I would argue that it’s not so much the posters or the mods, but the culture, as developed by both. Thus, as posters come and go, the culture stays the same and those posters that develop to fit it (or who already do) stay, and those who don’t leave. The continuation of that culture is a result of both posters and mods - the posters by, well, posting, and the mods by ensuring that the right posters stay and the wrong ones go. Fire all the staff and hire new ones, and you’d have a period of total destruction as staff unity, fairness of decisions and the like collapse, from which might rise stability as the posters gradually come back to normal. Get rid of all the posters, and you’d have the same, with moderators continually called in to stop wildly rule-breaking behaviour, to look at things which aren’t rule-breaking at all, or be asked why things aren’t the same as other boards. Gradually over time you might get stability as similarly the work of the mods ensures those who really can’t abide by the rules leave, while those who can are protected by the rules and themselves.
It is silly to claim that the boards are the way they are because of either the staff or the posters alone. Both affect the board, and so the board is affected.
Sure, there’d be stability after the transition, but you wouldn’t have this board. You’d have just another compartmentalized messageboard on the internet. IMO, of course.
So a very small proportion. And yet, despite the influx of new posters, we’re still doing OK. At least that’s my opinion.
So some or maybe even most of them did come here because of Cecil Adams and the Straight Dope column. That’s how I got here.
P.S. Wait, when you said Arnold, did you mean me? If so, I’m flattered, but I was never one of the luminaries at the board. Don’t blame me for your addiction!
Ed, I respectfully suggest that you spend your time where it’s more needed and become less involved with the SDMB. We’d all have less headaches. You are fire and this message board is gasoline. At this point your long explanations are just more points of contention to be picked at.
Nuh nuh nuh… it’s all your fault, buddy. Yes, I meant you, and I think you have been more of a luminary than you’re aware.
I don’t know if I’d describe someone who has been here for five years as a “new poster”, and that only takes us back to '04.
I think that the culture we all know and love evolved until it became self-sustaining. The community accomplished the culling of the deadwood and the infusing with new blood far more than Staff ever did, or ever could have. Staff kept us free to do that by preventing us from being subjected daily to SexyRussianGirl and the Free Pictures of all her little playmates… that, I’ll freely grant. But it was the posts by the Members that made this board everything that it ever was.
You seem to be implying this happens a lot, but it doesn’t. The situation with Colibri and Sapo definitely did get close to this line, I admit.
We do this, actually. Speaking for myself, once in a while it’s necessary to mod in a thread you’re posting in to prevent a situation from getting out of hand. But I agree it’s usually preferable to let somebody else handle it.
I agree - sometimes it’s tricky to compare one situation to another and determine the best way to handle it, and we also sometimes don’t explain the difficult ones well.
The complaints about mod rudeness are (and in my experience, always were) way out of line with the amount of rudeness that actually gets displayed. I felt that way long before I became a mod here.
That aside, Gfactor addressed this well: to the degree circling the wagons happens, it generally happens when the criticism is particularly hostile and we try to explain ourselves. People want to understand what we’ve done, which only makes sense, but then at times they leap to conclusions and make attacks, at which point you usually get more of a defensive reaction from the mods. I’m not dismissing anybody, but there’s something of a predictable cycle there.
Nobody posts to this board, or any other board, because of the moderating. The culture here evolved, and the mods generally try to sustain it at the same level.
Just a quick note about Fenris’s Rule #2: It depends. When it’s someone playing the game that caused his post, yeah, it should be avoided. But I’ve seen Tom and Gaudere active in a debate, put on the Mod Hat to warn off a flamefest-in-the-making, instance of threadshitting, or other problem, then continue with the debate – sometimes in the same post. What it takes is to be dispassionate in the Mod-hat action – and to make sure you’re seen to be dispassionate.
Not under the current rules as I understand them. Also, without a firm restriction that no modding is to be done without a “mod hat” message first, it’s impossible to tell which mode someone’s in from time to time. If it were up to me it would be mandatory to put on a mod-hat (or similar phrase). I agree that many mods do–but there’s also the “Hey, knock it off” type posts where there’s no mod hat. And when the necessity of mandatory mod hats has been brought up before, the response has been
or less helpful responses.
