Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 12-05-2018, 02:25 PM
BeepKillBeep BeepKillBeep is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,369
You can tell the appropriateness of the post from the tone of the post alone. The sarcasm is just dripping from the post.
  #52  
Old 12-05-2018, 02:31 PM
Loach's Avatar
Loach Loach is online now
The Central Scrutinizer
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pork Roll/Taylor Ham
Posts: 24,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
Clearly. I don't like that, because it unfairly (IMHO) grants legitimacy to one side of the argument. But I can live with it.
In one thread. Itís a big internet.
  #53  
Old 12-05-2018, 02:35 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 16,286
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loach View Post
And I disagree that the thread is only about self defense. Read post #1. The OP brings up two different issues. One is not about self defense use of a firearm. Granted itís to be expected that most news items will involve self defense but that is not all the thread is about.
I was just thinking about that. If I was going to get all rules-lawyery, I might say that by introducing a court case in his OP, he opened the floor to discussion of legislation. I didn't notice any real legal analysis of that, but would you have allowed such analyzing despite not being in GD?
  #54  
Old 12-05-2018, 02:50 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,036
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
Clearly. I don't like that, because it unfairly (IMHO) grants legitimacy to one side of the argument. But I can live with it.
Only in that thread. There other threads for the other side.
  #55  
Old 12-05-2018, 02:51 PM
Babale Babale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loach View Post
In one thread. Itís a big internet.
That's fair, hence why I can live with it.
  #56  
Old 12-05-2018, 02:58 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 16,286
Just as grist for the mill, would "DA Announces Arrest in Illegal Weapon Sale" be thread shitting? It's positive for both sides. "See all these guns!" side as well as "See? The current laws are enough" side. And a bad guy got arrested.

Last edited by CarnalK; 12-05-2018 at 02:59 PM.
  #57  
Old 12-05-2018, 03:03 PM
Measure for Measure's Avatar
Measure for Measure Measure for Measure is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Twitter: @MeasureMeasure
Posts: 14,012
Excellent mod decision. Well not really: downgrade that to "No-brainer mod decision".

Nonetheless, the MPSIMS thread looks problematic on a board devoted to fighting ignorance. Upon reflection, I recommend a Pit thread entitled, "Positive Gun News Discussion". It would

a) permit discussion of allegedly positive gun news,
b) permit "discussion" of allegedly positive gun news,
c) permit discussion of allegedly "positive" gun news, as well as
d) permit discussion of allegedly positive gun "news".

That should cover it.

Last edited by Measure for Measure; 12-05-2018 at 03:03 PM.
  #58  
Old 12-05-2018, 03:33 PM
Loach's Avatar
Loach Loach is online now
The Central Scrutinizer
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pork Roll/Taylor Ham
Posts: 24,557
I would rather not engage in what ifs. It will all be driven by context and I donít want to encourage posters try to get right up to the edge of threadshitting.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Measure for Measure View Post
Excellent mod decision. Well not really: downgrade that to "No-brainer mod decision".

Nonetheless, the MPSIMS thread looks problematic on a board devoted to fighting ignorance. Upon reflection, I recommend a Pit thread entitled, "Positive Gun News Discussion". It would

a) permit discussion of allegedly positive gun news,
b) permit "discussion" of allegedly positive gun news,
c) permit discussion of allegedly "positive" gun news, as well as
d) permit discussion of allegedly positive gun "news".

That should cover it.
No brainer? Iím uniquely qualified.

I would just like to point out that discussion is not banned from that thread. There have been many reports over the last few years that I have not acted on in order to allow communication. I have stepped in when it started to turn into a train wreck at times due to some posters inability to play nice. I will most likely have to moderate more closely going forward.

