In a now closed topic, a slightly off-topic question of multiple standards on conduct and decorum were raised between two respected Posters.
This is not a Pitting by any means- rather a opportunity for discussion. As it invovles the administration of the Board, I thought it belonged here, that’s all.
My humble thoughts:
Rilchiam cut Anthracite some slack- it’s the painful truth. Certain posters have been given great leeway to post things and engage in conduct which would have quickly led to bans for new members. I could provide names and infamous “incidents” but most regular posters can fill in the blanks themselves, and I do not wish to cause any harm or grief to any particular poster over this issue (not to mention those deceased equines are throughly beaten).
In fact, the bigger issue is so what. Long time posters get numerous chances and do overs- maybe they have earned it. Is it fair? I don’t know- that’s just how it is. If that’s the way the SDMB and the Mods want it- that’s how it’s going to be. The threads you listed show no long term poster even given so much as a formal warning- in fact they reopened a closed thread for a long time poster. Why do you think they have post counts and member since statistics next to your name? I agree with Anthracite on this one.
Maybe it should be “that’s because you are acting like a moron and have not earned the benefit of the doubt or a second chance.”
My final question on this is “yeah, there are multiple tiers of standards-- but is that a bad thing?”
Yes, there are separate standards, and there should be. When a veteran does something wrong or inappropriate on the boards, the importance of this misdeed must be viewed in the context of their usual post habits. If Poster A has been kind of contentious the whole time he’s been here and then really acts out of line, then he should be quickly chastised. But if Poster B has been kind, articulate, and humble when dealing with his fellow posters and then commits a transgression, then he should be cut some slack. In other words, the previous contributions of a poster should be taken into account; logically, then, a person who hasn’t been here long hasn’t contributed much, and his words can only be taken at face value.
What’s that word I’m thinking about? Oh yeah! Favoritism!
Happens all the time in the real world where personal feeling enter into the decision process. I don’t really see why it should exist in a cyber-world, where everyone is more or less anonymouse.
But I know it does and it will and I don’t really care either way.
She told me she loved me like a brother. She’s from Arkansas, hence the Joy!
Favortism isn’t the same thing as different standards. Doing a bad thing on here isn’t remotely the same as being pulled over by the police for speeding. If the cop likes you and doesn’t give you a ticket, that’s favortism. But if you do a bad thing here and the admins decide, “Well, he’s really contributed a lot to the board, so we’ll talk to him about this, but we won’t kick him off outright,” then it’s a different standard, not favortism. Favortism would mean that if someone has a zillion posts, they’re invincible - and we know this simply isn’t true.
I think it’s appropriate to evaluate members of the community differently depending on how much we know about them. It’s very much like any other community.
Let’s say you have a group of friends who decide to go out drinking together, and one guy gets completely shitfaced and acts like an ass. If it’s a guy you’ve known for a couple of years, you know whether this is typical behavior for him, or whether it’s maybe just because he had a bad day, or just broke up with his girlfriend, or whetever, and cut him some slack. But if it’s some guy you just met, you don’t have any background, so you’re more likely to say, “Yeesh, this guy is an asshole. Let’s not invite him along any more.” Same thing happens here.
I may have an interesting take on this subject as I was a poster with a decent (low hundreds) post count at one point. After the server debacle I returned to find my user name gone and rather than email the board I just re-registered. I know I wasn’t supposed to do this, but hey I’m a pretty low key inoffensive guy by most standards so I figure no harm was done.
Soon after coming back I encountered a thread where a very well know poster was being an ass. Not an asshat or goat felcher, but just a garden variety snippy ass. I called him on it and was reamed briefly by the board.
Looking back this is the farthest thing from a big deal that I can imagine, but I am sure that if I had any better than a double digit post count at the time the worst I would have encountered would have been indifference.
So the question is: Are we hostile to newbies? I wouldn’t go that far, but it is clear that if a new poster wants to court controversy they better be REALLY righteous on the topic on which they choose to post.
But hey, this is a community and we protect our own and I have a hard time feeling bad about that.
There’s no doubt that this place can be extremely intimidating to a newcomer until they’ve stuck around a bit. The best deal is to lurk for a while, get a sense of what’s what, and then post a stand on something, such as in the Pit or GD or even IMHO. Until you get a feel for how people will react to things - and a flair for knowing what things are funny and what things people take very seriously - you’ll just post with trepidation all the time.
It’s true that newer people are unfairly treated, but not all people treat newcomers in this manner. If you wander into a big brawl in the Pit and toss off a nonsequitur, you’ll get roasted. If you pay attention to what’s going on and post a meaningful comment - or at least an inoffensive one - you won’t get roasted. True, people to overreact on here (!), but that too is something you have to take into account.