Geez, Giraffe, it’s not like he has been back in this thread and even replied, as the 95th post, to someone who posted after you asked this and other people commented on it, too.
You kept count too huh?
What did the moderators know, and when did they know it?
Your suggestion is addressing the case that many posters are riled up against another poster, and venting their frustrations at that poster in ATMB. Your solution is to close the thread and tell them to post that argument in a specific sticky thread in the Pit. Your justification is that there is overlap between the frustration at the poster and their frustration at the moderation of that poster, which means there is overlap between ATMB content and Pit content.
This does not seem very workable. Your solution means closing the thread in ATMB, so actually addressing any real moderating concerns won’t be done, because the argument is being held in the Pit (even if a special sticky). At the same time, by sticking the argument in a special sticky, you lose visibility of any individual argument, and you generate frustration on finding the discussion related to any specific incident, and you reduce the ability of the participants to follow the discussion and know when relevant updates occur, as opposed to irrelevant updates (i.e. other arguments). And, depending on how Stickies show up in Subscribed Thread lists, you flag other posters who think their topic is being discussed again.
The existing solution is to post the questions about how that poster is moderated in ATMB, post the bitching about that poster’s actions in the Pit, and stop mixing the two actions up. And drop warnings on people who can’t keep that straight.
To the best of the response I’ve been able to get on this so far, the moderation was directed at a specific incident in a specific thread, where posters had already been instructed multiple times that piling on Czarcasm was not allowed, and then Morgenstern posted his remark in a tone that was perceived as a stab at Czarcasm’s behavior as much as a commentary on how he is moderated. As such, a note was given (no warning issued, though threatened) in another attempt to get the thread to focus on the moderation and not on hostility toward Czarcasm.
I don’t agree that specific incident should have been perceived as a personal attack, but I don’t think Dex (or anyone) was trying to establish a principle that mentioning that a poster gets preferential treatment is considered a personal insult. Rather, the hostility of Morgenstern’s tone and the phrasing he chose to use were taken into consideration in the context of an already heated discussion and previous instructions in that thread to avoid a pile on.
I think that when a poster deliberately violates the rules and sticks a finger in the moderators’ face about it, he deserves no leniency.
I don’t agree. I suspect he would have been warned in either case.
One complexity is that poster obnoxiousness and inaccuracy is inversely proportional to accountability. There’s a lot more of that at 4chan which has full anonymity, and less of it at the Well where people must use their real names. Here at the ATMB, we see a lot repeated whining by a small number of posters. IMO, they get stuck on the question, “How should that post have been moderated ideally”, or worse, “How would have I moderated that post?” When the question really should be, “Is this sort of mod policy, taken as a whole, manageable for this poster?” And if the answer is no, the options should be exit or polite and constructive commentary. Not drama.
OTOH, abuse and pointed questioning builds in some accountability for the irked or whiny poster. Such conduct is problematic for moderators, but it has its role among fellow members. Behaviorally, the problem poster gets all hot headed when they are laughed at, but after the immediate problem blows over they typically think twice before shooting their mouths off. Usually, at least. This applies to people who have difficulty with constructiveness.
To be clear, I’m only arguing that the Pit model had its advantages. (Ok, I’m also implying that the brouhaha about Czarcasm has nothing to do with mod favoritism (which OBTW has never been documented except as a vague feeling by the usual complainers) and a lot to do with his calling out muddy and dubious thinking in a mildly confrontational manner, easily handled by the moderately articulate and conscientious.) As with most policy decisions this is a matter of weighing competing considerations. So far I have reports that 2 moderators at least weren’t too fond of the Pit approach, which I consider an empirical observation.
Not on the Message Boards, no. I’ll leave it that you were a moderator at that time. Your recent post was conjuring up memories of a glorious and wonderful past when the Pit was a free-for-all. My memories (and the written record) are QUITE different. That was a hell into which I do not wish again to sink.
I thought this was answered several times: that specific thread had become a pile-on, an ATMB thread turning into a Pit thread. I asked Czarcasm NOT to participate in it any further (which already put it into the awkward situation that he can’t respond to accusations). I therefore made a ruling for that specific thread, under those specific circumstances.
We are almost always about context and circumstances. One very specific case does not necessarily imply precedent for all cases. If you think that we are showing favoritism to an ex-mod, or anyone else, then raise it as an issue in ATMB. Please, however, DON’T make it a Pit thread – give specific instances and specific links, focused on the moderator actions (or inactions.) Do not just post insults directed at the person. ATMB is for serious complaints to be seriously considered, and NOT just a way to pile on some poster.
That help?
Well perhaps the little turd you dropped earlier was better suited to a PM if you aren’t prepared to back it up.
Turd? Really? Pot-kettle much? After all, I just quoted the latest 4 posts submitted in their entirety. Because as a poster I’m not seeing a lot constructive behavior there.
