Assuming you are talking about me, **Carol **and I already discussed this in PMs, Lib. So he’s not just trying to get a ruling from me, if that’s what you mean. This is a pattern. **Carol **PMs me to complain about a ruling. I respond, and then he posts a slanted version of something that I said, in order to see if he can trick some folks into taking his side. And notice, he doesn’t want a ruling from me, he’s limited the permitted responders to “Admins/Ed?”
Here is what I told him in the PM:
Carol: "and there’s no reason for two mods to ignore obvious violations. "
Me: “Sure there is. Moderators are still members of the board and are permitted to enjoy it, just like you are. They aren’t required to moderate in other forums, and they aren’t expected to.”
Within minutes, he’d started this thread. Moreover, given the context, I’m baffled by his claim that “You guys are missing the point. I’m not criticizing the Mods, I’m wondering why the Members can’t be arsed to follow the rules in the first place?”
FWIW, if I happen to see an “obvious” rule violation in a forum I don’t moderate, I report it. I try pretty hard to give the forum moderators the first whack at the apple.
Also, I don’t see myself as a “police.” The job is a lot closer to the guy who hands out towels at the Y in prestige, authority, and risk of harm. Just like the towel guy, if I screw up really badly, you might get crabs or scabies. Most likely, you’ll just wait longer than you’d like for a towel.
That post was a joke, playing off of Carol’s incredibly loaded OP and constant henpecking of the mods. It saddens me that you now apparently think I’ve gone from Doper to evil troll in such a short span of time. I don’t know what else to say.
Thanks. You know, I haven’t had an orthodox career, and I’ve wanted more than anything to have your respect. The first time I didn’t feel it, but this time I feel it, and I can’t deny the fact that you like me, right now, you like me!
You know what, you’re right. As I indicated in my previous post, we currently have no rule in place. This was made explicit in the fallout from Seven’s banning, which we reduced to a suspension here Seven's Suspension - About This Message Board - Straight Dope Message Board and one of my favorite rules lawyers, Fenris, pehaps put it best:
But you’re right. It’s still possible to be an asshole while playing within the rules. I could have simply said, “we talked about it in PMs, and what he said in his OP sounds a lot like what I said in one of them, but it’s out of context.” I apologize to Carol Stream. I’ve reported the post to the administrators. Maybe they’ll take me out of the Pit.
My recollection (I am open to correction if I’m wrong) was that a fairly new moderator at the time had issued a warning based on someone publicizing a “private message.” There was considerable brouhaha, and the ultimate resolution was that the warning was rescinded, and there was general agreement that such action is not a rules violation.
Several people thought it was impolite, if not ill-mannered, but not a rules violation. No, G, you’re not getting out of the Pit that easily.
Giraffe, yes, I agree that it’s a sad state. I’m running in circles in real life today, I will take your PM into consideration and we can discuss this off-line. I understand that comparison to Hitler is common in the Pit, but I don’t frequent the Pit. It’s not common outside the Pit. No mod action is irreversible.
Everyone: This is ATMB, not the Pit. The focus here should be on the OP’s question about the role of moderators as moderators vs as posters. I think that’s been pretty well answered. Attacks against Carol are irrelevant to the topic and out of place in this forum.
[aside]There are some who complain about the fuzzy line between moderator vs poster. So, to avoid confusion, I’m posting as a moderator.[/aside]
As I was one of them, I came up with a rule that seems to work: unless otherwise specified, ATMB posts are done as a moderator, as there’s usually no other reason for a mod to post in it.
OK, minor clarification: there was a banning for a person being a jerk. One of the things that person did was to publish a private message; it was later decided that was not a rules violation, but the person had PLENTY of other behaviors that WERE rules violations. The reversal of the banning was a general feelilng that there should (almost) always be a suspension first, so the banning was changed to a suspension.
So, I had the details wrong in the prior post, but the general thrust was correct. The decision was that publishing a “private message” might be considered jerkish under some conditions, but was not ipso facto a rules violation.
So, to sum it up, you guys don’t actually KNOW what the rules are, but some combination of doing stuff which includes being a jerk AND (possibly) publishing PMs can get you banninated and somehow Seven accomplished that magic synthesis but Carol Stream somehow doesn’t. Yup, bidness as usual at the Durp, nothing to see here, move along. :rolleyes:
Sorry, when I read it-I honestly thought you’d gone wacko, I tried and couldn’t see any possible humor or whoosh there.:smack:
**Liberal ** “I’m coming to Carol Stream’s defense because, for one thing, he’s right;”
Huh? How can he be “right” when most of us have no idea what he’s alluding to? I can see he’s not really asking a question, but is he mad at Mods for posting or for missing a violation, or at a poster for committing a violation?
Me, too. And taking it literally is really weird, and asking Giraffe to knock it off because it’s an offensive comparison says to me, “get some sleep, man!”
But asking him to knock it off because it’s verging on personal insults vs. Carol Stream seems kind of appropriate. It was funny, but probably not ATMB-appropriate, in my totally solicited and relevant opinion.
I can’t even figure out what Carol’s complaint is. What does she think should have happened? Does she think that mods should be required to moderate in every forum or something?
Let’s put this in perspective, if such a thing is possible: there is no penalty for what Drain Bead did. None. I think I made that clear earlier. So the only variable is how long it takes for a mod to notice the link and for someone to break it. You could have sped this process up yourself, but I don’t think you did, which caused the link to remain in place for a longer amount of time. It didn’t slow down your complaints about the actions of the moderators. Let’s say this encourages the impression that you just like to complain.
Since the post was not ignored for political purposes, it stands to reason that a link to Wilson’s site would also have been overlooked.
How can he be “right” when most of us have no idea what he’s alluding to? I can see he’s not really asking a question, but is he mad at Mods for posting or for missing a violation, or at a poster for committing a violation?