It seems reasonable to me that having taken what they considered to be appropriate action to correct the problem (re-opening the thread), Tuba would close the complaint thread, not out of some “We protect our own” mindset but more from a “That’s taken care of” mindset. Isn’t that at least a possible explanation?
Is this what you call an explanation?
Look, no one is calling for crosses or sword-diving. This isn’t about why it was closed. Threads get closed all the time without an admonition. TPTB have admitted it was a mod-directed action. Is it really that unrealistic for posters to ask for clarification? I get it, you want those chosen to guide us through posting here not to be responsible for their moderating direction but wouldn’t be easier if they would?
The only problem I have with the situation is:
- The irrational closing of the first thread. I don’t have a problem with the stern warning itself… warnings need to be unambiguous when they are given. But they do need to be accompanied by a valid reason.
- Certain mods… not naming names… invariably turn snotty whenever mod-criticizing threads are opened, regardless of whether the mod was in error or not. All I would ask is that if it turns out a thread was in error, or if the reason for closing was not clearly stated, that the mods not turn into snot dispensers while discussing the matter. It really shows lack of class for those who hold a one-sided admin power to flaunt the imperious attitude over those who don’t have it. The board is here for us, if we weren’t here there wouldn’t be anything to moderate.
Narrator: And as we see here in this telling example, yet more Pleistocene megafauna shuffle into the bubbling tar pit, drawn inexorably by some instinct which we humans can only guess at…megatheria, mastodons, peccaries, arctoduii, and…wait, yes, even a diprotodon all enter the pit, struggling with poignant futility as they realize that it’s too late, far, far too late…
I guess, but as I said, it doesn’t look good. In my earlier post from this morning, I pointed out that the rest of us have to live with the consequences of our actions around here. I think the mods should have to live with theirs, as well. Even if…hell, especially if they are the ones with the power to close threads.
What is the reason for closing any thread that isn’t breaking a rule, i.e. the original pit thread? I just don’t understand what seems to be a desire to just close threads because, well you know, it is long enough, or the issue is “settled” to the moderators satisfaction. Threads usually diea a natural death, some take longer than others, but shouldn’t some sort of natural selection take place with regards to a threads relevence? Or are we advocating ID here on the Dope?
You are absolutely, dead wrong about this. And you have no right to assert motives for other people. Several people who have wondered what happened in that thread genuinely want to know what happened, because it was anomalous and weird. I don’t think most of the people in this thread whose curiosity remains piqued are asking the questions because we heads rolling, aka, out of spite or some need to punish. Really, we just want to know how something like that happened. You and Miller insist that there’s something else going on with the questions, some hostile agenda that consists of sackcloth and ashes. Why can’t you believe that it’s really just curiosity, a desire for transparency and civility?
But it was no more pointless than half the shit in MPSIMS at any given time, and no more tasteless than some of the really TMI threads we’ve all read and um, loved, and no more content free than some of the game threads that have gone on for pages. That thread was totally unremarkable. Yet it got closed harshly. It seems odd to me. It makes me curious.
Did he make a mistake by closing it? I don’t think that was ever addressed, and TubaDiva made it clear that she agreed with his decision to close it. It seems like it was only opened because people bitched, not because the initial closing was wrong in the first place. This is what I mean about lack of transparency, which leaves people guessing.
Why is it bullshit to say you don’t understand? Because I really don’t. And if a Mod said something similar to me, I’d think I’d gotten a warning and I’d shut up for fear of making it worse, so unless someone opened a thread for me like someone did for pizzabrat, I’d never know that it was unfair, nor would it be reopened. You make it sound like the whole thing was automatic, but it’s not. In the normal course of events, pizzabrat might have been left feeling :o without redress.
Bullshit. You do not have the right, nor do you have the factual basis, to negate the confusion or desire for clarification that people have genuinely expressed here. You just assume that your ideas of what people’s motivations are must be correct. They are not. I don’t want anyone nailed to a cross. I have never tried to nail a mod to a cross for a bad decision before, and I’m not starting now. It’s interesting that you and Miller have created this straw man, this Doper who Wants To Crucify Mods, and are calling him a wanker who’s full of horseshit. He doesn’t exist. Just people with questions. We have a right to ask them. You can insult and call names and slap motives on people all day long, but that doesn’t change what’s going on here, which is not what you say it is, no matter how loud and stridently you say it.
I love this place.
So, now you’re saying that **CajunMan ** should not have implied that **Pizzabrat ** did anything wrong?
Well, I am certainly not playing semantic games.
