One of those parties in quuestion, TubaDiva, is also an administrator and is, in fact, higher up the chain of command than Lynn is.
I’m sure you’re correct that no explanation will please everyone. That’s just human nature, and applies to situations well beyond our sheltered little community. But do you honestly think that’s a reasonable excuse for not offering one? After all, if explanations were withheld whenever it was felt that they wouldn’t please everyone, almost every decision taken over the course of human history would go unexplained, because you’ll never please everyone. Come to think of it, maybe Tony Snow’s new replacement at the White House should try this at press conferences.
Nor do i know why you “bother to point this out any more.” Any person with more than two functioning neurons realizes that whatever explanation you give won’t please everyone, but that doesn’t remove the usefulness of explanations. At an absolute minimum, by offering an explanation you can at least demonstrate due diligence in the performance of your role as a moderator and administrator of this message board. People may not like your reasoning, but they at least wouldn’t have cause to accuse you of shirking your duty.
Which brings me to my next point…
With all due respect, the situations are completely dissimilar. As a mod/admin, your participation in abortion or religion or politics threads would be of a personal, member-like nature. Here, you are being asked to speak in your role as a moderator and administrator, and the fact that you might not like people’s opinions or the tone of the thread doesn’t remove the responsibility you have to the members.
Note that i’m using the generic, plural “you” here. I’m not saying that you, in particular, are the person responsible for dealing with this particular case. I’m just saying that it’s silly and inappropriate for a mod or admin to refuse to do their duty on the grounds that they won’t please everyone, or that people will continue to criticize them.
As mhendo has pointed out, it’s pretty clear that no explanation is going to please everyone in every case and probably not even in this one. But in this case, Giraffe has already offered a guess as to an explanation which seems not to have gotten everyone more riled up. The only difficulty was that this was Giraffe’s guess and not CajunMan’s explanation.
Didn’t know that. Thinks. In that case, GIMME ONE OF THEM PITCHFORKS!
mhendo, well said. Very well said.
I have to say I’m a little surprised that people are so upset over “not getting answers”. A moderator closed a message board thread with a somewhat sharp tone. Upon review, TubaDiva reopened it, saying it wasn’t her cup of tea but that she wouldn’t stand in the way of people who wanted to participate. What mysteries are there in this situation?
There’s been much made that Cajun Man hasn’t been back to confirm my “guess” as to what exactly he was telling pizzabrat not to do again, but honestly what else could he have meant? Do we really need to dissect the motivations behind an action that has already been reversed?
I demand an independent inquiry! I committee must be formed immediately to investigate and a permanent board of inquiry formed from equal numbers of the Admin, the Mods, the members and guests.
A cop pulls you over, asks for your license and registration. You give him the stuff and ask why you were stopped. He says “Wait here.” He goes back to his car, comes back and hands you back your documents, “Okay, go on your way.” You say, “But what did I do? Why did you stop me?” He replies, “Go on your way.” and leaves.
Tell me that wouldn’t registyer a WTF?
The mystery is what **CajanMan ** thought **Pizzabrat ** did wrong. You’ve offered your explanation based on your own experience, and it made sense. But other explanations might also make sense. For example, when I modded a board, I was influenced by what I thought about a person. If I thought a guy was a jackass, I was tougher on him — just like mods here are (whether they admit it or not). Maybe **CajanMan ** had been waiting for an opportunity to show **Pizzabrat ** who’s boss. That would make sense too.
Good Galloping Ganesha, exaggerate much? :rolleyes:
.
He gave an analogy, Andros, not a report on what happened. The cop is to the driver as the mod is to the poster — a figure of authority with control over what you can do. The cop can stop you from driving, and the mod can stop you from posting. An analogy does not ever intend to apply to both subject/target pairs every aspect of what it’s comparing. In other words, **Magellan ** wasn’t saying that a mod could put a poster in jail. Your “exaggerate much” comment completely misses the point. But you knew that.
.
ISTM an analogy of this sort is only useful when it is comparable in scope to reality or when it establishes an argument of precedent. A cop pulling someone over is way beyond the scope of a message board mod closing a thread. Further, there’s no reasonable way a message board mod closing a thread can ever escalate to that scope. This particular analogy is silly and exaggerated.
