Yeah, that was hyperbole for effect. 
Of course that’s true. I agree with it, and have never said otherwise.
ETA: And lest it be unclear, I am certainly one of the ones that makes mistakes from time to time. I’m currently wondering whether this conversation was one of them.
Of course I accept that. I have never said otherwise.
What you seem to be doing, Syntropy, is taking the narrowest possible interpretation of what I say, parsing it against the broadest possible interpretation of what you say, and assuming that I disagree with everything I haven’t explicitly agreed with.
You seem to be telling me, for example, that the “things you can’t say in the Pit anymore” kerfluffle never happened. I have acknowledged several times that it wasn’t the whole problem, but you seem to be saying it was never a problem at all. I certainly remember reading many, many complaints about not being able to call someone a cunt or say “fuck you” to another person. It did happen, and it was a factor. Not a huge factor, but a factor.
This is at direct odds with what you said a few posts later:
I was speaking (and am speaking) for myself. Please do not attempt to force me into speaking for the board’s management.
I cannot set policy here, nor can I give directions to Ed and the admins. I can, however, state my own personal opinions. I can also explain why I haven’t “gone out on strike,” which is what my posts in this thread are about.
That’s a fair point, and you’re quite correct.
I don’t think you should have to speak for the posters of the SDMB pleased with the way things are run. I don’t think Giraffe should have to speak for a group of posters not pleased with the way things are run. Posters on the whole should be able to speak for themselves. It is a message board after all.
As a moderator, you are both a poster and a representative of the board. Looking at it from the perspective that you are a poster, I can understand your position. Looking at it from the perspective that you are speaking as a moderator on behalf of the board, I find it dismissive. If you were not speaking on behalf of the board, then we have no disconnect and can agree to disagree.
And I apologize for my self-contradiction in my earlier posts.
Jesus Christ.
First part: Dont’ know. Second part: Nothing.
Little to none.
What good does it do to vote? You’re only one vote out of millions - you don’t think that one piddly vote makes any difference, do you?
You are assuming a democracy, yes?
No–a business.
We’ve been told since before Ed’s Pay-To-Post fiasco that you guys need money–you’re minutes from shutting the door. Someone even THINKING about suing us could get CL’s lawyers so panicked that they’d burn the server and piss on the ashes in seconds if they got wind of the idea of a thought of a hint of legal action.
Between that and the constant “We’re a huge resource drain on the Chicago Reader/Creative Loafing so be glad we’re here–don’t bitch about anything–you have a roof over your head” mantra, the SDMB’s “doomsday clock” as been at 1 second to midnight since oh…about 2004 or so.
Given that, you need every “good” customer you can get. Telling a good customer (Wring, say) who stuck it out through the idiocy that was P2P, and the stupid “loud screaming ads” fiasco, and “cuntgate” with Ed’s (paraphrased) “Good riddance: we don’t need you or want you” quote that they’re a “troublemaker” is not a good business model.
I’m assuming that human beings need to feel that they have a voice and a right to use it.
Have you considered a name change to Punchably Smug?
I think this is the most important point made so far. It should be perfectly clear that whatever the Straight Dope is, it’s not a democracy in the sense that the populace should expect to have any say in the running of the place. This has been proved over and over, with Ed Zotti spelling it out by saying that if you don’t like it, get out. Occasionally, when the screams get loud enough, TPTB may bow to the pressure, but that’s the exception that proves the rule.
The people who complain may smart over the injustice of it all, but nothing I’ve seen here gives any indication that the policy will change.
For me, the benefits of reading and posting here outweigh the sometimes frustrating legislation. My advice: take it for what it is; it will save a lot of blood, sweat and tears.
Thank you.
That’s true, but I have a third role as well. When I first entered this thread, it wasn’t as a poster; it was as a moderator, specifically responding to a comment about moderators. I wasn’t, however, speaking as a “representative” of the board.
It’s kind of like chatting with a casual friend who works at the deli down the street about his job. “How do you like working here?” He’s giving his own point of view. If you ask, “How can you stand working here? The boss just yelled at that customer, and the color of the walls is icky.” He might respond, “Actually, I like the place. I probably would have painted those walls pale blue, and I might have treated that customer a bit differently, but I like spending my days here.”
He’s not responding as a customer, nor is he responding as a representative of the business. He’s an individual who works there.
This time, I will speak as a representative of the SDMB.
This place is not a democracy. That’s true. The admins answer to Ed Zotti, and Ed answers to bosses of his own.
But the populace does have a say. Many of the changes here have come about because of your input (that’s a plural “your”), including the creation of the forum I used to moderate (the Game Room). Calm, reasoned arguments have changed my opinion and the opinions of the folks I report to.
