So, a bare statement by me, without any vitriol, invective, or snark, that you should drop out of the proceedings because your viewpoint is logically irrelevant to the discussion, causes you to feel that your “opinions don’t count” and my post is “not appreciated”? Please, I think you need to step back from this one, if that is the case. I made a simple statement of fact, drew a simple conclusion from it, and didn’t in any way cast aspersions on you in the process. Which I certainly could have had I wanted. In response, you act impolitely, in a way that is unhelpful to the situation, will result in an emotional response, and can be avoided. I hope you aren’t surprised when I say that’s not good behavior for someone who is in your official position. :smack:
-
One can be humorous, wihtout being snarky. And the cornflakes statement is a bad example: it was misused recently by a moderator in a snarky way instead of a light-hearted way. But when one is humorous, that’s certainly a plus, as it can diffuse tension.
-
Uncle Cecil, in his persona as the writer of the Straight Dope is entitled to be as snarky as he wants. He’s an author, not a referee in that situation. Ed Zotti, when he comes in to the Board as an Administrator, acting in that official capacity, is NOT entitled to be as snarky as he wants. Why? Because when you are acting as a referee, you don’t get to be a snark. Why? Because your purpose as a referee is to tamp things DOWN, not stir them UP. If you are called to act as a moderator, it’s because you are doing one of three things: telling a jerk to stop being a jerk, separating the kids who are fighting, or explaining what has been done, or might be done, to respond to the pitchforks at the castle moat. In none of these cases is it advisable to respond to a poster in a way that is likely to produce a negative emotional response. I hope you can see that that is the case.
For some moderators, the lightly bantering humorous approach works. They are like the “cool” teacher who manages to get the kids to do what they want without being the “heavy,” but rather by joshing everyone into being good. Other moderators are relatively poor at that sort of refereeing. They are too serious for it, for one reason or another. For those moderators, the best approach is to be professional. Stick to an emotionally neutral tone in all official actions. Leave the cutting up and tearing down for the things that they do as a private poster, not an official member of the staff.
I SAY these things because I’ve been involved for a number of years in various activities that are of similar nature to what the moderators do. I have in the past run volunteer referee programs for youth soccer leagues, at one time organizing such a program for the entire South Bay and Monterey area. This involved teaching people how to referee soccer, especially youth leagues, where the testosterone at the U-19 and U-16 levels gets pretty darn high, with predictable results, and that’s NOT counting the idiocy that is the typical soccer parent. :eek: I’m also a teacher, who deals with high school kids on a daily basis during the school year. A large part of teaching is dealing with discipline, that is, refereeing your room. So when I opine that these things are true, it’s because I’ve seen how this sort of thing plays out in similar situations. And trust me, engaging people who you are taking official action on, which invariably means putting limits on their actions, in such a way as to engage a negative emotional response is not the way to do those jobs.
I’m protective and supportive of staff here on a regular basis. I’m known for telling people to give staff a break, in large part because most of the staff are volunteers, and they deserve that break. But, in response, staff need to act in such a way that the Board is not disrupted by the jerks, without themselves becoming provocateurs in their own right. And I think that means don’t say something that is likely to get the recipient upset, either as the result of tone or meaning.
