I am willing to apologize for this:
I regret that my failure to understand what question elbows was trying to ask led me to respond in a way that she found less than helpful.
Thank you very much Twickster, I appreciate that very sincerely, I do.
But again, I was not offended, nor do I think you need apologize for, perhaps not responding helpfully. No one expects mods to hit a home run every time. I don’t quite understand why any one of the other mods, about the thread, couldn’t have taken a moment to improve on your reasons for closure, but there is, apparently, much I do not understand about protocols here in ATMB.
However, I was, and remain, deeply offended by being characterized in a wholly unfounded fashion, in regards to my posting history over ten years. I can appreciate that, in the differing of opinions, you don’t see it that way. For me, however, it was very wounding and seemed to come out of nowhere, you are a mod after all. I am hoping that, by sharing this with you, you can understand how hurtful it was and that, just maybe, you will resist being so hurtful to other posters, in future.
Also, as long as you’re here, and since you are the correct mod to ask, apparently, would you mind speaking to this;
Because this is at the root of what leaves me scratching my head, convinced I must surely be missing something.
elbows’s behaviour has, in my opinion been exemplary: calm and conciliatory. twickster’s has not. Her half dozen or so repsones and apologies have been curt and grudging. Please note, twickster, that elbows has said that she is ‘deeply offended by being characterized in a wholly unfounded fashion’ and that, because you are a mod, she is ‘wounded and hurt’. I hope you can understand this, and feel that it would be appropriate to address this in a sympathetic manner.
****Okay, I’ve just reread the entire thread, because I am having trouble figuring out just what it is that you, elbows, are wishing to accomplish here.
Again, I can’t say what was on Twickster’s mind by that comment, but my impression is that it was not a blanket comment that “you are known for being a whiner and complainer”, rather it was a summary of how she took your comments in this thread. So it is unfair to claim she is making a claim about your 10 year posting history when really she was talking about your 7 post history in this thread up to that point. And responding with cites would be pretty silly since they are all in this thread already.
Of course it would be better if Twickster explained for herself.
They certainly could have posted such, and perhaps that would have helped a little. Okay, so now we’re past that point. What do you think you accomplishing by continuing to bring it up?
Wait, so you are asserting that Twickster didn’t post truthfully about her motivations for closing this thread? Or just that she didn’t state all the motivations she had? Because from what I gather, she posted what her motivations were: BigT as the OP requested the thread be closed, and since the thread had stopped being an exchange of information and had stagnated as a round of “No, you”, there was no point in not closing it. Leaving it open for others to respond would have just been more “No, you”. “4 pages long, nothing new being said” is exactly that - it was four pages of
posters: “BigT, stop getting upset.”
BigT: “You don’t understand.”
“4 pages of nothing new being said and a request from the OP to close the thread - yep, I’ll close the thread.”
Why is that confusing?
Move it where and why? Especially when the OP asked for closure. “Okay, I’m moving this thread from ATMB to The BBQ Pit so other posters can chew out BigT for being a whiney brat, and then I’ll close this thread in 6 hours per the OP’s request.” That makes sense? Substitute whatever scenario works to get it to whatever other forum you propose, how does it make sense? How does that not come off as picking on BigT?
The problem was not who would be hurt by opening the thread again - as evidenced by the fact that Gfactor did just that. But you didn’t bring up reopening the thread until post 91. Up until that point, you weren’t asking for the thread to be reopened, you weren’t complaining that the thread shouldn’t have been closed, you were “asking for clarification of why it was possible, why it didn’t violate board policy”.
So which is it? Did you want clarification of the policy? Did you want an explanation from Twickster about why she closed the thread when she did? Or did you want the thread reopened so some of the other posters could respond? Because that’s three different things.
Twickster interpreted your OP to be item 2, so that’s how she responded. You then stated your intent was item 1. You only bring up item 3 in post 91. It’s not very fair of you to blame the mods for not reading your mind.
So the “resistance” was not “No, we’re not going to reopen this thread even though you asked for it,” because you never asked - the “resistance” was merely “You asked why it was closed, here’s why. You asked about policy on closing threads, there is no official policy that covers this, but Gfactor has some guidelines about how he closes threads posted.” The “resistance” was merely a lack of communication about what you wanted.
And without meaning to offend, I think part of the problem is an issue on your part for being able to understand what is written. Example, regarding board policy on thread closure.
Gfactor clearly stated that there was no official policy regarding closing threads at the request of the OP.
He then posted a list of guidelines he uses, and clearly stated at that time once again that they are not official rules, only the considerations he makes when closing threads in his forum.
Your reaction:
But Gfactor clearly stated
Bolding added for emphasis. So the fact that Twickster may not have followed the guidelines that Gfactor posted is irrelevant, because there was no requirement that she do so. Your original OP, that you wonder why Twickster was allowed to close the thread then and what is the clarification of the policy, is clearly and unambiguosly answered by the statement that there is no policy. Twickster violated no board policy or moderator rules by closing the thread at the request of the OP even though it was almost directly after the OP gave a lengthy response to several people. At best you can say it gave a bad impression about the situation in the thread and about BigT’s behavior, but you keep saying you don’t blame BigT for requesting closure, you blame Twickster for closing the thread in what you think is a policy violation. Well, it is not.
