Moderator Actions! Come one come All!

The BBQ Pit
41

New Forum: PMATMB!

Pissing and Moaning About this Message Board

This new forum contains all pit-like complaints directed at moderators, administrators, and relative speed of the board.

So all the
“This board is too fucking slow!!!”
“Coldfire can go jam a clog up his ass for closing my thread!”
“Tuba can eat a dick for acting like she is god of the boards”
“Ed Zotti is really Cecil- he is trying to pull a fucking scam on us!!”
threads would go there. Then, complaints would be out in the open and others could learn from the moderators’ explaination of the posters’ mistakes. And we sophisticated posters could stay away from there and avoid such crap if we don’t want to see it. I mean, even the pit sucks when every other thread is about the closing of yet another thread. And then the pit thread gets closed… it’s a vicious cycle!!!

What do you think???

42

Good Lord - who in the hell is going to have to moderate PMATMB?

43

Ohhh!!! ME! ME! ME!

I’m the king of pissing and moaning!!!

wait… is that something to be proud of? :wink:

44

I guess I did misunderstand you, Izzy. Sorry ‘bout that.

However, I’m not sure we can provide more specificity without more rules. It’s impossible to predict any particular situation that may arise and prescribe a uniform action to be taken by the staff. Our government tries to do this to regulate societal behavior and you see what we’ve ended up with, a mishmash of confusing and often contradictory laws that most certainly are not uniformly enforced or interpreted. And the government has a much larger staff. The generation of specificity would be a monstrously time consuming task and probably doomed to fail anyway. There will always be people attempting to find the boundaries, no matter how specific we are. And frankly, most people know when they are “being a jerk,” anyway.

As for Poster B’s interpretation of Moderator A’s actions, well, we have this statement already in the user agreement. “You agree to abide by the wishes of the board moderators in interpreting and enforcing these rules.” Basically, it states that our interpretation supercedes that of Poster B. In this regard, we are very specific.

Now, I agree that the guidelines delineating which topics are appropriate for which forums could probably be spelled out a bit better, especially for the GQ forum, but we cut new users some slack on that and try to point them in the right direction, with the help of the more experienced members. As people spend more time here, the vast majority of them catch on without needing more restrictive descriptions.

We like to believe that our members are intelligent enough to think for themselves and act reasonably. We also like to give them the freedom to prove this. Restrictions and specificity are barricades to this goal.

Anyway, if you’d like to see the user agreement, you can find it at the link below. A perusal of this document may help answer many of your concerns.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=54905

45

Let Me just say i love all the moderators (I wuv yoo guys!)
They have never done a thing wrong to me that I’ve noticed. Of course, I might’ve been distracted…
I think they are doing a good job! Rah Rah!!
:):slight_smile:

46

Uncle Beer, I agree with you that adding rules isn’t necessary (and would cause undue work, too). I think what lies at the crux of many misunderstandings is simple consistency. As long as moderators were consistent with their rulings, the exact wording wouldn’t be as important as the intent.

I think the rules are fine as they are - in essence, don’t be a jerk. Most people can identify jerky behavior rather easily, so misinterpretation should not be an issue. After all, rules cannot possibly be worded as to include every potential situation. There are a lot of people on here, and there are infinite issues that arise. The rules shouldn’t be a be-all, end-all guideline for the poster; they should, however, provide the framework for a safe, entertaining, communication environment. The moderators are the interpreters of these rules, and by and large I think they do a stupendous job. All I’d want from them is to be consistent with their rulings. And not only within the rulings of each moderator but also from moderator to moderator.

You are our arbiters, and we are bound to your decisions. Keep up the good work, we all appreciate it.

47

Sorry, man. That’s an impossible standard for mere humans. Shit, most people don’t even expect that kind of consistency from their police or elected officials.

48

I don’t think it’s impossible, but I realize it’s not always easy. Look at Major League Baseball. For many years, the umpires have had their own codes of justice. Some have big strike zones, some have small ones. But it’s gotten so bad that some of the umps aren’t even consistent within the same game. So Major League Baseball has now instructed its umpiring crew to maintain a consistent strike zone across the board. Not a perfect analogy, of course, because the strike zone can be defined explicitly - as it is in the baseball rulebook. So maybe it’s not as workable as I thought.

But let’s try this reasoning. Say Moderator A admonishes a poster because of something that poster specifically did. When another poster does the same thing - again, open to interpretation - all I am asking is that a moderator respond the same way as Moderator A did with the first one. If there is a difference between the situations of the two posters, then it is incumbent upon the second Moderator to explain that difference to everyone. Not saying that second Moderator would be wrong, just that he or she should be able to explain his or her actions in conjunction with previous rulings. That’s all.

