It sure seems to me that the new mods do seem rather anxious to flex their muscles.
Which is why I showed up to complain. I would not want the matter to be dismissed lightly.
The thread has been re-opened.
Very well, I’ll join the protest too. IMHO, this is probably the most pointless thread-locking since TubaDiva decided that certain threads would look bad on her resume.
I must admit I’m not much of a fan of lonesome loser’s current posting style, but, unlike reeder who was the sole target for this rule, ll at least provides more than a quote and a link. Not only that but it, along with his other threads, brings an actual valid criticism of the Bush administration to the fore, something which reeder often lost sight of among the twins’ tongues and daddy’s middle finger.
If you did strongly feel that ll was running the risk of becoming a one-trick, Bush-bash pony, then was a ridiculously heavy-handed measure to stop it - by locking the thread, not only has the opportunity to promote discussion on the loose purse strings of the current administration compared to the predecessors, fighting the ignorance of a certain subset of posters who refuse to acknowledge such indiscretions (and isn’t that why you were here), it hardly sends the message to potential paying members that they’re welcome here.
I also don’t believe that your thread combining excuse is a flyer either, in this case - what relevance does Bush’s checquebook have with Cheney’s desire to torture furriners, for example?
There was an opportunity to avoid all this with a friendly email asking ll to go easy, but it seems the leet mod powers are too much of a lure. 
Ah dammit, I weigh in on a mod for the first time and dagnammit if she doesn’t have to go and be all reasonable about things and change her mind. 
Kudos to fluiddruid for reversing her decision. Please don’t take my previous post as criticism of you, just of this particular action.
Well if you(plural) stopped making silly calls you’d hear a lot less from everyone.
So this is going on my permanent record? do I need a lawyer?
Actually, you should notice the names. For example, mine. I’ve been here for years, don’t usually cause problems, mostly have supported mod actions, and never before started a pit thread about a mod’s actions. not one of the ‘usual suspects’.
I note that the thread has been re-opened. Thanks, I think that was the right decision.
wrt “why do I believe that threads drop off after 24 hours?” well, the default setting on the pit is to show the threads from the last 24 hours. When I open the pit, it may contain anywhere from 24 to 40 or so threads. suggesting/demonstrating that the actual number that “fit” on the front page is some number more than 40 (I believe it’s 50), and if there’s fewer than that number then they drop off the front page due to some other reason(the aforementioned “24 hours”).
Of course if you set the perameters to something other than the default view, your experience will not match mine. Doesn’t make mine wrong, though.
I can’t speak for the other mods, but someone who complains about moderators excessively will garner my attention only in that I will watch for rule violation (don’t just criticize the SDMB) and said individuals tend to also be problematic. One post against a moderator doesn’t go on any secret tally. I think it would be downright unethical to treat people differently because they (gasp!) dared to criticize a moderator in good conscience.
As a regular user, I felt free to post about moderator actions, and I had my own opinions about them (be they positive or negative). It’s important to discuss these things constructively, especially as we have a lot of new mods. I’d appreciate some level of understanding that we will occasionally change our minds or make mistakes; we are human, after all, and we aren’t (necessarily) out to get anyone, so one needn’t assume the worst.
Of course not. I’m just noticing the names, in a way that I did not before I became a moderator. I agree that your description of yourself is accurate.
Frankly, this is a bit horrifying to me.
Why? Frankly, some people just get off on criticism of mods. Most posters give honest, well-meant, constructive criticism. I don’t believe it’s possible for you to deny that not all are that way.
It smells a bit of ad hominem. I think that a moderator has a special responsibility to consider the validity of the criticism on its face. If a criticism is valid, it’s valid no matter who offers it. Your post suggests otherwise.
In fact, your post suggests that brown nosing might have practical applications; that if you’re usually “nice” to mods, your input will given more weight. But if you’re not in the habit of brown nosing, then your input is likely to be ignored.
By the way, is that a new haircut? It looks fabulous on you!
I see your point. Don’t you think one should consider the source of the criticism? When you discuss movies, do you give the same equal weight to all criticism of a movie no matter who it comes from? Isn’t considering the source part of determining whether a criticism is valid?
And I see your point. But my opinion of a movie is not really comparable, to me, to the “judgment” a moderator practices over other people. Awkward sentence. But I’m judging Chicken Little; you’re judging me.
Additionally, as a professional fact checker I can tell you that one must consider the source when judging an objective fact, but this is not so much the case, in a perfect world, in a more complex situation like rendering judgment on the kinds of human interactions that take place here.
Personally, even with issues of history and paranoia duly acknowledged, your post might well have what you might call your classic “chilling effect” on a Doper’s feeling that his/her grievance/input will be judged fairly and impartially. At least, speaking for myself, it’s a bit discouraging.
(Oh and TYM? Your ass looks amazing in those jeans.)
If it became apparent that I was moderating based on my personal likes or dislikes of a poster, there would be a flood of complaints to the admins, and my attitude would be adjusted. That said, I see no reason to take all criticisms and judgements of me equally seriously. I don’t in real life take the complaints of those who bitch and moan all the time as seriously as I do those whose comments are honestly meant as constructive. Do you?
The thing is you said
implying a certain element of “the usual suspects” kinda thinking.
Ok fair enough I’ve been here long enough to know that we always have a group of people that just cause shit for the mods and have personal shit with them but the two threads you were talking about were two situations that the mods actually were wrong as evidenced by the reversal of the two decisions.
In the first thread you very quickly stated(2nd post) that some people just didn’t like you and that’s why they were in that thread. In this one you imply “usual suspects”. You seem to like looking for other reasons why people are criticising you and other moderators other that the obvious one. That being you(again plural) were in fact wrong both times and that is why people were criticising.
thing is, TYM your comment in this thread was unspecified, which did have a chilling effect, hence my queary about permanent record and lawyer. I appreciate that you answered me directly, but OTOH, I didn’t really see names of folks I personally think of as “the usual suspects” in the thread anyhow. hence the chilling effect. While I agree that IRL generally, “consider the source” is advice I use, your comment about the names lent itself to a negative interpretation.
Y’all are making good points, and I now understand how any/all posters could feel that my comment applies to them.
I apologize for my comment. It was intemperate and unnecessary. It was not meant to produce a chilling effect, and does not indicate my desire for such.