A couple of questions about moderating (Charlie Wayne and drewtwo99)

About This Message Board
1

Question 1: Charlie Wayne

Can someone tell me why this thread was closed? Clearly the OP regretted his decision, especially after getting reamed by the vast majority of posters in the thread, but no reason was actually provided for closing it. There was no moderator contribution, but the thread was open one minute, and closed the next.

If there’s some special reason for closing the thread, it would be good to know. And if the thread was simply closed at the request of the OP, because he didn’t like the way his incredibly stupid observations had been received, i’d be interested to hear the reasoning behind that too. It’s always been my understanding that, with a few limited exceptions, we’re supposed to think before we post, and live with whatever stupid things we say on this message board. The starter of a thread doesn’t own the thread, and if the discussion doesn’t go in the direction you like, you don’t get to shut things down.

And it’s not like this was some one-time aberration. The poster in question has, over an extended period, shown himself capable of making myriad idiotic statements, and then doubling down in response to criticism. Is he going to be permanently protected, now, from the consequences of his own stupid statements? Is he a pet project? What’s the story?

Question 2: drewtwo99

In this thread, someone notes that the poster in question has been banned, and samclem responds by closing the thread, and suggesting that asking him directly is the way to proceed.

This might be reasonable for some new member who’s discovered as a sock or a troll, but to be honest, i think that when a poster with three and a half years of membership and over 8,000 posts is disappeared, it’s reasonable to expect a more general explanation. If he’s been banned for creating sock accounts or something similar, then just say that. What’s the harm? It’s not like some magic spell that’s going to trigger a sock and troll avalanche.

2

I can’t tell you why the thread was closed. I didn’t do it.

In the case of your second question, it’s always been thought that trolls and socks desire attention more than anything else. Like overactive four-year-olds they’ll do anything to get any form, even negative. Therefore threads about them - even post-mortem - just encourage their behavior. I, for one, would like to avoid that.

3

After answering about 75 private messages about him, maybe I should have done that. :slight_smile:

I guess I can only plead that’s how we’ve done it for years with socks (with a handful of exceptions). I’ll run the idea around the mod loop and get back to you.

4

I was wondering if the person who paid for his membership renewal got a refund.

5

Fair enough.

As i suggested, when a new member disappears after a few weeks or a few dozen posts, that’s fine. I just think that the policy needs to be reconsidered when it’s a long-term member with thousands of posts. If a sock has managed hang around for years, posting in hundreds of threads and constructing a whole identity, a single post announcing the banning is not really likely to make much difference.

6

I thought it was some kind of joke. You mean drewtoo99 has really been banned?

7

I would strongly like to endorse the idea of revisiting your “Treat trolls and socks like they were spies selling national defense secrets” policy. A simple, factual, form-letter style message saying: “Poster so-and-so has been banned for creating a sock (or Sock X)” would get rid of the mystique socks seem to have on this board, rather than cryptic “PM for Info” type messages. Maybe in 1999 it made sense, but today? It just makes the Dope seem paranoid.

And it would have saved you having to answer 75 pms. :wink:

8

No one paid for his membership renewal. That function hasn’t worked on this board for a long time.

9

I’m sorry. We’re mods. We have NO sense of humor. :smiley:

10

Explain the evil cackling, then.

:wink:

11

It’s an app we get when we sign up.

12

That was me, and I didn’t think there was much of a story.

The thread immediately devolved into criticism of the OP and a discussion that was better suited to the Pit. I would have simply moved it, but by the time it came to my attention, a Pit thread had already been started. I’m willing to take another look, but at the point I made the decision, I didn’t see any reason to have parallel threads in two different forums with the same purpose for those contributing to it.

So no, there was no intent to protect any individual poster. The Pit thread contains a link to the initial thread, so it isn’t as though people can’t figure out where the fire started.

13

It was a bitch before smartphones, having to carry around that damn tape recorder all the time.

14

Yeah, but we carried it proudly, damnit!

15

yeah, maybe you should have, since this doesn’t make a lick of sense to me. if arbitrary bannings are the done thing around here, then maybe that should be made clear.

16

For what it’s worth, I think it’s useful to explain that when closing a thread, instead of just closing it quietly.
Unless you have a migraine. Then the quiet thing makes sense, of course.

17

The number will climb. I just haven’t gotten around to it. I was mystified by the whole, “thanks for the renewal”, “bam, you’re banned.”

Also, It would be nice to have a few words when a thread is closed, possibly with a link to other threads in progress if relevant. I try to keep up, but there’s a lot going on.

18

Dearly beloved, we gather today to close this thread…

19

I agree with this. Because it sure did look like a poster was being shielded from himself. This board has a long history of not doing that.

20

How is anyone being shielded? The Pit thread is up and running and you don’t have to hold back because of rules.