I have a question, since this seems odd to me. My complaints (though I’d say they’re relatively rare) are often about what looks to me like a possible double standard as far as acceptable behaviour for a mod and acceptable behaviour for a person (with the proviso that of course there are times that’s reasonable). The idea that, perhaps in some cases, we do not see a mod being admonished in some way but that it happens is (somewhat) more of a comforting idea, but really i’d say it’d probably be better for the board if such things weren’t open for view only by moderators (or through email).
I don’t know if in this instance you’re speaking from personal experience, witnessing it happening, or simply guessing at a possible reaction, though. I’m just surprised if it does happen, when admonishing mods “in public” would seem to have some upsides and no downsides. At the very least, it’d get me to shut up.
So…what you’re saying is that your one example of an ignored insult totally negates sneering insulting posts coupled with thread closures and misreading posters’ intent? That’s some serious transitory power right there.
Actually there were several examples right here in this one thread. But if you want to keep on believing that the posters are not allowed to speak as freely to the mods as the mods speak to the posters, I can’t stop you.
This is another thing where the posters seem to be of two minds. I often see references to the stylish way in which manhattan used to rudely smack down posters when closing a thread. On the other hand, there are the posters that resent any moderator negative comments when closing a thread. If I were a moderator trying to go by what posters want when I close a thread, I wouldn’t know what to do.
No, but I will continue to acknowledge that moderators misinterpret posters’ intent (sort of like you just did ironically), refuse to listen, and close threads with condescending and insulting posts, thus shutting down any ability for the poster to respond.
But if you want to keep believing it’s all about saying ‘cunt,’ then I can’t stop you. There are some moderators who resent any criticism, even constructive.
I understand. And I’m sure you understand that I can’t do anything about it. Although I might be able to help with the pony
I suppose that would be an upside
Seriously, though, you don’t see the downsides? Back when I was in the electronics biz, we had a rule. No manager or supervisor was ever to be chewed out in front of his team by the upper-level managers. Why? Because it completely destroys that manager’s authority.
Again, I don’t make the rules, but if I did, there’d be a hard, fast rule for the powers that be. It would say, “If mods step out of line, they can be canned, banned, suspended, or apologized for, but not publicly reprimanded.”
That’s been my business experience as well. There’s only one person above me in the work hierarchy, and I never — even when temptation nearly compels me — chew out a team or project manager in front of his/her subordinates. Instead, I leave the dreaded, “Please contact me” message. And then by phone, in person, IM, or other means, I do whatever dressing down, demands, or corrections are necessary. They are leaders, true. And they need the full backing of my authority. But that doesn’t give them Carte Blanche or unlimited GOOJF cards.
And part of my private dressing down usually includes specific suggestions (i.e., orders, if they have two brain cells to rub together) to apologize for mistreating their subordinates, abusing their authority, conveying an entitled or otherwise obnoxious attitude, etc. If Ed has ever communicated any of this in HIS dressings-down, he hasn’t been getting a whole lot of compliance.
If you want to say “I don’t like how the mods act here, or how they close threads”, then fine. I’ll think you’re being over-sensitive but I won’t argue with you. It’s when you say things like “Ed Zotti has decreed by divine fiat that moderators are sacred and inviolate” that I feel compelled to step in and say you are obviously mistaken. People have a tendency to overexaggerate their grievances in such a way that it becomes ridiculous.
And where have I ever said that I believe that?
I could say the same of some posters. (Not you particularly.) And there are many posters that can’t let hold of a grudge, e.g. Ed Zotti trying to introduce new rules in the Pit, then listening to the users and changing his proposal, then apologizing for the way he handled it. Eight months later we still hear about it.
In fairness though, Arnold, it was a huge big deal. Ed just swooped in out of nowhere after never even participating in the community (except for extremely rare occasional postings), and then stirred up all this shit. Yes, HE stirred it up; we did not. And yes, he did invite people who didn’t like it to leave. And yes, he eventually apologized (more or less) and then disappeared again, leaving in his wake a ridiculous and stupid forbidden book list — excuse me, word list — and a general state of confusion regarding rules. Since then, the mods themselves (those who remain or were inducted after Giraffe left) have seemed just as confused as we are: applying rules sporadically and inconsistently. As someone has already pointed out (actually, I think this has been pointed out numerous times) — forbidding use of a word like “cunt”, while allowing the use of a sentence like, “You’re a goat felching cum sucker,” is so utterly absurd, so Neanderthal in its conception, that it boggles the mind. You can’t blame people for still complaining anymore than you can blame people for still cleaning up after Katrina. There’s just so much damage remaining.
And to add to what Liberal says, IIRC the rules changes came out of a huge kerfuffle where it was rather clear that a mod locked a thread and warned a member for trolling because the mod did not like what the thread was critical of.
And it was an instance where the mod was clearly wrong, but the rule change did nothing to address it - it was aimed at what the poster did. Which was also clearly wrong (IMO) but was less than half the problem. There was blame on both sides. The change addressed only one.
