So let’s run down the score.
I think it is plain that at minimum the reasons for the suspension are not clear to many of us - factor in a known strong pro-Planned Parenthood bias held by Lynn and the situation looks even muddier.
We are supposed to not act like jerks here - is it too much to ask that moderators and administrators take the lead on that one?
Hey, I’d also like more info on the brand new “…the information in your title is inaccurate. This sort of inflammatory posting is trolling. DON’T do it again” rule. I see at least one on the first page of the BBQ Pit and a few more on other pages where “…the information in [ the ] title is inaccurate.” Should we be reporting these egregious violations of this exciting new policy since it’s a warning-worthy offense?
I agree that this was an incorrect call on the part of Lynn and Ed, obviously influenced by her views on PP, but…
I think it is totally inappropriate for anyone to call her a c***.
Being Euthanasiast’s girlfriend, I am not going to participate in THIS thread about his suspension. Any support I give to him will only appear to be biased, rightfully so. However, after watching the video, I do have something to say about that and I invite anyone wishing to further discuss that issue to this thread to derail the hijacking of the protest/support of Euthanasiast’s suspension.
Yes, please. I would like to see it spelled out how you shouldn’t be an asshole to authority in the designated be-an-asshole-to-authority place.
As a matter of fact, I just did. 
Thank you, thank you thankyou. The parallel discussions help neither one.
This is comedy platinum.
…thirded on both counts. I never complain about the moderating staff here: in fact compared to the rest of the internet the staff here are absolutely fantastic. I am a supporter of organisations like Planned Parenthood, etc, but they screwed the pooch here.
I am a left-wing-anti-war-decidedly-prochoice-american-defined-liberal: but the initial warning from Lynn was wrong: and the escalation in that thread was provoked. The thread was not a troll, the title in context of the video was not inaccurate, and the tone of the warning out of proportion to the alleged offense.
Very poor show from the Admin team: and this is from a definate admirer of the moderators here in general.
Was this really necessary?
Q.E.D.'s choice of language in his insult to **Lynn **is completely unnecessary IMO. If he feels Lynn is wrong 
he should present his case lucidly. He must be aware that anyone receiving a gratuitous insult like that is likely either to get extremely angry and lash out in kind, or to just ignore it, thinking that someone who stoops to that level isn’t worth responding to. Either way, any hope of changing the insultee’s mind or actions would seem to be extremely unlikely.
There is also the possibility of the rather childish approach of ‘let’s see how far I can wind you up before you ban me.’ It gets the adrenaline going.
have you got www.google.com tattoo’d on yours?
It’s not very new. December was (finally) banned for something extremely similar.
ah, the good old days…
I haven’t read all of the thread, however, I’ll respond to some points.
I still think that the original thread title was trolling. The title was misleading at best and completely false at worst, and it was phrased in such a way to generate maximum outrage.
No matter what I say or do, there are many people who have made up their minds, even before this current turn of events, that I am Evil Incarnate. OK, I have never claimed to be Miss Goodness and Light. However, some people would not be happy unless they never saw me on these boards again. Over the years I’ve had various threats against me. I truly do not feel that defending myself will change very many people’s minds. I am Evil, no matter what I’ve done or haven’t done, and that’s all there is to it in their minds. My experience has always been thus.
People complaining about my lack of moderation on other issues might not be aware that I am basically retired from moderation these days. I don’t have an assigned forum, and I basically do back up. If another mod needs a break, then I’ll help watch over the forum. These days, I generally just watch for stuff like spammers. Sometimes I’ll fix coding if I come across some really bad coding errors. I usually only open threads that I’m interested in. However, I will open threads that I think might become trainwrecks, too.
Just how much abuse do you folks think that mods should be willing to take? Really? And how much abuse would YOU be willing to take for doing your best at a job that is unpaid, and generally unappreciated? Some posters do thank us now and then, but generally, we get abuse. I expect to get some abuse, no matter what. Some people will NEVER be happy with anything. However, I do think that there is a limit to the amount of abuse I should have to take when I’m doing my job.
[Straight Dope Message Board Registration Agreement
We have one guiding principle: Don’t be a jerk.](SDMB registration agreement as of 12/29/2008 - About This Message Board - Straight Dope Message Board) Yes, that applies to ALL forums of the SDMB, even in the Pit. While we allow stronger language here, it has NEVER been meant to be a free-for-all area. The “Don’t be a jerk” rule was the first rule we ever had, and it applies to everything.
Yes, I am pro-choice, but I’ve never been directly involved with Planned Parenthood.
On occasion, when there’s a flaming trainwreck, Ed will tell the staff not to say anything, even to clear stuff up, as he doesn’t want a dozen of us jumping in with various interpretations. If he feels that something needs to be addressed, he’ll address it. However, I think that his experience is the same as mine, in point 2.
