Idle Thoughts - Please reconsider JohnClay's warning

Regarding this thread: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=729210

Note that I have no issue at all with the rules laid out for JohnClay regarding his posting habits. I think a majority of us are on board with that directive.

However, you gave him a warning for ignoring mod instructions by opening that thread and mentioning the other one - but they were on different topics. The thread closed by Ellen was about his budding possible homosexuality (or something?) and the new thread was about the concept of good decisions coming out of bad ones and about a separate personal matter.

Now, I agree that the new thread is just as bad as the first in terms of talking about his personal life too much and I’m not arguing that it should be kept open - but a warning for ignoring mod instructions still seems wrong here and I think it should be re-considered.

I’m backing up Idle Thoughts, here.

Ellen’s note was about him laying off the personally revealing threads for a bit. Less than 19 hours later he was at it again. Such things - to quote my favorite onscreen lawman - need to be nipped in the bud. Idle Thoughts did that.

Not a hill I care that much about defending (but I do care enough to open this thread and have the discussion, obviously), but Ellen’s note was clearly a suggestion not an order.

A suggestion is not an order and a warning shouldn’t be issued for not heeding one, however wise it may be.

I agree with GrandWino.

If the mods want someone to do or not do something they should be explicit about it. Making it a “suggestion” just leaves a grey area.

I’m siding with MrClay on this one. Where is the harm, exactly? There are posters here who I have on ignore; no reason to silence people when not listening to them is possible.

Seems open and shut to me. Unless the mod instruction JohnClay was supposed to have ignored was elsewhere, there was no instruction and no reason to issue a warning.

Agreed, especially for a person like this poster, where you need to be 100% clear.

I find the personal threads to be entertaining at times. I can ignore them, or read as much or little as I please. Jeez, if we banned people from posting about “Your wife, your personal relationships with others, sex, or sexuality” we’d lose half the posts on here.

Let the poor schmuck spill his guts if he wants to.

Wisdom from our neighbor to the north!
:smiley:

Indeed. Ellen specifically said:

Bolding mine. Despite what IdleThoughts claimed it is clear thatJohnClay was not ignoring moderator instructions. A suggestion is not an instruction.

I’ll also reiterate what’s already been said: JC’s thread was not about personal relationships, but how experiences shape future experiences. Since it is a JohnClay thread, there were personal anecdotes that were pretty irrelevant, but they were not the topic of the thread. JohnClay specifically said:

Bad modding, for sure.

Yup. In fact, in the piece you quoted she explicitly says that there is no prohibition on him posting with regards to personal issues.

With a reference to Reader’s Digest. Doesn’t get more white-bread than that

I agree that Ellen’s instructions were just a suggestion and it’s unfair to give him a formal warning for this, but I have no problem with that thread being closed.

While in general I fully support letting people start pointless or annoying threads that other people can choose to ignore, there comes a point where I think the mods need to protect the posters from themselves. JohnClay’s threads rarely go anywhere good, and keeping them open so we can all point and laugh is cruel.

I enjoy threads where some idiot poster gets a well-deserved lashing, but JohnClay is perhaps a little…naive…about how he comes across and what kind of responses he’ll get.

True, but every post after the OP was back on the topic of JohnClay personally. It had no hope of becoming an interesting conversation about decisions and experience.

Crappy moderating.

I think most of JohnClay’s threads are either narcissism or attention-seeking, and i don’t think i’ve ever participated in one, but if you explicitly tell someone that “there is no prohibition on you doing X,” you don’t then give them a formal warning for doing X.

ETA:

By the way, there was also actually a piece of good moderating involved here too, from Ellen Cherry:

That’s exactly how things should work.

After reading this topic (and rereading the other two) and thinking things over, I agree the warning was unjustly given under the circumstances, so I’m going to rescind it.
However, please note, this is only taking back the warning given for “Ignoring mod instruction”, which I see now wasn’t really the case.
It is not rescinding the instruction or new rule that JohnClay cannot start any new threads regarding things of a sexual nature, personal relationships with others, and his wife. That is still in effect and will be held to.

Idle, good job. It’s always a nice trait in folks that they can revisit an action and change their behavior according to new and pertinent information. Kudos.

yes, that was good moderation I.T.

I agree. One of the best traits of this board are the mods who listen to the poster-base and take what they have to say into consideration whether they reverse a decision or not. It shows that they care about the board and the posters.

Thank you Idle Thoughts for being a reasonable moderator.

Idle Thoughts, the epitome of what a moderator should be!