As did several others I listed, but I agree, it doesn’t happen all that frequently. That said, I don’t think posters calling mods “cunts” happens all that frequently either–I think it worth codifying this.
This may be selection bias, but I see it happening quite a bit in GD. I may only be noticing it there because I’m expecting to notice it there, but that’s where I see it. ETA-Poly mentioned GD too. I’m not accusing mods there of misbehavior, but there have been a lot of cases I’ve seen of newbies confused by mods switching from poster to mod in mid-stream.
But if the new rule is no snark, no backtalk and no name-calling, it’s gotta go both ways. Sadly, it seems the era of posters being given custom titles like “Too stupid to post” and/or “Asshat” is over due to problems on both sides.
I hear both you and GFactor, and you’re right, that catch-22 exists. But at the same time, we’ve also seen examples of pure, raw denial. In the Tuba vs Catsix fiasco, for example, not only was there tapdancing across the mod/poster line, but there was out-and-out denial that the following phrase was a thread from someone speaking as an Admin. “There’s much I’d like to promise you for your dishonest words and your overall nasty ways. I promise you I’ll try to overlook all that.”(she was responding to snark about promises about new features). The excuse was given “Well, she wasn’t wearing her mod hat, so she wasn’t threatening retaliation” which makes no sense if she was just being a poster. Sorry to keep dredging up a 3 year old incident, but I think it illustrates the issue at hand.
We forget from time to time, but not very often from what I’ve seen, and things like “Mod Note” and “Mod Hat On” appear a lot more than they used to. There are times it gets overlooked and we need to be more aware of it, true.
Mistakes get made, speaking overall and not just with this issue. The truth is we need some discretion in what we do: we’re moderating conversations on a message board.
It does. There are definitely restrictions on what we can say and do. We’re not allowed to pit individual posters, and we’re generally discouraged from telling people off the way other posters are free to. I’m not usually the type to do either of those things, but the restriction goes both ways. If anything, I think the mods are more constrained in what they are allowed to say about individual posters than vice versa.
Funny you mention Tom here, Poly. I was going to post, before I got a case of the fuck-its, that ****Marley ****might want to remind **Tom **of the good sense behind the principle of separating oneself as a mod from one’s participation in a heated debate as a poster. My experience --as diametrically opposed to yours, which is not odd considering that the posts I’m recalling have him participating actively as both a Mod and a poster, mostly defending your position and attacking mine–is a very bad one, where he kept repeatedly–often seconds after a bad-tempered exchange all around as posters–chiming in as a Mod. My analogy, then and now, was of a referee slipping in a few punches in the middle of a hotly contested title bout. It was IMO outrageously inappropriate behavior that could have–and should have–easily been avoided had **Tom **recused himself. More outrageously, when I suggested that he do so, and continue posting his heavily biased point of view, he got even angrier at the suggestion that he was displaying bias in his Mod rulings.
I understand how from your pov he was acting fairly and judiciously, but from mine it was the first realization that this board was ultimately about other things than fighting ignorance .
Overall a good an constructive post, but you want to tread lightly here. Cecil brought most of us here and seeded this community with a better class of member who appreciate his style of wit and thought. The Mods play a very important role in inoculating it the miasma of the internet. However, contrary to Arnold Winkelried’s opinion, the greater contributions to this content and community are the longtime members. We, more than anything, insulate and protect this board from the insidious stupidity that is common elsewhere and we maintain the high level discourse. Don’t make the mistake of thinking we are easily replaceable and merely a symptom of temperate moderation.
This would be good and would go a long way to cooling some of the frustration in the long term but it’s a red herring in regards to the current drama.
Ed, you’ve made some changes. Ending Mod abuse is a good one and confining these discussions to ATMB will be a productive change that suits your end game. Removing profanity from thread titles serves a appreciable purpose. However, the banned words list and vague “no abusing other posters” rules are pointless and ineffective. A nanny state isn’t what you are hoping for we’ve yet to hear a constructive reason for it. You’ve conceded that you have overreacted to the language directed at your Admins. That issue is solved by moving things to ATMB and the comprehensive language restrictions go too far for too little gain. Reconsider it and we can move forward.
