The thing is, moderating a high volume message board involves making a lot of judgment calls. Pretty much any decision you make is gonna upset somebody. I understand this, because I’ve done it for years elsewhere on the net. There isn’t a handbook for “How to be a Mod”. It’s the kind of thing you do on a case by case basis. Most boards have rules, both written and unwritten, and most mods are entrusted with considerable discretion to apply those rules as they deem appropriate. Making an unpopular decision on a message board does not make someone a bad person, a puritan, or even a bad moderator. He’s doing the job he’s been asked to do.
Here, I don’t think Frank was saying “Thou shalt never talk about sex again”. I think he was saying there’s enough of this right now, let’s talk about something else for awhile. Allowing one topic to just dominate a particular forum can give the wrong impression to people that are not regulars of that forum. Someone new to this board might see the flood of sex threads and say hmmmm…guess that’s what this forum is about, when that is clearly not the case to those of us that have followed the forum for a longer period of time. I also think it is fair to treat sex differently than other topics, because of the whole NSFW/SFW issue.
Oakminster, even allowing for the fact that moderation is all about judgment calls, I think there’s grounds here to say that Frank made a poor one. Without getting bogged down in legalism, I’d like to see some rule, some precedent, some common practice cited by him. Instead, all I see is arbitrariness – a post chosen at random to close because it fell afoul of Frank’s arbitrary and never-before-alluded-to prejudice. It’s an act of bad faith toward all who were participating in that thread. No one there had done anything wrong, but their thread got closed anyway because if was a proxy for something else Frank was unhappy about.
My notion of moderation comes from Paul’s Letter to the Corinthians: “Moderation is patient; Moderation is kind. Moderation is not jealous; it does not put on airs; it is not snobbish. Moderation is never rude; it is not self-seeking; it is not prone to anger; neither does it brood over injuries. Moderation does not rejoice in what is wrong but rejoices with the truth. There is no limit to Moderation’s forbearance, to its trust, its hope, its power to endure. Moderation never fails.”
In the hours after those threads were closed, the IMHO section of this Board had roughly 50 threads on the front page. There were, at most, 5-6 threads about sex, including the ones that had been closed.
That’s hardly an example of sex dominating the discussion.
I don’t care whether or not there’s a “Hoandbook” for being a mod; this was a bad decision, pure and simple.
Wow, i thought that The Flying Dutchman’s post was sarcastic, because no-one could be that stupid. Are you telling me he was serious?
Can’t say I agree, EC. Power should be used frequently and brutally, with no regard for anything other than my selfish pleasures and arbitrary prejudices, and anyone who disagrees publicly, or behind closed doors, or in the privacy of his/her own thoughts, or even potentially, shall face the wrath of my genetically engineered, venom-spewing, etc. winged howler monkeys.
Of course, I’m an aspirant evil overlord so the rest of you may not agree.
I think the only thing that bothers me is not knowing what will be considered “too much” next. Too many baby threads? Too many “Ask the…” threads? Too many (Og forbid) cat threads. If you don’t like or aren’t interested in a thread subject, just don’t open it. I hadn’t read any of the sex threads and don’t feel I missed a thing. I only wonder what will be next.
And if you’re worried about someone reading over your shoulder at work, maybe you shouldn’t be surfing the Web (or reading the Dope) at work.
No. I was nearby in May, while on one of my occasional random drives around the state, but the motels in Grand Junction were overtaken by a soccer tournament, so I went off to Glenwood Springs instead. Which worked out well, actually. I was able to burn down some magazine racks, and put burkas on some of the chicks in the bar I hung out in.
I was also annoyed with the closure of the “How many sexual partners . .” thread. If it had “run its course,” no one would be posting in it and there would be no need to close it. People, like me, were still interested in the topic. I had posted in it earlier, went to check new responses, and found it closed. What the . . .? When I found the last post by Frank I thought, “What a stupid reason to close a thread.” Glad to know I’m not alone in thinking that.
There is no SDMB rule, written or unwritten, about how many threads on a given subject may be active at the same time. See the tiresome “Bush Suxx” threads.
For what reason? When the population here decides it’s enough of it right now, people will stop posting and threads on the subject will die a natural death.
Let 'em come back until they have acquired an accurate opinion of what the forum is about.
There is no NSFW issue. If you shouldn’t read the SDMB from work, don’t open the SDMB while at work. Simple as that.
No, I didn’t post in the closed threads. I read enough to satisfy my prurient interest (it didn’t take long) and moved on. I do strongly object to arbitrary closing of threads that members are actively participating in, when said threads do not violate any SDMB rules.
If you comprehended the thread subsequent to my initial post you would realize that you have no reason to claim that I suspect the OP in the thread in question is a troll.
Ditto. This is over moderation, plain and simple. (And I didn’t post in any of those threads, either. I just don’t approve of the heavy handed moderation employed.)