Our parent company is in transition. Ed is being pulled 14 different directions. Jerry is able to give only a small portion of his time to us. The admins and mods are volunteers with full-time jobs, and we’re scattered over a nine-hour timezone spread. It is important to keep our members happy, but sometimes when you’ve put in long hours on your day job and long volunteer hours on the Dope, the response to criticism just comes out as “piss off, willya?” We shouldn’t do that, but sometimes it happens. I apologize for that.
Once upon a time, getting a creative snarky response from a mod or admin was part of the charm of the SDMB–it’s certainly how Cecil built the franchise in the first place. We’re all trying not to do that anymore–to stay reasonable and listen to you–but we want to be able to have some fun, too. That’s why we’re here. That’s why I tend to roll with the punches and live with details I don’t like.
I have no idea whether that answered a question, or just gave me a chance to say something I’ve been meaning to say, but that is, indeed, the reality of things right now.
And a specific note to wring:
I want to specifically echo part of what TubaDiva told you earlier in this thread: “I’d much rather you come on back and participate in the goodness this place offers. You were a part of that goodness once and could be again. You were an asset to the community for a long time.”
She really did mean that. It’s a lot easier to take criticism from somebody who is an active participant; someone who spends time here and wants to improve the experience. When you disappear and just pop in every now and then to tell us we still suck, it’s hard not to get defensive.
Thank you all for listening … er … reading.
I would say it’s fair to compare this sort of thing with the relatively recent unacceptable words in the Pit rules.
You could argue, really, that those rules are destructive to the community; after all, they remove an ability that posters had. But the intent behind the decision was not made because of a dislike for the boards, or of the posters, but as intended to - though through a negative means - result in a positive end. Something negative is done because it is believed that there will be a greater positive result, one that makes up for that negative, and in the end the board, and community, will be improved. It’s like removing an inflamed appendix; a technically destructive act, a changing, a removing, but designed to improve what is left.
I can’t speak for others, but when I complain or comment it’s not because I hate the boards or the mods - it’s because I honestly believe that, through making known what my views are, and even the potential of being agreed with, the boards can be made better. Complaining is, likewise, and inherently negative act; you’re saying “This thing, here, is no good”. But it seems to be taken as if that’s the only reasoning that’s going on; when, in at least my case, it’s more like “This thing, here, is no good; it could be made better”. Just as removing the ability to use certain words in the Pit is intended to have a positive result, so too do I think that through complaints it’s possible there could be a positive result.
As far as i’m concerned, I certainly have sympathy for such a situation - but were I to respond to criticism in a rule-breaking way my personal circumstances wouldn’t be taken into account. An apology would not be enough in my case to avoid or annul moderation.
You speak somewhat wistfully of a time when mods could get away with, even be celebrated for clever insults or bits of snark when moderating. There’s most certainly a way to go back to those times that’s perfectly fair; allow the snark both ways. After all, i’m sure some will find it just as amusing when a poster gets in a witty point against a mod as the other way around. Why *restrict *the fun? Let’s all be allowed to get in on the act. The problem, in my eyes, is not that mods can be snarky if they want - i’m honestly not hugely concerned with whether a mod can call me whatever name under the sun, and if they can score a hilarious point, more power to them. What i’m concerned about is fairness. A little bit of fun to you may mean a mod note for us. A reputation for creative snark on the part of a mod may mean a prepared history of unacceptability for banning or suspension for us. The OP seems concerned too, not so much with the snark itself, but that it’s one sided. Mods can be snarky, and have a little bit of fun, and we must have sympathy for their lives and jobs and apologies are suitable recompense. We aren’t treated so leniently.
I appreciate your sentiment - however, w/a/d/r, I was made to feel distinctly unwelcome (or at least it was clear no one wanted to hear disagreements, even when respectfully made) last March. This last round merely underscored it. I went from a good and valued poster to a troublemaker - for disagreeing. I did not appreciate it at all. I’ve continued to follow this thread, but probably won’t always.
I changed pharmacies recently, too. I finally had enough of issues from them. I wrote a letter to them, telling them why I had changed (much like I wrote posts saying exactly what I felt about certain changes). I got a call back from their district manager, asking me what it would take to bring me back. I told him, politely, “You can’t”. We had a nice conversation. He was respectful, as was I. He was appologetic, I accepted his appology, still won’t change my decision.
I (largely) stopped posting here because it was clear that issues I raised weren’t seen as issues. I was one of many who were bluntly told “you don’t like it here, leave”. So I did. I stopped back in to again point out “this is why folks left”. And the result? (paraphrased) “we want the old you back, the one who didn’t complain about things - we won’t change the things that you complained about, we merely want you to come back and not complain, other than that you’re a troublemaker”
Please don’t be surprised at the result.
