OK, so why the hell did Cajun Man close the Xmas exchange thread?

[Uncommon_Sense]

BS, anyone with a year old son does NOT have time to post in the early evening.
Nice try.

[Casey1505]

A bit of a hijack, but sort of related.

Is it my imagination, or is it pretty much par for the course that when a mod is called on the carpet in a thread for making a stupid (okay, “questionable” :rolleyes: ) decision lately, said mod generally avoids the thread and depends on other mods to defend their actions? I’ve seen this at least twice recently, and was just wondering if this is S.O.P.

[samclem]

@Casey1505

A bit of a hijack, but sort of related.

Is it my imagination, or is it pretty much par for the course that when a mod is called on the carpet in a thread for making a stupid (okay, “questionable” :rolleyes: ) decision lately, said mod generally avoids the thread and depends on other mods to defend their actions? I’ve seen this at least twice recently, and was just wondering if this is S.O.P.

I’m only answering for myself(but I personally know other mods), and this would not be true. We may be an imperfect bunch, but we gots more balls than that.

[Q.E.D]

Might want to update the MSPIMS sticky which directly addresses this issue without ever once mentioning the necessity for obtaining prior permission:

Disclaimer (concerning real life meetings of members)

Disclaimer

The Chicago Reader, Inc., and its agents, including the administrators and moderators of the Straight Dope Message Board, are in no way responsible for anything associated with any real life meeting of our members. While we permit SDMB users to post announcements and other discussion of meetings and events on the Straight Dope Message Board, we don’t organize, sponsor, endorse, approve, or have any formal association with such events or any activities that may occur at them. We don’t vouch for any individual or group organizing an event. Attend at your own risk. SDMB moderators and administrators who attend events do so as private individuals and not as representatives or agents of the Chicago Reader, Inc. We encourage all attendees at these events to obey the laws of the jurisdiction in which they are held.

If you want to be our damn internet babysitters, fine, whatever. But, at least have the foresight to include such an “important and meaningful” :rolleyes: rule in the pertinent sticky, fer fuck’s sake! And since you didn’t, please don’t have the temerity to act surprised when quite a few people are unaware of the rule. It’s a stupid rule, anyway, and so far there has been no good reason given for it–though there have been a couple nice tries. At best, it’s a CYA rule; I just wish someone would step up and admit it. I’m not holding my breath.

[furt]

I have been a member since 1999. To the best of my knowledge, I have only once made even a mild complaint about the moderation/administration of the boards; I have defended it many, many times.

Cajun Man goofed. It happens; he’s a good guy but he’s human. Admit the mistake and move on, because this arrogant paternalism is getting ridiculous. Unless Treis’ request for some sort of a cite is granted, I’m going to assume that Tuba is simply making shit up and passing it off as policy.

Of course, I also assume nothing will be done.

[mhendo]

@Otto

Uh, I really think that a number of other posts were much more hostile than mine. The one that included “fuck off, you dopey bint” for example.

Guilty as charged.

Perhaps a little hostile, but i’m just getting sick of the cheap rationalizations for dumb moderating decisions. The dumb decisions i can live with, when those on the moderating staff are willing and able to say, “Hey, sorry 'bout that, it really wasn’t a very good call.”

But the awful, contorted, post-hoc justifications get sillier all the time, reaching what must be some sort of apogee (or nadir, i guess) in this thread.

[Shayna]

@fluiddruid

I wouldn’t state at all that we are responsible for your well being. These things have a way of affecting the board, though. We want to make sure that there’s a step in the process where someone checks with a moderator or administrator first in case a particular case is excessively risky, as well as making sure it’s appropriate for the 'Dope in other ways (i.e. not spam or abuse of the board). However, if people feel the need to share personal information, we don’t want to be overly draconian (disallowing everything). Forewarned is forearmed, so it’s just a precaution.

Oh for fuck’s sake, what the bloody hell are you talking about?! Just who in the hell are you to decide what is “excessively risky?” Should I have checked with a moderator or administrator in the particular case of getting on a plane, flying halfway around the world, being picked up at the airport in a foreign country by a complete stranger and taken to his house to meet a bunch of people I only knew by names such as “Spiny Norman,” “Twist of Fate,” “Messiah,” “Sassy,” and “London_Calling,” seeing as how that would certaily fall under the heading of “excessively risky” in many people eyes?

Get over your damn selves.

And for the record, I’ve never heard of this ridiculous rule, either. Clearance when asking for charity, yes, obviously. Clearance for exchanging personal information off the fucking board, absolutely not.

[UrbanChic]

@mhendo

But the awful, contorted, post-hoc justifications get sillier all the time, reaching what must be some sort of apogee (or nadir, i guess) in this thread.

I dunno, mhendo. Maybe they’re hoping to parlay it into a second-rate Cirque du Soleil act. It needs a little polishing, but if you turn your brain off and add a little smoke, snappy light effects, and the hypnotic sounds of some Himalyan singing bowls, they just might have something.

[Diane]

@Shayna

a bunch of people I only knew by names such as “Spiny Norman,” “Twist of Fate,” “Messiah,” “Sassy,” and “London_Calling,” .

A-hem!

