So, tell me: what do you think of these four similar posts and why weren’t you all up in their faces about it?
Have you ever been pulled over for speeding and complained to the traffic cop about all the other speeder’s that he’s not catching?
Same idea.
Wait a minute, now that leander is here, does that mean the whole thread is about him?
…again?
I’ve read this whole thread. This particular statement leaps out at me.
If one stands before a judge and is judged and finds that judgement to be disappointing, one can appeal. Or not. One does not stand there with fists on hips and demand an accounting of the judge’s personal take on the subject at hand.
It does seem that Lynn has had some life experiences that might make her cast a very sharp eye at a thread like the one in question. However, ALL of the Admin and Mods are people with life experiences and I for one find it out of line to ask what any of their life experiences are.
None of the rest of us have to answer such questions.
OTOH, if an Admin or Mod were to find themselves in a situation where their personal views might taint the performance of their job, why there’s plenty of Admin and Mods around. I’m not suggesting that this is fair, but it might earn some respect: Simply state in the thread that you’re turfing it to a neutral party because you don’t wish to be performing Admin or Mod duties in a thread where you might have some bias.
Doesn’t make one look weak. Makes one look strong. And forthright.
Just a thought.
And, IMHO, there was no damned way it was appropriate to go calling Lynn a c***. Grow up.
Cartooniverse
That’s funny. I thought it was about QED. Again.
Crap, these threads are never about me.
looks up euphonious
looks up polemic
Well…in a way, they half are.
I like having lynn back. It is like swimming with sharks, you never know when one is going to take a chunk out of your ass but you know it is bound to happen sooner or later. Giraffe’s straight forward reasonable moderation can get boring. Back in the day when lynn was the HMFIC the Pit was exciting. Everyone trying to slip jokes into the pit, people getting banned left and right, it was kind of like life, there you are one minute minding your own business and WHAM! lynn is like Board Spice and every post could be your last. It’s…exhilirating…
Well, in all fairness, Idle Thoughts did ask him to start using new names to vary the Google Boy shtick,
This sorta happens from time to time. I’m sure you’ll be cheered to know that I saw a post of yours, a Pit post no less, only the other day and thought it right on the money. (It was the one in the FriarTed pitting where you protested against designating bad people as “non-human vermin”.) Be very, very comforted. 
A Judge may be expected to recuse themselves. 
I disagree. There are many bars where you can use whatever language you like to discuss subjects or insult other patrons. But if the manager asks you to stop doing something and your immediate reaction is to tell him to fuck off, he can throw you out without there being an explicit rule posted beforehand. It’s completely within social norms.
It’s completely within a bar owner’s remit to throw someone out simply because they don’t like the look of a person. It doesn’t mean it is going to be amenable to good business practice, or public relations, without very good cause.
Did I say that anything conceivable that a bar owner might do would be well within social norms? I said that this specific act would be.
I think in this case, it’s “not”. There is no process to appeal a moderator decision, and they have stated repeatedly that it’s their way, or the highway.
Lynn volunteered the information that she was once an abortion clinic escort; no one demanded it of her. And it is expressly the policy that Dopers who post personal information on the boards are responsible for the consequences.
But we have here a moderator decision that seems sharply out of line with what goes on in a hundred other threads. And you yourself recognize that Lynn’s “life experiences” could well have affected how she perceived the thread in question. So, having recognized that the decision is (to say the least) incongruous with general board policy, it does not seem out of line to speculate on what went into that decision, and whether or not it was appropriate.
Certainly I agree with you. Admitting when you are wrong and someone makes a clear case against what you have said or done is a sign of strength.
Which is what makes the stonewalling that often occurs when a mod makes a questionable decision so irritating. Everybody else on the boards is held to the standard of admitting when they are wrong. Bricker et al. have made what seem to be very cogent and salient points, and those points are not coming from people generally perceived as whiners. What is the response?
Silence.
Imagine if I had posted something like what Lynn said about how tough it is to be a mod. I would be swamped under with a chorus of “get down off the cross!” Her response seems to be to lump together those who are critical of this decision with those who hate her generally, and to wish that they would all just go away.
Certainly being a mod is a difficult and often thankless job. But these boards are supposed to be run on policy, and not on whim. If it is OK for a thread title to make a hyperbolic and exaggerated point for effect, then it should be OK for a thread to make such a point even if it makes it against a sacred cow like Planned Parenthood.
Look, I realize that some Dopers really hate the mods and don’t want any moderation at all and so forth. What I would ask is that the mods accept the admittedly very difficult task of sifting out the legitimate criticisms and taking them seriously, even while you continue to dismiss the mere carping.
I grant you I complain more than many about the moderation hereabouts. That’s fine. Bricker, on the other hand, does not. Can I ask that his objections be taken seriously and addressed?
Maybe I am asking too much. I get the feeling none of the mods are actually reading this after what Q.E.D. posted.
Regards,
Shodan
May be not complete silence. Ed Zotti has posted that he and the mods are in discussion about Pit behaviour and rules; thought he has not mentioned the Lynn issue specifically. He says they will get back to us in a few days.
A week long ban was appropriate.
When you get a warning from a cop, a judge, a mod, a bartender, a bouncer, or the host of the party-- that’s always signal to respond with reason, not abuse. If you want to escalate the issue don’t be surprised if you’re forcibly moved.
Maybe responding to a warning with abuse isn’t always met with a ban, but it’s jerkish enough that a ban is always justified. Sometimes a traffic cop lets you off with a just a warning. That doesn’t mean the next one can’t give you a ticket.
I’m not buying the argument that the rule isn’t explicit. If you don’t understand it, you should.
And I never said that being summarily suspended was a new thing. What I said was that his particular offense would not have resulted in a suspension. By definition, a summary suspension does not need a good reason, or any particulars at all.
According to Lynn’s post, the decision to suspend Euthanasiast was made by Ed Zotti, not her. It would seem she did recuse herself and only stepped back in to implement someone else’s decision.
The original warning, and the interpretation of the thread as trolling, could have been a result of bias. Still it’s hard to say because none of us are psychics. The thread title made me roll my eyes and I was pretty sure it was inaccurate. A quick glance through the thread showed me it was a “sting” operation and thus even further removed from everyday realities as to make it of dubious value in ascertaining the truth. After that I moved on because it’s not my job to enforce accurate thread titles or descriptions. If it had been I might have made a comment about how misleading the title was and my views on abortion are pretty much the opposite of Lynn Bodoni’s.
Enjoy,
Steven
Agreed, but using a bar manager as a standard bearer, when their position hands them a strange entitlement that would be contrary to good business practice, doesn’t seem like a good analogy. Maybe I’m just a little fed up of all these comparisons of the Dope to some kind of elite drinking club.