Jonathan Chance, part 2.

Firstof all, I don’t have a problem with JC. Someone has to do it, and he’s doing it as a volunteer. I do think he’s overhanded and overbearing at times. That said, I appreciate his efforts.

I responded in Snowboarder Bo’s thread, which resulted in questions, and answering those questions might result in a hijack of that thread. To avoid that, I’ll take the safe route and post a new thread.
I don’t want to be modded for hijacking obviously.

I posted this in SB’s thread.

JC notes comments that are otherwise a fair ball by telling people to knock it off,or some other thing, because he doesn’t like it. When you ask what the problem was, and whether the comment was fair or foul, JC replies that it was fair but it was almost foul. I don’t mind proactive modding, but JC’s inconsistencies has driven me from 2 forums he moderates. Telling everyone in a thread to cool it is fine. Mod noting others that they are behaving inappropriately because they almost hit a foul ball is, well, admitting the behavior was appropriate but, you know, it was almost not appropriate. Inconsistent, capricious and totally unnecessary.

People responded, thereafter I posted this…

*But threatening to suspend a poster who;

  1. Has no warnings.
  2. Is not under mod instruction to do or not do something.
  3. JC, just 3 days later does the same thing.

Like I said, proactive modding isn’t bad. Capricious modding is.*

Several asked “where, when” etc. with respect to the “suspension threat.”

It’s here.

*The Moderator Clears His Throat
If I see any more sniping at each other about ‘one thread’ or ‘two threads’ or any of that nonsense I’ll lock both threads and bring up in the mod loop that those going back and forth get suspended through November 9th.

Is that clear to all?*
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19706247&postcount=9

No, I didn’t ask him where I was sniping at other posters, because I fully expected " you were about to" as his response.

It’s amazing, From don’t do this, to suspension in 2 sentences, without prior warnings or clear instructions. 0 to sixty in 2 sentences. Capricious.

Note also that JC says, as quoted above, “…No one has a copyright on starting threads on whatever topics…”

Fair enough.

2 days later he posts a thread where he (as a mod or poster, he didn’t make that clear) tells others only one thread, but feel free to post related stuff. The circle is complete about now.

…My fellow moderator Tom and I discussed the recent unpleasantness about the threads about the debates and decided one official one would be a good idea. That doesn’t mean you can’t start your own on side issues and such, but this is a good place to start. Let’s see that there’s no more hard feelings, shall we?..

Not disagreeing with why he did it. But from “No one has a copyright on starting threads” to “decided one official one would be a good idea…That doesn’t mean you can’t start your own on side issues…” demonstrates why i believe his moderation is sometimes capricious. If you’re going to threaten suspensions for doing something, at least determine what the rules are, and apply them evenly to all, including the moderators.

Wow, I didn’t even see that. JC really mishandled this whole thing–earlier he PMed me with an insulting and condescending threat of warnings because of my role in the previous debate debacle, and when I explained my actions, he never responded. Here, ferchrissakes, he’s threatening to suspend people for barely more aggressive action.

I think the only correct action he made during this whole thing was to start an official thread for the final debate. All the threats and posturing on his part were unwise, unbecoming, and unnecessary.

Let me introduce the situation as I saw it.

We had competition between posters for which thread was somehow more important concerning the second debate. Morgenstern, you started a thread several days prior to the second debate. By post #21 in that thread other posters were questioning the usefulness of starting a thread that early. You disputed the number of days they said it was early and maintained that it was a good idea.

Consensus seemed to be that 4+ days early was too much.

Another poster suggested, then started an actual live coverage thread of the 2nd debate. You then reported it and requested it be closed. You referred to the new thread as ‘vindictive’ and a ‘thread war’.

I elected to not do so and to try to intercede via PM with the parties involved. In my opinion you were both acting childishly and I didn’t want it to continue and possibly harm the enjoyment of other posters. It was also clear to me that you appeared to believe you had some form of proprietary hold on threads on the debate. This is, of course, untrue.

It’s also why I started a thread to discuss the third debate instead of having one grow organically. I hoped to head off any further distracting arguments and hijacks about which thread is the proper one to discuss things within. I think that went pretty well.

First, as I told you, I was pleased that he reported the thread; I wanted a mod ruling on it. I believe I even mentioned that in my OP. (I later reported it myself and asked for its closure).

Second, there was nothing childish about it. I laid out my reasons. I did not hold any sort of ownership of the thread. I decided in retrospect my intentions had failed, but I maintain they were reasonable intentions.

Third, you didn’t call it childish, you called it “pitiful” and told me I should be ashamed of myself. You threatened to warn me if I did “anything more like that,” without any explanation of what that phrase meant. You followed up by claiming I was in a pissing contest.

