As much as I disagree with Oakminster’s political point of view, but agree that his post could have been considerably more substantive than it was, I cannot agree that this was a justifiable mod action*. It certainly is not remotely “thread shitting,” or anything close to that. Appalling that Marley23 really felt the necessity to intervene.
The modding around here really is becoming increasingly heavy-handed, and to no particularly good purpose.
*Referring to the post in question in the OP, not the report of rules violation.
Ferchrissakes, are you for real? You kept bringing up his inconsistency in moderation in that thread, making a public issue out of his failure to act on your report. You made it an issue, not Marley. If you wanted to preserve the precious confidentiality of your post reports, how about not publicly accusing a moderator of failing to act on those confidential reports and then arguing with him when he responds to it in general?
Yes, this whole thing is personal, but it’s entirely clear that it’s personal from your end, as you try, over and over and without success, to make it appear that there’s a problem with Marley’s modding.
MOL, I’d suggest that content-free posts are never a good thing, but when they’re content-free and hostile, they’re a lot worse.
This description made it pretty obvious, at least to my reading:
Since you believe your complaint had merit - enough that you announced you’d reported the post and dropped hints, or whatever this is, about what the post was and why it wasn’t moderated - I’m not sure why you’ve decided to care at this point. I wouldn’t have said anything about the post report had you not only brought it up, but started dropping hints about what happened.
It isn’t. Of course nobody said anything about requiring thoughtful posts; I tried to discourage Oakminster from actively being snide.
Telling someone not to post “boo hiss” at an argument and mock other posters is appalling? I have to disagree.
Actually, if you were to review my last several engagements with Marley, you’ll find that the board consensus has been that I was right most of the time. Go back to the shameful “Gun Grabber” incident–Marley was wrong, and most people who replied to that those threads agreed that he was wrong.
Marley is wrong here, and several people who’ve posted agree that he was wrong.
He won’t admit error, of course, but he’ll still be wrong.
As the person Oak was responding to, I took no offense at his comments nor do I think they rose to the level of any Mod action other than maybe saying as a poster, “So what are your ideas, smart guy?” I actually agree with a couple of Oak’s comments.
Not my recollection of that incident at all, but it does make it clearer that this thread is part of your vendetta against him.
Really, it wouldn’t be hard for you to post in a civil, substantive measure. Your insistence on defending your right to be rude and content-free is a bit quixotic, if Don Quixote just wanted to blow raspberries at windmills.
But blatantly **non-**obvious to those of us who did well in Con Law or got above a ‘C’ in high school civics. The world of Constitutionality is not made up of a monothreaded prescriptive weave and oversimplified glue.
I disagree. In the context of that thread, telling Oakminster to stop heckling everyone who posted an opinion was perfectly appropriate. He didn’t punish Oakminster, he simply asked him to stop doing what he was doing. Frankly, if there was a lot more of that, forums like GD might actually become readable.
Oh, for crying out loud. You called Marley out, saying he had acted inappropriately by ignoring your reported post. Why shouldn’t he make the details public? How else can he defend himself against your allegations?
If you accuse a doctor of malpractice, you don’t get to complain about him violating doctor-patient confidentiality when he testifies with the details of the procedure he performed.
Meh. I read that thread and interpreted Oak’s post as “I don’t agree with this, and a lot of your wish list violates the First Amendment.” What is the big deal? Not enough discussion went into it? A brief moment of annoyance came and went, but that was more about the posting style of parsing the post in orer to respond with “Nein!” to each point, but at no point did I think it violated the rules.
Okay, not requiring thoughtful posts, but issuing mod notes for posts that lack details and aren’t very useful.
Actually, I’ve changed my mind (somewhat). While I don’t think post alone was anything noteworthy, I can see how his behavior in the thread overall was getting dangerously near threadshittery. By the time of the note, he was approaching 1/5 of the posts in the thread, all of which were variations of “Wrong!”
At a certain point, making these posts becomes jerkish (and I see you’ve followed up with a semi-mind-change, but I wanna say this anyway). I read Great Debates because sometimes someone posts something that is full of closely-reasoned arguments backed up with clear cites and either my mind is changed, or my confidence in my position is shaken, or at least I gain some appreciation for how my political opponents, however wrong-headed and foolish they might be, at least can arrive at their positions through principled and reasoned reflection.
And then there are the one-liners and snide snarky snots. Those folks I can live without.
I’m gonna agree with **Oak **here, in the sense that he wasn’t really doing anything wrong in that thread. I disagree that Marley is some radical leftist who only moderates poor little ol’ conservatives though. That’s fucking hilarious.
Obviously. I find it appalling because it was heavy handed for the situation, quite unnecessary, and plays into the narrative that this board’s moderation is hostile to conservatives.
“Boo, hiss” would be perfectly at home in, say, the British Parliament. It’s not thread shitting by any reasonable standard in my opinion.
What I also find appalling is that some people apparently want to turn the SDMB into a Ladies’ and Gentlemen’ s Afternoon Tea. I want the old board back, warts and all. It was better when the moderation was less intrusive, with frankly more interesting discussions emerging despite (or actually, as I believe, because of) the freer discourse.
If you want Oakminster to write more substantive posts, allow the users of the board to encourage him thus, or mock him for his shallowness in the Pit. If he really crosses a line, then warn him. But otherwise respond as poster to call on him to be better, not as a moderator.