Hyperbole? Go back and read your own nonsense in post 27. Does your language there effectively explain to anyone the Board’s PoV? Or does it just escalate the situation?
You came into this thread to escalate a situation you knew full-well was already a little simmery, and you successfully made it worse. What you did wasn’t rebuking, it was picking a damn fight. Defensive and petulant.
Responding to posters who question moderators, or even the entire moderation staff and the board in general, by flying off the handle with petulance and defensiveness does not seem like a good way to represent the Straight Dope.
I do too, ftr. My first two posts here may have been a bit snarkier than I intended, they were simply meant to further challenge her (or other mods) to defend or reconsider that (non)action against UR. The rest of the mod posts in this thread have been disappointing, to say the least.
He didn’t “have a point,” because he didn’t make a point. He asked a question, which in other circumstances might well have been reasonable. It was inappropriate, tactless, and unkind in the thread.
Oh FFS but probably not for the last time: his intention with that post was nothing close to this reference or any others offered. It was 100% a driveby “Hurhur women” comment.
If he’d EVER offered an informative or insightful non-troglodyte post about a serious issue, maybe you’d have a point. But he hasn’t, so none of you (who for some reason are motivated to do his Googling for him) do.
Yes indeed. It was madsircool, in this thread (post #3), who raised the possibility of a connection between menstrual cycles and violent behavior by women. Not Urbanredneck, who said:
[Bolding mine.] Note that he didn’t specify Tibby’s older daughter, the subject of the thread. His wording at the very least refers to both of Tibby’s daughters and it’s perfectly reasonable to interpret it as applying to all women experiencing menstrual cycles. As such, it did nothing to move the discussion forward and everything to reinforce stereotypes of females as labile due to hormonal variations.
Anyway, count me among the fans of ITD. I think she’s an awesome mod who strives for and generally achieves fairness and consistency, and it is silly to think she’s a misogynist. But in this case, she made a mistake, IMHO. She’s explained her reasoning and it doesn’t convince most of us, who remain a bit shocked at what URN can get away with. Doesn’t mean she’s not a great mod, just that a lot of us think she made the wrong call.
Being a reasonable, open person, ITD is no doubt willing to digest the ideas people have stated, and my guess is that she’ll integrate the persuasive arguments people have made into her future modding activity, whether or not we peons get to read about her internal thought processes and whether or not her actual mod calls end up being different.
The defensive commentary of some of the other moderators in this thread is a bit discouraging, though.
Enough. Discussing moderation is entirely appropriate to this forum.
Unless you have something substantive to add to the actual topic, don’t post in this thread.
Who asked who, who someone is, and tangential commentary about the appropriateness of general topics like what should be allowed in ATMB are off topic.
You do realize ITD is a woman, right? And she was a rather an important part of the shift in attitude in the moderation recently? She might not need your help recognizing misogyny and how to deal with it.
Snark is not a substitute for an argument. Yes, I have 9 Warnings. So what?
Many of them are not repeated behaviors, so they are irrelevant. The ones that are repeated behaviors, I’ve been explicitly told that the reason I got a Warning instead of a Note was due to past behavior.
What’s more, you left out the part of my post where I specifically say that there are times when past behavior should be considered, and times when it shouldn’t. The situation I described was one where a poster has constantly gotten mod notes to stop a behavior, and the notes clearly aren’t working.
I have been nothing but civil in explaining my position. I have simply made an argument that a particular poster has not gotten the message from his many Notes about a particular behavior, and that you should consider giving him an actual Warning instead of a Note. I actually commended ITC for her moderation, but simply said that I think she erred this time.
I do not understand your need to be uncivil, using snark to imply hypocrisy on my part. If you disagree with my arguments, that’s fine. I welcome people proving me wrong. I don’t welcome the impugning of my character.
And I do note that you chose me out of the others who were making similar arguments. Do all of them have Warnings that you think somehow negate their argument?
This makes no sense. There is no system that can be gamed. MrDibble posted his opinion about the moderation in the appropriate forum, and several other posters agreed with him. A few disagreed.
There is no system to be gamed. Someone posting in ATMB does not in any way obligate you to do anything.
What’s more, MrDibble, whether you agree with him or not, is a poster of integrity. You impugn his character by asserting he is trying to pull a fast one. His past statements on bigotry in general and misogyny in particular are entirely consistent with him believing (as several other posters do) that Urbanredneck’s post is misogynistic and thus deserves a Warning.
Furthermore, if MrDibble is trying to game the system, then how do you explain all the other posters who agree with him? Are all of us just trying to get rid of a poster we don’t like?
Why do you discard the simplest explanation that all of us actually believe that Urbanredneck deserves a Warning?
People are trying to get rid of behavior they don’t like - because they feel that trollish misogyny has no place here, and should be moderated more strictly. Whether that would result in getting rid of a person would be entirely in that poster’s own hands, based on what followed if the mods ultimately agreed and issued warnings.
Ascribing more sinister motivations to Mr Dibble (that raising the issue for debate is based on a personal beef) seems a little ironic, given the generosity with which Urbanredneck was given the benefit of the doubt in the incident in question.