In comparison Dex has been the voice of reason. And I noted upthread that he only assigned partial responsibility anyway, which can be inferred wholly from Giraffe’s (and Miller’s and whomever’s) position at the board at the time.
Moderator Note
Keep it civil in ATMB. This kind of comment is exactly what we don’t want to see here.
Colibri
Moderator
And just as many posts toadying up to the powers that be.
Genuine question: do you see posts like this as part of a constructive conversation?
Speaking constructively, I don’t. If you have issues with another poster or with a moderator, I think you’ll stand a much better chance of getting what you want if you speak to them in a respectful fashion and make specific suggestions about what you’d like to see. Both parts are necessary in the same post.
I don’t see the characterisation of posters as whiners as particularly constructive either.
This is low.
You’re well within your rights to not explain this statement publicly.
You’re well within your rights to not apologize for this statement publicly.
Doing neither makes you look much worse than Giraffe does.
I think Giraffe is owed an explanation or a sincere apology.
The fact that this board has a short edit window and the fact that posters are not allowed to modify quoted posts are both features designed to make folks stand by what they post here. How is it that that Moderators aren’t held to the same standards?
How are these two statements different?
When Giraffe was a Mod, he sucked at it.
vs.
When Czarcasim was a Mod, he sucked at it.
Only one of these statements seems to be a warnable offense. Surely, you must see that confusion and resentment will result. It would seem wise on your part, to rethink how you’re handling this situation, if for no other reason than to make your own jobs less stressful.
Wow, Dex. Just wow. You know this statement makes you sound hypocritical. I’m normally one of your biggest supporters, even if I don’t always participate in these threads, but you’re better than this. You come up with a snipe at Giraffe for a perceived lack of adequate moderation in the Pit and in the other thread you asked czarcasm not to post so as not to have other posters pile on him, and you claim there is no favoritism towards ex-mods. If you’re not willing to elaborate on your comment in public, I feel you should not have called Giraffe out in public. You owe an apology, first to Giraffe, then to the rest of us members. I have lost a bit of respect for you, Dex. I certainly hope you’ll do the right thing and apologize and gain some of that respect back.
To be fair, Dex didn’t say that Giraffe sucked as at being a mod, only that he loved it when there were fewer rules in the Pit because that meant he had less work to do moderating it. The bit about being the reason those days came to an end I took to be a reference to his message board, though admittedly my understanding of the history of the two boards is murky.
Your memories are wrong. By your own admission, you rarely even read the forum. Go back and reread the email discussions you are referring to, you’ll see that I asked you and Tuba and Ed, repeatedly, for some specific examples of the awfulness you three were claiming was rampant in the Pit culture at the time, the three of you came up with a grand total of zero. Zero.
And note that I never claimed the Pit was glorious and wonderful (nor was it a free-for-all), just that it wasn’t the constant rain of abuse some people in this thread were portraying it as. And, unlike those I’m disagreeing with, I can back it up: the change to the Pit rules took place in February, 2009. Here is a link to page 40 of the Pit, currently at February 1st, 2009 and older. Scroll back in time and see how many threads you find full of people abusing the staff. Go ahead and cut and paste the links as you find them. Surely, if the rule change was partially precipitated by my inept moderation, the problem must have been building to a head in the months leading up to it, right? Yet I contend you won’t find much of anything, because there isn’t much of anything to find. I would very much enjoy you trying to prove me wrong.
Lastly, I just want to point something out. You are constantly claiming how easy it is to have respectful and polite discussions about the rules and moderation while remaining above personal criticism. Yet, when I offered a point of view on moderation with which you disagreed, you immediately made it personal. I’m not pointing this out to be critical of you: I think you are generally one of the more courteous people I’ve ever met. Rather, I think this is illustrative of human nature. It’s simply hard to discuss issues of how people should be managed without talking about the people themselves, particularly when philosophical disagreements occur. I hope you’ll keep this in mind the next time you find yourself annoyed with people exhibiting similar behavior in ATMB.
I don’t know that either of these would be warnable offenses. The mod ruling about not piling on Czarcasm was in a specific thread, not a general rule.
I guess that such a topic – whether a past mod sucked – does have the problem of where to put it: it’s not a specific complaint about a mod that anyone can address, since it’s long done and gone, so it’s not for ATMB. And it’s about mod actions, so not for the Pit. I think those are simply topics that don’t need to be brought up. If there is a pressing need to discuss such, let me know and we’ll figure what to do with it. (Later aside edited in: Maybe GD, since there will be no outcome (the person is no longer a mod), no agreement, and nothing but a lot of opinions. GD would at least prevent it being a Pit pile-on. However, if you feel you must start such a topic, please ask first and we’ll tell you where to put it. [No pun or insult intended.])
I believe that CK Dexter Haven is behaving very poorly but I’m not going to bring it up on this message board.