I don’t monitor EVERY thread. If I missed something in a specific active thread, you can either report it, or if you want ME to look at it, email me a link. Be advised, though, that I’m likely to simply pass the link on to whoever is currently on duty of the relevant forum.
I think you need to climb down off that massive cross. If things are so awful for you then you should step down. There’s no reason to stay on this job if it’s such a terrible burden.
That being said, I agree that you should not be abused. I would not let my staff take the kind of nasty comments you are subject to. But it’s really up to you and Ed to lay down the law and make sure people are clear about the rules. The more things are vague and unclear, the more people will get away with abusing you.
Finally, it’s okay to admit that you were wrong. I think it’s one of the most frustrating things about this place – mods have a hard time admitting when they are wrong and apologising for their (mis-)behaviour. For some reason they see it as a weakness, when in fact it would go a long way to helping things.
And how about my point that when you hold strong personal views on a subject you should of course participate as a poster but ask another mod, who holds no such views, to take over the modding of that thread? I think what got you into this mess is a clear conflict of interests between your duties as a Mod and your personal opinions (which I share).
Lynn: I won’t paste your entire post. To respond:
One of the problems with (any) forum’s rules is when they can be open to interpretation. Trolling is one of those rules. In this instance, you strongly feel that he was trolling; I strongly feel he wasn’t. OK, you call the shots, but I do feel that when it’s up to the poster to decide how his title might be interpretated, some slack should be allowed.
A clear cut transgression: that’s fair enough. Like, interestingly, as I posted upstream, his come back to you, when the rules clearly state the one should ‘submit’.(Personally, I have major issues with being told to submit: it makes me feel like a powerless, naughty schoolboy - but that’s for another rant.) In a reasonable society, one should always be able to respond - reasonably.
So, on balance - your interpretation and the clear transgression - I can see why you suspended him. I don’t agree, but I can see the reasoning.
Another thing I have issues with is full on vitriol. I have been reading these boards for four years, and to be honest, I haven’t seen examples of where you deserve so much hate. But others obviously have. Even if you were deserving, attacks like those posted here are beyond the pale in any civilized society. The purpose of the SD is the exchange of ideas and information, not breathless displays of anger. The use of foul language and unreasoned insults is more indicative of the shallowness of the insulter, and should have no place here. I disagree fairly strongly with the way two of the people in control here conduct themselves, but if I thought it would do any good, and if I wasn’t frightened of knee jerk and unreasonable come-backs, I would post my objections reasonably. I just can’t see how someone would get off on a short, sharp insult.
And yes, after events in September and subsequently, I do feel a certain sense of trepidation about how what I might post would be taken. I think carefully about how any criticism of the Dope might be taken. Maybe I’m paranoid, but I do enjoy my time on the Dope, and I’m frightened of putting that at risk. An sad state of affairs, but there you are.
I don’t think I was wrong. And, in fact, I did not suspend Euthanasiast for the thread title. I warned him about making misleading, inflammatory thread titles. He responded by telling me to go fuck myself. He did not (as far as I remember) respond to the comments I made as a poster. When I read his response, I sent it round the mod email loop, and gathered opinions about his response, and whether he should be further warned, suspended, or banned. A couple of folks thought he should be banned. Some thought he should not be suspended. However, Ed thought that he should be suspended, and Ed’s the boss. My personal opinions had nothing to do with my moderator actions, except that the only reason I opened the thread in the first place is because I am interested in the subject.
So, no, I did not act the way I did because of my personal opinions, and if I feel that there is the slightest conflict between my opinions and my moderating judgment, then I will ask the rest of the staff what they think. AS I SAID, I am mostly not actively moderating these days, and if I see something questionable, I am far, far more likely to just notify another mod. The reason I got involved in the thread in question was because I was aghast at the title (assuming it was true). Once I had opened it up, I found out that the title was misleading and inflammatory, which violates the “don’t be a jerk” rule, and is possibly trolling. I issued a warning. Euthanasiast decided to abuse me for my moderating decision. When he was chided (not warned) by another staff member, he started abusing THAT mod, too. Obviously, he wasn’t going to pay any attention to warnings. So now we’ll see if being suspended changes his attitude towards warnings.
Even if I didn’t think he intended to troll, his title was misleading and inflammatory, and he knew this. I warned him for it, mostly to get it on record, as this is our policy. We’ve had problems in the past of people pulling stunts like this, they get warned or cautioned for it, but nobody documents it, and so we can’t build up a case. I wasn’t gunning for him, in particular, but it’s something that we’re trying to tighten up on.
If you have questions, but are afraid to put them on the board, you can drop an email/PM to a mod, and generally we’ll try to clear things up. Be aware that mods do have offline lives. Some of us will go offline for weeks at a time, or we might be having a Family Crisis, or something, so it’s best to contact several mods at once.
