Well, OP, I’ll be on the veranda if you need me, since you’re already on the cross.
Well, no. Sometimes we just ban people at random for no reason at all. But there’s no bias to it.
I have nothing to say about cmosdes position that hasn’t already been said so I’ll leave that there.
However, this:
is entirely a misinterpretation of the rule as stated.
The ‘Tired Topics’ rule isn’t about whether a topic is ‘wrong’ or ‘offensive’. Rather, moderation staff is tired of having to referee endless arguments - not debates - that are non-productive, cause hard feelings in posters and potentially ulcers in moderators. In general, I prefer not - when acting as a moderator - to take a position on whether either side is right or wrong in any debate. That’s not my role. Likewise, it’s perfectly possible to debate issues that others find offensive.
Velocity, I believe you may be misinterpreting the rule due to my closing a thread you started as a violation of the ‘Scientific Racism’ Tired Topic. You may rest assured that, from the text of the rule (that you somehow forgot to quote in its entirety):
it is clear that such things - new innovations of them - MAY be debated provided there’s some new angle that moderation approves in advance. There’s not one thing in that rule that states any topic is banned due to being ‘wrong’ or being ‘offensive’.
I apologize if that wasn’t clear earlier. I hope it is moreso now.
And sometimes you ban everybody!
[Oprah]
You get a ban! And you get a ban! And you get a ban! Everybody gets a ban!
[/Oprah]
OK, got it, thanks for the clarification. (replying to Jonathan Chance)
Did you help write that rule? Because what you quoted suggests otherwise, at least in part:
Emphasis added.
I get that you’re uncomfortable as a moderator taking a position on whether climate science (for example) is right or wrong. But the administration appears to disagree–and folks agitated for years for this change, and it’s a pretty major change for the better. Some topics it’s okay for a private messageboard to have an official position on.
Dude, I wrote those rules. Conceived them, drafted them, shared them with the mod loop and rewrote them. My DNA is all through them. Without my advocacy they would not be in place today.
Yes, there are established truths in the world. I don’t at all disagree. But the position of the SDMB is that it should not, by and large, have official positions. I, and we, are not your allies.
My main concern with those Tired Topics rules was not to provide some sort of safe haven for a point of view. It’s why I left some wiggle room in those rules for actually posting topics on, say, Climate Change providing some new evidence comes to the fore that makes reassessment, then it will no longer be Tired and, like the first bloom of spring, be alive and optimistic again. I can’t imagine what information that would be, but I have to acknowledge that such may someday occur.
Had I truly believe some things are not alive for debate at all I would not have included the possibility of reopening such issues
First of all, there are, always have been, and forever will be individual differences among judges, referees, umpires, moderators, what have you. Seasoned athletes, for example, will often ask, “What crew do we have for tonight?” They tailor their games accordingly in order to achieve the best chance of success that night. They don’t go out on the court with the attitude that it’s unfair Jones doesn’t ref like Smith and that they are going to play the way they want and whine when it doesn’t work out. Secondly, I see from the responses that you overlooked mentioning inconsistencies and other relevant information that would cast you in a bad light. That certainly doesn’t help your cause.
It’s a great policy and this is a great explanation of it.
IMO, the Tired Topic policy should also include “moderators are targeting me because of my opinions or ideology”. That shit should go straight to PM. If it hits the boards it should be an instant mod action and thread closure.
Ooh, can we vote on Tired Topics? I’d like to include any discussion where someone uses the phrase “SDMB hive mind”.
It’s always used with a whiny tone, as if to say “My opinions would be acknowledged as Truth… if only every single person here wasn’t united against me before I even showed up.”
Okay. I don’t at all see how you square saying “The ‘Tired Topics’ rule isn’t about whether a topic is ‘wrong’ or ‘offensive’” with saying “We believe the science. While there is room to debate ways to deal with climate change, the existence of such is an observed fact.” But this is a pretty minor point, and if you see those two statements as compatible, cool.