I have to agree with the others. I have been around way back in the AOL days and I don’t remember this rule.

[clairobscur]

Like apparently everybody else, I had never heard about such a rule.

As for the reasons given for it, I can understand (if not agree with) them.

But I’m at a complete loss to understand why a new thread had to be opened. It’s exactly similar to the story told by a previous poster about the security guy making him walk to the desk just to turn around and come back to his office because he should have checked in at the desk. It doesn’t make any sense.

[Shayna]

@Diane

@Shayna

a bunch of people I only knew by names such as “Spiny Norman,” “Twist of Fate,” “Messiah,” “Sassy,” and “London_Calling,” .

A-hem!

. . .and “Diarrhea,” er, I mean “Diane,” whose name might not be weird, but she, on the other hand. . . (Hi, hon!)

I bet my husband, who I happened to meet that “excessively risky” weekend, would be surprised to hear we should’ve told our internet mommies first, so that they’d at least know ahead of time what was going on, just in case we did something “excessively risky.”

There just aren’t enough fucking rolleyes in the universe for this stupidity.

[Scissorjack]

Let’s Trade Blows! And if that gets closed, it will be the height of vindictive silliness.

[Otto]

@mhendo

Guilty as charged.

Oh, not saying there was anything wrong with your hostility. I was just slightly cheesed that out of all the actual hostility being tossed at TubaDiva she decided to pretend like my post was some big attack.

[Good_Egg]

@Uncommon Sense

BS, anyone with a year old son does NOT have time to post in the early evening.
Nice try.

The wife is watching the child.

[John_Stamos_Left_Ear]

I’m too new to get into the rules of the board so I won’t. What I, as someone who has yet to have any opinion about these things, found kinda silly was how a thread was closed with permission to continue the discussion in another thread. What’s the sense in that? Why not just post something like, “We usually like to be asked permission for this sort of stuff, for future reference. But since you have now recieved permission belatedly, carry on” and leave the thread open?

[Q.E.D]

@John_Stamos'_Left_Ear

Why not just post something like, “We usually like to be asked permission for this sort of stuff, for future reference. But since you have now recieved permission belatedly, carry on” and leave the thread open?

Because that would actually make sense. Plus, it’s hard to tout your own self-importance if you don’t flex your muscles where everyone can see. A little post in a thread somewhere might get overlooked by the vast majority, but locking an extensive thread gets noticed by everyone.

[Albert_Rose]

Dear mods & admins,

I’ve been here for over four years, and don’t remember this rule. I suppose it’s one of those unwritten, “understood” rules, but I’ve never had to follow it. If I want to start one of these gift-exchange threads, will I have to go through the dramatically excruciating pain of sending a three-line email to a mod? And waiting for approval of the thread?

OHMYFUCKINGGODTHATISSOUNFAIRYOU’RENOTTHEBOSSOFMEI’LLSHOWYOUI’LLCALLYOUNAMESANDOVERREACT.

Sincerely,
AlbertRose

That’ll teach 'em.

Fight the power!!

[inkleberry]

@Harborwolf

You know, I’ve never understood how these threads turn into this sort of thing. More likely than not this is a simple misunderstanding. How do we get from that to “histrionics of mods with sand in their pussies.”

Then there’s this whole “power hungry mod” line. These people are moderators on an internet message board. What power do they have exactly? How much fun can it be to abuse their ability to close threads?

Lastly, this isn’t something that they’ve pulled out of their asses. Tuba and Cajun have already stated that a good number of these threads have checked with the mods before starting. This is a miscommunication, not ham handed jack booted thuggery.

I don’t think the thread should have been closed and I think having the person who started the thread e-mail the mods should be good enough to reopen it. I also think it would be just dandy if this were a clearly posted rule. I don’t think that we need to make this a bigger deal than it is.

This from a man who got all bent out of shape a few weeks ago and started a pit thread because he worried about what people might be thinking about him.

Tuba & Cajun have yet, as far as I have seen, provide a credible cite of previous closings. However, we have seen a number of cites to the contrary.

This isn’t simply a one-time knee-jerk close issue. A pretty sizeable number of people have noticed in this thread and others that the moderating has gotten not only heavy-handed but fairly arbitrary recently, and threads regarding that issue have an odd habit of getting closed.

Now then, the moderators have a considerable amount of power on this board. Closing threads, editing posts, banning members, violating the TOS themselves without shame or guilt, and basically being able to run the board as an odd dictatorship by group. How fun can that be? You’d have to ask them. I don’t think kicking puppies is a good hobby, but plenty in this world get their jollies from it, it seems.

Now, as members, we have two powers- speaking out and taking our spending dollars elsewhere. My suggestion to the disgruntled would be to do both- the board is clearly cash-strapped, they are sucking every last penny from the place they can, using two forms of ads and charging as well. Don’t click the links, and don’t re-up.

[Agent_Foxtrot]

@samclem

I’m only answering for myself(but I personally know other mods), and this would not be true. We may be an imperfect bunch, but we gots more balls than that.

The only balls I saw Cajun Man display in this thread was one post to talk down to those criticizing him. TubaDiva has been fighting this battle for him.

Adam

[Agent_Foxtrot]

Oh, and fluiddruid too.

Adam