and law, and
Possible liability with regard to furthering unlawful behavior must be avoided
Encourage reasoned debate, but also (presumably) encourage a "salable" character with regard to the message board. These conflict with each other, because most of us seem to be the sort of people who would gladly watch a talking-head show on TV if it's about our own special subjects, but the masses want action and entertainment.

That's just my take on it, but it sounds like a pretty tough job to manage this place. I think you're spot-on.

[Marley23]

I just want to know if there was a real thinking process going on behind the scenes or not, because from here, and from what I read, it sure doesn't seem like it in the least little bit.
There is, yes. And I think I explained it at enough length in the other thread. Like I said in my first post in this topic, though, I'm not going to reargue that suspension or any of the other ones, since most of them were already discussed in their own threads.

[Vinyl Turnip]

That's just my take on it, but it sounds like a pretty tough job to manage this place.

All the more so since it was bought out by the Sheinhardt Wig Company.

[BigT]

There is, yes. And I think I explained it at enough length in the other thread. Like I said in my first post in this topic, though, I'm not going to reargue that suspension or any of the other ones, since most of them were already discussed in their own threads.

But you haven't explained sufficiently. Lots of people since then have made other points that you have not addressed. There may be vitriol, but that's the price you pay for not allowing people to get their anger at you out in the Pit.

If you won't comment here, at least go back and say something in the appropriate thread.

[Xploder]

Well at least I'm not showing any vitriol. Hell, I'm trying to be nice and semi-reasonable.

[Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party]

If you think that it's so damn easy to run a message board, why don't you start one yourself.






:p

:D

[Marley23]

But you haven't explained sufficiently.
I realize people still have questions, but it's the Straight Dope. People almost always have questions. I explained my side and our side of things and I'm not interested in spending any more time on it.

There may be vitriol, but that's the price you pay for not allowing people to get their anger at you out in the Pit.
This doesn't have anything to do with the Pit.

If you won't comment here, at least go back and say something in the appropriate thread.
I haven't posted in that thread in almost a week. I think the message was already clear. Now, like I said in my first post in this thread, I'm not rearguing this in here.

[Xploder]

Yes you are.

[Marley23]

So do you have a question about the topic of this thread?

It seems like there have been a lot of threads closed for silly reasons. There has been a noticeable uptick in bannings and suspensions for pretty much ridiculous "infractions". TubaDiva seems to be running around closing every thread that isn't worshipful of the mods, if Czarcasm hasn't beaten her to it.

My question is, "Why?"

I mean, there are obviously (looking at the photo gallery) a lot of adults here. What's with the overzealous and frankly silly modding, and the "sensitive" rules?

Why do all of these threads need to be closed? Why do we get so little transparency and so many "because I said so" replies?

Maybe a lot of the mods have been doing it too long, or maybe it's because people are scared of impending financial failure and want to promote some sort of salable message board. There are still a few who seem to be possessed of a bit of discretion and common sense -- those are the ones that aren't the subject of an ATMB (because there is no pitting) thread every couple of days or who aren't closing every other thread here in ATMB because it's easier than being consistent and logical. Apparently, even discussions of rules now must be closed because TubaDiva just "isn't having it".

Either way, there has been a decline in quality posters and an increase in content that I would best qualify as "something I would see on Yahoo Answers".

This board is supposed to be a haven for intellectuals, a place where people aren't hypersensitive, and where poster provides cites and reasoned discussion, or at least aspire to do so.

But it keeps getting more and more ridiculous, where good posters get banned because they "cross the line", which gets closer to unthinking agreement and mindless sunshine every day.

Let's have some actual bright line rules, and less butthurt sensitivity by certain moderators. Maybe it is a thankless job. Fine. Quit. If it's so important to have some respect and authority, maybe you need to rethink what this board is supposed to be about. As it stands, a lot of these decisions are doing a lot of harm and zero good, because of mod ego, administrator fears, and poster frustration.

[Sister Vigilante]

Right, I forgot Lynn. But I do remember when Dexter was just a mod.

Carry on. :)

[KarlGauss]

As I see it, the SDMB tries to observe a few fundamental principles which occasionally come into conflict with each other.


Professional liability issues compel limitations in discussions about medicine and law

. . . spot onFor the life of me I don't understand this point. Sure, I see what TPTB are getting at, but there are a zillion Q&A's for medical issues on the web and obviously they're not being sued. If all those sites have escaped such a fate (and their quality is often highly suspect), how can anyone seriously believe there's potential liability for the Dope? It just makes no sense. And, this would seem to be especially true given the excellence of the medical help around here anyway. ;)

[Syntropy]

So do you have a question about the topic of this thread?

Yes. When are you going to address the last paragraph in that OP? Because sanctimonious pronouncements that you've 'discussed that topic enough' doesn't address the fact that while you discussed it plenty, you didn't actually answer any questions. Nor did you acknowledge that you may have misinterpreted, or that there is a possibility no matter how remote that you may have made a mistake. Everyone makes mistakes, even in committee. Your inability to acknowledge that, or even that an alternative opinion may be valid, most assuredly smacks of egotism bordering on narcissism.

