This has been one of my regular topics in this type of situations. If there is a mod action that many are calling questionable, it is unfair to punish the “offender” because of his reaction to the mod action.
People take things personally. People say stupid things in the heat of the moment. If someone is modded and he thinks it was unfair, chances are that they will fire back. Then punishing the person for firing back, and specially after agreeing that the modding was questionable, is just salt on the wound.
An excellent post. I would suggest that when things turn this way, and the mods are in council, you post some form of “fumata nera” post that lets us know that there will be no responses until consensus is reached.
After all, is not like there have never been cases of stonewalling. It is not unreasonable that some people wonder what’s going on.
Well, thanks for the response, but that does not seem to be the case in this instance -
Again, Lynn has posted to this thread more than once, and this is after the mod discussion she described. This does not seem to be the case in this instance, either.
Did you read earlier how I said I found it grating when it seems to oscillate between people telling me I am not psychic, and the mods seeming to assert that they are?
This is like the “no telling the mods ‘fuck you’ unless you open another thread to do it”. As I said, I have been here eight years, and have never heard any reference to this.
You said that moderators generally are required not to post in threads when there is controversy over mod actions. Lynn has posted several times. You said that mods should not make the details of discussions public. Lynn has done exactly that.
I rather resent the implication that I am disingenous in not knowing procedures that are clearly not being followed. And I would appreciate if you could please refrain from doing so.
While you couldn’t know this because you aren’t a staff member and are not part of internal staff discussions the two of you are referring to two distinct discussions. Because they are internal, we don’t often give the details, but **Dex ** is talking about this one:
Regarding your nice reading of Dex’s post, allow me emphasize a key word that you’ve glossed over.
To the extent there is a rule, it requires both conditions to be met. That might not be the only possible interpretation of what **Dex **typed, but he was offering a quick explanation–not drafting a statute. I’m quite sure he didn’t intend to mislead you.
I can tell you from personal knowledge that this discussion is ongoing and that it had not begun when **Lynn **posted. The discussion that Lynn alluded to was clearly over before **Lynn **posted. I’m not sure why you didn’t realize that, but I’m sure you intentions were good. Now you know.
When will you hear more about this from the staff?
Why aren’t we including you personally in the discussion?
I think I have detected a bit of pride on the part of some moderators at the inconsistant and arbitrary enforcement of the rules. Actually, some gloat.
The most angered I have ever been by the behavior of a mod was for abusive behavior directed at someone else. The Doper was exposed and ridiculed for his reporting of posts he deemed offensive. The moderator who did this is particularly good at using his tongue as a weapon and he withheld nothing. I think it was a great betrayal of trust and privacy.
As for a go-between, I’d rather have someone who doesn’t enjoy frequently torching the BBQ PIT for the sheer hell of it.
You know, I think I wouldn’t mind that. I can live with purpose, and being partial is part of human nature. I think I am more bothered by random haphazard modding, or even worse, just reacting to reports.
A mod being a deliberate dick would at least have some comedic value.
Thanks for your response. FTR, I would not expect to be included in discussions amongst the staff. Also FTR, I think the suggestion of a boilerplate post that “this issue is under discussion – the mods will not be posting on the subject until it is resolved” is a good one. Of course, this sort of implies that there will be a response communicating the results of the discussion. Even if it’s only “We talked it over, and we decided we were right - this rule applies only every second Thursday in months with no R”. IYSWIM.
No, I did NOT say that. I said, when there is some sort of shit-storm (which need NOT be about mod actions, we’ve had similar situations about posters) AND discussion going on behind the scenes. Posts by moderators prior to the shit-storm, or prior to the discussions, are not counter-examples.
You may resent all you wish, that’s your privilege, but I posted here because I resent you drawing unwarranted assumptions and whining about our silence. I resent you misquoting me and twisting it to your own devious ends.
You crabbed about our silence, I explained what you already knew, and you’re still crabbing as if you didn’t understand what I said? And misquoting. Hmpf. You’ve been around for as long as you have, you’ve been in the middle of so many shit-storms, and you now pretend that you didn’t realize that mods couldn’t respond while discussions were going on?So, yes, I apologize for using the word “disingenuous” – I should have used much stronger terms, but the whole point at question is that the insults being flung in the Pit have got way out of hand.