Since the thread is shifting direction…
“Moderation staff is tired of having to referee endless arguments - not debates - that are non-productive, cause hard feelings in posters and potentially ulcers in moderators”
By this logic, Trump ought to be No. 1 on the topic list. We have had more threads about Trump in the past few years than we have had about 9/11 Truthers, climate-change denial, Holocaust denial, scientific racism, etc. combined. And pretty much any debate about Trump can be summed up as “non-productive (doesn’t win or persuade anyone,) causes hard feelings in posters, and potentially ulcers in moderators.” Indeed, even discussions about gun control often fit that billing.
You can, digs!
It’s in the rules. Posters may submit potential new ‘Tired Topics’ for consideration. I stressed that adding them would be a heavy lift, though. Several have been sent to me for consideration and none - so far - have gotten through mod consideration for addition to the list.
My own suggestion of discussion of any baseball team other than the Chicago Cubs or players on my fantasy team was a non-starter, sadly.
While this may be true, Velocity, it is also non-productive to piss into the wind. Trump is, simply put, the largest discussion topic in the United States right now. That’s certainly the way he seems to want it and it’s how things seem to be going.
Nonetheless, should you wish to propose Trump topics - there are certainly many - as tired feel free to put your reasoning together in a PM to me and I’ll be glad to share it with the mod loop as a whole.
Moderating
By that token, let’s not hijack this into a discussion of Trump, or a general discussion of Tired Topics. If you want to discuss which topics should be included in that category, start a new thread. In this thread, it’s a hijack.
Colibri
Moderator
OK, will do.
I find this moderating very uneven, and too colorful.
CMC fnord!
Some posters expect much more “consistency” here than is ever present in real life. Everybody understands that there are hanging judges and soft touches, umpires with tight and loose strike zones, and that you have a better chance of getting a ticket if the cop has just had a fight with his wife. I think we achieve more consistency here than in real life.
Often, as here, claims of inconsistency focus on the fact that although the complainant acknowledges that they broke the rules, someone else somewhere at some time who did the same thing got a note instead of a warning. This is not a valid argument. If you break the rules, you are liable for a warning. If you go 60 mph in a 55 mph zone, you are liable for a ticket even if the cop hasn’t ticketed every single other driver who has ever done the same thing.
The only way to be absolutely consistent about the rules is to invariably give warnings for any offense, and never show leniency in any circumstance. Nobody should be let off because it was a first offense, a sensitive topic, or so forth. I guarantee people would be very upset if we tried to apply the Robotic Theory of Moderation, because we would be issuing way more warnings and more people would end up banned.
You might have a point if the distribution of tickets was even across a wide spectrum of violators. If the same cop is giving one demographic tickets for doing 55.1 in a 55 and letting another demographic go 80 in the same zone, it is ill conceived to claim that the person doing 55.1 really shouldn’t be complaining since they were speeding, after all.
That is the point you and many others are missing. You make all the claims that MY particular case has no merit, which is all well and good (and it is rather weak case), but get enough of them and all of a sudden you might start to realize there is a fundamental bias happening the is endemic to this board.
“That cite doesn’t count because it was in the pit!”
“That cite doesn’t count because it was a different offense!”
“That cite doesn’t count because it was a different moderator!”
What is being said is that insulting another user is a lesser offense than violating a technical rule that neither insults the poster nor attempt to deceive. It is doing 55.1 in a 55 zone while doing 80 in that same zone is let go.
Have you done some sort of data analysis on that, or is it just butt-hurt opinion? Nobody likes to get a warning (I have one on my Permanent Record that bugged me for a long time). But we’ve had flaming assholes on this board who have been here for years without getting hammered, because outside of The Pit they’re able to have somewhat cogent arguments about politics and other subjects without incurring ModWrath, and who can read and follow fora rules.
[shameless and obsequious bootlicking]I think the moderation here is far better than most sites like this, or even sites that have Disqus comment sections, where moderation is usually poor[/SOB]. I wouldn’t want the job, as it seems like it would be a total PITA.