How so? I’ve never understood the reluctance of mods to admit they’ve made a mistake. I can accept that the poor moderation in the pantsless pope hat protestor thread was simply a stumble as the mods adjust to new policy, but why would it kill anyone to admit it?
Worth repeating.
Because it would lead to others wanting re-rulings on previous judgments because rules have been refined, changed or eliminated, and I think the mods have a tough enough job with current rulings without having to make retroactive corrections going back ghod knows how far.
I don’t get it… are you saying a Republican would be treated differently? 
Question: In the Cafe Society when discussing Mad Men could we agree that 1960’s standards should be in effect? Seriously, does someone get extra leeway when talking about Joan’s particular assets?
God forbid anyone should ever review a decision, no matter how bad it appears in hindsight. I get that Armando Galarraga will never get his perfect game, but at least Jim Joyce had the decency to admit he fucked up.
[Modding]
I’m not going to go back and review the probably 12 posts from last night where other posters went right back to this kind of nonsense- but knock it off.
[/Modding]
We do admit when we feel we’ve made mistakes. We don’t do it on cue, though. 
Assuming that applies to everyone’s analysis of an analogy from 9 pages ago, fair enough.
It’s really not all that tough to say “Hey, before we had these rules, we decided x, y, z. We’re not retroactively changing that so don’t even ask, but to help clarify things, under these new rules, x and y would be ok going forward, but z is still not allowed.”
This is done all the time in the real world by anyone with any sort of management experience. ("Hey, we said “Cell phones aren’t allowed at work and punished person X for violating that rule. We’ve since reconsidered and as long as cell phones are on “vibrate” or “silent”, it’s ok to have them at work starting now.”)
Honestly, not that hard.
Not that you’re a mod, but if so, that’s sad. It’s a somewhat clever play(not upto his usual standard, but still moderately funny) on the thread title, and there’s nothing particularly sexual about it either. Nor do I think it can necessarily be construed as “Being a jerk”. It really is a pity that people want to be protected from stuff like this.
Honestly, to be fair they would have to put that notice on all threads effected to date, and to be consistent they would have to use this standard for every rule modification, change or elimination and the threads that they effected. Also, some posters would demand retractions of any mod notes and/or penalties received, and a simple mod note stating that it just isn’t possible isn’t going to stop the mini-shitstorm threads from occurring in this forum.
100% agree. Thanks, mods!
We just disagree, I guess. It’s really a pity that some people need explicit rules to prevent them from doing stuff like this.
(not a comment on VT - I’m generally a big fan of his posts, but everyone hits a bum note every once in a while)
Put what notice on all threads? I never mentioned a notice. I’m talking about clarifying new rules in light of old rulings.
Note that this is exactly what Ellen did earlier on when she essentially said “Ok, this was a thread that prompted this new ruling–let’s look and see how the new ruling would have affected it had it been in force at the time.”
I hate the conclusion she came to–that under the new rules, mocking PopeHatGirl would still be forbidden–but I absolutely applaud her for breaking the moronic SDMB tradition of not giving concrete examples and going on the “See if you can guess when you cross the invisible line. Just go ahead. Guess.”
So, it’s better to stonewall? I don’t agree, and neither do at least some of the real mods, who are willing to reconsider bad decisions.
ISTM that those who refuse to do so are less effective as mods, at least in the eyes of the more reasonable Dopers.
Regards,
Shodan
And I was originally responding to a specific post from Shodan-did you read it?
Looking at it again, I clearly misread it. You’re right–going back and labeling old thread rulings as null-and-void would be a colossal pain in the ass. I agree with you .
So you are deciding which are the “real mods”, and you are counting yourself as among “the more reasonable Dopers”?
This is a good change, Mods. Thank you.
I thought it was just a misread-no prob.
I gotta ask for it. Cite? I want to understand what your idea of sexual assault is.