Actually there’s two points. The very-well taken one that pit insults have gotten out of hand. Fair point and I’ll fully agree. I’ll also be looking forward to what comes out of the Mod Discussion on the issue.
But the second point which seems to be getting lost in the whole “Let’s clean up the Pit” discussion is that the reason for all this comes from a bogus warning. If Lynn hadn’t made up* the reason for that warning, the situation wouldn’t have spiraled out of control in the first place. Euth’s suspension was “fruit from a poison tree”.
How about clarification of this spiffy newly un-mothballed rule–Bricker and I and others have pointed out how this “rule” isn’t and has never been consistently enforced. I’ve done a few searches and found a few times in about 6 years where there have been warnings on misleading/inflammatory thread titles and some of those have been stuff where the thread title was unrelated to the post (Title: See the cute fuzzy kittens!/Post: CLINTON SUXXXORS!) which this clearly wasn’t.
Since this isn’t the topic of the Uber-Secret-Mod-Discussion , could we have some discussion/comments on this specific point?
Also, I’d love to propose a rule that new rules (or old ones dug out of mothballs) not be allowed to be retroactive. It really isn’t fair to expect posters to follow rules that we don’t know are in force.
*Yes. I concede that you can find an example here and there of other “inflammatory” thread titles that garnered warnings. It’s not a rule that’s enforced with anything even remotely approaching consistency. And the thread title was hardly as misleading or inflammatory as all the “All Republicans are sociopaths” or “All Democrats love and support terrorists” that did NOT garner warnings.
Look, you said “mod actions”. Now you are saying it can be about posters too. Fine. The discussion that Lynn talked about was about a poster - Euthanasiast, to be specific. And she did exactly what you said she was not to do - reveal details about who thought what at the mod discussion. So I think that rule is one not consistently applied.
Now there is apparently another discussion going on. Good idea - but the mods will not be posting until it is resolved. Except for the posts that you and Gfactor have made. So that rule does not seem to be consistently applied either.
Well, if you can’t keep your story straight, I don’t wonder that you are not well understood.
And no, I did not know about all these rules that nobody seems to be keeping.
Damn, this is irritating. You keep telling me what I know when you don’t know it yourself.
There is a rule against revealing the details of mod discussions - except when Lynn Bodoni does it. The discussions are about mod actions - except they aren’t. The mods will not post if there is controversy - except for you and Gfactor. Misleading thread titles are OK - except if they are about Planned Parenthood. You can’t say “fuck you” to a moderator - unless you open a new thread to do it.
Look, no one is saying that we should be privy to mod discussions. But, given that we won’t be, and shouldn’t be, please stop assuming we know which ones you are talking about. And especially please stop telling me that I know what the rules are when they don’t seem to be applied with any kind of consistency.
I think that the one thing I would take out of this thread is that rules have to be visible and applied consistently. People get awfully riled and confused when they’re not. So, whatever is going on in the mods’ discussion, please set a rule for yourselves that whatever conclusions you come to, that you make them clear, and you stick to them.
And since I’m in the strange position of agreeing with him here, I’m forced to admit he has a certain flair for concision and rhetoric I’d never noticed before.
Huh. Interesting. The “rule” that got Euth warned was, as far as I can tell, only spelled out once. By Dex no less right here
“a provocative quote to get a discussion or debate rolling is perfectly ok.” I’d argue Euth’s thread title fits that. It’s certainly not a clear and obvious violation like the “See the fluffy bunnies” title with a “Fuck all abortionists” thread inside cae.
Even if it wasn’t ok, it certainly wasn’t a repeated pattern over many many months.
So why was he warned? Especially since I still haven’t been able to find an example of this rule being applied since then (Aug, 2003)
i guess what I’m not getting is that **Lynn **'s initial reaction (“This…is trolling”) got the thread off the rails. If she changed the title to something more neutral, and said in passing “misleading thread title,” I’m not sure anyone would have even noticed or cared. Why not acknowledge that as the root cause of everything here, suck it up, and move on, no harm no foul? Must we find posters 100% at fault for every problem?
, could we have some discussion/comments on this specific point?