Other people have agreed the situation gave a bad implication about BigT’s behavior (accurate or not) and that perhaps it would have eliminated that appearance by having a delayed closure so the others had a chance to respond, but there was no policy violation by Twickster closing when she did, only you misunderstanding the difference between how one moderator thinks about the issue of closing at the OP’s request vs an actual stated board policy and rule.
Look, I’m not trying to beat you up here, I just am having trouble understanding why you keep bringing this up, why you don’t seem to understand the answer yet.
kayT said:
Those statements are out of context and contrasting them as you are doing does not appear fair to the original point of their use.
leander’s original remark was in response to the feeling that Twickster’s behavior was disrespectful. Czarcasm posted a reply to leander trying to point out the irony of criticizing a lack of respect by making a disrespectful post. leander apparently didn’t get Czarcasm’s point, so Czarcasm was attempting to further explain with:
And that was done to demonstrate that kayT’s claim that posters were being held to a higher standard than moderators. That is when Czarcasm posted
Use of the superlative “horribly” is subjective, the essence of Czarcasm’s statement is that leander was being intentionally disrespectful to both Twickster and Czarcasm with the repeated comparison.
But that statement does not try to compare a measure of which is more disrespectful, snark by Twickster or snark by leander.
Meanwhile, when Ed characterized Twickster’s comment as “exasperated but nonetheless mild”, he was not comparing that to the status of leander’s remarks. He might very well rate leander’s remarks as “disrespectful but mild” as well. Notice that nobody got a warning or even a Moderator Note for those comments.
elbows said:
The only reason leander was being chastised for not “raising the level of respect” was because leander was complaining about the level of respect. Czarcasm was pointing out the futility of demanding respect while being disrespectful. Otherwise, I doubt he would have brought it up at all and let leander make his/her snarky comments.
And I will acknowledge that that is a 2-way street, and that there is certainly something valid to the comment that if the moderators expect posters to post their complaints respectfully, they should refrain from being disrespectful in their responses. And I will go further and state that in my opinion the onus is on the board authorities to lead with the tone and behavior they expect.
And after all this posting I now feel like I’m picking a fight with elbows. elbows, it is not my intent to be confrontational or offensive. I am trying to post an alternate perspective to your issues and clarify to the best of my ability what I see is going on, in hopes that helps resolve some of your questions. I hope you can take my comments constructively, as they are intended.
Why not just apologize for your offensive statement. Unless you have some hidden cites somewhere, you are wrong about elbows**** being a bitchy poster concerning the mods.
The more you dance around it, the worse it makes you look.
How many times did she have to repeat the issues that she was asking for clarification about? There was no doubt in my mind that she was serious about getting clarification. I think that she probably began by thinking about the issue of thread closings in the long term and not just this one closing. I could be mistaken.
If Twickster made snarky comments everytime someone criticized or questioned an action of hers in ATMB, she would feel “attacked” and be snarky a considerable amount of the time. Oh…
Again, I could be wrong, but I don’t think that elbows even asked for an apology. She just asked for a cite. If Twickster had responded with a cite, it would have been clear whether she was talking about elbows long term history or just her history in this thread. Either way, she passed up a chance to explain what she meant by her accusation – if it had any real meaning at all.
My main advice to Twickster would be to give a little more serious thought to answering clarification questions. She knows that threads aren’t closed because they are “four pages long.” And although there was a common comment in many of the threads, there was something in each thread that made it a little different too.
I’m sorry Irishman, but I find, I don’t have it in me, to go another round, sorry. I truly feel that I addressed, more than once, actually, every point you raised. I’m tired of repeating it, honestly.
I don’t know, I suppose I thought that the appropriate mod, once it was pointed out, would recognize that the posters cited, by BigT, might, indeed, want to respond. That they’d make a few keystrokes and move/reopen the thread. I honestly thought this thread would go 5 posts, tops. It’s not hard, it hurts no one, costs nothing and seems like common sense to me. The last thing I expected was what ensued.
My incredulity with each, more surprising, turn kept me going on. I’ve read so many threads, over the years of people harshly judging the mods to be heavy handed, combative, rude and so forth.:mad:
I think I was I little blinded, by my own love of this board, to acknowledge that some of that was true. It went over 100 posts, I believe, because, even when it was right there, in front of my own eyes, I didn’t want to see it.:smack:
You are, of course, more than entitled to your opinion. As you can see, from this thread, there is no shortage of views.
You have always impressed me as a very intelligent fellow. So this;
is, I think, telling. Perhaps there is a good reason you feel that way?
I’m not entirely sure that just saying this makes it so. But I can easily assume you didn’t mean to be, even if it feels like you were.
I’m thinking I should make this my signature, so I never forget it;
“There is nothing to win, in challenging the mods on any decision, and your reputation to lose, don’t !”
elbows, I don’t want to drag this out any further, either. I’m sorry you didn’t get satisfactory answers.
Know that I don’t have any issues with you.