Ignoring moderator actions is grounds for warning/banning. This applies to everyone. When someone is being repeatedly obnoxious and toeing the line, we do ask them to cool it. This doesn’t mean we’re making special rules, it means that if we ask you to knock something off, knock it off. We don’t like to give ‘official warnings’ for every little thing, nor throw our weight around when it’s not necessary.
If you want to criticize that we don’t always give the exact same moderator action for similar posts, that’s fine. But, we’re not going to start doing that. I know on the surface this doesn’t make sense, but context is indeed everything. Doing something once is different than doing something repeatedly and someone who’s never had a warning is different than someone who’s been warned repeatedly and suspended from posting. We don’t want to smack down a guest making their first posts with warnings unless it’s really necessary, but someone who’s a persistent troublemaker gets less leeway.
Actually, I don’t think you could call it a “persistent behaviour”. Besides these last couple of incidents in the subscribe thread and this Skip/me interaction, I would say the vast majority of my posts in ATMB have been (or at least clearly intended to be) helpful, informing or offering constructive criticism. I’m sure even TubaDiva, who doesn’t like me but has probably seen all my posts there, would agree.
eta: and I still wasn’t criticizing DSYoung. Why would I have said “Am I the only one who knows this?” if I wasn’t expressing exasperation rather than anger.
If that’s what you got out of my posts, all I can say is that you have severe problems with reading comprehension.
Bullshit.
The most laughable thing about all this is the implication that we are somehow being unfair to CarnalK. In reality, the fact that he is still here at all, after all the warnings he has already received, bespeaks a great deal of leniency towards him on the part of the administration here. We don’t ban people lightly, and CarnalK’s career here is an ample demonstration of that.
I would point out again that neither SkipMagic nor I issued an Official Warning against CarnalK. If I had wanted to “expedite” his banning, I would have issued an Official Warning rather than just given him a reminder.
And come to think of it, it’s even less of a “persistent behaviour” than that. In the other thread that I got told to “Take it to the Pit” by Marley23, I wasn’t actually criticizing another poster. I was criticizing the board’s willingness to take new subscriptions so close to the business model change over, and perhaps Tuba’s facilitation of same.
Well, sure and I dropped it as soon as Marley stepped in. I was actually conversing with Tuba so I thought she would have said something herself if I was being so bad. But mainly, I’m just saying I wasn’t going around bitching out other posters in ATMB all the time.
IMO, we need a sub-Pit, where people can vie for the title of “Most-Justifiably-Dissatisfied-Customer-Of-the-SDMB”. I’d never go there, so I’d never inadvertently open one of these yawn-fests.
Save the real Pit for RO and Bush-bashing.
ETA: Sorry if anyone feels that was a thread-shit. I kinda don’t care.
“Hey, Poster A, cool it.”
“Poster A, please stop.”
“Poster A, stop or you will receive a warning.”
“This is a warning. Do not do this again, Poster A.”
“ANOTHER warning, Poster A.”
“We’ve asked you repeatedly to knock it off, Poster A. One more and we’ll have to ban you.”
At the same time as the last one:
“Hey, Poster B, cool it.”
Well, I guess it is kind of thread-shitting because it kind of looks like you just posted about your Pet Peeve without actually reading the thread. But I’m sure that means you and Bosstone can start a PM correspondence that will be satisfying to you both.
Then you’re a better person than I am. If someone called my post “whining”, I’d view it as a deliberate insult that added nothing to the discourse. If someone said my post was “insulting” or “disparaging”, I’d at least review what I said to see if I had been misinterpreted or had used a poor choice of words.
IMO, The first is negative criticism, the second is positive criticism.
And I am left still waiting for clarification on my rules questions. If this should be in ATMB, please let me know.
Does the rule against criticizing others in ATMB apply to everyone?
Is it unreasonable to ask for clarification on the rules from the Mods in the Pit?
(Or is this supposed to be where we complain but without hope of resolution or clarification?) Should we ask for clarification in the ATMB but complain only in the Pit?
ATMB is intended as a resource for people to ask questions about the board. It is not intended as a spot for picking fights, aimed at the staff or aimed at other users.
Generally, yes, we would like to avoid criticizing other users in ATMB. But, on the flip side, I don’t want to give a firm “yes, criticism is never allowed” because ‘criticism’ is an awfully huge bucket and each case is different. What we want to avoid here also is a bunch of reported posts over borderline useful posts that aren’t 100% helpful and kind.
As a moderator, I would ask that if you feel your post is borderline, the best place for it is the Pit. Otherwise, we reserve the right to tell you to tone it down, with or without a formal warning.
Nope, but you may want to do so prominently, and not every mod is going to be willing to go to the mat defending every little thing. Generally, the best way to contact a mod is by email or PM if what you’re truly looking for is clarification. We’ve seen enough ‘clarification’ posts to know that a lot of times the person isn’t looking for actual clarification, they’re looking to argue about it. That’s fine, that’s what the Pit is for, but the mod isn’t obligated to humor every person who wants a fight.
Basic questions about the board and the like belong in ATMB, such as technical questions, generalized (non-inflammatory) discussions of board rules or asking questions (not general bitching) about things like subscriptions. If you want to clarify moderator actions, this belongs in the Pit. Remember, The Pit “is the place for all complaints and other discussion regarding administration of the SDMB.” If you really want a specific mod to answer you, don’t assume their lack of public response in the Pit is out of design - call their attention to it. If they feel the need, they’ll respond. Nearly all genuine requests for clarity are answered if the mod’s aware of the request.