Some people just hate the moderating staff in general. There is absolutely nothing that we could say or do, short of leaving the SDMB completely unmoderated, that would make them happy. I am at a loss as to why they don’t just go to another message board, or start their own. No one message board is right for every single person. I’ve left several message boards because I didn’t like the group, didn’t like the moderation, or simply felt that my time was better spent elsewhere. However, apparently there are some people who have made it their life’s work to disrupt, complain, and generally piss about the SDMB. And I thought that I had no life!
It’s late, or very early, and I’m ready to get to bed.
This is the crux of it, I think. I can’t be bothered to go back to check, but I think he admitted that it was misleading and inflammatory only in the RO sense - which, I believe, is grudgingly allowed.
Makes sense.
If you are referring to me saying I’m wary of posting some things, I would prefer to share my thoughts with, and get feedback from the community as a whole. I might email/PM but my concerns lie not so much about a specific rule, but, as I said, a possible unpredictable knee jerk reaction, for which there have been precedents.
I can’t understand those who hate all moderators/moderation. Anarchy is not much fun. But moderation requires skills, and moderators range from brilliant to incompetent, as in other occupations. Bad mods must expect to be remonstrated with (NOT insulted), and to lose their positions if proved to be totally incapable. Some people care strongly about their on-line community, and will react strongly. Personally, I’d hate to be in a customer care position. Customers can be shit.
Sleep well.
I go into Bodoni Dry Cleaning (Ed Z., prop) and I ask about a shrunken shirt.
“Hey, if you don’t like the way we clean, piss off.”
“That seems a little uncalled-for, Lynn.”
“You questioning my policies? I’ll ban you in a New York minute, ya know.”
“No, I’m specifically NOT questioning your policies, Lynn. I’m merely pointing out that this was an extra-large shirt when I brought it in and now it won’t fit on a doll.”
“I don’t like your tone of voice.”
“That’s as may be, but how about the shirt?”
“I have a tough life, long hours, lots of headaches, problem customers full of complaints. Why do you hate dry cleaners?”
“I love dry cleaners, my whole family is mostly dry cleaners and this is the bestest dry cleaners ever. But sometime even you make a mistake, and I’d like to know what you could do for me when you shrink a shirt beyond the point of wearability.”
“Our policy is Don’t Be a Jerk.”
“What does that even mean?”
“It means when we fuck up, we put the blame on you 100%, that’s what. You can take your business elsewhere.”
“But I like it here. I’m just trying to suggest a change in policy that makes everyone happier.”
“Everyone but me and Ed. We’re plenty happy, except we’re looking to make our policy even stricter in the future.”
“How could it possibly be stricter than Don’t Be A Jerk? If you don’t like someone, or his tone of voice, or his grammar, you call him a jerk, and then he’s violated the prime directive ex post facto–what could be more arbitrary than that?”
“We’re thinking of shortening it to Don’t Be–that way, no one will be able to defend himself by claiming not to be a Jerk, or not doing anything ever deemed Jerkish before.”
“All’s I’m saying is, Instead of going off on a customer, especially when it’s a hot-button issue that you’re emotionally involved in, could you please consult with another dry cleaner to take over, so you don’t ruin any more threads?”
“That sounds like criticism to me!”
“Well, it is, I suppose, but it’s meant as helpful, constructive criticism. Your dry cleaning is pretty great, usually, but your customer relations could use a little improvement.”
“That’s it! You’re Being! You’re banned from the store!!”
Great. Is this the new standard? Would you encourage people to report EVERY thread where the title was misleading and designed to generate maximum thread views? And can we expect to see warnings for first offenses EVERY time there’s a misleading thread title? If not, why not?
Fine, so why the HELL didn’t you post that this is a newly redone rule rather than expecting people to somehow magically know that this rule was now in force again? It hasn’t been applied with any regularity as far as I can tell in years, and certainly not for something as minor as the title of the thread in question.
There’s currently a Pit thread saying (paraphrased) “Bush passes around talking points memo.”
There’s nothing in the story linked that even implies that Bush touched the memo. His administration, sure. But that’s not what the title says. Up until this debacle, I’d have assumed that the “Bush/memo” thread title was fine. Now? With this newly reinvented rule, I’d like to know why the OP of the thread wasn’t insta-warned.
Posting on a message-board shouldn’t be like playing Calvinball: “Hey, 6 years, 2 months ago, Tuba decided she was going to ‘raise the tone of the Board’ and banned using scatological words in the titles of threads*. It was enforced twice and then promptly forgotten. But now, we’re gonna dig this ‘rule’ out of mothballs and use it to insta-warn someone. But wait! It’s Thursday! So the rule isn’t in effect.” :rolleyes: Don’t expect us to be able to follow rules you haven’t made up yet.
*That’s not exactly what happened but I don’t remember the details, and close enough for this illustration)