Moderators making the infraction more clear in posts?

About This Message Board
1

I’ve recently been reading ATMB threads, and I’m seeing a common pattern. Posters are questioning moderator actions (nothing new there), but what stands out is that they have several times misunderstood what the moderator action was about.

For instance, this thread

is an IMHO post wanting readings for an Atheist getting married in a Catholic church. The discussion went off topic to judge the merits and appropriateness of an atheist marrying in a Catholic church. Czarcasm posted this:

[Moderator Warning]TWEET! Take the highly charged issue of non-believers marrying in a religious setting to Great Debates where it belongs. The OP is asking about appropriate readings for the ceremony.[/Moderator Warning]

This thread is being discussed in ATMB here

where several people are confused why the moderator intervened. They seem to think the issue was merely hijacking the thread, not the content of the hijacking.

I have witnessed similar situations, like anything with Silverstreak Wonder, which can be attributed to his newness as a poster not realizing all the rules in play, but really I think moderator actions should be explicit precisely so that even newbies can understand.

What happens is you give a warning that does not state the rule being violated, and people read in their own reasons for the action, usually ascribing nefarious motivations to the Mod.

I have tried to post the clarification in each of these I see, because for some reason nobody else is making the clarifications.

Thoughts?

2

I thought this effort on the part of Czarcasm was kinda lame-ass (if that’s an acceptable epithet for ATMB) - on my reading of PunditLisa’s suggestion it had nothing to do with arguing whether a professing non-believer should be getting married in church, but simply saying that the best way to find a Bible verse you like would be to read the Bible.

3

I think they will not ever do this because the desire of the mod is to silence the discussion. There sure won’t be an intelligent reason to give. You mention me and that is fine, but remember I was just asked to recall something off the top of my head, then was told I could not have such a memory or view and to keep quiet (not to just return to his imagined subject).

In this wedding thread the totally unwanted moderation is terrible but I have seen the same in a number of threads now, and I wasn’t in them. It’s always to silence a view they don’t like, that is the reason. Also the reason no rule is ever cited.

4

Malacandra said:

I agree, and have posted such in the relevant ATMB thread and called for moderator review. This thread isn’t to judge moderator decisions, it is to discuss how to make the posts where they take action more clear.

Silverstreak Wonder said:

Show me evidence. So far, every instance you have made this claim about I have given an alternative (and what I believe is the correct) explanation. It has never been about stifling discussion or stifling a particular viewpoint. It has been about behavior and about posting in the wrong forum.

This thread is not about you. I mentioned you in relation to incidents where moderator actions were not clearly stated. This has nothing to do with the appropriateness of those actions, only to do with clarity of presentation.

You are factually wrong. I have stated the rule in every case you list. “Unwanted Moderation” is bogus - all moderation is unwanted by someone. (Even deleting spam is unwanted by the spammers.) The fact that you keep attributing this reason to the moderator actions you see is an indicator of your martyr complex. You are predisposed to judge intent rather than ask for clarification.

5

Have you ever actually read the rules here?

Edit: Let me revise that. Have you read the rules or the forum descriptions?

6

Yes. Getting back to the subject, what is the big problem moving a thread if the discussion starts to violate some silly rule about where it should be then? I see in fact stuff being so moved all the time and it makes few angry, compared to being told to shut up when an active discussion is in progress.

On a discussion board. discussions ought to be proper. If the reason this is done is the forum definitions, then just move the darn thing if it is so important to you. I have seen many moves explained and well done, I would have no issues at all with mods doing that.

I think it is the mods “being a jerk” to stop willing discussions like I see them doing.

7

It isn’t a big problem, like you said yourself. Moving a thread can change the way the discussion goes, so there are times we try to keep a thread on track for the forum it’s in.

I bow to your almost-a-month’s experience. :wink: Anyway the kinds of mod action you object to are usually the kind I mentioned: if a thread is in Great Debates we’ll try to keep it Great Debates-appropriate when possible because that’s the kind of discussion the OP is looking for. If it didn’t belong there in the first place, it’ll be moved.

8

OP: The people who wonder about Mods’ decisions are usually the same group that bitch about the end result all the damn time. The rest of easily understand the rule broken and the reason for whatever specific penalty that gets incurred.

9

Silverstreak Wonder said:

If a thread starts with the topic in the wrong forum, then often it is just moved. The exceptions for that have had other reasons stated, like repeated instance of a particular poster ignoring which forum he is in despite repeatedly being informed to pay more attention. Making him start the thread over was a sort of lesson to pay more attention.

If the thread starts on topic appropriate to the forum and the whole discussion goes off track, it might be moved.

But the instances you mention are cases where the thread topic as posted belongs right where it is, but a part of the conversation diverges from the point of the thread, and that part goes into territory belonging in another forum. Now if the whole thread is moved, the original part and intent of the thread is misplaced, and the change of forum can effect how the conversation proceeds from that point. When the real issue is that posters should be cognizant of the board rules and follow them. Some of those rules concern where topics should be discussed (e.g. flaming goes in the Pit only, religious debates go in GD, discussion of literature goes in Cafe Society, etc). When a side conversation is spawned that is distracting from the original, especially if it violates the forum rules, then there are three options.