Feedback for clarification by example, fluiddruid:
We’re obliged not to criticize “the staff” (moderators, admins., and tech guys) in ATMB, but take those issues to the Pit.
A post laden with snark and with the obvious purpose of criticizing another member is out of line in ATMB, and potentially subject to warning, either formally or just a simple “knock-it-off” that doesn’t ascend to the level of a Mod. Warning – at moderator discretion, and past behavior is a factor in how much of an issue the mods. want to make of it.
Not every post that in passing criticizes another member is out of line. If, for example, I were addressing the question of thread hijacks, and pointed out that both Liberal and Darwin’s Finch have been known to post opinions that were not directly relevant to the thread topic to date, except perhaps in their own mind, but which have led the thread in what appeared to me to be fruitful new directions (see linked examples), I’ve technically criticized two members, by name, in ATMB, not with the purpose of snarking on them but rather using their instances of doing what’s under discussion as examples of the point I’m making. Such a post would probably not be out of line, depending on how I worded the “for example” statement.
This rule doesn’t really apply just to ATMB but to all forums. Complaints about board administration belong in the Pit.
This is muddying the issue a little bit but I think this is generally a fair assessment.
Let me clarify to say that all moderator actions will be tempered with the history of the poster, not just any one particular rule. For example, if you’ve historically toed the line of insulting people in any forum, and have been told to knock it off, and you continue, you may get a warning where another person wouldn’t. Likewise, a newer user may get more leeway about violating certain rules because of presumed ignorance; a long-time user may not get the same leeway, particularly if they are a known troublemaker. On the flip side, a long-term user posting a spammy thread and link will likely get a talking-to and their link removed, where a new user would probably just get banned. Basically, if you’ve been a perpetual problem, you should damn well have figured out where the rules are, and if you can’t, then it’s probably for the best for all involved that your posting privileges not continue.
Generally being insulting/critical/snarky of other posters in ATMB is not allowed. I don’t want to give the impression that all ATMB posts must be positive about the board in general or other users, but it’s just not the place for fights, and moderators will step in to enforce that. In regards to ATMB specifically, I don’t know if I’m the best to clarify since it’s not my forum. But I’ll say that if you’re told to knock something off, knock it off. If you don’t, warnings/suspensions/bannings may occur. In rare cases where moderators give directives, we expect them to be followed. You may challenge this decision if you wish (in the Pit, or by personal correspondence) but we expect it to be followed while in force. This is how I see the CarnalK ATMB situation.
Well, I’d probably need to see examples to say for sure, but think ATMB is the area for rules discussion. Within reason, it’s possible to post criticisms of other users in the spirit of discussing board policy and such. Whether or not an individual post is reasonable is difficult to gauge in concrete rules-lawyer terms, but that’s why generally if it’s borderline you’ll get a heads up rather than a warning.
Ellis Dee in particular was clearly on the side of being obnoxious. His post did nothing to serve the board’s interest, to foster debate (regarding rules updates, board policy or otherwise). It was jerkish to post it in an ATMB thread, and he was, in my opinion, rightfully told to take it to the Pit.
I get this, and totally agree…in fact posted something quite similar to the inevitable thread following TLDR’s bannination…but I there’s a huge difference between someone intentionally posting for an intended response, and someone asking an appropriate question that isn’t presented as respectfully as you’d like it. No? It just seems to me that you have more a problem with the way CarnalK couches his questions than with the actual content (as evidenced by EllisDee’s example).
And CarnalK has hardly been a perpetual problem; he’s on record as disagreeing loudly. At least his posts are on topic, have content, and in most cases are informative. Granted, it’s not always pleasant to have to answer uncomfortable questions that are also sarcastic, but comparing his questions to some of the content free, obviously-there-for-nothing-more-than-the-driveby-dig posts that are allowed to soar by without even so much as a raised eyebrow from other posters, I’m a bit disappointed you’re not more tolerant.
I have seen several examples of both moderator and poster posting something to the effect of “Cecil himself answers questions in a rather snarky, sarcastic manner. This board is dedicated to him. Sometimes that rubs off.” Accompanied by a shrug.
Sure. And I was going to throw in “he even took a break from posting, I didn’t even know he was back til last week,” but figured I’d stick to his actual posting history. It’s hard to call someone on their behavior if there is no behavior to judge. When he posts, it’s intelligent, well thought out, and sarcastic as hell. Shouldn’t the first two mitigate the third? Because if we’re going to start threatening people with banning for the crime of being sarcastic and annoying, I have a list…
I think you missed my point, which is that he’s likely been behaving nice because jerkish behavior is what got him suspended. Once someone’s been suspended they tend to be on a short leash upon return.
Eh. Possibly. Okay, let me rephrase; yes, I missed your point, no I don’t think that’s necessarily the case. He has zero tolerance for suffering fools gladly, and he calls bullshit when he sees it. I don’t think he changed that, and I don’t think he’s been any nicer because he was suspended. He’s as nice (or not) as he’s always been.
Well, since I was suspended 3 frigging years ago, I think talk of ongoing “persistent behaviour” is a little misleading, don’t you?
But personally I don’t think I’ve changed that much. I’ve dropped a couple Pet Peeves that I’ve already complained enough about and I’m a little quicker to let arguments die but otherwise I still calls them as I sees them.
