Your posts indicate that you can’t hear. That’s why.
I have never said that. What I said was that I felt it was fine for a moderated to intervene and point out that a discussion “might be” headed in a particular direction that “might be” close to a problem, BEFORE there is a problem. I really didn’t see this as rocket science yet so many are taking a benign advisory statement by a mod, and assuming a evil, immoral purpose to it.
I’ve seen mods post things like “I’m leaving this thread open provided it doesn’t do this or that” many times. Or “don’t mention XYZ in this thread or I’ll close it.” There was no violation, merely a warning that certain areas are not to be entered.
Frankly, I find this type of moderation far more beneficial than the other method.
Surely you agree.
It’s not rocket science, because no one here has said that the mod’s statement was “evil or immoral”. That is a straw man. Unless, of course, you can quote someone who said that. Can you? Hint: You can’t.
This thread totally reminds me of real life:
Me: Billy, no talking during the test.
Billy: I wasn’t! Oh my God! Why are you yelling at me?!
Me: I’m just reminding you.
Billy: Why are you picking on me?! Why don’t you yell at Kelly, who really WAS talking?! Oh my GOD! My mom’s calling you! You’re so unfair!
Kelly: OH! MY! GOD! BILLY! I wasn’t talking! I asked the date!
Billy: That’s talking! I didn’t even do that!
Tommy: Mr. G never said you were talking, he said: no talking.
Billy: Same thing!
Susie: I can confirm that all Kelly asked was the date.
Me: All of you, I’m just reminding you: no talking.
All students: God, I hate this class.
For one, I appreciate the mod efforts to be proactive in preventing problems. It appears at least one member doesn’t. That’s sad actually.
Why do you hate Billy?
The issue with this though, is that it adds layers of complexity where none is needed. Even a mod note is direction being given, and a person can receive actual warnings for not following mod notes. Your example is a good one however, with thread hijacking, but even then threads have a life of their own and are fluid generally so even that isn’t a big deal.
IMO, moderator action should be like an umpire. They call the shots, but aren’t going to give the base runners tips on avoiding the tag.
No member in this thread has said he or she doesn’t appreciate efforts by the mods to be proactive.
We all appreciate you saying that. The 1 hour and 58 minutes it took you to do so will be counted against you, however.
Well, for most meanings of “proactive” that I can think of in this context, I would say I would rather the mods were not proactive. It is beyond me why that should make anyone sad, though.
To me, that sounds like a moderator looking to intervene, and that feels over the top and intrusive. That’s the problem I have with Jonathan Chance, who during his tenure has been more than happy to step in and critique content and word choice. He’s like an editorial version of the Zimbardo Stanford Prisoner Study.
Why people would want someone to exert more control over what they say rather than less, I don’t know. That makes me sad. Okay, not really. I understand some people like that kind of thing.
I’d like to remind you that you’re not the only driver on the road when the “proactive” cop offers friendly advice. 
In my usual wimpy liberal fashion, I can see it both ways.
Yeah, it would be kinda nice for a mod to give me a friendly note of advice. “You’re edging up toward grounds where a warning might be issued.”
But…it has a “chilling effect” on speech without actually being a formal warning. It calls for an even finer sense of aesthetics than formally enforcing the rules does. If overused, it simply becomes a third layer of mod enforcement.
Just as a warning is only that, a warning – “Keep this up and suspension or banning may occur” – so a note of advice would be a warning of a warning. It clutters things up.
Both ways of looking at it are valid. I guess I can appreciate the idea of a friendly note of advice…but it should be kind of rare. (And…can “junior modding” be permitted to that degree? We non-mods can’t say “Whoa! You just called him a liar and that’s against the rules.” But can we say “Isn’t that really close to calling him a liar? I can see the difference, but it seems really slim?”)
Because he gives me the impression he’s about to break a rule.
Did you read the post in question? What “edging up” do you think was going on that need a friendly note of advice?
I’m responding to Morgenstern and Hentor the Barbarian, regarding pre-warnings as a general philosophical concept, and no longer to the original case of Andros’ pre-warning.
:smack: I forgot this was your thread.
Like many threads, it has drifted a bit. I did suggest the mods close it, but it seems to have taken a new lease on life with this new sub-topic.
A friend of mine likes to say, when a conversation gets too sidetracked, “Let’s see if we can get maintracked again.”
It has been socialized now. It belongs to the proletariat.
C’est la lutte finale, groupons-nous et demain
L’Internationale sera le genre humain…
And in the end get the whole class to hate you. That what “I hate this class” means, if you didn’t know. They don’t respect you because you play games.
Gosh, getting awfully close to hate speech here. I clearly see words that begin with “h” and “hate” begins with “h.” I think that might be heading in a direction that might be close to a problem.