Discussion is allowed if it sticks with the subject manner. No threadshitting. No hijacking the thread. Remember itís MPSIMS so a wider debate would belong in GD. For the most part posters have been able to have discussions in that thread for three years including those that are anti-gun. It has just been a few posters that have tried to derail the thread.
  #59  
Old 12-05-2018, 03:33 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 80,022
I think that, in practice, such a thread would overlap sufficiently with the current Pit thread as to be redundant. But hey, I'm not the Pit moderator, and it's not like we haven't had redundant threads before.
  #60  
Old 12-05-2018, 05:58 PM
HMS Irruncible HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by engineer_comp_geek View Post
This is a friendly reminder that trolling is an insta-ban offense.
Oh come on. If someone started a thread titled "Positive liberal news" you guys would be elbowing each other in the face for the opportunity to allow our most... um... well-known and Regard,-ed members to empty their trolly bowels all over it with drive-by shitposts. This board's accommodation to conservative fragility is ruining it, IMO.
  #61  
Old 12-05-2018, 07:40 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 16,286
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
Oh come on. If someone started a thread titled "Positive liberal news" you guys would be elbowing each other in the face for the opportunity to allow our most... um... well-known and Regard,-ed members to empty their trolly bowels all over it with drive-by shitposts. This board's accommodation to conservative fragility is ruining it, IMO.
I think that is a pretty unfair assumption. Did any particular past threads and/or moderation give rise to this?
  #62  
Old 12-05-2018, 09:25 PM
HMS Irruncible HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
I think that is a pretty unfair assumption. Did any particular past threads and/or moderation give rise to this?
I commented on the absence of moderation in certain circumstances, so you'll appreciate the difficulty in picking out every case where I reported something that wasn't acted upon.

If I did choose to open a MPSIMS thread entitled "Positive liberal news", I expect it would be instantaneously overrun by right-wing trolls. There would be no moderatorial reflection on whether a particular post was really, truly positive toward liberals, and thus fitting the spirit of the OP. Most likely it would be locked, and I'd be warned not to make further bad-faith posts calling out mod inconsistency. Am I wrong? Any mods want to take me up on starting a controversial pro-liberal thread, and assiduously policing the spirit of the thread with warnings and/or bans? Holding my breath here, please don't delay.

But guns? Yeah, thread on that all you want, you'll get white-glove concierge assistance on preserving that safe space. Somehow that's special.
  #63  
Old 12-05-2018, 09:39 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,036
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
...
If I did choose to open a MPSIMS thread entitled "Positive liberal news", I expect it would be instantaneously overrun by right-wing trolls. There would be no moderatorial reflection on whether a particular post was really, truly positive toward liberals, and thus fitting the spirit of the OP. ...
Why not try it? Do put in your OP that you'd appreciate it being limited to Positive News about the Progressive/ Liberal movements in the USA.
  #64  
Old 12-06-2018, 05:04 AM
RTFirefly RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 37,296
I think the Positive Gun News thread would benefit from a more specific title, like "Instances of Successful Defensive Gun Use," which would get away from judgment calls of what is, or isn't, positive gun news.

(Though it might be harder to exclude manson1972's example given such a title: it's closer to qualifying as two instances of successful DGU than to being 'positive' news of any sort, unless one starts from a really macabre frame of mind. That would be the tradeoff: some instances of successful DGU are not going to be happy stories.)
  #65  
Old 12-06-2018, 08:54 AM
andros andros is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Dejagore
Posts: 10,236
"Some?"
  #66  
Old 12-06-2018, 10:17 AM
HMS Irruncible HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Why not try it? Do put in your OP that you'd appreciate it being limited to Positive News about the Progressive/ Liberal movements in the USA.
I think there's some sort of rule or precedent about starting threads just to prove a point about moderation. It would be kind of a jerk move. Besides, it wouldn't be a truly blind test because you're all now tainted with foreknowledge.
  #67  
Old 12-06-2018, 10:47 AM
Loach's Avatar
Loach Loach is online now
The Central Scrutinizer
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pork Roll/Taylor Ham
Posts: 24,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
I commented on the absence of moderation in certain circumstances, so you'll appreciate the difficulty in picking out every case where I reported something that wasn't acted upon.

