Remember the whole gun grabber thing, where you felt absolutely compelled to moderate my heinous use of provocative language in Great Debates?
How, then, does this post, by a moderator, in MPSIMS, get a free pass?
For those that don’t wish to click the link to a post in a now closed thread, Rickjay, noted moderator, dropped this little gem:
*You have to admit it’s curious that a proposed general ban on many weapons results, specifically, in a huge rush on the AR-15 Gradeschooler. *
Now if a moderator, trusted guardian of the sacred civility of this noble board, is allowed to comment in this manner in the fluffy-fucking-bunny forum, tell me again why I shouldn’t use “gun grabber” in the more rough and tumble Great Debates?
This is a really bad example to try to prove your point. As he’s already said, he was trying to keep the thread civil and on-track, so as not to let it derail into a trainwreck like so many other hyperbole-filled gun threads, including the thread you reference, which was ultimately closed because of it.
So, you’re sorta proving that trying to moderate the hyperbole was worth the effort. Now, if you’re trying to point out that mods get away with behavior that non-mods don’t, well, since mods are apparently not regularly Noted or Warned in public, I guess we have no way of knowing that.
But I’ll also point out that RickJay directed his hyperbolic potshot at a class of guns, not a group of people that could loosely be interpreted as a class of members of this board.
No dog in this particular fight, nor do I have anything against RickJay or that post but it sure was at the vanguard of the derailment. Whether it was a comment towards a group of people’s beliefs or of a type of weapon, it was threadshitting, IMO.
The fact that he kept mis-stating why that gun is popular didn’t help.
No, it’s really not. Here, we have a ridiculously over the top and highly inflammatory posting in a supposedly more tightly regulated forum, from an anti-gun moderator, that is from all appearances, perfectly acceptable. Yet my very mild wording in a forum that allows much sharper exchanges, but happened to be on the pro-gun side, was moderated.
I want a level playing field. I want to know with some reasonable degree of certainty what I can and cannot post here. There was no way for me to anticipate my gun grabber post would be moderated. If there was, I probably would not have made it.
Oh, I completely agree on that point. If there weren’t an increased push for the ban on the sale of assault-rifles, those guns would not have seen any spike in sales just because some nut used one to massacres a bunch of elementary school kids.
I’ve kind of always wanted one myself, and a prospective ban somewhat increases my impulse to get one, but since I have very little use for one and would hardly ever get to shoot it, I just can’t justify it. My safe isn’t big enough, and there are many other things that I’d get a lot more use out of that I’d rather spend my money on.
I think you have the mistaken expectation that the moderation here is supposed to be completely objective - it’s not, and that’s not a bug, it’s a feature. The moderators are trusted with a certain degree of subjectivity, and usually they get it right, but sometimes they screw it up.
If someone thinks they screwed up, we have threads like this, where it all can get aired out ad nauseam, and everybody can weigh in. Sometimes one side or the other admits they were wrong, sometimes changes get made to the way things are handled, but usually it ends with an agreement to disagree.
(Here comes the blunt part, don’t take it the wrong way.) If someone finds that they have to excessively agree to disagree, or that they just can’t agree to disagree at all anymore, they need to start thinking about finding some place more suited to their expectations. Because, if the moderation really is so biased and oppressive, and the users here so shrill and hypocritical as you so often accuse them of being, WTF is the point? Why are you still here?
Now, I’m not saying you should go, because I think that you can reason this out. The real reason you’re here is because it’s NOT that bad. The vast majority of the moderation is fair, the vast majority of the users are reasonable, and the board that results from all that is much better than you like to admit to yourself and/or everybody else. Otherwise, there would be many better boards with completely objective moderation you would rather take part in.
Put it in perspective. All of this gnashing of teeth because you got a Mod Note asking that you (and others) refrain from using a silly inflammatory phrase like “gun grabbers” in a thread… Come on man! Not only is a Mod Note in general not a big deal, but the directive of that particular MN was trivial! I’m certain you can get your point across even better without using that particular phrase. If it helps, just think about it as if Marley was helping you *strengthen *your argument, while also trying to keep the thread from turning out like so many others on the same subject.
Exactly. There was a spike in sales when people feared there would be a push to ban certain guns. The spike in sales did not result from a bunch of children being killed with a certain gun.
Yet in post 2 Der Trihs takes a shot at a group of people that are members of this board.
“It helps show how twisted gun owners are.”
Multiple mods have said that taking a shot at a group, that might also have members of that group posting on this board, is fine. Which is why Oakminster getting singled out for the gun-grabber comment was ridiculous.
This has everything to do with you. You’re the guy that chose to call me out for not actually breaking any known rule of this board.
So what? Even you will acknowledge that negative comments about groups that may include posters are allowed here. unless you’ve changed your mind on that, in which case I expect you to go back and retroactively warn every poster that has used terms such as “Tea Bagger”.
And the point that you have studiously ignored despite me asking several times…how in the blue hell could I anticipate you deciding that post was worthy of moderation?
Pro-gun poster gets moderated for a mild comment that does not break any known rule. Anti-gun moderator makes outrageously inflammatory post, in a forum that generally does not allow that level of venom in discussion, and you think that is just fine.
In the last post of the thread Twickster appeared to ban all gun related threads from mpsims. Since she is not an Admin I was wondering if that was official or if she overstepped her authority. If not, when do we get the sticky announcing the change?
Why does it matter if you were able to anticipate the mod note? I intervened to try to keep the thread on track and minimize the ‘you people are nuts’ comments that dominate a lot of gun threads. I didn’t warn you, and I gave a general note. This was not some kind of strict censure or tremendous imposition. It also has nothing whatsoever to do with the post you are now complaining about. That post was about a gun, not about another poster, and it was not in a forum I moderate. You can ask RickJay why he said it and you can ask the MPSIMS mods about their handling of that post and the thread, but it has nothing to do with my modding of the previous GD thread.
He came up with a mocking name for the gun. He didn’t insult anyone for owning the gun or wanting to (although I wouldn’t be surprised if they object).
It’s not a ban, it’s a sensible observation based on the way these threads usually turn out. The only threads about guns that get started in MPSIMS are usually of the ‘breaking news - there’s been a shooting’ type. Debates go in GD, threads about using guns go in The Game Room, complaints go in the Pit. Since the ‘there’s been a shooting’ threads often turn into debate, you may as well start them in the Pit or GD.
It matters because if I could have anticipated moderation, I would not have fucking posted it. I don’t generally break rules here.
You had not done so in the many other similar threads scattered across the forums. Essentially, you changed the rules late in the third quarter of the game. Ex post facto.
You did not give a general note. You called me out by name and quote. A general note would be something like “Everybody knock it off and play nice in this thread” without naming or quoting any particular poster.
My post was also not about another poster.
Rickjay and/or MPSIMS mods are welcome to explain themselves in this thread.
You should all be on the same page, and apply the rules in a consistent, predictable manner. A post that is worth a warning should get a warning from any mod. A post that is only worth a note should get a note from any mod.
A moderator is allegedly held to a higher standard of conduct. Or so I was once told. Actually twice told. A moderator should set an example for other posters. Rickjay’s outrageously inflammatory remark falls considerably below that standard.