A Warning, generally capitalized, often modified by the word “official” indicates that the post(s) to which the Mod is responding have crossed a line of propriety on the SDMB and that the poster’s actions are being recorded as violations. Such posts are recorded so that if a Mod gets irritated by a poster and asks about suspending posting privileges, other Mods can look over the actual events and determine whether they have been of a sufficiently serious nature in a sufficiently short period of time that a review of posting privileges are warranted. Thus, no Mod can wander into a staff meeting and declare, “Poster xxx has been irritating me,” and get a vote for suspension or banning without the rest of the staff reviewing the actual record.
An action by a Mod that does not include the word Warning is not so recorded, so Moderator action that does not include the word Warning will not be available for review by anyone else.
Cajun Man’s post when he initially closed the other thread did not include the word Warning and a review of the staff notes shows that pizzabrat’s actions were not recorded.
This more formal use of the word “Warning” is about three years old, based on questions raised by the TM that they could not be sure when their actions were being inserted into their Permanent Record.
(As noted in several threads in ATMB, no single Warning (or collection of Warnings) is going to result in automatic suspension or banning.* A poster with a bit of an anger problem (rare as such posters might be) who collects a Warning for insulting other posters outside the Pit once every year-and-a-half will not automatically incur sanctions on the third or fifth or whatever Warning, (although they might get reviewed), but the space between such Warnings will be factored into the staff decision. We actually look at the dates and types of Warnings issued as well as general behavior.)
- [ pre-emptive nitpick defense ] Yes, there are some actions, such as attempting to damage the board, that will get a poster booted on a single offense, regardless how long the poster has been here. [ /pre-emptive nitpick defense ]
As to the second question regarding the reason’s behind Cajun Man’s closing of that thread: I do not know them. I have previously stated that I do not know them. Challenging me on his actions at this point will indicate a clear lack of reading comprehension on the part of the questioner, as I have already twice noted that I do not have that answer.
My entry into this thread was for the sole purpose of clarifying the issue–apparently confusing to some posters–regarding the issue of the word Warning.
**Borborygmi **
They’re on to us!!
I’m going to jump in and throw out some guesses as to the whys of things in an attempt to answer some of the as-yet unanswered questions people seem to still have. Please note that this is only based on my personal experience as a mod and I’m not speaking for Cajun Man.
My guess as to how things went down is Cajun Man got a bunch of reported posts, checked out the thread and decided it was over the line for MPSIMS. (The pruning and weeding is by far the hardest part of the job, and I know MPSIMS mods have struggled in the past with how much sex and TMI talk to allow without tipping the whole forum into a gross-out/masturbation contest.) Given the fact that pizzabrat acknowledged in his OP that the thread was “prurient and tasteless”, he may have felt that pizzabrat was deliberately starting a thread he knew was outside the bounds of the forum, hence the “don’t do this again” note at the end. To be specific, “this” would refer to “starting a thread you know is unacceptable”.
As I read it, I don’t think pizzabrat’s comment was intended to convey anything of the sort, so I can see why people feel the “don’t do it again” comment was a bit harsh. At the same time, I know how easy it is to read reported threads with a more critical eye and see a harsher tone than was perhaps intended. Not to mention if I thought someone was deliberately flouting the forum guidelines I’d have probably been a lot bitchier than that. (Of course, I like being bitchy, that’s why I’m a Pit mod.) All in all, I think his response was understandable, if not the portrait of beatific diplomacy.
Don’t fight the hypothetical, I had typed out a response to your post but the thing is, I can’t really post at length about how other people should let this go, without contributing to the very problem I see: microscopic dissection of a problem that IMO doesn’t merit microscopic dissection (i.e., pointless wankery). I think I’ve made my position clear, so rather that open myself up to justified accusations of hypocrisy, I think I’ll turn off the computer and go outside for a while. I respectfully suggest that anyone who truly thinks this is a big deal might benefit from doing the same.
Your reason and evenhandedness has no place here, Giraffe! We need CajunMan!
Pitchforks, GIT yer pitchforks! Torches on sale, twoferabuck!
That actually makes sense. Thanks for taking the time to post it.
Yeah, Liberal, Giraffe’s guess makes so much sense that a rational person probably could have figured it out all on their lonesome.
It saddens me that you thought my “loophole” joke was serious. I’m not sure if I should take it as an insult or an indication of the number of crazy people you deal with daily.
I’d chalk it up to my e-mail.
Thanks, Giraffe. I’ve been following this thread without actually wanting to jump into the fray, and your explanation makes total sense.
Yes, it does. And it would have made a lot more sense if it came from the people actually involved. The people who actually know the reasons for their own behavior.
My guess is that if the explanations were as reasonable as Giraffe has offered, the parties in question would have been here by now. But somehow I think—call it a hunch—that they will soon visit and prove Giraffe to be an actual mind-reader.
I wish people would be held accountable for their own actions. That one might desire this of the Mods seems painfully reasonable and self-evident. Alas…
Exactly! What we need now is for CajunMan to post an absolutely contradictory post to Giraffe’s to bring this thread back on track.