…I don’t really see the difference between:
“Why is James Otto so Dreamy McDreamikins?”
and
“Maybe if she didn’t use so many fucking smilies every time.”
The problem is that so many people get away with the snarky comments and asides that when someone gets pulled up over it it stands out.
This. I listen to country music almost exclusively and I’d never heard of James Otto, nor any of the stuff he’s recorded. Given JOSH’s, um, religious bent, I’m assuming that Mr Otto is that sub-set of country that focuses on that subject.
I also think twickster was out of order on that warning, unless Nunzio Tavulari’s previous warning was for jabs at JOSH? That thread looks like a good place to find out why James Otto has such a strong fan base so why the warning?
That’s exactly what I was implying when I made this post. It’s ridiculous for twickster to have the power of moderation on this Message Board if she can’t follow the rules for herself. There have been numerous threads complaining about her.
I also think it’s time that moderation against moderators be publicized. If a moderator breaks the rules, he/she should be moderated in public just like any other poster is. That way, moderators like twickster will screw up less due to the humiliation factor involved with being moderated in public. What I found to be hilarious was that twickster was the one who actually moderated a moderator in public!
No, “don’t be a jerk” is the number one rule here, so she was explicitly stating the violation. And the comment about reviewing privileges is a common statement to people who have multiple warnings. This post was simple moderation with no snark.
Now it might be a bit excessive, especially without any insight to Nunzio’s record, but it certainly isn’t snarky.
Every time the moderators agree is circling the wagons, regardless of circumstances?
To be fair, there is the issue of the individuals’ personal records and how those contribute to the perception of the event. If Nunzio has already been warned several times to keep the snark out of MPSIMS, then slamming a warning for a light snark makes much more sense. It’s not the light snark in isolation, it is the cummulative record being evaluated.
I agree with this. There seems to be a trend of dropping Moderator Notes on some rules infractions that are blatant and then catching other incidents and giving them warnings “because you should know better”. That kind of variation seems capricious and thus open to charges of favoritism, cliques, etc. I have seen a few instances lately where I would be inclined to be stricter, but the infractions have passed with simple notes or whatever.
I don’t consider that a valid reason to reduce the moderation. If people in the know realize why the moderator action was so harsh, then it deserves to stand. If people in the know feel the moderation is over the top, then reconsider if it is over the top. But don’t base your evaluation of the moderating on the opinions of uninformed clueless passerbys.
I agree with this point. Perception affects how posters respond. The point of ATMB is to provide transparency to moderation. Hiding moderation of the moderators themselves does not foster that goal.
I’m not saying to have drawn out policy debates or decision making on evaluations done in the open - I think it’s fair to have those internal discussions on the mod board. But if moderators make an error, they should be called on it just like regular posters, in the open where consequences can be seen. Because otherwise it looks like there are no consequences, and that breeds discontent.
That’s why I advocate that discussions about moderation belong in ATMB and complaints about moderation belong in the Pit. Complaints are open for regular Pit rules, but are unofficial and can be ignored by the staff. Discussions must adhere to the rules of ATMB, but the staff has to respond.
It’s the hypocrisy that burns.
Now don’t forget about the time when twickster moderated herself! That has to count for something.
You see, I, unlike Shodan, do understand the twickster “hate” (if you must call it that)… and my panties got twisted all up into a big bunch at some of the other stuff she has done in her moderating.
But this time? She moderated someone who was being a jerk for being a jerk, and warned them that their posting privileges were under review… which is something all moderators post when members are under review. She didn’t say or do anything wrong, or even use unprofessional language at all. She specifically said the person was being moderated for being a jerk, which is a specific infraction one is capable of here on the boards. She wasn’t make a value judgment on her own or a mean comment… she HAD to list a reason for the moderator warning and being a jerk was that reason.
The problem is tone, Marley. Most moderator notes say something to the effect of ‘you’re receiving a warning for breaking the don’t be a jerk rule’ where as her moderation said ‘you are being a jerk’. She’s demonstrated contemp for us cattle in the past both openly and the behind the scenes slip. Many posters recognize it, it’s not something we’re making up. You seem to be arguing that it’s technically OK… And maybe it is. But that doesn’t sit well with many of this board. It would be like receiving a speeding ticket from a cop who while handing it to you said, “here’s your citation… and fuck you!” Might not be against the law but it sure is a jerkish way to wield the power of your post.
I thought this board tried to hold itself to a tab higher standard than that.
ETA: I remember a poster who was banned for his posting style even though his "interpretation of the post (he was responding to) was accurate. Tone counts for a lot around here usually.
Attention young Padawan. I told her to scold me for my transgression. I reported my own post. She did, to her credit. To my credit, it later proved that I was correct. I was the offender, but I was right. She made a good call.
This place is so complicated!
“You’re tearing me apart!”
Y’all are doing an excellent job of discussing the finer points of this warning and I am appreciative of having a broader opinion on my alleged digression.
