I’m generally a critic of overzealous moderation but I just don’t see it here. Great Debates ostensibly requires a higher level of decorum than the other forums (which is why I don’t hang out there much) and as has already been noted by others in this thread, Oakminster had injected vaguely snide and dismissive remarks into several of his posts before the one that was modded, which itself was essentially a line-by-line repetition of “nuh-UH!”
I think a “knock it off” was justified to steer the conversation back from the edge, and by most posters would hardly be considered a dagger in the heart.
I see where you’re coming from on this in a generic sense, but I disagree that Oak’s posts were borderline. His tone just strikes me as pretty far from breaking a rule to warrant a mod note. But it does seem like we have an non-resolvable point of disagreement, so it seems time for me to bow out.
I’d rather posts be left as they are more often, unless the danger of heading towards rule breaking is a lot clearer. Obviously, I’m not a mod and have never been one; I’m just describing the kind of board I prefer to frequent myself. It seems to me that the trigger for mod notes is more hair-trigger now than it once was.
Being a moderator is often a thankless task, I am well aware. Please don’t take my arguing with you right now as a lack of appreciation for your time and effort, Marley. It isn’t. I retract my use of the word “appalling.”
You’re schtick is getting transparent. You find some post that you personally find objectionable and isn’t delivered by a monocled interlocutor and you issue a “helpful” note, or two, for nothing that violates the rules. Then, you can Mod that poster with a Warning and adopt this “What? I’m a nice guy…I gave him a gentle admonition. And then he didn’t obey.”
You have done this low shit repeatedly. Have you noticed how you’re the Mod that is the target of these threads more than any other? You use too heavy a hand in thinking you can read the future and see where a thread is headed. As far as I know, you’re not Kreskin.
Wait—are you the board’s first Pre-Cog Mod. It would really do you and the board well for you to relax your moderation. Because it is too heavy-handed. Biased, as well, but that’s the nature of the board. And since it bends in favor of you and the majority, you and yours don’t give a shit if its unfair.
Guess you’re going to call the IRS on me now, huh?
We are here to try to moderate discussions that are liable to become extreme. Noting and issuing Warnings for rules violations is not the primary purpose of Moderating. It is an action that we take when a poster has already stepped over a line that will cause an immoderate reaction.
Moderating generally works better when we can head off that sort of action and (over)reaction. Oakminster was not mod Noted for saying “boo hiss” in one post. He was Mod noted because every single one of his several posts to the point where Marley intervened contained a dismissive or insulting comment that either stood alone or was attached to a cryptic comment that might barely be considered substantive if one squinted really hard.
Actually, you are incorrect, according to Marley’s own words in the unwarranted and unnecessary note he issued. But don’t let facts get in the way of your posting.
What do you hope to accomplish with this comment? He’s essentially right: all of your posts contained some dismissive remark except for post #29. I didn’t even bother modding most of those and stuck to the ones that seemed the most excessive.
That’s your story now. It is clearly not what you said when you wrongfully issued yet another note you really should not have issued. Therefore, Tomndebb was incorrect. He was also snide and dismissive, but I guess that’s ok, since he’s a lefty. And your friend. And a moderator.
There’s not a whole lot of daylight between what he said and what I said. I highlighted a couple of specific comments because I didn’t feel like arguing with you about the rest; he said every one of your posts contained some snide comment or other (which, save one, is true). I’ll ask you again: what do you hope to accomplish at this point? What do you expect to achieve in terms of moderation or whatever?
As I’ve told you before, I want you to call it down the middle. Same rules enforced the same way for people you like and people you don’t like. Lefties, righties, and those in the middle included.
I also want you to stop moderating posts that are not in violation of any published rule. There is no need for it, and nothing is accomplished. You’ve previously acknowledged that I generally do not break rules here. Even stupid rules. Even when stupid rules are enforced in irrational and unfair ways. So back off. Leave my shit alone unless and until I actually break a published rule.
Failing that, your resignation as a moderator, either temporarily or permanently. You’re burned out. The tone you’ve taken in multiple threads in this forum over the last few months indicate that you really don’t give a damn anymore. Let it go. Someone else can do it.
So when can we see this new “constructive and on-topic” apply to pretty much anything Der Trihs or Elucidator posts?
Because "Christians suxk!’ or “Dur–tighty-righties are teh bad” or “Republicans just want to kill women” really are neither on topic or constructive. (For that matter, “the usual suspects” referring to other posters, on the right)
I support this new standard and I think Oak’s postings are (as usual) masterpieces of whiny writing and as someone on his side, I’m embarrased by them, but somehow there seem to be several long-term poster who get a pass because they’ve always threadshitted (threadshat?) and I’d like to see that change.
As soon as the thing you made up becomes a rule. (Never.) As I always explain when this gets asked, Der Trihs and many other people of any and all political persuasions have been modded for off-topic or otherwise unwanted posts. The moderator instruction wasn’t “all posts must be constructive and on topic,” it was:
Der Trihs has often been accused of making ludicrous generalizations, but he typically doesn’t respond to people’s ideas by literally saying “Boo hiss.”
Because people react to provocations, both real and perceived. tomndebb and I have both commented on this: the role of a moderator in a discussion isn’t just to penalize people for breaking the rules, it’s to keep the discussion on track and going. The penalties we use are a piece of that, but not they are not the whole deal or the purpose of moderating. There are limits to how many threads we can watch and this isn’t a televised presidential debate (in terms of moderator involvement, importance, or any other way), but we’re not the thread cops.
That’s not always what happens.
Hypothetical. Poster A post about hiring a hooker for a bachelor party. Poster B posts a related story. Poster C calls it evil and immoral. Poster C gets a mod note saying he’s hijacking the thread and thread shitting. You want real examples, I’ll mail them to you.