And that identical mod behavior - ‘I don’t like what you said, therefore you are trolling’ (paraphrased) - has already occurred in this very thread, by the same mod.
Ed proposed a rule that upset a bunch of people - fine.
Ed apologized but people are still mad at him and refuse to accept his apology - whatever.
The abbreviated rule he left in place makes no sense - I’m not going to start arguing all that again.
Ever since then the board has been in a state of confusion regarding rules - false. This is where I disagree with people. The board moderation has been pretty much the same.
Rule changes came from a questionable mod call - I don’t remember the thread, so I can’t determine if, IMHO, the mod call was questionable or not. But from what I hear people saying in here, it seems that if the rule change was prompted by that episode, it was because someone decided to scream obscenities at the moderator after the “questionable” mod call. Even if there was a questionable mod call, it’s not the end of the world. It wasn’t the first and probably won’t be the last. I don’t expect the posters to always agree with a moderator decision. I think some people make a mountain out of a molehill in the way they disagree with a moderator call.
That same mod has said “If you only come to post in here to criticize the administration, then you’re coming here to cause trouble” - it’s probably better if mods don’t say stuff like that, because many posters are very sensitive about mod comments. But I can’t say that I totally disagree with her. If the only reason you post here is to complain, then why bother? It becomes annoying after a while. In the same way that it would be annoying if I joined one of the splinter boards and only posted there to complain about the board.
Good point. But there’s something to be said for, at least in some situations, at least dinging that authority a bit. For one thing, if there appears to be no action taken, that destroys the* upper-level manager’s* authority. And complete secrecy leads to confusion about what’s worthy of a dressing-down or not.
Beyond that, in all honesty, if a manager abuses their authority it seems reasonable to me that they should no longer have it.
That’s pure-and-simple because Manhattan wasn’t a pussy and if you pitted him, he’d roll up his sleeves, duke it out with you and hand you your head on a platter. He certainly wouldn’t go sniveling to Ed and have rules made up to protect him while keeping his ability to smack people down.
When a mod comes into a thread, insults posters and ‘screams’ at them with posts with ALL CAPS GODDAMNIT type formatting…and then closes the thread before there can be any responses? That’s contemptible behavior because a poster can’t respond. Open a new thread? You’re reopening a closed thread and that’s a warning. Pit the mod? Oops. You can’t. The “Shut up, do what we say and take it boy” attitude is off-putting to say the least.
I was very big on the idea that Board complaints should go in ATMB, but seeing how that worked out, I’d love to see it returned to the way it used to be. Yeah, there were mod/poster fights, but it wasn’t solely one-sided.
…I never actually left over it. I mostly left after the second year of pay-to-post (another stupid idea) and came back when it ended, although I was much less enamored of the SDMB at that point
NO HE DIDN’T, DAMNIT.
I’m going to keep correcting this as I’m not willing to let the history be rewritten.
Y’know what? I’m sick of fighting this battle piecemeal. The following summary will demonstrate that the problem wasn’t because people couldn’t say “Cunt” in the pit and that no one left because Ed mildly suggested we should be more civil to each other. I’m sick and tired of this shit. Let’s kill and bury this idea once and for all.
First, Ed did NOT start with “let’s be civil”. His VERY FIRST* first brainless attempt at fixing the pit was
(aka “No flaming in the pit”)* which I think you and I would both agree would destroy the whole purpose of the pit. A Pit with no flaming?
Dex came in following about ~40 posts with 100% agreement that this new rule was idiotic, and tried to clarify:
So–the rule is now “Insults, fine. Abuse, no. What’s the difference? Not tellin’. It’s sooper sekrit.”
Note that later, Ed will say that “ass” IS a no-no if it’s used in a sexual way, but just fine if it’s not (I can’t find that thread, you’ll have to take my word for it, but there’s a long discussion of “Why is cunt bad, but dick not. Wait…asshole is ok? Or isn’t it?”). So even Dex, who I like, doesn’t know what the fuck Ed was babbling about.
Another 20-ish posts go by, 100% against the rules and trying to parse the difference between “you’re an ass” and “you’re stupid” Ed buzzes back in and responds to a question by Giraffe where Giraffe asks “Which of these are abusive under the new rules?”:
Ed (still in with his “No flaming in the Pit” mode) sez that #1 is ok, 2-6 are abusive and forbidden. (he actually says 2-5 and corrects to include 6 later, prompting more confusion)
Interestingly, you come in at post 71 clarifying a point of Dex’s.
Around post 110 after 100% (excluding your post) opposition and a lot of individual posters (ie: not the same posters over and over) asking “Wait–is this ok?” , Ed posts again saying
NOW we get to the “civility” a hundred plus posts later–note that this is a 90-degree course change from his first idiotic “No flaming” rule.
