I’m posting this here only because I don’t want to run afoul of the rules on discussing policy in the Pit, I’m not super worked up about it or anything.
I’m not upset at the instruction within the context of that particular thread, but I am confused by the implications. We are allowed to call posters trolls in the Pit, yes? And we can call them threadshitting assholes? But we can’t imply that they broke board rules? Yet both trolling and threadshitting are against the rules, right? This is confusing.
Respectfully, I think you all are going completely overboard on your recent policy interpretations. “No saying anything remotely negative about other posters in ATMB” and “no saying anything even remotely on the topic of board rules and moderation in the Pit” makes it very difficult for posters to have open discussions of either moderation or call out their fellow posters for annoying behavior.
What exactly is the harm in letting posters opine that other posters’ behavior runs, or should run, afoul of board rules in the Pit? There is no criticism of moderator actions, which was what this whole move to ATMB was supposed to protect. Calling someone a rule-breaker can’t be any worse than calling someone a “lowlife goat-cum belching gutter-whore”, can it?
I think Miller does a great job as a moderator, and suspect he’s just trying to fairly enforce the rule interpretations of others with this instruction, so please read this as a request for clarification and a suggestion to reconsider some recent rule interpretations that might require this sort of confusing mod instruction than a criticism of him.
We’ll let Miller respond, when he sees this and gets to it.
The clear rule is that there can not be criticism of Moderator actions in the Pit. That seems clear on the surface, but there’s obviously lots of fuzz (as this situation.) I don’t know that we can make general rules more explicit, I don’t think we can or want to draw lines in the sand. The other clear rule is that posters who are not mods, are not supposed to act like mods – that is, rules interpretations (of whether something is a violation) are supposed to be made by mods, not by posters. Again, that seems clear on the surface, but there’s lots of fuzzy mush around it.
I think what **Miller **is trying to avoid in that thread is discussion/debate of whether board policy is right, reasonable, too soft, too hard, or the wrong flavour, etc. That discussion belongs in this forum.
How does calling someone a troll (in the Pit) fit into this? Trolling is against the rules, but it is OK to make that accusation of rule-breaking.
This is, I expect, another of those rulings that never gets clarified. Not because the mods are stonewalling or even wrong - you just can’t square the circle.
But if the discussion is initiated by / centered around the behavior of another poster, it isn’t allowed in this forum. The mods have said time and again that they don’t want criticism of other posters in ATMB and that such discussions belong in the Pit.
I’ll have to check again since its been a few hours since I read that thread but his initial instructions seemed clear to say that the pitting was fine unless it started rehashing what was said in the closed ATMB thread. Seemed pretty reasonable to me.
This is exactly the problem. We should have a place to discuss things about this board we disagree with. Currently, we are in a limbo. No discussion about anything that could even remotely be interpreted as about board rules in the Pit, and nothing in ATMB that could even remotely be interpreted as about how rules are applied to members. Warnings and thread closures abound.
If there is to be no talk at all about these things, make that a clear rule. Otherwise, give us an opportunity to discuss these things as posters without the ban hammer being waved around.
The implied First Rule of the Dope is “Don’t Be A Jerk” - The way things have been handled lately seems to go against this principle.
A while back it was suggested that discussion of mod action should be allowed in the Pit, but if there was any expectation of the mods taking action or reconsidering a position or a ruling, that a thread should be opened in ATMB. Thus if you just want to rant, the Pit; if you want to get clarification or request reconsideration, then ATMB.
I think the idea has merit. Then Mangetout and Czarcasm and Fenris amd zoid can thrash it out to their hearts’ content and the mods can read or participate, or not, as they please. And if Giraffe wants to discuss the implications of a given ruling (or Irishman, or me) there can be a thread here to discuss.
I don’t see why it would be any more work for the mods.
That is untrue. You can ask questions in ATMB about how board rules are applied to members. It was done in the closed thread. It is done often. There is nothing saying that you are guaranteed to like the answer. And it’s impossible to please everyone. Once it strays away from a question about the rules and becomes about the poster it is shut down in ATMB. In the past some such discussions have gone on for weeks and many pages as long as the discussion remained civil and didn’t break down into petty bickering.
On the other hand you can complain all you want about the poster in The Pit. As long as it doesn’t become bitching about the the rules decision.
Where there is some overlap is usually with the “Don’t be a jerk” rule. That’s because the rule is purposely board and ambiguous. Which I don’t see as a bad thing.
