No “No U” posts? No “I agree with my distinguished colleague? ~Sen Fenris”?
Because that is what was in Seven’s thread. By hiding it and calling it bullshit, you make it sound much worse than it was.
And even if you’re right, you still haven’t responded to my post where I quote the rules in force at the time and not the ones you just now made up. Since it’s now about 20 responses upthread and you’ve posted 3 times since then (including skipping over my last request for a response) I’m wondering if you are deliberately ignoring it since it pretty much disproves what you said.
Ed Zotti said it was ok to talk about (and point and laugh at) other websites (Free Republic being the specific example), Giraffe specifically said the Snarkpit wasn’t off limits as long as you don’t link and they both agree that you can’t start an organized campaign against another site. SEVEN DID NONE OF THESE
Then this is a brand-new rule–it violates what Giraffe/Veb/Druid posted and it violates the corroborating e-mail I got from Ed. I thought everyone agreed that making up rules and applying them to old posts was bad form when Lynn did it to whatshisname with her “All thread titles from this moment on (oh, and yours made before this rule) have to be 100% factual” rule that hasn’t been applied since started the whole Zottigate mess.
Like I said, I wouldn’t say dismissed. I’m just concerned that that particular point of view may well be colouring responses. I don’t think that’s necessarily an uncommon view, considering that you yourself feel that people pointing out they aren’t usual complainers is becoming more common.
Really, my concern seems to be yours, only the other way around; you think some posters are too quick to judge the mods harshly, and I think the mods appear too quick to judge the posters harshly.
I suppose basically the problem is that we don’t know to what extent the reputation of the poster affects how seriously the mods take it - especially now that, apparently, pointing out that we are not usual complainers may itself now make our concerns off less import. And when the problem at hand is one of reputation, is one of judgement of intent, it seems to me like it’s extremely important the mods get it right - at least when we get it wrong, the worst that happens is we might annoy the mod in question. When you get it wrong, then an unwarranted banning may be the result.
He asked what to do about getting it as a reply to his questions. I know that’s not the same as disputing what was said, but it looked to me like he was baffled by it.
I don’t know, samclem. You’re a good egg and all that, but quoting TubaDiva — or frankly, addressing TubaDiva must be done with caution, vigilance, and sublimation. In fairness to her, she is not the only admin who acts on whims.
My most famous suspension involved the mention of my internist’s warning to me, but there was another one that maybe not a lot of people know about. And it was done because I quoted an admin to use as an argument to what he was saying. For this, he said basically that I was being a smartass, and the next thing I know, I have to write an ass-kissing email just to get reinstated.
So, I just know for a fact that admins sometimes act like some of the more temperamental Greek gods — showing off their power for the sake of showing off their power. And it seems to be my experience that it happens most often when they just plain get pissed off.
My opinion only, it’s that the administration (with maybe the exception of Gaudere) should grow a pair, and realize that their being pissed off does not constitute our being jerks. That’s all. I’m just saying, is all.
These discussions tend to take a lot of time and energy, so if I’m short of available free time, I don’t want to jump in, say something, and then fail to come back for a long while. With the time I do have, I’d rather grab a couple of the low-hanging fruit to at least get those threads answered.
In the meantime, from what I’ve read so far, I think Marley and Gfactor have done an excellent job of answering questions.
There’s the problem. You wish to judge posters in context, but you do not want that context to include the moderation and administration of the boards. You are failing to look at the overall picture.