My violation last month was likely deserved. I had a grumpy day and commented upon another poster’s oft-used catch phrase. Although it still annoys me, I should have held my tongue. Twickster issued my first official warning in July of last year.
I’m nonplussed at this recent warning, but the salient points of each side are being adequately discussed and I feel it best to avoid polluting the waters.
However, in my defense I must say that it’s hard for me to discern the line in the sand when comments from a current thread in IMHO, in which the poster is explicitly named, are left unmentioned.
IMO, both of those comments were more pointed and more “snarky” than the remark that I posted.
May the force be with you! 
No, she said “I’m giving you a warning for being a jerk.” Although “you are being a jerk” wouldn’t have been out of line either. You personally may have seen more posts that say ‘you are breaking the Don’t Be A Jerk Rule’ than ‘I’m warning your for being a jerk,’ but we use both phrasings. They mean the same thing. And when you get warned for breaking that rule, you get a private message that says
So even if you’re correct, this is a lot of slicing and dicing of language to little purpose. The main complaint in this thread boils down to ‘twickster said something all the mods say all the time that nobody objects to … but she’s said other stuff in the past I don’t like, so how dare she!’ That’s not a complaint about her moderating of this post, it’s an excuse to revive older complaints.
As usual, report the posts, etc.
When you’ve been around for a while perhaps you’ll be less amazed by the fact that people complain. Sometimes the complaints have merit, sometimes they don’t. I understand why people have objected to some of the other things twickster said (and shouldn’t have said), but this is a complaint about nothing.
She wasn’t the first or the last. Somehow in the last thread when I said staff matters weren’t going to be handled in public - meaning we’re not going to pile on and discipline other mods publicly - a couple of posters decided I was saying the mods couldn’t be modded. I was not. I know I gave one or two mod notes to Czarcasm in GD - probably not by name, but as part of a group of people who were being told to stop hijacking a thread, for example.
I feel compelled to ask out of sheer curiosity with no animosity (hey…rhymage!)…is there now a current moderator that has suffered more complaints in recent times than Twickster?
I don’t think there is.
Does that tell us anything?
No, it’s giving examples of a pattern. You can tell me that you’re the hall monitor and my opinion doesn’t count but you can’t tell me what my motivations are. I’ve already stated that I didn’t think she was wrong about telling Nunzio he was out of line. But she was snarky with her mod note in my opinion, something she has a habit of doing, so I posted my opinion in the proper thread in the proper forum.
Also, in my opinion, you are really reaching in your defense of twickster.
I need you to explain how. “I’m giving you a warning for being a jerk” isn’t any snarkier than a circumlocution like “you’re violating the Don’t Be A Jerk Rule and I’m giving you a warning.” Informing the poster that he’d received another mod note a few days earlier as part of the rationale for the warning is not snarky. Saying the staff would discuss his posting privileges isn’t snarky. And for that matter we don’t always want to be as polite as we can be. Sometimes you want to be less polite and make sure you get your point across- particularly when someone hasn’t been listening. Your complaints are civil, they’re in the right forum, and you’re welcome to your opinion of twickster and the rest of the staff, PlainJain, but these particular complaints don’t make much sense.
Sorry, I think that this clearly indicates bias on your part. I give notes and warnings as supposedly “snarky” as the one twickster gave at least several times a week. I can’t recall having been questioned on that account for a long time, and I don’t recall you remarking on it. If you’re not calling me on it, then you’re being selective in calling twickster on it. As far as I can see, twickster’s warning was quite straightforward.
Sure. Ever hear of The Untouchables? She’s one of them.
Shhhhs! It’s a secret – coded mug included.
Yes. People like to complain and others like to jump on the bandwagon. And people have that right, but sometimes you’d like to hear a different tune.
Actually, yes. Mods (openly) take into account posters’ past behaviors when making mod decision (as they should). Why wouldn’t posters take into account the mods past behaviors when interpreting/judging their actions?
Jumped the shark? In spite of the wagon circle, she did that the very first day she was made a mod.
Not going to search for the announcement, but you’ll see why right in that thread. It was one of the two times I’ve ever interacted with her. The other one was something to do with AA and her faith based support of it.
To put it simply, IMO, she is not fit for her job here.
Sorry, this just comes across as needlessly condescending. Again, it not what she says but how she says it.
“I told you to knock off personal snark against another user in Cafe Society just the other day – and here you are doing it again.”
So let me ask you a serious question that I’d like an answer to. Since we can’t see twickster, or hear her words, or know her personally in any way, how is it she keeps getting called on her shit and you don’t (on a regular basis)? The only thing I and any other poster has to judge her on is her written word.
I think your and Marley’s blind defense of her is where the bias comes in. My opinion is at least based in fact of some kind. I can just as easily call your defense of her posts “selective” thinking.
I’d like to add that if my bias was as selective as you are accusing me of I would have agreed with the OP that it was a bad call, dontcha think?