Interesting. Does that mean you don’t have a quota or that you do have a quota but the quota isn’t actually approved?
If feel so moved, you can answer this “A or B?” query with a simple “Yes.” You know, just to keep us on our toes.
There are no quotas. The concept is very, very silly if you think about it.
Are there any dimes?
Noncents.
Actually, there are secret quotas for each Mod, specifically for the number of bans they implement.
It’s just that Marley doesn’t have to worry about those–he met his quota for the rest of his career in one fell swoop. 
He could be known as Czarcasm, M.E.. Like Quincy, M.E. In fact, in many ways when I read his words I frequently hear Jack Klugman in his The Odd Couple days.
There used to be, but some little guy threw him into a volcano.
Volcano? I thought it was the quarry he was thrown into.
You don’t get the impression from the hyperfinnicky nature of so many of the warnings that there must also be a warning quota?
A specter still haunts Marley: the specter of the SDMB Moderators’ Bannings and Infractions Quota. That is because reversed decisions do not count toward quota fulfillment.
“Some little guy”?
How about a mob. And I am not talking about a mob consisting of regular members.
MEBucker was a moderator here for years. And again, no. But the nice thing is that if you don’t believe us about something like this, we don’t have to care about your opinion. 
Ah, so…an exSDMB Mod confirms the existnce of a quota requirement? Three guesses why he was fired, anyone?
Yeah, right: 5-10 embattled denials in at least two different threads just in the last 30 days or so means you don’t care?
I’ve been thinking about posting a poll to see how many here are now aware of the quota reality, but I was afraid someone might “care” enough to close it. Nice to know I have the green light.
MEGA-woosh here.
Think about that for a moment. The better we do our jobs (e.g., calming down a thread before it goes off the rails), the fewer notes or warnings we need to issue. Giving us a quota would be counter-productive.
This is why we can’t have nice things. First off, MEBuckner was joking and it should have been obvious to anyone. I was hoping the lightbulb would go on when I told you he used to be a moderator, but I guess that’s not going to happen. And MEBuckner was not fired. He retired in 2009 after years and years on the job.
This is kind of what I was afraid of: I wanted to make it as clear as it could be that this is a fiction and keep it from taking root, but with certain kinds of people, telling the truth doesn’t work and clear, unambiguous denials of falsehoods don’t work either. That’s how conspiracy theorists think, for example.
Please attempt to think clearly about this: why would we have a quota system in the first place? What would be the point? It would create extra work for everyone and pretty much ensure bad warnings, which would help no one and would create extra headaches for us (first we’d have to give more warning to meet our quota, then we’d have to defend them when people complain). Then why would we lie about that system if it existed? We could moderate that way if we wanted to. We don’t because it’d be stupid. Then there’s the question of why you’d choose to hang out on a board that works that way.
If none of that works, consider this the point when I cease to care about your opinion on the subject, colonial. It’s better to communicate with people who keep an open mind and take care to think rationally.
You misunderstood that, too. I’m tempted to call this trolling, and if you start a thread there’s a very good chance I will call that trolling.
The purpose for ticket quotas in the off-line world is to increase profits for the police department.
What would be the purpose of a “ticket quota” on a message board?
Creating more work for unpaid volunteers, of course. That makes everybody happy.
And tickets to the Moderator’s Ball!
The moderators don’t have… hey, wait a minute-
::shakes fist:: Ducccaaaaa!!!
(reply #53):
For the umpteenth time “whoosh” is terminology peculiar to SDMB, and no one has ever told me what it means.
I think the idea is that the user thinks something has gone over my head, or that someone has scored a debate point against me. However, the user has always been wrong, and is wrong above if such is the meaning.
(reply #56):
Ya got me. The only possibilities I can think of would necessarily involve pittable commentary, which might get me into more trouble than I deserve.