If you look back all the way to June 99 Great Debates, you’ll find the threads with most viewers and participants include “Penile Lengthening Column” or “Circumcision Thread”, etc. The essence of this debate is to argue about the SDMB moderators (such as David B and Gaudere) judgement calls as to what belongs to GD, versus what belongs to GQ, BBQ PITS or MPSIMS. A further analysis shows that for every thread that has been kept in the GD section by the SDMB moderators, there is an average of 400 viewers (most of which are the OP person checking for responses to the original thread), with an average of 40 participants.
Here is the essence of this debate. Should we (the members of this club) leave the choice of what remains in GD versus what goes into IMHO versus BBQ PIT to a questionable character that probably has his/her own biases, riding on her/his own ego?
How about a debate about the qualification of the judge (the moderator, if you will) who arbitrarily decides what belongs to GD, what belongs to IMHO and what belongs to BBQ PIT? I’d like a discussion on the following:
1- What percentage of his/her brain capacity is the “moderator” using?
2- What, if any, steps is she/he is taking to increase that percentage?
3- How can the SDMB club members elevate beyond the judgement of the “moderator”?
Please don’t tell me that I can always switch channels or turn the TV off. I know I can do that. The debate is about having or not having 100 channels of shit at the first place. While respecting everyone’s freedom of expression, one wonders what should be the qualification (cultural diversity?) and judgmental ability of the moderator who can decide what is worthy of a “Great Debate” versus what belongs to the BBQ PIT, MPSIMS or IMHO.
I’m not sure why somebody who only registered three weeks ago should be asking a question like this. Also, if you go back to June 1999, the number of views won’t be accurate as that feature was only introduced with the upgrade from UBB.
Did you really think a thread about whether people should need a licence to have children would not end up in Great Debates? Or that a series of comments on the sexual inadequacy of people who don’t like the Clintons wouldn’t end up in the Pit? And what’s it to you, anyway, where your threads end up? If they were being locked you might have some complaint, but they’re just being moved to more appropriate forums.
One Cell (if that is your real name) you have obviously mistaken the SMDB for a Democracy, which it is not. The best way to describe our system of government would be as an Enlightened Absolute Theocracy.
At its head stands Cecil, the God Emperor Himself. He does not involve himself in the matters of this world, but rather spends his time communing with pure Knowledge. His affairs on earth are managed by his holy triumvurate of High Priests/Proconsuls, the Administers, who hear his Word and Speak with his voices. In their hands are all matters of life and death in this Board, and their word is law.
Yet even though they are not Cecil - for Cecil is above them as they are above us - they also cannot squander all of their time in the petty squabbles and missteps of unworthy mortals. For that they have appointed Moderators to speak for them, to carry out their laws. The Moderators are but humble citizens of the realm, like you and I, fallable, malliable and opinionated, yet when they speak, they speak with the voice of the Administrators, which is the Voice of Cecil, which is divine.
So yes, while we may contest the rulings of the Moderators, but in the end, we must obey them, or walk into the outer darkness, never to come back. The rulers are this Board are fair and forgiving, and are accepting of a greater level of impiety than we have a right to expect them to, but never forget - we live here at their sufference.
And what do you propose as a substitute? A referendum everytime somebody posts “Janeway V’s 7of9 in catfight” in GD. “A questionable character”, what are you talking about?
More than you could most likely
Why would they need to. The Mod.'s here do a great job for no money. Do you feel they don’t?
One solution, REVOLUTION. The mod.s will be the first against the wall when it comes :rolleyes:
Then again I am just rallying round the Mod.'s as I’m a big suckup with a degree in sucking up from Suck Up College Oxford.
Since when does the GD have such status that threads have to be worthy enough to remain? The issue is content, not message board social stratification. But since I’m sure you’ve been around a lot more than your post count would indicate, you probably already know that.
The concept of moderator evaluations isn’t a bad one, if it’s like an end-of-semester professor evaluation. And, of course, if it’s instigated by the moderators and/or The Powers That Be, because they want the feedback. And, of course, if the questions posed by the evaluations are intended to elicit honest opinions, rather than to further whatever beef our new friend One Cell has with, apparently, either David B. or Gaudere. (I’m guessing Mr. B. He’s just mean. ;))
Critiques about moderator performance belong in the Pit. If you’ve been around long enough to form an opinion about our thread moving decisions, I would think you’d been around long enough to read the flippin’ forum descriptions. Bye.
Just how exactly is it the moderators fault then? We’re the ones posting the shit. The mods should actually be commended for some of the shit they have to pick up and fling about this place, often times without gloves to shield their delicate hands.
If it weren’t for the mods, we’d have twice as much shit and all the forums would look exactly the same. Which particular chunk of feces are you refering to in your OP?
Alessan, for that post alone I love you. Your others have earned respect, but that one brought tears to my eyes.
snif
One Cell, you asked if we should leave the choice of which threads go where to the mods, admittedly human beings. The simple answer is yes, that is what they are there for.
What could be the alternative? A voting scheme like the “Are they hot or not” site? If a thread gets an average score of less than 1.5 it goes to the Pit, between 1.5 and 3 it goes to IMHO, etc.
Weekly voting on mods? Make them campaign, set up an electoral college and some confusing ballots?
As for me, I like the current system. They are just people, they make mistakes, but they will work to correct them, and they keep the board working nicely.
This is the kind of stuff that has this poor unfortunate foaming at the mouth. All the Mod.s here and the posters are all in it together. It’s just one big conspiracy.
Poor dippy will have to get a bigger tinfoil hat to try to alter the waves of negativity created by us.
In my (admittedly little) experience I have found the moderators to be exactly that, moderate. Their decisions are reasonable and whilst they don’t let everything slide they aren’t autocratic in their judgement either.
Unless ** One Cell ** has any better ideas, I believe responsible moderation is the best way to keep this board free of miscreants.
If you have a problem with something specific a moderator has done then mention it so we and others can discuss. You can ask what criteria moderators use to determine which threads are appropriate. You can even ask how much input board members should have in these decisions.
But if your “debate” starts out with something like “What percentage of his/her brain capacity is the “moderator” using?” and “What, if any, steps is she/he is taking to increase that percentage?” then you’re just being an asshole.
I’m leaving this thread open for others to discuss the various issues you have brought up, regadless of how poorly you did it. But I personally don’t have time to make logical arguments to a poster who just tosses out brain insults and under the thin veil of a “debate”.