People were having a rational discussion outside of the thump on Clothahump realm.
The poster in question was dinged at 4:20 my time, you replied in the thread at about 6:00 my time and then you shut the thread at about 6:10 my time (all times are approximate.)
I’m asking; if the thread was closed owing to “Clothy” not being there to defend himself then why the close to 2 hour delay and why did you make a post about an hour and a half after the target was suspended?
I’d ask that you reopen it with an admonition not to bag on Clothahump and allow those who were discussing discuss.
But that would mean that any participant would have to rehash things they’ve already said and make references back to the existing thread in order to respond to things said therein.
It also wouldn’t answer the question regarding the protracted delay - complete with intervening participation.
The delay is because Miller and I are different people. We typically only moderate in our own forums, so as to not overstep I leave the moderation of the Pit to Miller. I did execute the suspension thus created the ATMB thread. In my haste I did not coordinate the timing with Miller hence the time gap.
It’s been long-standing practice to close Pit threads when the object of them has been suspended or banned. I don’t see that discussion as being so scintillating as to warrant an exception to the policy. And it’s not like there haven’t been a hundred similar threads in GD. And it would be a pain in the butt to moderate to keep out references to Clothahump.
You imagine far more coordination among the staff than actually takes place.
Miller was involved in the discussion of the suspension. It just so happens that Bone was the one among us who did the housekeeping. But Miller wouldn’t have received notification of that. In any case, it’s not really essential to close a thread immediately after a suspension, just when someone gets around to it. The delay was neither unusual or in any way significant.
But if the long-standing rule is that upon suspension the thread is closed but it only happens when someone “gets around to it” doesn’t that allow for, in this particular case, two full hours for the departed to be thumped upon while they can’t defend themselves.
Preventing that is the stated purpose for the closure-upon-suspension rule.
And if he was participating in the discussion could he not have closed it pending? I think I’ve seen that done before.
The world is not perfect, nor is the SDMB. I wouldn’t expect the mods to be sitting around just waiting for the exact moment when some thread or other has to be closed, so two hours seems pretty quick if you think about how the real world actually works, what with the mods not being “on” all the time.
Now, if Miller had posted to get “one last zing in” towards Clothahump before closing the thread, I can see cause for some complaint. But his last post had nothing to do with that poster, so I suspect he hadn’t seen word of the need to close the thread yet.
Yep, that’s going to happen sometimes. Sorry. We’re unpaid volunteers. None of us can afford to prioritize being a moderator here over our real jobs, or our families.
I could have, but it doesn’t seem necessary. A two hour gap between a poster being suspended, and the attendant clean-up work that goes along with that, does not strike me as a significant problem.
And it’s not like there haven’t been a hundred similar threads in GD. And it would be a pain in the butt to moderate to keep out references to Clothahump.
