Hi Spectre, I have some comments for you in response to your notes in the tattoo thread.
I was asking a question based on what she’d stated, which is that she felt free to discriminate against people with tattoos because they were not a protected class, i.e., implying that was her only criterion for not discriminating. Exact quote: “I don’t like tattoos, and if I was in a position to hire people, I would probably be prejudiced against someone with sleeves of tattoos (I don’t believe tattooed people are a protected class).”
My question was not intended to be rhetorical or an accusation couched as a question. Attempting to engage someone in a discussion about their ethics and how they determine which groups of people are okay to discriminate against is not a personal attack.
If someone makes a ridiculous statement that someone’s choice of tattoo must mean they’re “trying to compensate for something” (which to me sounds like a direct insult and *actually *against the rules of this board), I’m pretty sure I’m allowed to point out that the statement is bullshit, even if I do so in a snarky way. Snark is sort of a Straight Dope stock in trade, which I’d expect anyone who’s ever read an SD column to be aware of. Or while I was away did we ban everything but sunshine and bunnies from any forum but the Pit?
Spectre of Pithecanthropus has, in my opinion, shown himself to be a pretty lousy judge of what is and is not within the rules. While it’s often the case that he doesn’t actually issue warnings, he’s constantly issuing notes and comments that attempt to steer the conversation in a direction that he thinks is appropriate, even when no rules have been broken.
Here’s a recent example. I was going to take it up in ATMB, like i did with this one, but i just couldn’t be bothered.
Well, the OP of that thread wanted to know if getting a tattoo would actually negatively affect his future employment, CW said “If I was doing the hiring then yes”. Everybody trying to drag an explanation out of her or forcing her to admit she’s an idiot isn’t going to change the fact that there are still people like her out there doing hiring and that’s all the OP was looking for.
I just assume that Spectre is just really good behind the scenes at rooting out socks and spammers, and makes really good coffee. The rest of his moderator decisions can’t possibly be the reason he’s still around.
Maybe I missed a shift in attitude while I was gone, but when **Spectre **was first made a mod, ISTR that he made some calls I strongly disagreed with, but he was *also *very open to feedback and revising his position.
He’s been a mod for quite some time now. I’d guess probably at least six months.
Not sure why you’re posting this here and not in the tattoo thread, since it appears to be a comment on the topic and not the moderation.
I know this wasn’t in Great Debates; I just happened to mention that I’ve just started there.
I’ve partially withdrawn the mod note, but the part about the snark stays.
It isn’t that we expect to see only posts about sunshine and bunnies, but we do expect the level of discussion to remain civil, except in the Pit. Sarcasm directed at another poster doesn’t usually qualify.
And this precisely encapsulates your problems as a moderator.
While it might not always be the highest form of wit or the most admirable debating device, sarcasm is not against the rules, and has been part of this message board since the very beginning. I just don’t get why the whole tone of the board needs to change just because you, as a single moderator, constantly get your panties in a twist over minor matters of tone and etiquette that are not breaches of the rules.
In fact, sarcasm doesn’t really exist if it’s not directed at another person. To say that “sarcasm has always existed here” but that “sarcasm directed at another poster [isn’t necessary]” is just absurd.
I would like to add my agreement to the other people who are pointing out that your position enables you to enforce the *rules *of the board, not your personal preferences. Snark and sarcasm is absolutely allowed outside of the Pit, regardless of how you personally feel about it. Presumably the exception would be at the point where a poster was using it *so *frequently that it ran up against the “don’t be a jerk” overarching rule, but at that point I’d expect to see a lot more examples of it happening than a single snippet of text.
By all means, lobby the PTB to have the rules changed so that snark isn’t acceptable anywhere but the Pit. But until there’s actually a rule about it, please don’t tell me that I can’t speak as I choose within the bounds of the rules just because you, personally, don’t approve of it.
First of all, it isn’t true that every action taken by a moderator addresses a specific rule violation. One reason for this is that, as noted, we do expect the conversation to remain civil outside the Pit–but the dividing line between being funny and caustic as opposed to meanly sarcastic isn’t always clear. But what is clear is that we frequently post “comments” or “notes” when we feel it will help avoid having the thread get to the point where we need to give out formal warnings.
If you–and I’m using the general “you” here-- take a sarcastic poke at someone, you might get a mod note, but usually everyone will forget about it in a couple of weeks, provided the note is heeded. It’s also perfectly possible that no one will ever notice it and you won’t get a note. But if you continue to do this habitually, we will definitely notice and take action. Mod notes, like everything else here, are engraved in digital stone. But for practical purposes, they are all but forgotten in most cases.
Secondly, it isn’t always clear what needs to be moderated and what doesn’t. With regard to SFG’s comment directed at Cat Whisperer, when I reconsidered the matter I concluded it was a borderline situation to say the least, and not one worth defending to the death. This is why I withdrew that part of the mod note. As for the second paragraph, we’re just going to have to agree to disagree here.
Since when? Mods just get to make shit up now? IME when mods have done this in the past, it’s always been retracted (e.g., some people getting upset by the use of the word “cunt” when used to describe people who aren’t members of this board).
If you’re not enforcing a rule, then I don’t see why I have to pay any attention to the note. And if I don’t have to pay any attention to the note, I don’t see why you’d feel the need to *make *it. It waters down the point of having moderation, and it’s also very confusing for members, because it then sets a precedent where you say something in an official capacity and I don’t have to give two shits about it. To me, any time a mod says something (whether or not it’s directed at me), I should be paying attention, because that sets a new precedent for how the rules are enforced. That’s why it’s so dangerous for mods to start handing out warnings–or even notes–for things that fall within the paramaters that are specified as acceptable.
Please stick to moderating the actual rules. Call me out–whether with a Note or a Warning–when I *cross *that line, or even tell me I’m getting close to it if you want to make sure I don’t step over, but don’t put me in a position where it’s even remotely ambiguous that I may be sanctioned for continuing with behavior that is *absolutely acceptable *by the rules of the community.
One says that my behavior is still appropriate and acceptable, though if it escalates I risk a warning. The other says that my currently acceptable behavior has been redefined as against the rules, i.e., changes the rules and establishes a new precedent.
I find it worrisome anytime a *moderator *doesn’t understand these distinctions.
I do as well. Personally, I found your comments in that thread annoyingly abrasive - but big fucking deal, they were still within the bounds of the rules. Spectre clearly also found them annoyingly abrasive - but since he’s a mod he gets to modify the rules to prevent his delicate sensibilities from being offended. Your distinction really wasn’t all that fine a point - certainly not splitting hairs fine. The first was the roadside equivalent of a speed gun telling you your speed is over the recommended speed for taking a turn (when there are signs that suggest you limit your speed to 10-15 mph below the speed limit), the second was pulling you over for doing so.