To take it to an extreme, it would be laughable to use an example of Pinochet’s desaparecidos in this context, regardless of its incorporation of “a figure of authority with control over what you can do.”
(See, there’s an analogy that scales. But you knew that. ;))
.
So far I’ve seen two possible explanations:
- Cajun Man thought pizzabrat’s thread was too prurient and tasteless for MPSIMS.
- Cajun Man hates pizzabrat and was looking for an excuse to stick it to him.
Any other possibilities?
CajunMan is allergic to cheese and thus wants all threads with the word pizza deleted.
As a kid, CajunMan got his tongue stuck to a flagpole and hates everything related to flags.
CajunMan has a country where he hasn’t managed to get laid and the thread hurts him.
I didn’t say I was surprised that people could ever be upset over not getting answers about the behavior of authority figures, I said I’m surprised that people in this situation are so upset over not getting answers, because I don’t see a lot of mystery here. You’ve already hinted that my proffered explanation is suspiciously reasonable, so I’m curious as to what you think other possible explanations are.
You are an idiot. And not just the garden variety, but the worst kind, an idiot who thinks he’s smart.
Go buy a book on analogies. You’ll either learn something or your head will explode. Either way, ignorance fought.
No, sorry. I don’t even know what that means. I realize that I’m autodidactic, but I’ve read extensively about analogics, and don’t recall anything about analogies that scale. The point of **Magellan’s ** analogy was not about *how much * power the two subjects have over the targets, but about using whatever the power is to (stop you from driving)-(stop you from posting) without any explanation. As far as scaling, if anything, **Magellan ** scaled the cop down to fit the mod by citing the simplest and most mundane use of his authority.
His point remains — you’re stopped, and then you’re allowed to go on without any explanation of why you were stopped in the first place.
Hate? Okay, so you’ve chosen to go the route of ridiculing my point. Obviously, my presumption of your sincerity was misplaced.
Yes. And until CajunMan speaks out, possibilities are all there will ever be. That’s the nature of logical modality.
I don’t think anyone is terribly bent out of shape about CajunMan actual closing of the thread. Even the “Don’t do this again”. Again, I believe that is his boilerplate thread closing post that he uses for all purposes other than “at request of the OP”
What draws some attention is the fact that TubaDiva reopened the thread looking down her nose at it. She could have just said “there you go, stop whining” and still be less “offensive” than stating she thinks the thread is crap. I insist that that amounts to threadshitting, something nobody here likes much.
The efforts of the sycophants-du-jour to poop on any thread that sounds even remotely critical of the administration, does little to help the cause. Without them, this would have been a thread with about 10 posts of “so what did just happen” that would have spent the weekend near the bottom of the page, until one of TPTB bothered to answer (or maybe sink forgotten without even that)
At this point, what was a very simple thing, is compounded by the typical slapfights, the accusations of personal vendettas and circling of wagons that tend to follow any situation where the authorities try to turn a blind eye.
I have only been here for so long, and I already caught up to this. It is hard for me to believe that the administration hasn’t figured out that trying to turn their backs to a complaint is counterproductive.
Just my thoughts.
Obviously my paraphrase was meant to lampoon a little, but come on. You said there could be many explanations, but your example was far-fetched at best. And fairly pointless, in that if that was Cajun Man’s motivation, we’ll obviously never know.
It’s all well and good to talk about wanting an explanation for a moderator action, but it seems to me it really should be a situation where either corrective action is still desired or there are multiple (non-crazy) explanations people would like clarified.
I really don’t feel the desire to guess reasons. Not when the people who know the reasons are available to inform. You did, I thought it was reasonable. Liberal offered another, also reasonable, though I doubt that even if true it would be admitted to. I simply do not understand why your attitude and others isn’t, “Yeah, they really should share the thinking that went into those decisions. It seems it would be helpful.” Even if they thought the reasoning was already clear and further explanation was therefore unnecessary, the subsequent threads have proven that to be an incorrect assessment. And again, the paying customers are requesting an explanation as to their moderating. Not fulfilling that request and diggiing in their heels deeper and deeper with each passing post makes them and the Administration of the Board look more and more unfriendly and assholish. Sheesh, just out of common coutesy you’d think they’d feel obliged to share their thinking.