Mods have hats; admins have halos.
I don’t know for a fact, but I was gone for a few months and when I came back half the people I remembered (both for better and worse) were missing.
Plus we keep getting links to some sites with stats that show a decline in members, posts, and all that. Never cared much about them so I don’t have a link, but I am sure someone might provide them. (boardreader?)
bolding original
Ok.
But the Pit is the designated place for discussing Mods and Mod Actions. And the Pit is also the designated place for abusing the snot out of each other.
Instead of declaring rules on an ad hoc, per-thread basis, wouldn’t it be simpler to designate a non-Pit forum (ATMB, probably) for all Mod & Moderator Action discussions?
It would effectively be declaring the mods off-limits for pittings, which is not ideal, but probably better than allowing mods to be pitted up to some vague and probably moving degree. Better, I mean, in the sense of a) being easier to apply and b) being easier to explain and c) being less likely to turn into a hydra of varyingly confused and pissed off posters.
Making AMTB the designated Mod discussion forum would ensure that all players understand up-front that civility is mandatory when addressing those topics. It would also let the Pit be the Pit with a consistant set of rules for all players and topics.
Bear_Nenno and Sapo, this attitude isn’t welcome here. I need to keep the users in general happy. I don’t need to keep you personally happy. If you think your non-participation will lead to a mass exodus, I invite you to take a six-month posting sabbatical and see if the board collapses. If you know of some message board, or for that matter a business of any kind, where the proprietors are charmed by this sort of absurd posturing, you should spend all your time there and not here. This is not the place for you.
Fiendishly clever. That really does seem a good solution. But no doubt someone will find a flaw with it?
:dubious:
No, I am not saying you need to keep me personally happy. I would have though that was sufficiently clear.
And no, I don’t think my non-participation will lead to a mass exodus. I don’t know where you got that from. I already took not a six-month sabbatical but more like 9 months and here you are.
I am surprised (and happy) that you call my response “absurd posturing” because I was just mimicking yours. At least on that we agree. A “my way or the highway” is not the way adults resolve their differences.
In case it wasn’t clear, I was just bringing to your attention that this is a business that relies on a happy customer base. As it is now, even you most solid supporters are telling you that this solution is deeply flawed, just as they told you the Lynn-Euth thing was poorly handled. I am sorry you are willing to dismiss not only your habitual detractors but now also your habitual supporters.
I am sure that even this refusal to understand what your most loyal customer base is telling you will not result in an immediate mass exodus, but I assure you it is not helping your cause of bringing the sdmb to profitability.
I wish you the best of lucks, and will not bother you further.
Best. Analogy. In. Thread.
It does seem to me that the vast majority of posters here want the pit to be a free-for-all no holds barred mud fest regulated only by temporary or permanent locking of the offending threads if anything at all.
Having a switch for *pit rules *or non pit rules means everyone will now has to carefully search every thread they post in to see if that switch has been thrown. Perhaps if that switch is thrown the title of the thread should be edited to reflect the *non pit rule * now apply.
Our goal is not to prevent criticism of the staff. We enjoy the rough and tumble of the Pit, and don’t mind being pitted. The Pit was intended to let people blow off steam, and for the most part it works well for that purpose. However, we have a very small number of posters who seem to think the Pit has no boundaries whatsoever, and that they can say any crazy thing that pops into their heads without consequences. This is not now and has never been the case. Even in the Pit, when a mod makes some official statement, you need to listen up. It’s almost always obvious when a mod is modding. He or she will make some statement like “mod hat on” or “mod note” or “warning” or something of the kind. This is not new. We’ve been doing it for years. When you see such a statement, you need to pay attention and, if the admonition is aimed at you, modify your behavior accordingly. This doesn’t seem like a complicated or unreasonable procedure to me. We have lots of people posting in the Pit and most of them get it just fine. A few people evidently can’t make elementary distinctions or have problems with authority or who knows what, and they’re responsible for the histrionics that inevitably arise whenever we try to tone things down.
I’m sorry to be tedious about this, but I’ll keep repeating it till everyone’s eyes glaze over: We have rules. We don’t think they’re all that complicated. We expect people to abide by them. If you don’t like the rules or think we apply them capriciously or have other abiding issues with how the board is run, this is not the place for you and you should go somewhere else.
