To you. But who else would care if a mod had closed it. In fact first time I saw your *Contest: predict how many posts will ultimately be made in this thread * on the front page (I didn’t open it) I assumed it would be instantly closed as a post padding thread.
I know. But the problem is that if we start talking about individual posts and posters, it’ll turn into an argument between people rather than a discussion of the central issue.
Although at this point, there doesn’t seem to be much reason to continue any discussion of the central issue either. Everyone’s position is pretty clear. Some of us are okay with the moderators’ decisions. Others of us are not happy with those decisions. And the moderators have no reason to care what our opinions are.
What’s a post padding thread? (I don’t understand the motivation for post padding)
I don’t understand the motivation either but if you’re a member there’s a line where it shows how many posts you’ve made since joining the board. Some people like to increase this number by making a lot of pointless posts - ie post padding. So they’ll do a thread with a “topic” like “I’m going to individually post all the numbers from 1 to 10,000.”
Ok, you were proud of those threads and others thought they were crap.
Are you unable to see that different people have different opinions about which threads are good and which threads are bad?
If you are able to see that, how can you possibly conclude that one person’s opinion (your’s or czarcasm’s in this case) can be a valid determinant of which threads other posters would enjoy?
As I have pointed out repeatedly, the difference is how you define “crap.” Is it a totally neutral coherence issue that can be improved by a re-post, or is it a personal topical preference?
Because this board, and any internet message board, isn’t based on the concept of what any poster would enjoy. Otherwise, all message boards would end up looking exactly the same. Each message board uses moderation and limitations to fence off exactly what kind of messages and what kind of posters who will appreciate this subset of messages will enjoy.
In other words, yes, it’s all about exactly what kind of message board Ed and the moderators want to have. That’s what shapes the environment and character of this message board, and any other message board.
I’ll agree that the moderation contributes to the atmosphere of the boards. But that doesn’t mean we can’t argue that a specific part of the moderation is not helpful, or, even that a single moderating decision was poor. That’s all we’re doing here.
And I will also argue that, if you claim to want to be fair, as this moderation staff does, you do not let one person’s opinion govern what you do. It’s just impossible for one person to always be fair.
If we were dealing with capricious moderators, it would make sense that they would do whatever they want. But we have better people than that here, and they actually request us to voice our opinions on the moderation. What’s the point of such feedback if they aren’t going to use it to affect their moderating decisions?
Finally, I propose a test: why not stop closing pointless threads for a little while, and see if the tone actually shifts? Why not see if the worries about harm are actually justified? I personally bet you’ll find that, with a board this big, the people on the board can sustain the tone, and you will have one less moderating duty, and once less chance you’ll burn out from being overly busy.
I’ll point out that, other than twickster, no one else seems to be closing pointless threads, and yet the forums where neither of you moderate are doing just fine.
You are using a distinction that makes sense to you in your world, but you are failing to realize that this distinction is subjective and opinion based.
I personally thought the 75 options in question were not only entertaining, I was looking forward to watching the discussion unfold. But that is my opinion and I realize some others don’t share it, for them I would expect them to skip the thread, same way I skip threads I don’t think are interesting.
It’s a very logical and simple formula. Why try to restrict what others find interesting? In cases like this there simply isn’t much reason.
Regarding BigT’s post:
I spend most of my time in GQ and I think the moderation there is very good.
This is the only argument in this thread that I find compelling. And I honestly do find it compelling.
Despite the fact that you have been arguing against it all along, you have just now effectively conceded the whole point of the OP. The main point of this thread all along has been that, no matter what you or come particular mod thinks about a 75-option poll, there are other people on the board who find it “entertaining,” and who “[look] forward to watching the discussion unfold.”
All we’ve been asking is that the discussion be allowed to unfold, rather than getting closed down.
I may have missed it, but I had not previously noticed anyone arguing that they genuinely thought the thread was good. Everyone seemed to be picking an ideological fight while explicitly stating that they personally thought the thread was crap. I personally think the thread is crap. But if a fair percentage of people here actually think it was good, then OK, I agree the thread shouldn’t have been removed.
I still think the moderator action in this case was extremely benign, and the thread’s parent could have resubmitted it if he was posting it in good faith to begin with.
But the people who have posted in this thread do not constitute a majority of the board’s members, nor do we claim to speak for people who have not participated in this thread. And it’s precisely because of this fact that threads like the one in question this should be left open: because we can never take a pre-emptive polling to find out how many people think it’s good and how many think it’s crap. The only thing we can do in order to determine whether it is worthwhile is to see whether people choose to participate in it. If they do, then it is, by definition, a worthwhile thread and should stay open; if they don’t, then it will quickly drop from the front page and into obscurity without the need for any action by a moderator.
How could he have resubmitted it? When Czarcasm closed the thread, he made very clear that the presence of 75 different choices was a fundamental and essential problem with the thread, and was a central reason for the closing. If the OP wanted those 75 choices, then he couldn’t have resubmitted it without running afoul of moderator instructions.
As for “good faith,” what does that mean, in this context? Even people who think that the thread was stupid don’t, for the most part, seem to think that it was posted in bad faith. Do you think he was trolling? Do you think he had an ulterior motive?
He couldn’t have resubmitted it without some editing, but I don’t think he was deprived of anything essential: he could have divided the thread in two, shortened it, or given it more of a unifying theme. I agree with the moderator that it would be generally impossible to expect each thread contributor to read and digest and think about every one of his possibilities before choosing. Have you tried? This is very neutral form of moderation. Is there anything essential in that thread that required it to be so broad? Couldn’t it have rather easily been broken up into less broad categories or separate threads? I don’t see why not. Perhaps this is the core of our difference of opinion?
I personally find Qin’s history of never returning to threads, combined with this particular thread’s content, and his not re-submitting the thread in modified form, to be somewhat suspicious of, at the very least, someone who does not appear to be very invested in the quality of his own threads. Others seem to think similarly, for example:
And yet, despite your belief that this is the case, Qin Shi Huangdi actually does return to the majority of his threads, especially the ones that he posts in GD.
When he was pitted last month, i did a numerical count of his last 50 GD threads and his his last 50 IMHO threads, and found:
As i also noted, i still get irritated by him at times, and i tend not to participate in his threads, but to say that he posts and never returns is factually inaccurate.
I stand corrected (I’ll take your word for it).
In the latest modding for content news . . .
G-SE starts this thread to discuss whether waterboarding helped capture ObL. Predictably, several posters use the term “torture” to describe waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation techniques. And the mods don’t bat an eye over it (heck, some of the posters using the word “torture” are mods themselves!).
I have no doubt that if this board were right-leaning the mods would get all over someone’s ass for using the word “torture” because it’s off-topic when discussing enhanced interrogation techniques. But our esteemed mods join in the fun.
So, in a thread where someone asks why Africa is so far behind developmentally, it’s verboten to discuss the race/IQ studies or otherwise imply that it may be because of genetic differences in intelligence across different populations. But in a thread about enhanced interrogation techniques, it’s perfectly fine to describe those techniques as torture.
Thank you for bringing this to my attention, I will do something about this momentarily.
Yes, it is. Glad I could help.
The point is that the mods clearly let their political affiliation and views on political issues affect how they undertake their modding duties. If that doesn’t bother you, then fine. But it bothers me and others, and I think makes the board a worse place to post.