I stopped reading it. It became an object lesson in why people leave.
I see the Pit thread (the one about the particular post) has been closed, for no stated reason (only 5 minutes before I saw the closure notice, so perhaps someone is working on the reason statement; I hope so). It was a pretty rancid thread, so well done I guess. But clearly some percentage of posters are very unhappy with the current administration – the inability to get the payment function going, and the inability to replace (the nearly irreplaceable) TubaDiva as administrator seem to be the main complaints (aside from any disagreements about Ed). How long have we been on this platform? It seems to me that these issues have been left hanging for too long. I still believe, as I said in the proposal thread, that these issues should be resolved before talking about new proposals. How can they even know how much more money they need until they can at least take in the money that is just laying on the table?
Could a mod explain what exactly is going on with these thread closures, please?
I’d like to request that the original “modest proposal” thread reopened, and the Pit thread. It’s not a good look when someone posts a proposal, refuses to answer questions, doesn’t like some of the responses, then unilaterally closes it.
I joined in 2015, so most of this drama was before my time, but I’ve barely seen Ed Zotti on this board, he has zero relevance to why I come here, and I very much want to hear all sides of people’s opinions on this. There’s certainly no way I’m going to contribute financially to anything at this point unless there’s some transparency about what’s going on and where the money is going.
One requirement for transparency is that moderation of conversations on this issue must be shown to be independent of Ed Zotti.
I’ve posted an explanation for closing the Pit thread. Please keep in mind that typing a post actually takes some amount of time, and although moderators wield considerable power, we’re still subject to the space-time continuum, and may need as many as five or ten minutes to write a post explaining a particular mod action.
Complaints about moderation go in ATMB, but if you can’t express your complaint without calling someone a cancer, it’s probably not going to last long here, either.
I don’t see how Ed Zotti’s proposal & any potential role in the future of the SDMB falls under the umbrella “moderation”. Are you essentially saying that there is nowhere on this board where anyone is allowed to call him [hypothetical expletive] if that’s the way they feel? Because personally I want to hear those views, so that I can form my own opinion on the matter.
We use “moderation” as an umbrella term for “how the board is run.” Proposing new forums or discussing monetization schemes falls under that umbrella.
There is no forum on the board where you’re allowed to call the people running the board names, because you don’t like the way they’re running the board. You can express disagreement with the board moderation and administration in ATMB, but you’re expected to maintain a basic level of civility.
Ok, so can we please then have the original ATMB “modest proposal” thread reopened, to redirect the conversation there under ATMB rules. Nobody should have the authority to close a thread unilaterally just because they don’t like the way its going, and I want to hear what people have to say.
I was little surprised, too. I get that not every one is a fan and come to the forum from other avenues than the columns, but holy crap, some of that was vicious.
The difference is that all those many other threads, realistically, aren’t going to affect the real world. In this particular case the thread very much involved how this forum will exist going forward, even whether or not it will continue to exist, with the involvement of a person who has actual power regards decision making. The stakes were higher.
I wouldn’t advocate obsequiousness in addressing TPTB, but I also would expect a certain level of politeness. Which, in at least one case, very much did not happen.
The rule since 2009 has been that you can only Pit the staff for their actions as posters. I find it unlikely that the people who are complaining about that very rule change have forgotten about that rule, so I doubt reminding them would help.
As for the thread itself: it had already been driven hopelessly off-topic, in my opinion. The topic was “What can we do to keep the Straight Dope and the SDMB alive? Here’s one idea.” The second it veered off into “airing grievances about the OP’s past actions,” it was off topic, just like it would be for any other poster.
There have already been two spinoff threads that seem to cover the original topic. so I don’t really see any reason for the mods to reopen the old thread after it had been taken so far off topic.
How on earth is @Ed_Zotti’s history and relationship with the SDMB off-topic to the question of whether we should support his proposal?
I think it is off-topic to go into that in any depth in the two threads you linked to.
I guess we could continue that conversation in this thread, but I don’t see why we cannot continue it where it was taking place, in the natural place for it. Again, it’s of considerable concern to me that Ed Zotti would appear to have dictatorial powers over a conversation just because he doesn’t like the way its going. Preserving ignorance, I guess.
This is exactly the sort of thing the OP is complaining about.
Start your own site if you think it is so easy and you can do it better.
The part I don’t understand is that this board has said for years that this is a money loser and that shutting it down is just around the corner because it isn’t profitable and the corporate people wearing the Monopoly monocles really don’t like it.
In response, many posters step forward and say that they love this board, and please, we’ll pay, just tell us where to send money!
And the board doesn’t accept money. If there is another reason that the powers that be want to shut the board down, then fine, but complaining of no money and refusing to accept it seems rather obtuse.
I do not remember that. I remember that the board makes little money, and if sued, etc would be dropped like a hot potato.
In other words, it functions satisfactorily until & unless it starts requiring lots of resources.
I’m sorry, could you please point to the " insult and vitriol " in that post, which was a factual reply to a request?
I didn’t say it was easy (although it’s hardly some dark art). But it is something you actually have to, you know, do. As in, perform the tasks of the job.
A board like this should be relatively easy to run. Hosting at Discourse.org is only $100-300. If you get volunteer mods and admins, there shouldn’t be any additional costs. As long as you can get enough ad views and financial supporters, it should be relatively easy to cover your costs and not take too much of your own time.
This pointless response can be leveled at anyone criticizing anything. It’s just evasion.
I wish Dopers would read threads for exactly what they say, not what they think they hear. That thread was perfectly fine up until the cancer post. And even though I think he was right about 99% of what he posted, he should have drawn at least a warning for that in ATMB. I wouldn’t have even objected to a 3 day suspension.
Ed asked for input and he got it. If it wasn’t what he expected, too bad. He shot down every suggestion that didn’t put restarting his column at the top of the list. He had 20 odd years of online presence to draw in and keep an audience and it failed. Trying to do the same thing again with no new plan that he was willing to explain makes no sense whatsoever.
I know people don’t like to see it this way, but Ed’s column and the SDMB split paths a long time ago. Ed has never been a board participant, he doesn’t post here and he doesn’t even read anything here. And he certainly doesn’t want to take any input from here, even when he asks for it. It wasn’t just by chance that his column failed three years ago but the board survived just fine without him. That there was barely a hiccup when he left shows that.