That was wildly inappropriate moderation. The appropriate follow-up would have been an apology for your insulting, condescending, and unnecessary moderation.

You know what, LHoD? I do apologize. I was wrong.

In the heat of the back and forth I dragged you - as the apparent antagonist for Morgenstern (or at least as the one among his critics who chose to act) - into a perceived back-and-forth with him.

Reviewing things, I see things differently than I do now. So again, I apologize for my actions toward you.

I sincerely appreciate that.

I repeat my thesis of many months ago.

“By the time Election Day comes around, we’ll all be ready for Arkham.”

I hesitate to ask, but who, or what, is Arkham?

The Elizabeth Arkham Asylum For The Criminally Insane.

Thanks, I don’t follow Batman so I didn’t recognize the name.

It’s also a town in the original Cthulhu stories by Lovecraft. Not a happy town.

Since you feel free to disclose private messages between a mod and a member, I’ll follow suit.

Message from JC
*Morgenstern, LHoD-

The behavior of both of you regarding the debate thread this week is pitiful. You should both be ashamed of yourselves.

Anything more like that and I’ll warn whoever starts or continues such posting. Is that clear?

We’re all adults here - presumably - and I expect posters in Great Debates and Elections to behave as adults. Want anything else? Take it to the Pit and leave it there.

Best,

JC*

I responded.

*Could you be more specific. If I violated a rule I’d like to know what it was so I don’t violate it in the future. Could you please point to the behavior you are referencing?
Thank you.
*

JC again responded.

*I’m not saying you violated a rule, though some of the posts could be close to Junior Modding.

What I want to avoid is pissing contests between posters about which thread is better and so forth. Such wastes time for Tom and I when we might have other things to do.
*

Let me parse what you wrote…

“I’m not saying you violated a rule…”
and
“…though some of the posts could be close to Junior Modding.”

No rule broken but now you’re saying what again???

Do you see where I get the “inconsistent and capricious” descriptors of how you moderated this?

Top this off by adding a threat to summarily suspend posters for daring to “I’m not saying you violated a rule…” or “…though some of the posts could be close to Junior Modding.”

Summary suspensions for “not breaking any rules.” Just doesn’t seem to right to me.

Very good post but I especially wanted to say that I also thought it went pretty well and was, at the time, a good idea.

An apology is great. I am extremely glad to see it. Let me make that abundantly clear, before I say what I have to say.

But the explanation is concerning. It is not good that a mod has such a different interpretation of whether comments violate the rules based on their mood or the stress of moderating a specific situation. It is not good that people were threatened with Warnings via PM in any case. Warnings are public here. (Heck, when LHoD mentioned it, I almost made an ATMB thread on the spot because he was being threatened in private for his actions in a public thread.)

Unfortunately, this also raises another question. There have been a lot of ATMB threads about Jonathan Chance (which, to some extent, is expected for a mod in more contentious forums) and a lot of the time, it appears that JC misunderstands what people were actually saying. And there’s a lot of inconsistency in this. It makes you wonder if his mood is changing how things are interpreted.

Problems rarely arise in only one situation. So I am hereby requesting that Jonathan Chance be aware of this proclivity he’s mentioned here and make sure it doesn’t inform what his moderation. Don’t assume this is just a one-time thing. Avoid the appearance of impropriety.

My point is, while apologizing for getting too upset it good, there should be some barriers in place to keep this from happening even if you get too upset. Since an apology means that you want to avoid this happening again, I’m making recommendations to achieve that goal.

Again, please do not take this as an insult! Nor as a reason not to apologize in the future. The apology is great! And explaining yourself is great, because it allows you to work on fixing the problem, to make sure it never happens again.

Seems both some mods *and *some posters could probably try to take things a little less seriously and personally.

This bit seems entirely accurate, all that rubbish with the debate threads was childish nonsense and grown men or women should really find something better to be moaning about. To then want to dredge it up again in this forum? Perhaps a little perspective wouldn’t go astray.

I’d characterize it, from personal experience, as a tendency to jump right in, both guns blazing, when something down to a quiet PM might be more appropriate. Most posters that get gunned down on Main Street have been cautioned or queried first. It promotes nothing good to use Judge Dredd as a model for moderation.

So is it ok to insult people in PMs now?

Meh. I see it differently. In retrospect the new thread I started didn’t work out, but my motives were good and I did my best to couch the experiment in calm and easygoing terms. No moaning. No moaning!

As for talking about it here, well, yeah, I do take accusations of ill behavior seriously. I try to act above the board in my personal and professional life, and this here’s part of my personal life. If someone accuses me of ill behavior, and I think it’s not true, I get a bit bent out of shape over it.

If you don’t, that’s awesome for you, but I don’t plan to stop prioritizing good behavior any time soon.

PM sent.