In this thread:
Czarcasm is bullying the OP to the point of the derailing the topic. Fenris notes this and gets called for insults and jr modding overlooking Czarcasms own jr modding comments. When I bring it up, Colibri justifies Czarcasms comments with this:
Since when does being right about jr modding make it ok?
Asking for a cite to back up a dubious factual claim is standard practice on this board. Maybe Czarcasm strayed slightly across the line in suggesting a change of forum, but I can understand his irritation at the OP’s unwillingness to back up his claim. If someone makes a false assertion and then asks why it is true, there is not a GQ answer to that question.
The only person who called them facts were Czarcasm. Czarcasm called them facts and then asked for cites. The OP even went out of his way to say they weren’t facts, but Czarcasm continued to nag him for cites.
If Czarcasm had such an issue with the entire premise of the thread I don’t understand why he didn’t just walk away from it instead of nagging the OP and then attempting to get it moved to different forums to suit his needs.
Better said than I would have done; thank you for saving me from myself.
MODERATOR NOTES:
Comments about what a poster should (or should not) have done – especially using terms like “nag” and “suit his needs” – belong in the Pit (or some similar forum. Comments about what a moderator should (or should not) have done, belong here.
So, if this column is "why did Colibri scold Fenris for “junior modding” but not scold Czarcasm: the suggestion of a forum change is not, to my mind, “junior modding” so much as making a suggestion. Putting something in the wrong forum is not (and has never been) a rules violation. The accusation of “derailing,” on the other hand, is junior modding, since derailing can be a rules violation. In short, if someone thought that Czarcasm was derailing the thread, the appropriate response is to hit the REPORT button (little ! in red triangle in upper right corner of post) and let the moderators decide.
There’s probably not been 100% consistency in this, we don’t want a seventeen volume lawbook for moderators, but generally speaking, there is a diff between “junior modding” and “suggestions.” For instance: it would be a rules violation to accuse another (long-standing) poster of spamming, but we certainly allow people to post “reported as spam” when there’s an obvious spam post.
So now I’m getting noted?
The fallout from Czarcasm’s mod days is far and wide.
He can do no wrong and this certainly isn’t the first time others have been in trouble for pointing out things that they would and do get warned for.
I brought my complaint here because I felt it was the right place. I’m discussing moderator instructions in a thread. Is this place so touchy-freely now that we can’t use words like “nag” without being told to take it to the pit? That pit thread would be laughed off of the board and you know it.
In any case, you mischaracterized my post. It was about a specific mod post and the instructions it contained. I was not addressing a rank and file poster with this OP, I was summerizing the thread (as it appeared to me) as context for my post. I’ve been reading the SDMB for over 10 years. I’ve seen hundreds of helpful suggestions that a forum change might bring better responses for the OP, this case wasn’t one of them.
I recently saw all the SDMB rules compiled in one place, I think I counted something like 60 or 70 pages (on my laptop) to scroll through them all.
Just don’t get into the ‘suit his needs’ area!!!:eek:
Wait, really? Nag belongs in the pit? Nag? It’s one step below needle and one step above bother.
Yeah, there is no fucking way you can convince me that Czarcasm didn’t get a free pass here.
I don’t think he deserves a warning but he should have at least been told to knock it off.
I guess this must be like the thin blue line for moderators. (Both past and present)
I fully support keeping GQ a opinion-hostile zone. In fact, I think we could all stand to be a little more proactive about it. If an OP is based on a tenuous conclusion drawn from a bunch of unsupported statements, then everyone should have been asking for cites. There’s plenty of other places, even right here at the Dope, where unsupported musings can take place.
But while I’m being all fascist here, I must point out -
It has been said by whom …
But that statement has nothing to do with the question in the OP, you could take it out (and maybe alter the way the sentence after it was written) and the two questions remains the same.
Is psychopathy a basic, unaltered human condition?
If an individual was never civilized, could he/she be considered a pychopath?
My analysis:
1 - Czarcasm’s post was clearly hostile and non-constructive - either due to misreading the OP or because someone put sand in his corn flakes that morning
2 - The OP responded appropriately indicating nothing was supposed to be a fact, that he/she is seeking information not providing information
3 - Fenris’ post: It was a shot at Czarcasm (who deserved it), but when you do that there is a risk of attracting mod attention - goes with the territory
4 - Mod’s aren’t perfect and they aren’t omniscient and if nobody reported Czarcasm’s belligerent posts then it’s entirely possible he/she spotted Fenris’ post first, heck, maybe Czarcasm reported Fenris post, either way if we want something modded we need to report it, meaning you can’t really argue with Colibri’s action up to that point
5 - Once the point regarding Czarcasm’s belligerent posts was raised, it should have been modded because it was clearly disruptive, almost as if he has a personal beef with the OP (it was weird, I couldn’t figure out why he was behaving that way, it really didn’t make any logical sense)
I apologize if I didn’t express myself clearly. (Can I use the excuse of it being still early in the morn?) Yes, PlainJain, your OP was in the right forum and was absolutely appropriate – you’re asking why one post got mod attention and another post did not. I thought I answered that (my lead-in was awkwardly worded, I said “column” when I meant “thread”):
OK with that part?
I was also addressing, separately, that this thread seemed headed for “pile on Czarcasm” which is NOT appropriate for this thread, or this forum. That, PlainJain, was NOT about your post. That was my attempt to keep this focused on the mod actions (in line with your OP) and not on the poster actions. Discussion of other posters belongs in the Pit (or IMHO or MPSIMS.)
Further comments:
(1) Being belligerent isn’t a rules violation. While I agree that Czarcasm might have been belligerent in that thread, he did not cross the line of meriting Mod intervention (although if it had continued, he was getting close.)
(2) Being disruptive, well it depends on the situation and the extent of disruption: there’s often a fine line between “an interesting tangent” and a hi-jack. And that’s the point. The line is fine and the decision needs to made by a moderator, not by other posters (“jr modding”).
I don’t see any “free pass” here. I see the person who was doing junior modding called on it (no Warning, just a friendly reminder, along with a friendly reminder not to jump into personal insults.) I see the person who was NOT doing junior modding, NOT being called on it.
Yet somehow I (and everyone who’s ever looked at Czarcasm) did.
Dude, “getting noted” is not a thing.
I agree it’s a subjective call, rules lawyering sucks, mods need room to do their job, and the modding in GQ has always been very good.
When I said “should have been modded” I just meant gentle guidance that Czarcasm’s posts in that thread up to that point had substantially lowered the quality of the entire internet (or maybe something milder).
So you’re saying that the mod in question considered Czarcasm’s contribution to that thread “an interesting tangent?”