Well, exactly. The reason you had to hand out so many warnings was because no one knew they were breaking your recently-made-up rule. Seems like the best way to handle it would be to either 1) rescind the rule, or 2) find a better way to let everyone know what the rule is. When you make stuff up, the onus is really on you at that point.
What really bothers me is that Czar had so many other options–move the thread, merge the threads, lock the thread, edit the thread title… but instead, he went for the most extreme, most hurtful option available to him.
That’s what I think, too. I mean, even if he had opted to just give a reminder to each person who violated his rule, he wouldn’t have spent any more time posting than he already was, handing out warnings. He didn’t HAVE to give warnings in this situation. I don’t know if the subject just irritates him or what the problem is, but not well handled in my opinion.
On some subjects, I really don’t mind if some minor debating goes on during a poll. What I tend to watch out for are topics that are better suited for Great Debates, because they are almost guaranteed to stray from “this is how and why I voted this way” to “Why the hell did you vote that way, you idiot? Don’t you realize blah blah blah…?” , and after several “Knock it off!” warnings I usually have to shut the poll down…and I always hate doing that. The “Avatar” poll was another kind that can be trouble, because there was already a very volatile thread on the same subject in ATMB and I didn’t want that vitriol to spill over into what was supposed to be a simple poll-“Should we allow Avatars?”. Neither in the title, nor in the OP, was there any clarifications or restrictions, and yet repeatedly those who supported optional avatars posted that the poll was for optional avatars, and some of them said it repeatedly(I stopped counting at 13 such “reminders”). Posters came over not just to post how they voted, but to argue the exact same points they were simultaneously arguing in the ATMB thread on the same subject. Since they apparently already had an existing avenue to make their points, I attempted to steer the topic back towards the poll.
I think everybody understands and agrees with what you were trying to do. But man, the way you did it…
Actually, a cop can do that.
If road conditions make the posted limit unsafe, you can get a ticket.
True, and rightfully so! I remember last week, I was posting to slippery poll when I lost control and crashed into a family of six (plus their yappie little rat-dog.) The dog was fine.
So one of the options suggested is that Mod Notes be added to the title itself? That sounds like we would run into title length restrictions, doesn’t it?
The problem is you are way too anal about debates in IMHO.
The forum description reads:
*
“What’s your favorite …?” For frank exchanges of views on less-than-cosmic topics. This is also the place for polling.*
A “frank exchange of views” is, essentially, a debate…but the forum is meant for less “weighty” subjects. Like whether we should have avatars instead of whether morality is absolute or relative.
You need to either lighten the hell up, or change the forum description.
In this particular instance, you should not have issued the instruction you did. It was heavy handed and entirely unnecessary. You followed that poor decision with a rash of warnings enforcing the poor instruction, apparently on the theory that “right or wrong, thou shalt obey me”. That’s just flat out poor moderation all the way around.
I don’t think anyone’s suggesting that, except for certain cases. Most Mod Notes are placed because people are putting a toe over a well-known line. Warnings come when people continue doing so. If that line moves, then it should be noted in the title.
Now I think I’m confused.
A mod note, which goes to the general populace, wouldn’t be added to the title, but a Moderator Warning, which goes out to individuals, would?
No. Essentially, the request is for something like "Mod Instruction in Post # ___ to be added to the title in instances where the range of allowed responses has been restricted for some reason–ie “Stop debating” or “Stop hijacking”. This would cue people to look for whatever mod instruction has been issued prior to posting. This is particularly reasonable where the mod instruction is given early in a multi-page thread.
I’m afraid the original title of the thread would have to be very short for this to work, because that addition is between 31 and 33 characters long.
edited to add: does anyone know what the current thread title length limit is?
Exactly.
Or [MOD: NO DEBATE].
Mods edit titles all the time to clarify. This is no different.
No, it’s nothing like that for many reasons. Stopping at stop signs are hard and fast rules that make sense that everyone understands. You invented a new rule (OPs get to decide what can and can’t be posted in their thread) to further your own agenda regarding avatars. It would be more like getting a ticket for blowing through a purple trapezoidal sign that I’d never seen before (and didn’t know meant stop) because I didn’t track down the one rogue cop who invented it and hung it up.
I agree that we should follow modding instruction even if we don’t agree with them but in this case the comment left by the OP was standard board posting stuff.
Is that supposed to be funny?
I think there’s a lot of childish whining going on here. In all forums, there is an expectation that posters will read and heed mod notes. I don’t think there should be any different expectation for IMHO.
I’m not Czarcasm, but I think this is laughably ridiculous.
I made a test thread, and unless I miscounted, the limit appears to be about 100 characters. Some form of note to the title could be added to most threads, I think. For very long titles, the mod could add the note, preferably in bold, prior to the start of text in the OP, where it would be visible on mouseover.
I suggested that, yes. I understand the restriction on length, although I’d not thought of that when I wrote it. [Mod Note In OP] is 16 characters, and could probably be added to most titles without causing too many problems, although I’m sure some people would complain if you edited their title to fit that in.
The point, I think, is to make it as easy as possible for most people to know what’s expected of them, and to do it.
Oakminster tested and found out that there is a 100 character limit to thread titles. For the purposes of adding Mod Notes to titles, is this going to work with most thread titles?
Childish? Really?