[Marley23]

When are you going to address the last paragraph in that OP?
To be honest I thought it was venting and didn't see a real issue to address. But if you insist:

Let's have some actual bright line rules, and less butthurt sensitivity by certain moderators.
'Don't be a jerk' has been the primary rule here for a long time. It's a vague principle, but the main idea is well understood: don't insult other posters and don't troll. Beyond that, yes, we ask that people treat the moderators in the same half-decent way they are supposed to treat everyone else. In the case of moderating that means you can dispute any decision you want, but don't be abusive about it. And if you think a ruling is completely moronic, go to ATMB or private messages and say so instead of ignoring it. I don't think that's asking very much.

Maybe it is a thankless job.
I don't consider it a thankless job. I don't even think it's very hard, to tell you the truth. Disputes like these are a small part of moderating, from where I sit.

If it's so important to have some respect and authority
It isn't.

maybe you need to rethink what this board is supposed to be about.
The board isn't about the mods in the first place. Our job, generally, is to keep conversations moving and maintain what people like about the board. Sometimes that causes a little too much intertia and institutional conservatism for my tastes, but there you go.

As it stands, a lot of these decisions are doing a lot of harm and zero good, because of mod ego, administrator fears, and poster frustration.
Which decisions, and what harm? What is it that made you decide any particular decision came from "mod ego and adminstrator fears" rather than just a different view of a situation or the rules? I recognize that people find it frustrating when they think we've made a stupid decision, but that's always been the case. I don't think that's changed and I don't think there's anything up with the staff lately.

[MeanOldLady]

'Don't be a jerk' has been the primary rule here for a long time. It's a vague principle, but the main idea is well understood: don't insult other posters and don't troll.Are you for real? That's what normal people would accept it to mean, but that's not how this rule has been applied. Whenever people get their feelings hurt, the mods will often break out their fake mod whistle and declare, "Hey (among that stupid-as-fuck TWEET business), you're not being nice. That is a violation of the 'don't be a jerk' rule!" The "jerk" rule has expanded and contorted, depending on the day, and morphed into anything that can range from "be perfectly prim at all times" and "don't annoy me."

[Sapo]

...'Don't be a jerk' has been the primary rule here for a long time. It's a vague principle, but the main idea is well understood:

... If we don't like you, we will say you are being a jerk and hit you with whatever we feel like at the moment.

There, I finished that for you.

I mean, really. "Don't be a jerk" is the most meaningless and abused rule around. It is not a bad rule, it is just used willy-nilly by lazy mods who cannot be arsed to think of a real offense to mod someone.

[Measure for Measure]

I mean, really. "Don't be a jerk" is the most meaningless and abused rule around. It is not a bad rule, it is just used willy-nilly by lazy mods who cannot be arsed to think of a real offense to mod someone. The hell? Transplant 90% of what goes on in the pit to real life, and you would have nothing but a crowd of jerks. Jerk is a fairly low octane insult outside of this board: those called out for jerkdom here are invariably being real assholes, setting aside the question of whether they've suffered cruel, unusual and oh-so-unjust punishment by our jackbooted mods.

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

... If we don't like you, we will say you are being a jerk and hit you with whatever we feel like at the moment.

There, I finished that for you.

I mean, really. "Don't be a jerk" is the most meaningless and abused rule around. It is not a bad rule, it is just used willy-nilly by lazy mods who cannot be arsed to think of a real offense to mod someone.

I want to say that this is absolutely correct. And if, as we're told above, "Don't be jerk" means "Don't insult other posters and don't troll" then let's announce that as the rule rather than lazily reciting DBAJ, which, while snappy, is nearly completely vacuous and too often cloaks a lot of mischief.

[ivn1188]

Which decisions, and what harm? What is it that made you decide any particular decision came from "mod ego and adminstrator fears" rather than just a different view of a situation or the rules? I recognize that people find it frustrating when they think we've made a stupid decision, but that's always been the case. I don't think that's changed and I don't think there's anything up with the staff lately.

All of which misses the point that I have been trying to make, which is not "you did X wrong" or "Poster Y shouldn't be banned" or "The rule against Z is stupid".

I'm not questioning your "different views". I am unable to, because it seems like 95% of the time your (your meaning the mods, not you specifically) views are explained with a "because I said so". Or, even better:

No, let's not play this. and a thread close. I can't think of any more condescending way that could have been done. And it wasn't as if the thread was offensive or had "degenerated into insults" or any of the other stock phrases.

So, I may be wrong about mod motivation, but when there is zero effort to explain decisions, when decisions are made with brusque indifference to poster wishes, and when even blatantly mistaken decisions are clung to regardless, I cannot help but assume the reasons for those decisions are the sort that won't hold up to rational discussion.

I'm not going to go on a thread hunt to find every little issue. There's a larger trend, and I am sure that if people are that curious they can simply go back through ATMB.

[Marley23]

I'm not going to go on a thread hunt to find every little issue. There's a larger trend, and I am sure that if people are that curious they can simply go back through ATMB.
I really don't think there's a trend. But you're right that sometimes we don't communicate why we're doing something and as a result we might come off as condescending or bossy. Simple things can turn into problems if we assume everyone else sees a situation the same way we do, and they don't.

[kayT]

I think there's definitely a trend of people going on and on and on about tiny little issues. And then going on and on and on about what the other people said. This is NOT fighting ignorance. I'm going back to GQ and recommend all the rest of you do likewise if you wish to save your sanity, or your good humor.

[Sapo]

... This is NOT fighting ignorance...

It is a common misconception that "fighting ignorance" should be interpreted similarly to "singing songs" when it is actually more like "singing birds".