If I did choose to open a MPSIMS thread entitled "Positive liberal news", I expect it would be instantaneously overrun by right-wing trolls. There would be no moderatorial reflection on whether a particular post was really, truly positive toward liberals, and thus fitting the spirit of the OP. Most likely it would be locked, and I'd be warned not to make further bad-faith posts calling out mod inconsistency. Am I wrong? Any mods want to take me up on starting a controversial pro-liberal thread, and assiduously policing the spirit of the thread with warnings and/or bans? Holding my breath here, please don't delay.

But guns? Yeah, thread on that all you want, you'll get white-glove concierge assistance on preserving that safe space. Somehow that's special.
I suggest you go back to the gun thread in question. Look at all the posts by the OP in that thread. If you can truly look at it with neutral eyes you could see that there were multiple times he could have been modded but I let it slide. There were many reports that did not act on. That happens every day in many forums. We make judgement calls whether to mod to the strict letter of the rule or let it go in the interest of keeping conversations moving. It is certainly not by political lines. I think there is a bit of confirmation bias happening here.
  #68  
Old 12-06-2018, 10:48 AM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 79,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
Clearly. I don't like that, because it unfairly (IMHO) grants legitimacy to one side of the argument. But I can live with it.
I would strongly oppose it if the moderators were saying only positive gun news was allowed on this board. But they haven't said this; they're only saying this particular thread should remained focused on its declared topic. As others have said, there are other threads on this board which present opposing views.
  #69  
Old 12-06-2018, 10:50 AM
Loach's Avatar
Loach Loach is online now
The Central Scrutinizer
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pork Roll/Taylor Ham
Posts: 24,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
I think the Positive Gun News thread would benefit from a more specific title, like "Instances of Successful Defensive Gun Use," which would get away from judgment calls of what is, or isn't, positive gun news.

(Though it might be harder to exclude manson1972's example given such a title: it's closer to qualifying as two instances of successful DGU than to being 'positive' news of any sort, unless one starts from a really macabre frame of mind. That would be the tradeoff: some instances of successful DGU are not going to be happy stories.)
Again, after three years, 1500 posts, multiple mod instructions... if you canít figure out what the thread is about by now a change in title wonít help.
  #70  
Old 12-06-2018, 10:56 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 58,405
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
I would strongly oppose it if the moderators were saying only positive gun news was allowed on this board. But they haven't said this; they're only saying this particular thread should remained focused on its declared topic. As others have said, there are other threads on this board which present opposing views.
There is a thread on negative gun news but it is in the BBQ Pit, and people with the opposite view are allowed to post with little to no moderation, so claiming that this thread on Positive Gun Use is a counterpoint is just a joke.
  #71  
Old 12-06-2018, 11:12 AM
andros andros is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Dejagore
Posts: 10,236
My understanding is that it was intended as a safe space for pro-gun posters. I could be wrong, but that's certainly my recollection, and nothing on the first page of that thread seems to contradict it.

:shrug: I'm ok with providing people safe spaces if they need them.
  #72  
Old 12-06-2018, 12:13 PM
Jonathan Chance Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 21,901
And the moderation staff agreed that such is what that thread is. It shouldn't be hard to observe that restriction.
  #73  
Old 12-06-2018, 12:18 PM
Babale Babale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance View Post
And the moderation staff agreed that such is what that thread is. It shouldn't be hard to observe that restriction.
It isn't. We should just make it clear that that's what the thread is: a safe space for people who hold a particular view. I think you guys have made that perfectly clear by now, and I don't think it was particularly confusing before (and I'm not going to defend the OP or argue that his post was in good faith).
  #74  
Old 12-06-2018, 12:41 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 9,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loach View Post
Again, after three years, 1500 posts, multiple mod instructions... if you can’t figure out what the thread is about by now a change in title won’t help.
To be fair, the OP on that was pretty ambiguous. You even have people arguing in this very thread as to whether legal issues should or should not be included, even thought the OP of that thread included one.