It may not be worse, but there are different implications.
Having the experience of being indefinitely suspended to posting in a single forum on another message board cough, I’ve had the experience of people trying to insult me about that suspension and then other people honestly curious about what it’s about.
I’ve had to settle most of those discussions in PM because if I posted about them on the board, they would lead to discussions about the moderator actions that led to it which leads to whether it was warranted or not and that could lead to more moderator actions. It becomes a sticky wicket very quickly.
Look, it’s perfectly simple. Those of you who are playing in the match this afternoon move your clothes down onto the lower peg immediately after lunch, before you write your letter home, if you’re not getting your hair cut, unless you’ve got a younger brother who is going out this weekend as the guest of another boy, in which case, collect his note before lunch, put it in your letter after you’ve had your hair cut, and make sure he moves your clothes down onto the lower peg for you. If you’re not getting your hair cut, you don’t have to move your brother’s clothes down to the lower peg. You simply collect his note before lunch, after you’ve done your scripture prep, when you’ve written your letter home, before rest, move your own clothes onto the lower peg, greet the visitors, and report to Mr. Viney that you’ve had your chit signed.
Thank you for the suggestion that the moderation staff has the option of showing up for scheduled thrashings or not, as we choose.
This is a situation that has been in place before and I remember it was quite wretched for anyone that might work here and for no good purpose other than beating the staff for being here.
The job description for being a moderator on this site should not include "You ill be kicked around and be a called everything except a child of God every day and you just have to put up with it. " The moderation staff is not here to be your whipping boy.
If you believe a moderator has erred, you’re free to say something about it – in a civil fashion – in About This Mesage Board, where questions and complaints about the board and its workings are made. Abusing the staff is not a spectator sport at the SDMB – or at least it shouldn’t be.
SPEAKING AS POSTER: These things give me a headache. One particular ruling, on particular situation, gets read as though it applied to everything everywhere.
SPEAKING AS A MODERATOR: Miller is the ultimate decision-maker on this, but I don’t see much of a problem. It’s kind of like (rough analogy) a courtroom: decisions about what the law says are made by the JUDGE, not by the attorneys, not by the jury, not by the press. Similarly (roughly), decisions about what constitutes or does not constitute rules violations are made by the moderators – not by posters screaming at each other, and not by popular vote.
The distinction is what it’s always been: you can ream out posters in the Pit, and you can discuss moderator decisions in ATMB.
Acceptable in ATMB: Poster X should have got a warning because the words “flaming asshole” were directed at another poster.
Unacceptable in ATMB: Poster X is a jackass because he called Poster Y a “flaming asshole” instead of just plain “asshole.”
Acceptable in the Pit: Poster X is a jackass because he called Poster Y a “flaming asshole” instead of just plain “asshole.” [
Unacceptable in the Pit: Poster X should have got a warning because the words “flaming asshole” were directed at another poster.
My mod note was not intended to have wider implications beyond that specific thread. The thread was spun off from an ATMB thread where issues about what the rules should be, how they should be implemented, and whether they’re implemented fairly had become contentious issues. While Mangetout was mostly good about avoiding that aspect of the ATMB thread when he called out zoid, it was obvious from the get-go that the thread could drift in that direction very easily. In order to prevent that hijack from happening, I instructed posters to be especially circumspect in that thread, about bringing up board rules. Even a relatively neutral citation of the rules, such as Fenris offered, was in the context of that thread, apt to spark a new debate about whether that rule should have been applied to Czarcasm’s post.
Most issues with the rules here are not nearly as contentious, and do not need to be moderated as carefully. Calling another poster a troll, for example, is generally not going to lead to an angry debate about what the SDMB considers trolling.
There’s a difference between criticizing decisions and being “kicked around”. I don’t think anyone wants to see mods insulted for doing their jobs.
It seems to me that we could, for example, have discussion of mod actions that include non-flattering comments about the subjects of those decisions without insulting the mods. The rules could essentially be that, as far as mods go, discussion is the same as in ATMB, even while posters are being insulted, or whatever makes people feel good.
I’m not even saying we should do this, just that there are other options.
I’m not a Pit moderator, for exactly this reason. Nor do I read the Pit. So you’ll have to wait for an answer from them. You certainly CAN say such things outside of the Pit – i.e., we don’t have clamps on what you type – but you MAY not, and you’ll certainly get Warned for it.