I just want to jump in here in support of this perspective. I think everyone benefits when mods are free to speak as mods without speaking for all the mods. Otherwise, you end up in the situation where dialog between mods and posters is significantly constrained, simply because they don’t want off the cuff remarks to be taken as official board doctrine.
For me, the fact that the admins and mods weren’t afraid to mix it up with the posters was definitely a major draw when I first started reading and posting here. I’m sad that we’ve ended up where we are, because I do think it’s a more fun gig if you have the power as a mod to tell the occasional crybaby to just blow you, already. I think each step has been well intentioned, but I personally don’t like the cumulative result. I’m not sure how to get out of it, though – there’s a pretty diverse range of opinions on how mod-poster interactions should go, from mods and posters alike.
Sorry, I wasn’t clear. I’m not wistful or nostalgic for those days. I was just pointing out that they existed. Frankly, Cecil can pull it off in a newspaper column–we can’t pull it off in the forums. That’s why it stopped.
Sorry, but what is w/a/d/r?
I don’t think that’s what Tuba was saying, and it is definitely not what I was saying. It’s not about the “old you” vs. the “new you.” If I may draw another parallel, I own a bookstore. If I have a regular customer who comes in a couple of times a week that says, “I have an issue,” I will listen closely and do my best to solve the problem. If someone pops in once a year, grouses about my selection of dog training books, and then leaves, I’ll just be annoyed.
It’s not that we want the “old you.” It’s not even that we don’t want to hear your complaints. It’s that we’d like to have you as a regular participant, and as such, your complaints will be taken better.
We’re trying (insert obvious play on words here). Really we are. I don’t know if you noticed, for example, but the wait time on search has been shortened. It’s a little change, I admit, but it took some tweaking behind the scenes to fix it so searches didn’t bring the boards to a screeching halt. It bothered a lot of people, and we’ve been working on it.
With all due respect.
Ah, ok. Apologies for misunderstanding you.
Might I make a helpful suggestion, as a Son of the South. We have found “y’all’s” to function admirably as a second person plural genitive case. If you find yourself in need of a superplural, we offer “all y’all’s”. For example, “I’m going to take y’all’s things, and I’m going to take y’all’s things, and also y’all’s things — hell, I’m just going to take all y’all’s things.”
On a note that you might find to be more “serious”, I have to say as an MS SQL advanced user with some considerable exposure to administration, “tweaks” don’t really help performance of concurrent users reading databases. Eliminating locked or locking cursors. (Transact SQL’s WITH NOLOCK, e.g.) Plus paramaterized queries, which compile once as opposed to being interpreted each time. Or even better, stored procedures that are pre-compiled by the database engine itself. Some settings are available for administrators to tweak, yes. But those aren’t going to make much difference.
And so, I think it is a reasonable assumption (TubaDiva: please see what is written above, which leads to this assumption) that Jerry has not written or modified the board’s code, at least not to any great extent. I know from 30+ years of business and computer experience that (1) a resource like Jerry is unlikely to be put on a task like this, being used instead to provide upper management with financial statements — like P&L (Profit and Loss) or Balance Sheets; and (2) tackling your own code for maintenance purposes is hard enough, but tackling someone else’s is a whole 'nuther thing. Trying to make sense of it is itself a chore. But then when you begin coding, you have to trace his or her logic to find things like the right place to start, the effects of your code on other processes, and what are the exact rows returned by the other person’s calls. It can get terribly messy.
The conclusion that one draws deductively, then (TubaDiva: please wee what is written above, which leads to the conclusion) is that Jerry has done nothing except open a couple of dialog boxes to change some integer value that indicates how many seconds a user must wait between searches. In other words, there wasn’t anything wrong to begin with.
Searches just take time, especially on unindexed nText fields. So a SQL statement like:
SELECT UserName, PostDate, PostSubject, PostBody FROM PostsTable WHERE UserName = @UserName
which assumes a parameterization, is improved by
SELECT UserName, PostDate, PostSubject, PostBody WITH(NOLOCK) FROM PostsTable WHERE UserName = @UserName
but not much. It should be a stored procedure, if it isn’t. Or whatever. I reckon my channel got changed some two hundred words back or so.
Wipe your nose. Looks right down dirty in brown for the most liberal of mods.
Simply put you have no credit as per the upthread, revolting link. Mary Magdalene, you’re not. More like the ushers at he Temple…with no pay.
Right. As you were. Groveling in perfect martial formation.
And, if I may, never ever look-up "integrity’ in a dictionary. After all, I wish you no pain.