49

Why? Why should we be required to explain every the nuances of every situtation in painstaking detail? This is almost certainly going to cause more questioning of moderator actions, rather than less. As evidence, I present my posts in this very thread. AS I explain more of how and why we operate as we do, more and more questions arise. See also, How are posts moderated? currently running in ATMB.

Within the portion of your quote I’ve italicized, lies the problem, or part of it, anyway. There are 15 mods/admins, not including Ed Zotti, here. Potentially then, there are 15 interpretations, each of them equally valid. How do we decide? Obviously through communication. But … you must remember, we are scattered across many time zones and in the case of Coldfire, separate continents. If we stop to discuss any given problem and solution in detail amongst the 15 of us, we’d accomplish nothing; we’d be overtaken by events and anarchy would reign. Often, it’d require 24 hours to simply exchange our first impressions of the nature of the problem. Quite simply, when threads routinely drop off the front pages in 4 hours or less, there isn’t time to discuss these things in detail. Hence, we have loose guidelines, and the owner of the message boards, the Chicago Reader, trusts us to exercise our individual judgements. Since the Reader trusts us to use good judgement, I do not see why the members cannot.

50

One problem with absolute consistency of interpretation from moderator to moderator is the simple TIME factor. A lot of behind-the-scenes communication goes on anyway. When a mod posts a guidance/reproof/warning/whatever, that is usually communicated by email to the other mods. It’s far from perfect but it’s an attempt to keep us reading from the same text.

NOT whining here, just describing. What this means is, besides at least trying to read every post in every thread in assigned fora, and checking out every link provided, there’s also a lot of email “homework” to do. We try our best to read the discussions that prompted other mod actions. They’re the routine communications that help us understand what’s going on at large and how rules are being interpreted, and in what contexts. It isn’t all that unusual to have 100+ such emails alone if one of us has to be away from the boards for a day or two for some reason. (I seem to remember Coldy had 600-odd such emails stacked up when he returned from a week off.)

To be honest, most of us just ask to be removed from the routine email list during absences that last more than a day or so. In purely realistic terms it can take weeks of reading to thoroughly catch up–and sometimes it just can’t be done. We’ll be copied anyway on important events or rules interpretations, but yeah…communication isn’t 100% for all, all the time.

I’m NOT questioning the legitimacy of the questions asked here; good, reasonable stuff. I’m just not sure if there’s a practical, workable solution.

NOTE: Maybe it’s just my perception, but seems to me most questions about rule interpretation, etc. have been much more civil and reasonable lately. Not that I’m encouraging rampant nitpicking, understand. <assume smiley> But it’s proven that questions about board policy, administration, etc. CAN be approached courteously and sensibly. When inconsistencies, etc. happen, then we can all get them corrected and go on. Big whoop; it’s just housecleaning on a message board, not nuclear war. Knee-jerk flaming, hostility, assumptions of rotten, fascist oppression and deliberate malfeasance get old very quickly, y’know?

Respectful nod to all respectful folk,
Veb

51

You may be right.

Since no one else seems to be chiming in, maybe we should take this to e-mail. What do you think? I am enjoying the discussion, limited it may be in the number of participants. But if no one else is interested… :slight_smile:

52

Yes, but I also see the benefit of the other thread. Nacho4Sara was also involved in a thread similar to the iampunha one not to long ago, where she asked someone to explain their actions and called them a liar or a troll. I have no problem with that, I just find it hypocritical for her to do that, call for it to be taken to email for someone else, and then do it again. I have no problem with her post here, I didn’t have a problem with her post in the Upham thread (though I did disagree strongly with her judgement), I did have a problem with her post in the iampunha thread.

53

All the more reason for having the rules specified clearer. You wrote earlier

I am not questioning the right of the moderators to have the final say. (Someone has to, or its total anarchy). But surely the moderators are interested in having as little discord as possible. There’s no point in leaving things out there so that people get tripped up and be ruled upon by moderators. To this end, the moderators should appreciate that people look to moderator rulings for guidence on how the rules are to be interpreted. The more inconsistency and ambiguity that there is in these, the more confused people will be, and the more trouble for both posters and moderators. (In fact, for this reason, I think that moderators who take action based on behind the scenes evidence that they don’t disclose should perhaps announce their actions privately to the affected party. Otherwise their rulings will be interpreted in context of what is readily apparent. And if the action is not intended for general consumption, there’s no need to have it posted anyway).

