Czarcasm - why are you still a mod?

Oh bullshit. A “pile-on” is just a whiner’s phrase to say “Waaah…a whole bunch of people independently didn’t like what I had to say and are telling me so”. Unless you have evidence of behind-the-scenes collusion where people coordinate their responses, a “pile-on” is the natural response to a stupid OP.

I understand that a certain contingent of people are upset when others share their opinions and try to stifle people sharing their opinions by labeling it a “pile-on”, but everyone knows that’s total and complete crap. Or would you prefer a quota–so there could only be say, 3 dissenting posts the OP? Because anything else is a “pile-on”.

And the “Discuss board issues in private, via PM” thing is even worse. Board issues should be discussed in the open. Board complaints even moreso. It was an absolutely idiotic idea when Czarcasm demanded that any comments/questions about his mod decisions be PM’d to him and was quickly squashed. I’d like to say that I’m surprised that you’re in favor of such a stupid idea, but I’m not.

and Grapefruit: Good heavens; don’t suggest Czarcasm be moved to Cafe Society. I like that forum and don’t want to see a whole run of threads where he decides that saying stuff like "I hated the fucking movie of “Starship Troopers” or “You like home-fries more than tater tots?? Are you crazy??! ;)” is somehow a personal insult and then warns you and demands you take it to the Pit.

You wouldn’t mind linking to a few examples of this, would you? Just one or two, at least. I must have missed some key threads, because I can’t remember a single one where jamiemcgarry complained about his life sucking and was then bashed for saying so.

I do remember several where he described confronting strangers in which he was criticized for his behavior, and a recent one where he had run out of meds and was depressed, in which he received a lot of sympathy and constructive advice. What you describe sure sounds cruel, by contrast. Cites please?

**Czarcasm **has two problems as a mod. He sometimes makes questionable or simply wrong decisions, and some of his modding posts tend to be curt and abrasive. This type of tone can inflame situations. It would be better to follow the example of his colleagues, and be more conciliatory.

O noes! We’re piling on. You criticized BigT’s idiotic post and so did I. :rolleyes: (PS–I agree–his comment is delusional.)

My 2 cents:

I’ve spent most of my time on this board in GQ - I would rate the moderating in there as a 10 on a scale of 1 to 10, zero complaints.

In the last year or two I’ve been over in IMHO more often - I’m not going to assign a numerical rating to the moderating because I am trying to be more positive - I will just say I think it would be a vast improvement if there was WAY less moderator actions in that forum. The level of attempted influence in that forum is orders of magnitude more than is required for an “opinion” forum and I think detracts from the enjoyment of even going into that forum.

GQ, where I mod, is a breeze to mod. I’d rate it a 1 out of 10 as to ease of modding. IMHO, would be a 5 out of 10 to Mod. Great Debates would be a 9/10. I have sympathy for those guys.

Why do you think that is? I was kind of analyzing that as I was writing my post and trying to determine if GQ was more self-moderating and possibly it is due to the nature of the topics and participants.

But, it seems to me, IMHO threads should be allowed a lot of lee-way because, unlike GD or GQ, it’s more of a relaxed social conversation. Unless someone is being a real jerk, why try to steer and constrain the conversation the way it seems to be today?

Oh, right… I didn’t think about that. Okay, let’s go with Czarcasm’s head on a stake then!

Seriously, though, I think what irks me is that while Czarcasm issues individual apologies, he never really sees that it’s a general pattern that needs to be changed. As NineToTheSky pointed out, it’s the general abrasiveness that is part of the problem, and that’s what needs to be changed.

Not always grumble

Seems to me sometimes like there are thousands of them.

Seriously, when someone apologizes, what else is there but to accept it and go on? Some of you strike me as the type who would lock people up in the poor house for not paying their debts. Now there is a winner of a solution.

Czarcasm’s apology distinguishes him from some of the worst mods. Learn to let go.

What else? When someone in a position of authority makes a mistake, gets called on it, and apologises, there’s a reasonable expectation that he might learn from the incident and avoid it next time. Czarcasm doesn’t. He keeps making the same mistakes over and over again.

I think the sort of person who posts most frequently in GQ is just the sort of person who is more likely to stick to drier facts and not be bombastically argumentative. I base this on a feel having read this place for 11 years and because over those years I’ve heard several die-hard GQ posters say words to the effect of “I only post in GQ and maybe one other forum.”

manhattan once put it (paraphrased since I can’t find the exact quote):

Una Persson

What are you saying, that I should get a different shirt? :confused:

And also GQ requires a more strict focus on facts, rational comments, and educated guesses. So right from the start nearly everyone understands that GQ’s bar for acceptable behavior is higher.

Don’t change - ever.

His mother’s basement might start getting a little ripe…

Wait, there’s a list of “worst mods?”

Now I’m feeling gossipy. Dish! :slight_smile:

Thing is, Zoe, as Peter Morris’s post suggests, a willingness to apologize is only admirable if it comes with a willingness to change the behavior that made the apology necessary in the first place.

I know that some people have a tendency to assume that people who complain about Mod actions have some sort of ulterior motive, some sort of axe to grind, but it just ain’t so. Czarcasm himself would probably recognize, given how many threads we’ve been in together, that he and i share similar politics. There have been plenty of debates where we’ve argued the same side, and even now, when i see him in a political thread, chances are pretty good that i’ll be agreeing with what he’s saying. He is, politically at least, one of the people around here who i consider one of the “good guys,” and not someone i would go out of my way to criticize without a reason.

But despite the fact that i think he’s a perfectly good Doper and a good contributor to this message board, i just don’t think he’s a very good moderator. If he were no longer a moderator, basically every criticism i have of him would evaporate. Some people are well suited to tasks like moderating a message board, and others are not; i happen to believe that Czarcasm is part of the latter group. It doesn’t make him a bad person; just a bad moderator.

“Oh, no, my dear, I’m a very GOOD person, just a very bad moderator.”

Ok, let’s say my comparison between GQ and IMHO isn’t a fair comparison.

It still seems to me that an IMHO type of forum should have a lot of lee-way because it is closer to idle chit-chat than either GQ or GD. It seems like it would be better to err on the side of letting things go so the conversation can meander around the general topic wherever the posters feel like going.

As mods, do you have a different view of how that forum should operate? Seems like this is really the question, one of expectations.