Through several heavy handed mod instructions, which said that that thread was a place where nothing resembling an anti-gun thought could be posted, that part of what the thread about is clear, it is solely for pro-gun propaganda for pro-gun advocates. This, unlike the other meanings the thread now has, was explicitly stated by the OP.

It's arbitrary, but clear. There is to be no questioning or debating as to whether a gun use was positive or not. Well, unless it is decided by the pro-gun advocates in the thread that the gun use was not positive, in which case, it is a thread bannable offense.

While Manson's example was probably easily shown to be more negative than positive, there have been stories posted by pro gun advocates that others felt were more negative than positive, but we were given explicit instructions to not express any sort of negative reaction to such a story.

I would suggest posting an updated thread title, just to make it clear, "Only pro gun advocates may post to this thread."

Last edited by k9bfriender; 12-06-2018 at 12:42 PM.
  #75  
Old 12-06-2018, 01:21 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 47,951
Are there any other recent threads which have been officially decreed to be safe-space echo chambers for holders of a certain view, rather than fighting ignorance? If there's a problem with authoritah being respected there, maybe it's because authoritah is being misused.
  #76  
Old 12-06-2018, 01:25 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 9,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
You yourself admit, in that thread, that you don't consider it positive.
Not so. I myself admit that it's not funny.
  #77  
Old 12-06-2018, 02:48 PM
Loach's Avatar
Loach Loach is online now
The Central Scrutinizer
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pork Roll/Taylor Ham
Posts: 24,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
It's arbitrary, but clear. There is to be no questioning or debating as to whether a gun use was positive or not. Well, unless it is decided by the pro-gun advocates in the thread that the gun use was not positive, in which case, it is a thread bannable offense.
And yet in that thread there is plenty of discussion whether reported uses were positive or not. You are simply not correct. What is not allowed are hijacks or threadshitting. Just like in every other thread in that forum.
  #78  
Old 12-06-2018, 02:53 PM
RTFirefly RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 37,296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loach View Post
Again, after three years, 1500 posts, multiple mod instructions... if you canít figure out what the thread is about by now a change in title wonít help.
Since I got a warning a few years back for posting a statement by the NRA to the thread, yes, as a matter of fact, the boundaries of acceptable speech in that thread have been quite unclear to me. Because if the NRA isn't pro-gun, who the fuck is?

I've dealt with that lack of clarity by simply staying the hell out of the thread, because if you can't understand the rules somewhere, your best bet is to stay clear. So I've missed most of those three years and 1500 posts. I've not made further study of it.

But still, someone posting to a thread for the first time, one they have never read before, should be able to post there without getting into trouble there, if they consistently stay out of trouble on this board. It shouldn't be up to each poster to figure out for him/herself whether a thread has special rules, and what they are. If a thread has different rules, they should be clear up front.
  #79  
Old 12-06-2018, 02:55 PM
Measure for Measure's Avatar
Measure for Measure Measure for Measure is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Twitter: @MeasureMeasure
Posts: 14,012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
There is a thread on negative gun news but it is in the BBQ Pit, and people with the opposite view are allowed to post with little to no moderation, so claiming that this thread on Positive Gun Use is a counterpoint is just a joke.
Quote:
Originally Posted by andros View Post
My understanding is that it was intended as a safe space for pro-gun posters. I could be wrong, but that's certainly my recollection, and nothing on the first page of that thread seems to contradict it.

:shrug: I'm ok with providing people safe spaces if they need them.
All NRA monthly magazines contain a compilation of stories about guns allegedly used for self defense. They invariably fail to consider the idea of a scientific control: they don't consider what would have happened if the user has *not* had a gun. By way of example, a burglar was in the process of climbing into my neighbor's window when she... stumbled downstairs and looked at him with bleary eyes at 5:30 AM or so. He waved and ran away. If she was packing heat, she could have starred in an NRA column.