I don’t think the vast majority of posters want this, and in any case we’re not going to do it that way. Please understand this. If you want a message board that is set up on this basis, you are welcome to set up your own.
I think the point is, that what you’ve described above *isn’t *complicated and we *do *get it. So why change things?
If someone has a mod admonish him and he replies with “fuck you,” ban him. Isn’t that the SOP anyway?
Then WHY do you want to add a new rule? The current rules cover everything you’re trying to accomplish – some posters don’t like it. This necessitates a new rule how?
I hope this doesn’t mean you’re leaving again. Who will tell me wonderful stories of free ranging food available in your area? By that I mean dogs of course.
Some people need everything spelled out for them, which is why TPTB get requests to specify what “don’t be a jerk” means.
When **Euthanasist **was warned, he did modify his behavior. He was told not to post misleading titles. He neither posted such titles, or said he was going to post such titles. In fact, IIRC, he sort of apologized, or at least explained why the title was as it was. What he apparently ran afoul of was a rule that was so poorly understood that you and the staff had to spend a bit of time sorting it out, and necessitated this very thread.
I think you mean this thread. 
You know, you may be right, but **Ed **opened the door, so I squeezed on in. Plus, I wasn’t sure if my post would have made sense without the quote to respond to.
Ed - Morgenstern said
As I understand this, he’s expressing his opinion as to how the majority of posters feel.
You disagreed and you responded with
You seem very keen to suggest in this case and several others that people whose opinions you don’t agree with should take a walk.
Can you not see how this attitude might upset people? All I think he was trying to do was to put a point of view to you. You disagree. Fine. Telling people to go away if they have a contrary view to you seems a wee bit aggressive, and has caused strong feelings on the part of the proletariat.
I know you’re the boss and you can do and say what you want. But moderation is all, is all I’m saying.
I think this is more telling than you know. Your position, as I understand it, is that even if the vast majority of Dopers disagree, or even if all 20,000 Dopers somehow miraculously expressed a unanimous opinion contrary to your own (“in any case”), you would prefer to see the SD go down in flames than to amend your policy, which largely puffs up your ego, for sure, and the egos of your staff, and no doubt pleases some portion of current Dopers, at the expense of those Dopers who disagree with this policy decision. If the numbers were to shake out as I’m speculating here (and I have no idea how many Dopers do or do not agree with you) and threaten the well-being of this site, you would still rather see it die than tweak this policy? That’s how I interpret this statement, and other similar statements.
I may be using hyperbole here for dramatic effect, but this does seem --how shall I say–unbusinesslike, which is the basis of my concern here. It’s as if GM’s customers were to express an overwhelming preference for non-gas guzzling behemoths, and GM management were somehow for decades to commit the serious error of producing such monsters because they had a misplaced confidence that they knew better than their customers did what the customers really wanted to buy.
If I’m objecting to the specific words you chose, I use quote tags. If I’m objecting to the general attitude those words seem to represent, then sometimes the simplest way to communicate it is with a hypothetical quote that illustrates that attitude. I didn’t put it in quote tags, so there shouldn’t be any confusion about whether you actually said it. And if you don’t think that’s an accurate summation of what you’re trying to say, then by all means feel free to clarify your point. But really, I’m not trying to stick words in your mouth, I’m just using a rhetorical device that I feel accurately communicates what I’m taking from your words.
Your attitude seemed to be:
“The board administration ought to be grateful to us for posting and thus giving them a job, and ought to set whatever rules the board users want in order to keep us happy.”
I’m basing that on specific quotes like this one:
which was a response to Ed basically saying that the administration has the right to set what rules they choose and the posters have to follow them if they want to participate.
If that’s an accurate summary of your attitude, then I find it rather obnoxious. For several reasons:
(1) The status of Ed’s job is none of your business. How about you let him worry about where his paycheck is coming from.
(2) You act like the SDMB staff owes you something. They don’t. You aren’t using the board as a favor to them, you’re using it because you enjoy it, same as all of us. If you pay for a service, you’re owed the service you paid for, not the gratitude of the people providing it. The board is available for free, so you’re owed exactly nothing.
(3) You act like there’s something inappropriate about a message board administrator expecting to set the rules for his own message board. There isn’t. That’s the way the world works.
If I’m not summarizing your position accurately, please explain to me where I’ve got it wrong.