I think it would be a rare 100-character title that couldn’t be edited to 80 or so characters and retain most of it’s meaning. It comes down to whether the mods like the idea, and are prepared to do the small amount of extra work it would take to do this.
I also think that most mod notes wouldn’t need to be flagged like this - a note saying “stop insulting people here, take it to the Pit”, for example, is a reminder of general board rules. It’s only in cases where there’s a specific limitation on what should be said in a particular thread that it would be needed.
Jesus, Czarcasm, why not? You’re a smart guy, figure out a way to make it work.
MOD NOTE: Post XX
That’s, what, 17 characters? I think you could figure out a way to shorten most thread titles enough to squeeze that in at the end.
Or, don’t make up random rules. Seriously, if modding polls is giving you too much trouble, why don’t we just allow polls in GD, and that way the serious subjects can have polls, too. That way you don’t have to moderate debates, you can just punt it over to GD and let those guys deal with it. It doesn’t have to be so complicated.
Doesn’t matter. In most cases, it won’t even be an issue. If it ever is, it can be worked around easily enough.
Now, can we get those unjust Warnings taken off of our boardmates’ records?
What is laughingly ridiculous is losing sight of the fact that this is a message board and we all come here to share our thoughts. It’s practically the raison d’être for this place’s existence. Having a mod restrict that to shut down opinions contrary to his own is very bad policy.
I posted one of those “reminders” prior to the warnings being given out and it was in direct response to someone who apparently didn’t read the rest of the thread and made the incorrect assumption that viewing would not be optional. I was correcting someone who was mistaken and needed to be informed of this.
Incidentally Czarcasm, why have you vanished from the thread in question? There have been several additional posts that violate your ridiculous rule and even more ridiculous enforcement. Is it too much to ask that you moderate fairly instead of vengefully and/or arbitrarily?
Would it be fair to take your non-action as a concession that you were way out of line?
I understood. My response goes to the bigger point of not seeing mod’s notes as well. But you’ve not addressed the first point. This is a message board community, we come here to share our comments and opinions. How is limiting discourse (racism, kiddie-porn, James Randi, etc excepted) helpful to this purpose? “It was similar to another thread in another forum”? So what? We’re adults here, I think we can work our way through the treacherous labyrinth of similar threads… in fact it happens all the time. No, in this case I think it’s clear the mod’s personal feelings got in the way. It was a bad call.
Read the first and third post, then tell me who was making an incorrect assumption about the poll. The poll was only a yes or no vote about avatars in general, not about the particular type of avatar that was being promoted in the ATMB thread. The constant “corrections” were unnecessary.
Czarcasm - Why are you…
A) …no longer enforcing your own rules?
B) …and not answeing the question I’ve now asked 5 times: how did my clarification run afoul of your rule?
Well there are a few opinions in this thread that could considered “childish whining” if you didn’t agree with them. I assumed you were including them all in your remark. However, if I’ve misconstrued the first sentence of that post and you weren’t including them, I withdraw my posts directed at you and offer an apology.
I agree with every word of this. This isn’t the first time Czarcasm has randomly gotten a bee in his bonnet about people “debating” in IMHO, particularly in poll threads. This thread has focused on the enforcement aspect, but I feel the far more serious issue is the poor judgment in the decision to issue moderator instructions in the first place. Avatars are clearly a topic that gets Czarcasm worked up for some reason (cite), I think he let his personal issues drive him into taking action when it was neither necessary nor desirable.
Let people discuss each other’s posts. If a fight breaks out, then tell the parties to knock it off / move the thread to the Pit. If the topic moves far afield into larger, more abstract discussions, tell the parties to take that side discussion to GD / move the thread to GD. Preemptively clamping down on the most basic interaction between posters for fear that a thread may mirror another or turn into a debate is terrible moderation.
I absolutely agree, but I’m not sure it’s more serious than selective and inconsistent enforcement. People are still making posts similar to the ones 4 of us were warned for yesterday, yet have befallen no similar actions. Which is fine if it’s an admission of improper moderation, but needs to result in rescinded warnings.
It’s rather telling Czarcasm still hasn’t responded to repeated requests for an explanation.
I would submit that Rachellelogram’s modus operandi is a natural and reasonable way to proceed for a lot of people. It therefore does not seem reasonable to me to expect people to read the whole thread before posting. Therefore Czarcasm’s chosen method of advertising his ruling seems guaranteed to avoid the attention of a significant fraction of the people who voted in the poll. I don’t think this is unique to this poll, either.
Personally, I would ask Czarcasm to reconsider the definition of “debating.” If a person votes in a poll, makes a single post explaining their vote and never replies to any comment, they are not “debating” and should not be sanctioned if debating is against the rules (or, as in this case, a ruling.) People who attempt to engage the voter in a discussion should be fair game, as should the voter if they return and reply or engage others in discussion.
The other thing that comes out of this is that it is obvious that voters are guaranteed to read only one post, and that is the opening post.
Moderators can edit other poster’s posts.
Taking those two things together suggests a course of action far superior to editing the title of the thread. The mod instruction should be edited into the opening post, preferably in a distinctive font, colour, size or combination of attributes, and signed by the Mod in question. In that way, everyone can be guaranteed to read the instruction.
That assumes, of course, that discussing ideas is out of place in a forum designed for the expression of opinions.
Reading the thread all the way through first is a bitch, ain’t it.
Anyway, it’s dumb to say that you can’t argue in a thread in IMHO. If you think it’s getting too angry, then kick it over to the pit. If that ends the poll, so what? Qin’s had how many polls shut down because mods didn’t like some aspect of them. This all goes back to my contention that mods should move threads and get the hell out of the way.