Anyway, the thread is a version of that column, which is ok. If it was in IMHO, the particulars of each example could be dissected. In the pit, uncritical compilers of dubious anecdotes could be mocked. But in MPSIMS, the expected response differs.
  #80  
Old 12-06-2018, 02:56 PM
Loach's Avatar
Loach Loach is online now
The Central Scrutinizer
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pork Roll/Taylor Ham
Posts: 24,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post

I would suggest posting an updated thread title, just to make it clear, "Only pro gun advocates may post to this thread."
Looks to me that you along with mason1972 and ElvisL1ves are some of the most prolific posters in that thread so thatís obviously not true.
  #81  
Old 12-06-2018, 03:00 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 9,197
Come on, man. It's manson1972!

Last edited by manson1972; 12-06-2018 at 03:00 PM.
  #82  
Old 12-06-2018, 03:05 PM
Loach's Avatar
Loach Loach is online now
The Central Scrutinizer
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pork Roll/Taylor Ham
Posts: 24,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Come on, man. It's manson1972!
My apologies. Little phone, big thumbs, old eyes.
  #83  
Old 12-06-2018, 03:57 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 9,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loach View Post
My apologies. Little phone, big thumbs, old eyes.
It's cool. I wasn't sure which smiley to use to indicate my actual username while simultaneously not seeming serious or mocking but still indicate joviality.

  #84  
Old 12-06-2018, 05:39 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 9,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loach View Post
And yet in that thread there is plenty of discussion whether reported uses were positive or not. You are simply not correct. What is not allowed are hijacks or threadshitting. Just like in every other thread in that forum.
It certainly felt as though questioning the positivity of any story was treated as threadshitting.

Yes, they were examples of DGU's, but many of them did not seem to have a positive outcome. In questioning any of these, moderators were often called upon to make a note about the nature of the thread being for applauding positive gun stories, not for questioning the positivity of the gun stories.

I did not feel as though any divergent discussion about the outcomes of these stories was appreciated. There ended up being enough mod notes in the thread that it just isn't worth voicing an opinion on a story that someone else posted. There were a number of observations I had about many stories that filtered through there, but I did not feel comfortable posting them, given the hostility towards anything not pro-gun in that thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loach View Post
Looks to me that you along with mason1972 and ElvisL1ves are some of the most prolific posters in that thread so thatís obviously not true.
I'm tied for 16th place with 22 posts to a 3 year old thread with 1500 posts. That's not really prolific.

ElvisL1ves has 32 posts, and is in at 12th place.

The prolific one, "mason1972" ,in 7th place with 49 posts has been banned from the thread.

That means the three of us "most prolific posters" make up 103 posts of the 1500+ opst thread.

Of the top 12 prolific posters to that thread, 9 of them I recognize as pro-gun advocates, with 886 posts between them.

Based on the actual facts, and given that I, as one of your "most prolific", have stopped posting to that thread out of a fear of stepping wrong and drawing the ire of mods, and another has been banned from the thread, I'd say it is obviously very true.
  #85  
Old 12-06-2018, 09:35 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 9,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
"mason1972"
aaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhh!

  #86  
Old 12-06-2018, 09:36 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 9,197
Also, thanks for counting those up. I looked at my posts there and it didn't seem enough to be considered a "prolific poster" in that thread, but that's okay.
  #87  
Old 12-09-2018, 09:59 AM
The Librarian's Avatar
The Librarian The Librarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Delft
Posts: 1,025
Why has nobody mentioned the elephant?
Allow me:

Is it fair to say that the moderation in Bone's gun thread is much more strict that anywhere else because the he's a mod?

If that thread had been started by someone else it would have been sent to the pit preemptively on the day it was started?


To be clear: I'm fine with moderators having some extra privileges as a poster, Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi and all that: So long as that is acknowledged. Now this is being discussed as if the OP of Bone's gun thread is a random poster and the identity of the OP is irrelevant and that is (IMO) clearly not true.


FTR: Calling anyone but Bone "prolific" in this context is disingenuous at best.
  #88  
Old 12-09-2018, 10:02 AM
Jonathan Chance Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 21,901
Hell, I didn't even know Bone had started that thread. And we communicate on the regular.