With less “personal” insults we may get more even-handed modding.
Yes, Giraffe is Fonzie, but not everyone is that cool. I know it would be hard for me to be nice or even fair to someone if I had been the object of such hateful criticisms. Objective critiques I can take, but make it personal and I’m going to get personal right back.
With any luck, this will make it easier for the mods to mod and easier for the posters to post.
Hell if it gets easy enough, maybe even Twicks will want to be a mod
I’ve found that it’s almost always clear when a mod is posting as a poster, and when they’re moderating. If there’s any doubt, the “Mod Hat On” or some such designation is helpful. And the rule has always been – and still is – that mods are attackable as are any other posters. The new rule, and the difference, is that mods as not PERSONALLY attackable for moderator decisions. You may challenge what the mod did, but not their personality, character, intelligence, etc.
Aside: this is not an alien concept. Most parents are aware of the difference between “You’re a nasty person” and “That’s not good behavior.”
While conceptually this is a good idea, in practice there’s no way. Mods choose which forum they want to moderate, and it’s usually a forum they want to participate in. I would NOT want to moderate GD or the Pit, and I don’t participate in those forums as frequently as I participate in CoCC, CoSR, or Cafe Society (for instance.)
Also, mods don’t read every thread. We couldn’t possibly. We read threads/posts that get reported, OK. But otherwise, we tend to read threads that interest us, which means threads we want to participate in. It’s an impractical burden to say that a mod hast to find some OTHER mod to take action, just because he/she has posted in that thread. That’s way more work for very little return.
Note that if you find a mod misbehaving in this way, you can REPORT the post (so it will be seen by other mods) or you can email an administrator.
Again, a great principle, but not entirely realistic. There’s really only one rule: don’t be a jerk. There are lots of regulations that have been put in place to be more specific, as Eutychus noted above, when there’s been some abuse not specifically addressed by the prior regulations.
We’ve been, on the whole, extremely over-lenient when a new rule comes in, being careful to avoid ex post facto warnings.
And please remember, there is always massive internal debate within the mod groups before any serious action is taken (like suspension or banning).
The rule has ALWAYS been that mods should be held to a higher standard than other posters. We are NOT allowed to be jerks. We are not allowed to start Pit threads about posters. We are NOT allowed to respond to posters in kind when we’re called unspeakable names. You are writing as though there are frequent such offenses: I can only say that I’ve only had four or five people writing to me (over the last six or seven years) to complain about moderator mis-behavior, and most of those frankly are people whining because they got their hand slapped.
Over the last decade, there have been a handful of cases where mods have misbehaved in any significant way. (The occasional misjudgment about a warning is not, to my mind, significant.) Most of those cases are reversible – e.g., an unwarranted suspension. The number of non-reversible situations is probably two or three, over ten years plus. That’s not too bad a record, frankly.
In short, I’m surprised by these accusations. Maybe it’s because I don’t read the Pit… and perhaps people have felt that yelling “fuck off” and making comments about a moderator’s personality was better than reporting the offense to an administrator. If that’s the case, there’s a serious miscomprehension here (which the new rules about the Pit are trying to fix.) A report gets a helluva lot more attention than a rant full of spittle. Reasonable politeness about a mod’s actions gets way more constructive discuussion than obscenities or personal insults.
This works both ways, of course, which is why mods aren’t supposed to be nasty to posters either. People respond much better to polite criticism of their actions than to character slurs.
I’ve found that it’s almost always clear when a mod is posting as a poster, and when they’re moderating. If there’s any doubt, the “Mod Hat On” or some such designation is helpful. And the rule has always been – and still is – that mods are attackable as are any other posters. The new rule, and the difference, is that mods as not PERSONALLY attackable for moderator decisions. You may challenge what the mod did, but not their personality, character, intelligence, etc.
Aside: this is not an alien concept. Most parents are aware of the difference between “You’re a nasty person” and “That’s not good behavior.”
