And she got away with a spectacular threadshitting episode in Cafe Society when she repeatedly insisted a troubled human being was surely burning in hell even as people mourned. The reason she is being pitted is clear. The reason she was given a pass in CS is not.
The difference between them and Twickster is that they are always polite and happy to explain their actions, whereas Twickster has a long term reputation of not only making many questionable decisions, but often expressing herself in a dismissive and/or confrontational way. There are many here who are not sympathetic to her because of they way she behaves.
Having said that, I can’t imagine what it must be like to be constantly hit on the head with a blunt object. She must either not care or have a very thick skin. I know I couldn’t put up with it.
I think those could all be factors. And let’s not forget the issue of who gets moderated since not everybody responds to criticism the same way. And for that matter, on a message board sometimes your reputation just precedes you: for example you could make a sensible judgment call and use standard wording in a warning and then get grief for it because in the past you didn’t do those things in other instances, so the latest action must somehow also be inappropriate.
I agree, Dex is pretty good. He always takes the time to email me when I contact him about a board issue, even if all I do is click the Report icon.
GFactor is active. He emailed me yesterday in response to a board issue.
Some religious people have the opinion that suicide ruins your chance of going to heaven, no big deal, they are entitled to that opinion, no need to get all upset over it.
To take issue with that opinion on the over the top level that I have seen here on the board, just looks like a bunch of drama queens leaping at the chance for someone to heckle.
Yes, they are. In this case she injected her opinion into a thread about a country musician who’d killed herself (as opposed to a debate about suicide and religion), which is that much more annoying. She also continued to post about it after being told to stop several times.
The OP started the thread to discuss the sad story. JOSH’s claim that someone so tormented in life is surely doomed to eternal fiery torment is incredibly hateful and I can’t point to a more obvious example of threadshitting.
I think you’re mischaracterizing this a bit. After intervention a couple times by Marley, Twickster here comes back and gives them one last chance to drop the hijack/threadshit, and they do, apologizing for continuing it. The argument then reconvened in the Pit, as best I can tell.
That’s not quite the order of events. James Otto Sweet Heart posted about McCready’s impending damnation a couple of times and posters responded to her opinion. I told everybody twice to let go of that tangent, and warned one poster for failing to comply. faithfool then opened a Pit thread. faithfool and James Otto Sweet Heart continued to post about religion/prayer/whatever in the Cafe Society thread and twickster gave them another mod note, which I hope is the end of it. If I’d had a chance to post before twickster did, I’d have warned both James Otto Sweet Heart and faithfool. I actually did post a warning about one minute after twickster’s note and then deleted it.
I’m not sure. I saw Bricker use it recently so I thought it might make me sound smarter.
We disagree that the religious opinion was hateful, I did not see any hate, although the view itself is on the dismal side of possibilities when we die, not hateful.
I think that the real threadshitting was done by those who derailed the thread to call the opinion out. After all, if someone has the right to call someone out, someone should also have the chance to respond; the person who goes “off topic”, interrupting the thread to call someone out is one being the troublemaker.
Well, you’re smarterer than me, that’s fosho.
One of the main problems I see with twickster’s moderation is inconsistency. For example, one of these recent posts got a stern warning, one got a “dial it back, no warning issued” mod note, see if you can guess which was which:
Obviously, moderating can never be perfectly objective, but when you give a slap on the wrist for multiple, bright line rules violations in one case and then come down like a ton of bricks on a subtle jab, it makes you look capricious. This is not unique to twickster, either. There’s been a lot more “no warning given” slaps on the wrist handed out for flat-out violations of late, which might feel nicer at the time, but in fact undermines the perceived objectivity of all future warnings. It’s a lot easier to accept a speeding ticket for going 35 in a 30 mph zone when the cop’s buddy isn’t driving 70 mph on the sidewalk while he’s writing it.
In my opinion, this board’s biggest strength has always been its goal of fair, rules-based moderation. To that end, the mods might consider undergoing a regular calibration exercise, where for a period of weeks/months any time anyone is considering a moderation action, they first email the mod loop with the proposed action and see if others would take the same course. It’s not about right or wrong, it’s about coming to a consensus as to the correct course of action in the various situations that arise so one individual’s mood / reading of tone don’t cause disproportionate variance in how the board is modded.
Good point Giraffe, except that I don’t think it fair that Twickster should be singled out the only one who might sometimes be more stern on an unestablished, newer poster rather than one who is a long time regular, like the two examples you cite.
I have never seen a message board where there wasn’t some underlying favoritism for long time posters over newbies. It’s a clear phenomenon, haven’t you witnessed it over at your board? 
Yes, eternal loneliness and torment following a lonely and dismal life on earth certainly sounds a tad “dismal”. I feel like you’re baiting me into a slightly more civil argument than the skewering that is happening in the pit, but I’ll decline.
That would tie up moderation so bad nothing would get done in a timely manner(if at all).
Well, we hardly have any rules, so this sort of situation doesn’t come up that often.
But I’m not talking about cutting regulars some slack: I personally think it’s perfectly reasonable to give a long time poster the benefit of the doubt over a newbie in cases like suspected trolling. That’s using the extra information you have from a poster’s posting record to make a more nuanced judgment. I’m talking about how the rules are enforced in cases where the fact that a rules violation occurred is not in question. If a long time poster can completely ignore rules with virtually no consequences, that undermines the credibility of the rules-based moderation that took years to build.
I just don’t see the reason for the vitriol. It’s just a religious opinion someone has, it doesn’t change what might be the truth and so really doesn’t matter.
And like I said, those that derailed the thread in order to challenge the view were the real threadshitters, imo. If someone had question or beef, they should have started another thread about it.
I do agree that the obvious example you gave was indeed obvious of inconsistency, Inigo’s post should have been moderated more heavily. I just chalked it up to not only Inigo being long time poster, but factoring in how bad a day someone might have had. 
It’s a hijack, not really a threadshit - she appears to want to participate in the discussion and wasn’t mocking the topic. She went off on a tangent that didn’t have to be part of that thread. I’m not surprised other posters weren’t able to ignore it even if ideally they would have done just that.