I know you have no reason to accept this at face value. That's fine. But it's never even occurred to me to claim any special privilege over threads I start or that another moderator starts.
  #89  
Old 12-09-2018, 10:16 AM
Loach's Avatar
Loach Loach is online now
The Central Scrutinizer
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pork Roll/Taylor Ham
Posts: 24,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Librarian View Post
Why has nobody mentioned the elephant?
Allow me:

Is it fair to say that the moderation in Bone's gun thread is much more strict that anywhere else because the he's a mod?

If that thread had been started by someone else it would have been sent to the pit preemptively on the day it was started?


To be clear: I'm fine with moderators having some extra privileges as a poster, Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi and all that: So long as that is acknowledged. Now this is being discussed as if the OP of Bone's gun thread is a random poster and the identity of the OP is irrelevant and that is (IMO) clearly not true.


FTR: Calling anyone but Bone "prolific" in this context is disingenuous at best.
Itís not nice to call him an elephant.

FTR Bone did not become a moderator until that thread was over a year old.
  #90  
Old 12-09-2018, 12:26 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 9,653
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Librarian View Post
Why has nobody mentioned the elephant?
Allow me:

Is it fair to say that the moderation in Bone's gun thread is much more strict that anywhere else because the he's a mod?

If that thread had been started by someone else it would have been sent to the pit preemptively on the day it was started?


To be clear: I'm fine with moderators having some extra privileges as a poster, Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi and all that: So long as that is acknowledged. Now this is being discussed as if the OP of Bone's gun thread is a random poster and the identity of the OP is irrelevant and that is (IMO) clearly not true.


FTR: Calling anyone but Bone "prolific" in this context is disingenuous at best.
I wouldn't say that's fair actually. The thread was started in October of 2015. I became a Moderator on Nov 8, 2016. By that point there had been over 1100 posts with the same character of moderation throughout.

I could still very easily be posting additional examples on a daily basis, but around the time I was in discussion to be a Moderator, I decided that it would be better for me to stop. This was never discussed with Ed at the time, nor any of the MPSIMS mods. Though, before I became a Mod I did report a few posts here and there. The thing is, the reason I stopped posting regularly was as stated in the linked post, and also unstated was because i wanted to avoid the specific thing you are mentioning. To avoid putting the MPSIMS mods in any appearance of an awkward position, I thought it best to pull away from that thread. There are a lot of things I don't post now for similar reasons. Objectivity in fact and appearance - it's a personal goal.

During the time I was actively posting there, I curated the posts to ensure the outcomes were positive (in my view). Borderline incidents, or incidents where there wasn't enough information I left off.

That thread isn't intended for debate. That can be had in GD, or other forums. Rather, it's a sharing and curating of anecdotal stories.
  #91  
Old 12-09-2018, 12:48 PM
engineer_comp_geek's Avatar
engineer_comp_geek engineer_comp_geek is online now
Robot Mod in Beta Testing
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 22,567
As the mod who issued the warning that triggered this ATMB thread, I did not consider who started the Positive Gun News thread because in all honesty, I never bothered to look to see who started it. As far as I was concerned, it was just another thread.

It gets special attention from the mods because the subject is a hot-button issue for many people. Similarly, if someone wanted to start a thread about only the positive things that Trump has done, that thread would also likely require a lot of moderator attention to keep it on track. I also don't see any reason to immediately dump the thread over in the Pit. As long as folks only focus on positive things, the thread really wouldn't be pit-worthy. If you start a more general discussion on any of these or any other hot-button topics, then anyone can post their thoughts on either side and that thread might end up in the Pit. But if someone has a specific aspect of something that they wish to discuss without the thread being pulled into a much bigger issue, we generally try to moderate such threads so that the particular topic can be discussed. This is definitely not unique to the gun thread.

If we moderators are posting as regular posters, the only special consideration we get is that we can't get warned by other moderators. If we do something that another mod thinks is warnable, that gets kicked up to our admin. Other than that, we get no special consideration at all for threads or posts. As long as we aren't acting as moderators, you can even pit our posts.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:53 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017