While conceptually this is a good idea, in practice there’s no way. Mods choose which forum they want to moderate, and it’s usually a forum they want to participate in. I would NOT want to moderate GD or the Pit, and I don’t participate in those forums as frequently as I participate in CoCC, CoSR, or Cafe Society (for instance.)
Also, mods don’t read every thread. We couldn’t possibly. We read threads/posts that get reported, OK. But otherwise, we tend to read threads that interest us, which means threads we want to participate in. It’s an impractical burden to say that a mod hast to find some OTHER mod to take action, just because he/she has posted in that thread. That’s way more work for very little return.
Note that if you find a mod misbehaving in this way, you can REPORT the post (so it will be seen by other mods) or you can email an administrator.
Again, a great principle, but not entirely realistic. There’s really only one rule: don’t be a jerk. There are lots of regulations that have been put in place to be more specific, as Eutychus noted above, when there’s been some abuse not specifically addressed by the prior regulations.
We’ve been, on the whole, extremely over-lenient when a new rule comes in, being careful to avoid ex post facto warnings.
And please remember, there is always massive internal debate within the mod groups before any serious action is taken (like suspension or banning).
The rule has ALWAYS been that mods should be held to a higher standard than other posters. We are NOT allowed to be jerks. We are not allowed to start Pit threads about posters. We are NOT allowed to respond to posters in kind when we’re called unspeakable names. You are writing as though there are frequent such offenses: I can only say that I’ve only had four or five people writing to me to complain about moderator mis-behavior, and most of those frankly are people whining because they got their hand slapped.
Over the last decade, there have been a handful of cases where mods have misbehaved in any significant way. (The occasional misjudgment about a warning is not, to my mind, significant.) Most of those cases are reversible – e.g., an unwarranted suspension. The number of non-reversible situations is probably two or three, over ten years plus. That’s not too bad a record, frankly.
In short, I’m surprised by these accusations. Maybe it’s because I don’t read the Pit… and perhaps people have felt that yelling “fuck off” and making comments about a moderator’s personality was better than reporting the offense to an administrator. If that’s the case, there’s a serious miscomprehension here (which the new rules about the Pit are trying to fix.) A report gets a helluva lot more attention than a rant full of spittle. Reasonable politeness about a mod’s actions gets way more constructive discuussion than obscenities or personal insults.
This works both ways, of course, which is why mods aren’t supposed to be nasty to posters either. People respond much better to polite criticism of their actions than to character slurs.
I’m sorry, on re-reading, I guess I didn’t say the main point: Yeah, I’m fine with 1, 3, and 4 as rules for mods, at least at a conceptual level. It’s just that, from where I sit, those have always pretty much been the principles that are supposed to guide mod behaviors.
Usually they are. One in a while people have come up with unexpected ways of being jerks, but most of the time that’s not the problem - it’s us either handling a matter differently than we handled a similar situation years ago, or being unclear about why we took action, for example.
Seriously, I agree that most of the time those rules I proposed wouldn’t be needed on a daily or even monthly basis. The vast majority of mod decisions that we see (and point taken about all the spamming-type banning/moderation we don’t see) are fine/just/righteous. But then, as Ed and others have said, only a tiny minority of posters are affected by the new pit-language rules. Most posters don’t use the c-word to attack mods (I can only think of two times where it’s happened and caused a stink) but having that rule there seems to help the comfort level of Ed and the Staff.
I think having those rules codified and put in place would help similarly help restore some of the…trust? comfort? balance? that used to exist between mods/posters.
I’m going to chime in with those who think all of this is covered by the ‘don’t be a jerk rule’.
The only modification that needs be made is a disclaimer that in accepting this as the over riding rule means you accept that what constitutes ‘being a jerk’ is not always black and white. For clarity’s sake you need to accept that Ed will be the arbiter of what is or is not ‘jerk’ behaviour. Please understand that each of Ed’s decisions on these hairsplitting issues of jerkishness will be carefully considered, but it’s his call to make, and, no, it can’t always be defined. Accept that you will not always see eye to eye with Ed on some of these calls, cest la vie.
That’s my opinion, and I hasten to add, worth what you paid for it.
