In a lively thread over at GD, tomndebb doesn’t say a single word for 15 pages, and then without any advance notice we get this:
Well, tomndebb, perhaps we who are participating in the thread would prefer some warnings so we could, you know, get a sense of where you are drawing the imaginary lines this week. That way, we wouldn’t go over them, at least until you change them again … isn’t that the usual procedure for mods? I don’t mind warnings, they let me know when I’m getting out of line, and I tone it down.
In any case, why on earth would you wait until you have half a dozen warnings in your moderator’s quiver? You keeping score or something? Or perhaps you are just waiting for the magic moment …
Because I also notice that once again, you have managed to intercede just when things were going against your oft-stated beliefs. I had asked:
Given your repeatedly demonstrated distaste for anything that might suggest that Islam is anything less than the advertised marvelous all-joyous Religion of Peace™, this reeks of a self-serving action designed to choke off something that tomndebb disapproves of. The timing of your action may have nothing to do with the fact that you are an apologist for Islam … but it sure looks like it, walks like it, and smells like it.
Do what moderators are supposed to do. Give warnings. Keep the train on the rails. Don’t just pull the plug when the discussion starts to threaten your beliefs. Note that your job title is “Moderator”, not “Terminator”, and do your job.
I thought the thread was about some sort of pissing contest between the FoxNews organization and the Obama Administration.* Personally, I got kinda bored with it and stopped following it early. It’s not that off-the-wall to suggest that a moderator might have the same reaction. Looks like moderators Marley23, Miller, and Czarcasm did (last participation by a mod was on page 5).
Mods can’t be everywhere at all times, you know, and a large portion of the stuff they make calls on is what’s brought to their attention by aggrieved participants and concerned observers.
*When did it morph into an argument about Islam? Were I a mod, I might have shut it down solely on that account, even if it had been brought to my attention for inappropriate posting behavior. I’m pretty sure I’d have been grateful for any excuse to not wade through the entire mess.
My problem was that it was just flat shut down with no indication as to why. Something I said? What? Something someone else said? What? Thread drift? Fine, just let us know.
According to tomndebb, he had six warnings in hand … OK, so give us the six freaking warnings and shut it down in the same post, no problem.
But just slamming the door because tomndebb is insecure in his dhimmitude and doesn’t like people saying anything but good things about Islam is counterproductive. Perhaps that wasn’t the reason, perhaps his timings was just a curious coincidence … but it certainly had that effect, whether it was the reason or not.
So why not simply issue the warnings and get the thread back on track? Where is the loss in that? If tomndebb can’t be bothered to issue warnings, why is he still moderating? That’s what moderators are there for, and if he doesn’t want to do it or doesn’t have the time, he should relinquish his position to someone who does want to do it and has the time.
Actually, culling the crap from a thread disaster and getting it back on the rails is a tedious process. It’s much easier and effective to start a new thread and you can refer back to the parts you want to emphasize.
On one hand, Great Debates is probably the hardest forum on the board to manage. On the other hand, it seems to have different moderating rules than the rest of the board. I don’t know if that’s because it’s so hard to moderate, or if the rules are what let it get that way.
I do want to propose that tomndebb at least make sure to explain why something is closed in the closing post. Without examples, you can’t expect the poster to know what they did wrong.
I question the value of making sure threads stay on topic. I suppose someone who jumps in when it’s on page 6 or so might be disappointed that the thread titled “Share your inappropriate personal stories” has turned into a debate on the rights of the greater puffin, but honestly, at that point pretty much anyone interested is going to have read/participated. Conversations mutate and go on. It’s normal and it’s not really a big deal for people who participate in normal society.
As long as no one is breaking any real rules, who cares (other than those Jr. and not-so-Jr. threadcops who have asperger’s)?
ETA: except in GQ, of course, but GQ has a specific purpose not shared by the hoi polloi.
If everyone wants me to go back and hand out Warnings for personal insults, accusations of lying in GD, and assorted other problems, I’ll be happy to do that.
The thread will remain closed, however. I explicitly noted that none of the topics were prohibited–not even Intention’s desperate need to rant on about the Green Peril–but once a certain level of hostility has been reached in a thread, closure is the only way to ensure that that cycle is broken.
It would save me the trouble of hitting the “Report this Post” button, anyway.