20-ish more posts go by and Ed says to someone who said “Um…there’s near-universal opposition to this”, (paraphrased) "If people leave…oh well. Traffic is at an all time high, so… :: shrug :: "
not realizing apparently that the “all time high” of traffic is people frantically posting the near-universal opposition.
At post 180, Ed unclarifies the situation further. He changes from “I’m trying to make the pit more civilized” to “No flaming other posters” again. He says that you’re allowed to say “cunt” or “fuck off” to anyone who’s NOT a member of the board. So “Fuck you, Enron Board of Directors, you crusty cunts” is just fine under post 180. So much for “civility”.
Post 231, Ed goes back to “Oops! Flaming other posters is ok if it’s funny”
Note that he’s still saying “Fuck you” is naughty, but “Fuck the Democrats” is fine, so “civility” is still out the window. Again. We’re back to “no flaming”.
100 posts later, there’s no longer unanimity among the posters. A few (5-10 ish?) join in and say (more or less) “Swearing’s kinda crude. I’d like to see more creativity than just swear words” plus a poster or two saying “the pit’s too nasty–why can’t we just have reasoned debate?”
Ed pops back around post 333 and in response to a Giraffe in particular and a bunch of other posters who are complaining that the “Anything (except some things) go if you make us laugh” standard is unenforcible and stupid, says
300 posts and he A) backpedals that the “if it makes us laugh” standard was just a joke, despite it being in the first iteration of the rules 300 posts earlier (and it didn’t occur to him to mention that he was “jes’ foolin” in the previous 299 posts) and him repeating it at least a couple more times. B) We’re back to “no flaming…maybe” again–if it hurts people’s feelings is the new standard (and he references a “no obscenities against other posters” iteration that didn’t exist before (at least in this thread–so there’s a whole OTHER thread where he’s contradicting stuff in this thread.))
Post 436, DSYoung comes in and “interprets” ~400 posts worth of objections as being nothing more than that some people want an “anything goes” type pit and swearing is crude anyway. .
In 435 previous posts (that I admittedly skimmed) there’s no-one advocating that. If there is, it’s a one-off. Almost every criticism can be boiled down to people saying “What the fuck? I don’t understand these new rules–especially as quickly as they’re changing” or “Why even have a pit if there’s no flaming?” No-one…not one single poster I noticed objected seriously to the word “cunt” being verboten or “civility”.
Post 438, Dex returns and de-unclarifies Ed’s last “clarification”. “Fuck off” is now ok again as long as it’s not to another poster.
Post 499, Ed invents the lie that people are upset solely about the loss of the word “cunt” and tells posters who don’t like his new rules to fuck off and leave:
(and in another thread says
)
The thread goes for pages more (this is only half way through), but I’m going to stop here. I think I’ve proven my case. Saying people objected to him saying “Be more civil in the pit” minimizes how fucking retarded his attempted fixes were and completely ignores the facts about what people objected to.
So–can we put to bed the myth that it was always about the word “cunt” or people objecting to “civility”? Close to 100% of the objections of about 166 (per MHendo who actually counted!) individual posters (out of about what? 600 active members?) posted to complain either about the rules were changing constantly and didn’t make sense in any iteration OR were saying that the “No flaming other posters” variant of the rules would kill the pit.
*Actually that was his second try at “fixing” the Pit. Anyone remember the idiotic “Non-Pit-Thread” thread-rule he made? Followed by the “Oh…well only mods/admins can make Non-Pit-Thread threads”? Followed by another iteration I don’t remember? Those lasted…what? 2 weeks?
Sure you can respond. You can’t respond with the exact same behaviour that got you warned in the first place, but you can start a new thread saying “Dear moderator, you need to stop screaming at people” or “Dear moderator, I believe your thread closing was inappropriate and rude.” The only difference is that you can’t go into the Pit and start off “Dear moderator, fuck you.”
Regarding your second post, where you want to review the whole “no more abusive remarks directed at posters in The Pit” thing, I respectfully decline. I’ll just say this:
I said “Ed Zotti made a rule that people should be more civil in The Pit.”
You say WRONG! Ed Zotti actually said “No abusive remarks directed at other posters. Basically this means you can’t tell another poster to fuck off (or similar). Creative insults on the other hand are welcome as always.”.
What you say and what I said sound almost exactly equivalent to me. I can’t see any meaningful difference between your phrasing and mine. Maybe to you and to a bunch of other posters, what I said and what you said are clearly different. To me they aren’t. If you want, you can re-read my whole post, except that you replace my paraphrase of Ed Zotti with your quote of Ed Zotti.
The main point remains, in my view: Ed Zotti proposed new rules for the Pit, people complained, he listened to the complaints and scaled back his rules, and apologized later for the way he handled it. During the back-and-forth of the rules, there was much discussion of what made sense and what didn’t. OK.
For some people, this was so horrible as to destroy everything that was good about the SDMB and make them leave the board altogether. For me not.
This is all the time and interest I am willing to devote to the rehash of this eight-month-old issue.
