Going back to the OP, because I see this wasn’t totally clear, there isn’t an independent review by admins only- if you want a review, you’ll get a reply/consideration by any of the mods and admins who sees an issue and chooses to discuss it. So we don’t have a separate appeal system. Warnings are given by individual staffers (sometimes after a larger discussion) and get reviewed by the whole staff. If you think we shouldn’t have warned or banned someone or closed a thread, just ask and explain your reasons. And try not to be too abusive; we’re pretty sensitive.
I don’t have a grudge against lissener, and I don’t want people to think I do. I think he really knows his stuff when it comes to film, and even if he rubs people the wrong way at times because of his convictions, that doesn’t change the fact that he’s very knowledgeable and has a lot to contribute. I respect the passion and the time he puts into it, and that he shares it here. (I also think he gets a lot of shit from a lot of people even though I understand why it happens.) As always he’ll get treated like any other poster when it comes to reporting posts, asking the staff questions, and all those things.
I responded the way I did because what he said in that first post was just plain wrong. And it wasn’t only wrong, it was specifically false with regard to lissener, particularly considering the efforts C K Dexter Haven has made to ensure lissener continues to be a part of the SDMB community. It’s above and beyond, and he doesn’t need to do it. It’s something he does because he’s a good guy.
I take lissener at his word when he says he once asked an admin to review something and didn’t get an answer. That shouldn’t happen but it sometimes does. When he turned it into a broad generalization about the staff and suggested we never reconsider any of our actions, he was wrong and I thought that was completely unfair. If that wasn’t the message lissener was trying to communicate, then I think it’s been corrected and that’s the end of it.
I’m not expecting an email response every time a post is reported. But when the issue is a moderator action, and it is questioned several times in ATMB, and the original poster seems confused as to why she was warned, then I would expect that one of the moderators would elaborate on the decision, and if it is upheld to defend that determination. But I’m not getting that. When repeated direct questions about the topic are ignored, that is a bad sign.
Right now, what I’m looking for is indication that anyone has given a second review. So far, I’ve only seen indication that the original Mod made a spur of the moment decision in the heat of the thread and has refused to consider repeated well-reasoned posts on the topic and direct questions about the situation. There has been zero response from any other mods or admins (in that thread or in the numerous mentions here in ATMB), and the only response from the original mod has been to dismiss that he could have misunderstood. And a direct question has been ignored for over a full day. (Actually, since the 26th, but I repeated it on the 27th.)
Discussions have gone on behind the scenes about my ruling, the operative phrase being behind the scenes-I personally don’t believe we are obligated to let the general public know about what goes on between Mods and Admins off site. Add in real life events such as work, sickness and other things that I’m sure happens in your own day, and sometimes we may not be able to jump through whatever hoops people hold up on a timely basis. In this thread, I gave the reason for my decision(see post #7), and while I still believe that, had I not responded, the posters that had hijacked the thread previously would have used her post to jump right back in and do it again, I am probably going to rescind the injunction.
Yes. In retrospect I was unnecessarily cryptic in my post, which left room for a comment that was intended to refer to a single specific situation to seem like it was intended as a general disdain for the moderators as a whole. To the extent that this was then used to suggest a dig at C.K. Dexter Haven I apologize. I’m the first to admit I’m a high-maintenance Doper, and even quicker to express my gratitude for CKD’s efforts in that regard. It’s unfortunate that his name was dragged into this, and I apologize for thoughtlessly providing that opportunity to put words in my mouth that I clearly never said, but less clearly never intended.
Tangential issue: This has come up in several threads recently, and it bothers me a great deal. There are (generally) two types of complaints/issues regarding mod actions: the specific and the general. The specific: “I’m unhappy with the warning I got in this thread.” The general: “Why do mods give warnings?”
Or, to be more specific (heh): “Could the mods please review this particular decision, in this link?” is the specific question. “Do moderator actions get independent review?” is a very general question. The two are different.
It’s probably just me getting senile, but I get confused when the specific case gets lofted up to the general. It reminds me of the truculent teenager, who turns “Why can’t I go out tonight?” (specific) into the general “You never let me do anything!”
My suggestion would be that, if you want a discussion of a specific situation, then be clear and specific in the OP. If you want a discussion of general policies, then make that clear in the OP as well. But mixing the two produces misunderstandings.
NONE of our rules are absolute. Each case is a specific case.
I understand sensitivity to trying to discuss decisions without the peanut gallery. My concern is that when something has generated a bit of attention, it does not help the attitude of the board as a whole to give the appearance that nothing is happening. Even another Mod posting in the ATMB thread “We are aware of the situation and it is under review” would have done a lot to placate me.
I did see that post, but it continued to puzzle me because the post seemed to have nothing to do with the religious criticism to me.
But I suppose thread hijackers don’t have to be logical to justify their actions. shrug
This thread was started to discuss the more general case, because the specific incident raised the issue in my mind. So I was trying to stay more general here, not specifically delve into the other thread. In fact, I started a lengthy drag in of the other as an example here, and felt it would ultimately be better not to do so. I suppose I wasn’t completely successful.
Typically a general question is spawned by a specific incident or string of incidents, so even if the question is about the general case, specifics will leak in. That can sometimes hijack the general question.
General answer: yes, moderator actions are discussed behind the scenes. If you feel a moderator call is in error, email or PM an admin or another mod, or start an ATMB thread.
It’s just without feedback, it is hard to know it has done any good.