I should clarify again that this is not a complaint at all, though you seem to be interpreting it that way. Just a suggestion based on general observations on the Board.

54

Gee, I wonder what in the world I would do if I didn’t have oldscratch up my ass, policing every word I type.

In the Upham thread, I stated that it appeared to me that he was lying. I believe I even used an “IMHO.” (I have no inclination to seek out the thread, but feel free if you so desire). I didn’t jump down his throat, or accuse him of being racist, nor did I spew bullshit about him that did not pertain to the OP (as several posters did in the iampunha thread). I didn’t open the thread and think, “Well, I can attack him,” as several posters did in the iampunha thread. I said that I had been upset by the thread in question too (about killing everyone, IIRC, and also one about skinning cats), and was wondering if Upham was being up front or trolling, in the spirit of the OP. I did not just see his name and think, “That sonovabitch!” and let loose, as posters in the iampunha thread did.

My question about Euty’s actions pertained to this thread because Twisty specifically stated, in the OP, that mod comments should be taken here, and it is the forum for such discussion.

Oldscratch, you don’t like me; fine, ignore me. I could care less. But please grow up. You could not act more childish if you were actually 4 years old. This bullshit is so juvenile, and I refuse to defend myself against your efforts at misconstruing every word I type.

55

I agree. I was curious about the whole thing, but I really didn’t feel compelled to write anyone an email about it. I appreciate the discussion and explanations given. If it’s not a personal issue, it just saves a lot of time and emails to explain it to everyone at once.

Posting on a message board is not exactly a human right. If a mod here thinks enough is enough, so be it. And if one moderator takes a stricter approach, so be that too. I don’t think the general principles by which moderators do their job varies that much, one may just be less willing to let such silliness continue than another. The “Pit Bull” thread that was closed was really degenerating into a nitpicking session and I’m glad it was closed otherwise it could have gone on for another 5 pages in the same vain. Don’t fret, there’s always another uselss thread in which to spew venom right around the corner. :slight_smile:

56

**

Interesting exageration there. I believe that I called you on the Upham comments, which I felt were unnessecary, I also reffered to your comments in the iampunha thread. Other than that, I have not commented on your posts or in any way interacted with you. Exagerating the case to make yourself a poor misunderstood mayrtar is in poor class.

**

Unfortunately, or fortunately, it’s been deleted. Your words, if I recal correctly, said “he may not be a liar, but he might be a troll” without an IMHO attached. You weren’t directly coming out and calling him such, but you were insinuating it, well after several people had already had a chance to comment on his behavior, and well before he had a chance to respond.

**

Interestingly enough. Doobieous did not accuse him of being racist, did not spew bullshit about him that did not pertain to the OP, and did not attack him repeatedly. He used harsh language, but gave iampunha an honest chance to explain himself. Yet you said that he shouldn’t have posted it. There is no difference from what he did, what monfort did, and what you did here. What others did in that thread is irelevant, you suggested that Doobieous should have taken it to email. Why?

What gets tired is your constant reference to everyone who disagrees with you as juvenile. Do you know any other insults? Can you call people anything but juvenile? Cause I don’t think I’ve seen a post of yours yet where you haven’t accused your opponents of being juvenile.

57

Anyone who acts juvenile, as you do, will be called juvenile, or any variant thereof. I could call you a self-aggrandizing, immature, antagonistic prick with nothing better to do that start fights on a regular basis, but juvenile is just so short and sweet.

I am done with you. Twist my words however you want, I could not care less. In the grand scheme of things, you are a tiny pissant who is irritating as hell, but whom I can easily ignore. Which is what I will be doing from this point on.

The word is martyr, by the way.

58

Now, granted, i smoked a lotta stuff that kills memory cells in my day… but i’m pretty sure you did jump down my throat, and i’m also pretty sure there were no IMHO’s attached… But hey, who am i to remember my first flame?

59

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Nacho4Sara *
**

Would you care to point out a single instance where I’ve twisted your words? Or are you just again being a bitchy whiner, with nothing better then to do then complain about others actions and how you think they’re juvenile. I’m pointing out a very real discrepancy between your words and actions.

**

Speaking of juvenile, this is regarded almost universally on the boards as one of the most juvenile petty comments a person can make. I pity you, and hope you can one day grow up and learn.

60

Get a room, you two. Must you use every instance to take stabs at each other? This is a civil thread, in case you didn’t notice. Why not open a semi-permanent “oldscratch vs. Nacho4Sara” thread and revive it when necessary?

It would save me a lot of post-skipping.