  1. Move the whole thread, and thereby ensure the original point is buried.

  2. Close the thread and tell everyone to start over.

  3. Tell the hijack to take it somewhere else and return the thread to the original topic.

Which of these is least heavy-handed? I’ll give you a hint: I want #3.

If I start an IMHO thread on “What is your favorite color?”, then I am, for some reason, trying to find opinions on favorite colors. If someone posts “red”, then soemone else responds, “Red is the color of Satan, and Satan is evil,”, that might be considered relevant commentary. But if the next poster says, “Satan is not evil, he’s misunderstood,” and that gets a bunch of people talking about the nature and status of Satan, I’m going to what to yell “GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY THREAD!!!”. I might be interested in that topic, but not at the expense of me finding out what people’s favorite color is - the whole point for me posting in the first place. There’s a full board that people can post that topic in. They don’t have to have that conversation in my thread.

Of the complaints against mod actions I’ve read in the last couple weeks, the only one I really agree with the complaint was the one about Czarcasm’s warning to PunditLisa. Just about all the others have been misunderstandings or whiney bitching because they don’t like the rules.

I’m just wanting to see the reasons stated clearly when actions are taken. I mean, when I cop gives you a traffic ticket, he has to cite the infraction, not just say “Whatever you were doing, don’t do that!” A little effort on the mods to be explicit in the violation would go a long way in clarity. I realize it gets tedious to say the same thing repeatedly (“Religious debates go in Great Debates. Take this contentious topic of whether atheists should get religious marriages over there.”) See how mine explains the violation?

10

Please add a number 4 option to your choices, leave the discussion alone, unless there is fighting, spam, porn or something like that. It is supposed to be a discussion board, so what if part of the discussion touches related topics, that is just what happens in real conversations.

Look at a zillion Haiti threads in all the forums and I think all were left alone and many did die out, that is fine. So much better than going in saying to shut up, see why that would offend people? So religious stuff goes in GD mainly and he opened it in IMHO, I sure don’t care, bet very few posters care.

11

This board does not work that way. It has never worked that way in the 10+ years it has existed. It is never going to work that way. You need to adapt to the culture/rules/customs of this board. It ain’t gonna happen the other way around. If you just can’t live with it the way it is, perhaps there are other places on the net you may find more to your liking.

12

Silverstreak Wonder said:

No, I won’t. I prefaced my three options with this:

Note that I said a side conversation. If the main topic is wrong, move it where it belongs, but a side conversation is a shift in topic.

Note that I said distracting from the original. Discussing why one likes red is fair game in a thread about what is your favorite color. It does not distract, it complements.

Note that I said violates the forum rules. Those is the rules, they’ve been the rules, and you need to live by the rules.

Now here’s the thing-- you seem to want a board with little moderation. Kill the spam, kill the porn, stop the fights, otherwise leave everything be. Well, this board works by stricter rules than that. We have always worked by stricter rules than that.

Now we haven’t always had the same forum breakdown we currently have, and sometimes there has been variation on where a certain type of post goes (such as discussions of TV shows would have been in MPSIMS or GQ before Cafe Society was created). But there have always been categories where certain things go and what is allowed where. That is the culture of SDMB.

Learn to live with it, or find a board more to your liking. But stop bitching out the mods for doing what they have always done and are supposed to do.

13

Emphasis added. Sometimes things change. Sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. The board, which is simply a bunch of people, sometimes evolve one way or another. Moderators or no moderators.

14

Taking it to a ridiculous extreme, why not just have one big thread then and people can post on whatever comes to mind?

15

So, no feedback from the moderators here? No reply? No “thanks for the suggestion” or “we’re thinking about it” or “we think we do fine as it is”?

Hello? thump thump Is this thing on?

16

That’s not true. I don’t always understand, but I either take it up directly with the mods (or somehow they feel obliged to take it up with me for almost a year, yes, I am looking at you Mr. Can’t-let-it-go mod) or I just let someone else worry about patterns of moderation. Doesn’t mean it always makes sense to me as stated (or not stated as the OP suggests)

17

Sorry – didn’t realize no one had responded, perhaps because it’s not entirely clear what we should respond to.

Yes, I agree that a moderator issuing a warning should be clear and specific as to what the poster wrote that earned the warning, and what rule the moderator sees as having been broken by that post.

That’s a pretty general answer, but it was a pretty general question. Are there specific instances where you perceive a lack of clarity?

18

Who is Czarcasm warning in Post 51 of this thread? And then another warning some 5 posts later addressed to … nobody.

Do moderators typically issue blanket warnings to nobody in particular? Nobody is even being quoted, and I don’t really understand how someone can not expect the “highly charged issue of non-believers marrying in a religious setting” to not be discussed in a thread entitled “Atheist getting married in Catholic church - need help with readings” Really??

And then PunditLisa takes a warning for responding directly to a query from the OP? That’s pretty chickenshit.

19

The OP mentioned that episode, and linked to the ATMB thread discussing it, so I was taking that as already covered. (I agree, though, that a “mod warning” should be specifically directed to a particular person and cover a specific post – I think “mod note” or similar should be used to mark a generalized “cool it” comment to multiple participants.)

Are there other examples in recent memory (let’s not exhume stuff that happened months ago) of a mod making mod pronouncement wherein it is unclear whom is being warned and for what?

20

I should have used [Moderator Note] instead of [Moderator Warning] in that case-sorry.