I’ll admit that my first post in that thread presented a rather strong opinion. Anyone is, of course, free to disagree with that opinion, and I can myself think of a number of different ways one might disagree. And in fact, there are posters in that thread who are disagreeing, without getting into any trouble over it. The difference is that they’re disagreeing politely.
After SenorBeef’s entry into the thread, it was no longer polite. If I had gotten to the thread earlier, a simple “cool it” might have sufficed. As it was, though, the thread was on the verge of needing to be closed, with the back-and-forth with SenorBeef dominating the discussion.
And yes, other posters did contribute to that as well, hence why I gave moderator instructions to them, too. But it was clear that, first of all, those other posters had been able to contribute appropriately without SenorBeef’s presence, second, that SenorBeef’s post had started the incivility, and third, that SenorBeef’s incivility was not prompted by the opposition to him from other posters, since it had started in his first post. Because of this, I deemed it necessary to exclude SenorBeef from the thread, but did not deem it similarly necessary to so exclude any other posters.
Could I have refrained from excluding SenorBeef from the thread? Yes, I could have. I considered the probability high, however, that he would simply continue in the same tone as he had been using, a situation which in turn I considered highly likely to pollute the thread beyond redemption. Given the choice between definitely excluding one person from the thread, and a high probability of having to close the thread and so exclude everyone, I chose the former.
Maybe a little modesty is in order next time, and consider that predictive powers aren’t that good. “TWEET”, if you must, to cool things down, but give the posters a chance. Jumping straight to “you’re banned from this thread” seems needlessly aggressive. It’s just a MB on the internet. Nothing “needs to be closed”. What is the absolute worst that would have happened if SB had been allowed to continue to post after being told to calm down? We’re not talking Zombie Apocalypse here.
You came into a thread that discusses a movie and then implied anyone who would want to see that movie is dangerous or creepy and not someone you’d want to be near. Do you think that creates a welcoming environment for civil discussion? Or was the thread not meant to be a discussion at all? Was it supposed to be an MPSIMS hugfest for people who all agreed that the movie was a propoganda tool for Big Rape Culture and anyone else should just stay out?
I think you’re exaggerating pretty strongly just how bad the thread was. I don’t think many people would say “oh man, that thread is just going completely off the rails and needs to be shut down” - I don’t think it was anywhere near that level.
I think it’s the fact that you were one of the people I was challenging and disagreeing with influenced how much you decided that I was disruptive to the thread. I think you might’ve taken a different approach if you were a disinterested third party rather than a participant who disagreed with me. Do you feel like your personal position and participation in the thread influenced your actions as a moderator?
You’re trying to make it sound like you’re being fair, that everyone who was being impolite got the same level of punishment, but that’s certainly not true. “SenorBeef is banned from posting to this thread, and everyone else is instructed to ignore him too!” is not exactly equal condemnation.
Could you give me specifics as to the problem with my behavior? In my series of post, was my behavior getting better, worse, or staying the same? It seems to me that if you could object to anything in particular in terms of “don’t be a jerk”, it was the way I wrote my first post - very combative and paraphrased some of the people in the thread in a mocking way. After that first post, I was more focused on addressing specific issues related to the movie. Sure, I addressed and dismissed Derleth’s attacks on me, but I did so without attacking him or her directly and simply detailed why I thought his attacks on me were incorrect. I was more polite to him than he was to me.
Your narrative suggests that I was becoming more beligerant and a bigger threat to the thread, but actually reading my tone and contribution to the thread suggests to me that maybe I was borderline too rude in my first post but became increasingly on topic debating the issues presented in the movie. If that’s the case - if I started out a bit rough but then got better - then it seems like the “running off the tracks” narrative is false and that a little nudge or even just letting it go would’ve had adequate results rather than something as strong as a thread ban, since I was already heading in the right direction.
If that isn’t the case - and you feel like my behavior was unacceptable throughout all my posts, or that it was getting worse at the end, could you give me specific reasons why you think that?
You didn’t make any commentary on the movie (that you haven’t seen). It was a very direct and a very caustic attack on the people in that thread who you disagreed with.
There were plenty of people in that thread who were in agreement with you. None of those people came out “full guns blazing” attacking the people who had different opinions. Art and science fiction should be challenging and not boring and not stripped of anything that might offend people. The critics argue that this movie is bad precisely because it doesn’t challenge and because it is boring and because it attempted to be “inoffensive”. They claim it turns what could have been a fascinating science-fiction premise into a boring by-the-numbers-hollywood-romance with shades of rape culture.
Do you disagree with their assessment? Then Cafe Society is the right place to do it: as long as you are polite. Do you want to debate the premise of “rape culture?” Then you go do it in Great Debates. Do you want to rant against people (like me) who think that rape culture is a problem and that movies like this shouldn’t propagate it, then the appropriate place to do that is in the Pit. Because by posting your rant in Cafe Society people like me (who follow both the written and the “unwritten” rules of the boards) are unable to respond in kind. I would love to respond to your rant. So please: feel free to open up a thread in the pit and I will respond to you in the appropriate forum.
These aren’t new rules. This is how its always been.
