Jonathan Chance: Can you explain this moderation in GD?

[elbows]

@bucketybuck

When the mod note is basically “Be nice” why the fuck do you need a list of what is nice or not? Just be a grown up and use a little common sense.

Sorry, my bad, the above is the post I was addressing. Sorry for the confusion, the interm posts were not showing when I composed my post.

[FXMastermind]

@elbows

Sorry, my bad, the above is the post I was addressing. Sorry for the confusion, the interm posts were not showing when I composed my post.

And yet the answer is still perfectly apt.

[engineer_comp_geek]

@Fenris

I’m wondering when the standard in GD and ATMB went from “Attack the post, not the poster” and “Sarcasm and snark are fine” to “No posts that could possibly give someone’s feelings an ouchie.”

We’re grown-ups. Kindergarten rules are just a bad idea for GD and ATMB.

In ATMB, the problem with snark and sarcasm are that they are very counterproductive to resolving problems, which goes against the purpose of ATMB. It has nothing to do with ouchies and everything to do with getting problems resolved instead of throwing threads off the rails and turning them into angry bitch-fests where nothing gets accomplished.

When people come into ATMB, a lot of times they are already pissed off about something. If you answer them with snark, they aren’t going to marvel at your magnificent snarky wit, they are just going to get more pissed off, which makes it much harder to resolve whatever problem they had.

In the past, when threads in ATMB turned into bitch-fests, they were just closed. I am trying to avoid that and keep threads open as long as we can so that things actually get resolved.

None of this applies to GD.

[John_Mace]

ECG: Maybe I’m misreading your post, but you seem to be equating snark with “bitch fest”. In my mind, those are two different things. They can overlap, but they don’t need to and I don’t think they usually do.

[engineer_comp_geek]

I’m not saying that snark is the same as a bitch fest. What I am saying is that one often leads to the other.

If someone is pissed off and posts about a problem, then someone else makes a sarcastic or snarky reply, then the first person’s natural response is most likely to be that they’ll get more pissed off. So maybe they say something snarky in response. That causes the second person to get pissed off (when maybe they weren’t even pissed off originally). Now you’ve got two people who are pissed off at each other. Their comments get more sarcastic and snarky, and then they start getting snippy, and soon it escalates into a bitch-fest.

Snark and sarcasm don’t always lead to a bitch-fest. It’s entirely possible that someone can make a snarky comment and the other person will just shrug it off. That happens sometimes. Too often, though, it escalates.

This is particularly an issue in ATMB because people are often a bit pissed off when they come in here just because they have a problem, and someone who is already pissed off tends to not respond well to snark or sarcasm.

I’ve said this before in other threads, but my goal in ATMB is not to enforce politeness rules to the point where people feel like they can’t express themselves at all. It is much more important to me that we get whatever issue is there resolved than to make sure that everyone plays by the rules. But if you make snarky or sarcastic comments, I may ask you to dial it back a bit so that the thread doesn’t get derailed. I’m not going to issue a warning just because someone makes one sarcastic or snarky post.

Fenris lumped the GD issue and the ATMB issue together, but they aren’t the same issue. Snark and sarcasm are an issue in ATMB because they interfere with resolving board issues. GD has nothing to do with board issues. I personally don’t even know what the rules are in GD because I almost never participate in that forum in any way.

[MrDibble]

How does that lofty goal square with other mods in ATMB telling people who complain about something that they have a “martyr complex”?

[Bone]

Is there a meaningful difference between “be nice”, avoiding unpleasantness, and “don’t be a jerk”? The rule has always allowed for gray area that requires interpretation. The current interpretation is simply slanted one direction. Just like the strike box is different with every umpire, the players need to adjust. Clarity and consistency should be the goal.

That being said, it’s a challenge to see the clarity and consistency part. It’s long been the rule to attack the post and not the poster which is a pretty bright line rule. People game it and it’s obviously gaming but stay within the bright line rule. That’s typically where snark comes in, IME. And that’s fine. Much less questionable calls that way. IMO, the invocation of the “don’t be a jerk” rule should be very infrequent.

[John_Mace]

@Bone

Is there a meaningful difference between “be nice”, avoiding unpleasantness, and “don’t be a jerk”?

Yes, I think so. “I think that’s a stupid argument” is not nice, but it’s not being a jerk.

[Bone]

It’s the same in that each rule invites interpretation. That’s what I was trying to say.

[TonySinclair]

@Colibri

Telling someone they are “oblivious to the lives of others” or that they “have serious psychological damage” seem like attacks on the poster to me (especially the latter).

I’m not going to fight my warning, but for the record, I didn’t flatly state that he was totally oblivious, I said that I had thought he was oblivious enough to say X. And after several hours of thought, I still think that is the kindest possible explanation for how a guy cannot conceive of someone having a job without having a car.

And a bit later, he validated that by showing that the actual explanation was his contempt of poor people.

I thought it isn’t libel if it’s true.

So I guess I should have been less nice.

[Measure_for_Measure]

@Fenris

We’re grown-ups.

Assuming facts not in evidence.

Ok, let me make an observation. Calls for further increases in the civility bar appear to have ceased. I would respectively submit that Jon Chance has found the equilibrium and needs to dial it back a little. I’ll note though that you can only discover the equilibrium by stepping over it. So props to Jon Chance: seriously.

Also props to LHoD for offering some constructive guidelines. We get too much “I don’t like this decision” here and not enough, “This is a better policy guideline”. I edit to add numbers:

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

A proposed solution for future threads like this:

1. If there are posts that look problematic, but you don’t want to warn them because they’re not egregious (A VERY GOOD MOD STRATEGY, by the way), give them specific notes.
2. Do not change the rules for a thread based on a plethora of on-the-edge posts. That’s obviously confusing and obviously ineffective.
3. If you’re finding that your moderation strategy is leading to a lot of warnings, you may not be using an effective moderation strategy. A good strategy entails clear rules and clear enforcement such that relatively few people violate the rules.
4. -Never call out people en masse. The folks who are violating rules are unlikely to think it applies to them, because obviously they’re not taking the rules so seriously; and the people who aren’t violating rules, the sticklers, are likelier to think it applies to them. In general it lowers the tone of the board for no good effect.

1. The genius part about specific notes is that they create a bright line basis for a warning. Disobeying mod instructions is jerky. If you don’t like it take it to email or ATMB.

2. I’m a big advocate of mod discretion, so I disagree with this. If a mod wants to drop by and declare from now on all posts will be written in iambic pentameter, it’s all to the good. Provided definitional links are provided.

3. Qualification: Good strategies also entail constructive ambiguity. Because clear rules can be and will be gamed.

4. Qualification: well calling out people en masse may be problematic, but I’m not sure “We need to settle down” is. It is legitimate for moderators to offer guidance on even within-rule behavior. I’m a little less sure on this one.