The last two posts in that thread were by **C K Dexter Haven **and Gary “Wombat” Robson, who closed the thread.
The former said
I have re-read the thread, and I can see no insults or unnecessarily agressive action by posters. If anyone can point out where I am mistaken, I will be grateful. I can see criticisms of his actions as a moderator, and of his posting style, which is what ATMB is for. But no insults or ‘bad language’ - until C K Dexter Haven’s post: “bullshit…crap…hell…”, and then taunting a poster he has given a warning to. It seemed controlled and fair until his extraordinary outburst. I can understand mods wanting to come to the defence of their colleagues, but he was doing exactly what he was criticising everyone else of doing.
While the thread was in progress, I did agree with** Nzinga, Seated** who said
Moderators have to make decisions, and sometimes they make wrong decisions. Moderators are people, subject to the same flaws as the rest of us, but they are, and I believe should be held to higher standards when acting as mods. If posters have issues, surely the best course of action is for the mod in question to join in the discussion in a civil way to explain his actions, without being curt or dismissive. If posters become too aggressive, the the mod will demonstrably be holding the higher moral ground. As has been shown in this contretemps, ignoring it will not make it go away.
While C K Dexter Haven is clearly outraged at the criticism, that is something that inevitably comes with the job, and dealing with the consequences in a way that dampens down the fire, rather than inflaming it, must surely also be part of the way the job should be done successfully.
Czarcasm’s at it again, squelching the discussion in IMHO. The very starter of the thread wished to discuss with people their answers, got this note from Czarcasm. 9afterlife belief poll - thread
Why can’t people have a discussion in Humble Opinion without some moderator intervening?
There is clearly a major disconnect between what the proletariat expect and what our overlords demand.
Incidentally, I sent a PM to both **TubaDiva **and **Czarcasm **asking them about whether or not there is a rule about commenting in polls. I got an answer from TubaDiva, but not Czarcasm. Now, it’s possible that they got together and agreed that only one would reply, but it’s equally possible that that wasn’t the case.
I’m starting to wonder if all this piling on stems from people’s confusion or disagreement with the structural organization of the board. There are different subforums for different kinds of discussion. Why the resistance to opening a new thread with a quote and a link from the original one when the discussion overflows? No one was sent to bed without their supper, they were asked to move the discussion to the appropriate forum.
Why do you think it’s unreasonable to ask posters open a new thread to witness and continue their religious discussion in Great Debates? Would your reaction be the same if a Cafe Society thread about a movie or book spawned a page of debate about the afterlife? If so, then you have an issue with the existence of subforums, not moderation. If not, then you perhaps you are misunderstanding the scope of the IMHO subforum.
Because there is nothing wrong with discussing it in the existing thread. And this is not an example of a hijack, the very starter of the thread wished to discuss the answers.
We all know the Debate forum exists. Does that mean that discussion can not also be had in My Opinion?
And since that’s going to be a judgment call about 99.9999% of the time, I would think it should be handled gently and with a good deal of patience and forbearance by the Mods.
Indeed. An opinions thread means there are going to be different opinions. It’s absolutely childish to say that one can’t respond in any way to someone else’s opinion. Posters have been chided for doing so even without taking an adversarial position, even without necessarily disagreeing! What’s the point of an opinion “forum” if people can’t talk about opinions, as well as simply stating them?
Actually, the official descriptions of GD and IMHO suggest that the intended difference is in the weight of the subject (“great” versus “less-than-cosmic”), not the structure or tone of the discussion. GD is presented as the place for great debates, not the only place for debate.
A “frank exchange of views” still sounds, potentially, pretty contentious–and a great debate can still be a civil “discussion.”
If the difference is now reconceived as one of tone and (presence or absence of) adversarialism, these should probably be rewritten.
It’s not unreasonable, it’s just unnecessary. The walls of Jericho are not going to come crashing down because the mods allowed a somewhat “heavy” discussion to remain in IMHO.
Now that a mod note has been made, everybody participating has to walk on eggshells. Do I respond to someone’s post? Do I post at all?
It stifles participation, which is not the point of having a message board.
Life gets a lot easier when you just accept that the mods are Teflon, nothing they do sticks, no matter how egregious. And ATMB is a just jerk circle for you to let off your righteous outrage. They are never going to do anything other than just let you vent.
If you just accept that this is how it is, truly, things become clearer and life is much easier.
Save your breath. It couldn’t be clearer, in my opinion. They don’t really care what we think, including the mods, admins and Ed. Yes, it’s a unique business model where they whine and complain about not generating profit, at the same time they piss off the people who are paying to belong. It doesn’t make sense, but pretty clearly that’s how it is.
My latest policy is to just leave any thread where a mod has given discussion directions. In my experience, they seem to be just waiting, with a hair trigger, for the next person to post so they can issue a warning, merited or not. It’s always the same, the next poster gets accused of being defiant, and their post, regardless of it’s content, gets twisted into, ‘not following mod directions’. It’s easier to just back out.
Is it a crying shame? Absolutely. Is it going to change? Absolutely not.
So do yourself a favour and just let it go, truly, they don’t care how we feel or what we think.
Everything from post 3 on seems to be a completely different topic than the first 2 posts. Maybe it should be a different thread, with a title that actually describes the topic? Like “Why can’t we discuss opinions in IMHO” or something?
Elbows is entitled to his opinion. He’s entitled to express it – especially since he did so in a civil manner. Is it a fair assessment of the situation? No. Can I convince you otherwise? Probably not.
Mostly people come to this subject with their minds made up. For those who see us as unreasonable, capricious, Evil Nazi Mods, nothing we can say would be sufficient.
Sometimes we hit the mark exactly. Sometimes we’re a little off. Sometimes we whiff entirely. We strive to do better.
Thank you (again) for responding. Believe me, I’m open to you trying to convince me. And if it’s reasonable, it won’t be difficult to convince me. My mind is far from made up. My purpose in opening this thread is to find answers.
Can you, therefore explain why it’s not a fair assessment?
I realise that you probably can’t speak for Czarcasm, but I also don’t understand why he is not involved in this.