Personally, I’d rather see people who are likely to hijack a thread and make it into their own personal all-about-me fest be told to cut out once they’ve had a chance to make their statement, and anything more will just be redundant. I remember when Diogenes the Cynic was on the site, he was usually a great poster. But then if ever it came to one or two particular topics, he’d derail every single thread that came along, and deny anyone else from discussing it who didn’t agree with it. To me, it makes more sense to get those posters to avoid those topics, rather than letting them rack up points on the warning track and, eventually, get banned.
How am I like Diogenes? I don’t have this as a pet issue, I don’t have a history of posting about that topic, and I certainly wasn’t trying to crowd out anyone from that thread - I was discussing the topic and responding to people.
“You didn’t make any commentary on the movie (that you haven’t seen).”
He was making commentary on the (drummed up, in his opinion) controversy that the thread was created to discuss.
“It was a very direct and a very caustic attack on the people in that thread who you disagreed with.”
No, it was an “attack on” the segment of society that lives to be outraged whenever fiction presents things that “trigger” them. Was his expression a little over the top? Perhaps, but sometimes you have to go a little over the top to be heard over all the outrage.
Even if it attacked any particular individual it would be not a member posting there. It would be the writer of the article that was linked to in the first post.
I’m neither outraged nor am I triggered. Those are strawman attacks and they are lame attacks and they are boring attacks. I personally believe that Hollywood has a problem with women and that this movie is just yet another example of that. Expressing that opinion doesn’t give you licence to call me “outraged” and “triggered”. Attack the argument: not the arguerer. And I’d be happy to discuss this further with you if you were to open up a thread in cafe society.
But when there is no outrage (and there was no outrage in that thread) then why do you need to go over the top? Were the other people in that thread that agreed with SenorBeef unable to express their opinion?
Or people like me who agree with the writer. If SenorBeef wants to attack the writer then he is welcome to attack the writer. But if he is going to barge into a thread and attack the people that agree with the writer then he is attacking me. And if he wants to do that then he can take it to the pit so I can respond in kind.
…well he is allowed to do whatever the moderators say he can and can’t do. Yeah the rules say you can attack a group even if there are posters in the thread who are a part of that group. But the ultimate rule here is “Don’t be a jerk.” And if an attack on a group crosses that line into “being a jerk” then the moderators can/have/and do act appropriately.
Except we didn’t exactly have a disinterested, neutral moderator. We had a guy who was in the group that I was challenging, whose actions were sufficiently far outside the realm of normal moderating procedure that it seems likely that his personal participation is what dictated his moderator response.
Which is a really bad precedent, although I don’t think anyone will care. “I better be careful when taking the opposite position as Chronos in this thread lest I be banned” is chilling to discussion.
…you didn’t challenge anyone from the group at all. You just launched a rant full of strawmen. I don’t see “rape culture everywhere.” I don’t demand “safe spaces.” I love my science fiction to be challenging and I don’t look to be offended. Yet I see this movie as problematic. But rather than addressing those things that I see as problematic, you just launched into a rant. You didn’t challenge anyone. You just made us “roll our eyes.”
Nobody else in that thread got banned from that thread. And plenty of people took the opposite position to Chronos. Why do you think that they didn’t get banned from the discussion, but you did? Can you identify anything that you may have done differently to the people that didn’t get banned from the discussion?
Maybe but you are still neglecting a huge point in that while reprimanding Senor Beef you let Derleth get away with a lot worse violations of board rules. Where was HIS individual moderation? You’re “Don’t feed the troll” directive still condones Derleth for attacking Senor Beef.
Just answer this, should Derleth had gotten modded on what he said?
…“worse” is subjective. Snark has been allowed in all of the forums for as long as I’ve been here: and I’ve said snarkier things than Derleth did in that thread without warning. Which particular post of Derleth did you feel was a violation of board rules?
That’s moving the goalposts. Nothing SenorBeef said was against the rules either. The point is that both were heated in their conversation.
That thread consists of SenorBeef posting his diatribe. Everyone else responds to it civilly. But Derleth deliberately provokes him. Then SenorBeef responds back in kind, and they have a back and forth.
Despite the fact that the whole thing was caused by two people, Chronos only picks out one of them, and punishes the one without punishing the guy who was deliberately egging him on.
Furthermore, he deviates from usual procedure, which would just be to tell them to calm down or say the topic should be moved to a different thread. He instead pulls out a rarely used punishment, claiming that he somehow knows that SenorBeef wouldn’t listen if he doled out a lesser punishment.
It doesn’t help that Chronos had already attacked anyone who might want to see the movie. He said he wouldn’t want to be in a dark room with them. That’s saying he’s afraid anyone who likes the movie might do something bad to him.
So, in moderating the two of them, he only punishes the one who was on the side he had previously vehemently disagreed with. Or, conversely, he gives a pass to the guy deliberately provoking him. Derleth even admits he’s just making fun of him.
…I’m not moving any goalposts. I directly addressed Saint Cad’s post. Saint Cad stated that “you let Derleth get away with a lot worse violations of board rules”. What rules did Derleth violate?